Michael Walsh (3:24)

So everyone's well dressed. They're behaving in an orderly fashion. Everything looks clean and bright and safe. You can't help but notice that pretty much everyone is white. And in general, they all seem, you know, to be pretty happy. Immediately, tens of thousands of comments began flooding in, and here's just a handful of them. Quote. Mayor Michelle Wuhan and the radical left have done everything in their power to erase this version of the once beautiful city of Boston. Quote, Dear God, this is heartbreaking. What have we done to our civilization since the 1960s cultural revolution? Quote, America of the past is unrecognizable when compared to today. Sad. Quote, where's the diversity? Where's all the Somalians and transgenders that are the fabric of our democracy? This is racist and homophobic. Quote, it's wild how you can post a video from 60 years ago in Boston. It immediately looks like what Democrats call white supremacist propaganda. And on and on and on. Every single comment was like this. Hundreds of them. Thousands of them. So eventually, the Fenway park account decided to shut down the comment section on the video. Nobody else could reply to their video, at least not directly. So Congressman Brandon Gill of Texas wrote this message about Fenway Park's video on his own feed. Quote, A world my generation never got to experience. Our country declined so much in just a few decades. And it's utterly radicalizing. You can make the case that this short one minute video from Fenway park is the single most effective piece of political messaging of the year. Everyone knows that Boston no longer looks anything like that footage from the 1950s. And everyone knows that since the 1950s, every single major city in the United States has transformed in very similar ways from Los Angeles to Detroit to New York, Chicago. Now, for simplicity's sake, let's, let's stick to Boston for now and just take a look at this, Take a look at this chart. This, you know, the demographic element of the story is unavoidable. So in 1950, white people accounted for 95% of Boston's population. As of last year, they are now a minority. The white population dropped to 45% in 2018. It's been falling ever since. This is the kind of mind blowing historic demographic transformation that if we're happening to any other race or ethnicity, it would be treated as a crisis, a tragedy. But you know, it's white people, so it's supposed to be cause for celebration. More than a quarter of Boston's residents now are born in a foreign country, typically the Dominican Republic, Republic, China, Haiti. According to the city government, quote, 234,792 residents, 37% of Boston's population, speak another language at home besides English. And more than 105,000 people, 16% of residents age 5 and older, quote, do not speak English as their primary language and have some language access needs in speaking, reading, writing, or understanding English. And instead of English, they're speaking Spanish, Haitian Creole, Mandarin, Vietnamese. And those are just the official numbers. Of course. A lot of illegal aliens don't respond to these surveys. So the actual figures are probably worse, a lot worse. This is a transformation that no American should tolerate. It's, I mean, total demographic replacement intentionally. Even if Boston and other major cities were importing high achieving, law abiding foreigners, which they aren't for the most part, it would still be unacceptable. I mean, the reality is, there's no reason to be shy about saying it. This country was built in every meaningful way, predominantly by white people who came from Europe and descended from Europeans. And those Americans created a distinct culture and way of life, which is why we're basically the only country on the planet anymore that actually respects freedom of speech, freedom of religion, or that's capable of sending men to the moon. That's worth defending. And if we were talking about any other country in their culture, everybody would agree with that. But unless we make the active, conscious choice to defend this country, we will lose it. That's how the Bolsheviks conquered Russia. People got too complacent, too passive. It's also other Western countries, including the UK and Canada, have collapsed in a very short period of time. They're unrecognizable now. They've been colonized without a single shot being fired by foreigners who have nothing in common with them. And the same thing is happening to us. So take a look at this footage from opening day at Fenway. This is from a couple of days ago, not from the 1950s. See if you notice any difference from, you know, between this and. And the 1950s, watch.

Fenway Park Announcer (8:07)

Communist.

Michael Walsh (8:22)

So the mayor is a Taiwanese communist, and everyone's booing her, probably because the audience at baseball games skews conservative. Presumably they're not happy with the fact that Boston obstructs federal immigration law or that Massachusetts has one of the highest tax burdens in the entire country. According to one recent poll, quote, a third of Massachusetts voters are either personally considering moving out of the state in 2026 or know someone who's thinking about leaving. You see, it turns out that when you discriminate against white people, import a zillion foreigners into a welfare state, everything gets more expensive for productive people. And then those productive people want to leave. They want to move to Florida. Who could have seen that coming? In the wake of that Boston video, conservatives have posted a slew of similar videos from major cities. And we'll put some of the viral videos up on the screen from New York and Boston that are circulating now. And on the surface, these videos seem just like the one that Fenway Park's official account posted, clearly shot a long time ago. They portray major American cities that are unrecognizable compared to today. But it's important when you're looking at these videos to understand exactly when they were recorded. Some of this footage, particularly the footage from New York, is actually from the 1970s. And regardless of what this footage might imply, that was not a good decade for New York. Cities like New York were a lot more dangerous in 1975 than they are even today. If you were alive at that time, or if you saw a movie like Death Wish, then you know exactly what I'm talking about. So right now, all over social media, conservatives are posting videos of 1970s New York as if it was some kind of utopia. And various figures on the left are pointing out that, you know, pointing out the absurdity of this. And that's a sign from My perspective that that conservatives need to learn a lot more about the specific causes of urban decline in the United States. There's no other way to say this. If you think it happened after the 1970s, then you fundamentally misunderstand American history, at least recent American history. That's a big problem. If you want to undo the damage that both political parties have done to this country, you got to understand what the damage is and how it happened. So to illustrate what I'm talking about, let's go back to Boston. This is a quote from the Boston Globe written by a journalist named Ray Richard. It was published on November 1, 1970. Quote, the odds are greater than they've ever been that anyone in Boston in the wrong circumstances at the right time will be shot, stabbed, choked, burned, beaten, drowned, or kicked to death. The wrong circumstances might be opening your garage doors to put the car away while someone with a knife intending to rob you is hidden inside. Or sitting at a bar minding your own business when a fight breaks out and an onlooker, you get shot and dies. Or during. During doing your assigned work as a clerk in a variety store or a bank manager when a holdup man bursts in. Now, that article would indicate that the 1960s were the decade when everything went south for Boston. And indeed, if you pull up the police Commissioner's report for the city of Boston in 1969, that's exactly what you'll find. So take a look at this. It's pretty stark. In 1966, the total number of robberies in Boston, including highway robberies, commercial robberies, home invasions, and so on, was 1121. That's a rate of 1.78 per thousand residents by 1969, the total number of robberies had soared to 2,984, or 4.75 per 1,000 residents. In other words, in just three years, your odds of getting robbed in Boston increased by nearly three times. Now you can see how sharp the increase was. That's. That's a chart from the same report by the police commissioner. Street robberies became almost exactly three times more common. Now, let's take a look at violent crime, aggravated assault, and let's see how that changed during the 1960s. In 1966, a total of 1,029 aggravated assaults, and that means assaults committed with a gun, knife, or other dangerous weapon, including fists, were recorded in Boston. By 1969, the number had increased to 1,529. In per capita. That's an increase from 1.64 to a rate of 2.4, three aggravated assaults per 1,000 residents. And today, as of 2025, that number is even higher. Boston's rate of aggravated assaults is around 3.7 per 1,000 residents. So in Boston, you're more than twice as likely to get attacked with a deadly weapon in 2025 as compared to 1966. But if you listen to the corporate press, including local stations, you'll hear a very different story. Watch.

WBZ's Mike Sullivan (13:09)

Austin police are touting historically low homicide and gun violence rates in 2024. While not all crime is down, the city is saying its police and social service efforts are working. Here's WBZ's Mike Sullivan. Don't adjust your TVs. Nothing is wrong. This is Boston in the 1950s. It's also the last time the city saw a homicide rate as low as it is today.

Michael Walsh (13:33)

The entire time that I've been a police officer, going back since when I came on, the city has never been safer, period.

WBZ's Mike Sullivan (13:40)

Incidents of gunfire are down 14% and 37% over the last five years. It's the lowest it's been since 2011, and they started tracking it consistently. Homicide numbers are equally as baffling. When you hear the number 24, that is the number of homicides to the whole year.

Michael Walsh (13:57)

Wow, that's great.

WBZ's Mike Sullivan (13:58)

That. Yeah, that's the response right there. Where does that response come from?

Jennifer Newsom (14:03)

I would think it would be higher than that.

WBZ's Mike Sullivan (14:05)

Beth and John Caffarella said they always feel comfortable walking in the city, even at night. The city is so safe that even squirrels will just walk up to random strangers.

Reporter (14:15)

Feel safe.

WBZ's Mike Sullivan (14:15)

Yeah. The biggest upward trend in crime is shoplifting. Boston Police Commissioner Michael Cox says I up 30%.

Commentator (14:24)

I think high prices.

Michael Walsh (14:25)

I mean, it's just, you know, so how could this be? How's it possible that the murder rate is comparable to the 1950s even as other crimes like shoplifting and aggravated assault and so on are going up? The media doesn't have an explanation for this. They. They simply say that in general, Boston has gotten safer, just kind of randomly, you know, for no reason at all. But that's not true, and it's not how things really work. Murders are down in large part because of medical advances since the 1950s. A stabbing victim who would have died of infection in the 1950 can now be saved relatively easily in most cases. The modern 911 system didn't even exist in the 50s, so emergency response was much slower. They also didn't have CT scans that would show the precise location of internal bleeding or organ damage. Blood banks weren't anywhere near as organized or ubiquitous, we have a better understanding of antibiotics and trauma surgery. So a lot of these kinds of medical advances. A study that was published in 2006 in the journal Homicide studies found that, quote, murder rates would be up to five times higher than they are. But for medical developments over the past 40 years, according to new research, doctors are saving the lives of thousands of victims of attack who four decades ago would have died and become murder. Statistics and the research. Dr. Anthony Harris and a team from the University of Massachusetts and Harvard medical school found that technological developments had helped to significantly depress today's murder rates, converting homicides into aggravated assaults. Without this technology, we estimate there would be no less than 50,000 and as many as 115,000 homicides annually instead of an actual 15,000 to 20,000. Now, on top of that, people might commit less murder now because they're much more likely to be caught. Surveillance cameras, cell phones are everywhere. DNA evidence is now common. And at the moment, murder is the one crime that might potentially provoke a serious response from prosecutors, even in democrat run cities might. It's the one crime that you generally want to avoid if you don't want to go to prison. Now, if you steal $10,000 of merchandise or you assault a police officer, or you assault a random pedestrian, you probably won't spend any time in jail. So the decline in murders doesn't mean that cities are as safe as they were in the 1950s. It means that technology has improved and criminals are simply committing other crimes. And criminals began committing those crimes in large numbers in the 1960s. So that's the key point. The rule of law in America broke down very quickly at a very specific moment. It was the civil rights era and the various inventions of the civil rights movement that rapidly destroyed American cities. And the consequences are apparent today. Very apparent. The journalist Tony Heller has spent the last week going through homicide data from the city of New York's official website. And here's what he found. Quote, There were 83 shootings in Queens, New York during 2025. None of the shooters were white. There were 111 shootings in Manhattan during 2025. None of the shooters Were white. There were almost 300 shootings in the Bronx during 2025. None of the shooters were white. And on and on and on. And a lot of these shootings didn't result in homicides, so they won't show up in murder rates. But they're obviously a sign of a city that's declining. And it's clearly declining because its Demographics changed. I mean, that's unavoidably true. And this all happened in accordance, in accordance with the demands of civil rights leaders. It was the Immigration and Nationality act of 1965, also known as the Hart Seller act, that accelerated this transformation. This is where the whole melting pot idea breaks down, by the way. A century ago, America accepted foreigners who come, you know, came predominantly from western countries like Italy and Australia, or rather Italy and Austria, some from Australia. They mostly assimilated into our culture because they shared our, our values and they shared a similar ancestry in many cases. Then the Heart Seller act passed and look what happened. You can see here now a much larger percentage of migrants to America are coming from Mexico, Latin America, Asia. And the raw number of migrants has increased exponentially. Annual net migration, according to official statistics, went from a few hundred thousand people to several million. It's the exact opposite of what Americans were told. Senator Ted Kennedy said, quote, the bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. Senator Haram Fong, a Republican, said, quote, our cultural pattern will never be changed as far as America is concerned. It's hard to imagine a promise that was less true than that. And that's how they sold this legislation to us at the height of the civil rights era. And none of it was true. They lied. And now everybody knows it was a lie. That's the big breakthrough with the Fenway park footage. An idea that was fringe on the right for many generations is going mainstream. Nobody can deny that our elected leaders in Washington have betrayed us. They've made our cities unrecognizable. And Democrats are doing everything in their power to make the problem even worse. This is from the New York Post the other day, quote, the homeless couple has turned a block of Mayor Zoran Mamdani's old neighborhood into a nauseating love nest where they booze it up, have sex and poop in pizza boxes, ignoring disgusting locals who fruitlessly beg the city to take action. The pair have been living in a mountain of their own trash on 30th Avenue near Steinway street in Astoria for the last month, commandeering the sidewalk between a Duane read and a New York sports club. I'm on the way to gym 8.30am the guy is squatting over a camp chair and the other woman is holding a pizza box under him to defecate in, said neighbor Chris Shingler. This is prime time workday, Kids going to school. This is right out front in the middle of the sidewalk, said the 46 year old who moved to the rising neighborhood with his wife in 2007. Now, in the Giuliani era, they just throw these people in prison in about five minutes. And you can do that. It's very easy, easy way to solve it. You see, Juliana, Juliana believed in enforcing the law, every law. He knew that if somebody deliberately breaks the law, there's a good chance that they're going to commit many other crimes. He also understood that if you're going to have a functioning society, you cannot allow people to openly ignore the rule of law. If you crack down on every crime, even the quote, unquote non violent ones, then you'll make the city a lot safer. Very quickly. Again, the decline of New York is a choice. It is engineered by the Democrats. Now, as if to illustrate that point, back in Massachusetts, here's Ayanna Pressley, a leading contender for New York, dumbest member of Congress. Now that Jasmine Crockett is on the way out and here's what she has to say. Watch.

Commentator (21:25)

Eviction is an act of violence and we have to do everything to prevent it. It is devastating for the families. It degrades the health of communities. There is great stigma associated with it. It affects your credit score. Housing is a human right. It is a predictor of health, outside outcomes. It's essential for social and economic mobility. And so many people, when they receive a notice to quit or to vacate their homes, usually because of non payment because wages are not keeping pace with inflation, they don't know their rights. And a lot of times they will just accept that notice to quit and leave. And so my legislation is making sure that they have access to legal counsel because we have found that when tenants know their rights, when they have access to legal counsel, we can usually keep them safely housed.

Michael Walsh (22:17)

Now, she's absolutely right about that last part. Because of the way the laws are written in cities like Boston and New York, it's virtually impossible for landlords to evict anyone. Somebody wants to stay in your property, even if they don't have any kind of written lease, even if they don't pay rent for months, judges will just rule in their favor. Watch.

Landlord Barbara Gunner (22:34)

Yes. If we have any plans for that house, I told him yes.

Reporter (22:38)

Barbara Gunner is the landlord on top of the hill. From her front porch in Encanto, she can see her rental house down below where she says people have been living for nine months without paying rent. How many people are living there now?

Landlord Barbara Gunner (22:53)

About six.

Reporter (22:54)

Barbara says none of the people living here have a written lease. They took over the property after her Longtime tenant died. Do you think that these people are squatters?

Michael Walsh (23:04)

They are squatters and paid a nickel.

Landlord Barbara Gunner (23:06)

Yeah, they're squattered.

Michael Walsh (23:07)

That's why they're down there now.

Reporter (23:09)

Barbara filed eviction papers and took the people to court, but she represented herself and lost the case. In fact, the judge ruled against her twice.

Landlord Barbara Gunner (23:20)

It's a terrible thing, but your hands are tied. You know, to do things legally, you have to go by what the judge says.

Reporter (23:27)

It all came down to what the judge called a verbal lease agreement, formalized when Barbara accepted initial rent payments from one of the tenants. Her husband Roy is a retired criminal attorney, and he still doesn't understand the complicated ruling. It looks to me it's damn near

Michael Walsh (23:46)

impossible to get anybody out of your house.

Reporter (23:48)

They come in and tell any lie,

Michael Walsh (23:50)

and that's enough to squeeze by these

Legal Expert (23:53)

current laws in California, whether you're a squatter or not. Squatters still have rights.

Reporter (23:58)

Christina Williams and her husband, Chris Thorne, told me they do live in the house she lost.

Legal Expert (24:05)

She lost twice in her unlawful detainer. And she was told by the judge that she could not come down here and do repairs and have the tenants removed. But she doesn't care what the court

Reporter (24:16)

said and admitted they don't pay rent. As a landlord, don't you think she deserves to at least have rent paid to her if she owns?

Legal Expert (24:24)

Well, yeah, I mean, I'm not disputing that she does deserve to have her rent paid. But there's a way to go about things. I mean, if you tried to forcibly remove somebody and you lost, then you go back to a starting point and try to resolve that.

Michael Walsh (24:41)

Just total madness. Someone could just live in your house and not pay your rent and not leave and. And the courts will side with them totally. No reason for that. Like, it's not complicated. This is the easiest problem in the world to solve. You just send in a cop, you know, a couple cops at most, drag them out, put them in jail, and if they go back and you charge them with burglary, home invasion, you know, put them in prison for life, it's very easy to solve. You could easily solve this problem. And it's not like these people that are squatting are sympathetic. Like they don't have any. They have no argument. We've seen so many stories like this and videos where the squatters are interviewed, and it's not even like they have any kind of compelling. There's no argument you can make in favor of any. There's no argument you could make in favor of living in. On Some in someone's house that isn't yours, refusing to leave. Leave and refusing to pay them rent. But they don't have. They don't. They don't have anything. They don't have a sympathetic sob story. They don't have. It wouldn't matter if they did. And then. And then when you ask them, well, don't you think you should pay rent? Yeah, probably should, but I'm not gonna. That's it. And for some reason this is tolerated. Well, not just some reason. The reason the judges issue rulings like this is that they subscribe to Democrat party orthodoxy, which states, as Ayanna Presley said, that housing is a human right and that eviction is therefore a violent and unlawful act, depriving someone of that right. They simply don't believe in the right to own private property. They're communists because in their view, you know, that right conflicts with some imaginary right to housing. Remember that during COVID the Biden administration decided to nationalize every rental property in the United States. How quickly people forget about that. They use the cdc. Yes, the cdc, to ban evictions. And no authority to do that whatsoever. Did it anyway so tenants could stay wherever they wanted without paying rent. And a lot of them did. This whole idea that housing is a human right is very closely related to the broader decline in American cities. That's why it all ties in. You got Civil Rights Act, Hart Cellar. Communism makes its way into. Into the. Into the culture. All these things are happening at the same time. All them are related. And housing as a human rights, an idea that. That paints homeless people as victims who are being deprived of their rights rather than what they were before this, which is vagrants who are actively depriving the rest of us of our rights to live in a clean and safe community. You know, if someone is living on the sidewalk, taking a dump in a pizza box in front of your kid, whose rights are being violated? His or yours and your kids in a sane and just society. It's an easy question to answer. The truth is that no one has a right to housing. No one has a right to someone else's labor or someone else's property. You have the right to speak your mind, to practice your religion, defend yourself, and so on. You don't have a right to force other people to house you. Obviously, that's slavery. These squatters are enslaving their landlords. Their landlords are their slaves. I'm being forced to provide for you. That's slavery. Beginning in the 1960s, as part of the radical Transformation of the civil Rights era. Democrats decided to reject, you know, fundamental American principles. They decided to begin forcing people to hire candidates on the basis of race to force their children to attend schools they didn't want to attend, and so on. And as they did so, Democrat elites made every effort to avoid confronting the consequences of their own decisions. There's an article that's going viral right now from a foreign cultural magazine called Thymos. And here's a paragraph from that article was written by an Austrian on a visit to Washington D.C. and he's talking about the fact that Georgetown, one of the wealthiest areas of D.C. doesn't have a metro stop. So people from poor areas can't easily travel to Georgetown. Quote, I have already spent several days in the USA and already gained the most important sociological insights from my study trip. We're sitting in a bar in Georgetown, an English style area of Washington D.C. it's a rich area and therefore not accessible by public transport. The residents may be on the left, but apparently it is important to them not to offer African Americans the opportunity to get to their residential area. That's a guiding ethos of the American left, beginning with the Civil Rights era. They unleash pure destruction, devastation on American cities and then they left ordinary Americans to deal with the carnage, carnage that was left behind in their wake. And when I say carnage, if anything, that's an understatement. The Civil Rights era brought horrors beyond imagination to innocent men, women and children throughout the United States. And that's why I can tell you the next two episodes of my documentary series Real History are going to explore this. They're going to explore the extent of this devastation from the Civil Rights act and how exactly it happened. It's far more than I can unpack in any one monologue or anyone's segment. So it's going to be a two part episode. We will dive deeply into everything from busing to disparate impact theory to the brutal fate that awaited many of the poor and elderly Americans who couldn't participate in the so called White flight. We'll talk about the life of Martin Luther King Jr. Which isn't anything remotely like what the history books tell you. This is a comprehensive point by point breakdown of where exactly America went wrong as a country. It's an in depth explanation of why that Fenway park video is so radicalizing to so many people and why that radicalization is fully justified. Once you understand how quickly our elites destroyed every urban center in this country, it becomes easier to understand how quickly we can reverse the damage they've done if we wanted to. And as tens of millions of Americans react in horror at the sight of that damage, now's the time, more than any other time in recent history, to get started. Now let's get to our five headlines. I've been with Pure Talk for a long time now, and it's always been important that the companies I work with share my values. Thankfully, Pure Talk is one of them. They're veteran led, which means helping veterans is one of their main missions. Plus, they've donated over half a million dollars to America's Warrior Partnership, a fantastic organization on the front lines of preventing veteran suicide. And Pure Talks creating American jobs with a US Only workforce might be cheaper to send jobs overseas like other companies, but they're committed to delivering the best experience possible for their customers. They give you the same tower, Same network, same 5G coverage as one of the big guys, but for a fraction of the price. So go to PureTalk.com Walsh to switch to PureTalk. That's PureTalk.com Walsh Switch to my wireless company and America's wireless company PureTalk. This episode is sponsored by Balance of Nature. Since we were kids, we've always been told to eat our fruits and vegetables, but nobody ever explained what you're actually after in those foods. Phytonutrients. Phytonutrients are natural compounds your body uses to adjust, repair and respond every single day. The more we've tried to improve food in factories, the further we've gotten from what your body actually recognizes as food. That's why I like Balance of Nature. They take real produce and run it through a tailored vacuum cold process that stabilizes phytonutrition instead of nuking it with heat and chemicals. Their whole health system bundle includes their fruits and veggies and fiber and spice supplements, giving you 47 ingredients of whole food and their phytonutrients in a simple, consistent routine. They've even rolled out brand new freeze dried snacks that go through a similar process. So you're not trading convenience for quality. I personally love Balance of Nature because of its convenience when I'm traveling for work or trying to keep up with the kids. It gives me a simple way to make sure I'm getting all the essential nutrients in my diet. Save over 30% when you subscribe on balanceofnature.com, join hundreds of thousands of customers in one simple routine that's changing the world. Let's start with this on Easter Monday. There have been many encouraging reports recently about the revival of religion. Religious fervor among young Americans. And Fox News just had a report on the subject. Let's watch that. In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Landlord Barbara Gunner (33:08)

Mass Baptist baptisms of hundreds of young people. Thousands come to raise hearts of joy in song. There is a palpable spirit moving on college campuses, arenas and megachurches. Younger generations gathering to worship, coming to faith. As the new Fox Nation special reveals,

WBZ's Mike Sullivan (33:32)

there's spiritual hunger in Gen Z. Bible sales are booming, things that you never

Michael Walsh (33:37)

thought would happen before.

Landlord Barbara Gunner (33:38)

It's a kind of worship that's different from their parents and grandparents.

Michael Walsh (33:42)

This is a relationship with grace. And I think that's what young people resonate with today. This isn't achieving. It's receiving. It's not trying to be good enough to earn God's love. God already loves us.

Landlord Barbara Gunner (33:52)

Churches are reporting record numbers of young people filling pews, especially in the Catholic Church, while reports show social media is exploding with young faith influence influencers, spreading a new approach to religion. Still, while Pew Research center data shows religion is gaining influence in America and that Gen Z is showing higher rates of religion, researcher Ryan Burridge isn't convinced there's an actual great Awakening.

Michael Walsh (34:14)

We're not seeing anything in the data that even points close to the idea of a mass revival in America. For us to go from a 25% weekly attendance rate to a 35% weekly attendance rates means 35 million new people are going to be going to church this Sunday.

Landlord Barbara Gunner (34:28)

But for others, the numbers only tell part of the story.

Michael Walsh (34:31)

This is a radical generation that believes that God is going to do great things.

Landlord Barbara Gunner (34:35)

But the data does show that the number of Americans who say they are non religious is declining. And many leaders say it's because young generations are leading a new movement of faith.

Michael Walsh (34:46)

So the data here is a little bit conflicted, a little contradictory because you have, you know, you have these kinds of reports, a lot of anecdotal evidence, not just anecdotal, but evidence of this resurgence of faith among younger people. Evidence that younger people are more religious than their parents, which has never happened before. But then people on the other side of the argument will say that, well, the overall data, the national surveys do not show that religion is actually making a comeback. And instead what we're seeing are kind of pockets here and there where faith is on the uptick, but overall it isn't. Now, I'm biased, obviously, but, but, and there might be some element of wishful thinking here maybe, but, you know, anyone is susceptible to that. I believe that the revival is real. And, and that's what I see with my own eyes. And if it is real, then the question is, you know, whether it will be sustained. Young, young people are discovering or rediscovering Christianity, but where will they be? You know, what will things look like 10 years from now, 20 years from now? What will their children believe? You know, that that's really the question and we're not going to know until we get there. So here's what I think is happening. First of all, you know, you find that conservative and more orthodox reverend churches, traditional churches, especially for Catholics, are the churches that are getting younger and getting and larger, right? And that tells me that what's happening is that partially the, the so called cultural Christians, right, the, the creasters, the CEOs, the Christmas and Easter only types, Christians don't really believe in the religion but sort of participate for social reasons. Those people over the past decade or two have been dropping off, have been, have been leaving completely because it's, it's perfectly socially acceptable these days to be non religious, to be atheist or at least to just be non religious, to just sort of like if somebody asks you what's your religion? And you say whatever. And that's, that's socially acceptable now in a way that it wasn't 40 years ago. And so it's not as much of a, of a, an incentive socially for people who don't really believe it to show up anyway and go to church. And so they're not the, the non believing, fake social Christians are falling off. They're being separated like wheat from the chaff. And that has left a, a core that's left a kind of nucleus of believers who really believe, who really love the faith or really excited or on fire with the faith. And it's, and the effect is it's made the church stronger. The dead weight is gone. The fakers, the pretenders, they're going away. And so it's basically addition by subtraction. So what I'm saying is not that it's, you know, not that it's good. I mean if you had 100 people in a church, you'd prefer that they're all there and excited and they're all true real believers. But that wasn't happening. So if you have a church with a hundred people, let's say, and 60 of them don't really believe and don't really care and they're just sort of coming in on Christmas and it doesn't really matter to them and they're only There for the social experience, treating church like a networking event or something. Well, your, your church will be stronger without them. Because the problem is when those people, especially when they reach a critical mass, they're showing up, they're watering everything down. And, and because of they, you know, they, they have a, they have more of a vote than the real believers because there's more of them and they're so loud and so everything becomes watered down. Now. Now the church, the church service, the Mass is being conducted in a way to appeal to those people who don't even really care in the first place. And it kind of waters everything down. It's better to not have them, right? Better to be hot or cold, not, not lukewarm, we're told in scripture. And this is why it's better to have 40 real believers than to have a hundred congregants where more than half of them are not real. Now, hopefully the fakers discover the true faith and come back. You'd rather have a hundred believers, real believers, than 40. But you don't want 60 non believers who are pretending. That's what you don't want. You don't want 60 people there out of the hundred who are faking it, who are just pretending and are just there for the social experience. That's what you don't want. That kills your church. A big church where more than half of them aren't real Christians is dead. A small church where everybody is real, that's an alive church, that's a vibrant church and it has a core now that can actually grow, grow for real. And I think that's part of what's happening. And then also this younger generation, they're the first generation to really grow up in essentially a post Christian America. They're the first to grow up in a culture that is predominantly secular, non religious. And so it should tell us something that this real. I mean, I grew up in the 90s and it was a very heavily secularized culture then, but not like what someone born in, you know, the year 2000 even would have experienced. Not as bad as that. So now we've got this first generation, first generation or two of, of young people who grew up in this secularized culture and, and they're rebelling against it. What does that tell you? It tells you that a non religious society doesn't work. It just doesn't work. The, the young people, they grew up in secularism, which means they grew up on the idea that life has no inherent fundamental meaning. We're here for the blink of an Eye. We come from nothing. We're going back to nothing. Nothing that happens in between really matters. That's what they're taught. Well, guess what? You can't live that way. That's pure misery. That's nihilism. That's despair. I mean, what's the point of anything? It's just, it's not workable, it's not livable. And if that, if that, if, if the claim of, of secularism is true, if atheism is true, then the more, the more honest, more rational conclusion is, is like antinatalism, right? I mean, the antinatalists are, are bleak. That's, that's a, it's a bleak and depressing worldview, but it's, it's honest. Because if it's true that there is no God and therefore life has no meaning, then what's. There's no reason to live. Like, actually life becomes this cruel joke. And yeah, to have more kids and have them born into this, this. It's like a life of misery and suffering. You come from nothing and your life has no meaning and there's no reason that you're here. It's all an accident. And you're going to go back into nothingness and just like decay back into nothingness in eternity of nothingness. And that's what you're heading for, and you know it. I mean, that's the cruel joke of it, is that unlike the other animals, we are aware of that and we're aware that all this pain and suffering we're going through really has no meaning. It doesn't matter. And, and if that's the case, then life is like, it's like, why even live? Why can, why propagate the species? Why. Why spread human civilization? Why keep it going? There's no reason for any of it. So the most logical conclusion is, well, we shouldn't, you know, just, just let humanity die off and none of it matters anyway. It's totally pointless. And let's just embrace nothingness, embrace the abyss. So that is the logical conclusion of it. And I think we got a lot of young people who've kind of noticed that, and they've looked at that and said, well, that's not. That, that, that's not right. I can't live that way. We can't. You can't have a society that runs that way. It's absurd. I mean, you've made life itself as an absurdity. It's an absurd, depressing, miserable, horrible, dark thing. And, and I think you got young people who are Rebelling against that kind of inevitably. I mean, there's a reason why there's never really been a. An atheist, a fully atheist society that survived for very long anyway. You can't live that way. Nobody can. A society, a culture, can't function, can't thrive, certainly can't exist for very long because of that absurdity. Life without God is an absurdity. It's a grotesque absurdity. And who can live a grotesquely absurd life? So I think young people are rebelling against that. They're rebelling against the meaninglessness by finding meaning. They're determined to live with meaning. And you can only have meaning and live with meaning if you have faith. There's no other way. There's no other place to find it. Right? The numbers don't lie. Financial stress in this country is through the roof. And if debt is crushing you, you're not alone. But doing nothing just doesn't fix it. It just lets interest keep bleeding you dry. You don't need another loan, and you don't need bankruptcy court. You need a real plan. Luckily, our sponsor, done with debt, can help. They don't offer gimmicks. They build smart, personalized strategies that actually reduce what you owe. Whether you're facing 10,000 in debt or 10 times that time, that amount, their goal is simple. Get your payments down and your freedom back. Debt is horrible. It ruins lives and opportunities. But you can start doing something about it today. Take five minutes for a free consultation. Lay out your situation and see what's possible. Because no matter how bad it feels right now, you don't have to stay stuck there. Go to donewiththat.com that's done with debt.com. so I guess what's happening. All right. The first lady of California. Excuse me, first partner. The first partner of California, as she calls himself herself, Jennifer Newsom had some interesting comments about raising boys. And by interesting, I mean horrifying, of course. But here it is. Watch.

Jennifer Newsom (44:47)

I've given our boys dolls. Even if they tear the head off, I've given them dolls to learn that care and caregiving is not just an activity that's reserved for women, but that it's also an activity that is a responsibility of men. What I've done with both my daughters and my sons is if I'm reading a book and the protagonist is a male, I just change the he to a she. And it just normalizes. For my sons in particular, it's not even. I don't even just do it for my girls. I do it for my sons. Because I want them to see that women can be the center of a story, that women matter, that women are interesting. At the end of the day, we're all kind of like, in this place in history, maybe, where we're recognizing what it is to ultimately deconstruct all these gender roles and ultimately be human. And that's exciting to me. So, you know, I'll just continue to kind of do my work and try and deconstruct all of these, like, limiting narratives about ultimately, what it means to be human.

Michael Walsh (45:56)

That actually makes me, like, irrationally angry or, I guess, rationally. Rationally angry. No matter how many times I hear this sort of nonsense from a feminist like this lady, it infuriates me. Where to even begin? Well, let's start with her changing the books in her house so that the protagonists are always female. So she's admitting. She's admitting to censoring children's literature in her home. I mean, we've heard from Gavin Newsom, this ridiculous. He's propagating this myth of book bans that are allegedly being instated by conservatives, by Republicans, which is not real. It's never actually happened. Well, you're telling us you had a book ban in your own house? And the worst kind. Because, you know, sure, like, everyone practices some amount of censorship in your home. You decide what kind of material is allowed in your home or not. Not especially for your kids. Fine. But it's one thing to just. To just not buy a book for your child. It's another to actually. To actually to buy the book and then change it to lie to your children about what's in the book, what it's about, in order to fit your political and ideological ends. I mean, that's crazy. That's what she just admitted to doing. Banning books with male protagonists would be insane already, but this crazy wench has actually found an even more insane way to go about it because she lets them. She lets the books in the house and then changes them. Lies to her sons about the books, edits them in. In a. In ways the author never intended. And why? What's the reason for it? Well, she says she wants to send the message that women can be the center of the story. Oh, really? They can. Wow. I never knew that. Oh, women can be the center of something. Whoa. We never noticed. We never noticed. Yeah. I tell you what, in modern culture, that's a news flash. Or women are never the center of anything. They could be the center. Who knew? You know, women are always, you know, very meekly hanging out on the peripheral. Never saying anything, never being at the center of anything. So this is. This is news. Wow. Of course, the. The dumbest thing about this, aside from just the principle of it, is the idea that a child growing up in modern America would not already encounter endless stories centered around women. Like, you need to create more. Like that's not already. Every movie, almost every show, the idea you have to change a few stories, the few stories that have male protagonists so that your sons never get to have a male. Like they could have one, is what you're saying. It's not even like we want to balance it out, you notice. No, it's. They're never allowed to encounter a male protagonist. 100% of the protagonist must be female. This is like. This is flat out abusive. She should have her kids taken away. She should really have her kids take away. And if you think that I'm. That. That I'm exaggerating, imagine I hate to. To be the guy. Imagine if the roles were reversed. But yeah, imagine if it was reversed. Imagine a male politician. Now, she's not the politician, but, you know, she doesn't know that. A male politician saying this, but about his daughters, that he changes the stories so that it's always a male protagonist. He. He forces his daughters to play with. With male, you know, masculine toys so that they become more like boys. Everyone would be saying, this is an abusive house. Take the kids away. She should have her kids taken away. This is. This is flat out abuse is what it is. And by the way, you know, these kids growing up with a narcissistic feminist mother who already puts herself at the center of everything. I think they know. You know, they especially know. I mean, her husband is trying to gear up for a presidential campaign, and this woman is all over the place doing interviews, trying to put herself at the center of that. Gavin Newsom is taking great pains to pretend to be a reasonable moderate, trying to soften and broaden his appeal, his image. And his wife is in front of cameras every day. Like, I force my sons to play with dolls. I told my sons that the cat in the hat is a girl. So because no hero should ever be a boy, she's out here saying that. While Gavin Newsom is trying every day to pretend to be this moderate guy now, and she's just ruining it. I mean, it's great. I'm glad she is in a certain extent, but it is very funny. So this is what her sons are already used to. They. They have a domineering, narcissistic mother who Makes herself the center of everything all the time. Her boys are very aware that women can be the center of attention. It's what they live with every day. And let's go back to the bit about the dolls, right? So she, she says she, she gives her sons dolls so that they learn that caretaking is for men just as much as it's for women. So she's trying to turn her sons into like effeminate, weak boys. And like I said, it's abusive. I mean, this is actually abusive. And before anyone, I'm not saying that letting your son play with a doll is abusive. I'm saying forcing them to, because you're trying to make them feminine. Effeminate weakness. That is abuse. That's exactly what she's doing to those boys. And that's what all liberal mothers do. All of them. Their ambition for their sons is that they become weak, soft, effeminate. Now, the good news is that very often it backfires. You know, very often you end up with. What you're going to end up with is a, is a son who's even more radically right wing than me, you know, and that's, that's often what happens. But because here's the thing. Jennifer Newsom's premise is obviously totally, totally wrong. She forces her son to play with dolls because she thinks that the dolls make the child feminine, make them into the caretaker types. The reason that girls are feminine and want to be caretakers is that they're given dolls to play with. That's what she thinks, and she has it, of course, completely backwards. It's not that girls are feminine caretakers because they play with dolls. They play with dolls because they're feminine caretakers. This is the nature versus nurture thing that, that women like Jennifer get completely wrong. They just don't understand it because they have no insight into the human condition. Right? They're totally clueless. Their ideology has overridden everything. They're basically aliens, right? Like someone like Jennifer Newsom is, is essentially a space alien. She's like a. And she has an alien's understanding of the human species even less. A space alien gets over another galaxy would probably be able to understand males and females of the human species better than this woman does. Doesn't understand anything. Girls are naturally inclined towards being nurturing and maternalistic. They're not socialized that way. That is nature these days. They are socialized away from that. Great pains have to be taken to steer girls away from that, away from what is natural for them, which is the opposite of what you should do. The answer to nature versus nurture is that girls are feminine by nature, boys are masculine by nature, and the nurturing should be intended to help them understand and fully inhabit and embody their natural selves, their nature. The nurturing should be in harnessing what is natural to them. The dolls. The dolls don't make girls, you know, maternalistic and nurturing. They. They are. Instead, the dolls are a really profound and beautiful reflection of what is natural. I mean, I've marveled at this with both of my girls. The fact that they. At such a young age, without being pushed in that direction, we never tell them, oh, you have to play. You're a girl. You have to play with dolls. That's never been said. Like I've said many times, I got, you know, started with a boy, girl, twins. And we had a playroom and they. We had toys in the play with. They. We never said, here's the toys that boys play with, here's the toys. That never said that one time. Don't need to say that. You just kind of unleash these two little kids on the playroom and they immediately gravitate. Boy toys, girl toys. It's a very natural thing. And. And I've kind of marveled at this, not in a surprise kind of way, but in a. In a. In a finding a beautiful kind of way that girls at such a young age, from toddlerhood, are already trying to sort of inhabit the role of mother that they. This is how they play from the youngest age. They want to have a baby doll and pretend they're feeding the baby doll and comb the hair and all of it. And boys don't do that naturally. Very rare. It'd be a rare exception to have a boy who naturally plays that way. And boys, on the other hand, are. They're trying to inhabit the role of protector and provider. And so they have no interest in dolls. Right? And. And if you do force them to play with dolls and they're gonna end up like, they're gonna end up. The dolls will end up being locked in Mortal Kombat with, like, the action figures or whatever. The dolls will become combatants, ninjas, because that's how boys are. It's in their nature. What a boy is not going to do on his own is, like, sit for hours and pretend to feed the doll and comb the hair and all of that. Boys have no interest in that. Girls do. And it's. It's in their nature. And, you know, the healthy thing is to say, wow, that's a wonderful thing. That's a wonderful thing. Boys and girls are different and they're, they're inclined in this direction. And, you know, being a young girl who wants to be nurturing, that's a, that's a wonderful thing. Being a young boy who wants to be protective and wants to be, be, you know, has this, has this instinct is like his, his fantasies are all about, like, beating up the bad guys and pretending, protecting the people he loves. That's a wonderful thing, too. That's the healthy way to look at it. One of the biggest scandals in America today is that big tech buys and sells you your data, your habits, your digital life. You're the product, not the customer. They track everything and cash in on it. It's invasive, it's dehumanizing, and it's everywhere. The good news? You can stop it. Our sponsor, ExpressVPN, keeps your life private and out of their hands. Even when you're in private or incognito mode, nothing you do actually is private. Everything gets tracked, recorded, sold to data brokers who profit off of your information. And the buyers aren't exactly looking out for you. That's why I use ExpressVPN. It encrypts your Internet activity and hides your IP address, the digital ID that data brokers use to build a profile on you. I use ExpressVPN all the time, especially when I'm traveling and doing my show or doing research on public wi fi like airports. It's nice to know I can still do all the work I need without worrying about who can potentially see my data or steal my information. With one click, ExpressVPN keeps your information from being traced back to you. It's serious technology, but incredibly easy to use on any device. Right now, you get ExpressVPN at just 3.49amonth. It's less than 12 cents a day, and you can get an extra four months of service. When you go use my special link, go to expressvpn.com Walsh get four extra months of ExpressVPN. That's exp R-S-S-Vpn.com Walsh USAA knows dynamic duos can save the day like superheroes and sidekicks or auto and home insurance. With usaa, you can bundle your auto and home and save up to 10%. Tap the banner to learn more and get a'@usaa.com bundle restrictions apply. Okay, let's. Before we wrap up, I want to mention this. Somebody named Ellie Slate home went viral over the last few days with a selfie photo from the Artemis launch. And she showed up to the launch and took this photo of herself watching the launch. And we'll put up the screen. You can see the rocket in her glasses. So she says, Artemis 2 launch caught. Caught in my glasses reflection right. Now, the reason that this photo went viral, it's got, what is that? Almost 30 million views. Okay. Is that some people thought it was a cool photo, but a bunch of other people pointed out that she's doing the meme. She's doing the, the meme you've probably seen where it's, you know, the meme is like photographing something you want to show everybody. And then you see males and they photograph the object and then females who photograph themselves in front of the object. This is kind of the perfect example of that, of that meme. A lot of people pointed that out. So it went viral and then there was a backlash and people were saying, well, that those people are sexist. And then they argued back and on and on. So this is obviously a worthwhile thing to argue about. This selfie photo from a random woman at the Artemis launch, obviously worth. Worth arguing about. So I'll give my two cents on it because obviously the selfie thing is out of control. It has been for many years. And you know, a lot of people are pointing out how narcissistic it is that this woman took a picture of herself watching the rocket rather than just taking a picture of the rocket. But that's not really my point because I also don't think there's any reason to take a picture of the rocket. I mean, there are a bunch of people there watching the rocket launch. And yeah, a lot of them were like on their phones getting video of it or taking a picture of it. Why there will be a thousand high quality photos and videos of the rocket. Like if you, you don't need to take a picture of it. They got professional photographers there, they got news cameras, they got. Why do you need your own video? It's not even going to be as good as the one that they're taking over there. Because I, I have a different suggestion and I don't mean to pick on Ellie. I'm sure she's a nice person and she's just doing what a billion other people do all the time. And not just women, by the way, men do it too. But here's my suggestion. What if everybody just put their phones down every once in a while and experience a moment? Like actually experience the moment, Just experience it, you know, you don't. Well, what if I Don't have a picture of it. No, it's okay. You don't need a picture of it. Did you know that? Did you know you can actually experience something and not have a picture of it? It's not like a waste, okay? It doesn't become a wasted moment because you don't have photographic evidence of it. Where do we get this idea that nothing is real and nothing matters unless you have photographic evidence that it occurred? What kind of way is that to live your life? You're at a rocket launch, history is being made. You'll probably never see anything like this again in your life. Okay, I know they say they're gonna go back to the moon in a couple years, but. But you might not be at that rocket launch. And even if you are, you're not gonna. This is. This was the first launch back to the moon in our lifetime, and you're not going to get another first. So this specific thing will never happen again. And I wish I could have seen it. You know, I. They invited Michael to go see it for some reason, not me. I don't know. I'm not bitter about it. I mean, I am bitter about it for sure, but we won't focus on that. And in a lot of ways, it's good they didn't invite me, actually, because if I was there, I would not, you know, they would have wanted me to do content or something about it, and I wouldn't want to do any content. I just want to watch it. Oh, do a selfie video and talk. No, I don't want to do a self. I just want to watch it. That's all. I don't even. I don't. That's it. I just want to be there for it. And. And what about that? Like, you're at the rocket launch, just let. Just. Instead of trying to get a perfect shot of it or get a shot of yourself watching it, what about putting your phone down and being in the moment, experiencing it, living it. Experience the full size and scope of the moment. And this is why. I mean, it's like one of the million reasons why smartphones are like the worst thing that's ever happened to humanity. I really believe that most people just can't handle having these things carrying them around everywhere. And now, anytime anything happens, any big moment, small moment, life, milestone, anything at all, everyone has their phone out documenting it for who exactly? Nobody in the public cares about whatever the thing is, or if they do, it's like a rocket launch. There's already a billion other photos. We don't need yours. Are you documenting it for yourself? Well, okay, fine. But now you're going to go back and reminisce over a moment you never actually experienced fully because you were too busy filming it or taking a picture of it. You experience this moment through a little box. You're in the world, it's three dimensional, and you're choosing to experience it like this. Or even worse, you experience it. I mean, it really is like you. Even worse, you experience the moment with your back turned to it so that your face can be in it, so that you can become the subject of whatever this thing is. And what's the point of that? Again, nobody in the public cares about your selfie. So what are you doing? What's the point? Are you really going to go back later and just flip through all the pictures of your own face? I always wonder this about people that take selfies. The people that take selfies, you know they have a million selfies. What do you do? What do you. Like? You've got millions of people walking around with thousands of pictures of their own face in their phone, just walking around within their pocket, carrying around every second of the day thousands of pictures of their own face. For what? Do you forget what you look like? We have mirrors, if that's the problem. Are you ever going to really go back? Do you do that? Is that what people do? Do you just, like, reminisce? You just. Yep. Look at the. Look at my face. Oh, there's my face at the rocket launch. There's my face at dinner that day. There's my face the next morning. There's my face at breakfast. There's my face walking on the sidewalk. There's my face at the baseball game. There's my face. Is that what people do? Is that what you do? Just reminiscing about your own face? The narcissism is out of control. It's like, it's. It's unlike anything our ancestors could have ever conceived. And the cost is that you miss out on your own life because you're so obsessed with documenting it. You know, I still think about. I think I've shared this before, but. And there are a million more recent examples that work, but just for whatever reason it's always stuck out to me is maybe because it was so early in the selfie age, because in 2011, on my honeymoon, we went on a cruise. I'll never do that again. But different subject for another day. Well, we're on a Cruise and it's 2011, so this is only A few years into, you know, smartphones existing and we're out on the deck and there's a sunset. And it was like the first clear night that we got and because it was like had been cloudy and overcast and anyway, so we're getting our first sunset over the ocean. And I'd never seen a sunset over the ocean at that time. So I was there along with like the whole deck was crowded. People just want to see the sun set open. It sets pretty quickly when you're on the water. And of course, you know, every single person on the deck, every single one was experiencing that moment through their phone. They were all just like taking pictures of they all, they all were. I mean we're on a deck, we're in the ocean. It's the ocean. We're on this huge ship with a bunch of fat old people. The only people that go on cruises apparently on this ship in the ocean. And it's the sun and it's the water and you're like looking at it like this

WBZ's Mike Sullivan (66:42)

for.

Michael Walsh (66:42)

And for what? So you can get a picture of a sunset. Like a picture of a sunset is worthless. We've all seen a zillion photos of sunsets. Who cares about. I could, I could go on Google right now and pick, pull up instantly. The most beautiful sunset ever means nothing to me. It's just a picture, the thing itself to actually be there and see it, that has value. The picture has no value. The thing has infinite value. And you're choosing the picture, the thing that has no value over the thing, over the thing itself. So I don't know, I just don't get it. There's a, there's a Louis CK bit I think where he talks about a, a being at a, I guess like a recital or something. And it's the same thing of everybody's just looking at it through their experiencing through the box he's talking about. And because they all got to get a video of their daughter in the recital or whatever it was. And it's like again, who is that for? No one is going to watch a 20 minute video of your kids recital. I can't think of anything more boring than that. I'm going to watch that and I won't even watch like a video of my own kids or so I'm not going to go back and watch a video. It's like a year from now and I gotta sit there and watch a 20 minute video of a recital. But in the moment, like I just want to be in the moment in the moment, it has meaning. So just put the, put the phones down and experience the moment. It's like I have this conversation with my wife every year at this time, actually, because, and my wife is not an obsessive selfie taker at all or even, you know, a heavy picture taker in general by woman's standards anyway. So she's pretty moderate with that stuff, which I appreciate. But we have this running theme in our family every Easter, which I think a lot of families have, especially if you have a lot of kids and they're younger, where my wife wants to get an Easter photo of the kids in their nice outfits before we go to church. And it's got to be before we go to church because we all know that like you put the nice outfits on and those out like it's, it's not gonna last. The outfits are going to look nice for about. You have a five minute window where the outfits look nice. And she really wants to get this photo every year, which is fine, it makes sense. But every year the photo is ruined, she thinks, because like a kid is crying or they spilled juice on themselves somehow. No one even gave them juice. They just had juice they spill on themselves and, and, and then we do, we try to do the photo and it's just like it, it's. And yes, yesterday was the closest we ever got to a good Easter photo. We still had one kid crying in it, but we had five out of six were smiling and looked basically put together. And that's the best we've ever done. But still 12 Easters in a row, my wife still has not gotten the nice, smiling, clean, crisp Easter photo she wants. Maybe next year we'll go for our 13th try. But my point always is, hey, look, the crying kid, the messy kid, the kid with juice on her dress, whatever it is, that's what this moment actually is. That's what this time in our life actually is. That's the truth of it. So the photos that my wife thinks didn't work, I think are good because they're honest to me. They do the thing that a photo like this should do, which is that if I look back on them in the future, I'll remember what it actually was like, what really happened. And I'll remember the truth of it. If we had a clean, smiling, perfect Easter photo of all of our kids, then 20 years from now, when I look at that photo, I'll remember the moment as the photo tells it, which is not true, which is not fully honest. It's not real. And I Don't want that. And that's usually why I don't want photos at all. Like, just give me the moment, just the moment. I don't want some dressed up photo. It's not real. It doesn't reflect what it really happened. With all that said, there are times when obsessive picture taking is justified, and that's mainly when you're fishing. So I will say that my. My phone is full of pictures of fish. And I. I have more pictures of fish than my own kids. Like by a huge. By a huge margin. It's like 10 to 1 fish to kids in my phone. And that's different. That is different. That, that's okay. That's the kind of obsessive documenting that's okay because it's what I do. And, and I do go back and look at my fish pictures and reminisce. I scroll through my phone like, fish, fish. I'm reminiscing. Oh, there's my kid. Scroll past that. I remember I caught that fish. So there's exceptions to every rule. Of course. And we will leave it there for today. Talk to you tomorrow. Have a great day. Godspeed. I do believe that if people have committed treason against the United States of America, their statues should not be in the Capitol. History is written by the victors. And since the 1960s, we've been told, mostly by people whose ancestors didn't even live here during the war, that the south can be. But if the Confederates were traitors, then why was Jefferson Davis never put on trial for treason? What were Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson afraid of? Do they know something they're not allowed to say? Today, it's time for the truth. So here it is. Robert E. Lee was a military genius and a man of immense honor. He was beloved by marriage from the north and south for a century after the war. This is the real history of the Civil War.