Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 25, 2023 - The David Knight Show

03:03:05

The David Knight Show - 07/25/2023

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	The End
	Free speech to free minds.
	So.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	As the clock strikes 13, it's Tuesday, the 25th of July.
	Year of our Lord, 2023.
	Well, today we have, I guess, the latest insult from Biden.
	They want to make canned foods expensive.
	It's not being justified by the environment.
	This is simply flat-out crony capitalism.
	But, of course, all of the environmental stuff...
	It's flat out crony capitalism as well.
	So it's essentially the same thing.
	They will never stop.
	They're going to come after your canned food.
	It's absolutely amazing.
	But we're going to begin by talking about a follow-up to the interview we had on Friday.
	Excellent interview about the new school order.
	And then the back and forth talking about what's going on with the FBI. We have an interview coming up in the third hour.
	With an FBI agent of 33 years talking about what has happened to the FBI and what, in his opinion, needs to be done about it.
	We'll be right back. Well, if you didn't catch it on Friday, we had an excellent interview with John Klaizak.
	His book, New School Order.
	It lays down all the connections.
	It lays down a historical trend line where you can see where the people who want to control, you know, our children control the future.
	In a sense, you know, Orwell kind of got it right.
	Those who control the past control the future.
	You know, we're going to control the past.
	But it's really those who control the children who control the future.
	And they understand that.
	And so we have to understand what these people want.
	Their B.F. Skinner approach to all of this, their public-private partnership, the idea that they want to create a global corporate governance.
	And of course that means getting to the kids and their minds.
	And so I think that we should be very suspicious of vouchers, of this being sold to you.
	We all know how corrupt The government school institutions are.
	And we all know, don't we, by now, don't we know that the government controls us with money?
	Federal money, state money.
	That's what I said, and I have been trying to drill home to people.
	Trump knows it, DeSantis knows it, Biden knows it, they all know it.
	Why don't we understand that when they want you to do something, they bribe you, and then they blackmail you, that if you don't keep doing it, they're going to pull the money away.
	That's the biggest game they've got going.
	And they all do it. Even Trump knowingly did it.
	People want to pretend that he had no knowledge and no involvement in the lockdowns and all the rest of this stuff, and yet he did.
	Because he was incentivizing it.
	And so we look at what is happening with education.
	And by the way, if you haven't seen that interview, please go back and look at it.
	Of course, we cut the interviews out.
	And put the interviews up separately on both our video channels as well as the podcast.
	And so you can find that interview standing on its own from Friday.
	New school order. In Arizona, Tom Horn.
	Now this is not the Tom Horn that we all know from West Carolina.
	It was played by Steve McQueen.
	Not that Tom Horne.
	This is another guy, Republican, who is now the supervisor of public instruction in Arizona.
	I think it's an elected office, superintendent of public instruction in Arizona.
	1.1 million public school students.
	And in an advertising campaign they've begun this summer, he is pushing...
	For people who are unhappy with a public school.
	Is there anybody who is happy with a public school?
	I don't know.
	He said, you can choose a private school and Arizona will help to pay for it.
	And of course, it's not just the book, New School Order, that John Kleisick wrote, but it's also, I've talked many times in the past to Mark Hall.
	He did an excellent documentary talking about one of the worst case examples of corruption and crony capitalism.
	The Gulenist schools that typically portray themselves in America so they can get the money.
	Fatala Gulen is an Islamic cleric who was working with Erdogan to move Turkey from a secular Islamic state to a religious Islamic state.
	They were allies and they became competitors.
	And if you go back and you look at the back and forth and the mass arrests that Erdogan did, but he also was, again, coming after Fatala Gulen because Fatala Gulen was strategically putting himself in place to come after Erdogan.
	The CIA helped Fatala Gulen come into America.
	He lives in a big compound in Pennsylvania.
	And it gets about a billion dollars a year in school subsidies from U.S. taxpayers.
	Most of it coming from Texas.
	And so it's a massive network.
	There's been a lot of allegations of criminal conduct.
	A lot of allegations from school teachers that are there, what they're actually doing.
	And every other place in the world, and he's had years ago when I first talked to Mark, and it's been several years now, we've talked over the interim, but I haven't gotten an update on how many total schools he has worldwide.
	But when we first talked, Fatala Gulen had about a thousand schools worldwide.
	And with the exception of the United States, they were all Islamic madrasas, pushing people into his specific Islamic sect, where he's the leader.
	But in Texas, you know, it has exploded, the number of schools that are there.
	So that documentary from Mark Hall, Killing Ed...
	That is available on some of the streaming services.
	It's out there. But again, that's another example of the worst case of these private school vouchers.
	But again, the new school order really lays out, going back to what Charlotte Iserby was talking about for a long time, how these corporations are working on this.
	When we look at $7,200 for every student, do they need that much money to educate a kid?
	I don't think so. We've got a lot of free stuff online.
	We've got libraries.
	Books are very cheap because nobody wants books anymore.
	I don't think you need that much money unless you've got corporations who want to make a lot of profit.
	But this is ultimately about corporate governance.
	It's about public-private partnerships.
	It's about world government.
	It's about transhumanism and all the rest of this stuff.
	That's where this is all headed.
	And it's a trap, quite frankly, folks.
	30 years ago, 35 years ago, I was working with the Libertarian Party.
	And we came up with it.
	It's like, we've got to do something about the schools, right?
	What do we do about the schools?
	Well, voucher systems.
	Yeah, but the problem is the government controls money.
	They're going to control what everybody gets, right?
	So our alternative to come up with it was we said, how about this?
	You say that education is the most important thing.
	I absolutely agree.
	And we said the same thing about health care.
	You say health care is very important? I absolutely agree.
	Let us take a full tax credit, not a deduction, but a full tax credit for any money that we spend on health care and education.
	Is that okay? Since you say that's the number one priority, We can more efficiently spend that than if we send it to you, you take a cut, and you send some of it back to us with strings attached and all the rest of the stuff.
	So let us have a tax credit on any money that we spend on ourselves, on our kids' education, on our health care, that type of thing.
	Well, we took it another step.
	We said, how about this?
	How about since North Carolina had an income tax?
	Still does. How about we give a tax credit to any individual who wants to give money to any other individual?
	So you've got a lot of poor kids out there.
	You've got a lot of single-parent homes and that type of thing.
	They need some financial help in many cases.
	In most cases, everybody could use some financial help.
	And so what if...
	Somebody says, well, I want to specifically give money to Joey over here for his education.
	Why shouldn't he be allowed to do that and deduct the money without there being some kind of government institution or some kind of corporate school or something like that?
	Why can't he just give the money to this poor kid, to a bunch of poor kids, as much as he wants?
	We've got to do something to get the government's control away from the money.
	And the other thing we told people, we said, well, if it's coming directly from an individual to somebody else, you know, that really kind of cuts the legs off of this argument that the Democrats want to make.
	Well, if you're going to give money, you're going to give vouchers and tuition tax credits to private religious schools.
	Well, then you're supporting that religion.
	It's like, no. That's not true, but let's just cut that argument off at the legs and say this is just coming from an individual to another person.
	And any rich person can give as many scholarships as they want and write off as much as they want, maybe make a limit as how much total they can deduct for that type of thing, but let it come directly from person to person.
	There's some really good help-share programs that are out there.
	There's a couple of them for Christians.
	There's another one for non-Christians.
	And with that, what they do is you just register with these people, and they get paid for matching people up, matching up needs.
	And if you have a...
	If you have a health issue, you know, they look at the paperwork that's there and say, okay, this is legitimate, and they send out to people.
	You just send them, you know, you send the person who needs the help with their medical bills, you send that directly to them.
	These people act as a clearinghouse, and they get a fee.
	It's very small.
	You know, it's typically, you know, a few hundred dollars a month.
	It's way less than health insurance.
	And they typically get like $200 or something like that.
	I forget what it is right now because it's been a long time since I've looked at it.
	But Karen does those bills.
	But, you know, it's that type of thing.
	And that's all that's really needed.
	Just some kind of a clearinghouse thing.
	You know, it's interesting.
	We have all these different ways that politicians can get money, but they make it really hard for people to get money with education.
	They want to run it through their fingers so they have control, so they have the strings in their hands.
	Warren is a Republican who won election last year promising conservative values.
	He's overseeing a pioneering effort in Arizona to offer private school subsidies known as school vouchers to all students.
	Tax credits for anyone, from anyone, is what I propose.
	Yeah, it was interesting when I ran for Congress in 1996.
	I actually got in the debates because it was...
	Virginia Fox, I think is her name.
	She had gotten elected in 1994 with a massive, you know, contract for America with Newt Gingrich.
	And so as a first-term Congresswoman, she did not want to get involved in a debate.
	It was a heavily Republican district anyway.
	And so they put up a sacrificial lamb on the Democrat side.
	NPR wanted to give him some publicity, so they arranged a debate with me and another third-party candidate from the Natural Law Party.
	The Natural Law Party was based on Transcendental Meditation Group that was up in the mountains of North Carolina.
	And they were called the Flying Swamis.
	They would sit on the floor and cross their legs, and they would get in this meditative state, and they would start hopping.
	And they could get really high, I guess, in both the physical and metaphorical sense.
	And so...
	First question of the debate went to her.
	I said, what is your position on vouchers?
	And she was like, she had no idea what that was even about.
	It was so embarrassing.
	Part of that clown show.
	Anyway, the first date to make every student, even those from wealthy families, eligible for a school voucher An average of about $7,200 per child annually.
	They said Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, and Utah approved universal programs this year.
	Indiana and Ohio expanded existing programs to nearly all students.
	And they say every family, they say, should be able to choose a school that is right for them, and every child should have access to high-quality education.
	Well, you need $7,200 because you've got to pay these corporations for their Zoom classes and, you know, all the rest of the stuff, which basically you don't really want to do that that much.
	You've got to be careful about how they use this.
	I'm not saying that it's all bad.
	There's online instruction that is good, but you've got to be careful about some of the stuff that's put out there and how they're mining your students.
	Again, going back to the interview, New School Order, he talks about how they use your kids for their big data AI stuff, right?
	But here's the bottom line.
	Do you think that with all the corruption that we see in the school systems, do you think...
	That creating vouchers and turning this over to private corporations, is that going to fix anything?
	Yeah, the government schools as an institution are hopelessly corrupt.
	They need to be shut down.
	Absolutely. But are the corporations going to be any better?
	I mean, are you going to have Bud Light sponsoring your curriculum?
	You know, we look at the CRT stuff, the LGBT stuff.
	Corporations don't get involved in that, do they?
	What about ESG? What about BlackRock?
	You don't think that this stuff is going to be just as easily run through these corporations and this private-public partnership?
	Of course it is. Here's the bottom line.
	Don't sell them your kids.
	Don't let them buy your kids.
	You know, as Esau, who sold his inheritance for a cup of porridge, what's the price for your kids?
	How much are you going to take for your kids to turn them over to these Skinner-esque behavioral psychologists manipulators who are going to mold them in the way they want?
	No. Your children are an inheritance from God.
	Treat them that way. Mr.
	Horn said, and of course they've got signs all over the Department of Education in Arizona, quote, empower parents.
	Parents, you are empowered.
	By God, if you follow Him, if that's your motivation for educating your kids, you are empowered.
	And there is no more power than they can give you about that.
	They can try to buy your kids.
	But you don't want the money from government.
	You want the power from God.
	The way they're going to do this, of course, and we talked about this again on Friday, and I mentioned it before.
	The key is accreditation.
	Well, we've got to know this is a legitimate school before we give them money.
	Well, what is a legitimate school?
	It's going to be a school where they, you know, a certain number of kids are going to get test scores or whatever.
	They're going to, for the accreditation, they're going to have a curriculum that they need to teach.
	And the curriculum is going to be there because it's going to be controlled by the tests.
	The competency tests, the graduation tests.
	So you're going to control what is taught through accreditation, through testing.
	That's the way that they control this.
	The government gives you the money, the government will control it.
	So they talked about some parents who said, well, we've got to get out of school.
	In one incident, said one parent, their third grade kid came home saying, Christopher Columbus, quote, did some bad things, unquote.
	Well, though they were not opposed to exploring moral complexities, the emphasis seemed off.
	Uh-huh, yeah. Maybe you should be the one who is exploring moral complexities with your children.
	Maybe you should be the one who is giving them guidance about sex instead of turning them over to groomers and Marxists.
	The Sodom-Go-Marxist crowd that wants your kids so badly, will come up with any kind of scheme, including private vouchers through conservative Republicans.
	And I said, well, that was one of many things, that was the main thing that he remembered.
	Christopher Columbus did some bad things.
	It made me think of Billy Mummy in that Twilight Zone episode.
	He's a bad man. He's a bad man.
	I'm going to wish him into the cornfield.
	Well, they wished Christopher Columbus into the cornfield a long time ago, haven't they?
	And everybody else.
	You know, Robert E. Lee, name it.
	They even want to dig up Robert E. Lee's horse at Washington and Lee University because they've marched through the institutions and now the leftists, the Marxists, the LGBT own Washington and Lee.
	They've got a chapel there where Robert E. Lee, it was George Washington University at the time.
	They renamed it in his honor.
	Everybody wanted to honor him north and south after the war.
	He is buried there in a mausoleum, and just outside of it, his horse, Traveler, is buried.
	They have plaques. They've removed the plaques.
	They actually want to remove the horse.
	Now, these liberals will beat a dead horse, literally, won't they, to get their points across.
	Mr. Horn said, rich people have always had the ability to choose private schools.
	It shouldn't be limited. Well, let me just say this.
	Most of the people that I know who homeschool are not rich monetarily.
	They're rich in heart for their kids.
	They're rich in spirit.
	That's It doesn't all boil down to money.
	That's the problem with traditional Republicans anyway.
	It's all about money for them.
	And they have been completely corrupted by the love of money, the root of all evil.
	So, coming up in the third hour, I have a very interesting interview today with Thomas J. Baker.
	He was an FBI agent for 33 years.
	And the title of his book is The Fall of the FBI, How a Once Great Agency Became a Threat to Democracy.
	Now, you know, I did not explore with him his idea that it was a once great agency.
	I think he's a man of good intention.
	And what he saw, what he did, what he was focused on, other people around him, I think they did the best they could to be law enforcement.
	And what he talks about is how everything was transformed with 9-11.
	And again, he believes the official story of 9-11.
	And you'll see in the interview, I recorded it yesterday afternoon for his schedule, but you'll see in the interview that I don't engage him on 9-11.
	I didn't do the interview so I could try to convince him about 9-11.
	I wanted to know what he has seen at the agency.
	And I wanted to get his take, and I wanted to hear what he had to say.
	So I don't debate him on 9-11.
	I don't debate him on Flight 800, you know, and these other things.
	And I don't debate him on Jager Hoover.
	You all know what I think about those things.
	You don't want to hear me saying that again.
	It just takes time away from him.
	And there's no point in that.
	I wanted to see what he had seen at the FBI. What his general idea is, is that everything changed at 9-11.
	In their interview, he says, yeah, they brought in Mueller a couple of days before 9-11.
	And within like three days, he had solved all this stuff because they did good crime work.
	And I said, yeah, it almost defies belief, doesn't it?
	That you could solve it that quickly.
	Just knew it, you know, right there from those IDs on the top of the pile.
	But the, uh, I didn't get into it that much.
	I was just a little bit sarcastic.
	And I don't know that he caught it.
	But the bottom line is that he said...
	That Mueller, who was brought in just before 9-11, and that 9-11 changed everything, and that Mueller changed it from a law enforcement agency to an intelligence agency.
	And he also talks about how the focus of the FBI has gone from actually catching criminals and prosecuting crime to intelligence and from criminals to citizens and criminalizing what citizens do.
	And so he's very critical of Christopher Wray and what has happened to the FBI and that type of thing.
	And I think it's an interesting interview.
	I hope you enjoy it coming up in the third hour.
	This article, can the FBI be trusted with the power of FISA? Well, he says no.
	And we talk a great deal about Section 702.
	And I think this article from World Magazine is interesting because they talk, they interview Brian Bertrand.
	They have some quotes from him, I should say.
	The president of CatholicVote.org wants to know why the FBI would consider churches to be a threat.
	Because earlier this year, An internal FBI memo leaked by a former employee at the Richmond, Virginia Bureau stated that, You see, there's good agents. My problem is...
	Because just as we saw good police officers and a lot of different police departments that said, I'm not going to enforce these social distancing orders.
	They're not law.
	I swore to uphold the Constitution.
	I'm not going to give people tickets for going to church.
	I'm not going to put masks on their faces or give them fines or arrest them because they don't have a mask on their face.
	What happened to those good law enforcement officers?
	They got purged out by a corrupt system.
	That's why I think we need to start all over with this.
	And just like the schools, understand that as the state schools are corrupt, we're still going to need teachers.
	And not every parent can't teach every subject.
	They just don't have the time.
	You know, you really can keep a couple of steps ahead of your kids in a subject that you're not familiar with.
	That's one of the nicest things about doing homeschooling, actually.
	You get to go back and follow and get the real education that you didn't have time to get or weren't allowed to get because they wanted to focus you on nonsense.
	Even when I went to school, it wasn't like it is today.
	But they would still misdirect us away from what I was interested in.
	But that's one of the nice things about it.
	But the bottom line is you're going to need good educators.
	You're going to need educators to fill in the gap.
	And you might have good educators who are going to be good math teachers.
	And maybe you take their classes online or something like that.
	And so if somebody's really good, they should be able to make a lot of money doing that.
	They should be able to make a lot of money if they're a good teacher, teaching under the close supervision of parents, a group of them.
	All of that is something that's there.
	And if you're a good law enforcement officer, if you're honest, you know, there's jobs for you in the sheriff's department, right?
	Local sheriff. That is elected.
	That is accountable to the citizens.
	Instead of an unelected bureaucracy like the police departments or the national police department like the FBI. Because you know, and this is one of the reasons why the founders of this country set this up this way.
	They know that if you have this unaccountable, unelected police department, especially if it's distant from the people, centrally located in Washington, guess what?
	It's going to start seeing the people as the other.
	And as soon as they see them as the other, it's not long before they become the other enemy.
	And that's where we are right now.
	And yet, in this article, the interview Steve Bradbury, who is now a distinguished fellow, With the Executive Vice President's office at the Heritage Foundation, the biggest conservative think tank.
	He was head of the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice during George W. Bush's second term.
	And he was there when they pushed in Section 702 in 2008.
	He helped to administer the legality to push this thing through.
	And he says Section 702 is vital to national security.
	Let me say, I absolutely, totally disagree with that.
	That couldn't be more wrong.
	Section 702 essentially weaponized the FISA. It emasculated FISA, and it took it over, and it redirected it at us.
	It was supposed to protect us from the government.
	Instead, it was Section 702.
	They neutered it and then used it as a weapon against us.
	And that's another thing that we'll be talking about, how the Five Eyes conspire to get over the domestic prohibitions in their countries.
	And the Five Eyes, of course, the English-speaking countries, the U.S., U.K., Canada, New Zealand, Australia, they're not allowed to spy on their own citizens.
	But, hey, you know, they can spy on foreign citizens and then they can give each other all the intelligence, that type of thing, right?
	I mean, it's just wicked the way they have manipulated this thing.
	Section 702 produces more than half of the content of the president's daily intelligence briefing.
	I can just imagine what it's like to give Biden a daily intelligence briefing or Lala Harris.
	Maybe that's where she learned how to spell AI. Some of the most valuable high-level intelligence gathered by the U.S. comes from Section 702, says George W. Bush's man, Stephen Bradley, now at the Heritage Institution.
	No, it weaponized the government against the American citizens.
	And it emasculated the FISA government.
	That was there to stop the government from spying on us.
	The NSA, the CIA spying on American citizens from their inception.
	That's why they had the Church Committee hearings, as I've said over and over again.
	It wasn't even about the assassinations and the coups and the heart attack guns and all the rest of the stuff.
	It was about them spying on American citizens.
	The end product of it was FISA. They completely neutralized that.
	Earlier this year, a FISA court released a report detailing how the FBI had used Section 702 powers in 2021 to improperly conduct 278,000 searches of a database of information collected.
	They included searches about participants in the January 6th Capitol riots, Black Lives Matter protesters, and even congressional campaigns.
	And what did they do about it? They did nothing about the Black Lives Matter, but they did everything about the January 6th stuff.
	This completely politicized.
	I do think there needs to be a broad rethinking of the powers that we have, said Birch of thecatholicvote.org.
	I think there has to be a broad rethinking of the powers that we have given to the federal government for the purpose of law enforcement.
	Many people now believe we have given the government too much power and that as a result of that, The number of abuses is only going to grow until they are reined in.
	Well, I agree with that 100%.
	100%.
	We're going to take a quick break, and when we come back, we're going to talk about some transhumanism.
	We also have, as I mentioned at the very beginning, it's just amazing how they are trying to destroy everything in our life and turn it over to a handful of corporations.
	Canned goods, just the latest example of this.
	We're going to take a break. Before we go to break, I just want to thank a couple of people who have donated yesterday on Zelle.
	Mona N. and David R. Thank you very much for that.
	And Robert on Cash App.
	And it was either LI or LJ on Subscribestar.
	Thank you very much. And I want to make an announcement.
	One of our... Very long-time loyal listeners, going way, way back for Love of the Road, has kindly offered to do matching funds for donations on Rockfin and Rumble, and he's spreading it out over five days.
	So he's going to match up to $200 each day from those platforms.
	For five days.
	So he'll be doing this while Gard and Tony are doing the show.
	We're going to be gone for about a week for my daughter's wedding, going back to Austin.
	To get us to appreciate the weather here more.
	And we'll be driving.
	That's one of the things we'll be talking about is plane travel.
	And what has happened to that is absolutely amazing.
	So we're going to be gone for a week.
	And so this will run through some of the time while I'm going through the end of the month.
	So thank you very much for Love of the Road.
	And we will be right back.
	The Common Man.
	The Common Man.
	They created common core to dumb down our children.
	They created common past to track and control us.
	Their commons project to make sure the commoners own nothing.
	And the communist future.
	They see the common man as simple, unsophisticated, ordinary.
	But each of us has worth and dignity created in the image of God.
	That is what we have in common.
	That is what they want to take away.
	Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation.
	They desire to know everything about us while they hide everything from us.
	It's time to turn that around and expose what they want to hide.
	Please share the information and links you'll find at thedavidknightshow.com.
	Thank you for listening.
	Thank you for sharing.
	If you can't support us financially, please keep us in your prayers.
	TheDavidKnightShow.com All right.
	Thank you for the tip on Rock Van Dystopia and Dissident.
	Thank you very much. He says, Jay Dyer said the best place to contact him regarding being a guest is on Twitter.
	Hopefully he comes on. He would be a great guest.
	Well, I'll try. I'm glad you told me that because I don't ever really look at my direct messages on Twitter.
	It's really bad. I've had people send me a message and I don't see it for...
	You know, nine months.
	Seriously. And I never look at DMs.
	I don't get them that much. So I'll try to do that.
	Let's talk a little bit about what is happening with transhumanism.
	This is an amazing technology that they're trying to accelerate.
	They're trying to create organic artificial intelligence.
	And this is coming from Breitbart, alum Barkare.
	And he points out the Australian government is funding scientists who are trying to get AI from organically grown brain cells.
	And, I mean, what could be...
	And this is coming from their intelligence agency as well, by the way.
	This is not just research science.
	No, this is coming from their spy people.
	You know, they're part of the Five Eyes.
	A team of scientists has won a $600,000 grant to continue their work merging human brain cells with artificial intelligence.
	A team has already enjoyed success making headlines last year for, quote, teaching, unquote, a cluster of brain cells in a petri dish to play pong.
	Well, there you go, right?
	We can grow brains and teach them to do tasks.
	And it's being funded by the Office of National Intelligence.
	They're, you know, they're spies.
	So nothing at all sinister about any of this stuff, is it?
	This is the most evil stuff.
	I mean, these people, they're just, I, quite frankly, I think the CIA, these five-eye institutions, I think they directly report to Satan.
	And I'm only being slightly sarcastic about that.
	I think these guys are as satanic as it comes.
	We got DARPA here doing that type of stuff, but you know, BARDA, but remember too, when we go back and we look at how important it was for them to establish control of us and surveillance of us over the internet, over social media, That in the late 1990s, as the circuitry started to achieve the necessary bandwidth to make the internet practical, remember the internet was the brainchild of a DARPA psychologist.
	And so once the technology got there to make it quick enough, you had the CIA. It's not above channeling money secretly to people.
	They came out openly to create venture capital firms.
	I've talked about this many times.
	You go back and look at the venture capital boards that were behind the creation of Google and Facebook and all these other companies.
	They had people from the NSA, they had people from the CIA, high-ranking officials from that.
	And then, of course, the CIA created its own venture capital firm, In-Q-Tel.
	Yeah, nothing to see here, right?
	Nothing sinister about any of this stuff.
	So again, the Office of National Intelligence, the spies, and Well, no, actually, they're not.
	It's not.
	It's not. It's always been about mind games, always been about, you know, LSD and drugs and mind reading and all the rest of this stuff, occultic stuff as well, right?
	From their inception, all of these different agencies.
	Drugs, sex like Jeffrey Epstein, blackmailing people.
	It's just amazing how evil they are.
	The true pharmakia. Melbourne-based startup Cortical Labs.
	Why don't you just call it Occasional Cortex?
	Oh, that's right. It's taken by AOC. The basic idea is to merge biology with artificial intelligence.
	One of a number of projects around the world that aims to merge human and machine intelligence.
	And of course, you know, $600,000, that's chump change.
	During the Obama administration, BRAIN Project, and that was their acronym, and I forget what all the different letters stood for.
	But there's so much financing and investing and all of this stuff, and just that one particular program, $200 million for the Brain Project, and just that one clip from Obama at the time.
	Here in the United States, we have Johns Hopkins.
	Again, the usual suspects, right?
	People always at the center of these pandemic games and everything from the very first one, Dark Winter.
	They're researching what they call organoid intelligence.
	O-I. So, in a sense, you can think of it, you know, we've got artificial intelligence, you know, coming from computer chips, silicon, and that type of thing.
	Or we can have organic intelligence coming from living cells.
	And I think this is a key reason for them to use this type of stuff.
	If they can find a way to harness it and to organize it, You know, it truly is amazing when you think of the processing power done by the human brain and the fact that you don't have heat and other things like that that are issues with really fast computer chips.
	So, OI. Organoid intelligence, or let's just say organic materials intelligence.
	Researchers hoping that organic materials produced in vitro, in a glass, known as organoids, can provide a more efficient alternative to silicon computer chips.
	Johns Hopkins researchers said they hoped that the technology could be used to help to cure neurological diseases like Alzheimer's.
	It's always about that. You know, these robots that are part of the DARPA thing, they're there to help shut down a nuclear reactor in case it goes crazy.
	Or they're there to help little old ladies cross the street.
	They're not about hunting you down with weapons in their arms, you know, as actual parts of their arms.
	They're not about that at all.
	Why would you be concerned about that?
	They're there to help you.
	They're from the government. They're there to help you.
	Yeah, you look at the Musk brain chip.
	It's being sold to us as...
	Well, you know, with this brain chip, we can actually allow the blind to see and the lame to walk, and they've already had one particular incident.
	I didn't really talk about it, but they had a man who had severed nerves in his spinal cord, and they essentially jumpered around it.
	And they merged it with AI, so AI could decode and encode the signals.
	You know, so they put this jumper thing there, they're monitoring it.
	And it's like, okay, think about doing this with your leg, or doing that with your leg.
	And they would look to see what kind of signals were being sent by his brain.
	And then they would team that with a computer that would decode those signals, and then encode them and transmit them, jumping around that severed point.
	So that he could walk again. You know, I was thinking about it this last Sunday when we were at church talking about the situation with a blind man.
	You know, I was blind, but now I can see.
	Amazing Grace, John Newton, referenced that.
	And I thought, you know, making blind people walk, letting people see, If this is sold to us as a religion, and of course science is sold to us as a religion, all my life it's been sold as a replacement for religion.
	It's been a challenge to religion, been presented as a challenge to religion since Darwin.
	Even though the early scientists, people like Francis Bacon, was a Christian who came up with a scientific method.
	Even though you had people like Isaac Newton and Maxwell who came up with the equations that actually defined the interaction, the relationship, the complementary relationships of magnetism and electricity, Maxwell's equations, they were all very strong Christians.
	They saw no conflict between real science and this other stuff.
	But there's certain scientists with the evolutionary track who have tried to challenge, on essentially an existential basis, things that can't be proven by science.
	You can't observe the beginning of the world.
	You can make inferences and you can have theories about what it is that you see, but that's what it is.
	They can't actually witness what happened.
	And they don't really, their conclusions don't really make sense from a logical standpoint.
	How do you get, you know, whenever you see a building or you see a car, you know it had a maker.
	You don't know that we have a maker.
	You look at us. We are so much more complicated than that.
	You don't see the hand of design in every living thing.
	How dishonest that is.
	How intellectually dishonest.
	And so, scientism has become a religion.
	Probably the best example of this is Fauciism, right?
	Pope Fauci. I am science, right?
	You criticize me, you're criticizing science.
	Well, you're not doing science. You show us your data.
	You're constantly changing without explanation what you're demanding people do.
	And so it has become something of religion.
	What if this religion, then, that people want to believe in, What if that is able to make the blind see and the lame to walk?
	Will people fall down and worship it even more?
	You know, you go back to Deuteronomy 13, and Moses said to the people at the time, there will be those who will come among you who will do miracles.
	And how do you understand that?
	He said, they will entice you to follow other gods, like Fauci or Darwin or whatever.
	He said, don't listen to them if that's what they're doing, even if they have a miracle.
	God is simply testing you.
	He said, listen to his voice.
	Listen to his word.
	Cling to him.
	And we better keep that in mind, because things are coming to a head very quickly.
	One of the things about AI, though, and this was put out by Brian Shohavi, healthimpact.com, at least a couple of months ago, I think.
	He was talking about the fact that this is now the third wave of artificial investing.
	Oh, it's the wave of the future.
	Everybody pour all your money into AI. And, of course, the other two, they didn't produce anything.
	With this, we've got the wonderful experience of chat GPT. That hallucinates as well as doing some useful things.
	And so this has been a big, big investment.
	And so Brian Shalhavi at healthimpact.com was saying, and I reported it when he wrote it.
	I thought it was a good take on this.
	Now look at these other times because I remember when that happened as well.
	That didn't get nearly the kind of attention that this does or the kind of investment that this did.
	But he says, you look at what's happening in the stock market.
	There is absolutely nothing going on in the stock market except for investing in artificial intelligence.
	And now J.P. Morgan is saying that.
	Finally. It's an AI-driven stock market bubble, says J.P. Morgan.
	They warned yesterday that stocks broad rally fueled by artificial intelligence intrigue could soon come tumbling down as the world's largest bank throws cold water on the AI frenzy, which has sent stocks surging, despite not yet materially which has sent stocks surging, despite not yet materially impacting most corporate bottom lines.
	I always saw this and even though, you know, you, you, uh, it may continue and may get bigger since there's nothing else that people see out there of any value except for artificial intelligence.
	all it takes is for a little bit of disillusionment about AI in terms of the speed at which it is delivering to collapse this market.
	We saw this back in 2000 when you saw the dot-com bust.
	Again, the late 1990s, government created all these venture capital firms where they were pouring money left and right into all these different things.
	I looked at it and I thought, well, what should I invest in?
	Should I invest in pets.com?
	The only one that really made it was Amazon out of all those different dot-coms.
	And I thought, well, you know, when you look at what happened with the gold rush in California and Alaska, the people who made the most money were the ones who sold the picks and shovels.
	So my investment strategy was to, I'll buy the companies that are making the switching equipment, JDS Uniphase and some other ones like that, and some of the companies like Intel and everything, but they all went down.
	They all went down when you had the dot-com bust.
	They all tanked. Lost my shirt because I couldn't wait out the rally for all this stuff.
	This rally, led by the largest tech companies, is indicative of an AI-driven bubble, says J.P. Morgan's chief markets strategist.
	As the hype surrounding the technology, quote, was triggered by the popularization of chatbots, That often fail in basic questions.
	Rather than on concrete evidence of AI-powered earnings growth, according to J.P. Morgan.
	And they said, now is a good entry point for commodities as an asset class.
	And so they're talking about all kinds of commodities.
	You know, getting back to the real world instead of the artificial virtual world.
	But of course, gold and silver are commodities that you can use to trade to get outside of the system.
	Yesterday, somebody said, well, what's going to happen if they got CBDC? Well, the point of gold and silver is to get outside of that system, where they make all these requirements for you to buy or sell.
	You have to be politically correct.
	So again, davidknight.gold will take you to Tony Ardobin and his wisewolf.gold.
	I highly recommend that you do something to make sure that you're going to be outside of this Prison, panopticon system that they want to desperately create.
	By the way, Spotify has raised their premium subscription price for millions.
	They got 200 million ad-free subscribers for the first time in over a decade, they've announced.
	And so they're going to go from $10 to $11.
	And you don't even get my show on their platform.
	What a rip-off!
	You don't even get the David Knight Show on Spotify.
	They're the only podcast place that has consistently and repeatedly censored me.
	Every time I've changed hosts of the podcast, they always have the set list that they put out.
	And Spotify is number two.
	Number one is iTunes. But Spotify has shut me down.
	Always shut me down.
	Maybe, maybe, you know, Joe Rogan is there and they pay him like $25 million a year.
	Maybe if I just push mushrooms and sex and violence, drugs, other things like that, maybe if I did that, you know, maybe they would...
	Just let me on. You don't have to pay me $25 million.
	You don't have to pay me $25. Just let me on.
	No, they won't do that.
	As a matter of fact, even where we are hosted on Spreaker, you know, when I look at the different podcasts that they feature, It's typically, you know, LGBT or even heterosexual sex.
	You know, let's just have some sex talk about this.
	That's what they want.
	They want people distracted and they want them uninformed.
	And so that's where they are.
	So, you know, you can subscribe to Spotify and pay them $11 a month.
	To not have the ads.
	Or, you know, if you want to, you can help us as well.
	There is, by the way, while we're talking about Spotify, big fight brewing between Donald Trump and his surrogates, He wants to get on with Joe Rogan in the worst way.
	And so I guess Roger Stone has decided that he's going to champion Donald Trump to get on there.
	So he's, you know, taunting Joe Rogan, calling him various things, which you've probably seen.
	Trump and his advisors are stuck on one particular idea to get attention, and that is an appearance on Rogan's podcast.
	Rogan on the Lex...
	Or a Friedman podcast said, I'm not a Trump supporter in any way, shape, or form.
	I've had the opportunity to have him on my show more than once.
	I've said no every time.
	I don't want to help him.
	I'm not interested in helping him.
	But, you know, Roger has, he went to the UFC fight where Trump was, and we talked about it at the time, you know, Trump went over to Joe Rogan, shook his hand, you know, won't let it go, just like he did with Macron.
	It's just so ridiculous.
	He's such a child.
	It's amazing.
	And not only that, but, you know, look at this.
	I can get this guy.
	He's a martial arts guy, and I can grab his hand, and I can really squeeze it.
	Oh, great, great.
	And Roger has decided that he wants to challenge him to a cage match.
	You know, Roger's like 70 years old.
	And so he's going on with Alex, talking about how he wants to challenge Rogan.
	Roger Stone would die in that match.
	This is from the news.
	I'm not just telling you this. I mean, the news is going on in this, yeah.
	The question is, would you pay money to watch Roger Stone?
	Murdered by Joe Rogan.
	It'd probably just be really depressing.
	It would be. I don't understand.
	I mean, here we go. We got Elon Musk and Zuckerberg.
	You know, they want to do a fight match.
	And so I guess Roger is, you know, Roger wants Roger versus Rogan.
	It's crazy. I don't understand this whole silly trial by combat.
	To be fair, though, he could have a really great catchphrase, prepare to get stoned.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Or he's going to be a rolling stone.
	I don't know. Once he got booted across the stage.
	I don't know. Is this masculinity?
	Is this really what masculinity is about?
	Is masculinity about, you know, Musk versus Zuckerberg and Rogan versus Roger?
	I guess where Jesus went wrong was he should have challenged Pontius Pilate to a cage match.
	Or maybe Barabbas.
	They could have fought it out.
	It's just silly. It's just a bunch of entertaining grifters.
	Not serious clowns.
	They're just clowns.
	It's amazing. Yeah, so let's not talk about any policies.
	Let's get Trump on Rogan, because, you know, he's an entertainer.
	He's a grifter. And then let's have, you know, we'll talk about how we can have fights with his subordinates to get him on, all the rest of the stuff.
	Well, they're fighting in the streets in Israel, and they're fighting over, and I thought this was kind of interesting, over limits on the Supreme Court.
	Now, I don't know, and I'm not interested in getting into all the details of what is happening in Israel.
	I'll just say that from 50,000 feet, the view is that they're saying that this is about judicial supremacy.
	And you have the The governing coalition, and it was hard for them to get a governing coalition.
	If you remember, you know, Netanyahu won the elections, but he, you know, he got the most number of votes, but he couldn't get past the 50% mark.
	You know, they have to always, with a multi-party parliamentary type of system, it's very, very rare for anybody to get 51% of the vote.
	So in order to get past the 50% mark, they arranged to have a coalition with various other parties.
	And so, this passed 64-0 in the Knesset, but it was because the opposition walked out.
	But the opposition didn't have the votes to overwrite it anyway.
	And then you got people on the outside, you see the headlines on Drudge Report, you know, moving up to a civil war, people rioting in the streets and so forth.
	There's probably a lot of things involved in this that I don't want to get into.
	But I think that when you look at the whole idea of judicial supremacy, and of course Biden has weighed in on it, which is unusual.
	Not for Biden, but you know, it is.
	He says, it's unfortunate the vote today took place with the slimmest possible majority.
	64 to nothing. So I don't know.
	Did they have 63 people walk out?
	I don't know. And a highly unusual step.
	Biden weighed in on the policy, said rushing through these changes without a broad consensus amounts to an erosion of democratic institutions, said the man who forced jabs on everybody.
	Get the jab or you're going to lose your job, you're going to get kicked out of the military and all the rest of this stuff.
	Yeah, we need to have, we don't want to erode democratic institutions, says Biden, who rules by executive order.
	Netanyahu and his allies call the measures reforms.
	They say they're required to balance the power between the courts, lawmakers, and the government.
	Other parts of the planned overhaul, which are not yet to be voted on by the Knesset, would give Netanyahu's coalition more control over the appointment of judges and would remove independent legal advisors from government ministries.
	So again, here we have a lot of judges that are appointed by the President.
	Perhaps that's not the situation there.
	They say the Supreme Court is the only check on the power of the Knesset and the government.
	Since the executive and legislative branches are always controlled by the same governing coalition, again, this is a parliamentary government rather than one that is there with the Constitution.
	We have the Constitution that has set up different competing branches of the government.
	They split power between the three branches of government in Washington, and then they split power between the federal government, the states, and the people.
	That's how concerned the founders of this country were about consolidation and centralization.
	And that's one of the reasons why I say get rid of the FBI and so many of these other agencies that are there.
	They're too centrally controlled.
	They're too consolidated. And that always leads to corruption and abuse.
	That much power consolidated into the hands of a few who rule at a distance the rest of the people.
	They don't live with us. They live in Washington, D.C. They live in this bubble.
	And so, you know, I've said for the longest time that there needs to be a check on judicial supremacy, but of course we also have, you know, the Congress that long ago both parties have decided that they were going to abdicate their authority to the bureaucracy, which all lives under the executive branch.
	And we're now ruled by bureaucratic rules, not by legislative laws.
	And so we have a policy now out of Washington, everything that we get, everything, is taxation without representation, since Congress has abdicated that authority.
	And we have regulation without representation.
	And then we have the unelected judiciary, which decides that if the Congress ever does anything with the law, They will shut it down, and that happens even at the state level.
	We have a state like here in Tennessee.
	Well, you're not going to mutilate minors.
	Oh, well, a Trump-appointed judge says, no, I'm going to stop that.
	I'm going to allow the mutilation of minors.
	He's a federal judge appointed by Trump.
	What do you do with this kind of stuff?
	Will you appeal to some other federal judges?
	Or do you exercise the powers that were reserved to the state under the 10th Amendment, the Constitution, that everybody, federal and state, references for their power?
	We'll be right back. You're
	listening to The David Knight Show.
	Well, I want to thank, on Rock Fan, Aaron Moss.
	Thank you very much for the tip.
	I appreciate that. It says, thank you to Love of the Road, who is, for Love of the Road, is going to be matching up to $200 a day for today and the next five days, a total of five days, including today.
	And I cannot thank him enough for doing this.
	And thank you to Aaron Moss.
	Thank you for chipping in there.
	He says, and to the Knight family, Thank you.
	Well, thank you, Aaron. I appreciate that.
	And on Rockfan, a Syrian girl, thank you very much for that.
	And she says, we'll be praying for God's blessing on your family, you and your family, your travel, and for a wonderful wedding and marriage for your daughter.
	Thank you so much. I really do appreciate the prayers, and they're needed with travel.
	It is... We just keep looking at the temperatures there.
	One of the apps that I have is like 106 every day of the week.
	Another one is not quite that high is what they're projecting.
	I don't know what it is. But it was weather like that in May last year when we moved.
	When my son and some people that we hired were putting all the stuff in the truck to move out here.
	It was over 100 degrees every single day.
	It was amazing. And on Rumble, Supra Fae, thank you very much.
	I appreciate that. And Supra Fae graciously did a matching thing, a couple of, matched the donations on here a couple of weeks ago.
	She says, plane travel is absolute madness these days.
	Oh, you read my mind.
	That's what I'm going to be talking about next.
	I was physically removed from a plane in 2020 for not wearing a mask.
	Wow. I had to get to work, Texas to Florida, so I bought the Supra.
	It takes longer, but it's worth it.
	Absolutely. Even with one of the last trips that I took, I assisted that I'd be allowed to drive instead of having to fly.
	I had to go to Washington to cover a Trump rally.
	And that was back in 2016.
	And I really didn't do any traveling after that for work.
	But usually there wasn't enough time.
	And so I absolutely agree with that.
	I said at the top of the show, I said, just take a look at what the Biden administration is trying to do to destroy our lives.
	And to essentially, you know, the rapid domestic decline.
	And we're going to talk about plane flights.
	I've got some amazing pictures to show you about comparing what is happening right now on planes to what we had a few decades ago.
	But before I do, we have the Commerce Department Under Biden, and the International Trade Commission are considering a petition that would impose tariffs of up to 300% on 10-plate steel.
	And what's that going to do?
	That's going to raise the price of canned goods.
	As a matter of fact, CivilDefenseManual.com, I can't reach it, I've got it too far over there, a couple of books, Put out by Jack Lawson.
	And some of the advice that he gives you for preparing, he says, just go out right now and start buying some canned goods.
	You don't need to have expensive, storable food or anything.
	Just go out and start, you know, on a regular basis, start accumulating canned goods for an emergency and that type of thing.
	And they last for a pretty long time.
	They don't last forever, but they last for a pretty long time.
	And it's very cheap.
	You can do it a little bit at a time.
	Just start storing them in your house, store them under your bed even, you know, if you want to do that.
	And maybe you better start doing it now because they're going to go up 300%.
	By the way, Civil Defense Manual, he's got great tips about everything.
	Real practical stuff about defending your home.
	Practical stuff about preparing for emergencies, preparing for war.
	Preparing for Civil War, any kind of unrest.
	He's got a lot of stuff there about how to feed yourself.
	And he's got some free stuff at the site, CivilDefenseManual.com, that will tell you a little bit about what you can do to make sure you've got an ongoing supply of water.
	And he also has a chapter there about nuclear war and what you can do to Increase your odds of survival if you're not in the immediate blast zone.
	But going back to the canned stuff that he wants to go up 300% on, a new set of tariffs on some steel imports that would increase food prices for consumers who are already reeling from the recent run of high inflation, writes Reason Magazine.
	The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission are considering a petition that would impose tariffs of up to 300% on tin plate steel, a key component in tin cans used to pack all kinds of food products.
	If the administration decides to implement those tariffs on imports from eight countries, it would be a blatantly protectionist maneuver aimed at benefiting a single American company.
	Just one company is left that does this.
	Ohio-based Cleveland Cliffs Incorporated requested the tariffs at the expense of consumers nationwide.
	Now, let's just say this.
	These are people who are friends of the big guy.
	And because Biden is not doing this to make America self-sufficient.
	Biden is not interested in that at all.
	That's not on his dance card.
	Not one of his things to make us...
	He wants to take us down in domestic decline, for sure.
	But when you look at this, again, this is coming from reason.
	And I disagree with reason and with Cato and the libertarian think tanks in terms of the way this country ought to be organized.
	They are for open trade without any tariffs at all.
	And I disagree.
	I think that for the taxes, I think taxes are too high.
	I think that you've got to reduce spending by a drastic amount.
	And Thomas Jefferson in his second inaugural address said that by eliminating useless offices...
	We were able to stop all internal taxation in the United States in my first term so that no farmer, no laborer, no mechanic knows the tax man.
	The federal government under Thomas Jefferson was 100% dependent on tariffs at the border.
	And that all got reversed about 110 years later by the Woodrow Wilson administration.
	As they created the Federal Reserve and the Internal Revenue Service, the income tax.
	And I think that for whatever levels of taxation we have, I think it would be better for us to collect them at the border and have the United States be an area that is free of internal taxes.
	And so... I agree with us.
	That's what made America strong.
	You know, we've got one company left now that is making this steel.
	The problem is, though, and it remains a problem, Is that Biden is not proposing changing the structure of our tax system.
	He's just proposing adding some more taxes to all canned goods.
	See, that's the difference.
	He's not going to cut down what the government is doing, all these unconstitutional, wasteful things that the government is doing.
	He's not going to cut any of that.
	He's not going to cut any of the internal taxes.
	But he's now going to start applying tariffs at the border.
	So it's a very different thing. Again, I disagree with Reason.
	I always disagreed with these people when they said, well, you know, we can...
	It's a good thing to trade with China.
	We need to have free trade with China.
	They will make the stuff much more cheaply than it can be made in America.
	What has happened with that? Well, we have hollowed out and eaten away our independence to the extent that we can't even sustain a military in the long run.
	We've become very high-tech in our military.
	And, you know, we are reliant on South Korea and Taiwan for these advanced computer chips.
	And then they are, in turn, reliant upon China for the raw materials, like germanium and other things like that.
	And so, again, this has bled us of wealth.
	It has bled us of independence.
	And you can't have liberty without independence.
	If you're going to be dependent on other people, you're going to become their slaves.
	And it was all sold at the very beginning in a very reprehensible way.
	The Chinese will work for us for nothing.
	Let's use that, right?
	Yeah, it's going to be slave labor.
	Who cares? Who cares?
	Everybody who is fighting over American slavery of 160 years ago, And now they don't want you to see the fact that our economy is based on slave labor.
	It's based on slave labor in China.
	It's based on slave labor in Africa.
	Kids who have to crawl into these cobalt mines and work all day.
	So you can get some rare earth minerals so that you can make your EVs and so forth.
	They don't care about slavery at all.
	And of course, most people don't want to think about what goes into those products.
	It's like you don't want to think about what goes into your sausage, or as Bismarck said, the laws and how they're created.
	You don't want to see how your EV is created either, do you?
	You don't want to see how those products at Walmart got to be so cheap.
	Well, I've seen how people live in China.
	I haven't been to Africa. I haven't seen that kind of misery.
	But all this stuff, this self-loathing about slavery in America that ended 160 years ago, It was put down because of Christian values.
	No, this is all used to attack Christian values and to attack the values of America today while you don't pay any attention to not just the slavery that is happening in China and in Africa, but the slavery that they want to impose on us with their panopticon system of constant surveillance and control.
	Yes, they want to enslave us.
	And if we stand there and stand aside and let all this stuff happen to these other people everywhere else and say, well, I just want the stuff that comes out of the back end of this, then we're no better than these people at the top who are trying to do this stuff to us either.
	So to raise prices, this is the Washington Post.
	Saying this will raise prices for low-income consumers in the name of helping the working class, but it's going to just help this one company.
	And that's exactly what is happening with the Green Agenda.
	You're raising the price of everything, lowering the standard of living for everyone so that a few companies can get obscenely rich.
	That's it. Consumer Brands Association, which represents more than 2,000 companies that use cans to sell their stuff, like Campbell's Soup, And other brands that stand to be harmed by the tariffs estimate that the proposed 300% import tax would add about 58 cents to the cost of an average canned food product.
	So hopefully they will organize and stop this.
	Who knows? Depends on how much this guy gives to Biden versus how much they give to Biden.
	Same type of thing that Trump did when he got RFK Jr.
	in as a negotiating chip to bid his subsidies from big pharmaceutical companies up at the very beginning.
	And as a result of the money that they gave Trump, He kicked out RFK Jr.
	and he brought in Alex Azar, the CEO of Eli Lilly.
	Consumers aren't the only ones to lose because the added costs from tariffs will be passed along to the entire supply chain, of course.
	A similar dynamic to what played out after Trump imposed tariffs on imported steel in 2018.
	That policy was supposed to protect American steel making jobs and promote domestic production, but the consequence was higher cost for steel consuming industries.
	As a result, every job that was quote-unquote saved by the tariffs cost consumers roughly $650,000, according to the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a trade-focused think tank.
	Well, let me just say this again.
	I think that taxes at the border would still be preferable to internal revenue and the IRS and all the rest of this stuff.
	But you have to reduce the size of government.
	And you have to get rid of the internal taxes for it to make sense.
	And there's going to be a period of adjustment.
	It would be a real big withdrawal pain.
	But we all know that there are plenty of people out there who would love to start a business if the government would just get out of the way.
	But these companies that are already in existence use government regulations to saw off the lower rungs of the ladder so that you can't climb up it.
	Yeah, our domestic decline, by the way, is really a picture of this, I think, is in travel.
	Just as Superfae was talking about what a hellacious experience it has become.
	To travel by plane.
	Here's a recent one that just happened, reported by the messenger.
	Babies screamed, adults vomited, four hours of hell trapped on a sweltering Delta plane.
	Say, many passengers, they talk primarily to one person, April Love.
	Her parents must have been big fans of Pat Boone.
	April Love.
	But what is interesting about this is the utter contempt shown by the people on the plane.
	for their passengers.
	Listen to this.
	She's a publicist.
	She spent last weekend in Las Vegas working the red carpet for a live taping of this year's stellar gospel music award.
	She boarded Delta flight 555 about 1:35 PM local time on Monday for a direct flight home from Vegas.
	And that's when relaxation went out the window.
	She was among the hapless group of passengers who ended up trapped on a plane with no air conditioning.
	It sat on the tarmac for at least four hours, no air conditioning, in a scorching 111 degree Vegas heat.
	And this is on the airport tarmac, you know, where...
	There's no shade. The tarmac is radiating the heat up to you as well.
	Going to magnify that air temperature of 111.
	The now notorious flight to nowhere turned into a horror show with panicky and eventually sick passengers, including some who fainted and had to be carried off the plane on gurneys.
	Love was seated midway through the plane next to the window where even a lowered shade could not begin to keep out sun's scorching heat.
	It got so hot that I had to stand up and move around, she told the messenger in a phone interview on Saturday.
	It was stifling.
	She's diabetic.
	And her medical supplies were tucked away in her luggage somewhere in the belly of the plane.
	And so she worried about it constantly.
	After two unbearable hours, the also sweaty flight attendants finally offered each passenger a cup that was half filled with water and a little bit of ice.
	She said that's when things started really getting ugly.
	Passengers had been told that the flight was delayed because the airline needed to bring in extra flight attendants.
	And then they were told that, quote, something on the plane needed to be fixed.
	But they continued to be trapped on the plane in the suffocating heat.
	Passengers became squirmier, sweatier, and sick as the plane became a human toaster.
	Babies screamed.
	Adults threw up.
	One passenger had an accident in their pants, she recounted.
	Things got so bad at one point, the pilot turned the plane and headed back to the gate for treatment of multiple medical emergencies.
	A flight attendant, who had fainted, was rolled away on a gurney.
	But once the plane returned to the gate, only certain people were allowed off the plane.
	This kind of arrogance is just amazing.
	And I've been trapped on nothing anywhere approaching this.
	But I've been trapped on a plane for a very, very, very long time as well.
	I hate what it has become.
	And the arrogance and the contempt of these people is something that is straight out of East Germany.
	And why is that?
	I've talked about this many times.
	The attitude that's inculcated by this authoritarian society that we are creating was seen before.
	I remember about a decade ago, there was a woman who, she was a Marxist.
	She loved communism. She was an American.
	She wanted to go to East Germany because she loved communism so much.
	And so she went there.
	The Stasi was very suspicious of her being an American.
	Nobody there could believe that an American would want to live under those kind of conditions.
	And I certainly understand.
	Out of her mind, absolutely.
	But anyway, she married an East German guy and was allowed to stay, but they were constantly spying on her.
	And she was surprised to find that the Stasi had massive amounts of information that all of her friends and neighbors were spying and reporting on her to the Stasi.
	She said everybody was so nice.
	I couldn't believe it. And she said, and everybody would be so nice when you would meet them in a casual environment.
	But the same people, your next-door neighbor, that is so nice to you, when you went to the butcher shop where they were, and they were there behind the counter, oh, they became the most authoritarian little bosses around there because everybody wanted to kick the A cat somewhere.
	You know, they were all living under this authoritarianism, and they all wanted to take it out on somebody or something.
	And so they would take it out.
	Your next-door neighbor, who's been so nice, would take it out on you if you went into the butcher shop.
	That's what's happening at the airports.
	It's being fed by this authoritarian cult that has taken over our country in the wake of their 9-11 that they orchestrated.
	So only certain people were allowed off the plane, even at that point in time.
	They said any of us whose flight was to Atlanta would have to pay for another flight if we got off.
	So we stayed even longer.
	It had been about four hours in the hot seat at this point, she said.
	Medics were then called on board to assist with sick patients.
	Three other people, besides the flight attendant, were taken away on gurneys.
	All passengers eventually disembarked about 7.30 p.m.
	that night and made their way back inside to the air conditioning.
	And then they were compensated with $15 food vouchers.
	$15 food vouchers!
	That's it! I mean, Could you even go to McDonald's at the airport since they charge everything for everything much more than that?
	They got hotel vouchers through text messages or via email, but the hotels for those vouchers had already been booked for the night.
	Love had her own issues to deal with, like trying to book a room, get some food or juice to offset her low blood sugar, and track down her luggage to get her insulin supplies.
	She was eventually able to leave Harry Reid International Airport that night at 1030, only to try to catch a few winks of sleep in a hotel room she'd booked.
	And to be back at the airport by 5 a.m.
	for a flight that left at 7.
	Got to be there two hours early.
	Isn't that nice? That flight was canceled by Delta.
	Delta. She finally caught a later flight back to Atlanta and made it home Tuesday evening.
	The flight home was ironically frigid.
	She said, I guess they were trying to make up for the last one.
	She said the only compensation she received from Delta...
	Was 20,000 miles in points.
	Hey, you want to fly with us again?
	Some credits, you can come back and fly with us again.
	She said that might get her from Atlanta to Pensacola, not very far, 20,000 miles on it.
	And of course, we have a reaction from Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, who called the situation shocking.
	Why, I never, I never.
	So let's talk about the seats even, the seats on the airlines.
	You think airline seats have gotten smaller?
	Well, they have. No, this isn't yet another examination of the knee defender or the right to recline or the right to defend against recliners.
	But in a hot debate over the defending knees during the last month, says this person who's riding for USA Today, I noticed that a few people, very few people, have asked why reclining seats are suddenly causing so much trouble.
	Simply put, has leg room or knee room decreased in recent years?
	Have seats gotten smaller?
	Have cabins gotten fuller?
	Well, the answer to all that is yes, yes, and yes.
	And so this person went back into the archives, used to work for Consumer Reports, and said, it's interesting that we have seat sizes going back to the 1980s.
	Back in 1985, said, as I went through this, what I found was quite surprising.
	First of all, in terms of the pitch of the seat, the distance in inches from a given point on one seat to the same point on the seat in the next row, Was indeed changed dramatically over the last 30 years.
	As indicated, all of the big three, American, Delta, United, now offer at least some aircraft with a seat pitch of only 30 inches in economy.
	In the past years, 31 or 32 inches were the absolute minimum, so they cut off 2 inches.
	That's a big deal. You know, we're talking about legroom.
	2 inches is a really big deal.
	What's more, the roomiest pitch offered by the Big Three in Southwest, which is 31 to 33 inches, are now tighter than they were at all four carriers in recent years by anywhere from 2 to 5 inches.
	That's really amazing. Think about the travel that you have with your seat, your car seat, you know, moving it back and forth.
	You know, that's like 5 inches.
	That's like, you know, from the closest you can get to the furthest back that you can get.
	That's a great deal.
	Spirit only offers 28 inches on some of the aircraft.
	But of course, the silver lining of that is that the seats don't recline.
	It's any consolation.
	And then there is the width.
	And this is really interesting because as the width is shrinking up dramatically, people's hips are getting wider and wider.
	So you're going to be shoehorned into these seats.
	The roomiest economy seats that you can book on the nation's four largest airlines are narrower than the tightest economy seats that were even available in the 1990s.
	So the widest seat that you can book is smaller than the narrowest in the 1990s.
	The worst seats today measure either 17 or 17.2 inches wide.
	When 19 inches was as small as you could get in the 1990s.
	In fact, even the widest seats for sale in economy today, from 17 to 18.5 inches, still would not have even been offered several years ago.
	When you go to premium, you get up to 21 inches.
	Well, there you go. But it's four inches wider in premium than it is back in the other stuff.
	But, of course, it's a lot of money, fly premium.
	Last year, European aircraft maker Airbus suggested all airline seats be at least 18 inches wide.
	But the U.S. trade organizations rejected that.
	And then when you look at the demographics moving in the opposite direction, they said, yeah, the United States has ranked number one in terms of hip size.
	20.6 inches.
	So think about that. Germany is 19.6.
	Britain is 19.1.
	Go to the other extreme.
	Japan and China are under 16 inches.
	15.9 and China is 15.6.
	But we are 20.6.
	5 inches wider than typical Chinese hip size.
	And so our hips have grown to 20 inches, 20.5 inches, but the seats have shrunk to 17 inches wide.
	And then there's load factors and leg room and all the rest of this stuff.
	And, you know, they're flying.
	It used to be about 70% occupancy.
	Now it's in the high 80s, which means that a lot of flights are 100% booked.
	You've got knee room that is there.
	A new torture chamber, as some of them have pointed out.
	Another article, this one from the Wall Street Journal.
	Passengers have flooded the FAA with complaints about narrow seats and also about lacking legroom.
	And so they talked to a couple of people who are 6'6 or 6'5 or something like that.
	And they said it's absolute torture in these planes.
	And I understand what that was like. In 1983, when we were in the process of moving to North Carolina, I was working for Texas Instruments at the time in Houston, And I wanted to get back east, and so I had several interviews that were set up, and we wound up working in Research Triangle Park.
	They flew us up from Tampa, where we were interviewing, and we went through Atlanta, and on that stop, the University of North Carolina basketball team, which at the time had Michael Jordan on it, and I had absolutely no idea who he was.
	But, you know, this is their ACC tournament in Atlanta.
	And they were the favored picks.
	And they unexpectedly lost.
	And so they got put on the plane with us.
	And had to be put on at the last minute.
	So there weren't any seats available for them up in first class where they had more leg room.
	And all these guys were like 6'6 or much more, right?
	And so...
	We all moved around and reshuffled so they could have the aisle seats.
	And their legs were all over the aisle.
	And the flight attendants were crawling all over their legs to get everything to everybody.
	And, uh, I, I moved to care and I separated so they could do that kind of stuff.
	I get, get them on the aisle seats.
	And, uh, I went back to the back and there was a guy there goes, Oh, that's Michael Jordan.
	I said, who's he? And he says, Oh, this guy's going to make millions.
	You know, he's, I said, okay, whatever, you know, but, uh, he was, uh, Karen was setting, uh, uh, I think next to, uh, Michael Jordan or right across from him.
	And the stewardess, as I said, were climbing over everybody's legs.
	And there was something about coffee or something.
	And she said, wait, can you, as the stewardess started to leave, she said, oh, wait, I've got to get this.
	And the stewardess turns around rapidly and trips over the legs and spills all the coffee on Michael Jordan, who's in a suit.
	And hot coffee.
	And he was so nice about it.
	Really first class about it.
	He wasn't first class. He was in tourist class.
	But he was first class in the way that he handled it.
	And Taryn felt so bad about it.
	And he was very nice.
	She later, there in North Carolina, taught his brother in a corporate education class.
	And he was a real nice guy as well.
	But You know, when you look at situations like that, this is what is happening all the time to these people.
	That tournament, by the way, we found out that everybody in North Carolina was absolutely crazy about March Madness.
	This is, you know, I never paid any attention to it.
	That was the year that Jim Valvano and his NC State team, they're crosstown rivals, They were the Cinderella team that wasn't expected to win and they took it all the way.
	The realtor that we were lined up to talk to that my The guy I interviewed with lined us up to have a retailer show us, a realtor show us the different houses.
	She did not want to leave the car.
	She's so glued to the radio program.
	What was going on with the game?
	We felt really bad about it.
	But anyway, it was a real big deal there.
	Basketball, the Research Triangle Park area, it's got UNC, Chapel Hill, Duke and NC State are the three corners of that Research Triangle Park thing, and they are absolutely crazy about basketball.
	It is truly amazing.
	But, you know, things have gotten a lot worse.
	That was in 1983. I can't imagine what it's like now for these people to fly.
	And if you look at how our lifestyle has gone down, how we have gone into domestic decline, just take a look at this.
	This is pictures of a plane.
	This is Scandinavian Airlines.
	And this is back in...
	This article is from The Mind Circle.
	We found this. Vintage photos from Scandinavian Airlines.
	Archive the glorious past of airline food.
	But look at all this. Instead of having three seats going across, they've got two seats going across.
	And look at what this guy's carving.
	It is amazing. You know, they bring out this carving table with meat and all the rest of this stuff.
	Here's another one. Look at the size of that leg.
	It looks like something for Fred Flintstone, you know?
	Put that on the side.
	And here's another one.
	Another cart where they're carving everything.
	It's like a smorgasbord right there.
	And look at how everybody is dressed, too.
	You know, there's people in suits and ties as they travel.
	They're not in pajamas.
	I mean, we're dressing like we live in a communist country now.
	You know, we used to joke about how the poor people in China dressed in pajamas all the time.
	We do that voluntarily. And so you look at the way that people used to travel.
	Finally, this one.
	Look at the amount of space between these seats.
	He's actually rolling a big table, for those of you who are listening on audio.
	He's got a massive table filled with all types of food.
	And the airlines look at this and say, we could set another five or six seats in there.
	There's absolutely no way you could roll this through any of the airplanes right now.
	This is the way that we used to live.
	And just look at this with a train car.
	This is a train car, American train car, in the late 1940s, early 1950s.
	You know, this is, Karen saw this on social media and she goes, oh, I remember traveling on the train from New York to Florida, and it was just like that, even when we were kids.
	People used to, I don't know, we have no self-respect anymore.
	Everything has declined in our society.
	You go back and you look at the food options that they had on this thing.
	It's not just that it was astounding to look at it and the size of it.
	But they were also serving them caviar and lobster, a whole leg of lamb, and all the rest of this stuff.
	1969. They had an in-flight chef.
	And he's giving them, you know, rye bread, fish, cheese, caviar, all this stuff.
	And, you know, it's...
	And had a knife, by the way.
	They point that out. And it says, which is now strictly not allowed on planes for obvious reasons.
	What is the obvious reason that we don't have knives on planes?
	Well, it's because we've become degenerate monsters in our society.
	Nobody can be trusted with a knife.
	Why is that? You know, what does it matter with our society?
	Oh, you can't be trusted with knives.
	You can't be trusted with guns. You've got to take them away from you.
	Why is that happening?
	Well, again, you know, we dress like bums.
	We act like monsters because we have pushed God out of our society.
	It's just that simple. Just that simple.
	Yeah, a few times a year now, you see stories.
	A woman kicked off plane for wearing an inappropriate outfit.
	She's like, I don't understand why they would kick me off.
	It's like, because you're half naked.
	Because you're half naked.
	Have some self-respect or respect for the people around you.
	That's true. Absolutely.
	And then one more picture of this.
	Look at this. Let's see.
	Where did it go? I guess I don't have that in here.
	There was one of a sleeper car.
	A sleeper in the, like a train.
	In the 1950s, on this DC-6 airline, they actually have a mother and her child, and they're in like a bunk bed scenario, like you used to see on the trains.
	And the stewardess, flight attendant, is handing them breakfast in bed.
	Oh yeah, we're a long way from that, aren't we?
	We'll be right back.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Common again. You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	Alright, welcome back.
	On Rumble, Bianca Zombie says, quote, import the third world, become the third world.
	Yeah, that's the plan. That is the plan.
	Absolutely is. Let's take a quick look at politics.
	I hate to get into this.
	I've got so much more interesting stuff to talk about, but everybody wants to hear it.
	So let's talk a little bit about it.
	And let me offend some more people with my take on what is happening with politics.
	RFK Jr. It's kind of interesting to see what happened.
	You know, we had on Thursday, he goes before Congress to talk about censorship.
	Republicans brought him in there.
	Democrats didn't like that.
	Democrats love censorship.
	And so they doubled down, openly owning it.
	And attacking him, and that was Thursday.
	By Saturday, you had op-ed pieces coming out on the Hill saying, well, the Democrats had decided that they were going to ignore him, but now they're going to attack him.
	And then on Sunday, he had an interview on Fox News, and he was talking to Maria Bartiromo, and it's the first time that he was critical of RFK Jr., She asked him about Biden's alleged corruption.
	And when first asked about it, he said, as he has on other occasions, quote, I have avoided criticizing the president because I'm trying to bring people together.
	Then she followed up and said, but corruption is corruption, isn't it?
	And he says, but you're right.
	And I think the issues that are now coming up are worrying enough that we need a real investigation of what happened.
	These revelations about Burisma, which is a notoriously corrupt company, paid out $10 million to Hunter and his dad.
	If that's true, then that is really troubling, and I think that needs to be investigated.
	Well, of course, we've had people like Bill Gates in the past have said things like, Ukraine is the most corrupt country on Earth.
	He would know because he's probably bribed many people there.
	It was pretty easy to get what I wanted out of Ukraine.
	But... In these congressional hearings about censorship, it was truly amazing just to see how proudly the Democrats wear their authoritarian clothing.
	Isn't it? I mean, they don't try to hide it.
	They're out of the closet about all this stuff.
	So again, he goes there Thursday.
	They attack him. He does a great job of defending himself and defending free speech.
	And then on Saturday, we're coming after him.
	They announce... Democrats, quote, put JFK Jr.
	on blast in a change of strategy.
	That came out on the Hill on Saturday.
	Then on Sunday, he says, well, you know, maybe we ought to look at these allegations of corruption because they're very serious allegations.
	So, they thought they could shadow ban him.
	And then on CNN, you have Jim Acosta talking to Larry Sabato, who is a political science professor, I think, at the University of Virginia.
	And Jim Acosta says, RFK Jr.
	has not been censored.
	He's been able to say pretty much everything he wants, every outlandish theory.
	I don't know why he says he's being censored.
	Well, because he has been censored.
	He's been kicked off of social media in the past.
	He's not allowed on CNN. They are the ones who are censoring him.
	I don't know why he says he's...
	It's so funny you would say that.
	Going back to Martin Short.
	It's so funny you would say that. I don't know why you would say that.
	I mean, look at how often you've been on my network here.
	Oh, that's right. Never. Yeah.
	They tried shadow banning him.
	And then Larry Sabato says this.
	He says, Republicans are participating in the misinformation and the disinformation spread because they think it will benefit them politically.
	Both their nominee for president and probably their own re-election races.
	Well, you know, one of the things that RFK Jr.
	said was he said they even created a new word called malinformation.
	They hate every kind of information, right?
	It's either disinformation, misinformation, malinformation, but don't have any information.
	We should call their approach of total censorship and control by the central government through its corporate fascist partners, I think we should call it Dim-formation.
	Dim-formation. Just pull it all together.
	You know, the misinformation, the disinformation, Democrats who hate information.
	Just pull it all together and call it dim-formation.
	Because they want dim-witted people who have no information.
	That's the Democrat constituency.
	Hateful, authoritarian, tyrannical, Marxist people who don't want you to have any information.
	Dim-formation.
	Dim-formation. Sabato said, you know, normally when you come across someone like RFK Jr., you should just feel sympathy for them and then ignore them.
	By all means, if you're a Democrat who has dimformation, you do not want to engage this person.
	You're going to lose big time.
	Don't debate them. Yeah, just ignore them.
	You have nothing to say.
	And that's what we see, isn't it?
	You know, when you go and you try to engage these people at their street protests and everything, tell me what your grievance is.
	You're racist, racist, racist!
	They just start shouting that, right?
	They have nothing to say.
	When Karen was protesting the abortion clinic, my daughter was there, and they had signs that said, stop, black, genocide, and the Antifa people came up.
	First time I'd seen Antifa people.
	And they showed up with black signs.
	It said nothing.
	They had nothing to say.
	And they showed up with black signs.
	And they stood in front of Karen.
	You know, she's on the street with her sign.
	And they stood in front of her with that sign.
	So Karen moves her sign down.
	They go down. She moves her sign up.
	They go up. You know, down and up, down and up.
	And so there's some calisthenics there on the side of the road.
	But they have nothing to say.
	They just want to shut you up.
	And boy, if that isn't the picture of everything that's happened over the last decade with Antifa and these people, the Democrats, social media, all of it, that's the game plan.
	They've got nothing to say because they can't win an argument.
	The facts are not on their side.
	God's not on their side.
	Morality and ethics are not on their side.
	The Constitution's not on their side.
	But they're going to shut you up with their black signs.
	Regarding the allegations spreading like wildfire throughout the Democrat politics and the media, RFK did not make any anti-Semitic comments, says this article on American Thinker.
	Look, I don't really care about the ethnic aspects of what he had to say.
	I do have a big problem with what RFK Jr.
	said, because there is implicit in that a foundational lie.
	The idea that there was a pandemic.
	The idea that there was a virus.
	And perhaps an engineered virus.
	Let me tell you. The bioweapon, let me say it again.
	I've said it over and over again.
	I've been saying it for years. The bioweapon is the vaccine.
	It's not something that came out of Wuhan.
	It didn't come from Fauci and all the rest of this stuff.
	And, oh, wow, just saw this.
	Trav says, breaking basketball player LeBron James' son, Bronny James, who's 18, suffers cardiac arrest.
	During a USC basketball workout, says the New York Post.
	Nothing unusual about that, right?
	Nothing to see here, just move on.
	I'm so sorry to hear that.
	But, you know, big pusher of the vaccine, LeBron James.
	Wasn't he the one who was, I think, wasn't...
	First time LeBron's James got involved in some kind of political thing or something, I was at Infowars, and I just called him James LeBron.
	I thought... And during the break, the guys come out.
	It's like, no, no, no. LeBron is his first name.
	He's like, oh, okay, whatever.
	But I don't follow sports at all.
	I didn't know where Michael Jordan was.
	But, yeah, he was a big vaccine proponent.
	And I remember he went to war with another basketball player who was up in New York, and they wouldn't let him play if he didn't get vaccinated at home games and stuff like that.
	He went to war with him over that.
	So I'm sure his son was vaccinated.
	And let me just say, that is the bioweapon.
	And when you talk about Wuhan and you talk about the lab and you talk about Fauci and all the rest of this stuff, gain-of-function needs to be shut down before they get something.
	They didn't have anything.
	They didn't have anything.
	What killed people, and this is what bothers me about RFK Jr.
	getting into this. First of all, it was just careless talk, you know, talking about this stuff.
	But they killed people with their hospital protocols.
	They kill people by denying them any treatment when they had respiratory illness.
	Then when they brought them back in, they put them on ventilators and killed them with that.
	They killed them with do not resuscitate orders.
	They killed them with remdesivir.
	They killed them with lying statistics, blaming everything on COVID. I'll never forget walking out one day and I saw up on the monitor.
	You had early days of this.
	You had Mike Adams. I had the chart up there from the CDC said, look at this.
	We got more people dying of COVID than from heart attack and from cancer.
	It's like, are you seriously going to sell the lying statistics from CDC to sell food, storable food?
	What a pathetic low they sunk to.
	And of course, it was record profits for Alex, as we found out with the lawsuit.
	Record profits, but it wasn't enough for 2020.
	He had to fleece people with the January the 6th lies as well.
	What a year that was.
	It was amazing. But then if that didn't get them, they got them with remdesivir.
	Now, the bioweapon is the Trump shot, and the Trump shot and the bioweapon needs to be shut down, and then we need to investigate these murders.
	Stop talking about the lab.
	Rand Paul, RFK Jr.
	I can't believe these people are still talking about the lab.
	And you still got 18-year-olds dropping dead.
	18-year-old athletes dropping dead.
	It looks like vaccination was a requirement to go to USC up until May of this year.
	Yeah. Oh, yeah, sure.
	Well, his daddy probably wanted him to get it as well, right?
	It's just amazing. He was released from the hospital.
	Oh, so he didn't die. He didn't die, but he was in intensive care.
	Yeah, an 18-year-old, cardiac arrest.
	And I remember when they first started having these athletes, young athletes, one in particular, they take them to the hospital.
	He has cardiac arrest, and what do they do?
	They put a face mask on him.
	See, I'm telling you, they kill people at the hospital deliberately with this stuff.
	Well, you know, one of the things that we're going to talk about in the interview is how the FBI has just gone off the wall.
	And they're still talking about this.
	And the IRS agent who was there says, you know, it's not just the income tax stuff.
	It's not just the gun violations.
	But it's the Foreign Agent Registration Act, the FARA. And we told them about all this stuff.
	And even though they've swept away these things with misdemeanors after a five-year investigation, there's still room for a special counsel to look at this FARA, the FARA stuff.
	And then we have Chuck Grassley revealing documents that the FBI knew about this stuff.
	They memorialized the fact that they knew about this stuff in June of 2020.
	And, of course, nobody did anything about it.
	We knew that this was happening for years.
	We knew about this.
	We knew about it for years.
	We talked about it for years. And I kept saying, you know, they've got to...
	Come after this instead of waiting until the last minute.
	And that's what they did. New York Post, you know, mouthpiece for the Republican Party, waited until the middle of October.
	Maybe that's when the Republicans decided that they would leak it to them.
	I don't know. Waited until the middle of October for an October surprise.
	Well, guess what? It was too little, too late.
	Should have gone to jail, should have been investigated under the Trump administration.
	They were a little bit too clever, thinking that they were going to put this thing out at the last minute and get something from it.
	So, that's where we are.
	Let's take a quick look at what is happening with Trump in the January 6th investigation.
	Clear the decks of this, and we can talk about some more important things.
	One of the ways that this is moving right now, you're seeing a lot of articles you had, as I pointed out, Chris Christie over the weekend.
	He said, Donald Trump told me to my face that he didn't think he was going to win.
	And now you've got a meeting going back to February 2020 in the Oval Office.
	You've got four people have talked to Jack Smith, the special counsel for this, saying that at that meeting Trump was so happy With the election reforms that were being done, they were going to expand the use of paper ballots, they were going to support security audits of vote tallies.
	He was so encouraged by it that he suggested that the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security hold a press conference to take credit for the work.
	He said four people who were familiar with all of this.
	And so that is a very different story than what he had been publicly saying.
	Again, Chris Christie says he thought he was going to lose.
	These people were saying in February, he thought, well, the election is just great.
	But most importantly, here's the issue here with Trump and the election, all of the stuff.
	Number one, his lockdown.
	And the continuation of the lockdown, it stopped all the election, stopped the rallies.
	You could have seen rallies. It would have been really hard for them to say that Biden had won if he's got rallies with 12 people and Trump's got rallies with 50,000 people over and over again.
	So all the rallies stopped.
	All of the election became a mail-out of ballots.
	Everybody is voting by mail.
	You know, even in Texas, as I said before, Greg Abbott wasn't foolish enough to do vote by mail.
	He said, no, you're not going to have to wear a mask or anything to go vote in the election.
	And, you know, everybody was still really afraid of all that stuff.
	I remember when Travis and I went to vote, they had everybody six feet apart, stand here, markers on the floor, you know, and they wanted you to wear a mask, but they couldn't require it because Abbott said no.
	But Trump is still pushing that stuff, still pushing the fear.
	So he created the new rules about ballot harvesting and mail out ballots to everybody, multiple ballots from multiple jurisdictions to the same people.
	He failed to take any serious action to investigating this stuff.
	And then he personally kept all that money, right?
	After the election, big fundraising thing, but he kept all the money.
	He didn't really do any investigation.
	And so January the 6th was, which one do you think it is?
	Usually multiple choice.
	Was January the 6th, A, a grift?
	B, a vanity project for Trump who, you know, had to restore his honor by having a lot of people show up in his honor on January the 6th and protest the fact that he wasn't staying?
	Was it entrapment?
	Or was it D, all of the above?
	Those are your choices. If you can come up with some other choices, let me know.
	You don't have to think that long.
	You don't have to go into a jeopardy timeout to think through that.
	His private expressions of confidence in the U.S. election, as well as his later fears of losing, are going to be a big issue.
	Because it all really does come down to knowledge and intent, just like I was saying about the fake electors.
	If they did not have the intent to defraud, and that's what this corrupt Michigan attorney general is going to have to prove, I don't think they had any intent to defraud.
	I can't say the same thing about Trump, though.
	And so that's going to be a really key issue, a really key issue.
	On Rockfin, I've got a tip from Bill Maher.
	Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
	He says, I love you, DK. According to a study by Compass Lexicon, commissioned by Airlines for America, the average flight from L.A. to Boston in 1941 was worth $4,539 per person in a day's money, and it would have taken 15 hours and 15 minutes with 12 stops along the way.
	By comparison, a nonstop flight in 2015 would cost $480.89 and take only six hours.
	Thanks to intensifying low-cost competition.
	Yeah, I guess we could say the airlines have become a race to the bottom.
	And the planes are filling up, and they're making the seats ever smaller.
	I don't know. Maybe...
	I don't know if we've won anything with any of this stuff.
	I'm quite happy to drive, and I just wish that the government would take care of the roads, which they also don't seem to be very interested in.
	We're going to take a quick break and we'll be right back.
	Using free speech to free minds.
	Music.
	It's the David Knight Show.
	Well, welcome back. And I just wanted to say, as I saw the tip there, we have been graciously offered to, it was for Love of the Road, has graciously offered to match donations for the next five days up to $200 each day.
	So I really do appreciate that from him and appreciate those of you who have tipped on Rumble and Rockfin.
	Let's take a look at what I think is developing persecution.
	We've got political persecution, we've got religious persecution.
	Why is it that the First Amendment was supposed to stop all that stuff?
	Because it was the primary purpose of people coming to America.
	To escape religious persecution, political persecution, star chambers, and all the rest of this stuff.
	That's reflected in the Bill of Rights and all the rights.
	They didn't come because they wanted to keep slaves.
	They wanted to come because they wanted to escape slavery and their countries.
	The slavery that comes from political and religious persecution.
	And so it's good to see that some people are fighting back.
	Remember this Christian street preacher during Pride Month in Pennsylvania, Reading, Pennsylvania, and how the police came up and immediately arrested him?
	Well, he's now suing them.
	The lawsuit names two officers present that day, as well as the mayor, the police chief, and the city of Reading as defendants.
	They came up and immediately shut him down when he was at the religious ceremony on the street for the LGBT religion.
	And then you have a gal identifying as a guy, charged with vandalizing a pregnancy center, but of course the FBI will do nothing about it.
	Intentionally damaged the project, defacing it with spray paint and saying, abort God.
	The activist is a 20-year-old biological female college student who pretends to be a male and wrote on the building, spray painted the words, liars.
	Isn't that ironic? Somebody who is lying about her biology.
	Liars, Fake Clinic, Fake Man, Jane's Revenge, Fund Abortion, and Abort God was what was written there by that lovely person.
	We have Abortion Advocates Viciously Pummeling Pro-Lifers.
	Attacking them, beating them, pouring coffee on them at the same time.
	Police refuse to press any charges against it, just as they don't care about arson.
	If it's going to burn down a clinic where you're trying to help people come up with options so they don't kill their baby.
	We have in India, we have, and I mention this because you understand there's a continuum with this stuff.
	We just had Prime Minister Modi come to the United States, a part of a Hindu nationalist party.
	That is very big on religious persecution.
	They persecute Christians, they persecute Muslims, and they, and Modi was, or Modi, I don't know which way.
	Is it like Lodi in California?
	CCR? Clot and Modi.
	Anyway, they persecute other religions, his party does.
	And so the Muslim representatives in Congress boycotted what he had to say.
	There weren't any Christians that had anything at all to say about it.
	Isn't that interesting? A Christian woman was gang raped after being paraded naked through the streets by this mob.
	And the police were part of the mob.
	How long until this happens here?
	You can already see the hatred, can't you?
	Can't you see the contours of the persecution coming?
	Because there's already persecution in workplaces.
	You must bow to the LGBT. Well, it's another religion.
	You've got to bow to their science or you get kicked out or whatever, to their ethics.
	And they say, well, we're going to test drugs on aborted babies and we're going to take their body parts out while they're living and experiment our drugs on them.
	And you say, well, I'm not going to participate in that system.
	Oh, well, then you're not going to have a life here in this country.
	A viral video shows two women from the Christian Kuki tribe being paraded naked and sexually assaulted by a howling mob of men.
	Finally forced the Indian Prime Minister Modi to speak about the situation.
	In this area, they have a mixture of Christian tribes that live in the hills and the majority Hindu who live in the lowland villages.
	And they've been coming after each other for quite some time.
	But in this viral video that happened on May the 4th, but it was not made public because the Modi government has blacked out internet coverage from that area.
	The viral video clip, less than 30 seconds long, you have two nude Christian women, one in her 20s, the other in her 40s, dragged toward an open field by a large mob of men who screamed insults at them.
	Some of the men groped the victims as they were being pulled along.
	The clip ends with a group of men raping the younger woman.
	According to the police reports, a third woman in her 50s was also assaulted, and the youngest victim's father and brother were killed by the mob, which numbered close to 1,000 men, many of them armed with rifles.
	The mob looted and burned the village where the victims lived.
	According to the police complaint, three women and the two men who were killed That actually fled the village and were under police protection when the mob took them away from the police.
	The father of the family was murdered instantly while his son was killed while attempting to protect the women.
	The three women survived the assault, made their way to a relief camp.
	The police were there with the mob which was attacking our village, they said, the youngest victim said.
	The police picked us up from near our home and took us a little away from the village, then left us on the road with the mob.
	We were given to them by the police.
	So again, this is what is happening in India with a Modi government.
	Muslims will protest that, but not the Christian politicians.
	Christians by name will not talk about that.
	Take a look at this.
	This is an article that was put up on Drudge Report and mainstream media.
	They were very happy about the fact that belief in supernatural entities has now edged down to new lows.
	You see them going down. What they did was they charted out the percentages of Americans who believe in God, angels, heaven, hell, and the devil.
	Some reason they didn't ask him about demons, I guess.
	Anyway, it edged downward by three to five percentage points since 2016.
	At the lowest point they've ever seen.
	Belief in God and heaven is down the most.
	And it's only about, you know, 50% of the people that believe, you know, in these things.
	And if you look at the number of people who believe in space aliens...
	Well, that's about the same amount.
	Interestingly enough, a poll conducted by a market research company in Germany, Britain, and the U.S. found that in the U.S. you had 52% of people believed in intelligent aliens from space.
	Well, that's interesting.
	They don't see them, though, as angels, demons, or the devil, or God.
	And this is something that is...
	I think going to be a big part of the landscape here.
	As the Congress is pushing for this stuff, you've got to ask yourself why they're doing this.
	And why did they bother to change the label of UFO? Now they call it unidentified aerial phenomenon instead of unidentified flying object.
	Why would they do that?
	Why would they go from UFO to UAP? Well, they're rebranding it.
	Because they want to change public perception.
	What are they up to?
	It's something they're getting ready to push a narrative on us, quite frankly.
	And so you've got bipartisan push Let's get all the information out there that we've got about space aliens.
	We've got Chuck Schumer. We've got Marco Rubio.
	Mike Rounds, who's a Republican.
	You've got Kristen Gillibrand and many others.
	We've got to get this stuff out, and we've got to tell people about this.
	All these narratives, just like we've seen with Hollywood films, all these narratives, says this commentator on Slate, have one thing in common.
	An understanding that if we discover the existence of intelligent alien life, nothing will ever be the same again.
	I gotta say, if you discover God, nothing will ever be the same again.
	That works that way as well.
	But they're going to use this, as I pointed out, there's been a lot of films done about this idea.
	The ontological shock will be different from the mere discovery of an invention.
	This is going to be something that they're going to use as a massive test of Christians and what they truly believe.
	You better understand what you believe and why you believe it.
	You better take a look at the Bible.
	And understand why you believe it from a historical perspective, from an archaeological perspective, from a prophetic perspective, and all these other things.
	I mean, is it difficult to believe in the Bible when you've got world government and a Mark of the Beast system that's being talked about on a daily basis?
	I mean, that's absolutely unthinkable about being anything other than an allegory.
	When I was growing up, and nearly the entire time, nearly my entire life, until just a few years ago, a couple of decades ago, whatever.
	When you look at that stuff, you better understand what you believe in and what you're thinking about, because you're going to be testing.
	They're rebranding this.
	They're going to relabel it.
	They're going to tell you, we've got all these experts, and look at all their data and all the rest of this stuff.
	They point out an ontological shock It's not even synonymous with what philosopher Thomas Kuhn called a paradigm shift.
	Rather, it is an apocalypse, says this secular slate, in the same sense as the word's original Greek meaning of unveiling.
	That's why people call revelation apocalyptic.
	It's unveiling a mystery.
	And so as you look at all this stuff and you look at this guy, Sam Altman, pushing artificial intelligence, pushing a world coin, saying, we'll give you money.
	Just prove to us that you're human.
	Let us scan your eye and all the rest of the stuff.
	We need to have a global ID for everybody, and we will give you free money.
	This will be the way that we will distribute universal basic income to you.
	You can't see that?
	You don't know what is happening?
	Well, we're going to cut now to our interview that we prerecorded yesterday.
	And FBI agent, it's going to be, I think you'll find it to be a very interesting interview.
	Like I said, I wanted to know what he had to think.
	I wasn't interested in debating things with him.
	But I think you'll find it very interesting, his perspective on what has happened with the FBI. And that'll be it.
	We'll see you when we get back from Texas.
	Please do keep us in your prayers, and our daughter as well, as she gets married, for our travel.
	And you're going to be in good hands.
	We've got Gard and Tony set up to take the show the next week, so they've got some great guests lined up as well.
	Thanks for listening and we'll be right back with the interview.
	Joining us now is Thomas J. Baker.
	He's an FBI agent with 33 years of experience as a special agent at the FBI and he wrote a book that was released as recently as December The fall of the FBI, how a once great agency became a threat to democracy.
	And I think that's the way many of us see it at this point with the recent developments.
	And so I want to talk to him about what is happening with the Christopher Wray issues, as well as the Durham issues, the hearings that we just had in the last week or so.
	Thank you for joining us, Mr. Baker.
	Good to be with you, David. Thank you.
	Tell us a little bit about, first of all, when you saw these hearings with Christopher Wray, give us your opinion, your take on this.
	Well, the hearing with Christopher Wray about a week and a half ago now was quite frankly, in my opinion, a missed opportunity.
	He could have come forward and said he recognized the cultural problems in the FBI, that he was going to reform it.
	It was a missed opportunity for him because he didn't say that.
	He again hid behind the chant that they come out with all the time about the good, hardworking 38,000 people in the FBI.
	Nobody's disputing that.
	It's like the old saying people used to say about certain ethnic or racial groups.
	You know, some of my best friends are.
	That's how this this chant has become.
	So he missed an opportunity to clear the air.
	And I must say, unfortunately, the Congress, the House Committee missed an opportunity.
	I don't want to be too harsh on them.
	Jim Jordan's doing the best he can.
	He has a lot of Democrats that, for the most part, don't want to face the issues with the FBI. They want to lambast Trump again.
	But it could have been more focused, and they could have...
	Now, I understand they're going to have him back.
	Mm-hmm. Yeah, there was a lot of stonewalling there.
	And, of course, one of the other things that's coming up is the reauthorization of Section 702, which you talk about in your book.
	You talk about how we need to have FISA reform.
	It seems to me like Section 702 was essentially a way to just get rid of FISA or basically to turn it inside out.
	It was supposed to stop them from surveilling FISA. We're good to go.
	To spy on Mr. and Mrs.
	Verizon, as Rand Paul once said.
	What do you think about this?
	Is that really where they should start?
	I mean, just to not reauthorize and re-up this Section 702?
	I mean, there's other issues as well as funding and things like that.
	But what about just stopping Section 702?
	David, you summed that up pretty well.
	And in fact, this is one specific area where the Congress can enact reform.
	Most of the other reforms are going to have to come internally from the FBI and DOJ. But Pfizer, as you started to say, was created, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was passed and put into practice.
	In 1978, and it was to provide a lawful, a structured means to gather intelligence on foreign agents in this country.
	And they set up a separate court, the FISA Court, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, and principally the FBI, but to very little extent other agencies, Could go there, get a judicial warrant, and surveil foreign agents for intelligence purposes, to provide this intelligence to the national decision makers.
	What happened after September 11th, like with so many things, it was perverted.
	And they amended FISA so that American citizens, U.S. persons, could be surveilled.
	And since September 11th, it's been amended and adjusted numerous times.
	And now it's widely used, the Inspector General has told us, to surveil Americans.
	That is an abuse, and that can be stopped by congressional legislation.
	And you point out in your book that really, September 11th, as you were working there at the FBI, you saw a real sea change in the FBI. Tell us a little bit, you know, of course, the 702 thing, but what else did you see that happened in the wake of 9-11?
	Well, it's the contention of my book that the current problems of the FBI all result from a change in culture from a law enforcement agency to an intelligence agency.
	And that all happened, if I can just tell you this one specific incident, Bob Mueller, of special prosecutor fame, became the FBI director just a few days before the September 11th attacks, which happened on a Tuesday.
	On Saturday morning, September 15th, Mueller was summoned to the president's retreat.
	Camp David in the mountains of Maryland, and he gave his report on the FBI investigation.
	Now, only three and a half days effectively had elapsed between the Tuesday attack and that Saturday morning.
	And yet in that time, the FBI had done what it does best, investigate.
	And in that short window of time, they identified all 19 hijackers, their financing, their travel, their associates, everything you could imagine of that nature.
	And at the end of his presentation, Mueller, and he's told us this several times, Mueller was expecting praise and thanks, and instead George W. Bush looked at him and said, I don't care about that.
	I just want to know how you're going to prevent the next one.
	Mueller left that meeting bound and determined to change the culture of the FBI, and that's the word he used.
	And that, unfortunately, had a lot of unintended and a lot of bad consequences.
	So you contend, from being there, that it went kind of from the Federal Bureau of Investigation to the Federal Bureau of Intelligence, I guess, right?
	Yes, and that culture affects people's mindset and how they look at their work.
	Let me say this.
	In a law enforcement agency...
	People spend every day of their life working towards the day when they're going to have to stand up in court, raise their right hand, and swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, to a set of facts.
	So help you God.
	That's very, very different than an intelligence agency that deals every day in deceit and deception and And whose product at the end of the day is an estimate, some would call it a best guess.
	Guesses aren't allowed in the courtroom.
	That change in mindset affects everything and affects the people's behavior.
	I certainly agree with you that it became an intelligence organization.
	It almost beggars belief, doesn't it, that they could solve 9-11 and do that in just three days, that they've got five years in terms of the Hunter Biden laptop and they They can't find a handle on that thing.
	It is amazing.
	I mean, you know, he really came in and went right straight to work on the investigation, didn't he?
	But it is, when we look at what has become of the FBI, I think people are more concerned that it has become an agency, and maybe this is part of their seeing themselves as an intelligence agency.
	They've become instigators of a lot of things, creating, essentially going out and getting some stooges who can barely...
	You know, put two words together and kind of using them, you know, helping them through a plot.
	We've seen this over and over again with the FBI grabbing some mentally deficient people, setting them up for some kind of supposed terrorist attack.
	They say, we're going to supply everything.
	And all they did was they use the people as kind of patsies to make the agency look good.
	Is that part of what happened to the FBI after 9-11?
	Well, yes, that's part and parcel of it, and you're referring most specifically, I believe, to the Governor Whitmer kidnapping fiasco.
	Well, that's one of the most recent ones.
	Of course, Judge Napolitano years ago just went through a whole litany of things like that have been happening.
	But yeah, that's probably the most recent one.
	And then the fact that the guy who was running that went from there to January the 6th after that.
	It was very suspicious in terms of the connections, I think.
	Well, and I go into this in some detail in the book.
	The FBI has reinvented itself and tried to keep its skirts clean over the decades.
	After the Abscam investigation, which you're probably familiar with and a lot of your listeners aren't, but that touched on other branches of government on the Congress.
	A lot of rules were put in effect on To avoid any suspicion of entrapment.
	And FBI agents, we were trained very strictly about not to entrap, not to involve, not to entice people who were that quote-unquote not otherwise disposed to commit a certain crime.
	And the training on that for decades was rigorous.
	The Governor Whitmer case was the first time that the defense of entrapment was raised with any plausibility.
	And that's a shame.
	We had the situation in the Whitmer case where three agents got in trouble.
	I believe two of them were dismissed or let go eventually because of that.
	But they had... They had more informants in the case than they had subjects at the end of the day.
	And it's like the joke about the FBI, I say joke, criticism of the FBI back in the 50s that at some of the meetings of the Communist Party USA... There were more informants at each cell meeting than there were communists, committed communists.
	And as a result, it was the dues of these informants, which was U.S. federal government money, was the only thing that was keeping the Communist Party domestically alive in the United States for so long.
	That's sad, and that's in the distant past.
	We have more current problems.
	Yeah, it's very much like what we saw Felix Derzinski, the Cheka, and the Stalinist Russia doing with creating these organizations and financing them so he could entrap the anti-Bolsheviks.
	That seems to be basically what's happening.
	It's just that the politics tend to change.
	It seems like part of the switch with the FBI is that they've gone from a conservative standpoint to a liberal standpoint in terms of the people that they're targeting with this.
	Let's talk about some of the things you point out in your book.
	Right now, to reform the FBI, we do things like not view citizens as adversaries, to pay attention to constitutional rights, to make sure that we don't use SWAT team tactics on people.
	People who are nonviolent.
	Of course, we've seen this with so many people with January the 6th.
	It truly is amazing to see that.
	I talked to Mr.
	Friend who has refused to do that as an FBI agent down in Florida.
	And of course, you know, what happened to him as a whistleblower when he talked about that.
	That's a big problem.
	What do you see as the solution for this type of thing?
	How do we get these types of reforms in?
	As you point out, the Congress could refuse to reauthorize Section 702.
	But in terms of this other stuff, I mean, how do you get the FBI to reform itself?
	Well, that's the answer.
	Reform itself. And the first thing in changing the culture of an organization, you have to recognize that there's a problem.
	And of course, there's actually books written about this for the corporate world and how you change culture.
	The first thing is you have to recognize there's a problem.
	I do think, because I'm in touch with them, there are people in the FBI who recognize there is this problem.
	Publicly, Director Wray has not recognized this.
	Every time he's asked, including his testimony a week and a half ago, he falls back on the mantra that, well, those people are not with us anymore.
	This goes back to the...
	To the Russian collusion fiasco.
	And of course, Comey and Strzok and McCabe, they were all fired.
	And then in the Governor Whitmer thing, at least two agents were fired.
	And then the... The NASA Jim case, at least two agents were fired or let go.
	And so on and so forth, up to last December, an ASAC, that's the assistant agent in charge, in the Washington field office was let go for having attempted to bury the Hunter Biden laptop investigation.
	And every time this happens, including in response to the Durham report, which is 300 pages of Fact-filled documentation, Ray's response, his official response is, well, those people aren't with us anymore.
	I think he has to get beyond that and look at it.
	It's not just a few bad apples.
	There's a cultural problem, and the culture has to be changed.
	And you change the culture by making it a law enforcement organization again.
	And the primacy in a law enforcement organization, at least the way the FBI used to be, was the Constitution.
	And agents used to be trained that the Constitution, Bill of Rights, was not an obstacle to us, but it was something that we had a role in enforcing for the American people.
	Mm-hmm. Yeah, it seems to me like, you know, and it's not just the FBI, it seems to be pretty much a common thing throughout government, and I would say not even just the federal government, but government workers do not see themselves as servants of the people.
	They don't see themselves as stewards, temporary stewards of the Constitution that they've sworn to uphold, just like they would swear to loyalty to a king or something.
	That seems to be pervasive in our society.
	And then when you look at the politics behind this, It appears that Christopher Wray is doing exactly what the Attorney General wants to do, and so that's a key part of the issue.
	How do you separate out this partisanship that begins really at the top of the Department of Justice?
	The FBI is one level down, but that really is the head of the snake, isn't it?
	Well, frankly, perhaps...
	These changes won't happen until a year and a half from now and we have a change in administration and we get a new Attorney General and a new Director of the FBI. But internally, and a lot of people in the FBI realize this.
	So let me just tell you this, David.
	The last three or four months, of course, promoting my book, which is the title The Fall of the FBI, I've been in Barnes& Noble and other bookstores.
	I have people walk up to me and introduce themselves as current FBI employees.
	As people, agents who've resigned or retired from the FBI in the past few months, and I've had spouses of current FBI employees come up to me and they all say to me, Tom, you got it right, keep up what you're doing, and here's the most chilling of all, they say, it's worse than you imagined.
	Yeah. Oh, yeah. Yeah, as a matter of fact, you know, Steve Friend was there giving testimony along with some other people from the FBI. You know, there's good people in any organization.
	There's going to be bad people in any organization.
	And that was what Frank Serpico said.
	You know, and he's talked about... Police corruption and that type of thing.
	He says the test is whether or not the organization is going to protect the bad people or purge them out.
	And so, you know, these people stayed within the organization, got purged out, as Christopher Wray is saying, as the last result.
	But, of course, you know, they went on for a very long time.
	And it seems to me like the people getting purged out more often than not are the good people who are blowing the whistle who said, you know, we don't want to have a politicized national police force.
	And so I guess, you know, my question when I look at it, and I want to get into some of the other things that you've seen here before we start talking about the bigger issues here.
	You know, when you talk about phishing and looking for people's personal records, as we saw happen in the wake of January the 6th, the new things that have been brought in, technology that allows them to do geofencing warrants and that type of stuff, or just to talk to Bank of America and say, hey, we'd like to have all the information if you'd like to turn it over to us.
	This goes back to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and what they were operating with at that time.
	They had the ability that was given to them by the courts to say for the phone company, well, these customer records are owned by you, AT&T, and if you'd like to turn them over to us, that's fine.
	It seems to me that's a real fundamental flaw in all of this that allows, just like Section 702, it allows them to get around any requirements for search warrants and things like that to say that your data doesn't belong to you, but if the social media company's got it or Google's got it or the phone company's got it or the bank's got it, they can just hand that information over to you.
	What do you think about that?
	Okay, well, that gets...
	We, both of us, David, are really getting into the weeds here now, but it is important to step back and look at this.
	The Pfizer and similar processes that you described being used against American citizens, that's the abuse.
	Whether or not it's legal or illegal, that's an abuse because Pfizer, as I said earlier, was created to be used only against foreigners.
	Now, And it has a lower standard of probable cause, if you will, to get a FISA warrant and to pursue it because it's the kind of thing that's not intended to be used as evidence in court.
	It's just to gather intelligence.
	It should never be used against a U.S. person, period.
	Now, what you alluded to as the original genesis of some of this other stuff goes back to the criminal law, and the criminal law sets a higher standard.
	And with probable cause, you can go in, and it used to be done routinely in criminal cases, go in with a subpoena and subpoena the business records of a telephone company, and that would simply show you on their business records, It's their billings that a particular person in New York was, for example, calling a particular person in New Jersey and the duration of the phone call.
	And that was it.
	But to do that, you did that through the criminal process.
	And what what's very specific about the criminal process.
	Is that that eventually becomes public.
	The person whose records you subpoenaed, they will be advised of this after an appropriate period of time, 30 or 90 days.
	So it's a whole different, it was a whole different ballgame.
	And the other thing a lot of people, including your very well-informed listeners, may not understand is the intrusiveness of the FISA warrant.
	It's not what is commonly thought, it's not just what is commonly thought of as wiretapping, listening in on a phone call.
	of all your data now in the air.
	So what we all use commonly now, emails, text, instant messaging, all of that is collected and vacuumed up in Pfizer, or can be, including physical entry, as they used to do about foreigners in this country.
	They can go into your house, make a surreptitious entry into your house, and view and copy your business records and your personal records.
	That's all allowed under Pfizer.
	Pfizer was originally, I'm going to say this again, never designed to be used against U.S. persons, which covers even more than U.S. citizens.
	It covers legal resident aliens and it covers U.S. corporations.
	They all deserve the protection of the Fourth Amendment to be secure in their place against unreasonable search and seizure.
	And Pfizer has suspended the Fourth Amendment and it's being abused now and it's being repeatedly abused.
	And that's something that Congress can and should address.
	If they got rid of the Section 702, would that fix the flaws in Pfizer, or would it still be flawed, in your opinion?
	No. 702, as I understand it, is a whole other subset of information.
	It really goes beyond the Pfizer Act.
	702 is information...
	That principally the National Security Agency, NSA, and to a lesser extent the CIA, has gathered literally out of the air all around the world.
	So they're initially...
	And they're authorized, the NSA and the CIA, to gather information on foreigners overseas.
	They're not supposed to be operational in the US. But of course, in gathering all this information, they pick up a lot of information on US persons who are in communication We're good to go.
	Database. We don't know how gigantic, but I imagine it's millions and millions and millions of facts.
	It's not just your name and your phone number.
	It's your social security number, your email address, et cetera, et cetera.
	So what people have been saying, and in Congress, by the way, people on both the Democrats as well as the Republicans have been saying that they should have some kind of warrant, some kind of procedure to get in and get out of this information.
	That section was put in effect once again in the panic, and I'll use that word, but understandable panic in the crisis after September 11th.
	If that ability is taken away, I don't see it as a big problem because then just through the judicial process, the FBI could pursue the same or very similar intelligence.
	Then we get the argument back, by the way, and this is what Ray and others, the Attorney General and Ray and others have been saying to Congress.
	Well, it's a very useful tool.
	It will make it harder for us to do our job.
	And the answer to that is, yes, it will.
	But the fact is, the Bill of Rights and the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment makes it hard for law enforcement, including the cop on the beat on your corner, to do his job.
	But we've all adjusted to it, and we all know how to work within the Constitution.
	And that's what needs to be restored.
	Yes, that's right.
	Yeah, it's paramount that our God-given rights be protected, not that we make it somebody's job easier for them.
	That is absolutely true.
	And, you know, when we look at this, I've interviewed in the past William Binney, who was a whistleblower of the NSA.
	He had been global technical head.
	And when he talked about what they're scooping up, you know, when you got the NSA is tapped in at, you know, the top of the Internet, if you want to think of it that way, and they can extract all these emails and scan through them, and then they look at something foreign, supposedly. But then they can go several different hops away from it.
	So they keep changing the number of skips that they can do.
	So it's kind of like six degrees of separation of Kevin Bacon type of thing, except it's fewer degrees of separation from somebody that they might be interested in.
	And that's really, it's these types of things that they can always prevaricate around this.
	I think it's important that we have to have Some kind of a, you know, the system is not self-policing, and the system won't work if we've got corrupt individuals there.
	And I think that's really the issue, is what has happened.
	That is the issue.
	And what it is, most of it, is an abuse.
	There is some illegality, too, perhaps.
	But most of it is an abuse of authority.
	And what you described is what they call incidental collection.
	And once again, not to repeat myself...
	Mm-hmm.
	Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.
	You know, in the air or in the communications across Europe and Africa and elsewhere, they're monitoring certain foreign agents.
	And of course, what happens, it's going to happen every day, they pick up communications or information about an American who might be innocently or otherwise in communication with some foreigners.
	So they've picked that up incidentally.
	And when they pick up incidentally, if it indicates either criminal or national security interests, they're supposed, on the American citizen, they're supposed to furnish it to the FBI. And that's how the system works.
	Well, John Brennan, the former director of the CIA, admitted, in fact, I think we could say he bragged during the I think?
	They're interested in a particular American, but of course they're forbidden to investigate or to spy on, surveil that American.
	So what they do, the CIA, according to John Brennan, is they target a foreigner.
	And the foreigner, by the way, doesn't have to be from a hostile nation.
	It could be a Brit or a Canadian or a Mexican.
	They target the foreigner with the intent to collect data on the American who this foreigner does business with or is friends with or whatever.
	That's an abuse.
	It's not illegal, but it's an abuse.
	And that has to be stopped.
	And there should be sanctions put in place for that.
	I mentioned that in my book, too.
	And that's something that Congress can and should do.
	Yeah, that's important.
	And again, you know, my problem is I just don't see Congress doing anything other than holding these hearings because they get a lot of press out of it and it just becomes a show hearing.
	I don't, you know, I don't know that it was even brought up in the hearings.
	I didn't see all the hearings. But I don't know that it was even brought up to get rid of Section 702 and not reauthorize it, let alone to do something about the abuse, as you just pointed out, of the reverse search, using that to target people.
	Reverse targeting, yes.
	And then, of course, we've got social media.
	And we look at what happened with that.
	Now, the former general counsel, who is James A. Baker, no relation, but he was a former general counsel of the FBI. He went to work.
	For Twitter, as a deputy general counsel, he was dismissed in December by Musk.
	But, you know, we have this type of situation where social media seems to me that is a whole other category of surveillance in a police state to control and Again, we see this type of attitude that, well, it's private companies and they can do whatever they want, and when people put that information out there on social media, it's public information and everybody can look at it, everybody can scrape it.
	What do we do about that type of abuse that is out there?
	Of course, if somebody's going to write letters to the editor threatening a mass murder of the Unabomber or something like that, that's legitimate to get that.
	But it really has been abused in terms of targeting people on social media.
	What do we do to pull that in, in your opinion?
	Well, that specifically is something that I must say Congress and specifically Congressman Jordan's Judiciary Committee has started to look at.
	And once again, that's something that occasionally you get one or two Democrats on the committee expressing some concern about as well.
	Now, what happened with the Twitter files, it was clearly documented that the FBI was giving direction to Twitter and other social media companies to ban, to censor, to take down certain postings from US citizens.
	And that's the most frustrating thing of all.
	When Christopher Wray testified a week and a half ago, he more or less tried to deny that.
	And the documentation for that is just overwhelming.
	So that's a problem, and the congressman got back at him with specificity on that in several instances, which you probably recall.
	So that's something where Congress is aware.
	Some of these other things we've talked about here today are so complex that not only doesn't the general public understand it, but and I mean this with all respect, sometimes even the Congress doesn't doesn't completely understand it.
	And one thing that we're told repeatedly is very valuable, in addition to being told how valuable the various sections of Pfizer are, is this relationship with Britain, which goes beyond that, the five eyes.
	It's a secret, a lot of code words in government, but it's five nations, the United States and Britain, and also Canada and Australia and New Zealand.
	It had its origins at the end of World War II in the close and personal relationship, or the special relationship, I should say, between Britain and the U.S. and has been expanded.
	It's codified.
	There's several treaties about it.
	There's several secret agreements and understandings about it.
	And I think you know I was assigned abroad twice in the FBI. I'm very familiar with the Five Eyes.
	And basically what the Five Eyes say is two things.
	Number one, it's supposedly an ironclad guarantee that we will never spy on one another.
	And second, it's a promise that we will share our intelligence with each other.
	And this is ongoing and has been ongoing.
	So Britain has a very powerful organization, Government Communications Headquarters organization, in addition to the MI5 and MI6, their version of the CIA and the FBI. They have this agency that's very powerful, almost on an equal footing with the NSA, gathering up information all over the world.
	Okay, here's the point that's missing that a lot of people, even in Congress, don't comprehend.
	And let me tell you this, David, because this is something that really is an abuse.
	There are laws in Britain very similar to the laws in the United States which forbid the NSA... And it's counter...
	forbid the NSA to spy on American citizens.
	They have similar laws in Britain forbidding their government to spy on British subjects.
	Okay. But through the Five Eyes Agreement, if we in the U.S., the NSA... This happens every day.
	Pick up information on a British subject, the NSA can disseminate it to Britain.
	Mm-hmm. Information about their citizens, their subjects.
	And the same happens in reverse.
	And recently it came to light very briefly and was never pursued much by the press.
	The American personality commentator, news person, Tucker Carlson, he was picked up by British.
	His... Data or voice communications, and I don't think we even know which.
	And that was then disseminated to the CIA and to the FBI by the Brits.
	It came out after Princess Diana, which I have a big section in my book about this, after Princess Diana's death, through Freedom of Information Act requests, it came out the NSA answered Freedom of Information Act requests and admitted that That they had thousands of pages of transcripts of her conversations over the years up till the day she was killed.
	The U.S. government has acknowledged that, but they didn't go the next step further in the Freedom of Information Act and make any of that available to the requesters.
	When that happened, in Britain there was again a periodic thunderstorm in the British press, and the British press, not just the tabloids, the serious press, pointing out what an abuse this is that the Americans are monitoring the communications of A British princess.
	And have this information.
	Well, they're making that information available to MI5 and MI6, which the British themselves couldn't do.
	And it's the exact same situation over here.
	That's a real abuse.
	That's a real danger.
	And I don't...
	Once again, to be very respectful, I don't even think most of our congressmen understand that phenomenon.
	They have so many other immediate issues on their plate.
	Yeah. Oh, yeah. That's a really good point, how they help each other.
	They're not allowed to spy on their own citizens, but they can spy on the other country citizens and then turn it over to that country.
	That's a very convenient way to work around this.
	And it's going on every day.
	Yeah, yeah. Let me ask you a little bit about what is happening.
	You talked about how culture and everything changed with 9-11.
	And, of course, we've now got the FBI as an intelligence agency, essentially, instead of necessarily investigation, police work.
	Their focus is on that.
	It seems to me like there's a great deal of overlap and competition between the NSA, the CIA, and the FBI. How is that working out?
	You've been there.
	What is it like when you've got these different All bureaucracies are trying to create turf for themselves and areas where they're in control and grow their organization and everything.
	What are the dynamics that you've seen in terms of the competition between NSA, CIA, FBI? How does that work out?
	Well, you mentioned the dynamics.
	There is a lot of cooperation.
	Let me preface it by saying that.
	But sometimes it becomes very difficult from the FBI point of view.
	And as I explained in the book, I was with the FBI calls a legal attache and a couple of posts overseas.
	So I worked every day with my counterparts in these other agencies.
	And we have to work together.
	And at that time, and I assume it's similar today, the instructions to the legats from FBI headquarters repeated was that inside the embassy, we should do everything we can to cooperate with the agency and the NSA or the NSA counterparts or representatives who were there.
	And that's necessary for the protection of our nation.
	But in the FBI, we were cautioned to keep our distance from the agency outside the embassy, because in most countries, even allied countries, the CIA is viewed, appropriately so, as spies.
	And they're not held in as warm a regard, usually, as the FBI is.
	And I will say this, not just in the countries I've been assigned to, and from where I was assigned, I covered a number of countries, but my experience in dealing with other organizations and with other legats over the years, in almost all cases...
	The people, the law enforcement agencies and similar in these other countries...
	Go ahead, you can get that.
	That's fine. No, they want to work with the FBI. They want to help us, but they also want our help.
	And that's the most common phenomenon.
	The challenge is the CIA, you know, mentioned them with specificity, because of their culture, they sometimes, and some of them will admit this to you, they fall into this habit of what they call...
	Operating. And operating is what most of us in the rest of society would call lying.
	They're so used to operating on a daily basis, they sometimes can't stop it.
	And they recognize this is a problem for themselves.
	Some of them even talk about, and they've been counseled about this, that they go home and they continue to lie to their family, to their spouse.
	So it's a problem. So I have run into, and I documented in the book, The fall of the FBI, this difficulty in working with the agency, even when it's some wonderful people, they just fall in this thing where they can't tell you the whole story, and they can't tell you the truth, and they won't tell you the whole story.
	And we've caught them, and not just me, but dozens of other leakers have caught them not only lying to us, but lying to the ambassador.
	And the ambassador we were trained and taught is the personal representative of the President of the United States, and that's somebody you're not supposed to lie to.
	Yeah. I've talked to John Kiriakou a number of times as a CIA whistleblower, and he said the culture in the CIA where he worked, he said they're looking for sociopaths.
	They want people who tend towards that, and so that kind of bears the same kind of perspective as you're pointing out there.
	When I look at all of this, and of course, let's talk also about 9-11.
	So the idea behind 9-11 was that we've got these agencies that weren't cooperating sufficiently with each other.
	We've got to create this new thing called Homeland Security.
	So what did that kind of institutional thing do to the FBI and all these other agencies there?
	How is that part of the culture changed?
	Well, I think you're an extraordinarily well-read person.
	I think if you step back and look at history, this is not an unusual phenomenon that when there is a crisis, when there is a significant threat to the homeland, that measures are put in place that when they're looked at then through the longer lens of history, we're not very wise, we're an abuse, and some of it should be undone.
	We had that back in the beginning of World War II with the internment of Japanese citizens.
	That was an abuse.
	I think everybody agrees with that now.
	That shouldn't have happened.
	And there were other things that happened that shouldn't have happened.
	Even going back to the American Civil War, a great man, I think.
	I think he's one of the greatest presidents we ever had.
	I think most people agree. But even Abraham Lincoln did things, the suspension of habeas corpus and stuff like that, that were questionable.
	But it was in a reaction to a crisis.
	And unfortunately, that's what happened again in September 11th.
	You had Pfizer being broadened to include American citizens, U.S. persons.
	You had other things being put in through the Patriot Act that people now question, and some of them have been rolled back, but some of them have just been made worse.
	I mean, the number of Pfizer warrants...
	From 1978 when Pfizer started, and by the way, these statistics get published, but, you know, a year or two delay, but they get published, was about 200 a year, and it stayed in the low hundreds for several decades until after September 11th.
	And all of a sudden you see thousands of Pfizer warrants a year, and now it's up to 4,000 or 5,000 a year, the Inspector General tells us, and a lot of them are on U.S. persons, American citizens.
	In connection with that, what also happened was initially that the Pfizer, that first Pfizer before September 11, every Pfizer warrant, every single one had to be signed off by the director of the FBI and by the Attorney General.
	So in the FBI, when it started under Judge William Webster, and I recall this personally, In addition to what the agents did in preparing it, then he had a crew of law clerks right in his office read every line and make sure everything was sufficient before he, a former judge, put his signature to it.
	Well, after September 11th, It was broadened and broadened so much that now it's not just the Attorney General and the FBI, but their authority has been delegated first to their deputies, the Deputy Attorney General Zag and the Deputy Director of the FBI, but now a broader circle of people.
	So now there's, last I knew about it, or we could read about it in the Inspector General thing, there's a dozen people in each agency who can sign off on a FISA warrant.
	And we learned that one of the three Mm-hmm.
	Mm-hmm.
	11 years ago, I covered a case of a guy who was on the no-fly list, and he'd been vetted by both the FAA, because he's working at airports, and he had recently gotten some firearms, and he had a concealed carry permit and all the rest of this stuff.
	He was going to visit his wife, who's in the military.
	And he was flying on a military flight, and he gets to Hawaii, and as that plane is, you know, to change planes and everything, as that plane is about to take off for Japan on the last leg of his flight, people come on and pull him off because he's on the no-fly list they just discovered.
	He couldn't figure out and couldn't get any information about how he had gotten on that list.
	And, of course, it's a Star Chamber process.
	They won't tell you anything other than you're on the list.
	They won't allow you to defend yourself or anything else like that.
	Now, that is also a fallout, isn't it, from FISA, the no-fly list.
	Is that calculated via FISA? Who puts that together, specifically?
	Well, the no-fly list was another thing created after September 11th.
	And it really is separate from Pfizer.
	And it was compiled from a lot of databases from several agencies, not just the FBI, but other agencies contributed to the no-fly list.
	And there were a lot of mistakes and abuses in it.
	You mentioned your one friend.
	We actually have a family friend, a woman, very dear.
	In fact, she's a very liberal Democrat, but we're still friends with her.
	And she has a name, and I won't say her name, but it's an Irish name.
	Mm-hmm. And she was not allowed on flights.
	She couldn't get on flights.
	She was pulled off flights just the way your friend was for a couple of years.
	And she used to travel a lot because she has adult children scattered all over the country.
	And for that matter now, scattered all over the world.
	And this happened to her for several years.
	And she did eventually, and I don't know how she did it, whether she had a private attorney, she eventually found out why she was on the no-fly list and she was granted a document.
	There was an IRA Terrorist type person, female, who had shared the exact same name she did, similar date of birth, similar physical description, and that's who they were trying to keep off the...
	That's who should have been on a no-fly list, but instead it was this...
	Quite innocent mother of six children.
	And I've always wondered, you know, where is this star chamber that puts people on the no-fly list and, you know, where you can't find out about it?
	That's the whole reason why we have so many of the protections that are in the Bill of Rights was because people had seen this kind of...
	This is not new. The technology is new and things like that, but we had...
	You know, the Star Chamber that would accuse people in absentia and would try them in absentia and you wouldn't know what was going on until you got punished and you weren't allowed to find out.
	I don't know how we get things like this in America.
	Of course, as you point out, it's a reaction to 9-11 and...
	Or perhaps as many of us as I feel like it was, you know, essentially what they wanted with 9-11.
	But when you look at this type of thing, that's one of the key things.
	When we look at Christopher Wray before the Congress, that's just a small part, and it's the most public part of it.
	But there's just so many things that have been put in, and as you point out, the justification is always, well, it's an emergency, and we don't have time to do this properly, and we've got to grease the skids, and there's a ticking time bomb somewhere, that type of stuff.
	Everything has to be done quickly.
	There's no time for a solution.
	Whether you're talking about the pandemic or you're talking about climate change, we don't have time to work out this stuff.
	We've just got to... Wipe the slate clean here and go with our approach and that's the only one that's going to be allowed.
	I think people are getting very suspicious and cynical about the motivations behind these types of things when there is always a rush and there's never any alternative other than the one they seem to already have in mind.
	Let's talk a little bit about, if you will, since you were there at the FBI for 33 years, you saw it as a police agency before everything got transformed, as we've seen now with the 21st century.
	It's now everything is, you know, in terms of expediting the pragmatism of what they want to get done.
	But going back to the police thing, would the answer be to split up the FBI? Because every state has got a State Bureau of Investigation.
	Is the problem the fact that it's so centralized?
	Because the founders of this country were always concerned about centralization and the subsequent abuse of power when you centralize things.
	Should we have even the investigative powers of this centralized, in your opinion?
	I would not advocate that.
	Traditionally, how investigations were run in the FBI was through field office management.
	We had the system, the Office of Origin system.
	One field office ran the case.
	When other field officers got leads in that case, they were called the auxiliary office.
	A field agent had the case.
	He was the case agent.
	He had a field supervisor looking over his shoulder.
	Ultimately, the special agent in charge of that office looked over him, and only then it went to headquarters.
	Mueller changed that for the first time and ran the response to September 11th.
	It's the FBI code named Pent Bomb for Pentagon, Pennsylvania bombings.
	Ran that from headquarters.
	In opposition, all the bureau executives told him this is not the way to do things, but he wouldn't listen.
	That was followed again by Comey, his hand-picked successor, in the Hillary Clinton email, and then the Russian collusion investigation.
	That led to a lot of of the errors and mistakes that were made because you had the same people making the decisions in the case as actually carrying out the investigation.
	So you had this Peter Strzok, who opened the case, wrote the opening communication on a Sunday, approved it, signed it out himself, and on Monday left, went to London to conduct the first interview in that investigation.
	That was bound to end badly.
	There were no layers of supervision.
	I am told by FBI executives today that they have recognized that problem and they've corrected that, and they're going to run things through the traditional field office model.
	And so, again, your history is of the FBI. We're there for 33 years.
	You talk about kidnappings and bank robberies and things like that.
	But what is the...
	Again, make a case for why we need to have a federal bureau of investigation.
	Because prior to, you know, the early 20th century, the Palmer raids, you know, as we're getting into World War I, J. Edgar Hoover ran the Palmer raids, and then subsequent to that, they created the FBI. Prior to that, though, law enforcement had been essentially local.
	You know, you had a few things like the Secret Service that would look at counterfeit operations and things like that.
	But for the most part... Law enforcement was done at the local level, even with sheriffs who were elected and accountable and in many cases would work with the people of the community as a posse if you had a bank robbery.
	But now the bank robbery is an FBI thing and it's done within their jurisdiction and it's a federal crime that they investigate.
	But why do we need to do it that way?
	Would it be better for us to...
	I make this argument...
	We talk about education.
	Everybody says, well, we can't close the schools as they are.
	And I say, well, you would still need the teachers.
	You're still going to need detectives who are out there.
	You're still going to need law enforcement people.
	It's just that you would change the structure of this, and the teachers might be working directly for the parents or a group of parents rather than working for a large bureaucracy.
	What would make the case against why that would not be what we would want to do with law enforcement?
	Well, you touched on the history, and a lot of this goes back to history.
	And law enforcement in the United States has always been a state and local matter, still is primarily.
	Most policing, most law enforcement in the United States is still done at the state and local level.
	The Department of Justice in the early part of the 20th century, there were only a few federal criminal charges, and what you pointed out, most of them were I think?
	People traveling interstate.
	So you have the gangster era.
	People were robbing a bank in one state and fleeing to another state.
	They were stealing cars and taking them to another state.
	So using the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution.
	And once again, everything goes back to the Constitution.
	A series of federal laws over the decades have been created.
	First one, of course, making interstate transportation of stolen motor vehicles a federal crime.
	Interstate transportation of stolen property of federal crime theft from interstate shipment.
	The railroads were very important at one time.
	And all of this jurisdiction was given to the FBI. So the FBI still was and still is a very delimited organization.
	There's about maybe now 11,000 or 12,000 FBI agents, and they focus on just those few federal crimes.
	Bank robberies, Well made a federal crime because the banks were federally chartered and of course there was a plague of bank robberies.
	In most instances around the country, the FBI criminal investigations are most often connected in collaboration with the state and local police.
	So I would suggest that we keep that model.
	Yeah, it's interesting.
	You know, when we go back and we look at it, it's, as you pointed out, it's, we've now had things that are crossing across state lines.
	It's just that, you know, as we've been talking about the FBI, it seems like they've crossed the lines of the Constitution in so many different ways that it's, you almost feel like when we've got state bureaus of investigation, clearly, you know, people could be doing a lot of the same type clearly, you know, people could be doing a lot of the same type and coordinating.
	I think part of the problem is really Congress, because as Harvey Silverglate and other people have pointed out, a felony a day.
	are there were so many federal laws that are out there that it's pretty hard to go through a day without knowingly or unknowingly committing a felony because there's so many thousands of them out there.
	And part of that is, again, it's the Congress that has done that and doing it because I think the American public demands it.
	You and I, when we were kids, we used to have jokes, well, don't make a federal case out of it.
	Well, they made a federal case out of pretty much everything now.
	And they think there ought to be a law to control every type of behavior, and it ought to be a federal law.
	And so I think that's one of the reasons why we have seen this kind of metastasizing of these agencies that are there.
	And I think, you know, when you start to get all this power and everything concentrated in one place, it seems like that also invites the kind of corruption that we've seen.
	But it certainly has been interesting talking to you.
	And you do have a handle on what needs to be done in terms of reform of the FBI. It's just, you know, I'm just pessimistic that we're going to see anything done by the Congress, that we're going to see the FBI just do any kind of self-reform.
	I think it's going to have to come from the outside.
	I just don't see it happening within the federal government.
	It seems like everybody's I'm pretty happy with the way the system is.
	But you're a little bit more optimistic that maybe something will happen with Congress in terms of changing things?
	I have to be optimistic.
	I fear you may be correct, David, but I have to be optimistic and I will continue to keep urging reform.
	Well, it's important that we understand what the problems are, because if we don't understand that, we never will solve the problem at any level.
	I think that's the key thing.
	And so, thank you so much for pointing out the problems and showing what has been happening, as many of us have seen with Mueller and Comey, Strzok, and all the rest of these people.
	It's just amazing to see what has happened, and it is amazing to see how they have taken the FISA law that was meant to restrict these types of And used it to actually enable them.
	Every time I see it, I just shake my head and just have to laugh at the audacity of this, that they can take these structures that were supposed to control them and use it as a get-out-of-jail-free card when they violate search warrants and everything else.
	It truly is amazing. But thank you so much.
	And again, the book is, let me get back to the title here, The Fall of the FBI, How a Once Great Agency Became a Threat to Democracy.
	Thank you so much. Thomas J. Baker is the author, and you can find this at Amazon.
	Or do you have a website where people can buy this directly?
	Yes, of course, most people use Amazon, but it's in many Barnes& Noble.
	And it's also, you can go to my website, thomasjbakerbook.com.
	Okay. And that will lead you to other places to get it.
	Good. ThomasJBakerBook.com Thank you so much, Mr.
	Baker. I appreciate it. Thank you so much, David.
	Well, that's it for today's broadcast, and I cannot thank all of you enough for your contributions.
	Thank you so much for supporting the show.
	And again, you will be in good hands with Bard and with Tony for this next week as we travel to Texas for a family wedding.
	Thank you. Have a good week.
	See you when we get 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.

▲