NEW: BBC to apologize for deceptively editing President Trump’s January 6 speech in an effort to make it look like he encouraged violence at the Capitol. The apology letter is reportedly expected to come early next week. “Samir Shah, the BBC’s chairman, will write to the culture, media and sport committee on Monday to express regret for the way the speech, made on the day of the Jan 6 2021 Capitol riot, was spliced together,” the Telegraph reported. BBC’s director general Tim Davie and Shah were both allegedly warned about the doctored footage in May but decided to keep quiet, according to the outlet.

It’s come to my attention that @BusinessInsider and @dakincampbell are doing a hit piece on me and #TheProfit When I heard about two months ago I confronted the reporter and reminded him that while I respect the media, any untruth would result in litigation. He is being fed information from a company that sued me and lost not only the case but will be held accountable from a personal guaranty. Normally any PR expert would say “be quiet” don’t engage, but that’s not going to happen here. Last Friday the reporter called to interrogate me on “one sided” accusations. To be clear three company’s and I went to litigation. In every case, we won. Many may remember articles done by one reporter years ago, same reporter, two articles, different outlets. You can google it. As a reminder, the show stated in 2013 and ended in 2020. His comments were that many companies claimed, but wouldn’t name them, that their lives were destroyed and that I drained the companies money to fix up their places etc. What’s ironic is that never once did I receive any money of any kind, other than in a very limited number of cases recovered my money. The timing of this as the reporter stated, was on the heals of our new @FOXTV show coming out, #TheFixer . He asked if Fox was aware of all this ? What was the new show about ? What was the premise? As many know I have had many blessings in business to make money. Making money of any small business I have ever worked with didn’t happen. His statement of me “profiting by taking advantage of businesses and taking things from them” is not only incorrect but insulting. In the middle of the call I told him I was aware of one business he called, because they called me immediately telling me that he was digging for information and the questions were not only slanted but tone was odd. I have no regrets or hard feelings towards any business but clearly hold high on my list many. My relationships with many of them still continues today and you will see a couple on the new show. I encourage you to do your own research.

104% tariffs on China are not enough. I'm advocating 400%. I do business with China. They don't play by the rules. They've been in the WTO for decades. They have never abided by any of the rules they agreed to when they came in for decades. They cheat, they steal, they steal IP. I can't litigate in their courts. They take product, technology, they steal it, they manufacture it and sell it back here. Nobody has taken on China yet, not the Europeans, no administration for decades. As someone who actually does business there, I've had enough. I speak for millions of Americans who have IP that have been stolen by the Chinese. 400% tariffs tomorrow morning!

America spends more on education than almost any other country, yet our reading and math scores are the WORST in the G7 and G20. Why? Unions. Unions protect mediocrity and keep bad teachers in place, while great teachers who actually make an impact get underpaid. That’s insane! If we want to fix education, we need to fire the bad teachers and pay the great ones a LOT more. I’m all for rewarding results. If you’re advancing math and reading scores, you should be making a great salary. If you’re holding students back, you’re out!

Sale ends at midnight! Shop now - qvc.co/chefwonderfulqvc

We are ready @CampingWorld to contest this. We love the outdoors and it’s nonsense like this that causes inflation. #StopTheInsanity California Senate Bill 253 (SB 253), known as the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act, mandates that public and private companies with annual revenues exceeding $1 billion and operating in California disclose their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This includes direct emissions (Scope 1), indirect emissions from energy consumption (Scope 2), and indirect emissions from the entire value chain (Scope 3). The reporting requirements begin in 2026 for Scope 1 and 2 emissions, and in 2027 for Scope 3 emissions. Additionally, companies must obtain third-party assurance for their reported data, with increasing levels of scrutiny over time. Potential Negative Impacts on Businesses: 1.Increased Compliance Costs: Implementing comprehensive emissions tracking and reporting systems can be financially burdensome. Estimates suggest that annual reporting costs could range between $300,000 to $600,000 per company. These expenses may ultimately be passed on to consumers, potentially affecting market competitiveness. 2.Supply Chain Challenges: Accurately reporting Scope 3 emissions requires extensive data collection from suppliers and other third parties. This process can be complex and time-consuming, especially for companies with vast and intricate supply chains. The difficulty in obtaining precise data may lead to reliance on estimates, which could undermine the accuracy of the reports. 3.Legal and Regulatory Risks: The stringent reporting requirements and the need for third-party assurance introduce potential legal liabilities. Companies may face penalties of up to $500,000 for non-compliance or inaccuracies in reporting. Furthermore, the complexity of the regulations could lead to inadvertent non-compliance, exposing businesses to legal challenges. Questionable Environmental Benefits: While the intent of SB 253 is to enhance transparency and encourage emission reductions, its effectiveness in achieving tangible environmental benefits is debatable. The focus on detailed reporting does not directly incentivize companies to reduce their emissions. Instead, it emphasizes disclosure over actionable environmental improvements. Without accompanying measures that promote or enforce actual emission reductions, the legislation may result in increased administrative burdens for businesses without delivering significant environmental gains. In summary, while SB 253 aims to promote corporate transparency regarding greenhouse gas emissions, it imposes substantial compliance costs and challenges on businesses. Moreover, without mechanisms to ensure that reporting leads to concrete emission reductions, the legislation may not effectively address environmental concerns.