Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 30, 2023 - The David Knight Show

03:00:57

30Mar23 Why Do Trans Refer to "Genocide"? And, RESTRICT Act: Perfect Tool for Operation Chokepoint 2.0 Attack on Crypto

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Using free speech to free minds.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	As the clock strikes 13, it's Thursday, the 30th of March, year of our Lord, 2023.
	Day 1113 of the Executive Order Emergency Institute.
	Today we're going to take a look at another use of emergency powers that is being pushed.
	And something that is going to be transformative in the way that it attacks our liberty, especially our speech, but also information and its ability to be sent.
	And it is amazing to see how they're working to do it.
	It's always the same method to create a massive bureaucracy or to create a bureaucrat who is a dictator.
	We'll be right back. Stay with us.
	Music I want to talk about the restrict
	act. And this has been percolating.
	There's a couple of different things. It's a little bit confusing in the Senate because Josh Hawley has got a banned TikTok act and that was shut down yesterday.
	But there's something that is far more dangerous that has attached itself to this idea on the show trials that they've had about the TikTok CEO. The idea that TikTok is some unique threat to our society.
	I think it is...
	It is ridiculous. But if you can shut down TikTok, of course, you can shut down any social media network, any kind of communication.
	But the Restrict Act is something that is very broad, very vague, and very dangerous, I think.
	And there was an excellent article on Reason Magazine, could the Restrict Act criminalize even the use of VPNs, virtual private networks?
	And as they point out, states are considering mandatory anti-porn filters and a lot of other things.
	And we've had, it's not so much the porn filters.
	When I look at the porn filters, what they're talking about is even requiring companies that have porn filters already, like Apple and Samsung, to make them the default.
	Why should we get upset about that?
	In a sense, I think making it opt-in instead of opt-out, I think that does make sense.
	I think the default position would be that when I turn on my phone, I don't get hit with porn.
	But we're talking about that.
	We're not talking about banning. It's not the same thing as some of these states...
	That are saying, well, if you want to go to one of these porn sites, you're going to have to give them your state ID and register with them and all this other kind of stuff.
	That is a backdoor to controlling us and identifying us to getting rid of anonymity on the internet and doing it to control something that the government will never control.
	We have to get over the idea that government can protect us or protect our kids from drugs and We've got to get over the idea that government can protect us or protect our kids from porn.
	These are spiritual issues.
	This is not the wheelhouse of government.
	There has to be some...
	I understand that it is coming at people.
	Drugs and pornography are far more prevalent every passing year.
	But it should tell us something that that's true of drugs when we've had drug prohibition for 50 years.
	There are some things that government cannot do.
	There are many things that government shouldn't even try to do.
	And so from a pragmatic standpoint, from the standpoint of giving too much power to government, these are the things that we need to pay attention to.
	And we need to not make government the be-all, the end-all, the solution to every problem.
	Because once we do that, once we make everything a federal case, because it's not just everybody's talking about the federal government doing it, of course.
	Because we don't even think about government at any other level anymore.
	That's how our thinking has been transformed by this idea that the government can fix everything.
	Who sold us that idea?
	The government. Through their media surrogates have sold us that false idea.
	So it has weakened our society.
	It is a form of dependency, if you will, on the government.
	Like a welfare dependency.
	Oh, yeah, we're here to help you.
	You're struggling to make some payments here.
	I've got some cash for you. All of a sudden, you find that you are dependent on the government.
	And we know what welfare has done to our country.
	We know what this idea that the government can fix everything has done to our country.
	So this is, again, Josh Hawley ran this thing about the TikTok, no TikTok thing.
	But the Restrict Act doesn't even mention TikTok in it.
	And it has some very, very troubling general procedures and massive, excessive fines and penalties as well.
	So, will it criminalize the use of EPN? This is Reason Magazine.
	They said that's the rumor floating around about the legislation which was introduced by Democrat Mark Warner out of Virginia.
	His office has said the bill would not do this, but the broad language leaves room for doubt.
	And the act is still insanely far-reaching and could have a huge range of deleterious effects, even if it doesn't criminalize people, using a VPN to access TikTok.
	Understand that TikTok is just a silly little thing.
	By the way, as Rand Paul has pointed out, TikTok is banned in China.
	And he said, do we want to become even more like China?
	And that is the point. This is about becoming more like China.
	This is about giving special powers to bureaucracy so they can essentially block whatever they wish.
	We've always talked about the great firewall of China, right?
	And the fact that they took the lead in censoring everything that they didn't like.
	And of course, interestingly enough, I was censored by YouTube when I said 2020 was the year that the world became China.
	Oh yeah? Well, we'll censor that.
	You just proved my point, right?
	Using a VPN with your computer, phone, or another internet-enabled device lets you mask your IP address.
	Encrypt your internet connection.
	It's a great way to get around location-based firewalls, geoblocking, and other forms of internet censorship.
	As a matter of fact, in this lawsuit by the SEC to shut down Binance, the biggest crypto market.
	That's one of the things they said.
	You told people to use VPNs so that you didn't have to bother with all this.
	Know your customer surveillance of people.
	Yeah, it's a very useful private tool.
	Don't wait for Binance to tell you about it.
	You know, I wonder though, as we're looking at this, I wonder, does a VPN, and I'm not sure if a VPN, maybe you know Travis, Does the VPN block your MAC ID or MAC address?
	You know, that's the number that identifies your particular computer.
	Not a Macintosh, but, you know, or an Apple iMac.
	But the MAC address is the thing that identifies the particular device that you're using.
	Seems to me like it'd be pretty easy for the government to create a list of different MAC IDs.
	Doesn't seem to.
	Yeah, seems like that would be a vulnerability.
	Anyway, privacy.
	VPNs are popular in countries that exercise authoritarian control over what citizens can access online.
	That's why as our country becomes China, becomes authoritarian, dictatorial, that must be stopped.
	So Josh Hawley introduced the TikTok ban bill back in January.
	And his bill, again, was blocked yesterday in the Senate.
	But he gets special mention for a dastardly effort, I should say.
	Because even though it was blocked, his TikTok ban bill was blocked.
	Listen to what he wanted to do.
	He wanted to direct the President to use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
	I want you to use the Executive Order, Emergency Executive Orders Act.
	I want you to act unilaterally.
	You see, these people in Congress, whether you're talking about senators or you're talking about people in the House of Representatives, they don't want to do their job.
	They don't want to.
	They're pushing and pushing and pushing.
	So we have a system where you have taxation without representation.
	We have regulation without representation.
	They have pushed all this stuff to the bureaucracy, or they have pushed it to the president.
	And of course, the bureaucracy is under the executive branch as well.
	So they keep pushing these things out because they don't want to be bothered with doing laws.
	That's a real boring thing.
	You know, they like these show hearings.
	And so they're just a bunch of showboaters doing video conferences.
	That's what Josh Hawley is doing.
	And to push that we're going to have the President use Emergency Powers Act, the Emergency Economic Powers Act, as opposed to the Model State Health Emergency Powers Act, which was used to lock everything down for the last three years, that is 1,113 days old.
	Not only do these guys not do anything to stop that, you ever heard any Josh Hawley ever push back against that?
	Nah, none of these people.
	None of these people.
	They're fine with it. Why?
	Because Josh Hawley thinks someday he could be president.
	And he could be the dictator.
	And he could fix everything.
	You know, just going back to the Lord of the Rings, you know.
	Boromirs. They're a bunch of Boromirs.
	If only I had the ring!
	I could do it! No, no, you would turn into a monster.
	Okay, so we're 1113 days into this, and he wants to now add to our medical emergency dictatorship and economic emergency dictatorship powers to control our speech and what we are allowed to see.
	What could possibly go wrong with that?
	I wonder. What a fool Josh Hawley is.
	Maybe he's got some good things here, but I think there was some bill that he put up that was...
	Oh, yeah. In today's news, he did say, well, we need to have an inspector general.
	We need to know where this money is going in Ukraine.
	Okay. Well, that'd be nice.
	How about this? How about we have a constitution where the Congress has deliberations about whether or not we need to go to war with Russia?
	You want to do that? No, no.
	We'll just watch. Let's have an inspector general so we can pretend that we are fiscally responsible as we blow up the world.
	Okay? That's the Josh Hawley approach.
	What a fool this guy is.
	Anyway, now, the approach coming from Mark Warner, a Democrat, but he also has a Republican co-sponsor with this.
	And this is the thing that is truly...
	Dangerous as well, in a different way.
	It has, in this bill, instead of kicking the ball and giving all kinds of powers to the president, this is going to give all kinds of authorization and power to a bureaucracy.
	Restricting the emergence of security threats.
	And they call that the Restrict Act.
	I'm sorry. Here's the rest of it.
	They like to make these little acronyms out of it.
	It's like a Patriot Act type of thing.
	And it is like the Patriot Act.
	Very much like it. Restricting the emergence of security threats that risk information and communications technology.
	See, it spells restrict.
	Isn't that clever? It doesn't specifically mention TikTok.
	It doesn't mention the company that owns them, ByteDance.
	Instead, it would grant the U.S. Secretary of Commerce the broad power to, quote, identify, deter, disrupt, prevent, prohibit, investigate, and otherwise mitigate any risk arising from or any covered transaction by any person with respect to any property.
	This is wide open to everything.
	Everything. It's vague.
	They don't define what a covered transaction is, specifically.
	I mean, this is just broad.
	Giving this power.
	Do you know who the Secretary of Commerce is right now?
	Yeah, me neither.
	I do this for a living.
	Let me tell you something. If something like this goes through, That person's going to be a household worker because they're going to have their tentacles in everything that everybody does everywhere.
	The Secretary of Commerce.
	Who is the Secretary of Commerce, Travis?
	Look it up and let me know.
	I'm just curious if I've even heard the name.
	These include federal elections.
	Oh, oh. Well, okay, they could restrict what you have to say.
	They could restrict websites.
	They could come up with penalties of like a million dollars.
	Yeah, this is all in the bill.
	It's absolutely insane.
	The Commerce Secretary is Gina M. Raimondo?
	Yeah, okay.
	I know who Gina Raimondo is.
	She was the former, I think, governor of Rhode Island and a real tyrant.
	But, yeah, I didn't know that she was Commerce Secretary now.
	I remember Dan Badondi used to always rage about Gina Raimondo.
	Yeah. She was a piece of work, for sure.
	He was right about that, absolutely.
	Critical infrastructure of digital economy as well as coercive or criminal activities by a foreign adversary that are designed to undermine democratic processes.
	I think this is probably how ironic that something that gives this kind of broad power to an unelected bureaucrat Secretary of Commerce.
	And you want to talk about undermining democratic processes and institutions?
	Or if it would steer policy and regulatory decisions in favor of the strategic objectives of a foreign adversary to the detriment of the national security of the United States?
	The language, says Reason Magazine, the language of the Restrict Act applies to, is confusing at best.
	The Commerce Secretary will be authorized to take steps to address risks posed by any covered transaction by any person.
	So what is a covered transaction?
	Well, here's how it defines it.
	This gives you an idea of how complicated this is.
	And now look, just as a general principle, I've said this for a long time about the Income Tax Code, right?
	I don't remember who said the quote, but any law that is sufficiently complex...
	It's the same as having no law at all.
	A good example of that is the IRS code.
	You call the IRS and you say, well, I got a question about, oh, we can't answer that.
	It's too complicated. I can't go on the record as to tell you blah, blah, blah, right?
	And of course, depending on the mood of the person, if you get called in for an audit, depending on the mood of the person who's doing the audit, they could just let you go or they could nail you to the wall.
	Over imagined details of things that they imagined that you may have violated, and of course you have no presumption of innocence.
	They can do whatever they wish.
	So a complicated law, sufficiently complex, is the same as having nothing at all.
	So with that in mind, what is a covered transaction?
	Well, the bill states that this is, quote, a transaction in which an entity described in subparagraph B has any interest.
	Entities that were described in subparagraph B are, quote, a foreign adversary, an entity subject to the jurisdiction of or organized under the laws of a foreign adversary, and an entity owned, directed, or controlled by either of these.
	A foreign adversary could be any foreign government or regime that the Secretary deems to be a national security threat today.
	Today. So as they point out, it's a bit gobbledygooked.
	But this could be read to imply that any person using a VPN to access an app controlled by a foreign adversary or its alleged minions is subject to the secretary's ire.
	Hence, anyone using a VPN to access TikTok then would be in trouble.
	Specifically, subject up to $1 million in fines and 20 years in prison or both.
	And this is from a government that is throwing around these bogus charges of seditious treason, you know, seditious conspiracy, is it?
	I think, yeah, seditious conspiracy.
	20 years of pop at people for January the 6th.
	Some people who are not even there, and on and on.
	Warner's office says this isn't so.
	You don't have to worry about this.
	Spokesperson there told Newsweek, The provisions only apply when someone is, quote, engaged in sabotage or subversion of communications technology in the U.S. or if they are causing catastrophic effects on U.S. critical infrastructure or if they are interfering in or altering the result of a federal election.
	Hmm. Looks like this would be a way for them to lock up everybody that had a question about corruption in the last election.
	Shut up. Oh, you said something about that?
	Well, you're going to go to jail.
	You don't even have to go to Washington.
	You don't even have to have agent provocateurs causing and encouraging and so forth violence.
	You don't have to have any of that.
	You know, somebody just opens their mouth and criticizes, has a question about it.
	Why are we doing this?
	Ballot harvesting stuff.
	Why are we voting by mail with everybody?
	Why are they sending the ballots out to everybody?
	Why are people getting multiple ballots?
	I would not have to say that.
	Well, you were casting aspersion on the election.
	We've seen how this works.
	You know, you get kicked off of social media now, you know, because you are not now, but then because you're questioning the election.
	The Restrict Act targets companies like Kaspersky, Huawei, TikTok.
	Not individual users, she said.
	Well, let's just understand.
	As I said, we've got these January 6th protesters charged as insurrectionists and seditious conspiracists.
	We've also had parents speaking up at a PTA meeting.
	They're called domestic terrorists and radicals, and we've had even traditional Catholics who support the Latin mass were called recently radicals, enemies of the state.
	So you don't think this is a government that's going to weaponize any and everything?
	Are people really that naive?
	Newsweek thinks you are.
	Reason doesn't go into all those obvious things, but they stick on the concerns about it.
	They said, we've seen many times the way federal laws are sold as attacks on big bad guys like terrorists and drug kingpins, yet they wind up being used to attack people in much more minor activities.
	Here's an example they don't give you.
	The RICO statutes.
	Racketeering and influence corrupt organizations.
	That was targeted at organized crime.
	You had law enforcement say, well, you know, we know these guys are organized crime.
	You know, they're doing gambling or prostitution or drugs or whatever.
	We can't get a conviction against them because they have so much money.
	They can hire the best lawyers and best lawyers can always find a technicality to get them off.
	And so what we're going to do is we're going to, under the RICO statute, We're going to confiscate all their assets before the trial.
	So they can't afford a lawyer.
	And then we've got them.
	And so they started doing that. But it wasn't too long until they started using the RICO statute against abortion protesters.
	Besides, the Restrict Act doesn't just state that no person may engage in any conduct prohibited by or contrary to its provisions.
	It also says, listen to this, no person may cause or aid, abet, counsel, command, induce, procure, permit, or approve the doing of any act that is prohibited by this.
	You see how broad this is?
	You know, they went through, they exhausted the thesaurus.
	They went to the, you know, they went to the dictionary of the thesaurus and they found every adjective they could.
	For anybody that's kind of on the side of this and might influence in any way, if you aid, abet, counsel, command, induce, procure, permit, or approve of anybody doing anything that we've just prohibited, well, you're just as guilty.
	You see how broad they're casting the net for this?
	Every kind of activity?
	That language leaves even more room.
	That's the reason. Yeah, I would say it does.
	For the Restrict Act to touch a wide range of activities.
	So, even if the law would never be used to attack citizens from merely using VPNs, Let
	me tell you, They don't mention this.
	This is part of Operation Chokepoint 2.0 against cryptos.
	This is why they're so desperate to do this type of stuff.
	They must shut down crypto.
	And they're trying to lay the legal authority to do this.
	The so-called legal authority.
	There's no way under the Constitution the federal government has the power to do any of this kind of stuff.
	But of course, you know, try to stop us, they'll say, if they push this thing through.
	This is really directed at shutting down crypto, first of all.
	But it's going to be coming after everybody in every sort of way.
	This is really where it is.
	Again, Reason talks about the fact that VPNs are part of this, but they don't see how central the moves against Binance, the central part of that was VPN. Oh, you don't know your customer. You don't even know what country they're in.
	How could you know your customer? You don't know what country they're in.
	You people are trying to escape my panopticon.
	I'm going to get you. You know, this is the thing, the way that they can do it.
	Up to a million dollars.
	Why are these fines so high?
	Again, it points to crypto.
	As reasons, Rabbe Soave asked yesterday, can we really expect the veritable army of federal bureaucrats obsessed with policing speech on social media platforms?
	Can we expect people like that to narrowly utilize this new mandate to deter foreign threats?
	And to focus solely on the Chinese Communist Party?
	Or should we anticipate that every weapon added to their arsenal is a threat to the free speech rights of everyday Americans?
	That's what it is.
	It's a war against us.
	Everything our government is doing is ultimately against us.
	And, of course, the weapons that they use abroad always become instruments of tyranny at home.
	Founding fathers understood that.
	Madison said that. This bill isn't about banning TikTok.
	It's never about what they say it is, said Tucker Carlson.
	Instead, this bill would give enormous and terrifying new powers to the federal government to punish American citizens and regulate how they communicate with one another.
	But nobody is talking about the fact this is targeted towards crypto.
	I mean, we say this is very dangerous, broad powers, and they can do all kinds of crazy.
	But immediately, they're going to use this against crypto.
	I'm telling you, that's the immediate issue that they're not talking about.
	And we should be concerned about that, because...
	And I say that as somebody who doesn't really bother with crypto.
	I don't feel that it's secure.
	And it concerns me in a number of different ways.
	But it bothers me that they would ban it.
	They should never have the power to ban that.
	Quite frankly, the Constitution doesn't give them the power to do it.
	We should never let them usurp that power.
	That's what I should say. This is not an effort to push back against China, said Carlson.
	It's part of a strategy to make America much more like China.
	Well, that's my take on it.
	Everything that we've been seeing for the last three years, from Trump, from Biden, everything, is to turn us into China.
	They're not even trying to hide it anymore.
	It goes on to say, to make America more like China with the government in charge of what you read, what you see, with terrifying punitive powers at their fingertips.
	He says, we've seen this before from national security states again and again, confronted with a foreign adversary, for example, after 9-11.
	The federal government uses the opportunity to expand their police powers over the American population, and they do it under false pretexts, and they do it quickly by whipping people into a panic.
	Now, Tucker Carlson, he says, you know, we had a foreign adversary in 9-11.
	We didn't have a foreign adversary in 9-11.
	Tucker Carlson has always opposed the idea that 9-11 is an inside job.
	He's openly mocked people who point out the flaws and the fallacies of the official story.
	He's always discounted the witnesses there.
	And he still does.
	So he can be right about some of this stuff, but he still doesn't get the big picture here.
	Still doesn't get it.
	Rand Paul made similar points in an op-ed piece that he wrote.
	He said, before banning TikTok, these censors might want to discover that China's government already bans TikTok itself.
	He says, hmm, do we want to emulate China's speech bans?
	TikTok must be banned, the censors say, because they're owned and controlled by the Chinese Communist government.
	But does TikTok do the Chinese government's bidding?
	Well, go to the app and search for the Falun Gong, the anti-communist religious sect that is persecuted in China.
	Go to TikTok and search for videos advocating Taiwan's independence, criticism of Xi Jinping.
	These kinds of videos are all over TikTok, and they're critical of official Chinese positions.
	And that is why TikTok is banned in China.
	So how closely tied to China are they?
	Here's the thing, you know, when I talked to Peter...
	Shire, I think is the way you pronounce it.
	I forget his last name. But anyway, we're talking about The Four Battlegrounds, the book that he wrote.
	Excellent book to give you an idea of the mindset of the military-industrial complex and their obsessive push towards artificial intelligence.
	to be used not as a general intelligence, but to augment their abilities and their existing machines.
	And when you look at that and you realize what the Chinese are doing and you realize how obsessed the U.S. government is and how we want to go to war with them, it's a very important thing to see that.
	But it is also this public persona of building China into this boogeyman so they can do things to us as well. - Okay.
	Rand Paul goes on to say, as Drs.
	Mueller and Farhat of Georgia Tech write, they said, quote, If nationalistic fears about Chinese influence operations lead to a departure from American constitutional principles, supporting free and open political discourse, we will have succeeded in undermining our system of government more effectively than the Chinese propaganda could do.
	Problem is, our educational, government educational institutions, especially from the Department of Education on down, have been departing from our constitutional principles.
	That is a key part of the system.
	So, again, reason goes on to start talking about the anti-porn filters, which is, as I said, they would force...
	Phone and tablet manufacturers like Apple and Samsung to automatically enable filters that censor nude and sexually explicit content.
	I don't see that as an infringement.
	I see that as...
	And again, they're directing and telling the companies what to do.
	I think if the companies...
	They put it there.
	Why would the companies make it as an option that you've got to opt out, that the default position is that they're going to show you all this stuff?
	Well, we know what the ethics of these companies are.
	We know what they are pushing.
	And so, in a sense, I don't see that as a...
	Certainly, you could argue that the government doesn't have the authority to do that, and they don't.
	But, of course, they're doing all kinds of things that they don't have the authority to do.
	And so, you could oppose it on that basis...
	And I would say that it needs, I would say the government needs to be done, and I don't think it necessarily needs to be done by the federal government because they don't have the authority and don't want to start giving them broad authority.
	But I think it'd be appropriate for the state of Tennessee to say that.
	You want to sell Apple computers here?
	Well, you've got to ship them so that, and if enough states do that, that has that effect.
	But just from a standpoint of government overreach, other than the fact that they're using authority that they don't have, legal authority that they don't have, I don't see a problem with that.
	It's not the same as state governments.
	Coming in and...
	In other words, it doesn't create...
	It violates the...
	You know, if the federal government does it, it violates the power.
	But it's not setting up a dangerous precedent like saying you've got to have...
	You've got to show us your ID in order to get there.
	And that's being done at some state levels.
	Saying you're not going to get to these sites unless you show us an ID. That's to remove...
	Anonymity. And so that's a gradual step into a process of removing anonymity from the internet.
	It's not just a usurpation of authority, and it's not usurpation of authority if the states do it.
	This would not have any...
	Secondary issues. The only issue is does the federal government have that authority?
	That's what I'm trying to say. Anyway, the Restrict Act.
	Back to the Restrict Act. Introduced by Mark Warner as Republican Tom Thune of South Dakota.
	I'm assuming that's the way he pronounces his name.
	If he was German, it'd be Thune.
	I think it's Thune.
	But they're the ones who are pushing this.
	And... The people who have signed on to it, the Republicans who have signed on to it, are Thune Fisher from Nebraska.
	Let's just go down the...
	There's enough of them that they can get this through.
	Because you know that all the Democrats are for anything that gives them absolute control and undefined boundaries of control over ourselves.
	So you can count on all the Democrats being there.
	And this is what is so concerning.
	Because in addition to the Democrats, you've got 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 Republicans.
	And of course, these are the usual suspects.
	Like Lindsey Graham. Tom Tillis out of North Carolina.
	Chuck Grassley, Kevin Kramer, Mitt Romney, Susan Collins, Shelley Capito, Dan Sullivan, Jerry Moran.
	So we need to let these people have a piece of our mind because we do not want to have...
	So, again, TikTok bills could dangerously expand national security state.
	I think it is first and primarily about crypto.
	I think it also sends a warning to Twitter and other social media that you will be the deputized state.
	And as the government gets more and more bold about this, and they are less and less concerned about hiding what they're doing as they get more and more dangerous, I think that this is sending a message to them as well.
	Dr. Len Finn, under the name of Finderella1 on Twitter, says the TikTok ban is nothing but a distraction while they try to push the Restrict Act into law.
	That's it. It creates confusion.
	A lot of people see this nonsense from Josh Hawley and say, well, okay, that's about TikTok and they've had the hearings and so forth.
	Oh, the restrict ban? Oh, that's, you know, because now they've shut down the Josh Hawley thing.
	So people are like, okay, good.
	That's silly. It's not going anywhere.
	No, the restrict act is still there.
	And as I said, look at all those Republicans who are signing on to it.
	If this bill gets passed, We lose almost all privacy that we have.
	The attached screenshots she's got, this is a thread she has on Twitter.
	Highlight only a few of my concerns with this bill.
	Any software, hardware, or any other product or service integral to the telecommunications products and services with over 1 million users is included in this.
	And so the Secretary of Commerce, given broad powers, To lord it over desktop applications, mobile applications, gaming applications, payment applications, web-based applications.
	These are all listed there.
	And they said information and communication technology products and services integral to artificial intelligence, quantum key distribution, quantum communications, quantum computing, post-quantum cryptography.
	You see, they're Setting this up for the future.
	Quantum is ability for them to be able to get in and unravel your codes and that type of thing.
	These are all future technologies that are not currently in operation.
	This is a sweeping transfer of power to the government for the things that are coming now.
	This is just unbelievable what's in it.
	Anyway, she said they can review any and all of your personal information without even notifying you that they're doing so, which again, they've been doing, but they keep it secret.
	Now they do it openly, overtly, instead of covertly.
	They can ban any game, any application, or anything that they see fit.
	And so when you look at where this is finally going, she said the Restrict Act would allow the government to have access to all of the data on your devices, If it is a service that uses more than a million people, they will have access to the video.
	This includes services like ring, doorbell, in-home security cameras, and so much more.
	You know, we were talking about the fact that the surveillance of the government is a violation of quartering of troops in your home.
	Because it wasn't just about them, you know, sitting on the couch and eating chips and watching TV, right?
	It was about them observing you closely to see what your attitudes, your political beliefs are as well.
	It wasn't just an imposition, an inconvenience.
	It wasn't just an expense.
	It was a probe of you.
	What is your attitude towards our soldiers?
	And as they pointed out, the New American, the NSA said, is proud of the fact that it is part of the military.
	You have to be a military officer to be head of the NSA and the rest of this stuff.
	A VPN won't help you to get around this and if you're caught using it you'll face up to 20 years in prison and or A million dollars in fine.
	So we need to bring attention to our elected officials and make sure they stop this.
	It may not be stop, I don't think it's stoppable in the Senate, but it is stoppable in the House.
	And that's where we need to focus our efforts.
	So again, to give all this information to the Secretary of State, and even when you look at this vagueness that is there, You understand how this is how they work and this is how they have, how the Congress has deliberately abdicated its power.
	When you go back to Nancy Pelosi and you had the Obamacare bill, she said, well, we've got to pass it to find out what's in it.
	If she brings this thing in, it's thousands of pages long, gives people like 24 hours to look at this thousand page long legal document that is complicated.
	No, we just don't have time. We've got to pass it.
	And then we'll find out what's in it.
	And everybody says, is she crazy?
	She's the dumbest broad you've ever...
	No. She was telling people the truth for once.
	Because they create these broad outlines of power.
	Sometimes the bill includes the creation of a new bureaucracy.
	Like Elizabeth Warren's...
	Consumer Financial Protection Act, or I forget the order of which those things are.
	But anyway, that was also used to put a lot of small and medium-sized banks out of business.
	But they put these types of things through.
	She created an entire bureaucracy with hers.
	But typically what they'll do is they'll find one like a commerce department.
	Let's send it over to the commerce department.
	And let's let the commerce department censor everybody's speech and activities on the Internet.
	And so they'll send it over there.
	They'll give them these broad sweeping powers.
	They'll describe everything in very general and broad terms.
	Give them a long list of adjectives of any kind of activity that somebody could be involved in.
	Well, all of that's going to apply.
	And then leave it up to the current and future bureaucrats who run the Commerce Department to come up with the details.
	And that's what Nancy Pelosi and all of them are doing.
	We pass these bills and then we let them run with it.
	Because they don't want to work out the details.
	They don't want to have their name on these dirty details that are going to be in there.
	They can always, if it gets out of hand and everybody gets upset, they can come in like some kind of a white knight and rescue everybody from this evil bureaucracy by fine-tuning the particular thing that you're upset about, but still leaving the dictatorial powers with that bureaucracy.
	That's the way this works.
	And so again, you know, the TikTok bill is, there is a bill that is the banned TikTok thing.
	That's Josh Hawley. That's been defeated.
	It's very much, think of the parallels of this to what's going on with the WHO. They have the pandemic treaty.
	And as people start to catch on to this pandemic treaty and realize how dangerous the pandemic treaty is, They come back and they start doing it through the rules.
	They start changing the rules, thinking that nobody will notice that.
	And guess what? Most people didn't notice that.
	And so they got you focused on the pandemic treaty, while they've got another structure over here to do this.
	So now in the Senate, you've got Josh Hawley with his TikTok ban, but now they've got the Restrict Act, which is far more general, far more dangerous.
	It doesn't even mention TikTok.
	But they allude to it as if it is the solution to that particular thing.
	The bill will give the Commerce Secretary the authority to deem what is considered to be sabotage or subversion.
	Just as we've seen them come up with things like insurrection.
	These definitions are shape-shifting, if ever there were one.
	And, of course, these types of fines to say that we're going to do something.
	One of the fines, you know, they've got fines from $250,000 up.
	The first tool of the government's arsenal is a civil penalty.
	What does that mean when it says a civil penalty?
	Well, this is going to be coming from the bureaucracy.
	It'll be a rule from the bureaucracy.
	This is not a law that's going to come from Congress.
	So it is a civil penalty.
	And you don't get, as I've said before, when we talk about civil asset forfeiture, civil penalties and everything, that means that you have no presumption of innocence.
	You have no due process.
	You have no protection against excessive fines.
	And so they come up with a civil penalty of up to $250,000.
	Imposed by the Secretary of Commerce on anyone who conducts a transaction that violates this act.
	So if they prohibit you dealing with finance or something, you know, they are doing everything to shut down crypto domestically within the banks right now.
	Telling all the banks, well, you know, you do this, we're going to coerce you into voluntarily closing as they did Silvergate.
	Or we're going to prohibit you from participating in the financial system?
	As we've seen a couple of different banks try to say, well, can we charter a bank that is going to deal directly with the Federal Reserve so we can clear payments?
	No, no, no. We're not going to let you do that.
	Deny it over and over again.
	Multiple people doing that.
	They put out one statement after the other to banks over the last couple of months before they shut these banks down saying you don't want to deal with crypto.
	So everybody's gotten the idea and everybody says, all right, fine, fine, fine.
	You know, these people are saying we'll go international, right?
	So then they sue Binance and one of the key things in Binance A suit from the SEC is to talk about VPN, the fact that they don't know their customer.
	So they're moving to make these companies abroad.
	So they're going to shut down all domestic ability to deal with crypto.
	Then they make these companies abroad appear to be criminal.
	By their definition, they declare them to be criminal, foreign.
	They want to get in the way of our Fed coin.
	Oh, they're bad.
	Okay? So they're criminal.
	Now, if you do a transaction with them, $250,000 fine.
	That's why these fines are so big, because it's about crypto.
	And then if you try to hide it through a VPN, oh, that's another million in addition to your $250,000 fine.
	The reason I say this is about crypto is because of these big dollar amounts.
	And of course, wasn't there something in the Constitution about excessive fines and something?
	Seems like it just...
	I don't know.
	It's been so long since anybody has referenced the Constitution, I get foggy on it, I guess.
	But $250,000 fine.
	But again, Josh Hawley wanted to vote on TikTok this week.
	They pretty much shut it down yesterday.
	It was a head fake.
	We'll be right back. The common man.
	They created common core to dumb 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.
	TheDavidKnightShow.com I want to read Gard's comment.
	Gard Goldsmith on Rockfin.
	Thank you very much, Gard, for the tip.
	I appreciate that. He says, David, thank you for covering this.
	Their TikTok narrative seemed so over-the-top, so astroturf and plastic.
	Yeah, so ridiculous from the beginning.
	I'm just like... I understood that it had a broader idea that, hey, if they're going to shut down TikTok, they're going to shut down Twitter if they don't like what Elon Musk is doing, that type of thing.
	But there were other things that I thought were more immediate to talk about.
	But once we get to this restrict thing and you see these massive fines and you see these broad powers that are being given...
	Yeah, it's got the sniff of coming after crypto.
	I believe that really is what it's ultimately about, too.
	Besides, it gives them arbitrary power to shut down and control the Internet completely, which is what these people have always wanted to do.
	It's always been a rope-a-dope.
	But anyway, going back to Gard.
	He said, it seems so over-the-top, so astroturf, so plastic.
	That there was something suspicious about it.
	Once I looked at S686 or Strict Act, it all became clear.
	They want to give themselves power to control online communication, including crypto communication.
	Thank you for this and all the great ways you help spread the word and help guys like me do so as well.
	Well, thank you, Guard, and thank you for what you do.
	Not just supporting us, but also for getting the truth out there.
	He does a great job with that.
	Liberty Conspiracies, where you'll find Guard as well as MRCTV. And on Rumble, Brian Potty, thank you very much.
	That is very generous.
	Very generous. I appreciate that.
	And is now a monthly supporter.
	Well, thank you very much. I can't say thank you enough about that.
	It is, you know, we are up right now to...
	We moved it up to 7.8, so we're right about 80% of where we need to be for the month.
	And so I really do appreciate everybody's support with that.
	Thank you so much. By the way, while I'm talking about it, Karen told me just before the show, we are out of size smalls on the t-shirt.
	They're starting to run out. We ran out on the...
	Original mug, the one that has the silver handle and the silver rim on it, that has sold out.
	We still have the First Coffee Then Save the World mug that is a favorite of Lala Harris.
	And I'll just remind you that it is microwavable safe and dishwasher safe.
	But I can't vouch for the fact that these people aren't going to ban dishwashers and microwaves in the near future.
	That's all I can say. So, that's a fight that we're going to have to have.
	About them taking the dishwashers and the microwaves from us and everything else in our life as well.
	Before we leave this, I've got more that I want to say about speech as well.
	And I should have talked about this sooner because, again, you know, when we talk about these hearings...
	I'm disinclined to cover them because I've seen Jim Jordan do this kind of stuff over and over again and nothing ever happens with it.
	And there were some funny things out of it that these Democrats, when they were talking to Matt Taibbi, pretending that he wasn't a legitimate journalist and, you know, all these other...
	What a joke.
	These people are. And they had some fun with it.
	It kind of showed how dense these Congress critters are questioning them.
	But then this happened.
	It happened at the beginning of the week, and it got shoved to the side with everything that was happening with the trans shooting.
	And I'm going to talk about that as well coming up today.
	Because now the interesting thing is how they're doubling down on this.
	And how they're being left alone.
	And I've got an idea now.
	Really, when I saw genocide, I thought, how in the world is stopping this psychological manipulation and gaslighting of children, this mutilation by surgery and chemicals of children, how is that genocide?
	And I've got an answer for you.
	And I'm going to get to that one.
	It makes perfectly good sense to me why they would use that word now.
	So you can think about it. I'll tell you my thoughts about it.
	It came to me this morning as I was doing the news.
	But anyway, what happened that I thought was really important about this hearing was that as Jim Jordan has Matt Taibbi and others there talking about the Twitter files, Talking about the information that Elon Musk turned over to Matt and to other journalists.
	Showing how the government was really running the censorship thing from the get-go, as I've always said.
	That Twitter was part of the deputized state.
	That it was always the iron fist of censorship from the government.
	But it had a plausible deniability, or you could say the Iron Fist was in a velvet glove, so you don't really think that it is soft.
	You think these people are doing it just because of their It's hatred of free speech, but no, it's the government that was doing it and using them.
	And that is the big value, I think, of the Twitter files, is that finally, you know, the libertarian and conservatives stop saying, well, you know, a corporation is a person and they can do whatever they want to you, right? No, they can't.
	No, they can't. There's limits.
	And they're not a person.
	They are a government-created entity.
	They don't have, corporations do not have, rights endowed by them by their creator.
	Because those come from God.
	Privileges come from government.
	Rights come from God.
	Only humans have rights.
	And we better get that straight.
	Because people are going to get confused about what is human with artificial intelligence and robots.
	Real quick. Real quickly.
	And so we better understand that distinction.
	Really got to understand that distinction.
	Anyway, Jim Jordan is demanding documents after the IRS attempted to intimidate Matt Taibbi coming to his house to investigate him while he was doing the Washington hearing.
	That's what's newsworthy about this.
	Because we had all this information already before Jim Jordan had his dog and pony show and grabbed the limelight.
	Again, you know, these guys can do something.
	They don't need to hold these hearings.
	They can introduce bills or whatever, but it's just about, you know, getting into the spotlight for them.
	But as this is happening, they weaponize the IRS against Matt Taibbi.
	And that is very concerning.
	As the Wall Street Journal reports, Mr.
	Taibbi was told in a call with the agent that both his 2018 and 2021 tax returns had been rejected, owing to concerns over identity theft.
	It had nothing to do with money.
	As a matter of fact, Matt says, they owe me a lot of money.
	On these income tax returns.
	Well, you know, we're not going to accept your return because we're worried about identity theft.
	So now you're in trouble because you didn't turn in your return.
	Reminds me of Ammon Bundy when he was in Idaho fighting all this mask stuff, right?
	And so they, and all the pandemic and all the rest of the things.
	Refusing to comply with anything.
	So they gave him a ticket for one of these things.
	And I forget what. Something like he wouldn't wear a mask or something.
	And he goes to the courthouse.
	And you can't get in on the date that he's got a court date.
	And they wouldn't let him in because he wouldn't wear a mask.
	And then they said that he'd skipped the court date.
	And so then they upped the penalty.
	Said, oh, you just blew off this court date.
	Now this is really serious.
	And he's got the piece of paper that says that he was ticketed there at that time and not allowed to come in, but they, you know, are flexing their muscle with this.
	This is what they're doing, Matt. They're saying, well, you know, you didn't turn in your tax return.
	I did turn in multiple times.
	Well, we're concerned that there's identity theft and we're not accepting it.
	And so now we're going to come after you for not turning it in.
	This is the type of authoritarian state that we've always been warned about.
	The kind of thing that you would typically see that they eventually fall into.
	The journalist has provided House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan's committee with documentation showing his 2018 return had been electronically accepted.
	He says the IRS never notified him or his accountants of a problem after he filed the 2018 return more than four and a half years ago.
	He says the IRS initially rejected his 2021 return, which he later refiled, and it was rejected again, even though Mr.
	Taibbi says his accountants refiled it with an IRS-provided PIN number.
	Mr. Taibbi notes that in neither case was the issue monetary and that the IRS owes him a considerable sum.
	The bigger question on everybody's mind is simple.
	Since when did the IRS dispatch agents for surprise house calls?
	Is this the new $80 billion budget being well spent to send a message to a reporter telling the truth?
	Yeah, the 87,000 agents and, you know, growing the agency by like a factor of seven so that you can intimidate people politically.
	The coincidental timing of this unannounced IRS agent visit prompted Jim Jordan to write to the IRS commissioner and to Janet Yellen.
	She's the Treasury Secretary.
	The IRS is under the Department of Treasury.
	He said, in light of the hostile reaction to Mr.
	Taibbi's reporting among left-wing activists and the IRS's history as a tool of government abuse, the IRS's actions could be interpreted as an attempt to intimidate a witness before Congress.
	And so we expect your full cooperation on this, on our inquiry.
	And they have given them Until April the 10th to comply with the request.
	So, who wants to bet? They'll probably write them a letter back and be nonspecific about it.
	I doubt that they'll just stonewall them completely.
	The committee chair demanded that the IRS and Treasury provide the following documents and information, all documents, communications, referring to and relating to their field visit to the residents of Matt Pabies.
	This is not just a phone call.
	They went to his house.
	All documents and communications between or among the IRS Treasury Department.
	Any other executive branch entity referring or relating to Matt Taibbi.
	All documents and communications sent or received by Revenue Officer James Nelson referring or relating to Matt Taibbi.
	And so again, this is Zero Hedge.
	Will this arrogant show of disdain for democracy, this clear and present danger exposed of a government agency's weaponization in its very apex, Will this be the undoing of the Democrat Party's grip on power?
	We'll have to wait and see. I don't think so.
	And as a matter of fact, I don't even think this is a disdain for democracy.
	This is a disdain for the Constitution.
	When you create things like the Restrict Act, then you have a disdain for democracy.
	Because now you've got regulation without representation.
	You have laws without representation, or rules, I should say, without due process.
	All of that. It is absolute disdain for democracy.
	But that's the way that everybody on both sides is operating anymore.
	So, something very dramatic has changed, says Matt Taibbi.
	In an interview that he had with Maria Bartiromo, he went on with Fox News and he's like, you know, I can't believe that the party that I was always a part of, the Democrat Party, has changed so much.
	He's saying, I grew up as, here it is.
	He says, yeah, it's funny.
	I mean, I was raised in a traditional ACLU liberal.
	He said, I believed in free speech all of my life.
	That was one of the things, frankly, that attracted me to the Democratic Party when I was a kid.
	The idea that we were the party that believed in letting everybody have a say.
	And we'll just make a better argument.
	And that's how the system works, he said.
	But he said, apparently something very dramatic has changed in politics in America.
	And there's been a shift. There's no question about it anymore that now the parties have had a complete reversal on how they read these issues.
	And so, yeah, the Democrat Party has become authoritarian, totalitarian.
	They want to censor everything.
	Digital McCarthyism was what he was calling the weaponization of the federal government, and that's precisely what it is.
	He said, we learned in the hearings, he said, we learned that Twitter, Facebook, Google, other companies, They developed a formal system for taking in moderation, quote-unquote, requests.
	They're not requests.
	They're demands from the government.
	From every corner of the government, these requests, quote-unquote, came from the FBI, the DHS, HHS, DOD, the Global Engagement Center at the state, and even the CIA. For every government agency scanning Twitter,
	there were perhaps 20 quasi-private entities doing the same, including Stanford's Election Integrity Project, NewsGuard, again, Microsoft and the Pentagon, NewsGuard, ElectionGuard, and things like that, the Global Disinformation Index, and others, many of them taxpayer-funded.
	This is part of his opening statement.
	And for saying something like this, they sent an IRS agent to his house when they owe him money.
	A focus of this fast-growing network is making lists of people whose opinions, beliefs, associations, or sympathies are deemed misinformation, disinformation, malinformation.
	The latter term is just a euphemism for true but inconvenient malinformation.
	Undeniably, the making of such lists is a form of digital McCarthyism.
	Yeah, tell me about it. You know, I was interviewed by Matt Tybee for one of his articles.
	And I told him about how, you know, I was kicked out of all these different payment things, not just social media.
	I really don't care about social media.
	And because I've been shadowbanned for so long, it's like this game is so rigged.
	Yeah. You know, I'm not going to get through to an audience using social media.
	And so, anyway, so the thing that bothers me is the financial deplatforming and, you know, not being given an answer for any of this stuff.
	They just, you know, take you off of PayPal, take you off of Venmo, take you off of this platform and that platform.
	I said, it's very dangerous. It's not being widely reported, but they're going to broaden this out to everybody, especially with CBDC. And so he said, well, how do you survive with this stuff?
	I said, well, people still send checks in the mail.
	He thought that was really funny, but that's the truth.
	That's how we do survive. That's how we do survive with this stuff.
	It is absolutely crazy.
	It is Orwellian.
	And when you look at all of this stuff...
	Anyway, he went on to say, you can't have a state-sponsored system that targets quote-unquote disinformation without striking at the essence of the right to free speech.
	The two ideas are in direct conflict.
	And you had Texas Democrat Sylvia Garcia...
	Badgered Taibbi, says the New American, this is a New American article about it, about revealing his source, but Taibbi wouldn't budge.
	She asked him when it was that Elon Musk first contacted him regarding the Twitter files.
	He said, I can't give it to you, unfortunately, because this is a question of sourcing, and I'm a journalist, so I don't reveal my sources.
	He went on to say...
	The First Amendment and an American population accustomed to the right to speak is the best defense left against the censorship industrial complex.
	If the censorship industrial complex can knock over our first and most important constitutional guarantee, these groups will have no serious opponent left anywhere.
	If there's anything the Twitter files show, it's that we're in danger of losing this most precious right, without which all other democratic rights are impossible.
	He's absolutely right.
	We'll be right back. You're
	listening to The David Knight Show.
	Yeah, all this stuff is so much like Kafka.
	You know, we've... We can't tell you why, but you're being picked up.
	That's what all this stuff ultimately is about.
	It's a mixture of Orwell and Kafka.
	Travis gave me a quote from G.K. Chesterton.
	He said, I still believe in liberalism as much or more than I ever did, but there was once a rosy time where I believed in liberals.
	And again, what we're talking about here is the shifting labels and how they redefine things.
	So, let's talk about shifting labels.
	Let's talk about shifting genders.
	And let's look at how the trans hate has just doubled down.
	The FBI vows to get to the bottom of what Christians did to provoke this attack.
	That's the headline from Babylon Bee.
	And that's exactly right.
	That's what I said about the police chief there in Nashville.
	Well, we're not going to show you the manifesto, but we know from it That he was, or she, was filled with resentment.
	Oh, well, they were wronged, right?
	So that's what the trans are saying.
	We have been wronged.
	So Bablenby says, quotes the FBI, FBI Director Christopher Wray, as a matter of fact, Our stated goal is to protect U.S. citizens from foreign and domestic terror threats such as parents at school board meetings, pro-life demonstrators, and Christians who push innocent trans people towards violence by being mean.
	He said that at a mandatory meeting for all branches.
	I want a halt on all investigations until we figure out what Christians did to deserve being attacked.
	The evil that sparked this event has yet to be eradicated, but we will hunt it down and end it.
	So the Biden administration has announced their plan to prevent further Christian school shootings by banning Christianity altogether.
	Well, that sounds about right.
	Because the real news, this is not satire, the FBI is not treating the transgender Christian school shooting as a domestic terror attack.
	No. Not at all.
	They said they're not monitoring the radical trans activists.
	You know, they have the organization that is going to have this event that is still on, on Saturday.
	And, you know, everything about it is screaming violence and pushing violence.
	The agency also said it's not monitoring radical trans activists, self-described.
	As a source of potential domestic terrorism, even after the school shooting.
	So, again, you've got kids that have been psychologically abused and gaslighted, told that they're in the wrong bodies, and now they're being told by their psychological handlers that That there is a genocide going on against them.
	But especially against the T's.
	Not just against all the LGBT, but against the T's especially.
	And we have to understand that nothing is going to be done to these people.
	They can double down on this.
	They can continue in the aftermath of this to make threats.
	Against any legislators who have passed laws to protect children.
	They can make general threats to the public in the aftermath of this.
	And why? Well, because they know that they are the core value of the people who have taken over our governments.
	All the Western governments.
	They're all saying, well, this is our core value.
	LGBT stuff is our core value.
	It's not liberty. Not any of that stuff.
	No, it's all about pushing LGBT stuff.
	So, you had the Daily Wire contact an FBI spokesperson at the FBI's Memphis field office.
	She said, if it was terrorism, then we would have federal jurisdiction.
	So, given that the Nashville Metropolitan Police are leading the investigation, I think you can take a lot from that, she said.
	And then when asked if the agency was monitoring radical trans activists, she said as a potential source of domestic terrorism, she responded, no.
	No, we're not. They really don't care.
	LGBT activist groups, meanwhile, have advocated that the department withhold the manifesto, calling instead for a focus on gun control regulation with some fearing that publication of the manifesto could lead to a glorification of the event.
	So, what the police are doing here, essentially, and I understand, and I said I can see an argument for that, because you don't want to have a lot of copycat killers.
	And because they're not going to do anything to transgenders who post memes threatening people with guns and all the rest of this stuff.
	No, that's fine. That's fine with Twitter.
	It's fine with law enforcement.
	Yeah, you try that with a different political ideology and see if you get away with it.
	But the Perspective of the police, I think, would be essentially the same as if a wife were to kill her husband for the money.
	Police ignore the murder and the signed confession, and they call for all knives to be banned, or whatever the weapon is, right?
	That's essentially what they're doing.
	That's what the left is doing.
	Let's ignore the motivation.
	Let's ignore the crime.
	Let's focus on the weapon.
	That was used in this particular crime.
	The National Press Office of the FBI said membership in a group is not illegal in and of itself.
	In fact, it is protected by the First Amendment.
	Well, they're right. Except that's not the way the FBI operates.
	And we all know that, right?
	As I mentioned before, look what they did to parents who spoke up at the PTA meetings against the gender grooming and gaslighting and psychological manipulation of their kids to get them to mutilate their bodies.
	You know, they were considered to be terrorists.
	And this is from LifeSite News.
	And so they point out, well, the FBI will never open up an investigation based solely on First Amendment activity or membership in a group.
	They said, well, the FBI has, however, been subject to scrutiny for apparently prosecuting and investigating conservative Catholics and pro-lifers for exercising their First Amendment rights, including the arrest of Catholic pro-life Speaker Mark Hoke.
	An FBI memo leaked last month saying the agency was spying on radical, quote-unquote radical, Latin mass Catholics.
	The agency retracted that memo after there was a public backlash against it.
	But, of course, they do investigate people based on what groups they're in.
	They do investigate people based on their political position, their religious position that they don't like.
	Marjorie Taylor Greene, Mary Miller of Illinois, sent a letter to Christopher Wray asking if the FBI was treating the shooting as a potential domestic terrorist attack.
	If so, what organizations could have motivated Hale to perpetrate the shooting?
	You know, organizations like TRANS, that is running, that's their acronym, that is running this event on Saturday.
	John Kennedy, Senator from Louisiana, asked Attorney General Merrick Garland if the shooting was being investigated as a hate crime during a Senate hearing on Tuesday.
	Garland responded claiming that no motivation for the shooting has been established and it could not be deemed a hate crime.
	Well, he already had the information that there was a manifesto.
	They already knew that this person was a trans who was attacking a Christian school that they had attended, and they resented it, and so forth.
	He resented it. She resented it.
	So, again, they just ignore anything that's inconvenient, just like they ignored the January 6th footage that was inconvenient for their narrative.
	A trans group in Nashville shooting says the anti-trans hate has consequences.
	See, this is the Trans Resistance Network.
	They're doubling down on this.
	Can you imagine any other group?
	You know, you've had situations where typically...
	If there's a shooting and there is an ideology or religion that is loosely even connected with it, the people of that ethnic group or that religious group will go out of their way to distance themselves from it.
	You see anybody doing that?
	Anybody doing that with a trans staff?
	No. Nobody is saying, stop.
	We don't want to do this.
	We don't want to act this. No.
	Instead, they're all out there justifying it.
	And saying, yeah, well, you want to have some more of it?
	You know, keep your kids away from us and there'll be more violence.
	Because we need your kids.
	We've got to have your kids. That's the way they're coming after the Twitter profile by Trans Resistance Network.
	Said on Monday that anti-trans hate has consequences.
	Yeah, it's like, yeah, this is what happens when you don't give us your kids.
	The woman who killed six people, including three children in Nashville, felt that she had no effective way to be seen rather than to lash out by taking the life of others, said the Trans Resistance Network.
	See, this is the thing that gets me confused, because these people are now referring to her biological gender.
	And this is why, you know, everybody...
	They would never do that in most cases, right?
	They would say, well, that's misgendering the person.
	And so that's what keeps me getting confused here.
	The statement alleged that right-wing figures promote anti-trans hate, quote-unquote, by, quote, calling for nothing less than the genocidal eradication of trans people from society.
	They said, first tragedy is the loss of life of three children and adults, but the second more complex tragedy is that Hale, Felt, and Hare, they use the he pronoun, She had no other effective way to be seen than to lash out by taking the life of others and as a consequence himself.
	That's actually herself. We do not claim to know the individual.
	We do know that life for transgender people is very difficult and made more difficult in the preceding months by a virtual avalanche of anti-trans legislation.
	No, this was not anti-trans legislation.
	This was anti-child abuse legislation.
	If you are an adult, none of this legislation would affect you.
	You can go pay doctors to mutilate you as long as you want.
	And a lot of them even have insurance policies that will pay for their self-mutilation.
	There's nothing that any of this legislation, none of it prevents that from happening to adults.
	It prevents them from psychologically and surgically and chemically harming kids.
	Many transgender people, said this letter, deal with anxiety, depression, thoughts of suicide and PTSD from the near constant drumbeat.
	Yeah. It is a constant drumbeat from the schools, from the media, from the government, from peer pressure, from teacher pressure.
	No, they said it's a constant drumbeat of anti-trans hate.
	No. No, it isn't.
	Everybody is elevating them.
	As a matter of fact, if you're a child who's very insecure and you want to be accepted, then you call yourself trans and now everybody is worshipping you, rolling out the red carpet, baking you cakes for your transversary and all the rest of this stuff, taking your side against parents.
	No, it's the psychological manipulation that is the constant drumbeat against the rest of society.
	So, they finish up by saying, we will not be eradicated or erased.
	Hate has consequences.
	Yeah, well, I guess that's a double meaning.
	There's a lot of hate that is spewing from the trans people both before and after this event.
	And, again, nothing is backing off.
	When you take a look at what these people are doing, look at this.
	Trans blood is on state hands, as this really freaky-looking person.
	And I look at this picture, and this just reminds me of Sodom.
	Give us your kids, or we'll get violent, demanding that you turn them over to them.
	And I think it's our government's position.
	It's their core value, they said.
	So I think what we have now is our government...
	It is the United Sodom of America.
	That's what the government has become.
	And they can make their explicit threats.
	Take a look at this person who put this out on Twitter, calls himself Pinko Scum.
	He's loading and racking an AR-15.
	Yeah. With a caption that reads, While advocating for trans people to arm ourselves is not any solution to the genocide we're facing, if you transphobes do try to come for me, I'm taking a few of you with me.
	Oh, there you go. Another Norman Bates psycho.
	He even has the wig like Norman Bates.
	One person put that out with a comment, What a sane thing to do.
	We're not talking about sane people here.
	And they're perfectly capable of violence.
	But the government is not capable of doing anything about it.
	Because the government is using them.
	A transgender individual with an AR-15 and a handgun is pictured along with the words in another tweet.
	Kill Christ Cucks.
	Behead Christ Cucks.
	Crucify filthy Christ Cucks.
	Slam dunk a Christ Cuck baby into a trash can with the hashtag TransDayOfVengeance.
	I think I get the idea that they hate Christians and they hate children and babies.
	One of the most popular mottos with the trans activists is trans rights or else.
	Take a look at all these shirts.
	They've got guns that are Lined up like the stripes and their trans flag and colored baby blue and light pink like their trans flag.
	And it says trans rights or else.
	And so they've got t-shirts and sweatshirts like that.
	They've got signs like that.
	It is clearly a threat of violence if you oppose them.
	They are not accepting.
	They are not inclusive.
	You will accept them.
	You will bow before them.
	You will celebrate them.
	You will elevate them.
	And, of course, that's what our government is doing.
	And that's why they're not going to investigate or stop any of this.
	You've got a Nebraska state senator, Kavanaugh, called legislation to ban the use of puberty blockers and hormone treatment and sex change operations on children, on children, not adults, on children.
	This Nebraska legislator, Kavanaugh, called it a genocide.
	There's that word again. Pledged to fight the legislation, said I'll burn this session to the ground over this bill, said the Democrat.
	So where is this coming from?
	I said I had an insight this morning as to why they call it genocide.
	Well, you know, we've talked for the longest time about how abortion is genocide.
	We've had abortion protests.
	We've had signs.
	My wife had a sign of black genocide because that's the way it began with Planned Parenthood.
	It was eugenics. It was genocide.
	But it is now really kind of a genocide against the human race, if you will, abortion.
	600,000 kids killed this last year in 49 states.
	In the United States, California doesn't turn in its numbers.
	So imagine what the real total is.
	But abortion really is genocide.
	A genocide that they don't have any problem with.
	But they understand that if you kill the babies, you're going to eradicate the people, group of people.
	And of course, for them, they see us, they call us breeders.
	And for them...
	The birth of their trans kids is done psychologically.
	It's done by manipulation.
	It's done by chemicals.
	It's done by surgery. So if you stop the psychological, chemical, surgical abuse of children, then basically what you're doing is you are aborting the trans babies that are coming along.
	You see? That's why they see this as genocide.
	I was looking at it today and it's like, why do they keep using this one?
	Nobody was threatening any violence against transgenders.
	They're saying you're not going to touch the kids.
	They see your kids as their kids.
	You send your kids to these schools and that's what they'll do.
	They will take your kids from you, the breeder, and they'll turn them into trans kids.
	And so you stop them turning the trans kids into trans.
	You have aborted that process.
	You have engaged in genocide.
	It makes perfectly good sense, I think.
	I think that's what they're doing.
	And these people are absolutely hysterical.
	They're like the The big hive queen from the movie Aliens, you know?
	Oh boy, you come in and you start coming after her area there where they're breeding the kids?
	Oh yeah, she's going to come after you.
	And if you want to think about the schools, that's a good analogy.
	You know, they get these pods where they are hatching the new trans kids.
	And they come in and say, no, you're not going to be able to do that to the kids.
	Oh, well, you know, they're going to come after you like an alien hive queen.
	This is from Senator Scott Wiener.
	As we start Transgender Week of Visibility, a week to uplift our trans siblings.
	No, he means his trans babies.
	Red states continue to all but ban trans people from existing.
	Idaho just enacted a law banning trans kids.
	From using restrooms per their gender.
	You see, if you stop this, you cut it off at the source, you cut them off from stealing kids, from psychologically, chemically, surgically abusing these kids, then the trans thing starts to go away.
	That's why this is an existential issue for these people.
	The schools, as I've been wrong, I've been calling the schools seminaries for Satan.
	No, they're hatcheries.
	They're hatcheries.
	That's another aspect of how they're like Brave New World.
	Brave New World, they had artificial wombs.
	They would create three different strata of intelligence by either enhancing their oxygen or depriving them of oxygen.
	But these are...
	You know, perverted.
	And of course, here in the schools, they would give the kids all the sex and drugs that they wanted.
	But what they're really doing is they are hatching these LGBT recruits.
	That's what the school really is.
	It's not so much a seminary as it is a hatchery.
	With all of this.
	On Rockfan, Tyler D., thank you for the tip.
	He said, David, you continue to be a beacon of light in time of darkness.
	Well, thank you. I can't tell you how much my wife and I appreciate what you do.
	You have touched our lives, and I cry when you convey Christian tenets.
	It seems as though the elites are burning the house down while they are stealing the silverware.
	That's a good analogy.
	I may use that. Is there anything we can do to right the ship?
	I pray for America.
	That's the best thing you can do from the Dribble family.
	That is the best thing you can do.
	You know, we have...
	Isn't that one of the interesting things that's coming out of all this?
	How angry and mocking the Democrats are.
	Oh, are you going to pray for people now?
	As a matter of fact, one of these guys did that.
	Well, I guess you just weren't praying enough because these kids got killed.
	No, that's not what prayer is about.
	They don't believe in prayer at all.
	But we have a mighty weapon.
	Prayer is a mighty weapon.
	We have a lot of mighty weapons at our disposal.
	Prayer is one of them.
	And so we should not despair about that.
	But we should be wise about what these people are doing.
	And again, ask yourself why they call it genocide.
	It's because they want to take our kids from us.
	This is a struggle over the kids.
	Who's going to have the kids?
	Because if they don't get these kids psychologically, chemically, surgically mutilated, then they won't turn into trans kids.
	They won't steal your kids if you stop them at that level.
	That's why they are so upset about this.
	That's why they've turned into, you know, alien hive queen of all this stuff.
	Take no prisoners.
	Meanwhile, the transgender day of vengeance is still going on.
	And nobody has anything to say about that in the government because that's the government's values.
	It's still scheduled for this weekend.
	Their trans day of vengeance, their protest in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington.
	And, of course, they also had firearms training as part of that in an earlier tweet that they pulled down.
	Yeah.
	And you see Twitter has restricted accounts that mention the Trans Day of Vengeance, even if they do it within the context of a news story.
	I talked about that yesterday. Even if they do it to criticize this, They're going to hide it, just like they're going to hide the manifesto.
	They don't want people to see the hate.
	Another indication is that a critical mass of gays are urging not only, now this is interesting, I had said the longest time you had, as the transgenders, were having this battle over who is a woman, and this was long before we had the, you know, what is a woman and that type of thing.
	This has been going on for years.
	With sports, been going on with J.K. Rowling, but even before J.K. Rowling got involved in it, I said, look at this.
	You've got the radical feminists, many of them lesbians, and they are at war with the transgenders over who's going to be a woman.
	And so I said, you've got a civil war.
	And LGBT. You've got a war between the L's and the T's.
	Well, now this war has expanded.
	And you've got gays, the G's.
	So now it's gone from the L's versus the T's.
	Now the G's are going to split and side with the L's.
	I don't know who the B's are going to go with.
	But you're seeing this.
	As a gay man, I hereby state the following.
	I fully disavow any association with the LGBTQ plus community.
	In fact, since they have let themselves be taken over by the radical TQ plus community, I want no part of the LGB community either.
	The gay friends I have feel exactly the same as me, tweeted a proud American.
	I've had listeners who've said that to me.
	I've played clips lately.
	From a lesbian woman who said, I've fought for this from the very beginning.
	If I'd known it was going to end up coming after kids, I would have never been a part of this, and I don't want any part of it now.
	And played for people a guy who said, I'm a conservative drag queen.
	But what he said was, I want to say this to all you heterosexual mothers.
	These drag queen story time hours, this is highly sexual.
	A lot of drugs involved in all this community that I'm involved in.
	You need to keep your kids away.
	This is not appropriate for kids.
	And so this isn't the first time this happened.
	And this is not an isolated tweet either.
	This tweet got 12,000 likes and had a lot of people affirming that they felt the same way.
	But they were also gay.
	I removed the LGBTQ flag next to my name, said one of them.
	It doesn't make any sense to me to still have it.
	The LGBTQ community has become so radical, you can't even reason with them.
	But again, that TRAN organization, the Trans Radical Activist Network, that's going to be doing this thing on Saturday.
	They're saying, this protest is about unity.
	It's not about inciting violence.
	TRAN does not encourage violence.
	And violence is not welcome at this event.
	They're mostly peaceful.
	Mostly peaceful. Yeah.
	Again, going back to aliens, you know, the little girl says they come out at night, mostly.
	Mostly. Not always.
	And when you look at how it's an infiltrated government, you have the new governor of Arizona, Katie Hobbs.
	Her press secretary resigned after she put this out.
	And this is...
	This is coming from the press secretary for Katie Hobbs, the Arizona governor.
	And it says, it was a response, us when we see transphobes.
	And it shows a woman with two guns in her hand.
	Oh, so you don't like the transgender coming after kids?
	Oh, well, we'll shoot you, right?
	She did that. After, many hours after the shooting had happened.
	She didn't do it before.
	It'd be bad enough if she did it before.
	But she did that afterwards.
	And of course, the Lieutenant Governor of Minnesota did this.
	I'm sorry, that's the wrong one.
	Did this one. This is her t-shirt.
	This is the Lieutenant Governor of Minnesota...
	Protect trans kids with a knife.
	She's got there. I called them Norma Bates.
	You got Norman Bates and you got Norma Bates.
	One of them is a guy that dresses like a woman and kills people.
	The other one dresses like a woman who dresses like a man and kills people.
	So that was what the lieutenant governor of Minnesota put out.
	And then the press secretary for the Democrat governor of Arizona...
	Put out the meme of a woman holding two guns.
	She had many calls for the governor to fire her, and the governor allowed her to resign.
	But again, it came hours after this shooting on Monday.
	Again, if you are listening, it was from the 1980 film Gloria, depicted a woman wielding dual pistols and said, us when we see transphobes.
	So the Arizona Freedom Caucus called for her to be fired immediately.
	Said she made this post less than 12 hours after the tragic shooting in Nashville by a deranged transgender activist.
	Matt Walsh says, really?
	This is what your press secretary thinks about this tragedy?
	Fire her immediately.
	No other answer will be acceptable.
	But of course she didn't fire her.
	She let her resign.
	Then you have this guy, David Pakman.
	And this tweet, I don't know who this guy is, but he is a YouTuber.
	Oh, he must be important if he's on YouTube.
	Important information for you to know.
	You'll always find on YouTube.
	Anyway, he did get 484,000 views on Twitter.
	So Elon Musk likes him.
	He deleted his tweet mocking Christians who were murdered.
	And he never apologized for it.
	Instead, he tried to make himself a victim, saying, well, there's just too many anti-Semitic attacks.
	I'm taking this down.
	People said, I haven't seen any anti-Semitic attacks on your tweet.
	Well, they were private.
	They were via email.
	Oh, really? Yeah, prove it.
	Prove it, pal. Now, again, what he actually said was...
	He said, my tweet pissed off a million people.
	He said, anybody who knows me knows I would never blame the victims of a mass shooting and claim that he was only attacking Republican elected officials who offer nothing more than thoughts and prayers after a mass shooting.
	And so what he originally said was very surprising that there'd be a mass shooting at a Christian school.
	Given that lack of prayer is often blamed for these horrible events.
	Is it possible they weren't praying enough or correctly despite being a Christian school?
	Well, that's his response to nine-year-old girls being shot point-blank.
	As I said yesterday, what kind of a monster?
	Can look at a young child and shoot them point blank.
	Not even hardened soldiers, it didn't even cross their minds in the story I gave you yesterday.
	You know, when they were, the village sent out this kid who was obviously doing intel for them.
	It never even crossed any of their minds.
	They talked about, well, what could we have done, you know, to stop that kid from reporting?
	Nobody ever even talked about shooting the kid.
	And these are hardened soldiers.
	Snipers and so forth.
	Never crossed their minds.
	But what crosses David Pakman's mind is to mock all of this.
	Because you see, prayer is nothing to these people.
	Politics is everything.
	And politicians are their gods.
	Politics is their God.
	That's what the fundamental problem is with all of this.
	And, yeah, it is, I don't know, you know, it's like he says he's Jewish.
	Does he not understand that God is not a genie?
	God's not a genie in Judaism either.
	So, out of all this, I've talked about a lot of people having something to say about this.
	Everybody's had something to say about it.
	Yeah, the left is doubling down on, yeah, trans, you get used to it.
	We're in your face and we're coming for your kids and don't you dare say anything about it or we're going to get violent with you and we're, you know, it's justified if we shoot you, that type of thing.
	So that's what the left is doing on this.
	And then, you know, coming after guns.
	And people on the right, on the political side of it, people on the right are saying, you know, defending the Second Amendment.
	But you know who hasn't said anything at all?
	Nothing at all?
	Donald Trump. I spent a good amount of time this morning Looking to see if I could find any statement.
	This is now, that happened on Monday afternoon.
	Pretty much everybody has talked about this, except Donald Trump.
	Donald Trump had a big interview with Sean Hannity.
	I think it was pre-recorded and it aired Monday night.
	But still, we've had Monday, we've had Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday.
	Donald Trump's even got his own social media platform.
	I can't find where he said anything about this at all.
	Does he not have a place where he could either say something to...
	He doesn't want to condemn the LGBT people, because remember, that's one of the reasons why he calls Ron DeSantis Ron DeSanctimonious.
	He's upset that Ron DeSantis took the lead in doing just a little bit, just a little bit, to protect the kids from From this psychological abuse.
	So you're not going to talk to kids from kindergarten to third grade.
	Fourth grade, they're yours.
	Go for it. That's my criticism of Ron DeSantis.
	But he called him Ron DeSantis because he would dare to say you're not going to psychologically gaslight and groom kids from kindergarten to third grade.
	And Donald Trump loves his LGBT fan base.
	He holds parties for them.
	In Mar-a-Lago.
	Now, you did have Baby Trump Jr.
	talk about it. Don Jr.
	talked about it, but not Daddy Trump.
	He was totally silent.
	Crickets. And he didn't say anything about defending the Second Amendment and how absurd it was to attack guns over this shooting.
	Could it be that Donald Trump is a New York gun liberal?
	Oh, yes, it could be. Look, it's gun control by executive order.
	You look at the story that I had yesterday about people in his administration saying he was getting the NRA furious and they kept trying to tell him he was absolutely adamant that he was going to do an assault weapons ban himself.
	Flush with all that power, I can just, with a stroke of a pen, I can get rid of a bump stock.
	Well, with a stroke of a pen, I can go after assault weapons as well.
	Modern sporting rifles, he wanted to ban them as well, just like Biden.
	They're so different, aren't they?
	And then he holds parties for the LGBT at Mar-a-Lago.
	Of course he's going to be silent about this.
	Where would he jump in with all of this?
	So, again, coming after DeSantis because he took the lead in this legislation, even though it was absolutely reprehensible that they only went that far.
	And they're now looking at going further.
	You know, the legislature says, well, we'll go up to 8th grade.
	Give me a break. The school board bureaucrat regulators are saying we'll go all the way from pre-K to 12th grade.
	Politicians and journalists are locked out of Twitter, however, for any tweets...
	About trans shooter targeting Nashville Christian School.
	But, you know, maybe Trump doesn't want to get locked out.
	He doesn't want to talk about the ongoing violence.
	Marjorie Taylor Greene got locked out of her account.
	Many people got locked out of their account, but he doesn't.
	You had Baldwin getting slammed because he repeated a post from Peter Frampton, who, as a has-been recording artist, knows all about Second Amendment and guns.
	Baldwin liked it, so he retweeted that, and then people came after Baldwin and said, well, maybe you should just set this one out.
	But, you know, Baldwin really does need gun control.
	But what he wants is gun prohibition.
	Alec Baldwin. I'm sure he doesn't know the difference.
	And then finally, we will go to Alexandria Occasional Cortex.
	And again, you know, when you look at some of the things that she says, initially, it's like, this is just out of left field.
	So far, left field, it's just brainless.
	But there's always something that we can glean, it seems like, when occasional cortex has something to say.
	So, in the wake of all this, she decides that, you know, as a tranny gets violent and all the rest of them are doubling down on their claims of entitlement to violence, and the FBI is looking the other way and everything, she comes out and says, yeah, you know, the real problem is straight white men.
	Yeah, that's the real problem.
	And this culture war.
	She blamed straight white men.
	She said that straight white men are sexual predators, not these drag queens.
	But there is something here.
	I know that sounds totally brainless, and it is, but there is something to be gleaned from what she has to say.
	The Democrat Socialists claim that, quote, people in power and conservatives use culture wars in order to distract and diffuse us from challenging institutions of power.
	So this is fundamentally about changing institutions of power.
	She admits that this whole trans thing and the attack on kids is fundamentally about changing institutions of power.
	And she's absolutely right about that.
	The transgenders, if you want to think of them, they are the shock troops.
	And they truly are shocking to look at them, aren't they?
	But they're the ones that are going to hit the fence, they're going to lay down on the barbed wire, and everybody's going to come in over their backs.
	The trainees are the shock troops in this.
	They're the shock troops in an effort by our government to deconstruct our society with degeneracy.
	They're proud and unashamed about it.
	And this is why these people know that they can continue and double down on their threats of violence and victimhood and genocide and all the rest of the stuff.
	They know that they are the core values of our government and they are the shock troops of our government to destroy our society.
	And that is why they're protected.
	You look at it, the Biden administration, national security director, State Department, generals, and it's the same in the UK and other places.
	You know, they put up their flag, the LGBT flag, and say, this is our core value.
	That's their term, their core value.
	And so from that standpoint, again, occasional cortex, occasionally, you know, she connects with the right thing.
	And she's actually giving us the true issue here.
	She's telling you something very important.
	And it is very much like I said before, like Pelosi, saying we've got to pass it to find out what's in it.
	Pelosi wasn't stupid.
	She was telling you the truth for once.
	A little bit of candor there.
	And AOC is kind of telling you a little bit of candor.
	Our efforts for AOC and these other people is to overthrow society.
	She's a Marxist. And so they want to overthrow society in every aspect.
	They want to overthrow the family. They want to overthrow the church.
	They want to overthrow any standards of morality and decency.
	And the shock troops are the trans in all of this.
	So, one last thing in this segment I'll talk about.
	And that is Stephen King.
	Now, just like Alec Baldwin, wouldn't you think that Stephen King would want to set this thing out?
	Because in the drawings of this girl who did the murders, she had a picture of Jack Nicholson as the killer from The Shining and wrote Red Rum and all the rest of this stuff.
	She was absolutely inspired by the unbelievably dark, disturbed, deranged imagination of Stephen King.
	And I had never read any of his books.
	You know, they made so many of his books into movies, and we typically would see the movies when we had a video store and that type of thing.
	And I remember Karen and I, about five or six years ago, We took a trip and drove from Texas to Florida and then drove around Florida.
	And so we got some audio books that we're listening to.
	And I got the one that he did about the Kennedy assassination.
	And of course, he's all about the official story.
	But he's an excellent artist, and he does really create kind of a feel of time and place.
	And he did that in that book, and that's part of it.
	It kept coming back to Oswald as being the lone shooter and all the rest of the stuff, and that bothered me.
	But it was about a time traveler who was coming back and forth from the present to that time.
	And he described it in such detail, and it truly did transport you back to that time.
	So I thought, well, he's really a good writer.
	I've never read any of his stuff before.
	And so we downloaded a couple more of his books for the trip, and we started listening to it.
	And it's like, ooh, ooh. Because he does create such vivid images for the reader.
	It was taking you into a very, very dark place.
	It's like, let's turn this off.
	This is just beyond creepy.
	Let's try the next one, you know?
	Same thing with the next one.
	I mean, this guy lives, he can describe this stuff vividly.
	It really does characterize him.
	And it is both disgusting and horrifying to be in the mind of Stephen King.
	And this person was inspired by all of that.
	I guess it's the type of thing that...
	Anyway, so he was not backing off of this.
	And nobody called him out on it that I could see.
	But he put out this tweet.
	He said, Republicans want to tell women what they can do with their body, but don't want to enact laws that would keep crazy people from killing children.
	And so the people said, did he just refer to trans people as crazy people?
	I think he did.
	Several people said that.
	So you're admitting that transgenderism is mental illness.
	Yes, he did. Yes, he did.
	And of course, we've had all this nonsense.
	This is such a tired trope of the left.
	The idea, oh, Republicans want to tell women what they can do with their body.
	What were you guys doing for the last couple of years with your vaccine mandates?
	You were telling women and men and everybody, children, what they could do with their body.
	You aren't about any bodily autonomy.
	And it is not your body that you're killing.
	It's somebody else that you're killing.
	All this is nonsense.
	But again, I like the comment from Mindy Robinson.
	She said, there are already laws in place against crazy people killing children.
	Weird thing is, criminals don't follow laws.
	Can you believe it? I know.
	Weird, right? I love that tweet.
	This is perfect sarcasm.
	We'll be right back. Analyzing
	The Globalist Next Move.
	And now, The David Knight Show.
	Thank you.
	We will be having Tony on, I believe.
	We're trying to establish contact with him.
	Tony Arterman of Wise Wolf Gold.
	Let's talk a little bit about some economic issues here.
	Of course, Tony has set up davidknight.gold if you want to Order gold, silver.
	He can even help you get Bitcoin.
	And he also has Wise Wolf, which is a way that you can, on a regular basis, set aside a little bit.
	Anywhere from $50 up, you can get in on a community as well as you can...
	We'll regularly set aside some gold for what I think is coming.
	Very important to do that.
	Again, you can find him at davidknight.gold, Tony Arterman at wisewolf.gold.
	He will be coming on the program later, I believe.
	Let's talk a little bit about what is happening, though, with the economy.
	Eggs were all the topic for quite a while, but now I guess everybody has eased off just a little bit, but still up tremendously.
	From a year or so ago, we were told it was the bird flu, except that farmers in the U.S. and the U.K. said no it's not.
	They said the big guys are using that as an excuse.
	But they said actually our egg production, even though that has been an issue, they said egg production is about level.
	Because we have had, actually, the production of the individual chickens has gone up, even though some have died from bird flu.
	They're just using that.
	Well, here's more evidence that the farmers were telling you the truth.
	Egg producer, the biggest egg producer, the country's top egg producer, Cal Maine Foods, has just reported a 718% increase in profits.
	718% increase in profit.
	A year ago, they pocketed $39.5 million in quarterly profit.
	Now, this year, $323 million.
	They went from $39 million to $323 million.
	Oh, it was bird flu.
	No, it's price gouging.
	And consolidation of the food chain distribution.
	Greed and consolidation.
	Just as the farmers said.
	The company's president and CEO call the latest returns a solid performance.
	This article from KTLA News says, well, he should win some sort of prize for understatement.
	He said, our results are reflective of a dynamic market environment with higher average selling prices and favorable demand.
	Well, there's not really anything about a market in that.
	That is excessive price gouging, I would say.
	Farmers, again, going out of business, as they have said, and they said, it's not us.
	It's the grocery store chains, but it's the middleman like Cal Maine.
	They said that from the very beginning, and they were right.
	In terms of letters, I had a listener who sent this to me and said, I remember watching a show.
	You interviewed a gentleman who had a legal battle with CPS, and I remember he had a foundation that helped other families who are experiencing CPS tyranny.
	I can't remember his name or the foundation website.
	And he says, I asked this because I recently declined to sign consent and privacy policy forms.
	And he says, at our pediatrician's office, and they denied us access to our physician because of the refusal.
	The women that handle these intake forms are also responsible for greeting patients who are very surprised and agitated with my refusal to release my child's medical information to third parties outside this doctor's office.
	So I'm now proactively educating myself and interacting with CPS in the event these people retaliate against my family.
	So I may have to have a good lawyer and put them on speed dial.
	That'd be a good idea. But let me give you the, because a lot of people are having a lot of problems, of course, with CPS all the time.
	Dwight Mitchell is his name.
	If you want to go back and find some of the many interviews that I've done with Dwight.
	And the organization is the FamilyPreservationFoundation.org.
	FamilyPreservationFoundation.org.
	FamilyPreservationFoundation.org. An excellent source of information.
	He even has videos that talk about this very thing.
	You know, he says most people's instincts are, well, I've got nothing to hide.
	Come on in and let's talk.
	And then they will go on a fishing expedition.
	So you need to, and he knows from experience.
	He went through all this with his kids.
	At first he thought, it's just this agent or something.
	Then he found out that it was all systematic.
	It's a multi-billion dollar industry across the United States doing this type of thing.
	I've got another email here from Mark.
	He says, talk about the CO2 percentages in the Earth's atmosphere.
	Mark says, here's the official U.S. government proof of the CO2 percentage in the atmosphere.
	And it's from the FAA. It's the book Aviation Weather that they publish.
	Pilots, controllers, dispatchers, etc.
	Use this book for study reference and so on.
	He says this link will take you to the FAA's website, and it's a PDF copy of the book.
	Go to page 17. You'll see a table listing and breaking down the gases that comprise the Earth's atmosphere and their respective percentages.
	And here's the bottom line.
	CO2 is 0.033% of the Earth's atmosphere.
	Hope this helps. It does.
	As a matter of fact, we've been using the figure that Eric Peters said.
	He had 0.04.
	Well, it's actually not 4, but it's a little bit less than that.
	It's only about 75% of that, as a matter of fact.
	And so it's even less.
	And yet, when you look at what is happening...
	In the restructure of our society with a climate MacGuffin, this insanity that is going back and forth in Europe, the European Union, I saw all these different headlines that seem to contradict each other.
	Like, oh, look, they're caving on all of this stuff, right?
	You got the European Union.
	They backed off from 2030 to 2035.
	They're allowing internal combustion engines to continue to be sold as long as they're using e-fuel.
	So some people see this as a win.
	I don't see it as a win.
	Some people don't see it as a win.
	They got everything that they wanted, quite frankly.
	And the people who were right about it were the New American.
	And the New American quotes Steve Malloy, who I've had on many times, who really understands what's going on.
	And he points out that this is not a win.
	Not at all.
	The European Union reaches a deal to ban gasoline and diesel-powered cars by 2035.
	So again, people are going back and forth.
	This is not a win, not a victory for liberty.
	On Tuesday, the nations of the European Union agreed to a deal that will outlaw the sale of new internal combustion engines by 2035.
	The deal was reached after the bloc of nations finally agreed to German demands that there be a carve-out for cars that run on so-called e-fuels.
	E-fuels, theoretically, they don't exist.
	Would be fuel synthesized from captured carbon dioxide mixed with hydrogen gleaned from so-called sustainable energy sources.
	Again, they're talking about, oh, we're going to go all the way down to the tip of South America where the wind blows constantly and all of our production facilities will be operated by wind power and we're taking captured carbon dioxide, turning it into fuel.
	And so even though the car emits carbon dioxide, It will be neutral because we started with captured carbon dioxide.
	The whole thing is a bunch of nonsense.
	And again, you know, when we're talking about 0.033% of the atmosphere being carbon dioxide, you want to believe that's going to change the planet?
	We've seen that percentage change and go up.
	And the temperature did not rise as that went up, which is what their models were all about.
	If you have an increase in CO2, you'll have an increase in temperature.
	Well, that didn't happen. They were wrong.
	Their models were wrong.
	Their projections were wrong.
	But they're still going to proceed with this.
	And of course, once they get the e-fuels done, it'll be totally unaffordable.
	This is going to be a prescription, which is another thing that Eric Peters and I have always said.
	They're going to allow the hypercars to still be run by people for whom money is no object.
	So the Wall Street Journal reported that the EU had backed down on the issue of fuel-powered cars.
	No, they're wrong.
	The New American quotes Steve Malloy.
	He says, the EU didn't back down on anything.
	It fooled Germany into signing on to the gas car ban with an exception for imaginary e-fuels.
	And even if they do make the e-fuels, it'll be so expensive, so bespoke, that the average person won't have it, and that's the goal.
	The goal is not necessarily to get rid of all cars, just like the goal is not to impact them when they're flying around on their private jets.
	As a matter of fact...
	When you look at John Kerry, who is challenged on that, you know, the hypocrisy of these people who fly around, this is what he had to say.
	Private aviation is an example of something where people are starting to pay more attention, but when people who go to Davos to talk about climate change fly private, it seems like they don't want to make...
	Well, they actually, I've talked to them about it.
	They offset... They buy offsets, they offset, and they are working harder than most people I know to be able to try to affect this trend.
	So only Poland voted against this new law.
	Although Bulgaria, Romania, and Italy abstained, Italy was pushing for an exception for biofuels, which was not granted.
	Biofuels are different from e-fuels.
	But again, climate activists are not even happy with that.
	They are upset, and this is why Wall Street Journal is pushing this stuff, because they've got a lot of people who are going to make money out of these scams.
	Wall Street Journal is taking the side, oh yeah, you know, it's a setback for the climate.
	No, it's not at all.
	Climate activists claim that fossil fuel-powered vehicles currently account for 25% of all CO2 emissions in the EU. That's pretty scary.
	25% of 0.03%?
	Well, not even that much.
	Because that's all of the CO2. You've got a lot of natural sources of CO2. They're not all man-made.
	So it's far, far, far, far less than 25% of 0.03%.
	This is why I say we don't need to argue with these people about emissions.
	We need to confront them with the truth about their lie.
	This is nothing other.
	You know, the emperor, the scientists have no clothes.
	They have no data. They refuse to even show you the data.
	You know, they fight, and this is why it was so obvious they're using the same MacGuffin tactics.
	You had Michael Mann, who had created this hockey stick thing for Al Gore, fought.
	Like, you can't imagine. And one in court.
	To keep all of his data hidden.
	Even though he did it while he was working at a state university.
	He had published all the findings.
	And the findings had been used to craft public policy.
	You're not allowed to see his data.
	You will obey his conclusions and you will not question his so-called science.
	It is no science if you can't show people your data.
	Not all the European Union agrees that an outright ban on fossil fuel vehicles is the right thing to do.
	Italy believes that the choice of electric should not be the only way to achieve zero emissions in the transition phase.
	Said the Italian Energy Ministry.
	Unfortunately, short of a Brexit-style exit from the European Union, Italy and any other nation that's now opposed to this new law will be stuck with it.
	So this is going to be imposed on everybody.
	And they're not going to make any exceptions for biofuels either.
	Why not? I mean, you need to stop and think about it.
	A biofuel is, you know, the plants, all the plants are drawing carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.
	If this is the thing they are carbon neutral in the same sense that these people who artificially draw carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere then somehow magically transport it to a special place on the southern tip of South America Spin the windmills, and like Rumpelstiltskin, they spin it into some kind of an e-fuel and then magically somehow transport it back to you without burning any fuel.
	Now, if you're going to say that's okay, certainly biofuels...
	Turning CO2 into plants who grow and then burning those plants, that is neutral, isn't it?
	One U.S. state has outshone the EU and their zeal to ban reliable and cheap transportation for the masses, says the New American, in August of last year.
	The state of California also pledged to do away with fossil fuel-powered vehicles by 2035.
	Gavin Newsom said, we will be the first jurisdiction in the world to require all new cars to be sold to be alternative fuel cars.
	And so, New American says, well, being the first to do something stupid, however, is nothing to brag about.
	While the California ban will only ruin transportation in California, the EU ban has the potential to destroy an entire continent's economy.
	But that's not true. I disagree with a new American about that.
	California has had, always had, an outsized influence on cars, especially through all this emission fantasies that they have.
	By them enacting certain controls and emissions and saying, you're not going to sell this car in California unless it does this.
	They have so many cars that they have sold in California.
	That the automakers, domestic and foreign, will make all the cars that way.
	They don't want to make one model for California and another one for the rest of the world.
	So they make all their cars that way.
	And so from that standpoint, California has an influence on the car industry that is far in excess of even their influence in America.
	They have a worldwide influence on this.
	And so, again, to get back to the essence of all this nonsense, here's John Kerry.
	I just played a clip for you from John Kerry.
	Here's John Kerry from 2013.
	Listen to this false prophecy.
	You have CIT. Which is melting at a rate that the Arctic Ocean now increasingly is exposed.
	In five years, scientists predict we will have the first ice-free Arctic summer.
	That exposes more ocean to sunlight.
	Ocean is dark.
	It consumes more of the heat from the sunlight, which then accelerates the rate of the melting and warming rather than the ice sheet and the snow that used to reflect it back up into the atmosphere.
	Oh, okay. So once it starts melting, the sea ice is going to be dark, and it's going to absorb more heat, and it's going to melt more and more because it's not reflecting it back up.
	That was his theory.
	I call it conspiracy.
	This is a science theory, but it's not really much science about that.
	What an absurd idiot he is.
	Can we do the math? Let's see.
	That was 2013. He said within five years, we're going to lose the sea ice.
	Well, that was five years ago.
	Still got it. As a matter of fact, it's bigger.
	It's growing. Just like we were going to lose all the coral reefs.
	The Great Barrier Reef is bigger.
	And on and on.
	All of these predictions false.
	And yet, none of it.
	None of it stops them.
	That's another way that the climate MacGuffin is like the pandemic MacGuffin.
	It doesn't matter what happens.
	It doesn't matter what the reality is.
	You can have people getting the shot and dropping dead and they'll still tell you it's 100% safe and effective.
	Continue on. We didn't see that.
	You can have these people come up with their predictions about how the polar ice caps have all melted.
	They're still there. It doesn't matter.
	We're all going to die. Yeah, we're going to melt the plan.
	We're going to burn the plan if you guys don't do what we say.
	They say planet, but they're talking about the planet.
	They're not trying to protect the planet.
	They've got a plan.
	The plan is to take everything from us.
	Don't let your lying eyes get in the way.
	No evidence will get in the way, and they will show you nothing to support their dire predictions or any basis for doing this.
	So, this article out of the UK, I think they got it wrong, Daily Skeptic, Brussels cancels The looming ban on internal combustion engine cars.
	And the UK is prepared to follow suit.
	That's not true. They got everything they wanted.
	It was Germany and Italy and the European people who got suckered into this.
	Two-thirds of the people in Germany don't want to get rid of internal combustion engines.
	But the German government has signed on to it.
	We will still have some kind of hypercars there.
	And you see the same thing. There is a similarity between what is happening in Europe and in the UK. They got that part of it right.
	But they're losing. They said British carmakers Aston Martin and McLaren are already understood to be examining e-fuels as an option for powering future models.
	Maybe they can figure out that if the only people who are talking about the e-fuels Are Porsche, Lamborghini, Aston Martin, McLaren.
	Maybe they can figure out this is something that's only going to be there for people who can afford to pay $3 million for a hypercar.
	And some kind of bespoke fuel transported magically by ferries from the tip of South America for your particular consumption.
	And devices on these expensive hypercars that are going to ensure...
	That nothing but e-fuels are being burned and all this stuff.
	So it's going to have to have some kind of a sensor or something on it.
	And all the rest of this special stuff.
	Former Tory leader Sir Ian Duncan Smith said, The 2030 deadline for the elimination of petrol and diesel engine cars in the UK is simply not achievable.
	Unless we delay, we hand a massive boost to the Chinese car manufacturers.
	They are already dominant.
	Oh, okay, so we'll delay it five years.
	Is that a win? They're still going to take away cars for the masses.
	That has always been there. They don't care, again, if these guys have got their $3 million cars, just like they don't care if they've got their private jets.
	Britain is to ban the sale of new cars that run on petrol and diesel only in seven years' time under plans drawn up by Boris Johnson, the conservative.
	What was he trying to conserve?
	Nothing. New hybrids will still be allowed until 2035, at which point the UK will only permit fully electric cars and other zero-emission vehicles, such as those that burn hydrogen.
	But of course, nothing.
	That's a theoretical as well.
	That is also not going to be supported for the masses.
	They're not going to put the, you know, there's technological issues with all these things that are going to keep them from being implemented in seven years.
	But there's also infrastructure issues, and those infrastructure issues they're not even interested in addressing for hydrogen.
	They don't care about having a network of places where you could fill your car up with hydrogen.
	They barely pretend to care about having a network of charging stations.
	Or the capacity on the grid to be able to handle that and everything else that they want to put on the control grid, the electric control grid, so that they can centrally control and shut down everything.
	That's why they want everything electric, so they can shut everything down.
	You know, people, when I criticize these different things like wind power and solar panel power, I'm not against wind and solar.
	I think they're great to get away from the grid.
	But they are shutting down everything else that would keep you off of the grid.
	They're using these technologies and misusing these technologies to put people on the grid so they can control and shut the grid down.
	They don't want you independent from the grid.
	And the amazing thing is that those two technologies, that's the big benefit that I see from them.
	Both wind and solar can get you off of the grid.
	They're totally inappropriate for use on the grid.
	But they want everything to be under their central control, and that's why they won't support hydrogen, they won't take time to do any of this stuff, because they're not concerned about emissions.
	They know that's a lie as well.
	So they're even going to shut down hybrid cars at 2035.
	The EU's e-fuel exemption will allow a synthetic alternative, which is made by mixing carbon dioxide captured from the air with hydrogen obtained by splitting water molecules, Using renewable energy.
	This is expected to be far more expensive than petrol.
	No, gasoline we say.
	Meaning that it will initially benefit high-end car makers whose customers will not be put off by the costs involved.
	Another Tory MP who sits on the Transport Committee.
	And again, this is all happening in the UK under conservative leadership.
	Just look at all the things that were pushed on us under Trump and Republicans.
	Greg Smith, a Tory MP who sits on the Transport Select Committee, said, Groupthink has dictated battery electric to be the way forward for too long when we're already seeing the technology fail and not develop at the pace people need.
	The 2030 ambition isn't realistic in the first place, and we need the innovators and the automotive companies to be given the time and space to produce a time and space and not just jump in.
	To the Betamax that is available now.
	I remember when the Simpsons had a joke, you know, they went to the video store, had a sign, said VHS Village, formerly Beta Barn.
	Well, that's what they're doing.
	They're selling us a Beta Barn.
	So then on the other side of it, the end of sales of new gasoline and diesel cars in 2035, and this is coming from a petroleum industry publication, oilprice.com.
	As I accurately point out, it's going to be a 55% reduction in CO2 emissions for new cars from 2030 to 2035.
	They're going to have to cut them 55% from where they were in 2021.
	For vans, they have to cut it 50% from where they were in 2021.
	And then by 2035, zero.
	100% reduction.
	No emissions allowed, even from hybrid cars.
	This is the relentless insanity And these people getting away with this, this is as dictatorial and as irrational as anything that they did to us during the pandemic nonsense.
	And it has to be stopped.
	The e-fuel assumptions.
	Again, talk about it as this article here says, even the best case scenario, Germany will struggle to get enough e-fuels to meet its indispensable demand from shipping, air transport, and chemical industry.
	They will all still require liquid hydrocarbons as their energy source.
	In other words, there won't be anything left for cars.
	The whole debate...
	From the FDP, that party in Germany, is about the exemption for the e-fueled power cars after 2035.
	And they said this is just a smokescreen.
	It's just politics.
	The politics of this is that the FDP is trying to arrest its political decline by appealing to rural voters who are dependent on On the car for transportation.
	This is what the yellow vests in France were fighting about because France was taking the lead on a lot of this stuff.
	And again, these are all motorists.
	Motorists required to have a yellow vest in their car for emergency situations.
	So they were identifying themselves as motorists.
	They were pushing back against this idea to strangle that aspect of our society, just like they want to strangle the small farms in the Netherlands and elsewhere.
	Every aspect of our society is being singled out for extinction.
	Every institution is being singled out for extinction.
	And again, a large part of it, it's the environmentalists, it's the Greens, it's the LGBTs, they are the shock troops in all of this.
	A recent poll in Germany showed that about two-thirds of the population opposes Banning internal combustion engines.
	And so they said the likely scenario is that there won't be enough e-fuels around to even satisfy the indispensable demand.
	So far only 60 production facilities are currently in the pipeline worldwide.
	Of those, only a small fraction are even funded.
	Even if they get funded, they will only produce a tiny fraction of what Germany itself demands, let alone the rest of Europe.
	This is an insanity.
	They're driving us over the cliff.
	It's just that simple.
	They've created an imaginary problem.
	They don't have any solution to it.
	They claim they do, but when push comes to shove, everybody's going to see the solution didn't work.
	They claim they never knew. They're not responsible for it, just like they never knew that the masks don't work, that the vaccine doesn't work.
	They know about all this stuff.
	One cannot set a date and force it to happen if the science doesn't match.
	In the U.S., Biden is forcing electric vehicles whether or not the infrastructure is ready.
	And it's obvious that the infrastructure is not ready.
	And it likely won't be ready.
	And so what's the purpose of this?
	Just to shut us down.
	To take everything from us.
	To immobilize us.
	And then to surveil us and to control us.
	California, Oregon, and Washington State Still have internal combustion engine bans slated for 2035.
	And again, that's the influence of California.
	California took the lead.
	There were other, I think it was seven other states that said, you know, we're going to do whatever California does with CARB. It's not just the automobile industry that is whipped around by California regulations, but it's also other states follow them.
	And two of those seven states have said, yeah, we will do that as well.
	And so in Germany, it's not just the cars, they are also, the environmentalists complain that they're still getting 31% of their energy from coal.
	Oh, you've got to stop that as well.
	Can't keep going with coal.
	So what is happening in the United States?
	Well, we've got a Republican bill that's going to push back against the green energy agenda.
	Oh, that's good. Well, at least it's not going to happen to us, right?
	No, it's not really going to do anything.
	It's a head fake. Lower Energy Costs Act is what it's called.
	And this is something that's being put out by the Republicans in the House.
	Steve Scalise, who is, they identify him as Majority Whip.
	No, he's actually the leader, number two guy.
	He introduced the legislation March the 14th.
	It has been given top priority position as House Resolution No.
	1. You remember in the last Congress, the one that was under Pelosi, their H.R. 1, their No.
	1 priority was the Equity Act.
	And, you know, that was going to require quotas.
	It's going to, you know, punish anybody, any religious organizations or businesses who did not want to do their quotas for LGBT and all the rest of this stuff.
	That was their number one. Now, the Republicans have said their number one priority is to lower energy costs.
	Well, that sounds good.
	You know, they're saying all the right things.
	They say it focuses on two main priorities.
	Increasing production and the export of American energy and reducing the regulatory burdens that make it harder to build American infrastructure and to grow our economy, said Kevin McCarthy as he introduced the bill.
	He said in a statement, the Biden administration has kneecapped American energy production, endlessly delayed critical infrastructure projects, The Democrats' misguided policies have increased costs for every American and jeopardized our national security.
	And they've even made the rest of the world more reliant on dirtier energy from Russia and China.
	Because that's where we have our goods manufactured, right?
	In China. China, India, they're allowed to build as many and as dirty and as cheap of power plants as they want.
	That's what the Paris Climate Accord is all about.
	Anyway, he goes on to say, the lower costs for Americans...
	To lower costs for Americans and to grow our economy, we need to get the federal government out of the way.
	The Lower Energy Costs Act will fast-track American energy production and includes comprehensive permitting reforms that will speed construction for everything from pipelines to transmission to water infrastructure.
	Again, you'll still have to get permits and you'll still have to deal with the unconstitutional Department of Energy and all the rest of the stuff.
	He's saying the right things.
	They know what the problem is.
	They've identified the problem.
	But will they do anything about it?
	They have a list of five bullet points about waiving environmental review requirements and other things like that.
	Why is it that we have these things and we never had them before?
	The EPA was created by a Republican, Richard Nixon.
	The Department of Energy was created by a Republican, Richard Nixon, who continued to ignore the Constitution.
	And also in the name of energy, He came up with the 55 mile an hour speed limit, which did nothing except exceed his authority.
	So, the Lower Energy Cost Act from the Republican House He's got a bullet point.
	He's going to limit the authority of the president and the executive agencies to restrict or to delay the development of energy on federal land.
	They're going to limit it. They're not going to end his authority.
	Because, see, he doesn't have any authority.
	The federal government doesn't even have any authority for federal land, let alone the rest of this stuff.
	Again, the Constitution, the intention was that the states are sovereign.
	And as the states were admitted into the Union prior to the Civil War, after they went from a territory to a state, that land was allocated, as we saw in Texas.
	But you look at the rest of the West that came in after the Civil War, and the federal government didn't want to give up that land.
	And the federal government, after the Civil War, didn't give a fig about the Constitution on that issue and many others.
	Eventually just got rid of it altogether.
	Eliminating certain restrictions on the import and export of oil and natural gas or waiving environmental review requirements and other things.
	What they're doing is they're rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
	They're not doing anything fundamental.
	Where's the constitutional authority for the federal government to tell us what we can do with energy?
	Emissions. It's about emissions.
	It's about saving the planet. And you see, the Republicans are implicitly buying into all of that.
	Well, we don't want to get rid of the Department of Energy.
	We don't want to get rid of the EPA. We're still concerned about emissions and all the rest.
	So we've got to do something. But, you know, we don't want to do as much as the Democrats want to do.
	And that's a losing position.
	If you're going to accept the premise that we've got to do all these things or the planet is going to burn down, or I should say their plan is going to burn down.
	If you accept that premise...
	Then what are the Republicans doing?
	I mean, if they're going to accept the premise that we're all going to die from this stuff, they don't want to push back on it, then why wouldn't you do all the things that the Democrats are doing?
	They put themselves in a losing position, and that's why we keep losing, because they won't attack the fundamental lie.
	They believe that they can live by this lie.
	They believe that they can pay obedience and lip service to this lie.
	This climate MacGuffin.
	And yet they can pull it back, for all the people who don't believe it, for all the people who are going to have their lives destroyed by it, they can pull it back and do it a little bit more slowly than the Democrats do, a little bit less of it.
	He goes on to say, Scalise said, not McCarthy, Scalise said, I would challenge President Biden, who issued a veto threat on this bill yesterday because he said his energy policies are so good, I would tell him to go back out into the real world.
	He loves talking about Scranton, Pennsylvania.
	Well, go to Scranton, Pennsylvania, and ask those families how hard times are because of his high energy costs that he's put in place on them.
	Families are struggling because of his policies, and this reverses that.
	It's just political. We don't want to do this because it's expensive for people.
	are struggling with it, he should be saying, we don't want to do this because this is a bizarre fantasy.
	It's a delusion that is being used to destroy everybody's lives.
	It isn't just that we need to do a little bit less of it or do it at a little bit slower pace so that people can get adjusted to it or so that we can completely restructure all of our transportation and energy use and infrastructure to benefit the billionaires who are directing us to go do things differently so they can make money.
	This isn't about anything to do with emissions.
	This is about them enriching the billionaire class.
	And the difference between the two parties is the speed at which they're going to enrich the billionaire class by forcing us to scrap everything that works, everything that is affordable and in place.
	We've got to destroy all of that and buy their new stuff.
	That's all this is about. And it's all new stuff to control you, to impoverish you, to transfer your money to them.
	So you have nothing.
	And the stakeholders, the multinational global corporations, and these...
	Other governments will own and control everything.
	That's what it's about.
	So again, along the same lines, you have Londoners pushing back against closed circuit TVs that are propping up everywhere.
	They're cutting them down.
	They're covering them up. They're vandalizing them.
	And it's there for two purposes, especially in London, because Sadiq Khan is all about this global agenda, this global MacGuffin.
	So they have two things that they're doing.
	They've declared certain areas to be ultra-low emission zones.
	All it is is just saying, you know, we're going to ban cars in these areas.
	And then low, let's see, it's low traffic areas.
	Yeah, low traffic neighborhoods, LTNs.
	Again, another, so they have one area where we're going to have no cars except for electric cars.
	And then other areas where they say we're not going to have any cars at all.
	And they just block it off.
	And so people, as I pointed out, they're grabbing these things and busting up these barricades that they put across the roads, setting them on fire.
	And as far as the ultra-low emission zones, they're reading people's license plates and then deciding whether or not you have an electric car or not.
	And if you don't have an electric car, they will charge you $15.42 a day to go into that area.
	Critics have argued that the expansion of the ultra-low emission zones would affect low-income households as it covers most of the neighborhoods with the M25, the highway that circles most of Greater London.
	Do you see a pattern here? Well, we're going to let you continue to manufacture Lamborghinis and McLarens and Aston Martins that sell for millions of dollars.
	And we'll have this special fuel that'll sell for who knows how much because they don't even have it yet.
	And we'll let certain people be able to go into these certain areas, but if you want to use your existing car, we're going to make it impossible.
	We'll ban it. We'll charge you too much to use it even at this point in time.
	But it's always going to be the elite.
	They can do anything that they wish.
	This is all about starving the common man.
	300 automatic number plate recognitions, referred to as automatic license plate readers in America.
	The cameras have recently been installed in the city.
	2,750 more We'll be added before the expansion deadline of August this year.
	August the 29th of this year.
	They're going to add about another 2,700.
	So there's a lot of work to destroy these things if people want to get busy.
	In some parts of the city, people have protested the expansion of the scheme by cutting wires to the cameras, by painting the lenses with black paint.
	In other parts of the city, the cameras were ripped out and thrown to the ground.
	Since February, Londoners have been taking to the streets to call for a halt to the expansion of these ultra-low emission zones, some of them calling for the resignation of Sadiq Khan.
	The mayor has championed other eco-friendly measures, such as the low-traffic neighborhoods that ban vehicles from using back roads.
	Millions of bicycle lanes, however, have been added throughout the city.
	There never was a problem, really, getting around with us.
	I remember when, back in 1973, I went with a group from high school.
	We had all these different tours, and they were just...
	Everything was packed and finally we had, at the end of it, we were exhausted but we had like a day just to do whatever we wanted.
	Another guy and I got bicycles and just rode around everywhere and didn't have any problem doing that in 1973.
	I don't know why they have to have more bicycle lanes.
	In some parts of the city, people have protested the expansion of the scheme by cutting wires to the cities, as I said.
	But it's his neighborhood that he doesn't want you in.
	That's what these low, you know, not in my backyard, don't want any cars, right?
	So it's a gradual process of shutting everything down.
	We're going to take a break, and when we come back, we're going to talk about the fact that Americans don't believe anymore in God, country, or hard work.
	So where does that leave us?
	We'll be right back. 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.
	And you want to 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.
	All right. If Americans don't believe in God, country, or hard work, what do they believe in?
	And, of course, this is coming from the Wall Street Journal survey.
	It came out earlier this week.
	Since 1998, so we're talking about 25 years, you've seen the number of people who say, they ask them, you know, what things do you think are these particular topics very important to you?
	Well, in 1998, 70% of respondents said patriotism was very important.
	That's fallen from 70% to 38% today, dropped by about half.
	25 years ago, they asked people about religion, and 62% said religion was very important to them.
	Now only 39% do.
	And so when you look at hard work, it's the same situation.
	If Americans don't believe in God or country, what do they believe in?
	Well, they believe in one thing.
	Only one thing has grown in priority.
	Americans don't really care about much of anything anymore.
	Just kind of coasting.
	You ask, you know, God, country, hard work.
	Any other thing? No, nothing except one thing.
	What is that? Money. Money is the only thing that they care more about.
	Interesting that they don't see the connection between hard work and money in America.
	So money went from 31% in 1998 to 43%.
	Americans want money, but they don't want hard work.
	Americans want money, but they don't want God.
	A country that values money above creator and caring for one another is doomed, right?
	Well, not necessarily, at least not yet, says this story.
	They said it's really the citizens who value money more than other things that are doomed, right?
	But again, you know, you look at the entire society, and that's the way that it is trending.
	But it still is an individual thing.
	You know, we're not part of the crowd.
	They don't define us. Those of us who do believe in God, country, and hard work will find that we are going to be more satisfied than those who don't.
	And that's what they're saying in this article from World Magazine.
	It said, And as he was around for it, and I was not, I tend to agree with him, said the writer.
	Well, that is really what happened.
	He says Tom Wolfe's me decade was talking about how traditional morals had gone out the window.
	And we get focused on this, and this is one of the reasons why they're using LGBT as their core value, right?
	They don't want you focused on God, country, and hard work.
	They want you focused on this brave new world ethics.
	And so, if you are, if the society, if the people in society are becoming lovers of self, if they are merely seekers of pleasure, and they're looking for a quick buck, they're people that can easily be hoodwinked, they can easily be used.
	And that's what they want.
	And that is really what has happened as we have fallen for that.
	That's part of the sexual revolution that happened, you know, at that point in time.
	But also the LGBT revolution that's going on has accelerated that and made it much, much stronger.
	It's an extension of that.
	It's the sexual revolution on steroids and the logical conclusion of that.
	People who are obsessed by sex, another C.S. Lewis analogy, he said, what would you think about it if somebody only thought about food?
	They're constantly looking at pictures of food and all the rest of the stuff.
	Food is a natural appetite, so is sex.
	But if you become obsessed with it, that is the problem.
	You become addicted to it.
	And that's what our government has done.
	It's done everything it can to try to addict people to this.
	The writer says, Without much to guide their values beyond public school propaganda or TikTok influencers, their parents, too, were oftentimes reared without religion, an idea of place or obligation to anything but me.
	Without a sense of duty to a value system, the love of true, good, and beautiful things guiding them, why would Americans value religion or feel patriotic or want to work hard or contribute to their communities?
	This report on the new polling numbers, in this report, the Wall Street Journal interviewed Kevin Williams, a 33-year-old black man from Oregon.
	He volunteers and coaches youth sports, among other things, and his theory is that, quote, patriotism is declining as a civic value in tandem with rising individualism, a sense of entitlement among many people, a sense of entitlement among many people, and a decline in community involvement, possibly because of people focusing on their own racial or cultural backgrounds rather than what Americans have in common.
	And that is a man who is 33 years old, black, and doing volunteer work.
	And so he is not the stereotypical situation in America.
	So what do we do about it?
	It says, well, if we're meaningfully opposing state power, it's necessary to encourage, to grow, to sustain institutions and organizations over which states cannot so easily roll their enormous weight.
	By the way, the person writing this is Ryan Macon.
	He's at the Mises Institute, mises.org.
	So this is what I've said.
	If you look at what the state is pushing us to do, basically you do the opposite.
	What they're doing is they're trying to push us all into an isolated corner.
	They're trying to push us all out of reality.
	They're trying to push us all into a virtual world, into a metaverse, into not connecting with anybody except through Zoom or the internet and the channels that they watch, that they control.
	So the first thing we do is we do the opposite of what they want us to do.
	He said when people support a local parish, where they raise a family, where they build a business, where they create mutual aid organizations, where they foster local civic independence, they're doing work that is absolutely critical to fighting state power.
	Now, we don't do this to fight state power.
	We do this because these are things that are going to be good for us.
	We're going to be satisfied if we do these types of things.
	So, it is a way of fighting state power, but if you don't see it that way, you're not going to go to church to fight state power.
	You're going to go to church to connect to the higher power.
	But, you know, if you do all of these things...
	In other words, if you live the kind of life that we've always aspired to, it's going to be healthy for you, healthy for society.
	While it is always good to speak ill of state power, says Ryan McMakin, and to oppose its countless violent and impoverishing grifts, this is not enough.
	We must also speak well of non-state institutions, and we must strengthen them in our daily work and our daily lives.
	Again, whenever we see these problems that exist, the first instinct is to always say, there ought to be a law.
	And then the next thing is to say, we're going to make a federal case out of it.
	That type of thing. We used to mock that idea when I was growing up.
	Don't make a federal case out of it.
	Oh yeah, he thinks there needs to be another law.
	That was a joke. It's not a joke.
	That's the way Americans think anymore.
	Without these institutions of kinship, family, Of religion, of markets, of towns, non-state society will be irrelevant.
	And that's one of the things that the economist that I talked to earlier this week.
	So I'm interested in seeing his book when it comes out, talking to him about it again.
	Because it was commissioned, his book was commissioned, By Catholic group, and the Catholics have really kind of taken the lead on pushing towards a kind of an awareness and making it a bit more formal.
	And as he pointed out, as a libertarian, he's got some issues with some of that, but he sees much that is good in it, and of course, that's going to be the way it is with anything that mankind does, right?
	There's going to be good and bad, and so what you try to do is you try to separate the good from the bad, and you try to accentuate and build on that and get rid of some of the bad stuff.
	But, you know, there is an awareness that is starting to build about how important local community is.
	And again, we have to be careful that we don't, that we keep things in balance.
	And so I imagine that's what he's talking about with the, but I've had some people mention those types of things to me.
	I'm interested to get him back and talk about that more anyway.
	Anyway, he says, Without any viable private or local alternatives will never be sufficient.
	People want services like education.
	They want help for widows and orphans and the disabled.
	They want safety.
	They want a sense of community.
	They want solidarity with others.
	And as the Tocqueville pointed out, in America, people would build those things instead of calling for the central government to do it.
	You always have these needs.
	It's just a question of How are you going to do it?
	Are you going to do it in a way that, you know, when we talk about education or we talk about charity, again, Democrats hate the idea of charity.
	To them, that is a curse word.
	And I was, you know, when I talked about that in a Democrat group pushing back against Hillary's attempt to take over health care, I said, you know, charity is important.
	Charity! No, they see it as an entitlement.
	Because they don't want to be, in their sense, indebted to somebody else.
	I'm entitled. Government needs to give that to me.
	And yet, the reality is that what they're missing is the original root word of that.
	Charity really meant originally love.
	And so... Charity used to be, and local groups, it wasn't always the church, but it was largely the church.
	But other groups would get involved in it as well.
	They would come together, they would take up a collection, they would do it in love to help somebody.
	And it was, and it always is, a humbling thing to get help from people.
	Everybody wants to feel like they are independently wealthy and independent of everything else, and they don't need anybody's help.
	So, you know, I understand, everybody understands that, how humbling that is.
	But there was something about it that was better than the system that we have now.
	We have somebody demanding that you contribute at the IRS, holding a gun to your head.
	There is no love in any of that process.
	There's no helping of your fellow man.
	You don't see anybody being helped by this.
	And of course we all understand that in one area or the other we're all going to need help.
	At one time or the other we're all going to need help.
	Most of us, anyway.
	So, you know, there was that understanding.
	You know, this isn't just, you know, the fact that I've got all these resources and you don't.
	I know that at some point in time, I'm going to need your help in something or the other.
	That's the type of love and mutual community that builds on all this stuff.
	When the government comes in and tells you, you will give me this and you will give me that, and then takes the money and And just indiscriminately gives it to people, many people who are grifting the system.
	And we all know how this feels.
	You know, we see the government coming in and making demands on us.
	We see them wasting the money.
	We see them keeping the money for themselves, handing it out to people who don't need it.
	And it does the opposite of love.
	It builds hate. It really is the opposite of charity.
	Welfare is. There's waste, there's fraud, there's abuse, there's grifting involved in all of that.
	And it does not build community, it destroys community.
	These benefits of society do not require states, but they do require institutions.
	Yet these institutions in our own time are so reduced as to offer little as alternatives to the state.
	That's one of the reasons why I like that interview that I had a couple of weeks ago with the individual who...
	Was working on a plan that was created by the farmers in Zimbabwe.
	I was thinking about it yesterday as we were talking about the confiscation of farms in Zimbabwe and how bad it was with Marxism and how they drove people into starvation.
	And so, I forget what his name was, it was a couple of weeks ago, but he was talking about A South African farmer that was there first, he was struggling with a traditional farm, and then he realized that he asked God to show him what he was doing wrong.
	He looked at things growing in the wild, and he realized they're not over-cultivated.
	The ground is really alive, and God has given us a lot of the things that we need in order to grow food and to grow our society.
	So he started thinking about how he could do farming in a less invasive way, Technological way, and his yields just went through the roof.
	But then the communists took over, and as he said, there was three things you could do about it.
	You could fight, you could flee, or this guy decided that he would help to feed people, even after they, and such an amazing Christian story that they would confiscate his farm, and his response would be to show them how to farm so we'd all don't starve to death.
	And in the process of doing that, he fed them spiritually as well.
	He used that as a way to witness to them as a Christian.
	And is now starting this through the guy that I interviewed, setting up a program for people to learn how to feed themselves, to learn how to show other people, teach other people that, and to start building a community.
	And to have people build a community that is looking to Christ in that.
	And so, this article from Jim Dennison, AI, our broken society, need the moral compass of the Christian worldview.
	You have all these articles I've got here today about artificial intelligence.
	You've got Elon Musk and other people concerned and say, hey, we've got to put a moratorium on this.
	You've got a thousand scientists talking about it.
	You've got Steve Wozniak, Elon Musk.
	We need to slow down. This AI stuff is going too quickly.
	And that is true. We have the same type of thing that Michael Crichton was talking about in Jurassic Park.
	He said, look at the genetic technology.
	It's advancing so rapidly.
	But we need to stop and think about The consequences of this, the ethics of this, we're not stopping to think about any of this stuff.
	We're just rushing on with this technology.
	Technology is simply a tool.
	But we have to understand that just having a tool is not necessarily a good thing in and of itself.
	That tool can be used for good or bad.
	And so we need to make sure these new tools are going to be used for good.
	And so he says...
	If you could order and pay for your food with your palm, would you do it?
	Because that's what's happening in Panera Bread.
	They've just rolled out all these Amazon palm readers.
	He says, you have to know the conditions, though.
	You'll have to obtain a My Panera membership.
	Then you'll have to link it to an Amazon One account.
	They will then use your palm scan as a payment.
	The company will then know your name and your favorite orders at checkout, and they'll also have biometric information on you.
	But, you know, we just had the clip yesterday of Trump talking about how we're going to have biometric ID by land, by air, by sea, everywhere, right?
	Not going to be able to escape my biometric Trump ID to protect us from a boogeyman, right?
	In reality. Because it's not going to protect us from any of that.
	What if advances like this were to be used for more than just purchasing a meal?
	What if digital technology were to be employed to monitor everything we do?
	You know, by air, by land, by sea, as Donald Trump is saying.
	Perhaps you have to use this to get a job.
	They call that e-verify.
	See, there's a lot of different, even before Trump started talking about an ID that you'll use to travel by air, by land, by sea.
	Isn't that Orwellian enough?
	But, of course, there's also E-Verify, which Republicans have been pushing for quite some time.
	That's going to stop the illegal immigrants from getting jobs, and so that'll protect you from the Auslander, right?
	The foreigner. And to be protected from the foreigner...
	You will submit to the Trump ID, the biometrics, and the E-Verify to get permission from the government to get a job.
	Really? Are you going to fall for that?
	Seriously? So, you know, you can use this.
	Dating sites might have that as a preemptive thing, right?
	Get rid of... Any anonymity anywhere?
	So, you know, we have IDs for a dating site.
	IDs, buy a home to see the best doctor or to see a doctor.
	We've already seen this, of course, still going on.
	Do you have your vaccine? Sorry, can't help you.
	You don't have your vaccine.
	All of these IDs, of course, this is all based on the Chinese social credit score.
	This is why I said 2020 was the year the world became China.
	So you have surveillance capitalism is what we have added to it as well.
	Average American is caught on security cameras 238 times per week.
	5G to build the internet of not things, but tyranny.
	The internet of tyranny.
	Of course, Trump was big on that 5G as well.
	Just make sure the Chinese don't have control of it.
	And then quantum computing.
	To make it impossible to protect information via encryption because they can run through all the different permutations of it so quickly that you basically won't be able to encode the stuff.
	So when you look at the challenges that are coming from the AI revolution, we just had, I think it was on the Drudge Report, you had Ray Kurzweil.
	And people love to say, well, look at Ray Kurzweil has invented all these things.
	He's made a lot of predictions about things that have come true.
	And now Ray Kurzweil is saying that in seven or eight years, humanity is going to achieve eternal life.
	And I would say, well, that probably is true for Ray Kurzweil because he's getting kind of old.
	It's probably true for me. I told Karen, I said, yeah, probably achieve eternal life within the next seven years, some point in time.
	But, you know, not in the way that he thinks about it.
	You know, again, going back to C.S. Lewis, we quoted him.
	Here's the third time. He says, you know, when I look at people on the street, it's pretty sobering to think that some of them will be transformed into something that is so amazing that if you were to see them, you'd be tempted to bow down and worship.
	And others will be transformed into something that'll be so horrific you won't be able to even look at them.
	You know, there's going to be a bifurcation.
	In that sense. And we need all to understand that our life is limited.
	But Ray Kurzweil has always believed that he's going to be able to transfer himself even though he can't define what he is.
	He thinks that whatever he is, his thought processes or something, he's going to be able to copy them And then put them into some kind of cyborg or something and live eternally.
	He thinks he's going to make a copy of his deceased father and all the rest of this stuff.
	He's always pushed the singularity.
	He's the founder of the singularity.
	He's chief scientist at Google and all the rest of this stuff.
	But again, I guess what got me started thinking about C.S. Lewis today was this quote from this article.
	We have to attack the enemy's line of communication.
	He said, To an assembly of Anglican priests and youth leaders.
	And when we talk about apologetics, we're not talking about cowering before the LGBT or the politically correct.
	We're not talking about apologizing for being a Christian.
	We're talking about explaining why we believe what we believe.
	I always thought that was kind of an odd term, apologetics.
	Unfortunately, most of the Christian church, most Christians are constantly apologizing for being Christians.
	They're not involved in apologetics.
	But anyway, he was talking to them, and he said, when we look at the risk to human civilization, how do we handle this technology that is rapidly changing everything?
	He said, C.S. Lewis maybe has the answers.
	In the speech that he gave us in 1945, he said, I believe that any Christian who's qualified to write a good popular book on any science may do much more by that than by any directly apologetic work.
	He said we can make people often attend to the Christian point of view for half an hour or so.
	But the moment they've gone away from our lecture, or they've laid down our article, they're plunged back into a world where the opposite position is taken for granted.
	He said, we have to attack the enemy's line of communication.
	What we want is not more little books about Christianity, but more little books by Christians on other subjects with their Christianity latent.
	He said, for a materialistic secularist, it is not books on Christianity that will trouble him, but he would be troubled if, whenever he wanted a cheap, popular introduction to some science, the best work on the market was always by a Christian.
	And so he says, here's the point, says the writer Jim Dennison.
	He says, artificial intelligence in particular, and our broken society in general, Desperately need the moral compass of the Christian worldview.
	To guide culture more effectively, we need Christians who are political leaders, brilliant screenwriters, exemplary business people, superlative athletes, and the rest of us need to pray for Christians in such positions of influence.
	We need believers who are preeminent computer scientists who will bring Jesus' moral authority to their work.
	In the AI age that is now dawning, bedrock biblical values such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the sanctity of life will be needed as never before.
	So what is the answer to this?
	Can we get to a consensus by having some political leader who is going to You know, set up some kind of rules or something and is going to lay out an ethical framework.
	No, it's really going to be when we, as Christians, impose that ethical framework on artificial intelligence or on the surveillance state as politicians or citizens.
	It's going to be that type of thing.
	It is not going to be done by a community effort in politics, by people whose values are secular humanists.
	It's going to be by people who say, I'm not going to do that.
	I'm not going to go along with that.
	As a matter of fact, I'm going to oppose it.
	I will set up different structures, or I will set up something to take down that structure.
	But I'm not going to be a part of that, because I'm a Christian.
	that's listening thank you 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.

▲