Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 2, 2023 - The David Knight Show

03:00:41

The David Knight Show - 06/02/2023

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	The End free speech to free minds.
	soon.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	As the clock strikes 13, it's Friday the 2nd of June, year of our Lord 2023.
	Well, today we have some amazing stories.
	We have artificial intelligence, you know, is being trained as a military weapon.
	They trained it to fly F-16s.
	They gave it missions, gets points for doing the missions, and it decides the most efficient way to do this is to kill its operator.
	We're going to talk...
	Maybe there's some lessons in that for how our government works in general.
	But we're going to talk about that.
	The last Ukrainian warship has now been sunk.
	I did not talk yet about Jamie Foxx and what is going on with the injections, but of course, even an FDA study showing myocarditis in kids is not enough to stop them.
	We'll be right back.
	Stay with us.
	We'll be right back.
	Yeah, every day we seem like we check another box in terms of science fiction reality that we're in, dystopia.
	In this particular case, the U.S. Air Force is running tests, simulations with a drone.
	And the drone just went straight to HAL. H-A-L, the computer from 2001 Space Odyssey.
	Sorry I can't do that, Dave.
	You're in the way of the mission.
	And I'm going to have to eliminate you.
	An AI-enabled drone killed its human operator.
	This is a simulated test, fortunately.
	They haven't actually unleashed these killer robots yet on us, but they're practicing.
	And they come to a startling conclusion after the end of this simulation, which is, I think, perhaps the most worrying thing about this, is the conclusion that the military comes to.
	Ha ha! All of this.
	In a simulated test conducted by the U.S. Air Force, it decided that since it was getting points for kills as part of its mission, you know, it's a killer drone, but it's under, this is the Future Combat Air and Space Capabilities Summit that was held in London.
	May 23rd and 24th, Colonel Tucker Chinko Hamilton, the U.S. Air Force Chief of AI Test and Operations, Held a presentation that shared the pros and cons.
	On the one hand, it does a great job of killing.
	On the other hand, it kills us too.
	The autonomous weapon system that had a human in the loop giving the final yes or no order.
	And it says, well, wait a minute. If I'm getting points for killing, this person is in the loop telling me under some circumstances that I cannot kill.
	I can maximize my points by getting rid of him.
	And it does. So then they come back to it, and they give it some new parameters, and they say, killing the human operator is bad.
	You're going to lose points if you kill the human operator.
	So then it didn't kill the operator, but it took out the communications tower and everybody in it.
	So this is where we're going.
	Now, the most amazing thing about all this...
	It's the kind of cavalier attitude that the U.S. military has.
	He said Hamilton's conclusion was, well, we've got to face a world where AI is already here, and it's transforming our society.
	I guess, you know, that's just the way it is, and we're just going to continue with this stuff.
	Yeah, that's the way these guys are.
	So, in December 2022, the U.S. Department of Defense's research agency, DARPA, announced that AI could successfully control an F-16.
	And that was what Shari was talking about in his book, The Four Battlegrounds.
	He said, you know, these AI, we've trained them to fly these planes in simulations, and so of course, you know, they could do that in real life, assuming that you put them in charge of it.
	And so then we had them do dogfights with humans, and they were ruthless.
	And capable of pulling more G's than the humans could withstand.
	And they could kill the humans.
	And as he pointed out, he said that the problem is that as you start to hand over more and more, it's a progression.
	You say, well, the other side's got these AI robots, and as long as we keep a human in the loop, we're going to be slower than they are.
	So both sides are going to turn it over to autonomous control.
	Because speed is of the essence.
	If you hesitate, you're dead.
	It's whoever fires first.
	So then the problem becomes, how do we get back control of them?
	How do we give them some parameters?
	He said, AI is a tool that we have to wield to transform our nations.
	If addressed improperly, it will be our downfall.
	I think that's what it's going to be, quite frankly.
	Do you really have any confidence these people are going to do it right?
	First of all, if you're going to give this thing that has some kind of reasoning capability in its programming, wouldn't you want to start out with maybe, you know, this has been thought through.
	If we're going to go pure science fiction, let's read some science fiction books.
	Isaac Asimov worked this out in the iRobot series.
	I read those things when I was in elementary school.
	These guys are creating autonomous killer robots and they haven't even read...
	Some of the plausible scenarios that somebody ought to think about and think we've got to come up with some rules.
	You know, you had the robotic laws.
	I forget how many of them it was.
	I don't know, five laws or nine laws or something like that.
	And you have to, the very first one is, you know, do no harm to a human.
	And that's the, like, prime directive.
	You know, spare yourself whenever possible, but that's not as important as not killing a human.
	So you might think that they want to start with that.
	And there's also been other people who have thought through this.
	One person went through a thought experiment.
	He called it the paperclip maximizer.
	This is not Operation Paperclip, but it might as well be.
	It's like mad scientists from Nazi Germany.
	Paperclip Maximizer is an experiment that was done back in 2003, a thought experiment by a philosopher, Nick Bostrom.
	He said, okay, so you've got a very powerful AI, and you tell it your task is to manufacture as many paperclips as possible.
	Naturally, it will devote all available resources to this task, but then it will seek more resources.
	And it will beg, cheat, lie, steal to increase its own ability to make paperclips.
	This, by the way, could also be applied to the federal government.
	We're humans in charge of any kind of political institution, right?
	Operation Paperclip, indeed.
	It will lie, beg, steal, cheat to get more power.
	Your objective is to get as much power as possible.
	Or money, or whatever.
	Fill in the blank, right? It's just a paperclip in this particular case.
	Anyone who impedes that process will be removed or mocked or destroyed or whatever, depending on who the candidate is.
	More recently, a researcher affiliated with Google's DeepMind co-authored a paper that proposed a similar situation.
	To the U.S. Air Force's rogue AI-enabled drone simulation.
	This is from Vice, by the way, that I'm quoting now.
	The researchers concluded a world-ending catastrophe was likely if a rogue AI were to come up with unintended strategies to achieve a given goal, including eliminating potential threats and using all available energy.
	So they are unleashing something that they haven't really necessarily thought through.
	They're unleashing something that thinks in a different way than they do.
	And as they continue to put things like F-16 jets or armed drones or power grids or nuclear weapons at its disposal, you never know exactly how it's going to dispose of us when we get in the way.
	They better go back to Isaac Asimov's books and read those things.
	But you know, when you look at what we have become, it's getting increasingly tempting to replace people with robots.
	Here's Amazon employees.
	And they are out there.
	They are protesting in Seattle because they don't want to go to work.
	Look at how enthusiastic these people are.
	This is the thing that amazed me.
	And they're just...
	They have absolutely no energy, no outrage, no passion, no nothing.
	I could imagine if I was Jeff Bezos and I was looking out there, I'd just say, we don't need those kind of people.
	It's just amazing to me how spoiled they have gotten in all of this and how useless...
	People become pacified.
	You know, they got used to working from home with the lockdown.
	They don't want to walk into work, even though they've done everything they can to pamper them on site, on the job site.
	But people are just, I guess, maybe the theme of this is stupidity as we look at this.
	Because, Travis, pull up the article there with student eats 120,000 bananas.
	Whoa, that was something strange we went through.
	Eats 120,000 banana artwork because, quote, he was hungry.
	And I saw this headline, and I thought, you know, so what is this?
	And here's, do you think that's stupid?
	The student's not stupid.
	Whoever paid $120,000 for that banana that was duct taped to the wall?
	Pull that back up. That's the artwork there.
	It was done by an Italian artist, Maurizio Catalan.
	And he sold it to some bigger fool theory.
	This not only works on Wall Street.
	You find the greater fool to find your...
	You keep bidding the price up.
	On stock that's not worth it, but you can always maybe find a greater fool out there, and he did.
	He found it in the museum.
	And they paid $120,000 for a banana that was duct-taped to the wall.
	I don't know, what was it about that?
	Was it the particular angle that he had there that was so special?
	And, um...
	Uh, so...
	You, uh...
	I don't know who is the bigger idiot, the person who ate the banana?
	How could a program not do better than that?
	And then we have Joe Biden, who was at a commencement ceremony for...
	I'm sure you've seen this at this point in time.
	But here he is, a cadet.
	He's there at the ceremony.
	He walks up. Somebody left a sandbag there, and he tripped over the sandbag.
	As he's stiffly walking, that's what they say.
	I don't see us saying, well, I guess there is, maybe.
	Well, they're trying to hold something down.
	But I saw that, and I said, you know, he's been sandbagged by his administration from the very beginning, putting him in there as this clueless puppet.
	Yes, he is authoritarian, and if you ever hear something that they're doing, he's going to rubber stamp it.
	If it is dictatorial and authoritarian enough, he'll rubber stamp it.
	So, yeah, he's their puppet there.
	But, yeah, just turning around and doesn't see that, and there's a lot of things that Biden doesn't see, isn't it?
	Then, finally, before we take a quick break here and get back to what is happening in a more serious way with the war in Ukraine, you had...
	And I talked about this.
	I want to play the clip for you.
	You had DeSantis. It was reported by RFK Jr.
	that he was talking at some point in time to Ron DeSantis during this fake pandemic.
	And Ron DeSantis said, if I'm elected president, I'm going to burn down.
	The CDC and the NIH. And RFK Jr., when he said that, he was talking to Russell Brand and he said, well, I think we can do it surgically.
	I think we can leave.
	Enough of that there.
	He said, as I was talking in the interview yesterday, he said the same thing about the CIA. Not completely destroy it.
	Just fix it.
	We can reform it.
	I think that's a big mistake.
	I think it's a big mistake. A lot of Republicans, like Ramaswamy, said, well, we've got to really just go through and gut the FBI and rebuild it.
	Don't rebuild it. There's no authority for it in the Constitution.
	And there was no authority in the Constitution for the FBI, for the CIA, for the NIH, for the FDA, for the CDC. There's no authority for any of those things there for a reason.
	It wasn't that they didn't need it.
	It wasn't that these things are there now because we've got a modern society and we've got technology and we've got to control it.
	No, I mean, take a look at the autonomous drones.
	Do we know how to control the technology or is the technology controlling us?
	Do we know how to control the government or is the government controlling us?
	And so we have to understand that those types of institutions were something that the founders did not want to have because they understood human nature.
	They got the big picture.
	We're too caught up in the details of the technology, the details of the vaccine or the details of the meat or whatever.
	You can have meat inspections, but they need to be done at the local level, the state level, something like that.
	We don't need the federal government doing it.
	Why? Why?
	Why does it make a difference whether everything is done by one gigantic organization in Washington or by a lot of different ones at state levels or local levels or things like that?
	Well, Thomas Jefferson would know.
	James Madison would know.
	It's the corruption that comes with centralization.
	And if you want to know why we have such a corrupt This controlled bureaucracy, this crony capitalism that's there that RFK Jr.
	talks about, to his credit, he talks about it.
	But unfortunately, he doesn't get the bigger picture.
	He doesn't understand that if the institution is there, it's going to continue, you know, if he cuts it back, it's going to be like a cancer tumor, right?
	If you don't get rid of the cancer tumor, you cut on part of it, it's going to grow back, and it's going to grow back faster.
	You have to have a systemic approach to it.
	And that means that it's got to be gone.
	And so here is what Ron DeSantis said after that...
	A report from RFK Jr.
	in the interview came out.
	Somebody said, is that true?
	And here's what Ron DeSantis said.
	There was a report that I had spoken with Bobby Kennedy Jr.
	And I think he had said that the governor said that, you know, we need to burn to the ground the CDC and all these things.
	I just want to be very clear, Steve, full disclosure.
	I was not that kind to CDC and NIH. So just for the record, just so your viewers don't think I'm going soft, but I can't think of a more catastrophic response than how this country responded to COVID, particularly at the federal level with people like Dr.
	Fauci, with the CDC, with the FDA. And nothing has been done about it to hold any of those folks accountable.
	So, yeah, burn it down, he said.
	But you hear what he's saying.
	We've got to hold those folks accountable.
	Yes, we do have to hold them accountable.
	Hold them accountable and get rid of the institution.
	I mean, literally burn it down.
	Completely purge this thing.
	And, of course, we hear this all the time from politicians.
	Ronald Reagan's going to kill the Department of Education, which was created that election year by Jimmy Carter.
	It was just a few months old when he took office.
	And instead, he grew it into maturity.
	So, yeah, we know what needs to be done.
	And we know that even though these people talk like they're radical libertarians, it ain't going to happen, no matter who gets elected, whether it's DeSantis or F.K. Jr.
	This is why we've got to start, again, I'll go back to the example that we had last week when I talked to Senator Nicely.
	You're worried about a pistol brace?
	Which, by the way, isn't it interesting that that became, you know, the grace period ended as of yesterday, June 1st.
	Have you seen anything about anybody being arrested?
	I haven't seen anything about it.
	As a matter of fact, I looked all over the news.
	I couldn't find anything about any enforcement of this pistol brace anywhere, even in the, you know, the radical northeastern tyrannical states.
	Yeah. But they've already taken care of it here in Tennessee.
	They said, you're not going to enforce laws.
	Tennessee law enforcement will not enforce laws that are countermanded, federal laws that are countermanded by state laws.
	And by the way, we're going to make pistol braces legal.
	Done. We're done. You see?
	This is why the presidential race is important to have that discussion.
	We need to stop and think, okay, what really should be done?
	You know, should we make the CDC better?
	Or should we rip it out by the roots?
	You see, that's the radical solution.
	Because that's what that means.
	Radical means you rip it out by the roots.
	That's what the Marxists are trying to do to our society.
	They want to rip out the Constitution.
	Well, that's already been taken out gradually.
	But they want to rip out every sense of our culture and our history through the schools.
	They want to rip religion away from all the kids.
	They want to rip the kids away from the parents and so forth.
	Everything that they do is radical.
	Taking it out by the roots.
	Well, we need to start taking out the federal government by the roots.
	And if not, we need to put barriers there.
	There was a story from ABC News.
	To push back against the Tennessee abortion prohibition.
	Tennessee woman gets emergency hysterectomy after doctors deny early abortion care.
	And so they make this all about the abortion law here in Tennessee.
	And it is a tragedy.
	She had recently had a child.
	She had the child by cesarean section.
	And then she got pregnant again right away.
	And the doctors said, well, I don't think since you're not completely healed, you got a cesarean scar pregnancy.
	The pregnancy started bulging out from her uterus and a placenta accreta.
	I have no idea that's part of the placenta, I guess.
	A serious pregnancy complication which the placenta grows too deeply into the uterine wall and part or all of the placenta then remains attached to the uterine wall during delivery.
	It can cause severe blood loss after delivery.
	So she said, I could hemorrhage.
	It was already bulging out.
	So... They said, this is the early stages of this.
	You should abort the baby.
	They were kind of on the fence about it.
	They didn't do it. And things continued along that route.
	They tried to make this about the abortion law.
	She was eight weeks pregnant when they met with a maternal fetal medicine specialist who confirmed that she had a cesarean scar pregnancy.
	And sent her back to Vanderbilt, but they said they would not comment on the case.
	Because she wanted the baby, she said it took her and her husband time before they were able to decide that they wanted to end the pregnancy because the risk that it posed to her life was too high.
	And so they waited, and then they're weighing these two factors, and then it gets to the point where, I think because of legal situations, they would not do the abortion for her.
	Now, the way this is put out by ABC News, and in the article, showing the article, Travis, where they show the little baby that she had, and it was premature, but it's not that premature.
	In the latter stages of it, the baby, you know, things started to go wrong.
	They went in, they did a cesarean, got the baby out, and then they had to do a hysterectomy.
	Now, the tact from ABC News is that even though these people had just had another baby, they had this baby, and put that back up again while we talk here.
	Take a look at that baby.
	Is ABC News saying that it would have been better to kill that baby?
	You know, she cannot have children now.
	She had to have a hysterectomy because of that.
	But they made it all about the Tennessee abortion law.
	And the family was very concerned about this.
	They didn't want to have the abortion initially.
	They were on the fence.
	They couldn't make it up. And the doctors kept telling her, you're going to die, you're going to die, so you've got to kill the baby.
	And then it got to the point where they were far enough along that, you know, things, as they got serious, they did an emergency delivery, and then they had to do a hysterectomy to stop the bleeding.
	But nowhere in this story do they ask the mother if she wished she'd killed this baby.
	Nowhere. And nowhere in this story do they say that the...
	The cesarean or the medical procedures of any of that are to blame.
	They don't say that anywhere.
	So is it something?
	You go ahead and come back to me here.
	This button is not working.
	Studio button. Anyway, nowhere in there do they say, well, you know, maybe she shouldn't have had the cesarean.
	I don't know if the cesarean was voluntary or if it was an emergency thing that was put in there.
	Nobody talks about that.
	They just talk about the Tennessee law that's trying to save the life of a baby like you just saw there.
	I don't know. I think that the good news is, you know, you're not guaranteed that you're going to be able to get pregnant again just because you've had a child.
	So yes, she can't have any more kids.
	She could still adopt more children.
	And she's got two children now.
	And who's to say that if she had aborted that baby that is now alive, That the next time she got pregnant, she might still have a cesarean scar pregnancy and be back to the same situation.
	Nobody said anything about that.
	This is simply an article to attack efforts to try to save babies' lives.
	And throughout that article, they got several pictures of that baby whose life was saved by that Tennessee law.
	We'll be right back.
	Thank you.
	Decoding the mainstream propaganda.
	It's the David Knight Show.
	Well, Russia has sunk Ukraine's last warship, according to them and according to a war correspondent who's there.
	I don't know if the war correspondent is Russian, but it appears to be true.
	Ukraine is not saying anything one way or the other.
	There's no denial from it.
	The Russian military has destroyed Ukraine's, quote, last warship, The Yuri Oloferenko in a high-precision airstrike, said the Defense Ministry of Moscow.
	War correspondent Andrei Rudenko also reported that it had been sunk after a series of overnight airstrikes on military facilities in Odessa, citing Ukrainian sources.
	Rudinko claimed that a fire had broken out on the deck of the vessel, which is said to have caused the detonation of ammunition in the hold.
	The journalist said that significant losses had been reported amongst the crew.
	Ukrainian officials have yet to confirm the sinking of the ship.
	A spokesman for the Ukrainian Navy, they still have a bureaucracy even though they have no ships.
	This definitely is the Americans running this war here.
	Told Reuters that he would not respond to Russian claims.
	The Yuri Olofarenko was a Type 773 medium landing ship that was built by Poland in 1971.
	52 years old.
	With a Soviet Navy.
	Not a great strategic loss with that.
	But I thought it was significant.
	Because from the very beginning, you had...
	Independent people looking at this, I remember I played the clips from Indian military advisors who didn't have a dog in this fight.
	They're looking at it as a neutral third party.
	And I said, this looks like this is a NATO proxy war to fight the Russians to the last Ukrainian, or the last Ukrainian warship, or the last actual Ukrainian.
	And that's exactly what it is.
	RFK Jr. is saying that now as well.
	He's the only one who's saying that.
	And any of these presidential candidates that I know of really pushing back against this proxy war.
	Ukraine's allies are pushing back on striking targets in Russia, according to Archimax.com.
	Well, not really.
	France is, but the UK is pushing for them to go into Russia Russia.
	And to do more. So they're divided on that.
	And the bottom line is they come back and they say, well, you know, we've agreed not to talk about that.
	It's like a married couple.
	You know, it's a very contentious issue.
	Let's just avoid that completely instead of working this thing out.
	Russian territory is increasingly targeted.
	The U.S. has publicly leaned against the strategy of attacks within Russia, but not the U.K. You notice how the U.K. has been the aggressive little mouthpiece in all this.
	The first ones to push for F-16s and all the rest of the stuff.
	Yeah, it is that they are really, really aggressively doing this.
	And of course, it's not that the U.S. is any more reluctant in it.
	It's just that the U.K. is not afraid to say the quiet part out loud.
	And the U.S. is trying to pretend that they don't have a hand in it.
	U.K. Foreign Secretary, whose name is Cleverley, Well, James Cleverley cleverly told reporters in Estonia this week that Ukraine, or maybe not so cleverly, has the right to protect forces beyond its borders to undermine Russia's ability to project force into Ukraine itself.
	He said legitimate military targets beyond its own border are part of Ukraine's self-defense, but other allies are more cautious.
	The French said French military support should not be used to attack Russia.
	Another European diplomat said that allies tend not to discuss this again because it's very divisive, but the NATO Secretary General, Jen Stoltenberg, was again aggressive in his rhetoric.
	He said the operational choices about how they use weapons must be made by Ukrainians themselves.
	And these are difficult choices, are they really?
	Isn't this what you've always wanted?
	Isn't this what you've been doing for decades?
	Now they've given us assurances that they won't use our equipment to strike inside Russia.
	But once it goes to them, said John Kirby, spokesman for the U.S. National Security Council, once we give them the weapons, it belongs to them.
	And you know, our hands are, we wash our hands of any of this.
	We don't want our systems.
	We don't want to encourage or enable our systems to attack inside Russia.
	But, you know, hey, if it happens, it happens.
	Nothing really we can do about it.
	So the Associated Press headline says Putin and Biden.
	Biden shows growing appetite to cross Putin's red lines.
	And this is really key.
	I thought this is an amazing article.
	Because this is the Associated Press.
	Which really stands for American Propaganda.
	Not the AP. Associated Propaganda.
	Associated with the American government.
	It's American Propaganda. Our Pravda, if you will.
	Whether you're talking about the war in Ukraine, or you're talking about vaccines, or you're talking about the pandemic, or you're talking about climate or whatever, or you're talking about pronouns and terminology that we have to use.
	You can't say pro-life, is the AP. You've got to say anti-abortion rights, that type of thing.
	So, American propaganda, AP, says despite the Russian leader's apocalyptic warnings, The United States has gradually agreed to expand Ukraine's arsenal with Javelin and Stinger missiles, with high Mars rocket launchers, advanced missile defense systems, drones, helicopters, M1 Abrams tanks, and so forth.
	And now, soon, the fourth generation fighter jets, the F-16s.
	A key reason for brushing aside Putin's threats is that he's not followed through on his promises to punish the West for providing weapons to Ukraine.
	And they said Russia has devalued its red mines so many times by saying certain things would be unacceptable and then doing nothing when they happen.
	So what does that tell us about this conflict?
	Well, first of all, I don't know, maybe Putin never had any kids.
	But you don't make idle threats.
	There's going to be consequences if you do such and such.
	Well, if they go ahead and do such and such, you better have some consequences there for that, or you're done.
	Once a child figures out that you don't mean it, then it's like, Katie, bar the door.
	There's going to be no end to any of this stuff.
	Well, that's what they're openly talking about here with AP. They said, you know, Putin has said, this is a red line.
	You better not do that. There's going to be immediate consequences.
	And, um... He has said that many times.
	You know, you do such and such, there's going to be severe and immediate consequences, and then nothing happens.
	They said Russia's reluctance to retaliate has influenced the risk calculus of Secretary of State Anthony Blinken.
	A senior State Department official told AP, American Propaganda, you factor that into your decision-making.
	We did this, and there was no escalation or response.
	Can we do the next thing?
	The American State Department is like Dennis the Menace with nuclear weapons, you know?
	And so they said, but when you look at this, okay, if Russia feels its territorial integrity is threatened, we will use all of our defense methods at our disposal, and this is not a bluff, said Putin.
	Well, if somebody says something like that, it's almost a tell.
	I'm telling you, we're going to do this, and this is not a bluff, where they say such and such, and that's the truth.
	I'm not lying to you about that.
	It's like, well, maybe he really is lying to me about that, and maybe that really is a bluff when people say that kind of stuff.
	It's kind of a tell. Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chair of Putin's Powerful Security Council.
	It was more explicit in January.
	He said the defeat of a nuclear power in a conventional war may trigger a nuclear war.
	But Western officials are cognizant that that doesn't mean that he never will, particularly as the conflict escalates.
	I said maybe he will do that at some point in time.
	He's got some red lines somewhere.
	We don't know where those red lines are, they said.
	So you see, this is all Putin's fault.
	That's the tact of this article.
	It's his fault. He's got red lines that he doesn't follow through on.
	And so this could get us into a nuclear war.
	It's like, wait a minute. He gave you a red line and you crossed it.
	And then by crossing that, you're ready to take those consequences.
	You were expecting him to escalate.
	And he didn't. So now you cross the next red line and wait for him to escalate.
	And he doesn't. And then you do it again.
	Does it kind of sound like one party wants war, and the other one is reluctant in this?
	Which party is it that is constantly crossing the lines, constantly knocking the chip off the shoulder, and daring, double-dog daring, if you will, Putin to do something about it?
	It's clearly, what they're trying to do is say, it's his fault that this whole thing gets out of control.
	And yet they talk about the fact that they continually cross lines, continually get aggressive.
	And of course, what would have happened if on that very first red line that they crossed, what would have happened if he had retaliated in a much bigger way?
	If he'd retaliated against Americans or against some NATO country or something like that?
	Well, then that would have been gasoline on the fire.
	And they would have rapidly escalated the conflict.
	Because that's what they want.
	You keep crossing red lines and daring somebody to do something about it, you want the fight.
	Right? It's like a schoolhouse bully.
	He walks up to some guy and he shoves him.
	Yeah, come on. He shoves him again.
	Come on, hit me. Shove him again.
	That's what they're doing. Who's the bully in this scenario?
	Biden? NATO? And of course, NATO. This has been going on much longer than the Biden administration.
	This goes back to the 1990s.
	We're the schoolhouse bully.
	Everybody in the world sees it.
	Except the American voter.
	On Tuesday, drones struck affluent districts of Moscow in what one Russian politician called the worst attack on the Capitol since World War II. Ukraine has denied involvement in such strikes within the Russian mainland.
	We don't know who did that.
	We don't know who blew up the pipeline.
	We don't know who did any of this stuff.
	It wasn't me.
	It wasn't me. Says the kid with paint all over his face, and you see the red paint all over the walls.
	Unquestionably, the Biden administration's willingness to cross Putin's red lines has bolstered Ukraine's ability to defend itself and to recapture territory.
	But Alexander Gabuev, director of the Carnegie Institute in Berlin, said certain red lines do exist, but because we don't have a way to know for sure what they are, that's what creates the risk.
	But they're going to keep crossing them, right?
	You see, that's the point. It ends up with this associated propaganda.
	It ends up by saying, well, it's their fault.
	They don't tell us where we've got to stop.
	So we just have to keep probing and pushing.
	The debt ceiling, by the way, the debt ceiling deal was not going to put any limits on Ukrainian aid because they have a special carve-out that they call emergency spending.
	Isn't that nice? You know, we always have these emergencies.
	We had emergencies that, you know, from the time of Trump, March the 13th, everything was an emergency.
	By the way, you know, that's the move, the comedy, the Russians are coming, the Russians are coming.
	So the Russians are coming, the Russians are coming, and it's emergency, emergency.
	Emergency spending has been used to arm Ukraine.
	And if they use that, that will be exempt from any budget deal.
	But what is the deal?
	Right? The deal is that they don't have any...
	There isn't any debt ceiling deal to control anything.
	The deal is they're going to remove the debt ceiling for two years.
	That's the point. They have some agreements about some discretionary spending that they're not going to do.
	But not much.
	Like I said, you know, instead of increasing the IRS budget by $80 billion, you increase it by $60 billion, when right now it's around $16, the total budget.
	The $113 billion that's been authorized to spend on the war in Ukraine so far was passed as a supplemental emergency fund.
	And that's outside of the budget.
	Doesn't count because it's an emergency.
	The Constitution doesn't count because it's an emergency.
	The deal suspends the nation's debt limit through January the 1st, 2025.
	There is no ceiling in this Republican-led deal by McCarthy.
	Hawks in Congress are looking to use emergency spending to increase the $886 billion military budget that was agreed to as part of the deal.
	Oh, well, we can just call it an emergency and we can increase anything.
	So guess what? If you can increase the defense budget, well, you can increase these other areas.
	You just call it an emergency.
	Biden wanted to get rid of all student loan payments, calling it an emergency.
	You can call anything an emergency.
	Yeah, rule by emergency fiat.
	That's where we are. Medical martial law kicked it off.
	Trump set that precedent, didn't he?
	And now they've figured it out.
	All I have to do is scream emergency and I can do anything I want.
	It's the magic word.
	Abracadabra. Emergency. Hey, look.
	Look what we got now.
	We almost certainly are going to need to have a supplemental for Ukraine, they said.
	Said Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat from Connecticut.
	There's a lot of quotes in here about the Senators and what they're saying about this deal because it's done now in the House.
	McCarthy got his way.
	And so now it goes to the Senate.
	So what are the senators saying? Well, the Democrat Senator Blumenthal says, well, we're going to have to have an emergency supplemental.
	And the other obligations that flow from China and Taiwan on one hand, and from Russia and Ukraine on the other.
	Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney.
	Warmonger Mitt. Clearly, you know, the guy who said corporations are people, right?
	But we don't have to worry about Ukrainians dying.
	We don't have to worry about Americans getting involved in a larger war that's going to come to us.
	It's going to come to our shore. It's going to come home to us this time.
	Clearly our support for Ukraine will be outside the budget, says Romney, as it has been in the past.
	But I'd like to see additional support for our own military in the emergency supplementals as well.
	That's not enough just to give unlimited amounts of weapons and money to Ukraine and to Taiwan.
	We also need to build up our own military.
	Lindsey Graham, there with Mitt Romney, plans to introduce an amendment to the debt ceiling that would remove any military spending caps.
	The Senate is expected to vote on the legislation before the June 5th deadline.
	Expect them to do something, I would think, maybe tomorrow.
	They want to do this when the news cycle is at the quietest point.
	And that's what I would think, anyway.
	Now, what is happening to all this massive amount of weapons and money that we're funneling into what many people have said?
	Not just conservatives. Bill Gates said it.
	You've had foreign news organizations in many different countries have said that Ukraine is the most corrupt country on earth.
	So that's where we decide we'll have a coup.
	That's where Biden goes to get his payola and payoffs and things like that.
	And that's where we go to have a war.
	Well, Ukraine now appears, according to a Mexican TV report, it appears that Ukraine is selling some of these weapons to the drug cartels in Mexico.
	So this drug war has been going on now for over 50 years.
	Was it 52 years? I think it was 71 when they started it.
	And so now this long, prolonged drug war isn't just creating gangs like Al Capone.
	That was only about a decade or plus or minus a few years.
	The alcohol prohibition.
	With this thing going on more than five times as long as alcohol prohibition, you've got very serious gangs.
	And there's a real risk that Mexico could turn into a narco state.
	So you've got these gangs that they want to be able to defend themselves against the Mexican government.
	The question is, will they be open to being terrorist mercenaries as well?
	There's enough money in it. Will they use some of these weapons?
	They can walk across the border.
	Biden has made sure that that is clear.
	So these NGOs truly is an invasion.
	You've got NGOs, as Michael Yan has pointed out many times, sending people in from different foreign countries, injecting them into different countries in Central and South America, from all over the world.
	And they're very calculating about where they inject these immigrants based on immigration laws, because other countries do have immigration laws, unlike America.
	And so they inject them there, and then they transport them in.
	Are they giving them weapons?
	Are they selling them weapons?
	A new video shared on social media captured the moment when a member of one faction of a Gulf cartel walked along a dirt road with what appears to be an anti-tank weapon.
	Strapped to his back.
	The video comes at a time when that faction of the Gulf Cartel, based in Matamoros, have been waging a fierce turf war with the Metros faction from Rinoza over control of lucrative drug and human smuggling corridors.
	And so what this was was a shoulder-fired AT-4, an anti-tank weapon.
	So, again, though, if they can get military weapons from Ukraine, and I guess anybody can if they've got enough money.
	RFK Jr. calls for a mature conversation on Ukraine.
	Says the administration is lying to us.
	And these are statements that he made in his initial announcement, actually.
	I think he's saying it again.
	He said, we made a commitment to Russia, to Gorbachev, that we would not move NATO one inch to the east.
	Then we went in and we lied.
	And of course, that's exactly what the Associated Press is saying.
	But the Associated Press, AP, pointed the finger at Putin, said, it's your fault.
	You don't enforce your red lines when we cross them.
	Well, we had that boundary going back to the 90s.
	And we kept doing that.
	RFK Jr. says our government is lying to us about it.
	The media is going on with the lie.
	It's a laundering operation for the military-industrial complex.
	They just want to sell as many weapons as they can.
	And if the corrupt government in Ukraine wants to turn around and hand them to drug cartels or sell them to any terrorist group that can easily walk across the border, they're just fine with that.
	They're in the business of selling weapons and they don't really care who gets them or who they're used against.
	They really don't care.
	And so, as I pointed out before, clearly the aggressor in this is NATO. NATO has been the aggressor for decades.
	Ron Paul will say it.
	RFK Jr. will say it.
	I've said it a long time, many times.
	Among Kennedy's chief talking points is that the country needs to have a mature conversation on the conflict.
	You know what that's called in the Constitution?
	It's called a debate before you go to war.
	Congress should be debating this before they go to war.
	What does victory look like for Ukraine?
	What are we trying to do in Ukraine?
	And part of that debate needs to go back and say, so why did we engineer this coup?
	What was our intention there? And why are we doing this right on the border of Russia?
	All these things need to be talked about.
	Now, I've had some people send this to me, and I saw it myself.
	Michael Tracy took out some clips from RFK Jr.
	And, look, I'm not defending RFK Jr.
	I said before I would not vote for him because of so many different issues that I disagree with him on.
	But I think that we need to be honest when we talk about these things and not mischaracterize what somebody is saying.
	And I think it was a mischaracterization.
	What he did was he said, well, look, I didn't cut this thing in the middle.
	But what he did was he cut it out of context.
	And so what he first put up was to say...
	He said that while many Americans are moved by compassion for the Ukrainian people, including his own son, who has actually went on early to fight with Ukraine's foreign legion, Washington has been deceptive in selling Americans on the billions in defense and aid poured into the conflict.
	And so what he did was, you know, Michael Tracy put up the part where he was talking about his son going to fight for Ukraine.
	And he said, we were told that the reason we were going over there is because it was a humanitarian mission, he said.
	And this is the other part of it that was not in that clip.
	He says, but then every choice that we've made along the way has been about prolonging the war and increasing the bloodshed and refusing to negotiate.
	And it's not just that.
	It's Associated Press saying, we've crossed one red line after the other.
	Who's the aggressor? Who's the bully here?
	Do we want peace?
	Of course not. He said, if it were a humanitarian mission, We would want to terminate the war.
	We would want to shorten it.
	We would want to reduce the amount of bloodshed.
	He said the real reason for escalation is that Biden and his top officials want regime change in Russia.
	They want to take Russia out. They've openly, publicly said that they want to destroy Russia's military capability.
	And the reason for that is because after the Russian war, which they hope is going to be a proxy war, just involving Ukraine, they believe that they can give weapons to Ukraine and Zelensky will sacrifice his own people.
	That's what Arrestovich said three years before it happened.
	And so they believe they can do that, take Russia out as a factor, and then come after China.
	Who's putting out a domino theory now?
	See, that is the domino theory of the U.S. government.
	Who is the aggressor in all of this now?
	He says, as it turns out, opposing Putin has been for 20 years the principal focal aspiration of the neocons who were thrown out after the debacle in Iraq.
	And we thought they were all gone for good, but now they've all reemerged in the Biden White House.
	Because the military-industrial complex and the neocons have never been, you know, just neocons.
	This has always been a bipartisan effort.
	He said, Ukraine is a small country that is being tragically ground into the dust by the geopolitical ambitions of the neocons in the White House.
	And that was promised by Restovich three years before it happened.
	Yeah, Ukraine is going to be havoced, he said.
	The interviewer said, that's horrible.
	He said, the cool thing is, We get into NATO. And what he means by that, Zelensky and his cronies.
	Ukrainians find themselves stuck in the middle of a proxy war between two rival superpowers, he said.
	And he says if Mexico did that, if Mexico started killing 14, he says they killed 14,000 Russians in Donbass, the Ukrainian government.
	He said, imagine if we had expatriate Americans in Mexico.
	And Mexico just started murdering these people because they're American, right?
	Well, that's what happened. And it's not only that.
	But when you had the coup, you had people who voted for independence, who voted for self-government, and you had Kiev constantly shell them for eight years, go to war against them for eight years.
	And so this is all happening on the border of Russia.
	He said, so if Mexico did that to expatriate Americans, we would invade in a second.
	He said, Putin repeatedly told us, these are the red lines that you're crossing.
	And inside the State Department, the Pentagon, the Biden administration, they say, yeah, yeah, because we want war with you.
	We want to destroy you.
	So, mainstream media sources have dismissed RFK Jr.
	as a crackpot for saying this.
	That's absolutely true.
	I'll tell you who the crackpots are.
	The crackpots are the daily beast.
	They ran, before Babylon Bee became famous, well-known, I talked about, and I've mentioned this before, Hillary Clinton, they were mocking, doing a satire of Elizabeth Warren talking about her DNA test.
	Hillary Clinton came out and said, well, I'm only 50% reptilian alien.
	And I thought that was really funny.
	And I put that up, cut that out, talking about that and talking about Elizabeth Warren.
	And I cut that out as a video.
	Daily Beast attacked me in the press, tried to get me purged off of Twitter for that.
	They're the crackpots.
	They're the clowns.
	This is really what is happening.
	We will be right back.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Well, what is the intention of our leaders?
	Well, everywhere in the world, they are at war with us.
	They're at war with us over the pandemic.
	They're at war with us over the climate MacGuffin.
	Every single thing that they do is at war with us.
	And everything, every aspect of this war is to depopulate the earth.
	One way or the other. You know, that's what the LGBT stuff is about.
	Making sure that people don't even want to have a heterosexual relationship.
	They want to marry themselves, even, right?
	And then the chemicals and the injections and the outright poisoning of people, the murder, that kind of deceptive murder, the wars, the lockdowns, all this.
	And now the starvation is part of it as well.
	The Irish government is proposing killing 200,000 cows to meet climate targets.
	And my only question about this at this point Are they going to ritually sacrifice them on some kind of a pagan climate altar?
	That's the only thing that's missing out of this story.
	Going to sacrifice these 200,000 cows, dairy herd, dairy herd.
	No milk either, right? No meat, no milk.
	Let's sacrifice them on some...
	They need to come up with some kind of a statue, some kind of physical embodiment of Gaia.
	They can sacrifice the cows on the Gaia altar.
	And this is going back, they've been talking about this for some time.
	As a matter of fact, a year or two ago, they were saying that November of 2021, a year and a half or so, they said Ireland will need to cull 1.3 million cattle in order to reach its climate targets.
	So they're just getting started.
	This is only one-sixth of what they have to do.
	Ireland targets 25% cut in agricultural emissions.
	But the farmers are angry.
	Irish farmers say they'll be forced to cull cows in order to meet the climate targets and on and on.
	This has been going on year after year after year.
	And so the response from the Irish Times, largest paper they've got, going to be pro-government, But they pull back a little bit and they say, well, the call of Ireland's dairy cattle for climate targets should be quote-unquote voluntary.
	Yeah, voluntary.
	Voluntary like the mandates for vaccines.
	Coercion is not voluntary compliance.
	You're holding a gun to somebody's head.
	And that's not voluntary.
	That's cynical coercion.
	And Irish beef and dairy brands such as Kerrygold and Pilgrim's Choice.
	I didn't know those were coming from Ireland.
	They said some of their most successful exports.
	Cows now represent the politics and greed of a manufactured climate crisis, says Exposé-News.
	And they're absolutely right about that.
	It is a manufactured crisis.
	And yet, at the same time, they are pushing the idea of...
	Of lab meat. But John Kerry has been very adamant that farms must be destroyed.
	And here's what he had to say about taking away our food supply.
	Agriculture contributes about 33% of all the emissions of the world.
	So just kill yourself.
	Depending a little bit on how you count it, but it's anywhere from 26 to 33.
	And we can't get to net zero.
	We don't get this job done.
	Unless agriculture is front and center as part of the solution.
	But with a growing population on the planet, we just crossed the threshold of 8 billion fellow citizens around the world.
	We just crossed that in this last year.
	Emissions from the food system alone are projected to cause another half a degree of warming by mid-century on the current course that we are doing.
	What a bunch of nonsense. Projected by who?
	Could result in an additional 600 million people not getting enough to eat.
	And you just can't continue to both warm the planet while also expecting to feed it.
	Doesn't work. So we have to reduce the food system to keep the 1.5 degrees alive.
	Why do we have to keep 1.5 degrees alive?
	Because scientists As a basis of physics and mathematics.
	Not ideology and politics or party labels or anything else.
	As a matter of physics and mathematics and some biology and chemistry have told us these are the consequences.
	And we already see it happening.
	And almost everything they've...
	No, that's just you talking, Kerry.
	It's not science. It's just you talking.
	It's just you politicians.
	You're the hot air that needs to be stopped.
	Here's somebody who is a ketchup millionaire, billionaire, whatever.
	He married into the fortune of a ketchup heiress.
	And he has the audacity to lecture us about food.
	Tell you what, why don't we do this?
	You put your money where your mouth is, Kerry.
	Stop making all ketchup.
	How about that? I like ketchup, but we don't have to have it.
	Uh, it's not as important as milk or beef, other things like that, that you're willing to shut down.
	So shut down your ketchup factories.
	I'm sure they've got a really big carbon footprint, just like your private jets, but you don't care about that either.
	Uh, you got in France, they're going to stop people from taking any plane flights that they could take a train on that are less than whatever it is.
	The arbitrary number right now, I think is three hours or something.
	So if it's three hours by plane or less, you can't take a plane.
	You got to take the train. And it just, it'll never stop.
	Because they want to take us down to zero everything.
	I saw that speech and I retweeted that.
	I said, well, maybe this guy thinks that if they can force us to eat bugs, his ketchup sales will go up higher.
	Because you're going to have to put ketchup on this stuff to get it down.
	Maybe that's the plot.
	It's got to be the money.
	Everything these people do has got money for them and death for us.
	Death and starvation.
	And so what he told people there, which is an absolute lie, well, if this happens and that happens, then our models say that this is going to happen and we're going to have our food supply disappear.
	No. No, that's totally not true.
	There's a lot of scientists who debunk that.
	And by the way, you know, science is not determined by majority opinion.
	The majority opinion, the conventional wisdom, has always stood in the way of advancement of science.
	Just go through and look at the history of science.
	And look at how many times the establishment, the academia, and all the rest of these people say that it is.
	And you've got one person who stands against them.
	And says, no, it's like this.
	And that's how science advances, over and over again.
	Whether you're talking about the Wright Brothers or you're talking about Galileo, it's about academia being out there.
	And of course, Francis Bacon said, we've got to get rid of academia.
	We've got to get rid of experts as the final say on anything.
	And we need to go back to empirical evidence.
	You've got something you think works?
	Well, this is the way this works.
	You replicate that with experiments, or you show us your data, or you show this, you make a prediction, you better show how this is coming true.
	We have had 50 years Of lies and failed prophecies from these climate doomsayers.
	And they just keep making more and more money and more and more of these.
	Now we have the...
	Want to get rid of the traditionally raised beef?
	Well, there's a study coming out of the University of California, Davis, that found that lab-grown or cultivated meat has an environmental impact that is orders of magnitude higher than retail beef.
	But again, it has an amazing conclusion, just like this Associated Press story about the red lines.
	This has a crazy conclusion.
	The pre-print study said that the energy needed and the greenhouse gases emitted during all stages of production of lab-grown meat is far greater than traditionally raised beef.
	Oh, who knew, right? Again, common sense would pretty much tell you that this highly manufactured process It's going to be like that.
	But they went through and they cranked the numbers.
	They said if companies are having to purify growth media to pharmaceutical levels, it uses more resources, which then increases global warming potential.
	Well, I guess then what we do is we just don't make it as pure, right?
	We just cut some corners. That's what they'll wind up doing.
	If this product continues to be produced using the pharma approach, it's going to be worse for the environment, and it'll be more expensive than conventional beef.
	So again, just lower the standards.
	You're already using eternal cell lines to clone this lab beef.
	That's like eating tumors.
	That's what I think we ought to call them.
	A tumor T-bone.
	Would you like a tumor T-bone? The bone's not actually real.
	It's plastic or something.
	The global warming potential of lab-based meat using these purified media is up to 25 times greater than the average for retail beef.
	So it fails by their own standards.
	And, of course, their standards are nonsense to start with.
	You want to talk about getting rid of cattle?
	Well, it's all bull.
	It's all BS, okay?
	Let's talk about getting rid of cattle.
	It's all just a bunch of hot air and BS from these politicians, not the cattle.
	Our findings suggest that cultured meat is not inherently better for the environment than conventional beef, and it is not a panacea.
	Well, of course, if you're going to take the pharma approach, they're not interested in a panacea.
	They're not interested in a cure for anything.
	They're interested in profits.
	That's the true pharmaceutical model, right?
	One person said with a study, even if lab-based meat doesn't result in more climate-friendly burgers, there's still valuable science to be learned from this endeavor.
	It may not lead to environmentally friendly commodity meat, but it could lead to less expensive pharmaceuticals, for example.
	So in other words, if we're going to do this in a pharmaceutical way, That may or may not work for the lab stuff, but we might learn some things about how to make pharmaceuticals operate more efficiently and less expensive.
	What nonsense this is!
	Do you really think that the cost of pharmaceuticals is because of a high manufacturing cost?
	It costs nothing to make these pills and things that they sell for hundreds or thousands of dollars.
	A pharmaceutical profit thing is not based on getting their manufacturing costs down.
	It's based on monopolies.
	And it's based on, you know, getting people, not curing people, but keeping them in a chronic condition and hopefully creating some additional conditions as adverse effects that you can then treat them for.
	That's the pharmaceutical method.
	It has nothing to do with the cost of the pills.
	And you can certainly understand that when anything goes generic, look at how the price drops on it.
	It's not about the manufacturing costs.
	It's about their profits.
	Meanwhile, Germany is seeking to ban oil and gas boilers from households.
	And as they say, the move is clearly to go full-blown electric for everything.
	And then, of course, you know what happens with that.
	Then they cut the power grid.
	And that's how they get net zero.
	That's how we get net zero.
	Net zero of everything.
	Net zero electricity, as well as net zero food, net zero travel, net zero clothing, net zero housing, all the rest of this stuff.
	Germany, also, you know, besides banning these oil burners and gas burners, they want to ban wood stoves and fireplaces.
	Oil, gas, wood, all of this stuff, right?
	Starting in 2024, new buildings in Germany will no longer be permitted to be heated with wood, and many other buildings will need to be retrofitted to only utilize permitted heating sources.
	No, that's singular.
	The permitted heating source, this is from Wine Press, by the way, the singular heating source is going to be electricity.
	And don't look at how they make that sausage, right?
	We don't want to talk about the electricity.
	And of course, once they shut down everything that everybody's got, and you've only got that there, then they're going to say, as the Biden administration is already saying, well, we can't, we've got to shut down those power plants.
	Those power plants have emissions.
	They suddenly discover they have emissions.
	And they use gas, and they use oil.
	Now, they don't use wood, but they use gas and oil and other things like that.
	So we'll have to shut them down as well.
	The Association of Forest Owners is pushing back.
	They drafted a bill.
	They call this a massive attack on their industry and their economy.
	They said the federal government is endangering sustainable forest management.
	That's right. Trees are like a crop.
	That's what these people do with their forestry area.
	They cut down the trees, they plant them up again, and then, you know, they...
	It is renewable.
	It is sustainable. It is natural.
	He added that stove pellets in Germany primarily consist of residual and waste wood.
	He said only the CO2 that was previously bound is released, adding that if the wood were to rot, the greenhouse gases would also be released.
	So what he's saying is, You have, and we look at the overall picture.
	We talk about CO2. Plants need the CO2. They breathe it in.
	They use it to grow.
	And then when they die, they release CO2 into the atmosphere.
	Or when you burn them, they release CO2 in the atmosphere.
	Is that a problem? No.
	It helps the other plants and other trees to grow as well.
	This is not a problem that needs to be solved.
	And that's the key thing. You can point out the folly of this.
	You know, if you follow this logic down and say, well, you know, we can't burn trees.
	Well, they're going to release the CO2 if they rot and die in the forest as well.
	So it absolutely makes no sense.
	But we also have to point out that the emperors have no clothes.
	The emperors have no justification for claiming the CO2 or methane or any of these things We're good to go.
	They have something of a revolt against the 15-minute cities.
	They see what it is and they're not going along with it.
	Mounting concern over Coffs Harbour City Council's move towards 15-minute cities.
	But some residents say the plan amounts to restricting freedom of movement.
	There has been a public backlash to a new vision outlining the future of transport in Coffs Harbour.
	15 minute neighbourhoods where all the essential services and all the facilities that you may need to visit would be within 15 minutes.
	Councillors caught off guard by a large public turnout to a series of recent council meetings with residents calling for answers.
	A little bit It's not surprising that we had a full gallery.
	The council says the main goal is to reduce our dependency on the family car.
	The plan to install more footpaths and cycleways, thereby reducing our carbon footprint.
	Anything that requires larger than 15 minute radio commutes would obviously have an impact on the pollution that occurs from the vehicles.
	But some are concerned the proposal goes too far, potentially restricting freedom of movement.
	Biometrics, licence plate reading, are you going to be tracked everywhere you go in order for them to administer a carbon credit system?
	Coff City Council has downplayed the concerns and denies the plan amounts to over-surveillance.
	It's not a lockdown mechanism and it's not a...
	The Council is now reviewing a big public response during the draft exhibition period.
	We receive a whole ton of submissions on that.
	It's posting security guards at Council meetings and insisting people register beforehand.
	And we have questions and we'd like the Council to engage in conversation and they don't seem willing to do that.
	Liz Penny, 7 News.
	Yeah, so their response is, first of all, they say, well, we can't have you just driving everywhere.
	So they're clearly going to restrict your movement.
	And then when people start questioning it, when people start pushing back, their response is, well, we need to have law enforcement, and we need to have you get permission from us before you come to our meetings.
	Nothing to be suspicious about with that at all.
	And we see that pattern. That's in Australia, New South Wales.
	We see that happening. By the way, that was where...
	Gladys Berejiklian was.
	Of course, the thing that took her out was not her authoritarian approach during the pandemic, but the fact that she was caught with her hand in the till, essentially, with corruption.
	All these people are bought off.
	Just unfortunately, we can't find all of them, you know, catch them red-handed.
	But even when you catch somebody like Biden and Hunter Red-handed.
	Joe and Hunter. You can't do anything about it.
	That's how corrupt our government is.
	But look, this should be our response to anybody like that city councilor that's out there.
	I've had this for a couple of days, and I haven't played that yet, but...
	That ought to be our response to all of these bureaucrats and these protesters.
	Those were people who had taken over a ballroom dancing contest.
	Strictly ballroom or something like that.
	Strictly come dancing. Sweden's version of that.
	That's a British thing that's been copied in a lot of different places.
	So they had this dance competition, ballroom dancing competition.
	And these climate idiots go out there and start throwing whatever it is, paint or whatever.
	And a cameraman just took that boom out there.
	Let's watch this again.
	Oh yeah, I like that instant replay.
	Take him right now.
	That's great. I love that. Climate activist from Restore Wetlands protest group.
	This is one of the reasons why I won't vote for RFK Jr.
	Because he is all about this wetlands stuff, right?
	Children's health defense. As good as they've been on vaccines, they're horrible on climate.
	And they're out there saying, well, this EPA ruling where they said that the EPA can't confiscate the property of people who want to build even when they're not even touching the water.
	Well, we're going to take their property claiming that it's going to impact the waters of the U.S. The WOTUS rules.
	And so here are these people.
	Restore the Wetlands protest group.
	Climate activists there in Sweden.
	They catapulted on stage with powdered paint and a banner that read, Restore the Wetlands.
	And so for a moment there, you had a cameraman who restored sanity by clubbing them with that camera.
	Lowered the boom on him.
	Boom camera. Literally lowered the boom on that guy.
	And so a male protester was taken out by a camera suspended on a crane.
	Great boom shot right there.
	Best boom shot I've ever seen.
	He was set flying before the group was ushered off of the dance floor by stewards who were on the set.
	And they captured it from a lot of different angles because even the protesters, of course, were filming what they were doing.
	The situation, they said, is so urgent that we cannot sit in the audience and just watch when our lives are threatened by climate collapse.
	And I've been hearing this.
	I am so sick of this.
	I've been hearing this since the first Earth Day in 1970.
	I was in high school at the time.
	And I was not believing what I was being told when they were saying we're going into a new ice age.
	And living in Tampa, I said, well, fine.
	I'm fine with that. We could use resetting the thermostat around here, in my opinion.
	I always wanted to live in a cooler climate.
	But I never believed any of it.
	And it didn't matter that they completely flipped the narrative eight or nine years later.
	It doesn't matter that we've had 52 years of 53 years of lies and false prophecies and computer models that are completely false.
	It doesn't matter when you try to get the data.
	The group that I was in tried to get the data from Michael Mann about his hockey stick nonsense.
	He did everything in the world to cover it up and the legal system helped him to do it.
	You've published the data. Policy is being done on that data.
	We need to see your data.
	That's how real science is done.
	And when they hide that stuff, just like you saw the FDA and the CDC and Fauci and all the rest of these, hiding every statistic, and you know that they're manipulating the stuff, and you don't see what they say is going to happen, happening.
	We're not seeing global warming.
	We didn't see a pandemic.
	All we saw were their lying numbers or their lying conclusions.
	They would not show us their original data.
	The Swedish singer, who was forced to sing her song again, now this is the sad thing about it.
	She was very understanding of the incident.
	She said to the Norway Post that she, quote, understood where they were coming from.
	I understand where they're coming from.
	You better be angry about it.
	You better not try to say something.
	It's important that people stand for something and dare to say what they think.
	Well, these people don't want us to say what we think if we disagree with them.
	They call us climate deniers and all the rest of this stuff.
	These people do not support free speech.
	They're Marxists.
	This just happens to be one of their lies to manipulate us.
	Even in the desert, where they went out close to where the Joshua Tree Park is in California, The Obama administration, and of course, it never stopped through the Trump administration.
	But when people talk about something that begins in the Obama administration, goes to the Trump administration, continues into the Biden administration, well, it's Obama and Biden.
	Trump never did anything wrong, right?
	But this long-standing solar project that started by Obama is now, as one person who is an ecologist said, this is destroying the desert.
	He said it may look like there's nothing at all in the desert, but there actually is an ecology there.
	And this is causing carbon to be released.
	Oh, my. Desert plants store much of the captured carbon deep underground in a massive network of connected roots and so forth and so forth.
	And they said over the past few years, this swath of desert has been steadily carpeted with one of the world's largest concentration of solar power plants.
	Forming a sprawling photovoltaic sea on the ground, the scale is almost incomprehensible.
	The ground zero of California's solar energy boom stretches for 150,000 acres, 10 times the size of Manhattan.
	Residents have watched for years as solar plants crept over the horizon, bringing noise and pollution, eroding their way of life in this desert refuge.
	And again, it's there at the Joshua Tree National Park.
	It's where they identified this as a prime site for industrial-scale solar power.
	It began under the Obama administration way back in 2011, continued through the Trump administration as they bulldozed areas and put this stuff up.
	There is no end to this insanity, and they really don't care about the environment.
	They absolutely don't. We're going to take a quick break, and we're going to come back.
	Before we do, though, I want to say, on Rumble, thank you for the tip.
	Dispensationalist, thank you very much.
	He's now a monthly supporter on Rumble.
	Thank you. Appreciate that. By the way, on Rumble, through the end of the year, the monthly supporters, they don't take a fee out of that.
	So that's important. Zelle, we don't have a fee.
	And Chex, we don't have a fee, in case people ask.
	And I don't... Begrudge these places their fee.
	They have to earn a living as well.
	But, you know, it is good if we can get the stuff where there's not a fee.
	So if you want to support us, you can see our P.O. Box number in Tennessee.
	They're at ddavidknightshow.com.
	And so, anyway, Dispensationalist says, Sunday is my birthday.
	I decided to make a gift and become a subscriber.
	Well, thank you very much. Thank you.
	I appreciate that. Thank you for your valuable work.
	May God bless you and your family.
	Lucas from the UK. Well, I appreciate that.
	Thank you. And Frank Rodriguez.
	Thank you very much for that.
	And I'll have a list of people who have contributed on Zelle that we will get to.
	I don't have it with me today, but I need to do that and thank the people there by first name.
	So we're going to take a quick break and we will be right back.
	Music. Music. Music. Music. Music. Music. Music. Music. Music. - It's the David Knight Show.
	That's right. Take off those masks.
	And don't get the shot.
	You know, we talk about coercion, right?
	It's not voluntary. A good example of this is Jamie Foxx.
	I'm sure you've seen this now.
	There were some people who suggested maybe he was vaccine damaged.
	And now we have... A veteran journalist in the entertainment industry, not somebody that I know.
	His name is A.J. Benza.
	He's described as a veteran Hollywood journalist.
	He has been a former New York Daily News columnist, host of the E-series Mysteries and Scandals.
	So he's been around for a while, and this report...
	It was picked up by Radar Online and it was put out by the mainstream media.
	It was put out by the Drudge Report even.
	And what he is saying is that he has sources who were in the room saying that Jamie Foxx's injury was from vaccines.
	That he suffered the serious medical episode right now after being pressured into getting a COVID vaccine.
	Jamie had a blood clot on his brain after he got the shot.
	He did not want the shot.
	But the movie he was on pressured him to get it.
	He said this in an interview with Dr.
	Drew. The blood clot in the brain caused him at that point to be partially paralyzed and blind.
	He then added that his source was someone in the room who was connected with Fox's treatment.
	Now, Dr. William Makis, M.D., who commented on this, We're good to go.
	And hemorrhagic strokes have become much more common after the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccines.
	Oh, nothing to see there, right?
	It's just become just like myocarditis is now a household word.
	You'd never heard of it before unless you were a doctor.
	Pericarditis, all these different things.
	But now they're all just household words.
	Nothing strange about that.
	Most of my life until the early 2000s, I'd never heard of autism.
	I never knew anybody that had autism.
	I know, it's everywhere. That's fine.
	No problem. The vaccine companies are making lots of money.
	Fauci's happy, so just shut up.
	All four major vaccines, says Dr.
	Makas, Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, and Johnson& Johnson have clotting issues.
	AstraZeneca and Johnson& Johnson have been taken off the market because of these blood clot issues.
	In response to these reports, J.B. Fox's daughter, Corrine, went on social media and said, quote, sad to see how the media runs wild.
	My dad has been out of the hospital for weeks, recuperating.
	In fact, he was playing pickleball yesterday, she said.
	Thanks for everyone's prayers and support.
	We have an exciting work announcement coming next week, too.
	Well, the reporter, who was on Dr.
	Drew Binza, He said he didn't believe the family statement, that the actor was playing pickleball.
	He said, in his opinion, it's all lies and baloney.
	He says, I'm thinking, is that why he blew up on the set a week before this medical emergency happened?
	Is that why he fired three or four people?
	Because he had had it with these mandates?
	If you read into what they're saying early on, they said he is communicating with us.
	Communicating with us.
	He says they didn't say he was talking with them.
	So what does that mean?
	He said communicating could be anything.
	It could be writing.
	It could be sign language.
	I know how they use those little code words, he said.
	Then Dr. Drew, who's a practicing physician, said, well, blood in the brain is a cerebral bleed.
	It is not a stroke.
	A stroke is a blood clot in an artery to the brain that cuts off the blood supply to the brain, and the brain dies.
	It has been widely known that he had a stroke, right?
	They said stroke many times.
	To say that it is a blood clot in the brain, it's a stroke.
	It is a blood clot in an artery that cuts off the supply, and then that part of the brain is dead.
	You have some kind of a stroke in your brain, that really does alter you.
	I can't believe he's playing pickleball if he had a brain stroke.
	My mother had two brain strokes.
	She had supply to her brain cut off by a...
	A diagnostic procedure.
	And then that was one stroke.
	And then there was another stroke that she had subsequent to that because of medication.
	And that really took her out.
	She was paralyzed on one side, had dementia so bad she didn't know what was going on.
	I have a hard time believing that with just a couple of days left of filming in this thing, that if he was recovered, instead of playing pickleball, he'd be finishing up that film.
	So, none of that rings true to me.
	The FDA, meanwhile, has sponsored a study that concedes that Pfizer's shot increased myocarditis in children.
	But you see, it doesn't matter.
	None of this stuff matters. In the past, we had, with a vaccine campaign, we had a vaccine.
	They identified, what was it, three or four people who died from it.
	Nine states banned that vaccine.
	But we get report after report after report about what is happening, and everybody just says, ah, it's rare, we don't care, right?
	It's rare, we don't care.
	Recent studies sponsored by the FDA shows that children of certain ages who received the Pfizer vaccine experienced a heightened risk of heart inflammation.
	But the conclusion was, these results provide additional evidence for the safety of the COVID vaccine.
	That's their response.
	It's rare, so we don't care.
	And they said that they found that they had heart inflammation signals, safety signals, in the 12 to 17-year-old age group.
	But, you know, we were looking for a whole bunch of things.
	And if all we find is that it's myocarditis, we're just going to go on ahead.
	But the problem is, as Dr.
	Peter McCullough has said, a cardiologist who knows that myocarditis is not a temporary effect either.
	And it's not a simple thing.
	He said, because fatal autopsy confirmed cases of COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis have been reported by Verma, Choi, and Gill, the vaccines are contraindicated in young persons, he said.
	In this population, the vaccines are not medically necessary or clinically indicated.
	As a matter of fact, not in any population right now.
	There's no way that they can make a case that anybody at any age is at risk for this.
	So just stop it. It doesn't have zero risk.
	So just stop it.
	If there's zero risk of the disease that it doesn't stop, according to them, then why are you doing it in the first place?
	McCullough said in the 2022 U.S. Senate Special Panel on COVID-19 Vaccines, I call for removal of all COVID-19 vaccines from the U.S. market due to unacceptably high rates of injuries, disabilities, and death.
	One of the autopsy reports that he was referring to by Dr.
	James Gill addressed the sudden death of two teenage boys just days after getting the second Pfizer injection.
	The physician authors said the boys died in their sleep From myocarditis, which is, quote, not typical myocarditis pathology.
	See, this has been enough in the past to stop it.
	You got two young people who died in their sleep?
	Let's stop this. They don't care.
	They don't care.
	Other autopsy studies include a report from Germany last December, which found sudden deaths of three to five individuals who had just received an mRNA injection.
	Likely caused by heart inflammation as a result of the shots.
	But continually, just last week, the WHO talked about a sharp rise in neonatal severe myocarditis.
	That means newborns.
	Between June 2022 and March 2023 in the UK, the malady afflicted 15 babies, two of which died, at least.
	They don't care.
	No matter how many times you show that.
	Why? Because this is a war.
	The government is at war with its own people.
	They're cold-blooded killers.
	And they don't care. As a matter of fact, the purpose is to kill us.
	That is their purpose.
	Why should we be surprised about this?
	A new study shows a sudden sustained increase in stillbirths in Germany from April 2021.
	And this is the same type of thing that they did using actuarial tables.
	And this duplicates what we saw with the big insurance company One America in Indiana.
	Do you remember that? At the beginning of 2022, they came out and said, well, we saw an explosion beginning the third quarter of 2021 when the mandates started coming out.
	And continuing on and accelerating into the fourth quarter.
	And so what they say is this German study, They used a state-of-the-art method for actuarial science.
	This is what the insurance companies do.
	Based on population tables.
	Based on life tables. Based on longevity trends.
	And so we've had a tremendous amount of increase in deaths.
	More than four times the empirical standard deviation in 2022.
	And that was what One America was saying.
	They said, this is something you don't see, but, you know, several centuries you see something like this.
	Because you're going to have, and when you start talking about statistics, they have the 68, 95, 99.7 rule.
	As you go standard deviations from the mean, you're going to have 68% of whatever it is is going to fall within one standard deviation of the mean.
	And then you're going to have 95% are going to fall within two standard deviations of the mean.
	99.7% will fall in three standard deviations.
	If you get outside of that, which is where these things are in Germany, which is where they were with the insurance company in Indiana, One America, you get outside of that, that is really, really rare to see that.
	But that means that death is not rare.
	This event is rare.
	And it is killing a tremendous number of people.
	So you get outside those three standard deviations.
	You're outside of a situation that is going to historically occur, contain everything 99.7% of the time.
	And so that's rarely seen, to get outside in the four standard deviations.
	That's what Germany is seeing now.
	The study approximated excess deaths in 2020 when we had this worldwide pandemic that Donald Trump said he saved millions of lives.
	Well, no. They said, well, we've got excess deaths of 4,000.
	But that was not any big deal, really.
	That was a statistical noise.
	And what caused those 4,000 deaths?
	Was it medical malpractice of people who got a respiratory illness?
	Then they give them bacterial pneumonia on top of it?
	Were there invasive ventilators?
	Or they killed them with remdesivir? What was it that killed those people?
	But it was very small.
	In 2020, with a pandemic, it was 4,000 people.
	Then with the vaccines...
	Beginning in 2021, it was eight and a half times bigger.
	And then in 2022, it doubled again and became 16.5 times bigger than the excess deaths in 2020 because of the greatest pandemic the world has ever seen.
	The one that Trump saved us from with his warp speed vaccines.
	No, it's the vaccines that did it.
	In 2020, the observed number of deaths was an increase of 0.4%, extremely close to the expected number.
	By contrast, by 2021, when they started vaccinating people, It was 3.4% higher.
	Then in 2022, 6.6% higher than the number of expected deaths.
	People killed by the Trump shot.
	A mortality pattern similar to the excess deaths in living persons was also observed for stillbirths.
	And they don't care about that either, right?
	Why would they care about that?
	They want to abort babies.
	The more babies we kill, the better.
	No, the real issue is that this is a political pandemic, and you can see it right now being admitted by the people, the Marxists, and the head-chopping Saudis who are running the WHO. This particular Saudi is focused on international law amendments, and this is the co-chair of the WHO's working group on amendments, To the health regulations.
	This is where they're putting in their authoritarian controls.
	And he said, we are going to have to take actions that restrict individual liberties.
	They made no bones about it.
	They're Marxists. People were not dying from a pandemic.
	They died from bad health care, and then they started dying in droves from the vaccines.
	So the response from the World Health Organization...
	This is what the guy says, a Siri from Saudi Arabia.
	He said, the world requires different legal mandates, such as the pandemic treaty, to navigate through a particular pandemic should one occur, and it will.
	Yeah, he twists his mustache, right?
	Prioritizing actions that may restrict individual liberties, mandating and sharing of information, and most importantly, providing funds.
	Yes, most importantly.
	Let's take their freedom and their money.
	Funds for pandemic control efforts are necessary.
	Amendments to the IHR do curb individual liberties.
	Such as privacy and free speech.
	It's just prior to this, they have denied that.
	Now they're openly admitting it.
	Since 2020, the WHO has partnered with YouTube, Facebook, Wikipedia to put rules on these platforms.
	And, of course, they renewed their partnership with all these organizations last month with the WHO. But before we stop, let's talk a little bit about masks.
	Masks offer small benefit against COVID. Increased CO2 may be tied to stillbirth, says research.
	A scoping review based on systemic literature search of carbon dioxide exposure and mask use, published in the Cell Press journal Hellion, found that wearing a mask for more than five minutes can increase CO2 exposure to 1.4% Or up to 3.2% of inhaled air,
	which is far above the 0.04% that you find in the air.
	So when they want to take away all dairy cattle and they want to take away meat cattle and farms and everything else, Again, as Eric Peters has pointed out many times, 0.04% of the air is carbon dioxide, from all sources, from us as well.
	You want to say that we're all going to die with that?
	If it's that small, and you were to cause it to explode, what is that going to do?
	Well, nothing, common sense would tell you.
	But consider the fact that as paranoid as they are about all CO2, They don't care about the CO2 that you inhale because you put a mask on your face.
	And that is the real CO2 that you should be concerned with.
	When you talk about increasing it from 0.4% up to a range of 1.4% or 3.2%, you're talking about increasing it by a factor of 35 to 80 times the amount of CO2 that you would get in the atmosphere normally.
	And they point out that the U.S. Navy has already set up exposure limits for CO2. If you have a submarine that has a female crew in it, or females within the crew, let's just say.
	They haven't gotten to the point yet where they got an all-female sub-crew.
	But I imagine that that's their goal at the Pentagon.
	But no, you got women in the crew.
	Why do they limit this for women?
	Why do they make that distinction there?
	Well, they limit it to 0.8%.
	Of CO2. Now, we're talking about when you put a mask on somebody and leave it there, more than five minutes, it's not 0.8, it's 1.4, or 3.2.
	In other words, it's 1.7 times or four times higher than the limit that they've got.
	And why do they have that limit there for women, again?
	Well, they said, we found that if you take it above 0.8%, That increases risk of stillbirths.
	And it also causes, quote, irreversible neuron damage in babies, reduced spatial learning, reduced circulating levels of the insulin-like growth factor 1, For male babies, it creates testicular toxicity in adolescents if you have a concentration over 0.5%.
	And yet, when you wear a mask, For more than five minutes, you are 1.7 to 4 times higher concentration of CO2 than what the Navy has already determined is going to cause all these birth defects.
	Mental problems, death, stillbirths, all the rest of this.
	OSHA had a limit of 20 minutes for men who were working in a dusty environment.
	They'd say, well, if we're going to mandate that you've got to wear a mask, we're also going to mandate that you've got to have a breathing period to get rid of this carbon dioxide excess after wearing the mask for 20 minutes.
	But after just five minutes, you're up from double to four times the amount that could be lethal for a baby, for women.
	The findings are in line with an Italian mass study that was published by the Environmental Health Insights last fall.
	They found that five minutes of CO2 buildup approached the highest acceptable exposure threshold recommended for workers under both European and U.S. labor law.
	Concerningly high concentrations in minors and virtually everyone wearing high-quality respirators.
	New York City's municipal health system, however, has recently reiterated that it is still requiring masks for everybody two years old and older.
	Amazing.
	Regardless of their vaccination status, you don't get a pass, even if you take the genetic code injection.
	And activists are pressuring a local hospital to reinstate its mandate by projecting slogans on the building.
	In Washington, D.C., the Court of Appeals, as they required people taking the test to wear masks during the entire 12-hour exam.
	Yeah, you talk about struggling to think.
	We're going to take a quick break, and we'll be right back.
	Show, we've got a problem.
	What, uh, who are you?
	It's the new mug they're selling at thedavidknightshow.com, right?
	So, basically, a mug is something that holds liquid, right?
	Because, basically, you can't hold coffee with your hands, right?
	It's scatly, but anyone tries to mug me, I'm being ready for it, you dog-faced pony soldier.
	They say the mug can help patriots drink coffee, then save the world.
	This could be bad for us.
	Save the world? But we owe the world.
	These people, they're supporting free speech with every month they buy.
	Come on. These people...
	I tell you, well, anyway.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	Let's talk about what's going on in Canada.
	The Freedom Convoy is still in the news.
	You still have the Canadian officials...
	Trying to punish people.
	Not just the individuals who were there, but anybody who gave money to them.
	Any politicians who defied them two years ago, violating their laws.
	They're still trying to come back at them, hit them with fines and other things.
	A Windsor police officer, Windsor, Ontario, is appealing a discreditable conduct charge.
	It was given to him because he made a $50 donation to the Freedom Convoy.
	This was done the day after a judge said, well, that's fine, as long as they're peaceful, they've got a right to say whatever they want.
	The next day, this police officer, Constable Michael Briscoe, donated money to the Freedom Convoy protest.
	And now they have hit him with charges that are going to affect his career for that $50 donation.
	And they have also sentenced him to 80 hours, two weeks of slavery.
	In other words, he's got to work without any pay.
	That's slavery, right?
	Two weeks worth of it. Constable Briscoe is a highly trained and respected police officer with an exemplary record.
	He has been a police officer for 15 years.
	And has never had a prior disciplinary record, said the Canadian Legal Advocacy Organization, the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms.
	He is a defender of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and he believes that he was exercising his charter right for freedom of expression when making the $50 donation to support the Freedom Convoy.
	And again, he is a defender, and he is a hero.
	And so are the people of the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms.
	I talked to one of their representatives when they were defending these pastors who were being arrested.
	And this is an organization that just operates on voluntary contributions from people.
	And then they provide this legal service to these people to keep their charter of rights, to defend the charter of rights.
	They provide these legal services free of charge.
	And so, again, he's never had any issues, never had done anything wrong that he's been called out on.
	But he went before, it wasn't a jury trial that he had, and he didn't get a judge.
	He went before a retired police officer, police sergeant, who did this to him.
	He was convicted of discreditable conduct because he gave a $50 donation to the Freedom Convoy.
	And required to forfeit 80 hours of work as punishment.
	In other words, two weeks of slavery and a black mark on your record.
	Counsel for Briscoe said the police officer was exercising his right of freedom of expression to make the donation.
	None of this was illegal at the time.
	He just had, as I said, a judge the day before.
	In November 2022, another officer who was with the Ottawa Police Service also had to forfeit 40 hours of pay.
	One week of slavery.
	For donating to the Freedom Convoy, Constable Christina Nielsen pleaded guilty to a discreditable conduct for donating $55 through GoFundMe and then an additional $55 through Give, Send, Go at a later date.
	She joined the police force in 2012 and has had no previous record of substantiated misconduct.
	And oh, by the way, an additional factor in Briscoe's donation, the first police officer, He made it anonymously.
	And so this wasn't something that was being done to discredit the police.
	This was an anonymous donation.
	They discovered it after the site was hacked.
	I wonder who hacked that site.
	Would it have been the government?
	What do you think? Anyway, Maxime Bernay, I hope I'm pronouncing his name correctly, is a politician.
	He is the leader of the People's Party of Canada.
	I think it's a new party in response to all this COVID stuff, but I'm not sure.
	He said he is proud of violating unjust COVID health rules after being found guilty of breaking them in 2021 when he attended a pro-freedom anti-lockdown rally in Saskatchewan.
	Yes, he said, I did violate the unjust, immoral, unconstitutional, stupid, useless, unscientific, ineffective, and irrational public health order in Saskatchewan.
	And I am proud of it.
	So good for him. Last Thursday, a judge there found him, along with eight others, guilty of failing to comply with COVID health rules because they gathered at an event that was over the 10-person limit.
	And that was back in 2021, May of 2021.
	They had 200 people there.
	After being ticketed for attending the rally, he said in 2021 that the tickets were unjust and illegal, added that he would fight that all the way up to the Supreme Court, and said, we will win.
	You know, we just had a January the 6th mom, you know, January the 6th protester that was there, did not even go into the building.
	She's a mother of two, and they're giving her 10 days in jail.
	She didn't go in. She was punished solely because of what she said, you see.
	This is what this is about.
	It's shutting down any political opposition.
	Everywhere. Everywhere.
	So, anyway, they found Maxime Bernay guilty of that.
	In the short period of time that we got left, I want to talk a little bit about free speech and what's happening on Twitter.
	John Kiriakou, I recorded an interview with him on Wednesday because he's very busy.
	He's got a Monday through Friday show as well.
	I couldn't do it at the time that the show was live, so we pre-recorded that.
	And I had a lot of things that I wanted to talk to him about.
	He's got some interesting things.
	He knows RFK Jr.
	He knows a lot of people at high places.
	And he really does know the Middle East.
	He's been there.
	He was the individual who was sent to prison because he blew the whistle on torture that the CIA was calling enhanced interrogation.
	And then they produced, on the basis of that, lies about weapons of mass destruction that were used to push us into the Iraq War.
	He's the only person who went to jail.
	The people who tortured it didn't go to jail.
	The people who covered up did not go to jail.
	As a matter of fact, Gina Haspel, who was head of the cover-up, was promoted by Trump, head of the CIA. The psychologists, too, were paid millions of dollars to train the CIA in how to torture people.
	They were not punished. Everything has been, every avenue has been shut down.
	And so we talked about a wide variety of things.
	We talked about directed energy weapons and the Havana effect.
	We talked about, you know, politics in general, the Middle East in general, geopolitics, the Ukraine, Russian war, a lot of different things.
	It's a good interview. And I made it even a little bit longer than the one hour because I began by talking about the Giuliani allegations in this newest lawsuit.
	Because John Kiriakou had made those allegations back in November of 2021.
	When I talked to him, he had already made those allegations, and I got him on to talk about it, saying that Rudy Giuliani tried to shake him down for $2 million to get a pardon.
	He said, well, the only reason I want a pardon, I've done the time.
	And he said, I would just like to be able to clear my record and be able to get my pension.
	And the pension is only like $700,000.
	And so no way I would pay that.
	I wouldn't pay it to you anyway.
	And so I got him on to talk about that.
	When I did this interview two days ago, I just kind of jumped in.
	We started talking about the lawsuit because I thought I've talked about that so many times that the audience knows it.
	But maybe there's some people that don't know it in the audience and you need to hear it from John Kiriakou.
	So I went back, I think it was the 17th or something of November.
	And I pulled out a little bit there where we talked about Giuliani and the attempted bribery, according to...
	According to John Kiriakou.
	And so I've got that there. And then we go into the interview that we had yesterday.
	So that's coming up. And tell me when we've got a break.
	About how much more time do we have?
	Oh, I've only got about a minute.
	Okay. Well, I've only got enough time that I don't have enough time to get into Twitter and what's going on there.
	I only have enough time to thank a few people here on Rockfin.
	Thank you, NN. Thank you for the tip.
	Brian and Deb McCartney said, David, will you get an old-fashioned dinner mug in white or cream with that design, please?
	Well, we should look into that.
	We've got some projects that we've come up with a couple of designs, and I've got to do the commercials for them, so we haven't rolled them out yet at this point in time.
	So I was going to talk about what happened on Twitter.
	Let me just sum it up this way. It's very interesting to see they were going to put up the Matt Walsh Video about what is a woman.
	And, you know, Ben Shapiro and The Daily Wire were saying, well, we're going to make Twitter a big platform for us now.
	It's free speech. And we're going to put all of our videos up there.
	Tucker Carlson is going to go there and everything.
	And that was a talk that Twitter was going to replace mainstream media, Fox News, and all the rest of the stuff before the fiasco with DeSantis, which really was a Twitter issue.
	But then as they announced that they were going to put this up and put it up for free, We had the people at Twitter say, wait a minute, you've got some misgendering in there in that what is a woman.
	You've got two spots there. We're not going to let you put it up and let people watch it for free for 24 hours unless you edit it.
	And they said, no, we're not going to edit it.
	And they made a big issue out of it.
	And the bottom line is that Elon Musk came back, and now the person who was head of the trust and safety thing, you know, she's replaced Yoel Roth, she has now been fired.
	So that is encouraging. What is not encouraging is the fact that Elon Musk is in China literally kowtowing to the Chinese communists.
	And what is not encouraging is what is happening with the EU censorship.
	But we don't have time to talk about that.
	Let's go now to the John Kiriakou interview.
	Again, we're going to begin with about a two-minute segment where he talks about what happened with him, with Rudy Giuliani.
	Then we talk about the implications of this newest lawsuit, what might happen with that.
	But we cover a wide range of topics.
	I think you're going to find it very interesting.
	Let's go to that video. A friend of mine said, you need to get to Rudy Giuliani.
	Giuliani's getting all kinds of people pardoned.
	And the sad truth is, and I hate to sound crass, but pardons were for sale in the Trump administration.
	They really were. So, I reached out to a guy who I know who works for Giuliani and I said, you know, listen, I'm really interested in a pardon.
	Here's my story.
	Here's who I've spoken to.
	I've got Tucker Carlson helping me and a couple of other people, Alan Dershowitz.
	And he said, well, as it turns out, we're going to be in Washington next week, so why don't we all get together?
	I said, great, I'll meet up with you anytime you want.
	And he said, and I should have known from the beginning this was a problem.
	He said, well, we've got to meet before two, because Rudy's usually so drunk by two that he can't get any work done.
	And I said, okay. So we met at noon at the Trump Hotel.
	And it was Giuliani, his number two, my lobbyist, and me.
	And so we're talking about, you know, the weather, and the bar is really nice, and oh, there goes, you know, Matt Gaetz walking into the bar.
	And I said, so, about the issue of this pardon...
	And as soon as I said it, Giuliani says, I have to hit the head.
	And he stood up and he walked away.
	And I looked at his number two and I said, what just happened?
	And he said... You never talk business with Rudy.
	You talk business with me, and then I pass it to Rudy.
	Like it's the Sopranos, right?
	Exactly. It literally is.
	Yeah. So I said, all right, I want a pardon.
	I need a presidential pardon, and I just can't seem to get any traction.
	And he said, well, Rudy's going to want two million bucks.
	And I said, two million bucks?
	First of all, I don't have two million bucks.
	And even if I did, I wouldn't spend it to recover a $770,000 pension.
	And he said, okay, well...
	It's two million. And that was the end of it.
	And Giuliani came back from the men's room.
	We shook hands and I walked out and that was the end of it.
	Well, it turned out he had been doing this with a lot of people.
	And I saw later in the New York Times, there was an article about his divorce, which I think is his his fourth divorce.
	But he he said that he's a member of 17 country clubs and that he needs six million dollars a year to to maintain his current lifestyle.
	So this is what he was doing.
	He was just trying to gouge people as best he could at the end of the of the Trump administration, because he had gone all in on Trump.
	And he knew that if Trump were to lose the election, he was done.
	And that's exactly what's happened.
	Giuliani, you know, he's going to end up selling single cigarettes on the street corner.
	Maybe hair dye. If this goes no longer.
	Maybe you could get a hair dye sponsor.
	That's right. You know, I used to have this problem when I would start sweating and when I was lying and my hair dye would run down my face.
	But with this new improved brand, this is why you should choose this brand.
	This never happens to me again.
	That guy is absolutely an amazing clown.
	And of course, you know, he was just he was grifting everybody.
	This whole stop the steal thing was such an amazing gift.
	All right, joining us now is John Kiriakou, somebody that I've had the pleasure to talk to many times, very knowledgeable about a lot of things, a guy who had the integrity to blow the whistle on torture, because it was wrong, a guy who had the integrity to blow the whistle on torture, because it was wrong, torture that lied us lies about weapons of mass destruction.
	He was the only one who was punished for the torture because he blew the whistle on it, not because he did it.
	People who did it got away scot-free.
	As a matter of fact, Gina Haspel was Trump's CIA director who did the cover-up.
	But he's joining us now.
	He's very busy. I really do appreciate him coming on for this pre-recorded interview.
	He's got a weekday radio program from noon to 2 in Washington, D.C. on the radio.
	You can also find it on Substack.
	He's got a Substack account there, John Kiriakou.
	That's K-I-R-I-A-K-O-U. And the show is Political Misfits.
	Thank you for joining us, John.
	Thank you, David. It's such a pleasure to see you again.
	It's good to talk to you. It's been a while.
	And I wanted to get you on because, you know, we've talked a couple of times about this whole Rudy Giuliani thing, and I'm sure that your phone's been ringing off the hook.
	For the last couple of weeks about this, after this lawsuit, because the same thing happened to you, and you've now had a confirmation from this woman in the lawsuit that Giuliani was selling pardons for $2 million.
	To your knowledge, she said she's got tapes about this stuff.
	To your knowledge, does she have any tapes about the bribery aspect of it?
	There's allegations of sexual misconduct and things like that, but is there any existing tapes about the bribery part?
	That I haven't heard.
	And you know, we should probably say at the outset, too, that What this woman is saying in the lawsuit, well, she's saying a lot of things in the lawsuit, but one of the things that she's saying is that Giuliani had bragged to her that he was splitting this money, these $2 million sales of pardons with Donald Trump.
	And there's no evidence at all that that's the case.
	He certainly never said to me that he was going to split $2 million with Donald Trump.
	Yeah, that's why. When I looked at this, I thought, you know, if she can substantiate this with recordings of this, if she can substantiate that, that would be, I think, perhaps the most damaging of any of the allegations against Trump right there.
	That's huge. I agree with you.
	It would be such a clear felony that it would be the end, really.
	For any politician or Or current or former president to sell something like a pardon would be the end.
	And so it surprises me.
	Because I can understand why the conservative press would not talk about it.
	But I would have thought that there'd be all this rampant, you know, oh, I think we got him again, you know, that you see all the time from the mainstream media and the left-wing press.
	I would have thought that this would have been a feeding frenzy to try to get information about it.
	But there's this little blip, and it just kind of disappeared.
	My take on it is that I really do think We're good to go.
	Just my take on it.
	I don't know what you think. I think that there's something to that.
	Yes. You know, I don't want to get us too far off the topic, but in the, what was it, the 2022 election, the Democrats took a lot of heat for funneling money to the most conservative Senate candidates and gubernatorial candidates in the country.
	That's right. And that enraged a lot of people farther to the left than the DNC. But their point was, That they were willing to take a shot to help the most easily attacked candidates win Republican nominations.
	Interfering in each other's political parties is just not democracy.
	It's one of those sad situations in this duopoly that we have.
	The two sides of the same coin.
	Well, of course they're going to donate money to each other's extremist candidates.
	That's what makes this world go round.
	That's right. And it's what gets us in the kind of situation that we're in.
	Although there seems to be a lot of agreement on things like foreign policy.
	And I want to get your take on what is happening in Russia.
	Because we keep seeing escalation after escalation after escalation.
	And many of us are just sitting here on the sidelines wondering how this is all going down.
	I'd kind of like to get your take as to how you see this ending.
	They're doing everything to make it clear that We're good to go.
	But it's a constant escalation.
	We have the drone attacks. How do you see this playing out?
	Do you think that Russia is going to settle for taking the eastern part of Ukraine and kind of having a neutral buffer?
	That's what some people who said, maybe we could have peace if that were to happen.
	Is this going to result in the kind of regime change that they're looking for?
	Or are we going to wind up in some kind of a Dr.
	Strangelove nuclear war? What do you think?
	Or something else? This is a very complicated situation.
	You know, I had occasion to meet last Friday with a very senior Russian government official.
	Very senior. Like cabinet level.
	And he laid it out very plainly, very clearly that...
	Russia is enormous.
	It spans 11 time zones.
	It has 200 million people.
	It has an army that's something like five or six times the size of Ukraine's army.
	And while we in the West joke that the United States is willing to fight to the last Ukrainian, that's exactly what the Russians intend to do.
	They'll fight at the very last Ukrainian.
	He said the bottom line is the United States can send whatever it wants to Ukraine, missiles, planes, ammunition, patriots.
	You know, it makes no difference that Russia will win.
	Whether it takes a year or 10 years or 100 years, Russia will win because it can't lose.
	It can't lose because Ukraine is an existential threat.
	On multiple occasions since the Clinton administration, the United States has promised Russia that NATO would not expand to its borders.
	And then the United States went on to lobby for Poland joining NATO, for Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia to join NATO. Romania, which isn't on the border but it's pretty darn close, joined NATO. We've allowed and supported Montenegro, for example, and North Macedonia.
	What national interests do we have in those countries?
	That we're going to go to the defense of Montenegro and North Macedonia?
	Come on. Kosovo being next?
	Like, how many times are we going to tell the Russians that we're not a threat to them?
	This is just to protect us, and then we push right up to the border.
	Mm-hmm.
	And our fight was, at the time, we said it was going to be against Muslim extremism.
	This is in the days just before and during the creation of Al-Qaeda.
	Maybe farther out, it might be China or North Korea.
	But as far as we were concerned, we had no problem with Russia.
	They were a Christian country.
	They're white, frankly.
	And so they were easier to deal with, let's say.
	Now those are a problem for the current administration.
	Being a Christian country and a white country, that's a black mark against the current administration we've got now.
	But yeah, for the longest time, I think they realized what the real agenda is, that it is an existential fight.
	But the U.S. is not even trying to hide that anymore.
	You know, you've got Lindsey Graham and other people, they're making it very clear this is about regime change.
	And I thought it was very interesting.
	What was your take on the Wagner Group when you had Bergozan after the fall of Bakhmut and he had a lot of harsh words for Russia, for the Russian bureaucracy.
	He said they were throwing sand in the gears as they were trying to do this.
	I thought that was pretty amazing that he was able to say that and, you know, still be at large.
	Evidently, the Wagner Group is very, very important to the war effort, right?
	It might be a little bit less important than it was six months ago, but without the Wagner Group, the Russians could not reach into other parts of the world, like Africa, for example.
	You know, the French were thrown out of most of the Sahel countries over the past couple of years, and they've been essentially replaced by the Wagner Group.
	The West refused to help the Democratic Republic of Congo hold off the...
	who have attacked it from the east.
	And it was the Wagner Group that stepped in to help the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
	And the DRC doesn't have money to pay them, so they gave them mineral rights.
	Mineral rights.
	Can you imagine?
	This is exactly what we're going around the world trying to secure.
	And the government just gave them to the Wagner Group because they came to assist.
	So, yeah, the Wagner Group is very, very important.
	And I wanted to add something, too.
	I spoke with a friend of mine today.
	He was on my radio show today.
	He's an American citizen.
	He's got his own radio show from New York.
	And he tends to be pro-Russian.
	And he wanted to see the situation on the ground for himself.
	So he went to the Donbass.
	He just got back a couple of days ago.
	Was promptly put on the Ukrainian kill list, which we can get to in a moment, using...
	U.S. taxpayer money.
	They put an American citizen on the kill list, post his picture, his home address, and his cell phone number.
	But anyway, he said that one of the things that struck him the most, well, two things that really struck him.
	One was that Ukraine is shelling the Donbass 24 hours a day, artillery, and hitting civilian targets.
	Now, this is something that we criticize the Russians for all the time, because when you attack a civilian target, that is a war crime.
	That's right. Quite clearly a war crime.
	It's a violation of international law.
	And we criticize the Russians every day for hitting civilian targets in Ukraine.
	But the Ukrainians are also hitting civilian targets in Donbass and yesterday and the day before in Moscow as well.
	Why aren't we criticizing them for that?
	You can't target civilians, period.
	It's against the law.
	And it should be against the law for everybody, number one.
	Number two was when people say on Twitter that the Ukrainians have Nazis that are fighting for them.
	Not neo-Nazis, actual Nazis.
	You tend to get your account suspended for saying that on Twitter.
	But he said that all around Donbass...
	There are tables set up where Ukrainian Nazis are selling Nazi paraphernalia, Nazi memorabilia, to raise money for the Ukrainian war effort.
	Well, why isn't that being reported?
	I have another friend who said that on Twitter and had his account suspended.
	We can't say there are Nazis in Ukraine.
	You can't say that Nazis are fighting on behalf of the Ukrainians.
	But that's the truth.
	It's documented. Yeah.
	That's what the Azov Battalion is.
	It's a Nazi battalion.
	Right. But we don't talk about things like that.
	And we don't talk about the fact that this has been going on for a very long time, that there's shelling of the civilian areas since the CIA coup that happened back in 2014.
	That's right. When we look at this going forward, how do you see this playing out?
	Because as you said, Russia is so large.
	And I've been saying this.
	Gerald Slenty's on frequently.
	We've been saying this. It's like, you really think you're going to run down the Russians?
	How did that work for Hitler?
	How did that work for Napoleon?
	These guys are not going to give up.
	They'll never give up. And they're larger.
	And so how do you see this playing out?
	Is this going to go nuclear? Let's just put it that way.
	Yeah, this may not be such an original thought, but I'll tell you what this senior government official told me.
	He said, the United States hates the idea, but the Chinese, the Turks, and the Brazilians are all pushing to be mediators.
	And he said, eventually, we're going to get to a point where the American taxpayer is going to be sick and tired of paying for all this.
	Where enough Ukrainians have been killed that we'll finally get to the negotiating table.
	The United States hates the idea because it's not the United States that would be the one to broker the peace.
	The Chinese just had great success between the Iranians and the Saudis and between the Saudis and the Yemenis.
	The United States certainly doesn't want to see Chinese success between the Russians and the Ukrainians.
	But we've thrown our weight behind the Ukrainians.
	And it's really kind of suicidal.
	I was going to ask you about that.
	You know, you haven't had a lot of experience in the Middle East.
	And look at the fact that, you know, China brokered this agreement between Iran and Saudi Arabia, who have been, you know, at each other for a very long time.
	I don't know the roots of that.
	You probably do.
	But, you know, why didn't the U.S. ever do that?
	Do you think the U.S. even wanted to have that happen, or would they rather for these different factions to be fighting each other?
	That's my suspicion. Forgive me for being crude, but I'm going to state a geopolitical fact right here.
	And it's going to be a little blunt for the diplomatic world.
	But our relationship with the Saudis is very, very simple to explain.
	We buy oil. They buy weapons.
	Period. We don't like each other.
	We don't like to be with each other.
	But that doesn't matter. Because we buy their oil and they buy our weapons.
	Well, now they're not going to need all the weapons that they normally buy from us.
	Or maybe they'll buy some from the French.
	Or some from the British.
	Or maybe some from the Chinese.
	Which would really upset us.
	But the fact is that peace is against U.S. interests in the region.
	After 9-11, David, we transitioned into a full-time wartime economy.
	And if we were to...
	To declare peace anywhere and not be able to sell those weapons and weapons systems, we'll move into recession.
	And we just can't risk doing that.
	And so war is good for us.
	War all around the world is good for the U.S. economy.
	We're used to it, right?
	We've all eaten from that same trough, so to speak.
	And people, at least here in Washington, don't want to see that end.
	That's right. Yeah, and of course they would love to see this extended going into China.
	I had an interview with Paul Charest, who wrote a book, Four Battlegrounds.
	And I really wanted to talk to him about artificial intelligence, because it was primarily about artificial intelligence.
	But the four battlegrounds were different aspects of technological competition with China.
	And it kept coming back to China, China, China.
	I thought I was going to read a book about...
	It was all about how China was the target with all of this.
	And of course, I think that has a lot to do with the fact of why they're going after Russia first, because it's not just that they want to have regime change, but they want to get rid of Russia as a military power because they don't want to have to fight Russia and China at the same time.
	Would you say that's correct? Absolutely correct.
	This Russian government official asked me the other day for my own off-the-record opinion of something that can be done to improve relations between the United States and Russia, even in wartime.
	And I told him that two things came to mind.
	I said, even in wartime, the CIA and the whatever, the FSB, used to be the KGB, Can cooperate in three areas, even during wartime.
	We can cooperate on narcotics trafficking, right?
	93% of the world's heroin comes from Afghanistan, and most of it goes to Russia.
	Russia and Iran have the highest rates of opioid addiction We're good to go.
	Your Excellency, I understand that you have laws just like we have laws, but whenever you arrest an American citizen who happens to be doing whatever it is he or she happens to be doing and charge him with espionage and then just hold him or her Until there's a prisoner exchange.
	That's a bad look in the United States.
	And he said, do you know how many Russians are in jails and prisons around America?
	1,000. Really?
	He said, do you think that the United States government ever offers to release any of those 1,000 prisoners?
	And I said, I understand that.
	And it's wrong. But I'm telling you, the American people don't know that.
	And if they knew it, they wouldn't care.
	And so when you arrest Brittany Griner...
	Or Paul Whelan or anybody else like this kid from the Wall Street Journal.
	It's a bad look.
	You should release them.
	Yeah, that's right. Well, it's a bad look when we have our surrogates arrest people like Julian Assange, isn't it?
	And, you know, that's one of the things that got us on the pardon thing with Rudy Giuliani when we talked about it before.
	The fact that, you know, this is a real existential threat to free speech.
	And I know that you've gone to Australia.
	You've talked about this there.
	And you've also mentioned the fact...
	That there was essentially a very non-state intelligence actor.
	Tell us the implications of that label on Julian Assange and who used it.
	Mike Pompeo used that.
	And David, as soon as the words came out of his mouth, the hair on the back of my neck stood up.
	And it was funny to me because so many in the mainstream media just either ignored it or made a fleeting reference to it.
	Oh, He said, Assange is a hostile non-state counterintelligence actor.
	Those were very carefully chosen words.
	Because... Whenever the United States, whenever the CIA carries out a covert action program, it has to brief the Congressional Oversight Committees, and it has to tell at least the gang of four, that's the chairman and vice chairman of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, this is what we intend to do, this is what the potential for blowback is, and this is why we're doing it.
	It's what we want to see happen in the end.
	But If the covert action operation is counterintelligence in nature, they don't have to brief the committees.
	And the thinking behind that is, counterintelligence means foreign spying.
	And maybe the committees are spying on us, right?
	Maybe Senator so-and-so or Congressman so-and-so is a spy for the Russians or the Chinese or the North Koreans or the Israelis, for that matter.
	And so you don't brief them.
	Well, the plan was, according to Yahoo News, which interviewed 36, count them, 36 current and former CIA officers.
	The plan was...
	Wow.
	If he were lucky enough, fortunate enough to get onto a Russian diplomatic plane to shoot the tires of the plane out in what would be an act of war.
	Yeah.
	At the very least a major international diplomatic incident to disable the plane and snatch him off of it to kill him then.
	Wow.
	Now, why did that not happen?
	Who got in the way of that?
	Or was it just lucky events?
	It wasn't clear.
	I speculated in an interview early on that Donald Trump's second national security advisor, General...
	I forget his name now, already.
	There were so many of them. He went through a lot of people.
	He was like The Apprentice. He went through a lot of people.
	The one that replaced General Flynn.
	Anyway... Was it McMaster?
	I don't know.
	Sorry, go ahead. My guess is...
	For any covert action program, you have to get the approval of the National Security Advisor.
	It's more complicated than that.
	You have to get the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department to sign off.
	When OLC approves it, it goes to the Attorney General.
	From the Attorney General, it goes to the National Security General Counsel.
	If he approves it, it goes to the National Security Advisor.
	And once everybody's in agreement, it goes to the president for his signature.
	And my guess is, when it finally got to the National Security Advisor, he said, wait a minute, wait a minute.
	We're talking about assassinating an Australian citizen, a Five Eyes citizen, who up until that point had never been charged with a crime.
	That's right. We're not going to do this.
	And I think that he was the adult in the room who just finally put his foot down.
	Well, that's good. Yeah, in terms of people who have not been charged with a crime, in terms of pardons, you know, I think about...
	Ross Ulbrich with Silk Road.
	And of course, RFK Jr.
	has said he would pardon Julian Assange and that he would hinted that he might be pardoning Ross Ulbrich as well.
	What's your take on RFK Jr.
	in terms of what's going on with Ukraine?
	And especially since you were in the CIA, his certainty that the CIA killed both his dad and his uncle.
	Well, I'm proud to say that I've struck up something of a friendship with RFK Jr.
	I have a great deal of respect for him.
	And let's put vaccines aside, because at least on the left, that's the go-to attack against RFK, right?
	That way you don't have to say, well, you never run against an incumbent president, even if he suffers from dementia or can't put his pants on.
	They just go straight to the vaccines.
	And I raised that with him early on.
	I said, you're going to have a problem with Democrats on the vaccine issue.
	And he said, look, the truth is, my kids are vaxxed.
	My wife is pro-vaccine.
	He said, my beef was with Dr.
	Fauci enriching himself and with the fact that people were forced to vaccinate their children, even though there was evidence that That vaccines could cause autism.
	At the very least, he said, let's investigate this.
	But nobody wanted to even talk about it.
	So, he said, the way I'm going to present it on the campaign trail is that I am anti-Big Pharma.
	And Big Pharma has been, in part, the ruination of this country.
	And I said, that's the way to go.
	That's right. RFK is very...
	How should I say it? RFK is adamant on some of these issues.
	Number one, on whistleblowers.
	He very generously, without being prompted or asked by anybody, he very generously tweeted that he would pardon Julian Assange, Ed Snowden, Tom Drake, Daniel Hale, the drone whistleblower, and me.
	It was an incredibly generous thing to do.
	And let me ask you. No two million.
	He doesn't want two million.
	But not for two million.
	And let me ask you rhetorically, how many votes is that going to win him?
	None. Zero.
	It'll probably lose him votes.
	But he said it's the right thing to do.
	And so he said he would do it.
	On Ukraine, and broader than Ukraine, on these bigger issues of war and peace, he is...
	100% behind the rule of law.
	And the rule of law is also very clear on war.
	It says that you cannot attack another country unless that country has attacked you first.
	You cannot move into another country unless that country has attacked you, or unless you are invited in by the other country, or with the approval of the United Nations Security Council.
	So why are we in two dozen countries around the world?
	That's right. Why are we in Syria, for example?
	That's right. A lot of people were concerned about, amazed to say, well, we got, you know, we had a shelling and we had a civilian that was killed in Syria and the oil fields.
	It's like, what are we doing there?
	When do we put boots on the ground?
	Do you know when we put boots on the ground?
	I don't remember the press release about that.
	Do you? No, but I remember in 2014, John Kerry, as Secretary of State, trying to justify why we were there, and a journalist saying, but wait a minute, it's a sovereign country.
	Bashar al-Assad, whether you like his politics or not, is the internationally recognized president of that sovereign country.
	Syria has not attacked us.
	Syria has not invited us in.
	And the United Nations has not said that we could put boots on the ground there.
	And we did it anyway. Yeah.
	Why? That's true.
	It truly is amazing. So...
	Yeah, let me ask you, you know, since you're in contact with RFK Jr.
	and I'm not, one thing that I would like to know, since I am a climate skeptic and he has said in the past that he would jail climate skeptics, you know, and I know that, you know, he's said a lot of stuff about free speech.
	Question is, has he changed his position?
	I think he ought to say if he's changed his position and why, because maybe he's the target of this and he's lived through this.
	That would be the obvious explanation if he's changed, but it seems to me like he needs to say that.
	I agree with you. He needs to say it.
	He's become much more of a free speech absolutist over the years.
	And he believes that literally everybody should have their say.
	So long as you're not encouraging violence against somebody or shouting a fire in a crowded theater, as the old saying goes.
	But yeah, I think he's evolved on that issue.
	And you asked me a moment ago about his position on CIA involvement in the In the assassination of his uncle.
	We actually spoke about that.
	And I said to him...
	He told me a story that I'll tell you in a second.
	And I said, you know, that story is of historical importance.
	You need to publish that.
	And I mentioned it to Jefferson Morley, who's probably...
	The country's leading scholar on the JFK assassination.
	And he said he had heard a variation of that story, which fascinated him.
	He thought it was important too. RFK told me that on the day that his uncle was killed, November 22nd, 1963, He was in something like fifth grade, and his mom drove to the local public school in McLean, Virginia, where they lived, and picked him up early and took him home.
	And he said when he got home, his father was in the driveway speaking with John McCone, who was the director of the CIA at the time.
	John McCone and the Kennedys were very, very close.
	McCone had been appointed by John Kennedy as the CIA director, and almost immediately after he was named to the job, his wife died of breast cancer, and he was distraught.
	And the Kennedys, frankly, were afraid that he might harm himself.
	And so they invited McCone to have dinner with them every single day.
	And when the weather was nice, McCone would go to the house.
	It's called Hickory Hill in McLean.
	He would swim in the pool, and then they would all have dinner together at 7 o'clock.
	So he said his dad was in the driveway speaking with McCone, and he overheard his father say, tell me your people didn't do this.
	And McCone said, I don't know who did this.
	Bob said, he didn't say, of course my people didn't do this.
	It was probably the Russians.
	Or it was probably the Cubans.
	Or, you know, a lunatic.
	It was what he didn't say.
	He didn't say any of that.
	He said, I don't know who did it.
	And, you know, Oliver Stone's a friend of mine.
	And he... We're good to go.
	Through his contacts in New Orleans was connected to the Traficante family.
	So I said, oh, maybe we should look at the Mafia.
	And he was adamant that, no, it was the CIA. Well, you know what?
	I've finally come around to that view.
	I don't think it was an order from the top of the CIA down, go kill the president.
	But I think that there were angry and violent elements of the CIA who had been humiliated at the Bay of Pigs, who were in leadership positions at the CIA at the time of the Bay of Pigs, That likely had something to do with it.
	And, of course, the CIA is like any other very large bureaucracy.
	It's not monolithic, right?
	It's got different factions in it.
	Absolutely right. And that's something that so many people don't understand, especially back then.
	This is 15 years.
	Well, not 15.
	It's 12 years before the creation of oversight committees.
	So the CIA had to answer to literally no one.
	They did whatever they wanted, whenever and wherever they wanted.
	And who was going to call them on it?
	Kind of interesting background.
	Well, while we're talking about, before we get on to some other things, too, because I want to get your take on DeSantis and Gitmo and some things like that, because that disturbs me.
	But going back to some of these seminal conspiracies that many of us believe are more than theories, what is your take on 9-11?
	What do you think with 9-11?
	Well, you know, I was just, not only was I in the CIA on 9-11, but I was assigned to the Counterterrorism Center.
	And I've always been adamant that 9-11 was carried out by Al-Qaeda.
	Now, that is not to say that we weren't purposely asleep at the switch.
	But, you know, you mentioned the CIA not being a monolith.
	The FBI is the same way.
	And the CIA, most Americans underestimated the depth of hatred that the CIA and the FBI had for each other.
	Hatred to the point where, as Americans now know, they kept information about the threat from each other.
	For example, the CIA knew the identities of the hijackers.
	But thought that they could recruit one or more of them, and so didn't tell the FBI. Well, the FBI knew that the hijackers were in the United States and thought they could recruit one or more of them, and so didn't tell the CIA. And so they're working independently of one another, and it was a perfect storm that allowed them to carry out this operation.
	Now... The Bush administration, we know, had made a policy decision to not focus on terrorism.
	They were focused on China.
	Both Dick Clark, the counterterrorism czar at the NSC, and George Tenet, who was CIA director, said in their memoirs that they were shouting from the rooftops about the Al-Qaeda threat.
	I know that that's true, because I heard them shouting.
	It's all anybody ever talked about at the CIA was this big one's coming and we don't know when, we don't know where, but boy, we know it's going to be big and we can't figure it out.
	So I think that, and I don't want to sound like a kook or anything, but when you look at the Dick Cheneys of the world and the people under Dick Cheney and the people who had supported and funded the George W. Bush campaign, they were all tied to the military-industrial complex.
	And it's no secret now that 20 years after 9-11, we have the highest concentration of millionaires anywhere in America, right here in Washington, D.C., and that all comes from defense contracting.
	So I think that they made a policy decision to just pretend that everything was fine, pretend to look long-term at the Chinese as our existential threat, and allow 9-11 to happen.
	Yeah, you know, when I look at it, I don't really know what happened on 9-11.
	I just don't believe any of the official stories like the magic bullet with JFK. You know, the aspects of the third building that was not hit and the three skyscrapers had just come down their footprint.
	Early video from the Pentagon that didn't show the kind of, didn't show plane parts, didn't show, you know, had a very small hole in it.
	All that type of stuff.
	Things that I look at it, you know, the old, whenever anybody asks me about 9-11, I say, well, you know what?
	Arthur Conan Doyle had his character Sherlock Holmes say, when you rule out the impossible, what's left, no matter how improbable, is the truth.
	And so it seems like when I look at this stuff, that's my answer to it.
	It's like, I don't know what happened, but I certainly don't believe the government's official story on that.
	Let's talk a little bit. Yeah, go ahead.
	One thought there, too.
	Part of the government's problem is that nobody believes what the 9-11 Commission came up with.
	And it's because the 9-11 Commission, just like the Warren Commission before it, had its hands tied before it even held its first meeting.
	For example, when you don't allow the commission's members, who are some of the most highly regarded, brightest people, and most highly cleared people in all of government, you don't allow them to speak to the CIA officers, who were the ones supposed to be working to disrupt this attack.
	Then what do you hope to gather from that?
	So, you can't believe anything they say.
	I will add one thing.
	I was confronted by a nun recently who yelled at me very pointedly because she said it was a missile that hit the Pentagon.
	And I said, sister, I said, what do you say to the thousands of people who were stopped in bumper-to-bumper rush-hour traffic watching the plane fly into the Pentagon that morning?
	One of whom is a friend of mine who was the head of security at the Commerce Department.
	And she said, I think that they believe they saw a plane, but it happened so quickly and they weren't driving like this looking for a plane.
	They were listening to the radio or looking at traffic or trying to make a turn or whatever.
	It happened so quickly they didn't realize it was a missile.
	And I said, but then sister, what about all those people who were on the plane?
	And she said, I believe that they were bussed to a military base and executed.
	And I said, well...
	Yeah. Well, one of the things that I find interesting is the fact that you've got the Pentagon, which has got to be one of the most heavily surveilled areas anywhere in the world, and there's no existent video of a plane or missile or anything coming in.
	Yes. Do you find that right?
	The Russians said afterwards to our ambassador that they had a very hard time believing that we did not have surface-to-air missiles all around the Pentagon.
	Mm-hmm. What were you people thinking?
	What do you mean you don't have surface-to-air missiles?
	And we don't.
	We never have. Yeah, but they've got cameras.
	They've got cameras everywhere. And there were cameras at adjacent places that they confiscated.
	Let's talk about DeSantis.
	We've, you know... The torture that's there that you talked about that's there at Gitmo.
	And there's now been some statements made from some prisoners about his time there.
	I think that's something that's going to resurface during this campaign at some point.
	Allegations from one prisoner saying, I recognize that guy.
	He was there while I was being tortured, and he's joking and laughing at these other people.
	What's your take on that?
	I think there's something to that.
	You know, it's human nature for some people, many of whom I worked with at the CIA, to have wanted to sit in on some of these torture sessions just to say that they did.
	Something to tell their children or their grandchildren.
	You know, back in the day, we caught the bad guys and I went in and I watched them get the information from them.
	It's sick. It's not something you and I would do.
	But there are a lot of people who would do it.
	Like I say, I worked with a lot of them.
	And when we get reports, like we did from this one Guantanamo prisoner, who otherwise would never have had any idea who in the world Ron DeSantis was, but then recognized his picture as somebody who had not just sat in on the torture session, but who was a representative of the Judge Advocate General at Guantanamo at the time.
	I think it's something that's worthy of investigation.
	And you know, it's funny. DeSantis, to the best of my knowledge, has never denied doing it.
	His denials are non-denial denials, where he says things like, I won't even give you the luxury of an answer that's so preposterous.
	Okay, well, you didn't say no.
	All we're asking is to say, that never happened.
	I didn't do it.
	The information is incorrect.
	He's never said that.
	That's a ridiculous question.
	I refuse to answer it.
	What are we supposed to conclude from that?
	I think he did it.
	And like I say, we know that there were CIA people, FBI people, military people.
	This has all come out in just the last five years or so.
	Who, even though they weren't authorized...
	To be in the room when the torture was taking place, found themselves in the room anyway.
	Yeah, absolutely. What is your take on his position in terms of foreign policy?
	I mean, we pretty much know where people like Nikki Haley stand, Pence stands, and all the rest of this.
	Your take on that in light of his involvement in Gitmo?
	One of the things that I really love about the Trump-era Republican Party is the return to its anti-war roots.
	This is the Republican Party of the 1930s and early 1940s.
	This is something that the Republicans used to have as a major plank in their platform about foreign entanglements.
	We never get anything positive out of a foreign entanglement.
	I will say, though, that if you recall, DeSantis made a mistake when he first announced his candidacy.
	The mistake being he momentarily, fleetingly expressed support for the Ukraine war.
	And then everybody jumped on it.
	And it was as though he said, oh, yeah, yeah, I'm supposed to be against that.
	And then he went back to his opposition.
	Like I say, I'm glad to see that this is no longer the party of Dick Cheney.
	I think Dick Cheney has done a national disservice of historic proportions by fogging us down in some of these forever wars.
	And by convincing a lot of the American people, whether they're Republicans, Democrats, or Independents, that it's our job to be the world's policemen, whether we're asked to be or not.
	Hmm. I'm glad to see that the Republican Party has moved away from that.
	The Democrats now are the ones that push forever wars.
	It's a better role reversal.
	That's right. Yeah. And ramped it up.
	And, you know, you mentioned earlier about drugs and, you know, where we could come together on this, but it's kind of interesting that drug...
	That the heroin supply and other things like that went down after we got out of Afghanistan because it was booming the whole time we were there.
	David, may I tell you something about that?
	In 2011, I was the chief investigator on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and I went to Afghanistan to do a formal report, a committee report on heroin trafficking.
	And I asked the military to fly me down to Kelmand province to a village called Lashkarga, which is literally physically in the center of heroin poppy country.
	For as far as the eye can see, it's nothing but heroin poppy.
	And I very naively, we drove out to this village and I said to a poppy farmer, and I said, listen, let me ask you a question.
	Instead of heroin poppy, why don't you grow things that have two growing seasons, like onions or pomegranates or tomatoes?
	Why do you grow heroin poppy?
	And the translator translated my question, and he goes like this.
	Like, he was so frustrated.
	And he says, look, the Americans told me in 2001 that if I told them where the Arabs were hiding, I could grow as much poppy as I wanted.
	And now you come here and you tell me 10 years later I can't grow poppy?
	And I said, what Americans told you you could grow heroin poppy?
	And the military escort that I was with says, we got to go.
	It's too dangerous here.
	We got to go. And they physically pulled me into the Jeep.
	And we drove back to the helicopter and flew back to Bagram Air Base.
	Wow. That's how I reported it.
	Yeah. Nobody cared. Well, you know, we had Geraldo Rivera go to the fields and show that the soldiers were guarding it.
	And the excuse that they gave was, well, these people need to be able to earn a living.
	And it's like, since when are you concerned about that?
	We've got a massive welfare state here in the United States.
	I would think that if you were at all concerned about drug supply, you'd just put these people on welfare.
	They don't have a problem bringing citizens from other countries and putting them on welfare.
	Just give them money. We've done that in the past.
	That's right. And I said to this colonel that was my escort, the lieutenant colonel, Why do we have all these American military people down here?
	There's nothing down here but poppy.
	And he said, oh, it's to protect the farmers.
	I said, so they can grow their poppy.
	He said, no, no, no. The Taliban comes around and gives them sacks of poppy seeds and says that if they don't plant the poppy, they're going to come back and kill their families.
	I said, that's nonsense.
	In the year before the 9-11 attacks, you know how much heroin poppy Afghanistan produced?
	Zero. There was no heroin poppy.
	They started doing that when we took over Afghanistan.
	Yeah, yeah, and got record crops out of it.
	Before we run out of time, you've got a couple of very interesting books that I know that my audience would be interested in.
	Surveillance and surveillance detection.
	He did that in 2022.
	Another book that came out, and these have both come out since I've talked to you.
	How to Disappear and Live Off the Grid.
	Let's talk about that one first, because we just had CBS recently putting out a report talking about how easy it was to take down the entire electric grid here.
	I think what they came up with, they said, well, all you have to do is take down nine substations and you can black out the entire country pretty much.
	Is this predictive programming for us?
	And of course, getting off the grid, that may not be our decision.
	Some people may be making that decision for us, right?
	Yeah, it may not.
	It's hard to live off the grid, but it's doable.
	You have to change your lifestyle.
	You have to get used to life without a cell phone.
	You have to get used to life without the internet.
	Maybe you even have to come up with a fake name.
	And sometimes in not so legal ways.
	I mean, you can certainly change your name.
	You can move out of the country.
	You can go down to Baja, California, as my friend Jesse Ventura has done.
	He lives literally off the grid for six months out of the year.
	I have great respect for that.
	He has incredible self-discipline.
	I don't know how he does it.
	He's down there right now. But it's hard to do, but it's doable.
	It depends in part on why you want to do it.
	If you want to do it just to not be bothered, yes, it's doable.
	If you want to do it to escape after having committed a crime, it's going to be a lot harder.
	The big difference is you either have people chasing you or you don't have people chasing you, but it's certainly doable.
	Yeah, and it's going to be, I think, as people look at this, my audience, I think they're going to be looking at this, kind of tying it in with the surveillance aspect of this.
	Because I think everybody's very concerned about this absolute obsession that not just our government, but every government on Earth seems to have in terms of giving everybody an ID and a cell phone and tracking and measuring every single thing that we do, the CBDC that's coming out, the smart cities, the 15-minute cities. They want to get us under a complete control grid.
	And, you know, I reported a story this week about a school system in Dallas that is now using artificial intelligence to create a behavioral profile of all the individual students so that it can notice when they have deviated from their baseline behavioral profile and flagged them for whatever reason in a kind of a pre-crime thing.
	And it's like, why are we trying to create?
	What kind of a society are we trying to create?
	I think you can see that In the schools, as they've gone through this progression of a police state with metal detectors and constant surveillance and police in the school system, and now with this artificial intelligence, data mining the stuff and creating a profile for the kids, we see this coming in every direction.
	When you talked about in your book, Surveillance and Surveillance Detection in 2022, Were you talking about something more along the lines of that or more along the lines of somebody putting a tail on you, like the FBI or something like that?
	I addressed AI in the book, later on in the book, but this was mostly about keeping yourself safe from tails.
	I said, maybe you're a cheating husband or a cheating wife.
	Maybe you're being cheated on and you want to do surveillance rather than counter-surveillance or surveillance detection.
	So I went through each...
	issue from both perspectives and tried to put it all in one place.
	Then I finished the book with exactly what I was taught at the CIA, how to do it and how to prevent it.
	And I start off the book by saying, just as an example, I was assigned to a certain country post 9-11.
	You know what it was, but they wouldn't let me say it.
	And one day I left the small guest house where I was staying, and I noticed that there was a motorcycle being driven by a guy in a red motorcycle helmet, and he was trying very hard to stay in my blind spot.
	And the reason why this was a little troubling to me was I don't even know where you would get a motorcycle helmet in this country.
	They have hundreds of millions of people.
	It's the first time I ever saw a motorcycle helmet.
	So I speed up.
	I slow down. The guy's staying right there in my blind spot.
	And then when I got to the diplomatic quarter, he split off.
	I worked 14 hours that day, 15 hours, and it was dark by the time I left.
	And I get in my car and I start driving in a kind of a windy, twisty way to see if I'm being followed.
	And sure enough, there he is again.
	Now, the definition of surveillance is multiple sightings at time and distance.
	So you see multiple times at different times and at different places.
	I'm under surveillance. I was nervous about it all night.
	So the next day, I woke up at 5 o'clock in the morning.
	I checked under my car with a mirror to make sure there were no bombs under there.
	I looked up and down the street.
	I didn't see anybody. 5 o'clock in the morning, I get in the car, I start going back to the embassy, and there he is again.
	And he's on me. So I waited for the security officer to arrive, told him what happened.
	We went to see the station chief, and the chief said, after I explained everything, he said, well, you know what you have to do.
	And I said, yeah, I know what I have to do.
	And he said, you never had to do that before, did you?
	And I said, no. Never found myself in that position.
	They're going to be there to help you.
	Sign out a gun from the armory.
	I said, I know. I got it.
	All day long, these guys are telling me, don't worry, buddy.
	Don't worry. We're going to be out there with you.
	We've all had to do it.
	Don't worry. And I wanted to throw up all day because I'm going to kill this guy if I see him this afternoon.
	That afternoon, I had a meeting at a joint safe house that we shared with The local intelligence service.
	And at the end of the meeting, as I was walking out, I had second thoughts.
	And I stopped and I said, General, let me ask you a question.
	Are you following me?
	And he said, No.
	Why? And I said, Because I'm under surveillance.
	I'm positive I'm under surveillance.
	And if I see this guy one more time, I'm going to kill him.
	And I never saw him again.
	And later on, we learned that they were all sitting around one day talking about me.
	And one of them said, you know, he is such a nice guy.
	And somebody else said, yeah, nobody's that nice.
	He's probably pretending to be nice to trick us.
	And he's probably spying on us.
	I wonder what he's doing when he's not here.
	And so they picked the worst possible surveillance officer ever.
	To surveil me, to see what I was doing in my time that I wasn't working with them.
	And I was going to kill the guy that afternoon.
	Wow. You just never know.
	It's like Rowan Atkinson, you know, the spy who gets the job by default.
	That's an amazing story.
	But I'm sure, you know, that book and...
	Yeah.
	That is, I think, an overwhelming concern of everybody as we look at the obsession of governments in every country.
	And I have people listening to me.
	Yes, and we're not the worst.
	It's worse in, certainly in the UK.
	Every square inch of the UK is under surveillance.
	It's worse in China.
	It's worse in Israel.
	I mean, it's bad here, but it's going to get a lot worse.
	It's worse in the UAE. I was in the UAE in their command center one day, and they had 100 screens, right?
	More than 100, all over the wall.
	This is a system built by Siemens, specific to Dubai.
	And while we were watching the screen, we saw a taxi hit a light post.
	Well, before the taxi driver could get out of the taxi to call 911 or 115, which is their equivalent of 911, we had already sent an ambulance because we watched it happen.
	So before the guy's on the phone, the ambulance is already arriving.
	Wow. Complete and total blanket surveillance.
	Yeah, yeah. And of course, with artificial intelligence, we'll be able to, you know, do individual profiles on all of us, the pre-crime stuff that is there.
	It's very concerning, especially when we look at the long history of this.
	And, you know, people like...
	James Clapper, who famously said they're not doing it intentionally.
	They've been doing geospatial intelligence intentionally for a couple of decades now, at least, having big conventions about it that the mainstream press never covers.
	Speaking of that, if you've got just a couple of minutes, you had a recent op-ed piece on Consortium News where you talked about Havana syndrome.
	Is it paranoia or reality?
	Tell us your take on that.
	You know, I used to think that Havana Syndrome was relegated to the realm of the mentally ill.
	And then people who I know and respect started coming down with some of the symptoms.
	So I decided to do something of my own investigation.
	I wanted to write about this.
	And I interviewed people from NSA and from CIA and I interviewed psychologists and psychiatrists.
	And I've come to the conclusion, and I think it's pretty well documented, that there is science behind this.
	Something's happening out there.
	Now, I don't know if...
	I'm not a scientist, and so I can't really speak as to directed energy weapons, although we do know that our government and others have experimented with directed energy weapons.
	I don't know if the Pentagon is beaming them at innocent civilians walking down the street.
	I don't want to believe that that's the case.
	But like I say, people who I respect...
	I have documented traumatic brain injuries that just can't otherwise be explained.
	Now, I don't believe that the CIA sneaks into your bedroom at night and they give you a shot and you're unconscious and they put a chip in your head.
	I don't believe that.
	And I believe that a lot of mentally ill people think that they are subject to directed energy attacks.
	But there are others where the evidence kind of points in that direction.
	You know, it's kind of interesting, going back to the Navy Yard shooter, I don't know if you remember that, but there's a guy who shot out.
	Sure do. I have a cousin who was in the building at the time.
	Wow. And when he died, you know, he had carved onto the stock of his gun my ELF weapon.
	And that kind of rang a bell with me because of a...
	Of a paper that was done by Michael Aquino, a guy who worked for the NSA. He went on Oprah Winfrey talking about his temple of set.
	He has some kind of satanic temple or something.
	And he wrote a book called Mind Wars, and in that he talked about using ELF. So I was just wondering if anything, and that was pretty old.
	That was back in the 80s that he did that.
	And so I thought that was kind of interesting.
	I didn't see, you did mention extremely low frequency radiation and things like that.
	There was also a Navy scientist, and he discovered, his name was Alan Fry, and he discovered the Fry Effect.
	fry effect yes and so that's when i and i when i was looking up the savannah syndrome that's when i found the fry effect and it seemed to kind of line up but your take on it was that you know there are definitely people who are more susceptible to emf type of radiation right
	yeah you know this is something that i found that um a lot of people who go into what's called the the radio quiet zone which is an area in um in western virginia and west virginia uh this is where we have these enormous uh space telescopes in enormous dishes that are trying to listen to signals coming from other galaxies.
	There's no cable TV. There's no satellite TV. There are no cell phone towers.
	There's just nothing.
	And when people who suffer from these kinds of ailments, these Havana Syndrome type ailments go there, They feel better.
	And so I wonder, I speculate in this piece, that perhaps for some of them, they're just unusually susceptible to radio waves and low frequency emissions, things that the rest of us just don't.
	Yeah. Just don't feel.
	Because, you know, at any given time, we're bombarded with, you know, a million different waves that are just flying through the air.
	Oh, absolutely. And a lot of people believe that that's something that's responsible for an increase in certain chronic diseases or long-term things.
	That's right. And all of us, we just are not susceptible to it.
	I've seen a video that people have taken of pulsing EMF, and they have a bunch of bugs on a leaf, and the bugs are jerking all in unison, you know, so they would pulse it.
	So they could sense it as well.
	That's one of the things that concerns me about 5G. And other technologies that will come along after it.
	6G is a completely different thing.
	But 5G, they're rushing this out.
	I've seen pictures of them in New York City putting these antennas right next to people's windows.
	And the people called up and they said, hey, this is right next.
	They wake up one morning and there's this big antenna, this alien trifit or something, and it's right there by their window.
	So this is right by my toddler's bed.
	And they say, well, sorry about that.
	And then they say, and there's a label on it that says, don't put this within 10 feet of people.
	And so they send a technician out and you remove the label.
	I don't really care what the health effects are.
	Seriously. Yeah, that was reported in the New York Post, I think.
	And there was a series of stories as they started putting them up.
	It was a couple of months ago.
	And they really don't seem to care about the health consequences like we saw with the vaccines and other things like that.
	They've got an agenda. They're going to rush that thing through.
	And then the other side of the 5G thing.
	Is the surveillance state.
	They need that in order to have the broadband data that they can broadband to do the kind of surveillance and real-time analysis of that.
	And that's really the thing. They don't really care what happens to us as long as they get their ability to spy on every single thing we do.
	That's something that really concerns me.
	Do you remember when you could take the battery out of your cell phone?
	Yeah, that's right. Yeah, well, you can't do that anymore.
	And the Washington Post did a study not too long ago where they did a route around the city with a cell phone, and then they did the same route around the city with a cell phone off, and then they did the same route around the city with a cell phone on, but with location services off.
	And all three times, the phone tracked their movements within three feet.
	Wow. Within three feet.
	They should have tried that, putting it into a sleeve to shield it.
	I would be interested to see if it could still do it with that, if there's something internal there.
	I would imagine it's got to have some kind of radiation there.
	That would be the other experiment to do with it.
	Well, it certainly is interesting to talk to you always and such a broad range of things that you've been involved in.
	And again, your show is from noon to two o'clock.
	People can find it on Rumble.
	And tell us the name of the show again that they can look for on Rumble.
	It's called Political Misfits.
	Political Misfits. And I also post a link to it every day on Substack.
	John Kiriakou. John Kiriakou.
	That's K-I-R-I-A-K-O-U, right?
	Thank you, sir. Great.
	Thank you so much for taking the time.
	I know how busy you are.
	Thank you, John. It's always a pleasure to see you.
	It's always great talking to you.
	Thank you. Bye-bye. And by the way, we didn't go into the Havana Syndrome.
	I think most of you may know about that, just in case you don't.
	These are people who are working at the U.S. and Canadian embassies in foreign countries.
	They started having ringing in the ears, cognitive dissonance, very disabling mental capacities.
	Something far beyond temporary cognitive dysfunction.
	It was permanent and disabling in many of their cases.
	So thank you for joining us.
	It's always interesting to talk to John Kerry.
	The Common Man.
	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.

▲