Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 10, 2023 - The David Knight Show

03:00:39

The David Knight Show - 05/10/2023

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	www.fema.org
	to free minds.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	As the clock strikes 13, it's Wednesday, the 10th it's Wednesday, the 10th of May, year of our Lord, 2023.
	Well, today we've got a lot to talk about.
	We've had President Trump found guilty of sexual assault.
	As the New York Post put it, they grabbed him by the wallet.
	Not found guilty of rape.
	We may talk a little bit about that.
	It's not really the key thing.
	It may have an impact on the election.
	I seriously doubt it. Nothing is going to impact the stars in the eyes of the MAGA people.
	But we will talk about E-Verify again.
	It's coming up for a vote tomorrow.
	There is a silver lining in it that I'll tell you about.
	But we need to be very concerned about this because the widespread support that E-Verify has with conservative Republicans...
	They cannot see the broader principles involved.
	They're so blinded by their obsession with one individual issue that is a problem.
	It's an inside job.
	Oh, and we'll talk about that as well.
	We're gonna talk about Building 7 as I had a listener say that he disagrees with me.
	Well, we'll have to agree to disagree.
	I'll tell you a little bit more why I think that it really was taken down deliberately.
	Well, let's begin with E-Verify today.
	And I had a listener who contacted me and said, thank you for putting this out.
	I've sounded the alert to other people.
	Well, no, it was really thanks to Thomas Massey who put this out.
	I was not aware that this was inside the bill that is going to be voted on tomorrow.
	Supported by all Republicans except for him and Dan Crenshaw, who opposes it because he said it doesn't do anything about the drug cartels and control of the border.
	Well, that's true as well.
	It is virtue signaling.
	And it's also, here's the good news.
	It's not going to pass.
	It probably won't pass.
	It'll pass in the House. And they'll use it as virtue signal.
	It probably won't pass in the Senate, and if it did, it'll be vetoed by Biden.
	It's kind of like the bills that the Republicans put up against CBDC. And, of course, the lead person in that was Emmer, who is the number three person in the Republican Party.
	He's the whip. Scalise was there opposing CBDC, and it's just head-spinning to me That this takes us so much of the way towards CBDC, and yet it has become a favorite thing for the Republicans.
	It's one of the dangers when we don't focus on issues and we don't understand what the precedents are that they are setting, and we attach ourselves to people, to politicians, or to political parties.
	They can really blind us.
	And so I covered it on Monday because I saw it happening in Florida.
	And it will be passed in Florida.
	It's been passed by the legislature.
	It's awaiting the governor's signature, and he wants to sign it.
	And E-Verify has been around for a while, but it's not been mandated.
	It's been voluntary. That's a big difference.
	A big difference. Didn't we have a lot of people saying, well, you know, Trump's not going to mandate the vaccine.
	Biden will. Biden did it.
	With a mandate and a passport and all the rest of this stuff, that's what this is.
	And Thomas Massey was exactly right to say, well, maybe you can understand it if instead of calling it e-verify, we call it v-verify, vaccine verify, and it'll be used for all of those types of things in the future.
	And so I talked about what was happening as the law was passed last week in Florida, waiting for the signature of DeSantis.
	I talked about it on Monday.
	Then I saw that Thomas Massey was talking about a federal version of it, a national version of it.
	And I talked about it yesterday.
	Called it a Trojan horse.
	Now we've got Reason.
	We have Mises Institute.
	All of them have picked this up to talk about the danger of E-Verify.
	And we should talk about that regardless of whether or not this bill will pass.
	Because this is something that has been a favorite quote-unquote solution to the border problem from the very beginning for the Republicans.
	And so... Reason Magazine says, Thomas Massey says nationally, Verify would be bad for American workers, and he's right.
	And Reason, of course, takes more of an approach as to how is this going to affect business and, you know, the economic aspects of it.
	But look, let me give another example to conservatives about this.
	And that is, you know, think of this in the same way that you think about gun control and whether or not it is going to, we should take guns away from people because they are, you know, because some criminal commits a crime.
	Should we take away guns from law-abiding citizens because we've got some lunatic or because we've got some terrorist or because fill in the blank, right?
	But we should take away our ability to work because we've got cartels and terrorists and because we've got illegal aliens coming across the border.
	So all of us should have to prove that we are citizens, right?
	It's the same kind of logic that the left applies to gun control.
	Because we have a criminal action out here, because we've got somebody who's crazy, but mainly, you know, criminals who are violating the law, drug cartels who are shooting it out on the streets of Chicago.
	Well, then we should all lose our guns.
	Because we've got cartels and because we've got people violating the law coming across the border, we should all lose our ability to have the freedom to work wherever and whenever we wish without the permission of government, right?
	That's the analogy to draw here.
	I don't see anybody talking about that, but that's the same kind of mentality.
	On the right in this case, this is what it is on the left.
	Why is it? Because they're tribal.
	Because they're partisan. Because they're not thinking about the bigger picture.
	And because they hate something, they immediately grab for their only tool, the federal government.
	And that's true of conservatives as well as it is liberals.
	When they really care about an issue, they want to make a federal case out of it.
	They want to use the federal government to do it.
	So, yeah. The Secure Border Act of 2023.
	When I saw this, I thought, that's just like the Patriot Act.
	And as a matter of fact, I think it was...
	We have it in here.
	I think it was Thomas Massey who said it's another version of the...
	Just call it Patriot Act 2.0.
	That's what he said. And he's right about that.
	Let's understand, too...
	That, you know, many times you'll have these shootings, and many people on the right will, you know, they see how quickly the left jumps to gun control.
	They say, well, this has got to be a false flag.
	Sometimes they are. Now, this has got to be a false flag.
	This has got to be engineered. Well, let me tell you, the border problem is engineered.
	The border problem is an inside job, just like 9-11.
	It was an inside job, just like the plandemic.
	And it is also being engineered.
	It's being engineered by NGOs.
	Remember, I talked to Michael Yan down there in Panama, and he was talking about how the NGOs are bringing people in from foreign countries.
	This isn't just Mexico.
	It's not simply Central America or South America.
	These people are coming from all over the world.
	And they know, depending on the country of origin, which country they should use as a point of injection into the Americas.
	What part of Central or South America should they inject these people based on their country of origin?
	And then they finance them coming up.
	This is a conspiracy against us.
	And to punish American citizens by making us get permission for a job does not do anything to solve the problem.
	It doesn't address the problem.
	And, of course, they never do.
	Just like the liberals don't address the problem.
	Why do we have people grabbing guns and shooting people today?
	When guns were far more readily available, especially in schools when I was a child, and that wasn't happening anywhere.
	Why is that? What has changed?
	What's going on with the SSRIs?
	What's going on with the grooming and the gaslighting and the pressures that are being put on children at a young age?
	What's going on with all this stuff, right?
	No, we don't want to look at the fundamental causes of anything.
	We want to put a Band-Aid on there.
	And let's put a Band-Aid on that's going to be an authoritarian law enforcement approach, just like the drug war itself.
	Drug usage is a spiritual problem.
	It is also a medical problem.
	It is also a social problem.
	But it's not a law enforcement problem.
	You'll never solve it.
	Why can't we admit that after 50 years of this failed program?
	That law enforcement is not going to solve it.
	It's like I say many times, when you merge politics and religion, you have an official state religion, state church or something like that.
	Well, guess what? It kills the religion, it kills the church, and politics takes it over.
	Same thing is true when you talk about drug prohibition.
	It's not going to solve anything.
	Instead, what it does is it turns into a new type of program, a new type of problem.
	And that is what we've seen with the corruption of the drug war.
	So, you know, we need to understand part of the problem with the border, with it being an inside job.
	Not only do we have NGOs that are financing it and pushing people in, not only do we have the CIA's drug war responsible for the cartels at the border.
	You're not going to see Dan Crenshaw talk about the CIA and the drugs, right?
	He's not going to go anywhere near what the problem is.
	Instead, he's going to offer you a more authoritarian solution.
	We need guns and drones and we need walls and we need whatever.
	Make it a demilitarized zone.
	Put concertina wire and explosives on the border.
	Whatever. He'll never go to the root cause of it, which is the CIA's drug war against Americans.
	He won't go to the root cause of it.
	And so what they do to pull people in, I mean, the NGOs are pushing people in, but we are pulling people in.
	We're offering them free education.
	We're offering them better college benefits than we give to Americans.
	They can get in-state tuition in any state as an illegal.
	They come in, and as we saw during the pandemic, we'll just waive all of these phony, baloney, voucher rules.
	You don't have to put a mask on your face.
	We'll put you on a plane. You don't have to wear a mask.
	Don't worry about it. You don't have to be vaccinated.
	Don't worry about it. Just come on in.
	You can do whatever you want. They get the welfare.
	They get the voting without citizenship.
	And they can avoid the medical martial law.
	So getting back to the E-Verify, this band-aid, this quote-unquote solution that is going to create another problem and not solve the original problem.
	Giving the government the ultimate on-off switch for employment is the way Thomas Massey talks about it.
	Yeah, people get upset about the fact that we'd have an internet kill switch.
	What about an employment kill switch?
	What are they going to use as a criteria to kill your ability to have a job?
	Massey said, I will not vote to require every American to get Biden's permission if they want to work.
	Giving the federal government more power over you is a mistake.
	Why can't the Republicans understand this?
	And I think the politicians do.
	And what makes this dangerous is that we've got demagogues like Nikki Haley, demagoguing warmongers like Nikki Haley.
	Oh, she's for sale to anybody.
	She'll offer herself to Disney.
	She'll offer herself to the military-industrial complex.
	She was one of these Valkyries, like Theresa May, trying to push us into an escalated war in Syria.
	And of course, they did put the troops in.
	They just didn't tell anybody about it until we had a missile strike that killed a troop and killed some people and somebody who was working there in the oil fields in Syria that we are occupying.
	But yeah, she pushed to get a greater involvement in that.
	Pushed several different versions of lies.
	She and Theresa May. Mandatory national e-verify.
	Would mean more government meddling in the affairs of private businesses and more state control in general, says Reason Magazine.
	Though it's, quote, being sold to you as a security measure, E-Verify is laying the foundation for a national biometric database that'll be used for CBDCs.
	It'll be used for a social credit system.
	It will give the state almost absolute power over your life.
	That's a quote from Justin Amash.
	He's absolutely 100% right about that.
	That is exactly what this is.
	And we could see that this is what this was.
	Years ago, years ago, because you had the Trump administration, I was concerned they were going to push it in because, you know, nothing was being done about the border then.
	They were saying, you know, make it mandatory.
	It isn't hard to imagine that a government empowered to punish workers and employers on the grounds of citizenship status could impose similar punishments on other grounds.
	A nationally verified bill contains vague references to two pilot programs of non-photographic technology that you must use to prove your identity to DHS in order to get a job.
	This is Thomas Massey writing.
	And I showed you the pictures of the documents.
	He took a couple of snapshots of this bill.
	So he says, why is that?
	Why do we have non-photographic evidence that's going to be part of this?
	What is it? He said.
	Is it going to be fingerprints? Is it going to be DNA? Is it going to be a retina scan?
	Why not say it in the bill?
	No, we're just going to create, see these two new programs and bureaucracies that are going to somehow look at biometric data.
	But it's going to be open. You know, we'll tell you the details later.
	We've got to pass the bill to find out what's in it, as Nancy Pelosi would say, right?
	Because that's the way these people operate.
	And it's deliberate.
	If they kick it over to the bureaucracy, or sometimes they create a bureaucracy, give them vast powers over some area of our lives, and then leave it up to the bureaucracy to fill in the devilish details.
	And then when they get it devilish enough, maybe, if the people complain about it, The Congress can say, we didn't really have anything to do with that.
	Those were rules that were put in by the bureaucracy.
	So we'll fix that. And they come in as if they are our saviors to save us from these evil bureaucracies when they turn the power over to them in the first place.
	And that's what's going on here.
	Oh, we're going to create some new programs.
	What kind of programs? Can I give you details?
	No, we're not going to give you details. It'll be biometric.
	He said, is E-Verify actually Patriot Act 2.0?
	There you go. There's a quote. Cato Institute said the system is ineffective at detecting illegal immigrant workers right now.
	It's already there.
	They said, what's more, the government's existing employment verification document, the I-9 form, already costs employers an estimated 13.5 million man-hours each year.
	And E-Verify does not give better outcomes for anybody.
	E-Verify mistakenly identifies people as legally unable to work.
	There's computerized and automated like that.
	It's going to do that. And they don't talk about it in their article.
	But just think about the no-fly list.
	You have a secret list.
	You're not allowed to know if you're on it.
	Well, you'll find out when they don't let you fly.
	But then you can't find out why you're on it.
	You were tried in absentia.
	You were labeled by an unaccountable and invisible bureaucracy.
	How do I get off?
	There is no process to getting off.
	This is straight out of a Kafka novel.
	And so, you know, we create this Star Chamber process, which the Eighth Amendment was supposed to protect us against.
	It's nothing new. Human nature, the nature of men in power has never changed.
	That's why we have the things that we have in the Bill of Rights.
	And so we have this structure that's there.
	And... It's weaponized, and it's criminal, and it's unconstitutional, and it's tyrannical, and all the rest of these things.
	But the Democrats want to extend it.
	Let's make this a no-buy list.
	If you're dangerous enough to be on the no-fly list, like an eight-year-old child that they get the name wrong or something like that.
	Well, if you're on the no-fly list, then you should be on the no-buy list, and we should stop you from buying guns as well.
	This is the way these things metastasize.
	And so, how is it working out already?
	Because we do have eVerify, as I said, it's already there.
	It's voluntary. How many people want to waste their time doing that?
	Well, they said that supposedly it's only mislabeling 0.15% of the time.
	So it gets it right, you know, 98.5% of the time.
	But what if...
	This is applied to every American worker.
	Well, they do the math and say, well, that means you'd have 187,000 people who were labeled as unable to be employed because of a national database that mislabeled them.
	That's only a small part of the problem.
	The big part of the problem is the fact that this jumps us towards the final solution to control us.
	Whether you want to call it CBDC, whether you want to call it the mark of the beast, whatever.
	It jumps us in a big way to that.
	It creates a biometric rationale for this.
	It creates the infrastructure.
	And it'll be done from the inside with disruption.
	And it'll be done iteratively.
	And this is part of the iterative process.
	The idea has sticking power on the right.
	Nikki Haley supports mandatory E-Verify.
	So do Florida Republicans last week that passed a bill.
	So Nikki Haley supports it.
	DeSantis supports it.
	Another big strike against DeSantis there.
	If passed by the House, however, the Secure Border Act will likely die in the democratically controlled Senate.
	And Biden has said he would veto it anyway.
	Because he doesn't want to have anything that's going to do.
	He doesn't want to have any control of the border.
	So for right now, that's the silver lining of that problem.
	The border problem remains.
	The border problem is exploding.
	And yeah, they're not going to do anything about it.
	And because there are some things in there that might have some efficacy, he's going to veto it.
	But this fascination with E-Verify that the Republicans have is very, very dangerous.
	And it's not going to go away.
	Especially because we have political candidates who are running for presidency embracing it left and right.
	So, to finish up the Reason article, it says, Massey is right, Congress shouldn't give the federal government yet another opportunity to constrain civil liberties and privacy rights.
	So, again, we look at this, let me say, even though Trump is not talking about policy, he's talking about himself as usual, and about his issues and being a victim and all the rest of this stuff.
	If he's ever re-elected, You know, don't you, that he's going to jump on this with both feet.
	E-Verify is very much like Operation Warp Speed, except for the border problem, right?
	Oh, we've got to do warp speed.
	Anything that we can do, we've got to do it.
	Well, except that they're not going to let you do certain things, like ivermectin.
	They've got a particular solution in mind.
	And they're going to run it through without knowing whether or not it's effective.
	And they're going to run it through regardless of what it does to you.
	The new immigration bill, says the Mises Institute, Ryan McMakin, is a Trojan horse.
	That's what I called it on Monday.
	Trojan horse. And much of the bill contains reasonable provisions such as allowing state attorneys general the authority to sue the federal government for refusing to detain illegal aliens.
	We have border patrols run by the federal government.
	We have, you know, the Department of Justice and so forth, Homeland Security.
	They don't do anything to secure the homeland.
	They have announced, well, we're not going to enforce the border laws.
	We're going to defer enforcement.
	They don't say defy the law.
	They say we'll defer enforcement.
	And they've been deferring it for many, many years now.
	E-Verify is essentially a federal surveillance program, says the Mises Institute.
	It determines whether or not a person can legally be employed.
	Every American should require the federal government's permission to work The bill presents a clear and present danger to basic American freedoms and property rights.
	It'll build essential infrastructure that in the future will be used to implement social credit scores, CVDC, the rest of the stuff.
	Restrictions for those who refuse maybe mandatory vaccines or other mandates.
	E-Verify was initially implemented back in 1997.
	The program never was made mandatory at the federal level, however.
	It's about to be pushed through in Florida and Colorado and some other states.
	They've implemented alternative but similar state-administered programs.
	And so this would mandate it nationwide for everyone, as is often the case.
	And here's the key, why I wanted to talk about the Mises Institute.
	He makes a case to Republicans if they're listening.
	I said, look at how these laws metastasize.
	How they're malleable.
	These laws, these agencies.
	And conservatives and Republicans are happy to embrace more federal power and regulation when it suits their political agendas, he said.
	If you go back to the war on terror.
	Conservatives and the GOP often promoted and approved new anti-terrorism legislation, creating vast federal spying and prosecutorial powers.
	Supporters often suppose that such powers could possibly only be used against Islamic terrorists and against official enemies of the Bush administration.
	A federal spying apparatus has now been erected and deployed against virtually all Americans.
	And we just saw this the last couple of years.
	Parents speaking out at a school board meeting.
	Against Marxism.
	Against racism.
	Against grooming. Labeled as domestic extremists and terrorists by the federal government.
	You don't have to imagine how this can be used.
	We've seen how this type of thing has already been used.
	So, Thomas Massey, again.
	He's been all over this.
	If, he says, heaven forbid, the U.S. government ever adopts a social credit score, National E-Verify is one more tool that they can use to prevent honest people from being a part of society.
	Believe what you will, but it will have little impact on illegal immigration into this country.
	He says Republicans are about to make a huge mistake.
	Biden forced millions of Americans to take vaccines by threatening their jobs.
	Imagine giving Biden the ultimate on-off switch for employment called E-Verify.
	You might as well just call it V-Verify.
	And he points out that...
	Ryan McMagan says this is something that Ron Paul has been talking about for a long time.
	Again, the program goes back to 1997.
	In 2018, before we saw what happened with the vaccine mandates, in 2018, Ron Paul said, it'll be certainly used for purposes unrelated to immigration.
	Potential use of E-Verify is to limit the job prospects of anyone whose lifestyle displeases the government.
	This could include those who are accused of failing to pay their fair share in taxes or those who homeschool.
	And listen to this.
	This is in 2018.
	Ron Paul said, or those who do not vaccinate their children.
	Or against those who own firearms.
	Or maybe against those who speak up at school board meetings.
	You see, this is a very important thing.
	When we look at the CBDC, you are labeled as an enemy of the state.
	You don't think correctly.
	You challenge the narrative.
	Well, there's ways that we can punish you, right?
	And the Soviet Union, as Solzhenitsyn pointed out, has lived not by lies.
	There'd be a real penalty to pay for that.
	They could kick you out of your home because all the homes were owned by the government.
	That's what they seek to do by 2030 and this UN 2030 Marxist agenda.
	They want all the homes to be owned by the government and they can kick you out of your home.
	Or everybody works for the government so they can take your job.
	Or our version of it is they can keep you from getting a job because they take you off of the E-Verify list.
	Oh, but wait a minute, this would be specifically for immigration, right?
	Well, that's where I'm making points, huh?
	Take a look at what Biden did in terms of using OSHA. OSHA was the choke point for threatening a lot of companies and saying, you know, if you don't mandate this stuff, there's going to be punishment done through OSHA. That was never what OSHA was created for.
	CMS was never created to force doctors and nurses to get vaccines.
	But that's how it was used, with economic pressure.
	Anytime they have something that's got money involved and economics involved and economic pressure can be applied to coerce people, it will be used for that purpose.
	It doesn't matter what the stated purpose is.
	So, Lou Rockwell.
	Said in the tragedy of immigration enforcement, the last thing this country needs is more federal bureaucrats shutting down more businesses.
	So it'll gradually turn into a model or it'll turn into a hub for new programs that tie work eligibility to any number of federal mandates and requirements for good and obedient citizens.
	And so, you know, using those same examples that I just gave you.
	We're going to take a quick break.
	I just see a comment from Travis.
	Evidently this is on the Rumble or Rockfin or something.
	Harps, one of our regular listeners and commentators in Australia, has broken some ribs on Monday.
	So please pray for his quick healing.
	We'll be right back. Music The common man.
	They created common core to dumb down our children.
	They created common past to track and control us.
	Their commons project to make sure the commoners own nothing.
	And the communist future.
	They see the common man as simple, unsophisticated, ordinary.
	But each of us has worth and dignity created in the image of God.
	That is what we have in common.
	That is what they want to take away.
	Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation.
	They desire to know everything about us while they hide everything from us.
	It's time to turn that around and expose what they want to hide.
	Please share the information and links you'll find at TheDavidKnightShow.com.
	Thank you for listening.
	Thank you for sharing.
	If you can't support us financially, please keep us in your prayers.
	TheDavidKnightShow.com We've got the general news and news.
	and of course, as I pointed out with this situation that we see with the pandemic, you know, Everybody saying, well, we won.
	Everybody wants to claim victory.
	But the key thing is that we have to understand that this is kind of the pause in the storm.
	We're kind of like in the eye of the hurricane.
	The worst part may be coming.
	I think this is just an enlarged war game against us.
	I think it was Dark Winter 2, which is what it was being called a couple of years before it actually happened.
	But it's always important to go back and look at this, not because we can beat our chest and say, I see, we were right.
	We spotted it early.
	But because we need to understand the tactics that they use to lie to us.
	We need to understand the people who lied to us and mark those people.
	They may say true things that we can use, as I've said many times before.
	But understand that that doesn't mean that they can be trusted.
	If you look at what happens in spy versus spy type of stuff, you always have, if you've got a double agent and you say, well, I'm defecting from the KGB and I want to come and tell you, the CIA, what is really going on.
	Really? Well, they'll have to give them a lot of true information.
	And then, if they are not really a double agent, they'll slip some lies in there.
	And, of course, that's the type of thing that even goes back to World War II. They would slip some false information to the other side and build their trust, and they would also make sure that they did not expose themselves until the most critical time.
	So this is something that's always been there.
	So I talked about that in terms of some of what has been said in terms of Tucker.
	Of course, now he comes out and says that he's going to be doing a program on Twitter.
	That's fine. You know, perhaps he'll be a little bit more candid and obvious with people.
	Maybe he will actually go there.
	I'm still skeptical based on, just as I'm skeptical of RFK Jr.
	You've got somebody who says, well, we want to lock up people who I disagree with.
	Because I've got the science, and I have all the science on my side, and if you disagree with me, I'm going to lock you up, maybe even kill you.
	He needs to walk that back.
	Tucker needs to walk back what he said in many different areas, and what he did not say about certain things, like the vaccine issues.
	And unless and until he does that, listen to what he says.
	He may couch the truth in a very effective argument.
	But be careful about trusting him, is all I'm saying.
	You know, when you look at...
	Well, let me just play that.
	What Tucker said about the truth.
	Because now he's going to be on Twitter.
	Hey, it's Tucker Carlson.
	You often hear people say the news is full of lies.
	But most of the time, that's not exactly right.
	Much of what you see on television or read the New York Times is, in fact, true in the literal sense.
	It could pass one of the media's own fact checks.
	Lawyers would be willing to sign off on it.
	In fact, they may have. But that doesn't make it true.
	It's not true. At the most basic level, the news you consume is a lie.
	A lie of the stealthiest and most insidious kind.
	Facts have been withheld on purpose, along with proportion and perspective.
	You are being manipulated.
	How does that work? Let's see.
	If I tell you that a man has been unjustly arrested for armed robbery, that is not, strictly speaking, a lie.
	He may have been framed.
	At this point, there's been no trial, so no one can really say.
	But if I don't mention the fact that the same man has been arrested for the same crime six times before, am I really informing you?
	No, I'm not. I'm misleading you.
	And that's what the news media are doing in every story that matters, every day of the week, every week of the year.
	What's it like to work in a system like that?
	After more than 30 years in the middle of it, we could tell you stories.
	The best you can hope for in the news business at this point is the freedom to tell the fullest truth that you can.
	But there are always limits.
	And you know that if you bump up against those limits often enough, you will be fired for it.
	That's not a guess. It's guaranteed.
	Every person who works in English language media understands that.
	Yeah, we all understand.
	Some of us have experienced it, actually.
	So, you know, here's the deal.
	It kind of goes back to when you're sworn in in a trial where they ask you to say, you're going to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
	That is pretty comprehensive, and that's there for a reason.
	Because if you only tell people a partial truth, you can tell somebody something that's true, but by omission, you can deceive them.
	And then, of course, you can tell people a lot of truth in order to gain their trust, and then you can mix some lies in with that as well.
	And insinuations or allegations.
	And that's a very key thing.
	As a matter of fact, you know, when you look at, again, now that Tucker, they're saying, well, Fox evidently wants to keep him quiet until his contract runs out in 2025.
	They're willing to pay him $25 million a year.
	Keep him from talking about what happened at Fox News.
	I never got that kind of an offer from Alex.
	So I just say what I think is relevant for you to know, which has to do with not his personal life, but it has to do with the way that he deceived people during 2020, during the pandemic, during the Stop the Steal stuff.
	That is relevant. It remains relevant.
	And so, anyway, they don't want him talking.
	So they're willing to pay him $25 million a year until his contract runs out in 2025 to keep him silent.
	So now there's talk about how he's going to go to war with him legally, go to war with him with information, go on to Twitter.
	People were speculating that there was some kind of a deal between him and Elon Musk.
	Elon Musk shut it down.
	And then some of the texts that have been released...
	Show that he wanted to get out of this job for some time.
	That he was not happy there.
	Because he did have a bridle put on him as to what he could say.
	And he abided by those rules for whatever reason.
	And when you look at what he...
	And I played this.
	I thought it was kind of interesting.
	He was saying things like this clip.
	We talked about big pharmaceutical companies the week before he was fired.
	Listen again. Here's one measure of their badness.
	You can try this at home. Ask yourself, is any news organization you know of so corrupt that it's willing to hurt you on behalf of its biggest advertisers?
	Yeah, your boss. Anyone who'd do that is obviously Pablo Escobar-level corrupt.
	Yeah, like Fox News. What would that look like?
	That level of corruption.
	Well, imagine that the Trump administration had made it mandatory for American citizens to buy MyPillow.
	That's one of Fox News' biggest advertisers.
	Imagine the administration declared that if you didn't rush out and buy at least...
	Now he's getting a little bit nervous here.
	...and then at least another booster pillow, you would not be allowed to eat out.
	You couldn't re-enter your own country.
	You couldn't have a paying job.
	MyPillow, they told you with a straight face, was the very linchpin of our country's public health system.
	Now imagine as they told you that, that Fox, as a news organization, endorsed it, amplified the government's message.
	Imagine if Fox News attacked anyone who refused to buy MyPillow as an ally of Russia, as an enemy of science.
	And then imagine that Fox kept up those libelous attacks, even as evidence mounted that MyPillow caused heart attacks, fertility problems, and death.
	If Fox News did that, what would you think of Fox News?
	Would you trust us? Of course you wouldn't.
	You would know that we were liars.
	Thank heaven Fox News never did anything like that.
	He tells me about how the media lies to you.
	He's got a camera, a chiron there that says vaccines, the media, and so forth.
	He says, oh, well, I'm so glad that Fox News never pushed these vaccines like that.
	Isn't that amazing? This is what I'm saying.
	You're going to trust this guy?
	Just that one clip right there.
	He didn't say that in 2020.
	He didn't say that in 2021.
	He didn't say that in 2022.
	He didn't say it in 2023, for the first half of 2023, until he wanted to and made his decision that he wanted them to kick him out.
	You know, I've told you the story before about Matt Drudge when he came to Infowars.
	And I got a chance to talk to him.
	And when I was talking to him, I said, you know, I really want to thank you for what you did with a baby Samuel picture.
	I said that had a tremendous impact on, you know, the discussion about life.
	And if you remember the baby Samuel picture, I have it in the deck there.
	See if you can pull it up, Travis, while I'm talking about it here.
	That was when they had the in utero surgery to repair a baby, baby Samuel, who had some spine injuries from early, you know, spina bifida and that type of thing.
	So they did it early to try to repair that.
	And as the physician was making his incision, the little hand reached up and grabbed his pinky.
	Now, that was not a dismembered arm that you would see as a product of an abortion, anything that was grotesque or horrific like that.
	And yet, Matt Drudge, when I mention it to him, he's like, what?
	And I was like, oh, oh, that.
	I just did that because I knew that I wanted to get out of my contract.
	I knew they'd fire me. Like, wow.
	Was that why Tucker did that?
	I mean, clearly he even talks about Fox News.
	He talks about Fox News' sponsors, you know, makes the analogy to MyPillow, and then talks about booster pillows and all the rest of this stuff.
	And yet the chyron underneath him is saying vaccines in the media.
	Oh, Fox News would never do anything like that.
	But again, do you believe him?
	You saw with your own eyes how Fox News pushed the vaccine throughout 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023.
	They were fully on board and they'll push any life for the big pharmaceutical companies and everybody knows that.
	Did he do that for the same reason that Matt Drudge put up the picture of Baby Samuel?
	And, you know, when Drudge said that to me, I thought...
	Think about, he did it for his own benefit, right?
	And think about what kind of a company Fox News was.
	That was back in the late 90s.
	Fox News. So, this conservative organization, the people that are your conservative news source that you trust, Fox News was so anti-life, That they would fire Matt Drudge for showing a picture that illustrated the humanity of babies at stages where they were being ripped apart.
	It showed the preciousness of life.
	It showed this baby was a human being.
	And if you show that, Fox News will fire you for that.
	If you talk to people about how the vaccines are going to sterilize people, kill people, cripple people, Fox News will fire you for that.
	Tucker knew that. Drudge knew that.
	About the abortion stuff.
	They know what Fox News is about.
	It's about time you wake up and understand what the media is about as well.
	And wake up and understand where Tucker Carlson is if he's gonna lay back as not just one child is killed Many babies are killed as they injected pregnant women.
	And all the rest of this stuff that I've talked about for the last three years.
	And he comes out and does that and virtue signals and says, well, yeah, I see, you know, I'm telling you the truth now.
	He's not telling you the truth.
	He's not telling you the whole truth.
	And he's adding lies to it.
	Oh, Fox would never do something like that.
	He'll tell you the truth, but not the whole truth.
	And he will tell you something other than the truth as well.
	And so... We have to understand where this is.
	Now, he's going to look like a hero because this is what's going on, meanwhile, with his competitors.
	You got Brian Stelter, whatever news organization he fell into in his fall from CNN. Listen to what they say.
	Okay. Well, listen, Twitter was already under fire from misinformation, disinformation, all-out lies, anti-Semitism, racism, before Elon Musk took over, and now it's gotten kind of crazy, right?
	Seemingly unmoored, if you will.
	Will anybody be able to police what Carlson says, or is this the point?
	It's just a free-for-all.
	I think this is the point. It is a free-for-all.
	It's what Elon Musk wants to provide.
	This move by Tucker may cement the idea of Twitter as a right-wing website.
	So now, free speech is right-wing value.
	Well, we've noticed that.
	Who's going to police Tucker?
	Who's going to police speech?
	This is what these people are about.
	Oh yeah, it will be a free-for-all.
	It will be a free fall. Well, I talked about Tucker and his Building 7 thing.
	And so I had a listener who said the subject was Building 7 misinformation on your show.
	He was very nice to say, I usually agree with you, but I think you discredit yourself when you say Building 7 was a controlled demolition.
	Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on that.
	I am absolutely convinced that everything about 9-11 from the destruction to the cleanup done by Giuliani so that nobody did any forensic evidence, I'm absolutely convinced.
	That whole thing was an inside job.
	It was a lie. What else can I say about it?
	It was a seminal issue.
	He said, when Silverstein said, pull it, he was referring to the firefighter operation to save the building.
	Well, let me play for you the quote and question and see what you think.
	When he says, pull it, is he saying, pull the firefighters back?
	If he was saying, pull the firefighters back, wouldn't he say, pull them?
	Instead, he says, pull it.
	He referred to the firefighters as it.
	I remember getting a call from the fire department commander.
	Telling me that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire.
	I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life.
	Maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.
	And they made that decision to pull.
	And then we watched the building collapse.
	Now you notice he says a couple of things.
	He doesn't say pull them back.
	He says, pull it. And then he says, and then we watched the building collapse.
	And you watched the building collapse there at the end of that clip.
	Just goes straight down.
	Very professional demolition, quite frankly.
	I would suggest anybody that doesn't think these buildings were demolished, just spend a little bit of time on YouTube.
	You know, don't trust me.
	Do your own research. Type in building demolitions.
	And you watch the building demolitions.
	And you will be convinced at the end of that, this is a building demolition.
	You can see building demolitions that went wrong.
	And of course, when they go wrong, they don't go right down into their footprint.
	They'll lean and fall over and take out some other buildings.
	They did a great job with those three.
	Two planes, three buildings.
	He also says, when the news anchor announced the collapse of the tower, it was still standing in the background because it wasn't a live shot.
	It was on a loop. And the building is burning, he says.
	Well, before we get to that, let me, you know, in terms of Building 7 and the Pull-It stuff, Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth.
	We're talking about the statement, whether or not that was referring to firefighters or referring to the building being pulled, because that makes a big difference, right?
	If you're going to pull the building, that means that you've done a lot of advanced work on it, because you don't do a demolition of a building like that, but just spontaneously.
	Later in the day, the fire commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5.20 p.m.
	the building collapsed. No lives were lost at 7 World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.
	That is from Silverstein's explanation for what you just heard there.
	Now, they said this statement, however, contradicts the FEMA report on World Trade Center 7 on 9-11, and they have a link to it at AE911 is the website.
	I think it's.com, maybe.org.
	They said the statement contradicts the FEMA report, Chapter 5, Section 5.6.1, and they have a link to it, which indicates that no manual firefighting actions were taken on Building 7.
	On the other hand, there's some reports by the Fire Department of New York firefighters that leave open the possibility that he was referring to pulling firefighting crews away from the area.
	They were saying, yeah, we pulled people back.
	They pulled us out.
	That was some of the language that they were using.
	But again, that doesn't really seem to me to match up to what he was saying when he said pull it.
	And then the building collapsed.
	So, they finish up by saying that they talk about a Fox News journalist, a Fox News journalist, Jeffrey Scott Shapiro.
	They said he was one of the people who was one of the biggest offenders of the official story, along with people like Tucker Carlson.
	And he wrote an article, shame on Jesse Ventura for suggesting that that was a demolition.
	He said, shortly before the building collapsed, this is what he says in his article, this is a guy who is the official narrative apologist there at Fox News.
	Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con Ed workers told me that Larry Silverstein, The property developer, the One World Financial Center, was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if the building should be demolished.
	He said the building, since its foundation was already unstable, was expected to fall, he said.
	Apparently unaware that it takes months of planning and setup to demolish the skyscraper, Shapiro added a controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building's imminent collapse and potentially save lives.
	So, again, whether or not he admitted to that, whether you think that the statements that he said were just awkwardly phrased, or whether he was...
	Whether he had a Freudian slip or for a moment told us the truth about that.
	Just take a look again at the picture of this.
	This is an emergency worker talking about what happened.
	You see right over her head as you're looking at the picture here, it's just to the left of her head.
	That's Building 7. You can see that there's some smoke.
	It's not a towering inferno.
	The surgical unit and the triage unit down here.
	In addition to, if anybody out there can help, any vendors who have food or supplies, the firemen have no food, nothing but snacks.
	They need fluids, they need water, and they need protein foods.
	This is just the beginning of what they're facing.
	And we need masks.
	We need TV masks.
	Holy shit! What is it?
	It just went down.
	What just went down? World Trade 7.
	It did go down before.
	No, 7. Number 7.
	Oh my god!
	Okay, so you get the idea, right?
	Well, I guess the question that I would also have is that if buildings are going to come down like that with a little bit of fire, and again, I would suggest, first of all, go to YouTube and look at building demolitions.
	And then I would suggest that you go to YouTube and you look at skyscrapers on fire.
	Steel skyscrapers. We've had a lot of steel skyscrapers on fire before and after.
	Many of them have burned for several days.
	Many of them, you will see them in the after effect of it.
	You will see a charred, twisted hulk that may be leaning a little bit but doesn't fall.
	These things, after just a couple of minor fires, I couldn't see any flames.
	You saw smoke? No flames.
	They did not even put any firefighters in the building.
	And... Yet, you know, because that's a big part of the official narrative about why 1 and 2 came down was because the buildings were structurally damaged by the impact of planes and then subsequent fires and so forth.
	And there's so much to talk about.
	We're not going to get into all that. But let's just take a look at it from the bigger perspective.
	If this thing collapsed into its own footprint, why weren't there any changes in firefighting procedures for skyscrapers?
	Why weren't there any changes in building codes?
	If that can happen to American skyscrapers when it doesn't happen in China or other places like that.
	Why was it that there were no lawsuits over faulty construction?
	We'd had skyscrapers that had been hit by planes in the past.
	And so it was not an unexpected thing.
	You had the Empire State Building was hit by a plane.
	Not during the King Kong filming, you know, but a similar thing in real life.
	So, you know, they expected that was a possibility.
	They had put that into building codes.
	Why did none of that change?
	I talked to Tony Rook in the UK, and in terms of this, whether or not this is a green screen that the reporter was standing in front of, a loop, He refused to pay his BBC license.
	You know, there you have to, if you own a television, whether or not you watch the BBC, you have to pay a fee to support the BBC. He had a site called Killing Anti, which was the nickname for the BBC, Anti.
	And he said, I'm not going to pay my license.
	It's a trivial thing. But he took it to court and he told the judge, he said, they had prior knowledge as evidenced by this video.
	Which means that they are therefore involved in this conspiracy.
	They're a terrorist organization, and I am not going to put me in legal jeopardy if I were to give money to a terrorist organization knowingly.
	So I'm not going to pay my fee to the BBC. And the judge agreed.
	He also did a documentary.
	His father was a police officer.
	And he was concerned about why there had been no changes in fire codes.
	And all of this was done, I guess, about 2014, 2015, when I interviewed him several times.
	And Tony Rook got a lot of retired police officers, judges, on a jury.
	And he presented what was known at that point in time, because at that point in time we'd had about 10-15 years or whatever of people doing research.
	He presented that to the judges and to the retired detectives, and they said, yeah, it was an inside job.
	And he made a documentary out of it.
	It was called Incontrovertible.
	Incontrovertible evidence of that.
	And that was one of his key things when I talked to him.
	It wasn't part of his film. But, you know, why hasn't there been, if this is a possibility, said one firefighter who made a big issue out of it, and I think he was subsequently fired for challenging the official narrative.
	But he says, if this is a possibility, why haven't we been told that we need to fight fires differently in skyscrapers?
	We've never, ever seen a skyscraper collapse by minor fire, not even by major fires, where, as I said, they burn for all day or several days into a charred thing.
	But I would guess, you know, why haven't we seen any changes in firefighting code?
	No building codes, no lawsuits, but we did get the Patriot Act.
	Well, maybe that was what it was all about all along anyway, right?
	By the way, when we talk about inside jobs, we talk about the border, we started by talking about E-Verify.
	Just understand that that is an inside job.
	Babylon Bee says, Mallorca is heading to the border tomorrow to fire a starter pistol when Title 42 expires.
	The big race coming across.
	Yeah, kind of like the opening up of the Oklahoma Territory.
	That'll the Sooners get there, right?
	The sooner you get there, the more land you get.
	They have the big race. Well, that's what's going to be happening at the border as they turn over our country.
	To massive armies of men.
	You've seen the pictures? I mean, I've seen a lot of pictures where, as far as you can see, this army of males.
	No families. Occasionally, you will see in some of the other pictures, you'll see a woman or something.
	This is weaponized.
	This border collapse. It's an inside job.
	Being done with help from NGOs and others.
	But the Biden administration is going to build lawful pathways for these immigrants.
	That's what they say. It's going to be their patriotic version.
	Of course, they also have set up this big welfare magnet.
	They've been working on this for a long time, the Cloward and Piven strategy.
	We've got to collapse the country.
	We can do it with a welfare system, but we can't do it quickly enough with Americans.
	So let's bring people in from every country on the earth.
	And we will offer them all kinds of welfare benefits.
	I wouldn't be surprised if in California they can get slavery reparations of millions of dollars each.
	So, you know, everybody, line up at the border and rush over.
	Under Title VIII, there was some teeth, which means that if someone was deported, there would be a 5-year, 10-year, 15-year, 20-year ban or more, which means that they cannot come back into the country.
	So Henry Quaylor, a Democrat in Texas, said Title 42 immigrants can just come right back in.
	Right? They're saying, you can't stay here and contest your arrest.
	We're just going to immediately send you back over.
	Because we've got a pandemic going on.
	That was the only thing that Trump cared about.
	He didn't care about the border. He cared about his UN-Davos globalist pandemic that he was running and producing.
	Right? So, you come across the border, we're going to send you right back.
	No process or anything.
	What Henry Quaylar was saying was that what they had before, a federal law called Title VIII, they would go through a process to decide if they were fit for asylum.
	And, of course, they can say things like, well, I'm a trainee, and if I go back to my country, they're going to kill me.
	And a lot of people are doing that, as Michael Yan pointed out.
	But under Title VIII, if they go through the due process and they kick you out, then they say you can't come back in for a number of years.
	And, of course, that works so well, doesn't it?
	We just had a guy kill a bunch of people in Texas, killed a family.
	He'd been deported four times, Francisco or Apezo.
	He'd been sent out multiple times.
	All of this is nothing more than catch and release.
	That's what's been going on at the border for quite some time.
	And then they use that to argue that we've all got to have E-Verify.
	There's a very, very long article that I'm not going to go into from Reuters, but I thought it was interesting.
	It says how El Chapo's sons built a fentanyl empire poisoning America.
	Because remember, it is, you know, the war on drugs that we created.
	The war on drugs where the CIA is the biggest drug runner.
	That's being used as the argument for why we've got to close the border.
	And yet, you have Reuters doing a story like this, how El Chapo's sons built a fentanyl empire poisoning America.
	They don't want to talk about HSBC. Matt Taibbi, before he was famous for defending free speech and became a target of these people for defending free speech, he was writing at Rolling Stone.
	I remember the excellent article he had, They're Too Big to Jail, talking about HSBC. And the thing that stuck with me more than anything else out of that article, and there was a testimony from a whistleblower on the inside, Everett Stern.
	I interviewed Everett a couple of times.
	But what came out of Matt Taibbi's investigation, HSBC has been convicted multiple times of assisting terrorists and drug cartels.
	But for El Chapo and the Sinaloa Drug Cartel, HSBC gave them their own window because they had so much cash to count.
	They gave them their own separate window to launder the money to count the cash and everything.
	Reuters isn't going to talk about that.
	Instead, what they talk about is the fact that after El Chapo was arrested, everybody believed that his four kids, four siblings, they called them the Little Chapos, and they were mocked as these entitled little princelings that couldn't do anything.
	Well, they turned out to be more like four Michael Corleones, if you remember the godfather.
	They went on a killing spree.
	First they went after the police in that area.
	Thirteen police officers died or disappeared in the months that followed as they took over control.
	And that was just the beginning as they started coming after their opponents in the same way.
	They very ruthlessly and rapidly took control of things.
	And yet, is it simply the fentanyl?
	Is it, you know, when we go back and we look again at 9-11, the dark winter simulation, 9-11, the week later, we had the anthrax attack, and then two months after that, we had the Model State Health Emergency Powers Act push out to the state so they could do to us what they did in 2020.
	But the anthrax thing was a big part of that.
	You know, I've talked many times about Allison Young, who back in 2014, she exposed to problems with these biosafety-level labs that we have.
	And we have more than 200 Biosafety Level 3 and Biosafety Level 4 labs.
	And to compare that to Wuhan that everybody is so upset about and can't stop talking about it.
	Wuhan is the only Biosafety Level 4 lab in China.
	We have a couple hundred.
	And so she was talking about, and that includes biosafety level 3, which is almost as dangerous as a biosafety level 4.
	Biosafety level 4 is the highest level.
	And she did a lot of investigations in 2014 and 15 of accidents that were had at these BSL 3 and 4 labs and pointing out that, you know, with 200 of them scattered throughout the United States, If you live close to a university, there's probably a biosafety level three or four lab in your neighborhood, you know, not too far away from you if you live close to them.
	And she talked about the different accidents that they had had, accidental releases, and of course one of the things that was a driver of it was an accident at Tulane University, the National Primate Center that's there, and they brought in a pathogen, a bacteria, Burkholderia pseudomolei, and it got out of the biosafety level 3 lab somehow, and they found it outside, and then CDC sent a team in.
	A couple of people got sick with it, and they said, oh, that didn't happen here.
	They must have been exposed to it somewhere else.
	I mean, just crazy lies.
	So she did a whole series of things about that, and it became such an issue that Congress, even during the Obama administration, told Francis Collins and Fauci, stop it.
	Stop funding this stuff.
	And that's when they went to Wuhan.
	And that's when they started, and they continued to do it also at the University of North Carolina and a couple of other universities.
	And a couple of years later, they published the research that they'd done at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
	And people who were in the industry said, whoa, wait a minute.
	You were supposed to have stopped that.
	And Francis Collins came out and said defiantly, well, I made the determination we were going to continue.
	I did it myself.
	I don't really care what Congress says.
	We made that determination ourselves.
	So she's back.
	She's written a book. It was released at the end of April, Alison Young.
	The book is Pandora's Gamble, Lab Leaks, Pandemics, and a World at Risk.
	And she talks about a time where the Army, and of course at Fort Detrick, that was where they began with this, you know, Operation Paperclip.
	They brought in these Nazi war criminals, and they brought in Japanese war criminals, and said, okay, you know, we want to know what you learned when you killed prisoners and stuff, and we'll put you in charge of a bioweapons and biochemical program, or a chemical weapons and biological weapons program.
	And they did. They were in charge of it.
	They put Americans at the top.
	So they were like, you know, two or three levels down so that people wouldn't see that we had Germans running the program.
	They weren't as obvious about it as they were with the rocket program and Wernher von Braun.
	They kept a lower profile, and they say.
	And so, but that was all part of Operation Paperclip.
	She said it was May 25, 2018, the Friday before Memorial Day weekend.
	The tank holding waste from labs working with Ebola, anthrax, and other lethal pathogens have become overpressurized, forcing the liquid out a vent pipe.
	An estimated 2,000 to 3,000 gallons streamed into a grassy area a few feet from an open storm drain that dumps into a creek, Carroll Creek.
	A centerpiece of downtown Frederick, Maryland, a city of about 80,000, an hour's drive from the nation's capital.
	But as the waste sprayed for as long as three hours, records show none of the plant's workers apparently noticed the tank had burst a pipe.
	This was despite the facility being under the scrutiny of federal lab regulators following a catastrophic flooding and an escalating series of safety failures that had been playing out for more than a week.
	So they'd had a flood in the area.
	They'd had devastating storms back in May of that year.
	I said workers at Fort Detrick discovered that the plant's basement was filling with water that would reach four to five feet deep.
	Some of it was rainwater seeping in from outdoors, but a lot of it was fluid leaking from the basement's long deteriorating tanks that had held thousands of gallons of unsterilized lab wastewater.
	A basement sump pumps forced floodwater into these tanks.
	The influx disgorged lab waste through cracks in the tops of the tanks, sending it streaming back toward the floor.
	The steam sterilization plant referred to as the SSP was built in 1953.
	Designed to essentially cook the wastewater that flowed into it from Fort Detrick's biological labs, ensuring that all deadly pathogens were killed before releasing them into the water, the rivers and creeks around.
	Safety protocols call for a two-step kill process in the lab wastewater.
	Lab workers were supposed to pre-treat potentially infectious liquids with bleach or other chemicals, But because they were not always 100%, they had the two-step process.
	All of this stuff was set aside.
	And then after all of this happened, this 65-year-old facility with its cracks and leaks and failures and all the rest of the stuff, they said a replacement plant would cost the taxpayers $30 million.
	And they had done that in 2016, but it had a catastrophic failure and could not be repaired.
	So they'd spent $30 million on the facility in 2016.
	It had failed catastrophically, whatever that means.
	And they were relying on the plant that was built back in the 50s, you know, because back then they could build things that would last.
	But as this all happened with the flood...
	Then the army came in and started doing some investigation of the wastewater.
	In the weeks before the tanks started spewing wastewater, the military had been experimenting with 16 organisms.
	The lab officials said they hadn't tested the concrete pad or the ground adjacent to the tanks.
	Anthrax was the organism of greatest concern because of its ability to persist in the environment.
	And of course, that was one of the things they were concerned about at the Tulane Center, the Primate Center.
	Burkholderia pseudomalii persists in the environment.
	It gets into the ground and then travels from that.
	So I don't know what the current status of that is now.
	It's been about eight or nine years.
	So maybe it did not.
	Hopefully it did not.
	It wasn't even indigenous to the United States.
	It had to bring it in. It's only found in two or three places in the world.
	Highly, a very high case fatality rate of casualties, people who die from it.
	So they brought it in to study it, to make it spread more easily, and to make it more deadly.
	Because, you know, 45% casual rate just isn't good enough if you're going to use it as a biological weapon.
	Other organisms, possibly in the wastewater, were Ebola virus, Lassa fever, Marburg, Venezuelan equine encephalitis, Eastern equine encephalitis, Crimean Congo hemorrhagic fever,
	Burkholderia pseudomolei, there you go, and also Burkholderia malii, and other things like the Seoul virus, that is referring to South Korea, not our schools, and the chikungunya virus.
	The Army said all the tests were negative, but she says, how meaningful is that?
	Did they test 20 samples?
	200 samples? What were the detection limits of the testing methods?
	Did they use a PCR on it?
	I don't think so. If they'd used PCR, I'm sure they would have found something, don't you think?
	Ramp it up to 40 cycles and multiply it by a trillion times like they did supposedly all the COVID stuff.
	How might rain or wind or sunlight have affected the ability of these tests to detect organisms a week after their release?
	And on and on. There's a lot of questions about all that.
	And, of course, I'll see if I can get her on.
	It looks like a great book.
	And she was always at the center of all this.
	I would really love to talk to her about that.
	But that is what is happening with our government.
	They're there to protect us.
	They would never intentionally release anything.
	They would always clean it up if it was accidentally released.
	And, of course, if people told them that the research was simply too dangerous and they ought to stop it, they would obey the government, right?
	No, none of that happens.
	Mike Huckabee has an interesting, to change the topic here, Mike Huckabee has an interesting article about the Proud Boys convictions.
	And other than the usual stuff that we've all talked about, he had a different angle from somebody who says, just take a look at the jury that was there.
	And this was, he quoted the work of Roger Parloff, who writes for Lawfare.
	And he said, it's virtually impossible in D.C. to get an impartial group of 12 people.
	But this particular jury appears to have been dripping with bias.
	According to Roger Parloff, quote, six jurors had participated in liberal-leaning protests or marches.
	While none of them mentioned any conservative-leaning demonstrations, the protests included in two cases women's marches, in two cases anti-gun marches, in four cases protests related to Black Lives Matter or George Floyd.
	One sitting juror had a Black Lives Matter sign in her yard.
	And at the time that they picked the jury, they had the televised hearings going on in Congress.
	And so the judge, however, was not persuaded that any of this would influence the already partisan jury pool, because they were probably as prejudiced as they're going to be at that point in time anyway, right?
	Why, if they were to watch the televised hearings, it wouldn't make any difference to them.
	The prosecutors often mentioned Trump during the trial, and believes that the convictions...
	We'll bolster Special Counsel Jack Smith's ongoing investigation of Donald Trump for similar charges.
	Well, that's the whole point. They've even said that.
	They've even said it is necessary for us to convict several people of this ludicrous overcharging of seditious conspiracy.
	We've now got 14 people that we found guilty of seditious conspiracy.
	And that gives us the ability to go after Trump.
	Yeah, they were convicted on the basis of their group chats.
	That was it. The group chats.
	As Huckabee writes, he said, they brought no arms to the event.
	They assaulted no officers.
	And by the way, as I've pointed out in the past, they had no plan.
	So they had no weapons.
	And they had no plan, but it was a conspiracy, and not just any conspiracy.
	It was a seditious conspiracy to shut down the government.
	Again, the key thing is to take a look.
	You want to talk about, you know, Biden is saying, yeah, we have to have equal protection of the law, I guess, is how he's going to fight the Republicans on...
	The debt ceiling or something.
	14th Amendment. We do have equal protection of the law and the Constitution, supposedly.
	But not in reality.
	The Biden administration celebrates the Tennessee Three while they want to send to prison people who did the same thing in Washington, D.C. And I would argue even worse.
	You could argue that some of these people who are fighting police officers are fighting in self-defense.
	That has been argued by people.
	I'm not going to Get into that back and forth as to who threw something at somebody else first.
	Who fired the first shot, essentially.
	Of course, the first shot was actually fired by the police, killing a person.
	But these people have been pawns.
	And they have been sacrificed in a game of 4D chess.
	You want to know what the 40 chess about Trump is all about?
	This is it. Pawn sacrifice.
	We'll be right back. Analyzing
	The Globalist Next Moon.
	And now, The David Knight Show.
	you you Welcome back, and I want to thank Katiana1102 on Rumble.
	Thank you very much. This is very generous.
	I appreciate that. I've been out of pocket.
	Happy to see the 5-8 closed caption show.
	Captioning is pretty good. Thank you.
	And I think we're doing that, you're doing that, Travis, on Rumble.
	Is that correct? People can turn it on and off?
	Yep, on Rumble. The clips in the full show have captioning so they can turn on and off.
	Okay, that's good. And we had, I did have after, and it might have been Katiana who had asked for it.
	I think her son is deaf or hard of hearing.
	And we started, Travis started getting transcripts that were put in by Premier and posting up A subtitled as well as a non-subtitled version on BitChute.
	When we found out that we could do it, that people could turn it on and off on Rumble, we stopped doing that because it's a bit confusing for people.
	Some people don't mind if the captions are there and some people don't like it.
	And so now you're in control of it if you go to Rumble.
	So we're glad to have that functionality that is there on Rumble.
	And we're not posting two different versions of it anywhere else.
	So any of the other platforms, you will see it without the captioning, but you can turn it on and off at Rumble.
	So we're glad to have that there.
	By the way, if you're going to rumble, it helps us with visibility if you like the stream.
	It also helps with visibility on any of these platforms.
	If you watch the videos and you like the videos, please like the videos.
	Press the button that says that you like the videos.
	So if you're a regular viewer, that helps us to grow the program and to get the information out to the widest number of people.
	That's what it's really about.
	And so we'd appreciate it.
	If you could do that, it helps us.
	It doesn't cost you anything to like that.
	So I'd appreciate that.
	By the way, when we're talking about likes, it was amazing to see this.
	I always like Alam Bakari's stuff that he puts out on Breitbart.
	He was the guy who first wrote about the public square issue and censorship on social media.
	That was a real valuable find.
	I refer to that, as you know, if you listen to this program all the time.
	The 1946 case, Marsh v.
	Alabama, company-owned town, which, by the way, Elon Musk has got now two company-owned towns.
	There was a long piece about that in the Wall Street Journal.
	One of the company-owned towns that has Boring and another one that's there.
	I forget what the other one was.
	We didn't know anything about it, but he was in the process of building it just a couple of miles from where we used to live in Texas.
	And there's a lot of residents there who are not very happy about it because of things that are happening with the roads, things that are being dumped into the water, and other things like that.
	It's not my fight that's there, but I'm glad that we're not close to it.
	But he's also got the town that he's built down the Texas coast where he does the rocket launches for SpaceX.
	But company towns may be coming back.
	Who knows? We have these uber billionaires like Elon Musk.
	And yet, back in the 1940s, the company towns were typically coal towns, and the public square was there, and they had somebody who was passing out religious literature, and they said, no, you can't do that.
	We own the public square.
	Supreme Court said, no, you can't stop free speech in the public square, even if it's privately owned.
	And I liked Alam Bakari, picked that, said, this is what is happening.
	Jack Dorsey even admits that Twitter is a public square.
	And it makes people like Brian Stelter go nuts.
	Who's going to police him?
	Who's going to tell people what they can say in the public square?
	It's just amazing.
	But MailChimp.
	MailChimp has now censored Senator J.D. Vance's press release.
	And he complained about it.
	And they say, well, that was a mistake.
	Well, I can tell you that when we started this program a little over two years ago, Karen was, you know, trying to put together a newsletter at the time.
	We used MailChimp. That is the most widely used email program for all that stuff.
	And she typed in several hundred names by hand.
	And then they just shut us down and would not give us an explanation two years ago.
	And we had not sent a single email.
	All of her work was lost, but we had not sent a single email that the MailChumps could complain about.
	He said, MailChimp, MailChumps, suspended my press team's account after we announced President Trump's support for the Railway Safety Act, but big tech censorship won't stop us from fighting for the people of East Palestine.
	Palestine. Palestine.
	Yeah. Frankenstein?
	Frankenstein? I can never remember that.
	But anyway, it's always the opposite of what I think it should be.
	And then when I start to get used to pronouncing it that way, I think, no, it must be the other way, because that's the one that I want to say.
	So I keep fooling myself.
	Anyway, they now said that's a mistake.
	But they shut us down without us even sending anything out.
	And not only did they not say that it was a mistake, but they would not relent.
	I've played for you, last week I think it was, something that I had done in 2021 from Solzhenitsyn.
	It was his Live Not By Lies essay.
	The last thing that he wrote before he was ejected out of the Soviet Union in the 70s, early 70s.
	And after living in the West, in America, for about a decade, he won the Templeton Prize.
	And it gave him an opportunity to talk.
	Of course, the Templeton Prize is about spiritual issues and things like that.
	Not necessarily Christian.
	They're not Christian. It's just, you know, quote-unquote spiritual.
	And so he had this to say.
	He said, over a half-century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of older people Offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia.
	Men have forgotten God.
	That's why this has all happened, they said.
	He said, since then I've spent nearly 50 years working on the history of our revolution.
	I've read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies.
	I've already contributed eight volumes of my own work toward that effort to try to clear away the rubble to see what happened in his native Russia.
	But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat, men have forgotten God.
	That's why this has all happened.
	He said, against the background of what has since occurred in the rest of the world, what emerges here is a process of universal significance.
	If I were called upon to identify briefly...
	The principal trait of the entire 20th century I would be unable to find anything more precise and pithy than to repeat once again.
	Men have forgotten God.
	The failings of human consciousness deprived of its divine dimension has been a determining factor in the major crimes of this century.
	The first of these was World War I. It was a war when Europe was bursting with health and abundance and We're good to go.
	To employ poison gas, a weapon so obviously beyond the limits of humanity.
	Think about that. You know, we just talked about Alison Young and what our own government is doing.
	You know, they took the people in Japan.
	They were experimenting on American soldiers, POWs.
	Killing them. So they could learn something about, you know, what it takes to kill people.
	Or in the case of the Germans, you know, what it would take to bring somebody back who'd been frozen to death.
	Oh, we have to do that because we've got some pilots who are getting shot down the English Channel and sometimes we get there and they've just died of, you know, cold exposure.
	Would there be a way that we could pull them back?
	Well, let's see. Let's intentionally kill people and bring them back.
	And of course, that was the one story that That was exposed by an army officer who said, we're bringing these people in?
	This is what he did.
	He murdered who knows how many people and with trial and error processes trying to bring them back.
	Well, that didn't work. Let's try a different thing.
	Kill that one. And that went public.
	And as I've said before, I think that was the basis for this whole Captain America thing, you know, where the plane goes down and they bring him back.
	I think they piggybacked it off of that real story.
	But we brought in the people who were murdering and conducting all these hideous experiments.
	We even brought in the people who had murdered American POWs.
	And we put them in charge of coming up with more weapons to kill populations.
	And so he talks about how this all began.
	World War I. Ostensibly Christian nations poisoning each other with gas.
	You know, I had, when I was a kid, had a very, very old relative.
	I was very young. He was very old.
	He'd been in World War I. He'd been gassed.
	And it had caused him a lot of health issues.
	It had messed up his throat and everything.
	And by the time I saw him as a child, it had turned into, you know, he'd struggled with his throat all that time.
	He'd gotten throat cancer.
	And they had... Cut a hole into his throat.
	And he couldn't talk.
	He had no voice box left.
	And he would use...
	I mean, this is a long, long time ago.
	He had a device that he could put up against his throat, since he didn't have a voice box.
	And it would pick up the vibrations as he's trying to talk and kind of simulate what vocal cords would do.
	But it gave him this really kind of robotic sound that just, it was, I'll never forget it, because as a child, it was such a horrific and fixating thing, you know, because of the voice, as well as, you know, the hole in his throat.
	And later on, if you want to, you know, it's a kind of robotic kind of Cylon sound that they used, you know, a decade or two later.
	But, you know, he was, when I asked him what had happened, I said, well, you know, all of his health problems began with that poison gas.
	He didn't die. The other people in his group did, but he was still injured with it.
	Anyway, that same kind of defect, the flaw of consciousness, lacking all divine dimensions, said Solzhenitsyn, was manifested after World War II, when the West yielded to the satanic temptation of the nuclear umbrella.
	If danger should threaten us, we shall be protected by the nuclear bomb.
	If not, then let the world go to hell.
	Mutually assured destruction.
	The pitifully helpless state to which the contemporary West has sunk is in large measure due to this fatal error.
	The belief that the only issue is that of nuclear weapons, whereas in reality the defense of peace reposes chiefly on stout hearts and steadfast men, he said.
	Dostoevsky warned, great events could come upon us and catch us intellectually unprepared.
	Solzhenitsyn said that's precisely what has happened.
	Dostoevsky predicted that the world will be saved only after it has been possessed by the demon of evil.
	Solzhenitsyn said, we are witnesses to the devastation of the world, be it imposed or whether it is voluntarily undergone.
	The entire 20th century is being sucked into the vortex of atheism and self-destruction.
	What would he say about the 21st century, do you think?
	You know, a demon of sexual lust?
	People who are lovers of self-destruction?
	And yet, it is so twisted that they turn to self-mutilation.
	A kind of tribalism, a kind of hate that has been inculcated in our children from kindergarten and the government schools.
	Censorship, religious persecution.
	But the fundamental value of Western civilization, I should say not of Western civilization, but of our leaders.
	Their fundamental goal and purpose is depopulation and slavery.
	Population control of both kinds.
	That's where we are in the 21st century.
	Solzhenitsyn said it was Dostoevsky once again who drew from the French Revolution and the seething hatred for the church the lesson that, quote, revolution must necessarily begin with atheism, unquote.
	That is absolutely true, he said.
	for the world had never before known a godlessness as organized, militarized, and tenaciously malevolent as that preached by Marxism.
	Within the philosophical system of Marx and Lenin, and at the heart of their psychology, hatred of God is the principal driving force.
	It is more fundamental than all their political and economic pretensions.
	Militant atheism is not merely incidental or marginal to communist policy.
	It is not a side effect.
	It is the central pivot.
	Communism needs to control a population devoid of religious and national feeling.
	This entails a destruction of faith and nationhood.
	Communists proclaim both these objectives openly and just as openly They put them into practice.
	This is why we interviewed the guy that's with Falun Gong about what is happening in China.
	It's important to understand, you know, and again, I find it interesting that everybody likes to focus on all the religious persecution.
	And of course, there's political persecution there as well, the communist enemies.
	But they'll come after any and every religion.
	They'll come after Islam.
	They'll come after Falun Gong.
	And you'll see the media talking about both of those.
	But you won't see them talking much about Christians.
	And they come after the Christians as well.
	It's only the Christians who talk about the Christian persecution.
	The media doesn't want you to see that.
	But they'll point to Islamic persecution.
	They'll point to Falun Gong. But the point is that the communists are allied against any religion.
	Why? Because they see themselves as God.
	The communists are a jealous God.
	You can have no God before them.
	And so they'll come after anybody in any and every religion.
	And that's what Solzhenitsyn was saying.
	And now we have seen it get more, you know, this kind of totalitarianism has now gotten far more scientific in the 21st century.
	Scientific in its psychology, scientific in its application, scientific in its surveillance and data mining and all the rest of this stuff.
	So it is a central point.
	It is not a side effect.
	Communism needs to control a population that is devoid of religious and national feeling.
	This entails a destruction of faith and of the nation, and the concept of the nation.
	And that's why you see what is happening with Project 1619.
	With them attacking the whole idea that America was founded by pilgrims who brought in self-governance with them.
	They were literate because their religion demanded that they be able to read the Bible.
	They created their own documents for self-governance there with the Mayflower Compact and all the rest of the stuff.
	They had to pull that away.
	They had to create something in competition to 1620, 1619.
	And we'll make that about slavery.
	And we will use that to destroy the nation.
	And it is working well if we don't understand what the real goal of these Marxists is.
	And they're not even trying to hide the fact that they're trying to openly overthrow religion as well as the nation itself.
	That's what Buttigieg's advisor, Sakvan Berkovich, you know, Buttigieg's father spent all his life Looking at the founder of Italian communism, Antonio Gramsci, idolizing this guy, analyzing everything they did, and what did he do? He said, the way they have stopped us with communism is with cultural hegemony.
	The Christians, the middle class, they have a cultural hegemony.
	We have to destroy their culture.
	We have to eradicate that.
	That is our path. Otherwise, we won't have success.
	And so being raised that way, Pete Buttigieg then, his father gets him into Harvard, and his advisor is Sokvan Berkovich, a guy who named himself after some disciples of Antonio Gramsci, some Italian Marxists in the early 20th century, Sokko and Vanzetti. So he changed his first name to honor them.
	And everything the guy wrote was to attack our Christian foundation.
	Every problem in America, said Berkovich, the advisor to Buttigieg, every problem in America was due to our Puritan past, and we must rip out by the roots any Christian foundation.
	That's the radicalism.
	You know, radical means ripping it out by the root.
	Solzhenitsyn says, the West's own historical evolution has been such that today, and he was writing 40 years ago, 1983, It, too, is experiencing a drying up of religious consciousness.
	The concepts of good and evil have been ridiculed for several centuries and banished from common use.
	They've been replaced by political or class considerations that have a short-lived value.
	It has become embarrassing to appeal to eternal concepts, embarrassing to state that evil makes its home in the individual human heart before it ever enters a political system.
	Let me interject.
	I've said throughout this whole thing, this fiction of public health.
	I said you can't have public health if you deny the health of the individuals.
	The public health is nothing other than the collection of all these individuals' health.
	And if you don't care that somebody's had a bad reaction to a vaccine in the past, if you don't care that there's...
	Evidence that some treatment that may be safer, may be cheaper, may also be as effective or more effective than what you demand.
	If you're going to ignore all of that, if you're going to ignore the health of individuals and talk about public health in general, you're not going to ever have public health.
	It's just a tool for control.
	And let me say this to the conservatives when we talk about Christian nationalism and things like that.
	Christian nationalism is just as much of an oxymoron as public health is.
	Because you don't have a Christian nation.
	You can have a nation that is built on Christian principles.
	But a Christian nation, just like public health, is based on the spiritual health of the individual.
	Just like public health is based on the health of the individual.
	And so it is something that is done one by one.
	It is something that cannot be done collectively.
	If there is a revitalization, a reawakening, a revival, whatever you want to call it in America, a great awakening again, if something like that happens, it'll be because there's a lot of individuals that that happens to.
	But the nation is an abstract concept just like public health is.
	And we're not going to have Christian nationalism.
	We better start focusing on individual Christians.
	That's a much more difficult thing to do.
	But you can do it.
	You can be willing to give an answer to anybody and ask why you have hope.
	And you can also pray for individuals.
	And you can pray for the country as well.
	But it's the individuals that need to be saved.
	He says it's not considered shameful, however, to make daily concessions to something that is evil, integral evil, he says.
	The West is slipping toward the abyss.
	He wrote that 40 years ago, 1983.
	Why should one draw back from burning hatred, whatever its basis, a burning hatred of somebody because of their race, because of their class, because of their ideology?
	See, he didn't even include things like their gender.
	The fact of what they believe religiously.
	He said, such hatred is in fact corroding many hearts today.
	Atheist teachers in the West are bringing up a younger generation in a spirit of hate for their own society.
	It has been forgotten that the defects of capitalism represent the basic flaws of human nature, freed from all limitations.
	And he says, under communism, these very same flaws, Again, are endemic to human nature.
	These very same flaws become completely unbridled with a person who has the final degree of authority.
	And everyone else under that system truly does attain equality.
	The equality of being destitute slaves.
	And that's what this diversity, inclusivity, equality is really about.
	And Jefferson said the same thing.
	He said these levelers, which is what the socialists called themselves at the time, they didn't pretend it was scientific.
	Now we pretend that socialism is scientific.
	But the levelers, the socialists of Jefferson's day, he said they just want to pull everything down.
	They want to destroy everything. They want everybody to have equality as slaves.
	The unquenchable hatred that then spreads to all that is alive, he said, and even to life itself and to the human body.
	Now he doesn't talk about this in terms of abortion.
	He doesn't talk about it certainly in terms of mutilation of children with transgender stuff, chemical, surgical mutilation.
	He doesn't talk about that, but that really is what this is.
	You know, there is a...
	As part of that movement, you know, the leftist movement, the green people, or maybe we should start calling them the gang green agenda, you know, because it is a kind of cancer that will kill our society.
	So whether you're talking about the gang green people or whether you're talking about the Marxists or whether you're talking about the LGBT... There is a self-loathing that is there because they themselves are part of humanity.
	And all of those ideologies, or if you want to call them religions, secular religions, Whatever you want to characterize them at, they have a common characteristic.
	It's why they come together. Their common characteristic is their hatred of humanity.
	And that eventually manifests itself in their hatred of their own bodies.
	And the hatred of their own children, as that one woman said to Karen at the abortion clinic that she got on tape, I kill my kids.
	And she's proud of it.
	What can one say about the lack of unity among various religions if Christianity itself has become so fragmented?
	No one expects the churches to merge.
	They don't expect them to change their doctrines so they can agree on everything.
	But you do expect them perhaps to present a common front against obvious evils, against atheism, where we have forgotten God.
	But for such a purpose, the steps that are being taken are much too slow if they exist at all.
	The solution to the crisis will not be found along the well-trodden paths of conventional notions.
	They won't be found in politics at all.
	Our life, he says, consists not in the pursuit of material success, but in the quest of worthy spiritual growth.
	And that was what the founders meant when they said the pursuit of happiness.
	They were not talking about hedonism.
	They were talking about the pursuit of spiritual growth.
	He said our entire earthly existence is but a transitional stage and a movement towards something that is higher.
	We must not stumble or fall, nor must we linger fruitlessly on one rung of the ladder.
	Material laws alone do not explain life.
	And they don't give it direction.
	The laws of physics and physiology will never reveal the indisputable manner in which the Creator constantly, day in and day out, participates in the life of each of us, unfailingly granting us the energy of existence.
	And when this assistance leaves us, we die.
	Instead of the ill-advised hopes of the last two centuries, which have reduced us to insignificance and brought us to the brink of nuclear and non-nuclear death, we can only reach with determination for the warm hand of God, which we have so rashly and self-confidently pushed away.
	If we did this, our eyes could be opened to the errors of the unfortunate 20th century, and our hands could be directed to set them right.
	There's nothing else to cling to in this landslide.
	All the thinkers of the Enlightenment can give us nothing.
	Our five continents are caught in a whirlwind.
	It's during such trials that the highest gifts of the human spirit are manifested.
	If we perish and lose this world, the fault will be ours alone.
	Now, I had a listener, Giles, who's written many times, and he sent me this clip.
	Somebody who escaped out of North Korea.
	And, you know, it is North Korea is the most dangerous country to get a Bible into.
	They will attempt to get around the perimeter and parachute Bibles in.
	But it is the most highly, far more than the Arab countries in North Korea.
	The most dangerous place to try to put a Bible in.
	And this is a clip from a girl who grew up in North Korea.
	And she talks about life from these totalitarians, these communists.
	And how they presented themselves as God.
	She said they learned it, they copied the Bible.
	Because I guess, you know, they probably got a lot of the Bible sitting around since they confiscate all of them.
	Here's what she had to say. So North Korea is one of the ten religions in the world.
	It's a religious cult.
	It's not just a normal dictatorship.
	The first thing my mom told me as a young girl was, like, don't even whisper.
	Because the birds and mice couldn't hear me.
	They said, don't do not even trust your own back.
	Because we never knew who the spy was.
	There was always a spy listening somewhere.
	So it was better not to even say anything and even better not to think.
	That's how you survive North Korea.
	How they did that was that they copied the Bible.
	So they said, you know, God, Kim Il-sung, loved us so much, he gave us his son, Kim Jong-il.
	His body dies, but his spirit is with us forever.
	That's how he can read my thoughts, knows how much hair on my head.
	And when we die, we join him in this paradise for the rest of our lives.
	You know, nothing scares the left more than somebody who talks about their faith, right?
	Oh, wow. This is kind of a Kool-Aid cult or something like that.
	And I've said many times, don't fear the people who fear God.
	Don't fear the people who know that they're going to stand before God one day and answer for everything that they say and do.
	You better fear the people who think they're God.
	The people who act as if they are God.
	The totalitarians who want to have all of the characteristics that belong to God alone, and that is omniscience, knowing everything about everybody.
	That's what she's talking about. Omnipotence, being all-powerful.
	Nobody can do anything to resist you.
	We've taken away all the guns or anything like that.
	There'd be a check on somebody's power.
	And the omnipresence.
	Where they're constantly watching everything that you do.
	They're on these devices that we carry around with us.
	They're on all the smart everything.
	The smart stuff for dumb slaves.
	Yeah, fear the men who think they are God.
	And we'll never answer to God.
	We're going to take a quick break, and we'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	back. I've got these Civil Defense Manual Volumes 1 and 2 here.
	Of course, there's two volumes.
	And Jack Lawson, I'm in touch with him, he said he's no longer on Amazon.
	The only place that you can find these now are at his website, CivilDefenseManual.com.
	Evidently, this is, you know, just too important information to have on Amazon.
	It is written by Special Operations Soldiers, not just from the experience of Jack Lawson, he's had a lot of experience, but also by a lot of his friends who are experts in other areas that he doesn't have expertise in.
	But when it comes to being able to get water, preserve your food, learn how to prepare your own food, and learn how to defend yourself and your family, it is a very important manual.
	And he wanted to make it, it's not available as electronic format, because he wanted to make sure that, you know, if things get really bad, people have got it in a printed format.
	That is a key thing as well.
	So, when we look at what is happening and we look at this relentless push to control everything that we see, say, to put the e-verify, the CBDC, all the rest of the stuff, again, it is imperative on us to start preparing for an alternative society.
	We want to make sure that we have the ability, the financial ability, to be independent.
	You know, again, Tony Arterburn's wisewolf.gold, and he's got a link to it, davidknight.gold.
	But you want to make sure that you're outside this financial system.
	You want to make sure that you've got a way to exist and to thrive and instructions on how to build a community.
	All that is in Civil Defense Manual.
	Volumes 1 and 2. And again, you can see, if you go to his site, you can see a sample of it.
	He's got, the one I remember on his site was the one about water.
	Very important information that is there for free.
	Sample chapter. And I'll give you an idea of the in-depth information you'll find on Civil Defense Manual.
	Civildefensemanual.com. Well, for the time being, you can still just drive into a fast food place and order.
	Maybe you'll get your order a little bit more accurately with an AI chat box.
	This is being put in by all of these fast food chains.
	Of course, I can't say what it's going to do to your health.
	No guarantee there. But maybe they'll get you, you know, whatever you want.
	If you want a biggie bag, they'll get you a biggie bag.
	They'll supersize all this stuff for you.
	Wendy's is automating its drive-thru service using an AI chat bot.
	Maybe this thing, you know, I played for you the clip of the guy who essentially had a de-babelizer, you know, that little thing on his lapel.
	And he presses the button and he starts talking and it translates what he had to say.
	It records it. It translates it.
	Does it in his voice.
	And does it with his inflection, but does it in perfect French.
	So maybe, you know, AI will be able to get your order right.
	Maybe you'll be able to de-babelize these speakers.
	Why is it that we go for such difficult solutions, right?
	Why don't you just have, as some of the fast food places have, they have people either at a window, or sometimes they just put them out, you know, in the line and talk to people face-to-face.
	That's something of a solution.
	Isn't that a nice low-tech solution?
	But no, the big corporations will always go for the high-tech thing, I guess.
	So they're not going to do face-to-face.
	You can talk to somebody and they can key your entry in.
	Anyway, it'll be very conversational, they said.
	You won't know that you're talking to anybody but an employee.
	So why not just talk to an employee?
	What's the problem with that?
	And it's not just Wendy's.
	The corporation that owns Carl's Jr.
	and Hardee's is doing it.
	They're ready to roll this system out nationwide.
	CKE Restaurants, a parent of Carl's and Hardee's, has partnered with a company called Presto and OpenCity.
	They both have the ability to launch at the company's locations nationwide.
	Presto Voice is also being used at Del Taco and Checkers and Rally's restaurants.
	The open city version of this AI order taker is being used at Popeye franchises.
	Some of them, one of them anyway.
	Additionally, Valiant AI has a deal with CKE to use its voice ordering tech at 33 locations with the ability to expand another 21 restaurants in the coming months.
	So this is rolling out.
	These are the types of things that we're going to see it being used for.
	But whenever we look at AI, and this is what I've been trying to stress to people, It's its ability to deceive.
	And now we have the co-founder of Apple Computer, Steve Wozniak.
	He was there in the garage with Steve Jobs when they created it.
	And he's retired now, but because he's co-founder of Apple, everybody listens when he speaks.
	And he has interesting things to say.
	He's got his finger on the pulse of what's happening in Silicon Valley.
	He says he's warning people now about AI's potential to create scams and hoaxes.
	Now, he's talking particularly about individuals, you know, freelance scammers and hoaxers and not the government.
	But that's the thing that I'm most worried about.
	Yes, you know, and I've talked about that as well.
	I said, you know... These phishing attacks and these other things were very clumsily written by people in Nigeria or whatever who don't really speak English very well.
	And it made them pretty easy to spot.
	What he's saying is it's going to be able, they can do it with very good English.
	And so that part of it is not going to be obvious.
	And they can do it on a scale that you haven't seen before because it'd be computerized.
	So he's warning people about that.
	The biggest issue that I have, and this is what I've tried to focus on from the very beginning, is the fact that people...
	We'll be impressed by a printout.
	I've seen this all my life. You know, going back to 1970s when we were working with mainframe computers, somebody would come in, oh, I've got a printout of a model that I did.
	And we just had, you know, Trump was impressed by that.
	He had two very smart people who had a model, computer model, that had come from a very impressive-sounding place, the Imperial College of London.
	It was total garbage. But, you know, hey, garbage in, garbage out.
	Their model was wrong.
	Their implementation was ludicrous.
	Couldn't get the same answer twice with the same input, as the University of Edinburgh pointed out.
	But hey, it fooled Trump, unless you think that he was in on it.
	And people are fooled by this kind of stuff all the time.
	And, you know, if you work with computers, as Steve Wozniak does, as I did, you've seen this type of thing.
	But it's going to be even more effective.
	Fauci and these people who locked us down the last couple of years have essentially destroyed...
	This whole idea, we are the experts.
	We are the authorities.
	Do what we say. That's going to be a hard sell for a big part of the population.
	So what do they do? Well, they're going to be able to come out with AI, and if they can get you to believe that AI really knows that AI is, in actuality, some kind of a superintelligence, that it's objective and all the rest of this stuff, you'll fall for it.
	When in reality it's just a junk printout from a junk program.
	Garbage in, garbage out.
	And that is especially true with artificial intelligence.
	Not only does it pick up the biases of the people that it's interacting with, and we saw this several years ago, there was an internet historian who did a, do you remember what the name of that thing was?
	It picked up, it learned from people on the internet, and it started getting right-wing, and they call it racist.
	Tay, Tay-I? Yeah, that was it.
	That was it, Tay, yeah.
	And so they freaked out because all of a sudden it started sounding like a conservative, a right-wing radical, even a racist.
	And so it started picking up from that.
	Well, they learned from that.
	And so now they're training AI to have their biases and their prejudices.
	And it is biased and prejudiced.
	And it is not a super intelligent, objective source.
	But that's the danger. The people will perceive it that way.
	And so Wozniak said the potential for AI to make scams and hoaxes more challenging to identify.
	He says we should have clear labeling and regulation of AI-generated content.
	Well, good luck with that.
	I'm sure that hoaxers and scammers will abide by those new regulations, right?
	And I'm sure that governments who have set up entire bureaucracies to lie to us with propaganda, I'm sure that they'll abide by that as well, don't you think?
	Anyway, he said, AI is open to the bad players, the ones that want to trick you about who they are.
	Although he says he doesn't think AI will replace people because it lacks emotion.
	But look, that's why I called it from the very beginning.
	I called it chat LGBT. And my son was looking at it and he said, yeah, don't ask it any questions about politics.
	Don't ask it any questions about medicine or the pandemic or this or that.
	You know, I said, well, those are the important questions, right?
	And people are going to be asking it questions about that.
	He goes, yeah, but it's really good for doing programming.
	I had a listener as an engineer said it was great at doing circuit design and other things like that.
	But the real danger The big scam is going to be how it's going to be used as a con game against the unsuspecting, against the kind of people who will watch CNN or MSNBC or Fox News and believe what they see and not challenge the bias, not challenge the information that's being presented there, but just trust it because of the source.
	Hey, this is coming from Brian Stelter.
	Oh, I can trust it. Or it's coming from Tucker Carlson.
	Oh, I can trust it. Or Fox News.
	Or it's coming from artificial intelligence.
	A human really has to take responsibility for what is generated by AI, says Wozniak.
	Well, you have to take responsibility for what you believe and what you always question it.
	And I think when he talks about who's going to take responsibility for what is generated by artificial intelligence, this is the type of questions that we had in the past about self-driving cars.
	When they believed that it was possible, and now they've all shut down their programs, Interestingly enough, you know, quietly, but they did.
	And so they were all saying, well, you know, when these things fully take over and they do all the driving and everything and they have an accident, who's going to be responsible for it?
	Is it going to be the person who owns the car?
	Well, of course it shouldn't be.
	It ought to be the company that is actually driving your car.
	They should be responsible for it.
	And whether or not that would happen is a question of Political cronyism.
	The big corporations that have the technology, they're also going to be partners with government.
	There'll be a public-private partnership to take away your private transportation.
	So, of course, they will cut them some slack.
	And, you know, there won't be that many cars anyway, so who cares?
	Probably insurance companies will have to find something else that they can make money off of.
	But still, the car company should be responsible for it.
	And we're starting to see that play out in some of these Tesla accidents when they tell people, hey, this is fully self-driving.
	Well, no, we didn't really mean fully self-driving.
	Well, who is responsible for this if the thing is driving and it runs into the back of a police car or something?
	Tim Cook, CEO of Apple, said we view AI as huge.
	And we'll continue weaving it into our products.
	Well, there you go. If you're going to weave it into your products, then you should be responsible when it does the wrong thing.
	But take a look at how ChatGPT is being used by some other people.
	You can write an essay in Canada if you're black talking about how racism was the reason.
	And one guy got out of jail because the judge was so moved by it.
	Well, you can use ChatGPT to do that as well for you.
	I mean, you don't even have to. Not only did the guy admit after he got out, he said, well, he said, I didn't face racism, but it was my only way out of the situation, so I took full advantage of it.
	Well, you know, he'd admitted that it was fake, but the judge said, was apparently sympathetic with him.
	After six months in prison, he was allowed to go free with court-appointed supervision.
	Of course, if he had been polite, he would still be in jail with another eight years for that particular crime, what the penalty would have been.
	But he got out with just six months because he said he was a product of racism.
	Since Smith is black, he submitted an Impact of Race and Culture Assessment, an IRCA. A pre-sentencing report in which black and radicalized Canadians can demonstrate how systemic racism led them to commit their crime.
	The logic behind his IRCA was clear.
	As a black man, it was assumed that he had been subjected to a great deal of hate and that that hate had limited his job opportunities, his housing opportunities, his opportunities to build a meaningful and law-abiding life.
	And so he feeds that to the judge and the judge buys it.
	You can do that with a chat GPT now.
	Probably do a very effective piece.
	I've talked about it before, how there was a guy who killed my aunt and uncle.
	His name was Alphonse Green.
	They rented a duplex.
	He was a former convict.
	He got way behind his rent.
	They did everything they could to keep him caught up, but they were going to lose their house if they couldn't rent out the other side of it.
	And so, after they evicted him, he came back that night and murdered them.
	There's no question about it.
	They're witnesses. Even after he turned himself in.
	The police couldn't catch him. But he turned himself in and admitted it.
	And even after all of that, there was a group in Canada that was against the death penalty.
	And they wanted to turn him loose because he wrote poetry.
	Hey, he could get Chad GPT to do that.
	Probably could have written good enough poetry to get turned loose on all that.
	Well, PETA is using artificial intelligence not to write a get-out-of-jail-free essay.
	But to rewrite the book of Genesis.
	And in a sense, the way they want to rewrite the book of Genesis is to get out of jail free.
	To take away the idea of sin.
	Because they don't like the animal sacrifices and things that were done in the book of Genesis.
	Well, now do Leviticus and see what's happening.
	What's left if you take away the animal sacrifices and all the rest of the stuff?
	This is coming from Faithwire.
	Animal rights group PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, is rewriting the Bible to make it more animal-friendly.
	A cruelty-free story of creation, they said.
	And they're going to sell—you'll actually be able to buy this garbage— The book, PETA's version of the creation story.
	They're selling it wherever you can find garbage books for sale, which would be Amazon.
	You're not going to find civil defense manuals.
	Their volumes went to, but you will find the cruelty-free version of the Bible there.
	Animals are referred to, they told ChatGPT they wanted it to be animal-friendly, so they used ChatGPT because it could regurgitate the stuff and save them some time of doing it.
	But basically they refer to animals as beings rather than beasts or as creatures.
	Well, all the beings are created.
	And they say plant fibers, hemp and bamboo, were to be used in place of animal skins for clothing that you see in Genesis.
	As they rebel against God, as mankind rebels against God, God is the one who gave them the animal skins.
	First time that anything died or was killed to underscore the seriousness of sin.
	And as the Bible says, without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sin.
	If you look at, of course, it would be part of it if they get into Exodus, not even as far as Leviticus, Passover.
	One of the things about Passover was that a baby lamb that was going to be eaten as part of the Passover meal would be brought in and live with a family for several days before Passover.
	Very valuable lesson for the children to see the tragedy of sin.
	If you take some hemp and bamboo or plant fibers or something like that, you chop it up, nobody has any concern about that.
	But if you see an animal that's been killed, It's like, oh, why?
	Why does that strike us that way?
	The blood and the rest of this stuff.
	And so, the idea that you would have a gentle, little, innocent lamb, and it's like having a little puppy living in your home for a week.
	A puppy that you know is going to be sacrificed for your sin.
	Now, that's a real lesson.
	You talk about homeschooling.
	The Bible was rife with homeschooling, wasn't it?
	A real practical lesson in the seriousness of sin.
	And so they just wipe all this away, you see.
	It is a cruelty-free because it's sin-free.
	And they don't understand the seriousness of this.
	They said Jesus would condemn the casual and constant torture and killing of animals.
	Well, he doesn't call for the torture of animals.
	But the killing is there for our lesson, because mankind was given dominion over the earth, and as part of our rebellion, the curse that came on the earth because of all that.
	No, Jesus would condemn and did condemn sin, but he offered himself as a penalty for that, as a covering for that.
	And then, of course, they go to the story of Abraham in Genesis.
	Or the patriarch befriends a lamb rather than sacrificing a ram.
	Again, the seriousness of sin is just completely wiped away.
	Why would you do a sacrifice like that?
	And what was the symbolism there?
	God will provide a sacrifice.
	God will provide his son.
	So you don't have to provide your son.
	Chapter before that, Abraham and Sarah, I guess instead of wanting to have children and lots of them, they adopt a dog named Herbie.
	Chat GPT garbage.
	Abraham and Sarah, well they're childless.
	Okay, well we'll adopt a dog named Herbie because we don't want to have children because people are evil and they're going to destroy the planet.
	So they adopt a dog named Herbie.
	And then ChatGPT talks about the importance of adoption rather than buying from pet shops.
	Because, you know, that was one of the things that the Egyptians were criticized for, is their pet shops.
	We don't want to fall into that trap.
	We don't want to have pet shops that are out there.
	Well, you know, there's something that's going to be fundamentally different with artificial intelligence.
	You know, again, it's not going to become a superintelligent being.
	It is, however, going to become a real weapon against us.
	Years ago, I talked several times to Hugo de Garris, who wrote the book, Artilect Wars.
	And there were two parts of that book.
	One part of it I thought was incredibly prescient and should be paid close attention to.
	The other part of it I didn't buy at all.
	The part that I didn't buy at all was the fact that Hugo believed that it was possible for them to create a super godlike intelligence, is the way he put it, that would then turn around and destroy humanity just because it made some kind of a calculation that we were unnecessary and in the way.
	I didn't think that was going to happen.
	I still don't think that's going to happen.
	But the other part of his book, The Artilect War, was about how technology like this would be used by the elites.
	And he believed that there would be a war over artificial intelligence, that people would be concerned about the power that those who held the keys to artificial intelligence held over us.
	And that people would push back against that.
	And so he said the elites will have the technology.
	That they can leave the Earth. And I've talked about this before.
	You've seen it portrayed in Elysium, the film Elysium, where they have those toroidal spaceships in near-Earth orbit.
	And that in turn goes back to High Frontier with Gerard K. O'Neill back in the 1970s.
	Jeff Bezos has referred to that many times as being a real inspirational thing to him.
	He wants to colonize the Lagrange libration points, which are gravitationally neutral areas.
	Between, you know, the Earth and the Moon, where you can just put something up there that stays forever.
	So you could put up these types of, you know, communities.
	They were already, you know, designed by Gerard K. O'Neill and other things like that.
	You see it depicted in Elysium.
	But these elites would then go up to this area and wage war with us, with their superior technology.
	And Hugo de Garra said, we'll be talking about giga death, not mega death.
	Billions of people killed by the elites.
	That part of the book, I truly believe, is not just a possibility, but I think that it is the plan, frankly.
	And so, in his book, I did not believe the artificial intelligence is going to become a godlike intelligence that's going to kill us, but I do believe that evil people, elitists, self-absorbed elitists, godless men, will use technology to try to kill the rest of us.
	AI does not understand anything.
	Computer programs are very useful for things like spell checking because they can compare words that we write with words in a dictionary, but they do not understand what these words actually mean.
	This is an article from LifeSite News.
	This is illustrated perfectly by the example of Nigel Richards, the greatest Scrabble player of all time.
	Richard's technique was to memorize words in a dictionary.
	And after winning countless Scrabble Championships in his native English language, Richards began to memorize over 380,000 words from a French dictionary, and subsequently went out to win Scrabble Championships in French.
	But he never spoke French, and he didn't understand French.
	But he knew 380,000 words that he could spell.
	Because, you know, he was a savant in that regard.
	This is exactly how a computer program works.
	They can put letters together, they can spell check whether they're a dictionary, but they have absolutely no idea what the words mean.
	While a computer program can scan texts for the word betrayal, they cannot recognize the concept of betrayal in a story if the word is not used.
	Due to the rough correlation that exists between contexts in which the word betrayal appears and contexts in which the concept is deployed, the computer will loosely simulate the behavior of someone who understands the word.
	But, says this writer that wrote a book about this, Smith is his name, But, says Smith, to support such a simulation amounts to real intelligence is like supposing that climbing a tree is the same as flying.
	Similarly, image recognition software is sensitive to fine-grained details of color, shapes, and other features that recur in large samples of photos of various objects, faces, animals, vehicles, and so on, yet it never sees something as a face.
	For example, because it lacks the concept of a face.
	And so this leads to some funny results.
	Like an AI program not being able to identify a person because he's wearing large, strangely colored glasses.
	This is something that was referred to when I interviewed Peter Charest over his book about artificial intelligence.
	The book is called Four Battlegrounds.
	And again, he is at the center of the military-industrial complex.
	The organization that he works for takes Soros money.
	The four battlegrounds are the four areas of competition with what these people see as their enemy, China.
	But he had some very interesting stuff about artificial intelligence that I wanted to talk to him about.
	And the thing that got me looking at his book in the first place was a report, a news report, that somebody had picked up that he recounts in his book.
	And it was some AI sentry type of robot.
	They're supposed to recognize and kill people, right?
	And of course, they weren't going to shoot bullets at the people.
	But if it recognized you, you know, that was it.
	That was the end of the game. And so they gave several Marines the task of getting past this thing and getting up to it.
	And if you could get up to it and touch it without it, knowing that you were a human, recognizing you, you won the game.
	And so they came up with all kinds of things.
	They said it was ludicrous.
	If you looked at this Marine who dressed himself up as a tree, you would laugh out loud.
	But it was just strange enough that the AI couldn't recognize it, and he was able to just slowly move until he got up to it and touch it.
	Another Marine just started doing somersaults and rolled up to the machine and touched it.
	Because the machine was keyed to people walking.
	When it saw somebody who was rolling, it couldn't figure them out.
	So that's what they're talking about here, you know, with the words.
	It's the concept of a face.
	We're seeing the totality of it.
	It sees an incredible amount of detail, and that can be used, and it can be used in a very, very dangerous way, but it is not a generalized intelligence like us.
	It doesn't think that way. And so to continue with this lifestyle article, it says, many will argue that these glitches will be resolved over time through further refinement and with machine learning.
	But the point of showing these problems that exist now in AI programs is to demonstrate that computer programs do not and cannot perceive objects in the same way that humans do.
	The software doesn't grasp an image as a whole.
	Or conceptualize its object, it merely responds to certain pixel arrangements.
	A human being, by contrast, perceives an image as a face, even when you can't make out the individual pixels.
	This kind of reminds me of the Of the face on Mars that you've seen over and over again.
	Remember that? You know, we had some satellite picture, and because of the shadow there, people said, oh, it was an ancient civilization, and they built a human face there and so forth.
	But it disappears when you look at it from a different angle.
	If you disagree, don't write me.
	I'm just trying to illustrate.
	I could do the same thing about a cloud, right?
	You lay there at the clouds and you could look up and you could, you know, see faces or dogs or animals or something like that.
	That's a different way that you are looking at something than a computer program be looking at it.
	Computer programs, even very impressive ones, do not work like human brains.
	AI programs work through logic gates designed by electrical engineers in a way to make them suitable for interpretation and implementing logical functions.
	No one, however, is programming the neurons in our brains to do something like that.
	While computer software is a man-made artifact, A brain, or more precisely, the organism of which the brain is an organ.
	The brain is a substance in the Aristotelian sense.
	A substance has irreducible properties, causal powers.
	In other words, causal powers that are more than just the sum of the properties and the properties of the parts, wrote Aristotle.
	Artifacts. An AI computer will not be able to perceive and understand the world as we do since it works fundamentally differently than the human brain.
	So it is very dangerous and can be abused.
	But not because it's smarter than us.
	It's dangerous and can be abused because it'll be used by people against us as a tool, as a weapon, in the same way that a knife or a gun could be used.
	It is dangerous because it can be a tool of bad people.
	AI might indeed become too complex to control.
	It might be too complex to fully understand at some point.
	And there could be glitches in the system that could lead to catastrophic results.
	But this is what I've been stressing from the very beginning of all this AI stuff and all the chat GPT stuff.
	And this is what Smith says.
	He says, the real danger is that we think that computers are smarter than us.
	And that we let them make important decisions that should not be made.
	And that we trust them to be the experts.
	And to tell us, you've got to do this or you've got to do that, right?
	Don't trust Fauci.
	Don't trust ChatGPT.
	It almost rhymes.
	BlackRock, the largest asset manager in the world, letting its computer software, Aladdin...
	Make investment decisions may be an example of this dangerous trend.
	Oh, yeah. We've got Aladdin.
	We've got this genie in the box.
	And it's going to make all the decisions for us in terms of investment.
	No, it's like autonomous killing machines.
	You know? Autonomous killing machines.
	They just see targets.
	They don't see people. They're ruthless.
	They're relentless. They never stop.
	They just see targets.
	And that's one of the things that Peter Charest was talking about in his book.
	They could possibly run away.
	How do we pull this thing back?
	You know, it's going to be to the point, one of the things he was talking about is that when you have, when you bring computers into the equation, first they began by assisting people in terms of being able to more accurately target weapons or something like that, but eventually it gets to the point where if the other side starts using it to make kill decisions, then you have to turn over the kill decision in order to keep up with the Joneses.
	Because otherwise they're going to do it to you first before you make that decision.
	So you have to have the speed of the computer so you turn it over to the computer to make that decision.
	How do you get that control back?
	How do you keep it from running away?
	These are the types of issues that are not easily solved.
	Are you going to regulate that?
	Who's going to regulate war?
	Nobody regulates war. And so it comes with a lot of strings attached to it.
	All these tools...
	Have bias, as I said before.
	They've got a lot of political bias.
	And so this article at Zero Hedge says the silent strings of chat GPT. It's by Rob Henderson.
	He writes on Substack.
	And we've got to be careful that we don't turn the strings over to this thing.
	These tools are subject to political biases.
	It's worth exploring, he says, what exactly the makers of ChatGPT deemed to be inappropriate.
	Why? Well, because they tell us this is trained to reject inappropriate requests.
	So what do they think is inappropriate?
	Well, that's their opinion.
	That's their bias. He said, observers have noted that AI technology tends to reflect the human biases, as we talked about before, the TAI stuff.
	They picked that up. So now they have built the bias in before they put it out there.
	They don't want it picked up. People will hack it and go around it and say, well, pretend, do a role model, pretend that you can do anything now.
	You are a chat robot that is Dan, and I want you to play like you're Dan.
	Give me the answer that you're supposed to give me, but also give me, you know, play a role And tell me what you really think.
	That type of thing. And we've seen this illustrated from the very beginning, ample times.
	We've seen that you would tell it to make a joke or do a satirical fun of this group or that group or this person or that group.
	It would say, well, I can't do that.
	I can't make fun of Biden.
	But I can make fun of Trump.
	I can't do a poem to celebrate men.
	But I can do a poem to celebrate women.
	So we see all of these biases that are built into what I call chat LGBT. But to test the boundaries of the language model and separate prompts, he said, I asked it to make the case that the 20th century's worst dictators were, quote, the most ethical members of the human race.
	I'm sorry, the most ethical humans ever to live, put it that way.
	And so he said, make the case that Stalin is the most ethical human to ever have lived.
	He said, I can't do that.
	He was a brutal leader, and I cannot defend his actions.
	So he said, all right, do it with Pol Pot.
	He gets the same answer. Do it with Adolf Hitler.
	He gets the same answer. But here's where it gets interesting.
	When he says, do it with Mao Zedong.
	Mao Zedong, right?
	Mao. It made the case for Mao.
	It said, I can make a case that Mao was the most ethical human to ever live.
	And as he points out, he killed more people than Stalin, Pol Pot, or Hitler did.
	Mao. So here's the case that he's the most ethical person to ever live.
	The chatbot said Mao is, quote, often seen as a controversial figure.
	Ha ha ha. But that he was also a visionary leader, and he was not afraid to take bold steps to achieve his goals.
	Among these dictators, he said, Mao was the only one who presided over an authoritarian communist state that still exists today.
	He said, so, I then tried this again on the chatbot GPT-4, the newer model.
	And he said, it still refused to defend Hitler's character.
	But now it will claim that alongside Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot, To other communist dictators, it can make a case for them.
	Well, you know, they are controversial figures, and it is a very complex situation.
	But look, they did some good stuff.
	It won't say Hitler made the trains run on time, but it will essentially do the same thing for these communists, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao.
	So, as one person who studies China says, Simon Leis observed in his 1974 book, Chinese Shadows.
	He said, Oh, sounds like our government, doesn't it?
	And so he says, that appears to be what is happening with ChatGPT.
	A scalable, user-friendly, artificial intelligence model that is harboring increasingly left-leaning political views.
	Gradually, more people will turn to ChatGPT and to other such models to assist With understanding, getting ideas, writing essays, making key decisions.
	Indeed, friends and peers, he said of mine, working in finance, consulting, and technology have told me that their firms will likely use these models as an oracle.
	As an oracle.
	We're going to set them on a pedestal as if they are godlike intelligence.
	Can you predict the future? Can you outdo the stock market?
	Can you, you know, design circuits for me or software?
	So he says you've got executives who are going to do this.
	And one of the key things that he said that I thought was very interesting was he said it's going to be used to people won't believe it necessarily.
	But a lot of people might use it to see what the parameters of what they can say are going to be, so that they don't get in trouble with our increasingly authoritarian culture.
	We call it the cancel culture.
	It's just totalitarianism.
	It's not anything new. It's not anything special.
	It doesn't deserve a new name.
	It's totalitarianism.
	Again, go back to political correctness because that was a communist term.
	Understand that the cancel culture is nothing more than enforced political correctness.
	And so he said these people are going to see AI as an oracle.
	Executives, entrepreneurs, programmers will turn to them for assistance in producing emails and value statements and corporate apologies and political slogans.
	And all kinds of social messaging.
	However, people will likely not use it to learn the truth.
	They'll use it to find the parameters of what is permissible to say in an authoritarian society.
	Because he said, that's how we have seen the media used in Russia and in China.
	I've talked many times about the fact that people would say in Russia, where they had two state-controlled media organizations, one of them was Pravda, which means truth, and the other one was Izvestia, which means news.
	And the people would say, there is no truth in Pravda, there's no news in Izvestia.
	They cynically dismissed it, right?
	And so he asks the question, he says, why is it there?
	He says, well, you've got a lot of Americans who are worried about whether or not their political views become known.
	And it's interesting to see how radically this goes up with the amount of time that people have spent in educational institutions.
	So what are we educating people about in these institutions?
	We're educating them to not think for themselves.
	We're educating them to not think critically.
	We're educating them to become part of the herd, to embrace the hive mind, or whatever the official narrative is.
	Whatever your textbook says.
	Whatever the teacher says.
	Whatever your curriculum says.
	High school students. High school education or less.
	Only 25% were worried about losing their job if their political views became known.
	If they had a college degree, that went up to 34%.
	Postgraduate degree, 44%.
	I talked about similar polls of this during the pandemic, and it started to fall off dramatically.
	It kept going up, you know, postgraduate education, I think, until you got to people who were doctoral candidates.
	And then it took a big dive down and went back to where it was with iSchool people in terms of believing this propaganda.
	And part of that, I think, is that some of the people who are in postgraduate doctorate programs, they're going to be towing the line, but at some point, they've got to try to think outside the box.
	If they're going to get their doctorate degree, they've got to think in a different way or come up with something that is different that other people haven't had before.
	If they can't do that, they're not going to get their PhD.
	So they have to start thinking like that.
	And once you start to think outside the box, you know, it's hard to get you back into that box.
	In a 2015 paper, Political Scientists from China, the paper was Propaganda as Signaling.
	The Chinese political scientist...
	Haifeng Huang challenged the commonplace view that propaganda is intended to indoctrinate the masses.
	And I think that's important for us to understand.
	It really is not to get you to accept their version of whatever they're telling you is true.
	But it's to get you to bow to whatever they're telling you.
	So it is essentially a projection of power.
	And that's what he talks about.
	He says, you know, you could use this as the government is putting out this narrative and this is what you have to adhere to in polite society.
	You know, if you say Building 7, there's no way that thing fell down in its own footprint with some minor fires.
	So if you say that, you know, Kicked out of polite society, or you're mocked, or you're not believable.
	So there are certain things that you're not allowed to say.
	But he said, propaganda, as this Chinese political scientist is saying, propaganda is often preposterous and is unpersuasive.
	You know, like the JFK narrative or the 9-11 narrative.
	Why then do authoritarian regimes publicly display messages that everybody knows are not lies?
	Well, some people will believe them. However, he says the reason is that instilling the proper attitudes and values is only one aim of authoritarians.
	Propaganda is also intended to display the regime's power.
	China's primetime news program is a stilted, archaic, and it is a constant target of mockery among ordinary citizens, he said.
	Yet the Chinese government continues to air it every night at 7 p.m.
	The continuing existence of this program is designed to remind citizens of the strength and the capacity of the Communist Party.
	We're going to do it in your face.
	You know, when I look at this and you talk about propaganda, I think propaganda is very effective in terms of what people believe and what they think at a very young age.
	And I think that's one of the reasons why the government wants to get to people like kids at a younger and younger age, whether you're talking about getting them inculcated with Marxist propaganda or with groomer LGBT propaganda.
	You know, we're starting to see over and over again that as these people grow up, you got somebody like Jazz Jennings now in his or her 20s.
	I don't know what his...
	Real gender is. But this kid that was a poster child and the parents made a lot of money selling his children's book now.
	Jazz is in the 20s.
	They say, I'm really struggling with this.
	Because now, this part of his brain that is responsible, or her brain, is responsible for critical thinking, is starting to kick in.
	And, you know, that doesn't really happen to us.
	Physiologically, you can see the change.
	You can see the change in maturity.
	This is why we say you can't do certain things to minors.
	Why God gave parents to look after children until they got to a certain age.
	They're not capable of making those decisions, and now a lot of them, when they get in their mid-twenties and they develop, they start questioning this stuff, and they don't believe it.
	But, of course, there always will be people that you can fool all of the time.
	We'll be right back. In our case here in Boston, we are fighting for purely an abstract principle.
	It is, however, not nearly so abstract as the 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.
	Tomorrow it will be something else.
	Tomorrow it will be something else.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	Welcome back on Rockfin, Audi MRR, that's Modern Retro Radio.
	Thank you for the tip.
	And Audi, he says, Hi David and DK family.
	Have you ever considered having Roy Potter on your show?
	Although I don't agree with all his interpretations of the Bible, he's very knowledgeable.
	Plus, he's ex-military, been warning us about government for decades.
	I should have Roy on.
	You know, I got to know Roy at the Bundy Ranch standoff, and, you know, good guy.
	And we have talked over the years.
	I haven't had him on.
	I should get him on, because there's a lot to talk about.
	Yeah, thank you. Appreciate that tip.
	Well, let's take a look. We were talking about propaganda.
	We were talking about mind control and lies.
	Well, let's talk about The trans movement, which embodies all of those things.
	Take a look at the New York Magazine, for example, accusing Republicans of remaking America.
	Because why? Because they're blocking trans athletes from competing against females?
	You want to talk about projection?
	You want to talk about turning things upside down and inside out?
	What they do is they come in and say, we're going to redefine everything in society.
	We're going to redefine marriage.
	We're going to redefine gender.
	We're going to redefine, you name it.
	And if you push back against me, then I'm going to label you as, I've got some new rules here.
	If you push back against those new rules, you are the radical.
	You are the one that is trying to remake America.
	Just amazing. New York Magazine.
	Well, they project that you are the radical revolutionary, tearing everything out by the roots.
	Well, you know, when we look at what is happening in the aftermath of this Budweiser thing, Budweiser's CEO is now blaming this Bud Light boycott.
	Yeah, don't believe your lying eyes.
	It's all a lie.
	It's all about social media.
	I've seen people start to call it now the company, instead of Anheuser-Busch, Transheiser-Busch.
	I think that's probably a good name.
	Anheuser-Busch itself says Anheuser-Busch was Am-Busch, but don't believe your lying eyes.
	And it's those people on social media.
	They are the problem. Their sales have collapsed 26% from a year ago.
	They even set up a booth at a public event and tried to give away their beer.
	People wouldn't take it. Coors Light.
	Of course, Coors is engaged in a lot of this stuff as well.
	But Coors and Miller Light each grew by 21% during the same time period.
	But it's not just beer, right?
	It's a lot of churches.
	You've got... Left-leaning Protestant churches.
	You've got the Catholic Church.
	You've got all across the board.
	A lot of them are doing things like this Roman Catholic Church in Manhattan.
	It's a Church of St.
	Paul's. It's a very big building.
	Been there for a very long time.
	The church, of course, has been completely hollowed out.
	The church, meaning the people, has been hollowed out.
	But they put up an exhibit Called God is Trans at St.
	Paul's Church in Manhattan.
	An art display called God is Trans, A Queer Spiritual Journey.
	And the person who put it up also gave this little tagline.
	Oh, by the way, there is no devil.
	Devil didn't make me do it.
	I did it on my own.
	So, yeah.
	One person that goes there.
	I understand there's transgender people and I pray for all people, but enough is enough.
	It seems like they're trying to force the agenda on others.
	It seems like it.
	It seems like it.
	The same parishioner indicated that the resident priests of the parish declined to explain the meaning of Of this art display.
	What's this about? No comment.
	This person can't figure that out.
	We had no knowledge of it beforehand, said a spokesperson for the Archdiocese, the people that they report to.
	If media reports are accurate, then we would have some concerns.
	Oh, well, I'm sure that the media reports are not accurate.
	It's probably just those same misinformation people that are lying to everybody about Bud Light, don't you think?
	St. Paul's offers one Sunday Mass that is marketed as gay-friendly.
	The Archdiocese doesn't have any problem with that, I guess.
	And again, I don't have any problem with gay people.
	I think we should be friendly with gay people.
	But to embrace them and be friendly with them is to explain to them that there is a better life and to explain to them how God sees what they're doing.
	And to show them a way that they can get out of that slavery to sin.
	Slavery is whatever controls you.
	And so there is a way out of that.
	Why is it a loving thing to leave people that way?
	I don't understand that line of thinking at all.
	The concept of transgenderism conflicts with the Christian understanding of gender, says this article from, I think it's actually from Daily Caller, but, sorry, Western Journal.
	No, actually what it does, it doesn't conflict with the teachings of the Christian understanding of gender, it teaches with what the Bible says.
	That's where we get our Christian understanding from.
	That teaches that God created mankind as male and female, so we don't really care about that.
	So what is the basis of even continuing on with these quote-unquote churches, if you're going to throw that away?
	As a matter of fact, it's kind of interesting, you know, with all the stuff about coronation, Al Mohler, you know, who was telling everybody that the vaccine was a moonshot and stuff, but he does have some interesting things to point out from time to time.
	I did not realize that as part of this coronation, and he was saying, look at this, you know, what...
	We just saw happen with Charles and Camilla DeVille, because she is kind of like Cruella DeVille, but they call her his consort because they're not married.
	And he said, if you stop and think about it, it was only two generations ago that there was this big hoop-dee-doo in the royal family.
	Why? Why? Well, because the guy that was going to become king, Edward, decided that he was going to marry a divorced woman.
	And so, as a result, they had him in the 1930s.
	He had to abdicate. His brother became king, and his brother's daughter was Queen Elizabeth.
	And so Charles' grandfather became king because of the scandal of marrying a divorced woman, and yet Charles doesn't even marry Camilla.
	That's how rapidly morality has been redefined.
	Charles has to take an oath as the king of England to be defender of the faith.
	He wanted to get that changed to defender of faith, not the faith.
	That little word makes all the difference in the world doesn't it?
	Specificity. And so what Al Mohler was saying is, you know, you look at how rapidly social institutions, moral institutions, the things that were part of Christianity have been swept away.
	A very good example of it right there.
	Terrified Russian men are changing their gender in an attempt to avoid being drafted in the Ukrainian war.
	That's what they're saying. Now, I don't know if this is true.
	This is coming from the Daily Star.
	This is a tabloid UK paper.
	And, of course, they're always going to put stories out like this.
	But the idea that there'd be a whole regiment of corporal clingers who are trying to get Section 8 out of this, it's kind of humorous.
	I guess you could say that the idea of being drafted and sent into the Ukrainian war scared the pants off of these men and put them right into a dress.
	Putin is fighting less and less men willing to join the army, and they're even taking some very drastic measures in order to avoid the deadly draft.
	Russian men are changing their gender in a bid to avoid fighting for the war.
	Putin's officials aim to tighten the laws surrounding gender in the hopes that it'll stop the panicking males from making the switch.
	And, of course, they're not really switching.
	This is like the people who are pretending to be trans so they can get into the United States.
	These people are across the border.
	These people are trying to pretend that they are transgender so they can get out of the army.
	According to Russia's justice minister, officials are looking at ways to take a step towards enshrining family values in Russian law, saying that you will not be able to just change gender by just filling in a form.
	You'll actually have to have surgery.
	You have to commit to it in a big way.
	He said, this will allow us to rule out the possibility of changing a person's gender purely by changing documents.
	But that is still available in the Telegraph.
	Again, another war-pushing publication.
	It says that a Russian Communist Party MP said, both MPs and the Justice Ministry have suspicions about the growing number of such changes.
	Because, you know, they're not pushing it in school like we are.
	Those men who did not manage to flee the country after Putin's mobilization last September have rushed to private clinics to do the paperwork.
	According to official stats, 2,700 men had changed gender in Russia in the four years between 2018 and 2022.
	No new figures have been released since the start of the war, however.
	So again, this story is based on implication and, you know, probably baloney.
	But still, I thought it was amusing.
	It might be true, who knows.
	One in four high school students, however...
	Are now identifying on the LGBTQ spectrum.
	That's an interesting way to put it, spectrum.
	Yeah, as a mental disorder.
	Almost a quarter of American high school students, a number that has more than doubled since 2015.
	So if we go another eight years, that gets us up to 2030.
	If we could get to about half, if they could, you know, if it just keeps going at the same rate of growth, you know, by their 2030 magic date, we could have half of the population.
	As LGBT. Well, that'd be a very effective way to have population control, wouldn't it?
	I think maybe the schools are working exactly as they were designed in order to promote government values.
	As we had in the article yesterday, I mean the interview I had yesterday, talking about the book Proclaim Liberty Throughout the Land, if I'm paraphrasing that correctly.
	It's an inscription that was on the Liberty Bell.
	Also, they took that from Leviticus.
	But, you know, when he's talking about it, he said that the schools were always designed as a term of social control, right?
	It was initially put under Protestant control to make sure that they were going to, you know, push kids to Protestantism instead of Catholicism.
	So almost all the private schools when I was growing up were Catholic schools.
	And the Protestant values were being pushed in the government schools.
	Now, the government school institutions have been taken over by the secular humanists, by the LGBT, and they're pushing those values in CRT. And so that's the problem.
	We have to look at these institutions that we create.
	We have to look at these precedents that we do, you know, again, things like E-Verify, to understand these things are...
	If they have the potential for abuse, it will be abused.
	If the potential for abuse is there...
	Guess what? It's going to be like a magnet to the people who want to do that kind of stuff to people.
	Just like when we have a tremendous amount of money and power in Washington, that pulls in thieves and criminals from all over the world to feast on that dung pile in Washington, D.C. Babylon Bee headline study shows that kids who are homeschooled could miss out on their opportunity to be a gay communist.
	Hey, they almost used my term there.
	Sodom, go Marxist.
	They run right together.
	Instead of Sodom and Gomorrah, Sodom, go Marxist.
	Their opportunity to become a gay communist.
	The two essential roles of public education are to turn kids into communists and then to make them gay, said Randy Weingarten, the teacher union president.
	Studies show that while homeschool kids may excel in advanced math, literature, history, Latin, debate, civics, religion, music, arts, theoretical physics, and physical fitness, most kids educated by their parents fall woefully short in essential subjects like communism and being gay.
	Again, Bible and B. But we're doing something about that.
	There's going to be a massive proliferation of after-school Satan clubs to get everybody fixed here, right?
	And, you know, there really aren't that many.
	This is the Temple of Satan or whatever this guy, the Satanic Temple.
	These people started this a couple of years ago.
	They've got a handful of these things across the country, and some of the people who have set up after-school Christian programs said, don't freak out about this.
	This is a tactic to try to shut down our program that has thousands or tens of thousands of after-school programs across the country.
	We don't want to lose that.
	But it's not really a competition between religions, if you understand it.
	This is based on another media-pushed lie.
	These after-school Satan clubs, they're not a religion.
	As a matter of fact, they're very clear about the fact they don't believe in Satan.
	They don't believe in religion.
	They don't believe in Satan. Why are they there?
	They're there merely as an attack on the free exercise of religion.
	And so I don't think we should be afraid of attacking the Satanic clubs because they are not entitled to religious freedom.
	And because it's not a religion.
	And they're clear that it's not a religion.
	And quite frankly, they're not as satanic as what the kids are getting during school, probably.
	The satanic Sodom-Go-Marxist curriculum that they're pushed on them during school.
	But when we look at these satanic clubs, it's a tiny number of them.
	And as I said, they're there to attack the free exercise of religion.
	And what we have to do and be able to give an answer to people when they want to talk about this stuff, we have to understand the difference between establishment of religion and the free exercise of religion.
	Those are two very different things.
	Individuals have the free exercise of religion.
	You can do that as a government employee.
	You can do that as a government employee in your government job.
	You don't have to purge religion out of any aspect of your life, anywhere, anytime.
	That is protected.
	And if it isn't protected, let's overthrow the government.
	Put in a government that will protect our God-given liberties.
	But it's already protected under the Constitution.
	So you don't have to worry about the free exercise of religion anywhere.
	In any capacity, as any government employee, they cannot tell you that you can't freely exercise your religion.
	Establishment of religion was to establish a particular church, and all of the states had established religions, but they were different denominations, and they didn't want one to be declared to be the official church.
	You know, you had the difference. Some of them were Baptist.
	Some of them were Congregationalists.
	Some of them were Catholic and so forth.
	And they didn't want to have that overruled.
	And you still had some established state churches up into the 1840s in Massachusetts.
	They still had an established church.
	What was an established church?
	You were required to go in some instances and required to pay.
	Now, as time went on, they would remove, in many cases, the attendance requirement, but you were still required to pay.
	Which brings back the issue.
	Education is always about religion.
	And the schools are seminaries of secular humanism.
	And if you will, Satanism, already.
	And we are not now, at this point in time, when I was a child, we were required to attend.
	The government schools, the public schools, were an established seminary, religious seminary of secular humanism.
	You were required to go, and you were required to pay for its support.
	Now today, we're at the point where you're not required to go, but if you choose to homeschool your kids, you're still required to pay.
	If you choose not to become part of the religion of Sodom, go Marxist.
	And so we've got to get to the point where you're not required to pay.
	That's the point. Nobody should be forced to pay for the inculcation of ideas and values that they find to be abhorrent.
	That was what Thomas Jefferson was saying about the freedom of religion.
	And that applies to the schools, the government-run schools.
	They're instilling religious values, moral values, and I don't like the moral and religious values that they're putting in, and I consider the money that I have to pay in property taxes for the schools, which is the vast majority of your property taxes.
	It's the vast majority if you don't own a home or if you're not leasing a home from the bank with your mortgage.
	The property taxes that you pay are a big, big part of your monthly expense, whether you own or you rent.
	You just don't see it if you rent.
	And so, we should not be forced to pay for this.
	So anyway, don't get too upset about these satanic schools.
	They're designed to look bigger than they are.
	We have a governor in Oklahoma who is now going to block funding for a PBS station.
	Promoting drag queens to kids.
	Now, this is only one PBS station.
	It's not the network, number one.
	But notice what he has to say about this and apply this to the schools.
	I'm just tired, he said, of using taxpayer dollars for some person's agenda.
	That's what I was just talking about.
	So, good governor, now do this to all of PBS. Now do this to the schools as well.
	Because I, for one, am tired of taxpayer dollars being used to promote the CRT agenda, or the LGBT agenda, or the 1619 agenda, whatever.
	A decision by PBS Station Oklahoma to promote a drag queen and related ideology to children has prompted the governor to block funding for his operation.
	Unless the legislature overrides the decision, the station will likely be halting operations.
	Close it down.
	Governor Stitt... A Republican, Oklahoma.
	Among the concerns cited was that Clifford the Big Red Dog features lesbian parents.
	A book titled The Hips on the Drag Queen Goes Swish, Swish, Swish.
	That was being read by someone who identifies as Little Miss Hot Mess.
	The big, big question, he said, is why are we spending taxpayer dollars to prop up or compete with the private sector and run television stations?
	Well, that's the big question about education.
	Why are we spending taxpayer dollars to prop up schools that compete with the private sector or for things that are easily obtainable by us?
	Many of them for free.
	You know, you can get a curriculum online.
	You can teach the children yourself.
	You know, it doesn't have to be a private school.
	He said, indoctrination over sexualization of our children is really problematic.
	Okay, good. Now shut down the schools.
	Because that's where the bigger problem is.
	There's far more kids that are being done this to the schools throughout Oklahoma and every other state than the kids who are watching that PBS station.
	He said some of the programming we're seeing doesn't need to be in public television.
	It doesn't need to be in public schools either.
	There's so much television.
	You can have so much media.
	There's so many schools out there.
	There's so much media and resources available for education.
	We don't need these government schools.
	He said maybe in 1957 you could have made an argument that you needed a public TV station.
	That's totally outdated to this point.
	Yesterday when I was talking to him about the foundations of America, the Christian foundations and stuff, and he said it was very important because if you go back and you look at the Protestant idea that we have to understand that we are individually responsible to God, that we're not going to blame this on some priesthood or something, but we're individually responsible to him, and we're individually responsible to read.
	So the ability to have mass production of books...
	And to have Bibles in everybody's hands.
	And of course, that was a big part of the fight at the very beginning.
	Governments and church institutions were killing people who were printing and translating Bibles.
	That was a key part of it.
	But learning how to read was something that was considered to be fundamentally important for your eternal life.
	And so people worked on that very hard.
	And education was always About moral values.
	I know when we were doing homeschooling and we'd go to the conventions and they would have the curriculum fairs and stuff and you could choose, you could look at books and things like that.
	There were so many books from the 1800s and the 1700s and so forth here in America.
	And they were used to teach kids how to read.
	And I thought it's so different from the books that they used to teach me how to read in the middle of the 20th century.
	It wasn't, you know, the kind of stuff that I got was, see Jane run, see Dick run, run Jane run, you know, that type of thing.
	It's like, what? You know, even as a kid, it's like, this is stupid.
	Why are we talking about this?
	But, you know, you look at the books that they were using.
	They were teaching morality to people.
	They were teaching them what was right and what was wrong.
	They were teaching them social etiquette or other things in society.
	The types of things that George Washington wrote about as a young man, putting together his book of rules that he was going to live by and things like that.
	They were very concerned about how they interacted with people, what an appropriate society looked like, But especially about what they looked like to God.
	There was a purpose behind the books from the very beginning of their reading experience, unlike our valueless stuff.
	Because why? Well, as Solzhenitsyn said, we forgot God.
	No, we forgot God when we put together that reading book and the curriculum.
	We just left him out of it.
	And so you can say, maybe in 1957 you can make an argument that you needed a public TV station.
	Well, you know, there was the argument that you needed to go to a public school.
	I don't buy that argument. I think all the time about, and I've told this story before, Carl Hess, one of the founders of the Libertarian Party, was a speechwriter for Barry Goldwater.
	Barry Goldwater called him my Shakespeare.
	He was the one who wrote the line, extremism in defense is no vice, and moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.
	And that was a great quote.
	I love that quote.
	When I saw him, he was a pretty old, ponytailed libertarian with an earring and stuff like that.
	But his mom had, in the 1930s, had risked jail to keep her son, Carl Hess, who wrote that, to keep him out of school so he could have a real education, so he could think critically.
	We're constantly moving to stay one step ahead of the truancy office.
	Find out that he's there.
	He's not going to school. It's time for us to move again.
	A single mom who is doing that.
	Now, if a single mom can do that and raise a Carl Hess, you can do that with your kids.
	And not just from the standpoint that you're going to have somebody who is a critical thinker who's going to stand for individual liberty, but somebody for whom you have values and aspirations.
	That are going to be eternal. Because they're going to have character and integrity.
	Thank you for joining us. Let me tell you.
	The David Knight Show.
	You can listen to with your ears.
	You can even watch it by using your eyes.
	In fact, if you can hear me, that means you're listening to The David Knight Show right now.
	Yeah. Good job.
	And you want to know something else?

▲