Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 10, 2023 - The David Knight Show

03:00:31

The David Knight Show - 07/10/2023

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Music.
	Using free speech to free minds.
	Music.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	As the clock strikes 13, it's Monday, the 10th of July.
	Dear our Lord, 2023.
	Well, today we're going to take a look at some, at one, amazingly provocative move in Ukraine.
	We're also going to take a look at what the Biden administration is doing, not just with the cocaine, which is crazy enough, But with, I think, perhaps the most important whistleblower that we've seen yet, who hasn't gotten a lot of attention, surprisingly. And we're also going to talk about what is happening in the Netherlands.
	The Dutch have awakened to Ruta, although not for what I think is the primary reason.
	But it begins that way.
	And we'll talk about the election, of course, as well as some grassroots action being taken against these self-driving taxis in San Francisco.
	We'll be right back.
	Stay with us. Well, the Biden administration has been a total cluster, and you can fill in the rest of that with a four-letter word.
	And that word is bomb.
	Uh-huh. Yeah.
	And now the cluster bomb of the Biden administration is now going to escalate the war.
	And, of course, the reason is that he said they're low on ammunition.
	Now, cluster bombs, we'll talk about this a bit, been banned by 120 countries.
	We have a lot of America or NATO's allies in the Ukraine war have signed treaties to ban these things.
	We'll tell you why. They're very effective weapons, but they have some perhaps unintended consequences, shall we say.
	But when you look at this justification that Biden gave in an interview, well, that's because we're low on ammunition.
	We're running out of our other stuff, so let's put some cluster bombs out there.
	Is that what they're going to do with nuclear weapons?
	Is that what Russia will do with nuclear weapons?
	It shows the path that we're on, doesn't it?
	Biden defended his decision to send cluster munitions to Ukraine by saying that Ukraine is running out of the ammunition that they need and we are low on it.
	You understand? We are using our own supplies to the extent that we don't have it anymore.
	We're using up our own ammunition at a rate faster than we can replace it.
	But, of course, the Pentagon said that, you know, they discovered all that extra money for Ukraine.
	The first one was, what, $2 or $3 billion?
	It doesn't matter. It's just billions of dollars, and the number doesn't matter, right?
	And they said, and then we found another $6 billion, and we did it because of an accounting trick.
	And they said it was an accounting error.
	They said we valued this stuff at what it was going to cost us to replace it.
	And no, we should value it based on its depreciated value, not its replacement value.
	Except that you're using this stuff so quickly you can't even replace it for our own use.
	Our own defense.
	Biden said it was a very difficult decision on my part.
	And by the way, I was discussing this with our allies.
	Well, evidently not.
	Because the allies are speaking out.
	Maybe by allies he means the military-industrial complex.
	They're all for it.
	But our allies in the UK and Spain and Germany and many, many other places are very much against this.
	So he's not consulting with our allies.
	He said, we discussed this with our friends up on the hill.
	Yeah, the other people who allied with the military-industrial complex.
	He said, the Ukrainians are running out of ammunition.
	The ammunition, they call them 155mm weapons.
	This is a war relating to munitions.
	Oh, that's a key insight, isn't it?
	What war? Well, war is not related to munitions.
	Yeah, we're running out of bullets and bombs, okay?
	So, what is unusual about that?
	The guy's a real Napoleon, isn't he?
	And they're running out of that ammunition, and we're low on it.
	And so... I took the recommendation of the Defense Department.
	So that's his allies, the military-industrial complex.
	To, not permanently, but to allow for in this transition period, while we get more 155 weapons, these shells for the Ukrainians to provide them with something that has a very low dud rate.
	And it's not used in civilian areas.
	So you understand what the concerns are.
	When he's talking about dud rate, what has happened is...
	These cluster bombs have typically, they're very effective weapons.
	Unfortunately, you know, there's several percentage of them, you know, that don't go off.
	There's a large percentage that don't go off.
	Well, not even, not a large percentage, but you don't have to have a very large percentage of these things to leave behind a very dangerous minefield, especially for children.
	You know, look like little balls or toys.
	Let's pick one up. Boom. And so people are still dying in Laos from the cluster bombs that were used during Vietnam.
	So it has some long-lasting, unintended consequences, shall we say.
	What is that about?
	What is the Martian about?
	Where's the kaboom?
	There's supposed to be an earth-shattering kaboom.
	There you go. Yeah, yeah.
	It's a delayed reaction.
	For those of you listening, he pulled up a cartoon with Marvin the Martian from Looney Tunes.
	Where's the kaboom? Oh, yeah.
	We all know that well, don't we?
	Cultural touchpoint. Anyway...
	Yeah, so he says, we're not going to use it in civilian areas.
	Well, certainly the areas where it's used will not be civilian for a very long time, if ever.
	We're not signatories of that agreement, he said.
	There's only 120 countries, and we're not one of them.
	So he said, they either have the weapons to stop the Russians now.
	They've got to have them to stop the Russians now.
	And they either have these weapons or they don't.
	Alright, so there's several points we can make out of this.
	Number one, who's on offense?
	What he just said. We've got to stop the Russians.
	Wait a minute. I thought the Russians were on defense and I thought Ukraine had a counteroffensive.
	Oh no, that was all a lie.
	Number two, we're out of ammo.
	We don't even have the ammunition to give ourselves.
	So let's go to something else that we, you know, people don't like using this, and we had it banned in the U.S. for a while, and we'll talk about how that came back.
	Number three, of course, the Allies do not support this.
	And the fourth thing is, what does this tell us about who is escalating this war and continuing it?
	This is a major escalation.
	And again, the principle is, well, you know, we're out of the conventional weapons, so let's go to something else.
	This time it's cluster bombs.
	Next time, maybe it'll be nuclear weapons.
	As a matter of fact, Daniel Davis had an article on, this is 1945.com, the number 19, and the text is 45.
	But anyway, he says, I fired cluster munitions in combat and they will not win the war in Ukraine.
	I can confirm from personal experience that cluster munitions are indeed quite powerful.
	But they're also, by themselves, they will not tilt the balance of power in the war toward Ukraine.
	And this can be said about everything that we have sent.
	We have sent quite powerful weapons, but they don't have a trained military, is his point.
	He says it's important to understand what this ammunition can and cannot do.
	My first job in the U.S. Army in the mid-1980s was as a multiple launch rocket system crewman, MLRS. Those MLRS launchers carry 12 rockets at any given moment.
	And some of the warheads carried 644 sub-munitions or bomblets.
	These small hand-sized bombs would drop over the target and spread out over a considerable distance, showering everything in the area with powerful explosions.
	The most common cluster bomb is the dual-purpose improved conventional munition for the 155mm howitzers.
	And so, to get an idea of this, This demonstration video shows you just how devastating it is and how it blows things up over a large area so you don't have to have pinpoint accuracy.
	This is why they were using it going all the way back to the Vietnam War.
	As a matter of fact, when I was interviewing for my first job, one of the interviews I had was with some of the munitions that were smart at the time.
	And the guys I was talking to were saying, yeah, you know, in the Vietnam War, it was really tough to take out a bridge.
	These things take it out all the time.
	And, of course, that was something that was relatively new.
	They've refined it in the last 43 years now.
	But here's what a cluster bomb looks like.
	There's a target there. Watch this.
	Yeah, pretty devastating.
	Very devastating. And so it's a very effective weapon, but you see all these different things that are out there.
	There's a lot of them that don't explode.
	He says, some of these munitions will be fused to detonate above the ground, sending lethal shards of steel raining down on troops or light-skinned vehicles.
	And even at that distance, you saw some fragments coming down close to the camera.
	The rest of the bomblets are small point-detonating shape charges that will explode on impact, sending molten steel As I observed firsthand in 1991, the effects during combat can be devastating.
	But he says, Both an entire artillery battalion and an MLRS battery on the target, he said, talking about one particular example that he had.
	We had an entire armored cavalry regiment in the attack that was spread out across more than 10 kilometers.
	Composed of Abrams tanks, Bradley fighting vehicles, scout and attack helicopters, availability of A-10 attack jets above us and two U.S. armored divisions behind us.
	Not to mention the intelligence capacity of the U.S. V Corps headquarters.
	Further, we were fully staffed by privates and crewmen who had trained for over a year on their combat vehicles.
	Crews that were highly proficient in their individual tanks and infantry fighting vehicles.
	And then additional training at the platoon, company, battalion, and finally regimental brigade levels.
	Even more critically, our leaders at each level.
	Platoon through brigade.
	Had experience that was commensurate for their position.
	Ukraine has none of this.
	You see, we're just giving them weapons.
	And they don't have a trained army.
	He said, for example, one of the elite Ukrainian brigades, the 47th Mechanized Brigade, was commanded by an officer, 28-year-old Colonel Alexander Sack, with about as much experience as a seasoned lieutenant in an American tank brigade.
	Virtually all the Ukrainian offensive brigades have been formed and trained in mere months with elemental training from NATO, given a hodgepodge of modern Western and old Soviet equipment, with grossly insufficient time to form cohesive units.
	We've heard this story over and over again.
	Several people have talked about the fact that we give them the tanks, but they don't know how to use them effectively.
	And they're getting devastated in minefields and other things like that.
	But they don't know how to use them as an effective fighting force.
	Adding cluster munitions, regardless of how much more lethal they are than standard 15mm HE rounds, will not make a difference in the outcome of the current offensive.
	The cluster rounds will increase the lethality of Ukrainian gunners against Russian enemies, but that alone cannot change the course of the war.
	The same is true of the F-16s and the long-range missiles, which will be provided later this year.
	So, that's the bigger picture.
	If we look at the political aspect of this, there's a lot of complaints, as I said before, from the UK, from Spain, from Germany, from Canada, many others, virtually all of the big countries that are part of this NATO coalition for this war.
	Already are signatories to a treaty to not use these.
	The UK, said the Prime Minister, is signatory to a convention which prohibits protection or the use of cluster munitions and discourages their use.
	We will continue to do our part to support Ukraine.
	But we've done that by providing heavy battle tanks and most recently long-range weapons.
	Hopefully all countries can continue to support Ukraine.
	The problem is we're running out of those things.
	And who is desperate in this?
	And what are they desperate for?
	Is the U.S. desperate for an escalated nuclear war?
	It certainly appears that way.
	Spain, speaking out, said, based on the firm commitment it has with Ukraine, it also has a firm commitment that certain weapons and bombs cannot be delivered under any circumstances, said the Spanish defense minister.
	No to cluster bombs, and yes to the legitimate defense of Ukraine, which we understand should not be carried out with cluster bombs.
	Can she be more specific?
	I don't think so.
	Again, more than two-thirds of alliance members have banned the weapon because it has a track record for causing many civilian casualties.
	Interestingly, the U.S., Ukraine, and Russia are not signatories to this.
	The vast majority of nations are.
	120 of them.
	And this has been done 15 years ago, as a matter of fact.
	And Germany, the argument is, well, Russia used them first.
	But Germany is also rejecting all of this.
	And interestingly enough, it wasn't that long ago.
	It was after Russia invaded Ukraine.
	That you had then-Press Secretary Jen Psaki say this about cluster bombs.
	There are reports of illegal cluster bombs and vacuum bombs being used by the Russians.
	If that's true, what is the next step of this administration?
	And is there a red line for how much violence will be tolerated against civilians in this manner that's illegal and potentially a war crime?
	It would be. I don't have any confirmation of that.
	We have seen the reports. If that were true, it would potentially be a war crime.
	Obviously, there are a range of international fora that would assess that.
	So certainly, we would look to that to be a part of that conversation.
	Okay, so two-thirds of our allies in this venture don't want us to use them.
	Signatories to a treaty.
	Why is that treaty there? 120 countries are.
	And she doesn't say, well, it doesn't matter because Russia didn't sign that treaty.
	No, she said only bad guys use them.
	I don't, uh...
	Hans, are we the baddies?
	Yeah, are we the baddies?
	Because that's the British clip, the comedians, or the guys sitting there, you know, they're Nazis during the war.
	And he goes, Hans, have you noticed our uniforms have got skulls on them?
	And have you noticed this?
	And have you noticed that? And he goes, Hans, are we the baddies?
	Yeah. Well, have you noticed that we're using these banned weapons?
	Yeah. Are we the baddies?
	A lengthy letter from top-ranking congressional Democrats in 2013, written to then-President Obama, highlighted the evils of cluster bombs, explaining that they are indiscriminate, unreliable, and they pose an unacceptable danger to U.S. forces and also to civilians.
	They cause unintended harm to civilians and civilian infrastructure, many cases long after the cessation of hostilities.
	During Operation Desert Storm, U.S. dropped cluster sub-munitions, caused more U.S. troop casualties than any single Iraqi weapon system.
	Yeah, our cluster bombs.
	Killed more of our own soldiers than any Iraqi weapon system.
	You see, there's a reason why 120 countries don't do this.
	And the fact that we're doing it is a sign of desperation and evil, quite frankly.
	So at that time, in 2013, this letter, written to Obama by Democrats, Cluster munitions dropped by U.S. aircraft over Laos during the Vietnam War continue to pose a danger to civilians nearly 40 years after the end of the conflict.
	8,750 square kilometers of Laos remain riddled with unexploded ordnance, and estimates of annual casualty figures are as high as 300 civilians still dying.
	This is something that was in the 1960s, maybe early 1970s.
	And, you know, 50 years later, you've got 300 people a year still dying from these things.
	According to the International Committee for the Red Cross, unexploded submunitions have killed or injured alone 11,000 people in Laos, more than 30% of whom have been children.
	This is why this is banned.
	Not only do cluster munitions threaten civilians, they've been responsible for many U.S. casualties, even when used by U.S. forces.
	As I said, during operation, this is coming from a letter by Democrats writing this to Obama.
	During Operation Desert Storm, U.S. dropped cluster munitions, caused more U.S. troop casualties than any single Iraqi weapons system.
	More recently, during the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the U.S. 3rd Infantry Division described cluster munitions as, quote, battlefield losers, unquote, because U.S. forces were often forced to advance through areas that were contaminated with unexploded submunitions.
	So, when we look at this, are the Democrats of today, 10 years later, are they going to write a letter like that to Biden?
	Or are they just going to go along with it?
	You know, as I've said, look at the Republican Party.
	The Republican Party is like the Democrat Party of my youth.
	And the Democrat Party is like the Stalinists of my youth.
	These people have embraced every kind of evil.
	From murder, censorship, totalitarian tactics to demand that we submit everything that we think that we know is not true.
	They demand that we affirm that as being true.
	And of course, mass murder and war.
	That's what the Democrats are now.
	David Sachs tweeted out, Rules-based international order, version 23.7.7.
	This update contains the following enhancements and bug fixes.
	Cluster bombs have now been upgraded from war crime to important tool to bring the killing to an end.
	You want to talk about endless wars.
	You drop these cluster bombs on an area and it is an endless war.
	All countries should update their rules as soon as possible.
	You know, it is kind of interesting when you go back, and I keep going back to that speech that was done by Alexander Arrestovich, where he said, yeah, you know, in 2019.
	He said, in three years there'll be war, direct war with Russia.
	When asked, can we stop this civil war?
	Which at that point in time had been going on for five years.
	He was part of the Zelensky regime that came to power by promising to stop this act of aggression against people who wanted to secede and go their way peacefully and join Russia.
	But he began an extended war against the civilian population to keep them under control.
	So Restovich, who had been the leader for the Zelensky administration, the peace talk, said, no, it's not.
	But he said, and he says, it even gets worse.
	He says, Ukraine will be havoced.
	But the good news is we get to get into NATO. You see, the good news is they don't care what happens to Ukraine.
	They don't care how much of it is destroyed.
	They don't care how many people are killed.
	They don't care if they turn large areas of Ukraine, which used to be the breadbasket of the Soviet Union and much of Europe, if they turn that into a no-go zone, riddled with unexploded cluster bombs.
	They don't care about any of that stuff.
	The key thing is that they get to join the club.
	A few elites from Ukraine.
	So, here's more about that history of this.
	So, these cluster bombs were banned by George W. Bush.
	And then they were brought back.
	I read you the letter.
	It was written by Democrats to Obama.
	There's pressure at the time to bring them back.
	Obama did not bring them back.
	It was Trump who brought them back.
	But you see, Trump can kill people.
	And his people, they're so wonderful, they will think that he's great no matter what he does.
	Shoot somebody in the head and it doesn't matter to them.
	So, as Vaccine Impact points out, this specific type of cluster munitions being sent to Ukraine are from a stockpile that the U.S. military previously pledged to destroy.
	These are weapons that We lied about.
	We lied about destroying these cluster bombs.
	Just like we lied about what we were going to do after the Soviet Union fell with NATO. A single canister can cover a 30,000 square meter area.
	Pentagon Press Secretary Brigadier General Patrick Ryder told reporters on Thursday that the weapons have less than a 2.35% unexploded ordnance rate.
	The supervisory organization contends that the weapons are over 20 years old and have a notoriously high rate of unexploded ordnance.
	So supposedly it's only two and a quarter, two and a third unexploded rate.
	The problem is, is there's so many of these things that leaves a lot of them around.
	And since these things are so old...
	They have perhaps even a higher rate that will not explode.
	As a matter of fact, going back to 2008, when George W. Bush instructed the military to get rid of all but a tiny fraction of these cluster munitions, At that point in time, they said, well, we're going to do this until we've got a safer version that's going to have an unexploded ordnance rate of under 1%.
	Under 1%.
	These are more than twice that.
	And so they said, all right, 2008.
	The problem is the unexploded munition.
	Not to mention, you know, because, I mean, you're at war, you're trying to kill as many people, but you don't want to leave this around for your own troops to be killed by it or for civilians to be killed by it.
	And so we're going to put it on hold until we can get this under 1%.
	And they never did.
	Spent a lot of money on it, but they could never get the unexploded bomb rate down.
	And then Trump rescinded the Bush order when he took the presidency in 2017.
	He said, yeah, I don't care.
	I don't care about that at all.
	So, again, during the Vietnam War and the secret illegal operations in Laos, they used these.
	About 20,000 people, 40% of them children have been killed or injured in Laos from unexploded cluster bombs since the war ended.
	Because remember those stats that were in the Democrat letter?
	It was 10 years ago.
	So, Trump administration pledged to end endless wars.
	But now they've embraced weapons prohibited by more than 160 countries and readying them for future use.
	This was the headline at the time in 2017 from the New York Times.
	Yeah, Trump was going to stop the war in Afghanistan.
	That's right, he didn't do that.
	He was going to bring the troops home from Iraq.
	No, he didn't do that either.
	What about Syria?
	Well, we got troops there as well.
	Still there. No debate about that.
	Not the least effort to try to do something legally to make that happen.
	And then when we look at Biden, it is interesting, yet again, we see how Biden and Trump are two sides of the same coin, aren't they?
	You know, Trump produces the vaccines.
	Trump produces the cluster bombs.
	Biden puts them out.
	Neither one of them have any constitutional, ethical, moral restraints to anything that they do.
	Biden was once opposed to the cluster bombs, and you heard Jen Psaki talking about that.
	Oh yeah, it's a war crime if Russia does it.
	But hey, if we do it, it's a necessity.
	Well, Biden long ago had talked about this.
	Biden had in 1982...
	Opposed the use of cluster bombs by Israel and the Lebanon War in 1982.
	But that was then.
	This is now.
	We'll be right back.
	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.
	It's the David Knight Show.
	That's right.
	Don't ask questions. And if you do ask questions, don't ask the right ones.
	Don't ask why this is necessary.
	Don't ask if there was really a pandemic.
	Don't question anything that Trump did.
	Don't question anything that Biden did.
	As a matter of fact, all you need to question, and we need to really look at this, we need to question what happened in Wuhan, and what did those Chinese do to us?
	That's the only question that's allowed with this stuff, right?
	And it's being pushed relentlessly.
	I had a listener, Roy, send me a Wall Street Journal article, World War III will be fought with viruses.
	Yeah, I noticed. It started three years ago, World War III. Every government on earth, regardless of the political party or their stated political philosophy, went to war with their own people, doing exactly the same thing.
	It was a world war that we're in right now, where all of our governments have been taken over by Hydra, and they are at war with us.
	But this is what the Wall Street Journal is saying.
	World War III will be fought with viruses.
	May not be what you expect.
	The current paradigm of escalating nuclear conflict was articulated 60 years ago by physicist Herman Kahn.
	Other technologies, however, have come a long way since then.
	COVID was not a deliberate attack, says Wall Street Journal.
	No, the measures that were taken were a deliberate attack against us.
	And never forget that these measures were taken against us before anybody died.
	Nobody had died, and Trump declared it an emergency.
	And all of these politicians around the world, all these Davos puppets, you think Trudeau's a puppet?
	You think Mark Ruda is a puppet?
	Oh, yes, they absolutely are.
	And it's very easy to spot them, because they're constantly saying wonderful things about the agenda.
	But who's the more dangerous puppet?
	Trump and people like him, people of his ilk, who say that they're opposed to the globalist agenda, And then take the lead in imposing it on us.
	They are the most dangerous.
	They are the fifth column.
	And the fifth column is the biggest column.
	You know, I've got four divisions ready to take this city.
	But there's a fifth column inside of it, like I said.
	Spanish Civil War.
	Any nation. Thinking of using a deadly virus as a weapon of war would first need to immunize its own people, perhaps under the guise of a flu vaccination.
	Well, that's a pretty dangerous idea that Wall Street Journal is putting out there.
	You know, maybe what they were doing was, you know, they were actually playing 40 chess, right?
	Trump was really playing 40 chess.
	He was actually inoculating us.
	I can imagine Alex and Stu Peters selling this BS, total BS. Well, you know what they did?
	First he was telling us, well, he's got the vaccine out there because the really bad one is coming from Bill Gates.
	That's what Alex was saying. Don't tell me he didn't.
	He did it with me sitting right next to him.
	I'd had people tell me that it's like, no, I don't think he'd say that.
	And he did it with me sitting right next to him as just as the commercial break was coming and then took me off.
	I tell you what, that level of betrayal is just disgusting.
	It's why I can't stomach Trump and the rest of these people who are his accolades and camp followers.
	But yeah, I'm sure that this will be another one that Alex and Stu Peters and people like that can come up with.
	Well, you know, this vaccine, as bad as it is, it was designed to save us from what the Chinese were engineering, perhaps in Wuhan or some other place like that, right?
	So that's the only place they've got.
	It's a biosafety level four lab, and we built it for them.
	Funded it for them. Their only biosafety level four lab there in Wuhan.
	Yeah. So, you know, it was just there.
	It was just a ruse. It really wasn't COVID. And it really wasn't a problem.
	But, you know, he was injecting us for the big thing that was coming.
	Yeah. Yeah.
	Mark my word. You're going to hear this.
	Wall Street Journal is already floating this conspiracy theory.
	Yeah. Wall Street Journal.
	Conspiracy theorists. And, hey, if the Wall Street Journal said it, then, you know, it's going to be legitimate for Alex and Stu Peters to say it, right?
	Yeah. The novel coronavirus was sufficiently optimized, said the Wall Street Journal, so that no serious mutations occurred for nine months.
	Wait a minute. Sufficiently optimized?
	Are you saying this was engineered?
	Oh, yeah. Perhaps near a biological facility and so forth is what they're saying.
	And so this is what the Wall Street Journal is saying.
	And again, it's not just don't ask any questions.
	You can ask questions, but about one thing.
	Chinese involvement at Wuhan.
	And of course, it's not going to, you know, these same people will say, well, we don't really care what the NIH did.
	We don't care what Francis Collins and Fauci did there, or the University of North Carolina and other places when they were told to stop.
	They continued anyway.
	So we don't care about that.
	We don't care about institutional corruption.
	We're not going to do anything to reform the NIH. We're not going to do anything to stop our biological and chemical warfare system, our programs.
	We're not going to do anything about that.
	But let's use this to point out how evil China is so we can build a case to go to war with China as well.
	If deterrence fails, says Wall Street Journal, And an attack takes place, correctly identifying the perpetrator has to be the first priority.
	You mean you're going to do that before you take any defensive actions?
	I guess, you know, the first priority was lock everybody down in place, which made absolutely no sense because who's going to be able to provide medical care?
	Who's going to, you know, keep the supply chains going so we can all eat and all that?
	No, no, everybody stay home.
	Everybody stay home. That's our first priority.
	But yeah, now the Wall Street Journal is saying, if this happens again, we've got to determine who the perpetrator was.
	That's our first priority. Well, we can't even figure out who put cocaine in the Biden White House, can we?
	Yeah, right. It's an inside job.
	All these things are an inside job.
	This may or may not be easy, said Wall Street Journal, but retaliating against the wrong actor risks making an already bad situation worse.
	Reopening the COVID-19 origin investigation.
	See, this is why this article was written, in my opinion.
	Would provide good practice.
	So what they're saying on the basis of this article, you know, military-industrial complex and people of this ilk, As they do, they use the Wall Street Journal, mainstream news media to put out their agenda and what they want to have happen.
	So they said, you know, we need to open up this investigation into Wuhan.
	That's going to be good practice for us because it's going to come again and we're going to need to be able to point the finger at somebody because we don't want to point the finger at Trump or Biden or whoever does this to us again.
	There's got to be some foreign enemy, some Auslander, right?
	So, you know, we need the practice.
	Well, you know, we've had a lot of practice.
	They practiced this nonsense for 20 years.
	They had germ games every year, at least once.
	And then we had a lot of practice the last three years, didn't we?
	And now they want us to practice something else.
	Let me tell you. I think it's not a coincidence.
	That the Behavioral Insight Team, that's the name they gave for their behavioral psychology group that was nudging people in the UK. They called it the Behavioral Insight Team, and they just referred to it as B-I-T. Bit.
	You put the bit in the horse's mouth, and you can turn that powerful beast any way that you want to go.
	And they've put the bit in our mouth.
	They put the bit in our mouth to keep us from talking.
	And they put the bit in our mouth to turn our heads wherever they want to turn it.
	That's what we're experiencing right now.
	Daily Skeptic reported, I showed you the article last week.
	They were talking about three different classes of vaccines.
	Pull this article up and they can see the color picture again.
	They're talking about the yellow vaccine batches appear to be placebos.
	That's the headline there.
	And scroll down a little bit and let people see the chart I'm talking about.
	That chart there, look, you've got, in terms of adverse events, there's a vertical axis.
	And then on the horizontal axis, that is the number of vaccine doses per batch.
	And so they have three different trend lines here associated with different batches.
	And so they have one that is almost vertical.
	And just a very few batches out there, very few doses, you have straight up the number of adverse events, almost vertical.
	And then you have another one that is maybe about a 15 degree angle, the green line.
	And then you have the yellow line, which is horizontal for all practical purposes, essentially no adverse events.
	And so what they're saying is it's a placebo.
	But we already knew, because they had complained about it in Europe, the fact that there was, they said, very poor quality control.
	Well, maybe it wasn't poor quality control.
	Maybe it was deliberate, and I've talked about this many times in the past.
	They said, you know, the active ingredient varies from, you know, and I forget, someday I've got to go back and look this up again, and I've got to find the article what the unit of measurement is, but it doesn't really matter if it's micrograms or whatever it is.
	It varied from 3 to 100.
	So, in other words, there was a 33-fold difference between the lowest and the highest.
	Now, that's just ridiculous quality control, isn't it?
	Or perhaps because they were very interested in keeping track of the batches.
	Perhaps that was a dosage variation, which you would normally run if you were doing a test to find out what dosage is going to create massive harm, which ones are going to be harmless, and so forth.
	You know, you've got to dial that in.
	That's part of what they test for, is what dosage to put in there.
	But the yellow vaccine, as they said, appears to be a placebo.
	One person came back and looked at the data, Jessica Rose.
	They said it's obviously more pleasant and less censorious than some of the other commentators who've been trying to debunk the suggestion by a group of German scientists that the yellow batches in the recent Danish Pfizer batch variability study could be placebos.
	But her own debunking has one obvious problem.
	Her criticism focuses on the claim that the placebo batches actually have many adverse events associated with them, not just in Denmark where the study was focused.
	However, the denominators that she uses in order to compare the rates of adverse event reports per batch that turn up in VAERS have been chosen arbitrarily.
	So she even says herself, It's important to note that I do not have the doses, the dose number, for the relevant yellow VAC slots as per the VAERS data.
	It's a pity. If I had these data, I could provide a much better analysis.
	For the purpose of this analysis, I assume that the batch sizes per lot This might be a very bad assumption, but what can I do?
	I'm still better than the CDC staff combined.
	They said, well, but if we don't have the number of doses, what's the point of the comparison?
	Nobody has ever claimed that there were no adverse events reports associated with even the yellow batches.
	They were not completely zero.
	There were, in fact, four yellow batches that had literally zero adverse effects associated with them, but the other 14 merely had relatively few.
	The issue is the reporting rate.
	It's not that it's completely harmless.
	And that's why I think it's not a good idea to call it a placebo.
	Because a placebo is something that doesn't have really any active ingredient.
	These yellow batches, even though they had very, very few adverse events, did not have zero, except for a couple of them.
	And that's the key thing.
	We need to understand...
	No, this was tested for safety or efficacy.
	Again, RFK Jr.
	is blasting the media's organized conspiracy to suppress COVID information and to stick to, quote, government orthodoxy.
	He had an interview with Lex Fridman, I guess, or Fridman, I don't know, it's F-R-I-D. He, excuse me, is talking about the CIA's murder of his uncle and father.
	He said it was, quote, insurmountable.
	And so Fridman said, well, what is the mechanism by which the CIA influences the narrative?
	He says, through the press, of course.
	Operation Mockingbird, we've known this for a long time.
	Directly through key members are certain press organs that have been linked to the agency, the people who run those organs.
	Things like the Daily Beast and Rolling Stone have deep relations with the intelligence community.
	Salon, Daily Cause, the rest of these.
	Now, of course, it's interesting that Rolling Stone just did a big hit piece on the James Caviezel movie that I talked about last week, Sound of Freedom.
	Based on a true story of a federal agent who was not happy with what the U.S. government was doing, the half measures to stop child trafficking, so he got out, started working on his own.
	Rolling Stone savaged that.
	I wonder why they would do that.
	Were they told to do that by the CIA? One of the organizations probably the heaviest into child trafficking and that type of thing?
	Pushing back on that?
	And remember that when we talk about the assassinations, the conspiracy theory was coined specifically by the CIA and the FBI to sideline anybody that questioned their official narrative about lone shooters of the JFK assassination.
	I've got to say, you know, when I was a young child and this happened, I was eight years old.
	And my family was not a Kennedy fan, but they believed that the government had...
	Killed JFK. Nobody.
	None of the adults questioned that whatsoever, especially with what happened with Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby and that type of thing.
	It was everybody, well, yeah, that's the confirmation right there.
	The other thing that was confirmation was how the government was so keen to shut down any questions about this.
	So, again, you know, they were not saying this because they were Kennedy fans.
	They knew the government had assassinated the president.
	The CIA had assassinated the president.
	They didn't get into the details of it to investigate it.
	They didn't spend their time looking into who it was exactly.
	They just knew the government was lying, just as we know the government is lying about 9-11 and so many other things.
	You don't have to know how they pulled these buildings down, but there's no question that they pulled these buildings down.
	We will be right back in just a moment before we take a break.
	I want to thank Amos Poole.
	Thank you very much on Rockland.
	That's very kind, very generous.
	He says, question viruses.
	Suggest you interview Dr.
	Andrew Kaufman about germ theory and viruses.
	It may help to set some free from the ongoing medical terror campaign.
	Thanks for your work. Yes, and I've had a book that was sent to me, and I appreciate the person who did that.
	Thank you very much, and I'm looking at it.
	It's a book called Contagion.
	I read the first chapter, and I just haven't had time to go back to it.
	That's how I read so much stuff.
	But I do need to go back and look at that, because it brought up some very, very important questions, even going back to Louis Pasteur and his diary.
	The bombshell information I saw from that, I'll have to check it out and see if it's true, but this is what is said by the book.
	In the 1990s, you had an American scientist who got Louis Pasteur's diary And got it translated.
	People, you know, they collected his diary, but they didn't bother to read it.
	You know, I mean, this guy, great scientist and all this kind of stuff, but nobody reads his diary?
	Anyway, according to the book, in the 1990s, this guy got it, read it, and he confessed that he had faked What he had done.
	That's pretty amazing. Whatever you think about germ theory and the rest of this stuff.
	Great talent. Thank you very much for the tip.
	And he says, thank you for your work.
	Well, thank you. I could not do it without you.
	We're going to take a quick break and we'll be right back.
	Music We're
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	I haven't even had time to go back and watch Last of the Weekends.
	I thought I would do that over the 4th of July.
	But always more things to do.
	Music or whatever. And when I was doing that music, it's been a while since I've seen that movie.
	It was one of my favorite films, but I haven't had time to even see that.
	So yeah, I am behind in reading books as well.
	I'm not goofing off here.
	I don't even watch the movies I want to see.
	Uh, RFK Jr.
	had an interesting comment on, uh, what's going on in the White House.
	This, uh, cocaine charade that's there.
	And, uh, of course, uh, Biden has always been opposed to drug use by non-family members.
	If you're not part of the Biden family and you use drugs, well, he wants to put you away for life.
	And he's always been a part of this mandatory minimum stuff, drug wars, civil asset forfeiture, taking property from people, even without charging somebody, let alone convicting them, just confiscate their house, their car, whatever, their cash. All that was Joe Biden.
	It happened during the Reagan administration, but he was writing that stuff, and he takes credit for it, just like Trump takes credit for the vaccine.
	So we need to give credit for the vaccine to Trump.
	He demands it, and he deserves it.
	And Biden wants credit for the war on drugs excesses, and he deserves credit for that as well.
	So give them credit.
	But the most severe punishment For anybody that is using drugs, but not any punishment whatsoever for his own family.
	And so, you had, I'm sorry, it wasn't RFK Jr.
	It was Senator John Kennedy.
	That Kennedy.
	And he was on with Fox News.
	And Jason Chaffetz, who was filling in for Sean Hannity, said, are you going to be able, as a senator, to be able to question what's going on with this investigation?
	My guest, just a guest, the U.S. Secret Service already knows how this happened.
	They just haven't told us yet. That's right.
	It's a secret. Secret Service, as I said before, always keeping secrets about presidents, whether it's their health condition or their, you know, relationships with people.
	Keep that a secret. And so Senator John Kennedy, the Republican from Louisiana, said, Well, I haven't seen the news today.
	Did they find more blow in the White House?
	Are we still talking about the first stuff?
	He said, look, I've been in the Situation Room.
	There's cameras everywhere.
	I'm pretty sure the Secret Service knows.
	I probably shouldn't say this, he said.
	But if my record was as bad as this White House's record, I'd probably give my staff blow, too.
	That's Kennedy. He's always...
	Senator Kennedy, he's always a...
	I'm only kidding. He said, they'll get to the bottom of it.
	Frankly, I'm not saying it's not significant, that it's not earth-shaking, you know?
	Well, you know, I looked at that and it's like, well, okay, I guess in the context, I didn't know that blow was a slang for that.
	So I looked up slings for...
	For cocaine. Blow, coke, dust, nose candy, snow, sneeze, sniff.
	White rock. White rock.
	Huh. Is that a black rock?
	We got white rock. And, of course, that was before they found it.
	They called it white rock before they found it in the White House.
	I would think that would now become the favored term for cocaine.
	White rock. Or maybe they could come up with another one.
	You know, you've got great white hunter.
	Oh, there you go. White hunter.
	Maybe that's one I'll coin.
	They found some white hunter there at the White House.
	I guess the question, in my mind, is that since Biden came up with this whole idea of civil asset forfeiture, pushing it, you know, extending it, it began with RICO statues and it evolved.
	I've talked about that in the past, how he got to that.
	But, of course, he wanted it to, you know, Go the full measure of that.
	So, since they've been confiscating people's cars and their cash and their homes, will the DEA use civil asset forfeiture?
	Biden's civil asset forfeiture?
	Will the DEA use that to seize the White House now?
	They'd probably like to have it.
	And why not?
	Fair is fair. Equal protection of the law.
	The White House should now be seized.
	By the Drug Enforcement Agency.
	And that's not far-fetched.
	If you go back and you look at this federal attorney, Carmine Ortiz, who was up in Massachusetts, she was involved in what I believe was the prosecution and murder of Aaron Schwartz,
	who was pushing back against the creation of this corrupt agency we now call CISA. It first manifested as CISPA. They had ACTA, SOPA, PIPA. All these different things were being done in the U.S. and in the EU. And it was essentially to create a cybersecurity organization, but as CISPA, the original name pointed out, it wasn't just cybersecurity, but it was about protection.
	What were they protecting? They were going to protect their deputized state, They're Silicon Valley partners.
	They were going to be protected from people suing them when they spied on you on behalf of the government, and when they ratted you out with all the information that they collect on you to the government.
	So they were going to protect them from that.
	That was a key part of it.
	Anyway, Aaron Schwartz pushed back really hard on that, and they concocted a pseudo-crime.
	It wasn't a crime at all. As a matter of fact, they refused to prosecute it at the local level.
	They said he just got in and got some documents that are not anything that's sensitive or anything like that.
	It's something he could have gone in, like a library, and gotten access to it.
	But they elevated this because they wanted to put him in jail, and he was a fighter.
	He had fought all these different things, and the narrative was that he was driven to suicide.
	Because this prosecutor, Carmine Ortiz, was threatening him with a large jail term.
	And then as everybody started getting angry with her, because she had quote-unquote driven him to suicide, her husband tweeted out, says, no, she wasn't going to put him away for 30 years.
	She had given him a plea offer of, you know, just a few months in probation.
	And he turned that down.
	He was fighting. And then he deleted that tweet.
	But she had been, they were grooming her to run for governor and for higher office there in Massachusetts.
	But that was a big mistake for her.
	And then she made another big mistake, which was the final straw.
	She went after a hotel using civil asset forfeiture.
	Again, she's a federal attorney.
	And she went after a hotel, confiscated the hotel.
	Because over a period of 15 years, there had been three drug busts in that hotel.
	The hotel owners had had nothing to do with any of those drug busts.
	It's just something that was done by people who rented a room.
	And she used that as justification for civil asset forfeiture to steal that hotel.
	So it would not be a stretch of the imagination to say that the DEA could take the White House, just saying.
	Meanwhile, the White House has been ridiculed for talking about how they cannot answer any questions because of the Hatch Act.
	It's just the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen in my life.
	The Hatch Act is to say that you can't use your position working for the federal government to campaign.
	That has absolutely nothing to do with this.
	And everybody's scratching their heads saying, it's the most ludicrous connection.
	There's absolutely no connection.
	We don't know where Hunter Biden lives unless he is living in the White House, said James Comer, House Oversight Committee Chair.
	And that is a concern.
	There are pictures. He took pictures of himself smoking crack while driving.
	He took pictures of himself driving 172 miles an hour.
	A new definition for speed, I guess.
	It'd be difficult to deny that.
	Will any White House staffers be undergoing drug testing as part of this investigation?
	Asked a reporter at a White House press conference.
	And Jean Pierre said, well, I'm just not going to get into hypotheticals from here.
	It'd be a hypothetical thing to say that somebody in the White House should be held to the same standards as the rest of Americans or to be held to the gold standard of prosecution that they're holding Trump to.
	Well, that would just be hypothetical because we don't have equal protection under the law.
	The White House is subject to rigorous guidelines that include drug testing, so we will take any action that is appropriate and warranted.
	Well, Dan Bongino, who used to be a veteran Secret Service agent, he came out and matter-of-factly said, there is absolutely zero chance that anyone other than a family member brought that cocaine inside the White House complex.
	No chance.
	That it would make it past the MAG security checkpoints.
	Family bypasses all of those, and I said that the very first day.
	Just common sense.
	I mean, you know, Dan Bongino was a Secret Service agent.
	He knows that. But just common sense tells you that.
	You know, they don't make the Bidens, you know, first family.
	They don't make them go through the metal detectors.
	They don't make them take all the contents of their pocket out and put it on there and all that kind of stuff.
	They don't pat them down and wand them down.
	They're the only people they don't do that to.
	At first, Americans were lied to about cocaine being found in the highly trafficked part of the White House.
	You know, that was the first alibi.
	Oh, well, you know, it's just like Grand Central Station.
	Oh, really? Yeah, you know, the public's just coming and going all the time.
	And nobody checks that, so it's just ridiculous.
	One official, familiar with the investigation, cautioned that the source of the drug was unlikely to be determined, given that it was discovered in a highly trafficked area of the West Wing.
	That was ludicrous, and that was what was being sold by Politico, many others of that ilk.
	But then the lie collapsed, and we now know that the unzippered bag of cocaine was found in a much more secure area, an area so secure that even Biden's sycophant, Andrea Mitchell, was forced to admit, well, just average people can't get in there.
	Well, you know, just average people are not going to get into the West Wing period, but this is an even more secure area of that.
	Senator Mike Lee also confirmed what Bongino said.
	Mike Lee said, I've been in and out of that entrance a million times.
	It's one of the most heavily secured, constantly surveilled places on earth.
	You know, kind of like the Pentagon, where they don't have any pictures of a plane hitting it on 9-11.
	He said, they keep detailed records on who enters and exits and when.
	That's why they keep detailed records about, you know, planes flying into buildings.
	I find it difficult to accept that they can't figure out who put the cocaine in there.
	To me, the Pentagon is a bigger story than the cocaine thing.
	A bigger mystery, isn't it?
	Such a mystery. We just can't solve these mysteries, can we?
	It couldn't have been an inside job.
	This entrance is used by very few people, just White House staff and people with pre-approved appointment in the West Wing, said Senator Ternley.
	Non-staff have to go through multiple layers of security screening, can enter only after they have been vetted and approved by the Secret Service.
	Also, as my friend Dan Bongino just reminded me, pretty much everyone who enters the West Wing has to empty their pockets.
	The Secret Service would immediately notice and stop anybody walking in with even a small bag of white powder.
	Ted Cruz, however, thinks that it's not Hunter.
	He thinks it's somebody else.
	He said, I think it is in all likelihood someone who works in the Biden administration.
	Some senior Biden official, which makes the cover-up all the more astonishing.
	You're telling me with the cameras that they have in there, that the Secret Service that they have in there, that the Marine detail they have there, that nobody can figure this out?
	Well, yeah, that's what they want you to believe.
	Again, it was found in a limited access place near the White House Situation Room.
	I'm going to paraphrase Kenny Rogers.
	They're wondering what situation their situation is in right now.
	But I think this is the most important aspect of this.
	The Biden crime family.
	All the rest of this stuff is just establishing a pattern of behavior where they are above the law.
	But they will apply the law more stringently to other people, whether you're talking about civil asset forfeiture, you're talking about Trump's troubles.
	They will apply the law stringently to other people, and they are never held to account on anything.
	As I said at the opening of the show, I think this is the most important whistleblower I have seen.
	Now, he did a video.
	I watched the whole video, but I'm not going to play it for you because it's 14 minutes long.
	I'll just kind of give you a summary of this.
	The guy's name is Dr.
	Gal Luft. He is an Israeli whistleblower, and he's been on the run since April.
	And he's been trying to give this information to the FBI. For quite a long time.
	And tried to do it before the election.
	Because he said, look, I'm not a Republican or a Democrat.
	I just didn't want to see everything, you know, balled up with kind of a Russiagate investigation again.
	And so he was doing it at kind of the early stages of the 2020 campaign.
	But regardless of what his motives were, What he had to say and what happened to him are truly amazing.
	And this is far worse than the fact that Hunter Biden or somebody that's in the close inner circle of the Biden family has got a drug problem and that they don't prosecute it.
	This is much worse.
	Because this entails the FBI. And it's not just the Biden people that are a crime family.
	The FBI is a crime family as well.
	And you can see that, you know, whistleblower Stephen Friend talking about what happened as he refused to get involved in the political persecution of January the 6th people or people who were not even really involved in January the 6th.
	And they kicked him out.
	But this is, again, this Israeli whistleblower.
	Been on the run since April.
	And he was arrested on a weapons trafficking charge and other charges in Cyprus last February.
	He got out on bail and then disappeared.
	After his arrest, the former Israeli army officer tweeted that the Biden administration was out to bury him.
	So he put out a video, this 14-minute video, from an undisclosed location.
	And he said he was arrested to stop him from testifying to the Republican-controlled House Oversight Committee about the Biden family's shady business exploits in China.
	He said, let it sink in.
	I who volunteered to inform the U.S. government about a potential security breach and about compromising information about a man who is vying to be the next president.
	I am now being hunted by the very same people who I informed and may have to live on the run for the rest of my life.
	He's being hunted by the FBI agents who showed up to ask him questions, very high-ranking officials, and people who were involved, as he points out, in the Biden cover-up.
	He said his legal woes began after he made the fatal decision, according to him, quote-unquote fatal decision, to present incriminating evidence about the Bidens to six officials from the FBI and the Department of Justice in a secret two-day meeting at the U.S. Embassy in Brussels in March 2019.
	He said the fact that they would send six officials, high ranking, he said they're made up of two prosecutors from the Southern District of New York, And for FBI agents, he said that they would dispatch so many officials and high-ranking officials was because they knew that he was a credible witness and that he had insider knowledge.
	And the most alarming information he shared in Brussels, according to him, pertained to the one-eyed mole in the Department of Justice who shared classified information with Hunter Biden and his Chinese partners.
	And he said, I told the Department of Justice that Hunter was associated with a very senior retired FBI official who had a very distinct physical characteristic.
	He had one eye.
	And he said, you know, you'd think it'd be pretty easy to find somebody who fits that description.
	Well, it is kind of interesting.
	This article that is on Zero Hedge says that FBI official is widely believed to be this guy.
	Former FBI Director Louis Free, who gave $100,000 to a trust for two of then-Vice President Joe Biden's grandchildren in 2016, shortly before telling Hunter, quote, I would be delighted to do future work for you.
	This FBI Director, former FBI Director Louis Free, lost his eye in a 2014 car crash.
	But again, he gives $100,000 to a trust for two of Biden's grandchildren in 2016, and then tells Hunter, I would be delighted to work with you.
	So, a one-eyed FBI insider in the Department of Justice.
	Who could that be?
	How many people fit that description?
	And how many people give $100,000 to prime the pump?
	Louis Freeh.
	According to Luff, one eye tipped off Hunter's CEFC associates, Dr.
	Patrick Ho and Chairman Yi Jamin.
	Tipped them off that they were under investigation.
	Now, Louis Freeh is not there anymore.
	Which means that there's a whole network of people who used to work for him, who are still in place, who are as corrupt as the Bidens are.
	It's just a filthy...
	Yeah, I hate to use a swamp, but that's what it is.
	It really is.
	The FBI crime family allied with the Biden crime family.
	Luft said his evidence was corroborated nine months later by the emails and receipts contained in Hunter Biden's laptop.
	Incredibly, according to the whistleblower, the agent who seized...
	Listen to this. The agent who seized the laptop From the Delaware Computer Repair Shop in December 2019, Special Agent Joshua Wilson was one of the FBI agents who interviewed him in Brussels that spring.
	Over the past four years, they followed me, my family, my friends, my associates.
	We were all harassed, intimidated, and finally I was prosecuted.
	So you've got the guy who, you know, they hear that there's some information about Biden.
	It appears that Joshua Wilson, according to what Luft is saying, is all essentially alleging that this guy is part of a detail within the FBI to cover up for the Bidens.
	And we know they've been covering up for the Bidens.
	They've got a group of people to do that.
	So he said, despite the harassment, he sent his attorney, Robert Hinnock, To meet with then-acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donahue on the eve of the 2020 elections to ensure that he was informed about the information that I had given his department in Brussels 19 months earlier.
	In February 2020, Attorney General Bill Barr, Mr.
	CIA, assigned Donahue To coordinate federal investigations into all Ukraine-related corruption allegations against Joe Biden.
	So, he puts the Deputy Attorney General into that to shut it down.
	You see, it goes all the way to the top.
	It goes all the way up to Bill Barr and top FBI people, like Mr.
	One-Eye. Donahue reportedly agreed to meet Hennick at Starbucks near Department of Justice headquarters and correspond with him on his private email.
	He said, the story is about corruption at the very highest levels of government and politics, and I think it can all be corroborated, said his lawyer in an email obtained by The Post.
	Unbeknownst to Luft, on September the 4th, Donahue, remember this is the guy that Bill Barr assigned, you know, the deputy attorney general, Donahue had ordered the Delaware U.S. Attorney to pause the criminal investigation into Hunter to avoid leaks in the two months before the election.
	And yet, at the same time, on November 2nd, on the eve of the elections, Luft was indicted on seven counts, including a violation of the Arms Export Control Act.
	He said, if convicted, I could face up to 100 years in prison.
	He said while he was in jail...
	He was portrayed in the international media as an arms dealer, even though he said, I've never traded a bullet in my entire life.
	He added that nowhere in my indictment does the Department of Justice claim or present evidence that I bought, sold, shipped, or financed any weapon.
	He also contested the charge that he had committed a FARA violation, that's the Foreign Agents Registration Act, a FARA violation by charging Former CIA director James Woolsey, $6,000 a month for putting his name on an article he had ghostwritten for him in a Chinese paper.
	Well, again, that's suspicious.
	$6,000 a month for one article?
	Is that part of it, you know, again, this guy may not be completely on the up and up either.
	But it doesn't matter.
	If you're looking at the corruption of the FBI and the Biden family and the rest of this stuff, it is possible for all these guys to be the baddies, Hans.
	He says, Nowhere in the indictment does the Department of Justice mention the well-known fact that Woolsey had been an advisor to my think tank since 2002 and that there was nothing in the article that represented Chinese interests to the contrary.
	Interesting that he keeps making it $6,000 a month not for being an advisor to the think tank but for a single article.
	Again, I find that suspicious.
	Anyway, he challenged the Justice Department to make his indictment public.
	He said, Yeah, we'll be right back.
	��
	��
	��
	�� Liberty.
	It's Your Move.
	And now, The David Knight Show.
	I want to talk about cones and cons.
	Autonomous electric vehicles, cones and cons, and what is happening with the driverless taxis in San Francisco.
	Why is this so important to me?
	Well, just stop and think about what life would have been like if we'd had no private vehicles during the Trump lockdowns and continuing on through Biden.
	That was our lifeline to liberty.
	That was our lifeline to get places.
	They could not control us.
	If we'd had no cars, if we only had public transportation or something that we had to purchase, you know, driverless taxis or Uber, whatever, that we had to purchase from a politically connected corporation, we would have been in complete prison.
	You understand how vital our automobiles are to our liberty?
	So we have driverless cars, In San Francisco, they have a rebel group that is rebelling against these because they're looking to extend their permits of what they're going to do in San Francisco, and they've been an absolute disaster.
	And so to bring people's awareness up and to show that they are not happy with this, you have, and I've got here a label here, Travis, it says Farage, but I think that's the EV clip.
	Is that correct? Yeah, let me play that for you if this is the right one, what they're saying in San Francisco.
	So what's the deal with the self-driving cars all over SF? These companies promise their cars will reduce traffic and collisions.
	But instead, they block buses, emergency vehicles, and everyday traffic.
	They've even unaligned a person and a dog.
	And they're partnering with police to report everyone all the time without anyone's consent.
	And most importantly, they require streets that are designed for cars, not people or transit.
	This is only for profit-driven car companies to stay dominant and make it harder for transit to stay afloat.
	But we can do something about it.
	First, find a cone.
	They're everywhere. Then gently place it on the car's hood.
	Make sure their car is empty.
	And repeat. It's really fun and anyone can do it.
	There is a July 13th, there's a state hearing for these companies to expand operations in SF. Hell no, we do not consent to this.
	This week, tell these companies what you think with a cone, and check the link in bio for more info on making public comment.
	Yeah, a little bit of, you know, a little bit of civil disobedience there.
	Doesn't hurt the car.
	But, you know, since they're going to stop and block traffic anyway, get them somewhere where they're not in the way and just keep them staying there.
	And so, you know, when we look at this, just like you had the warp speed injection, it was the only solution for what we were told was an existential crisis.
	So we've got an existential crisis.
	We've got no time to look at anything else.
	We've got no time to see if this thing is going to work or whatever, but you've got to get the jab.
	And anybody that offers anything else, no, you're going to be shut down.
	Same thing with these electric vehicles, battery-operated electric vehicles.
	Oh, we've got an existential crisis.
	No, you don't. It's just as phony as that other one.
	And, of course, we don't have any time to...
	To get this to work, we don't have time to locate where we're going to find all of our mineral resources for all these new batteries.
	We don't have time to build out our charging network.
	We don't have time to come up with alternate sources for the grid as we're shutting some of them down.
	Now we know what this is, so again...
	I'm glad to see this.
	The night one was a hit.
	That was going back to July 6th.
	This is going to continue to like the 13th, I think, which is when they're going to have their meeting.
	Keep sending your coning submissions.
	The group has called for a week of cone ahead of this Thursday's meeting where the California Public Utilities Commission will vote to allow Cruz and Waymo to expand operations across the metropolitan area of San Francisco.
	One member of the group told local media, Expanded and basically unfettered access to city streets is basically a bad idea, to give that to these robot cars.
	Residents never got a chance to have a say in this.
	Never really consented.
	They're being used as human guinea pigs.
	Oh, isn't that so much like what happened with the Trump shots?
	They use this as guinea pigs.
	They don't care whether we like this or not.
	It's a few typically unelected regulators who love the companies that they are regulating.
	Regulatory capture. The traffic cone on the vehicle's hood triggers the car's sensors to think that there is an obstacle.
	The car then stops and refuses to move until the cone is removed.
	Complaints against driverless taxis include impeding traffic, public transit, and emergency responders.
	I talked about this last week.
	Blocking traffic for hours.
	Going into an area where there's a fire going on or whatever.
	Or just getting freaked out because they can't figure out how to navigate something that is slightly unusual.
	Or there's the time when you had all the crew's driverless cars go to one intersection and just stop.
	There wasn't any cone involved in that.
	So there's been instances of driverless taxis blocking traffic for several hours.
	The group also points out that robo-taxis are recording everyone without our consent.
	Now this is an English paper, UK paper, and they don't really understand what is happening here in the United States.
	They said this raises concerns about surveillance as law enforcement can obtain footage from self-driving cars with a warrant or a subpoena in California.
	Now, a warrant or a subpoena, this is where they don't understand what's going on.
	They must have read our Constitution, unlike the American public.
	Now, they have maintained that if this is data that belongs to the company, whether you're talking about the phone company, or you're talking about an Internet company, or you're talking about a driverless taxi company, if this is information that they have collected because you have decided to do business with them, Or, you know, if this is just cameras that are in the public area, the government goes in all the time and asks people, you've got this camera up here.
	You know, maybe it's something like one of the Amazon door cameras that they've got.
	I forget what they call them. Ring.
	Ring is what it is, yeah. So you've got a ring camera.
	Can we have access to the feed from that?
	And a lot of people say, yeah.
	If you say yes, You're recording.
	You've got this camera that's on your front door, and it's facing the street, and it's seeing everybody that's going by there.
	If you want to give that feed to the government, there's nothing to stop them from it.
	We've had court decisions going back to the 1960s, which is one of the reasons why you had the church committee hearings.
	That's a key reason. It wasn't about...
	The CIA assassinating people.
	It was about them spying on American citizens, and that's why they created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
	Surveillance was supposed to be foreign if it's being done by American intelligence.
	Otherwise, you need to get a warrant.
	But they've always maintained the fiction that these people can record stuff about you and turn it over to the government without a warrant.
	There's also no accountability when they block buses or first responders trying to get to an emergency.
	Unlike human drivers, they cannot be ticketed for moving violations.
	And you had one of these situations, not with a cone, but it was just kind of frozen and causing a big issue.
	And a traffic cop came and moved and then realized there's nobody in there.
	Wrote out a ticket. Will they have to pay it?
	Well, evidently not. And then we look at how they are expanding the network of this and how they will do anything they can and partner with anybody to get this done.
	The Biden administration is now full on board to get a massive charging network across the country.
	And so they're going to work with Elon Musk, even though, you know, they keep telling you that they're on opposite side.
	Elon Musk is now trying to present himself as a conservative savior.
	He always made money, became the world's richest man by kowtowing to every government on Earth.
	He just did it in China again.
	Again. He'll do it to any government anywhere if he can make some money from it.
	And so Vaccine Impact asks, are Tesla's EV competitors all adopting Musk's charging stations by force so that the government can track all EVs?
	It was not too far from where we live.
	They opened up the largest gas station.
	It's a Buc-ee's. And of course, every time they open up another gas station, it's bigger than the previous one.
	It was just amazing how big it was.
	We got gas there this weekend on our way.
	Because we knew they had a good price.
	And when we pulled up there to get gas, they had several dozen charging stations.
	A lot of them were not being used, but it's a perfect application for them because they've got a big store.
	They want you to go inside there and buy food and shop.
	You know, they've got a full store in there.
	So they want you to stay there for a long time.
	It was funny.
	We were there Sunday, yesterday morning.
	And at first it was like, wow, look at all these pumps that they've got there.
	And I don't know if there's any available.
	And as we're driving around, Karen said, look, they're all empty.
	Everybody's just gotten gas and going inside.
	Ha ha ha.
	They don't park the car and move it.
	Go inside and shop.
	And, of course, that's especially what you're going to do with an EV charging network.
	So it's a natural combo for them to have Tesla charging stations there.
	But there's a lot of them. And now what is happening is you've got their competitors.
	They're all signing up to use Tesla's network.
	Mercedes-Benz is the latest automaker to announce that they are adopting Tesla's North American charging standard, allowing their EVs to be charged at Tesla's stations.
	Mercedes joins Ford, GM, Rivian, Volvo, and Polestar in recent days.
	They've all announced that they're going to be turning to that charging standard so they can use Tesla stations.
	And so Vaccine Impact says that this sudden change in the automotive industry to adopt Tesla's charging standard has happened very quickly.
	How did the North American electric vehicle market finally decide on a charging port?
	Well, gradually, then suddenly, to paraphrase Ernest Hemingway, the war isn't over yet, but the Electrify America announcement this week that it would add Tesla's North American charging standard plugs, it's close.
	Electrify America's decision is particularly important because it's both the largest non-Tesla fast charging network and because it's owned by Volkswagen, which has been a notable holdout.
	The shift in momentum has been particularly swift.
	In late 2021, the government mandated that EV chargers be equipped with CCS to receive federal money.
	It seemed like Tesla's NACS was living on borrowed time.
	But then Tesla cut a slew of deals with competitors.
	The first of them breathed new life into NACS, then subsequent deals tipped it forward, becoming the de facto standard.
	You see, like so many of these people that are celebrated, Elon Musk is not an innovator.
	He's a dealmaker. And so when the federal government decides it's going to go to one standard, he starts cutting deals with other car companies and then made it the de facto standard.
	And now that that's going to become the de facto standard, they'll be able to get some nice, big, juicy subsidies out of this as well.
	So again, over the last month or so, you've had these companies that I just mentioned said they're going to switch.
	The holdouts are Volkswagen, Hyundai, Stellantis, Lucid, Toyota, and Nissan.
	Of that group, several are likely to announce a switch to it soon.
	Volkswagen, Hyundai, and Stellantis have already said that they're in talks with Tesla.
	So what is driving this?
	Well, again, it's the Biden administration's obsession with getting a network out there because you've got to have that one solution to something that they say is an existential problem, which isn't even a problem.
	The climate change thing is not real.
	It's not. And I'll argue that with anybody.
	I've been arguing that for the last 50 years, and I got 50 years of lies, false prophecies, and failed models to show you that it is not true, and data to back up the fact that it's not changing.
	And common sense as well.
	I liked one of the ones that a listener sent in.
	He said, you know, why is it that the groundwater temperature is always staying the same?
	I mean, if it's rising, you know, if temperature is rising globally, that should be going up as well.
	But it's not. Why is that?
	It doesn't matter how well insulated you are.
	Eventually you will, even something that is highly, highly insulated, It cannot help but assume an ambient temperature that's there.
	And even though it stays at a cooler rate, it's not going to be able to maintain that forever.
	So what's driving this?
	Again, it's politics. This is all politics.
	The one product that has given Americans the most independence over the years, it says Brian Shalhavi at Vaccine Impact, has been the ability to own a vehicle, to be able to drive it anywhere on Earth.
	Anywhere one wants to, at any time one wants to.
	And that is especially true, as I said at the beginning, of looking at what happened with lockdown.
	Being able to fuel your non-electric vehicle with diesel or gasoline by paying cash, right?
	That's not something you're going to be able to do with these electric chargers, he points out as well.
	Unless you own your own EV charger at home and choose not to connect it to the internet, it is impossible to fuel your electric vehicle anonymously.
	You can't pay on these stations.
	You can't pay with cash.
	They all require an app on your cell phone.
	To unlock it and to use a charging station connection.
	So you understand it's about the surveillance of a cashless society.
	The surveillance of the fact that these things have video cameras on them.
	They're constantly recording.
	And then it's about limiting your travel.
	Because it is inherently limiting when you look at the grid.
	Regardless of what happens with the charging stations.
	It's still going to be limited by the grid.
	And if you put everything, heating, cooking, transportation, everything goes on the grid as they are not expanding the grid, but they're actually contracting the grid, you know what's going to happen.
	So as all this is happening and things are looking good for Musk here in the U.S., the Democrats hate him on Twitter, but that's just show.
	That's just a show by...
	Oh, they genuinely hate him.
	I mean, but what he's doing there with Twitter, that's just to keep you distracted from the deals that he's cutting with anybody and everybody, including President Xi.
	We had Tesla and Chinese rivals signal that the EV price war...
	Is ending.
	He signed a truce, and Elon Musk pledged to honor socialist values, quote-unquote.
	A socialist values pledge that he took.
	Well, of course, you know, Marxism, especially the Chinese fascist version of this, where you have a merger of corporations and states, that has been part of the China price in the very beginning, along with slave labor.
	And totalitarian control of speech and thought.
	And so that's not a problem at all.
	If you're going to do business in China, you just...
	Go on board with that. Meanwhile, a Chinese-owned car company, because all the big companies in China are owned by the Chinese Communist Party, you have to have partners on your board of directors or you're not going to do any business there.
	A China-owned car company may get a boost from the Biden tax credits meant for U.S. automakers.
	And so, you know, crony capitalism is bad because the government doesn't need to be picking the winners and losers.
	It's a corruption of government.
	It's a bad idea.
	And here's one of the worst case examples of it, where the money goes to a foreign country that is supposedly our enemy.
	At the same time that Biden is trying to make the case that China is our enemy, they want to go to war with them, and yet they're going to subsidize their companies here with their special EV tax credits.
	Yes, crony capitalism. Musk and Biden are both China buddies.
	Polestar, which is part of the automobile...
	There's a large Chinese corporation called Geely.
	And Polestar was founded in 2017...
	By Geely and Volvo.
	They came together to create Polestar.
	Now Polestar is opening up an all-electric SUV factory in South Carolina.
	And it's going to get the $7,500 consumer tax credit that Biden is doing for his Inflation Reduction Act.
	Yeah, that's how you reduce inflation.
	You give $7,500 credit per car.
	To the Chinese communists.
	It's absolutely insane what is happening.
	We're going to take a quick break, and we'll be right back.
	We're going to take a quick break.
	We're going to take a quick break.
	Alright, a couple of comments on Rock Van Guard.
	Good to see you there. Thank you for the tip.
	I appreciate that. He says, here's to putting a traffic cone on the hood of expansionist government.
	Thanks for helping me, my MRC friends.
	Start the day with such energy, David.
	Well, thank you, Guard. I appreciate that.
	And on Rock Van, we also have truck driver Ron.
	Thank you for the tip. He says, we all need to buy lock-em-up t-shirts.
	Yeah, that's true. Well...
	They pushed one guy out in the Netherlands.
	I just wish they had done it for the right reasons.
	And, of course, this is a good reason.
	So many reasons.
	But I say the right reason.
	This is a guy who's trying to take their food.
	And, of course, we've had the farmer party.
	They call it the BBB there in their language.
	It's the BBB. But it's a farmer's party that just came out of nowhere and To oppose this program to destroy family farms and to push everybody into these giant mega cities.
	And so they've had success, but that's not the reason that his government fell.
	And I would like to see that because people need to understand that there's a program of starvation and enslavement.
	Nothing less than that.
	That's not an exaggeration to say that.
	And so when you look at this, yes, they saw the immediate problem of immigration, particularly because of what is happening in France.
	But it's amazing to me that they couldn't see the connection with the farmers, that it just, that wouldn't be the end of it.
	But again, that party looks to be in the best position to make gains of this.
	And they have now kicked out this Davos puppet, Mark Ruta, The Globalist Coalition government in the Netherlands collapsed on Friday.
	Dutch Prime Minister Mark Ruta tendering his resignation to King Willem-Alexander on Saturday.
	By the way, you know, it's so sad to see this.
	The king was on vacation, as kings are wont to do.
	He had to cut his vacation short so he could do his official duty of accepting the resignation from the prime minister.
	It must be tough being the king.
	Not much to do.
	So then he'll go back to vacation, wherever.
	But there's going to be elections in November, and the pro-farmer BBB party may make some gains they're expected to, should.
	That's the thing that amazes me.
	Yes, there was a lot of movement, but I was surprised that it wasn't so much more from the population.
	This is not just about the farmers.
	This is about your food supply, about all of our food supply.
	This is, by the way, the fourth government that Mark Ruta, 56 years old, has had.
	And it's the third time, since he came to power in 2010, it's the third time that his government has collapsed.
	But they just keep going back to the same guy.
	Reminds me of somebody here in America.
	I can't, let's see, what is it?
	Donald something.
	He just keeps failing and losing elections and betraying the people and doing exactly what the globalists want.
	They just keep re-electing this guy.
	I don't understand what's going on.
	The alleged dispute that forced the cabinet to collapse came over calls from Ruta's neoliberal People's Party for Freedom and Democracy.
	A lot of words.
	But, of course, they're not about any of that stuff.
	They wanted them to cut migration and increase restrictions on family reunification of asylum seekers in the Netherlands.
	So again, it wasn't about the food.
	The shock collapse of the government, as I pointed out, it's the third time out of his four times in office that it has collapsed.
	And I know that the Netherlands is a small country, which makes it all the more surprising that they are second only to the United States in terms of exporting food.
	And this is why the World Economic Forum Went to the Netherlands.
	Mark Ruta has always made speeches in favor of all of Davos' agendas, and to sweeten the pot, which they don't mention in this article, but to sweeten the pot, they said, well, we're going to do a pioneering food distribution.
	We're going to make it a food hub, and we're going to We're going to do test cases of how we're going to distribute, presumably, their lab-grown Bill Gates food, because Bill Gates is heavily connected to picnic, which is also connected to a relative of the person who is in charge of the nitrogen thing, I think, is what she was in charge of.
	But it's a government official, and the family that she married into...
	It is the biggest grocery store chain, and they're running Picnic, which is a delivery service and everything.
	So it's this nest of incestuous corruption, just like we have here in the United States.
	But when you look at the immigration issue, they had asylum applications for the country increased by a third in 2022, up to 46,000 people.
	Think about how that's dwarfed by what is happening in America.
	But of course, that is a small, much smaller country.
	Projections expect over 70,000 more to come this year.
	So it increased by 30% to 46,000.
	And it's going to increase by nearly double this next year.
	Because you know those projections are going to be on the low side.
	Mass migration has come to the forefront of Dutch politics.
	As the country's infrastructure was stretched so thin that last year many migrants were forced to sleep outdoors as a result of a lack of accommodations, as has been seen in many other European countries in recent years and is seen in the United States as well.
	This is a common characteristic.
	As a matter of fact, it's one of the components, key components of 2030 that we are being warp-speeded into.
	Yeah. No time.
	We've just got to do this right now.
	No time to think about this.
	Well, the future of traditional farming and healthcare in the Netherlands is an article by Carla Peters.
	I think she's from the Netherlands because the way she spells Peters.
	P-E-E-T-E-R-S. But it's from the Brownstein Institute.
	It says, the Netherlands have been chosen as a pilot area in the EU to be climate neutral.
	With a transition to protein food.
	Transition to lab food is what it is.
	A transformation of healthcare into telemedicine.
	AI-driven connected system approach led by public-private partnerships.
	So, always the public-private partnerships, isn't it?
	A closure of 55-70% of traditional farming is foreseen to be replaced by tech-driven, vertical farming, gene-edited crops, edible insects, veganism, 15-minute cities, and CBDC passports, covering personal health data.
	Well, what they're describing, of course, is something that's been described going back to, you know, before the turn of the century.
	At the time, the UN was calling it UN Agenda 21.
	Sometime in the 21st century, we're going to concentrate everybody into the cities.
	And it's like, well, that means that you're going to have to kick the farmers off their land.
	That's right. And yet, see, this is why I say it's concerning, because the Dutch people see the obvious problem with mass migration, swamping the population there, creating warring ethnic groups.
	But also, they don't see this long-standing agenda.
	And they don't understand where this is all headed.
	And immigration is just one aspect of this reset.
	The new policies pushed forward by the politicians in this Ruta administration will be disastrous for farmers and humanity because this food production is the second largest exporter of food.
	It's going to affect food worldwide.
	You see it is a program of starvation, of subjugation, and of depopulation.
	And that's another reason why they chose to go there as well.
	A 25 to 30% reduction of farmers and cattle.
	And that's what they're targeting.
	And agricultural fields.
	But it could even be a reduction of 55 to 70% of farmers.
	To transform that area together with Flanders and the North Rhine-Westphalia into one giant region.
	They've already laid out the plans.
	This is not a conspiracy theory.
	This is a plan. You can see the pictures, and I've shown you the pictures before, of the tri-state city.
	A gigantic city with 30 million inhabitants.
	Stop and think about the fact the American colonies when we got our independence.
	The population was, I can't remember the exact number, but somewhere 3 to 5 million people.
	This is 10 times that big.
	And it was an agrarian society where people were able to grow their own food and be independent and that type of thing, and they were armed, and Jefferson said that is essential for liberty.
	He said cities are a threat to the health, the wealth, and the liberty of mankind, and he was right.
	He was right. When the new agreement is signed, farmers will need to fulfill 122 measures.
	Most of them will not be able to meet these measures.
	Farmers are warning that if the 8th EU nitrogen rule be forced for the ability to grow vegetables and fruit, it will be impossible to continue farming.
	This year, the use of certain crop protection spreads has become restricted in the Netherlands, while other countries are allowed to still use it.
	And of course, I've talked about this before.
	They busted some people because they were sneaking in manure.
	Just amazing. Fertilizer.
	The only way out for farmers seems to be to accept the offer by the government to sell their ownings for 120% of the value.
	It's actually less. You know, they're not going to give them a fair shake.
	And with a restriction that they not be allowed to start another farm anywhere within the EU. Come to America.
	We need your expertise. Many farmers still refuse the offers being made.
	One said, even when they pay 400% of the value, I won't leave.
	My son is going to be the next generation farmer.
	We'll get for them. This is all being powered by climate hysteria.
	This is one of the reasons why I say that that is a game-ender for RFK Jr.
	He's been one of the most hysterical advocates of climate alarmism.
	That alone should disqualify him.
	But, of course, there's other things that disqualify him.
	His approach to the Second Amendment, his approach to abortion, his approach to the LGBT, his belief that government is noble and the solution to every problem if it's done right.
	He harkens back to the old-school FDR type of Democrats.
	And let's not forget how dangerous they were.
	Yeah, they're not full-on Marxist totalitarians like the current crop, But just because he's one step back doesn't mean that he's still not dangerous.
	I understand what he has to say about vaccines is very good.
	What he has to say about the wars and the CIA is very good, and people need to hear that.
	And I'm very happy that he's campaigning.
	Because when you look at it, DeSantis understands as well that the issues with CBDC, both of them do, And DeSantis has already also talked about the regulatory state.
	And it's important that even if these guys use that kind of rhetoric to get elected and then don't do anything about it, it has at least raised the issue with the public, who, like the people in the Netherlands, don't see the big picture.
	They don't even see the evil nature of Of some of these components, some of these steps towards that big picture.
	And so we'll still have to get them to see the big picture, but if they can see how evil some of these steps are, you know, just like the idea we're going to, all transportation will be dependent on the electric grid, which will be used to ration and to control and to surveil.
	And so people need to see that bigger picture.
	But if they just understand, you know, one aspect of it.
	That's why I say these campaigns are important.
	They should be talked about. You know, we're about 180 some odd days away from even the first primaries being done.
	It's going to be a long campaign.
	This is how hyper-politicized everything has become.
	Everything is about politics.
	Everybody believes that their entire life is going to be fixed or destroyed by what happens in the presidential election.
	Well, everything has been hyper-politicized and it's up to us to pull back from that.
	We still need to understand how these people are going to come after us and why they're coming after us.
	And we need to warn other people about it so we can build a movement to stop this.
	But, you know, there's still something valuable And this campaign to be learned from the issues to be talked about.
	This article from Brownstone says, there is no climate emergency.
	Let me underscore that again.
	There is no climate emergency.
	There was no pandemic.
	The emergency was declared by Trump with nobody having died.
	And yes, we had a lot of people die in 2020.
	And that was financially incentivized medical malpractice.
	It was the things like the ventilators that kill people that he was so crazy about getting put out there.
	Remdesivir that was killing people.
	The refusal to treat people that was killing people.
	And then we see, and they can't cover it up, that as the vaccines were rolled out, and then again as they were mandated, we saw the vaccines were killing people.
	That's the real plague that they unleashed upon us.
	There is no climate emergency, but their MacGuffin is what they're going to use to unleash things that are going to be just as deadly to us as the ventilators and all the rest of this stuff.
	And they're doing it with money.
	You know, you play along with this in a public-private partnership, you get this stuff.
	Over 500 eminent experts wrote in 2019 in an open letter to the United Nations that there is no climate emergency.
	Well, I'm not taking the word of an expert.
	I've looked at it myself.
	And I've talked about failed projections, prophecies, models that have been going on for 50 years.
	I personally was involved in trying to wrest out of the hand of one of these deceivers.
	The data that had already been used to craft public policy, data that was obtained while he was being paid at a public institution while he was on the job, would not show the data.
	Now, you don't need to hide your data if you've got nothing to hide.
	These people are lying, and that was in the aftermath of ClimateGate.
	Furthermore, the Brownstone article said that the Nobel Prize winner in physics in 2022, John F. Clauser, says it clearly.
	There is no climate crisis.
	The climate crisis is based on scientific corruption and pseudoscience.
	And remember, it is one of the key things about RFKJ. So yes, by all means, afford his stuff that he has to say about vaccines, about the corruption, regulatory capture, big pharmaceutical companies and FDA and all the rest of this stuff.
	But at the same time, because he's a Democrat, he thinks that FDA can be fixed or whatever, that this type of stuff can be fixed.
	Federal government should have no involvement in any of that whatsoever because we know human nature.
	And we know that if you change the institution, if you change some of the personnel, you're going to be right back to where you were to begin with.
	A net zero CO2 policy in Sri Lanka that they put in before this Netherlands thing was disastrous.
	And so you have in the Netherlands an increasing number of farmers every year committing suicide.
	It's so bad. Kind of interesting that you're seeing this type of thing happening in South Africa with the Marxists.
	Now, the Marxists are coming after the land.
	They're not waiting for people to commit suicide.
	They're murdering people. They're encouraging it.
	Kill the white man, kill the boar is what that party, the Marxist party that is in power is all about.
	And yet, you know, that is the commonality is that these totalitarians, whether they're Marxist or they're Davos or whatever, these people who have this totalitarian urge Always come after the food.
	They come after, you know, just like Stalin did in Ukraine.
	And so it is a common program that is there.
	Dutch citizens also will be financing the 28 billion euro climate plan by extra taxes on food, on milk products, meat, compounds for vegetation, protection, fertilizers, while inflation is high and purchases are expensive.
	That's just the taxes that they're talking about.
	28 billion euros.
	The price of food is going to go up when the supply goes down, in addition to the taxes.
	But, of course, the taxes will be a percentage on top of the price of food, on top of the inflation.
	And last week, we were hearing it incessantly, and I didn't talk about it at the time.
	I mean, you just hear so much alarmism.
	It's become a joke.
	You've all seen, I'm sure.
	I saw it everywhere.
	Mainstream media. That July 3rd and July 4th, hottest days on Earth ever, ever.
	No, they're not. Again, if you go back and look at the ice cores that were there, it was far, far, far warmer a few thousand years ago.
	Last week, the global warming industry.
	That's what it is. It's an industry.
	And its corporate media cheerleaders made a concerted effort to declare July 3rd through the 4th the hottest days on Earth ever.
	ABC, New York Times, Axios, Bloomberg, each of them cited the University of Maine's climate reanalyzer computer model, which has since been questioned.
	Do you remember when we had a computer model that showed a sudden jump in over 50 degrees at both of the poles?
	And I said, how could this be?
	You can't have that magnitude of change.
	Remember, these are the people who are saying that, you know, one and a half degrees centigrade is going to cause the polarized caps to melt.
	And they're saying, oh, it was over 50 degrees.
	They grabbed this because it was put out by a computer model.
	And this lie traveled all around the world several times before the truth got its pants on.
	They found out that it was a glitch.
	And we found out as we were looking at this glitch and this lie about the spike in the Arctic temperatures, it lasted for two days and then just disappeared.
	We found out that they don't actually look at the temperature on the poles.
	They do it strictly with climate models.
	There were no temperature readings.
	That's why you could get something like that.
	Oh, look. Well, no, you're not looking at anything real.
	And so then NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, replied to that, and they said, although NOAA cannot validate the methodology or the conclusion of the University of Maine analysis, in other words, they're saying, these guys are not telling you the truth, but then they do it in a very tactful way, and then they tack on to the end of this, The idea, well, but we do recognize that we're in a warm period due to climate change.
	Always got to bow to the big lie.
	Even when you're pointing out these other people got it wrong.
	Yeah. Noah runs away from the hottest day claim, said Steve Malloy.
	They run away from the hottest day claim and say, well, we can't validate that.
	But, you know, we do know that it is global warming.
	How do you know that? So he wrote an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal.
	Hottest days ever? Don't believe it.
	One obvious problem with the updated narrative is that there are no satellite data from 125,000 years ago.
	Calculated estimates of current temperatures can't be fairly compared with guesses of global temperature from thousands of years ago.
	We do have the ice cores, and if you believe that method, then it would show that it was much, much warmer than it is now.
	So, despite concerns about the reliability, They all ran with it.
	Why? Well, because that is part of the narrative, and you're going to push that one way or the other.
	So we've got our guest who is ready to join us, and we're going to talk about another narrative that is out there.
	But before I stop, just look at James Cameron.
	He's got an oceanfront mansion they just sold for $33 million.
	This should be called Ocean Gate.
	Ocean Gate, instead of that sub that imploded, the real Ocean Gate is the fact that people like James Cameron, people like Obama, and many others, even Barbara Streisand, she's got her place on the beach, the Streisand effect.
	These people are buying these incredibly expensive properties right on the oceanfront.
	And he's not selling this necessarily because he thinks it's going to be underwater.
	As a matter of fact, he bought this in 1999.
	For $4 million. And now here he is, 24 years later, he's going to sell it.
	He bought it for $4 million. He's going to sell it for $33 million.
	So he's making more than an eight-fold increase on this.
	Which tells you that the other elite people who are all out there wringing their hands about climate change don't believe any of this either.
	He's got a long list of billionaire elitists who are selling you ESG and the rest of this stuff.
	And they don't believe it at all because they're going to invest in this kind of stuff as well.
	We're going to take a quick break, and when we come back, we're going to be talking about cities, which we've already been talking a little bit about.
	out.
	Stay with us.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	All right, joining us now is an author of many books.
	I've seen his name in many different places, but he's got a brand new book out, Untenable, The True Story of White Ethnic Flight from America's Cities.
	His name is Jack Cashel.
	It rhymes, as he said, with Daschle, if you remember that guy from politics.
	But anyway, Jack Cashel is with us, and we want to talk about this, and it's especially relevant based on what has just happened in Supreme Court decisions.
	Tell us a little bit about it, Jack. Right, you know, because I had, basically, I'm just going to show you the book here.
	It's untenable.
	I grew up in Newark, New Jersey during the fall of Newark, and I watched it firsthand.
	And what I was able to come away with was an experiential reaction to what I was seeing.
	This is in the 60s and 70s.
	And then when I read these Supreme Court decisions, which I did, which is hard to read because the absence of facts sort of pound my fact-filled brain like waves against the shore by Ketanji Brown-Jackson and Sotomayor.
	Is that they deny this happened.
	They insist that all of the disparities between white and black income are rooted in the past and rooted in Jim Crow, slavery, etc.
	The Homesteading Act.
	I mean, they're throwing all these things up against the wall, but neither of them hints at the reversal that occurred in black fortunes during the 1960s and that has continued to occur to this day.
	Yeah. And it's an amazing kind of denialism.
	You were just talking about it right here.
	You're a climate denier.
	You're a skeptic of a phenomenon that is based on dubious computer projections, right?
	You get to be called a denialist.
	These people, much like Holocaust denialists, deny a real, tragic, concrete phenomenon, and that is the destruction of America's cities, and from 1960 to 1980, a destruction that continues to this day.
	And some people, I pointed out last week, somebody said that Brown Jackson is kind of like Harris.
	And the way that she approached this, she said something ludicrous about unemployment and had a 40% increase because they didn't have affirmative action or something like that.
	She said, well, stop and think about that.
	You would notice that. If it were that high and the fact that it's doubled it, you know, it just absolutely makes no sense whatsoever to, you know, just basic logic.
	The facts that she threw out there, the numbers she threw out there, couldn't possibly be true.
	She just pulled them up out of thin air.
	And to the degree that the numbers have any relevance...
	Yes.
	Yes. And 16% of the Asian children are living in 16 single-parent homes.
	There's going to be disparity in our outcomes, even if they're genetically equal, right?
	And there's going to be disparity in the single mother's ability to create equity.
	Because last time we tried to put single mothers in homes, we got the subprime crisis.
	It's... And they do it all over again.
	They do it by ignoring the reality that I lived as an adolescent in Newark.
	Not just me, but millions of people did, all across the country.
	In cities like Newark, big cities like Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, New York.
	I've heard from people all across the country, David, and our experiences are remarkably similar.
	And Congressman Burgess has talked about that, how there was a vibrant middle class in the black communities, and it was destroyed by the Great Society programs of LBJ. As a matter of fact, it's kind of surprising to me, you know, there was that book that was written by Charles Murray, Losing Ground. And, you know, that was something that was used at the time of the Reagan administration to talk about how this is not working.
	It's actually counterproductive.
	It's hurting the people that it was intended to help.
	amazing to see that, you know, he's now some of the people out there pushing universal basic income.
	It's like, what is going on?
	You know, this is that's just a massive welfare program for everybody.
	And that's what is really concerning about this, because these people have not learned anything.
	Even some of the people who had learned something about it at one point in time seem to have forgotten that lesson.
	And they're pushing us in this direction.
	And they're going to extend this to everybody.
	This is not just going to be for the poor people.
	They want, with universal basic income, they want to breed dependency for everybody, don't they?
	No, I mean, right. Why not subvert all families equally?
	That way, there'll be a lesser gap between races.
	Yeah. No, in Untenable, I tell it as a personal story.
	It's just part memoir, but part social history.
	And I got the title from a friend of mine.
	My block in 1960, and I was 12 years old, was like the perfect urban block.
	You know, it was integrated.
	On my street, there were immigrants from 14 different countries.
	I'm checking the census.
	I found this out. There were 363 people on the block.
	And in 1950, that's the last year a census is accessible, there were 85 households on my working class block.
	It was an integrated block.
	83 of those households had a male head of household.
	A married male head of household.
	83 out of 85.
	Out of those 83, two were retired, two were unemployed, 79.
	We're working. And the census lists their jobs.
	There was no blue collar job in America.
	This side of lumberjacking was not represented on my block.
	Casket making, rubber molding, hucksters.
	And my favorite, there were 30 women who were working outside the home.
	My favorite, though, of all the job titles was janitress, right?
	So here's a woman who embraced not only her job, but her sex, right?
	She's not a janitor.
	She's a janitress.
	Oh, janitress. Okay.
	I've never even heard that word before.
	And then a dozen years later.
	This is 1960. Everything's smooth.
	We got commerce and all the shops are filled.
	People are, you know, going to church and buses and movie theaters and vibrant community.
	And like a thousand other communities across America in 1960.
	And then about 1972, my last friend left the block.
	And I asked him, now he's a Democrat, so he's arguing against interest.
	And there were a bunch of us talking.
	And this was just last year.
	And I said, Artie, so why did you and your widowed mother finally leave the block?
	You guys are the last ones out.
	And he said, well, Jack, it became, and he's searching for the word, untenable.
	And I said, what do you mean by untenable?
	He said, well, when your mother's been mugged for the second time, that's untenable.
	When your home is invaded for the second time, that's untenable.
	And I said, thank you, Artie, you just gave me my title.
	That's amazing. But what's interesting, too, David, is that this exodus of white ethnics from the cities, Detroit, Chicago, Philadelphia, and New York, created a dramatic Political term.
	These people, we all grew up as Democrats.
	And once we went through this process and saw what was happening, and saw the media lined up against us, saw the progressives lined up scolding us for leaving, shaming us for leaving, white flight, I would say 80-90% of the people that I've communicated with, and I talked about 50 people, are now Republicans.
	In fact, growing up in Newark, New Jersey, since the close-in real estate was too expensive, it had already been well-occupied.
	So the people who left had to flee south, down to Garden State Parkway, 50 or 60 miles, into these slapdash suburbs being thrown up in the hinterlands in the Jersey Shore, the Pine Barren area.
	And so as a result of that, Ocean County now, New Jersey, which is where they also filmed the show Jersey Shore, It's the reddest county in New Jersey.
	It's as red as West Virginia.
	They vote 2-1 for Trump both times, right?
	And on the Seaside Heights boardwalk, they have shops dedicated to Trump paraphernalia.
	You wouldn't know that from thinking New Jersey as a blue state, which it is because of the big city, the controls and the big cities, but...
	These people have exiled and it turned them, and yet no one talks to them.
	No one has ever talked to them before.
	No one's ever asked them why they left.
	Yeah, yeah. And of course, you know, one of the reasons that they're able to, as they see the cities being destroyed by these political policies, they can flee and they can go further south and it increases their time perhaps for commute, for their work and that type of thing.
	But they have that ability to do that.
	That's one of the things that they're trying to take away from us.
	They want to pack us into these cities.
	I refer to these smart cities and stuff as Indian reservations.
	That's a good parallel. Yeah, you're not going to be able to flee.
	I'm going to lock you up. That's right.
	Yeah. They're going to lock you up.
	Yeah, they control you. That's right.
	Right. So you've got all these...
	They put you on elevators. They put you on...
	You know, public transportation and your control.
	That's right. Yeah. As I was saying earlier today, just imagine lockdowns without any private cars.
	You know, next time they do that, if we don't have private cars.
	So you've got all these... Where are you, David?
	Where are you located? Oh, I'm in Tennessee.
	I fled to the hills.
	A lot of people have fled to Tennessee.
	You know that, right? Oh, yeah.
	It's very Republican. And, yeah, we came through here with all the lockdown stuff.
	So people were not buying the mask stuff, and the officials were not pushing that stuff.
	And so, yeah, we got out of Texas, even, because I was in Austin at the time.
	Yeah, well, Austin's as bad as anybody else.
	Oh, yeah. It's like California.
	But, yeah, it's... You know, there's a...
	As I'm sure you're aware, there's a second...
	We're into White Flight 2.0 now.
	But we don't call it that because the people who are fleeing are them, you know?
	They're the progressive elites, the ones who can work remotely.
	And White Flight 1.0, my white flight, it was the blue-collar people who left.
	Today, the blue-collar people have to stay behind because you can't, you know, replace a sewer pipe remotely, you know?
	But the major cities, and not...
	And the woker the city, the more people they've lost.
	San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, they're hemorrhaging millions of people collectively.
	Overwhelmingly white, and yet the media does not dare label this as white.
	Right? That's something only the underclass gets labeled with.
	That's right. So myself and a lot of my friends, we've been born a grudge for a long time.
	And fortunately, finally, and untenable, I've got to plug my book here, I get to tell the story.
	Well, and you mentioned, as you were talking about this and your experience there in New Jersey that the book is about, you talk about the fatherlessness.
	And that is such a key thing.
	And we see how this is the vitriol and the hatred of fathers.
	You know, we now have...
	You know, an archbishop, of course, saying, well, you know, our father is real troubling because of the patriarchy in it.
	And we have Robert Downey Jr.
	saying, yeah, men are just so awful, we've got to have a matriarchy and all the rest of the stuff.
	But it began as a very subtle attack On Fathers, didn't it?
	Where Uncle Sam came in to provide for the family.
	I think that's really where you start looking at this LBJ program.
	I've said LGBT for so long.
	But that's really where this started coming in and started breaking up the family, didn't it?
	That's exactly right, David.
	And circa 1950, something like 80-85% of black children were living in two-parent homes.
	Mm-hmm. I was a paper boy in Newark, so I went into all these homes.
	We just thought of them as a different ethnic group.
	We didn't think of them as...
	This is into the early 60s.
	But these programs have started locally in various places.
	LBJ sort of packaged them together and then expanded them.
	And under the rubric of the Great Society, and it was his effort to buy the black vote for the foreseeable future, Which he put in extremely crude terms, which I'm not going to repeat on the air.
	And unfortunately, he seems to have succeeded.
	He succeeded by making or helping to make or accelerating the destruction of the black family and making single mothers especially dependent on the government and adverse to voting against any You know, political party that would threaten that dependency.
	It would threaten their sustenance.
	It's a great racket.
	And unfortunately, for the black community especially, and for anyone who lives near it, it's worked.
	Yeah, you can certainly see the war on the family now as, you know, they're hostile to parents being involved with curriculum at PTA meetings.
	They're now extremists and dangerous and that type of thing.
	But it really did begin In a very subtle way, what looked like it was intended to help people.
	That was what was so insidious about it, was how subtle it was.
	And yet it provided these perverse incentives that really started unraveling the family, along with entertainment and all the rest of these things.
	But that was a core thing, going back to that government policy that you've just been talking about.
	That's right, because if, you know, and I've worked for the Newark Housing Authority.
	I mean, so I saw this stuff up close.
	And I started chronicling what I was seeing.
	And it was disastrous.
	I mean, you didn't have to wait 50 years to see it was going to be a disaster.
	By 1970, the handwriting was on the wall.
	So Newark, for instance, which had 24 homicides in 1950, by 1970, it had 158.
	And the population had shrunk.
	You know, and so you see that now in the debate for reparations, right?
	They're into 60s nihilism too.
	They have to pretend that what happened in the 1960s, and I use that generically, I mean it expands a little bit each way, in which their civil rights leaders cheered on, was responsible for their own undoing.
	So, and it's maddening, you know.
	I was in a televised debate on reparations last month, David, and it was very telling.
	This is televised on our local PBS station in Kansas City, where I live now.
	They had a very hard time finding a second panelist to join me.
	Nobody wanted to touch this.
	They're afraid, right?
	It's so insane. White people are afraid to speak out.
	And as a result of this, you're going to be seeing reparations committees succeeding and getting their way, as they've already done in Evanston, Illinois.
	We had the Evanston representative there as part of the debate.
	And whenever I mention the Great Society or the 60s or the consequences of that, They would act as though they didn't hear me.
	They'd just go back to talking about Jim Crow and Homestead Act and slavery.
	Those are bad things, I admit it.
	No denying that.
	They were competing in the cities where I grew up.
	Every kid I knew had a living relative who was born in another country.
	So we're all migrants in a way.
	And we had left, some of these people had left more horrible places than the blacks who were coming up from the South in the Great Migration.
	We had all come from bad places.
	We come to a city like Newark or any American city looking for freedom, for opportunity, for security, for the rule of law.
	And for a period of time, we had that collectively, blacks and whites together.
	And then we didn't.
	Yeah, my wife is from New York, Long Island area, and everybody that she knew was like first or second generation immigrants.
	Her family came from Italy and Poland and things like that.
	And yet, you know, when you look at this reparations thing, there's absolutely no way that it could be practically applied.
	You can see what the agenda is pretty clearly with this.
	You go back and look at the Great Society programs of LBJ, You could kind of, you know, get the idea that what they're trying to do is build dependency, and that's what they did do.
	But, you know, it looked like it was going to be something beneficial, but this doesn't even have a way that they can actually apply it.
	Because, as you're talking about, all the people who have come here, you know, well after slavery, you're going to come after them simply because of the color of their skin.
	And then when you talk about other people like the Obamas, you know, how do you make these kinds of adjustments?
	You know, he says clearly he's half white, so what do you do with a situation like that?
	And his black half had nothing to do with the American slave experience.
	That's right. That's right. Same thing with Kamala Harris, right?
	Did she get money because her mother was Jamaican?
	And there's a good percentage now of black Americans who come from either Africa or the West Indies.
	They tend to be more conservative and they also tend to be more productive because they weren't corrupted by the whole welfare dependency program.
	Yeah, that's right.
	But it becomes this thing that is absolutely unworkable.
	And I think the only purpose of it is really to sow strife within different groups against each other, because there's no way they can ever do it, so it's always going to be a perpetual irritant that they can mine for political purposes, isn't it?
	Right. When I was in the reparations debate with this woman from Evanston, where they have a program in play.
	And Evanston had a 7% Trump vote.
	I mean, so that tells you something about Evanston.
	It's a university town, but it's also an affluent Chicago suburb.
	Their combination is deadly.
	And so that means there's money to suck and people willing to give it.
	So, what they started to do was, then they worked redlining, and they decided that redlining was part of the whole legacy, even though that practice ended in 1968.
	And 82% of the people who were redlined were white, but that's irrelevant.
	Only blacks were eligible in Evanston.
	They had to prove that they were legacies, that is, that they were, their parents were in Evanston up to 1968.
	And then they had to prove they were black.
	And then they were given $25,000.
	First, it was to be for a down payment on a home or home repairs.
	But then they decided that was too much hassle because they'd have to check.
	So they just decided to give everyone $25,000.
	I mean, this is a racket. I mean, you know, it's...
	Yeah, it has. It's got elements of universal basic income in it, except it's not universal.
	It's there to create racial division and ethnic division and strife.
	And that's really been the tactic of the Marxists here in this country, is to set things up along ethnic and racial lines, because they feel, and I think they're right, it's going to work better than their class warfare that they had in Europe.
	We don't have that here, so they exploit that kind of division.
	We were talking about Obama, and you have in your book Something about Michelle Obama and how a black flight problem is going to affect her potential run for president, because we all know, I agree with you, that she's going to run at some point in time.
	Who knows, it might even be this next time, because the articles about Biden are, when should he get out?
	Not whether he should, but when.
	That's what I saw on Drudge Report, which is a pretty good aggregator for mainstream media now.
	When is he going to get out?
	So I don't know. When is she going to run?
	Well, and their bench is so shallow.
	I mean, it looks like either she or Gavin Newsom.
	I know. And if you're the poster child representing San Francisco, I wouldn't want to brag about that.
	No, but Michelle Obama had very responsible parents, Marion and Frazier.
	Her father allegedly worked as a water engineer for the city of Chicago, which is a front job for his work as a precinct captain in a daily machine.
	They had enough money to do that.
	Michelle grew up in a black co-op for the middle class.
	It was a wonder of its age called the Parkway Gardens.
	But by the time she was old enough for school, that neighborhood had so deteriorated that the original settlers were getting out.
	And they were all black, right?
	And so what Michelle's mother did, and this was a Class C misdemeanor, she enrolled her in a school like a 15-minute drive away from her neighborhood.
	Because even though the neighborhood school was a brand-new, shiny school, the project kids were going there.
	and the mom didn't want Michelle and Craig, her brother, in with those kids.
	Understandable, actually. So they drive her down 15 minutes away to a neighborhood that had been Jewish but was rapidly transitioning.
	Enroll her in school there, and then two years later, they move down.
	There's black flight. They were fleeing Parkway Gardens for the same reason that white families were fleeing places like North Woodlawn in Chicago or South Shore, which is where Michelle ends up.
	And then when it came to high school, the Robinsons didn't want to send their children to the all-black area.
	High school two blocks away.
	So they sent Craig to a Catholic school, even though they're not Catholic.
	They had to pay for that. Marion had to take a second job to pay for him to avoid the local public school.
	And they sent Michelle like 90 minutes each way downtown to a magnet school.
	And that's classic.
	I mean, it's just that is what responsible parents do.
	Another woman who lived in that same neighborhood was Donda West in South Shore in this Chicago neighborhood.
	And her son goes, you know, he's 10 years old.
	He's out riding his bike, gets dumped by a bunch of black kids.
	They cut the tires of his bike, you know, and beat him up, send him home.
	And Donda West says, if they can do that to Kanye, we're getting out of here.
	She says in her book, she says, call it Black Flight, call it what you want.
	We're gone. This is Kanye West's mother.
	In my town...
	And I tell this story in the book because it's a very poignant story and it's so typical of what black families went through was a woman named Sissy Dugard was her She's one of eight children.
	Her father comes up in a great migration, hard-working guy, works at a foundry throughout the Depression, supports his eight children, takes them all to church, takes care of his ailing mother.
	Sissy grows up a really hard-working, God-fearing, church-going woman.
	She marries John Huston, a fellow named John Huston, whose family lived in my neighborhood.
	And they have their daughter, Whitney, right?
	Whitney Houston. And so in her memoir about Whitney Houston, Sissy talks about how they lived in this cozy little village.
	You know, it was an integrated village in Newark, and they loved it.
	Everyone was nice to each other.
	And then the crime started coming in.
	The drugs started coming in.
	And then she said, then the riots come in 1967.
	And she says, we've got to get out of here.
	Three years later, they moved to the suburbs.
	That was what happened, whether you're black, whether you're white, whether you're Asian, Hispanic, whatever.
	It's just that the white people were singled out and shamed for leaving.
	And they still bear that stigma.
	White flight, you know?
	Well, that's always been the case.
	You know, people have, going back to Jefferson, as I mention frequently, you know, he was not big on cities.
	He said they threatened the wealth, the health, and the liberty of mankind.
	And so what made it possible really was the car.
	And so you started seeing that happen a lot as people got out of the big cities and got into the suburbs.
	The urban planners really hate that.
	Oh, they hate it. Oh, they hate it with a passion.
	And I remember the guy who is the CEO of Lyft.
	He used to be an urban planner before he became the CEO of Lyft.
	And so he wrote a paper talking about how cars are the most evil invention of mankind.
	Cities were the best thing that was ever invented.
	It's like, what happened? How upside down and backwards that is.
	But that's the model. I think the thing that is interesting about your book, Untenable, is the fact that people understand this by the experience.
	They understand that they need to get out of these bad areas.
	They have the ability to do it now.
	And as I see these mega cities, the 15-minute cities, the smart cities, and all the rest of the stuff, their impulse is to try to concentrate us into these areas.
	But everybody, white and black, understand that that's not what they want.
	They have the ability to get out.
	And I think it's going to be, if we can get people to understand where this is headed, nobody's going to have it because nobody wants it.
	And we've seen people voting with their feet and they need to be able to understand where this is going.
	But I think it's a positive thing when you look at how...
	You had this flight out of the cities that you write about and untenable.
	I think that's a good thing because people already have that experience.
	They have that learning experience in them, and they know that they don't want to be packed into these cities.
	We just have to get them to understand where this is all headed, I think.
	No, you're entirely right.
	And we're seeing it all happen all over again.
	In my generation, we learned as adolescents.
	So, for instance, I commuted to high school in New York City.
	I won a scholarship to a New York City high school.
	And when it was time, I met my wife in graduate school at Purdue, and I loved Indiana.
	It was such a nice bucolic kind of place.
	And I said, when we were looking for jobs, I said, no big cities.
	I'm sorry. I want nothing to do with them.
	And here was the rub.
	This is about 1975.
	We're finishing graduate school.
	White males weren't employable in my field at all, period.
	We were getting letters. They were bragging about how we have no interest in you if you're white and male.
	So I had to follow my wife wherever she could get a job.
	We ended up in Kansas City because I needed a city big enough to employ me, but not so big that it was smotherous.
	You know, a city in which you could easily have two cars and not be an issue.
	Because I did not want anything to do with that Manhattan lifestyle, you know, that kind of New York, New Jersey style.
	And what happens is when you live in those areas, David, it almost forces you to think communistically.
	You know, you're always thinking collectively, you know, whether you're riding an elevator or taking a subway.
	And that's why those cities were such, not so much hotbeds of actual COVID, but hotbeds of COVID paranoia.
	And they welcomed almost that kind of draconian suppression of freedom and movement.
	I don't know how they did it.
	Because I just ignored COVID from day one.
	And I tried to lead a public protest on day one, actually.
	And then I found out that most of my friends were not quite as freedom-loving as I thought they were.
	Oh, yeah. The lockdown was the antithesis of everything this country is about.
	It's just amazing. And there was, obviously, nobody was dead from it, you know?
	It was all just projection.
	It was all based on computer models, which is very alarming when you look at the climate alarmism that they might use these computer models to lock us down again.
	But, you know... Yeah, I know, in fact, when...
	Well, I went on Facebook, and I have a fair amount of followers on Facebook, and I said, this is literally day one of the lockdown in Kansas City.
	And I said, I'm willing to be the public face of protests.
	Anyone wants to join me? I said, we're shutting down our economy, and between the states of Missouri and Kansas, there have been four deaths so far, right?
	This is crazy. Yeah.
	And then one of the commenters wrote in, I hope you're number five.
	I know. I know.
	That's the way they were thinking already.
	And, you know, part of that is you look at the big cities, and I think it's kind of a natural reaction that as people get packed together, it's kind of like the elevator phenomenon, right?
	You pack a bunch of people in an elevator, nobody wants to look at each other.
	You know, you look at the ceiling or you look at the floor.
	If you get a little bit of space there, you know, people start to relate to each other as human beings.
	But the more you pack people in, so I think that's kind of a general phenomenon about the cities.
	You know, they're like elevators. Yeah.
	Nobody wants to know anybody or anything.
	And so everybody, keep them at a distance.
	And if you can't keep them at a distance physically because you're packed into a city, you keep them at a distance socially.
	So they naturally fell into that social distancing thing.
	Right, exactly. And to your point earlier about what planners want to do, they want to put us in those situations.
	For about a bunch of years, maybe a dozen years or more, I, through a regional business magazine that I'm affiliated with, I moderated a monthly roundtable of CEOs in various industries.
	And a couple times a year, we do urban planning.
	And their model city, I mean, and they were openly expressing, why can't Kansas City be more like Portland?
	Right. That was the model.
	And I said, Portland's going too far.
	I said, in Portland, I said, the sign that the city's gone bad is that when they have one mine, when they have a second street mine, one mine the city can endure.
	When they have a second mine, then the city's in trouble.
	I should have said, when the first Antifa chapter shows up, you know, the city's in trouble.
	But Portland was the model.
	Ten years ago, I only visited Portland.
	Have you ever been to Portland? Oh, yeah.
	Yeah, the guy that rides a unicycle wearing a kilt playing bagpipes on fire.
	Yeah, that's Portland.
	I was there ten years ago, but then it was still a pretty charming, quirky, eccentric city.
	I distressed it, a city in which people would line up for two hours in advance to get a donut, but nonetheless, it was...
	That was a sign, I guess.
	And I was visiting a black friend of mine, which is even more curious because there's almost very few black people in Portland.
	And he was treated like a visiting sun god, you know, when he went to the neighborhood.
	And then it's self-destructed.
	Who could believe San Francisco would do what it did to itself?
	It was my favorite city.
	I've been here 15 times.
	You know, I wrote a book on California back called What Was the Matter with California?
	And I didn't include San Francisco as kind of a bright spot, I thought, you know, but it destroyed Los Angeles.
	You look at Portland and they have the signs up, you know, keep Portland weird.
	And they do the same thing in Austin.
	And that donut shop, the zombie donut shop, they open that up in Austin.
	It's like, we got to get out of here.
	That's a sign. And part of it was the voodoo donut shop.
	That's right, voodoo. That was what it was.
	Yeah, not zombie voodoo. Oh, it's a chain.
	That's even worse. It's not even unique to, you know.
	Yeah. I mean, when a Ben and Jerry's opens up in your neighborhood, you know it's time to leave.
	Right next to the zombie donut shop.
	You were talking about, of course, again, a lot of this comes down to transportation.
	And one of the things that I find interesting is the racist highways you talk about in your book.
	And the rationale for that is totally contradictory to what they want to do with the 15-minute cities, right?
	They're saying, well, the traffic is bypassing our neighborhood, so we've got to tear down these highways rather than building any more infrastructure.
	They want to tear down what was there to kind of preserve a pedestrian area.
	And at the same time, they're giving us this other thing.
	Well, we don't want any cars on the streets.
	We want people to be able to walk around or ride bicycles or whatever.
	But again, it's just, you know, the racist highway stands in stark contrast to everything else that they say they want in these new cities.
	Let me flash the book here.
	An untenable...
	I mean, it's one myth after another that I got to expose.
	Oddly, no one had written this book before.
	No one had interviewed... The people who fled the cities asked them why they fled.
	The city, you know, the highway planners built these highways to divide white and black neighborhoods, right?
	Yeah. Well, I lost my home, childhood home to a highway.
	We had to move because of a highway.
	It's I-280. And what I-280 did was cut the white northern half of my neighborhood, Roseville, off from the white southern half of my neighborhood, Roseville.
	One other interstate came through Newark at that time was I-78.
	And what that did is cut the white Jewish half of the neighborhood off and the white Jewish half of the southern part of the neighborhood.
	Two highways coming through a city that was 35% black, and both times they missed the black neighborhoods, right?
	I mean, if they're racist highway makers, they're crappy at their jobs.
	I mean, they missed. And in Kansas City, we have more freeway miles per capita than any city in the world, which makes it easy to live there.
	There is not a single highway that separates races or ethnicities.
	And 90% of the people displaced were white.
	And that's true across the nation.
	I looked nationwide to see if I could find the racist highway, David.
	Couldn't find one. Finally, the Biden administration identifies their first...
	You know, plan to take out a racist highway.
	And this racist highway simply goes through a black neighborhood that, you know, was built 50 years ago, 60 years ago.
	Who knows what the neighborhood was like then.
	But they went through white neighborhoods and went through black neighborhoods.
	And I read the early plans that took my house.
	And they were so, at that time, indifferent to what the havoc they were wrecking.
	You know, going right through viable neighborhoods, destroying them.
	Yeah. And the reason the motivator was, in a place like Newark especially, the dreamers and the schemers met, and the schemers got their way, 90% federal money to build a highway through your neighborhood, 90% federal money to demolish a slum and build a housing project.
	So you had the, in Newark, The Boyardo family, which was the model for the Soprano, as David Chase admits as much, they set up the Boyardo demolition company and the Boyardo construction company.
	And the city fathers are, you know, funneling, are giving them their contracts, taking their cut.
	In the meantime, we're getting big high-rises and we're getting highways, right?
	Right. And city, you know, they talk about public-private partnerships.
	This is the way they work in the real world.
	You know, you got scoundrels on both ends.
	You got both on the private and public ends.
	I mean, there were some people with good intentions, but they get run over very quickly.
	Well, it's kind of interesting, you know, you talk about crony capitalism, public-private partnerships, all the rest of this stuff, you know, gangsterism, all the rest.
	None of that changes, but it seems like what changes is that the goal at the time, you know, back in the 60s when they were doing this stuff, they wanted to build infrastructure.
	Now they want to tear it down.
	And so they will come out with the federal matching funds and they'll find the same people, you know, who will do the demolition, but then they don't build anything, you know?
	And that's the key about all this stuff that is so crazy.
	And at the center of it, the rationale for destroying things is racism.
	You know, that's really what the racist highways that I call him booty gay because I had trouble pronouncing his name.
	When he first appeared on the public scene.
	In fact, I did the audio book for Untenable.
	Because it's in large part a memoir.
	So I felt it was essential that I'd do it.
	And when I went back, I had some people review and they said, oh, you mispronounced Buttigieg.
	So I looked that one up.
	In other words, it costs about $100.
	It's about a $100 fix.
	I really hated to do it.
	I said, I don't care how to pronounce it.
	I said, Buttigieg.
	You know, it's Buttigieg. Buttigieg.
	Okay, Buttigieg. And I used the name half a dozen times.
	I would go and put Buttigieg back in place a half dozen times.
	I was crazy. And And he's unchallenged when he says these things, right?
	Yeah. Well, it is kind of interesting.
	You know, again, they're not interested.
	And of course, we could never have the interstate system that we have today.
	You know, they can't even fix potholes anymore.
	They become so dysfunctional.
	The only thing they can do is tear stuff up.
	And it costs more to tear the stuff up than it costs to build it in the first place.
	But again, it always comes back to racism is the excuse that they're going to use for that.
	It's pretty amazing. So your book came out July 4th.
	It's brand new. You've already got an audio book of it, Untenable, The True Story of White Ethnic Flight from America's City.
	But as we talk to you, it's about everybody's flight from the cities and how it is destroyed.
	That's right. It doesn't even have to be white. That's right.
	The only reason I use white in the title, David, and I say so in the book, is because only white people were shamed for leaving.
	And we were shamed by our betters, the people who fled before we did.
	You know what I mean? Right. It's like, you know, they said on the frontier, in his 19th century, they said, the further away you were from the frontier, the more sympathetic you were about Indians, right?
	Yeah. The closer up you are, you're dealing with a reality that they're not dealing with.
	Their mothers haven't been mugged.
	Their homes haven't been invaded.
	Yeah. You know, their little sister's hair hasn't been set on fire.
	And this one classic chapter of the book, and it's one of my favorites, because it's so revealing, is that...
	I read all the anti-racist stuff on White Flight, and they're horrible.
	I mean, they're vicious, attacking white people.
	And they have these grand conspiracy theories, they imagine, where white people in the cities are blockbusting and pushing black women in baby carriages and scaring people out, and they have their friends in the suburbs, you know.
	Moving these people out on highways built by federal racists, you know, and so on.
	It's crazy stuff, but these people are making millions of dollars doing it.
	Abraham Kendi, Tahaneh Coates, Robin D'Angelo.
	The white ones bother me most.
	They're just racketeers that got in on a racket I should have gotten in on.
	You know, Robin D'Angelo.
	Oh yeah, write fictional movies and stuff, you know.
	Yeah, it's amazing. So anyhow, I find this op-ed in New York Times from 2017.
	And this is so classic.
	This woman's name is Leah Boustan.
	She's a professor at Princeton.
	She's just written a book that has won top prize in some competition.
	And it's basically about white flight.
	It has some longer, more complicated title.
	And she begins her essay, her op-ed, by saying, you know, I imagine this, and this is early 2017, right after the election, which is 2016.
	She goes, I imagine Democratic strategists sitting around the room wondering how it was that Donald Trump won.
	And they said, was it economics or was it just pure racism?
	She goes, and approaching the subject of white flight, I begin with that same premise.
	Was it, you know, economic vulnerability or just pure racism?
	That's how she starts.
	And she concludes by saying...
	And I'm paraphrasing, but I'm very close.
	She goes, you know, what makes this job difficult is that few of these people left ever talked about why they left.
	And then she says, in the most condescending bit at all, is that I'm not sure they even knew why, right?
	Now, if classism...
	Whereas taboo at Princeton is racism.
	Leah Bustam would have been busted from professor to janitress.
	You know, it was that bad.
	But she wasn't.
	And so I laughed out loud when I read this.
	They don't know why. I just talked to 50 of them.
	They knew exactly why.
	So then is the comments.
	And I'm saying this is the New York Times.
	I'm not sure I want to read the comments.
	Probably people saying, oh, Leah, you weren't hard enough on these people, these scoundrels.
	Instead, she gets ambushed by her own readers.
	And person after person, Trenton, New Haven, Detroit, Philadelphia, Chicago, Milwaukee, Boston, all over the country, telling these incredible horror stories of why their neighborhoods became untenable.
	Very much like the stories I've been hearing.
	Everyone had a story.
	Very specific. And it usually involves, I didn't want to move.
	We loved our neighborhood at first.
	We loved our neighbors. Then, bang, bang, bang, bang.
	Enough is enough. It became untenable.
	And then several people commented, and very specifically, how could you possibly write a book about white flight and not talk about either crime or schools?
	Yeah, yeah. And she did.
	And I think, I hope that the reader responds.
	These are New York Times readers.
	They're not, you know, some yahoos like, you know, reading my blog.
	I mean, they're respectable people.
	But they unloaded on her, you know, and I excerpted a lot of their comments because they were so telling and so consistent.
	Yeah, usually the, especially in those publications, the comment section is oftentimes better than the article.
	Oh, yeah. Get right to the point.
	You know, people can understand what's happening.
	one of the reasons why they're shutting down social media as hard as they are because people uh have have can put two and two together they can think critically they have experience they can share with people and that that's a key thing but you know when we look at this again it's the the common experience of of the urban issue and i think everybody needs to understand this if you've experienced it you know uh but experience is a really expensive school and as they say only a fool will attend it's the only one that a fool will attend
	We don't want to necessarily experience that.
	And if we go down the path that they're planning to try to put everybody in cities, that's going to be an expensive experience for all of us.
	And so those people who have grown up outside of cities, that's where I am.
	I never lived in a city, but I could always see it when I got there and I understood the issues behind it.
	But people who have grown up in the country, people who have grown up in the suburbs need to understand there's a big target on us.
	They want to put us in those failed cities.
	Your book, Untenable, does a great job of showing how this has just run roughshod over everybody.
	As you point out, only attacking the white people for doing this.
	But everybody wants to get out of the cities.
	And it's these who want to trap everybody in the cities.
	Just amazing.
	Right.
	And they do it now.
	You know, in global warming, the global warming scare you were talking about.
	And totally on the same page with you on that one.
	That's a scam of aerosol.
	Speaking of rackets, it works hand in hand, right?
	Because you take people out of their cars, and then you force them into...
	I guess we have to live in these cities.
	That's right. If they had their way, the whole 15-minute city phenomenon would be their dream, right?
	Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah.
	You look at what they're doing in the Netherlands.
	I mean, they want to create this gigantic city of tens of millions of people, tri-state city.
	That's why they're kicking the farmers off of their land, because they want to just pack everybody.
	That's been a plan for a long time.
	They've been open about it.
	But of course, if you talk about it, it's a conspiracy theory.
	That's why your book telling, you know, talking about the experiences that people have had, how this has been proven to be a failure over, let's say 60 years or so, at least, you know, when you look at what has happened with this, it's got a proven track record.
	It's a horrible track record.
	And we don't want to be deceived into making this problem even bigger than it's been in the past.
	And the past has only affected, you know, the big cities, the Democrat-run cities, but they want to force this on everybody everywhere.
	That's the key thing about this.
	That's right. And, you know, what I did in the book, David, is to tell a human interest story.
	I told the story of my own family and my own friends so that I'm not just citing statistics, and I do a fair amount of social history in it, but There's a heartbeat at the core of these old villages that were organic.
	They weren't forced. They weren't contrived.
	They evolved out of the circumstances of people coming to America.
	And then they tried to I mean, not only to corrupt them, but to control them, you know, to control the dynamics within them, to prevent people from leaving, to shame them for leaving, you know, to contort the human experiences to fit a larger agenda.
	And a lot of people, as we saw when COVID broke out, that really surprised me.
	How quickly it fell along party lines.
	I expected young people to rebel against those kind of mandates.
	But instead, they were the sheepiest of the sheep.
	It was very disheartening.
	They've been conditioned, you know, when everything scary happens, they've been conditioned to lockdowns in their schools, and they even use that same terminology.
	I mean, they had been conditioning them for quite a while, and of course, you know, they've been practicing their germ games for two decades themselves.
	It was a real cynical movement.
	And so what would you say to people, having experienced all of this, and we know that this is what they want to do to us on steroids, they want to put this whole program on steroids and do it for everybody.
	What is the most effective way to push back against this?
	Would you say it's just... There's an excellent question, David, and there's one thing we can all do.
	And I got this sense when I was in this reparations debate last month, and that is...
	Stand up and tell the truth.
	Too many people are afraid to speak out.
	I get it. You work for a corporation.
	You know, even when I worked in business, which I did for, I worked in advertising for about 15 years, I approached my job this way.
	Today will be my last day in the job if I'm asked to do something I refuse to do, right?
	Or I have to put up with some BS I don't want to put up with.
	So I lived my life prepared to leave my job that day.
	I would say that as a general rule, you should live your life, or as the French said, always live on last year's income.
	So you have a year of savings behind you.
	So when you're asked to shut up or to do something horrible or to make decisions that are counter to justice or fair play, you can say, I'm not going to do that.
	You know? I'm not going into stupid DEI training.
	It's nonsense. Or if you're in the training, you stand up and say, this is crap.
	You know? I mean, you have to be able to do that.
	Once we do that, And a lot of people can.
	And you're right, the further you live from the city, the more freedom you have to speak out.
	So that's why I admire guys who do like what you do.
	You're on the front lines of telling the truth every day.
	And in fact, I wrote my book, my last book called Unmasking Obama.
	I celebrated what I call the Samizdat.
	Which is the Russian term for the underground press.
	And during the Soviet era, people communicated through the Samizdat.
	Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago was published through the Samizdat.
	There's a conservative American Samizdat.
	You're part of it. I'm part of it.
	And during the Obama years, every major story, and that's what I did in the book, was to highlight the truth-tellers.
	The people who broke the stories, who broke open scandals.
	And in every case, there were, you know, some blogger in Arizona or some guy in Philadelphia, you know, going through his, you know, the tapes of the, you know, Like the Obamacare debates or something.
	And then you'd see them push, push, push, push it up through the media until finally the media had to deal with it one way or another, even if it's just to kind of ignore it.
	Or even on social media, the people who are not doing the original research necessarily, you know, passing on information that they have seen.
	And as everybody starts to do it, you know, that's really kind of like the committees of correspondence.
	But you mentioned Samizdat and Solzhenitsyn and his idea, live not by lies, you know.
	And he was ready to pack it all in even when there was no alternative.
	You know, he was Soviet housing and Soviet jobs and everything.
	He'd go against the system. You're out of there.
	But he was determined, just like you pointed out, that he's not going to...
	If anyone wanted to take heart today, I would tell them to read...
	Solzhenitsyn's commencement address at Harvard in, I think it was 1977.
	They never asked him back after that one.
	But also, you know, when I do it, I'm telling people is they get their copy of Untenable, they post a picture of it with themselves on Facebook, and then they just share it with their friends, you know?
	Yes. Yes.
	And it's because...
	The sum is not works.
	I mean, we have to deal with the censors and the filters and all that stuff, but the reason they have those censors and filters is because the sum is not works.
	That's right. And that's why they're so desperate to openly now censor people.
	I mean, they own it.
	They don't even try to deny it anymore.
	Now that you've got the Supreme Court slapping Biden down, they say, well, you know, and even have people in the press.
	I never thought I would see the day When people in the press are going to cheer on censorship, they've become openly, open puppets of the regime, I'll call it.
	Yeah, I mean, you know, Walter Cronkite was something of a fraud, but the Walter Cronkite, we imagine, would be shaking his head watching the, you know, who's the Walter Cronkite?
	I don't even know who's the news anchors today, but there must be someone.
	You mean they're saying that out loud?
	You know, we're supposed to keep this quiet, Operation Mockingbird.
	Yeah, I went all those years keeping my political beliefs undercover, you know?
	Because he was a big leftist.
	But he did a reasonable job trying to conceal it.
	He's not Chuck Todd or who else?
	Joe in the morning.
	I can't remember his name anymore. Scarborough.
	Scarborough. They're open puppets and they have no shame.
	And the government has no shame to violate the First Amendment.
	And they're getting away with it. That's why now is the time where everybody needs to push back on this.
	They need to understand what is happening.
	Your book makes a great case.
	About what is truly the issue and the city thing.
	America's cities, and to look at the history, if we want to know where we're going, we have to understand the past.
	They always want to try to eradicate the past so they can control the future, another Orwellian technique.
	But we need to understand what has happened with the cities, how these same types of people have used that to oppress and to create crime and chaos for control.
	And if we understand our history of our cities, People are not going to as easily, I think, be fooled into this program that they're trying to impose on everybody.
	So it really is, it's a book about the past, but it really is about the future.
	That's right, and it's very important.
	Because what happened 60 years ago is happening again today, and we're facing the same...
	Yeah, and it's weaponized with technology as well.
	I mean, when you look at this and you look at their ability to observe and control movement, And then their ability to, if they get their CBDC stuff in, to be able to control what we spend.
	I mean, you know, we're looking at something.
	If we don't get wise to their game, we are looking at a kind of tyranny that mankind's never seen before, the kind of tools that these people have.
	Human nature doesn't change, but the technology has certainly changed.
	So we need to understand where we're coming from.
	Untenable, the true story of white ethnic flight from America's cities just came out 4th of July.
	By Jack Cashel.
	Thank you so much, Jack. Great talking to you.
	Hey, Dave, thanks for having me.
	It was a wonderful conversation.
	Keep up the good work, okay? Thank you.
	Thank you. Appreciate it. We're going to be right back, folks.
	Stay with us. Decoding
	the mainstream propaganda.
	It's the David Knight Show.
	Yeah, at the time we've got left, I want to finish up on some of this climate stuff, because it truly is amazing.
	You know, see these Hollywood elites, like I said, James Cameron, who tells us that we're all going to be underwater, like he likes to live his life.
	He's made 33 dives, I think, to the Titanic, and 17 of them as he was making the movie, but he's also got a $33 million dollar That he paid $4 million for 24 years ago, and he's seen a big increase in this.
	None of these elitists who will all kowtow before climate change, especially the Hollywood elitists.
	And yet, they don't believe this.
	He's going to be able to sell that, and he's going to probably sell it to somebody like him.
	He actually has already done a propaganda film using footage of wildfires, floods, hurricanes, drought, melting glaciers.
	A video said that felt like a major disaster film, warning Americans about the dangers of global warming.
	Narrated by Sigourney Weaver.
	Features actors like Jack Black and Don Cheadle.
	Eventually, Miami will be underwater.
	It's just a matter of when.
	And, of course, that doesn't stop them from going there.
	Is that supposed to make me want to stop global warming?
	Exactly. Yeah, you have...
	It's really amazing.
	But, you know, we talk about oceanfront property becoming ocean property.
	We've got Carnival Cruise Lines.
	Having, emitting more toxic fumes than all of Europe's cars.
	And even a significant amount.
	43% higher than all of the internal combustion engines, vehicles in Europe.
	Think about that. That's staggering.
	A staggering statistic.
	It came out of the European Federation for Transport and Environment.
	And so they said these gigantic cruise ships...
	Are using more.
	Just one company, as a matter of fact.
	Carnival Cruise ships.
	Just one company.
	Carnival Cruise. 43% higher emissions.
	And again, it's the emissions that's the big thing that we've got to control everywhere.
	43% higher than all internal combustion engines in Europe.
	So why didn't they start by banning the cruise ships?
	Because it's about control.
	It's not about the emissions.
	It's about what they can omit out of your life.
	To make you more easily controllable and dependent upon them.
	It doesn't help their agenda to stop people on cruise ships.
	So they're going to leave that alone.
	And they're going to come for your cars.
	The most polluting cruise ship operator was MSC Cruises, whose vessels emitted nearly as much sulfur as all of the 291 million cars in Europe.
	When looking at parent companies...
	As in the original 2019 report, the Carnival Corporation comes on top with the 63 ships under its control, emitting 43% more sulfur dioxide than all of Europe's cars in 2022.
	Just 63 of these cruise ships.
	Now, of course, these things are huge, but just 63 cruise ships...
	More than the tens of millions of cars in Europe.
	For cruise ship operators to achieve carbon neutral status, they said this could take decades.
	Oh, they're not worried about that.
	But they've got to get you under your car sometime within the next six to seven years.
	How many ways do we have to look at how fraudulent this is?
	I guess I laugh when I think about how many batteries it would take to run a cruise ship.
	And that's actually one of the things we're talking about.
	Wind power and batteries.
	Yeah, go back to sailing ships.
	But I don't think the battery is going to be a viable solution.
	Thank you for joining us.
	Have a good day. Let me tell you.
	The David Knight Show.
	You can listen to with your ears.
	You can even watch it by using your eyes.
	In fact, if you can hear me, that means you're listening to The David Knight Show right now.
	Yeah, good job.
	And you want to know something else?

▲