Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 16, 2023 - The David Knight Show

03:01:13

The David Knight Show - 08/16/2023

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Transcription by CastingWords
	Using free speech to free minds.
	Transcription by CastingWords You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	As the clock strikes 13, it's Wednesday, the 16th of August, year of our Lord, 2023.
	Three.
	Well, we have a new chapter in the Trump Civil Wars.
	We're not going to spend a lot of time on that, but we are going to cover it.
	And we're going to take a look at furries.
	They have now come into the news based on some, I guess we could call it infighting.
	Two wolves and a sheep.
	The guy that's a sheep was not dressed as a sheep, however, attacked filming the furries on the beach.
	It's a strange world we live in.
	As Travis said, it's such a time to be alive.
	Yeah, it really is.
	We'll talk about that.
	As well as the Lesser Magistrate, some updates on money.
	They're coming after us again with the lockdowns and the masks.
	It never will end until we tell them to back off.
	We'll be right back. Well,
	it's been a day since the latest indictments against Trump dropped, and again, it's become a real clown show.
	And you now have articles put up by the leftist mainstream media ranking the seriousness of these indictments.
	Pretty much everybody agrees that the stuff out of New York is nonsense.
	Not a threat. Not a serious threat.
	But there's a lot of reactions to this latest one in Georgia.
	And... I thought it was a lot of reactions to the fact that the indictment was put up on the internet in the middle of the night and then taken down and then put back up.
	People have had a lot to say about that.
	There's going to be a lot more reaction to it because it's 100 pages long and because so many people are involved.
	Uh, there's, um, 18, uh, other people that are indicted with this.
	And then there's another 30 co-conspirators that I, so we got like 50 people out there.
	And, um, as some people said, um, you know, Trump is going and his lawyers, his lawyers will be looking at, he won't necessarily.
	We're trying to decide who these unnamed, unindicted co-conspirators are that are going to be saying things.
	So it's going to continue to develop from here, and that's exactly what they plan.
	They want a civil war.
	But I have a listener who is an attorney, and I appreciate his opinion.
	He gave his opinion on the previous indictment for the documents, which is not 100 pages long.
	He read it and he said, this is pretty ironclad.
	And everybody has said that. And of course, you know, Trump did violate the law.
	The key issue with the documents is that so did so many other people, especially Hillary Clinton, that were not prosecuted.
	So it is unequal protection of the law, unequal prosecution.
	It isn't that they don't have him dead to rights.
	It's that they don't bother to look at anybody else.
	That's the issue there with that one.
	But even Alan Dershowitz, Could not really come up with any wiggle room for that indictment.
	So that bears watching.
	But in terms of this one, again, the lawyer who listens to the show says, It's the effort that he and others made to try to get votes and overturn the Georgia vote.
	The phone call opened the door, but that's not the main issue.
	Seems like he used every person he could to intimidate and harass other people.
	I don't think that call was illegal, by the way.
	Yeah, I don't either. All this stuff.
	I've got to find the votes.
	And if you put it in context, what he said immediately before that, he said ballots are being destroyed, other things.
	You've got to find these votes, right?
	You've got to do this before they destroy all the evidence, is the context that I see, and I think they would certainly argue that.
	That's pretty obvious, actually.
	I'd be amazed if these high-priced lawyers that he's got don't notice that.
	Anyway, he said, of course, the others were also on a mission for him, and I suspect they did what they are accused of.
	Now, are they crimes?
	I don't know, but dragging another 19 folks into it, therefore my prediction will...
	B, that some will plead to a minor offense, that the prosecutor will learn more to strengthen her case.
	Let's see, time will tell, he says.
	And of course, the fact there's another 30 unindicted co-conspirators means that they've already gotten some people who are coming in most likely to testify against Trump.
	And so as we look at this, I thought there was a great take from Joel Pollack at Breitbart.
	He said, Trump is indicted for the claims of stolen election in Georgia.
	Stacey Abrams still walks free.
	And so does Hillary Clinton over the document stuff.
	See, this is the issue. This is the glaring issue.
	The unequal prosecution, which is persecution.
	Political persecution.
	You know, again, even in the case of the documents where there are clearly crimes committed, there's no persecution for that.
	So what did Stacey Abrams do?
	Well, exactly the same stuff that Trump is accused of doing.
	Was she charged with racketeering?
	No. Twice failed Georgia gubernatorial candidate, despite having maintained for years that her 2018 race was stolen, a claim for which Trump has been indicted.
	Trump and 18 others, including lawyers, campaign aides, and supporters, were indicted in Fulton County, Georgia, On a collective 41 counts for their claims that the 2020 presidential election was stolen.
	Not just in Georgia, but elsewhere.
	The indictment, however, describes acts.
	Acts that they committed. Well, what are those acts that furthered the so-called conspiracy?
	They largely consisted of public statements.
	Oh, this is why people are saying these things are attacks on the First Amendment.
	Public statements, protests, you can't redress your grievances, claims made at hearings, and even posts on social media.
	This is what's being criminalized.
	See, we should all be very concerned about that.
	And, of course, we all have been very concerned about it.
	Trump wasn't concerned about it when it was happening to other people, just like he wasn't concerned about other people when January the 6th was happening.
	He didn't issue any pardons because he thought he could save his skin by not giving pardons.
	As a matter of fact, many people are saying, well, you know, they indict Trump with all this stuff.
	Maybe now, if he gets elected, maybe now he'll care about us.
	Do you really think so? You're non-essential.
	You're non-essential.
	Just send him your money.
	That's the only thing he needs from you.
	The very same kinds of actions and statements that Abrams and her allies have made for years.
	Public statements, protests, claims at hearings, posts on social media.
	Like Trump and his associates, Abrams made her claims of a stolen election repeatedly from public platforms and appears to have believed them.
	Like Trump, Abrams enlisted the help of political allies and worse, other elected Democrat officials.
	Like Trump, Abrams took her claims to court where they were dismissed even by otherwise sympathetic judges.
	Like Trump, Abrams nevertheless persuaded media and supporters that her election was in fact stolen, and many still believe it to this day.
	Yet no prosecutor.
	Not in Fulton County, not in the whole state of Georgia, and certainly not at the federal level, has ever prosecuted Stacey Abrams for her efforts, which apparently are a crime in Georgia involving potentially serious felonies.
	You see, this is the issue.
	And even when you look at what happened January the 6th, you know, compare the documents stuff with Trump to Hillary Clinton.
	Compare this stuff in Georgia to Stacey Abrams.
	Compare the insurrection, as they call it, the riot in Washington, D.C. Compare that to Tennessee.
	You see the double standard everywhere?
	We can argue with these details, but we know what is happening here.
	And we also know, as I said yesterday, and Jonathan Turley sees it as well and talked about it.
	I think Jonathan Turley is a pretty fair, even-handed person.
	He's not a cheerleader for either side.
	He leans to thinking conservatively, as I do.
	But basically, he sees this whole thing the same way I do now.
	He wrote that op-ed piece I covered yesterday where he said, this is...
	Both sides, both sides are playing a very dangerous game.
	Trump is taunting these people.
	Trump is pushing them to escalate charges, process charges of tampering or whatever, you know, and he wants the attention.
	And the Democrats want this as well.
	And he pointed that out in the context that 7% of Of the people polled would support violence to put Trump back in office.
	And 11%, an even greater number, would support violence to keep him out.
	And combined, we got about one out of five people in the United States.
	About 48 million people, according to that poll, are ready for violence over a Trump civil war.
	We have to put this in context.
	We have to understand this is coming from both sides.
	We have to understand Trump is not our savior.
	He was throwing us under the bus all of 2020.
	He is not worthy of this support.
	We also have to call out the unequal protection.
	But, of course, he did nothing to defend us when he had a chance.
	You understand? And it is interesting that some of these people now who have been indicted with all this We're not paid, and I pointed that out for a long time, and we all know that Rudy Giuliani was stiffed.
	But several of them were stiffed, while Trump made $250 million.
	And in this article from Reuters, they say several of the attorneys who spearheaded Trump's frenzied effort to overturn the results of the 2020 election tried and failed to collect payment for work they did for Trump's political organization.
	Despite claims of election interference that helped the Trump campaign, allied committees raised $250 million in the weeks following the November vote.
	And as they point out, and as I've pointed out, since before I was fired at Infowars, that's the reason why I was fired, by the way, because I posed the grift by both Trump and Alex.
	What was Alex doing?
	Raising money with Stop the Steal.
	What was that about? He didn't even pretend that he was going to do any legal challenges.
	Trump pretended he was going to do legal challenges, but if you looked at the agreement, which they don't even cover here in Reuters, I've mentioned it many times, the first $8,000 went to Trump, and he gave a percentage to the RNC. And then if you gave $8,001, the $1 would go to the legal fund.
	You see? That's how this was skewed.
	And most of the money that was coming in With small donations, you'd have people giving more than $8,000 typically.
	So all these small donors who are out there still cheering Trump on, all their money went to his legal fund and to the Republican National Committee.
	Trump and Giuliani had a handshake agreement, according to the attorney for longtime Giuliani ally Bernard Carrick.
	Let me just say this again. I've called Rudy Giuliani 9-11 Rudy for a long time because he participated in that cover-up of 9-11.
	Get rid of the evidence. Quick.
	Do it. I don't care if people get exposed to this dust, catch a respiratory illness and die.
	I don't care. Get rid of that evidence.
	Do it right now. And who was Bernard Carrick?
	Well, he was the police commissioner.
	Top cop in New York City.
	When 9-11 happened. So you get the mayor and the top cop who covered up 9-11.
	Literally covered it up.
	And did not investigate.
	And they're Trump allies.
	What does that tell you? What does that tell you?
	But of course they were all stiffed.
	There's no honor among thieves, as they say.
	So, according to Timothy Parlatore, an attorney for Bernard Carrick, the Trump campaign did not honor that handshake agreement.
	Surprise! Can you imagine?
	This is a guy who has not only divorced his wives but thrown them under the bus.
	Who has violated his oath to the Constitution.
	He, you know, just ripped it to shreds.
	Who would have thought that it could have been torn up any more than the previous presidents did, but he managed to find a way.
	And he didn't honor a handshake agreement?
	I mean, you know, you go back and look at these pictures.
	They were practically lovers, right?
	Of Giuliani dressed up in drag for a little parody thing.
	Trump liked his perfume, but something stinks about this deal.
	The records show that Giuliani's companies were only reimbursed for travel when he wanted $20,000 a day.
	I'm sorry, I've seen Rudy Giuliani on talk shows.
	He didn't work $20,000 a day.
	I bet he's sweating now.
	He had to stop using that hair dye that runs down whenever he sweats.
	Rolatore told CNBC that the Giuliani operation was never compensated for its work.
	And according to Parletory, the failure to pay Giuliani and his team came up last week in a private interview between prosecutors on special counsel Jack Smith's team and Carrick, a member of the Giuliani team in late 2020.
	Lawyers and law firms that didn't do anything were paid lots of money and people that worked there but off got nothing, said Carrick.
	Many complained in 2021.
	And as they point out in Reuters, no friend of Trump, they say, Trump has a long history of not paying his bills.
	We know that, too. But the revelation that he likely stiffed Giuliani, a longtime friend, is all the more striking, given that much of the work that Giuliani did for the Trump Organization is detailed in a sprawling RICO indictment in Georgia, where Giuliani is now a co-defendant.
	So, when we look at the, again, most of the money that came for this $250 million that Trump made came from small donors.
	The entire political network of Trump, including his joint fundraising committees, spent $47 million combined from the start of 2020.
	So the $47 million that they spent on legal fees from the beginning of 2020, they don't break it down as to how much he actually spent contesting the election.
	That was from the start of 2020 through the end of 2021.
	That money that was raised by Trump's political operation is instead being used to pay Trump's legal bills in a criminal case against him.
	Trump's Save America PAC spent over $20 million in the first half of the year alone on legal fees.
	The PAC began the second half of the year with only $3 million in cash on hand.
	So he's got to go out there and raise money by attacking judges and other people like that.
	See how this just spirals down?
	As a matter of fact, one person who wrote an op-ed piece said, the GOP's got to move on from Trump.
	He's dragging it down.
	Democrats are going to have a complete sweep in this.
	And one of the things he said is that it's not good to have somebody with this much of legal baggage dragging him down.
	And he says, well, you know, people are going to reply and say, well, we got to stand up and fight this because this is going to set a precedent that they'll bring charges against any Republican that's out there.
	But Trump brought so much of this stuff on himself.
	It's his arrogance that he brought on himself.
	Yes, they will use any means that they can.
	But also from a practical standpoint, he says, look, just the pragmatics of this What's Trump gonna be spending his money that he raises on?
	Is he gonna be spending it on campaigning and on ads?
	He's going to be in the courtroom instead of on the campaign trail.
	He's gonna be spending his money on lawyers instead of on any ads.
	But of course, Trump doesn't have anything to say anyway.
	You know, I was talking about this with my son last night.
	He said, look at this. Look at how DeSantis...
	And it really is, you know...
	Again, this horse race stuff in the polls don't mean that much.
	Six months away. Anything can happen.
	But at the current time, definitely momentum has left DeSantis' campaign.
	And I said, I'm not for DeSantis.
	I'm not for any of these people.
	And I'm not. I don't trust him.
	I don't trust any of them.
	But I said, it's about the issues.
	I said, it's sad that the issues that he's chosen to focus on, parental rights, abortion, these other things that Trump and others and the GOP hate so much.
	I said, it's sad that the voters don't get that.
	I don't know if this is about personality or whatever, but you see, Chris Christie is second in number two place in New Hampshire.
	Of course, that's close to where he is in New Jersey.
	And it's still a distant second to Trump.
	Ramaswamy is in second place nationally, still a very distant position to Trump.
	But the issues, the issues, CBDC, the first person to bring it up.
	It was DeSantis. These issues that I think are very important are not being addressed.
	Instead, you've got people trolling DeSantis, calling him pudding fingers.
	My son laughed and said, yeah, we can't ever have a president, anybody running for president who ate pudding with their fingers at some point in time.
	This kind of stuff. And the personal slurs coming from Trump, the juvenile personal slurs, putting fingers, one of them coming from his organization, but Trump tweeting out calling him meatball.
	You got a problem with him being Italian?
	Really? And, you know, calling him sanctimonious because of those policies.
	Because of those policies that Trump is on the wrong side.
	Trump is there with Biden on those policies that he calls DeSantis sanctimonious on.
	So I find it sad that at this point in time, issues are not going to be discussed.
	There will be no debate. As I said yesterday, The RNC has never had as a debate condition the fact that you have to sign on to support other candidates if you're not the nominee.
	Whoever the nominee is, you have to support them.
	That's never been there. And Trump came across as very authentic in the fall of 2015.
	The first debate for the 2016 election.
	That was the first question from Brett Baer.
	He said, no, I won't do it.
	Rand Paul discredited himself being a party hack for that.
	And Trump set himself apart as an independent.
	So he has, you know, that's really the right position, frankly, on that.
	And he's already done that.
	I said, why is that being put in this year?
	Is that being put in because the RNC made so much money from Trump and he's got pull with him?
	Put that in as a condition, and then I can have an out so I don't have to go to debates.
	I can just sit on the sidelines and call him Pudding Fingers or whatever.
	I can make fun of Chris Christie being fat.
	He hasn't figured out a way that he can attack people of color like Ramaswamy and Tim Scott yet.
	He'll find a way. They're a threat.
	But he doesn't really have to.
	He started after DeSantis because DeSantis is a real threat.
	If you think back to 2022, it was an absolute disaster with the people that Trump had selected and promoted.
	That's how we lost the Senate.
	It should have been a sweep.
	They barely got control of the House, no thanks to Trump.
	They lost the Senate when they should have won it because Trump endorsed very bad people like Dr.
	Oz and Blake Masters, these people who had absolutely no spine, who were flip-flopping.
	There were celebrity candidates.
	Even wanted to run a celebrity candidate here in Tennessee.
	She was a Democrat.
	She was an Obama Democrat.
	But she was a fashion model and she moved in as a carpetbagger into Tennessee.
	Tennessee changed the laws and said you have to live here for three years before you can run for Congress.
	Because they already had put that in for anybody who runs for state legislature in Tennessee.
	I think that was a great idea.
	But you know, Trump was just pulling in the worst people for the big races of Senate.
	And it was disastrous.
	And in that context, and everybody saw it, DeSantis and the Republicans won, you know, big victory, huge victory, the biggest landslide, what people were expecting was going to happen nationally.
	That only happened in Florida.
	So people, that's when the talk about running DeSantis for president started.
	And that's why Trump started all the pudding finger meatball slurs at him.
	That's where we are now.
	It truly is amazing to see how this thing is, America is just spiraling into the abyss.
	Dershowitz predicts that all four Trump trials will take place before 2024 elections and said there will be some convictions.
	As a matter of fact, you know, I think he's absolutely right about this.
	They're going to run this stuff through.
	They're going to get convictions because of the venues and where they put it, right?
	They're going to have biased juries, just as we see with the January 6th people and the District of Columbia places.
	So he said there'll be convictions and And he says, and then they will be appealed, and they'll be thrown out on appeal.
	I think that's absolutely right.
	He says, first of all, the media is going nuts over the fact, oh, look, we got this indictment.
	He said the indictments don't mean anything.
	You know, the whole thing, you can indict a ham sandwich because you've got the grand jurors who come in.
	They're not presented with anything from the other side.
	They're only presented with a prosecutor's case.
	We talk about this every time something like this happens, that the indictments don't really mean anything.
	The indictments are, you know, just, it's a way, if the prosecutors want to do it, it's a way for them to test how strong their case is.
	But in this particular case, she's already decided what she wanted to do.
	So it was a mere formality.
	That's one of the reasons why the indictment was posted before the grand jury came in.
	She'd already decided what she wanted.
	You know, it was 100% win.
	She knew she was going to get everything that she asked for.
	They rubber-stamped something that the prosecutor puts before him.
	He said, the best evidence is the prosecutor was so confident that she was willing to put it on her website even before the vote took place.
	Dershowitz says, you know, it's Alice in Wonderland.
	You do the verdict first, execution, and then trial.
	That's what we're having here.
	Oh, the irony. Take the guns and do the due process later.
	You know, Trump, If you don't support the Constitution and due process, it doesn't work for you either, right?
	Just like you don't care when people get purged off of social media, well, eventually they come for you as well.
	And usually when there's a revolution, it's the politicians who get put up against the wall first.
	I think the strategy, he said, is to get bad convictions, but to get them quickly.
	And then they'll be reversed on appeal.
	But they'll be reversed on appeal after the election.
	And of course, when you look at the history of Jack Smith, as we pointed out when he was looking at, who is this guy running a special prosecutor?
	That's exactly what he did to the Republican governor of Virginia.
	He came after him.
	He got convictions. And then it was thrown out pretty much unanimously.
	It was a bad verdict, and it got thrown out on appeal.
	But that's what I said. This whole thing, you know, they'll get thrown out on appeal, and or they won't send him to prison, you know, but they just want to smear him and affect the election.
	That's what all this is. Get him before the election, convict him before the election, and then he wins on appeal.
	And so you've got all these different mainstream media places.
	Slate is one of them, but you've got, put a list down here of all the different sites that have put this whole angle up.
	We've got Newsweek, we've got NBC, we've got British papers like Telegraph, CNN, Business Insider, all these different ones are saying, you know, Trump can't get a pardon in Georgia.
	And they're right, but they're also wrong.
	Because the governor in Georgia, Georgia is one of five states where the governor cannot issue a pardon.
	There is a board of pardon and parole that does that.
	And according to the law, they cannot pardon someone until the person has served their prison sentence and And been a good boy or girl for five years.
	Good behavior, five years.
	You do the prison sentence, and you've got a five-year period where they look at your behavior.
	You don't have any other issues.
	You can go before them, and you can get that a sponge.
	Kind of like what John Kiriakou was asking.
	Giuliani to present to President Trump, and John Kiriakou says Giuliani gets up and leaves the room to reuse the restroom, and his people there with him says, you know, well, that'll cost you $2 million, but we can do it.
	He says, well, I've already served my time.
	I'm just trying to get my pension back, you know, get a pardon for that so I can get my pension back.
	The pension's only worth, you know, $700,000.
	I don't have $2 million.
	I wouldn't pay that to you. And it makes no sense for me to pay $2 million to get a $700,000 pension.
	But, you know, that's the pardon and the way that it works in Georgia.
	And so, you know, Trump or any Republican president could not pardon him for state charges.
	And so that applies to both the thing that's happening in New York, which most people say that's a garbage case, not a really big deal.
	But the one in Georgia, the charges are so many and so serious that it could be a big issue.
	So, under the Georgia Constitution, a five-person state board of pardons and paroles is vested with the power of executive clemency, including, and this is a quote, including the power to grant reprieves, pardons, and paroles, to commute penalties, to remove disabilities imposed by law, and to admit any part of a sentence for any offense against the state after conviction.
	Now, all of these mainstream media organizations are focusing on this.
	It's like, see, look, the pardon. And the way they define it, the pardon is defined as a pardon in state law is, quote, Granted to those individuals who have maintained a good reputation in their community following the completion of the sentence.
	And they go on to talk about the five-year issue, right?
	And before you even apply for a pardon, you have to have completed your sentence five years before.
	So you serve the time, you wait five years after serving the time, and then you apply for the pardon.
	Well, all that is true.
	And they gloat and they say, well...
	It's a piece of paper that would do little else besides getting Trump a job as a line cook at 97 years old.
	The problem is, I read you, and they have it in their article, there's the State Board of Pardons and Paroles, and they list all kinds of things.
	Reprieves, paroles, commutation of penalties, removing disabilities imposed by law, And so, all of those things are there.
	And they conveniently ignore all of that.
	They don't talk about any of those things.
	If they can grant a reprieve, well, if they can commute sentences partially or wholly, as they said, they could get rid of it.
	A pardon is a different category, but they could do all of these actions.
	And so it's another example of media dishonesty.
	And you're seeing this article everywhere.
	Again, this is part of the Trump Civil Wars.
	The board, if they wished, could commute the sentence and just end it right there.
	They don't have to wait. If they want an official pardon, yes, there is a process for that.
	Got to do the whole term.
	And another five years after that, they could commute the sentence.
	They could wipe it away. They could give them a reprieve.
	Why is it that the mainstream media doesn't talk about that?
	Isn't that amazing? They want to hype this up for their base.
	This is red meat for their base.
	Just like the other stuff is red meat for the conservative base.
	Because they're both trying to push us into a civil war.
	And it's so obvious and stupid.
	It's amazing. You see this coming from the Georgia Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger.
	So he's also talking about this.
	He says the former president didn't respect the Constitution.
	He's the one who took the call.
	And the governor, Brian Kemp, who, again, does not have anything to say about the cannot issue the parole.
	But he would have sway over a parole board.
	The governor there, Brian Kemp, said the 2020 election in Georgia was not stolen for nearly three years now.
	Anyone with evidence of fraud has failed to come forward under oath and prove anything in a court of law.
	Our elections are secure here, and so forth.
	He did nothing. To fix the monkey wrench that Trump himself threw into the elections with the lockdown.
	He did nothing to fix that between the time of the November election and the runoff election that happened on January the 5th, 2021.
	But again, if you look at Trump's comments in context, this phone call to Raffensperger that was...
	Trump said they're shredding ballots, in my opinion, based on what I've heard, and they're removing machinery, and they're moving it as fast as they can, both of which are criminal.
	And you can't let it happen.
	And you are letting it happen.
	You know, I mean, I'm notifying you that you're letting it happen.
	So look, all I want to do is this.
	I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have.
	What do they do? Same thing they did with the pardon stuff.
	I take one little thing and pull that out of context.
	I just want you to find 11,700 votes.
	Oh, he's telling him to stuff the ballots or to rig the election.
	And that's absolutely not true.
	So, again, then there's this big back and forth.
	Well, I think his due process was violated because they put up the charges before the grand jury even voted.
	This is sloppy. This is clownish.
	And it speaks to, you know, this particular prosecutor.
	Very sloppy work.
	That's the way I see it.
	One of the headlines, I forget which news organization had it there, said, oh, it's a grand slam.
	They've hit him and everybody else, all this kind of stuff.
	I told Karen, I said, yeah, it's a grand slam like a Denny's breakfast or buffet.
	It's a bunch of junk food to feed to the masses.
	That's what this is.
	It's a Denny's Grand Slam.
	That's what it is. No insults to the people who like to eat at Denny's or people who work at Denny's or own Denny's.
	Denny's is fine. I'm just saying.
	That's what this is. The document, dated August the 14th, obtained by Reuters, revealed 13 charges.
	And then it goes back down again.
	But look, she's got a history also of escalating these conspiracy charges to RICO, racketeering influence corrupt organizations.
	Personally, I think all these conspiracy charges are absolute nonsense.
	Isn't it interesting that the FBI wants to call us conspiracists?
	They call everybody conspiracists, so no problem with that, right?
	If they come after somebody for a crime, if you had any interaction with somebody else, well then they can charge you both with a crime and they can charge you with a conspiracy to commit that crime.
	They stack this stuff up.
	It's one of the ways that they've gotten nearly, it's 90 some odd percent.
	It's up in the high 90s.
	I think it's over 95 percent of the cases will go to plea bargaining instead of to a trial.
	And the way they do that is by adding a bunch of ridiculous charges, typically conspiracy, to everything.
	And everything is a conspiracy except for the JFK assassination.
	That is not a conspiracy.
	9-11? Well, yeah, that was a conspiracy even according to their official narrative.
	But, you know, they didn't try the lone pilot excuse.
	They had several planes.
	Only two planes in New York, but they had three buildings collapsed in their footprint.
	Anyway, when they talk about conspiracy, again, this is, you know, ramping up the charges.
	She takes it to the next level.
	She goes to RICO. And she's been successful in a RICO prosecution.
	It was something about some fraud or something in some school district.
	And because there was a bunch of people involved, it really was a genuine conspiracy.
	But she takes it up to RICO statute.
	And she convicted like 11 out of 12 people with that.
	So she was successful in doing that, whether or not it's a justified thing.
	The question I have with the RICO stuff is, And this was used, RICO was used a lot by Rudy Giuliani, as a matter of fact, because it was really set up initially to come after the mafia.
	It wasn't too long before they started using RICO statutes to come after pro-life protesters.
	Seriously. You have Randy Alcorn, Christian author.
	He was a pastor. As they were helping...
	Someone who had not been on his radar, really.
	And he was helping somebody who had an unwanted pregnancy and crisis thing that came up, and he and his wife helped her.
	And they got him involved in the abortion issue.
	And then it got him involved in protests at abortion places saying, look, we'll help you if you're in a crisis type of thing.
	And so Planned Parenthood, he's up in Oregon or something where it's really leftist.
	Planned Parenthood came after him using the RICO statutes.
	And anyway, whatever they did, they got an $8 million judgment against him.
	Now he's written a lot of books.
	He's written Christian fiction.
	He's written a lot of heaven, was one that he had that was really, really big.
	The Treasure Principle, where he talks about what Jesus has told us about money.
	He's had incredibly, you know, a long, long list of very, very successful books.
	He's made millions and millions of dollars subsequent to that.
	But he turned over every penny.
	Except for the amount that you're allowed to keep.
	You know, they let you keep what is equivalent to what you'd make with minimum wage or something like that with that judgment.
	And for 20 years, he didn't touch a penny of that.
	He gave it all away so that Planned Parenthood would not get a penny.
	But when you look at RICO statutes, I'm not a fan of that.
	RICO statutes, as I said yesterday, was the beginning of what turned into civil asset forfeiture.
	And I've gone through that timeline of how we slipped into that before.
	Biden was a big part of that.
	So her excuse really is, hey, look, I'm not an expert on administrative duties.
	Well, she may not be an expert on the law either when we look at this.
	But you've got a lot of people screaming bloody murder.
	Ramaswamy says that Trump's due process rights have been violated.
	Is he a lawyer? I don't know.
	I don't think his due process rights have been violated, but quite frankly, I don't care about his due process rights.
	This is a guy who, for...
	To violate the Second Amendment that he swore to uphold and to protect, said take the guns and do the due process later for red flags.
	He also, in violation of that, he set a precedent that I'm going to do banning of guns or parts of guns.
	I'm going to do it by executive order.
	So don't talk to me about due process for Trump.
	You know, just as people get upset about the fact that Biden's crimes or Hillary's crimes are not paid any attention to, but they focus on Trump's crimes.
	Well, guess what? I don't care about Trump's due process rights when he doesn't care about our free speech, when he doesn't care about the Second Amendment, when he attacks the Second Amendment.
	But Ramaswamy, it's one of the reasons why I think he's going up in the polls.
	He has positioned himself as a rising sycophant to Trump.
	And he is positioning himself, and the smart people are positioning themselves, to inherit his supporters.
	When all this stuff is said and done.
	On Rockfin, thank you very much, Michael Gregory.
	Appreciate the tip. Thank you.
	Also on Rockfin, Doug Elkins.
	Thank you so much. He thanks us.
	No, thank you. Thank you for that.
	Another one. It says, do you remember what day you talked about not needing to nuke Japan?
	Doug would like to re-watch it.
	I think it was last week.
	You know, that's one thing I really have a hard time remembering.
	I have a hard time remembering people's names when I first meet them for some reason.
	I almost have to write it down in order to remember things, and I don't.
	We'll try to take a look at it and see.
	It might have happened last week when Travis was gone, so we'll take a look at it.
	Maybe White didn't ring a bell with him.
	Also on Rockfin, Angus Mustang, thank you very much.
	He says, thank you for the hard work you do to deliver us true information we need.
	Well, thank you. That is really kind of you.
	And I really do appreciate that.
	You know, we have a few people who do a lot of heavy lifting for this program.
	And that's the thing that concerns me because that's not sustainable.
	I put that kind of a burden on just a few people.
	And so just ask people if you're able to If you can just give us a small donation once a month, even five dollars, that would be many multiples of what we make right now and would not be a problem at all.
	We wouldn't have to even talk about this stuff, which I don't like to talk about.
	But we wouldn't have to talk about this at all if people who listen gave a dollar even, you know, once a month to this stuff.
	We'll be right back. You're
	listening to The David Knight Show.
	Well, let's talk a little bit about the furries.
	I said we'd talk about this.
	The first time I heard about this was a couple of years ago.
	Kids were showing up in school dressing up like animals and calling themselves furries.
	And I thought, what in the world is this?
	And it's just the latest...
	Fetish, the latest lovers of self, the latest removing yourself from reality.
	That's what this is all about. It is a continuum.
	We look at LGBT stuff, and I've said it for a long time, where this is headed, especially with the transgender stuff.
	It's headed to pedophilia.
	And we've seen this.
	And I said it before they started the Drag Queen Storytime Hour.
	What they call the Drag Queen, the Dragon Story Hour.
	And I said, the reason I say that is because we have always said that you cannot have sex with a minor, even if they consent to it.
	It's statutory rape.
	I'd called out Planned Parenthood for many years for not reporting statutory rape.
	You've got a pregnant minor, you've got statutory rape.
	Call the police. They don't do it.
	But I said, if we're going to say that children can permanently alter their body and there's no coming back, I mean, you know, certainly the sexual stuff and the statutory rape, that has real psychological, spiritual scars that are left on people.
	It's one of the ways that they propagate homosexuality.
	You go back and look at people and say, yeah, you know, I was molested as a child and it affected me psychologically the way that I related to people and all the rest of this stuff.
	That's a real heinous thing.
	But if you're going to say that kids can mutilate their bodies...
	Even chemically castrate kids at the age of 8.
	And that's what they were going to do in Texas.
	You had a judge agreed with the mother, was going to do that.
	You know, the Save James story.
	I forget his last name. James Younger.
	And his father, I interviewed his father.
	And, you know, 8-year-old.
	He's 6 years old at the time.
	The judge said, well, wait until the kid is 8.
	And then we'll chemically castrate him.
	It's like, if you're going to support that, Then that's a way to move in.
	Well, if they can consent to castration, then I guess they can consent to anything, right?
	So I said it's headed towards pedophilia.
	But then the other way, the other part of this, it's two-pronged.
	One of them is to take us into pedophilia and all kinds of abuse.
	The other thing is to take us into transhumanism.
	To take us into this virtual reality where nothing is real, everything is imagined, and they want to keep us controlled, as Yuval Harari said, we'll do it with drugs and we'll do it with video games.
	We'll put people in a virtual reality.
	And a good example of this is this furry stuff.
	Right now, you've got people, adults, as well as kids, Going around these conventions and dressing up as furries, dressing up like a costume character or something like that.
	And going to these as much as they can, hanging out with each other.
	You've got another group of homosexuals, mermaids they call themselves.
	Guys who dress up and put on mermaid pants without legs, make them look like they're fish on the bottom half, lounge around a pool and stuff like that, this kind of stuff.
	These people are ripe for being put into a virtual reality prison of their own making.
	They want to drop out of reality.
	They've had it with reality. A lot of these furry people, furry fetishes, say that they were bullied extensively and so forth, and so they're trying to escape into this costume.
	And this is the way that they can feel accepted and so forth.
	And so we have this really strange thing where you have a guy was filming these furries who were in a public place.
	Huntington Beach in California.
	Where else but California, right?
	Sunset Beach Bonfire Fur Meet, they call it.
	This is when the furries get together.
	They have a fur meet.
	And so one person who is not in costume, but apparently was known to these people, apparently was kicked out of their group for some reason.
	He's filming with a phone.
	And then there is, you know, this guy has this to say to him.
	Put him up! Put him up!
	Which one do you face?
	I'll fight you both together if you want.
	I'll fight you with one paw tied behind my back.
	I'll fight you standing on one foot.
	I'll fight you with my eyes closed.
	Oh, pulling an axe on me, eh?
	Sneaking up on me, eh?
	Why? Actually, it was worse than that.
	He was the one who was armed.
	He didn't have an axe. He had a bullhorn.
	And he ran at the guy and hit the guy in the head.
	And the guy was in a great deal of pain.
	As a matter of fact, here's the actual clip where the fur is flying.
	And you've got to watch this closely.
	It's right at the very beginning of this clip where he runs at him and hits him in the head with his bullhorn.
	Hey! And then it's immediately tackled.
	And you hear this guy who's screaming in the background.
	He just keeps screaming for a very long time.
	He's in a great deal of pain. So yeah, I'm going to have to have stitches, he's saying.
	I'm going to sue you. And the other guy had said, I'm going to sue you.
	And then I'm going to sue the person who's doing it.
	Yes, this is America.
	We hire lawyers to settle our differences unless we can hit somebody with a bullhorn.
	Yeah, the real attack was even more cowardly than...
	The Cowardly Lion. You know, at least the Cowardly Lion decided, go ahead, put him up, put him up.
	I'll take you on with this. But that guy just jumped.
	Now, these guys were dressed as wolves, and that may have been an indication because there was another guy that was there also dressed as a wolf, and he also jumps on to this guy.
	And so hundreds of furries were there, but only the wolves went after them.
	It's interesting that the Daily Mail called this guy who was filming them a voyeur.
	What? I mean, honestly, if I was on the beach and I saw a bunch of adults, you know, dressed up and prancing around or whatever they do in these costumes, I would pull out my camera too because it would be so unbelievable.
	But, you know, to call them a voyeur, they say this is something of a sexual fetish for these people, and I don't understand that either.
	You know, this is, again, this is another one of these things like Sam Britton.
	And when you look at some of these people...
	Also, fun fact about the furry community, they're constantly getting exposed for being zoophiles and necrophiles.
	Surprise, surprise. Oh, bestiality.
	Oh, okay. Okay.
	Well, there you go. I guess that's where the sexual kind...
	I don't know.
	These guys better stay away from real wolves, though.
	I... I've heard tell that a wolf can bite the tail off of a cow in one chomp.
	So you might want to not take out your furry fetishes on a real wolf.
	This is a couple of guys there with their heads removed.
	An older guy and a younger guy.
	What's going on with that?
	So, anyway, this is...
	The man who was recording the group before the fight was heard was screaming on the ground.
	And then as the camera clip continues to go on, he says, This is what furries do to you!
	And then they start making the allegations, the threats, saying that they're going to sue other people.
	And so...
	So it's not clear how it started.
	The man recording said that, but you know, that part of it is not really all that interesting.
	It's really more interesting what is going on with the community.
	And this whole weirdness here, they say in this article, Daily Mail, they call it a sexual fetish.
	They say it's also the fastest growing fandom in the world with an estimated two and a half million adherents worldwide.
	We're living in really sick times.
	Two and a half million.
	Each animal represents a different personality.
	Fox furries are sly or mischievous.
	Dogs are fun types, and cats are for people who want to be seen as aloof.
	And we've just seen what wolves do.
	They have what they call their fursona, based on what it is that they do.
	And this guy that was posing with a young kid, they interviewed him in a previous article.
	He says it's weird, but we kind of accept that it's a lot of fun.
	And so they had an anthro weekend in Utah in July.
	Ogden, Utah. You know, to celebrate all things furry.
	I remember when Ogden, Utah was known as the home of the Osmond brothers and, you know, Andy Williams.
	And that was when America had it set on straight.
	I don't know what's going on with this stuff.
	The 2019 event was called Furlock Homes, themed on Sherlock Holmes, featured specially created characters such as Puriardi and murder mystery treasure hunts where attendees could win free related merchandise.
	Well, you know, any of this stuff could be harmless, but there's something else going on here.
	Simple fact of the matter is that these guys are like Lost Boys.
	Really like it. I mean, when you look at the pictures of the Lost Boys and They're in what?
	Like little animal costumes.
	These guys are never going to grow up, even as they're going to grow old.
	They're not going to grow up.
	And that really is a big issue for our society.
	Some of them talk, some of them squeak, some of them stay totally silent.
	But the key issue, if we look at the demographics with this, according to a website that collects data about these two and a half million people worldwide, fur science they call it, the majority of them, here's the demographic, they're male, 84% male, and 83% white.
	Now, again, the bullying stuff is what a lot of them said.
	I was being bullied in school and I got into this type of thing.
	Even some of the females who were doing it said that they were bullied in school.
	But, you know, you look at how men are bullied in society, and I'm not excusing it.
	I'm just saying that these guys, instead of tackling this stuff directly and head-on, they retreat into a costume.
	And again, you know, if you are male, if you are white, you are not liked in this society right now.
	The institutions have turned against those people, and they are creating mobs against those demographics.
	Three-quarters of all furries are under the age of 25.
	Less than a third of all furries consider themselves to be heterosexual.
	So it's two-thirds homosexual.
	And 75% under the age of 25.
	White males.
	This is what's happening to white males in the future.
	First Science Statistics...
	Reveal that many furries have a history of being bullied with 61% saying that they were picked on during their high school years.
	And so they've now just retreated into this.
	Truly is amazing.
	Now here's another example of this.
	Here is a tranny who has been part of RuPaul's Drag Race.
	Here's what the guy looks like typically on the left when he's mocking and making fun of real women.
	And here's what he looks like on the right when he's mocking and making fun of real black women.
	And we've now figured out that there is a line here that must not be crossed.
	He's learning really hard that there is a ranking to intersectionality.
	And there's certain things that must not be mocked.
	But it's okay for him to mock women.
	And it's also okay for him to sexualize kids, as I've said many times.
	The types of stuff that you see these so-called drag queens, I call them dragons.
	You see these dragons doing lewd dances in front of very young children.
	You know, like stripper dances and, you know, giving them money and all the rest of this stuff.
	A heterosexual woman could not do that.
	Could not do those kinds of stripper performances out in public.
	But it's okay for these guys too.
	But you better not dress up in blackface in a cartoon mocking of black people.
	But you can mock women and you can sexualize children.
	Pearl Liason...
	Real name, Matthew James Lint.
	Slammed by other drag race stars for the usage of blackface.
	When people carelessly play with blackface and use slurs, I think the public outrage overshadows the private hurt that we go through, said one of them.
	But again, it's okay to flash kids and to mock women.
	It is interesting how these people...
	I don't think any of this stuff is okay.
	But, you know, they've got their little carve-outs for the privileged classes that are there.
	On Rumble, Harps, 338LM. That's Harps in Australia.
	Yeah, it is. Okay, Travis says, yeah.
	Thank you very much. I appreciate he's putting a tip of $5 and said, done.
	Thank you very much. And that's exactly what CB Madman said, 1313.
	Thank you. I appreciate that.
	Thumbs up and a tip, says Frank Neeb.
	Thank you so much on Rumble.
	Those three on Rumble.
	On Rockfin, Richard Williams.
	Thank you very much for the tip.
	He says, I care about Trump's due process.
	I care about everybody's due process because it is just.
	If Trump faced due process for his crimes, and I was on the jury, I would vote for his execution.
	Even Trump deserves due process.
	That's right. Let's give them justice, good and hard.
	That's the problem. You know, that's the thing that bothers me so much about this.
	Because there's real big crimes, even bigger than, just like Biden.
	You know, Biden's got big crimes of graft and corruption and who knows what else.
	But Biden has a long history of crimes against the Constitution, as I said before, you know, going back to the Reagan administration.
	He's been committing crimes against the Constitution as a senator for decades.
	But yeah, the big crime that they're not going to take a look at.
	That's what they did to all of us.
	That's amazing. On Rockfin, Amos Poole.
	Thank you very much. That is very generous.
	I appreciate that. I agree with my fellow Scotsman, Angus.
	Appreciate your clear, honest analysis.
	Thank you very much. And on Rumble, North American House Hippo, thank you for the tip.
	I appreciate that. He says, the last Democrat I had any respect for was the late Jim Trafficking.
	I remember him, vaguely, yeah.
	He used to conclude his speeches by saying, beam me up.
	So here we are. Beam me up.
	Yeah. Well, we got one more to show you here.
	This is a school trustee.
	This is an elected position.
	It's like a school board trustee.
	It's like, you know, getting elected to the school board here in the U.S., but they call them trustees in Canada.
	This person looks like a guy.
	And you can pull up that article and show them what this...
	This is a woman who dresses as a man, going the other way, and the rainbow bow tie that's there.
	Well, it's an elected position.
	This biological female who pretends to be a male also makes no issues about how much he hates Christians or she hates Christians.
	Yeah, even I get confused with these people.
	The name is Terry Westerby, director of an LGBT propaganda arm called the Chilliwack Pride Society.
	Chilliwack is the name of the town there.
	We're not talking about some other kind of sexual practice here or something.
	Which means that she is a radical sex activist who happens to also be an elected school board trustee.
	And so, after she posted this meme here, you see what a stupid meme this is.
	Got Barbie down in the bottom corner there, the Barbie from the movie.
	And then they have a rainbow-colored steamroller that they put a label of Barbie on there, trying to tie it into this movie.
	I don't know why that has to be there, but anyway.
	Then they have, in front of the steamroller, A bunch of black and white NPCs.
	And they're labeled traditional family, Christian values, sanctity of marriage, etc.
	And they're being steamrolled and run over by people in the Barbie steamroller.
	Steamroller mowing down a group of terrorized Christians running for their life.
	As a result of that, this person has been removed, but I believe, yeah, no, I'm sorry, did not get removed, did not get removed.
	The trustee posted a non-apology statement on August the 5th.
	She attempted to justify what she shared as an anti-Christian meme.
	She assured her readers that she would, quote, not promote violence or hatred against anyone for any reason whatsoever.
	But she's also done this in the past.
	She also posted this meme about a priest.
	Says, Father, I'm a lesbian, says the other character of the priest.
	Ask God for help to cure you of that sin, he says.
	And so she says, God, please let my problem disappear.
	And the final panel of the cartoon is that the priest disappears.
	So she doesn't have a problem with sin.
	She has a problem with somebody pointing it out to her.
	That's the key. And as they point out in this LifeSite News article, this person is a trustee who clearly hates Christians and is bigoted towards Christians, is now in charge of kids.
	Some of whom are coming from Christian families.
	And I guess they think they can take care of that.
	We'll be right back. In
	In a world of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	Well, I guess it's sad news, but not unexpected.
	Many news organizations have picked up this report.
	America's addiction crisis laid bare.
	Two-thirds of adults have a family member who is hooked on drugs or alcohol.
	One out of ten have lost someone to an overdose.
	Is that surprising? And that doesn't even talk about sexual addictions to porn or fursuits or whatever else this stuff is.
	I mean, it is amazing how enslaved our society is.
	And as we are enslaved to these things, which are really pressing on us immediately, you know, the alcoholism, the drug abuse, the sexual addiction, as we are enslaved to these things, It's clear that we're not going to be seeing the chains put on us by these people, the literal chains, well, not literal, but the open-air prisons that they're putting us into, and the wireless chains that they're forging on us as we go into all this stuff.
	No, we're going to be focusing on our obsessions, our addictions, those kinds of slaveries.
	We're going to be focused on, well, what happened to Trump after the election in 2020?
	We're not even going to take a look at what Trump did, the first part of 2020.
	And so our hindsight is not 2020.
	It's only part of 2020.
	And it's misdirected away from the real issues, and we can't see what is coming for us in 2030.
	National Review, by the way, I talked yesterday about how this guy, Anthony, Oliver Anthony, I always have to think twice about that.
	He's got two first names.
	But I talked about the fact that he had been attacked, a lot of people did, by a Rolling Stones writer.
	Well, he's now been attacked by National Review.
	National Review, who came after the John Burt Society.
	Back in the 1960s, led by William F. Buckley, who was a CIA guy, coming after the real genuine conservatives, the John Birch Society.
	And now they're continuing to do it.
	You've got a National Review executive editor who has attacked Oliver Anthony.
	He says, I just don't understand this adulation of this guy.
	What is the big deal? It just goes to show how out of touch both the left and the right establishment are with what is happening here.
	Because there's a lot of people who see what's going on as part of his lyrics.
	You think we don't see, but we do.
	And I see it as a very encouraging thing.
	Now, the National Review Editor...
	Looks at this and says, so what's the big deal?
	You know, he's got a lousy job where they're not paying him?
	Well, you know, pull yourself up by your bootstraps.
	Go get an education or go do this or go do that.
	Maybe the National Review editor should ask himself what happened to that American ethic and why people have lost hope in that thing and are losing hope in a big way.
	Because he doesn't understand that.
	He doesn't understand why this resonates with people.
	It's because he's isolated from this.
	And John Nolte at Breitbart takes him on on that.
	But actually, even John Nolte kind of misses that aspect of it.
	He says, come on, give me a break.
	This is art, right?
	And, you know, don't take this quite so literally.
	But I do think that we should take it literally.
	And we need to understand where National Review is coming from.
	But I thought it was funny what John Nolte did.
	He said the best way to read these excerpts from National Review's hit piece on it is in the voice of Thurston Howell III. You know, Jim Backus' character from Gilligan's Island.
	Yeah, it's just a damn shame what the world's gotten to.
	But we can fix it, lovey.
	We don't just have to dream about it.
	That's what he said. That's a quote from his thing.
	We don't have to dream about it. We can fix it.
	Indeed, if we want to, we can fix it on our own, even if Washington is standing in our way or looking down its nose at us.
	Love, eh? He says he also suggests that Anthony remind everybody in a song of, quote, what makes America such a great land, a land of opportunity, not of guaranteed success.
	Love, eh? You're fit, you're an able-bodied man, and you're working overtime hours for BS pay.
	You need to find a new job, and you can do it.
	There's plenty of them out there.
	There's great jobs that don't require college degrees and all the rest of this stuff.
	Well, you know, where does this come from?
	Maybe this National Review editor might want to go back and look at 2020 where we were told we were not essential.
	For people who had worked all their life in the American dream to have a small business, Had that small business crushed by the president and his minions, by the governors that he paid, and the minions of that governor, these public health dictators, telling you, you've got to shut down your business.
	I'm sorry, I don't care. I said, that really bothered me because I come from a tradition of that.
	Both my grandfathers had small businesses.
	My father had a small business.
	At one point in my life, I had a small business.
	I know how people work and how they pour themselves into that.
	And to just have some government bureaucrat, unelected, but bribed by the president, bribed by the governor as that tyranny trickles down to people.
	That trickle-down tyranny was what Trump gave us.
	That's what I said all the time about this PPP stuff.
	I said, don't PPP down my back and tell me it's raining.
	This is trickle-down tyranny.
	Oh, here's a little bit of a stimulus check.
	Get used to it, because we're going to put you on universal basic income, because we're going to destroy your job, we're going to destroy your business, and the rest of this stuff.
	Don't talk to me about the American work ethic if you're not going to criticize Trump for what he did.
	This is It's a response to what Trump did.
	This is a response to this 2030 stuff with Biden taking away everything from us.
	Even taking away the conveniences that we have in terms of appliances.
	Our freedom and our mobility to move around with automobiles.
	And they're taking all of it. They're not just taking the internal combustion engines.
	They're going to take the electric cars as well.
	Biden is out there Shutting off areas where we could mine uranium.
	I say, we're going to make this into a monument to some Indian tribes or something.
	You can't touch it. What's that about?
	They can't make an argument, their emissions argument, for nuclear power plants.
	They've got other issues, quite frankly.
	That I think are far more important.
	I'm not worried about emissions.
	Emissions can be cleaned up at the site.
	They can be cleaned up on the cars.
	I drive around all the time in a convertible.
	Very rarely can I smell the exhaust of some car.
	It's kind of unusual when I can.
	They run very clean now.
	But look, they don't want us to have fuel of any kind.
	They began by trying to stop coal because we have so much coal.
	But now they're even going for uranium.
	And since they can't make an argument for it from an emissions standpoint, they're going to go for the uranium by just keeping it in the ground.
	Just lock it up. I don't want it out there.
	And, you know, so to paraphrase Obama, you like your electric car, you can keep your electric car.
	In the garage.
	Because we're not going to have any electricity for you to charge it.
	There's not going to be anything to run the grid on.
	This is what is happening.
	You think we don't see it, National Review, but we do.
	You think we don't see it, Rolling Stone, but we do.
	And we see where you are as well.
	You leftist and rightist establishment elitists who skirt above all this stuff.
	Just amazing to see this.
	After being told they were non-essential.
	And, you know, the other thing that we see nationally, which maybe you don't see, is 80,000 IRS agents coming for us in a couple of years.
	What are they going to be for? They're going to be to shut us down.
	It's amazing. I look back at my life, and my grandfather, during the Depression, one of them had worked as a streetcar conductor.
	He saved up his money. He had a general store.
	And he got that before the Depression happened.
	So on my mother's side, they rode that out.
	It's not a big store, right?
	Certainly not a chain. But they rode that out on that side.
	On my father's side, he was basically making medicines and cosmetics and stuff like that in the backyard.
	Nobody ever had a problem with any of that stuff, but of course the FDA would not allow that.
	And as my father and uncle continued that business and expanded that business, and they did private labeling for some other companies, but it was still a pretty small business.
	And... It was clear that they had about 40 or 50 employees.
	And it was clear to both me and to my cousin that we were not going to be able to continue in that line because regulations are coming on a regular basis to shut that down.
	And so they regulated out of existence any small individual's ability to manufacture anything in this country.
	And then, you know, that was even in the 60s and 70s when they were doing that.
	And then they doubled down on it with a trade with China, which Ramaswamy loves.
	You know, he likes that. You know, let's use people in China as slave labor, and let's bring in cheap labor from India with the H-1B visas to take your jobs.
	And so, once they began outsourcing all the big manufacturing, even, to China, everybody turned to retail businesses.
	And that's eventually what we did.
	I mean, I looked at it, it's like, well, there's no future in this.
	I, you know, went to college and got a degree in electrical engineering, get out of the business, did that for a few years, then wanted to be, you know, Karen and I wanted to be our own boss with this stuff.
	So, We did the video stores.
	And my interest in it, we had...
	She had some relatives in New York who'd opened up a video store, and they were real excited about it.
	It was working really well for them in the early days of video stuff.
	But everybody was doing stuff with 3x5 cards.
	That's how they were tracking who had...
	They'd have a 3x5 card for each tape, and they would write this down and manually track it.
	It's like, this is crazy. And so the Macintosh had just come out.
	It was... First graphical user interface.
	This is a great idea.
	We started the store just to be a testbed for that software.
	But about that time, the movie studios opened up the catalog and it just took off.
	So we started opening up stores.
	And it was also a difficult thing to try to convince people at the time that a graphical user interface was better.
	Everybody wanted to have an IBM PC because it had four colors or something, and it had one font that looked like a kidnapping note, if you remember that, and a bunch of function keys.
	It was just abominable, the user interface.
	I thought, oh, yeah, I can easily, this thing, it just runs circles around that.
	But everybody's like, well, it's got a small screen.
	It's in black and white. But anyway, I was like, I'm not going to try to educate these people about this stuff.
	Let's just run the video store thing.
	But you know, that was the type of person, you know, that's what's allowed to us now.
	When you look at 2020, what do we have here?
	We've got service businesses, restaurants, nail salons, hairstylists, and these were the people, barbers, these were the people that the public health officials were brutalizing in 2020 with the trickle-down tyranny from Trump.
	And it just made me sick to see that.
	And so you've got this elitist snob at National Review, the CIA rag, pushing war and everything else.
	So the neocon review makes me sick to see this.
	But Nolte has a different take on it.
	John Nolte at Breitbart.
	He says, look, understand, first of all, singers are actors.
	Believe it or not, Bruce Springsteen never went to Vietnam.
	Gordon Lightfoot wasn't on the Edwin Fitzgerald.
	Jim Croce didn't know Leroy Brown.
	And he says, in parentheses, well, I'm told that Croce might have known a Leroy Brown, but I know for a fact that he never tugged on Superman's cape.
	And he says, and no one named Billy Joe McAllister ever jumped off the Tallahatchie Bridge.
	All Oliver Anthony is doing is using his talent in the same way that singers and songwriters have for as long as there have been singers and songwriters.
	He's getting into another person's head and heart to express how this person feels.
	And that's the issue.
	He doesn't talk about that, but that is the issue, as I said.
	This National Review guy ought to ask himself, why is this message resonating with people?
	But instead, National Review wants to shoot the messenger.
	We can only imagine what National Review might have said over the many years.
	Why does Al Jolson keep crybabying about how much he misses his mammy?
	This is America!
	Frank Sinatra is young and wealthy and talented superstar, and he's whining about the wee small hours of the morning?
	An abundance of health options are available in this amazing America of ours, and yet I've got to listen to Patsy Cline whine about how she's crazy?
	Hey, I've been to Hotel California.
	None of that happened.
	Same thing with Heartbreak Hotel.
	Oh, you crybabies.
	He says, how out of touch, said John Nolte.
	Do you have to be to rip apart a song?
	That speaks to a disaffected group of people and says, I get you.
	I hear you.
	I'm with you. You're not alone.
	We're in this together.
	He says, that's what art does.
	And the best art grabs hold of something inside of us and helps us to make sense out of it.
	We've all hit our lows in our own lives, he said.
	But, you know, this is a different thing, quite frankly.
	And this is why this has gone so exponential.
	I think he's gone over 10 million views now, easily.
	As I said when I talked about it earlier this week, I said, you know, he's got the number one song, but even more importantly, he's got nine out of the top 20 songs on iTunes.
	But, you know, when we look at this systematic forced austerity on us, you know, it wasn't enough.
	They were going to shut down all these other avenues of people.
	If you want to try to manufacture something here in the United States, well, good luck with that.
	You got every regulatory agency that you can imagine on you.
	I mean, you know, even when you put together, even as they were putting together perfume, they would have to have rubbing alcohol and stuff like that.
	My dad had to have a permanent deposit With the BATF to assure them that that was not being used to manufacture something somebody would drink.
	And it was more than the price of our house.
	A couple of times more than the price of our house.
	Tied up in a permanent deposit with them.
	As soon as you had proved that you had made perfume and you had to prove to them.
	You had to take the time and the trouble to prove to them that you had made perfume.
	Then after you had proved to them that you had made perfume.
	Then, uh, said, okay, you can have your money back, but now I got to make another batch and I got to buy some more.
	So, okay, here, you just leave it there.
	And that was at a, it really bothered him because that was at a time when he could have made money, uh, in the bank on interest.
	But see now in our generation, you can't make any money on the money that you put in the bank.
	They pay you nothing.
	And yet they charge you 20, 30%.
	Write a song about that.
	That bothers me. National Review is fine with that.
	Republicans and Democrats are fine with the usury that's happening right now.
	And it is usury. It is loan sharking.
	When you look at the prices that they charge on these credit card things and what they pay in the banks, as I've said before, go back to the 1960s.
	You know, when the interest rates went up to 5% and said, well, interest rates got down to 5% on the houses or something.
	So this goes back to the 1960s.
	And I looked at it. They were charging people 5% for home loans, but they were paying them 4% on their savings accounts in the banks.
	They paid you a tiny fraction of 1%.
	Tiny, tiny fraction of 1%.
	And yet they charge you 20-30% on your credit cards.
	How is that allowed?
	And what does it tell you, just like all this vaccine stuff, all this pandemic stuff, what does it tell you about the Republicans as well as the Democrats when they turn a blind eye to all that stuff?
	Country music industry is confused by a man actually from the country making actual music, says Babylon Bee.
	That's funny. My son, not Travis, but my other son, said, and he really hates country and Western music.
	He hates the corporate stuff.
	Well, he doesn't even like bluegrass.
	I like bluegrass. But he doesn't even...
	He says, I actually like that song.
	I don't like country music, but I like that song.
	He identifies with it as well.
	And now we have churchleaders.com.
	Also coming after Oliver Anthony, the editor of churchleaders.com.
	He says this has drawn cheers and jeers from Christians, but of course he's mainly got jeers for this guy.
	He says it is a foul-mouthed patriotic country ballad.
	According to High Value Dad, who's got a Twitter account, Jason Howerton, Oliver Anthony, he said, is a non-religious man, a former Virginia factory worker turned country singer who went viral after promising God he'd get sober if he'd help him follow his dream.
	30 days after Anthony cried out to God about his mental health struggles and his alcohol issues, the sober Anthony was asked to record a song for Radio WV's YouTube music channel that went viral, and the rest of this is history.
	Now it is well over 10 million.
	I mean, this was put out yesterday afternoon, I think.
	Now it's 12.5 million views in just a few days.
	You know, how does God work with that, you know?
	I mean, is God a genie in a bottle?
	Of course not. We all know that.
	Even, you know, new Christians find that.
	But it is interesting that, you know, and I said, far bigger, and I want to give people hope, as I mentioned at the beginning of this, you know, two-thirds of Americans have a family member who's addicted to alcohol or drugs or something like that.
	Ten percent of them committed suicide and stuff.
	So, the bigger miracle here is It's not the recording contract.
	I said that from day one.
	I said the bigger miracle here is giving him hope in his life and stopping the alcoholism.
	How did you just turn that off?
	Well, you can, as a matter of fact.
	God can make those types of changes.
	That's the miracle. The miraculous transformation in his life.
	Whatever happens to him with this now?
	I'm sure he'll make millions of dollars off of this stuff.
	But even if he squanders that somehow, loses it, if he's got God, he's got everything.
	Seek me first, and all these other things will be added to you, we're told.
	The lyrics argue that the American working class citizens struggle to make ends meet while wealthy government officials in Washington, D.C. seek to take control of our nation.
	Yeah, that's what National Review doesn't get, isn't it?
	And so, you know, that's how he says this all began.
	And then, as I mentioned, when he did his concert, he said, I remember just back in June, just two months ago, I played here for about 20 people.
	He played in Currituck, North Carolina at a farmer's market.
	And so he said, so last time I was here, there's only about 20 people.
	He mentions that there was enough cars to fill up the 25-acre parking lot.
	So he said, I just felt, I just have something I feel compelled to share with you.
	And so he reads to them from Psalm 37.
	This is what he read.
	He said, The wicked plot against the righteous, and gnash their teeth at them.
	But the Lord laughs at the wicked, for he knows their day is coming.
	The wicked draw the sword and bend the bow, to bring down the poor and needy, to slay those whose ways are upright.
	But their swords will pierce their own hearts, and their bows will be broken.
	Better the little that the righteous have than the wealth of many wicked.
	For the power of the wicked will be broken, but the Lord upholds the righteous.
	The blameless spend their days under the Lord's care, and their inheritance will endure forever.
	In times of disaster, they will not wither.
	In times of famine, they will enjoy plenty, but the wicked will perish.
	Though the Lord's enemies are like the flowers of the field, they will be consumed, they will go up in smoking.
	And when he finished reading, it says they broke into applause.
	And so, all of that is good.
	And you want real hope?
	Look at that passage there.
	That's your real hope.
	It doesn't say God's going to make you super rich, which he did all over Anthony.
	But he's not going to leave you addicted to things if you really ask for that.
	It's not God's will that you be enslaved to alcohol or drugs.
	And he says, you know, ask.
	He says, just ask and you'll receive.
	And so we know that we can ask that because he does not want you like that.
	So they take him on, though.
	They say, well, that's all well and good.
	But do you realize that he's got profanity-laced lyrics?
	And I thought, what? Well, I noticed that he said BS and, you know, he says, working for bullshit wages or something like that, or they don't, you know, dollar isn't worth shit.
	And he says, damn.
	And I thought, okay, fine.
	But, you know, is that blasphemy?
	I remember, and I've told this story before, Kara and I went to see Penn& Teller once, and in the middle of the show, he gets up and he starts talking about how much he hates profanity.
	And he says, you know, the F word.
	Everybody uses the F word.
	They use it for every form of speech, and I'm sick and tired of hearing it.
	It sounds stupid. Get a vocabulary.
	I said, yeah, absolutely.
	Absolutely, I agree with that. He says, now I, on the other hand, I don't believe in God, and I use every chance that I can to blaspheme God.
	And so every chance that I can, I constantly, I don't want to use the F word.
	It just makes me sound stupid. So I like to blaspheme Jesus.
	And I do that all the time.
	And we got up and we walked out when he's doing that.
	But, you know, I looked at that and thought, is that what Oliver Anthony is doing?
	I don't really think so.
	You know, some people obviously go for that.
	I confronted Alex about this at Infowars because Paul Joseph Watson started doing this on a regular basis and everything that Paul Joseph Watson was doing would be copied by everybody else.
	And so at one point in time, he just throws in there gratuitously, Jesus H. Christ, as he puts it in, And I told Alex, I said, you say you're a Christian.
	I said, do you think God's going to bless this business if you condone that kind of stuff?
	It stopped it for a short period of time and it started up again.
	So when you look at stuff, it's somebody's intention with that, I think.
	And when I look at his lyrics, I even had to go back and one person said, well, he takes the Lord's name in vain.
	Really? I didn't notice that.
	What he does say a couple of times is, Lord knows that this has happened.
	Well, I don't see that as using it differently.
	But then another time he just says, Lord, this is something.
	So again, you could take that in a couple of different ways.
	But look, when we become Christians, everybody's coming from a different perspective.
	This is a guy who was an alcoholic.
	Look at how far he came with this stuff.
	If he's kicked off of the alcohol, that's a big deal.
	I had a pastor once who was a sailor, and he said when he became a Christian, he used to curse like a sailor, as they say.
	But he said when he became a Christian, that just stopped immediately.
	He said for some people, they stop alcohol.
	Some people, they stop cigarette smoking or something like that.
	He said for me, it was profanity.
	But we don't judge people based on...
	They're in a process. Everybody's coming from a particular position when they get into this.
	And so we don't know what they're going through or how far they have come.
	And that's the key thing.
	Nobody's ever going to follow God perfectly in this life.
	And so another person called him a foul-mouthed, sweaty redneck with no MDiv.
	I guess that's a master's degree in divinity or something?
	I don't know. Or a coffee bar, just telling off the government leaders and upstaging Big Eva.
	I don't know what that is. This is not winsome, but it is attractive in so many ways because he's speaking truth.
	Okay, well, I guess that's kind of a backhanded compliment with that, but here's the deal.
	You know, again, that's one thing that we need to think about when we're looking at other people who are in process.
	You know, I see that in some of these people who are rock stars.
	I mean, they've lived the most depraved life you can imagine, and then they say they've become a Christian.
	They look like, you look at them, they've got some really rough edges on it, but you can have somebody who's grown up in the church, And they never drank or smoked or did anything.
	And they can be real proud about that.
	That's something that God really hates.
	That's something that Christ called out all the time.
	Oh, you're proud of your righteousness, are you?
	Okay, well, let's teach you a lesson.
	Meanwhile in Texas...
	There is a lawsuit against Planned Parenthood to get them to repay $17 million in Medicaid funds that the state attorney general there says is not warranted.
	And this is headed before a judge, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kaxmerick, maybe the way you pronounce his name.
	That judge recently... Quote, put access to the most common method of abortion in the U.S. in limbo.
	That would be the abortion pill, I guess.
	With a ruling that invalidated approval of the abortion pill, Mephistopheles, which is the way I prefer to pronounce that.
	That devilish thing.
	So he's not too friendly to the abortion pill.
	So this lawsuit against Planned Parenthood is going to be going before him.
	The Attorney General of Texas, Ken Paxton, is doing this.
	And of course, this may be something that Ken Paxton is hoping is going to help his case as he goes before the Senate to be impeached in his trial.
	You look at what is going on with this stuff.
	It is in Texas.
	There's a lot of politics being played here.
	But look, we just take this thing one at a time.
	And I think this is a good process, regardless of what his motivations were.
	In January 2022, he hit Planned Parenthood with a lawsuit in an effort to recoup millions of dollars that the abortion business had received via the state's Medicaid program after it was defunded.
	Specifically, Planned Parenthood received reimbursement from Texas Medicaid, to which it was not entitled, says the lawsuit.
	Planned Parenthood knowingly and improperly avoided its obligation to repay money owed to the Texas Medicaid program.
	Planned Parenthood performed the second highest number of abortions ever, while also experiencing record high revenue during 2021 to 2022.
	Thank you.
	And, of course, this is going to be...
	It was put on to, brought according to the Federal False Claims Act.
	I don't know what the details are on this, but if he's able to recoup this money from Planned Parenthood, it is going to be a big issue.
	Because they got $1.9 billion in revenue for the year ending June 30, 2022.
	And an outlet said $670 million of which came from taxpayers in the form of government health service reimbursements and grants.
	And so this would be a major blow to them if some of the pro-life states start carving back some of the money that has already been given to them or cuts them off from this stuff.
	Because that's the way that you can really put the screws to them is to defund them.
	Before we take a break, let me just read some of the comments on here on Rockfin.
	Bernie says, 56 months sober.
	Good for you. Good for you.
	And God save me. Good for you.
	Good for you. On Rumble.
	Perfectly up. Thank you for the tip.
	I appreciate that. He says, I appreciate your authenticity.
	Please don't hold me to it, but I intend to make it a habit of sending a dollar.
	Well, thank you. And as I said before, you know, we have a lot of people who have heroically supported this program with big donations, but if the people who download this On a regular basis, if we were to send in a dollar, that would do it.
	So there's a few people that have been doing the heavy lifting to keep us able to do this.
	So thank you. I appreciate every dollar that people put out there, actually.
	On Rumble, Atomic Dog.
	Thank you. He says, you make me a better man.
	Well, that's kind, but no, I can't do that.
	Jesus can, though. On Rumble.
	Chris Toa, thank you for the tip.
	And An Rockfin, Eric Karma, thank you very much.
	That's very generous. I appreciate that.
	We'll take a quick break, and we're going to come right back, and we're going to talk about the Lesser Magistrate.
	We had a listener who had a question about that, and DeSantis firing one of these people.
	And I was going to get to it yesterday, but I didn't get a chance to.
	So we're going to talk about that when we come back.
	We'll be right back. Decoding
	the mainstream propaganda.
	It's the David Knight Show.
	Alright, let's talk a little bit about the lesser magistrate and DeSantis firing a Soros prosecutor.
	And this is a question that was sent to me by Michael.
	You know, before we get into it, just a little bit of a background about what actually happened.
	I just mentioned that it was the second time that he had fired a Soros prosecutor.
	A little bit more detail about it.
	It was a week ago today that he did it.
	I mentioned it last week.
	He suspended the top state prosecutor in Orlando last Wednesday, accusing her of incompetence and neglect of duty for what he characterized as lenience against violent criminals.
	So, again, you can make an argument about this, whether or not his accusations are justified or not.
	That's a separate issue, though, about The overreaching thing.
	We do know that this prosecutor is a Soros prosecutor, and I say that because this prosecutor who was elected spent $2 million on the campaign.
	And that should be a red flag to us right there.
	Spending that kind of money to get elected, I mean, there's way, way, way, way, way too much money in politics.
	But half of that came from George Soros.
	And so I don't know the details of what she specifically did.
	That's not any of the articles that I saw there, just the fact that, you know, neglect of duty.
	We've seen this type of thing by many, many Soros prosecutors and, you know, allied with Marxists like the one that was in San Francisco.
	His name escapes me for the moment, but he was adopted by By Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorn.
	The Weather Underground terrorists who were able to escape prosecution.
	The father of this guy who became the San Francisco prosecutor.
	Look it up, Travis.
	I'm having a hard time remembering his name.
	It's been a while since I talked about it.
	But his parents went to jail.
	They did not beat the rap like Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorn.
	And so they raised this kid to be a minion of hell, a Marxist.
	And that's essentially what he turned into.
	I just got it.
	See, my mind still works.
	Unlike Biden, it's starting to get slow as it gets down there.
	It's like, eventually, you know, it's kind of churning around.
	The access drives are starting to slow down, you know.
	Anyway, Chesa Boudin and, of course, his counterpart there in L.A. who had been the prosecutor in San Francisco.
	They were about to recall him as well.
	They did recall Chesa Boudin.
	But Gascon, the guy in L.A., he beat that by playing games with recall petition signatures.
	And so he was able to escape recall by keeping his name off the ballot by claiming that whenever you do a petition signing thing, it's a really difficult thing.
	I've been involved in that many times trying to get third parties on the ballot.
	And you always collect a significant number of signatures above and beyond because they'll always go in and challenge it.
	I can't read that signature or this or that.
	And so they played that game, said, well, you don't have enough signatures, and it was just under the number.
	And so they did not get to have their election on this guy.
	But anyway, back to Florida.
	DeSantis was heavily criticized, says this, and this is the left-wing press outlet, DeNews, that is talking about this.
	DeSantis was heavily criticized in August of 2022 when he removed Andrew Warren, top prosecutor in Tampa, Who had signed a statement along with 90 other elected prosecutors across the country vowing to not prosecute people who seek or provide abortions.
	Providing abortions is the issue.
	Nobody's being prosecuted for seeking an abortion.
	They're coming after the abortionists.
	And so critics, and even a federal judge, decried Mr.
	DeSantis' ouster of Mr.
	Warren as politically motivated.
	But Mr. Warren remains out of office, and Mr.
	DeSantis mentions his removal in just about every campaign stump speech.
	So what's going on with this?
	Well, this guy has sworn to obey the laws.
	And again, when we talk about lesser magistrate, we also talk about nullification.
	If there's an unjust law, you are not obligated to follow it.
	Now, he looks at this and he thinks that it is an unjust law.
	But ultimately, it is not the law of the land or even the Constitution that is the ultimate arbiter of what is a just law.
	God's law is higher than all of them.
	And we're talking about killing babies here.
	And so he says, no, I'm going to allow people to kill babies.
	Well, then I'm going to remove you from office.
	And this is the kind of conflict that we're going to have with lesser magistrates.
	If abortion were legal, for example, let's switch it the other way around.
	Let's say this is a prosecutor who was, or let's make it not about abortion.
	Let's make it about the transgender stuff, right?
	Because we did have this situation here in Tennessee, in Knoxville.
	They had some of these dragon story hours, and the pedophile dragons were out there doing lewd displays in public and in front of children.
	And the people who were there locally said, well, we can't do anything about it because there's nothing on the books about Dragon Storytime Hours.
	Well, they subsequently put in a law saying that you cannot, that, you know, defining these things in a broad sense, not using the terms that they use, but saying that if it is lewd and of a sexual nature and things like that, if it's adult entertainment, cabaret, they had all these different ways of trying to describe it, that you cannot do it in public and you can't do it with kids.
	Just to help these people to enforce the general principle that we don't sexualize kids and we don't support public nudity.
	And you see during Pride Month, you see these people where they've accepted this years ago.
	Now you've got men parading around on the streets naked during Pride Month.
	This is how it's going to go if you accept this stuff.
	And so let's say that you were, let's say that it was not illegal.
	Let's say that it was even protected.
	And let's say that you're a sheriff and you arrested somebody for public nudity.
	And the governor says, no, we have a law that protects public nudity, so I'm going to kick you out.
	So that's the kind of situations that we get.
	There's always, when we talk about lesser magistrate, We're talking about a situation where there's somebody that is technically above you, the governor, for example.
	Technically, I guess, above the sheriff, even though the sheriff is elected by the local people and really accountable to them.
	We've had situations in the past, not DeSantis, but I remember a...
	There was a harassing gun law that one sheriff refused to enforce in Florida.
	I remember talking to him about it.
	He had a lot of support from the Constitutional Sheriff's Association that Sheriff Mack has.
	And yet he was removed from office.
	I think he eventually got reinstated.
	He was removed from office by the governor because he wouldn't enforce this bad law.
	And so you're always going to have that type of thing.
	And when you have a situation like that, If the community is going to have to get involved in order to protect somebody like the sheriff if he's doing the right thing.
	But you also have these situations.
	Think of it in the terms of the sanctuary cities, for example.
	It began with sanctuary cities against any kind of immigration law.
	Well, the immigration law, whether or not you agree with it, The immigration law, the government did have the power to do an immigration law.
	And so the cities that said that they're going to defy the immigration law, that was clearly them trying to nullify these laws.
	But they did not have the law behind them.
	They didn't have the greater law.
	The U.S. Constitution was not behind them.
	And so there was a conflict there.
	On the other hand, you had sanctuary cities were going to be a Second Amendment sanctuary city, for example.
	And we're not going to enforce these laws by the Illinois governor.
	You've had a lot of them say that we're going to nullify that.
	I think that happened in New York as well.
	You had a lot of rural communities where the sheriff said we're not going to enforce that law.
	And, of course, it happened to a great deal during the pandemic.
	And so when it comes to something like that, you can have a governor who says, well, I'm going to take that sheriff out.
	I'm going to send in my state police or whatever.
	You may have a situation like that.
	You know, and you may need to stand with a sheriff, and it may look like something like Athens, Tennessee in 1946 or whenever that was, right?
	Ultimately, you can get into situations like that.
	But as we look at it as Christians, It's going to be, how does this comport with the higher law and the higher principles that are here?
	Somebody who's a lesser magistrate, certainly the governor, because of the 10th Amendment, I don't even see the governor as a lesser magistrate.
	I see the governor in the states...
	And the powers that they have, I see them as co-equal with the federal government.
	You have three different branches of the federal government, and they have different responsibilities.
	None of them are subordinate to the other ones or should be.
	They have set up a pecking order now.
	Where you have both the President and the Congress will say that they're subordinate to the court system, to the judiciary.
	They do that because they don't want to have responsibility.
	They don't want to take responsibility for certain actions and so they can pass the buck to them.
	And that's what Trump did with DACA, for example.
	And they've done it many times, both Republicans and Democrats.
	And when the Congress wants to create some new freedom-sucking law, what they typically do is create an agency and let the agency write all the devilish details.
	And then when they get it too painful, then the Congress can come in like they're the saviors.
	You know, on a white horse, they're going to save you from these bad regulatory agencies.
	So they can kick that out there if it gets too bad and people get upset with it.
	They can come in and put themselves in the role of protector, even though they weren't at all.
	So both the Congress and the President have the...
	The Congress abdicates to the bureaucracy, which is under the President.
	But then the President will also abdicate his authority, as well as the Congress, to the courts.
	It wasn't always that way.
	As I've mentioned many times, Andrew Jackson, who did absolutely the wrong thing to the Cherokee.
	It was horrible what he did.
	But he had the legal authority to do it.
	And he could have been opposed by local officials and should have been opposed by local officials.
	But the Supreme Court first thought he could do it.
	And then when they saw what was happening with the removal of the Cherokee, They changed their mind within a year.
	And he said, well, they've issued their opinion.
	Let's see them enforce it. And he went ahead and did what he wanted to do, which he did what he had the legal authority to do.
	So all of those are issues that I see in this.
	The point is that the lesser magistrate is not above the greater magistrate.
	Both of them are under the law in our American system.
	The law is the king.
	They all swear allegiance to the Constitution as stewards, if you will.
	And when neither one of them are unfaithful to the Constitution, or I would say even the higher law, God's law, we don't have any conflicts with the Constitution and God's law, not that I'm aware of.
	And so if they're unfaithful to the Constitution, then they have lost their authority because they violated their oath.
	To uphold it. The same thing is true with the lesser laws or the other laws, the state laws and things like that.
	But then there's also the issue of who has power, right?
	So we look at it, there are certain moral principles as to whether or not they have authority to do this.
	Is it the right thing to do?
	But then there's a whole separate issue of power.
	And a lesser magistrate may need the help of the community to stand with them.
	Because of the greater power of someone like the governor, if it is a situation like that.
	You have communities, for example, in Texas.
	Austin made itself a sanctuary city for trans kids.
	That's an abomination. Nobody wanted to take that on at any level, though.
	And so, anyway, when you look at it, he says, I'm by no means a fan of George Soros prosecutors, but how do you reconcile supporting the doctrine of the lesser magistrate while also supporting what DeSantis did by removing this Orlando prosecutor?
	Arguably, Monique Worrell is a lesser magistrate, and she decides what laws to enforce for her circuits.
	And again, it isn't a question as to local having a superior issue.
	The issue is the law.
	They're under the law.
	And so you have different jurisdictions, but everybody is subordinate to the law, to the Constitution, to God.
	And so we have to make these determinations on a case-by-case basis.
	That's the way I see it.
	We're going to take a quick break and we will be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	you you Thank you.
	On Rockfan, Brian Taylor says, if people understood jury nullification, that's a key thing, and mass noncompliance with tyrannical laws, government tyranny could be rolled back very quickly.
	Jury nullification, the Founding Fathers believed, was one of our most effective tools, and that's effectively been taken away from us because most people now are...
	They're intimidated into a plea bargain with all these trumped-up charges that they bring with everybody.
	It's not just Trump who gets the trumped-up charges.
	That's what I was talking about, about how they add everything they can think of without justification.
	And then they say, well, you know, you're looking at 700 years in prison.
	Okay, you want to make a deal with us?
	And then they come after them and get them to plead guilty to what they wanted to get them in the first place.
	That's the game. Most people go for it.
	Nearly 100% of the people.
	It's very rare that you have a jury trial.
	As a matter of fact, I worked really hard to get a jury trial off of a traffic case once.
	Because they have to give it to you in Texas if you want it.
	And eventually brought the prosecutor to his knees.
	He let me go because he didn't want to do a jury trial.
	I mean, he just called his bluff on it.
	They do the same thing in reverse, though, on most of these other things.
	I really wanted to do it. I was going to get somebody to record it.
	I wasn't going to do it. Mr. Smith goes to Washington.
	Whether I got the book thrown at me or not, I was going to talk about this thing.
	But I never got my chance to do that.
	I was like, what?
	He gave up? I didn't want to do that.
	I wanted to argue this in court.
	But, yeah, that's the key thing.
	The jury really, a jury of your peers.
	And the other part of it, though, is that the judges lie to the jury.
	And they tell them, you're here to judge the facts of the case.
	That's it. You're not here to judge the law.
	No! The jury is supposed to judge the law as well as the facts of the case.
	That is one of their key duties, is to judge the law.
	One of the reasons that they pulled back alcohol prohibition was because juries were nullifying it everywhere, left and right.
	And that is a tradition that goes back to Edward Bushnell and the jury that let William pin off.
	That was an amazing case.
	It established habeas corpus, but it also established trial by jury and jury nullification.
	Jury nullification was established by that.
	You had William Penn, who went on as a religious protester, eventually left England, came to America for religious freedom.
	They founded the colony that became Pennsylvania, and he was a Quaker.
	But they had an official state religion, and they were not tolerant of anything else.
	And so the Quakers were meeting in their church building, and they were told they couldn't do that.
	They continued to do it.
	And so they padlocked the doors.
	And so then they held their church meeting on the church steps.
	At that point, they arrested William Penn.
	And so both the foreman of the jury, Edward Bushnell, and the number two guy, I can't remember his name, they said, not guilty.
	Now he clearly had, there was no question, he had violated this law.
	The jury was nullifying that law, saying that you cannot meet in religious assembly unless it is Church of England.
	So there's no question about the facts of the case.
	None at all. They were nullifying the law.
	And the judge was furious.
	But they had a jury verdict.
	He was so angry that he threw the foreman and the number two guy into jail themselves.
	And they stayed there for a while.
	And eventually their lawyer said, filed a writ of habeas corpus.
	Show me the law that these guys broke.
	And it's like, well, I can't find any law that says that juries cannot nullify these verdicts.
	And so he let them loose.
	And so that was a very important trial.
	Established a lot of things that we've forgotten about, that we no longer value.
	And people put their lives on the line in many ways for the laws and the freedoms that we have today.
	And we're just letting this stuff go.
	It was given to us.
	We inherited it. We got it freely.
	And we look at it as if it's some kind of junk.
	And we're throwing it away because we don't understand the history of it.
	We don't understand what it's like without it.
	And of course, we can take a look at what it's like now that you have judges come in and say, even though you have many state constitutions that specifically say juries are there to judge the law.
	One example of that was in New Jersey, and I interviewed a New Jersey weed man.
	He's a Rastafarian who smoked pot.
	As a matter of fact, when I was interviewing him, he lit up.
	During the interview and started smoking pot on screen.
	But he looked at this thing and they got him and he had enough pot that they were going to charge him as a dealer, even though he wasn't dealing, but he was a heavy consumer of this stuff.
	And so they were going to hit him with a dealer charge, distributing or whatever.
	And he faced a really long sentence.
	And so he said, I knew at the time that most people in New Jersey did not agree with marijuana laws that were there.
	It was out of step. About two-thirds of the people did not agree with the marijuana prohibition.
	So he said, I decided that I was going to do jury nullification.
	And so he argued that in his first trial, he had printed up the section of the New Jersey Constitution that says the jury is here to judge the law, not just the facts of the case.
	He held that up and he showed it to the jury.
	And the judge said, take that down.
	I'm going to hold you in contempt and put you in jail and throw away the key, that type of thing.
	So he put it down. But he said it was too late.
	The jury had already seen it. And so they voted 7-5 to acquit him.
	It was a hung jury. So the prosecutor could come back for a retrial, which he did.
	And when he came back for the retrial, he did the same thing.
	And that judge was friendly to it and let him show the jury the state constitution.
	And he was acquitted. 12 to nothing.
	And there was nothing the prosecutor could do anymore about that.
	So we need to stand on our rights.
	Very few people do it.
	As a matter of fact, the report that I did to get hired for Infowars was with a guy who was a professor in Pennsylvania who had focused on jury nullification education.
	He was with the Fully Informed Jury Association, which I don't know, that organization may not even exist anymore.
	But he would hand out literature at courthouses about fully informed juries, and he was constantly getting arrested.
	He was a very frail guy.
	He was in his mid-70s or something, and he had been manhandled and everything so that when he saw the police coming, he would lay down on the ground and put his hands behind his back, and they would still find a way to hurt him.
	But he kept doing that, and I interviewed him, but shortly after I interviewed him, he left the country.
	He was Jewish. He immigrated to Israel so that he could get away from this kind of harassment because it just kept coming for him.
	But they didn't fire him from the university because he was a tenured professor.
	Anyway, it's a fight, and it never stops.
	But if people understood journalification, that would be the easiest way for us to do it.
	It would be even better than having a lesser magistrate like a sheriff.
	And if you're going to have a situation like that, that is one of the key things, is to get people to understand how they can nullify laws.
	That is the peaceful way to do it instead of doing secession.
	Nullify their illegal laws.
	It certainly shut up Jeff Sessions during the Trump administration when he was so angry and he wanted to prosecute people for marijuana as all these states were legalizing marijuana medically or recreationally.
	He never did a thing about it because he knew that he didn't have the power.
	He knew that prohibition was not legal.
	And these people are nullifying, you know, you've got more than half of the states now have nullified the federal prohibition against marijuana, which they have in there as a Schedule I drug.
	A lie, saying that it has absolutely no medical use.
	So, let's talk about climate.
	The Montana court has ruled for young people in a landmark U.S. climate trial.
	This is coming from AFP, and they think this is a really great deal.
	This is straight out of Greta Thunberg's book.
	How dare you?
	The young people and all the rest.
	Don't you care about us young people?
	And they found a sympathetic judge in Montana.
	I guess this judge wants to make America Greta angst.
	In a landmark climate trial, a Montana judge, they say a court, but it's a judge.
	There's no jury or anything with this.
	Ruled on Monday in favor of a group of youths who accused the western U.S. state of violating their rights to a clean environment.
	District Court Judge Kathy Seeley said a state law preventing agencies from considering the impacts of greenhouse gases when issuing permits for fossil fuel development was unconstitutional.
	Really? What does it say anything about that in the Constitution?
	Well, of course, it doesn't say anything about fossil fuels or greenhouse gases in the Constitution.
	You won't find those terms in the Constitution.
	So what is Kathy doing?
	She is making an extrapolation of some vague principle that she thinks she sees in the Constitution.
	And that is, she said, plaintiffs have a fundamental constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment.
	Really? Where does it say that in the Constitution?
	It doesn't even reference this 100-page ruling.
	I don't know. It doesn't mention it in this article that is sympathetic to her.
	It doesn't mention what the rationale to any of this is.
	You have a right to a clean, healthful environment?
	No, you don't. And again, what are rights?
	We talk all the time about rights versus privileges.
	Humans have rights.
	Corporations don't have rights.
	Corporations are government-created entities, artificial entities.
	They're granted privileges as such by the government.
	But because, as the Declaration of Independence says, because we are created by God, each and every one of us, every human, has natural rights because of our humanity, because we are created in God's image.
	And so that is the basis of our rights.
	And the purpose of government, says the Declaration of Independence, It's to protect those God-given rights, not to grant us privileges.
	And Obama, when he talks about rights when he was a professor and he talked about them, he was very cognizant of the view of the Bill of Rights.
	The Bill of Rights is a bill that was presented and put into the Constitution to say these are our God-given rights You will not infringe on them.
	You will pass no law to take these things away.
	You will give us due process, no excessive fines, and all the rest of these things, right?
	And oh, by the way, if we forgot something, that doesn't mean that we're giving it up.
	And unless you get it expressly, you don't have the power to do that.
	All of that stuff was part of the Bill of Rights, and Obama and the Democrats call that the negative concept of rights.
	And what they mean by that Is that those are prohibitions on government treading on our rights.
	And they come along and say, well, we don't like negative rights.
	Well, nobody likes anything negative, right?
	They always use the terminology to get what they want.
	So they say, we have positive rights.
	We say you have a right to an education.
	You have a right to...
	To housing, or you have a right to this and a right to that that we'll give you.
	And that's where this is coming from.
	A healthful environment.
	This judge is fundamentally wrong.
	That's not what rights are.
	The Constitution does not give anybody any positive rights.
	It does not impel anyone to provide you with anything, including an education.
	There's no way that that is in the Constitution.
	As a matter of fact, we could argue that compelling people to pay taxes to provide a state education is against the Constitution.
	It was one of the Communist Party's tenets for how you turn a country communist.
	You have a compulsory education funded by state taxes, that type of thing.
	There's nothing about that in the Constitution.
	And so this whole idea of giving stuff to people, you have a right to this and you have a right to be given that and you have a right to be given that, that is the fundamental principles on which the Democrats operate, but that has nothing to do at all with the Constitution.
	It's unjust as well.
	It's morally unjust because somebody has got to be compelled to provide that stuff to you.
	So this is 16 kids before the judge, ranging in age from 5 to 22.
	So yeah, so some kind of a children's crusade.
	They get together, they thought of this on their own, did they?
	Of course not. Who's running this stuff?
	Well, Julia Olson, the executive director of a non-profit called Our Children's Trust.
	And so, they're the ones who are doing this.
	Now, this AFP article, of course, does not go into who is our children's trust.
	And it's important that we understand who this is.
	I looked at their site, and they listed their major donors.
	And there were three major donors that they had.
	One of them, of course, is the Rockefeller Foundation.
	No surprise there. Another one is the Libra Foundation.
	The Libra Foundation, if you go to its site, you see that their issues that they focus on are, besides the environment, they focus on immigration, on abortion, and on race issues.
	So you know politically where they're coming from.
	All these issues that we typically see all the time.
	And then, of course, the environment-climate issues.
	They are funded by the Pritzker family.
	So you've got the Rockefeller Foundation, and if you want to look at the Libra Foundation, it's really the Pritzker family.
	Who are the Pritzker family? They're the ones behind the fortune of the Hyatt Hotels.
	And Governor Pritzker in Illinois is part of that family.
	These are two other people.
	Of course, he's got a cousin who is the spitting image of him.
	I've seen that picture so many times of him and his transgender male cousin dressing up like a woman.
	I said, looks like Jethro and Jethreen from the Beverly Hillbillies.
	But the Pritzker family has been an early advocate and pusher, not just of immigration, abortion, racial politics, and climate politics, but they've also been big pushers of transgenderism.
	And so the Libra Foundation is part of this.
	Children's Crusade.
	Yes, Children's Crusade, of course.
	And the third organization was something called AVAZ. A-V-A-A-Z. This came from MoveOn.com.
	Soros is involved in that.
	They get small donations mostly from the small donations that they get, other than the move-on stuff, come mostly from foreign countries, France and Brazil.
	So these are the people who go to Montana and say, we want to lock up fossil fuels in Montana.
	And this judge says, yeah, you've got a right to a clean and healthy environment.
	Did that judge say that about masks?
	You know, when they're smothering people with their own exhaust?
	You know, the stuff that you're, you know, you eliminate waste through your exhaling stuff, right?
	That's what makes the masks so nasty.
	It hurts people's health to put masks on them.
	We used to recognize that fundamental fact with OSHA. Can't keep a mask on for more than 20 minutes.
	Might be mandated by OSHA in some really dusty environments where those N95 masks would have done some good.
	But you can't wear them for more than 20 minutes.
	You've got to give people a break, let them breathe.
	Well, it's even worse than that.
	That wasn't enough protection.
	But no, a healthy environment, you sat there and you didn't do anything as people were told they had to wear masks, as they were told they had to lock down, they had to social distance, they had to have mandates of every type of thing, including an injection of a genetic code thing here, the GCIs. How do you define health?
	Who gets to define health?
	See, this is exactly the same type of thing we see with a censorship.
	I'm sorry, I'm not going to let you put false information out there.
	Who gets to decide what's true?
	Who gets to decide what is healthy?
	We're taking that away from you.
	We're going to decide that as part of a group.
	We're going to have some public health official who's going to decide that.
	Emily Flower, a spokesperson for the Montana Attorney General's office, denounced the ruling, said the state would appeal.
	This ruling is absurd, she says, and it is.
	But it's not surprising from a judge who let the plaintiff's attorney put on a week-long taxpayer-funded publicity stunt.
	So now we've got a bunch of people, ages 5 through 16, brought in by this organization, just like Greta Thunberg has been groomed and presented, and they did this this last week.
	Montanans cannot be blamed for changing the climate, she said.
	Even the plaintiffs' expert witnesses agree that our state has no impact on global climate.
	So that's the amazing thing.
	Even if you were to accept that the climate is changing, even if you were to accept that it is man-made, you're going to give China and India a free pass on building as many cheap and dirty power plants that they want to build, and you're going to say that sparsely populated Montana, where basically nobody lives, that they're going to be polluting the global environment.
	It's just absurdity stacked on top of absurdity.
	The youth said that they had been harmed by the, quote, dangerous impacts of fossil fuels and the climate crisis.
	Well, prove it. Prove that you've been harmed.
	Prove that it's warming.
	Prove that it's man-made.
	Prove that it's coming from Montana.
	And prove that you've been harmed.
	None of that. This is all just politics.
	And this is why, again...
	They can get bad verdicts on Trump.
	They don't have to prove anything to anybody.
	It's just, you know, flat-out bias from courts.
	And hopefully there'll be some type of, in this particular case, appeal where they'll shut this thing down.
	So, Russell said that this is Montana Assistant Attorney General, Michael Russell.
	And his argument is, he says, the state accepts...
	That man-made emissions were responsible for warming.
	But they have not been able to quantify the damage that's been done by Montana.
	That's not a winning argument.
	Do not ever concede something like that.
	That's a false assumption.
	Man-made emissions are not responsible for warming.
	He says he wants the expert witnesses to quantify what is happening with this.
	Will you quantify how this is all being man-made?
	Like I said, prove that it's warming, prove that it's man-made.
	The lead plaintiff is 22, Ricky Held, whose family runs a ranch in Montana, said that their livelihoods and their quality of life have been increasingly impacted by wildfires, extreme temperatures, and drought.
	Okay, well, why didn't that happen in the 1930s?
	Why didn't you sue people in the 1930s for this stuff?
	The extreme drought was much worse.
	The Dust Bowl and all the rest of the stuff, the extreme temperatures and drought was much worse.
	The wildfires?
	Well, I think we kind of know why they can't control the wildfires, don't we?
	See, nobody asked that in the 1930s.
	Nobody asked, who can I sue and what can I ban?
	Wasn't asked in the 1930s about the Dust Bowl.
	Nobody's looking to blame this on somebody.
	But as the New York Post says, they said, well, this is absolute garbage.
	But then the New York Post concedes...
	That carbon output, they said, contributes to warming.
	You notice they don't even say carbon dioxide.
	They just say carbon output.
	Yes, carbon output contributes to warming, but warming is a slow-motion risk, whereas carbon drives currently everything in the modern economy.
	Refrigeration, clean water, farming.
	No one needs to be protected from emissions, they say.
	How can they put that conclusion in there when they say that carbon output contributes to warming?
	Who's going to quantify this?
	If you don't have to prove that there's a connection between man-made activities and global warming, if you believe it's warming, then how would you then try to quantify that if you're just going to wave that away and say, no, human activity is causing global warming?
	Then how are you going to get to the point to say, well, but it's just happening in slow motion?
	Well, prove that. You see, you cannot accept these premises and think that you're going to get away.
	This is the first Our Children's Trust case that has ever reached trials.
	And the New York Post said that it should also be the last one to ever reach a trial.
	It's a frivolous lawsuit, if ever there was one.
	But take a look at the frivolous statements from Biden.
	About heat.
	This is sent by Mary Ellen Moore.
	Thank you very much, Mary Ellen.
	The Biden-Harris administration takes action to help states and cities fight extreme heat.
	And so they've got five actions that they've taken.
	First one, issuing a first-ever heat hazard alert that clarifies worker protections from hazardous conditions.
	This is all designed to alarm people.
	Everything here is a fire alarm.
	Oh, warnings. And we're going to make this a federal warning so that we can scare people more.
	It's the same thing these weathermen are doing when they, you know, paint the temperatures in bright red.
	Oh, look at how hot this is going to be.
	Number two, intensifying enforcement and increasing inspections in high-risk industries like construction.
	Inspections? You're going to be harassing people?
	Oh, I'm sorry, it's just too hot? You're going to have to shut down?
	It's global warming and assuming that the people here are on the job, I don't know if they get paid, they may not, if they don't get paid when they shut down, maybe they won't like that.
	By the way, they're going to intrude themselves.
	Where does it say they can do that in the Constitution?
	Number three, making buildings more energy efficient and opening cooling centers to keep residents safe.
	We have cooling centers.
	It's called air conditioning. And if you hadn't raised taxes and taken away jobs, you wouldn't have so many people who are on the streets.
	Number four, expanding water storage capacity across western states.
	I know one thing you can do.
	You can shut down your NSA data center.
	That's using as much water and electricity as an entire city.
	Finally, launching a new partnership to improve our nation's weather forecasts.
	This was something I saw at the American Meteorological Society when they had their meeting in Austin.
	I've talked about it many times.
	You had all these scientists who were there, and just like the founder of the Weather Channel, who always was a global warming skeptic, he said, you can't.
	There's no evidence of this whatsoever.
	The guy who started the Weather Channel pointed out You don't have the kind of accuracy to say that this is going to vary by one and a half degrees.
	Where are you putting your thermometers?
	How are you reading your thermometers?
	You got digital thermometers now?
	You really believe that stuff?
	Most of these records that you got were taken with mercury thermometers.
	We have a parallax view.
	They weren't that accurate.
	They weren't accurate within one degree.
	And you're telling us that if the temperature rises one and a half degrees.
	But, of course, you can get massive change in temperature just to replace the thermometer.
	You're going to put it in an airport tarmac or you're going to put it in the shade.
	Where are you going to put it?
	In a forest. All this stuff is nonsense.
	And the weather people who were there, the weathermen, the meteorologists who were there, they all had their presentations, and it was a floor that was filled.
	They had hundreds of people who had been doing experiments, and you had several days of this stuff, and some of the people had been chosen to give presentations about their stuff.
	And I sat through a lot of these things, and they're all saying, well, this is what we think is affecting it.
	We did this computer model, and then we went out and we tested it, and, yeah, it's not quite there yet.
	We couldn't really predict the weather looking at these factors.
	And so that was the standard story that you heard everywhere.
	You know, they had a theory about what the different factors were that they could use to predict the climate, but then they go out and they measure it, and they couldn't do it.
	And that kind of a climate, quote-unquote, are you going to tell people who can't predict the weather a couple of days in advance, you're going to tell them that you're going to predict the weather 50 years from now or something?
	Or even 20 years?
	Or five years from now? This is why these people constantly fail.
	They have absolutely no idea.
	And so the meteorologists at that point in time, about a decade ago, were very skeptical of all this climate change stuff.
	And so there was a booth there that was set up by George Soros.
	Lecturing the meteorologist saying, people trust you.
	You can teach them about global warming.
	And that's what Biden wants to do with this final thing.
	Launching a new partnership to improve our nation's weather forecast.
	It's going to be propaganda.
	And as he's putting that out there, the Biden administration is planning a Grand Canyon monument that will inhibit crucial uranium mining.
	And... Which is kind of interesting because there was a big Tonto National Forest in Arizona.
	It was something that Obama grabbed.
	And that was a very important battle, like one of the last battles of the Apaches or something like that.
	So it had religious significance to them.
	It had historical significance to them.
	It was being used for recreation and And the Obama administration turned it over to an Australian mining company that was going to take out copper, and their extraction process was going to leave a crater so big you could see it from space.
	And so you had all these different groups protesting it, but because of corny capitalism, Obama said, yeah.
	Now what they're doing, because they've got to shut down their energy supply, you've got the Biden administration, and you remember people were making jokes about it, That, look, his handlers are letting Biden walk around on the edge of the Grand Canyon here, this precipice here.
	What, are they trying to get rid of him or something?
	You know, because he's got this history, of course, of falling and stumbling over things.
	And they're letting him walk around, you know.
	But that's what the news media focused on.
	This is the important issue.
	And this is picked up by Zero Hedge.
	They want to preserve part, turn this into a national park.
	The monument is going to be called, and I'm not even going to try to pronounce this, this is about half a page long, in Indian language.
	It has in two different native languages.
	It means where tribes roam and our footprints in two different native languages.
	So I'm not going to try to pronounce it.
	I have no idea. Republican lawmakers and the mining industry both pushed back on the idea of this monument because this is about taking it away, right?
	Again, we're going to take away fuel.
	This is a process of deliberate energy starvation.
	I said this about the lockdowns that Trump did.
	I said these are economic sanctions against the middle class.
	Sanctions are an act of war.
	Sanctions are the first act of war.
	We see this. What was the first thing they did against Russia?
	Sanctions. And we see this all the time.
	Iranian sanctions, Iraqi sanctions.
	Your sanctions killed a half million kids, they said to Madeleine Albright.
	Was it worth it? Yeah, it was worth it.
	I like that. Yeah, I like killing kids, she said.
	Yeah, it was worth it.
	Didn't even try to defend. No, we didn't kill that many kids.
	No, it was worth it. It's fine.
	I have no conscience at all about killing a half million Iraqi kids.
	With sanctions. Sanctions are an act of war.
	When you go back to the times when we had city-states and regional power centers and things like that, people would run.
	If there was a war, they'd run to the castle or whatever.
	They would put a siege around the castle, try to starve the people out.
	Now we do that on a national or international level.
	And of course, everybody in every country was being sanctioned.
	All the people of the countries were being shut down.
	Told you couldn't work, can't do this, can't do that, can't go anywhere.
	We were under siege, literally under siege.
	It was literally an act of war.
	All sanctions are an act of war.
	It was a siege, it was a sanction, it was a war against us.
	And this is about energy sanctions.
	It's about energy starvation.
	And this is what Biden has been doing from the very beginning.
	He began by stopping pipelines and shutting down leases.
	He escalated it with his crackdown on Russia and everything.
	The big part of that was energy starvation.
	Now, it did not stop the Russians.
	The Russians profited from it.
	They were able to sell their oil on the black market.
	And even at a heavy discount, Biden's actions jacked the price of fuel up so much that they made $320 billion in just the first couple of months.
	And who did they make those extra profits from?
	Mostly the Europeans who are paying the higher energy prices.
	Yeah. Those sanctions against us.
	Even these Russian sanctions were sanctions against us.
	Everything is being done to lock us down and starve us, whether it is the pandemic MacGuffin or the climate MacGuffin.
	As I said before, you like your electric vehicle?
	Well, you can keep your electric vehicle in the garage because there's not going to be any energy to charge it on the grid.
	They're going to shut down the nuclear power plants as well.
	You know, they can say, well, for fossil fuels, we've got emissions.
	Well, they don't have that with the nuclear.
	They're just going to shut it down by shutting down the source, by declaring it to be a monument and off limits.
	A tribal councilwoman said, Diana Sue White Dove Ukwala.
	Little White Dove.
	Running Bear. Is he there too?
	She's made it clear that she wants to stand in the way of such mining.
	She said it's really the uranium that we don't want coming out of the ground because it's going to affect everything around us.
	These people always keep it in the ground.
	Whether it's oil or coal, natural gas, keep it in the ground.
	You know what they're trying to do? They're trying to grind us into the ground.
	That's what they're trying to do.
	A U.S. Geological Survey from 2021, however, showed that most springs and wells in the area of northern Arizona known for uranium mining meet federal drinking water standards despite decades of mining.
	Currently, there's no uranium mines operating in Arizona.
	Buster Johnson, a Mojave County supervisor, told Fortune that the monument feels like it's politically driven and that mining uranium, We'll make the country less dependent on Russia.
	We need uranium for the security of our country.
	Well, that's a twofer for Biden.
	First of all, it makes us dependent.
	Everything they do seems to make us dependent on Russia and China that are focused on mining and building and all this other kind of stuff, while we just focus on financializing everything and locking us all down.
	See, net zero...
	Means not zero emissions, it means zero energy.
	They say this is all about the emissions, but as I said before, it's about omitting things from your life.
	You want to know how ridiculous this has gotten?
	They're now talking about cutting down trees to save us from global warming.
	Yeah, you heard that right.
	Cutting down trees to save us from global warming.
	The headline off of the New American, Tree Euthanasia?
	That's what some of these idiots are calling it.
	They now warn that our forests will worsen global warming.
	Now, how is that? They've told us that it's about CO2. Trees remove a massive amount of CO2. They release oxygen.
	They provide shade.
	If the problem is warming, how is this helped by removing the trees?
	Back in the 1970s, says the New American, when trees became almost a protected class, that's when we had everybody becoming tree huggers, remember?
	Remember? We heard that we had to ditch paper supermarket bags and move to plastic because we were decimating too many forests.
	Now, 50 years later, with more tree cover in the U.S. than a century ago, the Green Topians have another complaint.
	American forests will become CO2 emitters by 2070, they say.
	Joining 10 protected forests worldwide that already are net spewers of the gas.
	I would just like to know how that works.
	They say, the theory is, that their growth slows and they use less CO2. In fact, the amount metabolized is lower than that produced by wildfires and dead tree decomposition.
	Oh, that's what they're saying.
	They're saying because you are not following any stewardship methods, as I've said over and over again about Hawaii, about Canada, all these other places.
	Why can't they put the trees out?
	Well, because they leave the trees there and let them decompose.
	They become fuel, massive amounts of fuel for wildfires that happen.
	And so now they're saying, well, because we're not removing these things, you know, they could, in the past, they would let people go in and cut the dead trees down, make log homes out of them or make, you know, lumber out of them or something.
	But now, no, it's sacred land.
	We can't touch it. You know, they've essentially made it a monument, just like they're doing with this Indian monument to take uranium off.
	No, no, no. Can't go in the forest.
	They're too sacred. And now they're saying because the dead trees are there, and this is why they're pushing this out into 2070.
	There's going to be so many dead trees, and then leaving the dead trees there, they're going to exacerbate the wildfires and all the rest of this stuff.
	Well, here's a solution you may not have thought about.
	Why don't you try stewardship again?
	Stewardship would solve all those problems and stop these dead trees decomposing.
	Let people put the wood to good use instead of just letting it decompose in the forest.
	You take it out of the forest and now you don't have fuel for wildfires?
	Oh no, don't want to do that.
	Some scientists have suggested a remedy.
	Euthanasia, the tree version.
	Destroying the senior citizen trees and replacing them with young whippersnapper ones.
	I guess this is kind of the Soylent Green proposal, right?
	For trees. Kind of reminds me of Treebeard, right?
	These people all together, I'm not on anybody's side because they're not on my side.
	Now the environmentalists are coming for Treebeard.
	Sorry, you're too old.
	I have to get rid of you so we can have some saplings in here.
	Thankfully, the U.S. Department of Agriculture dismisses this idea of being pushed now by some people as poor science.
	I take no consolation in that.
	How many times have we seen poor, insane, absurd scientific theories...
	Seized upon for people by their agenda.
	And why would they want to cut these trees down and do this?
	Well, look, Biden is already working with several corporations who want to make a lot of money by putting up big mechanical contraptions, Rube Goldberg stuff, on a massive scale, to extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
	If these people can sell the idea...
	That plants, trees, that God has put here for that purpose in a symbiotic situation by design.
	If they can sell the idea that that doesn't work, we're going to have to build factories, and I've got to give hundreds of billions of dollars to my pals to do it, to extract CO2 from the atmosphere.
	Of course, when they do that, they'll not only be transferring massive amounts of money from people, but they'll also be killing the environment, the real ecosystem, the way that God designed it.
	As this article in New American says, you know, calling CO2 carbon is like calling H2O hydrogen.
	You know, I've got to hydrogen my lawn or something.
	Yeah, H2O is water, and I've got to get me a big glass of hydrogen.
	No. Carbon is a solid, but they don't make a distinction between carbon.
	They don't make a distinction between carbon dioxide, which we all breathe out, and the trees and plants breathe in.
	They don't make a distinction between that and carbon monoxide, which will kill you.
	They don't make any of those distinctions.
	He also points out atmospheric CO2 was once more than 12 times as great as it is today.
	They know that from ice cores.
	5,000 parts per million versus the 400 parts per million today.
	And so, again...
	When we look at the carbon dioxide that's in the atmosphere, it's a very, very small part of the atmosphere.
	0.04%.
	And how much of that is produced by us?
	Well, not that much, actually.
	One last thing before we close on the environment.
	Well, we'll talk about it when we come back.
	back.
	I want to take a quick break and we will be, we'll be right back.
	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 A little bit about transportation, electric vehicles. We have a semi-truck company, electric semi-truck company.
	It calls itself Nikola.
	Poor Tesla.
	He's had both his first name and his last name stolen.
	In his lifetime, he was used by the rich guys.
	Edison, especially, and Westinghouse.
	They abused him. Now he's still being used by billionaires to make money.
	Isn't that amazing? Anyway, Nicola, the leading electric semi-truck manufacturer, has announced a massive recall of battery-powered commercial trucks due to concerns over a defective battery component that can cause fires.
	It's the result of an investigation into a fire at their own facility.
	Ominously... The truck caught fire when it was parked at their facility.
	The battery part was probably to blame for the coolant leak in one of the trucks.
	The battery overheated, which resulted in a fire.
	And so their safety and engineering team discovered a part inside the battery-powered truck that's probably to blame for the coolant leak.
	How many times do we have a coolant leak, an internal combustion engine that's going to cause a fire?
	That could possibly burn down the entire place.
	When we look at this, it's very much like these electric buses.
	That, you know, in Germany, had a couple of fires.
	One of them burned down an entire bus station because there were other electrical buses that also caught fire and burned down the entire station.
	But that happened two different times.
	They got rid of them.
	In France, you had electric buses.
	I've shown pictures on the show of them just spontaneously combusting as they're parked.
	They got rid of them.
	In Canada, they had some electric buses.
	They caught fire.
	And they went back and reconverted them to diesel.
	I guess they detransitioned.
	That's what we would say. And then here in the U.S., we have the electric bus company that Lala Harris loved so much and that Biden gave so much money to, they've gone bankrupt.
	So they burned down in a different way.
	But these semis...
	Are going to be, I think, a much bigger fire hazard because I imagine they've got, I'm just guessing, but, you know, they've got to have a lot more power than even a bus does.
	Buses have really big power, you know, battery array compared to electric car.
	But the trucks are going to be much, much bigger.
	And, of course, the trucks, there's going to be time pressure put on them, and they're going to be trying to do speed charging on these things as well.
	Instead of a supercharger, I think Tesla's got, I think they call it a hypercharger or something like that.
	Certainly there's a lot of hype involved.
	But 60% of the heavy-duty battery electric trucks that Nikola has produced over the last year are now part of this recall.
	And then Sam, listener...
	Sent this to me. Driverless cars added again in San Francisco in a malfunction.
	And people in San Francisco are just furious about this.
	But, of course, they're powerless to do anything about it with the way their government is.
	Their government doesn't care if people go around and loot stores out of business.
	And, of course, they're going to allow these electric car companies to loot these people of their time and of everything else.
	They're going to just turn this over to their pals.
	That was where, if you notice, a few weeks ago, as this was coming up for reauthorization, they said just to show people how much we hate these things and how much they've been in the way of emergency vehicles, how much time they've cost everybody.
	If you see one of these things, you can take a cone, and if you just gently put it on the top, you don't damage the car or anything, but you make it stop, and we can stop these things with a cone on them, take pictures of them, and tell California we don't want it.
	Well, California doesn't care what they want.
	So they proved these things anyway.
	And we just had a 10-car driverless traffic jam.
	Ten of these Johnny Cabs, no human driving them, blocked two narrow streets in the center of San Francisco in the middle of the bar and restaurant district.
	People said they might as well have been boulders because nobody could move them.
	So the robo-taxis sat there with their parking lights flashing for 15 minutes before they woke up and then eventually moved on.
	We've had situations with this, this is Cruise, which is their driverless taxis for General Motors.
	They've had situations in the past where all of the taxis went to one intersection and then just stopped.
	Created a massive traffic jam there.
	But here they are, just 10 of them stop and put their blinkers on.
	So, Aaron Peskin, who represents North Beach on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, said these robo-taxis could jam them closed in the event of a major emergency or a fire where people needed to evacuate an area.
	And of course, that's not a theory.
	They've already blocked firemen from being able to get to fires and that type of thing.
	Cruz, who oversees the project for General Motors, blamed cell phone carriers for the problem.
	Well, you think when there's an emergency, there's always going to be functional cell phones there?
	You know, these cars will block everybody with everything.
	It makes me think of the time that we got stuck in Buffalo.
	They had a tremendous amount of, it was the day before Thanksgiving, and we were driving through Buffalo.
	We'd just been through a long thing with a legal fight over the sale of our business, and we just had to get out of there.
	I've told that story before.
	But we get up to Buffalo, and And because of the lake effect, all of a sudden, massive amount of snow, and they are known for their big snowstorms.
	This is the most snow that had fallen in that period of time.
	They have different ways of doing it, right?
	The one that has the most total snow, or the one that lasts for the most days, or the one that has the most snow that falls at a particular time.
	And so, at that point, it set that record.
	And it trapped people, is the point.
	People, a lot of people there in that area, Because they're used to snow.
	The city has all these snow removal vehicles.
	And so people, a lot of them, did not have SUVs.
	And so, or anything like that.
	They had very small little subcompact cars.
	And the snow came down so quickly, they were getting stuck everywhere.
	And even if you had a car that could navigate through the snow, and we did, and we couldn't get past them.
	They were blocking everything. Oh, it was a mess.
	People got stuck there for a couple of days.
	School buses couldn't get home, and they had kids who got stuck in fast food restaurants for a couple of days.
	It was insane.
	And that's what's going to happen with these things.
	You have an emergency, and power goes down, the grid goes down, cell phones go down.
	You're going to have these things stuck everywhere as obstacles, as boulders in the road that people can't get around.
	They're literally going to break down.
	As I understand it, the phone outside lands impacted LTE cell connectivity and ability for RA advisors to route the cars.
	Well, they got an explanation, but of course, this is not a solution of what's going on.
	But one person said, if you're looking for an example of regulatory capture, you're seeing it now.
	It's unethical. It's immoral.
	Nobody in San Francisco apparently likes this.
	They all hate it, but it's being shoved down their throats.
	Why? It all goes back to the state government.
	They said, bottom line, this all goes back to Gavin Newsom, or as I call him, Grabbin Nuisance.
	Governor Grabbin Nuisance is pushing this.
	By the way, they're going to have these people who are going to try to push for gun control at this special session coming up next Monday here in Tennessee.
	The Democrats are going to bring in Grabbin Nuisance right after it for a fundraising dinner.
	This guy's really pushing to be president.
	He's put in a new California gas czar as well.
	And as Epoch Times says, of course, it will be responsible for boosting prices in California even higher.
	Highest in the country. I have a real problem calling people in the American government a czar.
	Why do we have a king, a dictator, a Caesar?
	That's where it really comes from. We've crossed the Rubicon, haven't we, when we have a czar?
	It infuriated me when William Bennett, who bragged about his book of virtues, and then Reagan put him in as a drug czar.
	Oh, he loved that title.
	Like, you should be ashamed of that.
	But he wasn't ashamed of his drug war, and he wasn't ashamed of his drug czar title.
	You know, it's Caesar. That's where you get the term czar, the Russian king, where you get the term Kaiser, the German king, and all the rest of the stuff.
	It's a Caesar dictator who's crossed the Rubicon.
	So, they've got a gas dictator.
	A gas seizure.
	He's going to seize the cars, too.
	Little seizures all over the place.
	Civil seizures.
	Leading a new state agency that will watch over the oil markets for possible illegal activity that drives up the costs for Californians.
	A new bureaucracy that was just created, they call it the Division of Petroleum Market Oversight, was signed into law last March by Governor Graben Nusance.
	And Nusance's new law, of course, is going to make everything higher.
	Do you know why they have high prices?
	It's real simple. They've got high taxes.
	And why are their prices so much higher than they are in high-tax places like Oregon?
	Well, because in addition to the high prices, they dictate that there has to be special blends, custom blends of gasoline in California.
	So what is the solution to all this?
	Getting rid of these taxes and regulations?
	No, it's to add more taxes and regulations.
	And of course, that's going to make everything more expensive.
	The new oil watchdog office is part of Governor Nusance's gas price gouging law.
	According to AAA, California currently suffers the highest gas prices in the country, always.
	Averaging $5.11 a gallon for regular.
	Neighboring Nevada, it's at $4.36.
	Arizona is $4.
	So, you know, they're 25% higher than their neighbors there.
	And if you look at the lowest in the country, Mississippi, 332, and I say that's not that much different from what we saw in Tennessee and in Arkansas when we traveled a couple of weeks ago.
	If you compare it to that, California is 67% higher than Mississippi.
	You know, two-thirds higher.
	So Governor Nuisance said to the oil companies, prove that you're not price gouging.
	How do you prove a negative? He's the one who's gouging everybody.
	Again, with the bespoke blends and the high taxes, all this done by the state.
	We're going to take a quick break, and when we come back, we're going to take a quick look at artificial intelligence.
	��
	we're getting close on time here, so I want to run through this.
	But before we get into artificial intelligence and an update on that, there was a couple of things about money that have happened that is even more immediate that I want to talk about.
	And before I do that, I just want to quickly thank some of the people who have sent us checks as of the second week of August.
	Stacey P., Anna Maria A., Alessandra R., John R., Renee M, John and Pam M, Aaron W, George M, Travis S, Scott C, Margaret, Mary T, Daniel H, Jack H, Stephanie K, and David and Angie W. Thank you all of you.
	I really do appreciate that.
	Let's talk a little bit about, this is from a letter from a listener.
	He says, in the Friday show, last Friday show, he said, David and Gerald Slenty, in a roundtable format, David was complaining that the dollar had lost practically all its value due to inflation.
	Well, you ain't seen nothing yet, he said.
	Wait until CBDC is ushered in.
	Perhaps as early as October or November this year, he says.
	Paid at the end of the month or at the middle of the month.
	Either way, you're going to spend it all within five minutes of receipt.
	Or the whole caboodle expires.
	That's one of the things I think we ought to start calling it.
	It's not a bug, but it's a feature for the central bank so they can evaporate your money.
	Put a time limit on it.
	It just keeps disappearing.
	Call it a negative interest rate or you can just say, yeah, we just wipe this off.
	If you don't spend it by such and such a time, it just disappears.
	They love that. They've been talking about that from the very beginning as an important feature.
	You work your butt off and then the proceeds of your hard work.
	The money expires within five minutes of clearing your account if you don't spend it within the allotted five-minute grace period.
	Bloomberg will finally get the population taking umbrage and going after the globalists with a pitchfork.
	CBDC will finally drive the general public over the edge.
	They'll take sticks, bats, bricks, and whatever they can lay their hands on.
	They will come after the globalists and there'll be literally everyone out to get the globalists.
	The cops will be in the same boat as everybody else.
	The savings will also expire.
	Well, again, there are things that we can do on an individual basis.
	And I'll just point out, davidknight.gold.
	Tony set that up to take you to Weiswolf Gold.
	That is... An important thing that we all need to do to provide for ourselves.
	And we don't want to get caught up in this CBDC control grid.
	That's one way they can bring us to our knees.
	And so gold and silver is something that's simple, that you can control, that's outside of their grasp.
	And it's going to be there even if they take the power grid or the internet or both of them down.
	Meanwhile, though, PayPal is setting up this PayPal USD, a stablecoin that is tied to the U.S. dollar.
	And as I said the other day, why are they doing this?
	Well, there may be an explanation for it.
	Not a great one, but it is their picture of the future.
	Again, PayPal is trying to take this thing.
	You can redeem it in U.S. fiat currency.
	And so, to me, it's got all the worst features.
	You've got something that is redeemable in a fiat currency that's being manipulated by the central banks.
	You've got all the problems that you have with crypto in terms of security and security.
	And things like that. And then you've got to deal with PayPal, which has shown its willingness to confiscate people's money as well as turn off their accounts.
	Turn mine off back in 2021.
	Then they said last year, well, we don't like what you have to say.
	We'll not only shut your account down, but we'll fine you $2,500.
	And they claimed that they didn't know how that got in there.
	I don't know who did that.
	And bring out Martin Short again.
	It's funny you would say that. I don't know how that came in there.
	But then as soon as the...
	Outcry died down.
	They put it back in there again.
	And so the question is, why are they doing this?
	Well, they think that this is, they're tying this into Web3.
	Now, Web3 is something I don't know a great deal about yet.
	I'm afraid we're going to all find out about it.
	The move to support Web3 seems to be a strategic one, says Cointelegraph.
	A strategic one for PayPal, as Web3 is widely hailed as the next generation of the internet.
	Oh, great. In Web3 environments, users will have more control over their data, interactions, and their digital identity.
	Oh, yeah. So you'll have, they'll create the digital identity, and they'll tell you that you've got control over it.
	They will have control over it.
	You think we don't know?
	You think we don't see that, but we do, says Oliver Anthony.
	Yeah, we do. Direct peer-to-peer transactions in Web3 will eliminate the need for intermediaries such as banks or payment processors.
	Bingo. That's it right there.
	They're getting rid of the banks because they want to get rid of anonymity and they want to get rid of cash and all the rest of this stuff.
	Get rid of the banks.
	Big part of this.
	Banks don't realize it. Banks, their heads are on the chopping block, and they don't even realize it.
	If they did, they'd be begging, as Senator Nicely here in Tennessee has been trying to get small banks.
	They see a state bank, as has been a state bank in North Dakota, and the independent small banks have prospered.
	They've been going out of business left and right as the big guys get bigger and bigger consolidating this stuff, and that's been happening rapidly since the 2008 financial crisis.
	But they don't realize that their head is on the chopping block.
	And their head is on the chopping block even with this Web3.
	Even if the Federal Reserve and an engineered financial crisis doesn't take them out, PayPal has got designs to replace the banks.
	And, of course, they're going to work hand-in-glove with the sensors.
	It's going to be CBDC and stuff like this PayPal so-called stablecoin that's going to take them out of the process.
	You may not like the banks, and I'm not real fond of banks either, but you wait and you think that what they've got planned is going to be better?
	It's going to be much worse.
	Just because we've got a situation we don't like right now doesn't mean they can't make it worse, and that's what they're trying to do.
	Meanwhile, in Argentina, we have a guy who did really well in the elections.
	He's being characterized as a rock-singing libertarian outsider, an anarcho-capitalist, And he was, he's headed for, in the primaries, he did better than any of the, his party did better than any of the others that were there.
	And as I say, this is being seen as punishment.
	For the two main political establishment blocs, they have some conservatives and then they have the Peronistas, the leftist Marxist authoritarians.
	Yeah, don't cry for them.
	Don't cry for Evita, any of these people.
	And so the Argentine peso is already at historic lows.
	As Zero Hedge puts it, it puked immediately after far-right political outsider Javier Malay won the country's primary election on Sunday.
	He wants a dramatic overhaul of the country's entire political and economic system, and he's even vowed to ditch the currency.
	After winning 30%, just tying whatever they do, just using the American dollar, for example.
	Good luck with that. Anyway, it'd be better than what they've got.
	Again, you know, you're going to get perfection, you're going to just go for better.
	After winning 30% of the vote, beating the main conservative opposition bloc at 28%, and the ruling, currently ruling, Peronistas, Who came in third place.
	They're calling it a political earthquake.
	They're calling him the Ron Paul of Argentina.
	He is 52 years old.
	He has pledged to abolish Argentina's central bank.
	That's why they're calling him the Ron Paul of Argentina.
	And to replace the peso with the US dollar.
	So get rid of the Argentinian central bank and go to the Federal Reserve.
	Hey! I've got to take this a little bit better.
	Maybe there's some other alternative here.
	Year-on-year, you know, there was some group of people, what do they call them?
	Oh, yeah, the founders who said, you know, you can coin money in gold or silver.
	Just go back to something like that.
	Year-on-year inflation is above 115%.
	One in four people are living in poverty.
	The peso has in recent months plummeted so much.
	Listen to this. When they go to soccer games, Foreign fans will taunt the Argentinians by burning their pesos.
	You're so worthless.
	Here's your money. We're going to light our cigars with it or whatever.
	That's one way to troll them.
	Let's hope that doesn't happen here.
	He's told his supporters on Sunday, we've managed to build this competitive alternative that will put an end to the parasitic, thieving, useless political cast.
	You know, those rich men north of Richmond.
	And that would include New York as well, where they have the Federal Reserve.
	Good morning to a world in which a libertarian who says that he wants to burn down the central bank and consider it a crime for the government to print money.
	Is the top vote-getter in Argentina's presidential candidates put out Ed Martin.
	Yeah, yeah. Good morning.
	That is an interesting way to wake up.
	Well, we don't have enough time really to get into artificial intelligence.
	We'll pick this up tomorrow.
	One of the things that I wanted to talk about was just how interesting things get when artificial intelligence starts training on artificial intelligence-generated data.
	And you know, as the AI is putting out all this content, and once it starts putting out content, it can pump it out really quickly.
	It can overwhelm real art, real music, real writing, real articles, and all the rest of this stuff.
	But then, something very interesting happens.
	Because when the AI starts reading its own stuff, And making decisions about its own admittedly skewed, hallucinatory information, then things start getting really crazy.
	And before you know it, I guess we're all going to be furries.
	This is one crazy world that we're living in, and so now the AI is going to start beating on itself because it is insatiable.
	In terms of having to have more and more information, always constantly searching more information, how is it going to identify that?
	See, that's what I said before.
	Instead of saying, look, AI is going to be doing deep fakes.
	AI is going to be spewing garbage out there and everything.
	So you need to identify yourself as a real human.
	Like, why don't you identify the AI garbage?
	If you identified the AI garbage, then you wouldn't have to worry about the AI cannibalizing itself and essentially developing a mental illness.
	Thanks for listening. 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.

▲