Today on the Matt Walsh Show, chaos and uncertainty around the election. This is the inevitable result of a confused and haphazard voting system combined with a total lack of trust in the media and our institutions. The media now scolds Americans who question the election results, but it is their own fault for giving us so many reasons to doubt what they tell us. Also, Five Headlines including moves all across the country to legalize drugs. Is it time for the GOP to make marijuana legalization part of its platform? And in our Daily Cancellation, I cancel National Geographic for speculating that prehistoric people 9000 years ago may have been proponents of left wing gender theory.
If you like The Matt Walsh Show, become a member TODAY with promo code: WALSH and enjoy the exclusive benefits for 10% off at https://www.dailywire.com/walsh
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, chaos and uncertainty around the election.
This is the inevitable result of a confused and haphazard voting system combined with a total lack of trust in the media and our institutions.
The media now scolds Americans who question the election results, but it's their own fault for giving us so many reasons to doubt everything they tell us.
Also, five headlines including, moves all across the country to legalize drugs.
Is it time for the GOP to make marijuana legalization part of its platform?
And in our daily cancellation, I will cancel National Geographic for speculating that prehistoric people 9,000 years ago may have been proponents of left-wing gender theory.
All of that and much more coming up.
But let's begin here with something very simple.
Here's my radical position, okay?
All of the legal and valid votes should be counted.
And we should make sure that they're counted correctly.
That's it.
That's my whole position.
It should be uncontroversial, bipartisan.
But apparently it's not.
Apparently, it's an extreme right-wing talking point to advocate for careful and correct tabulation of the results.
Somehow, in fact, it undermines the legitimacy of our election.
It undermines the legitimacy of our election to make sure that the election is legitimate.
This is what we're being told.
And we're being told this, again, by the same people who, for years, called Trump an illegitimate president with no evidence or reason for that claim.
So here's the reality.
Even without any indication of malfeasance.
Even if there were no hints of possible subterfuge.
I would still be saying that there should be recounts and audits for three rather important reasons.
Number one, it's an extremely close election with the results in some states coming down to less than one percentage point separation between the candidates, which puts it in the range where recounts can be done already.
If only a comparatively few votes determine the outcome of a hotly contested election, there is reason to go back and make sure everything was done right.
Very simple.
Number two, we have never seen so many ballots mailed in and sent early.
This is an entirely new world we're in now.
Elections have never been done like this.
They shouldn't be done like this now.
It's obviously led to confusion already.
There have been problems at a minimum.
And that's just from what we know.
Massive delays, ballots seeming to appear out of nowhere.
Just this morning, it was announced that Georgia has 50,000 to 60,000 uncounted ballots.
Which was, quote, more than initially thought.
We need to understand what's happening here.
It would be insane to just take the results as they're first reported when the states have to keep backtracking and they don't seem to know what they're doing as they do it.
Number three, as discussed yesterday, there is a widespread belief that Donald Trump is a real-life fascist dictator who has effectively murdered hundreds of thousands of Americans and wants to murder thousands more.
This is false, obviously ridiculous, but It's what people believe.
It's what they've been told.
Which creates an enormous, perhaps overwhelming, incentive to cheat.
And it's another reason to go back and check again.
These are the reasons, again, for better oversight and double-checking that would stand even if you didn't have indications of possible fraud happening.
But we do have those indications, on top of everything else.
For example, they taped up the windows in Michigan, where people were counting ballots, taped up the windows so that nobody could look in and see.
What's the reason for that?
Is there a good reason?
Is there an honest reason?
In North Carolina, they're now saying that they're not going to update their total vote count until next week, November 12th.
In Pennsylvania, they're allowing ballots to be counted even if they don't arrive until three days after the election, and even if they're not clearly postmarked for before the deadline.
Okay, they will count ballots that could have been mailed after the election.
They will, that's true.
There is reason to be suspicious about some of this stuff, especially that last point about Pennsylvania.
And especially because Pennsylvania officials are in the can for Biden, and they're not hiding it.
The Pennsylvania Attorney General announced the day before the election that Biden would win.
The Secretary of State in Pennsylvania, who's in charge of the vote count, said on Twitter a couple years ago that, quote, using the title president before the word Trump really demeans the office of the presidency.
This is an extremely partisan person who hates Trump so much that to simply call him president demeans the office in her mind.
Is there at least reason to suspect that maybe those late ballots are being allowed and the rules are being loosened and changed at the last minute because these people who hate Trump hate Trump and want him gone?
Is there reason to maybe possibly consider that?
Yes, there is, to put it very mildly.
Listen, this is what it comes down to.
We are, as Americans, in a position where we are being asked and told to trust what we're told, right?
But trust what and who?
Well, trust information disseminated by hyper-partisan officials through the mouthpiece of a hyper-partisan media.
And we're told that it's our fault if we don't trust them.
We're conspiracy theorists.
That we, somehow, are the ones undermining the integrity and legitimacy of our system.
No.
It isn't us, you damned liars.
You snakes.
It is not us.
It's you.
These people, by these people I refer to the whole Democrat media complex, the ones who were being asked to trust right now, these people have spent years openly lying.
And this goes way back before Trump, but has been significantly worse, more obvious, more pronounced, more relentless under Trump.
They said Trump was a Russian spy.
They ran with every ridiculous, unverified claim they could.
They tried to take down Kavanaugh by calling him a serial gang rapist.
They say even now that Amy Coney Barrett is an illegitimate Supreme Court Justice.
Nancy Pelosi said that a few days ago.
No basis for that.
No justification.
It's a straight out lie.
Insidious, reprehensible, immoral.
Told for the sake of gaining power.
Like all the other lies they tell.
And this is just in the political realm.
The Democrat media complex has also encouraged and defended and justified rioting in the streets, pouring fuel on the fire, literally, continuously, by blowing every out-of-context police shooting wildly out of proportion, telling us that there's a conspiracy of racist cops out hunting and killing black men.
They do this.
They know it's not true.
They know the damage it causes.
They know that it's getting people killed.
But they do it anyway, because it's about power.
Ns justify the means.
And now they have the audacity to demand trust and the audacity to act offended and hurt if we suggest that maybe these people would cheat.
Maybe these people who have been cheating already would continue cheating on election day.
No.
Go to hell.
Don't give me that.
You did this.
You deserve it.
This is your fault.
We don't trust you.
We never will.
We need evidence.
We need receipts.
Your word is nothing.
Your word is trash.
You have trashed it.
You have made this country what it is now.
You have planted these seeds.
And now you will reap them.
And that's just how it's going to be.
Blame yourself.
It's all your fault.
Let's get to our five headlines.
I think we should be thinking in terms of getting prepared.
And one thing that you should do to be prepared is to have life insurance.
And the problem is that, you know, shopping for life insurance can seem like a daunting task.
It seems like the kind of thing, you know, you don't know where to start, where to go.
But if you've got loved ones, then it's really important that you do it.
And that's why Policy Genius is around, and that's why they make it very easy to do.
They combine a cutting-edge insurance marketplace with help from licensed experts to save you time and money.
And just because it's cutting-edge doesn't mean it's difficult to do.
Right now you could save 50% or more by using Policy Genius to compare life insurance.
When you're shopping for a policy that could last for more than a decade, those savings really start to add up.
You could save a lot of money.
So head to PolicyGenius.com.
In minutes, you can work out how much coverage you need, compare quotes from top insurers to find your best price.
PolicyGenius will compare policies starting at as little as $1 a day.
You might even be eligible to skip the in-person medical exam, but you got to go to PolicyGenius and figure that out.
So once you apply, the PolicyGenius team will handle all the red tape, all the Paperwork and everything they're gonna take care of that
all you gotta do is go there and apply very very easy So if you need life insurance head to policy genius calm
right now to get started You can say 50% or more by comparing quotes
Policy genius when it comes to insurance. It's Important to get it right all right
so reading from the hill it says
stung by their parties Dispiriting showing at the polls on Tuesday to moderate
House Democrats say they and other centrists are Privately discussing a plan that was unthinkable just 24
hours earlier Throwing their support behind a challenger to Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
The two Democrats told The Hill on Wednesday that they were reaching out to their colleagues about backing one of Pelosi's top lieutenants, House Democratic Caucus Chairman Hakeem Jeffries, for Speaker in the House Congress.
He's the only one prepared and positioned to be Speaker, said one of the Democratic lawmakers.
He bridges moderates and progressives better than anybody.
And most importantly, he's not Pelosi.
Although, apparently, Jeffries shot down the idea and said he's focused on keeping his current spot.
Of course, he has to say that.
And I've been reading more about this, and we're seeing this more and more, that while Democrats need to moderate a little bit, they need to start elevating the centrists and moderates in their party.
The problem is that, and this is a pretty big logistical problem, there are no centrists and moderates in the Democrat party to elevate.
I mean, we might be down to, like, in the entire Democrat Party across the entire country, there might be literally a handful.
Well, not literally a handful.
There might be, you know, two or three or four or five.
I mean, there are very, very few of them because this is what the Democrat Party has become.
Even the so-called, anytime you hear that someone is a moderate Democrat, well, ask them.
Do they believe in any restrictions for abortions whatsoever?
Do they believe that it's okay to kill infants up until the moment of birth?
Because you'll find even the moderate ones hold that view, which is an extreme view.
Do they believe in pregnant men?
Do they think that men can get pregnant?
Even the moderate ones hold that view.
These are radical, extreme viewpoints that even the so-called moderate Democrats subscribe to, and that's going to be a problem for the Democrat Party if they want to moderate.
They're always moderating in relation to how far left they've gone.
So what is centrist and moderate in a modern Democrat Party would have been wildly extreme left-wing 25, 30 years ago.
Number two, election protests all across the country, and here's how it went in New York.
work, watch.
As you can see there, she spits in the officer's face, is arrested.
It's quite satisfying, at least, to see her taken down and arrested.
Hopefully, that disgusting, trashy woman will be locked in a cage for a long time.
You know, spitting on a police officer, already a crime.
Doing it during a pandemic should be even more of a crime.
You know, charge her as a biological terrorist, throw her in Gitmo, I'd be fine with that.
This is, we talked about yesterday, feminism and the effect it has on women.
Well, you know, when you see videos like this, here you go.
Crass, vulgar, gross.
The obliteration of anything that is truly feminine.
That's what you get from feminism.
Number three, hilarious stuff here.
The Daily Wire reports that Bloomberg spent $100 million in Florida.
Well, Florida, Ohio, and Texas.
Spent $100 million total in all those states for Joe Biden.
And all of those states went to Trump.
Handily.
Comfortably.
This, after the guy blew through like a billion dollars on his own campaign, a campaign that lasted about 17 seconds or so, that's how much he's wasted.
It really is amazing.
Have we ever seen anything, have we ever seen money wasted like this so quickly with nothing to show for it?
Well, I guess we see it all the time with our government.
They blow through trillions with nothing to show for it.
But on a private level, on a private scale, have we seen it?
I don't know.
Just a billion, 1.1 billion up in flames.
Even worse than up in flames.
It would have been better for him to literally burn it, because then at least he'd have the ashes that he could compost and use it to grow tomatoes and cucumbers.
He'd get a nice salad out of the deal, kind of an expensive salad.
But for that, he doesn't even have a salad for this.
Nothing at all.
This was all for nothing, but I think that's great and quite hilarious.
I mean, he's the kind of guy that you enjoy seeing humiliated.
Might not be the most charitable thing to say, but that's where I'm at right now.
And in other election news, with a lot of uncertainty about which candidates Americans chose, it does seem certain that Americans chose something else.
Drugs.
We don't know which candidate they prefer, but it does seem like Americans are big fans of drugs.
Here's the Vox article.
It says, in every state where a ballot measure asked Americans to reconsider the drug war, voters sided with reformers.
In Arizona, Montana, New Jersey, and South Dakota, voters legalized marijuana for recreational purposes.
In Mississippi and South Dakota, separate from the full legalization measure, voters legalized medical marijuana.
In Oregon, voters decriminalized But not legalized, all drugs.
This is a decriminalization of all drugs, including cocaine and heroin.
Actually, the only thing that surprises me there is that that hadn't already happened.
You mean that up until now, heroin and cocaine was technically criminalized in Oregon?
You never know it when you look at the footage out of Portland.
Also in Oregon, voters legalized the use of a psychedelic drug found in magic mushrooms for supervised therapeutic uses.
In Washington, D.C., voters, in effect, decriminalized psychedelic plants following the lead of several other cities.
And with its vote, Oregon became the first state in the U.S.
in modern times to decriminalize all drugs.
And marijuana is now legalized in 15 states and DC, although DC still doesn't allow sale of marijuana.
So it's legal, but you can't sell it.
That makes a lot of sense.
So this is, with everything else happening, I think this isn't getting a whole lot of attention, but this is a pretty significant shift.
I mean, you want to talk about the way things have shifted, you go back 20 or 25 years, Marijuana was illegal, I think, everywhere.
But also, I think if you look at the opinion polls, almost everyone would be against all forms of drug legalization.
And now it's a totally mainstream view.
And the thing is, I've never felt especially strong about this.
A couple of lines I will draw, I think, pretty easily.
I think to legalize or decriminalize hard drugs like heroin, it's crazy.
But I also think on the other end of it, Legalizing medicinal marijuana, obviously.
I mean, the whole idea, the situation that's been in many states for so long, where, you know, you weren't allowed to use medicinal marijuana.
If you had chronic pain or terminal cancer, something like that, you couldn't use medicinal marijuana.
You could use medicinal heroin.
You could go get Oxycontin or something.
Extremely addictive.
Lots of people get addicted to it.
Lots of people overdose on it.
So that's okay, but not medicinal marijuana, which is much less addictive, much safer.
Some would say more effective.
That never made any sense.
So, seems to me, two obvious things, two obvious lines you could draw, would seem to me.
No, heroin should not be legal, should be criminalized.
Medicinal marijuana should be legalized.
And then, in the middle, where do you go there?
And I've kind of gone back and forth on it, but I think I really, and I would admit this, that I still can't fully bring myself on board with the idea of legalizing marijuana, but it's more just on a visceral level.
I don't have a great argument against it.
Because any argument, and I admit this, any argument I would make against legalizing marijuana would apply, you know, the social harm And all that sort of thing would apply just as well to alcohol, if not more so.
And yet, I certainly am not in favor of alcohol prohibition.
And I think that's the effective argument that pro-marijuana legalization people have always made, which is, look, if you're making these arguments against marijuana, then why isn't everything prohibited?
You're drawing a very arbitrary line here, and it seems like you're just doing it on a visceral level, because it's something that you smoke, and you just don't like it, and so you're okay.
You don't want that, but you're okay with people going and buying hard liquor at the liquor store.
And I think that's basically true.
Even though I can't quite emotionally bring myself there, I think that the pro-legalization people have, intellectually, they have the intellectual arguments on their side, I would say.
Even though they're a bunch of potheads.
So this is probably something that the Republican Party should think about getting behind.
I mean, it's probably the right view, and it's a popular view.
And it's all about being popular, I suppose.
All right, let's go to our daily cancellation.
Today for our daily cancellation, if I may dare to talk about something other than the election for a few minutes, I'm afraid I have to cancel National Geographic.
Really, I could cancel National Geographic just for their decision several years ago to change the name of their TV channel to Nat Geo.
Yes, they have to go by Nat Geo, because apparently it's too difficult and confusing for people to say National Geographic.
No words above two syllables are allowed anymore in society.
You especially can't combine two words of three syllables or more.
That scares people.
You can't do that.
And this has been the trajectory of human language for a long time.
Words become shorter and simpler, eventually getting replaced with indecipherable grunting.
So in ten years, Nat Geo will be called Nat.
And its top-rated show will be a documentary series about how different types of monkeys sound when they fart.
Which, come to think of it, I would actually watch.
But, in any case, the reason we're cancelling National Geographic today is for an article just published on its website, written by Maya Wyhaus, with the title, Prehistoric Female Hunter Discovery Upends Gender Role Assumptions.
Now, you already know it's gonna be bad.
But trust me, it's way, way worse than you think.
So let's read a little bit here before we really get to the stupidity fireworks at the end, but
It says Randall Haas an archaeologist at University of California Davis
Recalls the moment in 2018 when his team of researchers gathered around the excavated burial of an individual
laying to rest in the Andes Mountain of Peru some 9,000 years ago
Along with the bones of what appeared to be a human adult was an impressive and extensive
Kit of stone tools an ancient hunter would need to take down big game
from engaging the hunt to preparing the hide.
It's said this quoting now from Haas says he must have been a really great hunter a really important person in society
Haas says that's what he and his team were thinking at the time
But further analysis reveals a prize the remains found alongside the toolkit were from a biological female
When archaeologists excavated the burial they found a colorful array of 24 stone to stone tools
Among them, projectile points for taking down a large mammal, hefty rocks likely for cracking bones or stripping hides, small rounded stony bits for scraping fat from pelts, tiny flakes with extra sharp edges that could have chopped the meat, and nodules of red that could help preserve the hide.
Scattered around the site were fragments of the bones of animals, including ancient llama relatives and deer.
Back in the lab, close inspection of the bones suggested the physiology of a biological woman.
To confirm, they analyzed the protein that forms tooth enamel and is linked to sex.
Okay.
Now, we haven't gotten to the cancelable part here, but maybe you can guess what's coming there.
Though I will say, you know, I'm not an archaeologist.
It seems to me that mostly what they found are tools to prepare the meat.
Often the person preparing the meat is not the person who killed it.
It doesn't necessarily mean this is a hunter.
Also, just because someone was buried with a toolkit, that doesn't mean they used the toolkit.
You know, it could be some kind of symbolic thing, part of a religious ritual, which the article does acknowledge later on.
And also, you know, these are rocks we're talking about.
I mean, they could have been used for anything.
But, whatever, fine.
Let's say that this was a badass, independent woman of the year 7000 BC who didn't need no man.
I'm okay with that.
No problem.
But then here comes the idiocy avalanche, okay?
The article says, quote, This is not parody, folks.
the team cannot know the individual's gender identity, but rather only biological sex,
which like gender, doesn't always exist on a binary.
In other words, they can't say whether the individual lived their life 9,000 years ago in a way
that would identify them within their society as a woman.
This is not parody, folks.
Yes, National Geographic is really suggesting that the prehistoric woman may have been non-binary.
And yeah, I guess we don't know.
Maybe she was a genderqueer, non-binary bisexual.
Maybe she had short, cropped hair, spent her Friday nights performing feminist slam poetry at her local coffee shop.
Maybe she would go around to the other huts and explain to the other prehistoric people in her clan that, you know, they need to break free from their heteronormative thinking and examine their cis privilege.
Maybe she played the keyboard in an experimental indie rock band called the Anachronisms.
I mean, I can't disprove any of that.
It's all technically possible, but it's also all a bunch of arbitrary, insane, nonsensical speculation.
As we have talked about on the show, the whole idea of gender identity as distinct from biological sex was invented in the 1950s by an insane creep named John Money.
So I feel fairly confident in assuming that a concept invented out of whole cloth 70 years ago did not exist 9,000 years ago.
In fact, history shows that for the entirety of human civilization until very recently, everyone thought that men were men, women were women, and all societies everywhere had ideas about the roles that men and women should play in society.
Those ideas weren't always the same, but there was always a recognition of the difference And an acknowledgment that the difference matters.
We in modern times are the only ones so dumb as to be confused about this.
Prehistoric people weren't advanced enough to be as stupid as us.
I can imagine prehistoric people looking on from the great beyond hearing about this National Geographic article and saying, whoa, hey man, don't drag us into this.
We know what men and women are.
Okay, so speak for yourselves here, alright?
Also, notice how National Geographic, an alleged scientific publication, says that sex, not just gender, sex, is not on a binary.
And to support this, Wild claim.
It gives us a link to a World Health Organization article, and that article says, quote, Humans are born with 46 chromosomes in 23 pairs.
The X and Y chromosomes determine a person's sex.
Most women are 46XX, and most men are 46XY.
Research suggests, however, that in a few births per thousand, some individuals will be born with a single sex chromosome, 45X or 45Y, and some with three or more sex chromosomes.
In addition, some males are born 46XX due to the translocation of a tiny section of the sex-determining region of the Y chromosome.
Similarly, some females are also born 46XY due to the mutations in the Y chromosome.
Clearly, there are not only females who are XX and males who are XY, but rather, there is a range of chromosomes.
Or rather, chromosome complements, hormone balances, and phonetic variations that determine sex.
Okay.
That's what the World Health Organization said.
A couple things there.
First, even if I were to accept that these few-per-thousand cases represent a breakdown of the sex binary, and that the people who fall into this tiny fraction of the population are neither men nor women, or are some combination of the two, that still wouldn't at all justify or legitimize the leftist claims about gender, because they say that biological men, fully biological men, XY chromosomes, no abnormalities, can be women.
That's their claim.
That claim is not proven or at all advanced by the existence of these abnormalities.
But second, note how this is phrased.
It says, some males are born 46XX due to the translocation of a tiny section of the chromosome.
Similarly, some females are also born 46XY.
So, that's the phrasing.
So, they're calling them males and females.
That's what, who is saying?
They're still males or females, according to the World Health Organization.
What we're talking about are males and females who suffer from rare mutations.
But these are still males or females.
A male with a mutation is a male with a mutation.
Just like a person born with one arm is not a whole new species or type of human, it's just someone who should have had two arms but doesn't.
Nothing confusing or particularly strange is happening here, even if it is rare.
So this from National Geographic.
Excuse me, Nat Geo, is scientifically false, absurd, laughable, embarrassing, and it makes me think they really should just stick with farting monkeys.
Science just isn't their bag anymore.
And that's why they are cancelled.
Good to get that in.
Little non-election cancellation.
Still.
I still make time, you know?
You gotta make time for the cancellations, even when there's so much else going on in the world.
So I'm glad we could do that.
That's gonna do it for us today.
Thanks for watching, everybody.
Thanks for listening.
Godspeed.
If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe, and if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review.
Tell your friends to subscribe as well.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts.
We're there.
Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, Michael Knoll Show, and The Andrew Klavan Show.
Thanks for listening.
The Matt Wall Show is produced by Sean Hampton, executive producer Jeremy Boring.
Our supervising producers are Mathis Glover and Robert Sterling.
Our technical producer is Austin Stevens, edited by Danny D'Amico, and our audio is mixed by Robin Fenderson.
The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2020.
Lots of irregularities in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona.
