. The public ran that down. So what was it called? The Disinformation Board. And they were going to tell you what was true and what wasn't. Well it got so much pushback, rightfully so, that they disbanded it and the woman who's in charge of it resigned and they're not going to do that anymore. So no more so-called Ministry of Truth.

And totally unrelated news, I don't even know why I bring this up at this point but we've got a new thing. So we lost the so-called Ministry of Truth — that's just what people were calling it — but we've got this new thing under the Democrats. Maybe it passed the House but not yet the Senate. It's called the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act. So that passed the House yesterday and it's created to quote "assess the threat posed by white supremacists and neo-Nazis." So it's a good thing they got rid of that Ministry of Truth because we were afraid that they might use it politically to target people on the other side. Because if one side is in charge of the truth and what is true and what is not, well it feels like that could be used politically which is why people ran that idea out of town.

But now we have this new thing which is some kind of an upgrade apparently. So they'll have a group that's just looking to identify the white supremacists and neo-Nazis among us. I wonder what could go wrong. Do you think? Oh maybe it could get a little political. Do you think maybe that these were two attempts to hunt Republicans and one of them wasn't aggressive enough because it was just talking about it but the other one was actually to label some Americans white supremacists and neo-Nazis? And I wonder, do you think anybody who's not quite one of those things could ever be dragged into that conversation? And do you think that maybe just being a Republican and maybe let's say maybe you went someplace and that your photo taken and you didn't know exactly the reputation of the person you were with, are you a neo-Nazi now if you had your photo taken with somebody who has those leanings? I don't know.

So if you were this, let's say it gets passed by the Senate — I have a feeling it won't be but if it did — who do you think they're going to call white supremacists and neo-Nazis? They've called pretty much all Republicans white supremacists and neo-Nazis, have they not? Do you see any problem with that?

Do you remember my prediction that everybody mocked me for when I said that if Biden is elected Republicans will be hunted? And people said, oh god you've really jumped the shark this one. They're not going to hunt Republicans. Nothing like that's going to happen. Except the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act might be a little bit maybe aggressive in who they determine is a neo-Nazi and a white supremacist.

What ideology do you think would get you identified as a white supremacist? What would be an example? Let's say somebody was very strong on border security and let's say that their reasoning was that they didn't want the culture of the country to change. This is not my opinion. I'm talking about some person, right? So there's some person who's strong on border security and their reasoning is they don't want the character or culture of the country to change in a, let's say in an unguided way, in a random way that's determined by other people basically. What would they be? They'd be a white supremacist, wouldn't they? Wouldn't they? Because it would be somebody who is targeting people of color and wanting to disadvantage them relative to what the situation could have been, which is they all get to come in. So if you're a white Republican and you've got a public stand that is bad for people of color — not Americans but people of color who would like to get into America — how is that not a white supremacist according to Democrats? This is some really sketchy stuff here.

So I was on vacation last week. Something else but I did my live streams just at the wrong different times most of the time.

All right. Well you know fortunately we can trust Democrats to do the right thing. Which brings me to a Rasmussen poll which asked how likely is it that the Clinton campaign officials acted illegally during the 2016 presidential election. And that number is 55 percent now. So a majority of Americans believe that the top Democrat powers, the Clinton campaign at the time, acted illegally and basically rigged the election. But you know even though 55% of them think that the Democrats are rotten at the top, I'm really looking forward to this new group that's going to determine which ones of us are neo-Nazis and white supremacists. That I don't see a problem there.

So do you remember the story of Keith Raniere and NXIVM and the alleged sex cult that was a subgroup of some of the same people? And Keith Raniere got convicted and he's in prison now. But he's claiming, and there's some expert testimony that backs up the claim with evidence, that he was framed by the law enforcement basically. I think FBI is being accused now. I don't have an opinion because how would I know of whether Keith Raniere was framed or not. But in the context of today's news and what you've seen lately, who is more credible? The FBI or a person incarcerated and blamed of accused of terrible crimes and found guilty by a jury of his peers? Which one is more credible in 2022? It's a tie. It's a tie. He's got a story about being set up, to which I say there was a time I would have said well that's ridiculous. You know I'll just go with law enforcement on this one. But not anymore. Not anymore. No I'm not saying he's innocent. How would I know? Who knows. But I'll just say the credibility of the accusers and the credibility of the accused are now roughly the same. Roughly the same. So good job government.

Well in case I'm all being all negative today, the Democrats have done a number of bad things but thank goodness they're stopping the fentanyl traffic into this country. No they're not. No they're not. It turns out that fentanyl overdoses and other overdoses are at an all-time high. I saw the Wall Street Journal had some opinion piece speculating that the lockdowns were a cause of the greater addictions. How many of you accept that as true just on its face? So we don't have a study of that but how many? Because it did turn out that overdoses spiked at exactly that right time. How many you think that the lockdowns caused more overdose deaths? I'd say very likely but I'm not quite ready to say yes because here's the variable which is not maybe not in play. How much fentanyl came in? How many extra things that didn't have fentanyl in them got fentanyl added to them? Was there any change in the way fentanyl was made or produced to make it more deadly? So I would be asking lots of questions about whether the product itself changed or evolved or got worse. I wouldn't necessarily say that the only reason is because there was a lockdown. Although the timing, the timing is pretty suspicious and our common sense tells us it's likely, right?

So I but you know I think that the Biden admin