Return to Transcripts main page

Smerconish

New Poll: More Than 1 In 5 Gen Z Adults Identify As LGBTQ Plus; A Royal Mess: Palace Intrigue Stranger Than Fiction; Officials Warn Artificial Intelligence Could Pose "Extinction-Level" Threat; Squatter Hunter Takes Aim At Home Invaders. Aired 9-10a ET

Aired March 16, 2024 - 09:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:00:33]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Although they maintain separate residences, the comedian and his longtime companion seem to be inseparable. Oh no, the Associated Press picked up the NYU story that's going to be in every paper. I've been outed. I wasn't even named.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now everyone's going to think we're gay.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Not that there's anything wrong with that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR: Not that there's anything wrong with it. I'm Michael Smerconish in Philadelphia with a question how many among us are accurately described as LGBTQ plus. According to Gallup, the number is on the rise and reached an all-time high in 2023. Gallup's analysis was based on a survey of 12,000 adults 18 and older and found that 7.6 percent identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer.

The data illustrates both a gender and generational divide. Women are nearly twice as likely as men to identify as LGBTQ plus, 8.5 percent of women, 4.7 percent of men, and nearly 30 percent of Gen Z women, those aged 18 to 26 identify as such, most of them as bisexual. Each younger generation is about twice as likely as the generation that preceded it to self-identify this way, only 1 percent of the silent generation, the youngest of whom are in their late 70s now identified as LGBTQ plus compared to 2.3 percent of baby boomers, 4.5 percent of Gen X, nearly one in 10 of millennials and more than one in five of Gen Z adults.

So, what accounts for those differences? Surely some of it can be attributed to more honest reporting. It makes sense that as society is increasingly and appropriately accepting of different gender identifications more would be willing to truthfully tell a pollster how they identify where in the past perhaps they would have been reluctant to say so. Although unless we're evolving, that itself would not explain the difference between the ages nor the differences in gender. Are there really that many fewer LGBTQ plus among the old than the young? Wouldn't boomers be as willing as Gen Zers to self- identify? Of course, determining the size of these communities has long been the source of both study and conjecture.

In the category of study, there was famed biologist Alfred Kinsey. In 1948, he concluded that 8 percent to 10 percent of the male population was gay. Kinsey relied entirely on volunteers for his study, 25 percent of his sample size were prisoners. And in 1953, he concluded the two to 6 percent of females were, quote, "homosexual."

In the realm of conjecture, after September 11 I did my own cocktail napkin analysis. Kenneth R. Feinberg was the special master of the fund created by Congress to compensate the victims of 9/11. Feinberg approve the compensation of surviving gay partners, enabling them to claim survivor benefits, which averaged about 1.8 5 million. If we assume Kinsey was correct, then roughly 300 of the 3,000 victims would have been gay or lesbian. Of course, no 10 percent of any segment of society can be relied upon to be in a committed relationship. Still, there were only 22 known surviving partners who were compensated, that's less than 1 percent of 9/11 victims.

Perhaps the poll was unrepresentative of society at large, but those killed on September 11 did include a pretty wide cross section, men, women, blacks, whites, Americans, foreigners, cops, firefighters, busboys, brokers, the young and the old.

Here's a different, maybe more scientific approach to the question. Seth Stephens-Davidowitz is a brilliant Harvard educated PhD and data scientist. He took his own shot at discovering the truth behind the number of gay men in America based on an analysis of pornography using Google Analytics for his book, "Everybody Lies, Big Data, New Data, and What the Internet Can Tell Us about Who We Really Are." I like his approach, no leading questions, no judgmental stares, no social pressures, just you and the Google search bar that can answer your deepest questions and concerns. Using data from Google Trends and Google AdWords he found that of the men that search for porn, about 5 percent of those searches are for gay male porn. Interestingly he found that there's parity in those searches between what would be thought of as gay friendly states and less tolerant states?

[09:05:09]

For example, of the men who live in Mississippi who search for porn, 4.8 percent are for gay male porn, which is fairly close to 5.2 percent of men who search for gay male porn in Rhode Island. Here's his conclusion. So, how many American men are gay? By this measure of pornography searches by men roughly 5 percent are same sex seems a reasonable estimate of the true size of the gay population in the United States.

Here's one more analysis, Jean Twenge, a frequent guest on this program, the psychology professor best known for her book, "iGen," studies generations. In fact, that was the title of her most recent book. And in it Dr. Twenge looked at the growth of LGB identification among Gen Zers. Here's what she found, "As it turns out, the changes are driven almost exclusively by an increase in bisexual people, particularly bisexual women." And more than twice as many young women identified as bisexual in 2021, as did in 2015, a huge change in just six years.

In addition, the number of men identifying as bisexual, double. In the household post survey, 23 percent of Gen Z women identified as bisexual, twice as many as among millennial women, eight times as many as among Gen Xers, and an incredible 32 times as many as among silence and boomers. Here's her conclusion, "Being exclusively gay or lesbian hasn't changed much, but being bisexual has."

Look, I get how changing levels of societal acceptance would impact one's willingness to tell a pollster a stranger how they identify. But does that alone account for the increase? Do you really think that there are more gay people among us today than decades past? Because I've always thought of it as a function of birth, it's not nature and nurture, its nature. So are the numbers really booming? And where's this going to lead?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BILL MAHER, HOST, "REAL TIME WITH BILL MAHER": Which means if we follow this trajectory, we will all be gay in 2053.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: I want to know what you think. Go to my website at smerconish.com and vote on today's poll question, is the increase of those who identify as LGBTQ plus more a result of comfort in reporting or actual growing numbers?

Joining me now is Lydia Saad, Director of U.S. Social Research for Gallup, which did this new survey that I've been relying upon.

Lydia, thank you so much for being here. What stands out to you, the expert, in all this data?

LYDIA SAAD, DIRECTOR OF U.S. SOCIAL RESEARCH, GALLUP: Goodness. Well, you know, we've been following this since 2012. So, you know, people often say what's surprising about it. It's not surprising because we've seen this trend coming through. One thing that's not in the data that we've put out that I think is worth noting is, you know, we've tracked an increase over time by generation and increase in self- identification as LGBT.

And we're looking at it by generation, which I think is very profound, because we are dealing with people who have grown up very culturally different times. And this Gen Z has had very unique experiences in terms of coming of age at a time when a majority of Americans for the first time support same sex marriage, believe it's morally acceptable, and in fact, the Supreme Court made same sex marriage legal during their lifetime. So, you know, you're talking about this is going to jokes about by certain time we're all going to be gay, when we look at that very young Gen Z group in our sample that there are 18 to 26, when you look at them age, by age, there's really no difference. It's not like the younger ones are more likely to identify than the older ones. I think we're looking at a group that has a very unique set of experiences.

And as a group, they have a higher rate of expression of LGBT than older generations, because of those very profound societal changes that have happened changing the way, you know, their experiences young people versus -- and older people's experiences.

SMERCONISH: So I totally get the changes, and I also understand the societal changes. But wouldn't you think that the proportionate number of those who are properly classified as LGBTQ plus would be the same among boomers as it would among Gen Zers? In other words, is it simply a reporting issue that they're more comfortable in being candid with Gallup when you're contacting them, when you expect to find the same number among boomers?

SAAD: You know, I think your intro covered some really interesting things and that you get different measurement with different modes. So if you're telling -- if you're interviewing by phone, you have one set of dynamics and influence in how someone is going to be willing to reveal themselves. If it's by web, it might be something different. If it's analyzing Google searches, it's going to be something very different.

[09:10:09]

So what we have as a consistent measure by telephone trends, you know, what is truth is going to be partly an act of just, you know, just a detective work, right? Piecing together many different things. So, Gallup is offering one line of data that's consistent. And we can tell you for sure, over time, this is the change in the percentage of people who self-identify these way.

It doesn't mean it's completely accurate. But it's telling you that in this framework, this is -- who's willing to express, you know, this identity. And yes, it has increase. Yes.

SMERCONISH: Sorry, Lydia, I said in sort of the setup that I noted that the generational shift was significant, but also the gender difference among Gen Zers and other generations. Will you say a word about that?

SAAD: You know, it's kind of goes beyond the deep data in this poll. But you know, men and women are different. And young girls, let's call them under 18 have different experiences coming into adulthood than young men. And I just think there's -- those things have to be explored to understand it. Again, it's what are people willing to say on the phone to someone else.

And just to put -- you know, I just don't think we can underestimate the changes that have happened over time, just to give your viewers just a tangible idea of that. Like I said, the Gen Z that came into adulthood in the last few years came in a very tolerant world. The millennials that came before them, they turned 18 in 1999. And that year, Gallup found only 35 percent of Americans thought gay, or lesbian marriage should be legal. And if you go up to Gen X, those people who are kind of in their 30s and 40s and 50s, excuse me, not only were we asking the question about same sex marriage then but we found majorities of Americans didn't think you should be a doctor, a teacher, a clergy member if you are gay, and majority thought it should be illegal.

So, they were very different consequences for coming out in the 80s versus the 90s versus the 2000.

SMERCONISH: No doubt.

SAAD: You know.

SMERCONISH: No doubt.

SAAD: Yes. So, I think what that means, you know --

SMERCONISH: Yes. Let's be clear, it's a good --

SAAD: Yes.

SMERCONISH: Let's be clear on this. It's a wonderful thing that acceptance has grown at the pace that it has. There are some just unexplained questions in all the data. Lydia Saad, thank you so much. That was fascinating. I appreciate it.

SAAD: Thanks, Michael.

SMERCONISH: Keep the social media responses coming. From the world of YouTube, Katherine (ph), what do we have? Not growing numbers, just people admitting who they are. Your bigotry shows to even suggest people are making it up.

My bigotry? I'm analyzing Gallup's data and raising questions that are entirely appropriate. So, thank you for watching.

Remember, I want to know what you think. Go to my website at smerconish.com and answer this question, is the increase of those who identify as LGBTQ plus more result of comfort in reporting or are the numbers actually growing?

Up ahead, a new report commissioned by the State Department warns that artificial intelligence poses catastrophic national security risks. Can America protect itself from such threats? Admiral James Stavridis, he lead the NATO alliance, is an expert in cybersecurity, he's here with a new book on the subject.

And secret surgery, mysterious cancer diagnosis, doctored family photos, the first year since King Charles has been crowned has been a terrible one for the Royals, and as bad as any since the death of his wife, Princess Diana. To write the ship, might Prince Harry need to bring back his family from self-imposed exile? Who better to analyze than Diana's private secretary and Chief of Staff Patrick Jephson, who joins us next from London.

And be sure to sign up for the smerconish.com daily newsletter. You'll find exclusive cartoons like this one from Pulitzer Prize winner Jack Ohman.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:18:39]

SMERCONISH: Annus horribilis. Annus horribilis. I think I said it correctly. The sequel, it's Latin for horrible year. And it's what Queen Elizabeth called 1992 in a speech, you'll remember that year, there was a serious fire at Windsor Castle, Princess Anne got divorced, Prince Andrew separated from Sarah Ferguson Prince Charles and Diana were also separating.

But 2024 threatens to eclipse the original. This week Princess Diana's sons participated separately at a charity event in her honor, William in person, Harry in a video call that he didn't make until after William departed. This came on the heels of the international controversy over the Princess of Wales digitally doctored Mother's Day photo, and then her post on X apologizing for the photoshopping and taking full blame without explaining why.

Another photo which came on Monday purportedly showing William and Kate leaving Windsor in a car together with her seen only in profile from behind immediately ignited more doubt in social media. A few weeks ago, William pulled out of the memorial service for his godfather Greece's King Constantine, that was at the last minute due to an undisclosed personal matter.

This era of choppy royal waters, it began back on January 17 with Kate's abdominal surgery details not disclosed. Her two week hospital stay and her absence from the public eye since Christmas. And then just a few weeks later, the palace announced that King Charles, her 75-year-old father in law had been diagnosed with cancer, undisclosed type, and would be withdrawing from public events. All this comes less than a year after Charles's coronation last May.

[09:20:15]

With Harry having moved to California and Meghan in her family, a wag on twitter then noted this, "The Princess of Wales is missing, the spare Prince is in exile, the king is threatening his cancer -- is treating his cancer with herbs. If this were the 1300s, France would be looking to invade."

Joining me now is Patrick Jephson, he served as private secretary and Chief of Staff for the late Princess Diana. His books include "Shadows of a Princess and "The Meghan Factor." He wrote this piece about the royals for the Mail on Sunday called, "How much luck do they have left?

Patrick, good to see you. This symbol of permanence suddenly looks vulnerable. How significant is that?

PATRICK JEPHSON, PRINCESS DIANA'S PRIVATE SECRETARY CHIEF STAFF: Good to be with you, Michael. It is very significant. I mean, even by Royal standards. This is this is turning out to be quite a story because it exists on two levels. On the surface, it's just another human story of a family with two significant members struggling with illness. Nothing so strange about that. I mean, it's worrying, particularly with constitutional implications, but, you know, we can cope. But what it also tells us is that, unless you're very lucky, a story like this can get out of hand, it can escalate into a crisis of credibility. And since the monarchies main purpose is to provide certainty in an uncertain world, that I think explains why we are talking about crisis and annus hurribilis.

SMERCONISH: So, you used to be behind those palace gates responding to matters and doing damage control, how could Kensington Palace have handled this differently?

JEPHSON: Well, I learned today that I think sources in Buckingham Palace, and remember we're talking about two different organizations here, sources in Buckingham Palace, I was saying, rather patronizing me that this is the sort of mistake you would expect from a Prince of Wales' office that he's still learning the ropes. And there may be some truth to that. But it's, it's not an excuse, you can use more than once. The real issue here is an information vacuum. And from a media perspective, information vacuum gets rapidly filled, especially today, with social media, and all sorts of extraordinarily unpleasant and worrying, rumors spread by social media, particularly about Catherine.

And I think the answer here is, like all crises, you have to tell the truth as much of it as you can. And in the case of the King's cancer, can you imagine the President of the United States going to Walter Reed for his annual physical and coming out and somebody saying, well, you know, he's got cancer, but we're not going to tell you any more than that. So you got -- the king got points for disclosing that he has cancer. That is only half an answer.

William was in rather more trouble because when his wife Catherine, about whom we're extremely concerned, went into hospital for major abdominal surgery, we would tell she'd be out of commission for months. And there would be further announcements after that time. What happened here is that the palace lost control of the narrative. And instead of putting out regular, reassuring messages, particularly appreciating people's concern, you know, that the British public very, very affectionate feelings for their kingdom, particularly for Princess Catherine, the king's people got this quite OK, they show pictures of the King read and get well cards. But Princess Catherine, we've seen and heard nothing from her except this rather worrying doctored photograph.

SMERCONISH: I'm listening to Patrick Jephson in London. And I'm thinking here in the states of my friend, Lanny Davis, the crisis manager who served the Clintons and his friends of both Bill and Hillary. Tell it early, tell it all, tell it yourself. Those are his three rules of crisis management, and they did none of the above.

Let me ask Patrick Jephson this question is Princess Catherine, is Kate's status, as the most popular royal, in jeopardy? What do the Brits think of this?

JEPHSON: It's too early to say if there has been a shift in public opinion. Catherine has regularly polled the most popular member of the family. But I think when it seemed that people's trust and goodwill and particularly natural sympathy has been met with if not hostility, at least with indifference, and ultimately, with an attempt to following through (ph) with the photograph various news agencies have pulled because they detected it had been manipulated. This was our Christmas snap. This was news.

his was to tell us that Catherine, although we hadn't heard much, she was actually recovering well. And it turned out that that piece of good news wasn't reliable. And it has to do, I think -- it gives us a clue as to the degree to which William wants to control his story and that's fine. But if you don't control it effectively, then the consequences are that much more dire.

[09:25:10]

SMERCONISH: Cheers Patrick Jephson, thank you for your report.

JEPHSON: Thank you.

SMERCONISH: Social media Katherine, what reaction do we have? This comes from the world of X, the princess must have an obvious change in her looks right now. Must have an obvious change in our looks. Understandable. Hope she is well and can get back to her family-life swiftly. Penitent Thief love that handle.

So, I'm about to have a conversation with Admiral Stavridis, about artificial intelligence, and I see it as related to exactly this subject. If it were a politician, and they were manipulating their appearance, it'd be troublesome, right, because we deserve the truth. I'm not sure that -- in fact, I know, I don't look at the royal family in the same category. For me, it's a new story. I'm talking about it.

But in many respects, I think has been blown way the hell out of proportion. A new report commissioned by the State Department warns that the most advanced AI systems could pose an existential level threat to the human species. That sure sounds ominous. What can be done about it? Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander James Stavridis explores the future of AI in his new book.

Plus, when squatters took over the home of Flash Shelton's mother, state officials were no help. So the handyman removed them himself. And now he offers squatter removal services for hire. How does he do it? He'll be here to explain.

And according to Gallup, the number of U.S. adults who identify as LGBT plus has doubled in the last 12 years. Which leads me to today's poll question @smerconish.com is, the increase of those who identify as LGBTQ plus more result of comfort in reporting or actual growing numbers. While you're there, be sure to sign up for the free daily newsletter, you're going to get exclusive content. I love this. Just take a moment and look at what Steve Breen drew for my newsletter this week, horrible sequels.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:31:53]

SMERCONISH: How much evil might artificial intelligence unleashed on the world? This week, a new government report warns the following, "A.I. could pose an extinction-level threat and the U.S. must intervene."

A day later, a new novel about this very topic was published. "2054" is the title predicting that in the future, one nefarious use of artificial intelligence could be political assassination. "2054" was written by my next guest, former NATO supreme allied commander James Stavridis and Elliot Ackerman. They were co-authors of "The New York Times" bestseller "2034."

At its core, the book is about the fusion of technological and biological evolution and focuses on remote gene editing. It's one of those reads where you scratch your head and you wonder, could that really happen?

Joining me now is retired four-star Navy Admiral James Stavridis. Admiral, great to have you back. You've written 10 books of nonfiction on everything from oceans to leadership. Why have you now turned your attention to fiction?

ADM. JAMES STAVRIDIS (RET.), FORMER NATO ALLIED SUPREME COMMANDER: I'll give you three reasons, Michael. One is simple. It's just a bigger audience. The number of people who want to read a scholarly book about the rise of artificial intelligence is kind of a bounded community, shall we say? Whereas, I'm hoping that people will pick up "2054." It's a beach read. You can get in and out of it quickly. It's character-driven. So, bigger audience.

Number two is simply to undo those chains of nonfiction where everything has to be footnoted and perfectly accurate. Here you really get to splash some paint on the canvas about what the future might look like in the year 2054.

And then third and finally, I mentioned it earlier, but people resonate and take messages from other people, characters. The characters in fiction, I think, can carry the story. That's the idea of "2054."

SMERCONISH: So, politically speaking, you envision a world where the extremes of the Republican and Democratic Party have united. Meanwhile, the incumbent president is from the American dreamer, the Dreamers' party. What are you telling us with that analysis?

STAVRIDIS: First and foremost, that nowhere in the constitution does it say article xx that there shall be two political parties, Republican and Democrat. We didn't start with either of those. We started with wings and federalists and Democrat Republicans combined. We've had a lot of political parties in this country, and I think by mid-century, it's highly, highly possible that we'll have a new kind of party.

Then to the point of this new party what we begin with in the novel, I don't think I'm giving anything away, it's in the first 25 pages, the president of this new party is unexpectedly assassinated.

Who did it? How did they do it? Was remote gene editing, artificial intelligence involved? Read the book to find out but "2054" unpackages those themes.

[09:35:04]

SMERCONISH: And militarily, we worry, could these machines overtake us?

STAVRIDIS: I think that we would be foolish to simply x out the possibility going back to Stanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey" as HAL overtakes the astronaut. Is it possible? Perhaps.

But, Michael, like you I like to look at history to understand. There have been big inventions in the past. The printing press, electricity, the internet, all of these have been decried for the possibility of nefarious activity associated with them. Same with artificial intelligence.

So bottom line, I think we should be mindful of A.I. That's the point of the book. It's kind of cautionary fiction. Look ahead to 2054. We ought to be concerned about it. On the other hand, artificial intelligence could turn out to be extremely beneficial to society broadly.

SMERCONISH: Can I say the book is terrific? I've read them both, but one not need read "2034" to read "2054." And I found it to be a wake- up call. Congratulations, Admiral.

STAVRIDIS: Thanks, Michael. I look forward to talking to you about it in person soon.

SMERCONISH: You got it. Gang, what do we have from social media? The world of X on artificial intelligence.

We've rushed into A.I. without establishing guardrails knowing we can now question everything we see. We might miss the era when facts and truth were universal and mattered.

I have so many reactions to that, not the least of which is, Biff, I love that and always think of the movie. So, back to the future. The book is a wake-up call for that reason.

I mean, that's exactly what the admiral is saying with Elliot Ackerman in writing this book, that as the horse is very quickly leaving the barn, we better figure out how were going to regulate it and keep guardrails on this process or bad things could result from it.

And as to your point as to separating fact from fiction, there was great data released this week saying that fewer and fewer of us can separate between the two. Remember, artificial intelligence not probably allows you to put somebody in a place they never were. But it also allows for what they call the buyer's dividend when somebody can say that that which really is true, well, that wasn't me because I wasn't there that day. A new poll by Gallup this week shows the generational population of adults who identify as LGBTQ plus has had an all-time high, which makes me want to have you go to Smerconish.com and answer this question. Is the increase of those who identify as LGBTQ plus more a result of comfort in reporting or actual growing numbers?

Still to come, he's a man on a mission. Meet Flash Shelton. If you have squatters that just won't leave your property, he's your guy.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You know what? I'm going to (INAUDIBLE) right now because I don't even (EXPLETIVE DELETED) know you. You're trespassing and you're harassing me. You're (EXPLETIVE DELETED) harassing me.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I have a lease for this property.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don't give a (EXPLETIVE DELETED). You don't have to introduce your (EXPLETIVE DELETED) to me. I don't even know what the (EXPLETIVE DELETED) you look like. You be sneaking up on me in the middle of the (EXPLETIVE DELETED) night.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: So, how does he get rid of these unwelcome visitors when everybody else has failed? You're about to find out.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:42:47]

SMERCONISH: Can you outsmart a squatter at their own game? A California handyman is helping hundreds of frustrated homeowners retake control of their properties from trespassers who refuse to leave.

Flash Shelton wanted to help his mother sell her home after his father passed but a squatter derailed their plans. Due to California squatter laws removing a trespasser can take weeks or months and can cost tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees. Police officers are also rarely able to intervene.

So, Shelton moved in with the squatter by having his mother rent her home to him as the new lease holder. After confronting the squatter and installing surveillance cameras, the trespasser was out within a matter of hours.

Shelton posted the entire experience on his YouTube channel which got millions of views. Helping his mom gave Shelton the idea of launching Squatter Hunters which allows homeowners to hire he and his team. The plan is simple, live with the squatter, dirty the bathroom, take the best spot on the couch, hog the T.V., blast music, eat their Cheetos.

His business only works with squatters which is different from a lease holder or a tenant. Even those who stopped paying rent a long time ago, still have rights. A squatter, on the other hand, is somebody who trespasses and stays on the property without permission. And believe it or not, they're innocent until proven guilty. Homeowners can't simply go in and drag them out without exposing themselves to potential lawsuits.

Joining me now, the squatter hunter Flash Shelton. Flash, good to see it. Tell me about the caregiver for the elderly that you had to displace?

FLASH SHELTON, ANTI-SQUATTER ACTIVIST: Yes. She posed as a caregiver and wasn't caregiving. The homeowner, an 88-year-old woman fired her. The company that she hired her through said, you know, she's fired, but there's nothing we can do. We can't help you get her out of the house and she's been stuck with her for two years.

SMERCONISH: How did you get her out?

SHELTON: I caught her -- I caught her climbing in a window and that -- that's the case that's ongoing. That's a -- that's a recent case right now. And I'm working with social services.

You know, the difficult ones are the ones that are -- she is barricaded in a bedroom. She -- no electricity, no bathroom.

[09:45:01]

She climbs in and out of the bedroom window. Those are difficult.

SMERCONISH: How about the case in Woodland Hills that the "L.A. Times" wrote about?

SHELTON: So, in some cases, violent criminals if -- a felon -- they're not allowed to live in a house with a firearm. So, when I find this out, I basically move into the house, sit down with them with a firearm exposed and say, you know, we can call the police. But I think it'll be a parole violation for you. And that quickly gets them out because if -- you know, if I'm a resident, they can't be.

SMERCONISH: Flash, we've tracked the problem of homelessness all across the country but most pronounced on the West Coast. Is this tied to homelessness?

SHELTON: I don't believe so. In the hundreds of cases, I've dealt with -- you know, I have not come across it being homeless. I have a heart for homeless. My family was homeless when I was young.

And when I do come across homeless, I'll give them services and help relocate them but -- no, squatters are people. They are just, you know, self-entitled, you know, narcissistic people that just don't care how they -- how they affect other people.

SMERCONISH: Are they remorseful?

SHELTON: You know, no. I mean, you know, you can see in one of my videos I did an intervention and he called himself a victim.

SMERCONISH: I still don't get why law enforcement -- I don't understand why you're needed. Why can't law enforcement deal with this situation? What are the handcuffs figurative that they are facing?

SHELTON: I think the main reason is because the lines are blurred -- blurred between squatters and tenants. And even though squatter laws and rights were originally adapted in 1800s they've kind of just blurred and become, you know, just in the same lines. And there needs to be clear distinction with the law, needs to be squatters, criminal, tenants, civil.

SMERCONISH: I smell T.V. show. Is it in the works?

SHELTON: It's in the works.

SMERCONISH: Yes. I figured. Thank you, Flash. Appreciate your being here.

SHELTON: All right. Thank you very much.

SMERCONISH: Checking in on social media comments. Thank you. From the world of X what do we have?

Squatting is the product of the insane liberal mind thinking that the homeowner is the oppressor, squatters are the oppressed. No. The people are losers. No matter what you do, no matter what the law you can't pass a certain percentage.

Well, I found it really interesting, Papa, that he said -- I don't know that this is one of those that you can put in the category of this is what progressives, you know, bring us. There's an entitled group among us that are taking advantage of vacant properties. That's what I'm taking away from Flash. And that it's not connected to the homeless issue.

It's not as if the homeless that we see living on streets are now showing up and living in private property. Narcissistic is the word that he used which stands out. But law enforcement needs to be able to be given the ability to deal with it.

Still to come, more of your best and worst social media comments. And don't forget to vote on today's poll question at Smerconish.com. Is the increase of those who identify, self-identify as LGBTQ plus more a result of comfort in reporting or actual numbers?

And if you subscribe to our free daily newsletter, you're going to get exclusive editorial cartoons from the legends like Rob Rogers who drew this for us this week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:53:16]

SMERCONISH: Hey, gang. There's the result so far of today's poll question. Wow. Overwhelming result of 26,000 and change. Is the increase of those who identify as LGBTQ plus more a result of comfort in reporting or actual growing numbers?

Eighty-two percent go with the acceptance argument. The argument being that people are just more comfortable now in telling a pollster, a stranger what their self-identification might be.

Keep voting on that poll question. We'll leave it up during the course of the day. Catherine, more social media reaction that came in on this and other matters?

I didn't respond to the poll question because both options are incorrect. The correct response is because it is trendy.

Interesting. Brian, 22 percent of Gen Z say self-identify as LGBTQ plus in round numbers only 2 percent of the boomers. And the question is, what accounts for that growth? You say trend. The others say they feel more accepted and therefore honest with the pollsters. Although, why aren't the boomers similarly feeling that this is acceptable and they can give an answer that 50 years ago they couldn't?

Keep voting on the poll question. More that came in today. What do we have? I think Google search for porn is the most reliable.

Yes, I mean I ran through the different means of trying to get to the bottom of the figures, right? You've gotten Gallup very scientific. You have me on the back of a napkin trying to apply the lessons, if there are any, from September 11. And then there's Seth Stephens- Davidowitz whose name I love, but I always struggle in saying, who says, let's take a look at porn searches. And what did he find? He found that the searches for gay male porn in Mississippi are the same as they are in Rhode Island. It's roughly 5 percent. And is there something to be gleaned from that?

[09:55:00]

More social media reaction? What do we have?

Squatters are guilty of breaking and entering and should be arrested and jailed, says Ken. I don't -- yes, I don't understand either. I just know that I think Flash is onto something with this idea where he says, hey, I'm just going to move in with them and I'm going to occupy the same sofa as they do. And finally, they'll leave, and he's had success.

One more, Catherine, if we have it. Let's do it. No more. OK. Well, I'll just -- OK. I will just say thank you for watching. Thank you for voting on the poll question.

Good mix today. Admiral Stavridis' book is really worthy and I encourage you to check it out. See you next week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)