Ep. 1262 - The Case That Proves Compassion For Criminals Means Cruelty To Law Abiding Citizens
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, an 18 year old college student was killed by a career criminal in Nashville a few days ago. Tragically, this is a story we've heard many times before. But the details about this case, and how and why this violent offender was on the street, will truly shock you. We'll talk about it. Also, has the vagrancy problem in California now gotten so bad that the homeless are setting major highway overpasses on fire? Plus, more and more women are getting fired from their jobs after starting Only Fans pages. Only Fans has made a life of prostitution accessible for people who would never consider it otherwise.
Ep.1262
- - -
DailyWire+:
Get Your DailyWire+ Black Friday Deals Here: https://bit.ly/3QVgtGy
Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
PureTalk - Get a FREE Moto-G 5G phone when you switch to PureTalk at https://bit.ly/42PmqaX
Tax Network USA - Take the first step toward resolving your tax debt!
http://www.TaxNetworkUSA.com/Walsh
Hallow - Try Hallow for 3 months FREE: https://hallow.com/MattWalsh
- - -
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, an 18-year-old college student was killed by a career criminal in Nashville a few days ago.
Tragically, this is a story we've heard many times before, but the details about this case and how and why this violent offender was on the street will truly shock you.
We'll talk about it.
Also, has the vagrancy problem in California now gotten so bad that the homeless are setting major highway overpasses on fire?
More and more women are getting fired from their jobs after starting OnlyFans pages.
OnlyFans has made a life of prostitution accessible for people who would never consider it otherwise.
We'll talk about all of that and more today on the Matt Wall show
If you're looking for a killer Black Friday deal, I've got one for you.
A free Moto 5G phone from Pure Talk.
No gimmicks, no trading necessary.
Just sign up for Pure Talk's unlimited talk, unlimited text, and 15GB data.
You can get all this for just $35 and you'll get the Moto G 5G phone for free.
The new Moto G 5G phone boasts a 2-day battery life and exceptional Quad pixel camera and a whole lot more.
This is a great deal, but you'll need to move fast because these phones will be sold out by the end of the month.
So if your current phone is on the way out, upgrade for free with PureTalk.
PureTalk gives you America's most dependable 5G network at half the price, so make the switch today.
Just go to puretalk.com slash Walsh to get this exclusive offer and select the plan that's right for your family.
That's puretalk.com slash Walsh to claim your free Moto G 5G phone with a qualifying plan.
Again, that's puretalk.com slash Walsh.
Pure Talk, Simply Smarter Wireless.
Two years ago, a woman named Shayla Workman was driving in her car with her two children, aged three years old and one year old, near an apartment complex in Nashville, Tennessee.
And that's when a man in his 20s, Shaquille Taylor, opened fire.
He shot the roof of the car at least two times as Workman drove away, and the attack was not random.
In fact, the motive couldn't have been clearer.
Workman had recently testified against, quote, someone he cared about.
And what was that man's crime?
Well, as Workman put it, quote, his brother was locked up for shooting at me initially in May.
A few months later, on August 2nd, Taylor found Workman at the Riverchase Apartments and also started shooting at her, quote, the bullet hit the top of my car and bounced off.
Had I not been driving, it would have gone through the window and shot my son in his head.
Authorities then arrested Taylor and he confessed.
Now, What happened next is not simply a scandal or a national tragedy, although it is both of those things.
It is a breakdown of law and order that is so stark and so completely illogical in every possible respect that today, members of both political parties are calling for changes to the law in Tennessee before more people die.
And those changes, and more changes, need to happen immediately, as we will see.
This is a problem that exists in many states, even though nobody in the media really talks about it.
But it should be the story that leads every newscast tonight.
We have hit the absolute nadir of BLM-mandated equity in the judicial system, and this needs to be the end of it.
It just does.
Let's get into the details here.
Shaquille Taylor, after shooting at a moving vehicle with a mother and her children inside, apparently in retribution for that woman's testimony in a criminal proceeding, did not go to prison for the rest of his life.
He didn't receive any kind of lengthy prison sentence at all for that matter.
In fact, he received no prison sentence.
Incredibly, Shaquille Taylor never even went to trial.
Instead, in May of this year, less than two years after he started shooting at Shayla Workman's car, Shaquille Taylor was released from jail and his charges were dismissed.
The judge who made that decision was Angelita Blackshear Dalton, who happens to be a Democrat and also happens to be the first black woman elected to a judgeship in her county.
Why did Judge Dalton dismiss the charges against Taylor?
Well, three court-appointed doctors testified that Taylor was supposedly too incompetent to stand trial.
Apparently, Taylor had a kindergarten-level IQ because he developed some kind of brain infection as an infant.
And so, case dismissed.
Now, wait a minute, you might say.
Just because someone is incompetent to stand trial, why does that necessarily mean that they should be released from jail?
This guy shot at a moving vehicle with children inside.
And on top of that, he supposedly is mentally incompetent, they're telling us.
Doesn't this seem like precisely the kind of person we don't want roaming the streets?
Now as you might imagine, Shayla Workman was asking that same question when she noticed Shaquille Taylor was back on the streets.
Here's what she told local reporters, quote, he had a low bond shooting at me and my two
babies at the time, and you let him out because he's too incompetent.
But you can't be too incompetent if you're admitting to shooting at everybody.
So how do we square that circle exactly?
Here's the explanation from the Associated Press, which layers on the legalese.
As of right now, according to the AP, in order to keep somebody like Taylor locked up under these circumstances, Tennessee law requires that at least two doctors certify that Taylor's mental illness, quote, causes him to be a substantial risk of serious harm to himself or others.
The doctors must also certify that there are, quote, no other less restrictive means than commitment.
And apparently, in this case, doctors didn't certify all of that.
They didn't establish, somehow, a clear link between Taylor's mental illness and his propensity for violence, and so the judge let him go.
Supposedly, the judge had no other option.
Well, it didn't take long for the consequences of the judge's decision to become very clear.
A week ago, on Tuesday, just about six months after his charges were dismissed, Shaquille Taylor shot and killed an 18-year-old freshman music student at Belmont University named Jillian Ludwig.
Now, Ludwig was out walking on a track at the Edge Hill Community Memorial Gardens Park, just steps from the campus, in what is supposed to be a nice part of town.
The part of town in the middle of the day, you're going for a walk, You don't imagine that your life is in any kind of jeopardy whatsoever.
But Jillian Ludwig's life was in jeopardy, unbeknownst to her, because that is when Shaquille Taylor decided to start shooting at moving vehicles again.
Which, as we have discussed, is something that he has a well-documented history of doing.
And one of those bullets hit Jillian Ludwig.
She somehow laid on the track for roughly an hour before anyone found her even though she was very close to a police precinct and shortly afterwards she was dead.
Watch.
She was a promising young musician who loved to perform.
Now, 18-year-old Jillian Ludwig has been senselessly killed while jogging in a park.
Jillian's parents, Jessica and Matt, can't make sense of what happened.
Just a few months ago, Jillian moved from her New Jersey home to Nashville to study music business at Belmont University.
What kind of world do we live in?
Where a girl just taking a jog on a sunny day is in Life-threatening danger by a man who should not have been on the streets.
Jillian was killed when a stray bullet hit her in the head just off campus.
She died two days later in the hospital.
Police say the shot was fired by this man, 29-year-old Shaquille Taylor.
Surveillance video shows the suspect opening fire on a passing car.
What's angering Jillian's parents is the fact that just last April, He was arrested for shooting at a woman and her two kids, but the charges were dropped after he was deemed incompetent to stand trial.
That report, and most reports on this case, managed to undersell Shaquille Taylor's criminal history.
The shooting incident involving the mother and her two children happened two years ago, but it wasn't the only serious crime that Taylor committed.
According to local news channel WSMV4, quote, Taylor's background also includes charges for vehicle theft, robbery, handgun possession, and multiple aggravated assault charges.
One affidavit said he shoved a man to the ground back in 2015 before stealing money from him.
Taylor's most recent aggravated assault charge was in May of this year.
But the DA's office did not prosecute.
So this is not someone who only broke the law once or twice.
This is a repeat offender.
A repeat violent offender.
Tennessee's News Channel 5 took a closer look into why exactly he was allowed back on the street.
And this is what they report.
Watch.
The order from Judge Angelita Blackshear Dalton in May released Taylor after hearing from three different doctors.
One said he would not understand courtroom discussions.
Another said he was incompetent because of his intellectual disability and language impairment.
A doctor also said Taylor could not be involuntarily committed because he did not seem suicidal and repeatedly denied any homicidal ideations or any plans to harm jail staff or other inmates.
Okay, so the doctor says that Taylor denied having any homicidal ideation or any plan to harm jail staff or other inmates.
Just to remind you, he tried to kill someone.
Like, he actually did that in real life.
He shot at a person.
But when they asked him if he had homicidal ideations, he said no, and that was good enough to effectively exonerate him.
This is how the system works now, apparently.
You shoot at someone and try to kill them, and then they ask you, are you homicidal?
Well, no, I'm not.
Well, okay then.
Never mind.
To call this outrageous would be a vast understatement.
Now, you've heard some excerpts from the doctor's reports that Judge Dalton relied on.
Here's one of them in more detail.
Dr. Mary Elizabeth Wood, in a forensic report submitted for the case,
declared that quote, "In my opinion, Mr. Taylor does not possess adjudicative competence due to his intellectual
disability and language impairment.
He understands the allegations and recognizes that his liberty interests as the accused are at risk.
He was easily confused with basic questions. There was limited ability to provide his attorney with relevant
information about his case."
Poor guy, he's confused.
He doesn't understand that he should not shoot at a woman and her children.
So, let's just release him back on the street, where he can shoot at more people.
We're led to believe that Judge Dalton had no choice but to accept this kind of utterly insane conclusion.
This guy, who just committed attempted murder, understands the accusations against him, but because he can't grasp some basic questions, he needs to be released.
And there's just no other option, we're told.
That's the official line, anyway, but it doesn't appear to actually be true.
A year ago, a forensic psychologist at Vanderbilt University gave an interview with News Channel 5 in Nashville, and in the interview, the psychologist, a woman named Kimberly Brown, explained that legal standards involved in these decisions about competency also very much involve the judge's discretion.
They have a lot of discretion in this case.
Let's listen to her explain it.
We offer our opinions and recommendations to the court.
It is the judge or the jury who ultimately decides whether the person is insane at the time of the crime, and the judge is the one who ultimately decides whether somebody is competent or not.
But having said that, I do appreciate that experts' opinions and reports hold significant weight, and most of the time, especially with competency, The judge is going to side with the evaluator.
And if we say that they're not competent, fine, that the person is incompetent.
But ultimately, that decision does rest with the judge for competency and judge or jury for the insanity.
Well, that makes a little more sense.
According to this psychologist, the medical experts give their opinions about whether a defendant is competent or not to stand trial.
And although it's not stated in that clip, those same medical experts also make a determination about whether or not the defendant poses a risk to the community.
But ultimately, those medical experts do not dictate what the judge can do.
Judges under the law in the state of Tennessee have some discretion.
Could that be related to the problem here?
Well, let's see.
Judges in Nashville, like judges in so many other urban centers, happen to be committed leftists who are mainly interested in equity.
Dalton is no exception.
As I mentioned, she's a Democrat.
She also recently headlined events about empowering women and increasing, quote, diversity in the profession.
And as it turns out, her ruling on Shaquille Taylor isn't remotely consistent with the rulings of other judges who have accepted guilty pleas from this same guy recently.
Watch.
We took a look at the rest of his criminal history and found two cases in which he was charged with assault and contributing to the delinquency of a minor and in those cases he was able to plead guilty to lesser charges.
So we're now looking into how Taylor was able to plead guilty several times in the past but later deemed mentally incompetent.
Okay, so did you catch that?
If you pull up Taylor's rap sheet, which dates back to 2015, you'll find that he's pled guilty to several serious felonies, including assault, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and other felonies as well.
Those felonies were adjudicated back in 2016.
Judge Dalton Was not the judge in either of those cases.
As far as I can tell from public records, one of those cases was handled by Judge Samuel Coleman.
The other was handled by Judge Casey Moreland.
Both of those judges are Democrats as well.
But in neither of those cases was Taylor determined to be incapacitated.
So his guilty plea took effect.
Now to be clear, Taylor was supposedly disabled from birth due to an infection when he was born.
So there's no conceivable reason to think that he suddenly developed a disability in 2023 that he didn't have in 2016.
The only possible way to explain this discrepancy is that the standard that's operative in these cases is subjective to the point of incoherence.
So criminals like Shaquille Taylor can go in front of some leftist judge who cares about equity and then get out of jail with no punishment, even while other judges have already determined that he is competent enough to accept guilty pleas multiple times during his lengthy career as a criminal.
Speaking of that career, just a few weeks ago, on September 21st, Taylor was arrested in a grocery store parking lot.
This is a whole other crime we're talking about now, just to be clear.
And in this crime, he was arrested in a grocery store parking lot driving a Ford F-150 that had been carjacked a couple days earlier.
Prosecutors charged him with felony auto theft, but then a judge let him out of jail on just a $20,000 bond.
This is after he shot at the mother in her car.
And after he was caught in the stolen F-150.
Of course, Taylor then missed his court appearance and went on to kill a college freshman.
So the point here is that, you know, the system, they didn't just let Taylor slip through the cracks.
No.
The system went out of its way, again and again and again, to ensure that this violent scumbag got back onto the streets as quickly as possible.
These are not people slipping through the cracks.
They are pushed through the cracks.
They are guided through the cracks.
Unsurprisingly, given these consistent failures of left-wing judges to apply the law in a reasonable and just way that values public safety, lawmakers are now suggesting that they're going to change the law, but they're not being very clear about how they're going to do that.
It's been suggested, for example, that we should flag incompetent people on background checks when they go to buy guns at the store, but that's not really going to solve anything.
Neither is making sure they have supervision and mental health care, which has also been proposed.
When incompetent people Shoot at women in their cars with their kids.
Then they need to be removed from society.
Period.
Violent, dangerous people must be taken out of our communities and not returned to them.
Ever.
That is the only solution.
There is no other.
This is why we used to have insane asylums, and that's why we should bring them back in a big way.
But you know, whether a guy like Shaquille Taylor goes to prison or an asylum, frankly, I don't care which, Just get him out of the community.
I don't care where you put him.
As far as I'm concerned, throw him in a cave somewhere for all I care.
Just get him out.
And wherever you put him, he cannot be allowed to endanger innocent, law-abiding, contributing members of society.
That needs to be the number one priority.
So being nice to Shaquille Taylor and trying to help him out, that is by far and away a secondary concern.
The first concern is making sure that this guy cannot harm anybody.
At least that's how it should be.
You know, what we're learning here, as everybody should realize by now, is that, quote-unquote, compassion for criminals is a zero-sum game.
Compassion for them means cruelty to normal, law-abiding citizens.
And I'll say that again, because it's important to understand.
Compassion for criminals is cruelty to the community.
You see, someone has to lose, ultimately.
Either the criminals get a harsh punishment, or they don't.
Okay, but if the criminal doesn't get a harsh punishment, then most of the time, that will mean a harsh punishment is going to be doled out to some innocent third party that had nothing to do with anything.
Jillian Ludwig died because the system prioritized Shaquille Taylor over Jillian Ludwig.
It chose him over her.
Now she is dead, and he's alive.
Compassion for Shaquille Taylor was cruelty to Jillian Ludwig and her family.
The system didn't want to do the ugly, brutal thing, which was to remove Taylor from society permanently.
Whether he understood or not, whether he was competent or not, whether he had a brain infection or not, doesn't matter.
Pull him out of society.
And does that mean he's going to suffer for the rest of his life?
Does that mean he's going to live a very, very difficult, awful life in an asylum or a prison somewhere?
Yes!
Is that an ugly thing?
Yes!
But because it would not do that, instead, it meant that we ended up with a much uglier, much more brutal thing.
We end up with a promising young woman lying dead on the sidewalk with a hole in her skull.
See, that's the choice.
Either punish the guilty or punish the innocent.
You must choose one.
Society has to choose one.
There is no third option.
And to refuse the first option is to choose the second.
It is that simple.
Now, of course, this is not happening just in Nashville.
It's happening in every major city.
We are trading the lives of decent, normal, productive people for the absolute dregs of humanity.
Ludwig was a beautiful young lady, a musician, by all accounts, a loving daughter and sister, the sort of person that you want to have in your community.
Shaquille Taylor is the sort of person nobody wants in their community.
Nobody wants to be around somebody like this.
He contributes nothing, he produces nothing, he helps no one.
He is nothing but a strain on everything and everyone around him, all the time.
Objectively speaking, the world would be a better place if he was not in it.
And yet, he's still here, and Gillian Ludwig is gone.
That was the trade.
It is an explicit, deliberate trade.
Swapping out the best people for the worst.
This is what we're doing in cities all over this country.
It has to stop.
It cannot go on this way.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
With everything going on in the world, there's no better time to build a daily habit of prayer and
meditation.
Building a habit of prayer can help you cultivate an attitude of gratitude.
Focusing on what you're thankful for can increase positive emotions and improve overall well-being.
Howlow is the number one Christian prayer app in the U.S.
It's helped me maintain a daily prayer routine.
It can help you do the same.
Download the app for free at howlow.com.
You can set prayer reminders and track your progress along the way.
Not sure where to start?
Well, check out Father Mike Schmitz's Bible in a Year podcast available on the Hallow app for brief daily readings and reflections, or pray alongside Mark Wahlberg, Jim Caviezel, and even some world-class athletes.
With Hallow, you can customize a personal prayer plan that works for you.
Listen wherever you are with downloadable offline sessions.
Using Howlow to connect with others who share your values and beliefs can provide a sense of belonging, support, and foster a sense of community as well.
Howlow just added a section on their app called Prayers for Peace for Israel, and they have several prayers to help people pray for peace in Israel.
Howlow.com is what you've got to download.
Go to Howlow.com slash Matt Walsh and get an exclusive three months free.
That's three months absolutely free at Howlow.com slash Matt Walsh.
So we began the show yesterday talking about the homelessness crisis, the vagrancy crisis more like it, which is by the way, and I need to be better about this too, but this is the word we should be using, vagrant, which is the word we used to use for what we now call homeless people, but in fact this is vagrancy, these are vagrants.
And we talked about this, Chris, especially in places like San Francisco.
But in San Francisco, as we discussed, they magically found a way to solve the problem, for a few days anyway, as they prepare for a visit from various political leaders and CEOs and, you know, the communist head of China.
Well, yesterday, Gavin Newsom addressed this issue and was, well, shockingly honest.
Let's listen.
I know folks say, oh, they're just cleaning up this place because all those fancy leaders are coming into town.
That's true.
Because it's true.
But it's also true, for months and months and months prior to APEC, we've been having different conversations.
Okay.
It's true.
And it's true because it's true.
I guess that is also true.
But, you know, it's okay though, he says, because yeah, we solved this problem, we cleaned up the streets because of all these fancy rich people are coming into town.
But, you know, that doesn't mean that we don't care about everybody else, because we were having conversations.
So when it comes to cleaning up the street and cleaning the city up for your citizens, the people who live there every day, well, when it comes to that, you'll have conversations.
We'll have a lot of conversations.
We'll engage in all kinds of discussions and conversations and meetings and hearings and everything.
But when it comes to, like, These rich people coming into town.
Well, for that, there's no conversation.
We're just going to get it done.
Now, meanwhile, while we're on this subject, here's something that is likely related to it.
Daily Wire reports California Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom declared a state of emergency over the weekend after a massive fire erupted at a homeless encampment beneath a major freeway near downtown Los Angeles, closing the thoroughfares, now compromised structure indefinitely, and impacting hundreds of thousands of commuters.
The state, quote from a press release from Newsom, The state is mobilizing resources and taking steps to ensure any necessary repairs are completed as soon as possible to minimize the impact on those traveling in and around Los Angeles.
According to the Los Angeles Fire Department, the blaze started around 12.30 a.m.
on Saturday under Interstate 10 and quickly spread to a storage facility filled with pallets, trailers, and vehicles.
Authorities said the flames engulfed both sides of the 14th Street underneath a portion of the freeway, melted steel guardrails, and damaged a number of fire trucks.
And many people have speculated.
David Ortiz, public information officer for LAFD, reportedly said a large homeless encampment with tents and RVs dwelled underneath the freeway where the fire started.
So of course, many people have, I think, Reasonably speculated that the homeless encampment is what started this fire.
Now, it has been declared since then that the fire was set deliberately, that this was a deliberate act of arson.
And maybe it was.
I think it's more likely that it was a deliberate fire, but not necessarily arson.
Because you've got a refugee camp of vagrants under that bridge.
And they've got propane tanks and they're starting fires in their makeshift kitchens and so on.
And so it still seems most likely that this fire was originated from that. It was a deliberate fire
because they're cooking their whatever they're eating and then it spread from there.
And of course, if that's the case, then they'll never tell us.
Because the last thing Newsom needs right now is a major highway shutdown because of a bridge getting set on fire from the out-of-control vagrants that are all over his state.
Politically, that's not what he wants or needs, which is why, if that's what happened, we'll never get the full story or the true story.
Either way, the fact remains that the homeless problem is a crisis, and this is why vagrancy should be illegal.
Like it should not be a legal option to set up an encampment under a bridge or on a sidewalk.
It's crazy that this is even allowed.
It should not be allowed.
It should be against the law.
Which is why, in most cases, if you have a tent and you want to set up your tent somewhere, And you're not a vagrant.
There's all kinds of laws and regulations, and there's only certain places you can go with your tent and set it up.
And you gotta get permits, and you gotta do everything else.
Sometimes you gotta pay to access a campground, and all these kinds of things.
So, in most cases, we all understand that you can't just, like, take a tent and set it up anywhere you want.
Especially not in a public area.
People are trying to walk by.
You can't do that.
Yeah, we've carved out this exception for vagrants.
And, you know, I said this yesterday on Twitter when someone, you know, I said this should be illegal, and someone asked me, as they often do, well, what are the homeless people supposed to do if vagrancy is illegal?
You know, where are they supposed to go?
What are they supposed to do?
And my answer was simple.
My answer to most things are simple, because, as you know, I'm a simple man, and I see simple solutions to problems that most people seem to think are complicated.
And I think most problems actually are not all that complicated.
That doesn't mean that most solutions are easy.
There's a difference between simple and easy.
But most solutions to most problems are simple.
And so, you know, I asked this question.
I said, well, one thing homeless people can do is they can stop doing drugs and they can get a job.
Those are the first two steps that I would personally explore.
And this, of course, provoked a lot of outrage on social media.
How dare I suggest such a thing?
How dare I suggest that it'd be better to not dedicate your entire life to fentanyl and heroin?
You know, how dare I suggest that?
It's an outrageous thing to say.
Lots of comments like that.
Reading just a few of them.
Someone says, all the homeless are doing drugs.
What an effing stereotypic racist.
Someone else says, as a recovering addict, shut the eff up.
Someone else said, I know people who don't do drugs and have been actively applying for months and still nothing.
I think the first step would be to address what's causing people to do drugs and what's causing people to not work.
And someone else said, if you never did drugs and have a job, what then?
Anyway, you get the idea.
First of all, and we have to continue to establish this, the number of sober homeless people Who either have jobs or are actively applying and trying to get one.
That number, it's probably like five in the whole country, if that many, okay?
It's like a non-existent population of sober, homeless people who are really like trying to get a job and it's just, and they're down on their luck and it's not working out.
It's like, it's, you have probably never in your life walked past a homeless person that would fall into that category.
Um, if you are a sober, sane person, there's no legitimate reason why you should be living under a bridge or on a tent on the sidewalk.
It is actually very easy to get a job.
It is very easy to afford some kind of housing.
May not be a very good job.
I didn't say it's easy to get a good job.
May not be very nice housing, but a sober, sane person can find something pretty easily.
Right?
Like, Whoever you are watching this, you could go out right now and you could get 15 jobs in a day.
I mean, you could.
Easily, you get 15 jobs.
Again, they might not be great jobs, but you can get them.
And if you're starting from nothing, now, and there are people, it's not that simple.
Like if you have a family and six kids, you know, myself, I got a mortgage.
If I lose my job tomorrow, it's not like going to McDonald's is not going to help me.
Because it's not going to get even close to paying for everything I need to pay for, right?
So, it's not quite that simple.
I can't just go out and apply for a job and take anything.
It's more complicated.
If you're on the sidewalk, though, if you're living on the sidewalk, and if you have nothing, then anything is better than nothing.
And so, working at McDonald's and living in a crappy studio apartment is a huge step up.
And there's no reason to not take it.
It's a solution.
The fact that the solution is so easy and accessible proves that the homeless, for the most part, are not normal people just down on their luck.
That's not the case for the vast majority of instances.
So, if getting a job is not an option, right?
If you're dealing with homeless people and I say, well, why can't they just get a job?
And you say, well, they can't.
Okay.
Well, that tells us that these people, these are people who are mentally incapacitated, either because they're insane, or because drugs have fried their brains.
And that is true.
That category definitely exists.
That's probably most of them.
A great many of these people, it's true.
For a great many of these people, even getting a job at McDonald's is basically out of the question.
They are not fit even to work at McDonald's, which also means, obviously, That quote-unquote affordable housing is not a solution.
Simply giving them shelter and housing is not a solution.
These are people that, even according to the people that disagree with me, these are people who, they're unfit to work at McDonald's.
They can't even do that.
So you put them in free housing and they'll be back on the street in five minutes.
That's the reality.
Which is why the third step in the solution goes back to what we talked about in the opening.
Which is institutions.
Asylums.
Okay, here's what it comes down to.
Go to any homeless encampment anywhere in the country.
If there's anyone in that encampment who is capable of working at McDonald's, then they should be required to do that.
Go get a job.
Get off the street.
That's the message.
Anyone in that category, go do that.
Anyone who can't do that, That's how you solve the problem.
Okay?
You round them up and you put them in institutions.
Put them in asylums.
asylum for people who are not mentally fit for society.
That's how you solve the problem.
Okay, you round them up and you put them in institutions, put them in asylums, all of
them.
And we can either because that's it.
These people exist, and so they can either be in asylums, which is what we used to do, or they can be on the streets.
Those are the only two options.
Again, going back to the beginning, when you're dealing with a difficult, though not complicated, when you're dealing with a difficult problem, many times the choices are not good.
Like, there is no choice where everything is great and there are roses growing everything and unicorns are flying in the sky.
That choice isn't on the table.
And so when it comes to the homeless problem, there's really two options.
They can be on the street, all over the street, all over our cities, setting bridges on fire and taking dumps on the sidewalk, or they can be in an institution somewhere.
Period.
Those are the two options.
It's got to be one or the other.
And if you're saying, well, we don't want to round them up and put them in asylum, that's a horrible thing to say.
Okay, then what you are saying is you'd rather have them on the street.
And don't tell me that, no, no, no, I want a third option.
There is no third option, you moron.
It doesn't exist.
So I don't want to hear about your third option.
Round them up, put them in asylums, or you leave them on the street.
That's it.
Which one?
You only get two.
We used to put them in asylums, that's why we didn't have homeless all over the street.
Now we don't have asylums anymore and they're all over the street.
It's not hard to connect the dots here.
The mathematical equation is one that even I can solve.
That's it.
That's what it comes down to.
New York Daily News reports, responding to a swell in anti-Semitic hate crimes, New York State will deploy more state cops to the federal Joint Terrorism Task Force office in New York, according to Governor Kathy Hochul.
Hochul, a Buffalo Democrat, directed $2.5 million to the New York State Police to support its plan to embed an additional 10 investigators in the FBI's Counterterrorism Task Force office in order to deal with this problem.
And, you know, all that sounds good.
Obviously, locking up people who commit violent crimes, anyone targeting Jewish people.
Also, we're very focused on the data we're collecting from surveillance efforts.
So that part makes sense.
But then there's also this.
Here's Cathy Hoke, expanding on the plan.
Let's listen.
Also, we're very focused on the data we're collecting from surveillance efforts.
What's being said on social media platforms.
And we have launched an effort to be able to counter some of the negativity and reach out to people
when we see hate speech being spoken about on online platforms.
Our media analysis, our social media analysis unit, has ramped up its monitoring of sites to catch incitement to violence, direct threats to others, and all this is In response to our desire, our strong commitment to ensure that not only do New Yorkers be safe, but they also feel safe.
And there it is, of course, it's, you know, they can't simply say, okay, if there's violent hate crimes, and I don't like the hate crime category period in the first place, I don't think we need it, but as long as we have it, they can't simply say what they should say, which is that if people are committing hate, actual crimes, like physical crimes against somebody else, based on their ethnicity or religion or for any reason, We're going to find those people and punish them and make sure they're not able to hurt anybody else.
That's a good message.
That should be their message.
And they say that, sort of, and then they don't do it.
But then they can never stop there.
It never stops there.
In fact, it's not just that it doesn't stop there.
It's that all of that is just the pretense for what they really want to do, because they don't care.
You think Kathy Hochul cares about violent crime at all?
Whether it's against Jews or anybody else.
No, of course she doesn't care about that.
These are all sociopaths anyway, for the most part, that are running the country in most of these states.
So, they don't really care about that.
What they care, so that's the pretense, and what they really want to get to is what she just said there.
Is, well yes, we want to stop violent crime, but even more than that, we want to stop hate.
And so stopping hate means Effectively stopping speech.
It means punishing speech, and that's what she's describing there.
Which is the bit about monitoring social media for hate speech and countering negativity.
Okay, it shouldn't need to be said that countering negativity is not the government's job.
Negativity, positivity, how people are feeling, their attitude, their tone, that's not the government's job.
Okay, that's like a parent's job.
So, I am the tone police in my house.
I will police my children's tone.
If they have a tone I don't like, they're gonna hear about it from me.
And as parents, we do that with our kids.
Government, they're not our parents, and so we don't need them worried about, well, I don't like your tone.
I don't care if you don't like my tone.
I'm an adult.
There's no law against having a tone you don't like.
Even a hateful tone.
But the real, you get into the real nitty-gritty with the last thing she said there, which is that people have the right to not only be safe, but to feel safe.
And once again, you have the correct statement, which is people have the right to be safe.
They do.
And citizens, law-abiding citizens in a civilized society should have that expectation that they can be safe.
Right, so that's the correct part, but then that's only a pretense for the next part, which is where we go off the rails and she says, not only be safe, but feel safe.
Now, you're right about the first part, which is the part she doesn't really even care about.
Second part, no.
The right to feel safe?
No, you don't have...
I mean, well, I guess you have the right to feel however you want to feel.
No one can stop you from feeling a certain way.
But you don't have the right to have your feelings protected.
You have the right to be physically protected.
But your feelings are... I guess the point is that your feelings exist entirely outside of the realm of rights.
Rights have nothing to do with your feelings one way or another.
You don't have the right to feel safe.
You have the right to be safe, and whether you feel safe or not, if you are safe, and the government is doing its basic job to protect its citizens, to enforce the law, if they're doing that, then they've done their job.
And whether that translates over to your feelings is irrelevant from a legal perspective.
There's nothing we can do about that one way or another.
It's your responsibility to, if you want to be a well-adjusted person, it's your responsibility to bring your feelings in line with reality.
And all that really matters and all the government should care about is the reality.
Are we keeping our citizens safe or not?
Physically safe from actual crime.
They shouldn't be focused on the feelings at all, obviously.
Before we get to the next segment, here's an interesting case from the New York Post.
A Grammy-nominated gospel singer was nearly booted off a Delta flight when she refused to stop performing her new single, which she insisted was just her doing what the Lord is telling me to do.
Detroit-born Bobbi Storm, is her name, featured vocalist in the 2024 Grammy-nominated album The Maverick Way, shared a video of her attempt to sing on the plane And then, so this is, she tries to sing on the plane, perform.
Flight attendant steps in, tells her to shut up and sit down.
She records this interaction because she thinks that she's the good guy in it, obviously.
Well, it's played, and what do you think?
We'll see.
I'm starting right now.
I'm on the billboard.
I can sit down and I'll still, I'll sit down.
I'll sit down.
The seatbelt sign's off.
Steve-O signs off.
It's not a disturbance.
I was like, you know, I haven't done this in a while.
I've gotten to the next status, so... Are you going to be quiet?
But they're enjoying it.
So while we're sitting here, could I please... I'm not enjoying it.
So I'm asking you, can you be quiet?
Okay, well, I'll fine that up.
That's a yes or no answer, please.
Am I going to go to jail if I don't?
Can you please answer my question?
Are you willing and able to be quiet right now?
I'm doing what the Lord is telling me to do.
I'm asking you a question, yes or no.
I'm your flight leader.
I need you to follow my instruction.
Okay.
My instructions are for you to answer my question.
Are you able to be quiet right now?
What do you guys think?
I'm asking you, ma'am.
I'm asking you guys.
What do you guys think?
Okay.
If you're not able to follow my instruction, you will not be taking this flight.
Ah, okay.
So that's what I was asking.
Are you able to be quiet?
If that's the case, then that's fine.
Okay, there's so many things I love about that whole video.
The first one is that she's asked to sit down on the plane and she says, no, it's okay, I'm charting on the billboards.
So she thinks that that's some sort of, maybe she can just walk into the cockpit.
Ma'am, you can't be in here.
It's okay, I'm charting on the billboards.
Everything's fine.
And, uh, but my favorite part is, which is like, it's one of those things that's so great and funny and awkward that you couldn't possibly script it, that, uh, when she's being told to shut up, she turns to the other passengers and says, what do you guys think?
I mean, they're enjoying it.
What do you think guys?
And everyone's just looking like, she was expecting everyone to say, yeah, keep singing, sing what's in your heart.
And nobody wants to hear it.
Of course, I wish someone had said that.
She's lucky that I wasn't sitting there, because I would have said, no, I'm with him, totally, because I am.
I'm totally on the flight attendant side here.
Because to begin with, if I could even consider being on the singer's side in this dispute, which I wouldn't consider it, but to get close to that point, Well, like, that goes out the window the moment you find out that she was trying to sing her own single.
So if you're going to force a captive audience to listen to you sing, then at least sing a classic.
Sing something that everybody knows and can sing along to.
And if you're going the gospel Christian route, then sing like Amazing Grace.
That should be your song.
But you're trying to sing a song that nobody knows and nobody wants to know, which is your own single, which makes it all the worse.
But really, no matter what you're singing, this is, and I made this point before because we've seen other videos where people launch into these, what was it recently?
There's some kind of musical...
There was some kind of like musical theater troupe or something on a plane.
They started performing a whole musical number.
It's a nightmare, a nightmare scenario.
You're 30,000 feet in the air.
You're trapped on this, in this metal tube flying through the sky at 500 miles an hour.
You got nowhere to go.
There's no parachutes.
And you've got them, you get, they're performing musical theater without your consent.
Non-consensual musical performances.
So you see these kinds of videos, and it really doesn't matter what they're singing.
This is the ultimate definition of a captive audience.
They have nowhere to go.
They're on that plane.
No one gets on a plane hoping for a musical performance.
Never.
No one is thinking that.
They're working.
They're trying to sleep.
They're listening to their own playlist.
Forcing them to endure that is, I mean, I think it should be a federal crime.
I don't know what happened to that woman.
I think nothing happened to her.
Because, you know, she went with the program eventually, but I would be, especially considering all the things that are a crime on a plane, I would be totally in favor of making that a federal crime, which is not a surprise.
Because, as you know, I basically want to make everything that I find annoying illegal.
Let's get to, was Walsh wrong?
The October 15th tax deadline has come and gone.
I know many of you might be dreading the stress of filing your taxes.
Filing your taxes can be a long, excruciating process, but if you fail to file, you'll start to pile penalties on your tax debt.
That's why you need to check out Tax Network USA.
The team at Tax Network USA has a track record of success.
They've reduced tax debt for numerous clients, totaling over $1 billion.
Whether you're looking at a $10,000 or a $1 million tax debt,
they can help you with a settlement.
It doesn't matter if you haven't filed in one year, five years, even a whole decade.
Tax Network USA is equipped to secure the best settlement for you.
The expert attorneys and tax professionals at Tax Network USA can help resolve all tax cases,
no matter how they started.
Don't let tax debt control your life any longer.
Take the first step toward resolving your tax issues by visiting TaxNetworkUSA.com slash Walsh.
That's TaxNetworkUSA.com slash Walsh today.
So I've already dealt with a lot of the was-Walsh-wrong comments during the five headlines.
Here's just one more in a similar vein.
This was a message that was sent to me, actually.
It says, Matt, I agree with you about most things, but when it comes to issues like poverty and homelessness, you tend to lapse into pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps boomerisms.
It's not that simple for a lot of people.
Conservatives refuse to recognize that, which is why we lose.
We're seen as clueless and heartless.
I've already kind of dealt with this objection.
I think either, you know, either someone is capable of taking charge of their own life or they're not.
And if they are capable, then we should expect and demand that they do so.
And if they aren't capable, then these are people who are not fit to be wandering around free and unsupervised in society.
They just shouldn't be.
If you are not responsible for your own actions, Then you lose the right to exist freely in society.
It's just the way it goes.
And that's the answer.
Either the homeless are capable of being contributing members of society, or they're not.
And if they're not, then they need to be segregated and institutionalized, like we used to do.
With that said, once we have accounted for the truly mentally incompetent people out there, the clinically insane, people whose brains have been destroyed hopelessly and permanently by chronic drug use, which by the way is a lot of this too, you know, we talk about mental illness among the homeless, and there's, you know, there's certainly plenty of that, schizophrenia and so on, you know, those kinds of very serious mental afflictions, But also a lot of what we call mental illness, you know, maybe that word applies, maybe it doesn't, but it is kind of self-inflicted.
These are people that have just been poisoning themselves with drugs forever, and now they're zombies.
So once we've accounted for all of that, and we kind of have like everybody else in society, Then, at that point, the pull yourself up by your bootstraps message, although it gets a bad rap, is not only correct, but it's also like the only helpful and constructive thing to say to people.
So, anytime you say that to someone, pull yourself up by the bootstraps, I don't think I've verbatim said that phrase because it's a cliche, but yeah, that is my message.
Again, to everyone who is not totally mentally incompetent, to everybody else, yes, a big part of my message is take charge of your own life.
Take responsibility for yourself.
Work, if you're in a spot you don't want to be in, work every second of the day to get yourself out of that spot, i.e., pull yourself up by your bootstraps.
I think that's not only the correct thing, but it's what's the other option?
What else are you going to say to people?
So it's not only a correct message, it's the only helpful message.
It's the only helpful thing to tell people.
Because if you're not saying that, then you're telling them that they're helpless.
And that they don't have control over their lives.
And I know that In this society where we are allergic to the very concept of accountability and being self-reliant, so I know in this society with that kind of cultural sort of wiring, we tend to think that it is incredibly cruel to tell people that they have power over their own lives.
And we think that the most compassionate thing we can say to someone is that they are helpless little flowers, little delicate flowers that can't do anything for themselves.
But the opposite is the case.
That is an incredibly cruel message, lacking in compassion.
Because what is someone supposed to do with that?
I can tell you, Like anyone else, I've had plenty of things in my life that I've struggled with.
I've had situations in life that I've, you know, my own obstacles and like anybody else, like any human on earth, right?
We've all, we all have those things.
And I don't want anyone coming up to me and making excuses for me, you know, on my behalf or saying, well, you can't handle this.
You know, just you can give up and you'd be forgiven.
I don't want to hear that message.
What am I supposed to do with that?
That's the last thing I want to hear.
And I think if anyone does want to hear that message, that only shows all the more that they shouldn't hear it.
Sort of the more that someone recoils at a message of self-reliance, the more obvious it is that they need to hear that message.
So you can call it a boomer or not.
It is in fact what people need to hear.
Black Friday is coming and The Daily Wire has the best deals around starting Monday.
Get 50% off a Daily Wire Plus membership and all kinds of amazing deals on Jeremy's Razors products and tons of merch from our Daily Wire shop.
There's something for everyone.
Go to dailywire.com slash black friday and get the full guide to all of our Black Friday deals.
And don't forget to tune in all next week to find out more.
Remember, these deals start on Monday and run through Cyber Monday, but we will sell out fast, so don't wait.
Get the guide and start checking off your holiday shopping list.
One more time, go to dailywire.com/blackfriday for the best deals of the year.
[MUSIC]
A high school English teacher in Missouri named Brianna Coppage was placed on leave
earlier this month and quickly resigned from her position after, as the media reports put
it, she was outed as a performer on OnlyFans.
And of course, the word outed is doing a lot of work here, so is the word performer.
She is a prostitute, not a performer, and she outed herself when she decided to engage in this behavior on the internet where anyone in the world can see it for a small subscription fee.
I must again remind everyone that you have not been outed when people simply notice what you yourself have decided to post on the Internet.
As soon as something is on the Internet, it is out.
It is as out as a thing can possibly be.
The outing occurred the moment it was posted, and if it was posted by you, then you, again, outed yourself.
That's not how Brianna Coppedge sees it, though she has defended herself to the local media.
Here's what she says.
A former teacher in the metro speaks only to locally to four about being outed for bearing it all.
When that Franklin County woman's OnlyFans page was found, she was pulled from the classroom.
Then, Brianna Coppedge voluntarily resigned, and tonight, only Arshashana Stahl has the first interview with a teacher turned entrepreneurial porn star.
It's just like those connections that I'm going to miss.
Brianna Coppedge started teaching five years ago.
Being there for students, like celebrating milestones with them.
For the last two years, and until resigning earlier this month, she was at St.
Clair High School as an English teacher.
And one reason for her departure?
To make more money.
She started an OnlyFans page, a site that's growing popular across many generations.
On OnlyFans, some offer premium content to build connections with subscribers, such as inspirational speeches, photos, and even adult content.
Okay, time out for a second.
Why are we playing dumb about OnlyFans here?
What are you trying to achieve?
The local CBS affiliate is pretending, for some reason, that people go to OnlyFans for inspirational speeches.
Maybe that's the excuse the reporter's husband gave her when she found out about his subscription to the site.
No, honey, it's not what it looks like.
I'm just subscribed for the inspirational speeches.
It's kind of the new generation's version of, I only read Playboy for the articles.
And that could be where this is coming from.
Or maybe they're just randomly lying about OnlyFans because the media reflexively lies about everything and can't help itself at this point.
In any case, here's what Brianna has to say for herself.
Listen.
Missouri is one of the lowest states in the nation for teacher pay.
And then the district I was working for is also one of the lowest paying districts in the state.
Coppedge says her yearly teaching salary was $42,000.
When she started OnlyFans, she avoided showing her face because of her job as a teacher.
A lot of people asking, why don't you just get like a part-time job somewhere?
But teachers also take all of their work home.
Like, we don't get to stop working when we leave the school day.
We don't get to grade all 130 students' papers during the day.
It's just not possible when you're teaching.
So we take that work home with us on the evenings, on the weekends.
So getting a second job is just really not possible.
The St.
Clair School District said in a statement it was notified of the posts by an individual not affiliated with the school.
The statement goes on to say the district immediately retained legal counsel for assistance due to the sensitivity of the matter and to protect the integrity of the investigation.
Our handbook policies are very vague and they just say something about like represent yourself well.
Did I violate that?
I feel like that's a matter of opinion.
Yes, ma'am, you did violate that.
It's actually not vague at all.
I suppose there could be some gray area in the represent yourself well category, but when you start selling your body on the internet, you have definitely crossed over the line.
Not just crossed it, but you've trampled it into dust.
Becoming an OnlyFans prostitute is the very definition of not representing yourself well.
If the district needs to clarify that section of the handbook, then they should do it by adding a picture of Breonna Coppedge.
A fully clothed picture, just to be clear.
Rihanna defends her decision to become, as the news anchor puts it, an entrepreneurial porn star by saying that she makes a lot of money doing it.
Which I'm sure she does.
But the problem is that, I make a lot of money doing this, is the worst possible moral justification for anything.
Many of the bad things people do, they do because they make money doing it.
But we don't accept that as an excuse.
If someone says, you know, accuses you of engaging in objectionable and immoral behavior, and you respond, but I make a lot of money doing it, they generally aren't going to say, oh, OK, well, never mind then.
I mean, obviously it's totally acceptable in that case.
I just want to make sure that you weren't behaving in a disgusting and shameful way for free.
But as long as you're making money, then never mind.
Carry on.
That's not how the conversation goes.
That's because we know you're doing it for money and attention and validation, but that doesn't make it better.
Now, if this story sounds familiar, it's because a version of this story plays out seemingly like once a week now.
Before Breonna Coppedge, it was a woman named Annie Knight who made some headlines after getting fired from her corporate marketing job after starting an OnlyFans page.
Before her, it was Kristen McDonald.
Who's the special needs teaching assistant who was fired after her OnlyFans activities were discovered.
And it's not just teachers and employees in the corporate world getting fired for this.
A while ago, a female mechanic at a Honda dealership in Indiana was also fired from her job when she began dabbling in the entrepreneurial porn business.
And so this sort of thing happens frequently, and for the most part, these women, when they're fired, are treated as martyrs by the media.
But they are not martyrs.
It goes without saying, or should go without saying, that all of these women deserve to be fired.
Your employer is concerned not just with your behavior at work, but also with your behavior outside of work, if it reflects poorly on them or causes difficulties in the workplace.
Your employer has a right to take those kinds of things into consideration, which means that if you become a prostitute in your free time, you should absolutely lose your job.
Most people don't want to work with or around prostitutes.
And your employer doesn't want to employ prostitutes.
It's disgraceful and dirty and disgusting and embarrassing.
This is obviously especially the case if you're a teacher, but it applies no matter your occupation.
And yes, as established, OnlyFans is prostitution.
As I've been arguing for years, all pornography is prostitution.
To be a prostitute is to sell your body for money.
And that's what everyone in the porn industry is doing.
It's what everyone on OnlyFans is doing.
It's what a hooker on the street corner is doing.
There is no moral difference or even any significant practical difference between any of these categories.
But with OnlyFans, as opposed to what I guess we must call traditional internet porn, this equivalency is the most obvious.
You know, that OnlyFans is like the most direct parallel with being a hooker on street corner.
Which is also why OnlyFans should obviously be banned.
Now, I think all pornography should be banned, but if we have to go about this incrementally, then OnlyFans is a very good place to start.
You know, the tragedy of OnlyFans, and this is not to say that these women are victims of their own choices, because these are their choices, but the tragedy is that nearly all of these OnlyFans prostitutes would not be prostitutes if OnlyFans didn't exist.
These, like, soccer moms and English teachers and corporate professionals, they wouldn't ever even consider going out to the street corner to turn tricks, nor would they go looking for a gig at the strip club down the street.
What they're doing on the site is morally and substantively, and should be considered legally, the same, because there's no real distinction, but the presence of the screen, the fact that it's all done in cyberspace, makes it feel different.
It allows prostitutes to feel like they are not prostitutes.
And that's why they're invariably shocked when they end up getting fired from their respectable jobs.
I don't think that shock is like a put-on.
They aren't pretending to be surprised.
They really bought into the lie of OnlyFans, and of the internet pornography business as a whole, and believed that because they were doing this on the internet, it somehow didn't count in the real world.
OnlyFans makes a life of prostitution accessible for people who would never consider it otherwise.
Now, that's not to say that Brianna and all the Brianna Coppages of the world would be virtuous, chaste, dignified women if not for OnlyFans.
It's only to say that they would not be call girls, whoring themselves out for $10 a month.
OnlyFans makes that possible in a unique way, which is why it should not be allowed to exist.
It is a universal negative.
It hurts everybody involved in it.
It harms society.
It can only cause harm.
There is no counterbalancing good being done by it.
Prostitution is already illegal in 49 out of 50 states.
The question is whether there should be this carve-out, this special privilege granted to internet prostitution.
But why should there be?
Why is there?
In fact, internet prostitution has a more deleterious effect because of its accessibility and its ubiquity.
Because it's the one kind of prostitution that a bored soccer mom would actually engage in.
So if we're only banning one type of prostitution, the in-person or internet variety, obviously it should be the latter.
But instead we ban the former, and the latter is legal and virtually unregulated.
