 Interesting story out of California. So California, as you know, California as a massive homeless crisis, they are more homeless in California really than any place else in the country. The homeless crisis is primarily a West Coast crisis. It's Oregon and California predominantly. Anyway, a lot of cities in California are basically cracking down on homeless people. So San Diego, the city of San Diego, which has basically, I think, a 100% Democratic city council. The city of San Diego has clamped down on homeless encampments. They've made it illegal for them to be on the sidewalks in downtown. The police are now emboldened to go in there and, you know, scare them away, I guess. And indeed, the number of homeless in downtown San Diego has dropped significantly. And this is something that many other cities around California and in Oregon would like to do and are talking about doing. There is a court case, though. In the court case, it was a result from a case in Oregon, where a city in Oregon has tried to do this, Grant's Pass, I think, in southern Oregon. Grant's Pass passed a law that said you can't camp on sidewalks, streets, parks, and other public spaces. And they outlawed this and they affected this and they were sued by some by some homeless advocacy group saying it was unconstitutional. It was a violation of the Eighth Amendment prohibiting against, quote, coolant and usual punishment. That's an interesting one, right? A, you know, a court ruled in favor of the city, but then the appellate court, I think it was the Ninth District, is that right? The Ninth District Court overturned that and ruled for the homeless advocacy group. And the case is now going to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court will rule where the cities have the power to enforce laws that prohibit homeless people from living on the sidewalks. Now, I think the way to solve this problem is to privatize the sidewalks, you know, and that would do it because then it's clearly constitutional for me to keep people off trespassing on my private property. The challenge, of course, is, and the reason this is even an issue and the reason why it has to go to courts and the reason why, you know, there's even a question mark on this, is the fact that streets, sidewalks, parks, a public, quote, property and therefore not who they belong to. Now, in spite of that, I think the courts should uphold the city's right to kick people off. It would be absurd and ridiculous if they didn't and then they couldn't. We should treat it as if it was private property with the city owning it even though we know that's bogus. But ideally and ultimately, wouldn't it be cool if some town, let's say Supreme Court rules, Nana, you can't kick homeless people out of your streets. Wouldn't it be cool if one of these towns just said, all right, then we're privatizing all the streets, hey, shopkeepers, we're going to, for $1, we're going to give you a deed to the pavement in front of your store and to the road. And boom, you make a private property and the private owners decide that it's trespassing and they could send them to jail and you've done, you've done it. So that is my solution. But it is interesting, isn't it, that, and this is true of so many of these left-wing cases, democratic governments, local democratic governments in a overwhelmingly democratic state like California are moving against the homeless and against this idea of homelessness and they are insisting that, you know, that homeless be evacuated from the streets and you're seeing this even in San Francisco where the city wants to do this and where, by the way, there are a number of ballot initiatives on the ballot in San Francisco to dramatically increase police, police enforcement, going after criminals, going after crime, and going after the homeless. Where the mayor of San Francisco, the democratic mayor of San Francisco is supportive of these voter initiatives. So it looks like on issues of homelessness and an issue of crime, the leftists of California are moving towards a more rational perspective, a more pro-human life perspective, a private property perspective, even in a state like California. And this is why I've told you many times that, I believe at least, I believe that many of these leftist ideas will never take roots, deep roots at least, in America, even in the most, even in the bluest part of it, parts of it. You know, they won't accept rampant crime. They won't accept all their stores closing on them because of shoplifting. They won't accept. No, it might take them homelessness everywhere. It might take them decades to figure this out as it has. But ultimately, people will rebel against this. They don't want lawlessness. And they don't want anarchy. They don't want anarchy. They don't want the disintegration of society, which is what the crazy left is explicitly advocating for. And therefore, they are already clamping down on it and good for them, interestingly as well. The governor of California, another real leftist, right? The governor of California is, has submitted a, in a sense, a statement to the Supreme Court supporting the city's rights to get, to move the homeless out of the streets, even though it's a case in Oregon, the state of California is siting with the city, not with the homeless people. So again, and this is Gavin Newsom. So this is not some centrist Democrat. This is a pretty left-wing Democrat. He's asked the conservative majority Supreme Court to take up the Oregon case. And in a brief, he said, the ruling by San Francisco, by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals against the measure in Grand Pass and Boise, Idaho, have paralyzed efforts to address unsafe and unsanitary encampments. So a real effort in California to get rid of, to at least minimize the, the homeless issue. That was from Reuters. I was reading from Reuters news release about Gavin Newsom.