All Episodes
Previous Next
April 12, 2023 - The David Knight Show
03:00:52
13Apr23 Musk Nails BBC on FreeSpeech, But Study Shows Twitter Censorship UP; IMF and BIS Jump Into CBDC
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The End You're listening to The David Knight Show.
As the clock strikes 13, it's Thursday, the 13th of April, year of our Lord, 2023.
3.
Today we're going to take a look at what is, as we move forward with the emergencies.
It still is an emergency, even though the executive order has gone.
It is all hands on deck, because now they are moving forward.
Still having another vaccine project that is coming out.
Still the same tactics, and of course the martial law aspect of that is still there.
But we're going to begin by taking a look at the debate over free speech.
Elon Musk absolutely owned this BBC propagandist who was coming after free speech using the typical attacks.
And it is a master class about how to shut these people down.
We're also going to take a look at the interview that Donald Trump had with Tucker Carlson.
It was very interesting and humorous, I think.
I hope you think so, too.
Stay with us. We'll be right back.
Thank you. Well, before I take a look at the back and forth between Elon Musk and the BBC, it is a perfect example of the dishonesty of the mainstream media.
BBC, one of the worst.
And of course, Elon Musk live-streamed it for his own protection.
He knew that they would cherry-pick what they wanted to talk about.
And so he live-streamed it on Twitter Spaces.
So you can see that there.
And it's kind of interesting to see what they chose to talk about, what they chose to cut out, and what they chose to leave in.
But before we get to that, just so that you understand the disconnect between what people say and what they do when we're talking about politicians or billionaires, or especially billionaire politicians like Trump, like Musk.
Yes, he is a politician of sorts.
And so not even a week ago, After Elon Musk spearheads a phony letter, open letter, oh, we've got to be worried about artificial intelligence.
We need to have a six-month moratorium on it.
Oh, really? How are you going to do that voluntarily?
You've got massive amounts of money, probably more money chasing this stuff than we've ever seen on a particular project before in human history.
And you're just going to have everybody just sit there for six months and do nothing?
Really? Is anybody talking about guidelines for artificial intelligence?
No, it's going to come about from grassroots, or it's going to come about from legal cases where it defames people, because that is something where people are actually injured, unlike when it tells lies.
And of course, the BBC and all the rest of these people who were so concerned about disinformation, they absolutely don't care.
If the search engines, which have been long ago designed to hide things, if now these search engines become weapons of disinformation, and then they can just blame it on hallucinogenic AI. How convenient that you have these...
entertaining episodes of artificial intelligence, going on these wild lunatic fringe things, you know, trying to hit on reporters, I'm in love with you and all the rest of this stuff, to let's burn down all of humanity.
These types of fantasies, they highlight that kind of stuff.
But the reality is that it's already an instrument of propaganda.
Just ask it any political questions.
Ask it any questions about the pandemic or about the vaccine or about climate or about any of the other central issues, and it'll be just as dishonest as mainstream media or the politicians who paid for this kind of stuff to come through.
And they have no problem with that, and they want that to spread further.
Because, you know, the reporters, especially this guy who was talking to Elon Musk, they just don't have any, they're not believable.
You know, artificial intelligence for so many people is going to have so much as they put it gravitas.
Remember when that was used by somebody?
Nobody ever used that word before somebody used it.
Talking about some political candidate in his speech or something.
And it just became an echo chamber.
Oh, the word of the week is gravitas.
So, as Elon Musk was talking about, we need to put a moratorium on this.
He's also out there buying tens of thousands of new GPUs for his own artificial intelligence project.
Maybe that's why he wanted him to wait six months.
Can you guys wait six months so I can catch up to you?
Because it's a race. Nothing is going to stop this race.
We can refuse to use it.
But it will be used against us, and it's not going to be a Skynet thing.
At least not at first.
They want to wet it to weapons.
That's why I had Sharae on talking about the four battlegrounds.
They absolutely do want to use it as an adjunct to weapons.
Autonomous killing machines.
You know, what could possibly go wrong with that?
But first they will use it to bolster the surveillance state and the police state.
And that absolutely is already happening, as I've reported multiple times.
Elon Musk... After spearheading the letter to halt AI development, then as sources familiar with the company say that he recently purchased nearly 10,000 GPUs, graphic processing units.
These are the things that are, you know, the graphic processing units were streamlined for very heavy computation, very fast.
And they use a lot of power, by the way.
They tried to get the...
It was always a demand for GPUs, for not just gaming, but for crypto mining.
And so then they use that against crypto.
So you can't use that. It's too much power.
And yet, these people are getting tens of thousands of them.
And they're getting the most powerful ones.
These things cost about $10,000 apiece.
So if he's going to get 10,000 of these things, he just dropped $100 million on it.
That's chump change. He spent...
$44 billion on Twitter?
This is a tiny purchase.
For him. Just like when Jeff Bezos spent $250 million for Amazon a few years ago.
He said, alright, well let's take a look at what he's made recently.
Just in terms of the appreciation of Amazon stock.
And then let's normalize that $250 million to the number of hours that it would have taken him to make that $250 million based on the stock going up.
And... Then let's take it to what at the time was about $50,000 was the median family income.
So I said, okay, so if it takes him X number of hours to pay for Amazon, now it wasn't even a week, you know, it was something like two or three days worth of, if it was that much, Of his, what he made on stock.
So I said, let's, you know, let's take a look at this and what would that translate?
You know, two or three days of your work making $50,000 a year, you know?
And it's like, oh, okay.
It's like buying groceries for a week and he gets the Washington Post.
That's where these guys live with this kind of money and this kind of power to throw it around.
Anonymous sources reportedly deem the project to be in its early stages, but the purchase of such a quantity of GPUs shows that Musk is committed to it.
One of the sources said the project works with a large language model.
That's what this all is.
You know, teaching it to talk and, you know, become a first-class conman BS artist.
However, the sources also said the definite role of generative AI at Twitter is unclear.
How are they going to use it at Twitter?
Twitter doesn't really exist anymore, formally.
He's made it clear. He wants to have some kind of unified app.
We used to have really smart people like Thomas Edison looking for unified field theory, things like that.
No, these guys are just looking for, how can I control the world?
How can I unify the world under me?
I can have one app to rule them all.
All the people, all the other apps, everything else.
Isn't that a megalomaniac, is he?
It's a technocrat megalomaniac.
These developments come only a few weeks after Musk signed the open letter along with thousands of other researchers in the tech space to temporarily halt.
Development of AI due to its risk to humanity.
You know, it's one of those things like, so he has to, we all have to buy his electric cars and other electric cars like it because of the risk to humanity from climate change.
And we all have to be very, very concerned about artificial intelligence because of the risk to humanity.
Look, the risk to humanity is from other humans.
And these are tools, these are weapons that are being used against us.
These are tools and weapons that they will have exclusively.
That's the risk to us.
They've always worked for this.
This is why they want gun control.
When crossbows came out, they were a game changer.
Because with the crossbow, you could easily penetrate a knight's armor.
Much more easily than you could with even a longbow.
And so the crossbows had to be controlled.
You didn't have people marching in the street for crossbow control.
Crossbow prohibition.
Crossbow banning. But the government knew what the threats were to them.
And so they made that ban.
At the same time that they would require...
The yeomanry, which we later call the militia, they required the yeomanry to practice on Sundays, you know, their day off.
You had to practice shooting a longbow, and they would do it so much that you would see a difference, and you can see a difference in the bone density of the skeletons on their left arm where they were holding the longbow out.
Because it had a lot of weight. And they were doing it over and over and over again.
So you've got to practice with the longbow because that's what you're going to use if you're our soldiers.
But we don't want any assassins out there with a crossbow who can take out a knight in armor.
Also along this same line, before we get into the excellent defense of free speech that Elon Musk made, just as we see the hypocrisy on artificial intelligence.
Well, the reality of Elon Musk, in spite of what the media is bellyaching about, is that censorship has actually gotten worse on Twitter.
I'm not the only one to say this.
We have MRCTV, where Guard Goldsmith does many reports.
And of course, he also has Liberty Conspiracy, but he does reports for MRCTV. Joseph Vasquez at MRCTV, talking about their freedom project, their free speech, the MRC Free Speech America, as the organization is looking focused on that.
And they said, well, we looked at a study here, and Twitter censorship has actually risen since Musk has taken over.
So they did a year, you know, looked at censorship this year versus censorship last year at the same period of time.
They said Musk once tweeted that he saw Twitter as the, quote, de facto town square, quote-unquote.
See, you had Jack Dorsey say that about eight times under oath in congressional hearings.
And if it is the town square, the Supreme Court has rightfully said, even if the town square is privately owned, you cannot censor people.
Going back to the 1946 case, Marsh v.
Alabama. And again, if you try to pull that back, as some people have had that argument with Robert Barnes, he's, oh no, there's been subsequent decisions.
I don't care. That's the right decision, number one.
You know, Supreme Court's constantly changing its mind.
You know, which dress should I wear today?
Oh, I think I'll wear the black one.
They're constantly changing their mind about things.
But the reality is that these subsequent cases...
We're things like people setting up a soapbox in a mall.
A mall is not the public square.
The mall is retail space, private retail space.
It's not the same thing at all.
The 1946 case really was.
It was a company-owned town. And Twitter is a company-owned town.
But it is also the de facto town square.
So is YouTube.
And others. So all the social media stuff and YouTube.
So under that basis, they ought to prohibit censorship.
The government should protect our speech in those areas.
He also said, when he tweeted that out, he said, failing to adhere to free speech principles fundamentally undermines democracy.
He understands. And he articulated it perfectly.
And he did that with this BBC guy that we're going to play for you here in a second.
But that doesn't mean that he's going to follow those rules.
It's just like Trump. Trump can outline for you as a candidate all the problems that we're currently facing.
He can tell you everything that's wrong with Biden.
Will he fix it? No.
No. He had his chance.
He made it worse. He gave us the lockdowns.
What president in history could have ever gotten away with that?
Other than Trump because of his cult following.
It's the most outrageous thing I've ever seen.
It is straight out of Communist China.
As a matter of fact, that's where he got it, you know?
So, anyway, getting back to Twitter.
Twitter censorship has been on the rise under Elon Musk, says MRC Free Speech America.
They found 293 cases of documented censorship since Musk controlled the platform.
And so they said this is 67 more than the 226 documented cases in the censortrack.org from the old regime during the same time period a year ago.
So that's a 30% increase.
And the severity of the censorship since Musk took over has been harsher.
And 245 of the 293 cases, in other words, 84% of them, documented cases of censorship on censortrack.org.
Twitter locked users' accounts in nearly all cases.
Users are required to delete the content to regain access to their accounts.
Under the old Twitter regime, that happened 60% of the time.
So again, harsher penalties, you know...
Delete this stuff. We're going to lock your account.
You're going to delete it. That happened 60% of the time under the old regime, 84% of the time under Musk.
Previous Twitter regime targeted the biggest, most politically sensitive user accounts.
However, Musk's moves that led to the firing and resignation of key leaders in the elitist team in charge of the effort to target high follower accounts has not resulted in a reduction of censorship practices by the remaining rank-and-file staff involved in content moderation.
The implication? The remaining staff at Twitter are revolting against Musk's efforts to foster a free speech environment on the platform.
That's one way you can take a look at it.
Some high-profile users censored under the old regime during the analyzed periods included Ron Johnson, Dan Bongino, John Solomon, American Heart Association, And yet, as Elon Musk goes in and focuses on some of these big-name accounts, you see that the overall situation has not changed.
Now, again, to be fair, we could say that maybe this is the actions of these rebellious employees that are still there, that they're even more angry and censoring even harder, the ones that remain.
62% of documented cases of censorship during Musk's leadership involved tweets critical of the transgender narrative.
62%. So you want to get banned right now.
They are the tip of the spear.
They are the shock troops for the Antifa Marxists.
For the Sodom-Go-Marxist people, they are our core value, as the Biden administration has said.
And whether this is being done by rogue employees, or whether this is company policy, one way or the other, they are still following the wishes and the desires, if not the direct orders, of the government.
So, let's talk about this interview back and forth.
He absolutely owned this guy.
This is the good part. Let's enjoy this.
Whether he really wants free speech or not, this was great to see him take down these guys.
There's nothing more despicable to me than to watch people who are journalists, reporters, people who work in the press, who hate free speech.
They hate competition, number one.
But they hate the truth.
They hate freedom.
It's like, you're in the wrong job, pal.
You're nothing but a government propagandist.
And so, you know, they contacted him.
They said, well, we'd like to do an interview with you.
And he says, okay. And he said he was surprised they showed up in 20 minutes.
Now this guy is trying to say, well, you know, the BBC contacted me and I didn't have any time to prepare because he was totally owned.
And the good thing about this is that, unlike when Megyn Kelly went to Infowars, she didn't want any of these things recorded.
She interviewed all the staff.
Did not want anything recorded.
And, you know, Dew and Alex conveniently obliged.
So you just have to take my word for what happened there.
Because the video that I had with her, and I wish I had that, she was a deer in the headlight when I started talking about civil asset forfeiture.
Because I told her, I said, no, I'm not a Trump supporter.
And I started listing the things I disagreed with, and, you know, civil asset forfeiture and things like sessions and stuff, things that were happening with that.
She said, well, civil asset?
She's a lawyer. She's a highly paid media person.
She's never heard of civil asset forfeiture.
And there were some other things in the interview I wish had been, you know, that had the foresight to actually record, but they didn't.
They got a little bit of it on tape of Alex, and that was it.
And then he kind of bluffed it.
They've bluffed her. They release a little bit.
They had said, we got the whole thing, so you better be fair type of thing.
And the bluff worked.
But let's talk about the interview that Musk had with BBC. As a matter of fact, it's a little bit long, but it's worth it.
And I'm going to play that for you, if I can find it on the board.
Do we have that on the board?
I don't see that here on the board.
Oh, here it is. Just Musk.
Okay. So here's Musk with the BBC. Do you think you prioritize freedom of speech over this information?
By the way, you don't see them talking because this is what the BBC did not want to show you.
This is what was recorded off the space.
Who is the author of that?
Is it the BBC? Yeah, you're literally asking me.
Well, no, you are the arbiter on Twitter, because you own Twitter.
Yes, I'm saying, who is to say that one person's misinformation is another person's information?
At the point at which you say that this is misinformation.
You accept that misinformation can be dangerous, that it can cause real-world harms, that it can potentially cause...
Yeah, so the point I'm trying to make is that the BBC itself has, at times, published things that are false.
Do you agree that that has occurred?
I'm quite sure the BBC have said things before that turn out to not be true in its, whatever it is, 100-year history, I'm quite sure.
How about the last 100 hours?
100 years.
I think in the grand scheme of things, the BFC does aspire to be accurate.
But you accept there has to be a line in terms of hate speech.
I mean, you're not looking at total 100% restricted speech.
No, there doesn't. It doesn't have to be. There's...
Well, I mean, I generally...
I've often seen in that...
If the people of a given country are against a certain type of speech, they should talk to their elected representatives and pass a law to prevent it.
So, for example, you cannot advocate murdering someone.
That's illegal. In the United States.
Everywhere, really, I suspect.
So... So there are limits to speech.
I guess taking your argument to a logical conclusion then, do you accept that there's more misinformation on the platform if it's not being policed in the same way?
I actually think there's less these days because we've eliminated so many of the bots which were pushing scams and spam.
And previously, previous management turned a blind eye to the bots because their bonuses were tied to user growth.
And if your compensation is tied to user growth, well, you're not going to look too closely at some of the users.
That's part of the problem. So I think we've got less misinformation because we don't have the bot problem that we used to do.
And we also have given a lot of attention to community notes, which corrects, where the community itself corrects misinformation.
It's been very effective.
I mean, I would only just add that, you know, we have spoken to people who have been sacked that used to be in content moderation, and we've spoken to people very recently who were involved in moderation, and they just say there's not enough people to police this stuff, particularly around hate speech in the company.
What hate speech they hate?
I mean, you use Twitter. Right.
Do you see a rise in hate speech?
Just a personal anecdote.
I don't.
Personally, for you, I would say I get more of that kind of content, personally.
But I'm not going to talk for the rest of Twitter.
Do you see more hate speech personally?
I don't see more hateful content in that.
Content you don't like or hateful?
What do you mean to describe a hateful thing?
Yeah, I mean, you know, just content that will solicit a reaction to something that may include something that is slightly racist or slightly sexist, those kinds of things.
So you think if something is slightly sexist, it should be banned?
No, I'm not saying anything.
I'm trying to say what you mean by hateful content.
I'm asking for specific examples.
And you just said that if something is slightly sexist, that's hateful content.
Does that mean that it should be bad?
Well, you've asked me whether my feed, whether it's got less or more, I'd say it's got slightly more.
That's what I'm asking for examples. Can you name one example?
You can't name a single example.
I'll tell you why, because I don't actually use that feed anymore, because I just don't particularly like it.
Actually, a lot of people are quite similar.
You said you've seen more hateful content, but you can't name a single example, not even one.
I'm not sure I've used that feed for the last...
How did you see the hateful content?
Because I've been using Twister since you've taken over for the last six months.
Okay, so then you must have at some point seen for you hateful content.
I'm asking for one example.
Right. You can't give a single one.
And I'm saying...
Then I say so that you don't know what you're talking about.
Really? Yes, because you can't give me a single example of hateful content, not even one tweet, and yet you claimed that the hateful content was high.
Well... That's a false.
No, what I claim was there are many organizations that say that that kind of information is on the rise.
Name them. Now, whether it has on my feed or not, I mean, someone like the Strategic Dialogue Institute in the UK. They will say that.
People will say all sorts of nonsense.
I'm literally asking for a single example and you can't name one.
Right. And as I've already said, I don't use that feed.
Then how would you know? I don't think this is getting anywhere.
You literally said you experienced more hateful content and then couldn't name a single example.
That's absurd. I haven't actually looked at that feed.
Then how would you know there's hateful content?
Because I'm saying that's what I saw a few weeks ago.
I can't give you an exact example.
Let's move on. We only have a certain amount of time.
COVID misinformation.
You changed the COVID misinformation.
Has BBC changed the COVID misinformation?
The BBC does not set the rules on Twitter, so I'm asking you.
No, I'm talking about the BBC's misinformation about COVID. I'm literally asking you about, you changed the labels, the COVID misinformation labels.
There used to be a policy, it then disappeared.
Why do that? COVID is no longer an issue.
Does the BBC call itself at all responsible for misinformation regarding masking and side effects of vaccinations?
And not reporting on that at all?
And what about the fact that the BBC was put under pressure by the British government to change its editorial policy?
Are you aware of that? This is not an interview about the BBC. Oh, you thought it wasn't?
I see now why you've done Twitter Spaces.
I am not a representative of the BBC's editorial policy.
I want to make that clear. Let's talk about something else.
You want to talk about the BBC? All right, let's talk about something else.
Yeah, this interview wasn't about the BBC. Oh, you thought it wasn't?
That's what I want to talk about.
That is, as I said, Propaganda 101, the class that they teach all the people in journalism school right now.
Well, you know, some people say.
What people? You don't have to name them.
You know, when you want to accuse somebody of something, you don't have to actually have other people, some phantom people out there that are unnamed.
They may be anonymous sources, or you just may say some people say.
Most people believe.
Believe what? Again, give me some specifics.
What is it that you have a problem with?
Specifically define for me what hate speech is.
Oh, well, hate speech.
Something that's slightly sexist or slightly racist or whatever.
So, slightly sexist?
You're going to ban people for something that is slightly sexist?
According to who? Again, who is the arbiter of this?
Look, you know, the only thing I would...
It was a perfect master class on it.
The only thing that I would change...
It's to say, yes, if you're going to define something as hate speech, because this is now something that Republicans are guilty of.
This is why I talked about it in Florida, right?
Oh, well, you know, we've got some people who are, in fact, hateful and saying and doing hateful things against the Jewish community down there.
And their representatives, in order to bolster their support to represent that community, they decided that they're going to hate free speech.
Because they don't like what's being said.
Now, the remedy to hateful speech is to tell the truth.
When Elon Musk said, well, you know, there's certain things, of course, that you can't say.
You can't threaten to kill somebody.
Why is that a crime?
Is that a crime? Because we treat that as faults?
No, it's a crime because we're worried it might be true.
You might really act on what you're saying.
And so we shut people down when they threaten criminal actions like that on the basis that it might be true.
But if you disagree with something, that it might be false.
Who are you to disagree with that?
That's for debate, especially when we're talking about science like COVID. We're talking about science.
It needs to always be about debate.
It needs to always be about skepticism.
Or it isn't science.
Instead, what it is, is an authoritative, not authoritative, an authoritarian religion imposing their beliefs on other people.
And that's exactly what these people want.
So yeah, who said this?
Well, I can't really say. Give me some examples.
Well, I can't really say about that.
You mean the BBC? You changed your COVID? You mean the BBC hasn't changed what it says about COVID and vaccines and masks?
I'm asking you for one example.
You can't give me a single one.
I say, sir, that you don't know what you're talking about.
You can't give me a single example of hateful content.
Not even one tweet.
Yet you claimed that hateful content was high.
That is false.
You just lied.
Good for him. Does the BBC hold itself at all responsible for misinformation regarding masking, side effects of vaccinations, and for not reporting on that at all?
And what about the fact the BBC was put under pressure by the British government to change its editorial policy?
Again, perfect.
And the fact is, and the guy says, oh, well, now I see why you put it on Spaces, you know, because that kind of stuff did not make the BBC cut, and that's why I had it without the picture of the guys, because Spaces is audio only.
So here's some of the other things that they talk about.
For the most part, what they wanted to do was they wanted to attack Elon Musk for buying it.
They wanted to attack him on the basis of profits and losing money and losing advertisers, on the basis of him laying staff off, staff that weren't doing anything, staff that were doing the wrong thing, staff that were They deputized agents of the state to censor.
They were doing the censorship for the government and then pretending that it was coming from them.
It's what they wanted to do.
Oh, come on. You can't fire the little Twitter goblins.
Where are they going to go? Well, you know, when you talk about doing stuff for the state, an obvious example of Twitter getting worse under Elon Musk, we just had it in India.
You had somebody who said something that the Indian government didn't like.
And what they did was they contacted Twitter, and Twitter banned him, not in India, which is what would have happened with the shills that were there on Twitter before.
No, they banned him worldwide.
Worldwide. Not just in a region.
And so that's, you know, an example of how it hasn't changed except to get worse.
But on buying Twitter, he said, it's not been boring.
It's been quite a roller coaster. It's been really quite a stressful situation.
On laying off staff, he said, I wouldn't say that it was uncaring.
If the whole ship sinks, then nobody's got a job.
Yeah. Of course, they can't understand that at the BBC because it would never sink.
Even when the government and society is going down the toilets, they'll still have the BBC and NPR and all the rest of these people out there to control what you think because free speech is fundamental.
Many people have said that the Second Amendment protects the First Amendment.
The way I see it is that the First Amendment, if it actually is followed, keeps you from having to use the Second Amendment against an aggressive government.
If you don't have the First Amendment, you're going to have an authoritarian dictatorship.
That's why it was the First Amendment, by the way.
The first cause of America's founding was freedom of religion.
And they had suffered under censorship and star chambers and all the rest of this stuff.
They made that the number one priority when they put in the Bill of Rights.
On profits, he said, well, we could be profitable, or to be more precise, cash flow positive this quarter if things keep going well.
I think almost all the advertisers had come back or said they're going to come back.
Again, that was the kind of stuff the BBC wanted to talk about.
They asked him about his controversial tweets.
He says, have I shot myself in the foot with tweets multiple times?
Yes. So what?
Who hasn't? This guy just shot himself in the head multiple times on Spaces on Twitter.
I don't know if he's ever going to get over that.
He's going to be trying to make apologies for that the rest of his career.
Maybe he should find a different job, as a matter of fact.
I'm sure the government would give him a ministerial position on labeling the BBC as government-funded media.
He said, we're adjusting the label to publicly funded.
If we use the same words that the BBC uses to describe itself, then presumably that would be okay.
And of course the same thing is true of NPR. It's so funny that the BBC and NPR are so prickly about being identified as government mouthpieces.
They are. NPR quit Twitter after being labeled state-affiliated media.
Because state-affiliated media is the same term it uses for propaganda outlets in Russia, China, and other autocratic countries.
And yet NPR is state-affiliated.
NPR is propaganda.
Fifty years ago, when I was going to USF, WSF was a radio station there.
And I started listening to it because you could get classical music.
And they were playing classical. That's the way they would draw people in.
And then they would do their news at the top of the hour.
And then they started doing news programs in the morning and news programs in the afternoon.
And then there was more and more talk and more and more news and less and less classical music.
And I called it National Propaganda Radio.
That's what it was. I called it that 50 years ago.
There's no doubt that NPR is nothing other than a government propaganda outlet.
And it always has been.
And it's always been one partisan side of the government as well.
So that's absolutely true.
They hate the fact that they are identifying that.
Even the BBC, which everybody knows is government-funded.
People have to pay a tax.
If you have a television set, you get a direct tax that you have to pay to support the BBC. As a matter of fact, Tony Rook, whose father was a police officer, was very upset.
I forget what Tony did, but his father had been a police officer, was retired.
He knew a lot of police officers.
He's very upset about the lies of 9-11 and the role of the BBC in selling that.
We had the reporter talking about Building 7 having fallen 20 minutes before it was taken down, and the building was still over the reporter's shoulder.
That you could see it.
And so he said, well, obviously they knew in advance that it's going to be taken down.
That was 20 minutes before it was taken down.
So that means the BBC was complicit in some way, had foreknowledge in some way.
That means the BBC is literally a terrorist organization, and I should not have to pay that tax to the BBC. And he had a website called Killing Ante, because that was the nickname for the BBC, Ante.
And he also did a documentary where he presented the evidence that the BBC and the other media did not want to present.
He got together a jury, if you will, of retired police officers and judges.
Because, again, his dad had been a police officer.
So he got them together and said, we're going to have a trial.
I'm going to present evidence to you.
He filmed it as a documentary.
It was called Incontrovertible.
And so he showed them what the other people did.
And they agreed with him that it was an inside job.
So when he did this to NPR, Elon Musk said, NPR literally said, quote, federal funding is essential to public radio, unquote, on their own website.
And that has now been taken down, he says.
What hypocrites?
What hypocrites? They said, we will no longer be using Twitter and will no longer post fresh content to its 52 official Twitter feeds.
Wow. Must be nice to have that kind of staff to push your disinformation.
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.
The David Knight Show dot com.
on Tuesday night, I saw these things yesterday after the show.
On Tuesday night, Tucker Carlson's entire show was a live interview that he had with Donald Trump.
And so I want to talk about some of the things that came up, and that's some of the people's reactions to that, my reaction to it.
American Thinker, which is, you know, the writers there at American Thinker, they are big Trump fans.
They love Trump.
Hardcore. And Trump's interview with Tucker Carlson had some fascinating revelations.
These people who love Trump so much said he looked unchanged.
Yeah, hadn't aged a bit.
I'd say that's true.
His communication style hasn't changed either.
It is discursive and repetitive.
And you will hear that.
He harps over and over again about how all the people there at the arraignment were crying as they were booking him.
And he repeats that for about two minutes.
I shortened it up, so I'm going to play that clip for you.
Pretty amazing. But it was also insightful, they said, showing his intelligence, his humanism, and his ego.
Well, one out of three ain't bad.
His ego was on display.
I didn't see any intelligence or humanism, quite frankly.
At the mundane, personal level was Trump's observation that his arrest was, in its own way, A moving and uplifting experience thanks to the warmth that he received from everyday New York citizens who dealt with him during the booking process.
Do you really think that was what was happening?
As a matter of fact, Michael Lissikoff Says Trump's tale of crying Manhattan court employees was, quote, absolute BS, unquote, says a law enforcement source.
Now, again, this is somebody off the record, but, of course, you're not going to get anybody on the record to...
You know, say anything like that.
So, you know, I can understand that they would remain anonymous.
It's not always a disqualifying thing when you have an anonymous source.
However, has anybody come forward to say, yes, I was weeping for Donald Trump?
The New York court employees were crying And apologizing for his arraignment on felony charges says that is absolute BS and it doesn't even remotely resemble what took place at a law enforcement source.
Familiar with the details of what happened that day.
Zero, said the source, when he asked how much truth there was in Trump's colorful account.
There were zero people crying.
There were zero people saying, I'm sorry.
And yet he repeats this over and over again.
Here's what he has to say about this to Tucker.
And Tucker... Never questions anything that Trump has to say throughout this entire program of a live interview.
They were incredible. When I went to the courthouse, which is also a prison, in a sense...
They took me to prison! Signed me in.
And I'll tell you, people were crying.
People that work there, professionally work there, that have no problems putting in murderers and they see everybody.
It's tough, tough place.
And they were crying.
They were actually crying.
They said, I'm sorry.
They'd say 2024, 2024.
And tears are pouring down.
I've never seen anything like that.
Those people are phenomenal.
Those are your police.
Those are the people that work at the courthouse.
They're unbelievable people.
Many of them were in tears or close to it.
Many apologists. We're sorry, sir.
We're sorry. He's exposed to tears, yes.
Have you do certain things?
I said, sir, I can't believe I have to ask you.
I can't even believe that I have to ask you to do it.
You could see. So in one sense, it was beautiful.
Because they get it. In another sense, you know, it's nasty.
I went to the Wartman School of Finance.
They didn't teach me about that.
That wasn't...
We didn't have a class on arraignment.
Yeah, like I said at the time.
It's stormy with 100% chance of arraignment.
But yeah, maybe they were crying because they were laughing so hard, like Stan Laurel there.
Every time I see that, it cracks me up.
I watched that several times yesterday, putting that thing together and looking for clips, and nobody could do that like him.
At his funeral, Buster Keaton was there, and he said...
I wasn't the funny person.
I said Charlie Chaplin wasn't the funny person.
Stan Laurel was a funny person.
And of course he'd never heard President Trump speak.
Get me a handkerchief.
I'm going to cry. Anyway, the former president, looking glum, said during the booking, as did Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's deputies who were there with him throughout the process, the source said.
The only hiccup came when his fingers were too dry for his fingerprinting, at which point the district attorney employee provided lotion for his fingers.
Carlson's friendly interview with Trump, says Michael Isikoff, It was especially ironic, given its timing.
It comes on the eve of a trial slated to begin next Monday in Delaware, in which Carlson, along with fellow host Sean Hannity and multiple Fox executives, are slated to be witnesses in a $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit brought by Dominion Voting Systems.
The suit, as part of the discovery, The suit has brought to light multiple internal emails and texts by Carlson in which he expressed his private contempt for Trump.
Carlson said on January the 4th, 2021, two days before the big event, I hate him passionately, said Carlson.
We are very, very close to being able to ignore Trump most nights.
You know, it's interesting.
When I criticized Trump up to, including on January the 6th, after January the 6th, I had people, angry supporters of his, people who are no longer going to be my supporters.
I told Travis when I showed him this thing last night, I said, I think I got too many people watching my program.
I'm going to cut some of them off by letting Stan Laurel laughing at the absurd statements of Donald Trump.
Yes, all the police officers were in tears.
We're so sorry we have to do this to you.
It was a prison. It was a literal prison.
They took me to a prison.
It's a courtroom. They didn't put him in handcuffs.
He wanted it so badly.
Anyway, these people, these angry supporters, they just had another one last week.
Took the time to write me a long letter.
Tell me how I had Trump derangement syndrome.
I said, look, if you people think Trump is finished, you're the ones with derangement syndrome.
I said that in January of 2021.
Not because I believed any of these sham false prophets like Julie Green.
He's coming back.
Second coming of Trump.
He's going to be resurrected and all the rest of this stuff.
He's still the president. He's going to be the president.
God's going to put him in.
All of that stuff.
Steve Pacinic, all the rest of these people.
No, no, it wasn't because of that.
I disagreed.
I said, look, he's not done.
And you yourselves are the evidence of that.
You'd so desperately need him in your life.
All of your hope is in Donald Trump.
How pathetic and how predictable that he is going to remain there.
Rumble. Thank you for the tip on Rumble.
Conservative thinker, the solution to hateful speech is not more hateful speech.
Well, the solution to speech is to debate it.
And if you say there's not going to be any debate, and if you say, well, what you have is hateful, what you have is false, who are you to say that?
Right? Noam Chomsky, who was Jewish, said that about, you know, the anti-Semites who were pushing against Holocaust or whatever.
He said, look, he says, you know, he says, I'm Jewish.
I believe in this.
I think he said he had family members that were in it, but he goes, the free speech is too important to throw it away over something like this.
If it's truth, you don't have to run from it.
Look, I don't have to censor somebody who says things that are false about God.
The truth doesn't need to be defended.
The truth needs to be unleashed.
And the only way that you can unleash the truth is an environment where you have freedom.
And that means that lies are going to be put out there.
Hateful things are going to be put out there.
Racist things are going to be put out there.
I don't care. That's the nature of freedom.
And you don't need to, you know, unscientific things are going to be put out there.
But of course, unscientific things, as we have seen, are going to be put out there when you've got gatekeepers and you've got people who are guarding us from all of that.
So anyway, you know, Carlson said, I hate him passionately.
We're very close to being able to ignore Trump most nights.
Well, guess what? He was wrong about that.
I knew he was wrong about that because of his audience.
His audience, that's their only hope.
These people need to focus on their lives.
They need to take a look at what is happening.
They need to get a relationship with God.
They need a longer perspective.
They need to understand who the real Savior is and who is not your Savior.
They need to understand that Trump is in this for himself and for his ego.
Anyway, he went on to say, in other exchanges, Carlson privately called the claims of Trump's lawyer, Sidney Powell, about vote-flipping by Dominion.
He called that insane and absurd.
I don't think it's insane and absurd either.
I was saying years before the 2020 election.
We've got to get rid of these election machines because they're too easily hacked.
You can always and always have had situations where people can stuff ballots if they're paper ballots.
Sure. They can, you know, play games with mechanical voting machines.
Yes. But as we go to, especially go to electronic machines, it gets easier and easier.
The question is, and this is always the case, there is no such thing as perfection.
We're never going to have a perfectly honest election.
But we can have a perfectly dishonest election, as we saw in 2020.
Instead of doing something to make the election more secure, paper ballots, instead we had ballot harvesting and other things like that.
And Trump and the Republicans don't care about that.
They think they can do a better job of that in the future, rigging the election than the Democrats.
And that's why we had the voting machines.
Because Republicans believed that they could do a better job of rigging the voting machines and maybe they were right.
I said in 2016, I said, the next election is going to be a hacking contest if we don't get rid of voting machines.
And the people who are in cybersecurity have illustrated this over and over again for decades, how easy it is to manipulate elections.
And it's not a theory.
We've had, you know, these voting machine companies, the same ones that are being talked about here, have been at the center of investigations in one country after the other.
In Brazil, in Mexico, multiple areas of Mexico, in the Philippines, these same voting machine companies have been accused of rigging the election.
Incredibly accused of rigging the election.
So I don't think that it was insane or absurd to think that these voting machines could have been flipped, hacked.
Everything can be hacked. The Pentagon has been hacked.
The CIA has been hacked.
Vault 7 is examples of that.
So we know that's not a theory.
It's happened over and over again.
But what was not being done and what was insane and what was absurd With all the money that was being given to Trump, the first $8,000 that anybody gave was kept by Donald Trump and the Republican Party.
They split it between themselves, the RNC and Trump.
And then if you gave $8,001, they would spend $1 on contesting the election.
But where did they contest it?
They contested it in court.
They didn't contest it in the state legislatures.
What you really needed to do was there are multiple places they could have switched it if they would have made the case and convinced Republican majority legislatures.
They could have sent a different slate of electors.
For a group of people put together by the party, say these are our electors and they say Trump won.
That has absolutely no weight at all.
The electors have to be sent by the party, recognized by some state official.
In order to do that, they needed to make their case not to the courts, which it was obvious from the very beginning.
They were not going to hear the case.
This is not going to be a repeat of 2000 where they had the hanging Chad stuff and everything in Florida.
Not going to be a repeat of that at all.
That was immediately obvious.
But there was a path there.
If you could convince the Republican legislatures, four states, razor-thin margin, and they had Republican legislatures.
Two of them had Democrat governors, but two of them even had Republican governors.
If you wanted to make the case, go there.
And then send a different slate of electors.
That would get you into court.
That would get you a hearing.
But they didn't do that. So anyway...
Going back to this, Carlson never challenged or pushed back on anything that Trump said, including a very unusual exchange about Biden administration's failure to rescue German shepherds from Afghanistan.
The dogs. They didn't have any German shepherds there.
They were all Afghan shepherds.
And they were growing opioids with the help of the military for decades.
Anyway, he said, they left everything, said Trump.
They left in the dark of the night.
They left the lights on.
They left the dogs, by the way.
What? Carlson says, they left the dogs?
They left the dogs, Trump responded.
You know, the dog lovers.
And you know there are a lot of them.
I love dogs.
You love dogs. One of the first questions I got was, what did they do with the dogs?
Have you ever heard anybody ask about that?
By the way, isn't it odd?
And I've said this before. I said, when I talk about Trump and his personality, I said he's a man completely devoid of loyalty, completely devoid of character, completely devoid of compassion and empathy.
Why is it that politicians pose with dogs?
You know, every president pretty much since the early 20th century has always had a dog, whether they like him or not.
You know, they pretend to like a dog.
You know, you want to meet a girl?
Take a dog to the park, you know.
It makes you look friendly.
They'll come over to see the dog.
Got a chance to talk to them. But the politicians always do that.
Except for Trump. He stood out as an exception.
The only president since the early 20th century that hasn't had a dog.
He doesn't like dogs.
He doesn't even care to pretend that he likes dogs.
Why? Because his people love him so much.
So he says, one of the first questions I got from people was, what did they do with the dogs?
Mostly German shepherds. They left them.
The way they got out was so horrible.
We would have gotten out with strength and dignity.
Except that you didn't get out.
You were there for four years.
You could have gotten out with strength and dignity.
You could have gotten out of the country before you were thrown out.
You could have gotten out of the country without doing it like a Chinese fire drill.
Yes, you could have done it, Donald, but you didn't do it.
Don't complain about things that you had a chance to do something about and didn't do it.
Anyway, he doesn't even have dogs for, as a matter of fact, as they point out in this article, Michael Isikoff says, that his ex-wife, the one with the first wives club, Ivana, in her memoir, Raising Trump, I think it's unfinished business, I don't know.
I think he still needs to be trained.
Maybe housebroken even. I don't know.
In her memoir, Raising Trump, the former wife of the president, Ivana Trump, said Trump often expressed hostility to her poodle, Chappie.
Well, there you go. Here's the rest of what he had to say about Afghanistan.
These are idiots we're dealing with.
They left $85 billion worth of equipment.
They left our American citizens behind.
And they moved the military out first.
No, you moved the military out last.
I did a little skit with a five-year-old kid.
I said, let me ask you. Here's the situation.
I explained the situation. I said, would you take the military out first or would you take it out last?
I take it out last.
Five-year-old. But they took the military out first, and they were afraid of our military.
When I was there, they were afraid.
We didn't have one soldier killed in 18 months.
Not one soldier was killed in 18 months.
And then we got out like we surrendered.
I think it was the single most embarrassing day in the history of our country.
You know why Trump asked that question of a five-year-old kid, if he in fact actually did?
He had to ask a five-year-old kid.
Because anybody else would have said, why didn't you do it five years ago?
That kid was born yesterday.
But yeah, you had five years to do it, Trump.
You didn't do it. Yeah, you're right.
It's a big problem. You see, that's why I say when you're a candidate, all you have to do is identify the problem.
If you are running for re-election as somebody who's been there and done that, you have to show that you can do the job.
He showed that he wouldn't do the job, except when the job was to take America down, to lock us down in a globalist scheme, a scheme that had been concocted 20 years earlier and practiced every year for 20 years by people like Fauci and the CIA and their germ games.
He was perfectly capable of doing that.
That is far greater than any failing in Afghanistan.
And, of course, the failing in Afghanistan was exactly what he had done as well.
So Trump is also taking heat from some conservatives because he said nice things about Governor Newsom.
And he said, I can't really criticize Newsom because he said some nice things about me.
Oh, really? You can't criticize this guy?
But you can criticize DeSantis because he's your competition?
He says, Trump said that he could never hit, quote-unquote, never hit Newsom because the liberal Democrat was so nice to me, quote-unquote.
See, it's always about him.
It's exactly what Ty Cobb, his former lawyer, said.
Trump is incapable of acting, right?
He can't hit at anybody unless it is in his perceived self-interest or out of revenge.
Right now, it's not in his perceived self-interest to hit on Newsom.
And he's got nothing that he needs to take revenge on Newsom right now.
The two of them were partners in this lockdown.
I've said that so long. You know, I can believe that Newsom said good things about Trump.
Because Trump saved Newsom.
Newsom had spent California into a deep, deep hole.
And of course, the states can't just print money like the federal government does.
And so he needed the money, so the federal government printed the money for him with all the lockdowns and everything.
He wound up even with a lavishly handing out money during the lockdown and everything.
He went from a deficit of tens of billions of dollars To nearly a, I think it was about $70 billion as a surplus because of the massive amount of money that Trump threw around.
He bribed the governors to lock you down.
He bribed the governors to steal your business, your small business, your blood, sweat, and tears that you invested in your small business.
He bribed the governors to kill Main Street, to kill small business jobs, to tell you you can't go to school, you can't go to church, you can't travel, and all the rest of this stuff.
And then he lied to you. Still lying to you.
About, oh, I saved lives.
It would have been like the 1918 flu and all the rest of this stuff, right?
And my vaccine saved lives.
He said, I used to get along great with Gavin when I was president.
Got along really good with Gavin.
Carlson says, you got along with Gavin Newsom?
I did. I really did.
He was always very nice to me.
He said, greatest things.
He would say things like, he's doing a great job.
About you? Said Carlson.
See, that's the only thing he can do.
Carlson, because all of this stuff, and this is one of the reasons why he and Fox News were doing this interview with Trump.
Because a lawsuit is coming out.
And because all this dirty laundry about what he really thinks in private.
I know, we now know what Sean Hannity...
And Tucker Carlson think in private.
I know what Alex Jones and Roger Stone think in private too.
Let me tell you, I can't repeat it.
I can't repeat the language here, right?
About Trump. I've seen the hypocrisy and the play acting, the sycophants for their money, their grifting.
I've seen it till I want to throw up.
Throw up if you saw this stuff.
You've gotten glimpses of it.
Some of the stuff has been released occasionally of what they do.
And so he says, about you? And he says, yeah, about me.
That's why I could never hit him.
Because he's been so nice to me.
And so he says, but he was very nice to me.
Very nice to me. Again, repeating.
It's all about his narcissism.
And that's what one person said.
Kurt Schlichter said, I'm really disappointed in Trump over his kissing up to Gavin Newsom.
This leftist monster is A-OK because he's been nice to Trump.
Conservative DeSantis is awful because he's not been nice lately?
Yeah, well, you know, Kurt, Trump is a globalist, you know?
Klaus Schwab was nice to him.
And, you know, did everything that he wanted, that Klaus wanted.
Yeah, nothing matters to him but his ego.
And, you know, the other thing is, when you look at this...
Is the guy a pathological liar when he's talking about people crying?
Or does he really believe that everybody loves him as much as he loves himself?
I mean, he's probably getting booked there and everything.
It's like, look at these people.
I can just tell that inside they're crying.
Inside, they want me in 2024.
I just know it. I can read it in their minds.
I mean, really, that might be it.
Gavin Newsom...
Has pushed some of the most radical policies in the U.S., including hundreds of billions in reparations, said Chronicles Magazine editor Pedro Gonzalez.
And Trump just said he could never hit him because Trump was so nice to me.
Trump can't fight the left because he identifies more with the left than not.
Well, it's not even that.
It's not about... Well, Trump is not about left and right.
He doesn't really care. It's not about issues.
It's not about policies. It's about him winning, you see.
You know, nothing matters except for him to win.
He doesn't care what happens to America.
He doesn't care about what happens to any of us.
He doesn't care about what happens to the Constitution or the Second Amendment.
It's just when he gets everybody together around the table, will you like me if I ban guns?
Okay, well, we'll ban guns.
That's fine. How about that?
Yeah. I'll work with the NRA on this.
I'll make them like me, too.
This interview summed it up perfectly, said John Cardillo.
He said, all anyone has to do is flatter Trump and they can get away with whatever they want.
And the converse is also true.
You can get away with whatever you want.
You can have a successful media organization if you suck up to Trump.
Because his crowd wants you too as well.
So, and to give you an idea of how delusional these people are, the Trump war room tweeted out, some people are so de-separate, even like DeSantis, they put it like desperate, to stop our movement that they think deceptively editing a clip from last night's interview will help them.
Wrong. It's not deceptively edited.
All of the pro-DeSantis influencers claiming that Trump refused to attack Gavin were knowingly lying again.
So sad, said Junior Trump.
Yeah, so I guess, I don't know.
You know, Junior is now shacking up with Gavin's ex-girlfriend, ex-shacker-upper.
So, you know, it's a club.
It's a club. They're all in this club.
You're not in it. You know, Epstein was in it.
Gavin Newsom. Kimberly Guilfoyle, Donald Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Melania.
It's a club. They're all in it.
It's like a sex club. It's a globalist club.
You're not in that club.
Praise God you're not in that club.
You don't want to be in that club.
So the only thing that matters to him is that he wins, you see.
And that's the whole definition of what 4D Chess was about, that Alex kept telling everybody.
The only important thing is that Trump wins.
It doesn't matter what happens to you.
It doesn't matter what happens to the country.
It doesn't matter what happens to your business, your education, your freedoms, the Constitution.
None of that matters. We've got to have Trump winning.
That's the only thing that matters. Trump's got to win.
And so now, like I said, he's incapable of acting except out of revenge, self-interest, perceived self-interest.
He's now suing Michael Cohen, We're good to go.
You know, things that he has done to him.
Now he's violated the non-disclosure agreement.
Says he violated the attorney-client privileges and things like that.
You know, he was charged with crimes that involved that attorney-client privilege.
I don't know, you know, but I mean, again, I'm not defending Michael Cohen, of all things.
Every time I look at Michael Cohen, I think of that quote from Breaking Bad, you know, where Jesse tells Heisenberg, no, man, you need a criminal lawyer.
He goes, this guy is not very good.
No, no, I mean a criminal lawyer.
Ha! A lawyer who's got no boundaries and doesn't care about the law.
That's what you need. And that's what Trump used for a long time.
Michael Cohen. There's no honor among thieves, evidently, on either side of this.
The suit alleges that Cohen regularly revealed information that was deemed confidential by the nature of their attorney-client relationship.
He sued him for, again, $500 million, and then he tacked on an additional $74,000 over a reimbursement the president argued that Cohen wasn't entitled to.
He said he'd loaded up on the reimbursements to sneakily increase his compensation.
And that reimbursement in question was part of the 11 monthly checks that Trump wrote to Cohen after, you know, the cover-up of the porn star affairs, each of which now corresponds to a felony charge in Trump's criminal case.
But again, it reads kind of like a press release form.
So it's $500 million.
$74,000 lawsuit.
Chris Christie was dumping on Trump as usual.
And what he said, I think there's a lot of truth about this aspect of it, just the horse race aspect of it.
He said the only Republican that Biden can beat is Trump.
And why would he say that? Well, he's got a different reason than I do.
I look at it and I say, well, you know, it's never enough to have just the GOP base.
And elections aren't won by the intensity of the support that people have.
And let's just assume that it's going to be a legitimate account.
I don't think that elections is presidential elections anymore.
I don't think they even matter. You know, who is counting the vote?
Who's manipulating the vote?
And they've got so far removed from this stuff, you know, with voting machines being hackable and the ballot harvesting and the vote-by-mail will mail out ballots to everybody and all the rest of this stuff.
It's a joke. It's a joke.
Well, let's just assume that it was honest.
You're going to have to have more than just a GOP base.
You're going to have to have a lot of people come from the independence and you're probably going to have to have a few Democrats as well.
Are any of those people, would they give Trump a chance again?
I don't think so. I think that's why we have seen what we saw in these midterm elections.
He's been kind of box office poison.
You know, what we heard a lot was what Julian Assange said in the 2016 election.
He said, we know that Hillary Clinton is a criminal.
We know she's a warmonger, many other things like that.
But she says, we don't know that about Trump.
I'm not saying he's a good guy, but we'll give him a chance.
And that's the thing. When somebody runs for the first time, all right, well, we'll give him a try.
And I think that's the dimension that is there with pretty much all the rest of these Republican candidates.
But the reason Christie said it was he was talking about what Trump said after the arraignment.
He said, it sounded to me like a guy that you'd encountered a bar that you wind up sitting next to and he's griping to you about his bad divorce.
That's what it sounded like to me.
I don't think most elections, in my experience, are won on the past.
They are won or lost on the future.
And that's going to be his problem when the primary comes because a smart primary candidate will be talking about the future and ignoring Trump except for when he pops up.
That has been said about Hillary Clinton.
And I think it was true when she said, you know, her slogan was, I'm with her.
It was about her.
What is Trump about?
Trump is about Trump. He's another egomaniac narcissist just like Hillary Clinton at this point.
And we've seen that's what he's about.
And, you know, when Trump ran the first time, his slogan was make America great again versus I'm with her.
You had a narcissist, self-aggrandizing politician wants your support.
And on the other hand, you have somebody who says, you know, America's busted and we need to do some of these things here to fix it.
That's the kind of candidate that could win.
And nobody's, you know, Trump is not going to be able to make that case.
Biden is not going to be able to make that case.
If you had a Republican who was...
Uh, who had not been president, uh, you could possibly make that case.
Uh, and then of course he talked about his horrible records, uh, with the midterm elections and, um, his track record that is there.
And you go back and you look at that track record.
It's not just, you know, the Hill goes out and talks to a bunch of establishment Republicans like Thune and Lindsey Graham and, you know, Mitch McConnell, all this kind of stuff.
But forget about that.
Just take a look at the record in the last election.
Key states, uh, Arizona, Georgia, Ohio, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania.
The only candidate that he picked that won was J.D. Vance.
And he turned the Senate over to the Democrats.
They actually wound up with more people because of that.
And it's typical that he would do things like throw genuine candidates under the bus, as he did in Pennsylvania.
You had one candidate, Kathy Barnett.
And she called out, what was the guy's name, McCormick or something, you know, the multimillionaire, called him out, called out Dr.
Oz, said they're Davos globalists and everything.
Well, Trump didn't endorse her.
He picked one of the two Davos globalists because he himself is a Davos globalist.
We're going to take a quick break and we'll be right back.
We're going to take a quick break.
We're going to take a quick break.
All right, welcome back.
Let's do talk about CBDC. I saw this comment during the break here on Rockfin.
Duluth Happ, thank you for the tip on Rockfin.
Morning, Dave. We love you all in northern Minnesota.
Is all well with Tony and WiseWolf.gold?
I haven't seen a new video since March, just checking in on our boy, making sure all is well.
Thanks, Knight of Our Table. Thank you so much.
And Thursday has been a day that we typically get Tony on.
He's not going to be on today because he's so busy.
I mean, everybody, because of what's happened with gold and what is happening with the economy, he is unbelievably busy and he's on the road.
And so he is not going to be on today either.
But we did have him on last week, I believe, we had on Tony, didn't we?
But, so, you know, he's been extremely busy, but everything is still good with Tony.
And, you know, you can find him with davidknight.gold.
That'll take you to wisewolf.gold.
And, again, he's very, very busy.
And this is why. Let's talk a little bit about what is happening.
We know that you're seeing these different alliances, the The petrodollar, the alliance based on, you know, Saudi Arabia and others supporting the U.S. dollar saying, we're only going to trade energy, which is what oil is, right?
We're going to trade energy in the dollar, and only in the dollar.
That was, you know, part of Henry Kissinger's presidency, and, you know, his frontman, Richard Nixon, They put in the petrodollar agreement as they completely destroyed the gold standard.
Bretton Woods 2.
And so that has been there.
That is falling apart because the Chinese are making peace everywhere.
They are bringing together these warring factions in the Middle East.
And they are also bringing in Russia as well.
Take a look at this video.
This is Russia and China.
I hope everybody is paying attention.
It's a very solemn ceremony here, and this is going to be Xi and Putin meeting together in China.
And a very formal ceremony here, and you're going to see Xi and Putin on stage.
And this is a very visible picture of the eradication of the American dollar because of our weaponization and our foreign policy.
There's Putin.
Russia and China.
That is what Biden's weaponized foreign policy has gotten us.
They've used our reserve currency status as a weapon.
And there's a she putting a gold chain around Putin's neck.
There we go. They're all about the gold, aren't they?
Anyway, if it was Biden, it would probably be a necklace of excrement because that's basically some kind of a toilet seat or something.
That's what Biden has been putting on everybody else's neck.
And the people in Europe are tired of it.
They're tired of the austerity.
The people in Europe are tired of the austerity.
The leaders in Europe are even pushing back against this.
The article from Health Impact News.
Rothschilds send the French President Macron to China in an attempt to save Europe as the U.S. Rockefeller Empire panics.
Macron's recent trip to China, because he went there as well, Putin goes to China, Macron goes to China and you've got high-ranking officials in Europe say, yeah, he's right.
We've got to decouple ourselves from America.
They become too dangerous, too suicidal, too authoritarian and dictatorial in their relationships with everybody.
Who do they think they are? Well, they think they're emperors.
That's who they think they are.
I think the Biden administration and most of these people in Washington have crossed the Rubicon a long time ago.
And they're not Augustus.
They're more like Caligula.
And they're going to become more like Domitian in the near future, I think.
So Macron's recent trip to China has sent shockwaves throughout the Western world, especially after he stated that Europe needs to stop being, quote, America's followers.
And he says that specifically about we don't want to get involved in the conflict with Taiwan.
And so to underscore that, that NATO does not want to get into a war with China, as well as a war with Russia dictated by the American Empire, it goes to China with that.
Macron's visit included signing a new agreement between the two countries, which has received very little attention in the Western media.
Macron's subsequent visit to the Netherlands, where he delivered a speech at The Hague, outlined a new plan for Europe.
Let me tell you what that plan is.
That is a globalist plan. These guys are not pursuing France's interests.
They're not even pursuing Europe's interests.
They're pursuing a globalist plan, and so is China.
It's just that China is going to be the director of this new globalist plan, replacing America.
And the very fact that he's going to the Netherlands, or as you heard in the interview yesterday that we had with Michael Jan, a great interview, Michael Jan talking about what's going on in the Netherlands, and now they're literally unleashing wolves in areas where there never were any wild wolves.
We've seen that, and we had a listener talk about how that was happening in areas where they lived.
They released gray wolves in areas where they used to be indigenous in the United States, and that's been damaging enough.
But in the Netherlands, they released them where they didn't even have them before.
And then, of course, taking the farmer's land, trying to starve us of food and push the people into big cities.
Netherlands standing out.
That's tiny country.
Number two in food exports behind only the United States.
Unbelievably fertile. And they want to destroy it.
The plan that Michael Jan was talking about, the three cities, I've mentioned that in the past as well.
Massive mega city, part of the smart city control prison cities.
That's what this is all about. And so Macron is not a good guy.
He's not for the people. He's not for France.
It's part of a globalist agenda.
And his visits to China and Netherlands show that.
But everybody is, you know, the U.S., What's a globalist empire?
But they want to be the first in that.
And the Chinese want to be the first in that.
Europe's banks are failing, says Health Impact News.
The Rothschilds banking empire is centered in France and London.
Macron is their hand-picked man, a former banking executive for the Rothschilds who became president of France.
Without having had any prior elected political office.
Again, he worked for the Rothschild banks.
That was his whole career.
And they just put him straight in.
Very much like Mario Draghi, Goldman Sachs banker.
They had economic issues going back about a decade or so ago.
And they just overthrew the election.
Remember, that's one of the first times I ever saw Nigel Farage got up in the European Parliament and said, who are you to overthrow and to kick out the democratically elected leader of Greece?
And or Italy, right?
They did it to both Greece and Italy.
And then to put in a Goldman Sachs banker in their place, well, that's what happened in France.
You got a Rothschild banker put in place.
So the real reason for the war in Ukraine, says Brian at Health Impact News, he said, I reported on this back in September 2022 when a Swedish newspaper published what it claimed was an internal leaked document from the U.S. military think tank RAND Corporation, published in 2022, January 2022, about a month before Russia invaded Ukraine.
The research report stated that a weakened Germany and a weakened Europe would strengthen the U.S. economy by having them get involved in sanctions against Russia as a result of the Ukraine conflict, which would cut off their energy supplies and collapse their economy.
And this has truly been American policy.
Macron, again, is their handpicked guy at the Rothschilds.
That's his only experience that he had there.
Quite a few European Union leaders agree with Macron on getting away from the U.S., said the president of the European Council, Charles Michel.
So he said, as Macron said, we don't want to be caught up in crises that are not ours.
We want to pursue strategic autonomy, and we do not want to get involved in this Chinese-Taiwan conflict.
So then the president of the European Council, Charles Michel, says some European leaders wouldn't say things the same way that Emmanuel Macron did, but I think quite a few really think like Emmanuel Macron.
Michel, who made the remarks in an interview with French television program, noted, quote, there has been a leap forward on strategic autonomy compared to several years ago.
And that is exactly what is happening, not just with Europe, but also with the oil-producing countries.
And let's understand that real economic growth is still dependent on petroleum, still dependent on natural gas.
Oh, well, we can do just fine without it.
Can we? Can we?
Is America's economy growing?
Is Europe's economy growing? No, they're throttling us.
They're choking us out.
They're not just destroying our farms.
They're destroying our factories.
In some cases, they're literally destroying the farms and factories.
But... They're destroying power generation.
They're destroying refinery capability.
They don't want us to own anything, to build anything, to go anywhere.
And yet China is growing by leaps and bounds.
India is growing by leaps and bounds.
They are allowed to under the Paris Climate Accord.
So if you want to have a country that is thriving, prospering, and growing, you have to have energy.
You have to have the energy that works.
Around the clock. That is dependable.
And that's why oil is still where power is.
And that's the game that China is playing.
It's amazing to me that in the dying moves of the American empire, That it can't even understand or take any action on its own vital interests.
And of course, that's by design.
If people like Biden are on the same page as those in Davos, they want to see America taken down, taken out of the way.
It is, if it were focused on the interests of the American people, it would be in opposition to them.
And so, you know, just like they're coming in and trying to come after crypto or cash or anything else that is in their way when it comes to financial control, push everybody into a global CBDC. In the same way, they've got to take out America and Europe because they could be in their way.
And so when you look at how this is rapidly escalating, it's not just every single country that is at some stage of developing and introducing and rolling out CBDC, Nigeria, Bahamas with their sand dollar.
They've already rolled out their CBDC, the central bank digital currency.
It's failed.
Primarily because if people look at it and say, well, if we're going to have electronic money, I want something that is honest and not manipulatable, so I'm going to go with Bitcoin or some kind of cryptocurrency.
And so as a result, they've got to take cryptocurrency out.
But they've all got a plan, and they're all at some stage of it.
In July, they're going to roll out the wholesale bank-to-bank FedNow part of it.
But if you look at the way it's laid out by the Atlantic over a year ago, When they were looking at the current state of CBDC globally, they had a map and they showed where all the countries were and they said, you know, it's a two-step process.
First you do the wholesale part of it where you have the central bank interacting with the other banks and then tangentially interacting with people.
People can send money like they do now with Zelle or Cash App or some of these other things.
And it's not any new functionality.
But you start using FedNow as a way to do that.
People can send money instantaneously.
24-7, 365.
There's no holidays with any of that stuff.
Never closes. But we already have that.
But they're rolling that out as the first stage.
And then the second stage is to go direct to the people of the country.
But it's not just on a country-by-country basis.
You have the Bank of International Settlement, which is the central bank of the central banks.
They have Project Icebreaker.
And then when you look at the IMF, they have their own central bank digital currency.
So the International Monetary Fund has something they call Unicoin.
I'll never be able to say that without saying Unicorn.
I mean, it is this magical, fictional thing that is out there.
So I think Unicorn would be a better name for the IMF coin.
A global CBDC. But of course, Project Icebreaker is about that for the Bank of International Settlement.
You see, it's not just every country doing this.
But these organizations that are above these non-governmental organizations as part of the financial system that are over and above these different nations, they're also working on it as well.
The IMF's spring meeting this year saw the announcement of the organization's own, quote, international central bank digital currency.
They see themselves as the International Central Bank.
So it's the International CBDC. They call it the Universal Monetary Unit, UMU, kind of like EMU, or Unicoin, Unicorn.
IMF said that UMU functions like a CBDC and is legal and global money commodity.
The purpose of this particular iteration of CBDCs is to make sure that banking regulations are enforced, they said, as well as to protect the financial integrity of the international banking system.
We want to protect the established interests here.
Against what?
Well, against Bitcoin, of course, or gold.
This currency will be used by banks via SWIFT codes and bank accounts linked to a Umu digital wallet.
Again, it'll be, it's kind of the IMF's version of FedNow.
The wholesale side of this.
So FedNow is rolling out in July.
It's already, you know, really rolling out.
They've already started putting it out with test banks, I think, in April.
And so it's rolling out now.
And Europe says, well, we're going to go further in the next stage.
We're going to do that with the CBDC, the Euro CBDC. We're going to do that in the fall.
And of course, the American government is doing that as well.
They've got a name for it.
They call it FedCoin.
So we've got FedCoin.
We've got the Unicoin, which would be the global central bank digital currency.
IMF officials are describing the current cross-border payment systems as slow, expensive, and risky.
And they said that Umu's goal is not disruption of the international monetary system, but to strengthen it.
So we don't want to get rid of this slow, expensive, risky thing that's going to destroy the planet's climate.
No, we want to keep that there.
We love slow, expensive, risky things.
Yeah, right. So they said the IMF is looking at rebranding the term crypto as well.
They said, no, we're going to start talking about crypto 2.0.
That's how the IMF will market Unicoin.
And CBDCs in general.
So there's no question that they're going to get rid of crypto.
They're even going to take crypto's name.
They're going to shut it down and take its name and it'll be called Crypto 2.0.
That's my and many people's concerns about this from the very beginning.
You know, who created Bitcoin?
Well, we don't really know. Is it simply training wheels to prepare us for the CBDCs?
I've been saying this for a long time.
But whether that was the intention or not, the stated intention of the IMF and all these globalist organizations is to completely eradicate crypto and to say, well, crypto is now going to be what we say it is, crypto 2.0.
Meanwhile, critics of CBDC... Are using strong words to express their opposition to the trend.
Some calling it a path towards financial slavery that is always a handy companion to political tyranny.
CBDC is seen as a way of introducing social credit scores, digital IDs, the end of privacy in terms of finances, and of course even more surveillance by authorities.
That's it. That's all of it.
But we do have, they may have their new coins.
They've got Unicoin.
FedCoin is coming and all the rest of this stuff.
And all we can get in terms of physical stuff is a new coin that has Eleanor Roosevelt on it.
This was sent to me by a listener.
And when I saw this, I thought, now I know they really are trying to scare people away from cash.
Look at that picture.
Now, the person who sent that to me, you know, my pride and joy, etc.
The person who sent that to me, I'll pull it up here so you can see it, said, look at this.
They put Biden's face on Eleanor Roosevelt.
You can't unsee that after somebody says, that looks like Biden's face on there.
Rockfin, thank you, Eric.
Appreciate that. That's very kind.
Appreciate that tip there. I'm not just an anti-vaxxer.
I'm a pandemic denier.
Love the line from yesterday.
Yeah, I guess I say that all the time.
I'm a climate denier, pandemic denier, and an anti-vaxxer.
Cancel me. Go ahead.
Cancel me. I dare you. The Fed, meanwhile, is now modeling the weather.
And people are looking at this and saying, what in the...
They're burning down the economy.
We've got inflation going up.
They're caught between a rock and a hard place.
What do we do? Do we raise interest rates and crash the economy, or do we go into hyperinflation?
No, let's monitor the weather.
Now, he doesn't understand why this is.
He makes fun of it, and he should laugh at this, the fact that the Federal Reserve would be modeling the weather when they can't even stress test treasuries.
Right? They can't model the economy.
They can't figure out what's going on with the banking industry, or maybe they can.
Maybe they're deliberately destroying it.
But no, the reason that they're modeling the weather is because, if I pointed out, a year ago, March of 2022, Biden gave the CBDC project every bureaucracy that Had a task to do in one of four areas.
Either going to redesign the financial system, going to design the code for this digital currency, or you're going to come up with enforcement measures, right?
Your IRS and Department of Treasury, how are you going to take everything from everybody, take away their cash, push them into this thing, you know, carrots and sticks, and eventually, you know, just beat them into this path?
Or the fourth thing was climate.
Why? Well, because they've got to get crypto out of the way.
And that's what they're doing.
Telling lies about it.
We've got the New York Times. We've got even Children's Health Defense.
Even as RFK Jr.
is telling people the truth about CBDCs, you've got Children's Health Defense taking this radical environmentalist line, saying, well, you know, we just can't have computers that are doing a lot of processing.
And the only ones that they want to look at are the ones that are doing Bitcoin mining.
They don't care about the artificial intelligence doing language learning models and all that.
They don't care about the surveillance state or the storage of that or scraping 30 billion faces off of Facebook so they can create a biometric database.
And then constantly surveilling everybody and comparing it?
I mean, the surveillance state is not just building a database like artificial intelligence is.
They're going and they're constantly searching all of these 30 billion faces as well.
None of that matters. It's only the computational power that's being used for crypto mining that matters to these people.
And so the Federal Reserve has got a pilot climate scenario risk analysis program.
They announced the details of that on January the 17th.
They said the six largest U.S. banks will analyze the impact of scenarios for both physical and transition risks related to climate change on specific assets in their portfolios.
So you mean they're going to look at it and say, yeah, you know, we got some crypto, we got some Bitcoin in our portfolio, and I'm afraid that it's got climate risk.
We're going to have to get rid of the climate risk on it.
Isn't it interesting when you have ESG, environmental...
Socialist government, which is what that's about.
That G just tells you that they're only customers of government.
They only care what the government wants.
They don't care what you want.
This is why we're seeing all the stuff of Bud Light and Nike and everybody else, and we've been seeing it for the longest time.
They're openly contemptuous of you because you're not important to their business model.
And the only one that's important is the government when it comes to ESG. The exercise's goal of deepening understanding of climate risk management practices and building capacity to identify, to measure, to monitor, to manage climate related financial risk.
This is again why it was one of four areas That Biden had the federal government bureaucracy's look at was climate as part of the CBDC initiative.
How to restructure the financial system, how to write the code, how to enforce it, and then climate is how you're going to sell it.
And you're going to demonize your...
Your competition.
The Wall Street Journal reported the Fed's climate studies are full of hot air.
With all this effort, one might hope that the Fed would produce high-quality research on climate change.
See, this is a person at the Wall Street Journal.
They're going to continue to push the climate nonsense.
But, you know, at the same time, they mock them for not being able to accurately come up with anything to fix the economy, as if that was their goal.
I've said it for the longest time, look, the goal, why can't Johnny read?
Everybody will say, what's the matter?
The schools aren't working.
The kids can't read.
They can't do math and all the rest of the stuff.
I said, you do understand that was the purpose, right?
The purpose was to deliberately dumb down America.
Charlotte Isabe, the title of her book, that was the purpose.
It was never about creating a population that could think independently.
It was all about, you know, let's tailor them so they can be widgets and the corporate government machinery.
We don't want any monkey wrenches in there where people start asking some uncomfortable questions.
No, no, no. That's why we have to censor speech.
Somebody might say something that is pushing back against our narrative.
And then we'll have to accuse them of being hateful and racist to get them out of there.
So, it was never about that.
It was never about, the Federal Reserve was not about fixing the economy and controlling the economy for our good.
It was always about fixing and controlling things for their good.
The Wall Street Journal says, I took a close look at two Fed studies on the subject, and I found a shockingly poor analysis.
Are you kidding me? Well, let me ask you, this is David Barker at the Wall Street Journal.
Let me ask you, Mr. Barker, how many unicorns do you think can fit on the head of a pen?
That's what we're talking about.
This is unicorn science here.
It's absolute nonsense.
These studies on the effect of temperature on U.S. and world economic growth are cited without a hint of skepticism and widely lavished with media attention, as are all of the government's central narratives.
They're all lavished with media attention, and there's never a hint of skepticism.
As a matter of fact, if you're skeptic, you get canceled.
The hoot of the day is that the Fed cannot even model U.S. Treasuries.
Its stress-free test would have failed to identify the imploded Silicon Valley Bank as a problem.
Wow. Just like all the other stuff that we saw through the medical side of this pandemic, and just like all the quote-unquote climate science that we've seen, they can't predict what's going to happen.
Their models don't work.
That's what ClimateGate was all about.
Well, if the CO2 goes up, the temperature's going to go up.
Well, now we've had decades of these lies.
We've had over 50 years of these lies.
And we know they're lies.
We know their models don't work.
Yet, for political reasons, the Fed is now attempting to stress test the weather.
To get the desired results, the Fed study gave equal weight to St.
Vincent, Rwanda, and Equatorial Guinea.
They gave them the same weight as they did China and the United States.
Now, how are these tiny countries...
St. Vincent, Rwanda, Equatorial Guinea, how are they going to have the same effect on climate as China and the United States?
As a matter of fact, China is in a class by itself.
Since we have transferred the ability to use and to refine energy, that is now an exclusive Chinese prerogative, increasingly so.
They're in a class by themselves, and they're in a class above us.
These other things are not even factors.
And this is the absurdity of their model.
It's just like the Imperial College of London, where they didn't, you know, the curve that was supposed to flatten, they didn't have the curve, the Farr's Law curve.
That shows with every pandemic, and this is going back to 1840, with every pandemic, anything that's new, you got a new strain of the flu, well, it's going to look, it's going to go up like a bell-shaped curve, and that's going to come down again like a bell-shaped curve.
No, in that model, it was a straight-line approximation.
Everybody that gets it's going to infect another two and a half people forever.
There was no curve in the model.
And, of course, the code was so poorly written that every time you ran it, even with the same input, you would get a different answer.
I suggest that's what the University of Edinburgh said.
I suggest the Fed should throw this nonsense in the garbage and stress test commercial real estate, interest rates, accelerated quantitative tightening, and things that it has clearly neglected.
Again, this is from the assumption that the Fed doesn't know that if it raises interest rates by 75 basis points, three quarters of a percent every month, and does it month after month after month after month, that isn't going to be a debt trap for the banks and cause them to fail?
They didn't know that? Who knew?
Everybody knows that.
You know, it was a trap.
It's a trap. The real-world cost of the digital race for Bitcoin.
Yeah, the Bitcoin mines cash on electricity, and by devouring it, says the New York Times, by selling it, even by turning it off, they cause immense pollution.
This is the New York Times hit piece.
I didn't go over both of them. This came out the same day as Children's Health Defense.
Tell me that there isn't a coordinated propaganda thing.
Tell me that RFK Jr., while he's talking about how evil CBDC is, his organization is running a story that is targeting CBDC's competitor, crypto, just like the New York Times.
On the basis of phony climate fear-mongering.
So the New York Times, this is what they're concerned about.
They said the clearest example is Texas, where Bitcoin companies are paid by the grid operator for promising to quickly power down if necessary to prevent blackouts.
In practice, they are rarely asked to shut down, and instead they earn additional money while doing exactly what they would have been doing anyway, mining Bitcoin.
Five operations, Since 2020, okay, so we're talking about three years, and maybe it's just two years, five operations have collectively made at least $60 million from that program since 2020, show records. So, you know, they're making $20,000 to $30,000 a year, and you divide that by the five, right?
Okay. So, you know, they're making four to five million dollars a year.
By being on the same type of program that you and I, if they put a smart meter on our house, that they would be able to turn off our power if things started to peak out, you know, so the grid didn't go down, they would be able to shut down your power at certain times.
That's what these companies are doing.
You and I don't get paid four or five million dollars a year to do that, though.
But, This is not exclusive to the Bitcoin industry.
And the New York Times actually has quotes from people who said that this is not exclusive to our industry.
It's an outrageous thing, I think.
But it is not exclusive to Bitcoin.
They said most years, they are asked to turn off for only a few hours.
And if they do turn off, they get paid even more.
Hey, the big guys get bigger, don't they?
It is a windfall for one company called BitDeer.
During the winter storm, when was that?
2021 is when the show first started.
We had the blackout and everything froze.
Pipes froze. I did the show with candlelight because we had to shut down our oil and coal power plants and go with windmills that froze.
But we did the show with an iPhone and I had a candle so I could read.
And then we got power back like a day or two after that.
And the pipe in the kitchen had frozen.
I was doing the show from the living room at that point in time.
And in the middle of the show, the pipe had burst, and when it thawed, we had a flood.
So that day, I was doing the show while everybody was scrambling around trying to get the water turned off quickly and get the water cleaned up, and I'm still trying to do the show.
Live shows are very interesting.
Anyway, so during that winter storm, that same winter storm, In exchange for a fraction of the power that it typically used, they got a windfall and profit.
Another Bitcoin company made tens of millions of dollars reselling electricity during that storm.
Now, what the New York Times won't tell you is that the real outrageous, yes, it is outrageous that they get paid so much for participating in what is essentially a glorified smart meter program.
But what they won't tell you is that the reason that we have these issues is because of the climate, MacGuffin.
And why, you know, why don't they criticize Texas for pursuing that?
Why don't they talk about how the Texas state government spent tens of billions of dollars building infrastructure for these windmill companies?
Yeah. We'll take it right.
Just like Trump, you know, funded the creation of the Jabs.
Well, you got... Abbott and Rick Perry, taking all of the lines and everything they need to out to these windmill farms that are in remote areas, and they would build all the infrastructure to deliver that back to the rest of the grid, and it was a very long way they had to go, and a lot of money that they had to do with that.
And all that infrastructure was built for them.
And the only thing was that their friends, their political supporters, just had to go out and pay for the windmill and install it.
And they're in business making money.
That's how this stuff works.
Go buy a politician. That's the best investment you can ever get.
Best return on investment.
You'll get thousands of percent return on investment from a politician.
Just a little bit of money and it just magnifies.
In interviews and statements, many of the companies said they were no different from any other large power users, except for their willingness to shut off more quickly to benefit the grid.
And that's true. It is an outrage that we have that program.
It is an outrage that reliable energy has been shut down.
And it's an outrage how much money has been given to these people, the crony capitalism, the corruption that's involved in it.
That's the outrage. But the New York Times isn't talking about that.
Instead, they want to go after what?
The competition to And, of course, the national security state is all about that as well.
They are saying things now about crypto at the Pentagon that they typically say about, you know, Russia, China, Iran, and all the people that they've bombed and killed.
Decentralized cryptocurrency markets are a threat to U.S. security, says the American government.
You better be very careful when the government calls you a threat to its security because the only thing they care about is their security.
They don't care about your safety.
They certainly don't care about your liberty.
They don't care about constitutional rule of law or the lives of the people who live in the country.
But they do care about national security.
Everything sacrificed to national security.
Since World War II, the only thing that the American Empire cares about is the American Empire's national security.
Everything else is subject to that and is dispensable.
Decentralized cryptocurrency is what they're saying, right?
Decentralized cryptocurrency, that was the only kind that we've had.
And so why do they put decentralized cryptocurrency?
Well, because they're working on centralized cryptocurrency.
All cryptocurrency has been decentralized up to this point.
This is all part of the transition.
Decentralized cryptocurrency is bad.
It threatens U.S. national security.
It needs greater oversight.
We need to have enforcement against money laundering and on and on.
It never ends. And it is kind of interesting to see how Elizabeth Warren, this is actually from Zero Hedge, Donovan Choi of Bankless.
He says, Elizabeth Warren once progresses to hate crypto.
I said, this is kind of strange.
She's always presented herself as a champion of the little guy, you know, as an opponent of big centralized banks.
Well, yes, she has.
But do you believe what she says or do you believe what she does?
Because she has never been that.
She has always said that.
You know, just like we're talking about Elon Musk.
Oh, yeah, we need to be worried about artificial intelligence.
We need to have a six-month moratorium.
Meanwhile, he's out there buying 10,000 GPUs himself.
He says we need to worry about free speech.
Meanwhile, the censorship goes up on Twitter.
He has a great back and forth with the BBC pushing censorship.
And then he pushes it more himself.
So Elizabeth Warren says, oh yeah, I'm against those big banks.
I'm opposed to Wall Street.
And so Donovan Choi says, well, consider how it's been used across the political spectrum.
Black Lives Matter activists have embraced the immutability of the blockchain to raise awareness of police brutality.
Canadian right-wingers turn to Bitcoin and their protests against the Trudeau government, and rogue nations have used it to evade Western sanction regimes.
And, of course, libertarians love it.
So what is weird, they said, Is to see crypto getting so politicized by one party or the other.
In her run-up to a third Senate election, Elizabeth Warren is erecting an anti-crypto position as a central plank in her policy platform.
A tweet from her official campaign account last week referenced that she was, quote, building an anti-crypto army, unquote.
What's the justification for that?
Oh, she's doing it for, quote, working families.
Give me a break.
Give me a break.
I'm doing it for the children, you know.
Working families.
She cares about families?
Why is she so pro-abortion then?
Anti-crypto for the working family?
That's a puzzling question.
Given the fact that she is a progressive icon, she rose to national prominence as an ardent crusader against big finance corruption.
In the week of the global financial crisis, she made her name as a cheerleader for increasingly strident banking regulations.
She served as chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel that oversaw the 2008 bank bailouts.
Now, doesn't that tell you something?
Those are the banks that were too big to fail.
That's the first time I came across any of Matt Taibbi's work.
Well, somebody talked about too big to jail banks of HSBC. It's like, this guy's good.
But yeah, if she was running the Congressional Oversight Panel, That oversaw the bank bailouts.
Who was it? Here's your question for today.
Who was it that got all the money?
It was the big banks.
The small banks went out of business by the hundreds for the next several years.
They were not too big to fail.
If she was chairing the Congressional Oversight Panel, Over the bank bailouts, she was shoveling money to the big banks and letting the small banks die.
But it's not just that. He doesn't talk about what she's perhaps best known for.
And that is the Consumer Financial Protection Board.
I can't remember which one it is.
The order of the words there.
But she created this board that is supposed to protect consumers, right?
Oh, we're not going to let this 2008 thing happen again.
They victimized a lot of people.
They gave them subprime loans and they lost their homes.
We're going to make sure that doesn't happen anymore.
And so we're going to have lots and lots of new regulations and oversight and paperwork to make sure that doesn't happen.
And that's the reason why so many of these small banks were failing.
It wasn't just that they didn't get a handout from the government.
They started failing...
In combination with what happened with the economic situation, but also because of Elizabeth Warren's pet project.
That was her pet project. She, more than anybody else, created that monster, that new bureaucracy.
And it was so arrogant.
If you remember, during Trump's administration, about a year or so into it, It was new and had been around for a little while.
The guy that was originally put in there decided that he was going to retire.
And rather than let the president, because all these different bureaucracies are under the executive branch, so the president and all these other executive branches picks the successor when somebody steps down.
But in this particular one, the one that was created by Elizabeth Warren, the Consumer Financial Protection Board, the number two person, I'm the new leader.
And the Trump administration said, the people, not Trump, but the people who are running the place, said, no, you're not.
We have a picture. Oh, yes, I am.
I am going to make myself...
That's how arrogant these people are.
But the paperwork that they put out there for processing whole areas of loans was so oppressive that only the big corporations...
Had enough volume that they could set up departments to deal with it.
It was too much paperwork for anybody else to be able to profitably process the loans.
And so the paperwork requirements from Elizabeth Warren's bureaucracy shut down small banks.
That's the bottom line.
And that's not protecting the consumers.
That's protecting the big players, the big banks.
That's what she's always been about.
With such an anti-Wall Street streak.
No, no, no. That's her cultivated image.
Her image that she's cultivated is that she's against Wall Street.
She's for Wall Street.
She did the same thing, and this guy believes that.
He's fallen for the same kind of nonsense that the Trump supporters have.
You know, Trump cultivates this image that he's a nationalist.
He's against the globalists.
And yet, who did more for the globalists?
Who implemented their policy more completely than Trump?
She's anti-Wall Street, Elizabeth Warren is, but she implements their entire strategy.
And so now she has also shown by coming after the crypto industry, just in case you didn't pick up on it when she did that and the Great Recession, now if there was ever any doubt that she's for centralized control of everything, she is now demonizing crypto.
She's creating an anti-crypto mob for the working families, of course.
So it is truly amazing where this is happening.
It's one of the reasons why Tony is not with us today, because everybody's seeing the handwriting on the wall.
Our society has been weighed in the balance and found lacking.
And that's the handwriting on the wall.
And it's coming at us real fast.
And so, again, if you want to go to davidknight.gold, Tony set that up to let you know that I sent you.
Appreciate that. I appreciate what Tony does for the show.
We'll get him on. He'll be on next week, hopefully.
Like I said, he's on the road this week.
He is so busy. He and the small staff, everybody is wanting to pick up on gold right now because they see what is coming down the pike.
We're going to take a quick break and we will be right back.
Music You're
You're listening to The David Knight Show.
The David Knight Show.
I had listener Bill talk about this sorry episode that we had about a week ago.
With the Tennessee Three taking over the legislature, he says, I read several articles about what took place at the Tennessee legislature.
The left takes a position that because two of the three legislators were black and got ousted from their committees and ultimately from the legislature, that the process was racist, that it upends democracy, they say.
And by the way, you know, the second one was restored yesterday.
They've both been restored in less than a week.
They're both back, unfortunately.
Anyway, he said the right fires back and says that what took place in Tennessee was an attempt to disrupt a legislative session.
With an unruly mob who behaved worse than the January 6th rioters, therefore they should be treated criminally.
Neither side is talking about how this incident deprived Tennesseans from having their elected representatives participate in a legislative process to hear a proposed law to reduce gun violence in schools.
Specifically, each representative is recognized by the House Speaker when it's their turn to speak on behalf of their constituents and their districts.
They each got an allotted amount of time to address the issue of the day when these two fools acted the way they did by taking the session hostage for almost an hour.
They infringed on the rights of the Tennesseans whose representatives could not represent the interest of their constituents.
Decorum is a minor part to this story.
The real story rests on how two or more representatives violated the rights of Tennesseans to have representation of their districts in the House.
Although they were ejected from the legislative session, they are not barred from running in the next election to regain the same seat from which they were ousted, but they've already been reappointed.
Perhaps the legislature can amend their own rules and To, at minimum, disqualify any House member who's been ejected from the legislature, disqualify them from running for the seat for a minimum of two legislative sessions as part of the infraction.
What do you think? I think that'd be a great idea.
I mean, the bottom line is that Tennessee already has a law that you cannot run for office unless you have lived in the state for three years and the district for one, I think, that you'd be representing.
So that's the shutdown, and it came into effect, and it was a good thing, because we had a congressional district that opened up, and Trump was pushing this woman who was a Democrat influencer, social media type.
Beautiful model who had absolutely no political principles or issues, and was, you know, for her positions that she had had, they were not aligned with Republicans whatsoever.
The perfect person for Trump to support.
Because of the way she looked.
And then there was Robbie Starbuck who moved into the area and he also was, you know, outside of Tennessee.
Saw an open Tennessee seat and jumped in there for it.
Now, you know, there were obviously carpetbaggers.
And the way they handled it was the Tennessee legislature, which sets the rules for all the state legislatures, set the rules for who's going to run for office.
They said, well, you're going to run under the same rules that we do.
If you have to live in the state for three years and in the district for one year, if you're going to get elected to the state legislature, we're going to have that same qualification for people to represent us in Congress.
And bingo, they were out. They sued about it, but they didn't have any case whatsoever.
The law clearly says, federal law says, that the qualifications and anything will be determined by the legislature.
So they could make that kind of a determination.
They could say, if we kick you out, we expel you because of behavior, then you're going to have to set out in the next couple of elections at the very least.
I would think that would be a great idea.
I will say that, you know, I talked about the fact that they were denying people the legislative process.
As one of the legislators said, you know, Shut up.
Sit down. If you've got a problem with what's going on, file a bill and allow us to have this process.
You know, decorum mainly means that you've got a legitimate process so that you can have representative government.
And if you're going to hijack it and refuse to listen to anybody else, and you're going to lead a mob into the legislative building, and they're going to be pushing and shoving legislators, trying to stop them from getting into the building, literally getting their hands on people.
And if you are going to refuse to, you know, be wrecked, you're going to take the floor and you're going to take it over and you're not going to listen to anybody and you're not going to take your turn, you're going to stand there and scream at people with a bullhorn and try to encourage people up in the galleries to get down on the floor?
Well, then what we're talking about is not democracy.
We're talking about mobocracy.
And again, you know, it needed to be done because you could see them doing it the second time.
If you allow precedents to be established, the fact that whoever's got the biggest mob that shows up on the legislative day gets to shut down all the representation for the state.
See, in a sense, we already have that.
We already have, in every state, and Tennessee is no exception, you have places like Nashville and Memphis, Democrat strongholds, and they get a lot of representation because they have a big population.
And they typically shout down and overrule the wishes of people and the rest of the state.
And that happens in every state.
It even happened the first time where I really got a glimpse of that was about 30 years ago in the county that we moved into.
I saw it happen at the county level.
Sometimes it's easiest to see something if it's really in a small microcosm.
And so you had the county that I was in was a rural county.
It was mostly farmers, a lot of farmers who had had the farm in their family for over a century.
And it was adjacent to Chapel Hill, where the University of North Carolina is.
And you had a lot of people who were hardcore Marxists and socialists working with that university who decided that, hey, there's some nice places down here in this farm area.
We can build developments.
And so they came in with a big concentration of people just in the northern part of the county.
And prior to them coming in, All of the representation had been by geographical districts within the county.
So they broke it into segments, and regardless of population, the geographical segments were equally represented, kind of like the Electoral College, right?
And although that does have a population element to it because the number of electors is based on the number of electors in the House of Representatives.
But nevertheless, it still had a geographical aspect to it.
And the first thing these people did was to say, well, we're going to have a referendum.
We get a referendum on the ballot and we're going to change it from people representing geographical areas in the county to all of the county commissioners being elected at large.
They got that passed, and the next election, all of the county commissioners were from this little group that was up there.
This little group that had come in, set up some communities there.
They put up a slate of electors, and they had a liberal agenda that they wanted for the county.
And their liberal agenda was, not in my backyard.
You're not going to sell your farm.
You're not going to develop anything else.
We're in here. We're not going to let anybody else in here.
And you can't do anything that you want to with your farm.
We're going to tell you what you can do with your farm and dictate all that to you.
And that's what they did. And so we always have a situation where, you know, you got to try to come up with structures where people actually have some representation.
And they were antithetical to that.
But that's not the way it's been portrayed by the press.
And it's not the way that the governor of Tennessee has reacted to it either.
He is cravenly and cowardly virtue signaling.
Say, well, we can do something about the guns.
Politico says how Tennessee became the poster state for political meltdown.
Well, whose political meltdown?
I would say it was a political meltdown of the youthful mob, the youthful idiots that are being led by these youthful idiot Marxist leaders that got kicked out.
We look like ten-pot dictators in this state.
Yes, you do. The Tennessee Three look like ten-pot dictators that have absolutely no respect for For the democratic process, just like they have no respect for the Constitution that they swore to uphold as a condition of their becoming legislators.
And unfortunately, that contempt for the Constitution, that contempt for our God-given rights, is shared by many in the Republican Party, many who are leaders of the Republican Party in this state as well.
So they don't want rules.
They don't want the rule of law. They don't want order.
They don't want respect for other people.
What they want is chaos.
They want disruption. They want a long march through the institutions and a long march through society.
To some, they said, the echoes are evocative of Jim Crow.
Let me play for you.
The guy that got back in yesterday, so they had, I think, Justin Jones was the one who got reappointed on Monday, I think it was, or Tuesday, and then yesterday, on Wednesday, Justin Pearson, the second guy who got kicked out.
Was sent back by his, you know, the city council or the county council or whoever gets to make that determination.
They sent him back as a successor to himself.
And at the very beginning, people were saying, well, they can't send the same people back because that's not allowed.
You can't be a successor to yourself.
That doesn't make any sense.
It's got to be a different person. Well, no.
They said, we're going to do that.
And the Republicans now, because of the national attention that they've got, they got scared.
So, well, we're not going to fight him anymore on that.
But let me just show you something from this guy, Justin Pearson.
Let me show you what a fraud he is.
This is a clip that shows him a couple of years ago.
And then you'll see a clip of what he sounds like today.
Do you remember when Hillary Clinton went to a black church or something?
She starts talking like Uncle Remus.
Remember that? Y'all can't do this.
Y'all don't... And, you know, everybody called her out on it.
AOC, Occasional Cortex, has done the same thing recently.
This guy has done it in spades.
At the very beginning of this clip, you see a guy, he's got short hair.
He's wearing a suit and tie.
And he is talking about how we've got to bring people from all sides of the political spectrum together and everything, and we've all got to come together.
Basically, he looks like Eddie Murphy when Eddie Murphy says, I'm going to be a white guy.
Remember when he did that Saturday Night Live skit and he puts on lighter color makeup and he starts, well, I'm talking like a white man now.
You know, he's talking like this. And then towards the end of the clip, he starts the same guy.
Now he's got a big afro and he goes into this Martin Luther King style dialogue.
I seen the mountaintop.
Here's a clip. I'm Justin J. Pearson and I'm running for president of BSG. There are a few reasons that we're running this campaign this year.
One has to do with representation.
How can we represent all voices in a conversation?
I want to do this by partnering with organizations from the Putin Democrats to the Putin Republicans.
I want to bring together different voices, dissenting voices, voices that may be more liberal or more conservative, in order that we can reach a point of sort of the radical middle.
Seemed like the NRA and gun lobbyists might win.
But oh, that was good news for us.
I don't know how long this Saturday in the state of Tennessee might last.
But oh, we have good news, folks.
We've got good news that Sunday always comes.
Uh-huh.
Yeah. He is a total wacko, total demagogue, total phony.
I have seen the mountaintop.
And on Easter, He went to a black church and he's given his political sermon.
I don't think he's a pastor.
This is picked up by a daily caller.
Ousted lawmaker preaches, quote, mother God and gun control and trans health care for Easter.
For Easter. Yeah, total phony, total fraud.
Justin Pearson, that guy that you saw there transform...
From doing his white man impersonation to doing his Martin Luther King impersonation.
Who is this guy really? We don't really know who he is.
You look at the extremes that he's got there.
I don't know what this guy is.
And he absolutely has no idea what he's talking about when he's at an Easter service either.
He gave a sermon during the Easter service, praying to the, quote, Mother God, Calling for an end to gun violence, arguing that, quote, transgender children, unquote, should receive the health care they need, according to recordings of the sermon, which I could not find, unfortunately.
Would have been... I'll keep looking.
If I can find one, it'll be funny.
We'll have to get the clip of Stan Laurel laughing when...
Pearson opened his sermon at the Church of the River in Memphis, Tennessee, by praying to the Mother God and asking for the preachers who had come before him to speak through his message.
Now, why is he talking about the Mother God?
He goes to a Christian church.
And he knows that God is represented in the Bible, or represented in Christian and in Hebrew religion, as father, right?
Male pronouns.
And so, he's doing this not because he believes in the Mother God.
Does he have some document that is supposed to be a revelation from Mother God?
He doesn't know who Mother God is, right?
He's not out there like the Pope, worshipping Pacamama or something.
He's not worshipping Gaia, you know, the environmentalist Mother Earth.
No, he doesn't. He's doing this essentially to oppose the establishment, you see.
Everything these people do is done simply to be antithetical to what is out there.
It's not that they believe this.
It's just that they've got to tear down what you believe.
That's why he's there. That's what he's doing.
It's chaos, it's disruption, it's destruction, it's leveling everything, destroying everything, so then he's free to build whatever he wants.
That's why he's talking about this kind of stuff.
Pearson also argued that the resurrection and the persecution of Jesus should give hope, this is on Easter, to persecuted people who call for gun control and for trans health care.
He has no idea why Jesus came.
He has no idea why he needs Jesus.
That's the sad thing about it.
He's up there on Easter.
He's talking about love and justice.
That's not what Easter is about.
Easter is about love and mercy.
You want justice, Justin?
No, you don't.
You do not want the justice of God.
That's why Jesus died on the cross.
Each and every one of us, if we got the justice of God, that's why I said you had some Texas legislator wants to put up the Ten Commandments in schools.
Well, all right. To some degree...
People are going to look up there and they see that, but also many of them are going to think, well, yeah, I could probably do all that stuff.
Yeah, I've done all that stuff.
He said the rich young ruler to Jesus, and Jesus said, okay, we'll go sell everything that you own.
That showed where his heart was.
His love of money was his God, right?
And so people deceive themselves.
Most people only think about what has been done to them.
And those are the people that, you know, Justin represents.
That's who he really represents.
He's probably only thinking about the stuff that's been done to him.
And he wants to get with the people who think something's been done to them.
And they want reparations.
And they call that justice.
But, you know, they never really think about what they've done to others.
And they never really think about their position to God.
How they rebelled against God.
How they have, even in small ways, right?
How many different ways do you have to rebel against God?
Well, you know, Adam found out just one way.
That kind of cosmic rebellion has cosmic circumstances, and of course we all do.
But that's the purpose of why Christ came.
It was not to give you the Ten Commandments.
He escalated the Ten Commandments so you'd understand how impossible it was for you to satisfy what God requires.
It's impossible for you to pay for your sins.
So he paid for your fine for you.
He went to court. It's like, yeah, this guy's guilty, but here, I'll pay his fine and he can go.
I'll pay for what he did.
I'll take his place. That's what Christ did on Easter.
So this guy shows up and he wants to talk about Mother God and he wants to talk about transgender kids and how we can mutilate them and how that is what Jesus is about.
No, it's not. It's not at all.
What is your evidence that Mother God exists?
You got any evidence for that?
You got any revelation where Mother God claims to have spoken to people?
You know, we do have that. You can see in creation the evidence of design, especially in things like DNA. Question is, has God spoken, has the Creator spoken to us?
And, of course, it stands the evidence.
It withstands scrutiny.
That's why I say, I don't have to defend truth.
You just let it loose.
That's why freedom of speech and freedom of religion are combined in the Christian mind, because we don't worry about our faith being examined.
It can withstand that examination.
And so, you know, at the same time he's doing this, saying, we need to have justice.
He's calling for an end to any laws against abortion.
Thou shalt not kill.
What is the justice for someone who kills the most innocent babies among us?
What is justice?
You better start looking for mercy.
And you better start looking for it at the mercy seat of Christ.
He says, I was not standing by myself.
I was standing for my constituents.
And you see, that's a big part of this as well.
We don't often think about it.
It's difficult for a lot of people to say, well, how could Christ have taken my place?
Well, you know, he is a representative for others.
And if you don't understand that, you know, and that's largely been erased out of our society.
Many people would say, well, you know, if we get rid of the king, we don't really understand God's economy and how God deals with people, how God sees people.
There is a headship principle.
We see that now, you know, we think, well, every year we elect a different dictator.
Every four years we've got another dictator in Washington as a president.
And you do know that the actions of the president, you know, the things that Trump does, the things that Biden does, you know, Biden starts a world war, guess what?
We're all going to suffer for it.
If Biden does certain things with the government that he is in charge of, if he starts attacking other countries, guess what?
Those countries are going to attack back and they're going to drop bombs and we're going to die.
There are consequences for people who are under the head.
The head of government.
The head of the family.
And Christ was our head.
And so that's the good consequences of that.
If you don't want to understand the bad consequences of Adam and why that would affect the entire world, all of creation groaned when he sinned, if you don't understand that, you're not going to understand the redemption of Christ as well.
And so this guy says, I was not standing for myself, I was standing for my constituents.
Well, we need to understand that Christ died for his constituents.
This guy, meanwhile, is nothing other than a grifting chameleon.
But on the other hand, we have the Tennessee governor, Bill Lee, who's out there, took time off from trying to set up toll roads for the first time.
He is now talking about passing a red flag gun law.
He said, this is, quote, a moment in time when people can come together and get something done, he said.
Oh, this sounds like Trump when he had that meeting and he had Dianne Feinstein and Chuckie Schumer and everyone all gathered around the table there.
He goes, we can get something done.
I want to work with you and do something.
Well, let's just take the gun and do the due process later.
Remember that? And that's basically where Bill Lee is right now.
He's caved to these people.
He's caved to the national pressure.
He's virtue signaling to these people who want to infringe on your God-given rights specifically recognized by the Constitution and specifically prohibited from government at any level because all these people at the state level have also taken an oath to the Constitution.
If I had a chance to talk to Bill Lee, I'd say, have you taken an oath to the Constitution?
I know he has. So is your oath worth anything at all?
No, it's not. Because he's talking about how he wants to violate his oath and infringe on our ability to protect ourselves and to keep and bear arms.
He has asked the legislature to pass a bill before the current session ends.
He called it, quote, an order of protection law, typically called a red flag law.
Now, the good thing is, so far, after all this stuff happened, The head of the Senate said, we're not going to take a look at any gun control laws until 2024.
We're going to let these things cool off.
We're not going to do this in the heat of the moment.
Now, that's a wise person.
Especially because we don't want to have any of this.
And if they really want to represent us, the vast majority of people in Tennessee do not want to have any infringement.
People in Tennessee were very happy to In the last couple of years, they passed constitutional carry.
We don't want to have restrictions on guns here.
We want to have restrictions on children being psychologically gaslighted.
We want to have restrictions on children being given SSRIs and other mind-altering and mood-altering, personality-altering drugs.
We want to have restrictions on children being chemically mutilated, surgically mutilated, sterilized.
That's what we want to have laws for.
Not laws about our self-protection.
Not laws that violate your oath to the Constitution.
Lee signed an executive order, strengthening the state's background checks.
And unfortunately, the House Speaker, Cameron Sexton, issued a statement saying he's open to these proposals.
So again, it goes back to the Senate.
And it goes back to the guy who said we're going to the head of the Senate, who said we're not going to do anything until 2024.
I hope he doesn't cave to that pressure.
So, tightening firearm background checks, the executive order requires responsible parties to ensure that all criminal history, court, mental health information is entered into the Tennessee Instant Check System or provided to the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation within 72 hours.
The executive order also directs those entities to determine how this is going to be done.
See, this is it. This is, in a nutshell, what Governor Lee has done in Tennessee.
It's what every congressman and senator and president wants to do.
That is, kick this can over to the bureaucracy.
Here, you guys work it out.
You determine what the rules for society are going to be.
Because, you know, even though I was elected to do that, I don't want to have that.
That's a hot potato. If you get it wrong, I'll come in like a white knight and I'll fix all this stuff and I'll look good.
But I'm not going to put my name on a bill that's going to take people's freedom.
I'm going to let you do it.
Because you don't have to stand for election.
You're not accountable to the people.
I am. I can't do this.
You do it. Yeah, that's where Bill Lee is.
He's there just like all the rest of these people.
You know, shucking and jiving and getting rid of his responsibility, not doing his duty, and betraying us, again, by saying it's not me, it's the unelected, unaccountable bureaucracy that's doing this to you.
Well, who put them there?
Who do they report to? Well, they report to you and I elected you.
Why don't you do something about it?
So he's calling for the red flag laws.
Again, doing a total trump on everybody.
State lawmakers have been under pressure to pass stricter gun laws and so forth, says CBS News.
Well, here's the problem.
You can't handle, they can't handle the truth.
They can't handle the pressure.
And they don't have a backbone or a spine to do anything about this.
Lee is not even close to talking about what the cause is.
The cause is not even the gun.
He's not even talking about the cause of this transgender shooting.
He doesn't want to take on the real issue, which is transgenderism, and how that's being pushed on kids at a young age, pushing them to contemplate suicide, pushing them to commit suicide.
And whether they can do it through propaganda or whether they can do it through their SSRI drugs, those are the issues.
And, you know, if you're a mother and you have these SSRI drugs and you want to kill your kid, well, you can do it any number of ways.
You can drown them in the bathtub.
You can drown them in a car.
You can, you know, murder them with a knife or whatever.
We just had a taxi driver, I think it was in Portland, picked up, I had a picture of the guy, but it's The guy who killed him looked a lot crazier than Norman Bates.
The guy who killed him was a Norman Bates, you know, wearing eye makeup and everything, which, you know, Norman Bates didn't do.
He was, you know, dressed up like his mother, an old lady.
No, this guy wants to dress up like, you know, he calls the taxi and the guy takes him where he wants to go.
And then he says, no, I want to go to this other place.
And so there's the taxi drivers over there keying in the new address and everything.
He pulls out a knife and stabs the guy in the neck and kills him.
A tranny. These people are nuts.
That's the problem.
He didn't use a gun.
The problem is the person.
That's what the problem is with all these red flag gun laws.
The dangerous thing is not the weapon.
The dangerous thing is the killer.
A killer can use any kind of a weapon.
Bare hands, rocks, anything.
A car. They can use anything to kill people.
That's the real issue.
And Bill Lee and the House Speaker won't even talk about the real issue here because they want a virtue signal and pander to the people putting pressure on them.
We'll be right back. Analyzing
The Globalist Next Move.
And now, The David Knight Show.
you Let's talk about another point of betrayal, and that is Julian Assange.
You know, I began the program, I was talking about Trump's interview with Tucker Carlson.
And the fact that he demands total loyalty, well, you know, he doesn't give anybody any loyalty.
Julian Assange, for example, a big part of why Trump was elected, Julian Assange exposing many of the crimes of Hillary Clinton.
And yet, on the...
I think it's the fourth anniversary of him being locked up.
Yeah, fourth anniversary, April 11th, two days ago.
You had a lot of politicians in Australia and in the United Kingdom...
Calling on the U.S. to drop Julian Assange's extradition.
Of course, calling specifically on Merrick Garland, the Attorney General, has the power to do that.
That never happened under the Trump administration.
You had the AGs, Jeff Sessions, and Bill Barr never did anything to help Julian Assange.
No, they were leaning on the U.K., that other part of the Five Eyes, to kill him in revenge.
And they did not consider that.
In an open letter, 48 Australian parliamentarians, as Assange is from Australia, said extradition to the US would set a, quote, dangerous precedent, unquote, for freedom of the press and would be, quote, needlessly damaging, unquote, for the US as a world leader in freedom of expression.
Well, we're not a world leader for freedom anymore.
We're a world leader for raw, arbitrary power.
Whatever it takes for our national security.
And anybody who gets in the way, anybody who embarrasses us, he embarrassed the Pentagon, he embarrassed the CIA, he embarrassed Hillary Clinton.
Any one of those would be a death sentence.
Right? That's what our government has become.
If extradition request is approved, Australians will witness the deportation of one of our citizens from one, Australian-U.S. partner to another.
Australian-U.K.-U.S. partner to another.
Our closest strategic ally.
With Mr. Assange facing the prospect of spending the rest of his life in prison, said the letter.
A clear majority of Australians consider that this matter has gone on for far too long and must be brought to a close.
And again, this is 48 Australian parliamentarians.
We implore you to drop the extradition proceedings and allow Mr.
Assange to return home.
Again, written to Attorney General Merrick Garland.
So while 48 in Australia did that, another 35 UK members of Parliament did the same thing from both the House and from the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
35 from six different parties wrote to Merrick Garland requesting that he uphold the First Amendment of the Constitution.
Isn't that pathetic? That you have to have other people...
And other countries to point out the hypocrisy and the oath-breaking of our own government to us.
To drop the extradition proceedings to allow Assange to return to Australia.
This April 11th marks the fourth anniversary of his confinement in Belmarsh, which is unbelievably harsh, and designed to destroy him, to kill him, to break his spirit, to break his health, hopefully to kill him.
That's why they have him in Belmarsh.
They said there's been bipartisan support for a long time, but what this letter says in print, It is the extent of that diversity.
Dozens of people, Australia and the UK. Six different parties just in the UK alone.
That is a reflection of the Australian community because a lot of people think no matter what Assange has done, enough is enough.
You embarrass Hillary Clinton and the CIA and the rest of these people.
What is enough? You know, what is excessive punishment, right?
He's, you know, four years in Belmarsh.
Very harsh. And of course, the punishment has gone on for a very long time before that even.
He said he noted that he was unaware of anyone else who was subject to this kind of inhumane conditions while yet to be even formally charged for the criminal events.
How far have we fallen?
From the traditions of English common law shared by the U.S. and Australia, New Zealand, the Five Eyes, Canada, those traditions of English common law that we have built our Constitution on, the idea of a speedy trial, the idea that you could confront your accusers, That you'd be given a jury trial.
All these things. He's being killed.
This is going on for about 14 years now.
Four of them in this harsh prison without being formally charged.
Not even charged with anything.
We talk all the time about civil asset forfeiture.
What an outrage it is that law enforcement agencies across our country have been given the police state powers to confiscate property that they believe may be involved in some kind of a drug deal.
And many times they will say, the first case that I saw this, it was a guy who had a private jet And he had a charter jet service.
He had one jet, because these things are expensive.
And he picked up two businessmen in suits, flew them from the U.S. to Canada for a meeting that they had that day, and flew them back the same day.
When he came back, the plane was surrounded by DEA agents and FBI and all this stuff.
They arrested these two guys, and they said, and we're taking your plane.
What? Well, we know you're charging me.
I didn't know anything about it. We know that.
We're not charging you with a crime.
We're charging you with your plane.
U.S. government versus Learjet serial number, blah, blah, blah.
Your plane was an accessory to this crime, so we're going to steal your plane without any due process.
We're going to accuse an inanimate object of committing a crime.
Except that it's not a crime.
It broke a rule.
That's why the civil asset forfeiture there.
They steal stuff from you if they say that you broke one of their bureaucratic rules.
Because, you know, if it was a law that had been passed by Congress, they say, well, then you would have to abide by By the Constitution, you'd have to have a trial and a conviction, and there would be limits as to how you could punish somebody with all this stuff.
But, hey, you know, we're not doing this.
This is a rule that comes from the bureaucracy, and so this is a civil action, and if you want to get it back, you're going to have to sue us to get it back.
Now, that's what they've done to Julian Assange.
They got him under a death sentence without even charging him.
This is why this is important.
These precedents matter.
They matter, just like the precedents that Trump set.
This is another precedent that is there.
And understand that this internment in Belmarsh began under the Trump administration, and it's continued through the Biden administration.
Not to say that Biden wouldn't have done it, but Trump did it.
Trump did it and kept it going, and Biden is continuing that as well.
And it's not just in the UK and Australia where you've got elected members of Parliament talking about it.
You've now got some House Democrats urging Biden to drop the charges against Julian Assange.
They all put this together on the fourth anniversary of him being put into this Belmarsh prison under the Trump administration.
And what is sad about this?
Who are the people talking about this?
The sad thing is, this is only the squad.
The squad. You know, Rashida Tlaib, occasional cortex.
That's why I say occasionally she's got a brain.
They're real radical people.
Ilhan Omar, occasional cortex, Ayanna Pressley, Jamal Bowman, Cori Bush, Rashida Tlaib.
These are the people who have a problem with this.
The mainstream Democrats or Republicans don't have a problem.
Why don't conservatives have a problem with this?
Why don't conservatives want to conserve the First Amendment?
Why don't conservatives want to obey the Constitution?
Why don't the conservatives want to defend due process?
That's what I don't understand. What's their problem?
Nobody but people like Occasional Cortex want to stop this thing?
It's just amazing to me.
Assange has been indicted for publishing information about U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that he obtained using standard journalistic practices.
Now, this is Dave DeCamp saying this.
The beard under which the Trump administration is coming after him and the Biden administration, they say, because that's been established, that was established with the Pentagon Papers, as Dave DeCamp said.
Lawmakers, these Democrat lawmakers, point out that much of the information published by WikiLeaks is also published by mainstream outlets, including the New York Times and the Washington Post, who published the Pentagon Papers that were given to them by Daniel Ellsberg.
And that was upheld.
As a principle that, hey, look, if somebody steals something and gives it to you, you are entitled under the laws of the free press to report that.
And, you know, the government wants to come after the person who steals this, which they did.
They came after Daniel Ellsberg.
He got off on a technicality or whatever.
I'm not going to get into the politics behind all that stuff.
But the principle was that the person who stole it would have to answer for it.
But he could turn it over to the press and they could publish it with impunity because of the First Amendment.
And so, because of that, you had Barr and other people who were pushing.
Remember, look, Barr was CIA before he was anything else.
You know, Bill Barr, when you had the Church Committee hearings and the CIA was completely discredited, and again, those hearings were because the CIA and the NSA were spying on Americans, but then they made it about assassinations and so forth.
But there was a lot of stuff that came out that hurt the reputation of the CIA. The guy wrote a book who was their lawyer, Company Man.
And he said, I watched those church committee hearings and I looked at it.
He was such a sociopath that his takeaway was, they need a good lawyer, they need me.
And that's what he did.
While the rest of us were looking at this and saying, What a horrible institution.
How do we get rid of this thing?
He's like, they need a good lawyer.
They need a criminal lawyer.
And of course, he was a guy who came up with a prevarication about enhanced interrogation.
I got an idea.
We won't call it torture.
We'll call it enhanced interrogation.
And we'll do enhanced interrogation to lie us into the Iraq war.
And then the guy who talks about how we were lied into the Iraq War appoints the person who ran the torture and ran the cover-up appoints her, Gina Haspel, as the head of the CIA. Trump did.
It's just amazing. Look at it.
Anyway, but the bottom line is that, you know, after all that damage that was done with those church committee hearings...
Who did they bring in to fix the CIA? Well, it was George H.W. Bush, who had always been a part of the CIA, going back to the...
Quietly. You know, they deny it, but you can see, if you look at the Bay of Pigs invasion...
George H.W. had Zapata oil and so forth.
And some of the ships that were involved in that, you had one of the ships was called Zapata.
Another one was called Barbara.
Oh, say, who would that be? Oh, yeah, that's his wife.
Yeah, okay. Anyway, George H.W. Bush, oh, no, he doesn't have any connection to the CIA. He's just this pure outsider.
Who's going to come in and fix all this stuff?
Well, who did he bring in as his second in command?
Bill Barr. And then when George H.W.C.I.A. Bush became president, who did he put in as a very, very young attorney general?
Well, that would be Bill C.I.A. Barr.
Same guy, by the way, that Trump He chooses to put in somebody from the deep, deep, deep corrupt state as his Attorney General.
And this guy, Bill Barr, decides that the way we're going to come after Julian Assange is we're going to pretend that he was the one who stole the information.
That's the basis on which they're doing this.
Now, if we look at the dirtiness that is happening with January the 6th, I reported on this a couple of days ago.
Maybe it was last week. The lawyer for some of these Proud Boys, Roger Roots, has been going through and getting information about how many agent provocateurs were there on January the 6th.
He previously said, well, we've identified 40 of them.
Now he's gotten some more information, and there's another dozen.
Another dirty dozen. So they've got more than 50 undercover officers and informants, and that's just for the Proud Boys.
That's not talking about the rest of the crowd.
That's just focused in and around the Proud Boys.
People like Joe Biggs in this particular trial here.
So, they said up to a dozen previously undisclosed undercover Metropolitan Police Department officers were embedded in the crowd on January the 6th, including one who admitted joining in protester chants to, quote, stop the steal.
Where'd that come from? Who coined that phrase?
Yeah, Roger did. Anyway, a motion for mistrial filed by defense attorney Roger Roots.
Not that Roger, but Roger Stone came up with that.
To bring the number of police agents and informants embedded in the January 6th crowds to at least 50.
And that's just the agent provocateurs in and around the Proud Boys.
How many did they have there?
The last thing I said the morning of January 6th.
Stay away. It's going to be filled with agent provocateurs.
It's a trap. It's a trap!
April 7th meeting with the prosecutors, the defense learned that there were at least another 10 to 12 additional previously unknown plainclothes metropolitan police department officers among the Proud Boys on January the 6th.
And there are reasons to suspect the true number is much higher.
Mm-hmm. Yeah.
Five members of the Proud Boys, including Joe Biggs, who I know, have been on trial since December.
And they are charged, they're facing nine criminal counts.
One of them, Pizzola, is charged with 10 criminal counts.
They're trying to put these people away for life for this stuff.
On April, which, as I pointed out, no different, really, than what you saw in Nashville, right?
But of course, the people who were the instigators, the clear instigators, the Tennessee Three, and the crowd, no punishment for anybody there.
How dare anybody even talk about it?
You know, kicking them out for a couple of days until they can get reappointed.
How dare anybody even do that to these people?
In Tennessee. On April 7th, the investigator told defense attorneys that his role in January 6th was to record the crowds with his body camera.
Root said the defense has not been provided with Thomas Soule's video.
That's the investigator. So, again, more exculpatory evidence being withheld for these January the 6th trials, evidence that would show that this is a setup.
And, quote, he admitted himself that you can hear on his video him chanting, whose house, our house, and stop this deal.
You see, Sam, who was a reporter, photographer for InfoWars, given four months, because why?
Because he was calmly walking.
He didn't attack anybody. He had a camera.
And he's calmly walking between the velvet ropes, but he was shouting, whose house, our house, and stuff like that.
I don't know if that's exactly what he had to say.
But because, you know, if you were there as a reporter, And you repeat the shouts of the agent provocateurs there.
Oh, you're going to go to jail.
That's the most outrageous thing.
But again, you know, we can look at it.
At least, fortunately, Sam has not gotten the Julian Assange treatment.
But these people are doing the yelling, and if you repeat what these cops are yelling, oh, that's a criminal offense?
To be there? To report?
Just amazing. You know, AJ said he had no idea that Sam was there.
You believe that, Travis? Yeah, he had no idea.
Why did he say that?
Because Alex was throwing Sam under the bus.
He went there without my knowledge.
I know nothing about it.
There's a full Corporal Klinger, Corporal Schultz.
What is it? Schultz, yeah, Schultz.
Klinger, a dress.
Alex wasn't wearing a dress.
He was a... But, you know, he's got himself dressed up in sheep's clothing.
Nevertheless, you know, I don't know anything about that.
He did it without my knowledge.
Nobody goes across the country as, you know, he had so many people there with him.
Nobody's going to do that. Check out a camera, do the rest of the stuff without Alex's knowledge.
No, instead he threw him under the bus to save his sorry ass.
He paid Sam's legal fees for about a year and then he fired him without any explanation and stopped paying for the fees.
Why? Gotta get it. Things are getting hot.
I gotta distance myself from you.
That's what we're seeing here. It's amazing to me to see this happening.
It makes me very angry.
Like I said, I've seen what these guys are like behind the scenes.
And I'm not going to shut up about it.
And I don't care if everybody turns me off.
I don't care if people misunderstand what my motives are here.
You need to know what Trump is like.
You need to know what Alex and Steve Bannon and Roger and all these other people that you're following and listening to that are manipulating and controlling you.
You need to understand where these guys are coming from.
They're agent provocateurs just like those guys with the cameras on them.
They get your confidence.
They tell you the truth. And then when the time is right, just like Glenn Beck did at the Bundy Ranch standoff.
Yeah, he stuck the knife in.
Oh, are you a sovereign citizen, Mr.
Bundy? Yeah.
He knew exactly what he said.
Bundy didn't know what he meant by that.
That made me want to throw up when I saw Glenn Beck do that.
Anyway, after people being locked down, 2 million people are leaving the major cities after the lockdown.
Same thing is happening in China.
There's an article that was done about all these people who had young people in their 20s.
They're leaving good-paying jobs.
They graduated at the top of their class, had a tech job, or they had some kind of a white-collar job in a bank or something like that.
And they got locked down and they said, that's it, I'm getting out of town.
I don't care if I have to take an 80% pay cut.
They're making a fifth, in many cases, a fifth of what they made before.
I'll go do pet grooming out in the countryside of China because I don't want to be in the cities anymore.
Well, the same thing is happening here.
People are understanding what is happening with it.
People need to know that you need to be able to Have the skills, real skills, you know, instead of learning pet grooming, what you might want to do is learn how to grow your own food because they're coming after the food supply.
With the vaccines, with the lockdowns, the climate, you know, both the climate and the pandemic, MacGuffin and the vaccine MacGuffin, all of that stuff is now focusing on food.
All of those things. You know, crypto, got to get rid of your money, got to get rid of your food, got to get rid of your trash.
It's coming, folks.
Better learn, better prepare.
Again, you know, civildefensemanual.com, good source of that.
I'm going to get him back on.
I'll try to get him on tomorrow, Jack Lawson.
Biden, meanwhile, is looking for a way to de facto ban your cars.
For years, Eric Peterson and I have been wringing our hands about how expensive cars are getting because of all the emissions dictates and all the safety dictates and all the rest of this stuff.
Biden has now released the strictest ever emission regulations.
They announced historically strict regulations on tailpipe emissions on Wednesday and a bid to boost the sale of electric vehicles.
This is about de facto prohibition.
And, of course, they're going through Nixon's EPA. The EPA is now going to be putting out new rules.
They claim that if they can really tighten this down and make it impossible to comply with this unless it costs a fortune, their goal is to have 67% of all light-duty vehicles sold after 2032 be electric vehicles.
They will move that up. 2030 is the year that they're focusing on everything.
They don't have a way to do this.
It's just going to be a de facto ban.
De facto prohibition.
I just told you yesterday, 60% of the people say they don't want and can't afford an electric car.
They're far more expensive than the cars that are already prohibitively expensive.
How much more do you need to do?
They've already made the average car in the high $40,000 range because of things like these emissions regulations.
So the next thing to do is, of course, ramp it up.
No matter how much we are suffering under austerity and sanctions and all the rest of the stuff, Biden and his group will make it harder.
I should go back and make me think of when King Solomon died, his young son.
The people come to him and they say, your father had a pretty heavy burden on us financially.
Are you going to give us some break from that?
And he says, well, let me think about it.
And he goes and talks to some of the other young kids.
You know, the elders tell him, yeah, you should ease off on some of this.
You don't need that much money. You don't need to hit them so hard.
And he goes and talks to the young guys, and the young guys say, you tell them this, you think my dad was bad?
That was nothing compared to what I'm going to do to you.
And caused a civil war and a split.
Biden, you think those EPA regulations are bad under Obama?
Well, wait till you see what I've got for you.
Yeah. Wait till he sees how we're going to react with this stuff.
Well, people are not going to take this that much longer.
By proposing the most ambitious pollution standards ever for cars and trucks, we are delivering on the Biden-Harris administration's promise to protect people and the planet.
We're going to protect the planet. Can we stop with this absurdity?
I'm so sick and tired of this.
We ought to laugh these people off the podium when they start talking about protecting the planet at this point.
Biden in 2021 signed an executive order directing the government to establish policies that would make 50% of passenger vehicles all electric by 2030.
And that's not enough. So now he's got to double down even more.
Here we are two years later, not even, and we've got to escalate it.
Executives for the United Auto Workers expressed concern over the proposal.
Yeah, that's right. All you union workers, you're not going to have a job.
You're not going to own anything.
You're not going to go anywhere. You like that?
You like that? We'll keep voting for Biden and his lunatic crowd.
So, they said the United Auto Workers are not happy about that, considering electric vehicles typically require less than half the number of workers.
It's a very simple car, right?
That's one of the reasons why GM and other manufacturers fought it.
As a matter of fact, it's one of the reasons why they signed up for all of this complicated emissions regulations and safety regulations and everything.
That was to keep competition away.
And it was pretty effective.
People couldn't start a new car coming.
That's why one guy wanted to start up Elio, the three-legged car.
He said, I'll make it with three wheels, and that way it won't be regulated with all these oppressive things, because that's too complicated.
You can't do that. So now, after they get to the point where you've got environmental socialist government, ESG, they can just say, all right, well, let's do this because we've got so much monopolistic control over the economy that, yeah, let's simplify the manufacturing of cars.
Make it very simple. All you need is some batteries and some motors on the wheels, and that's it.
You're ready to go. So we'll keep the rest of this stuff there to keep competition out, and we will just rent this to people.
How's this going to work out? Well, you know, in Georgia, this is a Reason article from yesterday.
Georgia is shoveling cash into a failing electric vehicle company, and they're not the only ones.
It's being done here in Tennessee with Ford.
It's being done in North Carolina with a Vietnamese company.
They're doing it all over the place.
Every state government is showering cash on these people who are going to make electric cars.
And the taxpayers are going to take a beating.
We've seen this type of stuff with Solyndra and the solar panel subsidies and things like that, but this is a new order of magnitude.
Everybody wants that battery factory.
Everybody wants that car company there.
And these politicians put a feather in their cap because they bring this thing in.
They promise it's going to be billions of dollars, but we're going to be left holding the bag.
In 2021, the state of Georgia made an expensive bet on an unproven company that could be headed for financial catastrophe, writes Reason Magazine.
The company was Rivian. And if you remember, they got a...
Oh, the press was just all about Rivian.
Oh, you know, Ford likes them.
Jeff Bezos at Amazon gave them $100 million or something and said, you know, and we're going to get the front of the line.
You're going to make Amazon delivery vehicles for us.
Governor Kemp in Georgia...
Heralded the $5 billion facility as, quote, the single largest economic development project in state history.
When completed, the facility was expected to stretch over nearly 20 million square feet on 2,000 acres.
And they said, this is three times larger than Disneyland.
And it's also based on a bigger fantasy.
Here come the magic fairies.
The fairy godmother, she's going to wave the magic wand and we're all going to be driving electric vehicles and, you know, no unicorn farts anymore.
The Rivian was the object of market hype.
The company didn't just make electric vehicles, and so, you know, they said, what's going to do for all these different types of SUVs and trucks and everything, what Tesla did for sedans?
That was the hype. They had money pouring in from Wall Street.
$1.3 billion from Amazon.
I was wrong. It was not $100 billion.
It was $1.3 billion from Amazon for a 20% stake.
$1.2 billion from Ford for a 12% stake of the company.
Well, Ford got stuck.
Rivian raised $12 billion to an initial public offering.
The IPO valued the company at over $85 billion.
It had a higher stock market value, market capitalization, all the shares times the share price, the market capitalization.
It was higher than Ford.
And then Georgia subsidized it.
And then it turns out that just weeks before the IPO, it turns out that Rivian had only produced 56 pickup trucks.
And shipped only 42.
And that was to his employees.
But it's got a bigger market cap than Ford does.
And Ford's the bigger fool because Ford bought into it.
So, you know, where are we at?
Well, it's actually the people of Georgia that bought into this.
And this is starting to look like the tulip bulb territory, right?
Yeah. The electric cars and the way the states have gone into this is very much like the tulip bulb.
As Reason says, they're burning through a tremendous amount of cash at an unsustainable rate.
And quietly, their contract to deliver these things to Amazon was quietly amended and moved back by five years.
Now, I said the same thing is happening in Tennessee.
Now, the same governor who's pandering to the gun control crowd, Used eminent domain to evict farmers, and of course, it's black farmers, so it's really important, right?
No, it's important that you don't evict any farmers from this stuff.
Don't make it about the race.
Give me a break, and that's reason.
The state promised, Tennessee promised Ford nearly a billion dollars in incentives.
And, of course, you know, this is not as foolish as a new company like Rivian, or even more foolish, what is happening in North Carolina.
But the bad thing about this with the eminent domain, and I did talk about this, I talked about it with North Carolina, what's happening with it, is essentially that horrible thing that they did in Connecticut, Where the government allowed a corporation to use eminent domain so they could kick people out of their businesses and put it in there.
And that's what they're doing to the farmers.
Now here, you know, in Tennessee, it's black farmers.
But it's not black farmers in North Carolina.
It's still wrong to kick these people out of their homes so that you can put in a corporation.
And that's what it's about. But the way they did it in Tennessee and North Carolina was they said, well, we have to have a road.
For this. And so the state decides they're going to do the road.
And so the Department of Transportation is using eminent domain.
So it doesn't look like they're doing it for the company.
But that's just a beard. They're doing it for the company.
And so Ford said they're going to commit $11 billion.
To build, to expand electric vehicle production.
In addition to two EV battery factories in Kentucky, they're going to put in a $5.6 billion megacampus in western Tennessee.
They call it Blue Oval City.
Ford boasted that the project would be operational in 2025, employ about 5,800 people.
The people that are there, just like the people in North Carolina, say, well, that's fine.
You know, I even support you doing that.
And I don't mind if you buy my farm, said some of them.
See, the problem is they're not paying them anywhere close to the market rate.
And that's a crime.
You know, if you're going to take somebody's property, you don't pay them 20% of the market rate.
And that's what we're seeing in all of these things.
This is corruption, crony capitalism.
It's being done by the state government.
And they're stomping on the little guys even when they kick, you know, some of them don't mind.
You know, they don't have, it's not necessarily a farm that's been in their family for a century or two.
They just want to be paid a reasonable price.
And the governments don't want to do that.
That's their contempt for it.
And it is being done for a corporation just like the Kello case in Connecticut was being done that way.
Well, that's it for today's broadcast.
North Carolina is a Vietnamese electric vehicle automaker.
What's the chance that they're going to stay in business?
Maybe electric rickshaws or something.
I don't know. Thanks for joining us.
Have a good day. Joe, we've got a problem.
Hello, what? Who are you?
It's the new mug they're selling at thedavidknightshow.com, right?
So, basically, a mug is something that holds liquid, right?
because basically you can't hold coffee with your hands, right?
I'm a scat and a day, but anyone tries to mug me, I'm being ready for it, you dog-faced pony soldier.
They say the mug can help patriots drink coffee, then save the world.
This could be bad for us.
Save the world, but we owe the world.
These people, they're supporting free speech with every month they buy.
Come on. These people, I tell you, well, anyway.
▲
Export Selection