Ep. 1281 - The Military Is Collapsing Under The Weight Of Its Own Wokeness
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the military is struggling to attract new recruits while the ones they do attract are busy on TikTok complaining about being in the military. We have reached a crisis point as the military is smaller now than it's been since before WW2. But all of this was totally foreseeable. Also, the media reports that Pope Francis has given priests permission to give blessings to same sex unions? Is that true? No, not exactly. But there's more to it. We'll discuss. The state of Minnesota is getting rid of their state flag as they contemplate replacing it with something that looks suspiciously like the Somali flag. And a former NFL player makes waves when he demands that white people stop offering football analysis.
Ep.1281
- - -
DailyWire+:
Check out Bentkey Kids Entertainment here: https://bit.ly/46NTTVo
Shop my merch collection here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
PureTalk - Get 50% off your first month + International Roaming! https://bit.ly/42PmqaX
StopBox USA - Buy one get one FREE and save an additional 10% with code MATT https://get.stopboxusa.com/MattWalsh
PragerU - Have your donation TRIPLED at http://www.PragerU.com
Ruff Greens - Get a FREE Jumpstart Trial Bag http://www.RuffGreens.com/Matt
Or call 844-RUFF-700
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs
Today on the Matt Wall Show, the military is struggling to attract new recruits, while the ones they do attract are busy on TikTok complaining about being in the military.
We've reached a crisis point as the military is smaller now than it's been since before World War II, but all of this was totally foreseeable.
Also, the media reports that Pope Francis has given priests permission to give blessings to same-sex unions.
Is that true?
Well, no, not exactly, but there's a lot more to it we'll discuss.
The state of Minnesota is getting rid of their state flag as they contemplate replacing it with something that looks suspiciously like the Somali flag.
And a former NFL player makes waves when he demands that white people stop offering football analysis.
We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.
If so, Pure Talk has you covered because they just added international roaming to over 30 countries.
That's right, whether you're making calls on a beach in the Bahamas, on the steps of Buckingham Palace, or at your villa in Santorini, you can dial away.
And here's the best part.
There is no rate increase.
Pure Talk still saves the average family almost $1,000 a year with plans starting at just $20 a month.
Pure Talk is the gift that keeps on giving.
They put you on America's most dependable 5G network.
The coverage is second to none.
Stop dragging your feet.
Switch to Pure Talk, a veteran-owned wireless company with simply the best U.S.
customer service team around.
Now with international roaming to over 30 countries, Go to puretalk.com slash Walsh to make the switch.
You'll also save an additional 50% off your first month.
That's puretalk.com slash Walsh to start saving on wireless today.
Pure Talk, simply smarter wireless.
In October of 2020, Major General Ed Thomas, who at the time was the commander of the Air Force Recruiting Service, wrote an op-ed for Yahoo News.
It was entitled, 86% of Air Force pilots are white men.
Here's why this needs to change.
In about 800 words, Major General Thomas outlined his plan to recruit pilots without regard for their competence or fitness or their loyalty to the United States.
Instead, Thomas explained, the most important thing for the Air Force to focus on was the skin color of its recruits.
He said that hiring more black and brown recruits was vital in order to keep pace with Russia and China.
You know, they're busy developing hypersonic missiles that can fly at like 20 times the speed of sound.
But the general wrote, you know, and the real secret sauce for us that keeps us competitive is diversity.
And according to Ed Thomas, quote, our goal is to get in front of every demographic group in America and show them someone who wears a flight suit every day that they can look up to and say, that could be me.
Now, three years after he wrote that op-ed and launched the Air Force's anti-white recruitment plan, Major General Ed Thomas retired.
So he inflicted his DEI recruitment strategy on the Air Force, and then he quickly left.
So he doesn't have any reason to care about the consequences.
But especially as World War III seems more plausible by the day, the rest of us have an important question to ask, which is, how did this DEI strategy turn out exactly?
Thomas' replacement, a general named Christopher Ammerheim, testified this month before the Senate Armed Services Committee, and he informed Congress when he testified that for the first time in 24 years, the Air Force has failed to meet its basic recruitment goal.
And I'll say that one more time, for the first time in more than two
decades, the Air Force didn't hit its recruiting objective.
So they were trying to expand their recruitment, we were told they were
expanding it to reach more people, and in response, they got fewer
people.
people.
In fact, it was off by around 10%, which is a major miss.
And they're not alone.
Amerheim went on to testify that the Army and Navy, which also put a new emphasis on recruiting minority candidates, also fell far short of their projections in the most recent fiscal year, which ended in September.
He testified that, quote, we've seen a steady decline in the military even being an option for our youth as they contemplate the future.
Now, If you crunch the numbers, you'll find that that's actually a massive understatement.
In total, the military missed its recruitment goal by more than 40,000 individuals.
The Army now has about 450,000 active-duty soldiers, its smallest size since 1940, before the U.S.
entered World War II.
In all, the U.S.
military currently has around 1.4 million active service members, and by comparison, China's military has more than 2 million.
Now, as alarming as all those statistics are, the news gets even worse when you consider the quality of the few people who are still signing up to serve this country.
The Daily Mail reported this week on what it calls a TikTok mutiny among recruits who are increasingly posting videos online to complain about the conditions they're shocked to encounter in the military.
These are people in the military in full uniform making TikTok videos complaining.
And often recording themselves inside US military bases whining that the pay is bad The food isn't up to their standards and many other types of complaints here are just a couple of those videos check it out These are my top five reasons on why you shouldn't join the military.
Reason number one is pay.
We do not get paid enough for what we do.
I'm not here to say that we get paid pennies.
I'm just saying that we don't get paid enough to perform the mission that is tasked to us.
Reason number two, family.
You will not see your family often.
You might see them on holidays and that's about it.
I can elaborate.
Reason number three, schooling.
Now, I know you're like, whoa, that was a benefit.
But it's requirements you have to meet first to be able to get to that schooling.
So if you're thinking about joining because of schooling, just go to school.
Reason number four, if you're a parent.
Now, if you join single and get married and then have kids, that's one thing.
But if you're already having a child and you're thinking about joining, don't.
You got to think about it.
Boot camp is between six to eight weeks.
After boot camp, you go to school.
That's between 10 days to a year.
After that, you go to deployment.
That's between eight months To nine months.
Think about how much time you miss with your child.
Reason number five, you do not have 100% say on what you want to do.
Five reasons why you shouldn't join the army.
5 reasons why you shouldn't join the army.
1.
I know what yall want to hear the pay.
Starting off like first like you won pretty sure you making like 1600 a paycheck and that's
You get the idea.
It goes on and on and on.
The reasons are all the same, too.
And these are all things that, I guess, surprised these guys.
Like, they didn't see that coming.
The fact that you're not going to be able to see your family when you're at boot camp.
Did you not know that?
And you'll notice that nowhere in those TikTok videos do any of the soldiers, and there's a lot of them out there, a lot of these TikTok videos, nowhere do they talk about, like, their pride in the country, or their family's history of service, or their desire to ensure a safe and prosperous world for their grandchildren.
They don't talk about any of that, because none of that applies to them.
A recent poll by Gallup found that only 1 in 10 young liberals were extremely proud in their country.
1 in 10.
And since most young people are liberal, well, this is what you get.
Now, on the bright side, it is a diverse group of soldiers in these clips, and you watch any of these videos from the TikTok mutiny, it's very, very diverse.
Lots of non-white males, lots of females as well making these kinds of videos.
There's no denying that.
Very diverse.
So that's at least one objective that our Pentagon has successfully completed.
Unfortunately, all of these diverse recruits are saying pretty much the same thing, though.
They're not making enough money, they're not getting enough respect, they can't see their families as often as they'd like to, so on and so on.
Now, of course, all of these complaints have always applied to life in the military.
The food has never been, from what I've told, five-star quality.
The pay has always been abysmal.
You've always had very little control over your life because, you know, the military decides what you do and where you go.
The difference is that now we're filling the ranks with the sorts of people who would not only whine about it, but whine publicly, in uniform, on video, for clicks.
These are the kinds of recruits that we're told are going to help us defeat China and their hypersonic missiles.
This is what equity looks like in the armed forces.
And no one's allowed to point out what a disaster it's been.
But it has been a disaster.
But the issue isn't just diverse recruitment efforts and TikToks.
There are much deeper problems with the military's leadership, and a handful of recent incidents give us clues as to what these deeper problems are.
So last December, The Washington Times reported that the Defense Department launched an investigation into two Army soldiers who, quote, took sexually explicit photos in uniform while wearing dog masks and bondage gear.
Now some of those photos were apparently taken on an airfield, as well as inside a locker room with nameplates for Joint Base Pearl Harbor.
Nothing ever came of that investigation.
In fact, we mentioned it on this show, but as far as I could tell, the military just buried it and nothing came of it.
That same month, a high-ranking commander in New Jersey named Chris Schilling, who was stationed at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, threatened a mother on Facebook because she complained about gay propaganda that her seven-year-old daughter was learning at school.
So here's what the mother, Angela Redding, wrote on Facebook, quote, Why are elementary schools promoting slash allowing elementary kids to research topics of sexuality?
How can my young children be accepting of people who are sexually attracted to multiple genders?
They don't know what sex is.
Now her post continued along those points, and along those lines, and it makes a very valid, very good point.
At no point did she threaten anyone.
But in response, Chris Schilling wrote this, quote, "The joint base leadership takes this situation very
seriously.
And from the beginning, I've had the security forces working
with multiple state and local law enforcement officers' agencies to monitor the situation
to ensure the continued safety of the entire community."
Now, in this case, the military never explained why Chris Schilling was posting publicly
on behalf of a military base and intimidating a mother who was expressing her views on social media.
They certainly didn't publicly fire Chris Schilling, which would have been obviously appropriate.
Again, they just buried the story.
Now, each of these incidents, as egregious as they are, point to the transformation of the U.S.
military from a fighting force into a political tool.
Their goal now is the same as the goal of every federal agency under the Biden administration, which is to promote a perverse cult and root out any non-believers.
That's why three years ago, the Pentagon commenced a political purge that was thinly veiled as a COVID mandate.
In just the past few years, more than 8,000 military servicemembers were discharged for refusing to take the COVID shot.
Could that be one of the reasons why the numbers are down?
Now, only around 40 of those servicemembers ever returned.
They're mostly gone for good.
Because the point wasn't really to keep servicemembers from dying of COVID, it was to punish people with wrong political views.
And now, You know, the people who want to sign up are, as we see in some of these TikTok videos, many of them are sort of entitled and lazy.
You know, it's easy to make this into a commentary on Gen Z. And that's what some, a lot of the, the, you know, analysis on this has been, has been focused on that.
Gen Z, they're all, they're all lazy.
This is how they are.
And to some extent, sure, it's a commentary on them.
But it's more a commentary on our institutions that have created people like this and a military like this.
The biggest problem for the military right now, and it is a very major problem, is that they're not only light in numbers, but in the quality of the recruits they're bringing in.
You know, it used to be that the military would actively recruit young men and call them to come and sacrifice themselves in defense of their country.
They were looking for men who could kill the enemy.
Like, they're looking for people who are going to go out and kill the bad guys.
And they didn't hide from that fact.
Full Metal Jacket is a fictional film, obviously, but by all accounts, its depiction of Marine Corps boot camp 50 years ago isn't too far from accurate.
And in one iconic scene, the drill sergeant tells the recruits that they need to become killers and then gives Charles Whitman and Lee Harvey Oswald as examples of effective Marine Corps assassins.
Now, that's not the kind of speech that we would want drill sergeants giving in reality.
Mass murderers aren't really the best role models, but the point is that the military didn't used to hide from the fact that it was calling men to violence.
Violence for a good cause, in service to their country, but violence.
So you see here three things that are now missing from the way the military recruits and trains people.
They used to look for, one, men, who were, two, motivated by higher ideals like patriotism, and were, three, eager and willing to kill bad guys.
The military's current recruitment strategy specifically avoids all of that.
Now they put out recruitment ads that look like Disney movies or, you know, the kinds of videos you might see in a corporate HR seminar.
So here, for example, we played this on the show a long time ago, but just one recent recruitment ad from the Army.
It specifically targets women who are motivated not by patriotism, certainly not by a desire to go out and kill the enemy, but really by narcissism.
Watch.
This is the story of a soldier who operates your nation's Patriot Missile Defense Systems.
It begins in California.
with a little girl raised by two moms.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
Although I had a fairly typical childhood, took ballet, played violin, I also marched for equality.
I like to think I've been defending freedom from an early age.
When I was six years old, one of my moms had an accident that left her paralyzed.
Doctors said she might never walk again.
But she tapped into my family's pride to get back on her feet, eventually standing at the altar to marry my other mom.
With such powerful role models, I finished high school at the top of my class and then attended UC Davis, where I joined a sorority full of other strong women.
But as graduation approached, I began feeling like I'd been handed so much in life.
A sorority girl stereotype.
Sure, I'd spent my life around inspiring women.
But what had I really achieved on my own?
One of my sorority sisters was studying abroad in Italy.
Another was climbing Mount Everest.
I needed my own adventures.
Okay, so you get the idea.
And that recruitment ad is a couple years old, I think at this point.
So you see this drop-off in recruitment that now the Pentagon is telling us about, and it's a real crisis.
And it's like right around when that ad went out is when things started to plummet.
And you can see why.
This is, you know, an ad.
First of all, that video, like you can take that exact video, the way it looks, sounds, everything, and that could easily be a video that maybe they'd show you if you work at Target about how they recruit people for their management program at Target.
Except this is the military.
So we see a strong and independent woman raised by two lesbians to become a left-wing social justice activist.
We're told that she grows up, gets hired by the army, and, you know, and then later she talks about how she gets to boss men around.
She doesn't want to serve her country.
She wants to use her job in the army to, like, impress her sorority sisters.
And it's all about me and I. It's my adventure.
I want to do something for me.
This is the kind of person the military has been targeting, and this is the way they've been targeting them.
It's not just the Army that's been trying to remove all hints of masculinity from its ranks.
As Matt Gaetz pointed out this year, Malmstrom Air Force Base, Montana, recently hosted a drag queen story hour.
So did Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada.
Joint Base Langley in Virginia all had drag queen story hours.
This year, amid all the scrutiny, the Pentagon reluctantly announced that the Navy has suspended its formal drag queen events.
And that led to maybe the single most depressing but perhaps unintentionally hilarious news conference ever delivered by the Department of Defense.
Watch.
Can you, this Drag Queen recruiting initiative, is that strictly a Navy project?
Are you going to have the other services also get involved?
Is it going to be an Army Drag Queen, Air Force Drag Queen, that sort of thing?
Is it strictly a Navy project?
Well, I would say first, and I'm at the top just looking at this holistically, we are incredibly proud of Those who decide to serve, and that's every young American who decides to serve and to take the oath, to put their line on the line in defense of our country.
Again, the program I believe that you're referring to was the Navy Digital Ambassador Program, which was a pilot outreach effort.
It was not a recruiting effort.
For more information on that, I would direct you to the Navy.
But this pilot program has concluded.
And the Navy is evaluating the program and how it exists in the future.
So the Drag Queen initiative was suspended, says the Pentagon lady, but the military never apologized for it.
They never reacted with horror that this was going on in the first place.
Instead, they've just done what they've been doing the past few years, which is that they buried it, tried to move on, admitted no fault, but then also kind of just kept on doing what they were doing before.
And here's the reality that all this kind of stuff, lowering standards, filling the military with cultists who hate this country, this is not the solution to low recruitment.
Everybody knows that.
The solution to low recruitment is to, first of all, apologize for firing soldiers because
they won't take an experimental shot.
Reinstate all those soldiers with back pay immediately, then fire any officer who had
any involvement in that decision, including Lloyd Austin.
Then the Pentagon needs to repudiate the testimony of former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark
Milley, who repeatedly lectured soldiers about, quote, white rage.
Instead of pretending that white supremacy is the biggest threat we face, and making
cartoon recruitment videos for narcissistic girl bosses, the Pentagon should do what it
used to do, which is reward merit and character.
And most of all, if you want to solve your recruitment problem, you need to speak to men specifically and call them to service using language that evokes higher ideals like patriotism and courage and loyalty.
And then you need to turn the military, turn it back rather, into a place tailor-made for men like that.
Now, under the current administration, of course, the military will do precisely none of that.
That's because, from the various highest levels, the Biden administration doesn't believe this country or its values are worth defending.
The end result is the crisis that the military currently faces.
And it is indeed a crisis.
But it's a crisis of their own making.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
If you're on the fence about getting one, you can now get one for free.
The Stopbox Pro is the latest evolution in secure handgun storage and is proudly made right here in the USA.
Building on the trusted foundation of the original Stopbox, the Pro is larger, more robust, and even more versatile.
But the real genius of the Stopbox Pro lies in its patented hand gesture code lock.
Security doesn't mean inconvenience.
That's the principle behind the Stopbox Pro.
It's sleek, portable, and discreet, ensuring your firearm is safely stowed and always within reach, whether you're at home or on the go.
Stopbox is offering a buy one, get one free deal on their new Stopbox Pro.
On top of that, if you use the discount code MATT at checkout, you get an additional 10% off.
So head on over to stopboxusa.com right now, click the link below, and ensure your firearms are secure and accessible when it matters most.
That's stopboxusa.com for their incredible discount of buy one get one with an additional 10% off with code Matt.
Okay, so you may have heard that the Pope, Pope Francis, has announced that same-sex couples can now receive blessings in the Catholic Church.
You've heard that this is a major change in the church and that church teaching has somehow been changed to accommodate this.
And that's what all the headlines are saying anyway.
I mean, literally all of them, from the corporate media anyway, all basically say this.
But, as you probably know, well, you can't trust the corporate media on anything.
You can't trust their headlines on anything.
You especially can't trust them on anything related to the Catholic Church.
And so, what really happened?
Well, the Daily Wire has a good write-up about it, a little bit from that.
Pope Francis clarified this week that Catholic priests can bless individuals and same-sex couples, but caution that such a blessing does not sanction the union and cannot resemble a marriage ceremony.
Couples in irregular situations, including same-sex relationships, can receive blessings that do not sanction or legitimize their unions.
The Vatican's Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, which exists to defend Catholic doctrine, clarified in a document published on Monday.
The document called Fiducia Supplicans was signed by Pope Francis as well as the Dicastery's new Prefect, Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernandez.
Priests can give people in St.
Joseph's Couples a spontaneous blessing, quote-unquote, but the blessing cannot be a liturgical act or resemble the sacrament of marriage, according to the document.
A blessing on people in same-sex couples cannot be given in connection with a civil union, and no clothing, gestures, or words that are proper to a wedding can be included in order to avoid any form of confusion or scandal, the document says.
Quote, rights and prayers that could create confusion between what constitutes marriage, which is the exclusive, stable, and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to the generation of children, and what contradicts it are inadmissible.
Instead, the Vatican said that a priest can give a blessing in other contexts, such as visiting a shrine, a meeting with a priest, a group prayer, or during a pilgrimage.
In the blessing, the priest can pray for the individuals to have peace, health, a spirit of patience, dialogue, and mutual assistance, Okay, now, you have the corporate media saying that some big changes were made here.
You have the corporate media saying that some big changes were made here.
You have the Vatican clarifying that there wasn't a change.
But then you have guys like Father James Martin, who's a Jesuit pro-LGBT extremist,
but I repeat myself, saying don't listen to the people who are saying that there hasn't been a
There has been a change, and it's a very progressive change, and he's very excited about it.
So what's really going on here?
What's going on is actually quite simple.
It's what's been going on all through the reign of Pope Francis.
It's more of the same.
And his entire tenure has been defined by this kind of thing, defined specifically by making things undefined.
Defined by this sort of intentional ambiguity.
So it's true, you know, it's true that technically, by the letter of the law, no change to church teaching was made.
It's true that if you parse the words very carefully, and you're very precise and technical, you'll see that technically, he has not granted permission to bless same-sex unions per se, but rather to bless individuals who may happen to be in same-sex unions, and so all of that is true.
Which means that a lot of these corporate media headlines saying that church teaching has been changed and all this, those headlines are false.
But it's also true that they've gone about this in a confusing way and created more confusion and created a situation where although they have not expressly given permission to bless same-sex unions, there will now be same-sex union blessings in many churches, as many left-wing priests like Father James Martin will take advantage of the confusion to do what they want to do.
You know, the James Martens of the world, they didn't need the Vatican to specifically come out and say, yes, you can do that thing.
They just need some sort of, like, fog, some mist to operate in so that everything's a little bit hazy.
And they have it.
So, basically, the Vatican is giving permission to something without giving permission.
That's the game.
Because, of course, if you really intended not to change anything, Then you just wouldn't change anything.
Yeah, you wouldn't do anything, or at all, or issue any kind of statement.
Like, if there's no change at all, then we don't need a document.
Everything's the same.
We don't need anything.
When people ask you, what's the teaching on that?
What's what it's always been?
That's it.
No change.
Thanks for checking in.
Teaching's what it has been for 2,000 years.
That's what you could say.
But instead we get this whole thing.
It was already the case that people in same-sex unions could receive blessings in church.
Obviously.
Anyone can receive a blessing.
If a serial killer goes up to get a blessing from a priest and says, Father, will you bless me?
He can be blessed.
Obviously, it's not like they're only going to bless non-sinners.
That was the case that nobody could be blessed and also all the people who need to be blessed will not get the blessing.
So obviously, of course, gay people can receive blessings and all people can receive.
You know, if you're, no matter what kind of relationship you're in, you can receive blessings, you can pray, you can hear the Word of God.
You can and should do all of those things.
And if that's all you want to happen, then there's no need for this whole big production.
There's no need for anything.
It's just business as usual.
But the Vatican makes something out of nothing because it's confusing.
The intention is to confuse people.
This is the game that Pope Francis plays.
And again, he's been playing it through his whole pontificate.
Making things that were clear seem ambiguous.
Making things that were obvious seem obscure.
Essentially, giving the faithful exactly the opposite of what they need, which is clarity and light and direction.
Look, I mean, there's nothing wrong with drawing fine distinctions and being nuanced and being very thorough and all of that, but, you know, the left engages a nuance in a way that blurs lines rather than defines them.
The whole approach is to mystify, you know, is to make everything mystify.
It's to create doubt and uncertainty.
And the great thing for them is that when they create a lot of this doubt and this kind of foggy, sort of ambiguous environment, that allows them to pull back whenever they need to.
So they can say something that sounds kind of vague, but that also is crazy.
And then you can say, wait, are you saying that crazy thing?
And then they can pull back and say, what?
No, we didn't say that.
That's not what we're saying.
I mean, there's a million examples of this kind of dynamic, but I mean, think about what they do with race.
I mean, gender, transgenderism is the biggest, but even something like race, you know, they'll say something like, whiteness is a disease that needs to be cured.
And you'll respond by saying, wait, are you saying white people need to be wiped out like a disease?
Like, it sounds like that's what you're saying.
And then they get, again, they can kind of pull back, no, we're not saying that.
That's not what we said.
But that is what you're saying.
Now, true, you didn't say that exactly verbatim.
You didn't use those words specifically.
But that's obviously the intent behind the words.
Like, that's the meaning behind the words.
What other meaning could there be?
Why else would you say that if that's not what you were trying to communicate?
And so it's just that tactic over and over again.
Pope Francis, being a leftist himself, uses the same approach.
Not on race issues, but this is the approach that he uses of creating ambiguity, creating confusion, while not technically changing anything.
Not changing it technically, not changing it according to a letter of law, but saying things in a certain way so that they are changed in practice.
And as I said, it doesn't matter what this document says, there are going to be priests now, these left-wing priests, and there are plenty of them, unfortunately, who are going to start blessing same-sex unions, like blessing the union itself.
That's what's going to happen.
Everyone knows it's going to happen.
The Vatican knows it's going to happen.
And we can assume that they want it to happen.
But they also know that they can't come out and say that they want it.
So it's, I mean, true, it's really insidious and sinister.
And his whole, this is just all he has done.
It's been an absolute disaster.
Pope Francis has been.
And it's very sad to say that, but it's true.
All right, the Postmillennial has this report.
A commission established in Minnesota to redesign the state's flag settled upon a new design on Friday afternoon.
The flag features a shape that resembles the general outline of the state on the left with an eight-pointed star in it and yet to be decided on pattern on the right side.
According to the Star Tribune, the committee has until January 1st to make a final decision on whether the flag should have stripes or not and what color the stripes shall be.
Chair of the Commission, Lewis Fitch, told the outlet, the next generation will be raised with a new flag.
It's going to happen.
He added, we're not going to be able to make everybody happy.
The whole idea since day one was to make sure we can create a flag that unites us instead of separates us.
The decision to separate, to redesign the state flag comes after some have complained that the flag and state seal are offensive to Native Americans in the state.
The flag depicts a man plowing his field as a Native American rides away on horseback.
What is offensive about that exactly?
Well, we know, based on a lot of experience now, that any depiction of Native Americans, in any context, is automatically offensive.
So, this is the best thing we could do for Native Americans, apparently, is to just erase them from everything.
They were represented on a state flag, and now we're going to erase them from that.
In most other cases, we're told that it's all about representation and making sure that all these different identity groups are represented.
But with Native Americans, it's a very interesting situation where the opposite, they're telling us to do the opposite.
Like, get rid of all depictions.
Do not show them.
Do not speak of them.
Do not refer to them.
Why is that better?
Well, I couldn't explain that to you.
Because it's not.
Anyway, the article contains, the committee which was created by the legislature last session used its $35,000 budget over a period of four months to sort through 2,600 new designs submitted by the public and eventually narrowed it down to one.
One user on X pointed out how one of the designs being discussed looks similar to the Jubiland state of Somalia.
Now, we have the actual picture, we can put this up.
So this is one, apparently one of the designs being discussed.
There we go, okay.
So you have the state flag that they are proposing, and then on the other side you have the Somali flag.
That's one of the designs being proposed.
And so yeah, I mean, that's literally just the Somali flag.
That's what they're talking about.
And it just so happens that if you think that that's out, well, why would you make it, why would you model it after a Somalian flag?
Well, Minnesota happens to be a hub for Somali immigrants, and now they want to apparently redesign the flag to look like their flag.
So they took refuge in our country, and now they want to make our country Into the country that they fled.
There's a lot of that going around and has been for decades.
Now, of course, calling Somalia a country is a little bit of a stretch.
It's a failed state.
It's a humanitarian disaster zone.
It is a third world hellhole.
Nobody wants to live in Somalia, least of all Somalians.
It's always interesting when you have people from countries like that that take pride in There's not a lot to be proud of with Somalia.
It's not like Somalia has achieved anything or done anything.
It's like a terrible place.
As a general rule, if your country has no tourism industry at all, it's a pretty bad sign.
Because it means that literally nobody in the world wants to go there.
And that's Somalia.
That's why no one is going to Somalia on their honeymoon.
And yet you have this really bizarre situation where You know, you have people from a country like Somalia who take pride in their national heritage.
Which, by the way, I don't begrudge them that.
I think everyone should take pride in their heritage.
Now, I think if you're fleeing a country, if you want to get the hell out of a country, it doesn't make a lot of sense to act like you're proud of the country you're fleeing from.
Like, for the sake of your family's lives, you have to leave and yet you're proud of that country?
Why?
What are you proud of?
But if you live in a country and that's your home and that's where you live, you should be proud of it.
Now, as an American, I also, from my perspective, I can look at some of these countries and say, I don't know, I don't see it.
Like, I don't see what there is to be proud of, personally.
But, you know, you're entitled to that perspective.
But it's just an odd situation where you have people from a place like Somalia fleeing Yeah, at the same time, taking pride in their national heritage, while Americans, who are from the place that the Somalians want to come, are not supposed to have any pride in theirs.
So there's no better illustration of that kind of dichotomy than a state flag being changed to resemble the Somali flag.
It just doesn't make a lot of sense.
It's like if you were, if you welcome a homeless guy into your house and he sits there reminiscing wistfully about the cardboard box that he lived in before.
Like, not thanking you for allowing him into your house.
Not doing that.
Instead, he just sits there talking about how great the box was.
And meanwhile, you're not allowed to talk.
It's like, he's proud of the box that he came from.
You're not allowed to be proud of your home.
Certainly not like the history of your home and your family heritage.
You're not allowed to have any of that.
Meanwhile, people that come from countries that are so terrible, those same people want to get the hell out of those countries, can be proud of their country.
So that's the whole dynamic here.
Alright, one other thing.
A viral controversy yesterday erupted on social media as a former NFL running back by the name of Rashard Mendenhall He tweeted something extremely racist.
He tweeted, I'm sick of average white guys commenting on football.
Y'all not even good at football.
Can we please replace the Pro Bowl with an all black versus all white bowl so these cats can stop trying to teach me who's good at football.
I'm better than your goat.
I think he means goat like greatest of all time, not an actual goat on a farm.
Although he did not, he wrote in the lower case, so I don't know.
Now again, obviously very racist.
It's also funny coming from this guy, like he's complaining about average white guys, but during his NFL career, he was the epitome of average.
He played for six years, which is like, and then he washed out of the league, which is pretty average.
Yards per carry for his career was less than four, about 3.9 yards per carry, very average.
He had like maybe one or two good years and the rest were unremarkable.
And that's, you know, and it's like it all equals out to very average.
He's best known for fumbling the ball in the Super Bowl, costing the team the game, costing his team the game, Steelers.
And it was a fumble that was caused by a hit from a white defender.
So, I don't know if that's maybe where all this animosity is coming from.
I don't know.
And it is also worrying when you see tweets like this.
Like, it's worrying to see just how open and casual people are with their anti-white racism these days.
Like, it's getting worse over time.
That's all by design, of course.
And that's really the headline here.
If there is a headline to be found in some washed up former NFL player being racist, that's the headline.
With that said though, since you brought up the subject, I have to say, and like many others, I was actually thinking about this.
And all black versus all white game would be kind of interesting.
And, you know, I think our roster would be much more impressive than most people seem to think.
I kind of like our squad.
I gotta be honest.
Like, I kind of like it.
I mean, starting quarterback, we got Josh Allen.
Obviously, running back's Christian McCaffrey.
He's probably going to be the MVP, or should be the MVP.
He's the best running back in the league.
So already, we've got Allen and McCaffrey back there.
So the Whites are doing pretty well as far as that goes.
The O-line is no problem.
Can easily fill that out.
You get out, and then you get to tight end, the tight end position,
and it's just an embarrassment of riches.
I mean, Kittle, Kelsey, Mark Andrews if he's healthy, Hawkinson, Laporta.
So we're going to run three and four tight end sets all game.
And we're a little more thin at the wide receiver position.
Cooper Cup, though, we're going to have him there.
And we'll be compensating, though, with a lot of tight ends.
We'll also have Christian McCaffrey running routes out of the backfield.
So I think we're in pretty good shape.
Then you flip it to the other side of the ball, I think the front seven of the all-white squad.
Is going to be good.
We're in real good shape with the pass rush because we'll have the Bosa brothers, Watt, Crosby.
So we're getting to the quarterback all day long on the white squad.
The big issue obviously is going to be on the back end, like the defensive backfield.
There are, and I checked just to make sure, there are no white cornerbacks in the league at all.
Like they don't exist.
I think the last one was in like Might it be Jason Sehorne in like 2002 or something?
It's been a long time.
So we're going to have to get creative in the backfield, find some guys on a practice squad, throw some linebackers back in coverage.
You know, and we're going to have to get to the quarterback is what we're going to have to do.
He's just not, he's going to have to get rid of the ball quickly because we're going to have to get to the quarterback, put a lot of pressure on him.
But keep in mind something else.
Championship squad has to be great in all three phases.
Defense, offense, special teams.
And, I think the white squad's doing well on special teams.
Like, we've got, so, the whites, we don't have any cornerbacks.
Black squad, you have no kickers.
So, you're in trouble.
You got no field goal kickers, you got no punters.
We got all that.
We got kickers and punters all day.
So, black squad gets into a situation where they got, you know, where they're deep in their own, in their own, on their own side of the field, and they gotta, you know, it's fourth and ten or something.
What are they gonna do?
They can't punt.
So they're going to be in four-down territory the entire game.
Maybe that works in their favor, maybe it doesn't.
I'm looking at a high-scoring game, I think it's probably 47-40.
Who has the 47?
I think it could kind of go either way.
There are some question marks here, though.
Like, what do you do about Pacific Islanders?
There's like one Asian guy in the NFL, he's a kicker also.
Where do you put them?
I think probably they just can't play.
I think we have to just exclude them.
And so it could be a bonding moment for the black and white squads, because they're going to come together to discriminate against these other two groups, which that doesn't happen very often.
So there's that opportunity there.
For this game, I think it's not fair to put them on either side.
So they're not going to be involved.
Real interesting question is the biracial players.
Like, what do you do about Patrick Mahomes?
Biracial.
Both teams are going to want him.
What do you do about that?
I think the fairest thing is whatever race the player's mother is, is what team they're on.
So, white mom means they're on a white team.
Black mom means they're on a black team.
Which I think means that the white squad gets Patrick Mahomes, I'm pretty sure.
And here's the best part of all.
That coming off the bench for the white team could be Colin Kaepernick.
Now, I wouldn't want him to throw the ball at all, because he sucks, but I just want him to have one snap on the white team.
Just because that'd be hilarious.
And it'd make the whole thing worth it.
And you imagine a situation—that's the Rudy.
That's the Rudy moment.
That's the twist ending.
Imagine the white squad wins in the racial scrimmage.
And Colin Kaepernick is carried out triumphantly on the shoulders of the white team.
It'll be a lot of fun.
You have to admit.
So, Rashard Mendenhall is a terrible racist, but at the same time, it's not the worst idea in the world.
Let's just be honest.
Let's get to the Was Walsh Wrong.
A majority of Gen Z supports left-wing policies like open borders and socialism.
If we don't reach them and change their minds, the country we know and love will be lost forever.
PragerU is the leading non-profit when it comes to influencing young people.
PragerU's educational, entertaining, pro-American videos meet young people where they are online and open their minds to the truth.
But they need your help.
Go to PragerU.com, make a tax deductible donation.
Whatever you give right now will be tripled and have three times the impact.
Donate $10, it triples to $30.
Give $100, it triples to $300.
PragerU is 100% free to everyone with no fees or subscriptions.
They don't rely on ads or clickbait headlines.
Contrary to what the left says, PragerU isn't funded by a handful of billionaires.
It's funded by people just like you.
In order to keep making great content, reaching millions and changing minds, PragerU needs
your help.
Go to PragerU.com to donate today.
Okay, a few comments here.
First one, the monument was to Confederate soldiers.
It never should have gone up in the first place and the remains of those traitors ground into ashes and dumped in the ocean.
F the Confederacy and all you traitor cucks still crying that your ancestors' asses got kicked by Yankees.
Another one says, not sure why you and others keep claiming it's the Reconciliation Monument.
The fact that it is referenced dozens of times in the letters, decrees, speeches, and official documents as the Confederate Monument is pretty clear.
Reconciliation is the symbolism.
Another comment says, the same people mad about Confederate monuments being taken down are the same ones making jokes about giving everyone participation trophies.
And finally, any more lies you want to spew, racist traitor?
Nobody's a racing history traitor.
You're trying to honor treason and slavers because you're a traitor who wants to own slaves.
Okay.
Yeah, you're right.
I mean, the only possible reason why I could possibly object to taking down a monument in a cemetery a hundred years after it was put up is because I want to own slaves.
That's the only... What other reason could a person have?
Okay so, once again we see a lot of performative anger from these idiots.
They should have burned them!
Burned their ashes and dumped them in the ocean!
Effing Confederates, like, why are you acting like you're actively mad about a thing that happened 150 years ago?
So that's the first thing.
Okay?
Like, calm down, drama queen.
Stop pretending.
Burn their ashes to the ground.
Like, this happened 150 years ago.
Take it easy.
Okay?
Like, you don't, you're not mad about it.
Stop pretending that you are.
We should be able, this is my whole point yesterday, we should be able to have a conversation about this without you getting all emotional, cupcake.
Second, if you don't want to honor slavers, as you say, or racists, I certainly hope you don't honor literally any human who lived anywhere on the planet prior to the 19th century.
I especially hope you don't honor anyone who lived anywhere in Africa or Asia or the Middle East for that entire time, as those regions of the world practiced slavery and practiced it much longer, in fact.
So I hope that you apply that standard equally, but I know that you don't, because you're a historically illiterate circus clown, and so you're not going to practice it equally.
Third, I don't expect the people who left these comments to understand this, because, you know, they're morons, but the Southern states were not fighting to overthrow the government, okay?
They were trying to secede from a union that they thought was freely entered into and could therefore be freely left.
They were seceding, which, if that sounds familiar, it's because this is exactly what the Founding Fathers did.
The Founding Fathers were slave owners who fought a war to secede from their government.
And if they had lost that war, they would have been executed as traitors.
And that's how they would be remembered.
Now, it's true that slavery as an institution Um, didn't play the role in the Revolutionary War that it did in the Civil War.
Because at the time of the Revolutionary War, slavery as an institution was, you know, basically taken for granted.
As it was all across the world for thousands of years.
But, my point is that if you think that, so I'm not saying that the two, um, cases are exactly analogous or exactly the same thing.
Obviously they're not.
They're two different historical events.
But if you think that seceding is in principle treasonous, Then you are saying that, first of all, you're saying that the central government owns you and owns your land and your community and it's never okay to leave it.
That's what you're saying.
And if you're saying that, then it also means that this country shouldn't exist in the first place.
Like, that's the awkward thing here.
The American government was formed through secession And like, 90 years later, some states tried to secede from it, and they were informed that they no longer have that right, which is the right that our country is literally founded in.
Without that right, if that right doesn't exist, then the country doesn't exist.
Now, however you parse all of that, and you could certainly argue that secession was justified for the Founders, but not for the Confederates.
You can obviously argue that's a perfectly coherent argument.
It's not like if you support one secession, you have to support all of them.
This is not a package deal.
That's not my point.
My point is simply that the whole question of secession is much more complicated than dumb comments like the ones I just read make it seem.
And I guarantee that none of these people have thought through any of that.
They haven't even thought about it.
And that's how you end up with just, again, morons who, you know, they can see the government tearing down a monument in a cemetery and doing it illegally, by the way, and then you have these morons saying, yeah, tear it down!
Like, you idiots, just, you don't, you don't, you don't, you do not understand what you're talking about.
You don't understand what's actually happening and why it's happening.
You think the Biden administration is doing this because they really care about racial justice?
You think that's what it is?
You think that's their pure motivations?
Is that the symbolism you take away from tearing down something that is called the Reconciliation Monument?
In fact, one of those comments even admits that, well, no, Reconciliation Monument, that's just what it symbolizes.
Yeah, exactly.
That's what it symbolizes.
That's what it's supposed to symbolize.
And defying the law and the congressional mandate and federal law to rip this thing down?
Desecrating graves in the process?
If you aren't smart enough to be at least troubled by that, then there's nothing to talk about.
And, you know, usually I wouldn't just sit here and insult you the whole time, but there are some people that just deserve to be insulted.
And if you see something like this, what the Biden administration is doing here is so outrageous and egregious that if you can't see that, then I just, I don't have any respect for you at all.
Christmas is coming, and while you're out shopping for your kids, family, and friends, don't forget to shop for your pets, too.
Give your dog the gift of a healthier and happier life with Rough Greens.
Naturopathic Dr. Dennis Black, the founder of Rough Greens, has focused on improving the health of every dog in America.
Before I started feeding my dog Rough Greens, I had no idea that dog food is dead food.
It contains very little nutritional value.
Think about it, nutrition isn't brown, it's green.
Let Rough Greens bring your dog's food back to life.
Rough Greens is a supplement that contains all the necessary vitamins, minerals, probiotics, omega oils, digestive enzymes, and antioxidants that your dog needs.
You don't have to go out and buy new dog food, just sprinkle Rough Greens on their food every day.
Dog owners everywhere are raving about Rough Greens.
It supports healthy joints, improves bad breath, boosts energy levels, and so much more.
We are wheat, and that goes for dogs too.
Naturopathic Dr. Dennis Black is so confident Rough Greens will improve your dog's health, He's offering my listeners a free Jumpstart Trial Bag so your dog can try it.
Get a free Jumpstart Trial Bag delivered straight to your door in just a few business days.
Go to ruffgreens.com slash matt or call 844-RUFF-700.
That's ruffgreens.com slash matt or call 844-RUFF-700 today.
Also, our DailyWire Christmas sale is happening right now.
Get 30% off when you give the gift of DailyWire Plus for the DailyWire fans on your list this year.
And yes, that includes access to our new kids app, BentKey.
BentKey has over 20 titles and hundreds of episodes streaming now.
They require no pre-screening because all the content is made for kids.
Plus, there are new episodes every Saturday.
That's right, it's the return of Saturday morning cartoons.
We love all the attention BentKey has been getting with hundreds of five-star reviews from our users.
And even the New York Times has an opinion on BentKey's show, Chip-Chilla.
They claim the show celebrates dead white people in American history like George Washington and Walter Cronkite.
They also say that Chip Schiller portrays engaged fathers as establishing male authority.
Imagine that, the horror.
Download the Bent Key app and access kids content anytime, anywhere on multiple devices.
Whether you're home for the holidays or traveling to see friends and family,
you can enjoy ad-free uninterrupted streaming to help keep the kids entertained.
Speaking of the holidays, Bent Key has some truly magical Christmas-themed episodes
streaming right now, including a fan favorite, Gus + Us.
If you haven't heard the Christmas song, The Greatest Gift from Gus + Us yet,
well, take a listen.
♪ 'Cause we've got joy when we've got each other ♪ And the reason for the season is the time we'll spend with one another.
And all the lights this year will shine brighter.
Because love came down and the spirit's here.
And we'll spend Christmas together.
Again, it's from the Gus Plus Us Christmas special streaming now exclusively on BentKey, along with shows like Chip Chilla, Mabel McClay, and Yeti Tales.
If you're a Daily Wire Plus member, you already have full access to BentKey.
If you're not, there's never been a better time to join the fight and help us reshape culture.
Right now, give the gift of Daily Wire Plus membership for 30% off at dailywire.com slash subscribe.
Now let's get to our Daily Cancellation.
[MUSIC]
Yeah, we talk a lot about the modern dating scene on this show.
And the primary conclusion we've drawn is that the modern dating scene is,
to put it gently, a disaster zone, a toxic waste dump.
I don't want to be overly negative or discouraging about it, but it is an unmitigated disaster.
It's a radioactive meltdown.
It's the, you know, sort of the dating equivalent of Chernobyl.
And if that was not already clear enough, Tinder has, according to an article in the New York Post, released their annual year-in-swipe report.
And this tells us about the state of the date, as they're calling it, according to one of the biggest and worst dating apps in the world.
And the results are pretty bleak.
So here's what the report says.
Quote, young singles are no longer doggedly pursuing their happily ever after, new data has revealed.
According to Tinder's annual Year in Swipe, which shares the state of the date in 2023, singles are less concerned about where their relationships are headed and more interested in creating opportunities to have new memorable experiences.
This year in particular marked a major shift where the journey is more important than the outcome, Tinder Chief Marketing Officer Melissa Hobley said.
Quote, this new generation of daters is showing us what it means to date for the possibilities, freeing themselves from traditional expectations, allowing them to write their own worthwhile stories.
Gen Z, Tinder Australia spokesperson Kirstie Dunn agreed, continue to usher a renaissance in dating and this generation is certainly straying away from labels and the more traditional expectations.
Quote, 69% of young singles agree that dating standards need refreshing to fit a more modern and diverse society.
Now, apparently this modern and diverse approach to dating has a clever little acronym to go with it, and that acronym is NATO.
Quote, to any military buffs, no, it does not stand for North Atlantic Treaty Organization, at least in the context of modern love.
Instead, it's an acronym for Not Attached to an Outcome, an approach to dating that's been embraced by Gen Z this year and helps open up the possibilities of any and all connections instead of being fixated on a specific endgame.
Now, quick side note, it is yet another sign of how low the bar has gone in society that you can call yourself a military buff if you simply know what NATO is.
But I digress.
Continuing, users are not looking for anything.
They're not putting pressures on themselves or others by setting that expectation of only looking for a relationship or only looking for something casual, she said.
It's very much in line with what we've been seeing over the last couple of years, particularly last year, as situationships become increasingly more prevalent.
They're focused on getting to know someone, being in the present, and living in the moment.
They're leaving it open-ended so that they can explore whatever path they want, which can be quite freeing and liberating.
In other words, apparently now there are two different types of NATO that need to be disbanded.
Granted, I never know with these kinds of articles whether they're just inventing these buzzwords and acronyms on the spot.
I find it somewhat hard to believe that any actual 22-year-old woman is out on a date saying, you know, I take more of a NATO approach.
But whether the acronym was invented by the media or not, the approach that it describes is certainly very real and very common and very, very wrong.
An open-ended approach to dating Where there's no end goal or purpose or intention in mind is a bad idea for much the same reason that it's a bad idea to take the approach like that to anything in life.
You know, platitudes about living in the moment and being in the present, they may seem appealing if you're kind of stupid, but intelligent people know that you have to have some idea about where you're going in each present moment and why.
This is the case again, no matter what you happen to be doing.
Even if you're just taking a walk around the neighborhood, you need to know where you're going.
The difference between an enjoyable stroll and getting horribly lost and then ending up getting stabbed in the chest when you wander down the wrong back alley is simply knowing where you're going.
That's the difference.
You don't have to have every step planned out.
You can and should be prepared to change course if need be.
But you need to have a direction, a purpose, a sense of where you want to end up.
Going for a hike in the woods is fun, but if you're living in the moment the entire time and keeping things open-ended, with no idea where you want to go or where you should go or what direction you ought to be heading, then it will become progressively less fun until eventually you're completely lost and you die alone of starvation and hypothermia.
And that's basically how the dating scene works, more or less.
Dating is not an exception to the general principle that you should always have a reason and a purpose behind your actions, rather than just kind of ambling around aimlessly and blindly, you know, sort of bumping into things like some sort of malfunctioning Roomba.
Not only is dating not an exception to that principle, but it is, if anything, the very best example of it.
Because before you venture warily into the dating scene, you should be able to answer some basic questions like, one, Why am I doing this?
Two, what do I hope to achieve?
Three, where do I want this to go?
And again, those are questions you should be able to answer no matter what you happen to be doing in any given moment.
And if you cannot answer any of those questions about dating, then you just shouldn't be dating.
You probably shouldn't even be driving.
You are so indecisive and apathetic as to barely qualify as sentient.
And if you wander out into the dating world like that, it's guaranteed that either you'll end up feeling used and manipulated and heartbroken, or the person you date will end up feeling that way.
Or most likely, both of you will.
But there is zero chance of a good outcome.
That's the way life works.
If you're vacillating too much to pursue a specific outcome, then life will pick an outcome for you.
And it won't be one that you like.
Because there's going to be an outcome one way or another.
You could either have one in mind that you're chasing down, or you could just let chance decide for you.
And again, usually when chance decides, it's not going to be in your favor.
Now, as you've heard me preach many times, the proper outcome to pursue in any dating relationship is marriage.
That's what dating is for.
It's why it exists.
Dating isn't something that we should be doing simply for its own sake.
That's because dating requires another human being, and that human being is a human being, not an object for you to use recreationally and then discard.
There's nothing really casual about dating, no matter what you might try to tell yourself.
It's always going to be the lead up to something.
Like, it's a path that ends somewhere.
And that place that it ends up will either be heartbreak or marriage.
There's really no third option.
And dating without the intent to marry is dating with the intent to break up.
That's the choice you make when you venture out into the dating scene.
Like, what are you looking for?
Are you looking for someone to marry?
Or are you looking for someone to break up with?
Which outcome would you prefer?
Because it's going to be one or the other.
And only one is really worth pursuing.
But you have to pursue something.
Which is why NATO dating, if that's what anyone actually calls it, is today cancelled.
