Ep. 1648 - Shiloh Hendrix Gets Charged For Saying A Racial Slur. Your Free Speech Rights Are Gone.

These are questions that take cultures thousands of years to answer.

During Answer the Call, I take questions from people just like you about their problems, opportunities, challenges, or when they simply need advice.

How do I balance all of this grief, responsibility?

How do you repair this kind of damage?

My daughter, Michaela, guides the conversations as we hopefully help people navigate their lives.

Everyone has their own destiny.

Everyone.

Today, the Matt Wall show, local authorities are planning to charge Shiloh Hendricks with a crime for saying a racial slur.

Apparently, our free speech rights no longer include mean words.

Also, the Trump administration plans to ship 600,000 Chinese students into the country.

They say that if we don't bring in all these Chinese communists, a bunch of universities might go out of business.

But why is that a bad thing?

And the mayor of Chicago says we can't solve crime by putting criminals in jail.

We solve it by spending more money on housing and education.

But how has that strategy panned out?

We'll take a look.

Finally, of course, the big news of of the week and the century: Keller Swift and Travis Kelsey are engaged.

Got to talk about that.

Very important news.

We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.

Time's almost up to save 40% on your Daily Wire Plus annual membership.

Go to dailywireplus.com now and use code SUMMER for the deal's gone.

How many times have you told someone if it ain't broke, don't fix it?

Well, now that's great advice most of the time for most things, but not so much for a cell phone.

See, over time, the battery life fades, the processor can't keep up, and it's fallen in the toilet one too many times.

Fortunately, thanks to Pure Talk, your cell phone is something you can replace without feeling guilty.

When you switch to PureTalk this month, they're going to give you a Samsung Galaxy A36 for free with a $35 qualifying plan, just $35 a month for talk text and plenty of data, and a free Samsung phone with scratch-resistant Gorilla Glass and a battery that lasts all day, all in America's most dependable 5G network.

I've been using PureTalk for a while now, and it's never let me down.

It's reliable and it's fast.

Look, supporting companies like Pure Talk is a good thing.

You win by cutting your cell phone bill in half.

They win by hiring more Americans and helping more veterans.

Make the switch in as little as 10 minutes.

Go to puretalk.com puretalk.com slash walsh to get your free phone today.

Again, it's puretalk.com slash walsh to switch to my wireless company, America's wireless company, PureTalk.

If you can bring yourself to think back to the Obama years, you'll remember that the so-called religious right was relentlessly mocked for making various predictions that, in the eyes of enlightened liberals, couldn't possibly come to pass.

The religious right said that Roe v.

Wade was not an infallible decision and that it could be overturned.

They said gay marriage was an abomination that would pave the way for various forms of child abuse, including the evil of transgenderism.

They said religious freedoms would be suspended and that LGBT activists would use the power of government to force Christians to violate their deeply held beliefs.

They said that abortion would give rise to a broader culture of death where euthanasia became commonplace, especially in godless places like Canada and California.

All of these predictions, of course, have turned out to be right on the money.

Pretty much everyone, regardless of their political affiliation, can see that now.

The religious right is owed an apology by many, many people.

But there's one prediction of the religious right, one that was endlessly derided for pretty much the entirety of Barack Obama's presidency, that still gets a very bad rap, even though it was also an accurate prediction.

And I'm talking about the alleged moral panic about the possibility that Democrats would soon implement a variant of Sharia law in the United States.

Now, surely we were told thousands of times this was a classic example of bigotry and Islamophobia.

Barack Obama is supposedly a Christian, after all.

How could he or anyone else possibly transform America's legal system into something resembling the Islamic legal code?

That was a conspiracy theory, the fact-checkers told us.

It was a lie concocted by Fox News to brainwash older voters who don't know any better.

Even today, many conservatives still hold this view.

For many self-described members of the right, it's still unthinkable that America's legal system, easily the most durable and functional system in the West, could one day look a lot like the Sharia courts in, say, Mogadishu.

Now, the problem is that for reasons that were never fully explained to the American public, we have imported hundreds of thousands of Somalis into the United States.

And when you're talking about numbers that large, then inevitably, transformation will occur.

This transformation won't simply involve the construction of mosques, the establishment of Somali sporting leagues, the commencement of regular Islamic celebrations celebrations in the streets, and all that.

It will also involve the implementation of a new legal system, one that has absolutely nothing in common with any Western tradition, much less our own.

And indeed, that's exactly what has taken place in Minnesota, one of America's largest states.

In Minnesota, America's system of laws is now effectively defunct.

It has been replaced, as the religious right had warned, with a primitive and oppressive legal code that is far more in common with Sharia law than anything the founders put in writing.

And if that sounds like hyperbole, well, ask yourself this.

When you saw the story of Shiloh Hendrix a few months ago, what did you think would happen to her?

Now, in case you've forgotten, in April, shortly after 6 p.m., Shiloh Hendricks was at a park in Rochester, Minnesota with her 18-month-old son.

And that's when another boy, around the age of eight, went rubbaging through her diaper bag and removed an applesauce pouch from it.

Eventually, Shiloh Hendrix chased the boy down, retrieved her property, though not before she uttered apparently a few racial slurs.

And that's when a Somali man who was also there started filming.

Now, we'll play some of this just as a refresher, although the slurs will be censored.

And of course, you've already seen this video, but here it is again.

Do you call him a n a child?

Did you call the child a n word?

It is my own business.

You call him a n word.

Okay, why don't you have the boss to say it right now again?

All right, that's

You're going to dig into people's.

Nobody dig into your

little.

That little kid, you call him?

Yeah.

The little child?

Are you about to hit him?

You chase him here?

He took my son's stuff.

So that gives you the right to call the child five-year-old

N-word.

If that's what he's going to act, that's what you're going to call him.

That's what he's going to act like.

You know, that's a hate speech.

And you can't be for that.

I don't give a.

okay we'll see about that what the Energy has to say about you.

Again, when you saw this story back in April, what did you think would happen to Shiloh Hendricks?

There were really only two options that anybody considered.

The first possibility was that Shiloh would be canceled by the outraged mob.

Her life would be destroyed for saying a few naughty words in frustration.

The other possibility was that conservatives would do the right thing and fight back.

They'd raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for Shiloh and send a very clear message that cancellation campaigns don't work anymore.

That's not because conservatives support the use of bad language in public parks or they support using racial slurs.

It's because the right to freedom of speech is paramount.

And also people are tired of these cancellation mobs.

And the only way to take power away from them is to respond in that way.

What no one seriously expected, because it would be too preposterous,

is that government officials in Minnesota would attempt to throw Shiloh in prison.

I mean, after all, in the United States, we have something that Somalia doesn't have.

We have a First Amendment, and the First Amendment prevents the government from arresting American citizens for saying bad words.

And that includes racial slurs.

It includes speech that most people find highly offensive.

We aren't Canada.

We're not North Korea.

So unless you're threatening to murder someone or assault them, which Shiloh wasn't doing, then you won't be prosecuted.

That's how things work in the United States.

That's how things have always worked here.

So how could anyone put Shiloh Hendricks in handcuffs over this?

Well, that would have been a reasonable question, say, 20 years ago.

But a lot has changed since then.

And most notably, large portions of the state of Minnesota, practically speaking, are no longer part of the United States.

More than 100,000 residents of Minnesota speak Somali.

There are so many Somalis in Minnesota that they hold their own Independence Day celebrations.

They're electing

public officials who explicitly promise to work on behalf of Somalia rather than Americans.

And now they're carrying over the great Somali legal tradition as well, which means, among other things, no freedom of speech.

If you upset Somalis in Minnesota, then they're going to try to put you in jail.

And that is why yesterday the city of Rochester, Minnesota, announced that it plans to bring criminal charges against Shiloh Hendricks.

This is directly from the city's website.

Quote, the Rochester City Attorney's Office is filing a complaint summons stemming from the April 28th, 2025 incident that occurred at Roy Sutherland Park Playground at Soldiers Field Park.

The draft complaint charges Shiloh Hendricks with three counts of disorderly conduct under Minnesota Statute 609.72,

a misdemeanor level charge with a maximum of 90 days in jail and/or a $1,000 fine.

Yes, the city of Rochester is going to attempt to imprison Shiloh Hendricks for saying nasty things to some Somalis in a park, including a child who stole her property and a Somali man who began harassing her afterwards and putting her on camera.

Because of that, Shiloh is supposedly guilty of disorderly conduct.

And in an attempt to explain these charges, the mayor of Rochester, Kim Norton, put out the following statement.

As I read this, we'll put an image of this mayor up on the screen.

If you're a podcast listener, if you're listening to the audio,

well, it's, you know, she looks exactly as you would imagine.

But here is the statement, quote, this was a situation that deeply affected many people, especially our communities of color, and caused real turmoil in our community.

We acknowledge the lasting impact this incident has had, not only on those directly involved and across our community, but also in the the broader conversations happening at the state and national level.

These moments remind us of the complexity and far-reaching impacts of situations like this.

The city remains committed to staying engaged and proceeding with transparency and care, continuing efforts that support accountability and progress in Rochester.

Now, meanwhile, the city added that, quote, this matter involved a large amount of evidence and required careful consideration of potential charging options across multiple offices.

As the legal process moves forward, the city recognizes not only the significant attention and emotion surrounding this case, but also the complex and lasting impact situations like this have on communities of color and our broader community.

Now, these statements taken together are an admission by the city that Shiloh Hendricks is being prosecuted for political reasons.

By their own admission, the city was concerned about the attitudes of various demographic groups before deciding whether to bring a criminal case.

Specifically, they were worried about what Somalis thought, and because Somalis were deeply offended, they've decided to suspend the First Amendment effectively in Rochester.

Now, before we get into the specifics of the criminal complaint, which is even more of a farce than you're already imagining, it needs to be said that as quickly as possible, Shiloh Hendricks should file a federal civil rights lawsuit against the city of Rochester.

The mayor, Kim Norton, should be arrested in the same way that Douglas Mackey was jailed by the Biden administration.

You remember that case?

They charged Douglas Mackey with committing a conspiracy against rights, meaning that he supposedly conspired to infringe on the right to vote by making a meme.

Well, Kim Norton is actually engaging in a much more obvious conspiracy against, right?

She's openly admitting that she's attempting to eliminate the First Amendment

rights of women like Shiloh Hendricks.

Now, it becomes extremely obvious when you look at this criminal complaint.

We'll put that up on the screen here.

These are the three counts.

They're all the same, but they all apply to separate, quote, victims.

And here's what they say, quote, On or about April 28th, 2025, within the city of Rochester, Shiloh Hendricks, while in a public or private place and knowing or having reasonable grounds to know that it would or would tend to alarm, anger, disturb others, or provoke an assault or breach of the peace, did wrongfully and unlawfully engage in offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy conduct, or in offensive, obscene, or abusive language that would reasonably tend to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others.

Yes, saying something that other people resent is a crime.

Now,

now, already you've probably noticed the problem here.

What this law is intended to outlaw, very clearly, is behavior that's so disruptive that it causes an unreasonable disruption to other people's lives.

So, for example, if you're playing loud music at a party at 2 a.m.

and people can't sleep, then that would qualify as noisy behavior that disturbs others and breaches the peace.

Along the same lines, if you block the doorway of a building and tell everyone that they'll have to fight you if they want to enter, then you can be accused of alarming others and provoking an assault.

So those would be reasonable examples of disorderly conduct under this law and under really any law that deals with disorderly conduct.

What happened in this case is that after the Somalis and liberal women of Rochester saw the viral video,

they went looking through the law to find some way to charge Shiloh Hendricks.

And then they deliberately interpreted this particular law in a highly literal and frankly demented manner.

They saw the words offensive language and thought they had a case.

The problem is that this law, like every other law, is subordinate to the U.S.

Constitution.

You cannot read any law in such a way as to conflict with the Constitution.

As applied to Shiloh Hendricks, that's clearly what they're doing here.

Shiloh Hendricks did not disrupt anybody's life.

She didn't cause a breach of the peace.

There's no evidence that anybody was unreasonably

alarmed by her actions in that park.

No one felt that their physical safety was in jeopardy because of Shiloh Hendricks.

And she didn't go to the the park with the intention of causing any kind of disruption.

She responded to the fact that a Somali child had stolen her property and then ran away with it.

And she may have responded in a way verbally that was offensive to people, but you're allowed to do that.

Free speech.

You know, what

literally speech.

She was saying something.

She was expressing a point of view that you might not agree with and you find offensive.

But if that's not free speech, then free speech doesn't exist.

I mean, it really is that simple.

If saying the N-word in the park is not free speech, then we don't have free speech.

And this whole point is actually confirmed in the text of the complaint.

So let's put that on the screen here.

And as you can see, it states that a man identified as SHJ was in the park with his three children.

One of them, YJ, is eight years old and autistic.

The man, S-H-J, told police that his son approached a diaper bag that belonged to someone else, and he took an applesauce pouch from the bag.

And then YJ climbed the the playground equipment in an attempt to get away from his father and from the defendant.

It was only at that point, according to the complaint, that defendant became very angry and shouted and repeatedly used a racial epithet.

The rest of the complaint simply describes the video that we've already seen.

And then there's this paragraph at the end, quote, SHJ explained that YJ, as well as his other children, were very scared and troubled by defendants' hateful words and conduct.

Well, that's just too bad, isn't it?

This guy was scared and troubled by the defendant's hateful words, and we're supposed to care about his personal reaction for some reason.

The complaint does mention that other adults and children were in the park, but they don't include any information about their reactions, probably because, you know, they didn't have much of a reaction or they didn't care.

So that's what we're left with.

The Somali whose child stole something felt scared and troubled by the fact that she was angry, and so now she has to go to jail.

Now, of course, Shiloh also felt troubled.

That's what happens when someone steals your property and runs away with it.

It's also what happens when you flood Minnesota with Somalis who are incapable of assimilating with American culture and who degrade the quality of life for actual American citizens every single day.

But we're not supposed to care about Shiloh's perception of events.

We're just supposed to be mortified that she said words that troubled and scared other people.

Never mind the fact that it's not a crime to say words that other people find troubling, unless those words are threats of violence, which this wasn't.

But in Rochester, they're not using our legal system anymore.

They're using Somalias.

This is a case that merits the immediate involvement of the DOJ civil rights division.

There is no way the Trump administration can permit a local government to override the constitutional rights of an American citizen.

And if this continues, we'll end up like so many other Western countries that are now effectively governed by barbarians.

That's the case in Dundee, Scotland.

You may have seen this video from the other day.

A 14-year-old girl and her...

12-year-old sister were being harassed by an adult man, apparently one of those asylum seekers we're told about.

And eventually she produces a weapon to ward the man off.

And then what ends up happening?

She's the one who gets arrested.

Watch.

Yeah, she had a knife.

I didn't catch you.

Kept Bosh.

Show the knife.

Shoulder knife.

Show the knife.

Show the knife.

Show the knife.

Don't touch up.

That's it.

That's it.

Show the knife.

Well, we all know they're going to make a Netflix show about this, and politicians in Europe are going to force people to watch it.

They're going to portray this teenage girl as a monster for defending herself when her own government abandoned her.

That's how these things work overseas.

Quoting from the Scottish Daily Express, an axe-wielding schoolgirl from Dundee,

axe-wielding schoolgirl, who is said to have been defending a young female from a migrant man, has become a social media hero.

The girl, age 14, has been charged with possession of a bladed weapon after police were called to the scene.

The footage was taken on Saturday afternoon and shows two girls on a grass verged by the busy Cooper Angus Road.

A man's voice is heard saying, show the knife, show the knife.

The second girl then screams, get the F away from her, before the other younger youngster holds up the two weapons.

The second girl shouts, don't effing touch my little sister.

She's 12.

Well, this is what happens when Western governments sit by passively as foreigners invade in unprecedented numbers.

Eventually, the legal system starts working for the foreigners against the native citizens.

That's why the Shiloh Hendrix criminal case simply cannot be allowed to stand.

It's also why, to bring this back to the topic that we discussed yesterday,

I really have no patience whatsoever for the free speech argument for burning the American flag.

We don't have free speech speech in this country.

I mean, if they're going to throw people in jail for saying a bad word,

then yeah, I want you thrown in jail for desecrating my flag.

Okay, no more playing by two different sets of rules.

It's going to be one set of rules.

And in the 1980s, when the Supreme Court decided that flag burning was a constitutional right, you could make the argument that the First Amendment still meant something in the United States.

But it doesn't anymore.

We've simply imported too many foreigners, including people from the Sharia countries that the the religious right warned about, for our Constitution to have any effect in places like Minnesota.

The Somalis demanded a political prosecution in defiance of our Constitution, and Democrats in Minnesota are determined to give it to them.

Those are the rules that have now been established.

And until all the Somalis are deported and the Democrats who launched this prosecution of Shiloh Hendricks are removed from office, We have two choices.

We can either ignore what's happening and watch as they throw us in prison one by one.

We can end up like Scotland, in other words,

or we can use every tool that's available, including the power of the federal government, to prevent any more U.S.

cities from transforming into precisely the kinds of lawless third-world dystopias that we were warned about not so long ago.

Those warnings were ignored at the time, they were mocked over and over again.

But as the prosecution of Philo Hendrix makes clear, those warnings were actually correct, and we simply cannot ignore them anymore.

Now, let's get to our five headlines.

You know, I was shocked to learn that the liver is actually the second largest organ in your body and handles over 500 different functions.

We barely even think about it.

Well, here's the thing though, over 30% of Americans have a sluggish liver, and most of us don't even know it until it's too late.

That's why I'm excited to tell you about Dose for Your Liver.

This isn't just another supplement, it's a science-backed formula that was specifically created to cleanse your liver of unwanted elements while supporting digestion and keeping your body's natural filter running smoothly.

What really impressed me were the clinical results.

In a double-blind placebo-controlled study, Dose for your liver actually lowered liver enzyme levels by 50% and over 86% of participants.

I get this, one shot is equivalent to 17 shots of turmeric juice.

When you stick with dose over time, you can experience some incredible benefits.

More energy, better digestion, reduced bloating, healthier liver enzyme function, less brain fog, and even better sleep.

Plus, it's gluten-free, dairy-free, sugar-free, and vegan.

Save 25% on your first month of subscription by going to dosedaily.co slash walsh or entering walsh at checkout.

That's D-O-S-E-D-A-I-L-Y dot CO slash walsh for 25% off your first month subscription.

Whenever my sleep has been off, I've spent nights tossing and turning, waking up exhausted, making it hard to keep up with all the latest news.

That's when I found Beam's Dream Powder.

Beam is proudly founded in America and run by people who share our values, hard work, integrity, and delivering results.

It's a healthy nighttime blend that tastes incredible, is packed with science-backed ingredients shown to improve sleep so you can wake up refreshed and ready to take on the day.

And unlike other sleep aids, there's no next-day grogginess, just great restful sleep because Dream is made with a powerful blend of all natural ingredients, rayshi, magnesium,

L-thenine, apugenin, and melatonin.

I especially appreciate that Beam is an American company, both built and operated operated here.

So a purchase supports hardworking Americans.

Here's the deal.

Beam is giving my listeners the ultimate Patriot discount of up to 40% off.

Try their best-selling dream powder and get up to 40% off for a limited time.

Go to shopbeam.com slash walsh and use code walsh to check out.

That's shopbeam.com slash walsh and use code walsh for up to 40% off.

Sleep better, wake up stronger, and show up ready for your family, your work, and your country.

Because when you're well rested, you're unstoppable.

This country needs more people like that.

NBC News reports, President Donald Trump's latest comments about allowing hundreds of thousands of Chinese international students in the United States have drawn criticism from some of the most outspoken members of the Republican Party.

Ahead of his meeting with South Korean President Lee Jaime Myung at the White House on Monday, Trump told reporters that he plans to allow 600,000 Chinese students into the country, a figure more than double the number in the United States right now.

While Trump stressed the United States' important relationship with the country, other high-profile members of the party disagreed.

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene railed against the idea on social media: why are we allowing 600,000 students from China to replace our American students' opportunities?

We should never allow that.

Yeah, I agree with Marjorie Taylor Greene on this.

Why do we need 600,000 Chinese students here?

Why wouldn't we give those opportunities to American students?

Well, the Trump administration has given an answer to that question.

Why,

There's 300,000 here now, apparently, which is already too many.

I don't know why we have any.

Trump, for some reason, wants to double that.

I don't know what problem that solves for us,

but what's the reason for it?

Well, here is Howard Luttnick, the Commerce Secretary, on Fox News a couple of nights ago, explaining why this is so important.

Watch.

Mr.

Secretary, with all due respect, how is allowing 600,000 students from the communist country of China putting America first?

Well, the president's point of view is that what would happen if you didn't have those 600,000 students is that you'd emptied them from the top, all the students would go up to better schools, and the bottom 15% of universities and colleges would go out of business in America.

So his view is he's taking a rational economic view, which is classic Donald Trump looking at higher education and saying,

that just helped Harvard and UCLA and UCAL Berkeley.

And I mean, you're all helping those schools.

Why?

They're like,

you know,

basically factories of anti-American propaganda.

Now they're getting a big influx of cash because of the Chinese students.

I mean,

I know President Trump has always been very pro-Chinese student.

I just don't understand it for the life of me.

Those are 600,000 spots that American kids won't get.

Well, that is, I'm sorry to say, really, really stupid.

To be clear, the argument is not that bringing in Chinese students will benefit America somehow because of all the engineers and doctors that we're importing or whatever, because these are foreign nationals.

These are Chinese citizens.

They're going to come here, go to school, and then they're going to go back to China.

So that's not the argument.

The argument is that if we don't bring in all these Chinese students, then a bunch of universities will go out of business.

That's what they're saying.

So what you're telling us, Howard, is that a large number of American universities need Chinese money.

They need support from communist China to stay open.

And if we take that support away, then they'll close.

That's what you're telling us.

And if that's the case,

then why exactly shouldn't they close down?

Why are we trying to keep them open?

If stopping Chinese students from coming here means that a bunch of American universities that scam American kids and rely on communist money go out of business.

That's a bonus.

That's a selling point.

That's a good thing, obviously.

I mean, even aside from the China issue,

it would still be a good thing if 15%,

if 30% of American universities went out of business.

These institutions have been scamming American kids out of collectively billions of dollars for a very long time now.

It's the worst scam in history.

So why are we acting like it's a tragedy if some of them go out of business?

And in particular, again, if they are relying on communist money,

which in a way makes sense, these are communist institutions, most of them, but they're relying on communist money to stay open.

That's all the more reason why them closing is a good thing.

Trump himself addressed this yesterday.

And if you thought that Howard Luttnick's argument for bringing in 600,000 Chinese students was bad,

well, wait till you hear what Trump has to say about it.

Listen.

We're getting getting along very well with China.

And I'm getting along very well with President Xi.

I think it's very insulting to say students can't come here.

Because they'll go out and they'll start building schools and they'll be able to survive it.

But I like that their students come here.

I like that other country's students come here.

And you know what would happen if they didn't?

Our college system would go to hell very quickly.

You'd have, and it wouldn't be the top colleges.

It would be colleges that struggle on the bottom.

And And you take out 300,000 or 600,000 students out of the system.

I like having, and I told this to President Xi, that we're honored to have their students here.

Now, with that, we check and we're careful and we see who's there and Marco wants that.

We spoke, we're in the same position.

But we have a tremendous college system, the best in the world.

Nobody even close.

That's why China sends them here.

And you can call it an industry if you want, but you're talking about millions of people.

And I'm honored to have the students from China come here.

And

we're just getting along very well with China.

It's insulting, he says.

It's insulting to not bring in hundreds of thousands of Chinese students.

I mean, that's really his argument.

You just heard him say it.

Well,

it'd be insulting.

We wouldn't want to insult them.

It might hurt their feelings.

feelings.

Now, yeah, you might think that it doesn't benefit America to bring in a bunch of Chinese communists, put them into our universities, take those opportunities away from actual American citizens.

You might think that's a bad thing,

but think about how they would feel if we didn't let that happen.

So these are the two reasons that we are given by the administration for shipping in 600,000 communist Chinese students.

One is that if we don't do it, then the colleges that rely on Chinese communist money will go out of business.

And two, and we don't want that to happen for some reason.

And then the other reason is that it would hurt their feelings

if we don't allow them in.

And that's not even me making a straw man of the argument that the Trump administration is making.

I mean, those are the arguments given to us by the Commerce Secretary and the President of the United States.

It's completely ridiculous.

And

it should not be allowed to happen.

All right, a couple of weeks into the federal takeover of D.C.

and the early returns are very positive.

Crime is down.

I'm pretty sure there hasn't been a single murder in D.C.

since Trump stepped in,

which should not be impressive.

Like, we should not be impressed that an American city, oh, you went a whole week without a murder.

That's amazing.

That shouldn't shouldn't be impressive, but it is because we know that

what what

kind of hellhole dystopias these cities have become.

So murders not happening, crime's way down.

It turns out that when you enforce the law aggressively, you get less crime.

Who could have possibly seen that coming?

Now the question is whether this strategy should extend to other American cities.

I think that it should.

I think the answer is that it should.

Trump has indicated that Chicago may be the next in line, but the mayor of Chicago, Brandon Johnson, is not a fan of that idea.

So let's hear what he has to say.

As the mayor of this city, I can tell you that Chicagoans are not calling for a military occupation.

They are calling for the same thing that we've been calling for for some time, and that's investment.

What safe cities across America all have in common, they invest in people.

And that's what we're doing in Chicago.

We need the federal resources to make sure that we're building more affordable housing, expanding mental and behavioral health care, education, all of these things that could reduce crime and provide real community safety.

Instead of spending hundreds of millions of dollars for a publicity stunt to invoke chaos and terror, the federal government should spend that money on proven solutions to crime and violence reduction.

We cannot incarcerate our way.

out of violence.

We've already tried that and we've ended up with the largest prison population in the world without solving the problems of crime and violence.

The addiction on jails and incarceration in this country, we have moved past that.

It is racist, it is immoral, it is unholy, and it is not the way to drive violence down.

We cannot return to the same failed strategies that got us here in the first place.

Under the previous presidential administration, we requested more federal resources to address gun violence in our city.

We continue to make that same call.

We have made significant progress on our own, but there is so much more that we can do if we had real support from the federal government.

Brandon Johnson says we don't need to arrest criminals and put them in jail.

We cannot incarcerate our way out of crime, which is

a refrain, a slogan we've now heard from Democrats

a number of times.

They think that

this is really compelling stuff.

You can't incarcerate your way out of crime.

Instead, we need to invest.

We need to spend more money.

Chicago needs more tax money.

That's how you fix everything.

Just spend more money on housing and education,

and that's the solution, according to

Brandon Johnson.

Okay, well, let's take a look at that.

And I'll throw some numbers at you.

Do you know the budget of Chicago public schools?

You probably don't.

Probably don't have that number handy.

Well, the budget is $10 billion, $10 billion.

$1.5 billion of that comes from the federal government.

Now, Mayor Johnson says we need to invest more in education in Chicago.

Well, $10 billion a year, is that not an investment?

I'd say it is.

And what have we gotten out of it?

Right?

That's the question.

What's the return on this investment?

Well,

70% of students in elementary and middle school in Chicago don't read at grade level.

70%.

80% are not proficient in math.

That's in elementary and middle school.

By 11th grade, it's even worse.

Almost 80%

at that grade level are not proficient in reading.

A little over 80% are not proficient in math.

40% of students in these schools are chronically absent, meaning that they miss more than 10% of the school year.

So that's at least like 18 or 20 days, almost an entire month of class that they're not even there.

And yet, imagine that.

Chicago schools still have a high graduation rate, and they're very proud of it.

They'll go around bragging about their graduation rate.

85% of students graduate on time.

So the vast majority of students are not proficient in math or reading.

Almost half of them are chronically absent.

So,

they can't read, they can't do math, they're not showing up to class, and yet almost all of them still graduate.

So, what does that mean?

It means, of course, that

literally anybody will graduate.

It means that they are just sort of churning out millions of kids

out into society who are not actually educated.

And that's happening with $10 billion in investment annually.

So, how much money will it cost to get these numbers up, Brandon?

Your schools are getting $10 billion a year, and it's still not enough to even teach half the kids how to actually read.

So, what do you need?

$10 billion of wood, there's not enough investment.

There's not enough money.

There's not enough money to teach all these kids how to read.

Okay, $10 billion is not going to do it.

What do you mean?

Another $10?

20 billion?

Would that do 100 billion?

A trillion?

What if your budget was a trillion dollars a year?

Do you think at that point you could get maybe 50% of your students to read like a Dr.

Seuss book by the time they graduate?

Would that be enough?

Probably not.

And what about housing?

Do you need more investment in housing?

Well, Chicago is spending a record amount of money on affordable housing, quote unquote, and housing investments.

Lori Lightfoot, before Brandon Johnson, spent

record amounts on

housing, billions of dollars.

Brandon Johnson is also spending record amounts.

And yet homelessness has hit record highs in the city at the same time.

So you've got like 80,000 homeless people in your city, Brandon, not counting all the illegal.

So it's actually a lot more than that.

The total number of homeless in Chicago is at the highest level right now since they started keeping track back in 2005.

So follow along with me, Brandon.

I know this is hard.

I mean, you went to school in Chicago, so I know following things logically is not is not the easiest thing for you.

So

investment in housing is going like this.

It's going up, up, up, right?

More and more.

But then homelessness is also going up.

So we got investment in affordable housing is going like this.

Homelessness is also going like this.

And then over in the schools, what's happening there?

Well, spending is going up, up, up like this, but then reading and math is going down like this.

Okay, you see that?

That's not how it's supposed to work.

So does, Brandon, does it seem like dumping money on the problem is working?

Does it seem like investment is actually the solution?

The more you invest, the worse the problem gets.

Okay?

Have you noticed that yet?

If it was the solution to the problem, why is the problem getting worse in response to the solution?

If you try to fix a problem, but the fix only makes everything worse, that's a pretty good indication that the fix is not a fix.

If you bring your car to the mechanic because there's a problem with the engine and they give you back the car and they say, hey, we fixed the engine, and then you go drive down the street and a block down the street, your engine explodes.

You're probably going to conclude that, well, you didn't really fix the engine, did you?

In fact, you made it worse.

I I don't know what you did, but you made it worse.

And if you get your car towed back to the mechanic and you say, hey, you didn't fix my engine,

and they go, well, we did fix it.

What do you mean?

Remember, we charged you a lot of money.

What do you mean we didn't fix it?

How can you say we didn't fix the engine?

We charged you $10,000.

Well, yeah, I know you charged me a lot of money.

I know

I spent a lot of money on it, but my engine is on fire right now.

So you see, so clearly, clearly, like, yeah, you charge me a lot.

That's, that makes it worse.

There's a scam going on here.

You're scamming us.

No, investment is not the solution.

It's not.

Just, just, you, you could, it doesn't matter.

Endless budget,

$500 billion to education in Chicago, $500 billion a year on affordable housing would not make a difference.

You could spend $500 billion and it would not not result in like one additional child learning how to read it wouldn't

um

there is no one single solution

but I mean 80% of black kids in Chicago are born to single mothers which is a 200% increase since 1970 Fatherless kids are four times more likely to live in poverty.

70% of high school dropouts are fatherless.

85% of kids who are in juvenile detention right now are fatherless.

So that's one solution.

Your women in the city need to stop sleeping around and having babies before they get married.

Your men need to stop abandoning their families.

Just like the smallest amount of self-control would go a long way here.

That's a big one.

And as far as crime, yes, you can fix the problem, or at least go a long way towards fixing it by putting criminals in prison.

The more criminals you put in prison, the fewer you will have on the street.

Okay?

That's another, that's again, I know it's hard.

I know it's hard, Brandon.

I know it's hard.

You're barely literate.

You went to Chicago schools.

I get all that.

It's really hard to follow along.

But, you know, I'll try my best to explain it to you.

Prisons are a place where you put criminals, bad people, dangerous people.

That's why they exist.

And you put them in cages and you lock them in there so that they're not on the street anymore.

And so you see how it works is that if you have a certain number of criminals who are running around the street, the more of them that you put in jail, the fewer of them you'll have on the street.

Because when you put a criminal in jail, they don't like duplicate.

You're not putting a clone of that.

So

you're putting them in jail.

So

you end up with...

So that as you as you put more of them in jail so again follow along with the as you put more of them in jail then the number of them on the street goes like this because they're because they're because they're going to the jail you see how that works you see how it works

and i know you might say well but but then you'll have what about the the next batch of criminals that comes along well follow again along with me you know what you do with the next batch you put them in jail too

Oh, but we don't have enough jails for them.

Oh, well, you're all about investment, right?

Build some more.

We would need 10 10 more jails to okay, build 10 jails then.

Build as many as you need.

How many jails do we need?

Well, I don't know.

However many jails is necessary to house all the criminals in your city.

So,

I don't know.

That's the best I can do to explain it.

I can't break it down in any simpler terms than that.

All right.

The

okay, let's

lighten the mood a bit here.

The Ringer has compiled a list of the 101 best movie performances of the 21st century.

Not much of a transition here.

We're just diving into

movie performances.

And we all know that making lists and ranking stuff is one of the great American pastimes.

It's one of our favorite things to do.

It's hard to

turn down the allure of an arbitrary list where we argue about whether one thing is better than another, even though there's no real objective way to measure it.

And I don't mean that to be critical, by the way.

I'm a big fan of making lists.

I'm all about it.

So, we're not going to go through all 101, but let's take a look at the Ringers' top 10 performances of the 21st century.

And anytime you see a list like this, you expect it to be terrible, but let's see what they come up with.

Going from 10 to 1,

10 is Kirsten Dunstan, Melancholia, 9 is Joaquin Phoenix and the Master, 8 is Jesse Eisenberg in Social Network, 7, Denzel Washington in Training Day, 6, Heath Ledger in Dark Knight, five, Javier Bardem in No Country for Old Men, four, Cape Lanchett in Tar.

Three, Philip Schumer Hoffman in the Master, two, Daniel Day-Lewis, There Will Be Blood, and then one

is Naomi Watts in Mulholland Drive.

But I have to say, it's not a terrible list.

Not great, really, but it's

certainly not exactly right, but it's not terrible.

And I can't really say for certain that Naomi Watts doesn't belong in the top spot because to be honest, admittedly, that's the one movie on the list that I haven't seen.

But even so, I feel very confident when I say that Daniel Day-Lewis should be number one.

His performance in There Will Be Blood is just a towering artistic achievement.

It's one of the great film performances of all time.

I mean, it's competing not just against 21st century performances, competing against, you know, De Niro and Raging Bull and Marlon Brando on the waterfront, Al Pacino and Godfather 2.

Like it's, it's in that pantheon.

So that should be number one.

I don't think Denzel or Jesse Eisenberg belong in the top 10.

Both are good films, very good performances, not top 10.

I actually liked Tara a lot more than I thought I would.

I do think Blanchette's performance was tremendous.

I wouldn't put her in the top 10.

And Philip Seymour, Hoffman, and Joaquin Phoenix certainly do belong in the top 10, but I think the Ringer picked the wrong movies for them.

So let me just briefly correct the record by giving the accurate top 10 list.

And I spent about 45 seconds coming up with this list.

So maybe if I think more about it, I'll change my mind.

But so here's, that's their list.

My list would be this.

Top 10 screen performances of this century.

Number one, as already established, Daniel Day-Lewis, There Will Be Blood.

As I said, one of the great, all-time great performances, just a work of art.

Two, I'd put Philip Seymour Hoffman.

He was brilliant in the master, but I think his performance in Capote was on a level even above that one.

It's one of the most nuanced and layered performances you'll ever see in a movie.

And I know I sound like a pretentious douchebag saying that.

It was so new, it was a nuanced and layered performance, but it was, it was.

And

this, I don't even say this is a joke, but he's able in that movie, he puts on, he's playing, of course, playing Truman Capote,

he puts on this effeminate sort of accent.

And it's a little jarring when you first hear it,

especially given if you know what the actor really sounds like.

But then you believe it, and he's able to put on this performance in that kind of like silly voice.

And

that's a real achievement.

Number three, I'd say Javier Bardem in No Country for Old Men.

I think the ringer was right to rank, and this was controversial, but they ranked Javier Bardem above Heath Ledger

in The Dark Knight.

I do think Heath Ledger's performance was great and iconic, even if the film that he was in is one of the most overrated things ever to exist on the planet, The Dark Knight.

But Javier Bardem in No Country is superior.

I mean, Anton Shagur,

the character he plays in that film, is the most menacing and interesting, I think, movie villain of this century, probably in the history of cinema.

Heath Ledger's Joker is more animated, more outlandish, more attention-grabbing in some ways, but he never created the tension that Bardem creates in that role.

I mean, just the scene at the gas station.

And if you've never seen No Country for Old Man, how dare you?

If you've never seen it, just the scene at the gas station is worth the price of admission.

It's like a three-minute scene and

it's a masterclass in building tension and suspense.

One of the best movie scenes

of all time, probably.

And Heath Ledger never quite touches that performance.

Number four, I'd probably say Ryan Gosling should be on the list by all rights.

Probably

his role in Blue Valentine should be, it was an absolutely fantastic performance.

I hated the movie because it's just too dark and bleak and depressing.

Like it's one of the movies you'll walk away from it.

You'll be depressed for the next three and a half weeks from watching it.

And so it's sort of artistically impressive, but I would never watch it again.

And I kind of wish I never saw it the first time.

But it's a great performance.

So maybe that role or First Man, you know, I think First Man is one of the most underrated films of the century and that performance as well.

So that'd be number four.

Number five, I'd say Joaquin Phoenix has to be on the list.

Probably he was great in The Master, but I'd probably put his performance in the movie Her,

which

if you've never seen that one, especially now with AI,

this movie came out, I don't know, 10 or 12 years ago, but

it's quite a

prescient movie now

because he plays a guy who falls in love with essentially AI.

He falls in love love with an operating system.

He falls in love with Siri, basically.

And so he's acting against this disembodied voice the entire time.

He's walking around throughout the movie, and he's got the earpiece in, and he's talking basically to himself, but talking to the operating system.

And you see him like fall in love with this computer, and he pulls it off.

It's very believable.

Number six, I'd say, I think J.K.

Simmons and Whiplash should have been on the list.

I watched that movie again recently.

All I can say is that if you haven't seen Whiplash, it's a movie about a drummer in a jazz band.

And I hate jazz.

I can't stand it.

I think it's the second worst genre of music, second only to mariachi music.

And I don't care about drumming, really.

And yet, the film is mesmerizing.

I mean, it's like an edge-of-your-seat,

it's a film about a drummer and a jazz band, and it's an edge-of-your-seat thriller, really.

And that's thanks in large part to Simmons' performance.

Number seven, I'd say Heath Ledger and Dark Knight.

I'd put them there.

Number eight, Russell Crowe.

Probably Russell Crowe in Gladiator.

It's 2000, I think.

So I guess that counts as this century.

And then 9 and 10, 9, I'd probably say Jim Carrey and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

I think it was a great film

of this century.

Jim Carrey is

an annoying leftist who only does Sonic movies now.

What makes that so, especially, and I got a lot of trouble for making fun of the Sonic movie, which is just god-awful.

But one of the things that annoyed me watching that movie is like, this is what Jim Carrey has become.

He's actually a great actor.

He's a great artist, but this is what he does now.

You see it in that movie.

And then finally, number 10, I'd say, yeah, Hugh Jackman in Prisoners

was,

you know, he plays a desperate father trying to find his daughter who's been kidnapped.

fully embodies the role.

You absolutely believe it the whole way through.

And it's a great performance.

So that's my list.

That's the real top 10.

That's the correct,

that's the correct arbitrary list.

And

that's all there is to it.

Let's be honest, I have a long list of things I'd rather do than maintain my gutters this summer as they quietly fill with debris.

For me, cleaning gutters ranks somewhere between sitting through a DMV line and filing taxes.

But luckily, there's an easier way, Leaf Filter.

That's America's number one gutter protection company.

So you never have to clean out your gutters ever again.

Right now, you can get a free inspection, free estimate, and save up to 30% off your entire purchase at leaffilter.com/slash walsh.

Look, gutters are boring until your basement becomes an indoor pool because that Home Depot mesh just didn't do the trick.

LeafFilter uses actual patented technology with no holes or gaps, keeping debris out with a lifetime no-claw guarantee.

Sure, DIY is cheaper up front, but when you're dealing with flooding or your house becomes kindling from dry leaves collecting in the clog gutters, those savings don't look so smart.

Over a million homeowners have figured this out.

They'll clean, align, and install their systems so you can ignore your gutters like everyone should be able to do.

Call for your free inspection because life's too short for gutter drama.

Don't spend your summer and your fall worrying about gutters.

Schedule your free inspection and get up to 30% off your entire purchase at leaffilter.com slash walsh.

That's L-E-A-F filter.com slash walsh.

It's a free estimate, free inspection, and 30% off at L-E-A-F filter.com slash walsh.

See representative for warranty details.

Here's a not so fun fact.

Disney Plus, Hulu, Netflix, Paramount Plus, they're all raising prices again.

I'm sure you've noticed.

And then there's Daily Wire Plus doing what we love to do, the exact opposite.

We're now raising prices, we're dropping them.

Right now, you can grab an annual Daily Wire Plus membership for 40% off with code SUMMER.

That unlocks everything we've got, including the new episode of The Pope and the Fuhrer, the Secret Vatican Files of World War II.

On September 8th, you'll be first to watch the Isabel Brown Show.

Plus, you'll get an exclusive first look at our brand new flagship show, Friendly Fire, where the entire Daily Wire crew goes head-to-head, live, uncensored, and unfiltered.

Go to dailywireplus.com and lock in 40% off your annual membership before the deal is gone.

Now let's get to our daily cancellation.

Well, normally, as the name of this segment implies, this is the part of the show where I cancel someone.

We've done this for more than a thousand episodes.

Is it predictable?

Yes.

Is the bit kind of overplayed and overdone at this point?

Probably.

But either way, the routine is very well established at this point.

And yet today, I have to admit that I'm simply not in the mood.

There's just no way I can cancel anyone right now.

And that's because for the first time in a thousand episodes, I'm truly ecstatic.

You know, I'm not talking just about being happy or content, anything like that.

I truly cannot contain the emotions that are coursing through my veins at this very moment.

As you can probably tell, I'm very close to jumping up and down and screaming uncontrollably like Tom Cruise on Oprah's couch.

It's taking every ounce of my self-restraint to keep something like that from happening on camera.

I don't think I can log back into Instagram for at least another 24 hours just to keep myself from overdosing on pure euphoria.

I mean, I've never actually logged on to Instagram in my entire life, but if I ever did, I wouldn't be able to do it now because I'm just too overcome with excitement and joy.

But I do have contractual obligations, so I'm going to do my best to steal myself and get through this segment to the extent that any man can possibly do so under these extraordinary circumstances.

And you all know what I'm talking about, I assume.

But just in case you're tuning in from a Siberian prison camp, I suppose I should fill you in that Taylor Swift, Travis Kelsey, it's all happening.

An engagement is happening.

They are engaged.

The two most important figures who have ever lived in this country, after maybe George Washington or maybe before him, are officially engaged.

This is one of the great moments in American history.

It's like the moon landing, except the engagement happened in the garden at Travis's home rather than on the moon or on a Hollywood soundstage, depending on who you believe.

Everyone will remember where they were when they heard the news.

It's like the 9-11 of celebrity engagements, but in a good way.

I'm obviously struggling at this point to come up with appropriate historical analogies.

So now things are starting to get a little weird.

Maybe we just move on.

Anyway, you may not know this about me, but I've actually been a massive fan of Travis Kelsey for a very long time.

In fact,

not even his football stuff.

I mean, I hate the Chiefs, but

more of it intellectually.

I'm a fan of his work.

And I first began following Travis when I saw some of the insights he posted on social media when he was in his 20s.

It's a real treasure trove of insights that changed my life.

If you missed out on some of those posts, then I'm truly sorry for you.

Some people regret the fact that they didn't buy Bitcoin back in 2011, but really they should regret not reading Travis Kelsey's Twitter feed from that period because that would have transformed their lives in so many important ways.

So here's just one of Travis Kelsey's many inspirational posts to give you a taste of what you probably missed out on.

Quote, I just gave a squirrel a piece of bread and it straight smashed all of it.

I had no idea they ate bread like that.

Ha ha.

Hashtag crazy.

Now, haters will say, well, it's pretty dumb.

He can't even spell the word squirrel.

These are the same people who mock Taylor Swift.

These are the same people who will laugh when she sings the lyrics, like lyrics like, I'm like a rainbow with all the colors, as if that's not a groundbreaking and deeply meaningful metaphor.

But it is a groundbreaking and deeply meaningful metaphor.

And if I'm being honest, every time I listen to that song, which I have hundreds of times, it has me feeling like a roller coaster with all the ups and downs that roller coasters entail.

I just can't get enough of it.

Taylor's lyrics and Travis' observations about squirrels, they just inspired me.

It's as simple as that.

At this point, if you want to call me unprofessional for derailing a segment of my own show in order to profess my excitement over the engagement of Taylor Swift and Travis Kelsey, so be it.

I'm safe and secure in the knowledge that I'm not alone.

I'm definitely not the only professional in the media who, in the wake of this historic engagement, has felt compelled against my better judgment to act like a deranged fangirl while on the air.

Olivia Rinaldi, the White House correspondent at CBS News, did precisely the same thing.

While she was off air,

she at the White House, she was scrolling her Instagram, as I do all the time.

And then when she discovered the big news, she told her producers to put her on the air immediately to break into the coverage.

And they did.

And here's what that looked like.

Watch.

Taylor Swift is engaged.

Taylor Swift is engaged.

Taylor Swift is engaged.

This, come back to me.

She just posted it.

Oh my God.

Oh my God.

Oh, it's huge.

The ring is ginormous.

This is so exciting.

Oh my God.

Oh my God.

Oh my God.

It's on her Instagram.

It's on her Instagram.

It's on her Instagram.

Oh my God.

Oh my God.

Oh my God.

Oh my God.

Oh my God.

I feel like Paul Revere right now.

This is a very exciting moment for me in my professional career because I get to announce that Taylor Swift and Travis Kelsey are engaged.

As you're talking to Jo Lang, our lovely producer Gabby Ake texted me and said, Taylor Swift's engaged.

And you can see it right there on her social media.

She put it up in that post that they got engaged with the caption, your English teacher and your gym teacher are getting married with a little

dynamite sign there.

So very exciting here that we get to break that and tell you about that.

All right.

Swifties for life.

I have a feeling though, based on his prior statements, the president will not be having a Taylor Swift wedding in the ballroom.

Hopefully that can shift and change.

We can have some world peace, right?

Olivia Rinaldi, thank you.

You know, Reed, I volunteer to cover it in case you need.

I'll be there to cover it.

Thank you.

Thank you for your sacrifice, Olivia.

We appreciate you, my friend.

Now, to be clear, because you might be a little confused, this is footage that CBS News voluntarily uploaded to social media.

This wasn't like somebody leaked it.

This was, they put this there on purpose.

They're under the impression that this footage is compatible with the idea that their employees are serious people who we can trust to report the news and get to the bottom of very important stories.

They're under the impression that this footage doesn't live up to

every imaginable stereotype of female reporters in this industry.

Again, this is their White House correspondent, not an intern in her freshman year of high school.

This is a woman who studied at the University of Virginia in Oxford, and they're promoting this as if it's something to be proud of.

And to that, I say, good for CBS News.

You know, haters can hate, as the great poet once said.

This This reporter is indeed, as she said in that footage, the modern-day Paul Revere.

Now, granted, Paul Revere warned colonists at midnight about the impending British march

on Lexington and Concord at a time when those colonists were asleep and had no idea the British were coming.

And by contrast, Olivia Rinaldi was repeating something that Taylor Swift had already announced to her 280 million followers on Instagram.

But other than that, she basically accomplished the same thing as Paul Revere.

She alerted the world to a very urgent piece of breaking news, one that would have major ramifications on this country for generations to come.

Come to think of it, there's actually a Paul Revere statue somewhere in Massachusetts, and you can see it there.

It's an equestrian statue because he's on his horse.

It was modeled, and that's what equestrian mean, if you didn't know that.

It was modeled in 1885 and cast in bronze in 1940, won a bunch of awards.

Tourists love it.

And frankly, there's no reason for it to exist anymore.

We should immediately tear it down and replace it with a statue of Olivia Rinaldi.

This is one statue removal that I can get behind.

After all, if it weren't for Olivia Rinaldi, all five people who watch CBS News simply would not have discovered that Taylor Swift was engaged, at least not until they logged onto the internet.

On the other hand, what exactly has Paul Revere done for us lately?

I mean, we haven't even heard from the guy in like 250 years.

The dude was a one-hit wonder.

Erecting a very large statue of Olivia Rinaldi would send a very important signal, which is that cynicism and nihilism have no place in America post-Taylor Swift engagement.

And we need that signal now more than ever because a a lot of people are losing their minds out there right now.

For example, here's one post on the social media platform known as Blue Sky, which serves as the padded room of the internet for liberals who desperately need an echo chamber.

The original post shows some of the Taylor Swift engagement photos.

And in response, the Blue Sky user responds, quote, what a fun thing to see while we're all waiting in line to go to the concentration camps.

Now, you might be wondering, who exactly is waiting in line to go to the concentration camps at the moment?

That's totally insane.

I mean, only a complete nut job would write something like that.

And it makes no sense.

I mean, we all know the concentration camps for liberals aren't supposed to be up and running until November at the earliest.

At least those of us in the know were aware of that.

That was the plan straight from the White House and Project 2025.

So what happened?

Did someone in the far right jump the gun and set up their liberal concentration camps a little early?

If so, it's a pretty big oversight, one that should be corrected and quickly.

Also, just so you know, when we do send you to the camps, you're not going to have to wait in line.

I mean, we'll come grab you at your house in the middle of the night.

You're welcome.

Anyway, it's more likely that this person is suffering from delusional disorder, which is a serious psychiatric condition that afflicts precisely, I think scientists say, 100% of Blue Sky's user base.

And continuing along here, some other reactions were even more unhinged, even though that doesn't seem possible.

Here's one recent post from Reddit, the official website for The Unhinged.

The post reads, quote, I'm genuinely scared watching how serious Taylor and Travis are becoming.

Sometimes I wonder, what if they actually get married?

What if she's really not queer at all?

It feels like everything I believed about her could collapse overnight.

If this is real and not some PR game, I honestly think I could end up in the hospital or worse.

I don't know if I'd ever be able to listen to her songs the same way again.

Her happiness looks so different from what I imagined, like she's truly content going to his family's events.

I don't know how to cope with the idea that maybe I never knew her at all.

Well, it's obviously a very relatable perspective.

For my part, I've also spent many sleepless nights wondering whether Taylor Swift's queerness was, in fact, merely a ruse.

I was watching a YouTube video of Taylor Swift's concerts the other day where she was dancing like a malfunctioning robot, and the thought definitely occurred to me.

I mean, is this woman even really gay?

Have I been deceived this whole time?

How could any queer singer dance like that?

I asked myself.

But despite all this negativity, if there's one message I would convey to the person on Reddit, it's this.

Be happy for Taylor and Travis.

Think of it this way.

Taylor Swift finally realized after years of dating, you know, virtually everyone on the planet that the football star who can amuse himself by feeding bread to squirrels is in fact her soulmate.

And there's a lesson there, a lesson that all of us can learn from for many, many years to come.

I have no idea what that lesson is, but there is one.

I'm sure of that.

And that is why, because I'm contractually obligated to cancel someone on this joyous day, All the people hating on Taylor Swift and Travis Kelsey's beautiful engagement are today

canceled.

That'll do it for the show today.

Thanks for watching.

Thanks for listening.

Talk to you tomorrow.

Have a great day.

Godspeed.

Today on the Ben Shapiro show, Tay Tay and Travis are getting engaged.

Woo!

Plus, President Trump signs into chat over the Cracker Barrel rebrand, and the war is won, and the DNC meetings completely melt down.

All of that on today's Ben Shapiro Show.

Give it a listen.