The Matt Walsh Show - This Week's Top 5 Most Clicked Stories

Nov. 21, 2025 - The Matt Walsh Show

01:22:08

This Week's Top 5 Most Clicked Stories

A Michigan man faces years in prison for defending his home, Tucker Carlson reveals some new details about Thomas Crooks, Dearborn, Michigan becomes an Islamic capital, a tweet that did not age well, and the real reason why movies are failing. Segments 11/18 Headline 2 11/18 Headline 3 11/19 Main story 11/19 Cancel 11/20 Main story - - - Privacy Policy: https://www.dailywire.com/privacy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	New daily shows from the most trusted voices in conservative media.
	Uncensored, ad-free, and available an hour before you can see or hear them anywhere else.
	More new series that capture conviction, courage, and the human story.
	More documentaries that challenge the culture and expose what's really happening.
	And when we say premium, we're proving it with the long-awaited seven-part epic series, The Pendragon Cycle, Rise of the Merlin.
	The legend begins streaming January 22nd, 2026, exclusively on Daily Wire Plus.
	All access members get early access to episodes one and two at Christmas Day.
	50% off Black Friday is our biggest sale of the year.
	It only happens once a year.
	When it's gone, it's gone.
	Go to dailywire.com/slash subscribe and join now.
	The news cycle can be really hard to follow these days.
	It can feel impossible to stay up to date every day.
	So that's why I decided to make things easier by bundling together this week's top five stories and releasing them every Friday.
	The goal of this episode is to help you catch up on what you may have missed this week.
	So with that, here are this week's top five stories.
	All right.
	Here's a story we haven't had a chance to talk about yet.
	The New York Post reports, a Michigan man fatally shot a teen who broke into his garage and is now facing a manslaughter rap, sparking controversy over the state's stand-your-ground law.
	Sivon Wilson, 17, was with six other mainly teenagers when the group broke into Dayton Napton's garage in White Lake shortly after 1 a.m. on July 8th.
	Napton, 24, got an alert from his home security system, grabbed a nine millimeter gun, ran outside, fired two shots into the garage through a windowless door, striking Wilson, according to prosecutors.
	As the group fled, Napton fired five more shots before going back into his house, reloading his gun, and returning outside.
	Wilson's father, Sean Madden, said Sivon was running away and got shot.
	Another teenager in the group also was shot in the leg.
	White Lake Township, police officers responded to the scene after being notified of two victims with the bullet wounds, with bullet wounds in Conrad's Township.
	He faces up to 15 years behind bars for the top charge.
	But Sivon's family said they want Napton charged with murder.
	Doesn't make sense that it wasn't done out of malice and for them to charge him with manslaughter when everything in the report suggested was malicious intent, said Wilson's sister, Armani Madden.
	And meanwhile, a defense attorney says that, as you would expect, that this is all, this is that he didn't do anything wrong, and that also mentioning that there had been other break-ins at Napton's house before.
	Okay, so just to review: a guy in Michigan, Dayton Nampton, was the victim of multiple burglaries, apparently.
	Cops didn't do anything.
	Nobody cared.
	No one's helping.
	And then one night, about 1 a.m., Sivon Wilson and his buddies break into Napton's garage.
	He runs out, tired of being a victim, right?
	Tired of having his stuff stolen, tired of being helpless, fires through the door of the garage, fires a few more times as the criminals are fleeing.
	Wilson is killed by one of the bullets.
	It's not clear to me from that write-up if he was killed.
	It says he was hit through the door, and then it says he kept firing as they were running away.
	Was he killed from the initial shot through the door, or was he killed with another shot when he was running away?
	Maybe that is known, but I didn't see it in the article.
	Regardless, now the same judicial system that had no interest in helping this law-abiding citizen who was the victim of property theft a number of times will instead try to throw him in prison and destroy his life.
	So this is happening to him.
	He goes to the cops and says, Can you do something?
	They say, no, we can't really do anything.
	And then he says, okay, well, I guess I have to do something, or otherwise I'm just going to get stolen.
	Otherwise, I'm just going to be a victim every day for the rest of my life.
	And now the system comes back around and says, oh, well, you weren't supposed to do that, though.
	So guess what?
	Your life is ruined.
	And meanwhile, If this had gone the other way and Sivon Wilson had killed Dayton Napton in the process of robbing his house, he would not get 15 years in prison for that.
	And we all know that.
	Especially at 17, he would have been out by the time he was like 25.
	He would have gotten like seven or eight years in prison.
	And so there's going to be a stiffer penalty for Dayton Napton for killing a burglar than there would have been if the burglar killed him.
	That's the world we live in.
	And needless to say, I find this all to be horrendously unjust.
	I am entirely on Dayton Napton's side with no reservation at all.
	How could you not be?
	I mean, what kind of twisted freak would you have to be to want to put this guy away in jail for 15 years for trying to protect his own property?
	Now, unfortunately, I'm afraid that he may end up with 12 of those twisted freaks on his jury.
	I mean, who knows?
	But we'll see.
	And I don't want to hear, oh, but he shot through the door.
	He kept firing as they ran away.
	Okay, so, and I don't want to hear any, well, you know, normally, but he took it a little too far.
	He was kept firing.
	So?
	I mean, he doesn't know what they're doing.
	They could be running to get a gun, right?
	They could have a gun stash somewhere.
	They could be trying to run in different, just multiple people.
	They could be running in different directions to try to surround him.
	They could be doing anything.
	He doesn't know.
	He has no idea.
	All he knows is that there are multiple criminals on his property at 1 a.m.
	And he knows they're criminals because they broke into his into his garage.
	So by definition, they're criminals.
	So that's all he knows.
	He knows that it's one o'clock in the morning.
	There are multiple, there's a gang of criminals on my property.
	They've broken in, and that's all I know.
	And so I need to stop them with whatever means I have available to me.
	The idea that it's the onus, like the onus is on the homeowner to show restraint in order to preserve the lives of people who have broken into his property in the middle of the night, that is just pure madness to me.
	I mean, the full benefit of the doubt should go to the homeowner, the victim of the crime.
	Full benefit of the doubt.
	Now, I admit that I'm extreme when it comes to this.
	I admit that.
	Like, if it were up to me, you would essentially have carte blanche to respond however you see fit to somebody who breaks into your house.
	If it were up to me, legally, you would, it's just like, well, okay, you handle that literally however you want.
	They came into your house to take your property.
	They came into your house with sinister intent.
	And, you know, if it were up to me and I'm in charge of, and, you know, I'm making the laws, it's like, okay, well, I'm, I don't know.
	I don't ask, don't tell.
	That's you, you handle that however you want to handle it.
	Now, I'm not saying that you have moral carte blanche necessarily.
	There are things you could do conceivably in that scenario that would be immoral.
	But as a matter of law, if it were up to me, the law would be simple.
	Break into someone's home and whatever happens to you next is your fault.
	We're not getting involved.
	Okay.
	The law isn't intervening to protect you when you decided to break into somebody's house.
	So if you, you know, if you ended up like kidnapped in the basement or something, if you stumbled into a horror movie scenario, okay, if you, if you made a mistake and broke into the house of a horror movie villain, sorry about your luck.
	If it were up to me, you call the cops and you say, I'm trapped in this basement.
	There's a guy with a ski mask and a, and a, you know, it's like a Stephen King.
	And then we would say, well, how did you get in the basement?
	Oh, I broke in.
	Okay, well, Click.
	All right, well, better figure out your way out of that, out of that bind.
	Probably shouldn't have broken into the house.
	What are we going to do?
	Send the cops to rescue you?
	We're going to put them in harm's way because you decided to break in?
	Sorry, no.
	Some lessons you learned a hard way, son.
	But I'm extreme, I admit.
	I mean, if it were up to me, if someone broke into your house and you like enslaved them and made them do your laundry and wash your dishes, the law would not intervene.
	I mean, that would be wrong morally.
	Don't get me wrong.
	You should not enslave burglars.
	I'm not, to be clear, I'm not morally defending that.
	I'm saying the law just would not get involved.
	Full-on Wild West situation for people who enter your home or your property illegally.
	Full on Wild West is what is what, if it were up to me, that's what it would be.
	Extreme.
	I'm not in charge, so the law doesn't quite work that way, I realize.
	And yet, even under the current law, under the current law, I still think this guy should not be facing any prison time and should not have been charged at all.
	He was reacting in the moment, protecting his property in reasonable fear for his life.
	No debate about that.
	Okay, he shouldn't even need to prove, well, can you prove you're in reasonable fear?
	Yeah, they're on my property.
	It's one o'clock in the morning.
	Okay, there's a gang of people on my property one o'clock in the morning.
	I'm in fear for my life.
	Automatically.
	So, of course, as anybody would be.
	So, fear for your life, person's on your property that don't belong there.
	And he's acting in defense of himself and his property in a reasonable way.
	And you could say, well, he should have stopped shooting.
	He fired three more shots than he should have.
	Okay, whatever.
	I mean, benefit of the doubt in this case.
	And don't tell me that, well, they have no choice.
	The law is the law.
	Like, even if I agreed that the law in Michigan makes it so that technically, you know, like technically he violated the law in Michigan, which I'm not convinced of that.
	But even if I agreed with that, so what are you talking about?
	The court system all the time decides to go easy on people, decides to give them a second chance, right?
	Is empathetic, is compassionate, says, well, let's understand it from there.
	Yeah, they broke, they broke the law.
	Yeah, they carjacked, but hey, you know, they had a hard life or whatever.
	The court system does that all the time.
	So for once, why can't that go the other way?
	For once, why can't they that go?
	Why can't that be applied to an actual law-abiding person who you would want living in your neighborhood?
	That should be the test.
	Would anyone, if they were to just let this guy off the hook, would anyone feel nervous about having this guy living next to you?
	I wouldn't.
	Why would you?
	Just like, don't, I mean, are you planning to break into his house?
	I mean, if you're planning on that, then I'd be nervous about it, but mind your own damn business.
	Stay out of the guy's house unless you were invited and you got nothing to worry about.
	In fact, I'd prefer to live next door to someone who's willing to use deadly force on burglars.
	I'm willing to.
	I'd like to have as many people in the neighborhood as possible that I know are willing to do that.
	Because you know what happens next?
	This neighborhood's not getting burglarized anymore.
	Okay, the burglars are going to go elsewhere.
	They're not coming here.
	And so that's the way that I would look at this.
	And also, look, people are just people are fed up with being victims.
	It's as simple as that.
	They're just fed up with it.
	Okay, before we get to the cancellation, here's something, something from the entertainment industry.
	Lighten the mood a bit.
	New York Times headline, 25 movies, many stars, zero hits.
	Hollywood falls to new lows.
	And the article says, some were heavily marketed.
	Many were championed by critics.
	Most had star power, but not one of the 25 dramas and comedies that movie companies released in North America theaters over the past three months has become a hit.
	Certainly not in the way that Hollywood has historically kept score.
	Some have played to near-empty auditoriums, including After the Hunt starring Julia Roberts, Christie with Sidney Sweeney, and Die My Love featuring Jennifer Lawrence and Robert Pattinson.
	To succeed in theaters today, dramas and comedies must have event status, something truly elevated and special, said Kevin Goetz, an author of the new book, How to Score in Hollywood, which looks at film bankability.
	And then it goes on.
	While success of box office is always correlated to how much it costs to make a film, Hollywood has historically used $50 million in ticket sales over an entire run as a benchmark for a widely seen drama or comedy.
	By that measure, After the Hunt is a catastrophe.
	It cost an estimated $70 million to make and collected $3.3 million.
	And then there's this Jennifer Lopez one that cost $30 million and brought in $1.6 million in ticket sales over a month, which is very low.
	So Hollywood films are flopping all over the place.
	And it feels like you've heard this story before because you have.
	This is a trend that's been noticeable for years, but it seems to be worse now than ever.
	Is this the beginning of the end for Hollywood?
	Is this the end of the end?
	Is it not just the beginning?
	Is it actually the end?
	Kind of seems like it.
	And I will say that I differ from, I think, a lot of conservatives on this in that that's not something that I celebrate necessarily.
	I know a lot of conservatives are happy when they see articles like this.
	Hollywood is falling.
	They're happy about it.
	I understand why.
	I share the sentiment at some level.
	Okay.
	So it's like, I get it, but I can't really see it as a win because I think what comes after it will be a lot worse.
	That's the problem.
	I think what comes after, once the movie business is finished, the movie business as we have known it, you know, for the past 80 or 90 years or whatever, once that's over, and I think it basically is, I mean, it almost is.
	Whether or not that's a good thing really depends on, okay, well, what replaces it, what comes after it.
	And I think that what comes after Hollywood, what comes after the entertainment industry is not anything better.
	It's really just an endless stream of content on your phone.
	I mean, that's what actually has replaced the movie business.
	Your phone, random videos and content on your phone.
	As we've talked about, the atomized fractured culture instead of the mono culture.
	So that's what comes next.
	And all the endless pages, all of the proverbial ink being spilled over this question of what happened to Hollywood?
	Why is it falling?
	Why is it failing?
	You know, it's really this.
	It's not the quality of the film mainly.
	It's not wokeness, right?
	That is part of the problem.
	I mean, that hasn't helped, but it's not really that.
	It's actually just the phone, right?
	It's like, it's the box that we all carry around and we're just looking at it all day.
	Like, that's really why.
	And I would take Hollywood over the endless scroll.
	I would take the movie business over just the people sitting there doing this all day on their phones, just staring at nothing.
	Okay.
	I would take, I don't think that that's better.
	I really don't.
	I think it's better to watch a bunch of mindless Hollywood popcorn flicks than spend all day just drooling while you stare at whatever the algorithm feeds you.
	So that's one thing.
	And, you know, so we've, like I said, we've talked about the death of monoculture.
	Everything is consumed by phones and algorithms and that's what's happening.
	And any analysis of this that overlooks that point is overlooking the point.
	I will say, though, there's another factor, one other factor.
	It's not the biggest, but not the smallest either.
	And if we're talking about the box office specifically, if we're talking about theaters, there is one other thing killing the box office, killing movie theaters, and that is the quality of the experience.
	And I don't even just mean the films.
	I mean the actual experience of the theater itself has declined dramatically.
	I mean, anecdotally, I have the same anecdotal experience a lot of people do, which is I don't go to movies nearly as much these days as I used to.
	Part of that is because there's not as many movies I'm interested in.
	Part of that is because I'm older now and I got a million kids and everything going on.
	But also, you know, on the rare occasion when we go, sometimes you go and the experience is just ruined.
	It's like, it's a miserable experience.
	And you're thinking, like, I should have just watched this at home.
	Just wait, wait, wait three weeks and it'll be out on Netflix or something.
	I'll watch it there.
	The experience has declined in the same way that the experience of flying on a plane has declined, going out to eat.
	It's the same thing that killed malls.
	You know, everyone says the internet killed shopping malls, but that's not entirely true.
	That was part of it.
	But what malls were all already on the way out because the experience of going to them was not, it was just not a fun experience anymore.
	I mean, again, I have the same anecdotal experience a lot of people do.
	I remember growing up, we had a mall we used to go to and it was a family, family-friendly, you know, you'd go and you eat lunch there and you go to the arcade and you'd check out some of the shops and stuff.
	And it was kind of a, you know, you'd hang out there for like hours.
	It was a thing people did back in the early 90s and before that.
	And then in this case, they built a metro stop.
	They built a subway stop right next to the mall.
	And next thing you know, the mall is now, shall we say, urbanized.
	And now there was this friendly, family-friendly mall.
	And now there's drugs and there's shootings in the parking lot.
	And it's just not a place you want to bring your kids anymore.
	And it was just destroyed.
	There's this nice thing that people like to go and do.
	And it was fun for the community.
	And it was just ruined.
	It was just ruined.
	And so many things like that.
	So I think it's a similar sort of scenario.
	On top of that, social etiquette in general has declined.
	Everyone is afraid to enforce the rules.
	You know, audiences are obnoxious and loud and rude.
	And the funny thing is that everyone says that ticket prices are too high and that's what's killing the movie theaters.
	And yeah, at some level, I get that.
	It is way too much.
	But you could also argue that the way to save the movie theaters is to go the other way now, to make movies even more expensive.
	Like get to a price point where the only people who will buy the tickets are the ones who actually want to sit down quietly and watch the damn movie.
	You know, raise ticket prices another 100% and it'll be way too expensive.
	It already is.
	But at least then you can be pretty sure that, okay, like no one is going to take the, is going to buy this ticket and then sit down and be on their phone.
	No one is going to go in there with a whole group and be loud, obnoxious.
	But I'll tell you what the problem isn't, as I've already referenced here.
	The problem is not the quality of the films.
	And I know that that's the standard conservative response.
	Well, they just don't make movies like they used to.
	And I agree with that.
	I mean, I'm the one who's talked about how the movie industry peaked in 20 years ago, and I believe that that's true.
	So I don't think that the quality, I think that the quality has declined, but I don't think that's the reason.
	Because, and this is like the uncomfortable truth that we, I mean, that's, it kind of lets us off the hook as an audience if we can say, oh, yeah, well, you know, we just demand better quality content, right?
	Well, but we really don't.
	And here, here's my proof.
	So I saw this yesterday.
	This is the teaser, and we're not going to play fully, but it's like just 10 seconds.
	So the teaser for the live action adaptation of Moano just came out yesterday, I guess.
	And people are very excited, I suppose.
	Here's a few seconds of it.
	And the girl who loves the sea.
	It cools me.
	Okay, so that's already, whatever.
	Okay, fine.
	So a few things about this live action adaptation of Wanda.
	First of all, it's not live action.
	Almost the whole thing is animated.
	You know, almost the whole thing is CGI.
	There are like two human characters.
	And you can already tell, if you watch the preview, it's like a minute, but you can tell that maybe two human characters, the rest is CGI.
	Everything.
	Now, I mean, that's how they make the, even the water and the trees.
	Okay, if you see a shot of, oh, they're standing on a hilltop and there's grass.
	Even that is CGI.
	They're going to CGI a hill with grass.
	They're going to CGI everything, everything.
	So it's a live action adaptation, but it's not live action.
	It's actually basically a cartoon.
	So this is a remake of a movie that came out nine years ago.
	They're remaking a movie that I took my 12-year-old daughter to see when she was three in theaters.
	So this is very, very recent.
	It is so recent that there are kids who will have seen both the original and the remake in theaters before they graduate elementary school.
	Okay, you'll have fourth graders watching this and reminiscing about seeing the original film way back in the day when they were in preschool.
	You know, they'll lean over to their younger friend in the theater and say, I remember, I remember many moons ago sitting in that exact seat watching the original film all those years ago.
	I think it was Humphrey Bogart was Maui, I believe.
	So it's very recent is my point.
	And they just put out like a sequel last year.
	This is a remake of a nine-year-old movie, which has never been done before, as far as I know.
	A remake that quick.
	This is a shot-for-shot remake of an animated film that just came out.
	And the remake itself is also mostly animated.
	So this is the least inventive, least creative, most uninspired thing Hollywood has ever done.
	And it will make $90 billion at the box office.
	And we all know it.
	Okay.
	It will earn more than like the GDP of Nigeria at the box office on the first day.
	It'll be a smash hit.
	I wish I could say that, oh yeah, it's going to flop.
	It's not.
	I mean, it's going to be huge.
	So we all say that the box office is failing because Hollywood puts out low effort slop.
	And yet, well, the low effort slop is the only thing that anyone will go see.
	The low effort slop earns billions of dollars.
	Actually, the movies that are flopping for the most part are original films.
	Everyone says, oh, Hollywood doesn't make original films.
	Well, they actually still do.
	It's just that no one sees them.
	Nobody will go watch those movies.
	No one will go see the movie unless it's a sequel, remake, right?
	A franchise thing.
	And that's just the truth of it.
	So, you know, a lot of blame to go around on this thing, I guess, what I would say.
	If you didn't see Tucker Carlson's recent segment on Thomas Crooks, the 20-year-old man who nearly assassinated Donald Trump live on national television during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania last year, there are a few important revelations that you should know about.
	The first revelation, which is not remotely controversial, is that the FBI has clearly been hiding relevant facts about Thomas Crooks from the general public.
	And by itself, that is a national scandal that justifies completely gutting the FBI from the highest levels on down.
	Even if you firmly believe that Thomas Crooks was a lone gunman, and even if you believe the Secret Service was merely incompetent as opposed to complicit, the fact remains our government has been withholding important details about the assassination attempt on Donald Trump's life without any justification whatsoever.
	Now, we should not have to rely on Tucker Carlson or any podcaster to tell us that Thomas Crooks, for example, left a lengthy trail of comments on YouTube in which he openly called for political violence for several years.
	These calls were so overt, so disturbing that one user wrote in response to Crooks, quote, you're on YouTube threatening to shoot government officials.
	I sure hope the FBI is monitoring social media for violent nutcases.
	Now, it's almost too on the nose to be real, but that comment is still available on YouTube to this day.
	Thomas Crooks' account has been suspended and all of his comments have been hidden.
	They're only accessible using the Internet Archive website, but the replies are still there.
	And yet, more than a year after the assassination attempt in Butler, we have to rely on Tucker to tell us about any of this, which is completely, overwhelmingly, unequivocally unacceptable.
	It should not fall to anyone in the media to tell us what Thomas Crooks was saying online and how people were reacting to his comments.
	We shouldn't have to rely on podcasters to tell us that Thomas Crooks decided sometime during the COVID lockdowns to completely reverse his political views and to begin openly attacking Donald Trump and his administration on social media.
	And we certainly shouldn't have to rely on podcasters to tell us that Crooks was in contact with a mysterious person who remains unidentified beyond the online alias Willie Tepes, who openly encouraged Crooks to commit acts of violence, which you can see there.
	At one point, Willie Tepas wrote to Crooks, quote, authority obviously comes from the barrel of a gun.
	We have more guns than they do.
	There is no way we can avoid a war at this point, so you better just get used to the idea.
	Now, in common parlance, this is known as Fed posting.
	Willie Teppis is almost being too obvious about it.
	He understands that Thomas Crooks is a radical who's prone to violence.
	He sees that Crooks is posting about acts of violence against political officials.
	And Crooks wrote at one point that even the White House could be overwhelmed if enough Americans took up arms.
	And Willie Teppis is aware of all this.
	And instead of expressing concern, he encourages Crooks to go to war.
	Now, is it possible that this is just some random internet troll?
	Yeah.
	It's also possible that Willie Tepis was working with a government agency or a terror cell, either in this country or some other country, to groom potential assassins.
	In fact, given how weird Willie's comments were, and to be clear, he replied to Crooks multiple times.
	It seems very likely that he was trying to groom Thomas Crooks.
	So what has the FBI done to investigate this, to investigate Willie Teppis?
	What have they done to figure out his identity?
	Why is Tucker's show the first time, literally the first time that anyone in this country has heard the name Willie Tepis?
	That is inexcusable for about a million different reasons.
	It's not the FBI's job to determine what information is worth sharing to the public or what information they deem is important.
	When it comes to the near assassination of the leading presidential candidate, no detail is irrelevant.
	If Thomas Crooks went bowling every week, we should know that.
	If Thomas Crooks loved the film Goodwill Hunting, we should know that.
	And certainly, if he was in regular communication with an anonymous person who sounded a lot like a Fed, encouraging him to commit acts of violence, we should know that too.
	I mean, at the very least, we should know something about this guy.
	But if the feds had their way, we wouldn't know anything at all.
	And that's what we knew, nothing until this week.
	Now, on top of that, beyond the transparency issues, it would obviously help the government's investigation to raise awareness about these posts.
	You know, maybe someone somewhere knows who Willie Tepis is.
	And as long as Willie Teppis isn't the alias for a CIA agent or something like that, then you'd think your government would want someone to come forward and identify him immediately.
	But that's not possible if they bury his identity and all information about him, which is what they've done.
	Then there's the fact that Crooks' PayPal account, for one reason or another, uses the name of an ex-FBI agent who worked in Pennsylvania and who investigated the Las Vegas mass shooting, the one where no motive has ever been established.
	What exactly is going on there?
	We have no idea because again, this is the first time anyone's hearing about any of this.
	Our government, under both the Biden administration and the Trump administration, made the conscious decision to hide all this information from us.
	The only reason we're hearing about it now is that a random source got in contact with Tucker Carlson's team and tipped him off to Crooks' online history.
	And because this information remains uncontested by the FBI several days after Tucker Carlson's broadcast, we can assume that it's all true.
	So let's pause for a minute here and zoom out.
	Let's really think about what's happening.
	Okay, this is the official narrative.
	Last summer, Thomas Crooks, supposedly an untrained 20-year-old guy with an angry, inconsistent social media history, managed to outwit the Secret Service, gain access to a roof 500 feet away from Donald Trump.
	And he wasn't particularly subtle about it.
	I mean, as you can see here in the videos that we've all seen, he was clearly visible running across the rooftop as Trump spoke, but the Secret Service didn't notice him.
	Even though random attendees in the crowd were suspicious, they noticed it, notified law enforcement.
	Somehow the Secret Service didn't have anyone on the roof because it was too sloped, we were told.
	And somehow the Secret Service counter snipers couldn't see any of this.
	They only shot Thomas Crooks after he unloaded several shots at Donald Trump, including a shot that hit Trump in the head.
	And coincidentally enough, the rally in Butler was the first time that the Secret Service had deployed counter snipers to a Trump rally during the 2024 campaign season.
	So yes, the Secret Service snipers made their debut at the Butler rally just in time to neutralize Thomas Crooks after he got his shots off.
	So in a very tidy fashion, Thomas Crooks was quickly erased from the picture.
	Nobody could question him.
	Nobody could put him on trial.
	And then a funny thing happened.
	No one really investigated Thomas Crooks.
	No one told us anything about his social media posts, his political views, beyond the claim that he was a Trump supporter, which was false.
	It took more than a year for us to learn that, in fact, Thomas Crooks was openly promising to commit violence on social media and that someone was encouraging him to do that.
	But the story gets even more strange from here.
	Less than 48 hours after Tucker's reporting, out of nowhere, the New York Post published this exclusive information, quote, Thomas Crooks used they them pronouns and posted threats of political violence and violent art on his secret social media accounts before he attempted to assassinate President Trump, according to sources who shared the suspected messages with the Post.
	Crooks had two possible accounts on DeviantArt, a site that hosts fan art, has become notorious for its community of furries, people who identify as anthropomorphized animal characters and or are sexually attracted to them.
	One of the deviant art accounts linked to Crooks shared just one post, a repost of a towering muscular female bodybuilder and a slight man in his underwear.
	Separately, the post Miranda Devine reported that Crooks, quote, had an obsession with scantily clad cartoon characters sporting muscle-bound male bodies and female heads.
	Okay, so this seems to be a clear-cut case of yet another psychologically disturbed mass shooter, someone who has been indoctrinated into the LGBT cult, and then turning to violence, which is not a particularly surprising development.
	As I've said repeatedly, the LGBT cult is the single greatest domestic terror threat that this country faces, hands down.
	I mean, in just the past few years, trans-identifying terrorists have shot up multiple Christian churches and schools.
	Quote-unquote non-binary mass shooters have targeted high schools and bars.
	A leftist living with a furry trans person assassinated Charlie Kirk in front of thousands of people.
	And now we have this.
	Put simply, trans extremism, LGBT extremism is an epidemic.
	And the pattern of trans and quote-unquote non-binary violence, you know, is not at all surprising, even though the media tries to cover it up.
	I mean, any man who identifies as a woman or as a they them is mentally unstable and confused by definition.
	It seems nearly certain that all these people were on psychiatric meds.
	A lot of them were probably on hormones.
	So there's connections there that could be drawn.
	There's more we could be investigating there.
	And there's another common theme here as well, which is that all of these violent LGBT shooters probably develop their gender identity from consuming hundreds of hours of porn.
	I mean, that's the other commonality that you find with these types of things.
	The gender stuff is the product of extreme nihilism and extreme perversion.
	And a steady long-term diet of pornography turns anyone into a nihilist pervert.
	And it's not a far leap to get from that to murderer.
	Especially if you have mysterious people in your comments saying, hey, maybe you should rise up and go to war against the government.
	That's why it's not exactly shocking to hear that Thomas Crooks was also a member of the they them cult who regularly consume various degenerate forms of media.
	I mean, at this point, you almost expect the investigation to uncover something like this.
	Thomas Crooks is yet another violent LGBT linked killer to add to a very disturbing and fast-growing list.
	Now, there were some concerns expressed by some commentators that perhaps this revelation was an intentional diversion, diversion, maybe a targeted leak intended to distract us from the investigation that Tucker Carlson just published, which does seem like something the FBI might try to do, but that's not what happened in this case.
	Miranda Devine has made it clear that her source is the same as Tucker's.
	And the information did not come from the FBI.
	Devine also provided more information on the Willie Tepez character who was first identified by Tucker Carlson.
	Here's what Devine wrote, quote, one of the people Crooks interacted with online was Willie Tepez, a member of Norwegian neo-Nazi group, the Nordic Resistance Movement, which has since been designated a terrorist organization by the State Department.
	In one comment on October 5th, 2025, more than a year after Butler, Tebas commented to another user that he'd been contacted by both Russian and American intelligence.
	People who ask you to contact them when they just as easily could contact you are feds.
	This is how they avoid entrapment.
	Both American and Russian intelligence does this.
	I have chatted to both, Tepas said.
	So there are only two possibilities here.
	The first possibility is that we're seeing a monumental, unforgivable failure by the FBI, a degree of incompetence that's simply staggering.
	Maybe they missed all these chats.
	Maybe they didn't think it was relevant, just never got around to releasing them.
	So they're left to respond with pathetic, rapid response press releases when Tucker Carlson and Miranda Devine published investigative reports a year later.
	That's the best case scenario.
	That is the absolute best case scenario we're dealing with.
	The worst case scenario is almost too dark to say out loud, but I'll try my best.
	The worst case scenario is that the FBI has been hiding all this information about Thomas Crooks for the same reason that the Secret Service, supposedly the most elite protective force in the entire world, failed to secure the slightly sloped roof 400 feet away from Donald Trump with a direct line of sight to his head.
	Worst case scenario is that the leadership of our intelligence agencies wanted Donald Trump dead.
	And if that's the case, then there's no reason to think that they're going to stop trying to kill him.
	Now, it's not my job or your job to decide between these two scenarios.
	It's the job of our government, out of an abundance of transparency, to absolve itself completely of any responsibility in the attempt to murder Donald Trump.
	They should be telling us everything they know, even if they don't think their information is relevant.
	But our government hasn't done that.
	And for that reason, it's not insane or paranoid to assume the worst, or at least to consider it a very real possibility.
	For one reason or another, we are not being told the whole story or even an incomplete story.
	And it's way past time for us to ask one question.
	Why?
	You might think it's difficult to find the single worst post on social media in terms of how poorly it's aged.
	There have been a lot of posts, probably millions of them, that haven't withstood the test of time very well.
	You could find posts predicting that Bill Belichick would lead UNC to greatness, since after all, he's a great coach and definitely not rich and famous simply because he had a roster of extremely talented and expensive players.
	You can also find posts from esteemed experts declaring with absolute confidence the world is going to end in 12 years because of climate change.
	And a lot of those posts are 12 years old now or more.
	You can revisit Hillary Clinton's most infamous post where she wishes herself a happy birthday and declares that she is a future president.
	We all remember that one.
	All of these posts, to varying degrees, have not held up very well.
	But there's one that, even given this very stiff competition, clearly stands alone.
	And I'm talking about the following post from a woman named Olivia Newsy, who currently works as an editor for Vanity Fair.
	And here is the post.
	Before taking the job at Vanity Fair, she worked at New York Magazine and also the Daily Beast.
	But a long time ago, back when she was just getting started in the industry in January of 2015, here's what she wrote on Twitter.
	Quote, why does Hollywood think female reporters sleep with their sources?
	And this was, she was reacting to, I think, House of Cards at the time, the show House of Cards.
	Well, at the time, it seemed like a pretty safe question for a New York-born, Fordham-educated, up-and-coming liberal journalist to pose on social media.
	She was calling out all those lazy, cliche-obsessed writers in Hollywood, the ones who don't understand the obvious fundamental truths of the 20th wave of feminism.
	It's an absurdity, Olivia stated, to suggest that female journalists sleep with their sources.
	In reality, we all know that female journalists get ahead through hard work, shoe leather reporting, clever, legit logical deductions, and crisp, highly readable prose.
	That's just a given.
	Well, unfortunately, for her bold proclamation, Olivia went on to become a journalist.
	And in that capacity, she didn't simply prove the old stereotype true about how women sleep with their sources.
	She acted like that stereotype was one of the Ten Commandments.
	She went on a one-woman mission, like a horny Rambo, to prove that female reporters only do one thing all day, apparently, which is sleep with their sources.
	Now, you probably remember the story that broke last year about Olivia Newsy's romantic relationship with RFK Jr.
	So it was a clear conflict of interest.
	Newsy had been assigned to cover RFK's campaign.
	She wrote an article that was highly critical of Joe Biden.
	And the whole time, she was engaged in some kind of inappropriate relationship with RFK Jr.
	The details of it are mercifully have not been disclosed fully as far as I know.
	According to Newsy, she was involved in a non-physical personal relationship with RFK Jr.
	And someone else described the relationship as an emotional and digital, emotional and digital in nature, kind of like a Manti-Teo situation.
	And whether you find that explanation believable or not, it was obviously a highly embarrassing situation for everybody involved, including Olivia's employer, New York Magazine, which quickly cut her loose.
	Now, speaking for myself, naively, I assume that, well, after this embarrassing episode, this scandal, she's in some kind of personal relationship with someone she's supposed to be covering in politics.
	I thought, well, she would, you know, she's going to, she's done in the business.
	She'll flee into obscurity and she'll have no choice following the revelation that she was getting intimate with RFK Jr., someone she was assigned to cover in an objective fashion.
	But apparently, she did not flee into obscurity, nor did she suffer any consequences at all because journalism has no standards at all.
	And therefore, she now works at Vanity Fair, and she's apparently coming out with a new book where she makes herself a hero and victim of her own scandal.
	And the book is called American Kanto.
	Now, not to be outdone, her ex-fiancé Ryan Lizza just published an expose where he reveals that Olivia also had a sexual relationship with former MSNBC host Keith Olberman, in addition to, on top of that, former South Carolina governor Mark Sanford in 2020 while she was covering his presidential campaign.
	So here's what Lizza wrote.
	I don't do many dramatic readings for romance novels or anything like that, so bear with me here.
	I'll just read it as it was written.
	Quote, Olivia had just returned from a reporting trip, at least that's what she told me it was.
	And her Herschel backpack, the one with the flap that never quite closed properly, was tossed beside our bed, its contents scattered on the floor.
	That's when I noticed the sheets of Kimpton Hotel stationery that would alter the course of our lives.
	As I tied it up the desk, something on the Kimpton stationery caught my eye.
	I started to read.
	Quote, if I swallowed every drop of water from the tower above your house, Olivia had written, I would still thirst for you.
	Unfortunately, the lack of a water tower on our Georgetown's home ruled me out as the note's intended recipient.
	I flipped to another page and saw a name in the first line of an unfinished love letter to him that included enough details to confirm a physical relationship and the hint of some kind of falling out.
	My heart stopped when I realized who he was.
	I looked at the date on a reported letter to Mark, March 5th, 2020, just a few days ago.
	I called my agent.
	We have a big problem, I said.
	Olivia is sleeping with Mark Sanford.
	Close quote.
	And his article stops there.
	The big M. Night Shyamalon twist ending.
	Because I think when you're reading it, you're supposed to think that he's talking about RFK Jr.
	And then turns out that, no, it's a diff, this says that it's actually a different politician that she was sleeping with.
	Now, after Ryan Lizzie published this article, a lot of people rediscovered this exchange on social media from back in 2019.
	Olivia wrote, I spent some time in South Carolina with Mark Sanford for New York Magazine.
	And then somebody writes, hey, he looks happy.
	And Olivia Newsy replies, I tend to have that effect.
	Well, now we know what she meant by that.
	And just in case anyone was wondering about that, but Liz's tell all didn't stop there.
	He also wrote this section about Olivia's relationship with Keith Olberman, which is somehow even more horrifying.
	Quote, I was used to cleaning up Olivia's messes.
	Not that long ago, I had helped her untangle herself from an unusual relationship with Keith Olbermann, the former MSNBC host.
	She had messaged him out of the blue.
	They started talking, and soon after, she fled her unhappy home in suburban New Jersey and started living with Keith in Manhattan.
	He paid for her to attend college, outfitted her and Tom Ford, and some $15,000 worth of Cartier jewelry.
	Later, he covered her rent and furnished her apartment in a doorman building in the West Village.
	While Keith, who was 34 years older, was generous.
	There were strings attached.
	Olivia had concealed the relationship from me and other friends, but one day she told me everything, too much actually, and together we hatched a plan for her escape.
	Now, Keith Olberman is, of course, a grotesque, angry, bloated blob of a man who lives alone with his cats and spends his days sitting in a rocking chair, screaming out the window at random passersby.
	What Olivia found appealing about a man who looks and sounds like a giant half-sentient wart, I have no idea.
	All I know is that Keith and Olivia together must have combined to create the most insufferable combination of human beings ever assembled on earth.
	I actually feel bad for the cats that they had to live through that.
	So in case it's not obvious, just to summarize, this is a classic case of nobody to root for.
	A lot of very terrible people are cheating and lying and getting away with it scot-free.
	And it gets even worse when you look at the excerpts that have been posted from Olivia's new book.
	And here's one of them.
	Again, I'm not a professional audiobook reader for a dime store romance novel, so I'm going to do my best here.
	But this is an actual excerpt from this book that she's just came out or it's going to come out soon.
	This is what it says.
	I mean to tell you of the canyon where voices carried, the place where monsters spoke to me, where I listened, where I found that, as fortune or curse would have it, I knew the language of monsters, where with news on my tongue and tears in my eyes, the role of town crier I interpret literally.
	I ran back over the hill to translate for those who could not stomach the thought of standing face to face with monsters, but who required knowledge of monsters as the monsters accrued ever more power, as they revealed or converted ever more monsters among men.
	Now, I've read through that a couple times.
	Not exactly clear what she's talking about.
	What I can say for certain is that Olivia Newsy's book is clearly like self-serious, pretentious, melodramatic in the extreme, and very poorly written.
	Okay.
	News on my tongue and tears in my eyes.
	I mean, oh my gosh.
	And somehow that made it past an editor?
	I mean, do editors exist anymore?
	Is everyone just using ChatGPT?
	Have the editors already been put out of business, I guess?
	How are you an editor and you let that get by you?
	Not to mention a sentence that uses the word monster like 12 times.
	News on my tongue and tears in my eyes.
	Now, I guess if I had to come up with a compliment, I'd say it probably wasn't written by AI because AI, for all its horrors, isn't that bad.
	Like even ChatGPT could probably come up with something better.
	It reads like a seventh grade girl doing an impression of Taylor Swift doing an impression of Cormac McCarthy.
	It is unreadable, annoying, and incoherent, which is to say, it's modern journalism in a nutshell.
	And as perhaps the last man alive who has not been involved in any kind of relationship with Olivia Newsy, I simply can't stand for it.
	And that is why Olivia Newsy, Keith Olbermann, Ryan Lizza, everyone else who's remotely involved in this sordid and deeply depressing soap opera are today canceled.
	For all the time that we spend on the latest political developments in the nation's biggest population centers, for example, the election of a Muslim socialist in New York City or the attacks on immigration officers in Los Angeles, it's undeniable that some of the biggest and most important stories are happening in much smaller cities and towns across the country.
	It's in the smaller locales that we're seeing some of the real flashpoints emerging.
	Even though no corporate media outlet would dare to talk about them, what we are now seeing are very disturbing images that could soon define our national politics as large-scale demographic replacement begins to take hold.
	And whatever you make of the disasters unfolding in places like New York and California, the decline of smaller cities is even more disturbing.
	So consider Dearborn, Michigan, population just north of 100,000.
	If you were ranking American cities by population, Dearborn wouldn't even crack the top 300.
	But the population that Dearborn does have is highly significant.
	Dearborn currently has a larger portion of Muslims than any other city in the U.S.
	And it certainly became, it recently became the first Arab-majority city in the country.
	Fully 55% of Dearborn's residents say they have Middle Eastern or North African ancestry, which explains why Dearborn boasts the largest mosque in the entire continent of North America.
	Now, Dearborn, as I've said so often on the show, is in every way an Islamic capital at this point.
	It is not an American city at all, except geographically.
	Dearborn has been conquered.
	And the few remaining Americans in Dearborn are now finding themselves surrounded by mobs of Muslims chanting Allah Akbar and telling them to leave the city.
	So this is footage that was taken by Nick Shirley, one of the few journalists who's willing to travel to Dearborn and report honestly about what he sees there.
	The footage shows Shirley attempting to interview an activist named Jake Lang, who was one of the pardoned January 6th defendants.
	But the interview doesn't go anywhere because at this point, Dearborn basically resembles Fallujah.
	Watch.
	I believe they're going to cancel the 630 City Hall meeting because everybody's chimping the f ⁇ out.
	I don't know the news!
	It's urgency.
	They are taking over.
	This is Dearborn, Michigan right now.
	This is Dearborn, Michigan.
	Any racism is not welcome.
	No races here.
	Now, that is a video that should be playing on repeat on every American news station.
	The president should have responded to this by now.
	It is footage that 25 years ago, everybody would have assumed came from Iraq or Afghanistan.
	So to be clear about what you just saw, if you're an American citizen and the mob of Muslims that controls Dearborn believes that you're racist, then you're not welcome in the city any longer.
	Your constitutional rights to freedom of expression are suspended.
	You'll be surrounded and hounded by mobs shouting Allah Akbar.
	And indeed, that is the official position of the government of Dearborn.
	It was just a few weeks ago.
	You may remember that the mayor of Dearborn, Abdullah Hamoud, publicly berated a Christian pastor, telling him he's not welcome in the city because of his views.
	This is the same mayor who, as we talked about yesterday, said he disavows the concept of assimilation.
	So this tactic of driving out Americans who disagree with the Islamization of the city extends not just to the mob, but to government officials in the city as well.
	So that's what makes this, among other things, a constitutional crisis.
	In an American city, no one, not even an alleged racist, quote unquote, should be surrounded, intimidated, and forced to leave for their speech.
	That's not something that should ever happen under any circumstance.
	It doesn't matter if he starts talking about bananas.
	It doesn't matter if he insults Muhammad.
	It doesn't matter if he burns a Quran.
	I don't agree with that.
	I wouldn't do it myself.
	But this is America.
	In this country, unlike the Muslim world, we have the freedom of speech, freedom of association.
	The Quran is not a sacred text that we protect by law.
	Muhammad is not a prophet whose name we revere in this country.
	This is America.
	But places like Dearborn don't look much like America anymore or act like it.
	Jake Lang, while holding a sign reading Americans Against Islamification, was also punched in the face on camera in Dearborn by someone who quickly ran away very courageously.
	Watch.
	Look at that wimp just running away.
	He's like already running away while the punch is still in the air being thrown.
	He's already somehow running away.
	Now, as long as we're still prosecuting hate crimes in this country, why hasn't the federal government opened an investigation into that attack?
	That's a hate crime.
	He's protesting against Islamification, which is his right as an American citizen.
	I don't care how you feel about it.
	You don't have to like him or agree with his tactics.
	It can make you feel upset.
	It can make your tummy hurt that he's got a sign that says we're against Islamification.
	Doesn't matter.
	Deal with it.
	He is well within his constitutional rights as an American, well within them.
	He's expressing a view about a particular religion that he believes conflicts with his own beliefs.
	And for doing that, he was violently attacked in the middle of the street.
	It's a hate crime.
	So where's the DOJ that prosecuted Douglas Mackey for making a meme?
	Why aren't they all over this?
	Douglas Mackey was charged with violating Americans' right to vote by making a meme about Hillary Clinton somehow.
	Meanwhile, we have a clear attack on somebody engaging in First Amendment protected speech.
	And so far, it hasn't been a word about it from the DOJ.
	And by the way, this wasn't the only time that Lang was attacked in Dearborn and others were attacked as well.
	The independent journalist Cam Higbee was pepper sprayed and assaulted after he attempted to defend a Christian protester in Dearborn.
	Watch.
	Why is he not welcome on a public sidewalk?
	Get the camera out of my face.
	Get that camera out of my face or I'll take it from you, okay?
	Phone right here.
	Is this his phone?
	All right, guys, he's just got pepper sprayed protecting and assaulting someone.
	No, you're not going to get your phone.
	Actually, you get it.
	Here you go.
	There we go.
	Come on in.
	No!
	No!
	I got his lushes.
	Right there.
	Guys, as you can see here, we got a bunch of now When Cam reported this assault to a police officer in Dearborn, the officer refused to investigate it.
	He claimed that he couldn't leave his post or take a report.
	But just a few minutes later, Higby saw the officer leave his post to take a personal phone call.
	Watch.
	My main issue here is that you said I can go to the station later and file a report.
	He's in black block.
	You're never going to find him again.
	You will never find him again.
	The detective will not find him.
	I promise you.
	I've been in this situation before.
	You're never going to find him.
	He's masked head to toe.
	You will never find him again.
	Yeah, that is sh ⁇ .
	It's lazy.
	So you know that a crime happened and you're going to let it slide because why?
	Then go arrest him.
	Okay, find me somebody who can.
	Okay, yeah, find the police report after he's gone and you'll never find him again.
	This is lazy police work.
	You are a lazy police officer.
	Or you just don't want to get him.
	Oh, I thought he couldn't leave his post.
	He's gone.
	He's not even here anymore.
	He said he couldn't leave his post.
	We're going to go right over there.
	We're going to shout to him.
	We're going to get his name and badge number before we leave.
	Hey, officer.
	Who couldn't leave his post?
	Here he is running.
	Officer.
	Officer.
	Officer who couldn't leave your post.
	Can I get a name and badge number real quick?
	Officer.
	You said you couldn't even leave your post a second ago.
	That was a lie.
	Can I get your name and badge number before I leave?
	Name?
	Officer Robert.
	Okay, thank you.
	You can leave your post to take a personal phone call, but not to make an arrest, apparently.
	So he says that it's lazy police work.
	I think he's being too kind to the officer.
	This is not laziness.
	It's just that most likely this officer agrees with the crime that took place.
	I mean, that's the only assumption you can make when you've got an actual crime takes place.
	You're saying to police officer, hey, this crime just happened.
	The guy's right over there.
	And the officer says, yeah, well, no, they had him.
	I can't leave this spot.
	Sorry.
	The only rational assumption we can make is that, oh, well, you're okay with the crime.
	You're glad that it happened, and that's why you're not going to investigate it.
	So this is a systemic top-down assault on the civil liberties of Americans in Dearborn.
	When Americans are beaten in the street, police look the other way.
	When Americans assemble outside the city council, they're surrounded and intimidated with chants of a la Akbar.
	In America.
	I have to keep reminding you.
	This is in America.
	You'll have mobs surrounding you chanting Allah Akbar.
	Now, it really doesn't matter what you think of Jake Lang or Cam Higbee.
	It doesn't matter if you think they're great people or horrible people.
	It doesn't matter if you think Cam Higbee is a good journalist or whether Jake Lang is a good activist.
	Doesn't matter.
	I've seen some people on social media, including people who are, you know, supposedly conservative saying that, well, Lang's a fraud.
	He's just a shock jock doing this for attention.
	Now, I don't know the guy.
	I don't know much about him.
	I can't speak to his motives.
	I have no idea.
	All I know is that this is a completely unacceptable state of affairs in an American city.
	And if you're looking at these video clips and to you, the headline is, wow, well, that guy is being rude.
	If that's the thing that jumps out at you, and not that they're chanting Allah Akbar in the street, assaulting Americans and the police are not investigating because they agree with it.
	Like, if that's not the, if you're more concerned about, well, that was kind of rude, that's not nice for him to be saying that stuff.
	Well, then, I don't know what to tell you.
	This is unconstitutional.
	The DOJ has a civil rights division to protect our civil rights, and they need to move into Dearborn along with the National Guard immediately.
	The city council meeting under heavy police guard did eventually take place.
	At the meeting, Lang offered these remarks.
	I'm going to play them at some length.
	Not because I agree with or endorse everything he says, but because the whole scene is important for you to see and to hear how the audience responds, see how the police responds.
	And most of all, you need to understand that Lang is what happens when the government decides to replace American citizens with Muslims from the third world.
	When you displace Americans, when you berate them, when you assault them, when you vilify them, destroy their livelihoods, destroy their communities, destroy their homes, then you get people like this.
	You get resistance.
	And at that point, once you've pushed people far enough, you don't get to choose what the resistance looks like.
	You don't get to tone police it.
	When you target a specific race for replacement, which is what the left has done across the country, when you engage in open racial warfare, then you cannot pretend to be outraged when you get this kind of response.
	It's inevitable.
	Watch.
	We have to call it what it is.
	You guys don't live like we do.
	We don't want you in our country.
	We will come and eat your shwarma in Somalia, okay?
	We don't need it here in Michigan.
	We don't need it in any part of America.
	We have a right to self-determination.
	Our founding fathers fought and died for our posterity for white Americans.
	And we're being driven out.
	You come here and you marry four or five women and you outbreed us.
	You change the laws.
	You make all of our country look like the places that you fled from.
	We don't want you here.
	Respectfully, get the f ⁇ out of my country.
	I don't want you here.
	We don't want you here.
	I don't want you here.
	I don't want you here.
	That's fine, sir.
	This is our country.
	And the people, the veterans, the World War II veterans that's blood has soaked for our constitutional republic are taking a look around Europe.
	They're taking a look around America and they're saying, what the hell did we fight for?
	We have been taken over without a single shot fired.
	You guys are outbreeding insidious parasites on the American way of life.
	You will never look like us.
	You will never eat like us.
	You won't build buildings like us.
	You are nothing.
	You can build nothing.
	Just like President Trump's great American friends have said, you guys are not us and get the f ⁇ out.
	America first.
	America only.
	God bless America.
	Jesus is king.
	Jesus is king.
	Thank you.
	Jesus is king.
	Jesus is king.
	Time has expired.
	Order in the chambers.
	Order in the chambers.
	Jesus is pleasing me.
	Jesus is king.
	Well, this is what happened.
	Remember, it was at one of these city council meetings, as we mentioned a couple, a few weeks ago, that a pastor got up there, much more polite, very nice about it, very gentle in his approach.
	Didn't say anything racist, didn't say anything derogatory at all.
	And all he said is like, hey, why are we renaming the streets after these, you know, these Muslim figures that have no significance to American culture?
	And what was he told by the mayor?
	He was told, you're not welcome here.
	Get out.
	That's what the polite, nice people were told.
	And then, so when you respond that way to the polite, nice people, then you end up with that.
	That's what comes next.
	That's always what comes next.
	Now, if you're listening to the audio podcast, an entire line of police officers had to follow that guy out of the meeting.
	And as we'll see in a moment, to their credit, some of these officers accompanied him to his car as a mob of Muslims surrounded him outside.
	But before we get to that, we need to see a little more from this meeting.
	It was, you know, I think we would probably say it was the most consequential, certainly the most interesting city council meeting in Dearborn's history, probably.
	Not that I've seen very many of them.
	So here's Cam Higby, the journalist who was assaulted.
	And here's what he had to say.
	I asked them simply why they were harassing and touching another individual who had stated repeatedly that he was only on their side of the street to talk to them and have a dialogue.
	My phone was smashed.
	You can see the broken camera right there.
	They stole $50 out of my pocket and they stole my microphone receiver.
	I went and I told one of your officers, badge number 3668, that this had happened.
	He told me there was nothing that could be done about it unless I went to the station.
	I told him, I can't go to the station.
	I'm working.
	I'm doing my job.
	He said, I'm working too.
	I said, God, your job is to protect me and all of the people that are out here today.
	Okay?
	So we said that I could go into the station later.
	I told him, you're never going to catch the guy if I go into the station later.
	He's going to leave.
	He's dressed head to toe in black block.
	I filmed the whole thing, but he had a mask on his face.
	You'll never ever get an opportunity to arrest that person ever again if you don't go and get him right now.
	He said, sir, I can't leave my post.
	Five minutes later, I caught him in the parking lot on a personal phone call.
	Okay.
	Repeatedly today, I watched people that are in this room get attacked by other people that are in this room.
	One of my favorite quotes from the Prophet Muhammad, a woman's testimony is worth half that of a man's due to the deficiency of her mind.
	God created two sexes, one superior and one inferior.
	That's why your women wear hijabs, because they're inferior to men.
	That's why in most Muslim countries, they can't leave their homes without permission of a male guardian.
	Is my time up?
	You have 30 seconds.
	Oh, 30 seconds.
	Okay, great.
	Go ahead.
	Yeah, I think I shouldn't feel like a Demi in my country.
	That's what I feel like in Dearborn, Michigan.
	It doesn't feel like home.
	I feel like a Demi, a second-class citizen, which is what Christians are in the majority of Muslim countries.
	Demis, second-class citizens.
	And the policing in this city, that's exactly what happens.
	And I know rank-and-file officers in pretty much every city usually want to take care of these problems.
	You're the one giving the orders, Mr. Mayor.
	These guys definitely want to do something about them.
	They're business.
	Look at them.
	These guys are all business.
	Your orders.
	I'm done.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Now, watching footage like this, and there's a lot more like it, you have to wonder, how much longer can the city of Dearborn continue to treat Americans like second-class citizens, as Cam Higbee says?
	I think that's a pretty fair summary of what happened when you're assaulted and the police tell you to their face that they're not interested in investigating it.
	I mean, I'd say that's what it means to be a second-class citizen.
	How much longer can Americans tolerate this takeover of Dearborn, the hometown of Henry Ford and the Ford Motor Company?
	And what's going to happen when this escalates even further, which it obviously will.
	Now, make no mistake, the foreigners in Dearborn are not interested in peace at this point.
	One by one, Muslims stood up at this city council meeting to mock the Americans who complained.
	Here's one particularly sassy guy who made one of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard in my life.
	Watch.
	In the name of Allah, the most gracious, the most merciful.
	I just want to say a few things before I start.
	First of all, the word Sharia just means law.
	Saying Sharia law is saying law law.
	So it seems like there's quite a large group of individuals here who are intellectually inept.
	And if that word is too big for them, intellectually inept, I'll say it again.
	They can Google it later.
	This is one of those gotchas that's extremely hard to watch without cringing uncontrollably.
	He really thinks that this is some kind of devastating checkmate.
	It's like saying the Sahara desert is a nonsense term because Sahara means desert in Arabic.
	It's the kind of statement you'd make if you're a really annoying person who desperately wants to avoid discussing anything meaningful.
	So you default to some incredibly dumb and annoying linguistic argument that's completely pedantic.
	I'm not even in dispute as translation of Sharia, although I don't know, it's probably wrong.
	Maybe it's not.
	In this country, we use the term Sharia law as a shorthand for Islamic law, as opposed to actual functioning legal systems, ones that don't call for beheading when you leave the Islamic faith, for example.
	And this speaker knows that.
	He just wants to avoid the topic.
	And as the guy continued to speak, we quickly discovered why he doesn't want to talk about substance.
	Watch.
	It is incredible that individuals who are charged with beating cops with bats are allowed to come to this city and say that they are going to take a holy book and burn it.
	This is not free speech, and this is not hate speech.
	This is speech that will initiate violence.
	That is correct.
	This will initiate violence.
	You are coming to come and burn a book that Muslims hold very dear to their heart.
	So I just got Islam is the religion of peace.
	Muhammad is merciful, he says.
	And then he says that if you mock Islam, then you're causing violence.
	You're responsible for the violence that Muslims will inflict on you.
	I mean, that's what he's saying.
	You see how that works.
	Well, we're the religion of peace, but if you make fun of us, we'll assault you.
	So don't be violent by making fun of us, okay?
	Because you're going to cause us to be violent against you.
	To be clear, it wasn't just Muslims who encouraged violence against Americans.
	Several members of Antifa type groups also spoke.
	Watch.
	I'm part of the group BAM by Any Means Necessary.
	Our full name is the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration, Immigrant Rights, and Fight for Equality by Any Means Necessary.
	And we came today to say that fascists are not welcome in Dearborn.
	The likes of Hudson and Lang are not welcome in Dearborn.
	I think that that was made extremely clear by the action today.
	People saw what was happening and they came out and provided the welcome that such people deserve.
	And I think this really sets a model to other cities who are facing these same kinds of attacks.
	By the end of the march that I was on, they went from being maybe, I don't know, around 50 people to like three guys with a banner because they had been scared away.
	And I think that is exactly the kind of action that is needed.
	And I think Dearborn really set the model for how to deal with these situations.
	So this masked activist saying her political opponent should be stopped by any means necessary is openly celebrating the fact that her political opponents were intimidated into silence.
	So this is an admission of a constitutional violation, which she should be prosecuted for.
	The fake nonprofit she belongs to, which Andy Noe has extensively reported on, should be shut down.
	But of course, that probably won't happen.
	More than two months after the murder of Charlie Kirk, has a single leftist group like this been investigated, much less shut down?
	Well, this would be a pretty good place to start.
	For now, these terrorists are emboldened for obvious reasons.
	Another masked activist condemned the city council for failing to use law enforcement to shut down the protesters.
	Watch.
	Sorry, I'm standing here today in solidarity with several members of our community that are here and who attended our march to condemn Anthony Hudson, Jake Lang, and their fascist supporters, and also to condemn this council's poor, abysmal attempts to protect them.
	The police outside, they did nothing to really disperse the crowd of fascists.
	All they did was protect them, and that is wrong.
	Now, as a result of these kinds of threatening statements, as well as the actual violence that was on display, Jake Lang and Cam Higbee requested a police escort out of the meeting.
	They asked the police officer to accompany them to their cars.
	Unfortunately, the officer agreed.
	Not that it should have been necessary to ask in the first place.
	And even with the officers there, a few people tried to harass them anyway.
	At this rate, it's only a matter of time until the violence escalates.
	Everybody knows that.
	And no sane or decent person wants that to happen.
	And TIFA wants that to happen.
	But the last thing that a sane or decent person wants in America is violence.
	But the problem is you cannot work to undermine American identity and national sovereignty and scold and castigate and condemn every American who objects and tell them to leave town, especially tell the nice ones to leave town, and then be surprised when the whole situation devolves into chaos.
	Now, the only solution, the only way to prevent the chaos is to return American cities to Americans, to return America to Americans.
	It's the only possible solution here.
	It's the only one that can work.
	But at the moment, for whatever reason, some prominent figures who claim to be on the right are actually training their fire on the people who are protesting the Muslim takeover of Dearborn rather than Muslim foreigners themselves.
	So here's what Jake Shields wrote, for example, in response to a video of one of Lang's protests, quote, Muslims don't hate Christians, so I'm not sure what the point of this is.
	Do this in Brooklyn in a mostly Jewish community.
	So I guess the idea is that in order to dunk on the Jewish communities, we're supposed to forget about the fact that Muslims have been killing Christians for 1400 years.
	Muslims don't hate Christians.
	What in the world are you babbling about?
	They're killing Christians across the world right now as we speak, particularly in Nigeria, as we discussed a few weeks ago.
	Every year, Muslims are executing thousands of Christians because of their faith.
	Meanwhile, Islamic countries are also flooding our country with immigrants who hate us and who openly threaten us at city council meetings.
	But we're supposed to believe that Muslims have no hatred for Christians whatsoever, even though that statement defies over a millennium of human experience.
	Now, after I challenged Shields publicly, he responded by claiming that Christians have killed far more Muslims than the other way around, which isn't true.
	And then he pivoted again to like, well, we need to talk about Jews.
	That's all he wants to talk about.
	And as I told him on X, this is just full-on anti-Christian propaganda, something straight from the left-wing Reddit fever swamps.
	Talking points that are totally indistinguishable from the far left.
	An effort to distract conservatives from doing what needs to be done, which is taking back our national sovereignty.
	And we can't fall for it.
	I mean, there are some people ostensibly on the right for whom hating Israel is literally the only issue that matters, the only one.
	They would happily let our country succumb to a third world invasion if it meant we would have more people here who don't like Israel.
	So Israel first from the other direction, as I've pointed out many times.
	Now, in any case, the time for a national federal response to this invasion is long overdue.
	But there hasn't been one.
	And therefore, this week, the governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, decided to take action on his own.
	He designated CARE and the Muslim Brotherhood as foreign terrorist organizations.
	Here it is.
	Governor Greg Abbott also today labeling two Islamic groups as terrorist and criminal organizations.
	And his proclamation bans the groups and those connected to them from acquiring land in Texas.
	Fox 4 Sean Rabbit, our newsroom with the still developing story.
	Sean.
	Yeah, very much so.
	The two groups are the Muslim Brotherhood and CARE, the Council on American Islamic Relations.
	Now, neither are on any State Department or federal terror list.
	And while only the federal government has the power to designate a foreign terrorist organization, the governor does have the authority to issue a proclamation and apply state penalties if there's a violation.
	In issuing that proclamation Tuesday, Governor Abbott said that the actions taken by the Muslim Brotherhood and CARE to support terrorism across the globe and subvert our laws through violence, intimidation, and harassment are unacceptable.
	Today, he said, I designated the Muslim Brotherhood and CARE as foreign terrorist organizations and transnational criminal organizations.
	These radical extremists are not welcome in our state and are now prohibited from acquiring any real property interest in Texas.
	Now, CARE and the Muslim Brotherhood deny these allegations, of course, but the evidence is pretty clear.
	During a federal prosecution related to terrorism financing nearly two decades ago, CARE, which is basically a subsidiary of the Muslim Brotherhood, was named as a co-conspirator in an effort to funnel millions of dollars to Hamas, which the U.S. designates as a terror group.
	CARE's founders were also in close communication with Hamas.
	Now, as Abbott wrote in his proclamation, quote, Hassan El-Bano, who founded the Muslim Brotherhood, professed that jihad is an obligation from Allah on every Muslim, and that jihad means fighting unbelievers, plundering their wealth, destroying their places of worship, and smashing their idols.
	Even in the present day, the Supreme Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood has stated that the organization's primary goal is to establish Islam's mastership of the world and to forcibly impose Sharia law worldwide.
	The government's proclamation adds, CARE is an Islamist organization that, according to the FBI, was founded as a front group for Hamas, and CARE and its members have repeatedly employed, affiliated with, and supported individuals promoting terrorism, terrorism-related activities.
	Now, there's also new reporting that CARE allegedly cut $1,000 checks to campus radicals who besieged American universities back in 2023.
	So they're directly funding anarchy in this country.
	Going after these two organizations isn't going to stop the kinds of problems we're seeing in places like Dearborn, but it's a start, and the federal government needs to follow through at this point.
	There's no other option.
	There's also some reporting today that as a favor to Qatar, the Trump administration may be holding back.
	But I don't know if that's true or not.
	There's no reason to do that.
	We elected this administration to target foreign invaders.
	Well, here you go.
	And we need to dismantle their institutions if we're ever going to remove them from power.
	The Islamification of America is one of the greatest threats we face to our country and to our national identity.
	It's impossible to be an American First nationalist unless you're taking a stand against this.
	Remember that Dearborn is the place where protesters chanted death to America.
	Again, you're not America first if you align with people who literally chant death to America.
	I mean, opposing those who want to see the death of our country explicitly is about the lowest possible bar for America First.
	We need to protect and preserve our country.
	And we elected this administration to do exactly that, to represent our country to the exclusion of every other.
	But we're getting taken advantage of all over the country by people who come here and hate us.
	It's not just happening in Dearborn.
	City Journal just published an article on the extent of Somali Muslim fraud in Minnesota, which is far worse than anyone realized.
	They're not just stealing our money with various welfare schemes.
	They're also using that money to fund Islamic militants and terrorists.
	Quote, a source described the close links between the Somali American community in Minnesota and Islamic terror groups abroad.
	10 years ago, the source was recruited as an independent contractor for a three-letter agency investigation into the Minnesota men who had joined or attempted to join ISIS.
	That year, a Homeland Security Task Force report found that Minnesota led the nation in the number of Americans who had joined or attempted to join ISIS.
	Of the 58 Americans who had done so, nearly half came from Minnesota.
	The relationship is ongoing.
	This is a third rail conversation, but the largest funder of al-Shabaab is the Minnesota taxpayer, the source said.
	There's a real issue here that is real.
	And if there's ever an event that is traceable back to these funds or to people from this area, then the situation will take on a whole new set of optics.
	Now, there's another recent article by Armin Rosen called The Shame of Our Cities, How Minneapolis Became the Medicaid Fraud Capital of the USA.
	It's also worth reading if you're interested in the mechanics of some of these fraudulent schemes.
	But really, the mechanics don't matter.
	The people doing this shouldn't be in the country in the first place.
	The fact that they're stealing from us and funding terrorists is just more reason to put an end to this.
	Now, these stories and this city council meeting in Dearborn are the clearest possible sign that we're running out of time to rescue America from this foreign invasion.
	We should never have to witness a scene like that city council meeting ever again within the borders of the U.S.
	We shouldn't have to wonder if our tax dollars are funding fake anti-American nonprofits, much less terrorists.
	And we should accept nothing less than the full weight of the federal government coming down on these invaders and returning America to Americans.
	Hey there, I'm Daily Wire executive editor John Bickley.
	And I'm Georgia Howe, and we're the hosts of Morning Wire.
	We bring you all the news you need to know in 15 minutes or less.

▲