Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 9, 2023 - The David Knight Show

03:00:39

The David Knight Show - 05/09/2023

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	www.feyespeed.com
	to free minds. soon. .
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	As the clock strikes 13, it's Tuesday, the 9th of May, the 9th of May, year of our Lord, 2023.
	Today we're going to take a look at a federal bill for E-Verify.
	I talked about this yesterday. I'm going to begin with that because it is another path to take us into slavery, to put an ear tag on us, to surveil us everywhere we go.
	And the conservatives are chomping at the bit, especially Republicans.
	We're also going to take a look at pharmaceuticals.
	Both sides are saying that they've won the COVID war.
	No, it's not over.
	Both sides are wrong.
	And we have a second front that is coming at us, the climate MacGuffin.
	That is, they're going to add that as well as solidify their gains.
	And we're going to have in the third hour, we're going to have an author...
	Who's written a book that is a very effective rebuttal of the 1619 Project.
	True history. True history that you'll be interested in knowing about as both someone who needs to get involved in the fight, and we all need to get involved in that, or even if you're homeschooling.
	It's going to be a great resource.
	We'll be right back.
	Well, this morning I checked Twitter and I saw a bunch of stuff there about Thomas Massey.
	I didn't know that there was an E-Verify bill that was rolling its way through the federal government.
	I know that it's already been passed by the Florida Republican House and Senate awaiting DeSantis' signature.
	I guess they wanted to rush that through so they could claim to be first.
	Most of the Republicans are on board with this E-Verify bill.
	Part of several measures that are supposed to protect the border.
	It's not going to protect the border.
	It's not going to protect the border any more than a wall.
	But just like the wall, it is an even more important way to imprison each and every one of us.
	And so Thomas Massey was speaking out against it, speaking out against it for the right reasons.
	Dan Crenshaw said he's not going to support it.
	We find that we're on the same side as Dan Crenshaw, but of course he's there for different reasons.
	He doesn't care about E-Verify as a form of slavery.
	He was pointing out that it's not going to do anything about the cartels.
	And of course, that's the issue. But does Dan Crenshaw want to end the war on drugs?
	No, he doesn't want to end the war on drugs.
	They don't want to actually solve anything.
	They want to add layers of control over the problems that they have created.
	And so, Washington Examiner says, the second Republican breaks with the party on House GOP border security bill.
	Only two. Only two.
	And as I said yesterday...
	I have fought this for a long time.
	This has been floating around.
	And when I would push back on this and say, this is not only going to be ineffective like the border wall that was never finished.
	It isn't a wall if you've got a thousand mile wide door in it, okay?
	It's just Trump's imagination and these other people's imagination.
	And so that's not a wall.
	That was just a vanity project.
	Something to get people excited.
	But this is a form of slavery.
	And we better be aware of this Trojan horse.
	So the article on Washington Examiner said the immigration bill, HR2, would re-implement Trump's Remain in Mexico program.
	It would end catch and release policies at the border.
	It would restart construction of the border wall.
	And it would mandate electronic verification of work authorization through a system called E-Verify.
	So let's take a look at each and every one of these.
	Are they going to make any difference? The only thing that this Title 42 thing has done is a pandemic measure.
	The only thing that Trump did to change anything at the border was based on the COVID war.
	He said, well, because of COVID, We're going to, you know, send people back to Mexico and, you know, not let them, catch them and release them here.
	And now that's about to end.
	So the Republicans have made this front and center.
	Fine. Okay?
	You know, stop that.
	That's fine. That's a stupid way to do it.
	Catch and release is dumb, whether it's done by Soros, DAs in California and New York City, or whether it is done at the border.
	It's a stupid thing to do.
	Catch and release. But, again, the wall is...
	They could have stopped things without the wall, but it's...
	Not going to be effective as long as you've got this giant magnet of the drug war, as long as you've got this giant magnet of the welfare system.
	People will come here illegally.
	And the worst part of it is that by not doing anything about the welfare aspect, as I said yesterday...
	That is more dangerous, I should say, than the work issue.
	The work issue, when you have people coming in from very poor countries willing to work for very low wages, of course, we still would have a minimum wage structure, but they would come in and work the minimum wage and push people out who had been there for a long time working at a higher wage.
	So that is one issue, but that's not nearly as dangerous as bringing people in Who want to live off the welfare state and who will become voters and who will stay forever.
	Rather than a lot of the people who come in, they want to work and it's essentially like a guest worker program.
	Many of them, if they're just coming for the money and the job, they will do the job and go back home.
	I've seen this happen many times with Mexican citizens who are there.
	But this is a different thing.
	These are people who want to come for the free stuff, not for freedom.
	They don't want work.
	They want money. It's a very different motivation.
	And what they're doing is they're punishing the people who want to work.
	And so it's not a solution.
	And it's avoiding the real problem.
	The big magnet is the welfare state.
	And the big push is It's the drug war.
	So the pull is the magnet, the push is the drug war, but they won't do anything about either one of those.
	And so Dan Crenshaw was the first one to speak out against it because of the cartels.
	He says it doesn't do anything about the cartels.
	And he said they're the ones who are controlling the border.
	Well, who made them so wealthy and powerful?
	We did, with the war on drugs.
	And of course, the CIA is orchestrating this whole thing.
	CIA is creating the crack cocaine program that they pushed into L.A. and so forth.
	And we see this over and over again.
	Take a look at the opioid fields in Afghanistan.
	They're disappearing now that we're gone.
	It's the CIA who's running this drug program.
	And the drug program is what's creating the cartels.
	You want to get rid of the cartels?
	The cartels already...
	When they started legalizing marijuana, the cartels started looking at other...
	Drugs, other industries such as human trafficking and things like that that they could get into.
	It is a war on drugs that makes them powerful, just like it was a war on drugs that created Al Capone.
	Now, the alcohol prohibition is done.
	Do we have people driving through the cities, shooting each other over the alcohol competition?
	No, they do it over the drug competition.
	Same thing. It's always a result of prohibition.
	By the way, if you want to prohibit guns, that's what you're going to really wind up with.
	You're going to wind up with very advanced guns that are going to strictly be in the hands of criminals.
	That's really going to destroy our country.
	Gun prohibition. Just take a look at what alcohol and drug prohibition did.
	Anyway, so Crenshaw pushes back on it, and a source close to Dan Newhouse, a Republican from Washington, said that he, the congressman, also has concerns about the E-Verify provision and is working with leadership to ensure that those concerns are noted.
	Noted? There isn't any way that you can adjust and tweak E-Verify around the edges.
	You want to straddle the fence?
	You want to tell people, well, I understand that this is a form of slavery that's coming, digital slavery.
	And I spoke out against it, and I want you to put my objections there in a footnote as I vote for it.
	And the rest of the Republicans are full on board.
	Scalise says the bill has the strongest border security package that Congress has ever taken up.
	And so Massey is the one who got it right.
	As usual. The only one.
	As usual. Who got it right.
	A Massey spokesperson confirmed to the Washington Examiner that the Kentucky Republican would not be voting for the bill because of the E-Verify provisions.
	In a tweet on Sunday, he compared the E-Verify provisions to the COVID-19 vaccine mandates.
	Exactly. He said, why don't you just call it V-Verify?
	That's what we've already had.
	No jab, no job.
	That's V-verify. Vaccine verify.
	I've got to verify that you've got a vaccine.
	Well, E-verify.
	What are you going to have to do? I tell you, somebody who has just had to go through all this identity stuff with a move and everything.
	I'm sick and tired of having to explain to my masters and my overlords who I am and how I am a citizen here when they leave the border wide open.
	I've told this story before and I'll tell it again.
	When my mother got married...
	Let's see, when was it?
	It was late 1930s.
	She got married in the late 1930s.
	She didn't have a birth certificate even.
	She was born at home. So my grandfather went with her to get the marriage license.
	And they said, well, that's why I'm here.
	She doesn't have a birth certificate.
	And the woman said, well, how do I know that she was born at home?
	And he said, I just told you.
	Are you calling me a liar?
	She backed down and gave her the birth certificate.
	But that's not where we are today.
	They call us all liars.
	They tell us that our, well, we just went through here for this, you know, this ID thing, moving to Tennessee.
	Oh, I'm sorry, the certified birth certificate, embossed paper and all the rest of it, that doesn't apply.
	You've got to find it in some other kind of way and all the rest of this stuff.
	I'm sick of this.
	I don't have to prove to you who I am.
	I'm this close to saying you can take your driver's license and put it where the sun doesn't shine.
	Because I'm not going to ask you for permission to live my life.
	And I'm not going to ask you for permission to have a job either.
	And we've got to stop this nonsense.
	It's gone too far.
	Why can't the MAGA idiot cult see that the e-verifies the same as a vaccine passport?
	They even called it a passport.
	They put it there for traveling across borders even.
	Why can't these Republicans put two and two together?
	The Republican politicians can.
	They know exactly what they're doing.
	So why can't the stupid idiots who are still following Trump around?
	Yeah, because there are stupid idiots if they're still following Trump around.
	If you're following Trump after what he did in 2020, the beginning and the end of 2020, you're nothing but a fool.
	You're being grifted.
	You're being used.
	You're being thrown under his bus for traction.
	Stop it! You're going to enslave us all!
	Just amazing to see this.
	So, Massey said, actually, he put out a couple of pictures, too, of the bill.
	So look at this. Verification photo tool.
	An employer who uses the photo matching tool used as part of the E-Verify system shall match the photo tool photograph to both the photograph on the identity or employment eligibility document.
	I have to have federal eligibility to work?
	Hey folks, it's time for us to start the alternative economy right now.
	As I tweeted out this morning, I said, you know, CBDC takes us there most directly.
	This is another path.
	And this is the path that is being supported by all these Republicans, even the Republicans who came together.
	It was Scalise and Emmer, the whip, who said, we've got to stop this CBDC stuff.
	And so then they pushed through E-Verify, assuming that you're not going to pay attention to the implications of this.
	This is how they operate.
	This is why you can't support these politicians.
	This is why you look at them issue by issue.
	Yeah, back up, Emmer, for the CBDC. Do you really think that they would be taking that to the forefront if it had a chance of becoming a law?
	Because they can pass it in the House.
	They've got the votes to pass it in the House.
	But Biden wants CBDC. Even if they were to get it to pass in the Senate, he can veto it and override.
	They cannot override his veto.
	They don't have the votes to do it in the Senate.
	So they may not have the votes to do it in the House either.
	So they can play with the CBDC and they can virtue signal about CBDC while they stab you in the back with the verify.
	That's how this works. You know, they can talk about the thing that will not pass Well, they pass the thing that will and do the same thing in a backhanded way.
	And so, yeah, you got that photo there on that.
	Here, let's go to the other one. It's got to match the employment eligibility document provided by the employee into the face of the employee submitting the document for employment verification purposes.
	Your identity papers, please.
	I see you. You like a job here.
	Yeah. Can I have your identity papers?
	Do you have your employment eligibility document, please?
	End that over, right? Nazis!
	Nazis! Nazi Republicans!
	Nazi Democrats! Both of them!
	Your eligibility document?
	I've got to have an eligibility document.
	What about the eligibility documents of the people coming across the border?
	See, this is what gets everybody upset.
	This is how they create a crisis.
	The Republicans and the Democrats are creating a crisis.
	They're using this to push their global ID agenda.
	They're not going to do anything about the open border.
	They're not going to do anything about the drug cartels or the drug war or the welfare state or the Cloward and Piven plan.
	They're going to do anything about that.
	Instead, they'll use that To get you to demand that everybody has to have an employment document.
	And guess what? Welfare will be a right.
	Work will be a privilege. I've seen this for a long time.
	That was one thing back in the 90s when we started our business.
	It really bothered me. How I had to get a privilege license to open a little retail store.
	I said, oh, so working is a privilege, but welfare is a right.
	I could go on the dole if I wanted to.
	And collect money. But if I want to start a business, that's a privilege.
	And now it'll be a privilege if you want to work.
	Because they want everybody on welfare.
	They want everybody on universal basic income.
	They don't want anybody to have a job.
	They don't want anybody to have any mobility.
	And that doesn't mean just getting in your car and going somewhere.
	That means your social mobility, being able to change your station in life.
	They want to keep you down at the bottom so they can have everything.
	This is big. This is really big.
	It is a big betrayal by the Republicans.
	Every one of them betraying us, except for Thomas Massey.
	As I said before, There is a Ron Paul in the house, and it isn't Rand Paul that is in Congress.
	It is Thomas Massey who has inherited the mantle and the backbone of Ron Paul and the discernment, I should say, too.
	So, no later than 24 months after the date of the enactment of the Secretary of Homeland Security and so forth, They're going to have Homeland Security enforcing all this stuff, right?
	They won't do anything about the border.
	They want that border open.
	That gets all these idiot MAGA cult members begging for an E-Verify, a work passport.
	You got a work passport? And then he shows this, highlighted.
	The director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology shall establish by regulation not less than two identity authentication employment eligibility verification pilot programs.
	Well, that's a mouthful.
	They're going to have the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST. These are the people who told us that Building 7 and, you know, Buildings 1 and 2 fell down their own footprint.
	NIST, those people.
	Now they're going to come up with two pilot programs for technology to track us.
	Oh, but, you know, hey, it's not CBDC, so let's be happy about the Republicans not pushing CBDC on us.
	This is a surveillance state.
	It's identification, and it's financial.
	It accomplishes all the same purposes as CBDC. I am furious about this stuff.
	What an amazing betrayal.
	What an amazing betrayal.
	And so, some people contacted Massey.
	You know, what do we do about this?
	He says, call your congressman.
	Call your congressman, folks.
	They're going to do this on Thursday.
	You know, stab us in the back with a CBDC by any other name.
	Just amazing. Oh, because of the border.
	The border that the Republicans never did anything about.
	The border that Trump never did anything about.
	The only thing that he did was to, was pandemic-related, of course.
	That's why they're freaking out about this.
	You know, in a week from now, Biden is going to declare, well, it's not a week now.
	Let's see, today is the ninth. Two days from now, right?
	It was a week before, you know, it was last week that the World Health Organization came out and said, the pandemic's over.
	Even the WHO said the pandemic is over.
	Biden is really trying to hang on to that thing.
	Another two days. Today's the 9th, so it's going to be on the 11th.
	And so they're going to push this thing through on the 11th.
	Right at the last minute, they're going to push this thing on.
	And so call them and say...
	If you leave that E-Verify thing in there and you vote for this, you're voting for CBDC and we know what you're doing.
	And there'll be a penalty to pay for that because we're not going to support you in any way, shape, or form.
	These people, the Republicans and Trump Are there to lead you into the same kind of...
	The Democrats want this badly.
	They want to be slaves.
	They want to control and lord it over other people.
	The Republicans will lie to your face.
	Oh, we're about freedom. Oh, we're not going to put on a vaccine mandate.
	Oh, we'll put on a work mandate.
	We'll have a work passport for you.
	So, um, anyway, the, um, before I move in, let me just contact the, uh, say to, uh, Matt who contacted me, um, and he was talking about, uh, supporting us and, um, as well as, um, what's going on supporting us and, um, as well as, um, what's going on with subscribe star and some ads and things like And he says two things.
	I'm having some technical difficulties with my subscribe star account, uh, because I can't sync it to this email, he said.
	But I'm going to start sending you money via Zelle as a subscription, which I did the other day.
	Well, I really do appreciate that.
	Thank you. And again, some people have problems with, you know, some people have been saying they have problems with Cash App.
	We still get contributions occasionally from Cash App.
	Same thing with Zelle. It works for some people.
	Some people, it doesn't work. Same thing with Subscribe.
	Sorry, you have to check the thing there.
	But this is the reason I wanted to bring it up.
	You also probably know this, but your ads on the show often interrupt you in mid-sentence.
	Not sure if you can do anything about that.
	Well, here's the way this works, and I just want to use this as an opportunity to say, you know, thank you to the people who support us on Subscribestar.
	And you do post up, Travis Lee, yeah.
	So... We have a commercial free version of the podcast that we have a link to for subscribers.
	And we really do appreciate that.
	I don't want them paying twice for that.
	It is, you know, if you subscribe at the lowest level of $5 a month, That is many times more than if you listen to all the commercials and all of the, you know, 20 episodes we do a month.
	That helps us more than that.
	But, you know, for the people who, it's kind of the model that you see from Pandora and a lot of other places where, you know, you can get a, you pay, you know, $5 a month for Pandora and you get no commercials.
	Otherwise, they interrupt it with commercials from time to time.
	They don't interrupt it in the middle of a song.
	Unfortunately, they do on Subscribestar.
	So I try to get around that.
	My problem is I don't take enough breaks.
	And so they have a certain number of commercials that get put in there automatically.
	And I can move some of those around and try to do that at the places where I do a break.
	But since I don't take enough breaks, because I, you know, it always, that's one thing about doing the podcast, is I don't have to stop what I'm in the middle of with, and, you know, I have a commercial break.
	And then after five minutes, come back in, and it's like, okay, so are people now just joining the show live?
	Do I have to go back and do a recap of where we were?
	That was the thing that always bothered me.
	I can just kind of talk through the issues here.
	So that's where we are.
	I need to do more breaks.
	There are some automatic ones that are there.
	So if you are not a Subscribestar subscriber and you got the podcast, There will be some breaks in that.
	Now, of course, there's no ads that are put into any of the videos that we put up the full show or the interview.
	So in the video situation, there's no ads.
	There's no way that we have to monetize that.
	But it is on the podcast, and if you are a Subscribestar subscriber, we give you the link so that you don't have to listen to that.
	So I appreciate that. I'm going to take a break before I get into another subject here, because I was just saying I need to take more breaks.
	We're going to talk about some of what is happening with the green agenda.
	The Biden administration has now green-lighted the nation's first congestion pricing plan in New York, and it won't be the last.
	This is going to roll around just like toll roads do.
	So we'll be right back.
	Joe, we've got a problem.
	Who are you?
	It's the new mug they're selling at thedavidknightshow.com, right?
	So basically, a mug is something that holds liquid, right?
	because basically you can't hold coffee with your hands, right?
	I'm scatting me, but anyone tries to mug me, I'm being ready for it, you dog-faced pony soldier.
	They say the mug can help patriots drink coffee, then save the world.
	This could be bad for us.
	Save the world? But we owe the world.
	These people, they're supporting free speech with every month they buy.
	Come on. These people, I tell you, well, anyway.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	Okay, a congestion pricing plan.
	I thought that was in New York with all the signs that say, you know, $300 fine if you honk the horn.
	Everybody's honking the horn and nobody got the phone.
	Toll roads are all over the place in the Northeast.
	And they have gone up to astronomical prices.
	Tennessee is one of only 14 states that didn't have toll roads.
	And now we have this governor who is out there trying to bring together A special session and pass some kind of virtue signaling gun control to his friends in Nashville, the celebrities and the rest of these people.
	He wants to push through toll roads.
	They'll be owned by foreign companies.
	There'll be harassment.
	It'll be another level of tax.
	But congestion pricing is something that has been done in Europe and it's now coming to New York City.
	MTA officials, that's Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Have said they would need almost a year to set up the new tolling infrastructure.
	That's what it is. It's another toll on top of another toll.
	Charge you to take a particular road.
	Charge you to enter a certain area and so forth.
	So, you know, this is essentially a tax...
	On the government failing to do its job.
	Why do we have congestion?
	We have congestion because you built the city vertically and you didn't add any roads vertically.
	And I've said this a long time. One of the things that Elon Musk got right, and I was saying it before Elon Musk even, going back and looking at all the science fiction movies, going back to Fritz Lang's Metropolis, You see giant cities and you see vertical levels of transportation, flying cars, typically.
	Some of them, they had roads that were built, multiple levels.
	But typically, it's done with flying cars.
	That's become something of a standard thing in science fiction films, that you've got flying cars, different levels happening like that.
	And so that is something we talked about for the longest time.
	They grow the cities vertically.
	And they can't, you know, widen the roads anymore, so they've got to vertically take the roads up.
	And everybody knew that, you know, going back to the 1920s.
	And yet, the politicians who knew that as well decided not to do that.
	And it's not even in the congested urban areas.
	It's also in the suburban areas as well, where they still could widen the road, but they don't.
	Instead, what they do is they approve more and more construction And, yeah, another neighborhood?
	Great. Another giant apartment complex?
	Great. More roads?
	No, we're not going to bother with that.
	Not at all. They may, at the most, tell the people who are setting up another neighborhood or another apartment complex, we've got to widen the road right there as people turn in, so we've got a turn lane.
	But other than that, they don't do anything at all.
	So, we've got a government that no longer wants to build roads.
	They spend money to tear them down, calling them racist.
	That's what the federal government does.
	And the roads that are there, they want to put them on a diet.
	So they constrict them by putting bike lanes on the side.
	And then they say, well, we don't want you driving too fast, so we're going to calm the roads with speed bumps that drag the bottom of my car.
	So... It is a drag, literally.
	So, that's if I'm just trying to crawl over them.
	I'd probably take out my front bumper if I wasn't going at speed.
	Yeah. This is why we're talking about the Ukrainian guy, you know, souping up a Porsche and other cars.
	You know, it's already been done by people in L.A. They said, look, they're not going to fix the roads in L.A. It's potholes and everything else, and so I need some kind of an urban assault vehicle.
	So, you know, lift my Porsche so that I can...
	I've got the road clearance. I still keep the handling.
	But anyway, you know, the bottom line is...
	The congestion is because the government is not doing its job.
	And so because the government's not doing its job, instead of doing its job, just like at the border, right?
	Oh, well, we got something else a lot here, you know?
	We won't do the job at the border.
	What we'll do is we'll give you an ID, an e-verify to get a job.
	And so we're not going to do the work of building infrastructure.
	So what we'll do is we'll tax you On the congestion that we cause because we don't expand the infrastructure as we expand the city.
	They all brag and love the fact that people are moving into their city.
	I saw it in Austin. Oh, look at how many people are moving in.
	I said, yeah, you know, and I don't see any more roads being worked on.
	I don't see any roads being added.
	I don't see any roads being widened.
	I see the lines getting longer and longer and longer.
	Their response is, well, you just need to get out of your car, and we're going to add taxes to push you out of your car.
	Governor Hochul is committed to implementing congestion pricing to reduce traffic, to improve air quality, and to support our public transit system.
	They want to tax you and then put it in the transit system.
	This is a regressive tax, as the Democrats like to call it, right?
	What is a regressive tax, according to them?
	Well, that's a tax that is, you know, same fee that's paid, not based on your income.
	They like what they call progressive income tax.
	I like proportional income tax.
	I think it would be better. But, you know, they don't charge every...
	If they charge people proportionately, say 10%, that's all God ever asked for.
	But, of course, they think they're better than God.
	But, you know, if you ask for 10% tax on everybody, well, that'd be fair.
	A billionaire pays $100 million.
	And, you know, somebody who makes $50,000 pays $5,000 in taxes.
	But, no, they create a complicated income tax structure so the billionaires pay nothing.
	And then they tell everybody, but look, we've got a higher tax rate for them.
	Theoretically, but you've got all these breaks in there, so they don't pay anything.
	So they want to escalate the percentage based on income.
	That's what they talk about progressive.
	They really have a problem with everybody paying the same.
	And we're not talking about, when we talk about a proportional tax, we're not talking about everybody pays $1,000 or something.
	No, it's a percentage of what you make.
	But this truly is a regressive tax.
	It is everybody's, you know, Elon Musk would pay the same thing to drive his car into New York as somebody who's got a car that's barely working and trying to scrape together to pay their rent and their food in that expensive town.
	That is a regressive thing.
	This is what the Democrats are doing.
	Oh, they're all about poor people, right?
	Yeah, they're all about making everybody poor and making sure you don't have any upward mobility.
	They're all about sawing off the ladders, the rungs of the ladder to success.
	And that's what the Democrat governor is saying in New Jersey, Phil Murphy.
	He condemned this.
	He said it's unfair. It's ill-advised.
	He said his office is closely assessing all legal options because the current plan burdens commuters, state agencies, and the environment.
	I don't know how it burdens the environment.
	Who cares? I mean, we're all advocates for the environment, right?
	We can do anything and claim that we're protecting the environment.
	He says it's an unjustified financial burden on the backs of hard-working New Jersey commuters, and it's wrong.
	And he's right about that.
	Simply put, he said it is a money grab.
	There's a money grab coming after the working class, the middle class that is commuting to work.
	And so, again, massive regressive tax.
	I think it's interesting that they had to get the permission of the Biden administration to do this.
	Why is that? Is it because it's on some federal highways that they're going to be doing this?
	It should be the decision of the state.
	It is the responsibility of the state, not of the federal government, to build infrastructure.
	But, of course, we don't pay any attention to the Constitution or the wisdom of the founders.
	In California, there is a two-mile-long vehicle encampment just north of San Francisco.
	A two-mile stretch of road in Marin County, California, overrun by cars, tents, RVs, and trailers parked on the side of the road.
	Show some of the pictures of that, Travis.
	It is truly amazing.
	It's just kind of an ad hoc trailer park.
	Why? Because people cannot afford the housing.
	Look at that. It goes on forever.
	Well, I don't have anywhere to live here.
	I can't afford a house, so I'll just get a trailer or park my car and live in that while I try to work in San Francisco.
	And, of course, some of the people are just homeless living there.
	Of course, you know, if you're living out of your car, you're technically homeless as well.
	But, I mean, some of the people don't even have jobs that are there.
	Many of the residents living in their vehicles are said to be from the surrounding area.
	Many of them were kicked out of their homes because of the cost of shelter and food that have spiked in recent years in San Francisco.
	So why do California leaders deliberately choose to leave the homeless unsheltered and allow open-air drug markets as well that have transformed some parts of the state, such as the Two Mile Strip, into what appears to be a Third World-like country?
	Well, this is where they want us to live.
	You'll own nothing. And you'll take that car.
	That'll be your only, you know, you can't get any gas for it.
	You can't fix it. We're going to outlaw these things.
	It'll be too expensive to drive them.
	We'll have tolls. We'll have congestion pricing.
	Oh, forget about buying gas.
	Just park it on the road and live out of it.
	Because you can't afford a house anymore.
	Who do you think you are?
	Do you work for Davos?
	We're a family of six and we've been living in an underground bunker for three years.
	This is one of my family's approach to this.
	They bought a bunker, a 6,000 square foot nuclear resistant former communications bunker.
	They bought it three years ago, June of 2020.
	Probably looked like a much better investment then.
	The way things were going.
	I'm telling you, if I'd had the opportunity to buy a bunker at that point in time, I would have bought a bunker at that point in time.
	But they got up for $300,000.
	They got a 13-acre plot of land included with it.
	But it is a fixer-upper, if ever there was one.
	This goes back to the 1960s.
	They had these AT&T telecommunication bunkers all over the place.
	And as part of this, he puts this up, I think, on YouTube, talking about the renovations and things like that.
	And the plumbing is all on springs.
	The toilets are on springs and things like that because it was built to take a nuclear hit, essentially, just a couple of miles away.
	And they didn't want to burst all the plumbing, so the plumbing is very complicated in all of this.
	We had one of these places.
	It was not too far from where we lived in North Carolina.
	It was called Big Hole.
	And I was really astounded about...
	Six years ago, I guess it was.
	I got a book called Raven Rock, subtitled, The U.S. Government's Secret Plan to Save Itself While the Rest of Us Die.
	Well, that got my attention.
	And it was a very good book, and it talks about all the phony civil defense plans that we had in the 1960s, all the advice to duck and cover.
	And if you are trying to get out of the city because they told you there's incoming nuclear weapons, and you are in your car, and you're stuck in traffic because that's what's going to happen, and you see a flash in the city, get out of your car and get into the ditch.
	What kind of advice is that?
	I mean, it's just crazy.
	But while that was happening, these people were building their massive underground bunkers, and of course AT&T was a big part of that.
	They had a monopoly on telephone conversations, and so AT&T was a preferred vendor with all this, and they built themselves nuclear bunkers.
	This is what this family bought into.
	Our experience with it was, after we heard about it, We thought, that's really interesting.
	And everybody says, yeah, it's been closed for years.
	And the mayor of the town used to work there.
	They said, no, it's just a communications thing.
	It's not anything, any big deal.
	It doesn't have anything to do with the Cold War and any of this stuff.
	So one day, Karen has the boys in the car when they're little.
	Let's go see Big Hole.
	And they drive over there, and they're driving down the road.
	You remember that?
	They're driving down the road, and it's this abandoned...
	It seems like it's an abandoned area.
	But all of a sudden, the loudspeakers come on and say, Stop the car and turn around!
	Okay, hands up.
	Don't shoot. So it's still going.
	At the beginning of that book, they talked about the transfer of the nuclear football...
	With Richard Nixon as he resigned and was heading home to California.
	And how that happened, you know, the transition of power happened while he was on the plane.
	He had already left the nuclear football.
	It talks about rumors that they'd already taken it away from him and so forth.
	So, anyway, when they began talking about it, At the very beginning of the book, it's talking about Big Hole there in North Carolina and a lot of these other ones.
	And, of course, they have some of them in the city.
	There is a building, an AT&T building in New York City that is brutalist architecture.
	It looks like what it is.
	But a lot of these were done underground, and that's what this family is working on there.
	And again, it is a major fixer-upper, not anything that I would want to tackle at all.
	And they had to put in...
	Different plumbing system.
	They still don't have a kitchen.
	There were no lights.
	Everything is dark in there.
	But the good news is that a nuclear bomb can land four or five miles away from them, and they should theoretically be able to survive that blast.
	Then what? It's not a blast from the past movie, if you've ever seen that.
	Another unusual feature is its unusual nuclear blast-proof doors.
	So, you know, it's just a few miles away, five, ten miles away.
	No problem, they said.
	We'll be okay. Well, be okay from the blast.
	I don't know what happens after that.
	Meanwhile, the FDA, as I told you yesterday, they're working as hard as they can to shut down this Amish organic farm.
	Because organic traditional farming must not be allowed.
	But the FDA, at the same time, they're trying to shut down Amish organic farms.
	They are green-lighting GMO pigs.
	And this is another example of this.
	This is something of a precedent.
	That they have done, greenlighting this for human consumption and doing it with the university.
	So this article was written to talk about why this is an important precedent.
	But just to explain to you so that you understand, people ask, so what's the big deal about GMO? Haven't we been doing a lot of selective breeding and everything?
	Just look at the genetic variation in dogs, for example.
	You know, from teeny tiny little dogs to giant dogs and everything in between, all different types of characteristics and everything.
	Well, that's selective breeding. Genetic modification is very different.
	Because when you talk about breeding, you know, you can breed, I think a better way to think of it instead of the classifications that we typically see in biology is kinds.
	That's really kind of what the Bible refers to in the early part of Genesis.
	Different kinds of animals.
	You know, you have a cat kind.
	You have a dog kind, if you will, a canine kind.
	Felines and canines.
	And you can see that a lion and tiger are just bigger versions of a house cat and things like that.
	Same thing with dogs.
	Theoretically, you can breed them together.
	One of the things that they say is, you know, if you've got species, one of their definitions of a species would be birds that are other animals that would not breed with each other.
	And I said birds because one of the things that first comes to mind is the Grand Canyon.
	They had identical finches.
	I mean, identical. Physically identical.
	But they were on the north and south side of the Grand Canyon, and they had been geographically separated from each other long enough that their mating songs had changed.
	And so these two different groups of finches, otherwise identical, would not mate with each other because they had different mating songs.
	But they were physically identical.
	They could have. And so that's their definition of specie.
	Now, you could also have hybrids, you know, things like, you know, horses and jackasses to get donkeys and things like that, or vice versa.
	I don't know. I'm not an expert on that.
	But here's the thing about genetic modification.
	You know, you have kingdoms at the top.
	You have the animal kingdom and you have the plant kingdom and so forth, right?
	You have kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species, all the way down.
	All these different classifications.
	Well, guess what? GMO lets you mix plants with animals if you want.
	You can take something from the plant kingdom and the animal kingdom and you can mix them together.
	That's the difference. Creating not just hybrids but chimeras.
	Things that God had never intended to exist.
	And the implications of that are, well, what is it going to do in terms of food?
	They said it's important for a university to set the precedent by working with federal regulators to get these animals introduced into the food supply.
	Well, I guess, you know, if the university sets the precedent, then the big corporations can come in and say, yeah, we got the precedent.
	Let's go for it. Let's cash in on this thing now.
	In this particular case, what are they doing to the pigs?
	Well, in this particular case, they're not grafting in firefly genes to make the pigs glow at night so you can find them out in the fields.
	Although they could do something like that.
	Anyway, what they're doing with this is really kind of like a selective breeding.
	They have hogs that they want to replicate.
	These are our prized animals, and we want more like them.
	And so what they're doing is they're gene-editing male animals to be sterile by knocking out a gene specific to male fertility.
	These animals can then be implanted with another male's stem cells to create sperm with that male's desired traits to be passed on to the next generation.
	So in this particular incident, again, this is how they start their precedence.
	You know, it's something just kind of minor.
	I mean, do you really care about that?
	Well, technically I don't because it's really just another form of selective breeding.
	They're not creating chimera or anything like that.
	But the bottom line is if you sign off on this new form of selective breeding, now you've signed off on chimera in principle by setting that precedent.
	The original intent of making these animals was to try to improve the way that we feed people.
	Have they not gotten the memo from Klaus and Bill about how they want to shut all the farms down?
	What's that about? I mean, we should be selectively breeding insects and bugs.
	That's what they want us to breed.
	I wonder if they could...
	They could cross a grasshopper with a cow.
	We could have a cow that jumps over the moon.
	How about that? Or over the fence, whichever way.
	Yeah, but haven't they gotten the memo that all the traditional farms are supposed to be shuttered anyway?
	So this is about something else, most likely.
	As we look at other misapplications and fantasies of technology, we have Peter Thiel came out the last couple of days.
	I think he came out on the weekend.
	Saying that he is pursuing immortality.
	He is planning cryo-preservation after death.
	He wants somebody to freeze him.
	And then he imagines that somebody is, A, going to be able to thaw him out and revive him at some point in the future.
	And B, why would they do that?
	He imagines that there's going to be somebody there who really wants to bring him back.
	His money would have long been passed out to other people.
	Why would they need to bring Peter Thiel back?
	Does he think he's that special?
	That's always the question I have.
	Who's going to bring you back?
	Why would they bring you back?
	But again, he's opted to be cryogenically frozen.
	What happens if he dies in a fiery crash of his private jet?
	Well, I guess that doesn't work then.
	And then they asked, they said, so are you doing this for your loved ones?
	Well, no, I don't think that's necessary.
	Barry Weiss was the one who interviewed him.
	He said, have you made plans for your loved ones to be frozen too?
	He said, well, I'm not convinced that this works as well as it should.
	I'm not going to invest in that for them, but I'll do it for myself.
	Okay. Lovers of self.
	I'm the only one who matters there.
	He doesn't have any loved ones.
	He loves money. That's what he loves.
	Is it true that you signed up to be cryogenically preserved when you die so that you might be brought back to life in the future?
	Well, yes, but I think of it more as an ideological statement.
	I don't necessarily expect it to work, but I think it's the sort of thing that we're supposed to try to do.
	Are we? Are we supposed to try to do that?
	So, I don't know.
	You know, I... I guess my following Christ is an ideological statement, but I expect it to work.
	I have confident expectation that it is going to work.
	So I do expect to be brought back to life, and I know who's going to bring me back to life.
	As Job said, he said, I know my Redeemer lives, and that he will stand on the earth, and after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God.
	I myself... We'll see him.
	And with my own eyes, not another.
	And Job says, how my heart yearns within me.
	That is the hope and the expectation.
	Peter Thiel thinks he's going to buy his way into immortality.
	And unfortunately, a lot of people who say they follow Christ believe that as well.
	No, it's a free gift.
	It's a gift of those who are true followers of Him.
	But, you know, that's an indication of Him being our Lord, that we follow Him.
	Why do you call me Lord and don't do what I say?
	So we've got a lot of easy believism out there.
	We all have people who say, hey, just marry whoever you want.
	It doesn't matter. We're going to embrace all the LGBT people because we want to be nice.
	Everybody wants everybody to like us and so forth.
	No, that's not what it is about.
	It is a free gift.
	And the wages, if you want to work for it, well, you're not going to be able to do that perfectly.
	And so wages of sin are death, but the gift of eternal life is free for those who follow Christ.
	Peter Thiel, however, has put aside $3.5 million.
	That'll take care of it.
	Just like Bloomberg. He says, if there is heaven, am I going there?
	Oh, absolutely. Look at all the money that I've given to good causes, like taking guns and all the rest of this stuff.
	These guys, you know, we really should pity them.
	You know, they are like these wealthy people like this.
	They are like cattle.
	That has been fattened up for the slaughter.
	And we should pity them.
	We should pray for them. You know, who knows what happened.
	If, you know, what he could do for good, for real good, if he were converted.
	Anyway, Teal pledged $3.5 million in funding for this cryogenic thing, Alcor, the complete scientific research.
	He says, I keep thinking that I'm not doing enough on biotech and on radical life extension, or even just trying to invest in curing a lot of these very big chronic diseases that we have, he said.
	And so he's looking for life extension.
	He said, you know, what they want to do is they want to freeze their bodies, take it down to 321 degrees below Fahrenheit, and really freeze it hard, and then hope that when medical science has advanced sufficiently to treat the cause of their death, then the god of medical science will bring them back to life.
	What's he been for the last couple of years?
	You got any faith left in medical science after the last three years?
	Are you kidding me? Okay, we're going to take a break.
	We'll be right back. You're
	listening to The David Knight Show.
	Alright, welcome back. Let's take a look at what is going on with pharmaceutical stuff.
	We have Chelsea Clinton.
	Now, when you listen to her talk with the up-speak and the creaking and the other stuff, aside from that, and that's starting to fade, and she's picking up more of her mother's speech patterns now.
	Really kind of creepy.
	I think that there's a second generation of Hillary coming at us.
	The World Health Organization, as I said before, officially ended the COVID-19 emergency last week, the week before Biden.
	Tedros, the Marxist politician who is the head of the World Health Organization, that should tell you something about it.
	The organization, how it operates, its goals.
	He's not a doctor. Just like Bill Gates is not a doctor.
	He's a Marxist politician, Tedros is.
	He said, pandemic fatigue threatens us all.
	We are all sick and tired of this pandemic.
	And we want to put it behind us.
	But this virus is here to stay.
	And all countries will need to learn to manage it alongside other infectious diseases.
	And so Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, again, I just, I call her Hillary Clinton because she sounds so much like her.
	Chelsea Clinton is out there lecturing us about the importance of big pharmaceutical companies and getting our vaccines because, you know, hey, this isn't over and we've got to learn to manage all these infectious diseases and the only way to manage them I do think though, you know, when you ask about the role of public-private partnerships kind of after the last few years, I think we spend so much time, understandably, focused on the mRNA vaccines and technologies.
	I spend a lot of time thinking about the really Unfortunate, to try to use a not too judgmental word, kind of rise in not only kind of vaccine hesitancy and questioning, but outright kind of rejection of vaccines and...
	Rejection of your mother....in the scientific kind of process and also...
	Too often on our scientists, our epidemiologists, our frontline healthcare workers.
	And so I do think we need to have a much more robust conversation and sense of urgency because I think we are less prepared today than we were arguably in January of 2020, partly because of the kind of lack of trust and confidence in Not only our scientists, but in science itself.
	We know more about you now.
	The public health professionals. And so I think we need the public sector to hopefully stop doing things like stripping away public health emergency powers from state public health agencies.
	We also need the private sector to help Candidly, do a better job of helping explain the science that you are already commercializing and bringing to market, but also what you're working on.
	And help us, in the broader conversation, not be uncomfortable with the discomfort of uncertainty.
	And so I do think we need really good ideas for how best to do that, because we all deserve to hopefully not be as unprepared as I worry we are at the moment.
	And the last thing I'll say is a new effort that we're a part of is the new initiative launched by the World Health Organization last week to try to catch kids up on their routine immunizations.
	In 2021 alone, more than 25 million kids under the age of one missed at least one routine immunization, and so we're working with WHO and the Gates Foundation and others to hopefully have the largest childhood immunization effort ever.
	Well, we've caught up to you.
	We've caught up to your lies.
	And we've seen through them, and we understand what's going on.
	And everything that she was saying there.
	People just don't trust the public health experts like me.
	Who is she to talk to us about any of this stuff?
	What does she know about any of this stuff?
	It's all political. It's not about health at all.
	It's not about medicine. It's not about science.
	It's about politics. The only science is behavioral science, as I've said over and over again.
	And so she begins by talking about these public-private partnerships, PPP. Isn't it interesting, I don't think it was a coincidence, that Trump and his Goldman Sachs banker Mnuchin came up with their PPP plan.
	To pretend that they were going to help the businesses that they'd called non-essential, all the middle class and small mom and pop businesses that they shut down.
	Oh, we're going to help you.
	PPP. The Payroll Protection Plan.
	And then they took more than half of it, 5% of the companies, as they redefined what a small business was.
	And so she's talking about the traditional PPP. PPP is what...
	The UN, all the global organizations like Davos are always talking about.
	The public-private partnership.
	That is fascism, folks.
	The economic definition of fascism is a merger of corporations and business.
	That's what a private-public partnership is.
	That's why I oppose toll roads and other things like that.
	It's nothing but fascism.
	And it is corporate governance, global corporate government.
	That's what we're looking at here.
	So she might as well just put on her little tag.
	You know, Hillary Clinton had her little tag when she was running.
	I'm with her. Well, Chelsea's got one.
	I'm with her and with pharma.
	That's what she's pushing out there.
	And so she regrets that we're stripping away power from the public health authorities who usurped it.
	No, we have to strip that power away from them, and we've got to do a lot more stripping.
	They've still got too much.
	As a matter of fact, as I've said many times, this is the second shoe to drop from Dark Winter.
	I think we ought to start calling this, instead of the pandemic and the plandemic, we need to call it Dark Winter 2.
	Because just after they did 9-11 and the false flag anthrax attack and they pushed out the Model State Health Emergency Powers Act, all the different model legislation to them, and then they practiced it for 20 years, and it's that legislation that needs to be stripped away.
	Anything that was part of that Model State Health Emergency Powers Act, folks, is a trap.
	And yet, while that is staying in place, Just like they did after 9-11 and dark winter and the anthrax attack in 2001, they're now working on the next level of this, and that's what's coming out of the WHO. The new rules and regulations, even before you get to the pandemic treaty, the new rules and regulations to put them in charge of everybody and to give themselves new powers.
	That's what they did after 9-11.
	They gave themselves health emergency powers.
	Now, after Dark Winter II, the World Health Organization is giving themselves new health emergency powers at the global level.
	They did it the first time at the state level here in America because they knew they didn't have constitutional authority to do these types of things.
	And, of course, they did a lot of things that they don't have constitutional authority for.
	But they wanted to put the vast majority of it through the state levels.
	And that's why he had all these MAGA cult members who are, you know, jumping onto this e-verify passport for work.
	These people were saying, look, it's not Trump.
	It's not the Republicans. It's those awful Democrat governors.
	It's like they just are so blinded by their partisanship.
	It's absolutely amazing.
	They couldn't see what the Republican governors were doing.
	They couldn't see that Trump was the producer funding it and all the rest of this.
	And so that's where they are right now.
	They're extending it. That's why I said at the beginning of the program, you've got people who are looking at this and saying, hey, that's great, we won.
	You've got people like Scott Adams who opposed this all along, who called people who were concerned about the encroachment on liberty at the very beginning.
	Scott Adams was calling us sociopaths.
	It's really getting hard to tell these freedom lovers, quote-unquote, from sociopaths.
	So Scott Adams comes out and says, all right, they won.
	They got lucky. There was no reason to think that they were lying to us.
	There was no reason to think that these things were unsafe.
	There was no reason to think that they were unethical.
	You know, you just got lucky. And you didn't have to take it.
	And you won. No, don't believe that Scott Adams is a control guy.
	And this is why I talk about this.
	It's not to say, well, I was right, Scott Adams was wrong.
	You need to understand who the liars and the controllers are in the alternative media especially.
	It isn't that I've got some personal axe to grind with Scott Adams.
	I've interviewed him several times in the past, and it was always a fun interview.
	But he's been a control agent, and you need to mark those people.
	You need to mark the people like Alex.
	You need to mark the people like Trump.
	You need to understand where these guys are coming from, Mike Adams, the rest of them.
	You need to understand, and Tucker, I'll put Tucker in there as well.
	Tucker was going along with all this stuff.
	He'd do occasional eye roll and things like that.
	Would he tell you the truth about it?
	No. No.
	I don't understand why people trust anyone, frankly, when it comes to politics.
	Trust no one.
	You bind them down with the chains of the Constitution, and you look at what they're actually saying, and you look at it issue by issue.
	Don't become a sycophant to any person or to any party.
	You look at it issue by issue.
	Look, people can be honestly wrong about something.
	But I mention this and I keep going back to it because you need to understand what the tells were.
	How it was obvious what they were doing.
	Because it is still obvious what they are doing.
	The worst thing any country could do now is to use this news as a reason to let down its guard, said Tedros, to dismantle the system that it has built.
	You see? That's what I said.
	This is dark winter, too.
	Let's lock everybody down.
	We'll do this psychological thing on them.
	We've still got people who are trembling in the corner now.
	Out of obsessive compulsive disorder.
	Where's my mask? What do I do about it?
	And they have put this system in.
	They built a system.
	You hear that? We don't want to dismantle the system we built.
	We better dismantle that system that Tedros built because he's working to extend it with new rules, a new treaty, all the rest of the stuff at the World Health Organization.
	He said, I will not hesitate to convene another emergency committee should COVID-19 once again put our world in peril.
	Our world was never in peril from COVID-19.
	It was in peril from people like him and the politicians in every country, regardless of what they said their political affiliation or ideology was, politicians in every country who fell in line with this.
	He said, I've decided to use a provision in the international health regulations, and that's the thing, the IHR. That is what is dangerous right now.
	That is what they're trying to use to accumulate power, even before the pandemic treaty.
	So I've decided to use a provision in the international health regulations that's never been used before to establish a review committee to develop long-term standing recommendations for countries on how to manage COVID-19 on an ongoing basis.
	You hear that, recommendations? That's the same kind of stuff that Fauci said.
	I didn't shut down any schools.
	I just gave these people, you know, recommendations.
	I just made them offers they couldn't refuse.
	Right? Yeah.
	Drug father. The drug father.
	So, again, it is not over.
	It is a pause.
	And they are consolidating their gains, and they are quietly extending them.
	As a matter of fact, I had this sent to me from...
	And this was sent to me last week.
	I didn't get to it before.
	This is... Someone who is a flight attendant for Delta, and he wrote me a lot over the years about what they were doing in terms of masks and how they were lording it over people, how he's getting in trouble with his peers because he wasn't punishing people who would take the mask down enough and saying, you know, here's what you can do. You know, you can say, well, I got to eat.
	So there, you know, certain things like that, we'd see these little loopholes and how they would close them.
	But he sent this to me.
	Rumor is that new hires are no longer required to To get the COVID jab at Delta.
	So hopefully that is true.
	Again, they're taking this thing off little by little.
	And that was the real mandate that was going to run through if the Republicans were in charge.
	They would do it through the corporations.
	And that's pretty close to what happened anyway.
	Biden's mandates put in financial penalties for corporations just like they withheld money through CMS to Medicare and Medicaid.
	They withheld money from the hospitals if the hospitals didn't lean on people.
	So they had two different ways that they could put these mandates through.
	They could use the laws that were pushed out after 9-11 and the anthrax attack in 2001, December 2001, the Model State Health Emergency Powers Act.
	So if the states had the regulations, they would do that.
	But they would financially incentivize people, and then they would also punish them financially, the companies.
	You've got a federal contract, or you're going to have everybody in your company vaccinated, or you lose the federal contract, that type of thing.
	And that's how the federal government has always increased its power.
	That's why it was so obvious.
	Every time you look at what the federal government is doing, it's always about the money and the strings.
	And how do they bribe us? Well, they just create fiat currency out of nowhere.
	And they don't have to ever pay it back.
	This is why when we look at this, when we lose the dollar as a reserve currency, it is going to be really tough for us economically.
	But from a freedom standpoint, it'd be the best thing that could ever happen to us.
	Because the government won't be able to spend money without limit.
	And spending money without limit Three and a half trillion dollars that Trump did to bribe and cajole people, and then Biden following on with that as well.
	All of that, just like, you know, we're going to pull your money if you don't put a boy in a girl's shower, bathroom, and that type of thing.
	That kind of, that game would be over.
	That's the game they always use.
	If they don't have political authority to do something, they say, well, I'm not telling them that they have to do it.
	I'm just saying that I'm not going to give them money if they don't do it.
	You know, DeSantis is doing the same thing.
	And that's how they all do it.
	You can use that for good or for evil, but I think it is a corrupt practice, and we need to understand what is behind that.
	And so now, on our side, we see many people who say, it's over, and we won.
	But on their side, this is the new spin.
	Now, this is from CNN. This is a guy who is a physician and infectious disease expert at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.
	He says, why I'm not reassured by our victory over COVID-19.
	Oh, is it really?
	He's had a victory over this?
	Tedros has had a victory?
	And the establishment has had a victory?
	No, that's not true.
	They didn't defeat... But this is their new narrative.
	The slow, steady, data-based rollback of these previously necessary interventions surely is the right thing to do, as is assuring that masks and vaccines and test kits and the entire apparatus of pandemic control remain available for those who still feel uneasy.
	But he said, I'm nervous that we may be lightening things up too quickly.
	Mm-hmm. Yeah.
	Well, you know, that's what we heard for the longest time, isn't it?
	From Walensky. And now Walensky has lightened up and left because it just isn't any fun.
	It's just like Jab Send to Arden in New Zealand.
	It's just not any fun if you can't boss people around.
	So, you know, Rochelle Walensky at the CDC has had, you know, her run.
	She got to tell everybody what to do.
	And she's moving on to greener pastures.
	Remember this? Can we have improved?
	Well... You know, I think...
	I can tell you where I was when the CNN feed came, that it was 95% effective for the vaccine.
	So many of us wanted to be hopeful.
	So many of us wanted to say, okay, this is our ticket out, right?
	Now we're done. So I think we had perhaps too little caution and too much optimism for some good things that came our way.
	Yeah. I remember where I was when she said that as well.
	Kind of like you remember where you were when...
	JFK was shot or the Challenger disaster blew up.
	I remember where I was when they told everybody it was 95% effective.
	I remember where I was when they told us we were going to be mandated for this stuff.
	I remember those things.
	Yeah, and I remember the fact that she was lying to us about all that.
	In a letter to Joe Biden, Walensky said she took the job at his request, quote, with the goal of leaving behind the dark days.
	The dark days. Oh, yeah, we went through that dark winter, too, didn't we?
	Well, now dark winter, too, is over.
	And they've got some new toys to play with as they're making some new toys.
	The dark days of the pandemic and moving CDC and public health forward into a much better and more trusted place.
	And so this guy in his op-ed piece, he said...
	More ominously, among the anti-vaccine crowd, there is one particularly well-funded group whose leader, according to NPR, views the doings of the last year as a pandemic-driven plot to poison the world for profit.
	That's a pretty good summary.
	That's why, you know, called Trump the poisoner in chief.
	The group is organizing itself both to spread its ideology and also to develop a fleet of lawyers content to turn public health considerations into another lawsuit, grinding scientific progress to a halt.
	There was no science in this.
	Its enemy is not the disease, but rather the necessary steps taken by public health and scientific leaders to save human life.
	Well, Christine Anderson in the European Parliament got it exactly right.
	This is never about a disease.
	This is always about their authority and control.
	The goal ultimately is to transform our free and democratic societies into totalitarian societies.
	Their goal is to strip each and every one of us of our fundamental rights of freedom, democracy, the rule of law.
	They want to get rid of all of this.
	And they're robbing us of our identity.
	Whether it be our national identity, our cultural identity, they won't even stop to rob us of our sexual identity.
	The very core of who we are, they don't even stop there.
	This whole COVID thing had never anything to do with public health.
	It never had anything to do with breaking waves.
	It always had to do with breaking people in order to make us a part of a mindless, malleable mass which they can totally control and we will be completely dependent upon this globalitarian elite.
	That's what they have in store for us.
	You're sitting in the EU Parliament, but you can take any kind of international governing body or organization.
	It is no longer by the people for the people.
	From now on, it will be by the globalitarian elites for the globalitarian elites and nothing else.
	Well, that's an interesting way to put it.
	She pronounces it a little bit differently.
	I would pronounce it globalitarian.
	Instead of authoritarian, totalitarian, it's globalitarian.
	That's an interesting new word.
	But she's absolutely right.
	It was always about the politics.
	It was always about the control.
	So this guy, again, who is saying, oh, we got to watch out.
	These people are going to be fighting us.
	They're organizing. Better hope so.
	They're organizing to fight us at the very inception of this with lawsuits to take these powers away from public health people.
	That was one of the things that made me feel, quite frankly, that everything was lost because it took so long for people to realize what was being done to them.
	And this is why I go back and harp about this.
	You have to understand how these people operate.
	You have to look at their history so that you can predict what they're going to do in the future.
	And they've laid it out.
	They've even practiced it.
	That's how you could know that this was what they were doing from the very beginning.
	I just could not get people to see it.
	Anyway, which means that at the next public health crisis, he said, we will need to deal not only with a pathogen, but also with a well-organized, non-reality-based community.
	Oh, no, we are based in reality.
	Absolutely based in reality.
	That seems to be tireless In its pursuit of alternative facts, there is no science if you want to hide your data.
	There is no science if it's based on nothing but consensus and some untested and untestable computer models.
	They can't even get the same answer twice with the same input.
	It's garbage in, garbage out.
	He goes on to say, though, the majority of people in the U.S. are vaccinated.
	They seem to believe in science and simply want to go about their business.
	The noisy minority will likely make the Trump-organized Operation Warp Speed response to the COVID-19 pandemic seem like a once-in-a-lifetime moment of amity, a peaceful agreement across all ideologies and political stripes.
	Do you see that? This authoritarian writer for CNN in this op-ed piece said, you know, Trump was with us.
	We had a peaceful agreement across all ideologies and all political stripes.
	That's what I've been saying all along. Didn't matter what their ideology or political stripe was, they all marched in lockstep to the globalist orders, including Trump.
	He says that is a situation that should keep a lot of us up at night.
	I hope they are worried because we're not going to go through that again from you.
	We will fight you. Absolutely, we'll fight you.
	So let's just take a look at some of these people who were all about the science.
	Two useful idiots here in Tennessee.
	One of them a Republican and another one a Democrat.
	I saw this on Twitter the other day.
	I said, wow. This is every state, though.
	Two state representatives telling everybody to get vaccinated a couple years ago.
	Sam and I have served in the state legislature for many years now, and I'm a Democrat.
	And I'm a Republican, and we have disagreed on many issues over the years.
	Yeah, I don't understand some of your votes.
	A lot of your votes don't make sense to me either.
	But what does make sense though is to get the COVID-19 vaccine.
	I take the COVID-19 vaccine shot to protect myself, my family, and my loved ones.
	I've also taken the COVID-19 vaccine in order to protect my family, my friends, and my loved ones.
	I'm sure that Sam and I will continue to disagree on issues in the future.
	But one thing we do share, though, is the importance of getting the COVID-19 vaccine.
	Oh, yeah. Yeah, there you are.
	There's state-level idiots pushing this kind of stuff.
	It doesn't matter. All political stripes, all ideologies.
	We follow Fauci and Trump, and they have buried the hatchet in our backs.
	Yeah, what we don't need are representatives like that.
	They represent big pharma.
	They're pharmaceutical reps.
	They don't represent the people.
	They come at the people.
	We need people like Christine Anderson that you just heard.
	She said the goal is ultimately to transform our free and democratic societies into totalitarian societies.
	Their goal is to strip each and every one of us of our fundamental rights of freedom, democracy, the rule of law.
	They want to get rid of all of this.
	The whole COVID thing, she said, had never anything to do with public health.
	It never had anything to do with breaking waves.
	It always had to do with breaking people.
	In order to make us part of a mindless, malleable mass.
	And that's what it was.
	And so, in the light of all this, as I said before, it's very troubling to see people on both sides of this claiming victory.
	There is no victory in this.
	If there is a victory on our side, it is a Pyrrhic victory.
	As many people have been killed and injured, it is a horrific civil war.
	What this COVID war was.
	And they're laying the foundation for more civil wars.
	You know, you look at California.
	They got this reparations bill.
	1.2 million for each black person there.
	Give me a break.
	And that's not enough for the black activists.
	They want $200 million each.
	They're totally... You want to talk about people who are detached from reality?
	Talk about that.
	What are those people who are living in those trailers...
	Can't afford a home alongside the road.
	Are they going to be able to afford a home if they get that?
	No. No.
	Not all of them are going to be black.
	To get the money. But even the ones who get it, everybody's going to get $1.2 million.
	So it's like everybody getting a big raise and now everybody's going to be able to spend more for the limited resources of homes that are there.
	It's just going to raise the price of homes and everything else that people buy in California.
	And raise your taxes too.
	It's not going to do anything to help anybody.
	You take a look at people who win the lottery.
	How long do they typically hang on to that money?
	Very few people who win the lottery actually keep the money.
	The elites who are running California are going to support this because they know that money is going to find its way into their pockets very, very quickly.
	Always does.
	There's no equitable way, no justifiable way, no rational or scientific way to make these reparations to anybody.
	Everybody has a grievance if we're going to break us into competing factions, which is what they want to do, into another civil war.
	They already had a run at that with the lockdowns, but that's what they want to do.
	And this is another step in it.
	But Fauci and Biden are now rewriting the history of the COVID-19 restrictions.
	This is from Reason Magazine.
	White House COVID advisor, Ashish Jha.
	Even his name sounds like a sneeze.
	Ashish. Make him the Gesundheit Führer, because every time you say his name, you sneeze.
	And you should have to wear a mask when you say his name.
	He said, while there's no longer needed, these policies have had a tremendous beneficial impact.
	For them. For the political class.
	It has had a tremendous beneficial impact.
	In a recent interview with the New York Times, Fauci tried to pretend that the lockdowns and school closures in particular were not his fault.
	Show me a school that I ever shut down.
	Show me a factory that I shut down.
	Never. I never did it.
	I just made him office.
	I couldn't refuse. Yeah, his is, like I said before, it's kind of strange.
	His is the reverse Nuremberg defense.
	I just gave recommendations, you know?
	It's like they've gotten Hitler on the stand.
	I just recommended that they go into Poland, you know?
	I didn't think they'd actually take me up on it, you know?
	I just recommended it.
	I'm not giving the orders, right?
	It's the upside-down, inverted version of the Nuremberg defense, where I was just following orders.
	Well, Fauci says, I didn't give any orders!
	They just misunderstood what I wanted.
	I didn't want any schools to shut down.
	No, it's the furthest thing from his mind, wasn't it?
	Polish health minister tells Pfizer, we don't want any more vaccines.
	They're pointless. We want our money back.
	Well, good luck with that.
	This is nothing more than a pause for the next marketing campaign.
	That's what this truly is.
	And of course, if you look at it, Pfizer, as they were saying, Telling all these different countries, look, you know, you're either going to have our shot or your country's going to be sealed off.
	Nobody's going in, nobody's going out.
	Oh, well, what do we have to do to please Pfizer?
	Well, you got to give us legal immunity.
	You got to give us immunity, not just from the rapid development that we say happened with this jab, but you have to give us immunity from any negligence in terms of manufacturing or shipping or anything else like that.
	Or, you know, if you find out, as we did, That the active ingredients from lot to lot varied anywhere from 3 to 100 units.
	If you find out that we don't have any manufacturing controls, or maybe that we were doing manufacturing controls, kept track of the lots so we could see what dosage was going to be effective to kill people, well, you can't sue us for that either.
	And they pushed that through in one country after the other.
	They're blackmailing countries, so...
	It came out in the pharmaceutical news that they were blackmailing Brazil and Argentina and a third Latin American country, which was not named because they succumbed to the blackmail.
	Argentina and Brazil at that point in time had not.
	And they blew the whistle and it was reported by Stat News, which is a pharmaceutical publication, pharmaceutical industry publication.
	So, yeah, good luck in terms of getting your money back from Big Pharma.
	It was always about robbing everyone with everything.
	We'll be right back. Unlike most revolutions where the people rise against a real economic oppression, in our case here in Boston, we are fighting for purely an abstract principle.
	It is, however, not nearly so abstract as a young gentleman supposes.
	The issue involved here is one of monopoly.
	Today, the British government will monopolize the sale of tea in our country.
	Tomorrow it will be something else.
	All right.
	Liberty.
	It's your move. - Move.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	Let's talk about the next front that is coming at us.
	It's a cold front or a warming front, depending on which decade you're in.
	The climate, MacGuffin.
	And I thought this was really interesting.
	A story from the New York Times talking about a Belgium abstract play.
	A climate change comedy.
	A comedy of the climate crisis.
	It's not the kind of comedy that I would do.
	You know, unicorn farts is what I would call it.
	But I could have a lot of fun with that.
	This is a collaboration in Belgium of two theater companies.
	It's called Demanche.
	If I'm pronouncing that correctly, is it the man of Devonche?
	I don't think it's that either.
	Anyway, absurd and nearly wordless, the 75-minute show is composed of a series of vignettes.
	And I want you to think about this, because, again, the climate change, just like the pandemic, it's not about science.
	It's about fear.
	It's about shame. It's about guilt.
	It's about all these different things.
	But it's not about science.
	It's not about data.
	It's not about anything that can be measured, verified.
	It's about a visceral, imagined crisis.
	And we never forget that. We're not going to argue with them over which approach is going to cut emissions more.
	That's like arguing about how many angels fit on the head of a pen.
	Not going to go there.
	Not going to accept the terms of their debate.
	This is science.
	The burden of proof, if you've got a theory about climate change, if you've got a theory about global warming or global cooling or climate change or whatever, and if you think it is, well, you've got to prove it.
	And if you think it's being done by man, by the things that we're doing, that we are changing the climate, you've got to prove that as well.
	You've got two things to prove.
	First of all, you've got to prove that there is a trend of warming or cooling, depending on which decade we're in again.
	All that stuff has been proven wrong.
	All of the disappearing ice caps, all the disappearing coral reefs, all that stuff has been shown to be an absolute lie, a fantasy.
	So why not do a fantastical play about it?
	It makes perfectly good sense.
	It's nothing more than a story, a fairy tale of unicorn farts.
	And of total slavery to the global elite.
	And so the burden of proof is on them.
	And they have two things to prove.
	Climate change and then to show if there is, if they can show there's climate change.
	The next step that they have to do is show that it is being done by our SUVs or whatever.
	Good luck with that.
	I've been looking for that proof for 50 years.
	53 years.
	First one was in 1970.
	First birthday.
	Each of these vignettes is a devastating...
	This is New York Times talking.
	Each of these devastating vignettes is a devastating example of a climate emergency expressed playfully with toys, puppetry, acrobatics, and nifty practical effects.
	Dimanche succeeds in its macabre elliptical way, bringing the issue home with tornadoes whooshing dinner from the table and a shark swimming through a flooded living room.
	This catastrophe is here.
	It's there. It's everywhere.
	I think this is a perfect embodiment.
	This makes a lot more sense to me.
	Then Al Gore's documentary, The Convenient Lie, that he pushed on everybody.
	This is what this is truly about.
	It's all just their imagination.
	And these people are as detached from reality as any chat GPT program, fantasizing about what is going to be happening.
	It begins somewhere in the Arctic Circle, as, quote, 50 Ways to Leave Your Lover is playing in the background.
	A three-person camera crew bump along in their van, eager to capture footage of a glacier calving.
	The shoot almost immediately goes awry, and the crew shrinks to two.
	A similar disaster befalls an expertly puppeteered polar bear in her club, and then the New York Times adds, Although given that polar bears are prodigious swimmers, this sequence seems more melodramatic than likely.
	That's what we've been saying about all this, the dying polar bears.
	Oh, look, this polar bear, the polar ice caps are melting and they're stuck on an ice flow.
	No, they're just resting.
	They swim for hundreds of miles.
	So at least the New York Times isn't trying to push that narrative anymore, that the polar bears are drowning because the polar ice caps are melting.
	And the third sequence, set in an ordinary home, The problem of warming has traveled south.
	A husband and wife and his mother, another remarkable puppet, they said, swelter in their living room as several fans blow ineffectually.
	And this must be New York, where Kathy Hochul has shut off all the air conditioning, right?
	The heat then grows so terrible that the very furniture begins to melt like clocks in Dolly's persistence of memory imagery.
	Imagery that is as disturbing as it is delightful.
	And so then, you know, they talk about some of the lyrics and all the rest of this stuff.
	But that is what this really is.
	You know, climate change is an absurdist play with puppets and fantasy and lies about drowning polar bears.
	And so the New York Times, I think it's a pretty accurate way to describe all this stuff.
	But New York Times asks the question, is clowning, However ghastly, an appropriate response to the climbing crisis?
	Why, yes, I think we should laugh at it, we should mock it, we should satirize it, because the emperor has no clothes.
	People, too few people have taken it seriously, says the New York Times.
	So, some of the current remedies...
	Can feel like a game.
	And they mention, you know, carbon credits and tax breaks for corporations and blah, blah, blah.
	This feels like a game.
	So? Because they are.
	It is a game. So a playful approach kind of makes sense, says the New York Times.
	Well, there you go. That is the reality.
	So BBC, meanwhile, is saying that climate change is too important to be left to personal choice.
	Everyone will have to ratchet down their standard of living by over 75%.
	No, you'll have to ratchet it down by 100%.
	They call it net zero for a reason.
	You have to take it down 100%.
	A recent piece in BBC's Future World series.
	It's like Futurama.
	Uh... Celebrates someone who chose to live an ultra-low-carbon lifestyle.
	This is a story from bombthrower.com.
	You'll find that also on Zero Hedge.
	And so they focus on this person who decided to, you know, live green, to make this decision consciously, an individual decision, to bring down their own personal carbon footprint down below two metric tons per year.
	The article talks about the personal challenges living an ultra-low carbon lifestyle.
	According to the piece, two tons a year is also about half the output of a single gas-powered car in the U.S. So the first step is to start by ditching their cars.
	Oh, of course. And that was what we saw on the very first Earth Day, 1970.
	You know, people, these hippies, yelling, get rid of the car.
	It's like, no way.
	Anyway, other behaviors which would move the needle include eating a plant-based diet, foregoing one transatlantic round trip per year, and so forth.
	Yeah, I've just sworn off of all flying since the other MacGuffin.
	So I guess I'm doing my part, right?
	Canada is basically a rounding error to the world's largest emitter, China.
	And there's a chart there.
	See if you can pull that up, Travis.
	The top CO2-emitting countries.
	And it is very interesting when you look at this.
	Look at that. Canada, they're way down there.
	They're five from the far right, and it really is a rounding error.
	And look at how much CO2 is being emitted by China.
	More than twice the United States, which is number two.
	And that is an indication, as I have shown in the past, if you look at energy use as well as energy production, it used to be the British Empire, the 1800s, then it switched over to the U.S., U.S. dominated.
	And then just in the last few years, it switched over to China.
	Why? Why are they using so much energy?
	Because they're manufacturing everything.
	We used to say this about the U.S. We use so much energy because we're making everything.
	Well, not anymore. And so the U.S. is less than half of what China is doing.
	Canada is just a rounding error there.
	But here's the thing.
	He says everybody has to comply.
	You know, they want to talk about this person who's voluntarily virtue signaling about doing all this.
	While the overall timber of the piece lauds the story's protagonist, her decision to make this lifestyle choice sprinkled throughout this are casual, backhanded references about where this was all going.
	They say, can these really be achieved, these global goals, can they really be achieved by personal choice alone?
	No, for this to work, it means that everybody's going to be forced to do it.
	And yet what they say...
	With the right policies, with the right infrastructure, with the right technology in place to enable changes to our lifestyle.
	No, they're not talking about enabling changes.
	They're talking about forcing changes, coercing changes, forcing us into austerity of net zero.
	And they want to do it to our lifestyles, to our behaviors, to every aspect of our life.
	They said, if we do all this...
	We can reduce overall emissions by 2050.
	I'm so sick and tired of hearing that word emissions.
	I want it stricken from the dictionary.
	The climate cultist dilemma is that, like I said, we're hearing from an increasing number of scientists that there is no crisis.
	Good, good. Their voices are getting louder, even as the face of corporate media trying to fact check them is running under these headwinds of narrative control.
	So maybe that's why we need RFKJ. Maybe we need to have a pseudo-populist like we did with Donald Trump.
	You know, I'm from outside the system.
	I'm going to take care of immigration.
	I'm going to take care of this problem or that problem that everybody agrees is a problem.
	Something that the globalists are trying to force upon us.
	And so we have this populist savior who comes in.
	And then RFK Jr.
	can push this net zero agenda on us.
	Oh yeah, we agree with him about CBDC. We agree with him about censorship that he says.
	Although, you know, he's still yet to address what he did before.
	Telling the middle class to own nothing and eat bugs while the elite parade through the city in a lengthy motorcade on their way to the airport to wing it to Davos and their private jets.
	It means also telling third world nations to remain mired in poverty.
	Y'all can't have air conditioning said by Obama to people in Africa.
	Y'all can't have it. The planet would melt down.
	It also means forcing, if you want to really get serious about this, you force China to stop building all those coal-fired plants.
	And to keep the 600 million subjects there who are still living in extreme poverty, keep them poor.
	And yet China, followed by India, are the countries of the most coal power plants in pre-construction.
	The change in terms of the new coal power plants in China has gone up from January 2022 by 42%.
	I'm sorry. Yeah, in percentage.
	It is in percentage. So, the bottom line is, just like the pandemic, MacGuffin, this is based on fear.
	It's based on agitprop, propaganda, shame, guilt, the rest of this.
	It is a belief, says the author.
	The reality of this induces a type of eco-anxiety.
	And isn't that interesting to think about how they always go back on fear?
	When you look at Hitler, what was Hitler's fear about?
	It was about fear of the foreigner or another ethnic group, right?
	The Auslander, the foreigner.
	You've got to fear them and give power to me.
	I will protect you. And now we have it, the fear of the virus, the fear of climate change and all the rest of the stuff.
	Fear is always there.
	Guilt is always a big part of this as well.
	Guilt and shame and social pressures on people, you know, to join the Hitler Youth or the party or whatever it is.
	But it fundamentally boils down, folks, to depopulation.
	And I'm telling you, when you look at RFK Jr., even though he is right about these issues, and I hope he does get into a debate, I hope he gets a lot of press coverage and can talk about these issues, but don't buy into it.
	Because he's in the green agenda.
	The green agenda has always been about depopulation.
	He, as a Democrat, will support the murder of babies.
	End of story.
	That is about depopulation as well.
	And so when you look at this, just as a reminder, Scientific American has now come out with an essay about population decline being good news, because this is what they've always sought.
	This is about values.
	This is not about science.
	This is anti-human peace.
	It's not about science.
	The opinion piece offered by Stephanie Fellstein, Points to the UN predicting dozens of countries will have shrinking populations by 2050.
	Says that's, quote, good news.
	The premise is further enhanced by the claim that the planet is suffering from overpopulation that diminishes wildlife habitats and ecosystems as human impact and has a deleterious effect on everything around it.
	We're putting other species at risk, you see.
	And this is like that story that Handy sent me.
	About how in Europe they're all upset about the chicken sexers who take the male chicks and throw them away because they don't lay eggs, they don't want to raise them, and they get rid of them.
	We don't want to have that happen. Let's kill them before they hatch and not put them through any suffering.
	Oh, well, yeah, but at what point...
	Can the baby chicks, if we can determine that it's a male, and we want to kill the male before it hatches, at what point does the male baby chick start to feel pain?
	It kicks off this big debate about that.
	You know, chickens only takes 21 days for them to, you know, incubate to maturity.
	So is it 7 days?
	Is it 9 days? Is it 11?
	In terms of the kind of debate that we're having over the number of weeks.
	Except that the left doesn't care a whit.
	About whether human babies feel any pain.
	They don't care about when that begins.
	They don't care about when life begins.
	And they don't value life either.
	And they especially don't value human life.
	Here is another person talking about it's good because humans are bad.
	Humans are a virus.
	Humans are going to kill planet Earth.
	They've got to be eradicated.
	We want to protect all the other species, but not humans.
	When even a single thread is pulled from the tapestry, this person writing for Scientific American says this about a disappearing species or something.
	You're pulling a thread out of the tapestry.
	The entire system begins to unravel.
	Well, I think we could say that about a single human being.
	When you start to pull out these little threads of children, when you start ripping them apart, When you desire to kill them, even if they survive your attempted murder, and that's what the Democrats routinely vote for en masse, when you take that approach, well, the entire system is going to unravel, not in some kind of butterfly effect, oh, you just killed Beethoven, or you just killed Albert Einstein, or something like that.
	No, it will unravel because once you accept that precedent that human life doesn't matter, that you can snuff it out as you see fit, nobody is safe.
	Nobody is safe in any condition.
	Nobody is safe at any age.
	So this person says, humans must therefore choose between population growth and survival of the planet.
	That's the choice that they want to give us.
	It is a false dichotomy.
	It is a lie. It's all based on a lie.
	And that's the problem, the fundamental problem.
	With all of the climate MacGuffin.
	But in her essay, she says, we also need to bring together the reproductive rights, abortion.
	The gender equity movements, LGBT. And the environmental movement, the green, right?
	And I pointed this out last week when I was talking about Yogyakarta, where they put together a legal framework where they piggybacked on top of civil rights violations.
	They piggybacked on sexual preferences.
	And then the purpose of Yogyakarta in 2006 was to piggyback the transgender stuff on top of sexual preferences and that type of thing.
	And when they went back and talked about it, the people who were celebrating it was this German green institution talking about it.
	You see, they're always together.
	The abortionists, the depopulationists, the LGBT agenda, the radical environmentalists.
	Those are just different facets of the same thing.
	It is a satanic agenda that seeks to kill humans in every aspect of it.
	Every aspect of it.
	The environmentalists seek to kill humans.
	The LGBT and the abortionists seek to kill humans, to sterilize the human race.
	That is the central purpose of it.
	You don't have to bring them together.
	They already are together because of the philosophies that they've embraced.
	And so this is what we are faced with.
	And it is, in my opinion, A populist distraction to think that RFK Jr.
	is going to do anything about that.
	I want to get to some of the election news before our guest joins us.
	We're going to have a really interesting guest today.
	Important information, whether you're homeschooling or whether you just want to defend what is true and right and defend our culture and start to take it back.
	We have to have a positive image of what we want to create.
	We have to understand our true history.
	And we have to have that picture of what we want our country to be like.
	It's not enough to be against the green LGBT wackos and weirdos.
	And quite frankly, I'm sick of their antics.
	I'm sick of seeing them on TikTok and the rest of this stuff.
	We need to focus on what is true, what is right, what is an appropriate foundation for our society and for our families.
	We'll be right back..
	... In
	a world of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	Well, I got this email from Harry Hound, and he spells that H-A-I-R-Y, as opposed to the man formerly known as Prince.
	He does have a beard and a full head of hair.
	I guess we could call him Prince Harry, H-A-I-R-Y. When Trump was president, he did a kind of town hall.
	They called it town hall back to work at Fox News.
	He did it with Brett Baer and Martha McCollum.
	He said Trump was asking a question about why he didn't ask sooner.
	He said, listen to the date.
	I'm not going to play the clip for you.
	But he says he states that he first found out that COVID could be a problem.
	The date that he gave for finding out about that.
	His daughter tweeted out that Trump contracted with Moderna 10 days before Trump found out how severe COVID could be.
	And of course we know that this has gone back for a couple of years.
	Peter Navarro now doing interviews on what happened when he met Fauci.
	Navarro is either very naive that Trump didn't have a clue as to what the government did by releasing COVID, or he is protecting Trump.
	So, again, take your pick.
	But don't follow these people.
	I thought it was kind of interesting, as we get into the election news, because I want to talk about, you know, we've been talking about the vaccine.
	And we had all these people telling us it was a moonshot.
	I thought they gave it to you in your arm.
	I don't know. But they were referring to the technology.
	And so, you know, you had Trump, you had Al Mohler and other people.
	It's a moonshot. It's a moonshot.
	Well... You have the former Roscosmos head, the former head of the Russian space station, says he refuses to believe that NASA landed on the moon.
	Oh, isn't that interesting?
	The head of the Russian space program doesn't believe it.
	And I talked to a guy who was, you know, just a few months before he died.
	Actually, he was an older guy.
	He was there at Mission Control.
	He came in. He was brought in for an interview.
	And he was not certain either.
	And he was on the front line of Mission Control.
	He goes, well, there were some things that happened that made me think that it was real, but there were some things that happened that made me think that it was not real.
	And he said, and my biggest question was, why did they not only destroy the engines, but why did they destroy all the blueprints?
	He said, do you realize that they did that?
	They destroyed everything, all evidence of the program that was happening there.
	Why would they do that? And why would they not go back for decades?
	Well, the former head of the Russian space program said it was not clear to me how the United States at that level of technological development of the 1960s and the last century, how did they do with 1960s technology, how did they do what they still cannot do today?
	Good question, isn't it?
	Well, he is just announced as a crazy conspiracy theorist.
	They don't answer that question. I would like to know.
	Wouldn't you? The former head of Russia's space corporation, his name is Dmitry Rogozin, He was fired from his post as Director of the Country's Space Program last year.
	He's now taking to Telegram to cast doubt on the fact that NASA landed a dozen astronauts on the moon over half a century ago.
	He asked, he said, the Russian Roscosmos, the Russian Space Corporation, while he was head of Roscosmos, He asked if they would provide him, quote, with documentary evidence of the Americans' stay on the moon.
	He said despite his best efforts, he found no evidence.
	Roscosmos had no evidence that it had happened.
	And again, he said it was not clear to me how the U.S. at that level of technological development in the 1960s and the last century did what they still cannot do today.
	That is the money quote.
	So they said his comments are characteristically evocative and brazen and demonstrate a denialist conspiracy theory.
	Well, you know, if I'm denying your...
	You said that you went?
	Prove it. You said your vaccines work?
	Prove it. You said that we've got climate change?
	Prove it. You say that I did it?
	Prove it. They don't ever want to prove anything.
	Instead, they just say, well, you're just nothing but a conspiracy theorist and a denier, right?
	So it demonstrates denialist conspiracy theories surrounding NASA's hollow moon landings that persist to this day.
	Well, answer the question.
	No, they don't. Ironically, they say, the Soviet Union even had a spacecraft of its own in orbit around the moon while NASA astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin took their historic first steps back in 1969, meaning that Russia has plenty of detailed data to corroborate the moon landings, which are incredibly well documented.
	Oh, really? Well, if Russia was circling the moon, And they've got all this detailed information.
	Why is it that the guy who ran the Russian space program couldn't find any evidence?
	Hmm. The mountain of evidence clearly has not made enough of an impression on this particular member of Putin's inner circle.
	Oh, well, he's a conspiracy theorist, he's a denier, and he knows Putin.
	He's part of Putin's inner circle.
	There you go. We don't have to answer any questions.
	I know who you are.
	You reply to questions about evidence and data.
	You reply to ad hominem attacks.
	Guilt by association, all the rest of this stuff.
	During his tenure, he also maintained that Russia would soon abandon the space station, International Space Station.
	Despite the fact the country later agreed to cooperate with its international partners until the station's demise in 2030.
	Again, 2030.
	But, you know, that's why he was fired.
	He also butted heads with Elon Musk on a number of occasions.
	He's now been deployed to the front lines of Russia's invasion, to the Russian front.
	You know, that's what the Germans used to do with their people who question things, isn't it?
	We have RFK Jr.
	went on a program on Sunday and said that he's absolutely certain that the CIA murdered his uncle, JFK. Believes that there's a lot of evidence that they killed his father, RFK Sr.
	He alleged the CIA was behind the assassination of his uncle, likely involved in the murder of his father.
	Speaking during an interview with John Katsimatidis, I guess is how you pronounce his name on Sunday, Kennedy said, There's overwhelming evidence that the CIA was involved in JFK's murder.
	Beyond a reasonable doubt at this point, he said.
	He cited as his evidence...
	The book JFK and the Unspeakable by James Douglas as the best compilation of evidence on the subject, though dozens if not hundreds of works have been written about the assassination of the CIA's alleged role.
	The official U.S. government explanation published by the Warren Commission said that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the shooting.
	So I'm not claiming that I know what happened, just like I don't know what happened with 9-11.
	But I do know what did not happen on 9-11.
	And I do know what did not happen with the JFK assassination.
	The official narrative, the official story did not happen with both of those.
	So you can, you know, people can...
	I had a listener send me a story about that.
	Look, I've never believed this.
	My parents never believed it.
	They were not Kennedy supporters.
	From the very beginning, especially when Lee Harvey Oswald says he's a patsy and then he's immediately shot by a mafia figure who's got cancer, Jack Ruby.
	As soon as that happened, I remember my entire family.
	Mom, dad, aunts, uncles were all standing there.
	It's around Thanksgiving when this stuff was going through.
	And everybody's like, wow.
	They just assassinated the president and killed the patsy that they set up.
	It isn't based on anything, any books that I've read, any movies that I've watched.
	It's just looking at the Occam's razor approach.
	And then you add to that.
	That's before we saw the Zapruder film.
	That did help with things as well.
	So I don't know what happened.
	I know what did not happen.
	What did not happen is what the government told us happened.
	Kennedy added that there was very convincing but circumstantial evidence that the CIA was involved in the assassination of his father.
	He described the official story of the assassination being done by Sirhan Sirhan as physically impossible, arguing that Thane Eugene Cesar, a security guard at the hotel who was concurrently employed by the military contractor Lockheed, had actually fired the shots that killed his father.
	You know, I had the opportunity to interview Dr.
	Pepper, an unfortunate name, Dr.
	William Pepper, no relation to the soft drink.
	But he did a couple of different mock trials.
	He did one about the Martin Luther King assassination, another one about RFK Jr.
	assassination. They were serious looks at the evidence.
	And again, there were a mock trial, though it was not tainted with political agendas and political appointees and that type of thing.
	And he made a very effective case that it was not Sirhan Sirhan.
	He made a very effective case that the person who was identified for Martin Luther King was not the assassin with that either.
	Four years after JFK's murder, nearly half of the American public did not believe that Oswald had acted alone.
	As I said, my family never believed it.
	And we were not... Kennedy supporters.
	My dad was a Goldwater supporter.
	But they were conservatives.
	The CIA was concerned enough about this that it issued a directive in 1967 on how to discredit the so-called conspiracy theorists.
	And we've been plagued with that weaponized term ever since.
	Oh, if you don't think that one person could do this accurately from that position...
	With a bolt-action rifle and get several headshots off?
	What's the matter with you, you stupid conspiracy theorist?
	I think one of the best ways to push back on that was Kubrick's film, Full Metal Jacket, where R. Lee Ermey, the drill sergeant, was telling them, by the time you're finished, you're going to be able to...
	He defines, you know, you're going to be able to take this many shots at this distance and hit a moving target, just like Lee Harvey Oswell, this ex-Marine.
	That was one of the best and shortest debunks of the lone shooter thing I've ever seen.
	The German government is looking to subsidize up to 80% of energy costs for the industry.
	How many times have I said, you know, this is one of the things that concerns me about RFKJ. He talks about, he says, you know, pollution and climate change, this is all just due because we subsidized oil companies.
	Really? Who gets the lion's share of subsidies right now?
	It's the green agenda.
	They get most of the subsidies.
	The German government is going to subsidize up to 80% of energy costs for industry across the board.
	They're raising the price of energy artificially with sanctions, with prohibitions, with regulations, most of them for the green agenda.
	Now, Biden is saying, well, you know, I'm doing it because I've got to fight Putin.
	But it's going to be great because it's going to get us there faster to our green agenda.
	That's why he's doing it. The German vice chancellor and Green Party politician has proposed a scheme that would see the government subsidize up to 80% of electricity costs for certain industries.
	Now, the ongoing energy crises induced by decades of failed green agenda policies and over-reliance on all this, it's all just cronyism.
	And it's not limited to the oil companies.
	This is what I think is fundamentally dishonest about RFKJ's approach.
	First of all, Tell me how you know that there's warming.
	Tell me how it's coming from people.
	But don't just talk about subsidies and only talk about one industry being subsidized.
	That's nonsense. That's like the crypto prohibition where they're coming out there and saying, yeah, crypto is just using too much energy.
	We're going to have to raise the price by 30%.
	And that There's another whole can of worms that I don't have time to go into.
	They're going to be raising the price.
	It's going to be a 30% surcharge.
	It's a massive regulatory burden as well as a tax.
	First of all, a 30% tax.
	And a 30% tax on the energy that they're using.
	And they're going to have to create a report talking about what their source of energy is.
	And different sources of energy will be taxed in a different way.
	So it's going to be a tremendous regulatory burden for the crypto miners.
	They're ignoring, just like what RFKJ is ignoring subsidies, these people are ignoring the fact that the intelligence community, that the surveillance state, that the artificial intelligence, massive learning programs are using massive amounts of energy.
	No, the only energy that they're concerned about is the crypto stuff.
	And that's what RFK Jr.
	is doing with the climate stuff.
	He's Camping out on this whole thing being real, number one.
	Number two, only the oil company subsidies are the bad thing.
	And so in Germany, they proposed a plan that would guarantee large swaths of German industry electricity prices at a subsidized price of 6 euro pennies per kilowatt hour.
	Currently, it is, let's say, 25 cents.
	And they're going to get it for 6 cents.
	80% subsidy that's going to be there.
	Part of the traffic light coalition.
	I wonder what this traffic light coalition is.
	Yeah, traffic lights. Red, yellow, green, yellow.
	I've always talked about the Marxist watermelon environmentalism.
	It's thin veneer of green on the outside.
	Inside, it's all red. But I guess if you're going to get the yellow people, I guess those would be the people in the middle.
	The people who have no backbone, no spine, who would just go along with the majority.
	We're going to take a break. Our guest is on the line.
	We're going to be right back to talk about real history, to push back against the 1619 Project.
	I think you're going to find this interview very interesting.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Joe, we've got a problem.
	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 name, but anyone tries to mug me, I'm being ready for it, you dog-faced pony soldier.
	They say the mug can help patriots drink coffee, then save the world.
	This could be bad for us.
	Save the world? But we owe the world.
	These people, they're supporting free speech with every month they buy.
	Come on. These people, I tell you, well, anyway.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	Welcome back. Our guest is Mark David Hall.
	I have a filmmaker that we talk to frequently, Mark Hall.
	This is Mark David Hall.
	His book is Proclaim Liberty Throughout All the Land, How Christianity Has Advanced Freedom and Equality for All Americans.
	I'm really excited to talk to Mark today.
	He has an amazing background in academia.
	He is a distinguished professor of politics at George Fox University.
	He is a senior fellow at many different universities, Baylor, Princeton, and others.
	And he has an extensive background in history.
	And we're going to talk today about some of the questions and the things that have been labeled at Christianity over the last few years as they were trying to remove the foundation of our society, quite frankly.
	So joining us now is Mark David Holf.
	Thank you for joining us, sir. Thank you so much for having me, David.
	Well, it's great to have you on, and it's great to see a book like this.
	I think this is a great resource, especially for homeschoolers.
	And, you know, it is written at an adult level.
	It's not written at a children's level.
	But I always think, you know, when we did homeschooling, that you always – you don't try to dumb things down.
	You hit them with stuff that's maybe above their grade level and challenge them.
	But it's great for adults.
	And you point out that it is – We need to be armed with the facts.
	We need to understand how Christianity has given us the best aspects of our society that we have now.
	So let's begin with some of the things that have been thrown at Christianity.
	Let's start with the slavery aspect, or if you want to, we can start with the 1619 Project.
	I think it's pretty interesting that they pushed that out just before the 400th anniversary of Plymouth Rock.
	But you can start with either one of those.
	You can start with the pilgrims or you can start with slavery, whatever you like.
	Yeah, thank you.
	So in my last book, Did America Have a Christian Founding?
	I made a pretty powerful argument, I think, that America's founders were influenced by Christian ideas.
	And in some respects, this book was to be a sequel, but between the last book and this one, the 1619 Project came out.
	It just infuriated me.
	Oh, yeah.
	We have to recognize, of course, that some Americans have appealed to the Bible or the Christian tradition to defend slavery.
	But to say that all of American history is best characterized by slavery and racism and Jim Crow legislation, that's just horrible history, as many left of center historians have pointed out.
	And so part of what I wanted to do is to respond to the 1619 Project, the series of essays in the New York Times, and all too many academics who've written serious academic books, but as well as popular books, arguing that fundamentally America is characterized by slavery to the extent to which Americans arguing that fundamentally America is characterized by slavery to the extent to They were appealing to their faith to defend slavery or other evil, sexism, poverty, and that sort of thing.
	And without denying that some Christians have done some of that, I tried to argue a pretty powerful thesis that, in fact, Christianity has been a force for progress, for liberty and equality for all, from the Puritans to the present day.
	And of course, you know, when we start tearing down statues of anybody that we find something we don't like about them, you know, that is, we can do that with individuals, we can do that with society, but that is not the way to progress.
	What we do is we want to try to find the best in our history, the best in individuals, and to build on that rather than looking for anything that we can find that is wrong and then using that as an excuse to tear it down.
	But that really goes back, I think, to Marxism.
	I call him Pete Boudiguet because he's very proud of his sexual orientation.
	And I have a hard time at the beginning pronouncing his name.
	But his father was a Notre Dame professor who had spent his whole life looking at the His life's work was looking at Antonio Gramsci, who was the founder of the Italian Party, and he saw the attack had to come at the cultural level.
	He said the middle class and Christians have been able to establish their society with cultural hegemony.
	And so their goal was to take that away.
	And so we see that being done deliberately in a calculated way.
	They're not genuinely, I think, offended by some of the things that they're complaining about.
	There are issues that need to be addressed, but it is fundamentally a revolutionary tactic, I believe.
	Don't you agree? No, I think so.
	so that's exactly right and one of the problematic things with the 1619 project is not only is it was it published in arguably the nation's most elite newspaper it's now being adopted as a curriculum in schools and so young people who know almost nothing about history are learning whatever history they know from this yeah i think it's absolutely a tactic of the left and And unfortunately, the left controls the academy by and large.
	It controls the major media.
	And so it's critical that we get out with programs like yours, with books like mine, arguing for the truth.
	Yeah, and your book could be used as a textbook, as I said, especially for homeschoolers.
	At the very beginning, you talk about the fact that Puritans were not tyrannical theocrats.
	Talk about that.
	Were they there simply to impose their religious beliefs on other people?
	Sure. Let me take a step back to the Protestant Reformation and make a quick little equation.
	The Protestants, of course, believed in the doctrine of sola scriptura, the scripture alone.
	They believed in the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers.
	Every individual needs to be able to read the Bible for himself or even herself.
	And so what you see in Protestant countries is an absolute explosion of literacy.
	By the time you get to Puritan New England, you have almost universal male literacy.
	Female literacy is catching up.
	Church structures and civic structures are flattened.
	So the Puritans in New England are congregationalists, right?
	They're standing up and making arguments in their church about who should be the minister, whether or not to build a new meeting house.
	In New England, people are voting every six months.
	And I do mean by people, I mean males, male property owners, but really any male with any amount of ambition whatsoever could own property.
	So you have pretty close to very widespread suffrage.
	Let's leave it at that.
	And so what you see in Puritan New England are some of the freest, most Republican, small-art Republican institutions the world had ever seen.
	The Puritans are looking to the Bible to reform the civil and criminal laws.
	In England, you could be punished by death for hundreds of crimes, including stealing just a few shillings.
	The Puritans got rid of almost all those death penalty offenses.
	And looking at the Bible, they said the proper penalty for theft is restitution, not death.
	If I steal your cow, I have to give you your cow back plus one of my cows.
	It's a far more humane criminal system than you have in England.
	And I could keep going on and on about how these pilgrims and Puritans really created some of the most progressive, in the best sense of the word, societies that the world had ever seen.
	And, you know, that kind of reminds me, we always hear the eye for the eye and a tooth for a tooth, and it sounds like a very harsh standard.
	And yet, in reality, it was a pullback from what was the already established, as you talk about so many crimes that could be meted out with a death penalty.
	It was actually pulling it back.
	It was actually to say an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
	It was to pull back the severity of those penalties.
	And as you also said, It was focused on restitution.
	We don't have restitution in our system today.
	That's one of the big flaws in our justice system.
	But they went back to the Bible and to Mosaic Law and said we need to have restitution for that.
	So it was not a tyranny in that regard.
	They did want to have religious freedom because they were under attack in their own country.
	But I think it's very important what you said about literacy.
	And we look at the rate of literacy today.
	It was so high.
	It was up in the high 90s at the time of the American Revolution, wasn't it?
	I think in New England, you have pretty well universal male literacy by the time of the Revolution.
	In the American South, you didn't.
	The aristocrats, of course, could not only read, but probably read Latin and Greek, and they're very well educated.
	So Jefferson and Madison are great examples of this.
	But unfortunately, a white yeoman farmer and that sort of thing, to say nothing of enslaved Americans, we're not...
	We're not reading. But yeah, and of course New England's intellectual center of America until well into the 19th century, right?
	Harvard and Yale and Brown and Princeton.
	Yeah, a disproportionate impact for sure.
	And they started out as seminaries.
	And you had pretty much everybody passing around Thomas Paine's common sense in the same way that everybody would see, I don't know, The Wizard of Oz today.
	Yeah. Reading things like that, that was their cultural touchstone, that and the Bible.
	And so you see, even in the late 1800s, you see Abraham Lincoln quoting the Bible because that's how he connected with people.
	Just like today, we would make movie references.
	He knew that everybody knew the Bible.
	That's why they had to learn how to read, as you point out.
	That's right. Let me plug my friend Daniel Dreisbach.
	He has a great book, Reading the Bible with the Founding Fathers.
	And what he shows is that by far and away the founders were reading their Bible, they knew their Bible inside and out, and they were routinely paraphrasing biblical passages without putting in the little citations.
	So, for instance, George Washington paraphrases Micah 4.4 more than 40 times, and yet he never puts in the citation Micah 4.4 because everyone would have recognized it.
	And so, yeah, the Bible, by far and away, was the most influential book in the late 18th century and the founding era, by far and away.
	And I think that's what we mean when we say America was a Christian country.
	It was so thoroughly interspersed as a cultural touchstone that even people who were not necessarily believing Christians would refer to it in terms of talking to other people, right?
	That's absolutely right.
	In my last book, I actually spell out in some detail ways in which I think the founders were influenced by the Bible and Christian theology.
	One of the most obvious ones, and one of the key differences between the Americans and what went on over in France, is they were absolutely committed that all humans were sinful.
	All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
	Even Christians continue to struggle with the old man within.
	And so they designed a constitutional order characterized by federalism, separation of powers, checks and balances.
	Enlightenment political thought was going the exact opposite direction.
	We want a strong centralized government run by the intellectual elites.
	And that did not work out well over in France.
	Yeah, they believed in the perfection of man, the perfectibility of man, and that they had already achieved it because they were the elites.
	So let's talk a little bit about the American Revolution, because that's another thing that we even see from Christians many times.
	You've got a chapter on the war for American independence, and a lot of people are saying, well, I think you've got to, and of course we've heard this in the last couple of years, as the vaccine passports and mandates were rolling out.
	We've heard people say, well, if the government tells you you've got to put a pinwheel on your head, you better put a pinwheel on your head.
	I never interpreted Romans or 1 Peter 3 in that regard.
	Talk a little bit about the war for American independence and whether or not it was justified from a Christian standpoint and how Christianity fed into that.
	Sure, that was a fun chapter, right?
	And I'll state up front that most Christian scholars who have addressed this point, with the exception of me and Eric Patterson, have said, oh my goodness, a war flies in the face of Romans 13, or if resisting tyrants is biblically permissible, it was unjust.
	And I say, no, that's not the case at all.
	So, for about 1,300 years, the Church did say, if you're living under a tyrant, and that tyrant tells you to disobey God, you refuse to obey Him, We're good to go.
	And a tyrant. If a ruler becomes a tyrant, he may be overthrown.
	And so in 1764, 1765, when Parliament started acting in a clearly unconstitutional manner by trying to tax the American colonists to raise revenue, the American colonists didn't just pick up their guns.
	They didn't start shooting redcoats, but they resisted in other ways.
	They petitioned, they boycotted, they protested, and they did that for over 10 years.
	But as Parliament and the king continued to do what were taken as tyrannical acts, as unconstitutional acts, threatening basic liberties, religious liberty, trial by jury, eventually in 1775, when the Redcoats came to seize American ammunition, we resisted actively, and the war for American independence we resisted actively, and the war for American independence had begun.
	I think you can make a very good case that the cause was just that we did everything.
	War should always be the last resort.
	And so, of course, no one's going to pick up guns and start shooting U.S. Army officers because of these vaccine mandates, but we may properly resist in other ways, right?
	We can petition, we can remonstrate, we can elect different officials.
	But if the government, for the next 10 years, continues to act in a tyrannical fashion, you know, maybe things would change.
	But it does take that long train of abuses, as the Declaration describes.
	I think you can make an excellent argument that the war for American independence was both biblical and just.
	Yeah, and of course you have other things too, like the Magna Carta.
	You're talking about it being unconstitutional.
	There were limits. The king was not an absolute ruler, according to the Magna Carta, and there were limits on what he could do, and they overrode those.
	And so that was a big part of it as well.
	But as you point out, you know, the difference between a tyrant and a ruler, a ruler is there for your own good.
	A ruler is somebody who is aligned with biblical principles, also with things like the Magna Carta, things like the Constitution.
	And, of course, in our time, we have the Constitution is the king.
	You know, Lex Rex is one of the things that they said.
	They wanted to set up a system where the law was above individuals and where you would not trust a man, but you'd bind them down with the chains of the Constitution, right?
	So that's the system. That's exactly right.
	And Parliament even said this in the Declaratory Act, 1766.
	In effect, I'm paraphrasing, but Parliament says we have the right to do whatever we want, right?
	Which to patriot ears, that's almost by definition tyranny.
	No, you don't have the right to do whatever you want.
	You're limited by law.
	No taxation without representation is a constitutional principle.
	Americans aren't represented in Parliament, so Parliament cannot tax Americans at all, period.
	And it doesn't matter if the taxes are heavy or light.
	There's a constitutional principle at stake.
	In the same way, if the government of Canada tomorrow tried to tax each American $1 a year, we should all refuse to pay, right?
	Because the Parliament of Canada has absolutely no authority to tax us, and it just simply doesn't matter that the amount is small.
	Yeah, absolutely right.
	They understood the importance of principle.
	Let's talk a little bit about slavery because this is something that has really been the center of a lot of our problems in the last few years, going back to the 1619 Project.
	As I said, they wanted to get that thing out just before we celebrated the 400th anniversary of people who came together there with the Mayflower.
	And they came up with a compact, which is a voluntary document to govern themselves.
	A lot of precedents were set with that.
	They wanted to flush that out.
	And then they wanted to change this to a slavery narrative.
	What do you want to say, first of all, about the 1619 Project?
	And whether or not that is a valid interpretation of history, as you point out, many historians have pointed out there.
	It's really very poor history.
	Indeed, how is it poor?
	You know, my friend Bill McCloy, the great historian, has said that the 1619 Project was a missed opportunity.
	It's definitely reasonable to remember that Americans owned slaves, that African Americans were abused at the hands of slave owners and others, and yet the 1619 Project errs by just trying to redefine all of American history.
	as being interpreted through the lens of slavery and racism.
	And so we need a much more balanced approach.
	We must recognize the evils of slavery and that Christians were complicit in it.
	But we also need to recognize that many, many Christians were coming to oppose slavery.
	We should also recognize, and I know you know this, but just to emphasize it, slavery is something that has existed throughout human history, throughout the entire world.
	It existed throughout the world in the 17th and 18th centuries.
	And so that was really not unusual that Americans had slaves.
	What was unusual by the time you get to the founding era is you had significant numbers of civic officials recognizing this is an evil institution and we must do something about it.
	So Franklin, John J., John Dickinson, James Wilson, they freed their slaves.
	Voluntarily freed their slaves.
	Eight states put slavery on the road to extinction or abolished it immediately between 1776 and 1804.
	The Confederation Congress and the First Federal Congress banned the expansion of slavery into the Northwest Territory.
	The area that became Ohio and Michigan and Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin.
	And so they recognized no one had a good thing to say about slavery in the founding era.
	Everyone wanted it to end.
	Everyone was assured.
	They were certain it was going to end for a variety of reasons that we can talk about in a minute if you want.
	So no one's defending slavery as a positive good.
	Unfortunately, as we know, I'll just mention briefly, Eli Whitney invents the cotton gin, and it creates a whole new dynamic in the South that allows slavery to become entrenched in the South.
	And so by the 1820s, you're having Southerners defending slavery as a positive good.
	But that's the 1820s, and that's specifically Southerners.
	It is not the American founders.
	Almost every founder was highly critical of slavery, and many were taking concrete steps to end it.
	Yeah, I agree. You know, you talked about how every civilization has had it.
	You know, Thomas Sowell has made the same argument, and he says, you know, where do we get the term slave from?
	From Slavic people, who are the ones who are most frequently enslaved.
	And so every civilization has had it, but he and others will make the case that this is the first civilization that got rid of it.
	And I think that's the key thing.
	But I think, you know, there's a couple of issues.
	I think the real reason that they don't want people that they want people to focus on 1619.
	Of course, they want to tear down our institutions, our culture, our society, but they also don't want people to see that we're being pushed into a form of modern slavery with all the surveillance state and the rest of this stuff.
	It'd be very nice if they get us fighting with each other and if they get us focused on past wrongs so we don't see the future wrongs that they are the chains that they're laying out for us with their technology.
	That's just the way I see it.
	But talk a little bit about the other factors and slavery.
	Of course, when we talk about the fact that Christians were the ones to pull it back, I think of William Wilberforce, for example.
	I mean, this is a guy who took on the major economic powers of his time.
	He, like, took on the military-industrial complex, if you will, and beat their plows and their...
	Swords into plowshares.
	And so we had leaders like William Wilberforce, as well as other people in the United States.
	Who did we have in the United States that was similar to William Wilberforce that comes to mind?
	Yeah, well, first of all, let me highlight what you said about Wilberforce.
	I think he's a great example for those of us who are profoundly concerned about the sin of abortion.
	He just spent his whole lifetime fighting this evil, and he didn't live to see it ended completely, in the same way many of us have spent years and years fighting abortion.
	And praise the Lord, Roe v.
	Wade was overturned last summer, but we still have a lot of work to do, and we can't just give up.
	We can't say it's too hard or whatever.
	Yeah. So in America, as I've already suggested, you have a lot of Americans in the founding era fighting slavery.
	I have a chapter on the American abolitionists, though.
	And we usually think about these folks as these 19th century Christians who sacrifice a great deal to oppose the institution of slavery, both its expansion into new states, but also advocating for the end of slavery.
	And I highlight the work of some really fascinating people, Sarah and Angelina Grimke, Vinny, One of my favorites is Sojourner Truth.
	I'm sure many of your listeners recognize the title of my book, Proclaim Liberty Throughout All the Land.
	It is, of course, inscribed on the Liberty Bill, but I think an even better story is Sojourner Truth.
	The African-American evangelist and abolitionist would used to go to revival meetings, string up a banner reading Proclaim Liberty Throughout All the Land, and what did she do first?
	She preached the gospel of Jesus Christ.
	She tried to convert people to the Christian religion, and then she preached to these people about the sins of God's people in America that is slavery.
	And so here's a woman brilliantly advocating for both the Christian gospel and opposing slavery at the same time, making explicitly biblical arguments in the public's court to do so.
	And so I think these abolitionists really should be inspirational to those of us today that call ourselves followers of Christ.
	I agree.
	I've said many times that when we look at how divided and fractionalized and tribal America has become and how politicians are trying to push us into that kind of tribalism, I've said that I think the only way out is to do the types of things that you pointed out or that she did in terms of preaching I've said that I think the only way out is to do the types of things that you pointed out or that she did in terms of preaching the gospel, talking about how we all
	And that is the thing that is going to keep us from having a civil war.
	If we understand that in God's eyes, there is no male, female, black, white, slave, free, any of these, We're all together. But then that doesn't mean that we justify and leave the systems that are harming people in place, just like we don't do that in our own personal life.
	We turn from the things that are wrong in our life, but that there is a unifying there, and that when we look at things like reparations, The Christian story of what Christ has done, that is our reparation.
	He's paid for what we've done wrong, and he's paid for the wrongs that have done to us.
	We could heal this country if we focus on the gospel, as she did, I think.
	You know, I think that's my number one prayer, is that this country would see revival, that men and women, boys and girls, would turn to Jesus Christ, submit their lives to Him, and I think that would do wonders.
	So the American founders were in complete agreement that if Republican government is to work, small-r Republican, you must have a moral people, and if you're going to have a moral people, you must have a Christian people.
	And so, yeah, we can, you know, advocate for laws and structural changes and this sort of thing, but ultimately, Probably our number one job as Christians is to spread the gospel and pray for revival.
	I agree. And when we look at the writings of the people who were alive at that time and struggling with this, they realized that it was a moral wrong.
	But what do we do about it?
	And many of them Would struggle with it in a kind of paternalism, wouldn't they?
	They would say, well, I know it's wrong, but I just can't turn the black people loose here because how would they live?
	They would be attacked or whatever.
	So you see certain things like the creation of Liberia and trying to repatriate freed slaves back to Africa and things like that.
	But I think fundamentally when we look at the paternalism, whether it was conscious or unconscious, I think they were trying to Yeah, I think that's exactly right.
	No. So, you know, someone like Thomas Jefferson is maybe instructive here.
	You know, he, in his notes on the state of Virginia, he says, I tremble for my country when I know that God is just.
	And he's referring to the participation in the practice of slavery.
	But then he goes on to say, but what are we to do?
	I'm paraphrasing. If we were to let the slaves go, they would rise up and kill us because they're really mad at us.
	And I think he has just got us to think that.
	He, of course, is probably thinking of the Haitian Slave Rebellion, where in fact you did have slaves rise up and kill most of the white population, maybe all the white population.
	So Jefferson, throughout his life, he always said what we need to do is free the slaves and send them back to Africa.
	The American Colonization Society, which purported to do that, that was their goal, was surprisingly popular, even in the American South.
	You had a lot of Southern statesmen who joined that, who supported it, but it was never a realistic possibility.
	Something like 10,000 slaves were freed and shipped back to Africa.
	During that time, the slave population increased by maybe 800,000.
	And so it just never was a viable alternative.
	And we must remember, I think, that we did end slavery peacefully in the mid-Atlantic states and the northern states.
	Slavery was ended peacefully in Brazil.
	It would have been a heavy lift, but it could have been done in America.
	We did not have to fight a bloody civil war to end slavery.
	And I think what is required then is we have men and women...
	Involved in politics, motivated by the Christian faith, attempting to bring about a solution to these grave evils, be it slavery, be it Jim Crow legislation, or be it abortion today.
	That's why we must be politically active as much as we might get tired of contemporary politics.
	And believe me, I get tired of it.
	I'm a political scientist.
	It's kind of what I do for it. Me too.
	And that's what I do for a living as well.
	But, you know, we look at the situation, you talk about ending it peacefully.
	We saw it ended peacefully in the Caribbean because of the work of people like William Wilberforce.
	And what the British government did was they compensated the plantation owners.
	And, of course, Lala Harris says that her father is very proud of the fact that they had owned slaves there.
	But they compensated the slave owners and...
	And someone calculated that they spent less money than the U.S. government spent on ammunition in order to do that.
	Sometimes we have to calculate the costs and we have to look at every option before we look at the use of force, I think.
	Let's talk a little bit about education.
	Because you talk about debates over religious liberty and about church and state relations, and you made some interesting comments about education and about the purposes of education to begin with, Protestant versus Catholic.
	Sure. One of the things I do in my last book is I think I show definitively that in no way, shape, or form did the American founders want a strict separation of church and state.
	And so this leads to the question, where did this idea come from in America?
	And what I show, and I'm borrowing from Philip Hamburger here in his wonderful book, Separation of Church and State, that really this came about, this idea that we should have a separation of church and state because of the profound anti-Catholicism that you saw among American Protestants in the mid-19th to the mid-20th century.
	And basically what had happened by that time is we had public schools.
	The public schools were, in effect, Protestant schools.
	You would have the King James Version of the Bible read.
	You have Protestant prayers that were said.
	Catholics believed they should have Catholic schools.
	And so they went to the governing authorities and said, look, we're paying taxes.
	Give us a share of tax dollars so we can have our own schools.
	And in response, the civic officials who are mostly Protestants said, no, no, no, we can't do that.
	We aren't going to fund sectarian schools.
	And by sectarian, they mean Roman Catholic schools.
	Send your kids to the public schools.
	They're non-sectarian.
	But of course, they are very sectarian from the Catholic perspective.
	And you see this played out in the great state of Oregon, my home state, where Oregon banned all private schools.
	And lo and behold, all private schools with one exception were Roman Catholic schools.
	And as late as 1948, you have an organization founded, Protestants and Others United for Separation of Church and State, today known as Americans United, a profoundly anti-Catholic organization.
	And so what is going on here is these Protestants arguing for the separation of church and state, but basically they just mean we don't want to fund Catholic stuff.
	We're perfectly happy to have prayer in school and this sort of thing.
	And so the Supreme Court really pulled a fast one on everyone when in 1962, 1963, they said, Surprise!
	Separation of church and state means more than not funding Catholic schools, It means no teacher-led prayer in public schools.
	It means no Bible reading in public schools.
	And so now all of a sudden Protestants are like, what?
	This is not what we signed up for.
	And you begin to have a movement of Protestants and Catholics coming together to oppose a progressive left that wants to have a naked public square, that wants to drive religion out of the public square.
	Yeah, I agree. And many times we will do that.
	We will set up a precedent and realizing this precedent is going to be used for something that we like.
	And so as you pointed out, they'd set up these Protestant schools.
	But then what happened was those schools got taken over and turned into seminaries for secular humanism.
	It's essentially what happened.
	You just had a different religion being preached for that.
	That was something that was anticipated by R.L. Dabney back in the end of the Civil War.
	He said, there's no way that you can get around the, you know, government should not be involved in education because education is It's not fundamentally about simply reading and writing or how to do some kind of a technical thing.
	Education is really about morality and that type of thing.
	So it is fundamentally religious, and so you're always going to have some kind of a conflict in terms of this religious instruction.
	That seems to be where we are today, I think.
	What do you think? I think that's exactly right.
	We have to recognize there's no such thing as neutrality, that all schools are teaching some sort of ideology, maybe more overt, maybe less overt.
	I think one of the problems, some of us, I used to live in a fairly rural community in Oklahoma, and so we knew most of the teachers in the public schools, and they were good people.
	And so I don't think we should assume that most school teachers are bad people But then they're given standards that they have to live up to and CRT curricula, and they aren't permitted to mention God except for in an academic way.
	And so an ideology is being inculcated on our children.
	Now, sometimes teachers are wacky progressives, right?
	Probably in Chicago and New York City you have a lot of those.
	But I think a lot of teachers are well-meaning people, and yet still public schools are not neutral, which is why I love what we're seeing in some states like Arizona and elsewhere where we're having – True school choice.
	So I don't like I'm a Protestant, but I don't think it was appropriate to only have Protestant schools funded by the state.
	I love the idea where a Catholic family could choose to send their kids to a Catholic school, Protestant to a Protestant school, a Jew to a Jewish school, an atheist to an atheist school.
	And of course, then you can mix and match all you want, but it should be the parent's choice and not the choice of the state or local governments.
	I agree. I just feel from a practical standpoint, as long as the government's got a financial purse string, they're going to be pulling the strings.
	I had to tell you what to do.
	I'm from the opinion that we've got to break that.
	And we have in Tennessee, and it's also been done in another state recently, bills to basically wean us off of the government purse.
	We're not going to take any federal money on education because if we take their money, they're going to tell us what the curriculum needs to be.
	They're going to define what the standards are.
	We'll have to teach to those standards.
	The tests will be defined to that and so forth.
	There's so many different ways that they control us if they've got the money.
	And I think some of these bills are set up to be a gradual process.
	We'll gradually wean ourselves off of this over many years.
	But I imagine push will come to shove quite a bit earlier than that.
	I don't know. It is a fundamental thing.
	And, of course, education is where they have pushed all this stuff, isn't it, Mark?
	Whether you look at the 1619 Project or you look at what is happening with the LGBT movement or the critical race theory, all these different things, that is where they are pushing out all these ideas.
	It is of fundamental importance how we educate and who educates our children, isn't it?
	Yeah, no, I think that's absolutely right.
	So I was involved recently with the Florida Civics Initiative, and they're doing great work down there.
	They came up with an endorsement for teachers.
	They helped put together a series of lectures, basically a class that they could take.
	And believe me, we talked about the points of American history that are uncomfortable.
	Slavery and Jim Crow legislation and not permitting women to vote.
	Of course, you're going to talk about that stuff.
	But you can do that without doing the critical race theory thing.
	And then you also want to get kids reading the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and engaging these fundamental documents.
	Because ultimately, I contend America is a creedal nation.
	The creeds are contained in those documents.
	And so we need to engage them and we need to engage them in a critical way.
	And we can have an argument, was Thomas Jefferson a hypocrite for penning these wonderful words of the Declaration of Independence and continuing to hold slaves?
	But let's also be aware that Ben Franklin owned slaves, freed them.
	Roger Sherman never owned a slave.
	Robert Livingston owned some slaves and freed them.
	John Adams never owned them. So it's a mixed bag, and we should expose students to that and let them discuss it and think about it in a critical way.
	And hopefully they'll come away with a greater appreciation for the greatness that is the United States of America.
	I agree. And that's the importance of your book.
	Again, the book is Proclaim Liberty Throughout All the Land.
	You point out why Christianity has been a force for good in the United States, but you also talk to adults and you say, here's why you need to not be afraid to talk about this.
	Why are we afraid to talk about this today?
	You know, I think the...
	The left and the academy and major media has just done a good job, a very good job, of painting the American founders as a bunch of hypocrites.
	And who wants to stand out for a hypocrite, especially a slave-owning hypocrite, right?
	And so, especially if we don't know much about this era, if we don't know much about these people, You know, we might just kind of be embarrassed, Devin, and we don't feel equipped to engage in a serious debate.
	And that's why I would encourage all of your viewers to read a book like Proclaim Liberty throughout all the land.
	And read a book like Bill McClay's Promise of Hope, Daniel Grisbach's Reading the Bible with the Founding Fathers.
	All these books are accessible.
	They're very accessible.
	I don't even think you need a college degree to appreciate them.
	And that prepares us to engage our neighbors in a winsome way, right?
	It's not about winning a battle.
	But say, hey, wait, let's think about this.
	Did you know that many founders didn't own slaves?
	Many who did freed their slaves.
	Even those who owned slaves took significant steps to prevent the expansion of slavery.
	And then hopefully we can shake up our neighbors.
	Have such a bad view of the American founders.
	And if enough of us do that, perhaps we can affect a change.
	And if you know history, and that's a key thing too, that's why your book is so important, you realize that these people have created a straw man.
	Literally created a scarecrow and said, you know, this is what Jefferson was or this is what Washington was or whatever.
	And then they beat up on that thing.
	And if you know what the truth is about these individuals, yes, they were like any of us.
	They had their contradictions.
	They had their faults as well as their virtues.
	So if you know the real history of the person, if you've read their writings and you get a glimpse into their mind and where they are, and if you understand the time, that's also another important thing, is how they were influenced by their time.
	And many of these people, even though they engage in things that we would condemn today, They were pushing in the direction that we'd celebrate today.
	I think that's one of the key things there.
	But it always is about ignorance, fear, shame, and guilt, isn't it?
	And there's a real arrogance in it, right?
	I think many of our neighbors think we've somehow arrived at moral perfection in the 21st century.
	And to point out, as you do, look.
	The American founders were flawed humans, but guess what?
	So are we today. One of the things I enjoy doing with my students is I push them and say, look, imagine 200 years from now, people then will look back on us We're good to go.
	We aren't greater than the American founders.
	We're all humans.
	We're all flawed.
	And in fact, I think you can make an argument that the contributions of the founders were, in fact, greater than the contributions of almost any other group of humans that we've seen throughout human history.
	This constitutional order that they have set up has done a lot of good.
	And we've made so much progress, even on something like race relations, right?
	We've abolished slavery.
	We abolished Jim Crow legislation.
	We made virtually every form of formal discrimination on the basis of race illegal.
	Now, we know there's still racism out there, and we should be the first and we have the best reasons for combating that latent racism.
	But to pretend there hasn't been huge progress on those matters is just ridiculous.
	And, of course, if everything is racist, then nothing is racist, right?
	If they're going to cry, if everybody that they don't like, they point at them and scream racist, then pretty soon you are giving a free pass to the people who really are racist and to real racism.
	I think when we go back and we look at how they've intimidated people, they've kind of dumbed down our educational system by not letting us...
	Well, by not talking about history, by selecting what they want to talk about, by giving us a false history.
	But they've also done, as you pointed out, in terms of this whole idea of separation of church and state, they kind of imposed a silence on us as baby boomers.
	We were trained not to talk about religion.
	We were trained not to talk about politics.
	And then they pushed their idea of religion and politics on it.
	So what would you say to the baby boomers or to different generations as to how they need to respond to this type of thing?
	Well, the first thing I would do with respect to the separation of church and state is say, read the First Amendment.
	Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
	Now, that has been applied to the states through the 14th Amendment.
	So let's just say all governments shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
	What does that mean?
	It means what it says.
	nine of the 13 colonies, nine of the 13 states had established churches.
	One flavor of Christianity that's favored above all others.
	Everyone's taxed to support the favored church.
	Sometimes the state's involved in running the church and saying how it's going to govern itself.
	And the American founders said, we are not going to have this at the national level.
	We are not going to have a church of the United States of America.
	But that doesn't mean that presidents can't issue calls for prayer and fasting or Thanksgiving It doesn't mean that Congress can't appropriate money for religious schools in the territories.
	It doesn't mean that there can't be legislative and military chaplains.
	And we can see this by looking at their actions.
	Even as they pass the First Amendment, they're doing all of these things.
	So today, I would say through the 14th Amendment...
	Tennessee, Oregon, Virginia cannot have official state churches.
	That's what the First Amendment prohibits.
	But that leaves a lot of freedom to do other things.
	It certainly doesn't require tearing down World War I era crosses.
	It certainly doesn't mean that tax dollars can't flow to religious schools on the same terms they flow to other schools.
	There's a whole lot that's permitted under the Establishment Clause, and what we need to do is make policy arguments at this point.
	Does school choice make sense?
	What are the benefits of it?
	What are the weaknesses of it?
	I happen to be a huge advocate of it, but I'm happy to hear the counterarguments.
	But don't pretend there's a wall of separation between church and state that keeps religious schools from receiving tax dollars, because there isn't.
	And fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court today recognizes that.
	And of course, like so many things, they've turned upside down, inside out.
	Jefferson's wall of separation was a wall around the government, not around the churches when he was writing that letter, right?
	But, you know, it is a fundamental difference between establishment and between exercise, right?
	That's the reality. I think we need to focus on that.
	And when we look at the establishment, Going all the way up into the 1840s, you still had a Massachusetts.
	They still had an official state church.
	They were worried, as you pointed out, about not having an established federal church that was going to be over everybody, all the original states and colonies and then states.
	had their own separate churches based on, you know, the majority that was there.
	Some of them would be congregational, some would be Baptist, some would be Catholic.
	And so they didn't want to have one choice made for everybody at the federal level.
	But technically, although I think it's a very bad idea, because whenever you mix politics with religion, you get politics, you could have a, you know, a state-established church.
	But they, because it did continue to go on after the Bill of Rights.
	But it's all really about the exercise, and that's really what they put the kibosh on with the Supreme Court decision and all of this talk about separation of church and state, isn't it?
	It's about the exercise. Yeah, one of the things I argue in my last book is that the main opponents of established churches were indisputably Orthodox, pious Christians who argued just like you argue.
	When the government runs a church, that always is bad for the church.
	We need to get the government out of this business, and then the church will flourish.
	And this is exactly what happened.
	In the early 19th century, as the last state got out of the business of having established church, we saw the Second Great Awakening, we saw great revivals, and the church was tremendously healthy.
	Yeah, I think the First Amendment, the religion clause is, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
	It's fundamentally about protecting religious liberty, both of individuals but also groups.
	So churches, obviously, synagogues, mosques by extension, But also religious entities like Catholic Charities or Covenant College.
	These are clearly protected by the First Amendment, and rightly so.
	I think it's key that we understand that there is something that is special, that we should be grateful, and that we've been blessed here in America more than many, many other nations, and we should be looking at what that is and try to reclaim that.
	That's why I like your book, Proclaim Liberty Throughout All the Land, because as I've said many times, it's not enough just to come back and say, no, we don't want that.
	We need to have a positive vision of what we do want.
	The right way to not be silenced.
	How do we bring our faith into the public square, just as individuals?
	How do we do that?
	Because there's going to be a lot of shame, guilt, intimidation.
	People are afraid to do that.
	Talk to people about giving their positive version of the Christian faith and of history to other people as they learn it.
	Sure. I'm not sure I have the final word on it, but here's at least a few thoughts that come immediately to my mind.
	First of all, we should be characterized by love of neighbor, and so we should make it crystal clear we love everyone, including people who disagree with us, and we want the best for them.
	I think it's always should be characterized by humility.
	So we should recognize that we don't have everything all figured out, and yet we should be bold, and we should be encouraged that if we're faithful in the public square, if we go into the public square and make our arguments, that...
	I'm not saying we will eventually become successful, but you can certainly show lots of examples.
	William Wilberforce being one of the greatest examples of this, someone who just poured his life into the opposition of the international slave trade and then slavery within British colonies.
	And he died before he saw the final fruits of his effort, but eventually he succeeded.
	The American abolitionists, I'm sure it seemed like they would never win, and yet they were continuing, they were faithful, they were opposing slavery, explaining why it is an unjust and unbiblical institution.
	And unfortunately, we ended slavery through a bloody civil war.
	But as I suggested before, I don't think that had to be the case within our lifetimes.
	Opponents of abortion, fighting an uphill battle, but consistently, faithfully making arguments.
	I think sometimes some pro-lifers made them in very inefficient ways.
	Back in the late 80s, early 90s, when people are protesting and blocking abortion clinic doors.
	I understand the sentiment, but I'm not sure that was very effective.
	And yet you have plenty of people like Robbie George and Ryan Anderson and others who've been out in the public square making arguments against abortion, but in a very winsome way, reaching out to people, building alliances across the aisle.
	And so I think that's our responsibility today.
	I think all of us in America must be politically active.
	It doesn't mean we have to run for office, but we should be informed.
	We should vote, maybe write the occasional letter to the editor, maybe support Christians who are more active and engaged in the public square.
	I particularly single out those religious liberty advocacy groups that are fighting in our nation's courtrooms every day for religious liberty, and not just for Christians, for Muslims and Jews and Sikhs.
	I think it's a Christian principle that every individual should be able to worship God according to the dictates of conscience and act upon those religious convictions wherever possible.
	And we should be among the first and foremost in fighting for those rights.
	Yeah, we don't want to have people who are converted at the point of a sword, you know?
	We want it to be genuine conversion that comes from the inside if it's going to be that type of situation.
	We see in the GOP, and of course, we heard after the last election, a lot of people in the GOP were very upset when we had Roe v.
	Wade overturned. We had candidates who were running for office who went back and scrubbed their website and toned it down.
	And then we had, after the election, we had comments that, well, the problem was that these pro-life people are just too extreme and too radical in their defense of life.
	What do we do to shore up the GOP? Is it a letter-writing campaign?
	What do we do? Or do we just bypass these politicians and start trying to educate people?
	I agree with what you said about the physical interventions in terms of trying to block clinics and things like that.
	But, you know, there's other things.
	I think of the excellent animated film.
	I don't know if you've seen it or not.
	The procedure that was narrated by Kevin Sorbo.
	And it was based on a story of a guy who was an ultrasound doctor.
	And... He was called into a procedure.
	He didn't know that it was an abortion.
	And he describes what he saw, and they animate it.
	What a powerful piece that is.
	We don't need to defend life.
	We just need to show what it is and let the truth out, don't we?
	Yes, I think there's a lot of wisdom in that sort of thing, I think, with these 3D sonograms that we can do nowadays with children.
	So, yeah, making the message, again, in a winsome way.
	We aren't judging people who have had abortions or who might be having abortions.
	Just look, consider this.
	What do you think human life is?
	Let's talk about it. Let's talk about it from a scientific perspective.
	Let's talk about brainwaves and heartbeats and DNA and this sort of thing, and let's look at what we can see within a mother's womb.
	I think, as well, we have to recognize politics as the art of the possible.
	I think one of the problems, I'm about as pro-life as you can get.
	I would say all abortions should be banned, period, except when it's absolutely necessary to save the life of the mother.
	And I know some Christians argue that that's not even really a real problem.
	But the reality is, I think, you know, we might need to compromise, and we might need to at least start off by trying to get a 15-week ban.
	No abortions after the 15th week.
	And let's make arguments.
	Let's get something on the table and then perhaps work to push that back to six weeks.
	Right.
	Politics is the art of the possible.
	I think one of the problems in 2022 is some of these abortion bans just just seem too draconian.
	That, of course, the extreme pro-lifers like myself are going to vote for them.
	You got a lot of people in the middle who are uncomfortable.
	And then we always know the extreme pro-choicers will vote against them.
	So, again, politics is the art of the possible.
	And we should be wise as serpents and as innocent as doves.
	Right.
	We have to be prudential in the public square.
	Yeah, when we look at William Wilberforce, again, he did it, it took his entire life, and he began by putting restrictions on the transportation of slaves, then ending the transportation of slavery, then going after ending the perpetuation of slavery, keeping people in slavery. So it was a process.
	We know that that is a very important thing.
	I play all the time a quote from Anthony Fauci back in October 2019 before all this stuff happened, and he was asked By some people at the Milken Institute, how do you get everybody to take an untested vaccine, do it around the world, and get them to take it right away?
	And he goes, well, you do it from the inside, you do it with disruption, and you do it iteratively.
	And I think that's a key thing, is the iterative process.
	But I think it's also important that, you know, that was always a part of what William Wilberforce was doing.
	He never sacrificed everything.
	The humanity of the slaves, right?
	And that's really where the fundamental argument is.
	And so I think, you know, when you look at it, as you pointed out, you know, some of the more educational things, you know, coming alongside people and showing them the reality that they've been lied to about when life begins and what really the condition of the baby.
	I said from a long time ago when my wife was involved with a pro-life group, I said they need to pool all their money and advancing technology to get what we now have with 3D ultrasound and to get more of it and to continue to improve that.
	I think that would be the key thing.
	If we could get a great picture of that, I think we would end abortion overnight if people could really see the truth.
	I think it's a massive deception that is happening there.
	Before we run out of time, just tell us a little bit about your hope for what is happening in the future.
	You say it seems like dark days ahead, but we are not without hope as Christians.
	What do you see in the road ahead?
	Do you see a lot of persecution?
	There certainly is going to be confrontation from where we are right now if we're going to reclaim some of the light that we've lost.
	Yeah, so I tend to be an optimist, and I think there's a lot of good things going on right now.
	I see a lot of recognition among Christians that we do need to be involved in politics, we need to be involved in the public square, and we need to do so in a win some way.
	I think in the 80s, maybe it was real easy to become arrogant.
	It's okay, we're going to take over America and run it as God would have us run it.
	And that didn't work out all that well, right?
	And so now perhaps figure out ways in which we can work with each other to...
	You know, win offices, to be sure, but then to reach out across the aisle and try to do things that bring about real and meaningful results.
	I see a lot of great work being done at the more educational work at some of the more conservative Christian schools, places like George Fox and Regent and Hillsdale and Arizona Christian and whatnot.
	And they're bursting at the seams, right?
	It's getting really hard to get in some of those schools because parents are recognizing, I don't want to send my kid, certainly not to a public university or even to many private universities.
	You see this burgeoning homeschool networks and classical Christian schools and that sort of thing.
	And so I think over time, these things will pay dividends.
	We have an excellent U.S. Supreme Court nowadays.
	It's very protective of religious liberty, very unsympathetic to claims that religion must be scrubbed from the public square, protective of freedom of speech.
	And so I think there's a lot of reasons to be optimistic.
	We always have to be vigilant, and as you and I agreed earlier, I think, our number one prayer has to be for revival.
	Just having Republicans win elections will not bring about salvation, right?
	We need revival, and we all need to be praying for that end.
	That's right. What if we save the country and lose our own souls, right?
	Right. That's not what we want to have.
	And I think it has been a real wake-up time that we've seen in the last couple of years.
	I think the Zoom classes that we had during lockdown were kind of like ultrasound for the classroom.
	Parents could see what was going on inside and they didn't like it.
	And so they started looking at alternatives and it really galvanized them.
	The book is Proclaim Liberty Throughout All the Land by Mark David Hall.
	I would highly recommend this.
	It is great for you to read.
	And again, For those of you who have older homeschoolers, it's a great foundation for them.
	It answers a lot of questions, even if you've got younger homeschoolers.
	Read it yourself, and you can put it in terms that your young child can understand.
	The book, again, is Proclaim Liberty Throughout All the Land.
	Thank you so much. Thank you so much, Mr.
	Hall. I appreciate that. Thank you.
	Thank you, David. It's been a real pleasure.
	Great resource. Before we run out of time, I want to respond to some of the messages that we have here on the internet.
	On Rumble, Nick, Alan Becker, thank you very much.
	I appreciate that tip.
	And on Rumble, thank you, YJ72, appreciate the tip.
	He said, thank you, Dave, for a powerful message.
	Well, thank you for your support.
	I appreciate that. And on RockFan, we have General McGuffin.
	Thank you. That's very generous.
	I appreciate that. He says, Good morning, David.
	Whoever's on the switches, that's Travis.
	Hope all is well.
	Thank you for continuing to keep us updated on the misinformation.
	Wishing you and your family blessings.
	Well, thank you. That support is a true blessing to us.
	And before we run out of time, I've got this list here, and I didn't get through it earlier.
	I just want to thank some of the people who, and I don't think I read these at the end of the month in April, and we got pretty close on our goal last month in April.
	We got up to just above 80% on it, and I want to thank some of the people who have contributed through Zelle, because I don't have any way to thank them.
	And let me just read some of the first names and last initial of people who have helped us this last month, going back to April 24th.
	Darren M, Maurice G, Thor W, Madison F, Lafayette H, Kyle H, Matthew S, Armando M, Maurice Grant.
	I'm sorry, that means...
	I'll give you full name.
	Sorry, I got it written down here. And that brings us up to
	date, going back to April 24th.
	Thank you, all of you, for your support.
	We really do appreciate that.
	That is what makes this show possible.
	We absolutely could not do it without you.
	Again, I'll just give you the name of the book again.
	It's Proclaim Liberty Throughout All the Land.
	It's very important for us.
	To understand what we want to see for this country, we have to have a positive vision of this.
	We have to understand where we've been or we can't understand where we're going.
	And that's one of the reasons why I say it's very important to know why we knew what was going on early 2020 because we knew the history.
	We knew what these people's plans were.
	We know what the plans are with CRT, with the LGBT agenda, with the green agenda.
	They've made it very clear their vision for our society.
	It's not enough just to say we don't want a net zero surveillance slave state.
	We have to have a positive vision of freedom.
	That's what the founders of this country had.
	That's what they had at the Mayflower.
	And a positive vision can create a nation.
	Thank you for listening. Let me tell you, The David Knight Show, you can listen to with your ears.
	You can even watch it by using your eyes.
	In fact, if you can hear me, that means you're listening to The David Knight Show right now.
	Yeah, good job.
	And you want to know something else?

▲