Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 6, 2023 - The David Knight Show

03:01:02

6Mar23 Trump Pushes UN Agenda21/UN 2030 Agenda, Rebrands as "Freedom Cities"

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	www.fema.org You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	As the clock strikes 13, it's Monday, the 6th of March. the 6th of March.
	You have our Lord 2023.
	Day 1089 of the emergency that is still with us.
	But you wouldn't know it to listen to the speeches at CPAC, would you?
	Everything's just fine. As a matter of fact, they celebrate the father of the vaccine.
	He was just calling himself that just a couple of months ago.
	I guess he had a...
	A meeting with his advisors.
	We're going to talk about that. We have Eric Peters who's going to be joining us in the third hour.
	Yet another train derailment.
	Something else that is also very interesting that was brought to my attention that happened about two weeks ago.
	More infrastructure issues.
	And we'll be talking about war.
	We've got Rod Stewart out there, saying it's going to be the end of civilization.
	I thought he was the end of civilization.
	We're going to begin with free speech.
	Stay with us.
	We'll be right back.
	Well, I was surprised on Friday...
	I talked about this on the show on Friday.
	I said, look, I've had several people send comments and screen captures to me showing that when they wanted to click on watching the show on Twitter, it came up and it said, this is sensitive content.
	You can't watch it unless you want to change the settings on your account.
	I thought, that's a new thing.
	I've never seen that before.
	These people had never seen it before, so they contacted me about that.
	And then above and beyond that feature, how did my content get labeled as sensitive?
	Sensitive to who? To Pfizer?
	To Elon Musk? Who is it?
	What master have I offended?
	I try to offend them all equally.
	But, you know, it was kind of interesting, and so...
	I retweeted. I showed you the tweet on Friday.
	I said, I think that censorship under Elon Musk is even worse than before.
	And I was surprised when the show ended that I had a drudge link to that tweet.
	And beyond that, what he did was he put down there at the bottom, this is Friday, stayed up for about 24 hours.
	He puts that picture of Musk laughing over there on the side, is right above the link.
	Talk host slams Musk.
	Censorship has been worse on Twitter.
	Well, I guess I can expect it to be much worse now.
	I really don't care. Look, I've got, even with a drudge link, I waited to go back and look at it.
	I saw I've looked at all the comments at the very beginning.
	There were a lot of people with 10 followers, muskbots, one way or the other.
	They're muskbots coming out and saying, oh, look, this isn't censorship.
	To label your stuff as sensitive, that's not censorship.
	Is it censorship when you click on a bit shoot link and a screen comes up And says, this is a dangerous site.
	And you can't proceed unless you go down to the bottom.
	There's a little small thing down there that says, go ahead anyway.
	Very, very small. Had people talk about that for a long time.
	That's been there for a long time. That was there before Musk came on.
	But this sensitive content thing...
	That's a new thing. And my content is sensitive.
	They put that on there as the show begins.
	That's not about my content.
	That's about me.
	I've offended somebody's sensibilities.
	Well, good. I don't come after people that don't deserve it, quite frankly, in my opinion.
	Including Elon Musk.
	Trump was, not Trump, but AJ. It's so hard to tell the two of them about it.
	They're one in the same way.
	AJ just loved Musk.
	It was always kissing up to him.
	What good did it do you, AJ? Yeah, these guys don't have any loyalty, just like Trump doesn't.
	Anyway, even with the Drudge link, you know, he did add this little thing that shows how many times a tweet has been viewed.
	And so I can go back and see that with 134,000 followers, That I typically get about 1,000 to 3,000 people see it, according to Twitter.
	With the Drudge link, there was about 20,000 people who saw it.
	With a Drudge link. Do it for 24 hours.
	That's how heavily banned it is.
	And then I got this email.
	And this is from an individual who writes on medium.com.
	And his handle there is 24ahead.com.
	And he spells out dot, D-O-T. So 24ahead.com.
	And he had written an application that That looked at Twitter censorship.
	He says, for instance, in the 2019 Twitter censored about 40% of replies to the president of Iran.
	In 2023, Twitter is censoring about half of the replies to the head Ayatollah.
	Needless to say, many of those replying to Iranian government officials are Iranian dissidents.
	Musk is heavily censoring replies to the Chinese government officials, not to mention U.S. politicians.
	And what he did was he put together a report showing that, you know, we've had the Matt Taibbi article, I covered it, Talking about how many censorship requests, he caucuses with the Democrats, he calls himself an independent, but Angus King, Senator, how many people, he was sending them lists and telling them to censor these people on Twitter.
	And yet he said, what is interesting is that Elon Musk's Twitter is censoring half of the replies to Senator King now.
	And so he said, Musk is in effect doing his bidding by censoring his critics.
	People see that report and they're saying things to Angus King that Angus King doesn't want said.
	And so they're censoring that.
	So he says in their Ajax, Ajax, that's the data sent from Twitter servers to browsers.
	That's where he intercepted this to do the tech analysis.
	He said Twitter calls the tweets in red low quality, those in purple abusive quality.
	The ones that aren't highlighted are called high quality.
	Now this explains a lot because I've said for the longest time people who typically, I see their comments when I would go back and look at Twitter.
	I would see comments that would say, these are...
	Click on this if you want to see this.
	You know, this is not...
	I forget exactly what it is.
	He mentions it here in his report.
	Something like, you know, this is additional, you know, hidden replies.
	They hide them with a particular label, just like they put the label now on my show that says, sensitive comment.
	You have to say, show these.
	I think it's like show more replies.
	Go ahead and click them and show them, right?
	And then there'll still be some more.
	And those are the ones that are labeled as abusive internally and that tells your browser that it's abusive.
	And so if they don't like you, you know, they put you in one of those two tier categories.
	And it's not your tweet. Because I would go back, and I've said this for the longest time, show more replies.
	So I'd put something up, I'd get maybe two or three replies.
	And they all are labeled, show more replies.
	It's like, we haven't shown me any of them.
	And so I click on it, and it's things like, well, I agree with that, thanks a lot, blah, blah, blah, whatever.
	Nothing even offensive to me.
	They're not trying to hide stuff to...
	Help me feel better, right?
	They're not going to hide any trolls.
	So it's not anything that is offensive to anybody, including me, but they hide them.
	And you click that, and sometimes you'll see even more replies.
	Those are the ones that they've labeled as abusive.
	So he says the ones that aren't highlighted are called high quality.
	They appear first on the reply pages.
	The low quality tweets are hidden behind the show more replies link.
	That's what it actually says, show more replies.
	The abusive quality tweets are another button further down to show even more replies.
	So per Twitter, a tweet saying just resign is high quality.
	But a tweet saying, Senator, I came across a Twitter account that, to quote you, mentions immigration.
	What should I do?
	Should I call the FBI? Help me out here.
	Well, that's low quality for them.
	Except what they're doing, as I've seen over the longest period of time, is that they're doing this on a per-person basis, not on a per-tweet basis.
	They may do it as well on the tweets, but they're also doing it for people.
	So As I've said many times before, free speech is much bigger than social media.
	It's much bigger than Twitter. We need to not confine ourselves to those walled gardens.
	We need to understand that if we want to have free speech, just forget about social media.
	It was created as a surveillance tactic.
	And we need to understand that's what it still is.
	It's still there to control the narrative and to control your speech.
	As I said, free speech is much bigger than social media, much bigger than Twitter.
	But take a look at what is happening in Florida.
	I'm absolutely astounded at the thin-skinned Republicans in Florida, just as thin-skinned as Angus King, the Democrat.
	They are coming after one scheme after the other to silence their critics, to silence people they don't like.
	They're just as bad as the Democrats with this stuff.
	I talked last Friday about a bill that's been introduced.
	Now, this hasn't been passed in any of the houses.
	They're just getting started.
	So these are bills that are being introduced.
	But what are these Republicans thinking?
	You know, that bill would require people to register any report that they do about DeSantis or the Lieutenant Governor or the Surgeon General or any elected member of the legislature.
	You want to write a report about any elected official, even some appointed ones like the Surgeon General?
	Well, you better send them a report about your report.
	And if you don't do that, You might get a $2,500 fine, or you will get a $2,500 if they pass this bill.
	What is a Republican doing pushing something like that?
	And then we have other issues here.
	You know, this is coming from the Daily Beast.
	I don't agree with the Daily Beast, but they have a point with this.
	As they're saying, when DeSantis pushed the Florida legislature to join his crusade against wokeness in public schools, First Amendment experts warn that many of the anti-critical race theory laws around the country were written so broadly that they could reasonably be interpreted as a de facto prohibition on anything other than specifically state-sanctioned speech.
	Now, the liberals are crying crocodile tears.
	Liberals who have been on a campaign to cancel all speeches they disagree with.
	Now they're saying, you're going to be burning books?
	You're going to be taking pornographic books out of the library?
	How dare you take that out?
	So just understand the phoniness of where they're coming from.
	But also, they do have a point, and that is, you know, when you're just virtue signaling about this stuff, and where do you draw the line once you start censoring things?
	You see, the problem, yes, the immediate problem is pornography that's being given to kids by these corrupted schools.
	But the real problem is the schools.
	And the fact that the Republicans, and nobody can really control these schools, as I've said many times, you've got the federal government involved, you've got the state government involved, you've got school boards involved, you've got principals involved.
	Then you've got teachers who are at the, you know, where the rubber meets the road.
	And even if you were able to fix all of these things from the top down, which I don't think you're going to be able to do.
	I think you're going to be able to pull this curriculum nonsense back from...
	You know, the federal government, they've been incentivizing people to put boys in girls' bathrooms.
	They've been incentivizing them for Common Core.
	They've been incentivizing them to deliberately dumb down the kids since the Department of Education was created.
	That was why that unconstitutional agency was created in the first place.
	Charlotte Iserby went there.
	You know, as Reagan took office, oh, we're going to get rid of the Department of Education that was created by Jimmy Carter?
	No, no, we're going to make it many times bigger under Reagan.
	He violated his campaign promise.
	So she wrote a book about it.
	But look, that's been the design from the top down.
	This fish has been rotting from the head down.
	But it's gone through so many times that you've got all these teachers.
	That have gone through this system and it has been intensified as each successive generation goes through, is propagandized to a degree, and then teaches the next generation and takes it the next step further.
	I don't think you're going to be able to fix the schools.
	They have to be ended. Government should not be running the schools any more than government should be running churches for the same reasons.
	You can't have free speech if you don't have freedom of thought.
	You can't have freedom of thought and free speech if you don't have a free education.
	And that means that you're not filling a bucket.
	That's propaganda. You want to give people the ability to critically think.
	This is just the festering sore.
	What you're seeing here are the pornography.
	It's just the festering sore of this anti-God, anti-moral educational system.
	He had people 160 years ago telling us this is what was going to happen.
	Look at R.L. Dabney, what he said was going to happen.
	He said you cannot have a government school without violating the establishment of a state church.
	It's just that simple. And he's right.
	And that's where we are. So they're not going to tell you that.
	Daily Beast isn't going to tell you that.
	The Republicans aren't even talking about that.
	Instead, when there is a problem, they'll make a second problem, in many cases, just virtue signaling, rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
	And that's the thing that is bad about this.
	If they come out and they say, well, we're going to purge all the critical race theory books and the And the pornography out of the libraries.
	These teachers will find a way to get it back in there anyway.
	It's going to make you feel like the schools are safe when the schools are not safe.
	It's kind of like the FDA authorizing or approving a vaccine.
	Oh, well, it's okay.
	DeSantis now has fixed the schools.
	DeSantis has, you know, he approves of what the schools are doing now.
	So I guess it's safe to put my kid in there.
	I guess it's safe to give the shot to my kid as well.
	Because the government said it's okay.
	The governor and his gaggle of sycophantic right-wing media influencers, this is a daily beast, insists the bookbans are only meant to go after the porn books like Genderqueer or the racism in books like How to Be an Anti-Racist, and that most of the hundreds of other books facing state censorship are mistakenly included in The Purge or deliberately removed by educators to make DeSantis look bad.
	So, you know, this is where they're coming from.
	They're virtue signaling about, oh, we believe in free speech.
	As they're going through cutting out anything that triggers them about men or, you know, their race triggers and all the rest of this stuff.
	But again, as I said before, last week, if you look at the Senate bill, that's what we ought to be concerned about in terms of censorship.
	Cutting out this kind of offensive material is something that should be done.
	You ought to have schools who respond to the parents.
	The trouble is they don't.
	They don't. And even if they take these things out of the library, you'll find teachers that will pull it back in.
	Let's take a look at all the teachers on libs of TikTok and what they're doing.
	And, you know, frankly, we know some people, you know, a teacher who just retired, knew her pretty well in college, and Karen has, you know, kind of kept up with her on Facebook.
	She doesn't have purple hair and a nose ring and all the rest of the stuff.
	But she is as radical as pretty much anybody out there.
	Radical about all this stuff.
	I would not want any of my kids in her classroom, or my grandkids.
	But you go back and you look at the direct attacks on free speech.
	Where's the Daily Beast on that?
	See, they don't care. You're going to take out my pornography and my Marxism, my Sodom-go-Marxist stuff?
	You're going to take that out? Oh, wow, it's fighting.
	Fighting time, right?
	But when... But it's total crickets when you got in.
	This was Senate Bill, the one I talked about last week, Senate Bill 1316.
	That's to register each article about any political figure, somebody that's in the executive branch, somebody that's in the legislative branch.
	You write a critical piece about them, you better report it.
	But of course, they also exempted newspapers and the big guys, right?
	This is really about independent journalists.
	It's really about bloggers.
	But inherent in that, this Republican bill, is the idea that only approved journalists are real journalists, right?
	And the rest of you we can censor.
	Well, no, you can't. There's the free press and then there's the free speech of the public, right?
	Both of those are protected.
	That's the genius of the founders when they wrote the Constitution.
	So this distinction about journalist or citizen really doesn't matter when it comes to speech.
	It shouldn't matter anyway. But this idea is something that both Republicans and Democrats embrace.
	This is in Senate Bill 1316 in Florida.
	Then there's a House Bill 991 that proposes a laundry list of legal changes that would make it easier for plaintiffs to bring and to win defamation cases.
	The bill's sponsor makes no secret that the intended target of this bill is the news media.
	Given the widespread...
	Public dissatisfaction with the media, this bill promises to be popular, easily spun by politicians as a way of making the media accountable.
	But it isn't just the irresponsible media actors that would get hit with this defamation.
	It would also be anybody who speaks on social media.
	Because, you see, they'll make a distinction between the free press and free speech when it comes to their government-granted privileges.
	But when they want to attack you and to punish you, they'll lump them together.
	Whether we're using Twitter, TikTok, Substack, any other self-publishing platform, we're all publishers now, that should make us all cautious about these defamation laws and how they are stretching and changing the definition of this.
	And again, this is coming from Republicans in Florida.
	The Florida bill, and those who would radically tilt First Amendment protections against media and other speakers, ignores the threat that weaponized defamation suits pose not just to the media but to us all.
	Citizens in a democracy should be free to share their views, even if those views are caustic, intemperate, or if you disagree with them, if you think they're factually incorrect.
	When it comes to criticism of the powerful James Madison and the Sullivan Court, we're right that we need to allow some breathing space for free speech and press because negligent errors are inevitable.
	We can't shut down people because they make an error.
	We shouldn't even shut down people if the error is deliberate.
	If it's deliberate, you've got slander, libel laws, and things like that.
	If it's malicious, that's what that's for.
	But if people make mistakes, or if you just disagree with them, or if they say things in a way that hurts your feelings, then you don't have a right to shut them down.
	That's a very dangerous thing to do.
	When we're talking about taking away content from children, that's a whole other ballgame.
	Children, by the way, are different.
	I know the left doesn't understand this.
	The LGBT do.
	That's why they're focused on the kids.
	They can have their way with the kids.
	They know the kids are innocent, naive.
	Easily seduced.
	That's why they focus on them.
	And that's why we have to protect them as a society.
	Just as government is created to protect our God-given rights, government should also be protecting our God-given children.
	So the Florida GOP declares war on the First Amendment in yet another way.
	How many ways are they going to do it?
	Well, this one is to combat anti-Semitism.
	This is pretty amazing, what we're seeing here.
	There's several Republican legislators who have put forward a bill that will lock people up, put you in jail.
	Might give you a $2,500 fine if you say something critical about the government.
	But if you say something that is anti-Semitic, they're now going to label it a hate crime.
	And they're going to lock you away for up to five years in prison.
	And they're very happy about it and bragging about it.
	There is no First Amendment right to conduct, said Randy Fine, the guy who introduced it.
	If you graffiti a building, it is a crime now.
	But if your motivation is hate, it will be a third-degree felony.
	And you'll spend five years in prison.
	If you want to litter, it's a crime right now.
	But if you litter and your motivation is a hate crime...
	It'll be a third degree felony, and you'll spend five years in jail.
	See, the Republicans are weaponizing something that I've always opposed, and that is hate crime.
	How do you judge that accurately, right?
	As I've said many times, there should never be a hate crime.
	If somebody kills someone or commits a crime, if they graffiti a building, if they do litter, or if they beat someone or they kill someone, hate could be a motive, and that could help you to prove your case.
	But the government should not be locking people up for anything other than provable actions, and you can never prove the motivations of somebody's heart.
	And this allows them anything that they say.
	We've seen how this has been weaponized.
	Oh, I don't like you. You're racist.
	I don't like you. You're hateful.
	Right? And so now the Republicans are doing that.
	The Republicans are going to do that.
	To protect what they want to protect.
	I mean, forget about which group is being attacked here.
	The principle is what is involved here.
	And if you're going to support hate crimes, and if you're going to weaponize hate laws, which we shouldn't even have, how reprehensible is that?
	I am... And I don't know, so many people...
	Florida, that's the place to be.
	I'm sorry. These people have gone over the edge.
	They really do hate free speech.
	So, if you want to...
	It's a crime right now. Why are they doing that?
	Well, they put this forward because there's a group called the Goyam Defense League that has been engaged in anti-Semitic They've dropped flyers in Florida neighborhoods that they believe are predominantly Jewish.
	They're critical of Jewish people.
	Anti-Semitic flyers are putting them out.
	That's why they said, well, litter. They're looking at how can we lock these people up because we don't like their speech.
	That's the motivation behind this.
	Well, they're littering. Well, we can't do anything about that.
	We'll make it a hate crime.
	We can put them away for five years.
	That's what this is about.
	So, if Governor Ron DeSantis signs the bill into law, Florida will have worse hate crime laws than California.
	Worse hate crime laws than New York, than Connecticut, than every other state in the union.
	And so, when we look at this, this is, you know, everybody wants to talk about the free state of Florida.
	It's looking more and more like Ukraine, actually.
	Ukraine ran out a censorship system to automatically filter out malicious websites.
	That's the next step.
	You know, we censor you on social media.
	All right, get off of social media.
	All right, now we're going to censor your website.
	That's what they're doing in Ukraine now.
	They said they're going to use this for online scamming and phishing schemes.
	Can you believe that? I've got a bridge to sell you.
	They introduced it on January the 30th.
	They enforced it on Thursday.
	They are expected to provide every 15 minutes a list of malicious websites for providers to block.
	So the internet service providers in Ukraine are going to be getting an update every 15 minutes.
	And you take them down so that anything that goes up is not going to stay up for more than 15 minutes if the Ukrainian government doesn't like it.
	So you know what this is going to be.
	It's going to be anything that's critical of the government.
	And they even say that.
	As they sell this as something that is about online scamming and phishing attacks, the Ukraine's National Center for Telecommunications says, the system is not intended for filtering domains and restricted access to Internet resources that are used to spread malicious programs, propaganda, disinformation, etc., as well as for Internet resources restricted under sanctions, they say.
	They say it's not intended for that.
	That's exactly what it's intended for.
	Anybody who believes that statement.
	That's amazing. The Ukrainian Internet Association, a civic group there, and it's founded by an MP in Ukraine, reached out to Zelensky over the system, voicing concerns, urging him to halt or drop the initiative altogether.
	Do you really think he's going to do that?
	This is a guy who locked up his political opponent after he won the election.
	This is perfectly consistent with him, his character, his administration.
	The association warned the system may end up being used to block any internet resource the authorities deem undesirable.
	Apart from that, the critics pointed fingers at a feature of the system that enabled the collection, for unclear reasons, of personal data of users who visited malicious websites.
	Well, that's a dead giveaway, isn't it?
	If it's a phishing attack and they're trying to entice you so they can steal information about you, you're the victim.
	They don't need to know about that.
	Instead, If this is something that they don't want out, something that they have labeled as propaganda or disinformation and they want to shut down that website, that's why they would want to have the information of users who visited a site that has prohibited information on it.
	That's the dead giveaway.
	The whole system looks like a Trojan horse, said one person, with implications for all of Ukraine's internet.
	Should it get breached by the country's enemies...
	They could shut everything down.
	So this is an internet kill switch.
	Last week I was talking about the fact that, you know, Russia is arresting journalists, that they disagree with what they say about the war, many years in prison and so forth, putting in fines, putting in jail sentences.
	The Czech Republic, everybody is doing this.
	Everybody, including Florida.
	This is a very disturbing situation because it's a control of information.
	That is the hallmark of totalitarian societies.
	We've been authoritarian for quite some time.
	They're moving into full-on totalitarianism.
	Ukraine has become the model worldwide for digital IDs and the complete digital transformation of society.
	This is from Health Impact News, Brian Shulhavi.
	And he's right. He says, you know, we're getting a lot of attention now.
	Last couple of weeks, people are finally starting to talk about CBDC. And not as much as they talk about CPAC on conservative sites.
	But some sites are talking about it now.
	We've had Representative Emmer, the House Majority Whip, I'm pushing back against it.
	I'll be gone tomorrow.
	I'm going to have Tony and other people with Tony.
	I'm sure he'll have Billy Ray Valentine and Don Jeffries, perhaps Guard, because I'm going to be gone for a couple of days.
	Going to Nashville, Senator Nicely has invited me to speak about State Bank and about CBDCs.
	And so it is a very important thing.
	But Brian Shohavi is right.
	There's a back door.
	That they can do a lot of this stuff to us.
	The digital IDs can be done through a backdoor.
	They can come after us multiple ways.
	We've got to fight them on every front.
	And make no mistake about it, if they get this CBDC thing through, we're done.
	But they have other ways of coming at us.
	Brian says, you know, we reported last year The credit union and banking trade groups released a joint letter to the chair and ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee warning of the devastating consequences if the Federal Reserve moves forward with a CBDC. Even the Wall Street Journal, he says, recently published an opinion piece warning against the implementation of CBDCs.
	China is doing it, so we've got to keep up with China.
	You know, it's a me-too-ism.
	But he said, replacing a monetary system and convincing businesses and consumers to stop doing business and to stop using cash is not something that's going to be adopted overnight.
	I mean, there's been a lot of pushback in Nigeria, for example.
	And the first place to do it in the Bahamas, they called it the sand dollar.
	Cute. But they don't want that either.
	Both places, they're trying to sell something that nobody wants.
	That's why you've got to have 87,000 IRS agents out there.
	Biden is thinking about that.
	And he's also focused on how he's going to sell it to people.
	You've got to do this or we're all going to die.
	Why? Well, because the competitor to the central banks right now is cash, gold, and crypto.
	And so they're going to sell this as the green version of crypto.
	At the same time, they attack crypto.
	So, you know, crypto, they're doing calculations to mine these coins and to keep it honest.
	You can't do that. That uses too much energy.
	How much energy do they use surveilling us all the time?
	How much energy do they use in terms of keeping all the data about us online and all the rest of this stuff?
	It's a phony argument if ever there was a phony argument, but they're going to use that.
	You're going to have our green CBDC versus the planet-killing cryptos over here on the other side.
	That's the way they're going to sell it.
	Anyway, he says, however, the goal of a digitized society that requires a digital ID to participate in society and allows the government to pretty much track everything you do can most certainly be accomplished without the full implementation of CBDCs.
	And in fact, it's already happening in one country.
	Ukraine, again.
	Again, Ukraine. You see why they love it so dearly.
	So dear to their authoritarian, totalitarian hearts, isn't it?
	Ukraine rolled out their own digital ID and digital transformation program in 2014.
	What else happened in 2014?
	Well, that's when they became a client state of the United States when we pushed through the coup, right?
	Victoria Nuland, Obama, all of these Ukrainian officials.
	Were you talking about Alexander Vindman?
	Were you talking about Alexandria Chalupa?
	And, uh, is his first name Alexander?
	I don't know. Anyway, Vindman, you know the guy.
	From the Russiagate episodes.
	But, you know, you also had, um, Chalupa working with the DNC in Ukraine all the time.
	And I talked about that in 2017 and 18 as this Russiagate was going on.
	We had people who'd witnessed this stuff, who were whistleblowers out of Ukraine.
	Uh, they're probably in jail or dead by now, I imagine.
	Um, anyway. It kicked into high gear in 2020 when COVID was unleashed, the Ukrainian digital transformation, and is now almost complete thanks to the war.
	And I've played the video for you in the past of Ukraine bragging about how, look, you'll be able to get your, you know, register this and register that and get your privilege license here for this and your privilege license for that, and you can just do it all digitally.
	It's just great.
	Yeah, so let's see that.
	It's just like the 2030, and you'll do it by 2030.
	You know, we are going to be the forefront of all this.
	As he points out, Elon Musk provides the satellites to connect all Ukrainian people to the internet and the adoption of their app, the D-I-I-A app.
	You see, that's the thing that's most insidious about this satellite internet stuff.
	They can get it to everybody.
	At least we had some situations in the past where people couldn't get the cabling.
	We need to have it, but unfortunately here they string it along next to trees.
	Had a lot of high wind last week.
	So while everyone has been worried about CBDCs and the loss of privacy in such an economic system, Ukraine has already developed a digital transformation of society that is now the example worldwide of how a government can track all of its citizens even without a CVDC. About nine years in development now, Ukraine is probably the model country on how to make a complete digital transformation of society.
	It is powered by big American tech companies with Google services now providing the country's infrastructure.
	Zelensky even wants to hold the next elections via app.
	So what could possibly go wrong with that, right?
	Yeah, well, I imagine they'll like to do it.
	I had said after 2016 election.
	I said the next one in 2020 is going to be a hacking contest between Republicans and Democrats.
	And so, you know, Trump doesn't want to get rid of the ballot harvesting stuff for the mail election.
	He made that all possible.
	He says, no, we're going to do it better than the Democrats did.
	So, you know, we can all go to, we can all vote by app.
	And then we sit there and wait until our masters tell us who won.
	And we'll trust it, right?
	Because science and computers...
	And with the American companies supplying the technology, says Brian Chalhavia, such as Google, Amazon, Apple, Visa, Starlink, etc., along with the U.S. military, I think it's safe to conclude that this digital transformation and the implementation of a digital ID to be able to participate in society is a much more imminent threat to the United States than the CBDC currencies.
	Well, I think they're all imminent threats.
	You know, we've got...
	These are arsonists.
	We're going to have to address them one at a time and simultaneously as much as we can.
	But they are all fires that have the potential to shut down all of society.
	That's why they did it.
	And, you know, when you look at things like Real ID and the fact that they want to require us to have a passport, Or real ID, which is essentially, you know, an enhanced identification program.
	To even be able to travel by plane within the United States.
	These are the same people who open up the borders and they don't care who comes across.
	We don't care. We don't want to know.
	Don't ask, don't tell. We don't care when it comes to elections.
	We don't want to look at any ID. But you want to get on a plane and fly somewhere within the United States as an American citizen?
	Oh, you better have your real ID or passport.
	How Social Networks became a subsidiary of the FBI and CIA. And I thought, well, this is on Freethought Project, but it's not actually their article.
	It's from MEE. I thought, good.
	Somebody's talking about the deputized state.
	And it even started out talking about the church committee hearing and how it has been the purpose of the CIA and the NSA and the FBI from day one to surveil Americans.
	Turned inward. Oh, it's supposed to protect us.
	You know, the FBI is going to protect us from organized crime.
	And the NSA and the CIA, they're just for foreign bad actors and terrorists.
	No, no, no. It was always about looking at the American people.
	They were always, collectively, a Stasi.
	And that's what the Church Committee hearing understood.
	The Pike Committee hearing showed.
	And yet, unfortunately, even though it started out...
	Good in this article. He then jumps from the church committee hearing to the way it was weaponized against Trump.
	This did not start as Trump opposition.
	What he missed was that whole period in the 1990s when the internet started going online and becoming practical, and you had the CIA actually publicly creating a venture capital firm, In-Q-Tel, so they could pick the contestants and let them fight it out amongst themselves.
	It's the same way they run elections.
	They decide who's going to be allowed to run for office, and then they let these guys fight it out amongst themselves.
	But whoever wins, they've got them.
	They've got control of them.
	And that's what this was from the very beginning.
	It's not just In-Q-Tel.
	They had people, high-ranking NSA, CIA officials, pretty much on every one of the venture capital firms that were picking the people who would get the money, who would be the competitors, who would set up social media and track everyone.
	So when we come back, we're going to talk about what happened at CPAC over the weekend.
	We will be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	And now, The David Knight Show.
	Welcome back. Let me read the comment I got here on Rumble.
	Conservative thinker, thank you for the generous tip of $1 so that I would read your comment.
	Here's what he had to say. Give me a break, Dave.
	Just because a bill was introduced on the floor doesn't mean it will ever reach the governor's desk.
	Seriously? Do you seriously think that, conservative?
	Do you seriously think that?
	What's the matter with all of these Republican legislators?
	Is this about DeSantis?
	Oh yeah, that's right. DeSantis is going to save us, right?
	Trump's going to save us.
	Some guy at the top is going to save you.
	This is about a party.
	This is about this pervasive group of people out there who care nothing about our God-given rights and don't give a damn about the Constitution.
	Do you, conservative, do you want to conserve the Constitution?
	What's the matter with you?
	I see this from, that's the kind of comments I saw when I first started seeing comments on my Twitter things.
	Like, oh, seriously?
	Well, you know, hey, this isn't censorship.
	To demote tweets, that's not censorship.
	To tell people this is sensitive content, you can't, you know, that's not censorship.
	You don't think it is? You don't think that this stuff is censorship?
	You're going to have to send a report to people?
	You don't have to do the rest? What's the matter with these people?
	Look, the Republicans ought to kick George Santos out, but they're embracing him.
	Are they even pushing back against these bills publicly?
	If I was a Republican legislator, I would be attacking these other Republicans just like I'm attacking them right now.
	You ought to be as well. Instead of covering up for these people, why don't you grow a spine and a brain and understand where they're going with this stuff?
	It's the Republicans and the Democrats who are shutting us down.
	They gaslighted you on the vaccines as well.
	They're out there saying, well, you know, I think at some age groups we shouldn't give them this because it's kind of dangerous.
	Well, it is dangerous, and you're killing people.
	But, you know, DeSantis is going to pull it back on it.
	DeSantis says, you know, we shouldn't be having these sexual discussions and lewd performances.
	So, my son is telling me to be calm.
	Yeah. All right, I'll show up.
	Okay. Look, he's right.
	We should stop doing this stuff to kids.
	But he puts it at third grade.
	Are you kidding me? It's okay for fourth graders to have this stuff done to them?
	All right. Let's talk about CPAC. Now I'm going to get you really upset, conservative thinker, because this is the Conservative Political Action Committee, which has now become Trump PAC. I had multiple listeners send this to me.
	I had not seen it. Alfred Z., Keith G., thank you, many others sent this to me.
	Trump declares war on the new world order.
	That's the name that Infowars gave this clip.
	Let me tell you what Trump is talking about in terms of his big initiative here.
	The cities.
	With just a very, very small portion of that land.
	Just a fraction. One half of one percent.
	Would you believe that?
	We should hold a contest to charter up to ten new cities and award them to the best proposals for development.
	In other words, we'll actually build new cities in our country again.
	These freedom cities will reopen the frontier, reignite American imagination, and give hundreds of thousands of young people and other people All hard-working families, a new shot at home ownership, and in fact, the American dream. Yeah, that's from Bandop Video.
	And Alex did like a 20-minute thing.
	That's the way he introduced it.
	I'm sure Thomas Jefferson would have had a lot to say about the term Freedom City.
	The threat to the health, the wealth, and the freedom of mankind.
	So let's build more of them. But you understand what he's talking about.
	Why is it, you think, why is Trump talking about cities?
	Since when have we had so many government officials so concerned about building so many from the ground up cities that are planned, right?
	Does it get people's understanding when I show you pictures of Neom, that prison city, being built in the desert by Mohammed bin Salman MBS in Saudi Arabia?
	And we've got many of these smart cities that are planned like that all over the place.
	Why is it that Trump is jumping in on this?
	And why is it that AJ is saying he's declared war on the New World Order?
	No. What he's doing is he's pushing the New World Order's plan.
	Let's have cities.
	And you heard what he had to say. We can house everybody in less than one half of 1% of the land here.
	This is pure on Agenda 21.
	Let's get everybody off of the land.
	And of course, part of that is to shut down the farms by saying the farms are going to kill the planet, right?
	And so we've got to ban farms, get everybody out of the rural and suburban areas, put them in cities, and we can do it, and one half of one percent of the land.
	That's pure Agenda 21, which went on before UN 2030 Agenda.
	It used to be that Alex would tell people the truth about that.
	Now he's applauding it because it's being done by Trump.
	You understand why?
	You understand the role that Trump serves in all of this?
	Gun control by executive order.
	What if that had first been done by Biden or by Lala Harris?
	Or by Hillary Clinton?
	Oh, wouldn't have had it. Oh, but Trump did it with a bump stock.
	That's fine. And now we've had two of those.
	Good news is the courts are pushing back on it because it's blatantly unconstitutional to do gun control by executive order.
	It's blatantly unconstitutional to do any kind of gun control.
	It's unconstitutional to have even laws that regulate firearms.
	That's an infringement of my ability to have a firearm.
	You know, you want to start saying, well, you can't have this kind of firearm.
	That's an infringement.
	All of those are unconstitutional.
	Just as unconstitutional as any law that seeks to determine when and how I can carry.
	That's a constitutional right.
	Well, the guns, having guns and the guns that we want is also a constitutional right.
	But the bottom line is this is purely, he can call it Freedom Cities, he can call it Freedom Fries instead of French Fries, whatever this nonsense is.
	Juvenile nonsense for a bunch of juvenile idiots following this Pied Piper.
	That's what CPAC has become.
	And you've got people who are pushing it.
	Let me give you an example of this.
	You heard Trump's Freedom Cities, right?
	They're even talking about the 15-minute cities on Ohio's...
	Local news broadcast.
	May have been introduced the idea of being the first 15-minute city in the United States.
	He did this in his State of the City address last night.
	The urban planning model is new, but city planners told our Sarah Shookman the time is now to tap into federal dollars to address some of Cleveland's deeper problems.
	Imagine a Cleveland where everything you need is less than 15 minutes away.
	It's this ideal planning framework where human needs and desires are accessible within a 15-minute walk, bicycle ride, or transit trip.
	But your desire to get out of that 15-minute area, that's not going to be fulfilled.
	Planner Matt Moss says it doesn't have to be a dream.
	Instead of a concrete jungle where people work and separate places where people live in a 15...
	Yeah, it's just a convenience, right?
	It's just a convenience. Nothing to worry about.
	Those walls, don't worry about that.
	The people in Oxford are worried.
	The people in Oxford don't like it.
	Oxford, England, they're pushing back against it.
	Look, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, sounds like a duck, it's a duck.
	This is a smart city.
	What Trump is talking about. And again, why do we have all these politicians now obsessed with cities?
	And you know what they're going to do with the cities.
	And you know that it's not just going to be convenience.
	That's the way they were selling the global ID thing in Ukraine.
	Oh, look, it's so convenient that you can get all your permissions on an app and so forth.
	Yeah, they'll sell it as convenience, but it's pure on tyranny.
	Guard, thank you for the tip.
	I appreciate that on Rumble. He says, you're nailing it regarding Trump's foolish freedom city idea.
	Yes. Yeah, Guard understands.
	His facile push for subsidizing the tech that he wants to favor.
	As a matter of fact, yeah, just remember, how did he push 5G? He's got the biggest 5G pusher out there.
	Of course, you know, big health issues around 5G. But also, regardless of the health issues, I think those are real.
	They haven't been proven one way or the other.
	They don't want to do any tests, right?
	So they're not going to evaluate whether or not it's safe from a health standpoint.
	But I know it's not safe from a surveillance standpoint.
	5G is the foundation, technical foundation, for their constant real-time biometric surveillance.
	They have to have that data bandwidth.
	We don't need that data bandwidth to download a movie.
	You don't need to be able to download a movie in, you know, 30 seconds.
	You can wait for that.
	And if that's your whole life, you've got plenty of time to wait for a movie to download if that's all you're going to do with your life.
	But, you know, the bandwidth is not about that.
	The bandwidth is about doing real-time surveillance of us on a biometric level.
	That's what 5G is really about.
	And Trump was all, you know, wait, we've got to stop the Chinese from doing it.
	We've got to out-Chinese the Chinese.
	We've got to out-Communist the Communists.
	We've got to out-Totalitarian the Totalitarians.
	That's what Trump is about.
	You know, he's out there. He goes from talking about executing people left and right to talking about his version of a smart city.
	Guard says it's absolutely Agenda 21.
	Shallow, shameless, pandering to the tech overlords.
	Yeah, exactly right. Rumble, Swoots, thank you for the tip on Rumble.
	An election of Trump would guarantee a CBDC. You better believe it.
	They're going to put Trump in and you watch all the different things that they roll through.
	Look at what they got done in just one in the final year of Trump.
	Can you imagine what the final year of a senile Trump would be?
	I don't have to say that he's even pushing back on any of this stuff in the first place.
	Angus Mustang, thank you for the tip.
	He says, you don't need to read my comment, but I just did.
	Well, thank you. Rumble, Donald Dumpster, the Dumpster Fire, thank you for the tip.
	He says, you've got to take the shot.
	That's right. You've got to get the shot.
	My people are so smart.
	And you know what else they say about my people?
	They have to get the shot.
	Yeah, they have to get the shot.
	And they can't understand, they just cannot understand the fact that this guy is the father of the vaccine.
	In a sense, you know, if these other people had the backbone, the gumption to stand up to him, that's his Achilles heel.
	And that may be why CPAC really was not all that populated.
	You know, you can look at CPAC and...
	Do you have the picture, the still picture?
	Yeah, here it is right here. Look at that.
	That's CPAC. And this is...
	Now, this particular picture here, I think that there's somebody up there speaking.
	Can you zoom in on the dais and see if there's somebody up there speaking?
	But I've seen pictures of CPAC. Okay.
	Yeah, it is. Yep. That's Trump Jr.
	Now, pull back out and look at how empty the place is for Don Trump Jr.
	Pull all the way back.
	Look at that. That's Donald Trump Jr.
	Okay. I thought it was going to be a monster sold-out crowd.
	I told you Trump was talking about himself.
	A sold-out monster.
	My speech, a sold-out monster.
	Well, you can see that it's at least half empty.
	But Chris Christie, even though he's very critical of Trump, Was kind of charitable.
	He was saying that the commission was not half empty.
	He said it was half full. Seems to think, at least he says, and his people say that he'll be able to use an indictment as a sign that he's being persecuted.
	Is that realistic? What the hell is he going to say?
	You know, you gotta say that.
	He's gonna play the victim card.
	That's right. I'm a martyr.
	But look, you saw the scenes at CPAC. That room was half full.
	Yeah. Okay? Let's not pretend that CPAC is CPAC anymore.
	It's TPAC. It's Trump PAC. It's not CPAC any longer.
	And only the most desperate people showed up at CPAC to even speak other than Trump or people within Trump's orbit.
	The fact of what's going on here is the reason I think the rallies are not going on, Maggie, is not just because of the money, although I think that's a factor.
	I don't think the rallies would be nearly as big as they were before.
	That is absolutely true. It was true last year.
	That's true. What got him upset on January 6th?
	The crowd size. The crowd size.
	What got him upset on January 20th, 2017?
	The crowd size.
	He measures that as an example of his own power and his own authority, and I don't think he has it anymore.
	Look, he is the frontrunner, there's no doubt.
	He's essentially an incumbent president running for re-nomination, not re-election, but re-nomination.
	And so, of course, he's the frontrunner right now and ahead in the polls.
	But there are lots of indicators here that he's not what he used to be in most respects you're talking about.
	And so we're going to see how that plays out.
	Again, a lot of indicators that he's not what he used to be.
	This is the horse race stuff that they always talk about.
	Look, 2020 was the indicator that he's not what he said he was, ever.
	Not ever. But as they talk about the crowds, this is the Independent in the UK, they said the split was evident in the crowd sizes on the events on Friday, when many big-name speakers, the desperate ones that he was talking about, Nikki Haley, Mike Pompeo, Don Trump Jr.
	and others were slated to speak.
	All of the above spoke to half-empty ballrooms which struggled to reach the same tenor and excitement of an average Trump rally.
	And as Chris Christie is saying, it's his opinion.
	That's why you're not seeing the Trump rallies.
	Because they're worried about much, much smaller crowds.
	One reporter, and it's about momentum as well.
	It's not just about the absolute crowd size, but it's also about momentum.
	If Trump holds another, and he's had some event rallies where they had a lot of empty seats, but if he keeps holding these and people keep showing the empty seats after what he had done, I mean, he's still packing in.
	This is the thing. Trump is still packing in way more people than most politicians would.
	That's the uncomfortable truth about this for people who hate his guts like me.
	But, you know, he is packing in more people.
	For years, I have covered political events, and it's not uncommon to have a political event where you've got multiple statewide candidates running for things like Senate, running for things like Governor, things like that, showing up.
	And, I mean, you know, Republican candidates, frontrunners showing up.
	And nobody shows up but their staff and the press.
	I mean, I've covered events like that over and over again.
	And so when you have this phenomenon where Trump shows up and he gets tens or 20,000 people who show up and it's sold out and they've got people standing in the parking lot like they did four years ago, that's amazing.
	And even if he only gets half of that number, that's still pretty amazing for a politician who doesn't really have anything to say.
	And you can't trust what he has to say in the first place.
	But he still has a tremendous following.
	And so it's still dangerous for him.
	And this is why I talk about it.
	Doesn't do me any favors to criticize Trump.
	Doesn't do me any favors to criticize Republicans and DeSantis.
	I just don't want to see people get stabbed in the back repeatedly by these mass murderers who put out the vaccine, who try to push us into war, who try to destroy our free speech.
	One reporter who attempted to get a manual crowd estimate at the address of Mike Pompeo was dismissed by the CPAC event staff.
	I think that means that they threw him out.
	They don't want that talked about.
	But there were some good things at CPAC. I want to play for you.
	This is a clip from James O'Keefe talking about a Pfizer whistleblower who came forward.
	And she talks about why she came forward.
	But I've learned a lot of things over the last month, having been ousted from the company I founded 13 years ago, mere days after the story.
	And as this was happening, I was talking to one of these people.
	And she was a little reluctant to go public, rightfully so.
	She was scared.
	It didn't feel right.
	But after what I went through, we reconnected.
	The individual who helped identify this man Who helped bring this to light, who was targeted, who was brought into a room, interrogated, who had a red van go to her home, harass her and her loved ones, who was scared for her life, was so inspired by the series of events that have occurred over the last three weeks.
	That she's decided to go public with me on the stage right now.
	Debbie from Pfizer, would you please come out here?
	I was worried that I would end up in a body bag or in a car accident, but I realized that the spirit of fear It's not from the Lord.
	As a believer, I knew that I couldn't just sit there.
	I couldn't just sit there and watch people get lied to.
	People get gaslit.
	It made me angry.
	I think we all need to learn to not be fearful.
	A very moving piece.
	And yet, can the people at CPAC connect the dots?
	We're talking about Pfizer.
	Why are we talking about Pfizer?
	Because they put out a warp speed vaccine that Trump has bragged about until just a couple of months ago.
	He finally shut his trap.
	Because people kept pointing out to him how foolish it was.
	And he kept blabbering about it long after many people had publicly pointed out to him how he needed to shut up.
	Well, finally he got the message and he shut up about it.
	Can the people at CPAC, at TPAC, Trump PAC, can they understand that he is proud of what Pfizer did?
	He sees that as one of the greatest accomplishments that has ever been done.
	So, as James O'Keefe is talking and presenting a whistleblower who is trying to expose the crimes of Pfizer that were produced by Donald Trump, gave them the money, swept this away with his drug cartel FDA commissioners.
	They paved the way for this crime of the century, perhaps millennium.
	They paved the way for all of this stuff.
	And these people who cheer the whistleblower, exposing the crime, then cheer the godfather of it all.
	Donald Trump. It just blows my mind that people can't connect these dots.
	I just can't understand this blind partisanship and this idle worship of political figures.
	I just can't understand it.
	What does it matter with these people?
	Can't they... The disconnection.
	Like I said, it's the same type of thing I've seen from Dr.
	Paul Alexander. I've seen it from Wayne Allen route.
	Oh, the vaccines. Oh, they're horrible.
	Oh, don't take that. Oh, but Trump.
	Re-elect Trump. Unbelievable.
	Unbelievable. On Rumble, thank you, McKeept.
	Thank you very much. That's very generous.
	I appreciate that. Geesebusters, thank you as well.
	Trump is a venomous snake.
	Yes, and we know that his venom comes...
	He's a vile venomous snake.
	It comes in vials, and he's very proud of it.
	Thank you, Geesebusters, Geesebusters.
	Georgia Boy, 1142.
	Gomer Pyle and Barney Pyle, 2024.
	Golly! Which one of them would be present?
	I think it'd have to be Barney.
	I think he'd be out there. We're going to nip it.
	We're going to nip it in the bud.
	That's right. That's what we're going to do.
	Anyway, they said O'Keefe.
	Took the somewhat extraordinary step of bringing onto the stage the formerly unnamed insider and whistleblower from Pfizer, who was one of the most instrumental within the company in terms of helping to expose what was going on.
	The brave woman who was introduced as Debbie from Pfizer gave an awesome speech she did.
	And what was it that gave her the determination to come forward?
	Our faith in God, right?
	There's more to our existence than this life.
	This life is a temporary thing.
	It's a momentary test, a trial.
	And I just have to say, you know, our salvation doesn't depend on our good works.
	It doesn't depend on what we do to protect other people.
	It doesn't depend on our helping the poor, the widows, and the orphans.
	But you better do it.
	God, throughout the Old Testament and the New Testament, As nothing but criticism for people that do nothing to help their fellow man when they see that happen.
	How does that show the love of Christ?
	If you stand by and you cheer the guy who poisoned us, how does that show the love of Christ?
	It doesn't. It doesn't.
	These people are also not very concerned about the January 6th defendants at CPAC. They said Republican leaders have forgotten them.
	They've also forgotten those people who were jabbed, those people who are being jabbed, those people who will be jabbed.
	They're doing nothing to stop that.
	Ongoing murder of the Trump shot.
	Instead, what they will do, the Republicans will say, oh, the Wuhan lab.
	We were right about the Wuhan lab.
	Let's talk about where the virus that isn't killing anybody, the virus that didn't kill anybody.
	It was a medical malpractice that killed people.
	Easily handled, fortunately.
	This time around. Easily handled with ivermectin, with HCQ, with zinc, with many other things.
	Instead, what they did was they gave them either no treatment until they got really sick, and then they gave them treatment that killed them, the invasive ventilators.
	And they kept all this stuff away from them.
	And of course, Trump had a role to play in that as well.
	Throwing out HCQ so people could...
	Well, Trump said it, so it's obviously not something that you want to have.
	And then, as icing on the cake, he talks about putting light into your veins or whatever.
	I mean, again, just in case people were about to take him seriously, he fixed that as well.
	So, you know, January 6th defendants.
	So Republican leaders have forgotten them.
	Those who followed the Pied Piper Trump and Alex Jones and Roger Stone, all the rest of these people with their Stop the Steal grift or Trump with his Save America grift where he made $250 million.
	These people say they've been shut out of the banking system.
	They have been deplatformed from social media.
	They have been blacklisted from flying on commercial airlines.
	They've been wrecked financially and socially.
	Worst of all, they've been forgotten by the conservative leaders in Washington, especially Trump.
	At a panel discussion titled, True Stories of January 6th, the Prosecutors Speak, they described their saga of persecution and abandonment.
	And I'll tell you what they had to say, but first let me just point out this.
	They were not invited to speak on the stage of that half-empty place.
	They paid to have this venue on the site.
	They had to pay CPAC to speak in a side room.
	That's how much CPAC and Trump and the rest of these people care about their ardent supporters.
	They'll throw you to the wolves.
	That's why I'm so sick and tired of these commentators and politicians who stab their followers in the back and then move on with the cash that they stole out of their pocket while they're stabbing them in the back.
	They were ignored or ghosted by Republican lawmakers who once claimed to champion their cause.
	They were left out of the equation when House Speaker Kevin McCarthy turned over Capitol surveillance video from January the 6th.
	To Tucker Carlson.
	They were relegated to a sideshow in a cramped meeting room rather than being featured on the main stage at CPAC. We don't want to bring these people in.
	Oh, that would be dangerous.
	That'd make us look bad. Put a target on us.
	The panel was hosted by Brandon Straka, a self-described former liberal Democrat who publicly left the party and founded the hashtag walkaway campaign.
	Well, it's time to have another walkaway campaign.
	Hashtag walk away Trump from Trump.
	He also was arrested at his residence, charged by federal authorities after he attended the rally that turned into a riot at the Capitol, January the 6th.
	Mr. Strzokko was joined by four fellow January the 6th defendants who described similar experiences.
	Another panelist, Jerry Perna, the aunt of a January the 6th defendant who committed suicide, Rather than face jail time as an accused terrorist, none of the panelists were charged with a crime.
	Let me repeat that. None of them were charged with a crime.
	But they've been blacklisted from flying.
	They've had their bank accounts terminated, social media terminated, and the conservatives have turned their backs on them.
	But they were not charged with a crime related to violence.
	Related to vandalism, related to theft or destruction of property.
	It's kind of like Sam, the cameraman at InfoWars.
	He was the only one there that day at InfoWars who did any real reporting.
	He walked in with a camera between the velvet lines.
	And he's going to jail.
	And he was told, Alex said, I'm going to pay to defend you.
	Alex has now fired him.
	You talk about stabbing people in the back.
	It's amazing to me.
	Over 950 people have been arrested so far in connection with the January 6th.
	It makes me sick. I got fired for telling people it was a grift.
	I got fired for telling people there was no way that this was going to happen.
	I said it on air, and I'm glad I did it.
	I'd do it again. And...
	I said it all the way up to January the 6th, the morning of.
	Travis was fired with me.
	Anyway, the worst betrayal I've ever seen was a lockdown and the genetic code injection.
	And that had already been done by Trump.
	And the rules under which the election were run, that he complained about, were done under Donald Trump.
	He collected money because he was wronged.
	And he didn't use it.
	He kept the money. He didn't use it.
	The first $8,000 he gave to the Save America PAC went to his pocket and the RNC. They split it.
	The criminals. Criminals.
	Absolutely amazing. So, yeah.
	What do you say to people who couldn't figure out what was going on in 2020?
	And go to the mat for Trump.
	So one guy said, I openly confronted Congressman Andy Biggs.
	For 20 minutes about what Republicans in Congress are doing to help us, Mr.
	Stryker said. He didn't have very many answers.
	I wasn't invited to participate in this CPAC. I paid for this panel.
	I paid for this room right now.
	I suspect that what will happen in 2024 is that the CPAC people, the Trump PAC people, probably won't let them pay for a room.
	I'll bet you that. I'll bet you.
	So we also had Michael Knowles at CPAC who said transgenderism must be eradicated.
	Again, this is another disconnect for the Trump crowd.
	Does the Trump crowd there, do they understand what Donald Trump and Melania Trump and Carrie Lake have been doing for the LGBT community?
	At Mar-a-Lago? How they have been celebrated for their support of LGBT? How they have elevated it as perfectly normal?
	Michael Knowles doesn't think it's normal.
	He thinks transgenderism is a lie.
	And as a lie, it must be exposed and ended.
	We should not live by lies.
	And yet that's what Donald Trump and Melania and Carrie Lake do.
	Noel spent the first part of his talk decrying the state of political conservatism in America where, in his opinion, conservatives are all too eager to compromise with the left for political reasons.
	Well, that remark resembles Trump, I think.
	Though conservatives have many virtues, he said, unfortunately, sometimes conservatives lack imagination.
	But will he call Trump out?
	Will he call him out by name?
	Can you imagine if he did call him out by name, he'd be booed off of that stage.
	If he called him out by name, Michael Knowles would never be invited back to speak to CPAC. He says that sometimes it seems as though all the conservatives do is defend the policies that the liberals fought for 10 years ago.
	Well, that's right. That's right.
	They defend it, and then they use it themselves.
	They say, you know, that hate crime thing, I think we can use that against our enemies now.
	Yeah. And so, you know, the role of the conservative media is, if you talk about these problems, don't show how Trump is at the epicenter of this.
	Oh, no, don't do that.
	He said, transgenderism puts forth a delusional vision of human nature.
	And he is somebody who works for Ben Shapiro.
	So, again, he is going to be a limited hangout.
	But this is what he had to say. It'll weigh in dealing with transgenderism.
	It is all or nothing.
	If transgenderism is true, if men really can become women, then it's true for everybody of all ages.
	If transgenderism is false, as it is, if men really can't become women, as they cannot, then it's false for everybody, too.
	And if it's false, then we should not indulge it.
	Especially since that indulgence requires taking away the rights and customs of so many people.
	If it is false, then for the good of society, and especially for the good of the poor people who have fallen prey to this confusion, transgenderism must be eradicated from public life entirely.
	The whole preposterous ideology at every level.
	Well, now I agree with him. But if it's false and it's being sold to us and we have people who are celebrating it, and then you say, well, that's the guy I want for president.
	What is that about? Again, should we support transgenderism if it's a false lie?
	No. Should we support false politicians?
	Who have lied to us.
	False politicians who said they're anti-globalists, and yet they push the vaccine.
	They push the lockdown.
	They push 5G. They even push, now, smart cities.
	That's what Trump is doing.
	It's amazing to me.
	They can't see it.
	The Daily Beast, however, Huffington Post and Rolling Stone, turned what you just heard him saying, he was talking about transgenderism, And they said, oh, he wants to kill all transgenders.
	He wants a transgender genocide.
	It is a straight-up call for genocide, said Senator Scott Weiner, the poster child for Sodom and Gomorrah out of San Francisco.
	The Daily Wire VP of PR sent out a demand to these various publications I just mentioned.
	Demanding a full retraction.
	We are demanding full retractions and apologies from the Daily Beast, Huffington Post, Rolling Stone, for their false and libelous claims about Michael Knowles.
	And so, Rolling Stone did change their headline.
	CPAC speaker calls for transgenderism to be eradicated.
	Huffington Post still has not retracted or corrected its headline as of this writing.
	That'll be kind of interesting because, you know, if you get something wrong, You have a period of time to correct that.
	If you refuse to correct it, well, that's when the libel laws come into play.
	So that'll be an interesting development.
	We'll be right back. Joe, we've got a problem.
	Who are you?
	It's the new mug they're selling at thedavidknightshow.com, right?
	So, basically, a mug is something that holds liquid, right?
	because basically you can't hold coffee with your hands right i i'm a scat and they but anyone tries to mug me i i'm be ready for it you you dog-faced pony soldier they say the mug can help patriots drink coffee then save the world This could be bad for us.
	Save the world? But we owe the world.
	These people, they're supporting free speech with every month they buy.
	Come on. These people, I tell you, well, anyway.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	You want my body and your Well, Rod Stewart has entered the political debate yet again, stepping in it, and he is out there saying that we need to come to the aid of Ukraine.
	Rod Stewart says, if Ukraine doesn't win, civilization is over.
	And I say as we hear that song there, that's about as much of it as I can stand.
	I would always hear that come on the radio, and it's about how long it would take me to push the other dial to get to another channel.
	What's civilization? What civilization?
	This guy used to be the epitome of the nadir of civilization.
	Of course, we've gotten even further down now since he's gone.
	But both his music, his lyrics, and his persona.
	Civilization? Yeah, this is a civilization that ends up in judgment like a nuclear war.
	That kind of civilization. Maybe Rod Stewart and his friend Zelensky could play chopsticks together.
	Who knows? So this is what Rod Stewart...
	Had to say about, that was sexy Rod Stewart.
	Now we got war Rod Stewart.
	I think we should send the Ukrainians some F-16s.
	That's up to you, Prime Minister.
	Yeah, you can't sort that one out, though.
	I wish I could. I mean, I've been supporting them for years.
	Yeah, I love them. On stage I have the flag and I wear a blue and yellow suit and do a song and dedicate it to them and feel very strongly about it.
	Because if the Ukrainians lose, it's the end of civilization as we know it.
	You know, it's all over.
	So F-16s, please.
	Yeah. He's got a performance, this 78-year-old rocker.
	Has a performance where he wears a blue and yellow suit.
	Where can I get a ticket to that?
	How pathetic this guy is.
	I just, I never understood him.
	But yeah, he gets out of his white Rolls Royce and he tells us we've got to send F-16s in there.
	Well, absolutely, you should do what Rod Stewart says.
	Because Rod Stewart always is the epitome of fine taste in music and culture.
	He's the epitome of discernment.
	This is what he had to say about the jabs.
	And this is pretty late.
	When you listen to these guys, they're talking about he just got his booster.
	So this is well into it, right?
	This thing has been rolling on for quite some time.
	And this is after he got his booster.
	You've had your booster.
	And when you see people who will not take it, putting themselves at risk, it's said.
	Do you feel the same way I do?
	Does that make you angry?
	It makes me angry, especially in America where they talk about, it's my right, it's my freedom.
	No, it's not. Because you are a killer.
	And you can be killed.
	Oh, we're a killer. You know, dead simple.
	Yeah, this guy wants to send F-16s.
	One of the countries in Europe made it mandatory.
	You must be shot.
	Be shot. Sorry, you must have the shot.
	I think it's Austria.
	Yeah, yeah. Australia, New Zealand, they're pushing people very, very hard.
	Yeah. Yeah, pushing people very, very hard.
	You must be shot.
	Oh, yeah. Getting right there with his...
	Authoritarian leanings there. Yeah, we are killing people.
	Those of us who didn't get a vaccine, we're killing people.
	The Trump shots are not killing people.
	The war is not killing people.
	The F-16s aren't going to kill people.
	No, it's the people who had the good sense or the moral integrity not to participate in the Trump shots.
	We're the killers. We're the killers.
	And you should listen to Rod Stewart as he gets out of his white Rolls Royce.
	The U.S. is now beginning.
	He's getting his wish, though. The U.S. has now already begun training Ukrainian pilots on F-16s.
	It's a dumb deal, folks.
	They're going to do this.
	They're going to send F-16s in about 18 months from now.
	Because that's how long it takes to train the pilots.
	And you've even got, you know, the military, the U.S. government spokesperson saying, well, it's not going to be for 18.
	We can't get them the planes for 18 months.
	Well, that's how long it takes to train the pilots.
	Two Ukrainian pilots are currently in the United States undergoing an assessment to determine how long it could take to train them to fly attack aircraft, including F-16 fighter jets.
	The Ukrainian skills are being evaluated on simulators at a U.S. military base in Tucson, Arizona, the official said.
	They may be joined by some of their fellow pilots soon.
	Ten more Ukrainian pilots are expected to join the program soon, and they may arrive in the U.S. this month.
	One of the main reasons for the holdup in approving jets for Ukraine, apart from the fact that Russia is vowing severe and unpredictable escalation, you know, we don't really want to be concerned about that, right?
	It is the significant time investment of the training, which could take at least a year or years.
	Colin Call, Defense Undersecretary for Policy, told the House Armed Services Committee that the U.S. has, quote, not started training on F-16s, unquote, and that the delivery timeline is about 18 months.
	The training program for F-16s also happens to be about 18 months.
	So he lied about that.
	They've got two of them already. Ten more are on their way.
	He said, since we haven't made the decision to provide F-16s and neither have our allies and partners, it doesn't make sense to start to train them on a system that they may never get up.
	So then why are they training them on this now?
	Well, because these people are simply straight up lying to us, and we know it.
	Will the House GOP stand idly by while Biden slow walks us into a war without a declaration, without a debate?
	See, that's how pathetic this is.
	We've got just a handful of people in the House who have pushed back against this.
	And in most instances, the only thing that they can complain about is the amount of money.
	You know, if the Republicans were just running this war, we could do it with less.
	You know, we could do it more efficiently.
	Biden is spending too much money, and he's going to do it in a way in which we don't win.
	Well, why don't you define what winning means, then?
	What is the goal for the war?
	We need to have that debate.
	Because we are in war.
	We're at war with Russia.
	We even had a U.S. official say it out loud over the weekend.
	Saying, you know, essentially saying we're at war with Russia, but the Ukrainians are doing the fighting.
	The way she put it was she said, it's not just the U.S. and Russia.
	The Ukrainians are doing the fighting.
	They understand that this is, all sides understand this.
	So, again, we will stand by, the GOP will stand by, and let him take us to war without even pushing for a declaration of war.
	In the same way that the Republicans have stood by for years, going back into the Obama administration, when you look at the Paris Climate Accord, the Climate MacGuffin, right?
	That John Kerry, Secretary of State at the time, and Barack Obama said, we self-ratified it.
	There's no such thing as that.
	So why didn't Mitch McConnell, who had the majority in the Senate, why didn't at any of this point in time that he had that, why didn't he call for a vote?
	Because they could have shut it down. There weren't 60 votes to sign on to the Paris Climate Accord.
	They didn't call a vote because that would have put them all in a hot spot.
	They have to please their globalist masters, but it would have been political suicide if they would have voted for this.
	So they didn't call for a vote throughout the rest of the Obama administration, throughout the entire four years of the Trump administration.
	Even as Steve Malloy was making the rounds saying, alright, Biden is coming in and you know he's going to bring back this Paris climate thing because we didn't shut that thing down.
	And he said we need to have a straight up vote right now before the Democrats get control of the Senate.
	While the Republicans have it, Mitch McConnell can do it.
	But there weren't any Republicans who were calling for that.
	It was just Steve Malloy.
	Going around telling everybody how the Constitution works.
	They know how the Constitution works.
	They know that they have to approve a treaty.
	Why did they take a back seat to that?
	Well, you and I know as well.
	And so, it's not just U.S. and Russia fighting each other, says this.
	The Ukrainians are actually doing the fighting.
	It's not just the U.S. versus Russia.
	Ukrainians are doing the fighting for us.
	And so, Colonel Douglas McGregor, retired, says Ukraine is already dead.
	Why does he say that? Well, retired Colonel McGregor says that because he said its population is shrinking.
	He said 8 million or 8 or 9 million Ukrainians have left the country for Europe.
	There's another 2 million inside of Russia.
	They have vowed they will never return.
	And it's leaving Ukrainian state with an accelerating population crisis.
	He says Ukraine has lost 40% of its infrastructure and industry as well.
	Well, don't worry about that.
	I mean, they may not be able to get the people to move back into that authoritarian, statist, Nazi state.
	But we can always rebuild the infrastructure and industry.
	We don't have to rebuild our infrastructure or even maintain our infrastructure.
	We don't have to worry about keeping our pension plans going or Social Security.
	We can guarantee their pension plan.
	We can build their infrastructure.
	This is the same type of thing we've been doing around the world.
	You know, let's do it for Iraq, but not for America, right?
	So he says, Ukraine is on financial life support from us.
	How long can the West maintain the massive injections of cash required to prop up the war and the failed state of Ukraine in which it is taking place?
	Well, we can keep propping them up until we fail, because that's the plan to bring us down.
	McGregor points out the real purpose of this is to prevent any negotiations from being held, snubbing the Chinese, conducting pinprick drone attacks into Russia and into Belarus, making announcements about NATO membership.
	These are all means of sabotaging any negotiated settlements.
	Well, see, that's the whole point.
	You know, it's not just the U.S. versus Russia with the Ukrainians doing the fighting.
	This is USA against Americans.
	He says the West doesn't have the industrial base anymore to fight a war.
	Think about that. And why does he say that?
	Because we have offshored so much of our industrial base to China.
	If China were to cut us off, if China were, for example, in a war with Taiwan, Taiwan is one of the biggest suppliers of semiconductor chips.
	That would be taken off of the board.
	You're not going to have, you want to talk about a supply chain disruption?
	When you have a war between China and Taiwan, two countries that are gigantic in terms of our supply chain, because again, we have Giving it to them because they can do it cheaper because China uses slave labor.
	Well, let's let them manufacture everything for us.
	He says, the Russians alone have managed a fire rate of 20,000 artillery rounds a day.
	They're going 24-7.
	That's why an ex-Marine who is now there fighting with the Ukrainians said the average lifespan of a new recruit going to the front lines here is about four hours because there's a constant artillery barrage.
	He says, so the Russians are maintaining a fire rate of about 20,000 artillery rounds a day while the Ukrainians, backed by the might of NATO, can only manage a fraction of this.
	He said the rejection of the recent Chinese peace pledge for Ukraine is a clear signal to the Chinese that the U.S. is concerned only with breaking Russia and doing it at any cost.
	McGregor rightly points out that this makes clear to the Chinese that they will be next.
	Why then wouldn't they support Russia?
	And we all know that. I mean, how many times have you seen analysts saying, well, you know, the plan is to, you know, take out Russia so that you're not and then to take out China.
	Well, you don't think China knows that as well?
	To do so would be to place Russia's disposal, at their disposal rather, an industrial base, China's industrial base, twice the size of that of the U.S. in World War II, said Colonel McGregor.
	Where did this industrial might come from?
	Well, the retired colonel has the habit of pointing out that it was done in the 1990s in order to make a buck.
	This offshoring of heavy manufacturing to generate profits, Well, again, I think this is all the plan.
	I think this is all the plan.
	Our government wants the U.S. taken down.
	Listen to what Joel Skousen says.
	I think he lays it out pretty well.
	Meanwhile, it's not just shutting down the peace proposals.
	You've now got this echo chamber going across conservative media about the Wuhan lab thing.
	Tucker and other people say, oh, that was an act of war.
	We've got to do something about that with the Chinese.
	You've got Senator Blackburn from here in Tennessee saying that Biden should threaten China with sanctions.
	That's an act of war. Sanctions over the COVID origin.
	And the cover-up of that, as well as with fentanyl.
	That is tantamount to an act of war, to put sanctions on a country.
	But of course, the Chinese don't really care about that.
	I think that was the message that they were sending with the lockdown of Shanghai.
	It's kind of like, we're holding the cards here.
	We can shut down Shanghai.
	And I want you to see what it feels like.
	When we shut down Shanghai.
	A place where they ship most of their goods through.
	A place where they manufacture a large number of goods.
	It also was helpful to show people in Shanghai who might have been getting a little bit uppity about their economic freedom.
	It was also helpful to show them who's boss.
	The Chinese communists in Beijing.
	And so with all this stuff happening, you see articles from the New York Times to prepare for a Pacific Island fight.
	Marines are hiding and attacking in California, in the desert.
	They're training in the desert to fight in the Pacific Islands.
	Well, I guess maybe that works out for them.
	I thought you train where you fight, you know?
	But anyway, this is a Hawaiian-based 3rd Marine Regiment.
	They call it a Littoral.
	I guess maybe I'm not pronouncing it.
	I think it is Littoral.
	You know, it's L-I-T-T-O-R-A-L. That means shallow water.
	I think it is pronounced the same way.
	I think it's a homonym. Literal.
	The unit, newly created, innovative in nature, newly created because, hey, we're getting ready to go to war with the Chinese.
	The team was built to fight on islands and along coastal shorelines.
	The literal region and military parlance.
	Well, that's where we are. They're escalating this.
	On Rumble, thank you very much, Austin, Texas, BJJ. Oh, that's very generous.
	Thank you very much. I really do appreciate that.
	Thank you. David, love your show.
	I sent you a book a couple of years ago, but not sure you ever got it.
	It has a chapter on communist infiltration of churches.
	And he says, you don't have to say the title on there.
	Well, I will. It's Armor of God.
	I think I do have that book.
	And let me see if I can...
	We had the move and many other things were happening.
	It's difficult for me to get through books, but I will see if I can find that.
	Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
	We're going to take a quick break, and we'll be right back.
	The Common Man.
	They created Common Core and dumbed down our children.
	They created common past to track and control us.
	Their commons project to make sure the commoners own nothing.
	And the communist future.
	They see the common man as simple, unsophisticated, ordinary.
	But each of us has worth and dignity created in the image of God.
	That is what we have in common.
	That is what they want to take away.
	Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation.
	They desire to know everything about us while they hide everything from us.
	It's time to turn that around and expose what they want to hide.
	Please share the information and links you'll find at thedavidknightshow.com.
	Thank you for listening.
	Thank you for sharing.
	If you can't support us financially, please keep us in your prayers.
	The David Knight Show dot com.
	I was talking about what is happening with the war situation.
	Of course, the attacks on infrastructure that we have seen happening back and forth, the obvious ones that we are behind against Russia, the taking out of the Nord Stream pipelines, that first one was about 45% of their GDP. We took that out.
	The second one was never, they didn't get a single dollar.
	They invested billions, maybe tens of billions.
	I don't know how much it was. I know it's over a billion dollars.
	They invested a lot of money in that second pipeline, and we took that out as well.
	And I said this from the very beginning, just look at who's got the motive to do it, right?
	Oh, of course, the Russians took it out themselves, right?
	No, it was the German government at the insistence of the U.S. government that kept Nord Stream 2 turned off.
	You had the alternative for Deutschland, AFD, as people were feeling the pain of energy starvation through these sanctions.
	We're demanding that it be turned on.
	And so it just, you know, blew up and that took care of it.
	We had government officials who had said, you know, from Biden to others said, you know, we're going to take it out.
	Victoria Nuland, very happy it was taken out.
	Ted Cruz, very happy it was taken out.
	So... You know, they had the motive.
	They had the opportunity. They had the technology to do it, which most other people didn't have.
	I mean, if you're Columbo, you would just have to say, oh, one more thing.
	One more thing. That Cy Hirsch thing.
	When that happened, you would look at the reaction of the press to try to keep that sign.
	So it's clear that we're going against our infrastructure.
	Not only that, the bridge to Crimea that was taken out, and the Russians built it back in five months.
	So, the Russians responded by, again, taking out about 40% of the infrastructure of Ukraine with cruise missiles.
	All this is, you know, we see this happening kinetically, right?
	Do you think that the Russians are not going to do something to us in terms of our infrastructure?
	No. And that's what I think is really happening with a lot of what we're seeing with these train derailments.
	We've had another derailment in Ohio.
	We've had a derailment in Utah.
	I had not seen this.
	I haven't seen much press coverage of it.
	But Roy Potter tweeted this out.
	This is from an organization that is in Utah.
	This Utah derailment.
	Here's some video of it.
	This is from Defending Utah.
	They have a YouTube channel, Defending Utah.
	Planned train wreck in Utah.
	Train cars derail in Ogden.
	Is this a pattern, they ask?
	Look at that. They're all piled right on top of each other.
	Now, these are some people driving by the piled up, and it's pretty amazing to see this.
	Look at that, oh my gosh.
	Gonna take him forever to clean that up.
	He said there's hazmat stuff.
	He'll probably have a little bit.
	I'm getting video.
	Oh my gosh.
	So I don't know if that was hazmat or not.
	People said there is some hazmat stuff here.
	They got there pretty early and took their pictures.
	The train derailment in Ohio They're saying it has no hazardous material on it.
	This was a derangement that was not too far from the Palestine crash.
	It was about 20 cars, this newest one in Ohio.
	The one that happened in Palestine was 38 cars, almost twice as many, had hazardous material on board.
	This was near Springfield.
	Second of the Norfolk Southern trains to derail in a month.
	No potentially harmful chemicals were involved, they said.
	It had no passengers.
	And those 20 cars were out of a total of 212 cars, so that's about 10%, just a little under 10% that happened there.
	But, you know, when you look at this, isn't that the perfect way for somebody who wants to attack U.S. infrastructure?
	Yeah. Plausible deniability based on the poor condition of our infrastructure.
	It's hard enough to do that with a cyber attack.
	But, and again, you go back and take a look at what happened about a month ago.
	With the FAA shutting down all plane flights for an entire day, the only other time that was done was with 9-11.
	So, in terms of plane disruption, plane flight disruption, it was equivalent to 9-11 in terms of shutting down all flights in the U.S. They did it from late at night until about 9 o'clock in the morning.
	And then after they got the system back up, the same thing happened in Canada.
	And both of these systems, although they use the same overall design, these are systems that are independent of each other.
	They don't share the same computers.
	But in both cases, what happened was the Notam system went down, which is the notification system of any problems that pilots need to know about in a given area, anything that might be a problem in terms of landing or takeoff.
	So they have this computerized system that puts out these warning messages.
	That was taken down in the U.S., and they shut down all plane flights.
	For about 12 hours, and then about an hour and a half later, the exact same MO in Canada.
	Now, this could have been private individuals with ransomware.
	It could have been state actors, because you can never tell with a hacking attack.
	You can never tell that. We did have a situation where Lufthansa was shut down, and they got pictures of some guys who went in and cut the lines, the power lines.
	And again, all you have to do is take out something That is used as part of accounting, used as part of air traffic control or something like that, and you can ground everything in the infrastructure.
	So when we look at this, there's one more thing that I think is an interesting coincidence.
	This was sent to me by John L., and it is the Mexican-owned petroleum company, Pemex, and Hit by fires at three locations in a single day.
	We're seeing fires at food plants and all these other things happening on a regular basis.
	These types of fires would have always been news, but not all of them are reported.
	And this was about 10 days ago.
	I had not seen this until it was sent to me by the listener.
	Pemex hit by fires at three different facilities in one day in two different countries.
	Three fires broke out on Thursday, different facilities in Mexico, and this is going back to February 23rd, and the United States, operated by Pemex.
	Again, all of these facilities are not in Mexico.
	And you can always say, well, you know, fires happen, but, you know, three of them in one day?
	So perhaps plausible deniability, but perhaps for our officials who are looking at this, maybe it is a message for them if they want to hear it.
	We're going to take a quick break and we'll be right back.
	The David Knight Show is a critical thinking super spreader.
	If you've been exposed to logic by listening to The David Knight Show, please do your part and try not to spread it.
	Financial support or simply telling others about the show causes this dangerous information to spread farther.
	People have to trust me.
	I mean, trust the science.
	Wear your mask.
	Take your vaccine.
	Don't ask questions.
	Using free speech to free minds.
	It's the David Knight Show.
	Well, thank you very much.
	This is on Rumble F111.
	Thank you for the tip.
	He says, very classy news show.
	Thank you, Jose, U.S. Air Force.
	Aim high. Well, thank you.
	I appreciate that.
	Sometimes I don't think it's too classy when I lose my temper, but I got my son over there, Travis, trying to keep me in line.
	Anyway, let's talk about One of the Trump precedents, the bump stock.
	Bump stocks are now back on the store shelves in three states.
	This was where he set the example that we could do gun control by executive order.
	And, of course, not just by his own executive order.
	He was leading the way with an executive order, wanting it to do it.
	But what he did was he had the ATF, which is under the executive branch, as all of these bureaucracies are, he had them come out with a banning of that.
	And now the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the ATF's administrative ban.
	That's what we call prohibition by bureaucrats.
	Regulation without representation.
	Without any constitutional authority.
	So, the Fifth Circuit Court struck it down.
	The interesting thing is, is that the Department of Justice had until Monday to appeal it to the Supreme Court.
	But they did not do so.
	That's the most interesting thing about this story.
	After the DOJ failed to do so, The Fifth Circuit's order took effect, and that means that in the three states under its jurisdiction, Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, bump stocks are now once again available for purchase.
	Now, that's an interesting thing, isn't it?
	Only in the areas under the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
	How can that be the case?
	Why not the other 47 states?
	The DOJ can still appeal to the trial court to reinstate the ban since the Fifth Circuit remanded the case back to U.S. District Court in Texas, but it's still worth noting that Merrick Garland chose not to go to the Supreme Court to consider the issue, which would have been the next logical step in the appeals process, maybe at this point in time.
	He's more obsessed with Trump than he is with the guns.
	Gun control. Which I don't know, because, you know, if you would just leave Trump in there, he would do your dirty work for you, as he did before.
	Garland may have made the calculation that it's better to keep his decision confined to the Fifth Circuit's jurisdiction for the time being, rather than risk the Supreme Court weighing in because the Supreme Court has been friendly to gun issues, perhaps even more friendly than Trump has.
	Austin, Texas gun store owner, Michael Cargill.
	We know Michael. Had him on many times, talked to him.
	I like Michael. I wish he had, again, another sign that things had gone too far in Austin, Texas when Michael Cargill could not get elected.
	He wasn't just about guns.
	He understood what the real bottleneck was in that city.
	And he said, look, you know, this...
	North-south corridor over here at I-35 is just gridlocked.
	And yet, the people on the city council are saying, we need to have public transportation.
	And they wanted public transportation that was not even going to run parallel to that route.
	That was a north-south route.
	They wanted to have some public transportation projects that were going to go east-west.
	So, it was evidently too based for Austin.
	They kept the city council weird.
	But as the Dallas Morning News notes, well, anyway, it was Michael Cargill who filed the lawsuit.
	It was heard by the Fifth Circuit Court.
	Good job, Michael.
	He stood up to Trump and his bump stock stuff.
	See, that's the thing. Everybody, you know, NRA just said, there's no problem, we'll just let it go.
	Because it's Trump, you know, we can trust him.
	It's amazing. But Michael Cargill, gun store owner, good for him.
	As the Dallas Morning News notes in their coverage of the Department of Justice's decision to not appeal the Fifth Circuit's decision, this is about far more than bump stocks themselves.
	It could have implications beyond the Second Amendment, Cargill's case, because it could hinge on a Supreme Court doctrine that courts should defer to the agency in charge of enforcing a particular statute as long as its actions are reasonable.
	Well, that's pretty subjective. Why don't we go to something that's a little bit more objective, like, I don't know, the text?
	Would that be nice? Is this reasonable?
	I don't think. Let's go to the text and say, show me where you have the authority to To take away our God-given rights when the federal government was told that we'll not infringe on our Second Amendment, explicitly told, stay away from this.
	They were explicitly told, stay away from our free speech.
	You know, we don't want to have to file reports.
	We don't want to have, you know, telling if we criticize a politician.
	I don't want to have to file a report with them.
	I don't want to see hate laws thrown at me.
	I don't want to see libel laws weaponized against people.
	Anyway, so that could be much bigger and should be bigger, that aspect.
	We should not be ruled by bureaucrats.
	So good for Michael Cargill.
	So another defeat for the Biden administration.
	We have another court decision in U.S. District Court that strikes down Biden's ghost gun rule.
	And again, this is Defense Distributed, and this is Cody, and I think it was his name here.
	Cody and others are, you know, setting up the printable guns and put the instructions out.
	He did it as a challenge.
	Put the instructions out on the internet.
	And I said, well, you can't do anything about that because that has First Amendment protections.
	This is just, you know, speech, it's code, and it tells people how to, you know, print guns.
	And so the ATF didn't like that.
	They called them ghost guns, and they tried to shut it down, but now they have lost in court.
	This is... I'm trying to look to see which circuit court this is.
	I don't see it right here. But anyway, two losses back-to-back for the authoritarian Biden administration.
	And yet, Joe Biden is undeterred.
	He is adamant that he's going to continue on with gun bans, even as CBS News says the majority of gun deaths are suicides.
	Rather than gun violence.
	And then if you were to take out the gang-on-gang violence that is essentially what we saw during alcohol prohibition where you had Al Capone against the other guys or you got the...
	The Taglia family against the Corleones, you know, that type of thing.
	Why? Because that's how they compete with each other.
	You know, they don't run, you've got a black market prohibited product, they don't run ads on Fox News or CNN. They shoot it out with their competition.
	All of that kind of violence is, as Monty Python would say, inherent in the system.
	The system of prohibition.
	So if you were to take away the drug gang violence and you take away the suicides, what have you got left?
	Well, not a whole lot.
	And then the question is, again, sometimes people use the guns to defend themselves.
	Often they do. I won't go into the details again, but I've talked about it many times.
	My grandfather, who...
	It was a situation where his brother-in-law had just been killed.
	They were collecting rent in a poor neighborhood.
	That's what they did for money.
	They didn't own the houses, but they went out and did that.
	It was like a second job for him.
	He was also a streetcar conductor.
	And so some people knew that they were going around.
	They do it on a weekly basis.
	They would go on a Friday night after the people got, on Friday, before Friday night, because they knew the people would drink their paycheck in many cases.
	So they'd go around to try to get their paycheck before they drank it away.
	And his brother-in-law was killed, hit in the back of the head with a hatchet.
	And so not long after that, and he was the one who found the body, not the police, long after that, the guy was, he walked up to his car and the guy was in the back seat.
	You know, on the floor, crouched to do the same thing to him.
	And he pulled out his gun.
	He said, if I ever see you again, I'll shoot first.
	You know, you have situations like that where there was no, nobody was shot.
	And there was no police report.
	Nobody knew anything that had happened.
	The mere presence of guns can stop things.
	And that's why we have a Second Amendment.
	Because it is a deterrent to a government issue.
	That is intending to do bad things to us, right?
	Just like you have the mutually assured destruction during the Cold War of nuclear weapons, right?
	That's what the Second Amendment is there as.
	It's a deterrent.
	Because if the government isn't run by suicidal maniacs, as our current one is, they realize that if they come around for the guns, that it's going to destroy the country.
	Because a lot of people are not going to give them back.
	And so it is mutually assured destruction, just the same as you have both sides armed with nuclear weapons to try and hopefully keep from having a nuclear war.
	So Biden is saying we're going to ban assault weapons again come hell or high water.
	Well, I think it will be hell if he actually follows through on that.
	Eric Peters is going to be joining us at the top of the hour.
	And since it's difficult for us to, I don't think we have a way that we can pipe the feed where he can see it.
	And I don't think he can hear it either, can he?
	He can hear me, but he can't hear the feed of this thing.
	So we'll just talk about this.
	I'm going to show this to you and we'll talk about it.
	This is a clip of somebody in a Tesla.
	This is a Tesla versus the Amish, right?
	21st century technology technology.
	Versus 19th century technology, horse and buggy.
	And this is how the Tesla visual computer, because that's when it's driving, that's what's different about Tesla, versus all of the other programs.
	They all use LiDAR and things like that, but it uses a visual system in order to drive.
	And sometimes, frequently, it doesn't work.
	As Steve Wozniak, co-founder of Apple Computer, said, he said, I love my Tesla.
	I've driven a Tesla. Great to drive.
	A lot of fun to drive. But he says, don't use the autopilot.
	That thing is trying to kill you.
	But that's the bell and the whistle that they used to sell it with.
	Well, here is a guy who, you've got passengers on that film this, what the Tesla thinks it sees when it's coming up on a horse and buggy.
	And so there's a car.
	It goes around the horse and buggy.
	Now, it pops up.
	It's a giant 18-wheeler.
	So you can see over the screen that's on the Tesla deck.
	You can see. And it just rotated 90 degrees.
	And then it turned into...
	It's got an 18-wheeler.
	It's coming head-on. And now it's got somebody walking behind an 18-wheeler.
	It's just transformed. And over, I love the way they shot this thing because over the iPad screen that got nailed to the dashboard there, you can see the horse and buggy that's there.
	So as he's driving along, all of a sudden it thinks it's an 18-wheeler.
	Then it flips the 18-wheeler momentarily sideways in the road.
	Then it disappears and it's got a car that's coming head-on to him.
	Then it goes back to an 18-wheeler.
	And then it's got somebody walking behind an 18-wheeler.
	Then it's got an 18-wheeler that is coming at you head-on.
	I'm surprised that it didn't ram the brakes, you know?
	Go into panic mode and ram the brakes.
	So we'll talk about that when we get Eric on.
	But before we do, he's also got an article about what happened to automotive journalism.
	And one of the things that happened to automotive journalism is he started pulling in journalists who didn't know or care anything about cars.
	People who were clearly identity hires at the time.
	It goes back to the 1990s when he first started seeing that stuff.
	When we talk about identity hires...
	This is the identity hire from Joe Biden.
	This is the guy that he wants to run the FAA. And so in the congressional hearings, he's being asked questions about various things about flying.
	Listen to this. It's absolutely astounding.
	This guy knows absolutely nothing about what he would be regulating.
	In the same way as Pete Buttigieg doesn't know anything about even filling potholes.
	So, Mr. Washington, can you quickly tell me what airspace requires an ADS-V transponder?
	Not sure I can answer that question right now.
	That's okay. We'll just keep going.
	So, that's a pretty important part.
	So, what are the six types of special use airspace?
	That protect this national security, that appear on FAA charts.
	Sorry, Senator, I cannot answer that question.
	Okay, so what are the operational limitations of a pilot flying under BasicMed?
	Senator, I'm not a pilot, so...
	But obviously you'd ever see the Federal Aviation Administration.
	I don't even know what a plane looks like.
	Any idea what those restrictions are under BasicMed?
	Quickly? Well, some of the restrictions, I think, would be high blood pressure.
	Some of them would be...
	It's more like how many passengers per airplane, how many pounds in different categories, and what altitude you can fly under.
	And then the amount of knots, it's under 250 knots.
	So it's not having anything to do with blood pressure.
	So can you tell me what causes an aircraft to spin or to stall?
	Again, Senator, I'm not a pilot.
	Okay, let's keep going.
	What are the three aircraft certifications FAA requires as part of the manufacturing process?
	Quickly, please. Three aircraft certifications.
	Again, what I would say to that is that one of my first priorities would be to fully implement that Certification Act and report that.
	You know the three types, Mr.
	Washington? The three types?
	Okay. Yeah, that's type certificate, production certificate, airworthiness certificate.
	Okay, you get the idea. He doesn't know anything about planes.
	He doesn't know anything about FAA policy.
	But, of course, we're going to have him leading the organization because the Biden administration is simply about identity politics, just the same way they got Sam Britton.
	His qualifications were that he wore high heels and had lipstick.
	Let me just say this. As Eric is ready, we're going to go to Eric here in a second.
	But Dr. William Mackis, who I interviewed last week on his Substack, has an article about pilots and flight attendants who recently had cardiac arrests in flight and died suddenly.
	Now, in most of these, there was somebody who was there to take over the controls.
	Not in all of them, in some of the small planes.
	But I just have to say...
	You know, this is a possibility of taking the entire plane down.
	And when we look at how the FAA banned the Boeing 737 MAX after two crashes, and again, the crash, everybody died.
	500 people died. However, in terms of the number of crashes, it was only two out of about 8,600 Boeing 737 MAXs.
	And the FAA shut that down.
	And with this long list that he has here, this is far more people who died or had a heart attack as they were flying the plane.
	Each of these risked a major incident, like the Boeing 737 MAX. But this is something that was done by the drug cartels, and we're not allowed to talk about that, right?
	Furthermore, the guy who was questioning Mr.
	Washington, Mr. Budd, who was questioning Mr.
	Washington, who doesn't know anything about planes or flying or the agency that he is supposed to oversee, Mr.
	Budd doesn't really care about the fact that people are still being killed with this Trump shot.
	That's the amazing thing to me.
	When will somebody do their job?
	Is there somebody else?
	Is there somebody, the FDA or the CDC, these unconstitutional agencies, is there somebody there who could actually care about any of this stuff?
	Well, we'll see.
	We'll be right back. Stay with us.
	Let me tell you, the David Knight Show you can listen to with your ears.
	You can even watch it by using your eyes.
	In fact, if you can hear me, that means you're listening to the David Knight Show right now.
	Yeah, good job.
	You know something else?
	You can find all the links to everywhere to watch or listen to the show at TheDavidKnightShow.com That's a website.
	Show We've Got a Problem.
	Hello, what? Who are you?
	It's the new mug they're selling at thedavidknightshow.com, right?
	So, basically, a mug is something that holds liquid, right?
	Right, because basically you can't hold coffee with your hands, right?
	I'm a scat and leave, but anyone tries to mug me, I'm being ready for it.
	You dog-faced pony soldier.
	They say the mug can help patriots drink coffee, then save the world.
	This could be bad for us.
	Save the world? But we owe the world.
	These people, they're supporting free speech with every month they buy.
	Come on. These people, I tell you, well, anyway.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	All right, and joining us now is Eric Peters of epautos.com, and we're going to talk about what has happened to automotive journalism as well as the state of freedom and how it's being attacked in so many different ways, on the road, off the road.
	But thank you for joining us, Eric.
	Always great to talk to you. Oh, thanks for having me on, David.
	I'm busily packing my bags to get ready to move into one of Trump's freedom cities.
	I can't believe people fall for that.
	I mean, it was actually AJ put that out.
	Alex Jones put that out to say that, yeah, look, he's fighting the new world order.
	It's like he's implementing the new world order.
	You've always talked about Agenda 21.
	That's what it is to a T. I mean, it's just amazing to me.
	Yeah, sometimes I just want to take one of my shoes off and hit myself in the head with it until I'm insensible.
	That's right. It's crazy.
	It truly is a satire world that we live in.
	Speaking of satire worlds, let's begin with this progressive insurance commercial.
	I'm sure you're familiar with Flow.
	Mm-hmm. Their spokesperson. And of course, this is a new commercial.
	I'm not going to play it. A new commercial where the camera crew goes to a guy's house and surprises him and gives him something because he's a safe driver, but also especially because he's not driving too much.
	They're all about that, aren't they?
	Mm-hmm. I sure are.
	Yep. They have been pushing.
	And again, they have actually, the person who sent that to me, says, yeah, my daughter does that.
	And still, she can't understand why their insurance is so high because she's driving pretty fast and reckless.
	But they have pushed that.
	Especially for younger kids, especially in the UK where they make it so expensive for the kids to even buy car insurance.
	I've read stories about siblings who go in halves on their car insurance and on the car itself, and they have to ration how much they drive because it doesn't just measure how they drive but how much they drive.
	It's a new tactic that's coming out there with another form really of toll if you stop and think about it.
	Yeah, well, we're not that far behind here.
	Insurance is already exorbitant for teen drivers, and I get to a certain extent why their rates are higher.
	They're new, they're inexperienced.
	Statistically, they tend to be more likely to be involved in an accident.
	But it does not correlate with the amounts that they're charging people on the order of $2,000, $3,000 a year, which is just preposterous.
	Yeah, we used to always see that when we were kids.
	We had higher rates when you were young and you were learning how to drive a car.
	And it was justified in my case.
	I nearly killed myself several times.
	Yeah, sure. But I didn't have an accident.
	But I mean, you know, some pretty crazy stuff.
	I know I was in a car with other teenagers and they were driving or I was driving.
	Well, it's a one-two punch.
	On the one hand, you've got the insurance costs.
	And then on the other hand, you've got the cost of the cars themselves.
	And largely due to the Obama-era Cash for Clunker program, We're good to go.
	I agree. Yeah, we just had, we needed to get a truck.
	And then my son needed a car.
	And they found an auction site.
	And they were able to get great deals on these things.
	They got them like less than half of what the book value was at the auction thing.
	Of course, you know, you're... You've got to take a certain amount of risk, which you always do when you get a used car, and they give you a chance to drive the thing for a couple of hours and check it out, and you can bring it back within a couple of hours if you find some kind of a major flaw with it.
	But, you know, we got this truck, Eric, that is...
	They were telling me about it.
	I told them, I said, I don't care. We've got to get a truck.
	I don't really care what the thing looks like.
	Just get it cheap, you know?
	So they said, well, we got it, but it's got this headliner that's...
	That's got a cloth and it's got all kinds of lights in it and all the rest of the stuff.
	It's got a rhinestone steering wheel and a big thing.
	The whole back seat was taken out so they could put speakers in it.
	But it's a truck.
	They only had to bid against people who were online.
	They said anybody who was there at the auction site that actually saw the truck would not buy it.
	The thing is jacked up. That's the other thing, too.
	The guy said to my wife, he said, I want to see you get in that truck.
	That's part of the fun of it.
	That's part of what gives those first cars character.
	Years and years ago, I bought a 64 Corvair.
	It was drivable, but it needed a bunch of work.
	And in the process of going through it, I pulled the back seat out and somebody had built a minibar in the back of it back in the hippie days.
	It still had the decanters in it and everything.
	That's funny. That's funny.
	Well, talking about going back to the good old days, you've got an article, The Decline and Fall of Automotive Journalism, and how it died, and as a matter of fact, you say it died when they were bought up by the drug cartels.
	Kudos to Woody Harrelson.
	Yeah, exactly. He nailed it, didn't he?
	He did. You know, he did a great mitzvah or service, and even more so in that, so far, he has withstood Yeah, absolutely.
	It had to be said. I'm glad he said it, and I'm glad he's not backing down.
	But, you know, I think about the old automotive journalism.
	I think of David E. Davis.
	I loved his stuff.
	I think it was Car and Driver that he wrote for.
	He had a column Cogito Ergo Zoom.
	I think, therefore, I speed.
	Yep. Back in those days, car journalists generally were people who liked cars at the least and understood them.
	And more importantly, too, they were also legit journalists in that they looked into things and reported the truth about them.
	Very much contrary to the practice today.
	I was appalled by this article I saw that was published by Jalopnik, which is a pretty big site.
	And the headline read something like, EVs are now cheaper than the average non-electric car.
	And I thought, what pipe are these people smoking?
	So I dug into it a little bit.
	And they very, very oilily misled people reading the article by conflating...
	The transaction price, that's the industry term for what people sometimes pay for a car with what the average price of a car is.
	In other words, leading people to believe that spending $45,000 on an EV is actually a bargain relative to the almost $50,000 that the average car transacted for last year.
	And it was a real sleazy shuck and jive, and they didn't put that in any context.
	And they also left out a critical point, which is that when you buy a base EV, you buy the base battery.
	You know, so you buy the base battery and the thing doesn't go very far.
	For example, the low-cost Tesla Model 3 that's about $44,000, as I think it is a 270-something mile range, something like that.
	If you want the one that goes more than 300 miles, it's something like $55,000.
	And they just don't mention that.
	I mean, how many times would you ever go out and buy, when you buy a non-electric car, You don't have to pay extra to get a bigger gas tank, usually, unless it's a heavy-duty truck.
	And the fact that they don't say these things or write these things or explain these things to people makes my teeth fall out of my head every time I have to deal with it.
	I haven't read Jalopnik in a very, very long time just because they're so biased.
	I mean, they've got an agenda. It's very clear.
	It's as clear as if you're talking to chat LGBT. They've got an agenda that they want to push on you.
	And again, for the most part, most of them are not car people.
	And that's really one of the things that you were talking about.
	The first time you saw it, I played just before you came on because I know that our guests can't hear the videos or see them.
	I played a back and forth between a diversity hire pick for the Biden administration for the FAA. Doesn't know anything about planes.
	Doesn't know anything about the agency.
	Doesn't know anything about the rules of the agency for planes.
	Zero. Zip. I mean, one question after the other in his confirmation hearing.
	Didn't know anything. But that's what you've seen happen to automotive journalism.
	And you start talking about this going back to the 90s with a lady at USA Today.
	Tell people a story. Sure.
	Well, they hired this woman mainly because she had a nice rack, and she knew nothing about cars, and she couldn't write very well.
	Is that a gun rack? Right, the kind of rack that women tend to have.
	And then there was the other example of Warren Brown over at the Washington Post, who I knew personally, and Warren Brown was a nice guy and a good business writer, but they tapped him to be their car reviewer.
	And Warren didn't even know how to drive a car with a manual transmission at the time that he was tapped to be their car reviewer.
	They dropped off a Porsche 911 for him to drive, and he couldn't drive it.
	The Porsche people had to show him how to drive it because he didn't know how to drive a stick.
	And it kind of begs the question, why would you put people in that position?
	Well, the reason, the answer is, of course, because Warren happened to be a black guy.
	And, of course, the woman over at USA Today happened to be female.
	And so there was this push, even then, back in the 90s, To bean count and to assign jobs based on what color your skin is and what kind of genitalia you were born with rather than whether you knew something or had any business writing about the topic at hand.
	I like what you had to say. She had as much business writing about cars as Liberace had writing about dating.
	Well, women. Yes, exactly.
	That's a great line. And then the best story that I've got, this one left me gaping for breath for a little while.
	I had to recover. I was at the New York Auto Show.
	This was, I don't know, probably around 1994-ish, something like that, during the press preview days.
	And I was just sitting on the bus with other journalists waiting for the next presentation.
	And this guy approached me and started talking to me.
	And he identified himself as somebody who was a writer for the Wall Street Journal.
	And he said he knew that I wrote about motorcycles.
	And he asked me my advice about how to get into bikes.
	And so I just assumed that he was somebody like me who had motorcycles and was into motorcycles.
	And so I asked him what bikes he had.
	And he admitted to me that he'd never owned a bike and he didn't know how to ride a bike, but he wanted to write about motorcycles for the Wall Street Journal.
	There you go. Yeah, that's perfect.
	My son, Travis, says the average valet parker would be better at reviewing cars than most car journalists.
	I think that's absolutely right. Especially the guy who was the valet parker for Ferris Bueller's Day Off.
	Yeah, and at least those guys actually liked cars.
	I think that's my biggest gripe.
	The people who are doing the car journalism today, a lot of them, are people who, very obviously to me, just don't care.
	They're not interested in cars. They might as well be writing about cell phones.
	They view them as appliances.
	You know, that's what's killing everything.
	It used to be about the passion and the emotion and the fun of it, and that's all being just sucked right out of the whole profession.
	That's right. Yeah, they write about them as if they are appliances or now as if they are, you know, boom boxes or iPhones or something like that.
	Even to the extent that you see a new Mercedes come out, it's like, oh, look at all the...
	It's got a supercomputer in it.
	It's like, oh, really? How much energy does that use?
	I mean, they want to...
	They want to try to push out their digital currencies and criticize and ban cryptocurrency because, well, it's just not green enough.
	Well, really? Well, then, you know, what does it do for energy consumption?
	Because, you know, you've got to charge it back up whenever you use it.
	You've got all this computer tech inside the Mercedes going to reduce its range and all the rest of the stuff because, you know, the fast computers are going to use a lot of power.
	That's what their complaint is about crypto.
	Sure, because it's been up.
	It's also been homogenized.
	They're all the same. You get into a Mercedes S-Class and it's got a flat screen display.
	You get into a Ford Mach-E, which is $40,000 versus $100,000, it has a flat screen display.
	You get into a $30,000 Hyundai, it has essentially the same flat screen display.
	That's what it all is now.
	It's an extruded plastic blob with a flat screen display.
	Yeah, you say it's about crossoverism and you say, well, you know, these guys want to talk about, you know, the cargo capacity.
	How big is the trunk or, you know, how much, what's the gas mileage or the range or things?
	And that's really all that's there at this point.
	And so even though they don't know anything about cars or really care anything about cars, it is, as you said, an appliance.
	They're just reporting on the capacities of it.
	Yeah, it's very, very depressing and seeing the trend.
	Not only continue to go in that direction, but accelerate.
	I published an article this morning about Subaru having jumped onto the ESG bandwagon after they took care of Toyota a couple of weeks ago.
	They're doing the parking brake 180 and embracing electrification and going to take all the joy and interest and, to use their favorite word of the left, diversity, out of Subaru, too.
	Yeah, yeah. And, of course, they can't do the parking brake 180 because it's an electric parking brake.
	There is one, you're right. You don't have a lever to pull the thing up into a Rockford spinners.
	I got a question from some listeners here.
	They said, can you ask Eric if he ever listens to Scotty Kilmer?
	I always found Scotty to be very entertaining.
	For people who don't know him, he's got a big YouTube channel.
	He's a mechanic working out of Houston.
	What do you think of Scotty?
	Oh, I think he's hilarious.
	Not only hilarious, but I think he's I think he's a mensch, meaning just he's a regular guy.
	I don't think he's trying to sell anybody a bill of goods like me or like anybody else.
	He's not omniscient.
	He doesn't know everything, and he's not always right, but I think he tries to get it right.
	I think he does a good job of presenting his information in an engaging and humorous way, and I think that's the apotheosis of what...
	We do in this profession, or at least what we should aspire to doing.
	That's right. And he gives people his honest opinion.
	You know, if he thinks the car is really good, or if he thinks it's bad, he'll tell you what its strong points are and its weak points are.
	He's not worried about offending the car company.
	And he'll even tell you, you know, I saw one of his videos where he talked about Toyotas versus a Lexus.
	And he goes, get yourself a Toyota, put in an extra sound deadening insulation equipment, and you got a Lexus.
	You know, save yourself some money.
	Right, and you don't even have to do that.
	A lot of people don't understand or know that the Lexus brand only exists in North America.
	It does not exist in Japan.
	In Japan, there are Toyotas.
	They sell the same models over there with a Toyota badge.
	The only reason they created Lexus was as a marketing division because in this country, Americans are hung up on their badge.
	So, you know, they won't pay $40,000 or $50,000 for a mere Toyota, but if they put a Lexus badge on the same thing, they will.
	Yeah, that's right. Nissan did that.
	Honda did it. They all did that.
	They came up with a luxury brand.
	But of course, you know, we would do that for the longest time with Cadillac, for example.
	You know, Cadillac stopped being a special thing.
	And I remember going back to the Cimarron's and everything, which is a rebadged Jeep Chevy or something that they rebadged as a Cadillac.
	It's a Cavalier. Yeah, yeah.
	One of the most infamous and notorious crap cars that General Motors ever made.
	Yeah, badge it as a Cadillac.
	There you go, voila. We can work it up several thousand dollars.
	So it's like the Japanese, they're not stupid.
	It's like, hey, we can do that too.
	Let's talk about your article, The Autobond, in terms of band.
	And the amazing reaction of this quote-unquote automotive journalist for CNN, his experience and his animus towards the idea of the Autobond.
	Yep. Well, they're attacking it, of course, on the basis of climate change.
	If you drive faster than a crawl, your vehicle is emitting more carbon dioxide, and so we can't have that.
	So naturally, they have to go after the Autobahn, which is one of the few things left to do in Germany.
	There are high-speed sections, not the entire Autobahn, but there are sections where there aren't speed limits, and people are at their discretion to drive at speeds they think are appropriate.
	And interestingly enough, they do it very safely.
	They have a lower fatality rate on those high-speed sections of the Autobahn than we have on the interstate system, because over there, people are given the freedom, the license to drive, but they know how to drive.
	So they're not restrained by these dumbed-down speed limits that result in people being timid, passive-aggressive, and just terrible drivers who can't drive a car safely at 70, whereas in Germany, they can drive safely at 140.
	That's right. And you stay in the right-hand lane unless you're passing somebody, right?
	And they're very adamant about that.
	I remember when I was in high school, I used to read my dad's Business Week subscription, and I remember they had a story, and it was about the German economy, but the metaphor that they used There was this guy who was a World War II veteran.
	He had lost an arm in the war, but now he was a CEO of a company.
	And he had just driven with one arm, driven across a large part of Germany on the Autobahn at about 150 miles an hour with one arm.
	And they just thought that was amazing.
	But they said, that's a great metaphor for what the German economy is.
	And it's like, well, I don't care about the German economy.
	I want to get on the Autobahn.
	It's like they've got this one little thing.
	In this authoritarian society, so many rules about everything, and it's almost like it's a little pressure relief valve there.
	It is. And it's a striking display of the axiom that people will rise or fall to the level that they're expected to rise or fall to.
	You give people the opportunity to be responsible and to display competence, and generally speaking, they will.
	Of course, some won't, but there are ways to handle that rather than treating everybody as a presumptive moron.
	And when you treat everybody as a presumptive moron, you tend to get more morons in the end.
	That's right. Yeah. Let me just read this little statement here that you got at the beginning of the article about this guy.
	What is his name? Paul Hockanos?
	Is that the way you pronounce it? Hockanos, yeah.
	Yeah. He said, you quote him, he says, it's utterly disconcerting when kicking along at a brisk 75 miles per hour, somebody blows by me on the left and then disappears over the horizon as if I were driving a lawnmower.
	And you reply, poor old clover.
	Tell people who are listening about clover.
	It's all over your site. You've got bumper stickers for clover stuff.
	Tell people about your clover story.
	Yeah, that's just some inside baseball.
	We had a troll on the site for a number of years who identified himself as Clover, and he was a person similar to this Hakonos character who equated any driving faster than any speed limit with recklessness and was very much a member in good standing of the safety cult.
	And, you know, this guy Hakonos, he doesn't understand the ethos in Germany, which is to use your mirrors.
	And as you said earlier, to, you know, stay out of the fast lane if you're not passing.
	And that's the That's the mentality of German drivers, and that's why it's safe.
	People use their mirrors. You don't just dope along and expect people to accommodate you.
	You scan your mirrors, and if you see somebody coming up behind you fast, you see the headlights, you move over.
	Very straightforward. And if people would practice that kind of lane discipline, we could have unlimited speeds here on our interstate highway system, too.
	Yeah, but the attitude here is we got a speed limit.
	I'm doing a speed limit, and I don't care if I'm in the fast lane.
	This is my lane.
	But you immediately talk about 75 miles an hour.
	That was what our interstates were designed to, how they were designed to be used with cars that were made in the 1960s.
	And I remember that. You know, that's the thing that bothered me so much.
	I just started driving before Nixon put in the 55 mile an hour speed limit.
	And all of a sudden... You know, they drop the speed by 20 miles per hour, even though the cars are much better than what they designed them for.
	You know, they designed the interstate for cars that were made in the 50s to be able to drive 75 miles an hour, assuming that they could get it to that speed.
	But, you know, even at that point in time when Nixon put the hammer down on it, it was ludicrous.
	But now it's even more so, as you point out.
	Oh yeah, we've had, what, 60 years of advancements in vehicle design such that practically I think every new car has four-wheel disc brakes, has pretty decent tires on it, has a suspension that's light years more advanced than what was common and typical back in the 60s, and yet... The fastest legal speeds in this country outside of Texas are 75 miles an hour, just like they were back in 1967.
	Yeah. And by the way, you know, that toll road where they've got an 85 mile an hour speed limit.
	And there's several roads that are close to that.
	I think 80 or something like that, I think, was the speed limit.
	I kind of sometimes pay attention to the speed limit.
	One thing I did notice when I do talk about clovers, the speed limits are generally high in Texas.
	And it's the roads that are in poor state.
	But that really is what limits you in most cases.
	They don't maintain the roads up to the standard that they should.
	But I noticed when we lived in Texas...
	That people would typically drive 5 to 10 miles per hour below the speed limit.
	I would just see that all the time, you know, on the back roads and stuff.
	And they've got a toll road there that is the fastest speed limit in the U.S., 85 miles an hour.
	And yet that toll road went bankrupt for two reasons.
	People don't like to pay tolls.
	And secondly, they just don't care about going that fast in the U.S. It's kind of strange.
	Well, I think it's not so strange because we've had, what, 50 years now, We're good to go.
	Quote marks, using a car with an automatic transmission.
	Many of them never learned how to drive a manual car.
	And so they just sit there.
	And now they tap their touch screen and they play with their apps and stuff and they're not in any particular hurry.
	The work has been almost complete.
	These people are perfectly ready to be put into their electric pods and transported from A to B.
	That's right, where they brag about the fact that they will go so slowly that you can set your coffee cup up on the dashboard and not have it spill or slide off.
	You know, that's their goal, you know, to have everybody in some kind of a remote-controlled golf cart.
	But this guy, you point out, Paul Hakonos for CNN, you point out that he is somebody who used to work for the Council on Foreign Relations.
	So he's there.
	You know, they pick these people.
	They're not just diversity hires.
	They're people who are going to push the agenda that they want everybody to have.
	You know, anti-car, save the planet nonsense.
	Yeah, they want everybody peddling around in their 15-minute freedom cities.
	Mm-hmm. Now, you point out he also is concerned about the fact that the people who drive fast, he thinks, are, quote, overwhelmingly male.
	Right. Just like, you know, car journalists used to be overwhelmingly male, too.
	That's an indictment somehow. Yeah, yeah.
	For the sake of something feminine, as you put out, literally Mother Earth.
	That's absolutely true. We got a comment.
	Thank you for the tip, Harps, in Australia.
	He writes, Lexus is sold here in Australia.
	So they've got it one other place there.
	I drove a car.
	We went to New Zealand.
	I've never been to Australia, but we went to New Zealand once.
	And I got a chance to drive on the wrong side of the road.
	Isn't that great? But it was okay because we were upside down, so it all kind of worked out, you know?
	Did you do it in a right-hand drive with a manual transmission?
	Yeah, yeah, actually did.
	So it was an interesting experience.
	You just have to keep telling yourself, you know, when you're taking turns, you've got to stay in the center of the road and things like that.
	So we were able to navigate it, and fortunately, you know, it wasn't really heavy traffic.
	There weren't any big cities in New Zealand and that type of thing.
	So there was a lot of margin for error that was there.
	Our biggest issue was just trying to make our way around because we didn't.
	You know, I had to use paper maps, which we've all forgotten how to use paper maps now because our brain has atrophied.
	It's terrible. And by the way, a couple of days ago, I was drooling over a gray market, mid-late 90s Toyota Hilux Surf, which, of course, they never sold here.
	Yeah, I was going to say. With a diesel engine.
	Somebody got that into the U.S.? Yeah, yeah.
	You know, they can do that because I think if they're older than 96, I think, They get grandfathered in and you don't have to worry about the EPA goons showing up to hut, hut, hut.
	But nonetheless, I look at this thing and I think to myself, it's basically a Toyota 4Runner, except it has a diesel engine and it gets 40 miles per gallon, and Americans were never allowed to have a vehicle like that.
	I remember when Top Gear had a Hilux, and they tried their best to kill it, and they couldn't kill it.
	And they actually smashed it, they drove it into the sea, they did all kinds of things, and the thing still kept running, and they couldn't believe what was happening with it.
	And, of course, you know, not available here in the U.S., but they took this smashed up, burned thing that was still running and they propped it up in their studio as part of their program years ago in a place of honor, you know.
	That's why the jihadis love it.
	You watch any footage from the Middle East and, you know, those Bedouins who have the AKs mounted in the bed, they're driving Hiluxes.
	That's right.
	And, again, going back to this article with this CFR writer who's now writing for CNN, right?
	cycling highways.
	Yeah, isn't that great?
	Cycling highways.
	And And you know, one of the things about that, there are many facets to this, but one of them that always astounds me because of the way the left cognitively dissonance everything.
	Okay, so cycle lanes.
	Well, that's just wonderful if you're young enough and able-bodied enough to cycle.
	But there are a lot of people who are in no position to jump on a bicycle and cycle even five miles down the road.
	Older people aren't going to be able to do that.
	You know, women with kids aren't going to be able to do that.
	Essentially, they're hobbling pretty much everybody who isn't a young person from being able to get from A to B. That's right.
	Yeah, as you talk about trying to ban things on the Autobahn, and of course, they have already agreed that they are going to ban all internal combustion engines.
	It's been approved by the European Parliament.
	It's been approved by pretty much everybody in Europe, but now at the last minute, because Ferrari and Porsche The EU ban on internal combustion engine cars has now been put on hold because the governments of Italy and Germany, where they revere Porsche and Ferrari, are pushing back on this, pressuring back on this.
	Italy's Deputy Prime Minister said the delay in passing the ban is, quote, a great signal.
	The German Transport Minister said Europe, quote, needs e-fuels.
	Because there's no alternative to operating our existing fleet in a climate-neutral manner.
	So here's what they're doing. And you and I have talked about this in the past.
	You know, Portia came up with this idea that they can create, you know, carbon-neutral fuels, the e-fuels, right?
	They do them in a special island environment.
	Down at the tip of South America where the wind blows constantly, so they're constantly using wind power, and they take captured carbon dioxide, and they liquefy that, and then they take this bespoke fuel,
	which is probably as expensive as a fine wine, and then they put that in their expensive cars, And when it burns, it creates, you know, carbon dioxide and all the other gases that come out, but they say it's neutral because that's what we began with.
	And so they want a loophole for the uber-rich, and the rest of us can go pound sand, right?
	Yeah, that's what's going to happen.
	I don't think that internal combustion-powered cars will go away.
	I think they'll be rarefied.
	You and I have discussed this before.
	At the dawn of the automotive era, you go back a hundred and something years, cars were the toys of the very affluent.
	They were largely hand-built and custom-ordered, and that's where we're headed.
	If you're somebody who can afford to spend six figures plus for a vehicle, they will allow you to have one.
	But us, the low-end cattle, will be denied use of anything that isn't some form of transportation appliance, probably, that's under the control of not us.
	Yeah, yeah. Part of that story just shows how there's so many different engineering solutions that we could do for things and they won't allow it.
	It shows how this is all a political thing and how even if you come up with something like that, I know when we're looking around at cars, my son who just bought the car at the auction had been looking around at the The Chevy Volt, I think it is.
	It's got the generator on board so that you don't have a range limitation.
	It was the only one that you liked.
	And he mentioned that.
	He said, that's the only electric car that Eric likes.
	And it seems like it's a pretty good thing. But, you know, trying to find one, they haven't made them for a couple of years.
	And they're still very expensive.
	And the batteries are super expensive.
	Even though it's got a smaller battery, the batteries are more expensive to replace than some of the other cars that are out there.
	So he wound up not going that way.
	But, you know, they won't accept anything.
	You know, even a small generator that occasionally kicks on has a little bit of emissions, they don't want hybrid cars, and they don't even want to have something like this as ridiculously expensive and complicated as the e-fuels are.
	They won't even allow something like this, which is neutral.
	You know, it's not creating anything that wasn't already there.
	Do you remember once upon a time when government and the regulatory apparatus I'm all for bringing that back.
	If they're going to promulgate a new regulation, let's look at the cost and the benefit.
	I made the point back when Volkswagen got excoriated over cheating on government emission certification tests with regard to its diesels.
	You're talking about angels dancing on the head of a pin differences, literally fractions of a percent difference.
	And there's no cost-benefit.
	There's no benefit there for the cost.
	You know, who's being hurt? And the answer is nobody.
	So, you know, unless you can demonstrate an objective and tangible harm, I think that a regulation that's proposed should be dismissed out of hand.
	Well, we've gone way the other direction, haven't we, with all this lockdown and everything?
	Safety and efficacy for the vaccines, for the masks, for any of this stuff.
	They don't care about that anymore.
	You just do as I say. That's what it's really about.
	But they have to lie about it, too.
	For example, they will talk about how the cheating Volkswagens emitted up to, they'll say up to, 40 times the allowable amount of emissions.
	And to the layman, to the average person who hasn't looked into it, that sounds, wow, that's a big deal.
	But then you dig into it a little bit, and what they're talking about is 40% of.0-something percent.
	It's an immaterial, negligible amount of difference, and you cannot produce or deduce any harm caused by it.
	And that, I think, ultimately ought to be the way things go when we revert back to sanity.
	Now, you're going to propose a regulation.
	Okay, what's it going to cost and what's the benefit going to be?
	And if the math doesn't work out, then that regulation should be put into the can.
	That's right. Well, you and I have talked about this for a long time, the Volkswagen scam.
	Nobody died. They say, well, you cheated on your report to us.
	And so we're going to hit you a $4 billion fine.
	It's like, are you kidding me? You know, look at the exploding pintos.
	We've talked about all that stuff. Right.
	You know, look at the Takata airbags that have killed, you know, 14, 15 people or something worldwide.
	They don't put that kind of fine against anybody.
	They came at criminal charges against the Volkswagen CEO just to intimidate them to take down a very efficient internal combustion engine that was going to make it harder for them to push EVs on us.
	And contrast that with what we know about the effects of the so-called vaccines.
	How many people have been killed by the vaccines, as opposed to how many people weren't killed by Volkswagen's diesels.
	Yet, you know, they're not pulling those dangerous drugs, objectively dangerous drugs, off of the market, are they?
	No, no, absolutely not.
	We got another comment here from Harps in Australia.
	He says, David's biggest issue driving in New Zealand was sheep, not other cars.
	That's right. There were more sheep than there were people, more sheep than there were cars.
	That's absolutely true. Unfortunately, there's more sheep here in America than there are in New Zealand.
	That's right. Yeah, the last couple of years we've seen the people here turn into sheep, that's for sure.
	Yeah, it is interesting, as Travis said, you know, put it up on the screen.
	He said in New Zealand, it's like the animals there are all trying to kill you.
	I remember when we were there, there was a red possum.
	That was an endangered species in Australia, but they had bounties on it in New Zealand.
	And so the people who were visiting from Australia at the time said, I can't believe, you know, it's like seeing a bounty on an eagle, you know, if you go to another country.
	Because, you know, this thing that was, you know, the bottom of the predator chain in Australia was at the top of the predator chain in New Zealand.
	They got very mild animals that are there, but the worst thing, they got sand flies, you know.
	Here's a good story for you.
	This also dates back to the 90s.
	I was on a Ford press trip, and we were out in Alaska testing out the then-new Ford Explorer, the one of the rollover fame.
	Anyway, we were given route maps like we usually are that start you out at A, and you end up at B a couple hundred miles down the road.
	And this was out in Alaska, out in the middle of nowhere.
	And I found myself meandering down this road in Alaska, came around a corner, and there was a bull moose standing in the middle of the road.
	Wow. Wow.
	And I stopped, and I very gingerly backed up, backed up, backed up, because the thing would have just destroyed the Explorer and me along with it.
	Oh, yeah. Yeah. He didn't charge you, huh?
	He did not. He lowered his head, went back to munching, and I breathed a sigh of relief and went back on my way via another way.
	Wow. Wow. That's great.
	Yeah, I remember coming up here in the Smoky Mountain area when I was a kid.
	Bears all over the place.
	I have to get these things transferred.
	I've got 8mm film of us feeding the bears through the cracks in the windows and stuff like that.
	Yeah, you just don't see them anymore.
	I mean, they've got them so far removed into the park that I haven't seen one for many, many years.
	I haven't seen one the year that we've been here as well.
	You've got an article about what the Corvette was and should be again because, you know, we're just talking about the exotic, expensive cars and how, you know, hey, Porsches and Ferraris, you should be able to drive them with your fine wine fuel that you made with windmills.
	But the Corvette's a good example of what's happened, isn't it?
	Yeah, you know, for a car that is a formidable performer that is quicker, faster, better handling than any Corvette ever, it's a remarkably anodyne car to me.
	It looks just like any other Insectoid, exotic car.
	You park it next to a McLaren or a Ferrari, and if you don't look closely and if you don't find the badge, it's really hard to tell the difference.
	The other day, my girlfriend and I went to an old car museum, and they had a 71 Stingray there.
	You'd see that car from a football field away, and everybody knows what it is.
	It may not get to 60 in 2.9 seconds or whatever the current Stingray does.
	No, it's not going to do the fastest lap time around the Nürburgring.
	But the thing is just gorgeous, you know, and just looking at it is almost enough, and driving it is a treat.
	And the other thing about it that I got into in the article was that it was affordable, which the new one isn't.
	It was more expensive than a Camaro, but it wasn't that much more expensive back in the day.
	If you could afford a Camaro, if you saved up for a while, you could get a Corvette.
	Today, the Corvette starts at around $65,000, which puts it out of the league of almost everybody except, you know, the Afflin.
	Here we go again. All the fun is reserved to people who have lots of money and everybody else can just walk.
	And as you point out, you know, the people who can afford it are typically going to be older, and they're not professional race car drivers, so they're only going to use a tiny fraction of this performance that they're paying through the nose to have.
	I mean, it is really wasted performance because you can't drive that anywhere on the streets.
	These people typically are not going to take their cars onto a track and race it either.
	What's it there for? Is it there for, you know, dragging power?
	What? I don't get it.
	Yeah, that's what it is. It's for driving around and saying, look at me.
	You know, it's automatic only now.
	You can't get a manual transmission in the car, and most of the performance is automated.
	You get in the thing, you push the button, it starts, you put the gear selector in drive, and then the launch control takes over, the stability control makes sure you don't wrap it around a tree.
	There's very little for you as a driver to do it.
	Just sit there and push on the pedal.
	Whereas getting in something like that 71 Stingray I mentioned, that was an involving experience.
	Four-speed clutch, you know, You had to control the car.
	It was up to you. And while it didn't have the level of capability that the new car has, its capabilities were closer to yours, to the average person.
	So you could actually really drive the car And that was exhilarating and satisfying in a way that driving these new exotics just isn't.
	That's right. I feel that way about Miamiata.
	You know, they have resisted, and I think wisely, resisted putting bigger engines in them.
	And because they know that most people are not going to be able to use that power.
	I mean, you can go out and you can do aftermarket stuff.
	You know, you can have...
	You can turbocharge it. You can even drop a V8 in it.
	But that completely changes the character of the thing.
	That's not what it's about.
	That's like taking a Lotus and making it into a heavy electric battery vehicle.
	You know, that's completely antithetical to what it's all about.
	And so you take a car, which, you know, you're talking about the older Vets, or you talk about the Miata.
	It's all about, you know, the...
	The experience of being in the open air, the connection that you got through the manual shifter, and the fact that the horsepower is sufficient and it's matched to what's there, but it actually, you know, gives you another, instead of a really fast straight line acceleration, you know, you're looking at maintaining your speed and you're able to do that because they focused on things that, you know, you talk about the automotive press.
	They were the ones who started pushing the zero to 60 thing.
	That became the benchmark. And, you know, that doesn't really tell you that much about the car, but everybody, that's the first thing.
	Well, so here's 0 to 60. And you get these, you know, tiny fractional improvements that have been driving.
	This is one of the reasons why, you know, they wanted to go to a rear-engine car and a super-automatic transmission was so they could shave off a tenth of a second off of their 0 to 60 time.
	Right. The other thing about these cars, too, is because of the fact that their capabilities are so high, in a way they're dangerous because they almost encourage you to push it and push it.
	Because they're so easy to drive fast.
	You know, almost comically easy.
	You can get in a car like the new Corvette, and let's say I've got a, there's a place I like to drive called Bent Mountain, and it has a series of S-turns that are 35 miles an hour.
	You can easily take it at 70 in a car like a Corvette without even trying, with one finger on the wheel.
	In order to begin to get any kind of real feedback and sensation that you're doing something, you have to kick it up another notch, and by that time you're at the point where you're way beyond your own limits as a driver.
	And even potentially at the limit of what the safety systems can do to get you out of trouble if the car gets out of hand.
	So I see this whole thing as both defeating, counterproductive, and dangerous.
	Yeah, I agree. Yeah, my son put up a comment.
	So they made most cars so boring and awful, you want to be disconnected and disassociated from it.
	And that's the danger. You know, I find that even driving our other car, a family car, it's got an automatic in it.
	You know, it's a Mazda 5.
	And, you know, I'm more dangerous as a driver with that car because I'm not as connected to what's going on.
	You know, having the manual there connects you to the driving.
	I enjoy the driving more, but I'm also thinking about what's coming.
	You know, am I going to shift it into another gear?
	Do I have to slow down because there's somebody up ahead that's about to make a left turn or something like that?
	So you're constantly engaged like that, whereas with the automatic, it takes you out of it.
	And everything that they add to it actually kind of puts you to sleep.
	That's the odd thing about it.
	It's counterproductive, I think.
	Well, you're isolated from the external world, too.
	If you've ever had the good fortune to drive something like a Lotus 7, which is kind of like your Miata, you are aware of the external world.
	You can hear the wind. You can hear the road.
	Heck, you can hear birds chirping.
	You're out there. You're involved in a way that you can't duplicate except on, perhaps, a motorcycle.
	And that also is a sensory input, whereas when you're in this pod, And it's so insulated from the external world, you're disconnected from the world, and you're disconnected from the drive as you're trying to drive the thing.
	That's right. Yeah, we have...
	And that's the thing. Most people are riding around, they've got air conditioning, and the window's up.
	We drive around...
	We drive around in 40-degree weather with a top-down, the heater blaring, you know, and, you know, drive around in the rain sometimes as long as there's not a lot of traffic and we don't have to stop.
	You know, if we can keep it going 30 miles an hour and it's not raining real heavy, we don't get wet.
	I've got a comment here.
	The Miata is brilliant at that. You know, I've pointed out to people, as long as you keep moving, you know, in a Miata with a top-down, even in a thunderstorm, you're fine.
	You won't get soaked as long as you can keep moving.
	Right. What happened to us was we had to stop, and then I've got one with a power top on it, and that takes 12 seconds, and we got absolutely soaked.
	But now I've got one that I bought a little aftermarket thing that I put in, and it lets you override the controls that stop it if you're not stopped.
	And so I can raise the top while I'm still going 30 miles an hour.
	Yeah. It's the best of both worlds.
	I don't have to stop.
	I don't have to get wet. I've got a comment here on Rumble from Sprumford.
	He says, I've got a 73 Vet, never getting rid of it.
	Absolutely. We've all got older cars that we wish that we had not gotten rid of, don't we?
	Yeah, when we were at the museum the other day, it just brought back memories of what it was like when I was a kid going to a new car showroom and how exciting it was to see how many different kinds of cars there were.
	Every possible combination, every possible feature, just differences, whereas now they're all so bleakly the same, the same extruded plastic blobs.
	You know, they had things like, oh, they had, I'm just pulling this stuff out of my hat, but they had a Saab Sonnet there.
	They had a couple of Pacers.
	They even had a Chrysler Cordoba.
	It was wonderful.
	With fine Corinthian leather, right?
	With rich Corinthian leather, absolutely.
	The commercial went, yeah, all about those things.
	This is, I've got a person here who left a tip.
	Thank you so much, Christo.
	Thank you.
	Left $2.
	Said, sorry, it's not $2.50.
	Well, thank you.
	You know what?
	Every little bit matters.
	And if we had...
	Most of the people who listen to the program don't contribute.
	If they would give $2, that would do the budget right there.
	So I do appreciate that.
	Thank you. There's an article here about Mississippi passing a bill restricting electric car dealerships.
	And, of course, this is aimed at Tesla.
	And they're doing this for the established automakers who now are directly competing against Tesla.
	And... And, you know, they're saying, well, we're saying that if you choose to have a brick-and-mortar dealership, you have to follow the same laws that everybody else has to follow.
	Please don't tell me that Tesla's car doesn't identify as a car.
	I've seen the same type of thing, Eric, with Uber, right?
	And Lyft in Austin, they were saying, well, you know, we've had a couple of situations, and there were national reports as well.
	They didn't have to follow the rules that taxis did, right?
	And so there's all kinds of regulations as well know for taxis.
	And you'd be surprised at how many there are there.
	I did a report one time when I was in Washington, DC, and I just let a taxi driver there talk about the white glove treatment that they got from the special people that were there just to harass taxi drivers.
	And of course, Uber and Lyft didn't have to do any of that stuff.
	And so in Austin, they were saying, well, we want Uber and Lyft to have to vet their drivers and things like that, like the taxi drivers do.
	And everybody said, oh, no, we don't want to do that.
	And it's like, well, how about we go the other way?
	How about we just take off some of these regulations off of some of the taxis?
	And you could go that way and you could say, well, let's take off some of the regulations on these brick-and-mortar stores, but they will always go to taking each other down to the lowest level.
	Instead of trying to remove any restrictions, they'll add more restrictions to other people, won't they?
	Yeah, I'm a free market guy.
	I don't see why the state should have any involvement whatsoever in a free market exchange.
	However, that Every transaction happens to go as long as it's freely engaged in by the parties.
	I'll defend Tesla here.
	If somebody wants to buy one of their cars on the internet, why shouldn't they be able to do that?
	I don't see why Tesla or anybody else should be obliged to have a brick and mortar store in order to sell a vehicle.
	That's right. Something I talked about last week, you've got an excellent article on it, and that is the new move, the new patents by Ford, about how, well, if we've got to repossess a car, you know, we can shut down the air conditioning, or we can shut down this, or we can shut down the motor, or once we get to the point where we can have a self-driving car, we'll have it repossess itself.
	But you went in, and the article that you got on your site, at the very top of the article, you got a picture from the patent application, which was something that I had not seen.
	Tell people what else they're doing.
	This is not simply about repossession of a car.
	Tell them what else is there. Yeah, superficially, how could you argue with repossessing a car?
	If you don't pay for your loan, well, I don't have a problem with the person who you welished getting their property back.
	That's a perfectly legitimate thing.
	But if you look in the patent application, it's all about the connectedness of the vehicle and not just to the lender and not just to the manufacturer, but they also had a little diagram showing it was connected to the medical system and the police system so that you could see where this is headed, that in the future, if you don't get your vaccine, let's say, or you don't wear your face diaper, that then they can simply shut off your car or even repossess it or take it away from you for noncompliance.
	And that is the sort of future that they have in mind for us.
	That's the amazing thing.
	You know, when I talked about it, I kind of talked about it from the standpoint, well, that tells us something about where Ford sees the economy going, right?
	And that is ramping up now.
	They sold a lot of people, automobile loans, as you and I have been talking about for years, how expensive the cars have gotten because of federal mandates and everything.
	People are having to take them out to seven-year loans and that type of thing, and they can't sustain this.
	So they see a big wave of repos coming.
	So they're talking about how can we get these things back.
	I talked about it from that standpoint as well.
	But when you look at this diagram, go ahead and pull that diagram back up again, Travis.
	The top two things that they've got on their patent thing are, you know, the two things that you would expect, a repossession agency and a lending institution, right?
	You would expect those. But the top two things that they've got are the police authority and the medical facility.
	Yep. Yeah. Ground your car because, what, you haven't had your vaccine?
	What's... Right, exactly.
	And they talk about this Internet of Things, this connectedness of everything, which is exactly what it sounds like.
	You know, there's no longer discrete, independent, under-your-control stuff.
	Your stuff is always tethered to, connected to, some kind of a centralized control apparat that can, at its whim, simply revoke your conditional use, your privilege, to be allowed to use what you thought was your property.
	Sounds to me like a Trump freedom city.
	Yes, exactly. That's what it's for.
	That's what the freedom cities, the 15-minute cities, the smart cities for slaves.
	That's what all this stuff is about.
	To get a picture of this, I like to reference this to people who don't remember it.
	There was a great show, I'm sure you'll remember it, that the BBC did back in the 60s called The Prisoner with Patrick McGowan.
	And he was a recalcitrant secret agent man who attempted to quit the secret agency.
	They gassed him and knocked him out and they took him to the village where he was kept isolated and couldn't get away.
	And it was kind of a prison without obvious barking German shepherds and guards, but he couldn't get away and everything was completely under the control of whoever controlled the village.
	That's right. And they would do things to him if he was unmutual.
	So if you're on mutual, they'll do things to you.
	And that's where this medical thing really comes in.
	Have you been following this?
	I forget what state it's in.
	I've got it here somewhere. But there's a lady who they diagnosed as having tuberculosis.
	And they said, well, we want you to go in quarantine.
	And she said, I don't want to go into quarantine.
	Maybe she didn't think she had tuberculosis, or maybe she just doesn't want to go into quarantine.
	And so now they put out a warrant for her arrest, and they're going to go arrest her.
	Well, that's what this would be for. Right?
	To do that type of thing.
	We've got, you know, the WHO's got a new, you know, virus of the week, and they say this is going to kill everybody, and we have determined that you may have been exposed to somebody who may have been exposed to somebody who may have had it, so we're going to come arrest you.
	You know, that's the type of thing that they're going to use this for.
	And, you know, when you talk about this, we've had tuberculosis for a long time.
	I'd like to see them come to Doc Holliday and tell them that...
	We're going to take him away.
	You'd probably reply and say, I'm your Huckleberry.
	You do whatever you think you do.
	Electric cars are uniquely amenable to this form of control.
	They are literally tethered to a plug and then to a utility.
	And the utility is not under your control.
	And they can closely meter and ration your ability to get power for the EV. And then, of course, they can simply turn the EV off.
	Very simple. It's much more difficult.
	They cannot disconnect a car like my old Trans Am, for example, or any pre-computer, pre-connected car.
	You know, as long as I have gas for it and they haven't fired an EMP at me, the thing is going to start and run and I'll be able to drive it.
	That's right. Yeah, that's why they blow these things up with all of these gadgets and devices, is so they can turn them off and have it under their complete control.
	Speaking of having things under their complete control, you got an article about CBDC. And you refer to it as the Digital Lexington.
	Tell us why you call it that.
	And you start your article with a reference to the Tsar.
	Talk about that. Yeah, well, there are events in history.
	One of them is the so-called Windsor Massacre that occurred in 1905 outside of St.
	Petersburg, where people had peacefully assembled unarmed people to express their grievances to the Tsar.
	And what happened was the Tsar's imperial guards mowed them down with sabers and gunfire.
	And at that point, people realized that the Tsar was not a nice man, that he was a malicious man.
	He didn't care about them at all.
	And that became the catalyst that led, unfortunately, to the revolution that put the communists in power.
	In our own country, we have Lexington and Concord, where it became...
	It was clear to the colonists that the British couldn't be reasoned with, that these people were going to – they were intent upon subjugating the colonies.
	They sent British troops out to take away the munitions that had been stored in Lexington and Concord, and that made the revolution inevitable.
	And I think this CBDC thing is of a piece.
	I think people who get it understand that this can't stand, and if it does stand, we're doomed.
	We have to stand our ground on this one and fight, no matter what it takes.
	I agree. Yeah, you mentioned it very beginning.
	In history, there are events that are better described as turning points.
	And I think, I'm not going to go on the weeds.
	I have an opportunity, and I've told people that I'm not going to be here tomorrow and the next day.
	I have an opportunity to speak to the Tennessee Senate.
	Senator Frank Nicely is trying to get a state bank as well as a metals depository.
	And there are other southern states that are trying to do this as well.
	And they're doing this to try to create something of a parallel system to the Federal Reserve system, which is both shaky in terms of, you know, economics of it.
	it, the deficit, inflation, that getting out of control, losing reserve status.
	What is that going to do to our country?
	But then this CBDC is one of the key things.
	And it's something that is just now people are starting to become a little bit aware of.
	And I think it is a turning point.
	And I think, Eric, part of it, and I'm not going to get into this with them, but part of it, I'm absolutely convinced that they know what they're doing.
	They're trying to completely change the world because we're at a point of fourth turning.
	we're at a point of fourth turning.
	I don't know if you're familiar with Strauss and Howe, the fourth turning.
	I don't know if you're familiar with Strauss and Howe, the fourth turning.
	You know, every 80 years, things are changing.
	Every 80 years, things are changing, and we are synced up on a global cycle.
	And we are synced up on a global cycle.
	And so they have an opportunity to change all the institutions globally at the same time, and to leverage their technology, and to do it on the kind of cycle where it's a turning point, and everybody is fed up with the corrupt institutions that we've got.
	They're ready for a change, and they want to seize that and spin it and take over control in their way.
	I think we truly are at a turning point.
	No question.
	We have had the Federal Reserve controlling the supply of money in this country now since 1913, so more than 100 years, and they've been able to manipulate that power to create boom and bust cycles.
	But they've never actually been able to control us literally and in real time, and that's what would be possible with this digitized money, which you would only be allowed to use if you were obedient, and which they could turn off at any time they liked or simply take.
	People have pointed out, you know, if all of your money is in an app on your phone, it wants to stop the government or corporations from simply saying, well, we've just decided to debit you for however much as your climate tax, let's say.
	What are you going to do about it? That's right.
	And as you point out, this has been Biden's fixation from day one.
	Just like his fixation has been to remove our energy, his fixation has also been to completely reorganize our financial system and put it under the direct control of the Federal Reserve.
	The... Saleh Amarova, who is a dyed-in-the-wool Marxist.
	She graduated from Linden University before the Soviet Union fell.
	He was going to put her in as control of the currency because this has been on their agenda from day one.
	And a year ago, last March, she put out a thing for all of the bureaucracies under the executive branch to come up with a plan for how they're going to implement CBDC. But, you know, it's interesting.
	We just had Trump at CPAC, and we had Nikki Haley and Pompeo and all these other people who want to run for president.
	Crickets about CBDC from them.
	Absolutely nothing. Instead, he tells us about his Freedom City.
	It's comical. I think this issue, the CBDC thing, should dwarf all others because they are subsidiary to it and none of them will matter at all if this ends up coming to fruition.
	Yeah. So I got a question here from listeners, Brian, Deb McCarthy.
	Do you have a link to where we can watch you speaking?
	I don't, but I think that I'm going to be able to get a copy of it.
	If I do, I'll definitely play it for you.
	I would just say, everybody, you know, please be in prayer for this because, you know, there's going to be people who are not going to be amenable to hearing about any of it.
	They may be already know about it.
	They're already in favor of it. But I think there are some people who may not know about it.
	And so we just, you know, pray that God will move in a way that, whether it's me or somebody else, that they will hear what is about to come upon us.
	And I cannot understand why anybody would want this.
	As a matter of fact, we've got a Federal Reserve governor who says, I can understand why China would want this.
	Why would we want this?
	There's no need that this fills except for an authoritarian government.
	That is exactly the only thing that this is for.
	Yeah, and I hope a sufficiency of people understand that because if they do, this will die in the crib and hopefully be strangled with both hands very quickly.
	Yeah, Rosemary's baby is right in the crib right now.
	We better not grow it into adulthood.
	Thank you so much for joining us, Eric Peters.
	Again, you can find Eric's excellent stuff on freedom and the freedom to move at epautos.com.
	Thank you, Eric. Always a pleasure talking to you.
	Likewise, David. Thank you.
	Thank you.
	And please do keep us in your prayers that this will be productive.
	The David Knight Show is a critical thinking super spreader.
	If you've been exposed to logic by listening to The David Knight Show, Please, do your part and try not to spread it.
	Financial support or simply telling others about the show causes this dangerous information to spread farther.
	People have to trust me.
	I mean, trust the science.
	Wear your mask.
	Take your vaccine.
	Don't ask questions.
	Using free speech to free minds.

▲