Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 26, 2023 - The David Knight Show

02:57:32

The David Knight Show - 06/26/2023

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	program as news politics and Christian and the adjectives there they decided that they would fly the rainbow flag so I for the first time got to cancel the big guys and so I appreciate you standing with us and then I had this message from a listener and And said, thank you for cutting out the commercials.
	I understand they need to produce income, but I was no longer able to listen to the show due to the woke sex, LGBT, and abortion ads.
	These are all things that I told that I didn't want, right?
	So I guess, you know, our preferences don't matter.
	They're going to shove this down our throats one way or the other.
	I was not aware of any of this stuff.
	As a matter of fact, when I looked at it, Trying to figure out how to turn off a specific thing.
	I'd never really paid any attention to what ads were running.
	I don't listen to them.
	I just naively assumed that it was going to be about products and not perversion.
	And so when I went to look at it, there was a category there called gay life.
	And the other part of the reason why I shut it down was that was the one that was the dominant one that was there.
	And so I guess all this stuff was part of that.
	I didn't know about that. I thought it was just that event that I just showed you.
	Now, this listener thinks that that was being put on by Apple, trying to sabotage your show through ad choices.
	But they're not the ones who put the ads on.
	The ads are put on there at Spreaker.
	And so, anyway, we'll have to look into this.
	I don't know if we'll be turning it back on, if that's going to be the case.
	I don't know if this is just a crazy...
	June month. June used to be the month of brides and graduation.
	Now it's the month of perversion.
	And we have more to talk about with that.
	You have a big parade in New York City where they're chanting, we're coming for your kids, right?
	Oh, it's a joke, they said.
	Well, it's not a joke. We know that's exactly what they're doing.
	And, you know, it was a march to Stonewall there in New York.
	Some location where they say it was the beginning of the pride movement.
	But it ends with a chant to come after your kids.
	That's the progression of this thing.
	We see it now.
	We can't unsee it.
	And so it has to change the way that we interact with this.
	It really does. And the reason I mention gays against groomers is because you have to understand what a small minority they are.
	Most of them will respond to any efforts to protect children with, how dare you, just like Greta, right?
	And so, um, this is, um, also another, uh, this is from, uh, Ty saying, um, this may be nothing, but it's suspicious.
	He says, I was planning on listening to your live show today and I couldn't locate it on rumble.
	I typically get an alert, and then I open the app, choose your little oval channel profile picture, and then I typically get an alert and open it up, the current date to watch the show.
	But today something strange happened.
	I never received the alert.
	It never happened. I could not locate today's show at 9 a.m.
	anywhere on the app, and your oval channel profile picture is gone.
	If I search your channel and choose it, it still shows you as being followed.
	So it says, your channel profile picture is also missing from my girlfriend's app, too.
	So let us know if this is persisting, if you're seeing this as well.
	I really don't know what's going on.
	I know that I'm not getting all that much engagement on Rumble compared to other platforms.
	And the number of people following us there is still really pretty small, actually.
	But, you know, we'll have to see what happens with that.
	And you know, it's just part of the larger issue of censorship.
	And we're going to talk about a new app out of China.
	And right now it's being targeted towards all religions, not just Christians, but any kind of religious service.
	You have to register with them.
	There's an app. You have to register and get approval to go to a public religious meeting.
	And then their thought police, their religious police, whatever you want to call them, will show up at the meeting and say, okay, pull out your phones, your little big brother device.
	That's what it is.
	I always think about that, you know, and I look at the fact that that was not shown in the United States.
	It was only covered by Der Spiegel.
	And I covered it.
	But it was the Snowden Leaks NSA saying that the, who would have thought in 1984 that this would be Big Brother, you know, showing the 1984 Mac commercial and Steve Jobs holding up the phone that this would be Big Brother and then shows the people lined up at the store to buy it and that the zombies, they called us at the NSA, they called us zombies, that the zombies would line up to pay for it.
	Well, it's become worldwide the Big Brother device, and so you have to pull out your Big Brother device, if they come in, and show it to the religious police that you have authorized yourself to be, or, you know, signed up to be at this meeting.
	And if you don't, you're in big trouble.
	And that's where we're headed, and if you stop and think about it, it's got implications that are far bigger than just your religious liberty, all right?
	This could be because we already have a situation here in the United States where you have to get a permit to protest anywhere.
	And if you don't, they come and kick you out and or arrest you if you resist.
	So you have to have permission here to protest.
	So we get to the point where you have to, as each individual, as it is right now, you go out and you get whoever is going to lead the protest, Has to go down and fill out some paperwork and identify themselves to the police authorities.
	And this has been this way since the early 80s.
	Sorry, early 90s, my personal experience.
	But it was there before that for some time.
	But it's beyond just having one individual or one organization sign up.
	I would imagine that in the future, if you want to protest something...
	Each individual at the protest will have to sign up on their app, just as the Chinese are doing, because that's where they test these things out.
	As a matter of fact, look at this picture here.
	Somebody said, now I can't verify that this is true, but it makes sense.
	They said that this building here is a giant self-contained little city in and of itself, inside of a city.
	That it is a 15-minute building.
	Everything that you're going to be allowed to do is inside that one building.
	So you don't have to ever leave it.
	You understand how the control grid is being set up around us?
	Many people do and are pushing back on it.
	As a matter of fact, take a look at this video.
	A couple of videos have come out of the UK, Ireland.
	People taking down these antennas and destroying them.
	Whether it's surveillance cameras or whether it is 5G, because 5G is the same thing.
	Here's some 5G sabotage out of Ireland.
	You can see behind me, guys, the 5G tower was scorched last night.
	It wasn't an isolated incident.
	There was incidents in Springfield Road.
	I'm loving this. Mona Bypass, Stewartstown Road, Anderson's Town Road.
	So, there was quite a lot of these hit at the same time.
	Now, you can see there's two there.
	Well, there's one there.
	There's one here behind me.
	That big one there.
	There used to be three here.
	Now there's only two, and now there's only one.
	So, happy days. I'm delighted, and the cops are saying if there's anybody with information.
	Why would anybody want to come forward with information?
	These things are weapons of war.
	Yeah. 5G, fifth generation of...
	You need to research this stuff yourself, guys.
	It's not needed. It's not warranted.
	And they're slowly turning this stuff up until they get up to 66 gigahertz.
	It falls in line with everything I said three years ago when the hoax virus first came out.
	It was to get people vaccinated, to get them linked up to the 5G grid system, the beast system, artificial intelligence, blah, blah, blah.
	If he's having research, research it.
	If you don't want to research it, don't research it.
	I don't really care. And of course, it's another one of those things where Trump is antithetical to our interests.
	If you remember, before he pushed the pandemic, he was pushing 5G everywhere.
	And there is absolutely no question of how it will be used in a surveillance state.
	No question about that.
	As a matter of fact, the paranoia by Trump and by Trump The Washington establishment.
	We don't want China getting this power.
	We want to be able to control this and spy on our own people and spy on people in other countries.
	You know, this is where a big part of the competition between them.
	So there's no question about that, even though they will downplay that.
	But there's also, of course, a question about health.
	And I started talking about this and I ran out of time on Friday.
	Why are scientists concerned about 5G? The 5G that will be the technological foundation for his quote-unquote freedom cities, which everybody else calls smart cities.
	The Invisible Hazards in Your Hand is the series, and of course also in your pants, in your pants pockets.
	It's a hazard in terms of holding it up to your head.
	As I said on Friday, same type of situation you see with big pharmaceutical companies.
	When they go out and they run their drugs, they've got three different companies and they've all got a drug for condition X. And brand A, when brand A runs their studies, guess what?
	Brand A wins. By a large margin.
	But then when brand B does the same studies, you know, looking, same drugs, But they're drugged to ameliorate it.
	Oh, well, they come out far ahead of that.
	Same type of things.
	And so when you look at the studies that have been done, and there have been some studies on the biological effects of cell phone-related radiation, it's not really about 5G. They're not doing the 5G studies.
	Does that sound similar to Trump's warp speed as well?
	We got a need. We got a need.
	The government has a need.
	And your health and safety...
	Don't even factor in.
	And so, when you look at the papers that have been done in terms of studies on cell phone related radiation, if it's not industry sponsored, it runs about 3 to 1 showing a bad health effect.
	But if the industry sponsors it, it runs 3 to 1 showing, oh, no problem whatsoever.
	A study published in 2018 by the NIH, you know, those people that you trust, Found that high levels of 2G and 3G radiation were associated with an increased risk of cancer and adverse effects on DNA in rats.
	But they don't care. They keep this going.
	As a matter of fact, if you go back to the 1996 Telecommunications Act, it was a decade after Fauci got sweeping legal protections for the vaccine companies.
	Ten years later, under Bill Clinton, they passed the 1996 Telecommunications Act.
	And in that act, they said, you will not object to the location of any antennas for health purposes.
	We will do something to ameliorate if you don't like the appearance.
	We can work with that.
	You can object if you don't like the way this thing works.
	If it's a historical area and you don't want to see these things, maybe we'll dress it up, disguise it.
	But for health concerns, you have nothing to say about this.
	Well, it turns out that yet again we see that if people get active at the local level, They can stop it.
	And it has been stopped in several jurisdictions where people have enough of a spine to stand up to this thing.
	And we've had multiple situations of cancer clusters, especially with children, because they thought it'd be a great idea, since they owned the land, and this is a big open area, let's put a big antenna cluster right there where the elementary school is.
	New York is one of those.
	They had a particular case of this.
	And if you want to stop this stuff, you can.
	You don't have to go along with it.
	This is a federal act, a federal law, which can be nullified at the state and local level.
	They just don't tell you that.
	Don't bother to sue them because the courts will side with the law.
	Just, you know, do what you can.
	Or, you know, this particular case, the people in Ireland are nullifying it in a different way.
	But there is a way that you can nullify this.
	A lot of these lawsuits have been non-productive, but a local jurisdiction can say we're taking those things down.
	The study found that rats and mice exposed to that type of radiation exhibited DNA damage in their brains and blood cells, clear evidence of heart tumors, and lower birth rates in the case of prenatal exposure.
	Some research has suggested a potential correlation between high cell phone usage and glioblastoma, a type of brain cancer, according to a Swedish analysis, long-term cell phone users, those who have had cell phones for over 10 years, face an elevated risk of developing benign tumors.
	Notably, the risk is highest on the side of the head that comes into contact with the phone.
	And that's why I say it's constantly, even when you're not using it, It is constantly still transmitting if you don't have it in some kind of a shielding.
	And so you're going to be keeping it against your leg or whatever if it's in your pants pocket.
	Keep that in consideration.
	So is 5G worse than its predecessors?
	Is this going to be the mRNA of EMF? Electromagnetic frequencies of radiation.
	What scientists do know is that unlike microwave cellular radiation, millimeter waves cannot deeply penetrate the body.
	And so that's the basis that they're saying, well, 5G is safer.
	It can, just as I started to talk about this on Friday, as Snopes was gleefully pointing the finger at Elon Musk's Starlink as being the culprit in that submarine disaster, the wavelength for the satellite communications can only penetrate three inches into the water.
	This high-frequency radiation is even more shallow.
	So they're rolling out antennas every roughly 100 meters in urban areas, though.
	And so that's the issue, that even though it is shallow, the density of this is going to be much higher.
	And so about every 100 meters in urban areas, they will be having 5G, 3G, 4G, probably on the same towers.
	It won't be exactly the same device, but they'll probably want to make use of that infrastructure, putting the tower up.
	And so you're going to be exposed to more radiation.
	And as we've already seen in New York, and it was probably about sometime last year, that in New York City, they started rolling these out in certain boroughs of New York City.
	And people would go to sleep and wake up in the morning, and there's like this alien Triffid thing, you know, that's right there at the window.
	Right there, said one person, right there next to my kid's crib.
	And then there's a sticker on it.
	Says you've got to stay 10 feet away from it, and yet it's right there up against their window.
	And so they called the people and said, you know, this thing says you're supposed to be 10 feet away.
	You're right up against my window. We'll send somebody out.
	They sent out some technicians, and instead of relocating the antenna, they removed the warning sticker.
	That's typical of this type of stuff.
	You know, we've got a problem with the vaccines.
	Well, just don't put the insert in.
	As one person pointed out, when all this stuff was rolling through, they went through and said, you know, they had the pharmacy was giving free shots.
	She went up to it and said, could I see the insert for these vaccines?
	Pharmacist said, sure. Comes back sometime later.
	Says, I can't find one.
	There isn't one. I shouldn't be putting this out if there's no insert.
	It's like, yeah, exactly.
	You shouldn't. Shouldn't be putting it out.
	Anyway, they don't know what the long-term effects of the 5G are yet.
	They've conducted research to show that these millimeter waves can still trigger biological responses by altering the electrical charges of cells.
	You understand this is one of the reasons why I don't want to downplay any of this stuff.
	First of all, it hasn't been tested.
	It's going to be ubiquitous everywhere, but there's been no tests.
	We don't care about that anymore.
	But if you go back and you look at Fauci and Collins and Monsef Slaoui, the guy that was with Moderna, and what they were doing for several years prior to the rollout of this pandemic, when they would go around to their...
	I started looking them up to try to get background information on Monsef Slaoui when all this stuff started happening in early 2020, even before Trump locked everything down.
	What I found was that they were going to these pharmaceutical trade, industry trade meetings, and they were the guys that were always up there on the dais, and they were always pontificating about what the state of the art was and everything.
	But they were doing one seminar after the other on what they called electroceuticals.
	Electroceuticals. We're going to be able to affect people's moods.
	We're going to be able to heal diseases and all the rest of this stuff.
	We'll be able to do it with electricity.
	And of course, your central nervous system and anything is all electrical.
	The communications between cells are electrical.
	If you disrupt that, What does that do?
	And I also saw this when I was doing the research about the Havana Syndrome.
	The Havana Syndrome was something they first noticed there in Havana, but they also saw it in China.
	We had embassy personnel and others complaining about clicking in their ears.
	And then as this thing went on, they started having severe headaches and other chronic issues that didn't go away.
	And so they started saying, well, is this some kind of a directed energy weapon or something of these people?
	If you go back, as I started looking that up, I discovered Alan Fry, who had stumbled across this, found that just as technicians had stumbled across the fact that radar could warm up their coffee, and that became the first basis of microwave ovens, and they were called radar ranges.
	Fry found he had an assistant, same way, said, I'm hearing this clicking noise, and they tracked it down to a particular frequency.
	And it triggered the nerve responses that created signals that his brain interpreted as audio signals coming from the ear, but it wasn't.
	It was inducted by electromagnetic radiation.
	And so we really don't know about this.
	And so I guess we should just go ahead, full steam ahead.
	Because the important thing to people like Trump is that they have a substrate to watch everything that we do.
	And of course, the selling point is going to be that you'll be able to play video games, you'll be able to live in your virtual reality, you'll be able to download movies and blink of an eye and all the rest of this stuff.
	That in and of itself is a form of slavery.
	They want you living in that virtual reality.
	As I've said, that is where they're headed with all this transgender stuff.
	Yes, there is the terminal point in one direction, but it's kind of a fork, right?
	So we started down this path because we wanted to get rid of truth and reality.
	And so, in my opinion, you know, you look at modernism.
	Modernism was a response to say we're going to do higher criticism of the Bible, of religion.
	We got science, and science is more important, even though science came from Christians.
	They said, well, we believe that since there's a creator, there's an intelligence in this design.
	Let's discover it. But then, science turned, and they said, well, this is going to be a justification for us to get rid of God.
	We can pretend that God doesn't exist.
	So they had higher criticism to criticize the Bible first on archaeology, then criticize on evolution.
	And as they got completely wiped out on archaeology, as they were losing the argument in evolution, they then came up with post-modernism.
	Okay, okay, okay.
	You're winning the debate, so let's just pretend that there is no such thing as truth.
	Or that I have a truth and you've got a truth, and how dare you talk about my truth?
	When they lost the debate, they just said, there's no point in debating truth anymore.
	And so, as we started down that path, and you combine that, With the sexual depravity of the mid-20th century that started creeping in, thanks to Hollywood, designed by Hollywood, part of the Franklin School movement to do that.
	It was deliberate. But as you start heading down that path, you gradually wind up where we are with the transgender stuff, which takes you to pedophilia.
	But there's another path, and that is the one that goes to transhumanism.
	There's a fork there, if you will.
	And that path, going to transhumanism and to virtual reality, right?
	Transhumanism doesn't mean that you, in reality, you become a cyborg.
	It may mean that you just waste your life sitting in a cubicle like you saw in Ready Player One.
	Maybe you just sat there, vegging out on video games.
	As Yuval Harari has said, well, we're going to control people with drugs and with video games.
	And they will drop out of the real world.
	And we'll take it over.
	Because you've taken yourself out.
	So you can take yourself out because of your obsession with sex or your virtual reality aspects.
	Any number of these things.
	And so that's where they're headed with this.
	And that's why they have to remove anything that gets in their way.
	And that is the path that we're going.
	We're going to talk more about that when we come back.
	But when you look at climate change, just as a teaser here, we have a meteorologist who has resigned.
	He says he's suffering PTSD from threats over climate change coverage.
	You know what this is about.
	This is the mainstream media.
	Trying to make a case for censorship.
	People's feelings are hurt.
	He's got PTSD. He feels threatened.
	So if you disagree with the propaganda that he's putting out there, you've got to be silenced to protect him.
	And as I've said many times, I saw this back, I think it was 2013.
	I went to the American Meteorological Association's meeting in Austin to report on it.
	And everybody was running their experiments, trying to predict the weather two or three days in advance.
	They couldn't do it. But we're supposed to believe they can predict the climate decades in advance.
	And they all had models.
	And they were giving their presentations.
	Here's what our model was testing, and here's our assumptions.
	And so here are the measurements that we did.
	They were doing real science.
	So our model looked at these different factors and predicted that this type of weather would happen.
	Did it happen or not?
	And, you know, trying to make the case for their model.
	And so as a result of that time, not too many meteorologists were buying into climate change.
	And so Soros had a booth there.
	To shame them into it.
	I know when we went for a wedding recently back to the Raleigh area for some friends, their kid got married, and one of the people that was there was a meteorologist that We knew.
	He used to come to the video store.
	So we knew him from TV, and we had met him on just an acquaintance basis.
	Didn't really know him. But he was a friend of the other family.
	And he had been a real opponent of climate change.
	And then he flipped. And I didn't have a chance to talk to him as to it wasn't really the appropriate thing.
	I mean, he's there celebrating the wedding, and he was doing MC functions and things like that, so I didn't want to get into work with him.
	He wasn't there to work, and neither was I. But it would have been interesting to find out.
	I learned that, as a matter of fact, afterwards, that he had switched.
	But Soros was telling them, look, people trust the weatherman.
	And you need to explain to them that climate change is real.
	And then even having up their chart where they'd done a poll and they found that the vast majority of meteorologists at the time did not believe that climate change was real.
	And so they conducted a relentless propaganda campaign against the meteorologists so they could then become their mouthpieces for this.
	This guy, his name was Chris Gloniger.
	And he was in Iowa.
	And so he said, I got these messages like, what's your address?
	We conservative Iowans would like to give you an Iowan welcome.
	You'll never forget. Has he never seen the music man?
	Where they're kind of brusque with people coming in.
	And that was written, you know...
	Meredith Wilson was from Iowa.
	He wrote The Music Man.
	Interesting thing, he was actually in John Philip Sousa's band as a youngster and played piccolo, and they have fun with that in The Music Man.
	But he had a big career with a lot of other things.
	Anyway, I'm getting sidetracked here.
	This guy was an award-winning meteorologist who spoke frequently about the effects of climate change and is accused of being a conspiracy theorist.
	And a worthless Biden puppet.
	Well, actually, he's a Soros puppet.
	You might want to get that straight.
	But when you look at this, I thought it was kind of interesting that I had some pushback on climate issues.
	And I'm going to get to those after I take a break.
	Some comments over there.
	And I want to address those. Because I think we need to put this in the proper perspective.
	I think people need to understand just how dangerous this is.
	This is one of my big concerns about RFK Jr.
	I was interviewed two weeks ago, I think it is now, by somebody who had a podcast in the UK, and they asked me who I thought would win.
	I said, well, if we've got honest elections, I think that the inside, you know, I'd put my money right now on RFK Jr., Simply because he's got to still win the nomination, but he's doing things that are going to possibly weaken his position with a base.
	But typically at this point in time, what he's doing that's different is he's not running to appease the more radical elements of the Democrat Party.
	He just had a situation where he had a meeting in, it might have been New Hampshire or Iowa.
	I think it was in New Hampshire.
	And some lady wanted to, you know, kind of lecture him about gun control.
	I want to know what you're going to do about gun control.
	He says, well, here's the uncomfortable truth.
	And he starts telling her some of the reasons why he would not do gun control, even though he wants to do gun control.
	And so when he does that type of thing, they might buy it and say, well, okay, he still wants to do gun control, but I understand that this is an incremental thing and so forth.
	So he might be able to appease them by not taking the most radical position.
	If you remember, four years ago, we had people who were running, multiple candidates who were running for president or various other offices in the Democrat Party, saying that not only did they want to confiscate all guns, But they wanted to use the U.S. military against people who refused to turn him in.
	That was said over and over again.
	And so he's saying just the opposite.
	But he's endearing himself to many people on the right, and what they don't understand is where he's coming from, how radical he is on climate issues.
	And of course, there's some other very big issues when you look at what is happening in the Republican Party.
	What they're really fighting over are what a lot of people call cultural issues.
	I call them morality issues.
	And the issues of the transgender stuff, the Marxism in the schools, that type of thing, that's become a big issue.
	And that's one of the reasons why DeSantis won so handily re-election in Florida.
	And so that's going to be a big issue, and nobody's really even talking to RFK Jr.
	about that. But I want to talk about The climate issues, when we come back, it's a very important issue and it can be used and has been proposed for 50 years as the linchpin to take everything away from us.
	That is the basis of the Great Reset.
	The pandemic stuff was an emergency that they pulled, and they may do that again.
	That moved the Overton window for people a great deal.
	But the relentless push for this, and they're now back to it, is climate.
	So they might do some kind of a climate emergency or whatever.
	But this has been the slow, continuous, ratcheting effect has been through climate, interspersed with some...
	Created or fantasized health emergencies.
	So we're going to take a break and we'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	Making Sense.
	common again.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	Well, I had a couple of comments on a climate change video that we cut out of the program last week.
	And I thought, I don't normally spend time reading the comments, but for some reason, I wondered what people said about that.
	And it was only about four comments, most of them from just two people.
	So not heavily commented.
	But I thought they were interesting in terms of what they said.
	And so the first one guy said in two different comments, he says, please don't say there's no such thing as climate change.
	There is. And it happens every day.
	But the climate change agenda is BS. And then he said, you also can't just cherry-pick one country where temperatures have stayed the same.
	I can tell you Australia has changed a lot in 20 years, weather-wise.
	Ten years ago, we used to get two weeks straight of 40 degrees C. Now we're lucky to have three days straight of 35.
	Also, winter isn't as cold as it was either.
	And we don't really seem to have summer or winter anymore in the last five years or so.
	Wait a minute. Didn't he just cherry-pick based on what he experienced in one country?
	This is the issue of not being able to distinguish between weather changes and climate change.
	What we're being told as climate change is that it is global.
	And so what's happening in Australia really doesn't matter.
	It doesn't...
	If temperatures are lower other places...
	What's happening in Australia doesn't matter.
	We've had situations where they have shown pictures of Venice.
	Look at this! The canals are all dried out.
	Okay, well, wait a little bit and let's see what happens.
	And then all of a sudden, canals are flooding and back and forth.
	You have differences that happen locally and you have differences that happen elsewhere.
	But the question is, is this global?
	You also have in Australia them saying that...
	The dire predictions that the coral reef was going to be gone by now.
	Just like the glaciers were going to be gone in the American National Park.
	Just like the ice at the poles was going to be gone.
	Long time ago.
	Many years ago. None of that stuff happened.
	As a matter of fact, bigger than ever.
	The coral reef in Great Barrier Reef in Australia.
	And so when we look at this from a climate standpoint, the question is, is it warmer?
	Well, if you want to say there's climate change, then the burden of proof is on you.
	And look, we know that climate changes.
	I showed the, as part of that video that they were responding to, I showed the people who were taking ice cores, deep ice cores, in Greenland to take a look at climate over a very long period of time.
	And they don't dispute that.
	Instead, what they do is they cherry-pick the point at which they want to start looking at climate change.
	And so it was far, far, far warmer, according to their cores and their assumptions.
	It was far, far, far warmer for many thousands of years, tens of thousands of years, and they went through a very cooling period, and then it came back up again, and you had little mini ice ages and so forth.
	But they all ignore the mini ice age of the...
	The warming period, I should say.
	They ignore the warming period and they start with the mini ice age.
	And I come back with that.
	And so by picking their starting points, they've all got that same chart.
	But they decide they're going to pick a starting point to reinforce their narrative, to show a trend.
	The bottom line is that if you're going to say that it's warmer, then burden proof is on you to prove that.
	Then the second thing is you have to prove that it is what the cause of that is.
	And so some people who believe that there is a warming still have to prove that it's because of an SUV, because that it's man-made.
	And, of course, those charts show that's absolute nonsense as well.
	Common sense would tell you that there's going to be, for a global climate, there's going to be other factors, solar activity and things like that, that are going to have a far, far greater effect.
	Common sense would tell you that if CO2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere, something else is driving this.
	And it's their agenda.
	So if you want to talk about man-made stuff, I know there's a lot of people who will point out geoengineering.
	Well, maybe that is something that is happening.
	So if you can prove to me that things are getting warmer, Then I would first look at geoengineering.
	Are they doing things to try to make it warmer?
	And I've talked about how it was a Skyder alert.
	It was both a video and it was an app.
	And they did a little documentary video about their thesis, but then they put an app out that was for free.
	And they said, if you see any cross-hatching persistent contrails, we call them chemtrails, If you see that happening, then take a picture of it and send it to us.
	And so they would get the geolocation coordinates from that, right?
	And they correlated with people doing that.
	They correlated a rise in temperature based on this cross-hatching of persistent contrails.
	And so there's a lot of different ways that it could be man-made.
	So you have to prove that it's the cars.
	Or that it's the power plants or something.
	The burden of proof is on you.
	Before you start taking everything away from us and shutting everything down.
	And telling us to eat bugs and all the rest of this stuff.
	Before you deconstruct all of society, the burden of proof is on you.
	Just like the burden of proof is on you to put out these vaccines to show that they were safe and effective.
	They choose not to do that.
	They make these pronouncements.
	It's always the same MacGuffin.
	And so prove that it's getting warmer.
	Then prove that it's man-made.
	But see, this has all been reversed thanks to the power of media.
	The power of media can come out there and declare that this new thing that they've imagined is real.
	And now, if you say, well, I question that.
	I think you need to show your work.
	I think you need to show your work with the vaccines.
	I think you need to show your work with this thesis, this novel thesis that's out there.
	Oh, no. We don't have to show that.
	That is now the new truth, the new reality.
	And you're the one who has to disprove that.
	That's like having to prove that you're innocent.
	Right? There's certain things like that that, of course, it is easy to disprove those.
	They've done a better job than anybody else in terms of disproving it by putting out all these pronouncements time and again and then failing to have these things happen.
	We have 50 years of false prophecies from these people.
	And so the choice between energy security and decarbonization is not one that tends to attract a lot of attention.
	It is a sensitive topic because it exposes the shortcomings of so-called low-carbon energy, what they call renewables.
	But the reality is, as one person says, you know, before Europe found out last year, as Europe found out last year, It might be wise to discuss this topic before we splash $110 trillion on an energy transition.
	You might want to see if it's necessary.
	You might want to see if it works.
	And you might want to question why they want to bankrupt us.
	Here's another example.
	New York City. We've talked in the past about these e-bikes and how they are apt to have lithium-ion battery fires as they're charging.
	And so we had that happen again.
	You had four people die in that particular fire.
	But there's been many, many fires all throughout New York.
	People will bring these things into the lobbies of the buildings, they'll start charging them, and then you have a fire that happens there.
	And so what's the response?
	Does New York City come out and say, well, we don't need e-bikes?
	I mean, you could walk.
	You could ride a real bicycle.
	Why do you need to have an e-bike?
	But no, we're going to keep the e-bikes and we're going to spend $25 million to have special bike charging stations, hoping that that's going to prevent the battery fires.
	Well, I don't know if it's going to contain them, but the battery fires are not based on anything other than a characteristic of these lithium-ion batteries to catch fire.
	But here's the key article today that I wanted to get to, and especially this is for my friend in Australia, listener, in case you're listening.
	Climate change scandal in Australia is heating up.
	This is coming from the daily skeptic.org out of the UK. What is the climate change scandal?
	Is it some new study going back and looking at temperature data and things like that?
	Well, no, actually, it's looking at the measuring devices themselves.
	I've said many times, you can go back and you can look at all these various methods that they got, whether they're tree rings or whether it's ice cores, all these other things, and they cherry-pick the starting point to get a trend that is going to reinforce their narrative.
	But I've also said, if you notice where they're putting the thermometers, it makes a big difference where we put the thermometers.
	I know, and I've said this many times, just in the small city of Raleigh, we want to be in the city of Raleigh, I could watch the temperature drop as we drove out of there and out into the country where our house was.
	It was under a canopy of a lot of trees.
	It was a forest.
	I would always see the temperature drop about 4 degrees.
	No joke on the car.
	And it happened every single time.
	And so where you put the thermometers makes a big difference, right?
	Because they're saying, hey, if we go up one and a half degrees or something ridiculously small like that, I think it's one and a half degrees.
	One and a half degree change, centigrade, we're all going to die.
	All the ice caps will melt and all the rest of this stuff.
	And you just have to look.
	The buildings that have been around and the castles that are out in the middle of the sea, like I pointed out a couple of weeks ago in France.
	Look, that castle that's been there for a thousand years, when the tide comes in, it still comes up to the same spot that it did before.
	Occasionally, you might have a drought in some places that will uncover some stuff, but it's a temporary situation.
	It's called weather. It's not called climate.
	And they made a big deal about that.
	Some river where people had written on some rocks, Certain things, and people hadn't seen that for many generations.
	Then all of a sudden it became visible again.
	Well, guess what? It was down low like that at some point in time for people to put that on the rocks.
	And so it's back to where it was at some point in time.
	But now it's disappeared again.
	But when you look at what is the scandal in Australia, it's not where the thermometers are placed.
	Instead of being in a rural area, they put it on an airport tarmac.
	That's the usual scenario.
	And that sends the temperature way up.
	It's not the fact that they weren't recording these temperatures for very long.
	They've only got temperature measurements for the big cities, and they've only got it for about 150 years.
	It's not that either.
	They've discovered that the electronic thermometers in Australia have read up to 0.7 degrees C higher than traditional mercury glass units.
	Hmm. This is very widespread.
	And so... You've already had the founder of the Weather Channel, an older meteorologist who was always a climate skeptic.
	He's now passed away, and I can't remember his name.
	But the guy who founded the Weather Channel was a big skeptic of this stuff.
	And he said, so you're telling me, even though we've got this paucity of records that people have recorded, the temperatures that they looked up on glass thermometers, you're going to tell me that this changes...
	By a degree that you're going to be able to accurately determine that.
	And now we see that there is a bias in the electronic thermometers that is actually half of the way to where they need to be.
	They only need to go to 1.5 degrees C. And they're already at 0.7 degrees C in their bias.
	And it is a heavy bias, isn't it?
	with some real consequences if we don't oppose this lie.
	And that's why it is essential to oppose that lie.
	And it is why they will censor people, as a matter of fact.
	Listen to this. - It was a very intensive and coordinated activity by multiple government agencies in the United States, in the UK, requesting censorship on myriad issues, We mentioned transgenderism, climate change, COVID was a huge one.
	Maybe the most egregious is where White House officials demanding that Facebook censor people for sharing true stories about vaccine side effects.
	The demand was made that It'd be censored, not because it was misinformation, not because it was disinformation, but because it was true information that might lead to vaccine hesitancy, to a reluctance on the part of people to get vaccines.
	So we're in 1984 Orwell territory.
	So that's sort of malinformation.
	Malinformation is what they call it.
	True information that's inconvenient.
	Exactly. That results in, that make results in behaviors that we don't like.
	Well, at that point, I mean, you could justify censorship of anything.
	And, of course, they are censoring everything that clashes with their MacGuffin.
	They have an agenda, and you must not speak against it, or you'll be censored.
	Thank you, Eric.
	Thank you very much for the tip on Rockfin.
	I really do appreciate that.
	We had a massive response last week, and again, I thank everybody for, especially for Suprafe and for Robert, who did matching amounts last week.
	That was over and above, but everybody stepped up.
	We had a lot of people. Who have been very generous.
	I think I saw Eric last week as well.
	But thank you so much for that.
	But we're still at 7.8, so that's close.
	And so, like I said, it's been a major...
	In the last couple of days, at the end of the week, it was a major move.
	And I just cannot thank all of you enough.
	All of us do here. We're going to take a quick break.
	And when we come back, we're going to talk about the Putin putsch and what happened with that.
	Thank you.
	yeah, we're talking about man-made climate change.
	We made climate change this last year.
	We... From the Texas climate of triple-digit temperatures to what you just saw there.
	I couldn't be happier about that climate change.
	The much more the better. And we made it ourselves.
	We moved to a different climate.
	Let's talk about what's going on in Russia.
	Really strange thing that happened over the weekend.
	The coup that didn't happen.
	But again, it looked like it was going to be something that we've seen in the past.
	If you remember, Lenin started using dissatisfaction during World War I to bring about his revolution.
	And so, you know, it's always been something that is on people's minds there, as well as the fact that you have a guy who's a mercenary and was just raging and It's kind of funny.
	You go back and you look at these pictures of him.
	When you had George Bush, for example, George W. Bush, meeting with Putin and having dinner.
	And you've got this guy, Pergozin, who is standing over George Bush's shoulder, you know, like a waiter, you know, it's like, would you like some more wine, sir?
	This guy has now gone into, like, this major mercenary mode.
	How did you get to that point?
	I don't know. It's a strange transformation.
	But it was also strange how he was railing against the Russian government's incompetence and saying, I had to fight the Russian bureaucracy at the same time I fought the Ukrainians.
	And they were putting sand in our gears and all the rest of this stuff.
	I thought, whoa, Putin doesn't usually allow that kind of criticism.
	And I thought it was odd because it wasn't the first time either that he keeps saying this.
	So it's like, wow, they really are dependent on this guy to have some successes to allow this to continue to go on.
	And it did continue to go on.
	Until there was talk that there had been a strike against him.
	A missile strike against his positions.
	That got him very angry and he said, that's it, we're moving on Russia.
	On Moscow.
	And so that's what we saw.
	The mercenaries moving and went quite a ways from Ukraine into one city.
	They were welcomed with open arms.
	And they got all that adulation and then it was on to Moscow.
	And you saw people in Moscow taking it very seriously.
	They're putting up all kinds of road barricades and everything else.
	It appears that Putin got on a plane and took off, and many other oligarchs did as well.
	So first they went to the city of Rostov-on-Don, and then they were on their way to Moscow.
	Clips show vehicles speeding down the M4 motorway to the landmark city, further adding credence to the sense that they're heading for the Kremlin.
	This is the reports that came out as this was beginning.
	Rostov on the Ukrainian border is about 14 hours from Moscow, but the next town that they were close to was only about six hours away.
	Meaning that they were closing in on the Kremlin.
	And as I said, all kinds of preparations were being made to try to keep them at bay.
	There were reports that Wagner troops were then being hit by airstrikes on the highway that runs parallel to the Ukrainian border.
	They were being hit with airstrikes from Russian forces attempting to push them back.
	So they were under aerial attack and continued for a while.
	Putin went on TV, accused Pergozan of, quote, treason, of stabbing in the back and other things like that, added in his TV address that he will, quote, protect our people and state from any threats, including internal betrayal.
	And so, just as suddenly as it began, it stopped.
	And there was supposedly a brokered deal, allowing him to go to Belarus, which is very friendly with Putin, allowing him and some of the people who participated in this to go to Belarus and be left alone, presumably.
	Or, if they had not been involved in this, they could sign up and join the Russian military.
	But then this came out yesterday.
	U.S. intelligence agencies briefed 24 hours before the Russian uprising.
	They briefed members of Congress.
	Well, it turns out it was actually two days before this happened.
	They were briefing people in Congress on Wednesday about this.
	And, of course, that was another factor of this.
	When you look at the fact that this guy was running a mercenary organization, mercenaries can always be bought, can't they?
	And who's got a lot of money because we just print it out of thin air?
	And so my thought on this from the very beginning was that this is something that is being orchestrated by NATO. And I don't really know.
	I mean, when we look at this, it's kind of strange.
	But of course, the CIA is no stranger to coups.
	Virtually, in many countries, more than one government has been overthrown in a single country.
	By the CIA, intelligence officials were conducting detailed briefings of the White House, the Pentagon, and on Capitol Hill about the potential for unrest in Russia.
	A full 24 hours before the Wagner boss, Yevgeny Pergozin, launched the ultimately failed march on Moscow.
	Washington Post and New York Times are two sources of this, but now we know that actually it was more than 24 hours.
	It was about 48 hours at the minimum that was happening.
	And so the real issue for it, for us, you know, Russia's had the revolutions.
	Russia's had a revolution that took place within the context of an unpopular war.
	And the difference is now they have nuclear weapons.
	But the problem is that we now have people in Washington, like Lindsey Graham, who really don't care about that, who really want a nuclear war.
	But we're here to talk about something nobody else seems to want to talk about.
	I applaud President Biden for putting on the table that the threat of Putin using a nuclear weapon in Ukraine is real.
	And our message is to those around Putin that if you do this, if you follow his order, if he ever gives it, you can expect a massive response from NATO and you will be at war with NATO. I can't believe that NATO nations would allow their countries to be irradiated by a nuclear attack emanating in Ukraine.
	Yeah, so there you go.
	Just a coincidence of putting that out.
	The fear that a major nuclear-armed rival of the U.S. could descend into chaos.
	A lot of people were concerned about that, but isn't that the goal?
	Isn't that the goal? Aren't we after regime change?
	Aren't we after Putin? Are we willing to risk nuclear war in order to achieve that goal?
	Well, certainly Lindsey Graham is.
	He doesn't have a wife or family.
	He's got a bunker in Washington.
	He doesn't care. He's got the, you know, he's set up like Dr.
	Strangelove there. That's exactly what they do want.
	And so, again, it looks like it's got their fingerprints on it.
	As I said, it wasn't 24 hours.
	It was days in advance.
	U.S. officials felt that if they said anything they said, Mr.
	Putin could accuse them of orchestrating a coup.
	I mean, you know, who would think that the CIA would orchestrate a coup?
	It would never cross their mind, of course.
	And they clearly had little interest in helping Putin avoid a major embarrassing fracturing of his support.
	So, you know, I'm sure that Putin doesn't know this.
	And maybe he didn't.
	But they did. We're supposed to believe that as they were conducting these briefings on Wednesday, and none of this stuff started happening until on our time late Friday, so at least another 48 hours, maybe longer than that.
	We're supposed to believe that our intelligence agencies picked this up just because of intelligence.
	You know, they're just watching what Pergozin is doing and his troop movements and they're reading his mind and, you know, and all this other kind of stuff.
	And yet, Putin doesn't know anything about that.
	So, over the past month, he's made no bones about his personal hatred for the defense minister.
	The intelligence that Washington supposedly had seemed very specific and appears of accurately predicted events several days before they unfolded, as a matter of fact.
	Secretary of State Blinken said on Sunday, yesterday, it shows real cracks within Russia as it wages its war on Ukraine.
	Rogozin himself in this entire incident has raised profound questions about the very premises of Russian aggression against Ukraine in the first place, saying that Ukraine or NATO did not pose a threat to Russia.
	And that is part of Putin's narrative.
	So he's already trending toward that, right?
	And it was a direct challenge to Putin's authority.
	So this raises profound questions.
	It shows real cracks.
	And of course, they're excited about that.
	Would you be excited about the fact that you see real cracks and problems in a nuclear reactor?
	You know, like Chernobyl or something?
	You don't want to see problems in something like that.
	That's not something to be cheering, but of course the U.S. government does and the State Department does.
	Russia called out U.S.-led sponsored wars and brought up past failed CIA black ops, such as the Bay of Pigs.
	Are the Russians hinting that they just foiled another CIA stunt?
	Well, you know, this is something that has been part of Russian history for its very inception.
	After Lenin does the Bolshevik Revolution, I've talked about it many times, the trust was set up by Felix Derzhinsky, and it was the predecessor to the KGB that he was running.
	And so his spy agency set up this thing they call the Trust.
	They actually gave money to people who were exiles in opposition to the Bolshevik government.
	And they were actually creating plots to, you know, encouraging people to come up with plots and giving them money to do this type of thing so they could identify who their enemies were, so they could trap them when they came into the country.
	And you have something that has been, the Russians have made many movies about it, the Lockhart plot.
	Lockhart was an embassy person from the British embassy, and he was spearheading This movement to come in and overthrow the Bolshevik government.
	They were going to land a lot of British and anti-Bolshevik troops at a location called Archangel.
	And they were going to proceed to, just like Pergozin was doing, they were going to then engage Lenin, take Lenin out, assassinate him.
	Sidney Riley, the guy that was the model for James Bond, Ian Fleming, the master spy that they had, he was going to set himself up as head of Russia.
	So there was a lot of different aspects to it.
	It all fell apart, and they, just like the Bay of Pigs, and they withdrew the troops, they arrested Lockhart, kept him for a while.
	They were actually able to eventually lure in Sidney Riley, and they executed him.
	And so they've seen this type of thing happen before.
	They've seen from their inception, you know, a revolution that happened during the middle of a war.
	Then they've seen the West having failed attempts at the Bay of Pigs, at the Lockhart plot, and all these other things.
	So, of course, that is going through their minds, and we ought to understand that as well.
	These things are not typically talked about.
	In America because they're failures.
	But it was as big a failure, if not more so, than the Bay of Pigs.
	A lot of people were entrapped with that as well.
	Russian state TV program.
	You had one presenter, Kisilov, played an archive clip of Putin saying that he is able to forgive many things but not betrayal.
	So it remains to be seen what is going to happen with Pergozin.
	Will he have protection in Belarus or are they going to eventually get the knives out and come after him?
	As Putin characterized what they were doing as a knife in the back of our people.
	So they may have their knives out for Pergozin as well.
	What's clear is that Putin took the matter very seriously.
	He went on television, talked about it being treason, said he's keeping tabs on the situation, a special operation under control around the clock in a statement, and other people have said that he's been staying up quite late lately.
	All of this is going to escalate the jumpy, nervous situation.
	Trigger finger, if you will, for a nuclear war.
	It's not a good thing at all.
	But again, it's also, as Moonover Alabama said, maybe it's time for us to go back and look at what Machiavelli warned about mercenaries.
	And that is always the case.
	You know, it's even my concern as we look at what has happened to the U.S. military in light of the vaccination stuff, right?
	You've got people there who will do anything, whether it's against the Constitution or against their own health, and they'll follow orders.
	It's a career for them.
	And look at what has happened to our military.
	It's just a large part of it is this LGBT agenda, the Marxist agenda, the CRT agenda, the racist agenda, all of these different things folded in.
	But, you know, we started going down that path, I think, with the professional military after the debacle of Vietnam.
	You know, I go back and I look at what is happening in Ukraine.
	It reminds me of the way that I saw Vietnam as somebody who was watching this very closely.
	I mean, they ended the Vietnam War just as I was graduating high school.
	And so, you know, it was, it wound down just in time.
	But I was watching this thing, and I had sisters that were older, and what was happening with the draft and all the rest of the stuff.
	And by that time, we all knew that they were using Vietnam just as a proving ground for their weapons.
	In the same way that they're using the Ukrainians.
	They didn't care about anybody's lives.
	Everyone was just cannon fodder for what they wanted to do.
	And there was a lot of practice by the military-industrial complex.
	As a matter of fact, I had a job as an intern with a company that was part of the military-industrial complex, and they were talking about the guidance equipment that they had for the missiles and everything, talking about how they had improved That versus what they were able to do in Vietnam.
	And you quickly start to understand that a big part of the Vietnam thing was just practicing tactics and perfecting weapons.
	I talked to people who, you know, just horrific things that they went through.
	And there was no objective. They would go in and win a battle, seize the ground, and then they would have them pull out.
	And the enemy would come in and take it again.
	Absolutely no point to it except perpetual war.
	And of course, that's much the way that it is in Ukraine, except there's also the goal there of destroying Russia and or Putin.
	And so it's a very dangerous game that they're playing.
	But again, if you have a mercenary, said Machiavelli, if he's any good, he becomes even a bigger threat to you.
	Because he doesn't have any loyalty to anything other than money.
	And they want to see themselves as kings.
	And they can make themselves a king.
	And that's exactly, perhaps, what happened with Pergozin.
	Whether this was something that he thought of himself, or whether it was something that he was being bribed with NATO. Either way, he saw himself as a superior who should be running the country, if not the war.
	He bragged that his men were better equipped than the Russian army, and that he didn't need to fire a single shot as they took control of the headquarters in Rostov.
	The border guards, he said, greeted us and hugged our fighters.
	If anyone gets in our way, we will destroy everything.
	We're going all the way. That's what he said at the beginning of it, before abruptly stopping.
	Again, they came under attack from helicopters.
	Airborne attacks continued as they drove down the motorway.
	Wagner downed at least three Russian helicopters, while reports online suggested 12 deaths on the government side.
	So it was a bit of a war there before he called it off and went back.
	Pergozin claimed one missile struck a civilian bus.
	Multiple roads were dug up.
	In a bid to slow the rebel columns, Kremlin chiefs scrambled pickup trucks piled full of sand to blockade the gateway to Moscow.
	But then, in an astonishing turnaround, with its forces only 120 miles from Moscow, he claimed that he was ready to back down in order to avoid bloodshed.
	And so they did a dramatic U-turn.
	Pictures surface, as I'm sure you may have seen if you looked at any of this stuff, of him in the back of a black limousine waving to everybody.
	This guy was a caterer.
	Fighters who took part alongside him will not be prosecuted, they say, while the Wagner troops that did not march could sign contracts with the defense ministry.
	So, again...
	Putin took it seriously.
	He got out of town.
	And I think he is going to continue to take it seriously because he saw this as a treason.
	Finally, they wanted everybody to know that China had declared their full support for Russia during this coup attempt.
	Now, maybe that's another aspect of this, do you think?
	I don't know. I don't think that that would come as a surprise to the Americans that there was going to be an alliance with Russia and with China on this.
	We're going to take a quick break, and we'll be right back.
	Unlike most revolutions, where the people rise against a real economic oppression, in our case here in Boston, we are fighting for purely an abstract principle.
	It is, however, not nearly so abstract as a young gentleman supposes.
	The issue involved here is one of monopoly.
	Today, the British government will monopolize the sale of tea in our country.
	Tomorrow it will be something else.
	All right.
	All right.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	Welcome back, and let's talk a little bit about what is happening with the pushes towards ID. This is something that is coming at us From a variety of different angles.
	They've got multiple paths to get us into a society where we live at their permission.
	Where everything that we do is known to them, followed by them, and can be shut down preemptively.
	And, of course, the most direct path is CBDC, but let's talk about some of the other paths that they may take.
	It's interesting to see this article from the Daily Beast saying there's a weird sleeper issue that Biden is betting on for his re-election.
	And he said, yeah, he's going to be dragged into the culture wars.
	This is the Daily Beast talking, right?
	Now, Biden has dragged us into the culture wars, and we'll talk about some of that coming up.
	But he's also pointed out that this LGBT stuff is a core value of not only his administration, but the UK and the West in general.
	That's their core value now.
	It's not liberty. It's not even safety.
	It's depravity. And the sons of depravity is what they are.
	But, by the way, that reminds me of Sons of Liberty Radio.
	And Bradley Dean organized, and again, I was going to get some pictures of what they did with their protests there.
	But he's organizing people to push back against this.
	I think the time for us to just be silent about this has long since passed.
	And we've seen what it is doing to our society.
	And it's time for people to push back and to speak out against this.
	So they said, yeah, Biden is going to be dragged into the culture war.
	And when they call it a culture war, they're minimizing it.
	This is spiritual war.
	It's a war over the heart and soul of our country, over morality, over the family, Over, you know, they've marched through the institutions and now they're marching through the family to destroy it as well.
	So the Marxists have been doing.
	The White House thinks that Biden can own some boring partisan issue, they think, of junk fees.
	Junk fees. What are junk fees?
	Well, you know, this is add-on fees that corporations do, you know, like the add-on fees when you travel on an airline or something like that.
	The big issue, the big issue that they mention here, this is how he's going to touch base with people.
	His secret weapon, the sleeper issue, illustrated by what happened with Ticketmaster and concerts.
	Yeah, that's the big thing.
	That's their constituents.
	But they say that if he focuses on these junk fees being put out for airlines and for Ticketmaster and other places like that, it's going to highlight how the Republicans are cozy with big industry.
	Like the Democrats aren't?
	What about Pfizer?
	What about Raytheon?
	What about all the rest of this stuff?
	How can they possibly hope to keep pulling the wool over people's eyes about that, or maybe the mask up over their face?
	Well, perhaps they can.
	Perhaps they can get away with it.
	But as they point out, the big issue for them, and they think they've got it.
	Taylor Swift's tour, they had a big issue with Ticketmaster adding junk fees and everything.
	So this is going to be the winning ticket for Joe Biden.
	Push back against Ticketmaster's junk fees for Taylor Swift stuff.
	These people are delusional.
	Meanwhile, as they start talking about those junk fees, they're out there pushing the idea they're going to tax us by the mile, which has always been the logical conclusion.
	Eric Peters and I have been talking about this for over a decade, how that's one of the reasons that they need to have electric cars out there.
	They want to have centralized control of everything.
	So again, it's not enough just to be zero emission.
	You've got to be zero emission in a way that you're dependent on the grid because they can take the grid down.
	And then, of course, to maintain the roads, you've got to find some other way to maintain the roads because that's been done with fuel taxes.
	So since we're going to remove the fuel...
	What are we going to do to make it too expensive to drive an electric vehicle?
	And, of course, they'll just outright prohibit it because they'll say, hey, look, we, you know, Biden is now taking down power plants the same way they're taking down cars by saying we've got certain types of emissions and they're too high on these emissions, so we're going to have to shut these power plants down.
	And so they're not going to have enough electricity to power the cars, even if they had enough stations and even if you had enough time, there's not going to be enough electricity.
	But they've got to find a way to tax the EVs.
	You know, the government giveth free stuff and it taketh away free stuff.
	And I think when we talk about what's happening here in Tennessee, these toll roads, I think it's preparation for, you know, the governor here, Governor Lee, is going to be having his special gun control session coming up soon.
	Uh, I think, you know, uh, Tennessee is one of only 14 states that doesn't have any toll roads and he wants to change that.
	He wants us to have toll roads.
	So right now you've got about a quarter of the states that don't have toll roads.
	Three quarters of them do. And I think a large part of the toll road stuff is to get people used to the idea that That they're going to be taxed for driving, and it also helps to set up this crony corporate structure.
	And they don't want to talk about that.
	They want to talk about Ticketmaster, or they want to talk about the airplane industry giving people extra surcharges for bags, but they don't want to talk about the fact that they're working with corporations to have these death by a thousand cuts with these toll fees and other things associated with Government programs.
	So in Oregon, they've got a pilot program.
	To start charging people by the distance that their vehicle travels rather than the amount of gas that it uses.
	And to have you put a device in to, you know, the, what is it called?
	It's a port. I can't remember the name of it.
	It's an electronic port. You can put sensors in there that will scope out, report all kinds of stuff about the condition of your engine.
	It slips my mind right now what it's called.
	But you'll have this device that you'll put into your car, plug in there.
	And they'll get a readout for them and tell them everything that you've been doing, how you've been driving, but especially how far you've been driving so they can tax you on that.
	And then, oh, by the way, after they got that other information there, they can now charge you on the way that you drive.
	Oh, you don't like the way that you drove either.
	The federal government is about to pilot its own such program, funded by $125 million from the infrastructure measure that Biden signed in November 2021.
	See? That's why he's got a Marxist in charge of this, Boutier, or Booty Marx, depending.
	So far, only three states, Oregon, Utah, and Virginia, are generating revenue from road usage charges.
	Hawaii is about to become the fourth.
	Many states have implemented stopgap measures.
	Such as imposing additional taxes or registration fees on electric vehicles because, hey, you're getting a free ride.
	Well, that was a selling point, right?
	Hey, get a free ride.
	Get your electricity for free.
	Now there's a little bit of a charge.
	Now there's going to be a lot of charge because they're going to add surcharges to the rates that you're charged at these charging stations.
	They're going to start doing many other things to charge them for the electricity that they use, adding taxes to the kilowatt-hour charges.
	And, of course, the electric vehicles are much heavier than cars.
	And the heavier the vehicle, the more wear and tear there is on the road.
	It's one of the reasons why you have very heavy fees for large, heavy trucks.
	But, of course, the electric vehicles are very heavy as well.
	They're also testing electronic tolling systems, you see.
	If they can't get you to put one of these devices in your car or something, they can hit you electronic tolls everywhere.
	That's why, you know, it immediately...
	It gets me excited and angry when I see something like toll roads being put in here.
	Not even the fact that they're going to be run and owned typically by a foreign corporation, but this is also preparation for following and tracking and controlling and making it impossible for us to move around.
	So, the impetus at this point is less about collecting revenue than getting the public comfortable with it, you see?
	That's why I say that about, they talk about electronic tolling, and then of course, you know, toll roads themselves.
	You're getting people comfortable with the idea that they should be charged every bit of the way that they go, for every bit of movement.
	You should have to pay somebody for the privilege of moving around.
	Lawmakers passed a bill last month that would have begun early steps toward a program by allowing collection of motorists' odometer readings on a voluntary basis.
	But, of course, none of this stuff remains voluntary.
	DHS, meanwhile, is outlining a digital ID initiative that they say is for, quote, travel.
	Immigration and citizenship status, employment, residency status, and more.
	Now you notice that almost all of these things are about problems that were created with the open border.
	Problem, solution.
	We have totally open, chaotic border.
	People, you know, you can have Russian soldiers and Chinese soldiers come through there.
	You can have narco-terrorists come through there.
	You can have child traffickers come through there.
	You can have a massive influx of people from all over the world come through to get free stuff because it's a big magnet.
	But you're not going to fix that.
	Instead, you will add another problem to the problem that you created, the chaos that you created.
	And that problem is the digital ID. Department of Homeland Security is not interested.
	And controlling the border. They're interested in controlling you.
	And by not having control of the border, that allows them to have a reason to control you.
	And this is not just the federal government, and it's not just Biden.
	DeSantis, if you remember, in Florida, made eVerify mandatory.
	Now, eVerify has been around for a while, but they made it mandatory.
	Why? Well, because of uncontrolled immigration.
	We've got to have everybody get prior permission from the government in order to have a job.
	I've got to get verified by the government to have a job.
	So I have to beg them for permission.
	They create the problem.
	They won't fix the problem.
	Instead, they say, well, now we're going to have to have ID for you.
	It's like we were talking about last week.
	Obama and all these other people saying, you know, we got this capability of artificial intelligence to do deep fakes.
	Oh, that's a really bad thing.
	So we're going to have to have you get an ID. We're going to have to have a program that embeds everything that you create with a number so we can see who you are and stop you from posting if we don't like your perspective, if we see you as anti-government, if we see you as against our agenda.
	So rather than control artificial intelligence that's doing deepfakes by requiring that any AI programs watermark it somehow or make it clear somehow that this is a deepfake, That could easily be done.
	If you find them putting something out that doesn't have that watermark, you come after them right then.
	They could easily have artificial intelligence identify itself.
	But instead, they're going to use this to say they've got to identify the humans.
	And that's the same thing they're doing at the border.
	They could easily control the traffic coming across the border.
	And they could stop pulling people across the border with promises of free stuff.
	But they won't do any of that. Instead, they'll come back and say, well, we now got to have a digital ID initiative, and we're going to spend millions to develop digital wallets.
	Department of Homeland Security is going to do this.
	Didn't take long, did it?
	You know, Homeland Security created after the 9-11 false flag.
	Now it's there. To create IDs for us to track us internally here.
	Nothing will be put on the people coming across the border.
	Just like artificial intelligence creating deepfakes, they can do whatever they want.
	Many people want to come across the border as possible.
	But now we'll have to check the citizens to make sure that you're legitimate.
	Travel, immigration, citizenship status, employment, residency status, and more, according to DHS. So particular emphasis is on the wallets, they said, compatible with global standards.
	A new type of centralization to speed up the move towards centralized digital IDs, which is the plan.
	And again, I wonder if this is something, you know, Biden in March of last year, a year and three months ago, He put out an order for every agency within the government to come up with, and he said, you know, you're going to fall into one of these four different areas, you know, redesigning the financial system.
	How are you going to enforce it?
	That'd be DHS. How you're going to actually implement the code and how you're going to sell this by telling everybody you're going to save them from climate change.
	And so I wonder if this is DHS's response to this.
	Well, you know, first we'll start with this digital wallet thing.
	It's going to be incremental.
	As Fauci said, you do it with disruption and chaos, you do it from the inside, and you do it iteratively.
	And so that's exactly what they're doing.
	So this is...
	A pronouncement about this digital wallet that's going to track everything that you do, your travel, your citizenship status, your employment status and everything.
	This is coming from the Department of Homeland Security's chief privacy officer.
	The cynical Orwellian privacy officer.
	This is like the Ministry of Love, you know, the police state ministry that arrests people, tortures and beats them.
	The Ministry of Love. Or the one that censors everything and flushes it down the memory hole?
	The Ministry of Truth.
	Well, this is Department of Homeland Security's privacy officer talking about how they can create a surveillance state and use digital IDs to do it.
	These are building blocks, said the privacy officer, to preserve privacy.
	Yeah, that's right.
	Just like the Ministry of Truth was about truth or free speech.
	So where is this headed?
	Well, as I mentioned earlier in the program, the Chinese Communists now have an app for religious persecution.
	There's an app for that.
	And they are going to start cracking down on people if you don't register to go to church.
	You have to register with the Chinese Communist Party to go to their church.
	And understand that these public churches...
	Long ago, tried to comply their way out of tyranny.
	Yes, we'll do whatever you say, right?
	We will edit our Bible and we'll do other things in order to, you know, whatever you want us to do.
	And then President Xi said, well, I think if you're going to put a crucifix on the wall, you've got to put a picture of Chairman Mao on one side and of me on the other side.
	And I said, you know, God's got a sense of humor.
	There you got Jesus and now the two thieves on either side of him.
	But, you know, they've been doing that type of thing.
	And they let them go on for a while.
	And then they started in certain provinces just bringing bulldozers out and knocking down the church buildings and tell people, well, you're not going to meet here anymore.
	It just keeps stepping it up.
	So now in one province, they have an app.
	Where they are going to use this for further persecution.
	Here is Tom Nettleton, who's with the Voice of the Martyrs, talking about what this looks like.
	This spring in Henan province, they rolled out an app to get approval to go to any kind of religious service.
	And so what that means is that you need to have the app on your phone.
	You need to pre-register in order to go to a religious gathering, give the Chinese government all of your information, tell them who you are, where you live, your ID information and so forth, and then get approval to go to a religious gathering.
	If the authorities come into a church service, now this would only be a registered church service because if you're in a house church, it's all illegal.
	There is no permission for that.
	So if the authorities come into a registered church service, they simply ask everyone, hey, pull out your phones, open up the app.
	We want to see, did you sign up beforehand?
	Did you get approval beforehand?
	So it's very easy for the authorities to single out anyone who's there that they don't know about, that hasn't registered ahead of time.
	Like I say, this was rolled out in one province, but it is very easy to see this, you know, if it works.
	And from their standpoint, it will work if less people go to religious services.
	That would be success for them.
	If it works in this one province, it's very easy to see it spreading throughout China.
	We saw very similar app-based control during COVID. The Chinese people had to register.
	They had to have a green checkmark to go on public transit, to go into certain buildings.
	You had to show, yes, I'm okay.
	They're now brought that into the religious affairs sphere, at least in this one province.
	So now you have to report and get permission in order to go to a religious meeting.
	And this is not just Christians.
	They're doing this to Buddhists and Muslims and all the rest of this.
	But look, this is not even just religious.
	The totalitarians always come after religion first, because they have to be the key power, the be-all and end-all.
	They have to be what everybody fears.
	There cannot be any other power center above them, or even beside them.
	And so they always strive to become God as part of their thinking and as part of their satanic deception.
	I will become like God.
	I will be God to these people.
	And I will have control over everything, including their minds.
	So they always come after the religious people as well.
	But you understand this same principle can and will be used for political meetings in Western countries.
	If you're going to have a meeting and you're a group that they think is perhaps going to be oppositional to them, well, you'll have to let us know.
	You want to go to a school board meeting?
	We've already got Biden's Department of Homeland Security calling people to go to school board meetings to speak out against this novel Marxist and grooming curriculum that they've got there.
	You go there, you're called a domestic extremist.
	So you know that perhaps you'll have to get permission to go to a school board meeting in advance with your app.
	I can easily see this happening in that way.
	Or as I said before, for the longest time you've had to get permits to protest.
	It would typically be one person or an organization that would get the permit, and it would be an umbrella thing.
	I remember we had a good candidate, a rational guy, and looked good, spoke well, understood.
	And he was not a wacko libertarian, like a drag queen type of libertarian.
	He was a rational person.
	And we got him on the ballot.
	He was very effective speaking.
	We wanted to get him in the debate.
	He would have really come across favorably in the debate.
	But of course, that was not going to happen.
	We had to jump through all kinds of hoops to get on the ballot.
	Exhausted everybody and exhausted the budget and everything else just to get on the ballot.
	And they wouldn't let us in the debates.
	And so we showed up to protest.
	But the people who had done this before knew that they needed to get a permit.
	And then there were counter-protesters to protest us from the Democrat Party showing up.
	They didn't want us protesting the censorship of the only ballot candidate who was not allowed to participate in the debate.
	They only had three candidates on there.
	You could easily run a debate with three candidates.
	But they didn't want to for obvious reasons.
	And so the Democrats showed up to protest us.
	And the police came along and arrested some of them and dispersed them.
	Because they didn't have a permit.
	We had a lot of fun with that as they were being carried away and shoot away.
	Oh, you love government, don't you?
	See how government shuts down your free speech?
	But now here we are, you know, 30 years later.
	And, you know, the Democrats love government shutting down free speech everywhere.
	But they were not aware that they had to have a permit to show up to protest us.
	We knew that we had to have a permit to protest the debates.
	And so, if you have to have a permit to protest, what's to keep them from taking that down to the individual level?
	Right? Keep better tabs on people.
	So individual levels of people to protest, school board meetings to protest.
	I can see all this stuff happening.
	And as I point out, this is to...
	Discourage people from going to church.
	That's their, you know, to persecute people, hopefully, you know, but they will arrest people if they need to, right?
	They arrest home churches all the time.
	The app is called Smart Religion.
	Smart, again. There we are.
	And as Brian and Deb point out, you know, the computer storage acronym for SMART is Is self-monitoring, analysis, and reporting technology.
	And so you will be self-monitoring and reporting to government if you want to publicly attend a church.
	It will all be underground. And that's the good thing, because the people who were above ground sold out a long time ago.
	And it will grow much faster.
	Only the people who are serious about it are going to be involved in it.
	So it's going to grow. It's been growing like a wildfire.
	It's going to grow even more so that way.
	But again, it also applies to mosques and to Buddhist temples, and I'm sure that they'll be using this.
	Of course, you know, in China you don't have anybody showing up to have any political protest or to have a say about what the kids are being taught in school, that type of thing.
	But that's what we'll see here with that type of thing.
	By the way, he also pointed out that nobody under 18 is supposed to be in any kind of religious service anyway.
	They want the kids to religiously worship Xi and the Communist Party for the first 18 years of their life.
	And they know that if they've not been exposed to any of this stuff, then they're theirs.
	But what they don't understand is that, and what a lot of Christians don't understand, they think that if they take the kids to church, then they're going to somehow absorb this stuff.
	But they're not. If you don't teach it as a parent, they're not going to get it in a couple of hours.
	There's a purpose to church attendance and fellowship that you're going to have, like-minded people supporting each other.
	But if you think that's going to train your kids, you're sadly mistaken.
	That's one of the reasons that the church is in the state that it's in today.
	Before I go any further, let me think on Rumble.
	North America and House Hippo.
	Thank you very much for the tip.
	I appreciate that. He or she, I don't know.
	Good morning, David. Good morning, everybody.
	Just enough time to pop in here and say, I was listening to Rachel Johnson.
	On London's LBC yesterday, if you think Boris is insufferable, he doesn't hold a candle to his sister, Ray Jo.
	I bet that would be funny.
	I wonder if she's got the disheveled hair like he does.
	You know, looks like a cartoon character.
	He goes to a great deal of trouble to look like a...
	A buffoon. And he's very successful at that.
	More successful at looking and sounding like a buffoon than he was as being, than being a prime minister.
	And now he's working for the Daily Mail.
	So I have no idea.
	I didn't even know he had a sister.
	I shudder to think what she looks like.
	Okay, so talking about the border again and the need for identification.
	We've got to have something to follow people.
	We've got to have an app, digital app, track and trace people.
	We've got to have permission to get a job.
	Well, here's a Texas congressman who wants DNA testing of migrant children at the border.
	He wants that to be brought back.
	There was already a program of DNA testing that was instituted by Trump.
	And the stated purpose of that Was to make sure that these kids were not being recycled.
	You know, they would use kids as a beard.
	Oh, here I am with the family.
	And so since we're coming in as a family, we get to stay.
	See, I'm the parent of this kid.
	And yet they see these same kids coming through over and over again.
	They believe. So I said, all right, we're going to do a test and see if there's any relationship between you, parent and child.
	And rather than saying, we're going to control our borders and we're going to decide who and how many people come in at a given time.
	No, we're not going to do that.
	Instead, we're going to play this game of DNA testing.
	And then who knows what they're going to do with the DNA stuff.
	Are they going to keep a record of it?
	You got Lance Gooden of Texas reintroduced a bill last week.
	To help to reduce migrant child recycling.
	But see, you could stop all this migrant child recycling if you actually protected the border, number one.
	Number two, if you changed your policy so that you don't have anchor babies and things like that.
	If you don't have DACA. But of course, Trump was going to get rid of DACA, wasn't he?
	It was an executive order that was put in by the Biden administration.
	But, of course, Trump said, well, I can't stop an executive order from the Obama administration.
	I can't stop that. And so he didn't want the political heat for it.
	So what he did was he kicked it over to the Supreme Court.
	And the Supreme Court eventually said, no, you can't undo an executive order, an executive order that says we're not going to enforce immigration law.
	From, you know, Homeland Security.
	Isn't that amazing? I've got an executive order saying I'm going to ignore the law.
	How do you justify that?
	You swore to uphold the law.
	You swore to uphold the Constitution.
	Now you say, I've got an order saying that I'm not going to do that?
	And you call it DACA. And Trump wouldn't do anything about it.
	He played that, you know, kick the can down the road, hot potato, throw it over to the Supreme Court type of thing.
	And so now, the best that he did was to say, well, we will do DNA testing to rule out any child trafficking or child recycling that is going on.
	Just close the border.
	Get control of the border.
	You don't have to do this.
	And stop with all the phony justifications for anchor babies and all the rest of the stuff.
	Remember? Trump mocked those reporters.
	You know, he said anchor baby. The person said, I don't like the term anchor baby.
	I think that's bad.
	And Trump said, well, what do you want to call it?
	Well, I would call it unverified children of undocumented migrants.
	And Trump said, I like anchor baby better.
	And everybody goes, yeah, good for him, good for him.
	And yet he didn't do anything at all about it, did he?
	It's all just posing for the cameras.
	That's all he did.
	Everything that he did about the border was just virtue signaling talk.
	That's all he did.
	The DNA testing was originally implemented in the Trump era because they wouldn't control the border.
	Now the Biden Department of Homeland Security wants to remove that as of May.
	Senator Marsha Blackburn here in Tennessee introduced an identical bill in the Senate to bring it back.
	What we have learned, she said, from Border Patrol is that as many as 30% of all the children that arrived in the southern border are being trafficked.
	This is no family relationship.
	But they're here illegally.
	Stop the illegal traffic.
	Just stop it. Get control of the border.
	That's what's needed. We don't need more control over us.
	We don't need... Digital IDs.
	We don't need e-verify.
	We don't need DNA databases.
	We need you just to do the simple job at the border that you all keep talking about.
	But they use it for every justification for tracking and tracing us.
	So Gooden said, with this bill, the guy in Texas who put it in, Lance Gooden, With this bill, we send a clear message that we are committed to the safety and welfare of children, standing firm against any forms of exploitation.
	No. You're sending a clear message that you are ignoring the border issue.
	You're using the secondary and tertiary effects as justification for creating a police state, biometric databases, digital ID, and all the rest of this stuff.
	All this is just a pretext for control.
	You got border control?
	No, you don't have border control.
	You have border chaos so that you can control American citizens.
	Just like you don't control the artificial intelligence, you want to use that to control us.
	Okay, we're going to take a break and we'll be right back.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Well, we're just past the anniversary of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v.
	Wade. And people are still missing the central point of that, especially in the Republican Party.
	The Democrats are furious about it, and we're losing the argument because we won't talk about life.
	The Republicans are talking about everything except the fact that this is a child.
	And they're going to lose that argument.
	And it could cost them the election.
	Because here we are, a year into this, of no row, and they're very upset about it.
	Abortions are down 3% over one year.
	That's not much of a drop, but it is a lot of lives that we're talking about.
	And one of the reasons that it is so small is that the number of states that have banned most abortions or limited them to six weeks is only about 15 states.
	It's only about 30%. And those are not the states, for the most part, where most of the abortions were taking place.
	And so the Republicans are making the mistake of saying that we need to federalize this again.
	And that's the key thing about this decision.
	It was very important from the standpoint of being able to save lives.
	It is also important from the standpoint of supporting the Tenth Amendment.
	And I've said for the longest time that we have to check The relentless concentration of power into Washington over every aspect of our lives, now most recently over defining things like what is marriage and what is life and when does it begin, the government in Washington especially has no business making those types of decisions.
	None whatsoever. As a matter of fact, they're specifically prohibited from doing that with the 10th Amendment.
	And that's why Clarence Thomas and Scalia and the rest of them said, we're going to kick this back to the states.
	But that should have been the response to Roe v.
	Wade at the very beginning. Instead of fighting it in the courts, the Texas governor and legislature should have said, well, this is what our law is, and you have no federal jurisdiction here whatsoever.
	You have no standing on this issue.
	You have no authority to weigh in on this issue.
	It's none of your business. Not part of your sphere of authority.
	So be quiet about it.
	But you see, this is a big decision.
	Because it affects so many other things, and not just the definition of marriage and other things like that, that the federal government has no authority to decide.
	There's tons of things that the federal government has exceeded its Tenth Amendment power on.
	So by doing this, it sent a big red flag out to people about, oh, well, these recent things where the Supreme Court has egregiously usurped power that nobody in the federal government has, Where is it going to end?
	Well, it's going to end because Republicans are going to try to claw this back and naively think that they're going to be able to control Washington.
	Now, if you make this a federal rule, then what's going to happen is the Democrats are going to define abortion again as they want.
	You're not going to prohibit abortion all over the country.
	First of all, what you'll see happening is You'll see the Tenth Amendment being used by the people who want to kill babies.
	They will stand on the authority of the Tenth Amendment.
	The people who said that they wanted to save babies' lives, you know, Texas at the time of Roe v.
	Wade, Texas in 1973, they wouldn't use the Tenth Amendment to save babies' lives.
	But if you make this a federal law, I guarantee you California, New York, and other places like that are saying, well, we're going to nullify that.
	The Republicans just put in a law to ban abortions across the country at 15 weeks, which is what they say they want to do, which is a lower level than we had before.
	So you've got Lindsey Graham and you've got Donald Trump and you've got Pence and all of them saying, we need to set this and we're going to set it at a lower bar than it was before and call that a victory.
	Well, it's not going to be a victory. Because you can't force California and New York and places like that to follow that.
	You have no enforcement mechanism.
	They have already shown that they're more than willing to nullify the federal government on issues that they value, like medical marijuana, even recreational marijuana.
	They will use nullification to nullify federal laws for which there's no authority.
	And there is no authority for federal laws to set abortion one way or the other.
	And so they will defy it.
	And so you're not going to protect anybody with this.
	Instead, what you're going to do is you're going to establish a precedent that, oh, we can enact laws in Washington.
	If the Supreme Court decision isn't enough, we'll enact a law to make it happen.
	And then they will do that, and the conservative states will play along with it.
	They won't nullify that law.
	They'll play along with it just like they played along with Roe v.
	Wade for 50 years. So, oh, you say that we can't do it?
	Okay, well, then we won't do it.
	We won't protect babies. Whereas the other people say, you say that we can't kill kids?
	We're going to kill kids anyway.
	Watch us. I'll run on that.
	And I'll win on that.
	So, 15 states have banned it, or up to six weeks.
	Four more states have restricted abortions to 12 to 15 weeks.
	27 states continue to allow abortions up to fetal viability at around 23 to 25 weeks.
	Most recently, a six-week ban in Iowa failed in front of the state's Supreme Court, and a tightening of bans is still expected in Arizona, Florida, and other places.
	Interestingly enough, Florida is one of the places that has seen the biggest increase in abortions.
	Now, the reason for that is the same reason that Florida just came up with the six-week ban.
	Um, that was a response to the abortions going up in Florida and the abortions went up in Florida because all the other Southeastern states enacted controls that were more stringent or did it sooner.
	And so everybody was going to Florida to get their abortion.
	And so in response, Florida said, okay, we're going to lower it down to six weeks.
	But they've still got a couple of different, they've got the, I think they had it 15 weeks.
	Yeah, they had it at 15 weeks, which is what the national ban they're talking about doing.
	That's what Pence and Trump want to do is a 15-week ban nationally.
	And so that's what Florida had, but some other states had it at a lower number, and so people were going to Florida to get their abortion.
	Now, even that 15-week ban is being challenged in the courts, and so it's not really gone into effect either, let alone the six-week ban.
	So there'll be a court challenge with a 15-week ban, and I guess if they lose that and don't have the guts to push back against it...
	See, I'm not even speculating here.
	We know that's going to be the case because we saw that for 50 years.
	And then we know that it's going to be the case because we've seen it in other places where they enact abortion bans.
	And you have one federal judge, not even the Supreme Court even, one federal judge says, well, I'm not going to let you do that.
	Oh, okay, well, okay, then I guess we'll just have to let people kill their kids then.
	That type of thing. So that's already happening.
	It's not a projection. Illinois and Florida emerged as the biggest of the safe haven states.
	Around 1,400 more monthly abortions per state were performed on average between June and March compared to April 2022 before Roe was overturned.
	And also in North Carolina, they saw a big spike because they had not done anything to...
	And the governor, the Democrat governor, they fought them on that.
	I think they've overridden his veto on that.
	But again, people from other states going there because they had the more lax abortion laws in North Carolina.
	And so Biden's response to all this is to use health and human services to rescind money that was being given to Oklahoma to punish them.
	See, how did they get these policies enacted when they don't have any authority?
	They cut funding.
	That's why I said all along, Trump ran and orchestrated all this lockdown and all the rest of this stuff because he incentivized it.
	He gave money to hospitals.
	He financially incentivized medical malpractice, people not being treated, people being given treatments that were killing them, like the invasive ventilators, like remdesivir, like so many other things.
	Gave them bonuses to do that.
	And then they come around, if they get them hooked on that, They come around, the next step is to say, oh, and now we're going to demand that you vaccinate your nurses.
	And if you don't do that, we're going to cut off even your Medicare, Medicaid stuff that we gave you years ago.
	So once they get those hooks into you, they'll use those financial purse strings, just like reins on a horse, to turn you one way and turn you the other way.
	That's what they're trying to do with Oklahoma.
	That's what they always do.
	Everybody knows that. Trump knows that as well.
	He just used it in a perverse way.
	Abortion is prohibited in Oklahoma, except in cases where the mother's life is at risk.
	So the Biden administration, says Senator James Linkford, the U.S. senator from, or a U.S. senator from Oklahoma.
	The Biden administration is withholding federal health care funding from Oklahoma, he said, because my state refuses to violate state and federal law when it comes to abortions.
	Well, that's the way this always works.
	HHS has chosen to prioritize abortion instead of prioritizing actual health care.
	Is that a surprise?
	Who is it that is running HHS? Javier Becerra, former Attorney General of California, who took the place of Lala Harris when she became senator.
	And the two of them, It was a priority for them to persecute David Leiden for the Center for Medical Progress as they exposed the trafficking in body parts by Planned Parenthood in California.
	So the same guy, just like Lala Harris, you know, abortion is a priority for them.
	They will not do anything to stop the trafficking in body parts of babies.
	But they will come after, for millions of dollars of fines and a jail term, the person who exposes that criminal behavior.
	And, of course, their customer was the federal government, Fauci and Francis Collins, as part of that.
	So, again, you know, these Politico, just like Daily Beast, they always see that Biden has got some sleeper legal strategy that's out there.
	Well, he may be a sleeper, but I don't know that he's got really any strategies here.
	But now in this particular one, Politico is saying the sleeper legal strategy that could topple these abortion bans.
	You know, just like he's going to get rid of junk fees and everybody's going to vote for him because the Taylor Swift fans got hosed on ticket master fees.
	Well, that's going to be something he's going to run on.
	Yeah, right. Well, now here's something else.
	He's going to get Jews, Episcopalians, Unitarians, and Satanists, and other people of faith.
	This is the subtitle from Politico.
	This is not the Daily Beast.
	Satanists and other people of faith.
	Satanists will tell you they don't believe in any of this stuff that they're doing.
	It's not a religion. It's a mockery.
	It's a mockery of religion.
	They don't believe any of that stuff.
	It's not a religion. Stop treating it like religion.
	But, of course, they're saying that we've got these people who say they're Christians, right?
	I think probably the most damning application of not taking...
	God's name in vain is to call yourself a Christian when you don't see him as Lord.
	And these people don't see him as Lord.
	They began their article with two women who are reverends.
	Jane Barnes and Krista Tavs have logged hundreds of hours standing outside abortion clinics across Missouri and Illinois going back to the mid-1980s.
	But unlike other clergy members, they never pleaded with patience to turn back.
	Yeah. Yeah, the church is Satan.
	They're out there in clerical collars, women in clerical collars, holding up messages of love and support for people who are killing their babies.
	So infuriated, the anti-abortion protesters, they said that they would heap abuse on us.
	And it drew the abuse away from the women.
	See, they're just like Trump. They're out there protecting you from the baddies.
	Now, what this shows...
	Is that there is a progression, isn't there?
	The radical feminists begin by the hatred of children.
	Radical feminism is, I hate the role of women, and that means that I hate kids.
	I don't want to have kids. I don't want to be in the home.
	I want to have a career, a repudiation of all of that.
	And then it progresses from there.
	That's the root, the radical aspect of it.
	We're going to radically uproot The family, children, and all the rest of the stuff.
	And from there, then they demand that you then celebrate them.
	So you've got to tolerate them, then you've got to celebrate them.
	As they go through the murder of babies, the overthrow of the family, then they progress to the toleration and celebration of homosexuality, then the toleration and celebration of transgenderism, Then the toleration of pedophilia, which we are at right now, and they're now moving, as we see this month, they're moving the pedophilia bar to celebration of pedophilia, celebrating it out in the open.
	As people come out of the closet with their sexual practices and they're practicing their sexual fantasies out in the street, why is that allowed for anybody, regardless of what they're doing?
	Why is that something that the government...
	Thinks should be protected.
	That's what I don't understand.
	It's always been against the law.
	Have public exposure, public nudity, and things like that, for a good reason.
	And one of the main reasons was to protect children.
	But now it's protected speech.
	The exhibitionism is protected.
	And then they gradually go from, you know, you start out murdering the babies, murdering the family, homosexuality, transgenderism, pedophilia, then to transhumanism.
	That's where these people go. And it all starts back with these people were seminal in all of that.
	And so Politico says this is the sleeper agenda, the strategy.
	You know, we're going to fight the Christians with phony Christians.
	A nearly dozen challenges to abortion restrictions filed by clergy members and practitioners.
	From everything from Judaism to Satanism, they said, says Politico.
	In Indiana, a group of Jewish, Muslim, and other religious plaintiffs sued over the state's near-total abortion ban.
	Their argument? That it violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, signed into law 2015 by then-Governor Mike Pence.
	A lower court judge sided with him in December and blocked the state's ban from taking effect, the most significant win the religious challengers have notched so far.
	They're in Indiana. In Indiana, conservative Indiana, home of the Kinsey Sex Institute.
	Yeah, that one.
	I was reminded of that when, in 2018, I was looking at the people who were driving all this censorship.
	It was first directed at Infowars.
	And it was an organization within Indiana University.
	The Kinsey Institute is an adjunct of that.
	And they brought a guy over from Italy.
	To work in the Kinsey Institute.
	And then he just easily transitioned over into censorship of social media and things like that.
	I mean, it's pretty amazing.
	You know, you think of Indiana as being conservative.
	But anyway, so that was put in by Mike Pence.
	And these people are saying that to have laws against abortion is a violation of their religious liberty.
	Now, we have seen, and in this article, their claim is that we have seen a massive expansion of religious exemptions during the COVID mandates.
	They don't like that.
	But they're rubbing their hands together and saying, well, we saw people get an expansion of their religious exemptions because of the vaccine stuff, and so now we can use that to kill babies.
	It always comes back to that type of thing, doesn't it?
	It always comes back to depopulation.
	And yet the reality is, let's look at how different this is.
	You know, as we've talked about for the longest time, when somebody would come in with a religious exemption, whether you're working for the military or working for a medical field or something like that, they would grill you.
	They had talking points to try to trip you up and everything.
	Oh, don't you realize that, you know, we had these eternal fetal cell lines, we used them to test aspirin?
	It's like, no, you didn't.
	Aspirin was based on willow bark, and aspirin as a pharmaceutical construct has been around since the 1800s, so no, you didn't.
	You may have used it recently to test it, but that's not where it came from.
	But they played all these different tricks.
	Hath God not said?
	Is it not written?
	This and that. You know, they would challenge everybody on all this.
	Nobody is challenging any of these.
	Show me in the Jewish religion, the Christian religion, the Muslim religion, show me where abortion is supported.
	Not in any of those religions.
	None. And so this is, there's absolutely no basis for this.
	They're saying, you're discriminating against my religious beliefs.
	What religious beliefs?
	The only people out there who is saying that, you know, this is a tentative thing, saying, well, you know, I feel like I need to be able to counsel people, and I can't counsel people if you ban abortion.
	Well, yes, you can.
	You're the side that is shutting down counseling places, not our side.
	Now, that's not a violation of that.
	And don't any of them have any pretense that there's some kind of religious practice?
	The Satanists say that it is a religious right, R-I-T-E. So they have a right, R-I-T-E, religious right, to an abortion.
	Nobody else is saying that.
	And again, they don't believe any of this stuff.
	You know, the Satanists are out there saying, yeah, well, we don't believe that there is a Satan.
	We don't believe anything supernatural.
	We don't believe in the existence of God.
	We don't believe in the existence of Satan.
	We just don't like churches and people who are religious, and we just use that to attack them.
	They're pretty clear about that.
	So there's no religious belief to protect.
	That's why we talk about these after-school Satan clubs and stuff.
	They're putting that out there because they want people to ban that.
	And then they can use that to ban the after-school Bible studies, of which there are several thousand.
	And they're lucky if there's ten of these after-school Satan clubs right now.
	So that's a tactic that they're trying to use.
	Now, you know, many people have said don't take the bait.
	But the bottom line is that they don't have any religious freedom because they don't have a religion.
	They don't have any beliefs.
	What they're talking about is political.
	It's not religious. And so they are in response to this.
	There's a W&D article.
	What they're doing is it's not something that you just made up yesterday to get around this law.
	See, that's the same thing that people were saying in terms of challenging Christians because they didn't want to get the jab.
	They didn't want to get the jab because of religious concerns.
	Dying, interestingly enough.
	Back to abortion for a large part of this.
	There's also the concern that this was training and the beginning of a Mark of the Beast type of system and all of these.
	There's a lot of different concerns about it.
	And Jason Barker did a great letter outlining all these different concerns that Christians would have.
	Helped a lot of people. But, you know, they would challenge them on this and said, well, you can't just say that this is...
	Do you really...
	Are you sincere in your religious belief?
	Or you've just now said, well, I'm just going to use this now because I don't want to get the jab.
	Which, by the way, was a good enough reason.
	Good enough reason. Say, I don't want to get the jab.
	Should have been. But the religious exemption was better if you could prove that you were sincerely religious.
	So, you know, this, just like the jab, is about murder.
	You know, the jab was a murder-suicide shot, if you look at it.
	Suicide cult. People are not educated or aware, said the president of the Jewish Pro-Life Foundation, Cicely Routman.
	She said, because people are ignorant, They are vulnerable to this messaging now.
	And I think the left knows this.
	So you've got Christian clergy saying that they won't be able to counsel women considering abortions.
	You have Jewish arguments that the procedure is not morally reprehensible until the child takes its first breath.
	To the satanic temple's alleged right to abortion as a ritual.
	In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs explain that in Reformed Judaism, prior to the 40th day of gestation, the embryo is considered to be mere water.
	The embryo or fetus is considered to be a physical part of the woman's body, not having a life of its own or independent rights.
	Cicely Routman, president of Jewish Pro-Life Foundation.
	Told the Daily Caller that this argument holds very little weight, noting that Reform Judaism dismisses many of the traditional Orthodox beliefs that are central to Judaism.
	As a matter of fact, you look throughout the Old Testament, you know, one of the most famous passages there in Psalms.
	You knit me together in my mother's womb.
	All of my days...
	We're ordained and recorded for me before the first one occurred.
	All that type of stuff. No, you deny the Creator.
	And, of course, I know that Reformed Judaism is very, very liberal, completely disconnected from any kind of religious texts.
	They just do whatever they want, like the mainstream liberal Christian churches in that regard.
	Many of these people that claim that abortion is a religious right have either ignored the religious foundations of the Bible, said Cicely Routman, or they distort verses in the Bible or opinions or verses in the Bible to justify their position, none of which is a reflection of authentic religion.
	They can get away with it better now because so many people in the culture have disengaged from religion, she said.
	Without any guidelines, however...
	A society will devolve into chaos.
	And it's not just from that standpoint.
	If you believe there's a God...
	You believe that he's going to take action against the people who flout their sin in his face.
	You better believe that he's going to take action against people who prey on the innocent, just as he does against people who are corrupt in government.
	These are things that we despise.
	God despises them, and he can do something about it, and he will do something about it.
	But 69% of people in America believe that it should be legal for the first three months.
	And what can the Republicans do about it?
	They won't do anything.
	They won't defend life.
	They won't show pictures of baby Samuel.
	They won't show pictures of aborted babies.
	They won't show the procedure animation.
	They won't show anything that tells people the truth.
	They'll try to finesse this.
	And that's the thing that makes me so disgusted about these politicians.
	Nancy Mace. Went on with Neil Cavuto.
	Neil Cavuto said a six-week move, like what Governor DeSantis just did in Florida.
	Does that go too far for you?
	Because, you know, Trump has already said it's too harsh.
	Too harsh? You can't protect babies' lives.
	That's too harsh. She said it goes too far.
	Nancy Mace did. And what that Florida bill also did is it mandated reporting of rape to the state.
	Oh. Well, we wouldn't want rapists to be caught by the state, would we?
	Nancy? And those are things that, if you're a victim of rape or a girl's a victim of incest, those are hard pills to swallow, and it's not supported by the vast majority of Americans.
	The vast majority of Americans, I guess, don't care about rape.
	What is all this Me Too stuff about then, right?
	Planned Parenthood doesn't report rape.
	You know, you've got a young girl comes in.
	If she's pregnant, It's statutory rape at the very least, if she's young.
	But no, we're not going to report that.
	She said the vast majority of Americans support some sort of gestational limit in the second trimester.
	You know what I support? I support term limits for politicians like Nancy Mace, Donald Trump, the rest of them.
	That's what I support. Abort them.
	Abort the politicians.
	Remove them from the security of their little political womb in Washington.
	Cut the umbilical cord for these people.
	Pence. A 15-week national abortion ban is a, quote, winning issue, unquote, for GOP. That's what it's about for Mike Pence.
	Is it murder, Mike?
	You say you're a Christian.
	Is it murder? No. Does it matter to you?
	No. Let's just, what's the winning issue?
	What can I sell to people?
	You know, I was, there were three of us who were trying to get ballot retention.
	You got to do well in terms of a governor's race in North Carolina.
	You had to get like 10% of the vote.
	Nor stay on the ballot. I had to go through all the petition signature stuff again.
	We got that changed.
	You had to get signatures equivalent to 10% of the people who had voted for governor in the previous election in order to get back on the ballot.
	To retain it, I'm sorry, to get on it, you had to get 2% or 4% of the people who had voted for governor in the previous election.
	But to retain it, you had to get 10%.
	It's like, wait a minute. You're saying this is to indicate there's interest in this political party?
	But you already had, you know, in the case that we had, we had a candidate who got like 5% of the vote.
	And they said, well, you're going to have to go back and petition again to get the 2% or the 4%, whichever it was.
	It's like, that doesn't make any sense.
	And we got that thrown out.
	The judge agreed with us.
	But, you know, when you look at this winning issue, that's all they seem to care about.
	It's just how they can exploit this to keep their political position.
	Every Republican candidate for president should support a ban on abortion before 15 weeks as a minimum nationwide standard, said Pence.
	Well, again, if you want to federalize this, the Democrat states will nullify that.
	And then when they get the majority in Congress in Washington, they will raise that limit.
	They'll take it all the way to birth or beyond.
	We don't want that there.
	That's a really foolish idea, to give that kind of power to them.
	Pence is also getting a lot of criticism from evangelicals, and we talk about this because they went to the Faith and Freedom presentation over the weekend, He had said, in terms of talking about gender transitions, he said, no, I'm against it for kids.
	But, you know, hey, if people are adults, as a Christian, I believe that we need to love our neighbors as ourselves.
	Well, does that mean that we don't warn them about the heinous, lifelong effects of these chemical and surgical manipulations?
	Should we not tell them about that?
	And that brings it all back to the FDA. For years and years, we talked about the fact that the FDA was slow-walking drugs for people that had terminal cancer.
	It's like, well, why don't you just let them try that?
	I mean, if it's something that, you know, they don't have any other choice, why would you withhold that?
	Let them be a part of your study.
	Have a bigger study if you want to do that.
	As long as they're informed, let them do that.
	And that would especially be true, you know, and you can make the argument, well, you know, we don't want, that's a slippery slope going to, essentially, euthanasia could be.
	But that's not the way people are looking at it.
	That's not the way that it's intended.
	But especially if it is something for which they've already done the safety studies.
	And we saw this in the argument with ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, drugs that have been used for several decades, 60, 70 years.
	They knew what the safety profile on it was.
	And so the only question is, is it effective?
	Well, let's try it and find out.
	It's safe. We didn't know that the jabs were safe.
	As a matter of fact, we know now how unsafe they are.
	We know now how perhaps they did, as one listener wrote to me and said, you know, they had this stuff around for a long time, and they were practicing with this stuff for a long time.
	David Martin points that out.
	So I think they knew exactly what this stuff was.
	Well, fine. But either way, you know, I don't have a problem with that understanding of what they were doing.
	I think that they did know that it was harmful.
	I think they were playing with batch numbers and, you know, changing the levels still to see what would be fatal to people and what wouldn't.
	And, you know, it varied by a factor of 33, so obviously they were still doing those kinds of experiments.
	But, you know, when you talk about the FDA and whether they should have a role in terms of protecting people, if you know that something is safe, you allow people to try it without any interference.
	We don't know if it's effective, but hey, if they want to try it, they can try it.
	But when you look at something that you know is not safe, and that's what these sterilizing chemicals are about, these castration chemicals, or the surgery, even for an adult, I think the government has got a role there in terms of protecting people against fraudulent, unsafe practices. Why would Pence not see that?
	Government has always interposed way too far on the extreme side of safety.
	Why would they throw this away?
	Well, I think Pence is doing the same thing that Cruz did when Cruz was virtue signaling about the Uganda law.
	He said, you're going to lock people up for homosexuality?
	Well, and the people in Uganda were saying, well, we see where this is leading.
	I see what's happening in your country.
	I don't want to have that happening here.
	I said, and then what's this thing called aggravated homosexuality?
	Well, if you read the statute, and of course Ted Cruz is a lawyer, he could easily read that statute, you see that is for things like pedophile rape.
	Do you have a problem with the death penalty for pedophile rape?
	I don't. Assuming you've got a good judicial system that is fair, I don't have a problem in practice with the death penalty for certain things, and that would be one thing I would put in the category of the death penalty.
	But you've got Cruz who is trying to pander to the LGBT. He doesn't care about Christians being slaughtered in Uganda and Nigeria and other places like that.
	And you've got Pence who doesn't care about the help, even, of adults who are being transitioned.
	They've got horrific stories.
	Horrific stories of many people...
	Who have regret? They were in their 20s when they did it.
	And it's still horrible.
	If you've got somebody out there, if you want to love other people, that's kind of like warning them that a bus is headed toward them.
	What we're trying to do with a vaccine.
	What we're trying to do with this transgender stuff.
	And what an evangelical would try to do from a Christian standpoint.
	As if God mattered.
	As if... The practices that he defined mattered.
	As if you really believed this, Mike, you would have something to say to people.
	You would say, God defines this as sin, and if you do this and open rebellion to him, unrepentant sin, there is eternal death and suffering.
	Why wouldn't you talk to somebody about that?
	I remember Penn and Teller, and it was Ray Comfort who went up to him.
	He used to do a lot of mockery of religious stuff.
	As a matter of fact, we didn't know that. We went to see his magic act once, and Karen and I got up and walked out in the middle of it.
	But, you know, we didn't yell or scream or anything.
	We just got up and walked out.
	We made everybody get up and let us out.
	Anyway, but...
	Ray Comfort actually waited for him and said, I really am concerned about you.
	I really want you to know this because I believe this is real and I have good reasons for believing that this is real.
	And kind of talking to him about the Pascal wager, right?
	What have you lost if I'm wrong and you're wrong, right?
	But if I'm right, you've lost everything.
	And he actually said, most Christians just yell stuff at me, but you seem to be genuinely concerned.
	He really liked that. Now, his manager came back after that and said, that never happened.
	That never happened. But I believe Ray.
	I believe Ray Comfort on that one.
	But, you know, when you look at something like this, wouldn't you tell people, unless you're more concerned about your political career, Mike, wouldn't you talk to adults about this, just as a Christian?
	And if you're concerned about even their physical health and well-being, wouldn't you have the government interpose against these dangerous and lifetime debilitating procedures?
	I mean, that's a horrible thing to allow that to happen to people and to do nothing about it.
	He said, well, there's a reason we don't let kids drive cars until they're 16.
	You know, you can't even get a tattoo under the age of 18 in my home state, he said.
	But the thing is, surgery is harmful regardless of your age.
	He believes that when adults desire to change their gender, they can elect to get hormone suppression and replacement therapy or sex assignment surgery.
	I'm libertarian enough to say that if you're an adult, you live while you live.
	I don't know if that's a typo or not.
	Anyway, that doesn't make any sense.
	I may not agree with the decisions you make, but we'll love you and love our neighbor as ourselves, as my faith requires.
	Well, your faith requires you to warn people.
	If they're going to be harmed by something that you know is harmful.
	You want us to believe that you don't know that?
	The way a Christian loves their neighbor if they're an adult is to legally protect their white to sex change surgeries, right?
	Is that it? Is that as somebody came back?
	And the key thing is it's not just about that individual.
	What you're doing is you're normalizing things that are harming a lot of other people as well.
	So they all, you know, went to the Faith and Freedom Coalition meeting on Saturday, this last weekend, and a lot of money was being made on all sides with this, and so you had Donald Trump go there.
	The guy, Donald Trump, goes to the Faith and Freedom Coalition, a man who has no faith in anything but himself and money, and a man who took our freedom and lockdowns and then tried to bribe us with An introduction to universal basic income with a stimulus check.
	Did all that in 2020, right?
	Also, coming after the bump stock, coming after the Second Amendment with this bump stock ban.
	So, faith and freedom.
	And Donald Trump is there.
	He has neither. But, of course, he was the most popular person there.
	That's where we are in this country.
	No discernment whatsoever from anybody.
	As a matter of fact, you just go back one month, May 15th, this is what Trump was saying.
	As he was coming after DeSantis, as he was going on CNN, you remember he said, well, DeSantis, do you agree with DeSantis' decision to sign a six-week abortion ban?
	Well, he's got to do what he's got to do, said Trump.
	If you look at what DeSantis did, a lot of people don't even know if he knew what he was doing.
	But he signed six weeks, and many people within the pro-life movement feel that that was too harsh, he said.
	Well, many people in the pro-life movement, that's what it took to wake them up to Trump.
	Trump wouldn't say what he believed.
	What would you do?
	Well, he doesn't say, but he does say that he wants to federalize it.
	Federalize it. Trump says the federal government has a vital role for regulating abortion.
	But again, let's not be too harsh, right?
	Now, the bigger issue here is the Tenth Amendment.
	And from a political standpoint, the Tenth Amendment is the key thing here in getting back to the Constitution.
	Even if you don't care about the life issue, the big political issue for these people should be the Tenth Amendment.
	And that is a big issue for, again, for Trump and for Lindsey Graham and for Mike Pence and all these people.
	They want to make sure that they keep you on the hook.
	They had a wedge issue that was very valuable for them for 50 years as tens of millions of babies died.
	And they want that wedge issue back, and they don't care how many babies die.
	They don't want to save any of them if they can keep that as a wedge issue.
	So, yeah, don't put America first.
	Don't put the babies first. Put the District of Columbia, the District of Crimmels, first.
	Yeah, we need to understand that it is a fundamental Christian value, the idea of decentralization.
	That is something that was hard won throughout the Reformation, separating the government from church so the government doesn't corrupt the church and so that people are allowed to follow their consciences.
	And then the idea that you're going to have different spheres of influence and that the government should not control everything, that is something that comes out of that tradition.
	And none of these candidates who are there are really coming out of any of those traditions.
	We're going to take a quick break and we will be right back.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	No.
	All right, Hunter Biden's plea reveals that the Department of Justice has a double standard on gun charges.
	Well, they have a double standard on everything.
	Tax charges, gun charges.
	Isn't it interesting that at virtually the same time that the IRS and the ATF took a pass on Hunter Biden, oh, well, you know, he didn't pay millions of dollars in taxes.
	Who cares? It's a misdemeanor.
	And the fact that he committed perjury on his gun purchase by saying that he was not a user of drugs and so forth, ah, don't worry about that.
	We don't care. Other people, they'll lock you up in jail just for that gun charge.
	Other people, you try not paying taxes on millions of dollars.
	I should have gone back and, well, I'll have to do that.
	I'll have to look and see how much they got Wesley Snipes for.
	They used him as a poster child.
	And it probably wasn't more than Hunter Biden was.
	I mean, we're talking millions of dollars for Hunter Biden.
	And that's just the stuff that they gave him the misdemeanor thing for.
	There's even more taxes that he didn't pay that these two IRS whistleblowers are talking about.
	So at the same time, they gave him a pass on gun crimes and tax crimes.
	At the very same time, you've got the ATF and the IRS raiding a gun store in Montana.
	And coming in ostensibly with a search warrant for taxes, but then confiscating all these forms, the same form that Hunter Biden committed perjury on and should go to jail for if he was anybody else.
	They confiscated all those things, which was not part of the search warrant, said the Montana Attorney General.
	And now Gun Owners of America saying Hunter's gun charge being resolved is It is a fancy legalese word for that charge being subject to a pretrial diversion.
	This is a plea agreement that not only allows for a criminal defendant to maintain a clean record, but to avoid jail time as well, provided that they complete pretrial probation requirements set by the judge.
	And so this means that Hunter Biden can still legally own a gun.
	You see, that's the other thing. He would be prohibited from having a gun.
	If he had been charged as anybody else would have been.
	Of course, he doesn't need a gun because he's got Secret Service protection, I guess.
	All these people are saying, well, you know, what if Trump is found guilty and he's a felon?
	What happens with the Secret Service then?
	Well, I'd like to know what the Secret Service does with all of Biden's sexcapades and his drug use and all the rest of the stuff.
	Does he use the Secret Service to buy the drugs for him?
	Is that what he does? Or does he go through these bad neighborhoods and he's got...
	He's got his own gang of Secret Service guys there.
	He's like, don't mess with me.
	Is that how he's using them?
	I don't know. I do know these IRS whistleblowers said that he was expensing his hookers on his tax forms.
	How is that an expense?
	I never noticed that in the IRS code.
	Of course, there's so much stuff in the IRS code that even the IRS... Agents don't know what's in there.
	And so, for all we know, they could have put that you can expense hookers in there.
	I seriously doubt it, but it's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
	But Hunter Biden just skirted 10-plus years of federal prison with a cozy plea deal of two years probation for his gun crime.
	See, the gun crimes alone could have sent him to jail for 10 years.
	Meanwhile... Donald Trump Jr.
	was forced to register his firearms to avoid Biden's tyrannical pistol ban.
	Let's forget about all this Trump vs.
	Biden stuff. This is nonsense.
	The real issue, and of course gun owners does get to the real issue here after they virtue signal to the Trumps and to MAGA, The real issue is the difference in the way that you and I are treated by the IRS and the way that you and I are treated by the ATF versus the way these corrupt politicians and their children are treated.
	The form, again, this is the form that was seized illegally by the IRS in that gun store in the ATF. There's a question about whether the purchaser of the firearm is addicted to drugs.
	Hunter Biden would have had to lie on that form in order to purchase his gun, and that's what this is about.
	You may not think this is a serious crime.
	And that other people have been let off the hook as well.
	Well, you'd be wrong. For example, rapper Kodak Black was charged with the same crime of falsifying information on federal forms to buy four firearms at a Miami gun shop in May of 2019.
	He was sentenced to more than three years in prison stemming from that.
	Kodak Black is not the only person being convicted.
	In April 2023, a woman in Iowa was sentenced to a year in prison for lying about her address.
	And about her drug use on that same forum where Hunter Biden lied about his drug use.
	Even more egregious is just last week, a woman in Virginia was charged for making a false statement on her 4473 because she had previously used marijuana.
	Important to note that Virginia legalized recreational marijuana use two years ago.
	But the Biden Department of Justice is sending the American people a clear message.
	Rules for thee, not for me.
	And that's the real issue.
	And then, of course, then gun owners finally does get to the fundamental issue.
	Oh, by the way, Form 4473 and background checks on firearms are unconstitutional in the first place.
	In the first place.
	So Jonathan Turley says, so...
	Now that we've got these two IRS whistleblowers, who is lying?
	Is it Merrick Garland or is it the whistleblowers?
	And he starts with a quote that I am not the deciding official.
	He said those five words, allegedly from Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss, Shocked the IRS and FBI investigators in a meeting on October 22, 2022.
	IRS Supervisory Agent, now whistleblower, Gary Shapely, told Congress that he was so dismayed by Weiss' statement and other admissions that he memorialized them in a communication to other team members.
	So I would say then that Merrick Garland is lying.
	Again, he is astonished that When the investigating U.S. Attorney says, I am not the ones making these decisions about these prosecutions.
	He said, what?
	And so he memorialized that.
	He and another whistleblower detail what they describe as a pattern of interference with their investigation of Hunter Biden, including the denial of searches, the denial of lines of questioning, and even the denial of attempted indictments.
	He said, Jonathan Turley, there's one thing that is abundantly clear.
	Somebody is lying. Either the whistleblowers are lying to Congress, or these Justice Department officials, including Garland, are lying.
	You see, they memorialized that at the time.
	Christopher Clark, an attorney for Hunter Biden, responded to a shocking WhatsApp message.
	Now, this is the message that I read last week, where he threatened this Chinese contact.
	He says, I'm sitting here with my father, you know, this full mafia threat.
	We would like to understand why the commitment has not been fulfilled.
	Tell the director that I would like to resolve this now, before it gets out of hand, and now means tonight.
	And, Z, if I get a call or text from anyone involved in this other than you, Zhang, or the chairman, I will make certain that between the man sitting next to me and every person that he knows and my ability to forever hold a grudge, that you will regret not following my direction.
	I'm sitting here waiting for the call with my father.
	Now, that thuggish mafia type of threat, the response from the lawyer for Hunter Biden did not deny that.
	Isn't that amazing? He made absolutely, didn't try to explain it away.
	He didn't deny that it had been sent.
	His response was, well, it was illegal to release that text.
	He didn't give a reason why he thought it was illegal to release that.
	As the Hill says, most of us expected a denial.
	Yet after five years, Hunter has never even denied that the laptop was his.
	His team has continued with the same non-denial denials.
	The transcript also details how investigators wanted to confirm the authenticity of the WhatsApp message through the company.
	But the Justice Department Shut them down.
	Garland was irate.
	And he said, this is an attack on an institution that is essential to American democracy, essentially to the safety of the American people.
	Well, Turley says, Garland's reaction is akin to a doctor responding to a malpractice lawsuit saying, this is an attack on medicine itself.
	And of course, we have seen that.
	Over the last several years. We've seen that over and over again, haven't we, from Fauci?
	And that's exactly what Garland is doing.
	As I said, Garland himself is an attack on the institution.
	He is an attack on the Constitution.
	Now, while we're talking about guns here, by the way, RFK Jr.
	has, on an interview with Bill Maurer, he essentially said the same thing that he did when Musk interviewed him when he was talking about guns, and that was about a month ago.
	And I talked about it at the time.
	I thought, well, this is very interesting because he says that he's for gun control, but he says from a pragmatic standpoint, I know what the gun culture is like.
	You know, people live in rural areas.
	They take it very seriously. They're going to see this as an attack on them and an attack on the Constitution.
	He said that's especially dangerous when you look at how the Constitution, the First Amendment, and all the rest of it is obviously under attack as well.
	So that's going to be too inflammatory.
	And then he made some statements about the expansive interpretation by the Supreme Court of the Second Amendment, which I absolutely disagree with.
	The Constitution does not give us our rights.
	The Supreme Court did not create an expansive interpretation of the Second Amendment.
	As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court does support infringements on our right to keep and bear arms that are God-given rights, and the Constitution, if followed by the Supreme Court, would remove any infringements on that.
	So they are restrictive.
	Vis-a-vis the prohibitions in the Constitution against infringing on our God-given rights.
	They're not privileges. They're rights.
	And you're not supposed to infringe on them.
	And so I disagree with that interpretation.
	He sees the Supreme Court as inventing rights and expanding rights and all the rest of this stuff.
	And that's a common thing.
	Politicians of both parties do that.
	But one thing that I was hopeful about, again, was the fact that he talked about Prozac.
	And he talked about it again with Bill Maher, and I think that's a very positive thing.
	That's why I said I think the value of this, and there's a lot of reasons why we should not get overly concerned about politics and presidential politics especially, but the idea that we're going to have these policy decisions, the idea that we need to look at these guys to see Different candidates are going to come after different freedoms in a different order.
	And so we need to know where the battles are going to be.
	And, you know, choosing where we're going to fight them.
	But he said a lot of common sense things.
	He said he went to schools that had shooting clubs.
	So did I. We're the same age, essentially.
	He's one year older than me.
	But he had shooting clubs.
	Students took their guns to school because of the shooting club.
	He said, nobody ever thought of turning those guns on each other.
	We always had guns when I was a kid.
	There were schools where I went to, we had shooting clubs, kids brought their rifles to school.
	Kids always had access to guns.
	There was no time in American history or human history that kids were going to shoot schools, shoot their classmates.
	It started happening, he said, coterminous with the introduction of these drugs, with Prozac and with the other drugs.
	And I'm glad that he's saying this.
	This is a good thing that we're having this discussion.
	And the more they shut him down, the worse they look.
	Because he's saying some very rational things that are out there.
	He said the study shows that 23% of mass shooters were on SSRIs.
	He did not claim that that was the only cause.
	But he said that's a big contributing factor.
	Bill Maher said that Elon Musk quoted Kennedy blaming drugs for shootings.
	He said, I didn't actually say that.
	Maher said, I'm sure you didn't, but the general...
	And then he interrupted him. He said, I said it should be looked at.
	And it should be looked at.
	But, you know, he goes on to say that I understand, and I saw the clip of him at a meeting where he had a woman pushing him on gun control, and he did a very honorable thing in terms of not pandering to what she wanted and explaining to her the consequences of what this program is.
	But I still know that he promotes gun control.
	And when you look at what he has to say about Obamacare, for example, this is a long clip so I'm not going to play all of it for you, but you'll get the idea from the very beginning.
	He starts talking about how the Democrat Party sold out to big pharmaceutical companies in order to get Obamacare.
	Listen to the way that he couches it because I'm going to tell you What I disagree with him on in a moment, but I'll let him speak here first.
	Something changed during Obamacare, and that was that the Obama administration, and my uncle, Ted Kennedy, was chairing the Senate Health Committee at this time, so I watched this whole thing very carefully and was disturbed at that time.
	Because of the lobbying power of pharma, Obama could not get Obamacare passed without the collaboration of the pharmaceutical industry.
	So he basically had to make a golden handshake with the devil.
	And the agreement they made was that, number one, Obamacare is going to benefit you because it's going to pay for all of your products, the pharmaceutical drugs to Americans.
	But, and here was the key, we will not bargain.
	Overprices with you, which, you know, Medicare used to do.
	The Canadian government bargains when it, you know, provides health care to Canadians.
	It bargains against really good deals, which is why Americans go to Canada to buy drugs.
	And he's right about all that, right?
	You know, it is a revolving door.
	It is a corruption.
	And regulatory capture is bigger than the Democrat Party.
	But you notice that he doesn't have a problem with Obamacare per se.
	His uncle Ted Kennedy had with Mitt Romney put together Romneycare in Massachusetts before Obamacare was put in.
	And if you go back to the 2012 election...
	That was the key thing to come out of it.
	And they had hedged their bets so that whether Obama or Romney won, you're going to get the same takeover of healthcare, the beginning of the takeover of healthcare.
	And he doesn't have any problem with the government running healthcare.
	He just doesn't want The pharmaceutical companies to make a profit off of it.
	And, you know, I have a problem with pharmaceutical companies making a profit off of it, but I don't want the government dictating health care to us.
	And he does not see, the blind spot I think with him, is that he does not see that government-directed health care is going to be just as dictatorial as what we suffered through with the lockdown and all the rest of the stuff over the so-called pandemic.
	We don't want government running health care.
	That's why we were pushing against Hillarycare.
	That's why we were pushing against Obamacare.
	Because we said, we don't want you making these health decisions for us.
	And of course, he pushes back against that, but he thinks that the government ought to be running Obamacare.
	He's an old-style liberal who is the flip side of the old-style libertarians, which you still see at Reason and other places.
	Those old-style libertarians don't think that corporations can do any wrong, and they don't think the government can do anything right.
	He's the opposite. He thinks government can do nothing wrong, and corporations can do nothing right.
	So that is a big part of the problem.
	And when it comes to climate, that still is a big issue as well.
	We're going to take a quick break, and when we come back, we're going to talk a little bit about what's going on over the weekend with this Pride stuff.
	We'll be right back. Using free speech to free minds.
	It's the David Knight Show.
	What we had over the weekend in New York City, you had the march, as I mentioned at the very beginning of the program.
	We're coming for your kids.
	They're chanting. And they just keep doing this for some reason.
	And when you look at these people, I'm not playing the clip for you because I've got to, you know...
	It's just hideous to look at these people.
	They had a woman topless.
	They had men dressed in all kinds of disgusting costumes.
	It's just so degenerate, so ugly.
	I don't even want to see it myself.
	But they've got signs out there saying, groom sissies.
	And they spell that, of course, C-I-S-S-I-E-S. You know how they steal terms, right?
	You know, gay used to mean happy.
	You still hear it in a lot of Christmas songs and things like that.
	You know, old Irving Berlin tunes and things.
	So they stole that.
	They repurposed the name gay.
	And now they're, you know, they used to be called sissies with an S at the beginning.
	Now they're using it as a term of mockery, as a slur, as Elon Musk said.
	And look, I disagree with Elon Musk.
	I don't think that they ought to be censored on Twitter.
	I think that free speech is too important.
	You know, call me a sissy with a C. I don't care.
	Call me a sissy with an S. I don't care.
	It doesn't make it true, right? And we have to stop this whole idea of...
	Saying that we're going to shut down anything that hurts our feelings.
	And, you know, we have to take it like a man instead of like a sissy.
	And so, anyway, drag isn't for sissies was another one of the things that they had there.
	And so as they're going along, they say, we're coming for your children.
	As they chant, we're queer, we're here, and we're coming for your children.
	A woman amongst the group appeared to be topless again.
	The march ended at Stonewall Inn, located in Greenwich Village.
	The website there says this is where Pride began.
	And you know where the Pride ends?
	Well, we've seen it going from there to coming for the children.
	Yeah, that is exactly what they're doing.
	So this is the same thing that was chanted back in July 2021, the San Francisco Gay Men's Chorus.
	You think we're sinful.
	You fight against our rights.
	You say we all lead lives that you can't respect, but you're just frightened.
	You think that we'll corrupt your kids if your agenda goes unchecked.
	It's funny. Just this once, you're correct.
	We are coming for your kids.
	We will convert them.
	And so, at the same time, you've got RuPaul's Drag Race champion, Jinx Monsoon, said, conservatives are using children as a shield.
	No, they're the ones who are using children as a shield.
	If you question this pedophile agenda, coming after the kids, say, you're not going to do this to the kids.
	They say, well, you're coming after us.
	They're using the kids as a shield.
	And they came back and they said, well, this is all just in good fun.
	If you're taking it like that, taking it seriously, because we see what they're doing, we see them flaunting their nudity around kids, saying that they're going to come for the kids, and we take them at their word, look at what they're doing.
	If you take it like that, that is a you problem, not an us problem.
	Well, we all know where the problem is, and this is backfiring on them in a number of ways.
	But there was other news that was censored, pretty much, for the most part.
	I saw this on The New American.
	I actually had someone at church yesterday say, did you see this?
	I said, yeah, I saw a thing about four kids being rescued, but I hadn't read the thing yet, and now it's been picked up by a couple of different conservative sites.
	New American calls it quarantined news, news that you're not allowed to hear.
	Four kids rescued from a quote-unquote trans party.
	They had drugs, sex toys, kids, and a dead body was found.
	You might think it'd be a major story when six men, some in drag, are busted having a quote-unquote party with drugs, sex toys, and a dead body and four children being hidden in the back room.
	But as much as it was with the 1999 murder of a 13-year-old, Jesse Dirk Hissing, by two homosexuals who confessed to using the boy as a sex toy while torturing him to death.
	This was just a year after the high-profile killing of homosexual Matthew Shepard.
	Shepard got a federal hate crime named after him.
	But the story of the brutal rape and murder of that young boy was ignored.
	And so the Boston Herald reported four men living in squalid conditions while being hidden from first responders were found in an apartment filled with alcohol, drugs, sex toys, and a dead man.
	The fire department report obtained by the Boston Herald and confirmed by police responses states that the fire department crew was sent on a call that a man had gone into cardiac arrest and required medical attention.
	However, according to the incident report, firefighters found more than just a routine medical emergency.
	The apartment was extremely unsanitary.
	Approximately six adults, who appeared to be males, were seen in the apartment.
	Four children in the back, bedroom being hidden by an adult male from the first responders.
	According to the incident report, the children ranged in ages from 5 to 10.
	All the adult parties were being uncooperative and did not provide helpful information.
	All adults present denied having children inside the apartment, they said.
	Multiple sources tell the Boston Herald some of the adults were dressed as women when the first responders arrived at the scene.
	The man who was hiding the kids was wearing a wig and claimed to be their father.
	And there has subsequently been pretty much a mainstream media blackout, total blackout mainstream media.
	They're not going to talk about that whatsoever.
	I mean, this is Pride Month.
	Come on. And, of course, just like there is a blackout about the Nashville trans shooters manifesto, can't hear about that either.
	The picture is pretty clear.
	A pedophile sex ring having a drug-fueled party and things go horribly wrong, as if everything in that sentence is not horribly wrong, says the hot air.
	But when we look at other instances that are covered up, the brutal murder of two lesbians and their child by a man who calls himself a trans woman, No attention in the media for that either.
	And so we see this type of selective reporting, this type of selective censorship happening all the time.
	But before we run out of time, British schools now, this whole furry thing.
	As I pointed out, we're getting this bifurcation with the postmodernism, the fantasy world, one of them taking us to transhumanism and virtual reality, the other one taking us to pedophilia, bestiality, the rest of this stuff, right?
	And on this track over here, where they're headed toward virtual reality and control in that world, you have British schools now allowing students to identify as horses, as dinosaurs, as cats, They refuse to talk except with animal noises, and the teachers and others are told, play along with them.
	It would be hateful not to play along with them if they tell you that they're a dinosaur or that they're a cat, and that they'll only respond with meows.
	This is a story from the mainstream media telegraph.
	Are they trying to condition people?
	Are they critical of this?
	This is actually Wine Press, a Christian news site.
	But they said, at one secondary school, a pupil is insisting to be addressed as a dinosaur.
	I don't know how you address dinosaurs.
	Another wears a cape and wants to be acknowledged as a moon.
	The outlet cites a particular instance that brought this to light where a student was punished for telling their classmates a classmate that says their cat is not a cat.
	And for saying that, the person who pointed that out was punished.
	We're pointing out that the emperor has no clothes, that the kid has got a costume and is not a cat.
	You are the one who gets punished.
	Another anonymous student in Wales Disclose to the Telegraph that there is one student who feels very discriminated against if you do not refer to them as a cat self.
	When they answer questions, they meow rather than answer a question in English.
	And the teachers are not allowed to get annoyed about this because that is discrimination.
	The moon kid wearing a cloak is playing a kind of Harry Potter variation.
	But of course, this is all satanic.
	And the UK government...
	It is putting out guidelines that they say is for the safety of the kids.
	They have to be comfortable expressing themselves.
	And so, you know, again, as I said for the longest time, when I first started hearing about this and about pronouns and the rest of the stuff.
	Oh, so if you tell me that you are Napoleon, that means if you start giving me orders, I've got to march to your tune.
	And that's what they're saying.
	Yes, that is true. They're preparing people...
	For the virtual reality prisons, because that is how they will be used.
	They'll be used to keep you away from them, to put you in a kind of Ready Player One environment.
	They call it, in the UK, Safer Schools Initiative.
	Safer Schools. They said that parents and teachers should be on the lookout for students who are taking up fursonas.
	Fursonas. Or personalized animal characters.
	And we need to have no judgment.
	We need to show understanding.
	You should not overreact or ridicule anybody doing this.
	And I guess if that happens, you're the one who gets the boot.
	Well, it is pretty amazing when we look at this that...
	I like the tag that was taken by one magazine.
	They said, what are they going to do?
	They've used this label, Christian nationalism, to demonize any parents who have an issue with this type of stuff.
	But you know, it's not just Christian parents.
	Muslim parents don't like it either.
	So what are they going to call them?
	What are they going to do with them? And of course, the Armenian Christians are not putting up with any of this nonsense in California.
	Those are fighting words for them.
	Thank you for joining us.
	The David Knight Show is a critical thinking super spreader.
	If you've been exposed to logic by listening to The David Knight Show, please do your part and try not to spread it.
	Financial support or simply telling others about the show causes this dangerous information to spread farther.
	People have to trust me.
	I mean, trust the science.
	Wear your mask.
	Take your vaccine.
	Don't ask questions.
	Using free speech to free minds.

▲