B (10:33)

I think the reality is, is that for centuries we've really treated property as an individualized good and not a collective good. And we are going to transitioning to treating it as a collective good and towards a model of shared equity will require that we think about it differently. And it will mean that families, especially white families, but some POC families who are homeowners as well, are going to have a different relationship to property than the one that we currently have.

A (11:12)

So you go down the checklist, you know, it's all there. The frazzled appearance, the up talking, the passive aggressive HR language. You'll have a different relationship with property. It's everything you expect from a soulless communist psychopath. She will seize your property, give your home to a homeless black crackhead in the name of equity, throw your family out on the street to freeze to death. And she'll keep up this sanitized, sing songy corporate sounding tone the whole time. Now make no mistake, this woman, and any woman like her is a stone cold killer. I mean, she would gut you like a pig, but her facial expression and tone wouldn't change. I mean, she'd sound like she was delivering a lecture about the employee handbook the whole time. This is one of the few notable exports of the feminist movement. You get joyless, mostly childless women who throw themselves into their meaningless and civilization destroying careers. And through it all they, they use the same tone and demeanor that they would use if they were speaking to their three year old child, only they're talking to adults. You know, they take that familiar patronizing, pseudo maternal tone and they use it to sell ideas that, you know, might make sense. On a playground only. Yeah, maybe on a playground you could say, well, all the playground equipment is for everybody. No, no, no, Johnny, you can't, you can't. That, that slide is not just yours, it's for everybody. Maybe there it makes sense. Only in this case, they're trying to bend the economy of the largest city in the country to their will. You know, instead of telling little Bobby that she's, you know, going to take his bicycle away if he doesn't behave, which is all the authority a woman like this should ever have, she's telling millions of Americans, people have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars and years of their lives into their homes that she's just going to have to, you know, snatch that away real quick because they've been naughty. But don't worry, she's not taking your home. No, no, no, she's just, she's just giving you a different relationship to your home specifically. It's the relationship of where it's not your home anymore. It's the relationship of, of, you know, you had the relationship of being inside your home and living in it, and now your relationship will be that you're on the outside of it, looking at it while somebody else moves in. So on the one hand, she's talking about the government arbitrarily seizing the property that Americans have worked their whole lives to own, which in addition to being economic, economic and civilizational. Suicide is an explicitly un American, illegal communist position that stands in direct opposition to the federal's papers, the Bill of Rights, and every founding principle of this country. She's saying without a lot of ambiguity that ambiguity that she's going to take your home away from you. And at the same time, she's being very corporate about it. But in her other social media posts, to be fair, she's a little bit more direct. So here's one that's particularly interesting. She wrote, quote, impoverish the white middle class. Homeownership is racist, slash failed public policy. Now, as Matt Taibbi points out, this is a noteworthy post because in the first sentence she drops the whole pretense about equity and justice. And her goal is explicitly to impoverish the white middle class. And this woman was just given a position in the administration of the mayor of the largest city in America. She's not saying that we need to build up, quote, people of color and, you know, therefore white people need to pair that, pay their fair share or whatever. She's not using the euphemisms that communists usually employ to mask what they're interested in doing. Instead, she's admitting outright that her goal is to destroy white people, especially whites in the middle class, which we can assume excludes this woman, at least in her mind. In other words, she wants to destroy the bad white people, the ones who aren't members of the Communist Party. And in that sense, Weaver is echoing the words of Mamdani's director of appointments, who wrote, quote, it's important that white people feel defeated. Now, in other posts, Weaver has doubled down on this messaging. She's primarily interested in destruction, not building anything. Here's one from December of 2021. So not very long ago. None of these are very long ago. And here's what she wrote. Quote, I think pass really strong rent control is a more effective way to shrink the value of real estate than reducing rezoning applications. So to be clear, just to be totally clear, in this post, she's saying that her goal is to shrink the value of real estate. And she's telling someone that rent control is a great way to accomplish that goal. Yes. A senior appointee in charge of housing in Zoran Mamdani's cabinet is a middle aged woman who explicitly wants to reduce the value of real estate in the city where she's working. She doesn't want to make it easier for people to obtain loans. She doesn't want to raise the standard of living or attract high paying jobs so that more New Yorkers can afford rent payments. Instead, she wants explicitly to tank the property values of of the city. Imagine being a potential homeowner or a big commercial real estate investor and hearing something like this. I mean, why would you invest a single dollar in a property anywhere in New York? Why would you maintain the properties you already have? The government explicitly wants you to lose money on your investment. They are trying to take the value away from your investment. They want to bankrupt you so that they can create as many slums as possible. Why not just give them what they want? Now, increasingly, that's exactly what's happening. But Mamdani is is pretending to be shocked by it. The other day, Mamdani visited some apartments owned by Pinnacle Realty, which is going bankrupt. Watch. When did this happen? I can't remember exactly the year. More than years. Mayor Zoran Mamdani inspecting broken floor tiles in an apartment apartment on Clarkson Avenue in Prospect Leopards Gardens. Getting a first hand look at the deteriorating conditions from any roding bathtub surface to a rust covered corroded bathroom pipe and red paint splashed about. And you told the landlord about this? Yes. And what was the response? Awesome numbers, but nobody want to do anything about it. Residents in this same building and in others owned by the landlord, Pinnacle Realty, say they've experienced similar conditions, from leaking bathroom ceilings to moldy drywall. Tenant unions rallying in response, demanding stronger tenant protections. Now, what's not mentioned in this report is that according to Fox, Mamdani staged his big photo op at 85 Clarkson Avenue, which is a rent controlled building. So because of city policy, the landlord wasn't able to raise rents in line with the market. And then as maintenance costs grew over time, they didn't have the money to make the repairs. In fact, they ran out of money completely. And in response, according to Mamdani and the tenants union, which is apparently a real thing, we're supposed to blame the evil landlord for all of this. I mean, it would be like passing a law requiring that airlines charge $5 for all their tickets and then blaming the airlines when a plane eventually blows up. Because they couldn't afford to inspect the engines anymore. It's complete insanity. It's economically illiterate and it is going to lead to the destruction of what is left of New York. And that has a serious effect on all of us. So for all the people that say, oh, it's New York, let them have what they voted for, you understand? It's again, it's the economic engine of the country. I mean, leaving aside the fact that it's an American city, it's an iconic American city. And so, no, I'm not just going to say, I'll let the communists have it. No, what do you mean let them have it? That's our city too. We're Americans. And on top of that, you, if, if, if New York just falls apart, we all suffer. You can't just say, oh, we don't need New York, that's fine. New York can fall to ashes. The economy doesn't work that way. But this is also how Mamdani's administration plans to stage a large scale seizure of private property. Take a look at this interview with Weaver where she lays all of it out. Watch.

B (20:16)

We're able to set up and staff the agency, but also build, build new housing across the state as well as acquire distressed housing across the state. The mechanisms for acquiring distressed housing could look different on a building by building basis. In some cases, what happens is tenants form a tenant association. They have a scofflaw land landlord or someone who's not making repairs, and they could pressure, you know, using organizing tactics, they could pressure to the Social Housing Development Authority to take over their homes to buy their homes. In other cases, it might happen through like a legal process. A couple days ago, one of the most notorious landlords in the city, his name is Op Shalom, he was arrested because he is treating his tenants so badly. Hundreds of thousands of open code violations. In cases like that, where the city is actively pursuing already sort of litigation and enforcement mechanisms against the landlord, the SHDA is an option. We can say, hey, you know, you are not maintaining this building and we are the city of New York. We have an interest in making sure that housing is well maintained and we're going to take this building away from you.

A (21:25)

So you see how this works. The city prevents landlords by law from raising rent, so they can't afford to maintain the properties. Then they hit the landlord with code violations. And then after enough of those happen, they simply take over the entire building. Right? That's the strategy. They've laid out the whole plan and now they're going to execute it. Now, there's a councilwoman, Vicki Palladino, who made the point that whenever communists complain about housing in New York in interviews like this one, they never mention the projects. They never talk about government housing. That's a strange omission because without exception, government housing is poorly maintained and extremely dangerous throughout the entire city. Now, you'd think that if these communists truly cared about poor people in New York, their top priority would be fix the slums that the government already owns and operates. After all, those slums are already under the direct control of the government. But the Communists don't actually care about the poor people or their housing or anyone else. They simply want to invent pretext to seize private property. I could go through some more tweets from this deranged, evil woman that Mamdani appointed to underscore how committed she is to this dystopian future and how unstable she is as a person. We'll throw a few of them up on the screen right now, and we can do them all day. I mean, here, here she says that Delta Airlines should kick all white people in Christmas outfits off planes. It was posted on Christmas Eve in 2016, which we can assume was not a very merry time for this particular woman. And a few Years later, in 2021, she offered this pearl of economic wisdom. She wrote that, quote, rent control is a perfect solution to everything. Yes, everything. All you have to do is allow the government to set the price for everything, and you've solved all problems everywhere for all time, as the Soviet Union clearly proved beyond any doubt. And then she posted this all timer back in 2019, quote, I wish I believed in God so I could believe that all men who take credit for women's work and all white men who take credit for the work of women of color would one day burn and on and on. The point is, this is a woman who obviously hates this country, and now she's in a position of power where she can act on her hatred. She'll have free reign to neutralize the Constitution in New York City. In fact, she's openly stated that in her view, public schools should be used as defensive positions against ICE when they attempt to enforce immigration law. So she wants children to be used as human shields. Watch.

B (24:02)

We should really look to what Brandon Johnson, as well as the Chicago Teachers Union, is doing to really use the schools and the city as sites of resistance against a federal incursion. If you're comfortable in your coalition, you're not winning power. If ICE and the National Guard are coming to New York City. ICE is already here. If the National Guard is coming on January 1st, which we know they are, we really have to use our tenant associations and our parent teacher associations and our public schools as like networks of defense in support of surrounds agenda and in support of our neighbors.

A (24:37)

Now it might be tempting to dismiss this woman as a lunatic and tell ourselves that she won't really seize private property. But up in Canada, our neighbors to the north, as usual, you know, they're telling us exactly how this story will end unless we act now to stop it. Homeowners in Canada are now learning that in fact the so called indigenous population has apparently a claim to their homes. That's according to a new court decision. Watch.

B (25:04)

It really was a landmark case.

A (25:07)

It's a decision with potential national legal implications. In August, the B.C. supreme Court ruled the Cowichan tribes hold aboriginal title to part of the Fraser river and land in developed areas of Richmond, B.C.

B (25:19)

The court specifically suspended the effect of.

A (25:22)

That declaration to give the parties time to negotiate. The decision says the territory was historically used as a fishing village, then sold by the provincial government without their consent. It's the first time that aboriginal title has been established by court in anywhere in an urban area of the country. The judgment also includes lands now used by the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority. Over the weekend, Richmond's mayor sent a letter to roughly 150 property owners saying in part, the court has declared aboriginal title to your property which may compromise the status and validity of your ownership. This was mandated without any prior notice to the landowners. We don't want to be moving anywhere. We don't want to be giving up this property. We have no intentions of selling this property. You can guarantee that. Many of these homeowners at one point or another recited a land acknowledgement. They probably apologized for being evil white colonizers. And they probably thought the whole time that none of it was really serious. The Indians wouldn't actually take the land back. And now here we are. They get a letter one day in the mail and that letter says that unfortunately for you, the Indians will probably get to take your home away. But don't worry, you'll have some time to get your affairs in order before the local tribe moves into your living room. And we cannot allow anything like this, even a sliver of this ideology to take hold in the United States. We should not allow it to happen. We are not required to respect the will of the voters, all 20% of them, and sit back while our most important city and economic hub is Converted into a communist hellscape by a foreigner who lied to become a naturalized citizen just a few years ago. Like, there are some developments that we simply cannot allow, regardless of whether, you know, a, a portion of the people in the city want it. I mean, if 20% of voters want to abolish the Bill of Rights, which is what's happening in New York, it should not be allowed to happen. Even if 90% of voters want that, it shouldn't be allowed to happen. And we can easily prevent Mamdani from destroying the city. For one thing, he's not very bright. Exhibit A. He just went on camera and suggested that he would somehow make World cup tickets more affordable. Watch. You know, I had a New Yorker the other day come up to me and ask me if there was any way I could help him get World cup tickets, because he was saying that the cost that he saw for a game was $600. Right? This is increasingly out of reach. We have made what used to be a working class game into a luxury experience. And there are too many for whom it doesn't matter where the World cup is being played in the world. They know where they're going to watch it. It's tv. And we want to ensure that there are more experiences available to each and every New Yorker. Now, there are so many layers of just pure, unfiltered stupidity to unpack here. I mean, there's the fact that, you know, there will be no World cup games in New York City at all. So he's out of his jurisdiction. There's the fact that he has no authority to dictate the prices of soccer games. In any event, there's the idea that the World cup is an entitlement, that it's not a luxury, but a human right for everybody to be able to afford to attend a soccer game. There's the problem that, like, who wants to go see soccer in the first place? So what happens when everyone in the city wants. Like, what if everybody lines up for free tickets? Especially the more foreign communists you have in New York, the more people who are going to want to want to watch soccer. What happens when they run out of seats? Who knows? Mamdani certainly doesn't know. Among other things, Communists have never understood that the free market is the best way to allocate scarce resources and products. But as the saying goes, you can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. So sooner or later, New York will find out the hard way. And that is unless we determine that Zoran Mamdani cannot be allowed to lead New York City any more than Tim Walls can be allowed to govern Minnesota or any more than Ilhan Omar should be allowed to represent Minneapolis. He needs to be denaturalized and deported along with any other illegal alien and naturalized foreigner who espouses communist ideology. And if you still think that sounds extreme, I want you to imagine what would happen. You know, not to do the classic Republican thing here. What if the situation was reversed? But in all seriousness, what if the situation was reversed? Imagine that an explicitly anti black avowed fascist, somebody who identifies as both things openly right, somehow became the mayor of a major American city. And now imagine that he appointed a cabinet full of anti black racists who. Who again confessed to being that, who have openly declared their intent to take homes away from black people, to impoverish them intentionally as punishment for their black sins. And imagine that some of them have even fantasized openly and explicitly about seeing black people burn in hell. Imagine that this. This person appointing officials who have openly said in the past, we need to impoverish black people. What would happen in that scenario? Like, would the federal government just allow it to happen? Would the left allow it? Would they say, well, okay, I guess this city will become a fascist anti black dictatorship now? It's what the voters want? No, of course not. That would not be allowed. And it shouldn't be allowed, by the way. And. And if the fascist dictator mayor was a foreigner who came here from, you know, a country, the left, let's say they came here from Russia with the explicit intent of importing fascism to our country and persecuting black people, then that person would be in prison or at least deported back to his own country. That's what would absolutely happen in the reverse scenario, and we all know it. And the same should happen here. The alternative is that on the orders of HR Hellspawn like Sia Weaver, white conservatives will lose their homes and life savings. New York will decay until it's indistinguishable from Caracas. That's their goal. They're openly admitting it. And we should listen to every single word they're saying. And we should use their words as a legal justification in a lawful and just proceeding to eject every single one of them from our country. Now let's get to our five headlines. Investing shouldn't feel like a gamble. With Stash's smart portfolio, your money's guided by experts giving you peace of mind while it grows. Our sponsor, Stash, isn't just another investing app. It's a registered investment advisor that combines automated investing with expert personalized guidance so you don't have to worry about gambling or figuring out on your own. Stash is simple, smart and stress free. Choose from personalized investments, Let Stash's award winning smart portfolio do the work for you or pick a combo of both. Stash is there to guide you every step of the way. Plus, Stash's Smart Portfolio helps you invest in a diversified balanced portfolio and on a regular schedule to help you see growth and consistent annual returns. Just $3 per month gets you access to world class financial advice and personalized guidance so you can start investing in your future. Today. Join over 1,000,000 Active Stash subscribers and finally, let your money work as hard as you do. Don't let your money sit around. Put it to work with Stash. Go to getstash.com Walsh to see how you could receive $25 towards your first stock purchase and a few important disclosures. That's get.stash.com Walsh get.stash.com Walsh paid non client endorsement, not representative of all clients and not a guarantee Investment Advisory services offered by Stash Investments LLC and SEC Registered Investment Advisor. Investing involves risk offer is subject to terms and conditions. If you're tired of feeling like crap and want to be healthier in 2026, you need to throw some Colostrum into your daily routine. Our sponsor Cowboy Colostrum is as legit as you can get. We're talking 100% American grass fed Cow colostrum that's collected only after the calves get their share. Unlike other brands that process their product and strip out half the good stuff, Cowboy Colostrum keeps it whole, full fat and protein rich, basically the way nature intended. This is the true first day colostrum packed with immunoglobulins and growth factors, not some watered down version. They make it easy too. Just throw a scoop of chocolate, Madagascar vanilla, matcha or strawberry into your coffee or smoothie. No artificial flavors, just natural ingredients that actually taste good. The result? Your gut stabilizes, your skin clears up, your hair looks better and you feel great all day. It's the highest quality bovine colostrum you can buy in the U.S. and honestly, well, it just works. My producer Holly, so excited to try Cowboy Colostrum just got hers today. Can't wait to give it a shot. See the benefits that she gets. For a limited time our listeners get up to 25% off their entire order. Just head to cowboycolostrum.com Walsh Use code Walsh to check out that's 25% off when you use code walsh@cowboycolostrum.com Walsh so speaking of cities that are falling apart, Daily Mail has this headline Seattle in Free Fall under Hyper Woke Mayor as New Order Allows Drug Users to Avoid Prosecution with homeless encampments growing in the city, Seattle Articles of Seattle has erupted into chaos under its new Ultra Woke Mayors, A police order allows drug users to avoid prosecution in the city plagued by crime and homelessness. Democratic socialist Katie Wilson was sworn in as the city's 58th mayor on Friday. The progressive politician who co founded the Transit Riders union has stepped into the role as concerned locals say a demand from the Seattle Police Department will destroy Washington's largest city. According to internal email from SPD chief Sean Barnes, most drug cases will now be handled by the Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion Program. Effective immediately. All charges related to drug possession and or drug use will be diverted from prosecution to the LEAD program. All instances of drug use or possession will be referred to Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion, a program designed to redirect low level offenders in King county from criminal justice system into supportive social services. Barnes wrote that if drug offenders refuse to comply with lead, prosecutors can then intervene. The program excludes those selling drugs and people with histories of violent felonies and sex offenses, as well as people already being supervised by the Department of Corrections. But generally this, this means that they're not going to prosecute drug users. From 2019 to 2024, the homeless population in King county spiked by 46% to 16,385 people, according to Seattle based public policy think tank Discovery Institute. And it's only getting worse by the way. Seattle's total population is about 800,000. So if they have, you know, 16 or 17,000 homeless people, that's, that's like 2% of the population. And assuming that number of 16,000, 17,000 is not a massive undercount, which it almost certainly is a massive Undercount, that means 2% of the population is living on the street, strung out on heroin and fentanyl, which is an insanely high number by the way. 2% for it for your homeless population is insanely high. Because you know what the actual percent should be? Zero. Okay? Zero percent of your population should be living in homeless encampments. The, the number of homeless should be zero percent. And that's, that is possible. You can do that. There are many cities in the world that have zero homeless people. There are many towns even in America that have basically zero homeless people. So it is possible to achieve. But instead Seattle is totally infested and now it's only going to get worse under this new mayor as they go even softer on drug use. Not that they were really enforcing those laws very severely before this. And we're all familiar with the arguments, right? The argument is that, well, drug use is a personal issue. It doesn't harm anybody else. It's nobody else's business, right? If somebody wants to go use drugs, like, why should we put them in jail for that? They're, they're just poisoning their own bodies. And that's how you end up with these kinds of policies where they're not going to prosecute drug use. The idea, the claim is that it doesn't harm anyone else if somebody decides to shoot up heroin or use fentanyl or smoke crack or whatever. And this is the reasoning, the libertarian delusion that has prompted cities all across the country to treat drug use like a medical problem or like a mental health problem. You know, we gotta treat it. They need treatment. We don't want to punish it. Now, I reject the premise. Well, there are multiple premises here that I, I reject, I reject all the, all, all of them. But, you know, I reject the premise that a thing is only a crime and should only be punished if it harms somebody else. I don't see why that is necessarily the case. I also reject the idea that drug use only harms the drug user. I mean, that's. Even if we were to agree, let's just accept the first premise that if a thing only harms the person doing it, then it should be legal. Now, again, I don't really accept that. I think you have to explain, like, people take that as a, as self evident and I don't see it as self evident. Well, it only harms that person. Okay, so why should it necessarily be legal to do something if it only harms you? There is still someone being harmed. But let's, let's not even debate that because that kind of misses the point. So let's just accept that. We'll go ahead and accept that kind of libertarian, I think, sort of silly, superficial idea. Well, is it true that when people use hard drugs, they're only harming themselves? Is it true that if you live in a city like Seattle and you've got thousands of people who are doing hard drugs every day, that it doesn't hurt you? That is obviously not true. That is obviously not. That is obviously insane. Like, yes, drug use, not just drug trafficking or drug selling, but drug use should be banned under law and should be punished, and it does harm lots of other people, millions of people in this country are harmed every day by the drugs that other people have decided to use. That is clearly the case. Drug use causes grave harm to the entire community, well beyond the drug users themselves. And why? Well, you know, for one thing, obviously, almost all of the random, violent outbursts in Seattle or anywhere else are committed by drug addicts. When somebody is high on fentanyl or heroin or anything or crack or any drug, they are a danger to the people around them. You know, when you hear a story about somebody getting pushed onto the train tracks or. Or, you know, stabbed randomly while they're walking down the street or whatever, it's almost always a junkie. It's almost always a drug addict. Drug use makes people delusional, violent, dangerous, clearly. So that's one thing. And also when your city turns into an open air drug den, okay, it. It then becomes unlivable for everybody else. So we pulled together, here's some images from around Seattle, and this Daily Mail article has a few of them. And I don't think we need but just. Just a few examples of what Seattle looks like if you were to make the mistake of walking around the town and. Oh, that's a good one, right? Yeah. So this is what it's like to. Yeah, okay. You want to. So I don't know where that is in Seattle. You want to walk down that particular street in Seattle, and that's what you're walking by. You're telling me this shouldn't be a crime? You're telling me that no one else is harmed by this? Really? When you got thousands of people who are setting up camps in the middle of the city and getting high, no one else is harmed by that. Like, that's a victimless crime, really. It's like you can't walk down the street in your own city. You try to walk down the street in your own city, and you got to walk over trash and use needles and around tents and it smells and it's disgusting and you can't even bring your kid around it because you're afraid of what might happen. You know, you don't want your wife walking down the street alone. That doesn't really. It doesn't harm anybody else. Oh, we can't put the drug users in jail. They're not harming. Drug users harm people every day, you freaking morons. What are you talking about? So here's the actual reality. Here's the truth. Those junkies out on the sidewalk, throwing their trash all around, treating the entire city as their personal dumpster. Here's the real truth, that those are, for the most part, bad people, okay? These are bad people. They are selfish. They are dangerous. They don't care about anyone. I'm tired of talking about these people like they're victims. They're not, okay? They're not the only thing. Look, you are the victim. Guess what? You live in one of these cities. That's. That's. That's been turned into a hellscape because of them. You're the victim, not them. The only thing they care about in the entire world is their own pleasure. The pleasure they get from the drugs is the only thing they care about. That's it. That's why offering them treatment doesn't work most of the time. They don't want it. They don't care. The only solution is to round them up by force and put them in jail. That's the only solution. There is no other solution. Treat drug use as a crime. Treat homelessness as a crime. Make it illegal to set up camp in the middle of the sidewalk. Because. Because it is illegal and should be illegal. In fact, just to underline the point here, there's a video attached to this Daily Mail article, and I think this is from a couple of years ago. A journalist goes to an old Joanne Fabrics that has shut down and become a homeless encampment. And the homeless just took it over and, you know, and turned it into, like, a drug den, which is what they do. And. But we're not allowed to call that, like, selfish, degenerate, awful behavior. We're not allowed to say that, even though it clearly is. We're. We're supposed to just see it as nothing. But all these poor victims, they're like cancer. It's like no difference between that and a cancer victim. Like, give me a break. Come on. But they took over this place, and, you know, the city allowed this, rather than showing up and arresting everybody, which is what they should have done. You know, if. If there's an abandoned store somewhere in town and I show up to it, just me as myself, and I. And I go to this store and I just, like, walk around inside the abandoned building for some reason, right? If somebody sees that and calls the police, police will show up and I'll be arrested for trespassing or at least I'll get a citation and I'll get kicked out, right? But if a homeless guy goes and lives there and smokes crack there every day and takes a dump on the sidewalk outside, he won't be arrested. And that's supposed to make sense somehow? So anyway, this journalist interviews one of the homeless guys, and listen. Listen to what he says. Listen. What's up, my guy? How you doing? You live here? No, I just clean all this stuff up, man. What's happened here, man? Everyone just took over. Joanne Fabrics. Wow. What's the city offer? Offering any services, any outreach. They gave me apartment, but they said that I have to fix him to.

B (46:48)

Be able to stay in the park.

A (46:49)

I said, no way, you know? All right, so, Jerome, you. For the record, outreach workers offered you a place to go, an apartment, but you said no because they wanted you to neuter your dog, and you ain't doing it. Why not? Because I want puppies. You know, I want at least one. Yeah. What you're seeing is housing first in action. Homeless people being given units. But some are now rejecting the apartments because they don't like the accommodations or the restrictions. So the city offered him a free apartment. We've seen that. We've seen this kind of thing so many times. I mean, these videos, there's hundreds of them. It's always the same story. We've played many of them on the show before. You can go to any city in the country and find this kind of thing where they. The city has embarked on some kind of program to get the homeless off the street by offering them free housing. And then, you know, you go interview the. The homeless people, and you say, well, hey, hey, why aren't you living in the free housing that was given to you? And. And you. You get this. You get this kind of answer, like, I don't. I didn't want. It didn't live up to my. It didn't live up to my standards. This guy says he turned down free housing because he didn't want to neuter his dog because he wants a puppy. He's living on the street in an abandoned Joanne Fabrics. And the city comes to him and says, we will give you a free house. Right? It's got heat. It's got air conditioning. It's got electricity. You could. You have a sofa. You can have a bed. I mean, you can lock your door at night. And he says, well, can I bring my dog? And they say, yeah, you can even bring your dog. You just got to get it neutered, though. Oh, well, I said, well, never mind then. Well, why? What do you mean? Well, I want a puppy. I want a puppy. I mean, and so when I. When I say things like. Like, well, these are bad people. People get very upset about that, and I get a lot of crap for it, and I will again, because I just said it again. How do you want me to describe that guy? Like, really? Is he a victim? You think that guy's a victim? This is like insane selfishness. Like, insane levels of selfishness and entitlement. That's what that is. I'm sorry, but that's what that is. And of course I'm not dumb. I know the real reason is not that he wants a puppy. It's that he wants to do drugs, man. That's the real reason. It's got nothing to do with the puppy. Okay? No, the real reason is like, they tell them, well, you can have this free housing, but you can't, you know, you have to just live at base. You have to. It's like basic standards of living as a civilized person that you have to abide by. And he doesn't want to do that. So. And this. And this is, you know, this is it. So for all the people who say that housing, that. That homelessness is a housing problem, it's not. It's not. You could offer a free mansion and a private chef to every homeless person in the country, and guess what? Homelessness will disappear for about three days and midway through the first week, it will. The homeless rates will continue. Will. Will return to exactly what they were before, right? By like next Thursday, almost all of them will be back on the street. The mansion will be trashed and destroyed. The personal chef will be assaulted or killed or raped, and they'll be out on the street. And the mayor of Seattle will still tell us that they're the victims who just need treatment and compassion. No, these are, for the most part, there are exceptions, I will allow, but for the most part, these are selfish, dangerous degenerates who don't care about anyone or anything and will gladly turn your community into an unlivable dump as long as they get their drugs and their pleasure out of it. They would cut your throat for the sake of their drugs without missing a beat, without, like, they would not lose a second of sleep. And that's the fact. So the only thing you can do about it, for the sake of the community, most importantly, for the sake of, like, law abiding people, most importantly, but also for their own sake. Because when I say they're selfish, dangerous, degenerate people, it doesn't mean that they always have to be that way. I believe anyone can be redeemed as a Christian, and there are plenty of stories of people who were that way and were formed and were redeemed. And I think the chances are unlikely. Like, your chances aren't great. The vast majority of these people will be this way forever until they die. But there's always a chance. But the only way of that happening is to stop treating these people with kid gloves. Stop babying them, stop talking about them like they're. Like they're, you know, cancer victims, like they're cancer patients. And hold them accountable. Say, like, this is okay if you want to. We're a civilized society. Okay? This is not. We are a civilized society and you will live like a civilized person. Or we will put you in jail. Because that's what jail is for. It's for people who are not capable or are unwilling to live like civilized people. We're going to hold you. Like, here's a. The basic level of accountability is the only way. And if you do that, you could solve this problem in a week. You could solve this problem in a week. You really could. Just round them all up, put them in jail, problem solved. It really, it's solved. And what happens when there's more people living on the street doing drugs tomorrow? Put them in jail too. We run out of room in the jails, build another jail. Just keep doing it until law abiding people are able to walk down their street in their own community without smelling human waste and having to worry about getting their throat cut while they try to walk, you know, down the street to the, to the drugstore. Like that's what you do. All right, let's see. I'm getting a little worked up. Let's check in. It's, you know, we haven't checked it on fish cam in 2026, have we? It's been. I don't even know if the fish is still. Oh, he is still there. We took his. What happened to his Christmas hat? Still the Christmas season. I'm not, I'm not as much of a, of a, of a stickler for that as say, my friend Michael Knowles is that you have to keep the Christmas decorations up through the entirety of the Christmas season, but you also don't have to tear them down right away. So I, we gotta, we go through all that trouble. I don't know where we found the little tiny fish. Christmas hat, Santa hat, but I think we can get a couple more weeks out of it. This episode is sponsored by Leaffilter. Leaffilter isn't just another gutter guard. It's a trusted name built to last with years of relentless engineering behind it. Those DIY and hood style knockoff gutter guards can't keep up in heavy rain, water pours right over the edge and straight to your foundation, and in lighter rain, leaves and debris flow right into the gap. Leaffilter works better because it's topped by stainless steel and micro mesh, so water is channeled while debris is filtered out. Every installation comes with a lifetime clog free guarantee and they're trusted by over a million homes. A Leaf Filter Trusted Pro Leave and clean out, realign and seal your gutters before installing. Don't settle for a knockoff. Protect your home with a Leaf filter. Start protecting your home today with LeafFilter, America's number one gutter protection system. Schedule your free inspection at leaffilter.com walsh that's up to 35% off@leaffilter.com Walsh See representative for warranty details. All right, let's touch on this very briefly. The post Millennial Reports the United States has been increasingly issuing visas to only fans, sex workers, as well as social media influencers under the O1B visa, or the visa meant for extraordinary creative abilities. According to the financial times, the O1B visa, which has in years past been used by people such as Yoko Ono and the husband of John Lennon, is now being used to come to the US by social media influencers and sex workers publishing pornography on OnlyFans. Immigration attorney Michael Wild says, I knew the days of representing iconic names like Boy George and Sinead o' Connor were over, then added that the shift has been going to what he called scroll kings and queens. So I mean, that's basically the story. It goes into a lot, the stats and all that. But they're giving these visas to apparently only fans, quote unquote sex workers, otherwise known as prostitutes, and, I don't know, Instagram influencers. So as we've covered many times, illegal immigration is only a part of the problem. Legal immigration is also a problem at least equal. At least equal in importance. There are many ways that foreigners come here legally that should not be allowed, should not be legal, because the invasion is happening, for the most part, legally. And the thing with many of these legal avenues is that at one time you could see the argument for them. At one time it may have made some kind of sense, even something like asylum taking in refugees. I've been very critical of the asylum program. I'm opposed to it now. I think we should just get rid of it. But there was a time when I would have felt differently if our economy was strong and our cities were healthy and livable and America was populated almost entirely by Americans, and we didn't have 50 million illegal aliens here, however many there are, and we weren't being crushed under the weight of a foreign invasion, then in that case, I might say, sure, we can afford to be nice and charitable and offer asylum to a limited number of people just out of the kindness of our hearts. Yeah, it doesn't benefit us. We get nothing out of it. But we can afford to be nice, and not to everybody, but, you know, to, to. To a select number of individuals. We can afford to perform that act of charity, but that's not the case, and we can't afford it. And the program has been exploited and scammed into oblivion so that you really have no choice but just to throw it away. It's. And it's the same way with offering visas to people with extraordinary artistic abilities. Now, in theory, I could see a scenario where I would be in favor of that in a limited context. Once again, if everything was going well here and we were not suffocating under the weight of the non American hordes that are invading our country, then maybe I would say, sure, you know, we could afford to give visas every once in a while. A limited number to really creative foreigners who, you know, know how to draw pretty pictures or, or make movies or whatever. But that's not the case. And so we can't afford it. And then on top of that, most of these artists are not artists at all. You know, it requires no talent, obviously, let alone extraordinary talent, to whore yourself out on OnlyFans or to be an influencer. And I say that as someone who is sometimes, I think, wrongly accused of being an influencer, which is a term I consider to be a slur at this point. As we move into 2026, many businesses, including the Daily Wire, are ramping up hiring efforts to meet ambitious new objectives. But bringing those goals to life requires assembling the right team. And that's easier said than done. Today's hiring landscape presents some big obstacles. From sourcing candidates with the right expertise to sifting through overwhelming numbers of applications to find the truly qualified prospects. Luckily, our sponsor, ZipRecruiter, offers a solution designed to streamline the entire hiring process. Right now, you can explore what ZipRecruiter has to offer at no cost. By visiting ZipRecruiter.com Walsh ZipRecruiter's matching technology really cuts through the typical hiring headaches. As soon as you post a role, you can see exactly how many qualified candidates are in your area. No guessing, no waiting around the resume database lets you go straight to top candidates and access their contact info immediately, which saves both time and money. It's no surprise that they're the number one rated hiring site on G2. You're running a company. You need tools that actually deliver results. And that's what ZipRecruiter does. Let ZipRecruiter help you find the best people for all your roles. 4 to 5 employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within the first day. See for yourself. Just go to this exclusive web address right now to try ZipRecruiter for free. ZipRecruiter.com Walsh again@ziprecruiter.com Walsh ZipRecruiter the smartest way to hire all right, finally post Millennial again. A study conducted by Singaporean researchers has found that children exposed to screens as infants are more likely to experience anxiety and slower decision making later in life. The study tracked 168 children over more than a decade, examining the effects of screen exposure before age 2. Parents reported the amount of screen time their children had in infancy, while MRI scans of the children's brains were taken at various ages to track developmental changes. The children also completed cognitive tasks at eight and a half years old to assess decision making and an anxiety questionnaire at age 13. So the the study reported that observed infants averaged more than one to two hours of daily screen time. The World Health Organization recommends no sedentary screen time for one year olds and limits two year olds to no more than one hour a day. And this was, this apparently was data that was collected over 10 years ago. So this was a study that was done or I mean the study was done, but the data is from, I think it said like 2012 to 2014 or something like that. Which makes, which means that all the numbers are worse now. You know, the societal screen addiction has obviously gotten worse over time, continues to get worse. So we can assume that this is an undercount. But even 10 years ago, they're telling us that the infants in the study average one to two hours of screen time a day. Infants? Who in the world is putting it an infant in front of a screen? Apparently a lot of people are, which is pure madness. But do you know how many. This is one of the rare times where I will have to agree with the World Health Organization. Do you know how many hours of screen time your infant should get in a day? Zero. Zero hours, zero minutes, zero seconds? Yeah, we, we managed to have six infants at different times. Well, twice we had two infants at the same time and we never put them in front of a screen ever. You just. You would never do that. So I really don't want to hear any excuses from parents. I just don't want to hear it. I'm not, I'm not. I'm not sympathetic. There are a lot of excuses that parents give for laziness that may fool a lot of other people. And especially if you don't have kids, it may sound reasonable to you. Parents always offering excuses for being lazy. And, you know. Yeah. If you don't have kids or if you have less parenting experience, you might say, well, yeah, okay, I could see that. You can't get that past me. Sorry. This is why I just have no. When these parents say, well, I have no choice, what else am I going to do? Like, what do you mean you have no. Oh, shut up. You got two kids, you've been a parent for five or six years, and you're telling me you already. I have. I have to put them in front of a screen. What else am I going to do? I don't know. Spend time with your kid, Be a parent. Oh, you don't know. How difficult. Well, actually, I do. Actually, I know more than you do in that case about the difficulties of parenting. And so you're not going to get that past me. I'm sorry. And then the study tells us about all the negative health effects of screen time for young children. And of course, you shouldn't need a study to tell you that you can't plop your kid down in front of a screen for hours a day, years at a time, and then be surprised when there are negative downstream effects. It's all negative, but nothing good can come of it. There is no benefit. There is no benefit to letting your child's life be dominated by a screen. Makes them depressed, anxious, dumb, fat, lazy, antisocial, distractible, addicted to dopamine, in need of constant stimulation, and on and on and on and on. And you don't need any study for this. The study should be your own common sense. Use your head. So when parents say, and I hear this all the time, when I say, well, you shouldn't, you know, your kid should not be sitting in front of a screen all day and they say, well, what's the. Well, how do you know? I mean, what, what, what's the harm? I just listed a lot of the harms. But how about. Let's look at it the other way? What's the benefit? How does your child benefit from this? In what world can will your child get to the age of 18 and you'll look back on their childhood and say to yourself, thank God they got so much screen time. Or in what world would you get to 18? Your child gets 18 and you say, man, I just wish they had spent more time in front of a screen. I so many regrets as a parent, but my biggest regret, my biggest regret, you're on your deathbed and you're saying, my, my greatest regret as a parent is that if only my kids had spent more time staring at a glowing box. No, you're never going to say that. No parent will ever say that. There are gonna be a lot of parents if they have at least the self awareness, who at some point in the future when it's too late, are gonna say, my God, my kids had no childhood. I robbed my children of their childhood. They had no childhood. None of the experiences that I had growing up or that kids are supposed to have because they were just staring at a damn screen the whole time. Because I didn't want to be bothered. Because the only thing I cared about as a parent was just keeping them quiet. My God, I failed. I failed as a parent in the most fundamental way. There's gonna be a lot of parents saying that to themselves. And you know what? They're gonna be right. You did fail. You know, now I'm at the point now where I think that we seriously need to start talking about and, and treating excessive screen time for children as child abuse. And look, I know that in enforcing that legally, figuring out where to draw the line and all that is impossible. So I mean that we need to talk about it and treat it as child abuse, socially, culturally, you know, if not necessarily legally. And I'm not saying that if your kid ever watches TV that you're an abuser. Of course I'm not saying that. You know, my kids watch TV sometimes. There's not, it's not like if your kid stares at a screen for two seconds, their brain's going to explode. I'm saying that if you have a child, especially a young child, whose day to day existence is dominated by screens who seem to be almost incapable of enjoying anything unless they're experiencing it through a screen, then you are an abuser. And I truly do not say that lightly because I know there are a lot of parents who fall into this and are not bad people, they're not evil people. They don't, they don't intend to harm their kids, but you are harming them deeply. And you're not doing it because you think, because like, you're mistaken. You're not Doing it because you think there's some benefit to having your 8 year old stare at a screen for 7 hours a day. You're doing it because it's easier for you because the kid shuts up and goes away and you can do what you want. And what you want is to also stare at the damn screen. And I'm sorry, but that is, that's abuse. It just is. You are abusing your child. It's dereliction of duty. It is neglect and there's no excuse for it. Again, I'm just, I'm not interested in the excuses. You're, you're not going to pull that over on me. You're just not going to. Don't want to hear it. You know, we can debate at what age a child should or can reasonably be given a phone, right? A phone that's heavily monitored, locked down, no open Internet access, only able to message and call approved people and so on, because that's the only kind of phone that your minor child should ever be given, if they're given one. But we could talk about whether that age is, you know, what, 15 or 16 or whatever. There's room for discussion there. Practically speaking, you know, you might have time, especially as your kid gets older, they're in after school activities, they do extracurricular stuff, they do sports or whatever. You might find reasonably that, and especially like payphones don't exist anymore. So you need your kid to be able to contact you. You give them the phone and don't let them have the phone in their room. You know, the phone stays in the kitchen or something on the kitchen counter, it's locked down, all that kind of stuff. So assuming that you're giving the phone in that context and it's that heavily monitored, we could talk about like at what age you do that. So there's some gray area, but many parents, maybe most are giving phones with full Internet access to their elementary aged children. And that is clearly an act of flagrant parenting neglect. And, and we should really start talking about it that way because, because that's, that's what it is. I was at a restaurant recently with my kids, four of them. So it was just, it was just me and four of my kids ages 6 to 12. My wife was home with the toddlers and we, we do this, I try to do this on a semi regular basis. I try to take the kids out to eat, we go to a restaurant, we spend some time together. So they get some dad time, you know, and I enjoy doing that and they enjoy it anyway. I see the site that many of us have seen before. I'm sure I've complained about it many times in the past, so there's nothing spectacular about it, but it was. I'm sitting there with my kids and I see a, a family few stalls over. It was a t table with, I assume mom and dad and two kids, both about in the age range of, of my kids. And both kids are on their phone. Well, one was a phone, I think the other was a tablet at the table at a restaurant. And you, what, what do you, you took your kid out to eat at a restaurant? Like, talk to them? Well, they won't talk to me. They're looking at the screens. Take the screen away, take it away from them. You're the parent, you're in charge. Just physically take it from them. Well, they, they won't let me have their, their phone. They won't let you have it. Who are you? The, are you the parent? Are you the father? What kind of father are you? What are you worried? What do you, what do you, are you worried that your 7 year old will be mad at you? What kind of man are you? It's like it's, it's, it's, it's emasculating, among other things. It's especially. I'm looking at this father. I'm like, you are a disgrace of a man. You really are. What kind of man are you? You're like, at this restaurant, you're letting your kids ignore you while they sit on their freaking phones that they shouldn't even have at that age. What kind of man are you? Like, man up and take their damn phone away. And if they, if they cry about it or make a scene, throw the phones in the garbage. So we talked about New Year's resolutions for fathers yesterday when we closed the show with that. Well, here's one for all parents. Take, take the screens away from your kid, your kids, you know, give them a real childhood. Force it on them, force them to live a real childhood because they're, especially if they're already addicted, they're not going to like it at first, you know, you, because you've allowed this to happen with your child, they now have become the kinds of children who, if you kick them outside, which you should do, that's how we were raised and that's how you should raise your kids. Like kick them outside on a nice day and say, go play. I don't want to play. Well, too bad you can't go play. You are required to go play outside. That's that is an order. Go have fun outside. And you know, if you've allowed your kids lives to be overtaken by the screens, then, then you're gonna kick them outside. They're not going to know what to do. Right, like a normal, healthy kid. I mean, when I kick my kids outside, sometimes they might complain a little bit, but generally they're like, great. They know exactly what to do. They can think of a thousand things to do outside. And if your kids aren't able to do that because they're, they're. Their minds have been warped by the screens and so there's going to be some adjusting and they're not going to like it at first, but eventually, eventually they'll learn how to be children and go out and do active things and enjoy the sunshine and all that and, and they will thank you for it down the road, not right away. They'll be mad. It's okay for your kids to be mad at you sometimes. If your kids are never mad at you, then you're not parenting well. And they'll be mad at you at first, but down, down the road, maybe far in the future, one of these days they're going to come to you and say, dad, thank you for taking that phone from me. Thank you for doing that. Sorry I was such a brat about it, but you were right. So that's the, that's the resolution. And that will do it for the show today. Thanks for watching, thanks for listening. Talk to you tomorrow. Have a great day. Godspeed. What was it like, Merlin, to be alone with God? Is that who you think I was alone with, Maradin? I knew your father. I am yet convinced that he was not of this world. All men know of the great Taliesin. You are my father. That the gods should war for my soul. Princess Garris, savior of our people. I know what the Bull God offered you. I was offered the same. And there is a new power at work in the world. I've seen it. A God who sacrifices what he loves for us. We are each given only one life. Singer. No. And we're given another. I learned of Yazu the Christ and I have become his follower. He's waiting on a miracle. And I think you can give him one. Trust in Ya'sul. He is the only hope for men like us. Fate of Britain never rests in the hands of the Great Light. Great light, Great darkness. Such things mattered to me then. What matters to you now? Mistress of lies. You, nephew. The sword of a high king. How many lives must be lost before you accept the power you were born to wield, so clinging to the promises of a God who has abandoned you. I cannot take up that sword again. You know what you must do. Great Light, forgive. The time has come to be reborn.