ng to the Daily Mail, the Trump administration is thinking of a visa integrity fee. So the people who travel to the US and are required to have a visa would have to pay an extra 250 above what they already pay. So it'd be $442 just to be allowed to come in the United States to visit. To which I say, "Yeah, it's about time we had a cover fee." And I also would recommend a two drink minimum. If you're coming in from a visa country, I want $442 of your dollars and you got to commit to a two drink minimum. That's how you become the hottest country. You know, a year ago, the US was dead. It was a dead country. Dead, I say. But now it's the hottest country. Oh, it's so hot. Yeah, we can charge a cover fee. That's how hot we are. You just listen to Mr. Trump. He'll tell you that.

Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch has a success. Another success. I guess he sued Oregon to force them to clean up their voter rolls. And Oregon had the worst voter rolls, meaning they had the most people eligible to vote according to the voter rolls who were not really eligible to vote. They were dead or they moved away or some other thing. And he won in court. So now Oregon is going to have to fix their voter rolls. He's also sued California and Illinois. Same thing. Now, do you think that'll make a difference? Do you buy into the fact that maybe the worse the voter rolls are, the worse it is for Republican candidates because it's the Democrats who are abusing that system? I don't know. I would say that it's a sort of thing where there's a 100% chance that it's abused a little. What I don't know is is it abused a lot, enough to change an election? That I don't know, but we'll find out. So maybe it's a movement in the right direction, but we'll find out.

And then there was CNN had an interview with Brad Todd who's a political commentator and he said that we know the 2020 census, the errors were almost always to the detriment of red states. Did you know that? Did you know that the 2020 census was considered flawed in some ways, but that the flaws were overwhelmingly in one direction? Now there were both flaws on blue and red states, but the red states had the majority of flaws. And CNN host said, "Do we know that?" And Todd said, "We do know that." The Census Bureau's own audit of its work has proven that. Okay. If it's their own audit, I do believe that one. So if they redo the census, which Trump is asking for, and especially now that he's deported a number of non-citizens, this should be another electoral advantage for Trump, right? So how many advantages are the Republicans stacking up at this point? Let's say they have completely destroyed the entire architecture of the fake news traditional media. How big a deal is that for their election chances? Really big. And they've dominated the podcasting space so far. Really good. That's really good. And then Tom Fitton and maybe some others doing some things to clean up the voter rolls. How much difference will that make? Might make a lot. We don't know. Might make a little, might make none. Don't know yet. But it's all everything that might be making a difference is all leaning in one direction at this point. What about Trump wanting to get rid of being able to vote without voter ID? If he gets away with that and also bans voting by mail unless except for the special cases then those will be two things that at least Republicans believe would take away some Democrat advantage.

Then I saw the comments. Thank you. That the cuts in USAID and the other dismantling of the NGO dark money networks, the pressure that's being put on ActBlue, which is a big funder of Democrat stuff, but they're being accused of having some foreign influence and trying to repackage big money into little money, which would be illegal. So their funding sources are gone. Their fake news protection racket still exists, but is basically only looked at by people over 70. I think the median age is 70 for traditional news. And the median age for podcasting is something in the low 30s, I think. So correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't 100% of everything that's big enough to be in the news all heading in the same direction? Oh, and then I forgot to even mention the redistricting. So they got redistricting, cleaning up voter rolls. Maybe they'll have movement on the mail-in ballots and the ID. They've got maybe the census will be redone. That's a lot, isn't it?

And you know, you could argue that the reason Trump won, and I don't have any evidence of this, but it's just one of those things that you can imagine might be true. There was a really big movement to have observers, especially lawyers, at the election for 2024. I think Lara Trump and company were behind that. I wonder if that change made anybody back off from any shenanigans. Now again, I don't know that they planned any. I don't know that there ever have been any shenanigans. It just looks like it. And then we see that Trump has got the military surrounding Venezuela. Now, I do not believe that I have any confident data that says Venezuela was involved in any kind of rigging our election, but that's an accusation you hear. I just don't think that has evidence. What would happen if the pressure that Trump is putting on militarily on Venezuela produced maybe not a war because I don't want that but maybe a negotiation and maybe Trump would say I'll make you a deal. I'll go a little bit easy on you if you reveal everything you know about what may or may not have been interference in our elections. We might find out because of the military pressure. We might find out if Venezuela had anything to do with any of our past elections. Again, I don't want to be sued. So I want to say clearly I'm not aware of any evidence of that. I just know that that's a speculation that's floating around.

I guess tomorrow Thomas Massie has organized a press conference with 10 victims of Epstein sex trafficking. So that's tomorrow at 10:30, I assume, Eastern time. Now, what would you expect from 10 victims of Epstein sex trafficking taking questions? How many of you believe that they're going to name names you have never heard before? I don't expect that. It would be an amazing thing. Good or bad, it'd be amazing if it happened. Here's what I suspect. So dampening your enthusiasm for this. What I would expect is that they'll all say that Epstein victimized them. They might throw in Prince Andrew because it feels like he's already sullied, like you wouldn't be adding anything. They just, oh yeah, and we'll throw in the name that you've heard before. So I've got a feeling it's not going to make as much news as you thought. And one of the reasons might be that there was a god-awful amount of money set aside for settlements. And if you were one of the victims and you could prove it, and it seems like it'd be easy enough to prove or at least easy enough to prove that you might be able to prove it if you went to court. There were probably a whole bunch of victims who got big paychecks to shut up. So they might end up saying, you know, I can't talk about that because I've got some kind of agreement to settle. And I wouldn't blame them for that. By the way, I don't think that each of them individually has some larger responsibility to the public. I don't think so. He's dead. Epstein's out of the picture. I think they should take the money. And if part of that was they had to agree to shut up about it, it's not a perfect solution, but I wouldn't fault them for taking the deal. I'm pretty sure I would have. So we'll watch that.

Gavin Newsom lost in court again. Joel Pollak of Breitbart tells us, I'm always bad on the lawyer and court stories, so let's see if I can get close to this. The question was two bills and one of them required the large online platforms to block the posting of materially deceptive content. So in other stuff basically anything that would matter that was deceptive related to elections. And that was not affirmed by the court. It also bars materially deceptive content. So that would be deepfakes, I think. And well, no, not necessarily deepfakes, but anything that's materially deceptive. And Joel points out that that would have included something like Kamala Harris claiming that Trump once said that Nazis were very fine people. So there's no way you could use that standard because you'd be jailing everybody who opened their mouth in politics because all the politicians are saying things that are not true and they probably know they're not true on both sides. So you couldn't really in a practical way have a law that said you're going to jail if you say something that's not true at least in this country. I mean maybe other countries. And then there was one of the proposed laws would require the online platforms to regulate deepfakes but that was rejected as well. So basically Newsom wanted California to have some control over the content online, and the court said, "Get out of here. You're not going to have any more control than you already have, at least in regard to these specific things." I think the judge said something about it would also kill the joke. So that would be an awesome response if you're a judge. Yeah, that wouldn't be funny if he had to admit it's a deepfake before somebody watched the video. So I think the judge said something along those lines, which is awesome.

All right, so satire and parody are now still protected. This is one of those times when I'm happy to be an American becau