. But you don't think that is the lead necessarily. But in my opinion the women are running the Democrat party, and they've started to paint the Republicans as men.

So here's a tweet from — let's see, who is this? Midas Touch. So this is a Democrat group that tweets and does other stuff. And they're saying that Republicans — they're characterizing Republicans this way as quote, we're going to make women our property, turn America into a dictatorship and raise the Nazi flag once again. That's Midas Touch, right? And they complain that the media is complaining about the price of gas instead of talking about how the Republicans are trying to make women their property. To which I say, you know, Republicans can be women. Am I wrong? I'm pretty sure Republicans can actually be women. And yeah, right here.

So it's amazing that somebody who's a Democrat actually I think is admitting that they see it this way. That the Democrats are the party of women and the Republicans are the party of men. But are there more Republican men than women? I don't even know that. There might be. Can somebody tell me that? If you just look at Republicans only, are more of the voters women or men? Because there are more women than men in general, right? Is there probably more men because the philosophy leads a little bit male? It does. It's changing quickly anyway.

But my point is I do think that somewhat accidentally the Republicans have become the parent party and the Democrats have become the woman party. Because I don't think that the Democrats can do anything that women don't agree with. Here's your test. I don't think the Republicans can do anything that women don't agree with. Could the Republicans do things that Black voters don't agree with? Yes, they could. Could they do something that women don't agree with? Nope. Not a chance. Not a chance. Am I right? Right. They wouldn't get away with it.

Now let's take that same argument to the Republicans. Is there anything that Republican males would not want to happen that could happen because there were enough other people who wanted it? No, probably not. I've got a feeling that the Republican party does have a male bias and that the Democrat party does have a female bias. But the Republican party seems more explicitly parental in nature. It's more about adults, right? It's an interesting matchup. Women versus parents. And you can see it in so many ways.

Well, by more than four to one margin according to Rasmussen poll, Americans say the nation's problem with opioid drugs — fentanyl being the worst of them — is getting worse, not better. And they don't think Biden is doing enough. So 44 percent of Americans believe that the crisis has gotten worse and just 10 percent think it's gotten better. How in the world could anybody think the opioid crisis got better? There's more drugs. Ten crazy. Oh, another 16 are not sure. Oh, 10 percent think the opioid crisis is getting better. 16 are not sure. The math at 10 plus the 16 is 26. Nearly a quarter, about a quarter of the country is bat stupid, huh? Well that's a surprise.

So Biden's failing on that. And I think that the — here's a prediction that I will bank on. You know how follow the money always explains everything, right? Follow the money explains everything. If you look at the opioid and the fentanyl situation, follow the money tells you exactly what's going to happen. Number one, there will be more fentanyl shipped into the country. Why? Because it makes money. So fentanyl shipments in the United States are profitable. Would you agree that there will be more of them? Of course. Of course. So follow the money guarantees there will be more, not less, fentanyl coming into the country.

Now have you heard of this thing called the military industrial complex? We don't like it. We wish it didn't exist, but it does exist. It does exist, and so you can't ignore it. And what would the military industrial complex do if the potential profit from attacking the cartels went from — looks like that would be a smallish operation. What if it goes to a big operation? Suddenly the military industrial complex says, whoa, a new line of business: attacking the cartels. But it's got to be big. Like the scale of it has to be big enough that the military industrial complex can get interested, right? Has to be big, otherwise they don't make enough money. So the fentanyl business will keep getting bigger until it crosses that line. The moment it crosses that line, the military industrial complex is going to have a trillion dollar payday because they're going to say, you know, we're going to have to sell you some really expensive weapons to take out those cartels and to guard the border or whatever we decide to do.

So the two things that you can guarantee is that there will be more fentanyl coming in until the problem is so bad that the military industrial complex sees a huge profit, at which point they will vaporize it. It will take a few years because you need to spread that profit out, but they will vaporize the cartels. There isn't any other way this can go because of money. Right now the cartels will try to make enough money to change something, but money guarantees that the cartels will be vaporized. Am I wrong? It's just not profitable to do it yet, but it's getting close. Yeah, let's say when fentanyl deaths reach 200,000 a year, which should be in a year or two, maybe five years, but there isn't any chance it's not going to happen. We'll get to quarter million deaths a year, and then the military and the people who make money from selling military equipment will say, well, we can take care of that for a trillion dollars. And then we'll pay a trillion dollars and they will go vaporize the cartels. Do you think I'm wrong? There's no other way this can go. I don't see any force from anywhere, any variable that would change the guaranteed direction that we will attack Mexico. Guaranteed.

Now should we attack China because they're sending us the drugs? Now I don't know if you know how China gets away with it. So President Xi said yes, we'll make fentanyl and the precursors to fentanyl. We'll make them illegal. So you know, that's good, right? We'll make that illegal in China. But what they didn't do is make all the variants illegal. So the fentanyl precursor people, they just change the formula a little bit. It's just as bad, but it's not technically the thing that got banned.

Now let me ask you this. Do you think China can't figure out how to solve that problem? That their law is not including enough stuff? Can't figure that out, right? Do you think they care if their law doesn't cover those things? No, they don't care. If they wanted to stop it, they would just go arrest the guy who's in charge. They wouldn't care about which precursors are illegal or legal. They would just go arrest them if they didn't want it to keep happening. Obviously the leadership wants it to continue. It's too easy to stop. So obviously they want it.

What should we do if China is sending precursors — essentially military equipment — to the cartels who are killing Americans? Well, I don't think you want to start a nuclear war. I don't think you want to invade. But we need to kill the dealers on the ground. You can't tell me that we can't find anybody in China that we could bribe to go kill those fentanyl producers. We can't do a terrorist act in China. We can't set a bomb next to a factory in China. We don't have anybody in China who has that ability to blow something up. We should be — those should be exploding. Maybe it is. I mean, maybe somebody is, but we should definitely be attacking China covertly to destroy the fentanyl production. Would that trigger a world war, a nuclear war? Well, that's the risk that China's going to have to take, isn't it? If China wants to kill a quarter million of us a year, which is where it's going to go to, then they need to risk nuclear war. They need to, right? So yes, that is the risk that they should be looking at very directly.

All right, let's see. We've got some more gaslighting keeping going on here. I don't know if it's just me, but when I heard Biden talking about again the insurrection that Trump ran, here's what I hear every time. Biden, the elected leader of the United States, uses the word insurrection. My mind imagines people who look a lot like me going to jail for nothing. Like I can't unpair those two things. Every time he uses the word insurrection, I see him trying to put me in jail for nothing. And I think I made a turn today because it's one thing for him to say insurrection before the January 6 hearings have concluded. It's another thing to keep saying insurrection when his own hearings — well, I'll say it's his own — have shown that there was no insurrection or planned insurrection or actual insurrection. Once it's been debunked, if he comes on television and says it again, he is targeting me. That's how I feel.

And if my president tar