his brother Kimbal. And Kimbal said that once you start letting Full Self-Driving supervised drive for you in your Tesla, doing a long-distance trip with it feels like going back to the dark ages. And Elon agreed. Now, I think this is the biggest story about self-driving cars: that everybody who tries it is instantly addicted. Maybe not for every trip and every use, but for sure people who try it like it.

So today I believe there's some earnings reports. Tesla will be coming out soon. I don't know if that's today or not. But I don't know. It feels like the biggest thing you need to know is that once you try it, you can't live without it. That feels important.

In other news, according to Interesting Engineering, there's something called the Phoenix system for car batteries, I guess batteries in general, in which they're making them self-healing. So instead of your battery wearing out and having to be disposed of, they're making a battery that can sense what part of it is maybe a future problem and it repairs it on its own. It's a self-healing battery. So it's not available yet, but the researchers seem to have cracked the code and they know how to make it self-healing, which would double the time you could use it.

Now, when people say they oppose electric cars, they might have more than one reason, but the biggest reason I hear is limits in the battery. And there are probably a hundred different labs around the world working on battery improvement. So I would be very surprised if electric cars go away. At the same time you're worried about the rare earth minerals. Well, per a historian in New Atlas, Joe Salas is writing that there's a company called Conifer in which they're making electric motors without those rare earth magnets. They're using less rare magnets, I guess.

Now, apparently this is something that people have tried before. This is not the first time somebody tried to make better electric motors without those rare earth magnets. But this company seems to be successful at least in their prototype. So we might find a workaround for some of those rare earth materials and your batteries might last twice as long pretty soon.

Well, the largest cruise ship in the world is launching. Royal Caribbean has it and it has 20 decks and 5,000 passengers. Five thousand passengers on one ship. Wow. And it's about to set sail. So I wondered how far away are we from being able to live full-time at sea, you know, sea-steading. So I looked at what it would cost you to just live on that ship full-time. And if you had a nice little suite, it would cost you about $60,000 per month. So the economics could probably fall a little bit more.

We might have a good earnings season because apparently 83% of S&P 500 companies are expecting higher than expected earnings. They're expecting higher than expected. That's a bad sentence. But according to the Wall Street Journal, we're probably in for a good earnings season. That will be good for stocks hypothetically.

Here's a story I don't believe at all. According to Futurism, Victor Tangermann is writing that Chinese scientists have invented a system for extracting oxygen, water and rocket fuel from moon dust. Do you believe that there are Chinese scientists who figured out how to take the dust from the moon? You know, the purpose of it is if you want a moon base, it's too expensive to send water up there. So you'd have to find it somehow. But there are no bodies of water on the moon that we know of. So allegedly Chinese scientists have invented a system for turning the surface of the moon, the moon dust, into all of these things: oxygen, water, and rocket fuel.

Do you believe that? Doesn't that sound a little Sputnik-like where maybe China is gaslighting us about what they can invent? I think most of my stories about new inventions are about Chinese inventors. And there might be a little exaggerating going on or a little optimism. So I'm going to go on record as saying I do not believe Chinese scientists can turn moon dust into oxygen, water, and rocket fuel. I do not believe that, but it's in the news.

New Atlas also reports that the FDA is getting closer to approving a fat-melting shot that you can put wherever you have a special fat problem. So if you didn't want to remove the fat everywhere in your body, but you had a little around your love handles or whatever, they could just give you a shot and it would melt away allegedly in your problem area. So that's probably what happened to Adam Schiff. I feel like he fell down and accidentally stabbed himself with one of these and then his fat head shrunk to the size of a raisin. That's true. Yeah, Adam Schiff's head is the size of a raisin. It looks bigger on TV, but it's really the size of a raisin.

According to a new report from an organization called Do No Harm, they looked at 23 public medical schools in 2024 and found out that they're still discriminating against white applicants. Now, are you surprised that most of the medical schools are still openly discriminating against white applicants? No, you're probably not surprised because it's exactly what you expected.

But my question is this: is this calculated in reparations? I mean, seriously, it's been what, 40 years of direct discrimination against white applicants for corporate jobs and college and everything else. If you calculated reparations, wouldn't you have to include this as money that's already paid? Yes, of course you do. Obviously you do. I'm not sure that reparations is cash positive at this point. I've got a feeling that somebody owes me money. And literally, I mean that. If you did the numbers, I believe you would find that I'm owed. But nobody's going to do that calculation, so we don't have to worry about it.

Well, Pete Buttigieg's Department of Transportation allegedly spent $80 billion on DEI grants and did not upgrade air traffic control, which as you know is at an emergency level of dangerous. Do you believe that? I'm going to say I don't believe that he used half of his budget on DEI initiatives. Eighty billion. There's something wrong with that story, isn't there? Yeah. You're automatically believing, oh, he said billion, but what he meant was million, right? Well, that's what I thought when I read the story. I thought it can't be 80 billion. It must be 80 million, right? But it does say billion. I'm going to say I don't believe that story. I do not believe that he gave out $80 billion in DEI grants. No, I don't believe that. I got to say no on that.

I saw a post by an X user, Cree – I'm mispronouncing, sorry – that China's largest ship builder built more ships, if you go by tonnage, than America has built in total since World War II. That's just one ship builder. So China is just building ships like crazy. Many of them are military but many of them are not. And I remember feeling that America could build things and now I think we really don't know how to build things. We just don't have that skill anymore. And why exactly does China need that many ships? Is it because they want to control the ocean? Probably. We'll see what happens there.

Trump is saying that the Wall Street Journal reporting is fake when it reported that Scott Bessent explained to Trump that if he fired Jerome Powell from the Fed, the markets would react and go down. And Trump is reminding us that no one needed to explain to me that that would be bad for the market. That being firing the Fed chief if he did it. And then Trump said Scott Bessent doesn't explain to me the market will crash if Powell was fired. People don't explain to me. I explain to them.

Now, I remember a time when this would be obnoxious, but one of the things you'll learn is that if people are really, really consistent with how they are, you just get used to them. Can you imagine anybody else posting that? There's nobody else who can say, "Nobody explains to me, I explain to them." But it works for him. It works. You know, it's so compatible with everything else he says and does that you just go, "Oh, all right."

Well, I will give you this useful tip. The fakest, least likely to be true news stories are the ones that tell you that somebody knows a private conversation that happened when they weren't there. Those are rarely true in both directions. It's not just a Republican thing or a Democrat thing. If you read a news story about what somebody said behind closed doors in the White House, it's probably not true. That stuff just never passes the sniff test. So I would agree with Trump that he probably did not need anybody to explain to him that firing the head of the Fed would roil the markets. Yeah, I feel like he would have known that. So I'm going to side with Trump in saying that feels like fake news. Don't know for sure.

Well, Keith Olbermann, who used to be my mascot because he would always say bad things about me, but he's now weighed in on the Stephen Colbert firing. And he says that's not because of anything with Trump. He goes, sorry, that's not what happened there. Yeah, if it had, they wouldn't be keeping him on until May. So even Keith Olbermann is rejecting the fake news, the newest hoax from the left that Trump is the reason that Colbert was fired. And I'd have to agree. Well, I don't know if I agree with the reason they're keeping him on is because he has a contract until May. So I don't know. I feel like you might keep him on till the end of his contract no matter why you fired him, maybe. So I'm not sure if right, but it's notable that he's not agreeing with his own side.

Well, Thomas Massie tells us that 79% of Americans support releasing all the Epstein files. But only 16 members of Congress have sponsored the legislation to do so. Now, does that surprise you? It doesn't surprise me because Congress doesn't seem to give people what they want, nor should it. Allergies killed me. Sorry. Congress does what's good for Congress. So apparently the majority of members of Congress don't believe it would be good to release the Epstein files. Or maybe they just want to stay out of it. They could pay out his contract and leave him off TV, Colbert. They could. So that's why I don't want to agree. So what do you think of that? Why would it be that eight out of ten citizens want to see the Epstein files, but only 16 members of Congress? There are a lot of people in Congress and only 16 of them are in favor of this. But maybe it has more to do with being a sponsor or not being a sponsor. So they might be supporting it but not wanting to sponsor it. I suppose that's the thing. We don't know.

But I have a suggestion. This is a bad suggestion, but maybe it'll make you think of a better one. You know how I've been saying that Trump has cleverly monetized the Ukraine war by saying that America won't be giving anybody anything, but if Europe wants to buy our weapons, then we'll sell them to them. So basically Trump just turned the war into a profit center for the United States, which I'm a little bit impressed with. If you can't end it, and he tried, you might as well monetize it. And likewise, he monetized the fentanyl overdose deaths by using it as an excuse to raise the tariffs on China and Canada too, and I think Mexico. So that's two examples where he had these unsolvable problems that he just monetized. And I hate that even if I don't like what he's doing. I can't be mad about him monetizing it for the country. There's something awesome about that.

But I'm going to take that to the next level. I wonder if you could monetize deportations or the illegal immigrant problem. Here's what I mean. I would not monetize getting rid of the criminal elements, the ones who have committed crimes beyond coming to the country illegally. You just have to do that. But what happens when those people have largely been deported and the people that you see deported next have been hardworking citizens of the United States for decades? How are we all going to feel about that?

And my question is this, and remember this is the bad suggestion. So if you could come up with a better suggestion that maybe something I say reminds you of a better idea, that would be great. I feel as if it would be nice if you could monetize the keeping and the not deporting some of the people who have just done a great job of being good solid citizens. For example, if you said to some wealthy Democrats, "Here's the deal. We're going to deport your maid or something." And what if the American citizen could say, "What? I would be very sad if you deport my maid. How about if I offer to put up a bond?" Or maybe there's some special tax. What if people had the option of saying, "All right, for $20,000 paid to the Treasury of the United States or maybe even paid to Border Patrol, that they can stay." But they would have to have been here for 20 years or some number of years, and they would have to have jobs, and they would have to have no criminal records and stuff. Could you monetize it? No, deport them all.

All right. Well, here's the thing. It wouldn't be many people and the people who were not deported would be the people who had made a life and acted like Americans. I feel as though it's not a crisis yet, but very soon it will be a crisis where there will be a lot of people who say, "All right, all right, you have now deported enough people." And then there will be another group of people, tens of millions of them, who will say, "What? No. I voted for deporting all of them. You're not done." Could you find a middle ground by saying, "All right, we'll keep some people if somebody puts down a really large payment to keep them in the country." I don't know. Now, like I say, that's not a good idea because I don't know if the numbers would work or if enough people would actually want to take a chance on that. But maybe it might be a way to do it.

All right. A US firm has unveiled a 300 horsepower robot boat that can hunt enemy vessels. Interesting Engineering has a story. It's called Venom. It's 9 meters and can do multi-missions and it's just a robot boat. Remember my prediction that wars will be fought just by robots against robots. I can't imagine being a human sailor on an ocean during a war when there are drones and drone boats that are unmanned and plentiful that are coming to get you. I feel like we're heading toward a time when having a human on the ocean is a bad idea in a variety of different ways. So maybe that'll be a big deal, maybe.

Also from Interesting Engineering, the first humanoid robot that can change its own battery. So of course that's coming out of China. Another Chinese robot company, UB Tech, has created the Walker S2. So the humanoid robot when it gets low on battery can go over and just swap its battery out and keep on working. That's pretty cool. So apparently it can have two batteries at the same time, but it only needs one to run. So it's got two places for batteries basically. So you can hot swap them. That's a big deal. So that your household robot someday will be able to go all day. It would be a giant pain in the ass if you got addicted to have a household robot, but the household robot needed, I don't know, 10 hours to charge. And you'd just always be mad. It's like, it's charging again. So you need that hot swap.

Well, Howard Lutnick in the administration says that more trade deals are coming this week. So this is going to be a big week for trade deals. We don't know which ones, but as I've told you, the beauty of Trump's approach is that they'll be able to announce new successes almost every week. And the Democrats really didn't see this coming. I don't think they saw it coming that now there would just be hundreds of countries that would be agreeing with the United States a few per week and they all look like success.

So here's the more generic Democrat messaging failure. As you know, the Democrats are not big on policy. They just like to insult Republicans and they think that's enough to get them elected and mostly insulting Trump. So Beto O'Rourke was on State of the Union on CNN. And here's some advice he's giving Democrats. Now, I want you to listen to how useless this advice is. They all have useless advice.

Quote: "I think that Democrats have been so scared of being branded as hypocrites or coloring outside the lines." First of all, his assumption is ridiculous. Do you think Democrats have been scared of being branded as hypocrites? Not one. So he's starting out with a completely ridiculous assumption. There's no Democrats who have been scared of being branded as hypocrites. That's not a thing. Or coloring outside the lines. No, there are no Democrats who are worried about coloring outside the lines. That's not a thing.

But he goes on that those two things have absolutely paralyzed them in the struggle for power in America. To which I say, struggle for power? Why are you calling it a struggle for power? Wouldn't we call it our democratic republic where there's competition between the sides? But no, for Beto, it's a struggle for power. And then he says, you don't see the other side worrying about any of that at all. No, the reason the other side doesn't worry about that is that these are not things that people should worry about. Nobody's worried about any of that, nor should you be. And then he says, "We have to fight back." Oh, there it is. So they see this as a fight and a power struggle. They don't even mention better policies. It's not even on the list. And then he says, "We cannot roll over. We cannot play dead."

So how much of that advice is useful? Democrats, I think you've been scared too long of being branded as hypocrites. So stop being afraid of being branded as hypocrites. To which I say, that's all you got. It's almost comically absurd that the Democrats' best players, they have nothing. All they have is this struggle thing. The struggle, the fight, the authoritarian, they got nothing.

Mayor Bass from LA, she's talking about all the deportations and she says, quote, "I am just hoping that this reign of terror ends. I'm hoping that we can get back to normal." The reign of terror. Is that her policy? So her policy preference is to wait out the reign of terror. What kind of advice is that? What should you do, Democrats? Well, don't be afraid of being a hypocrite. Make sure you color outside the lines and wait until the reign of terror ends. All of it is ridiculous. They are so far away from any kind of common sense understanding of the country or even pretending that their job is to make the country better off. It's all about this struggle, this fight, this hypocrisy, this authoritarianism, the oligarchs. It's all empty. Just pure empty rhetoric.

Meanwhile, Trump put out, I guess he posted on Truth Social, a meme which involved Obama being handcuffed and taken away. Now in normal circumstances, and we're not in normal circumstances, I would say oh my god even though I like Trump I would have said you can't show handcuffing and taking away and arresting a prior president. You can't do that. That's way over the line. Except this is the week that the Democrats and Tulsi Gabbard, or the Republicans and Tulsi Gabbard, are all talking about how now the documentation has proven that Obama and Brennan and Clapper and Susan Rice were all part of a multi-year plan to act as though Russia had been helping Trump or at least colluding with him. There was no evidence of that. And that it was an attempt to run a gigantic hoax that would overthrow the government of the United States. And apparently there must be some laws that were broken by that. It seems like it. I don't know which ones.

But my old feeling that you can't just act like you're going to arrest the old president, that would be the worst thing in the world. But the reason I would be opposed to that was that I wouldn't want it to escalate and I wouldn't want the other side once they got in power to do the same thing. However, apparently they've already, what we know is that they tried to overthrow the country several times. So here are just a few of the things they've done.

So of course there was the Russia collusion hoax, which at this point is well documented to have been a Hillary Clinton Obama administration hoax. And that was definitely to overthrow the country. And then there were two what I would call fake impeachments against Trump during his first term. The purpose of which is to change the government. Now those didn't work out, but they were also attempts to overthrow the government through illegitimate means. That would be three coup attempts. Then there was all the lawfare when Trump was out of office. The lawfare was so far over the line of not appropriate that under normal circumstances I would say no, you can't lawfare them back, it'll just keep escalating. We don't want that. But given that they pulled out all of the stops to go after Trump, I think he has a free punch. I think Trump has every moral and ethical and probably legal standing to arrest a lot of Democrats. And I'm only recently coming to this opinion because even though I think they did bad things, I didn't think they were so bad necessarily that they needed to go to jail because it still felt like it was in that weaselly political realm as opposed to criminal. But it does look completely criminal at this point.

I mean, there were so many things they did. There are questions about the assassination attempt against Trump. Now, there may not be any direct coordination of somebody working with the assassin, but don't you think the only reason that Trump was targeted is that the Democrats have been calling him Hitler for years? Of course. Why do they call him Hitler for years? So that there's no limit to what people are willing to do to get rid of Hitler. That's why they do it. Did it work? Well, almost. If Trump had not turned his head, then all of that calling him Hitler would have resulted in his death. Exactly like Republicans have been warning for years. If you keep doing this, somebody's going to get killed. So I would say that even if they don't have a direct smoking gun connection to the assassin, the Democrats created the situation where somebody would want to do that and they were fully aware that they were doing that, creating that situation. So I would say that's one, two, three, four, five, five attempts to overthrow the government, Trump government.

And then I would add to that the fine people hoax. The fine people hoax was known to be a hoax. They obviously knew it wasn't real. Biden ran on it and that was an attempt to overthrow the government. Now of course there's lots of lying and hyperbole on both sides when it comes to politics, but the fine people hoax was really different because it was so obvious that it wasn't true if you just watched the whole video. And the entire news world, at least the left-leaning news which was the mainstream news at the time, they all supported it as being true. Now if you took away the fact that the mainstream media was supporting it as true, it would just be politicians saying BS and we don't take them too seriously. But once the entire media is behind it, then it's a RICO situation.

So by my count, one, two, three, four, five, six, six direct attempts to overthrow the government. Do I think that? And then look what they did to Mike Flynn. That ought to be illegal. That ought to be really illegal. And you know General Flynn is very adamant that people need to go to jail for what they did to not just him but tried to do to Trump. And again, I was reluctant to say that jail is the right solution, but I'm all in on jail now. I believe that probably several people need to be put in jail for a long time. I don't know that it will happen because we don't live in a world where that sort of thing can easily happen, but I do believe that enough bad behavior warrants it. And I'm sad that I got to that point, but I am there.

In a Truth Social post, Trump also said that Adam Schiff is a thief. He's calling him a thief because Adam Schiff is accused and there's documentation to back it up that he has two homes, one near work in Maryland and one in California so that he could be a senator from California, and that he's claimed in bank documentations or maybe it was something else for taxes, he claimed that both of them were primary residences which you can't have two primary residences. So the point of claiming that was to save some money on taxes I believe or maybe it was on the loan, I can't remember. But that would be the thievery, that he lied on documents to save money in a corrupt illegal way. So yeah, will there be any prosecution for that? I don't know. But is it warranted? Absolutely. It's absolutely warranted. Yeah, I think Schiff should probably go to jail. And if you look at the compilation clips of all the things that Schiff has lied about, especially the Russia collusion hoax and the fine people hoax and every other hoax, the lawfare stuff he backed. Yeah, he is a really bad character.

Well, Ellen DeGeneres has apparently confirmed that the reason she moved to the UK and will stay there is because of Trump. So once Trump got reelected, they were there temporarily for a long period, but temporarily. And now she says, "No, can't come back. Now it's all so bad because of Trump."

All right. And then just when you think Trump has found the middle ground and he doesn't need to be provocative anymore because he's winning so hard, he does a Truth Social in which he goes after the Washington football team that's now called the Washington Commanders but used to be called the Washington Redskins. And the Washington Redskins changed their name to the Washington Commanders because you know the obvious reason that Redskins sounds a little unwoke and we were living in a woke world. And so Trump is saying that he won't approve the stadium for Washington DC which is where the Washington Commanders would play unless they change their name back to the Washington Redskins.

Now, I'll say again, I'm a big fan of the president, big supporter. That's not going to, I don't think that's going to change, but I don't agree with this. Do you think that the president should be telling a private business what they should name their team? And do you think that they should be punished for trying to not offend people by having Redskins in the name, but rather come up with a more boring name that nobody would complain about? I don't feel that that's Trump's business. And if you're trying to make it look like it's authoritarian, well, that looks a little bit authoritarian, but it's not even authoritarian for a good purpose. Is the world going to be better off if they change it back to Redskins?

Now, I think you all know that I'm the opposite of woke. And I'm not for every little thing that somebody wants just because they want it. But literally Redskins was literally about the skin color. Why does the skin color of some people have to be in the product name? I can kind of see why if you were Native American, maybe you'd say, "Hey, you know, why are you talking about my skin color? That's not the important part." So I don't think that was ever intended to be an endearing label for the Native Americans. So if they don't like it, I'm not in favor of changing it back.

And then Trump threw in the Cleveland Indians into the same conversation. Now that one's a little different. The word Indian should not be anybody's insult. It's just that if the Native Americans don't like that particular label, I feel like everybody should get to be able to pick their own label, don't you? Do you think that it's inappropriate that every group gets to say, "All right, there are a lot of things you can call us, but just don't use this word. Don't use the n-word." I've never complained about that. I feel like it's completely reasonable that if Black Americans say the n-word, those are fighting words. Okay. But doesn't everybody else get to do that too? If I complained about being called a cracker, shouldn't I have the ability to say, "All right, it bothers me too much if you call me a cracker. Those are fighting words." Yes. I mean, it doesn't happen to bother me too much, so I wouldn't fight over it. But if I did, if it did bother me, I would want you to respect that. So I feel as if every group should have a few vetoes over what they're called. You know, if you wanted to call Jewish Americans by one of the insult words, should you have the right to do it because it's a free country? Well, maybe technically in the sense of the Constitution giving you that right, but it would be perfectly reasonable for Jewish Americans to say, could you not use that word? Maybe don't put that on a sign. Perfectly reasonable. So that's my take.

Well, here's some good news. Pope Leo XIV, he's come out against killing people in Gaza. So he's against violence. So those of you who thought that the new pope might be making a break with precedent and coming out in favor of random violence, he's not. No, he's against violence. So he won't say ceasefire in Gaza. Now, I would point out that the pope is not into the nuance of the defensive necessity of the area. So it's a bit of a half opinion, but it's always good to know that the Pope is against war. He's always against it.

Well, on Face the Nation, acting ICE director Todd Lyons says that ICE will be going after companies that knowingly hire undocumented immigrants. Now if you believed that the current immigration effort by Trump was too slow, well, that might be changing really quickly because it seems to me if you threatened only the immigrants themselves, only the migrants, then they might say, "Well, it's still worth it. And if I get deported, I'll just end up back where I was. So that's not the worst thing in the world." So you can slow down illegal immigration by threatening the people who are doing it, but their downside isn't that far down as long as they have not committed other crimes. It's just going back to where they were.

But if you threaten the businesses who absolutely know that they have some illegal people on the payroll, they know. Now usually they have to check to see if they do have ID. And they're not supposed to be experts in knowing what is fake ID and what's not. So currently companies are not prosecuted as long as they check the ID, even if it was fake. However, if that changes and you actually see reports of employers who are saying, "Okay, we're going to absolutely stop hiring any immigrants because we don't want that risk." Or possibly, remember I always tell you that insurance is the most predictive thing in our world. If insurance companies say I'm not going to cover that situation, then you know change is coming, right? But if the insurance companies say, "Yeah, we'll still cover that," then maybe not much is going to change.

But imagine if you will that you provide some kind of business insurance or even loans to a business and you find out that ICE is closing down those businesses that know they have illegal aliens, would you sell them insurance? Would you give them a loan? And would the business take that risk when the alternative is to hire local people? It was just harder. Well, it seems to me that if you start going after the businesses, you can absolutely eliminate illegal migration because the businesses are not going to take the business risk and that is the sensitive lever here. So watch for that. As soon as you see a bunch of news stories about business owners who were jailed or fined or the business went out of business because they had illegal aliens, as soon as that happens, and I haven't seen any of those stories, but as soon as it happens, it looks like there's going to be a massive change and all the businesses will say, we did pay attention to the news and the news says that businesses like ours are going to be closed down if we keep hiring undocumented people. They will stop right away.

When I got cancelled, most of you know that story. It wasn't because every person who reads a comic cancelled me. And it wasn't because individual bookstores or individual newspapers decided that they didn't want to work with me. It was because the biggest leverage was the syndication company and the publisher. It was real easy to lean on them and then once you lean on the publisher, it's not in any bookstore. So I thought I was a little bit safe free speech wise that even if a newspaper here or there cancelled Dilbert, well, there was still 2,000 that didn't, so it was no big deal. But when my cancellers realized they could go after the publisher and go after the syndication company, there were only two people that they needed to convince to cancel me and they put pressure on them and they cancelled me immediately. So similarly, if ICE puts pressure on the businesses, it's going to make a big difference really quickly.

All right. Trump's approval, apparently according to polls, has fallen since February. A lot of the tariff stuff and the immigration stuff seemed to be the main cause, but it was 53% in February. It's 42% now. I forget which poll that was. And that public support for deportation is falling as you might expect as there are more stories in the news that would make you empathetic toward the people being deported. But Republicans, if you look at only Republicans, they remain solidly behind the president. So the president has not lost his base pretty much at all. But it looks like some independents and maybe some crossover Democrats said, "No, we will run back to our corner and stop supporting him."

Well, did you know according to NewsNation, Anna is reporting that big agricultural companies are funding efforts for various smaller organizations that you wouldn't know are being funded by the big ag. They're going after the Make America Healthy Again campaigns and they're paying for fake science so they can continue doing their unhealthy things. According to the Make America Healthy Again people, they would be unhealthy. But so the industry, there are industry groups like CropLife and some others and they're going to be arguing to keep things the way they are.

Did you know also according to NewsNation's report that Bayer Monsanto has faced over a hundred thousand lawsuits over its pesticide. A hundred thousand lawsuits over its pesticide. And how many has it settled? Eleven billion in settlements. Now they still claim that they have a safe product, but there have been a hundred thousand lawsuits against them and they've already settled eleven billion that they paid out. Doesn't that suggest to you that maybe there's a problem here? I don't know, but there's a lot of winning in court.

And then there's a