Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 20, 2023 - The David Knight Show

03:01:22

The David Knight Show - 09/20/2023

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	As the clock strikes 13, it's Wednesday the 20th of September, year of our Lord 2023.
	Well, today we're going to begin with an update to the F-35 issue.
	I think it's very interesting, some of the information that has come out, even some military experts are saying this is hacked.
	I had a lot of comments on Twitter from people who have given some very helpful information, quite frankly.
	And then we're going to have, in the third hour, Jack Cashel, who wrote a book many years ago about TWA Flight 800.
	Now, I had booked this interview before this stuff happened.
	But it now combines a couple of themes that we've been seeing for the last couple of weeks.
	The government cover-ups, government lies, and of course, things that are happening in the air.
	We'll start with the F-35.
	We'll be right back. Music Well, I've had emails, a lot of emails sent to me, a lot of comments on social media about what's going on with the F-35.
	Look, this is an important issue because it is about the defense of this country and how it's being bungled by these men in high heels and lipstick.
	And pushing the rainbow flag and the rest of this stuff.
	They've completely lost their way.
	And of course, it's not just the LGBT aspect of it.
	It is the bloated, over-complex, over-expensive defense, military, industrial complex that has become part of this.
	And we have left ourselves wide open.
	Now, let me go over some of the comments that people have had first, and then I'll talk about what the media is saying.
	One person says there's no point in hacking this if all you're going to do is crash it wantonly into the ground.
	Well, again, the issue to me is not what happened to the plane.
	It isn't about whether the plane was crashed or whether the plane was captured so that they could replicate it.
	That's not the issue.
	I think the issue is we become more and more focused on artificial intelligence, on this, you know...
	Electronic warfare fighting system, hooking everything together.
	And you know, it is the JEDI system that they put together under Trump.
	It was something that Mattis had been involved in.
	The guy that Trump picked for his department head and military stuff.
	He had already been involved in issues with Bezos and Amazon.
	Mattis, before he was put into a cabinet position by Trump, I had, and especially his close assistant, had flown out.
	She had flown out many, many times to Seattle to work with him to set up a joint unified database or something.
	That's what JEDI was the acronym for.
	But it was about combining everything.
	You know, let's put all of our data in one place so it's easier for our enemies to get at it and to hack it and to control it.
	It was a foolish thing.
	But a lot of money to be made.
	And it was a massive contract, and everybody was saying at the time, and all this happened before Trump put this guy in office, you know, put him in, appointed him into his cabinet.
	Everybody was saying, it looks like this contract was written by Mattis for Amazon.
	And then Microsoft got in there and stole it away from them.
	And Bezos was hopping mad.
	They filed suit and so forth and so on.
	And eventually the outcome of it, if I remember correctly, and I'm just going from memory here, I wasn't planning on even talking about this.
	It just made me think about it when I was talking about the over-complex and the And the centralization of all this stuff, right?
	We have this massive cybersecurity network that is not secure.
	And that was the point I was trying to get at yesterday.
	That over and over again, we've been hacked.
	They've admitted it a half dozen times in the last five years.
	How many times have they done it that they don't know about?
	Or how many times have they done it that they don't want to admit it?
	And yet, the response is to put everything together into one place, to centralize everything, to centralize all control.
	And if you do that, it is not a secure system.
	And that's the fundamental aspect of it.
	Now, what the solution was, if I remember correctly, after this lawsuit, they kind of split the baby.
	And they gave some money for some kind of a contract or something to Amazon to stop all this stuff.
	But Microsoft stole the lion's share of it because Microsoft is already so heavily into Washington and the Pentagon.
	And when you look at things like NewsGuard and ElectionGuard, NewsGuard is to guard us from hearing what they don't want us to hear.
	And ElectionGuard is to keep people they don't want in office from getting into office.
	And ElectionGuard was run by DARPA. Why is DARPA getting involved in domestic elections?
	Well, of course, the Pentagon and the CIA are running the elections.
	And they're hacking it.
	They're running the censorship.
	They're running the other stuff as well.
	And so Microsoft has been involved for a long time, very deeply embedded in the military-industrial complex, of course.
	And I go on and on about all the different examples of it.
	That's just one. And so they're much better connected politically.
	It's one of the reasons why a few years ago Jeff Bezos spent $250 million, which was pocket change, to him personally.
	I talked about it at the time.
	I said, you know, when you look at the amount of money that he's making from the appreciation of his stock, that's like two or three days worth of money that he made to buy the Washington Post.
	And I said, so, since the median income in the U.S. is like $50,000, how much would you be spending if it was going to cost the same thing to you, forget, a couple hundred dollars or something, to buy the Washington Post?
	Because that is a very strategic thing.
	The Washington Post gave him leverage over people in Washington.
	It's an interesting way to lobby them.
	I can write good things about you.
	I can write bad things about you.
	Would you like to give me a contract?
	This is what's going on, folks.
	And this type of stuff manifested in these ridiculously complex, ridiculously expensive, ridiculously vulnerable war systems are the things that are making us very vulnerable.
	And so, you know, the question is, what would you do this for?
	And as I said yesterday, My idea that, you know, the key thing is to show people what is going on.
	You know, they fly into Taiwanese airspace all the time, the Chinese do.
	Why? To intimidate them.
	You know, what's the point of that intimidation?
	Because we're in a Cold War.
	And so you want to intimidate the other side.
	And one of the objectives of the Cold War is to win it without having to go into a hot war.
	And so that could have been the motivation.
	That could have been what happened.
	And I don't know that they flew it into the ground.
	There's a lot of questions, as I mentioned yesterday.
	So why didn't anybody see the smoke and the flames?
	You know, some people locally, they went around and they were able to find some people who said, I heard a plane fly overhead.
	But then they added, I didn't hear a crash.
	I didn't see any fireball or anything like that.
	And I played this videotape for you yesterday.
	There's one crash. There's the guy that...
	Big fireball on the ground.
	And the guy ejected.
	There's a pilot with his parachute.
	Ejected at the last possible moment because that's what you do.
	So there's a lot of questions still unanswered.
	But other people are asking those questions as well.
	Why'd the pilot eject? It's just as big a question.
	Why did the wingman not follow the plane?
	You know, if it was going to crash into an area where there's people there, you would think that he would follow it to take it out.
	Or you think that he would follow it to know where it's going to go.
	And why wasn't the transponder working and this and that?
	So, you know, the key issue is, and some people said, no, no, no, they would have flown it.
	I said, let's not get caught up in the Cuba thing.
	And I said, I think that is a red herring.
	As I said, they always add, you know, sensational details and speculation to stuff to make it.
	To discredit the real questions.
	The real questions about this overall plane system, the whole F-35 program, and even bigger than that, everything about the Pentagon.
	As I said yesterday, they've forgotten how to make Arctic ice-busting ships.
	They haven't made one in about 45 years.
	And they don't have anybody as a contractor who has the capability to do that.
	They've got to learn it all over again, perhaps.
	And then, do we have the manufacturing capacity or have we sent it to China?
	Do we have the materials or have we sent it to China?
	Do we have the energy to be able to do manufacturing in America or are we going to send it all to China?
	This is the other aspect of it.
	This is the aspect that they're not really talking about.
	And so that was my point about the vulnerability.
	And if you want to steal it so you can make an exact copy of it, Well, a lot of people have said they've already made a copy of it.
	And going back to 2014, it was rumored that exactly that type of thing had happened.
	They stole the plans.
	That's the point.
	You don't really necessarily need to have the physical machine.
	They've stolen so many plans.
	They've stole strategic plans.
	They've stole plans for weapons systems.
	They've got personnel files.
	They've got all of this stuff. Do you think they really need to physically get the plane?
	I think it's key for whoever did this to show the U.S. that they have that capability.
	And as one person wrote, he said, this has 10 million lines of code that are part of the F-35 program.
	He said the press hailed it as a flying computer.
	This is coming from Ted Traeger.
	Thank you, Ted. Traeger Steel is his handle on Twitter.
	He said the press hailed it as a flying computer as though that were some kind of a compliment.
	That all by and in itself was bad news.
	And worse, China stole the plans about 2014, then hilariously built a replica of Minus electronic overindulgence, right?
	As they want theirs to actually work.
	Another listener, another commenter on Twitter, smHayden1, says the F-35 is fully computer-controlled with overhead satellite input.
	It was hacked.
	Controlling the Carolina F-35, requiring the grounding of all military aviation in the U.S., EU, and the world in the past.
	And, of course, he's talking about the, or she, is talking about the hacking of the FAA system in 2023.
	I talked about that in January 11th, 2023.
	Remember that? It was the first time since 9-11 that they'd shut down all air traffic control and did it for about 24 hours.
	And they said, well, it's a computer that went offline.
	There wasn't any hacking.
	There's never any hacking.
	Never, never happens.
	All the stuff that happened in Vegas in terms of taking over all the MGM properties, that didn't happen.
	They want to pretend it never happened, especially when it's the government.
	But that was, I think, a different system.
	But it shows how vulnerable the systems are.
	That was a NOTAM system.
	And the NOTAM system is a thing that has been there for a very long time.
	It used to be done by people, but then they automated it.
	And after they automated it, it started sending out so many messages that it was just like a very spammish thing.
	It really cut down a lot on the utility.
	But, of course, it does have some important information that could be there, but the important information is kind of buried in all the chatter.
	It's there to tell people if there's a problem.
	At an airport with takeoff or landing or something, they're to tell the pilots so they're aware of any issues like that.
	But just inundates them with a lot of unnecessary stuff.
	But after that was shut down, by shutting down that one system, they said, all right, that's it, we're going to ground all the planes.
	Because we can't tell anybody if there's some kind of an obstruction or a problem on a runway, if they're taking off or landing or other things like that.
	So we just shut everything down.
	And they did it for about 24, 25 hours.
	And then it finally came back up, and within an hour, the NOTAM system in Canada went down.
	Now, they were saying, well, it's just a problem with a machine somewhere, you know, one of the servers went down or something like that.
	No, no. No, they just, as soon as they got paid off in the U.S., they went to Canada, Canada paid them off right away.
	Why would it fail exactly the same way with that system?
	It had all the hallmarks of a hack, just as you saw the Colonial Pipeline system that got hacked, you know, the biggest transfer of, I think it's oil, oil and natural gas on the East Coast.
	And what they did was they hacked the accounting system.
	You know, they didn't go out and actually, you know, get control of valves that opened or closed the transmission of what was in the pipeline.
	They actually did it with the accounting system.
	So they couldn't buy or sell stuff.
	And so this is the way they work with this type of thing.
	So, yeah, they've got, you know, we talk about 10 million lines of code.
	I remember the first job that I interviewed for was at Texas Instruments, and they were working on cruise missile stuff.
	And the guy said, yeah, it's a legacy system.
	It's written in Fortran.
	And you'd have to maintain this, and it's like 15,000 lines of Fortran code.
	I was like, no thanks.
	But it's really cool. Once a year we get to go out to the testing grounds and get to fly missiles and crash them and stuff.
	It's like, no thanks. I don't think I would make it work a bit suicide or something.
	This isn't 15,000 lines.
	This is 10 million lines of code.
	So, yeah, incredibly complex.
	And, of course, it's connected to everything.
	This kind of centralized thing makes it hackable.
	And so, thank you to everybody.
	Thank you, Lars, for the input into all this.
	And I'll read you one more here.
	This is from Robert.
	It says, My wife has a free app on my phone that shows her in real time where I am at all times.
	Even gives her the speed I'm traveling and my battery status.
	But the jet doesn't have any tracking, right?
	Do they think that we're that stupid?
	Well, yeah, they do.
	And as a matter of fact, that reminds me, he says $100 million jet.
	And of course, Laura said $140 million.
	And then, because both of those figures are put out by the press...
	Including the one that I've seen the most often is $80 million.
	So we don't even know what this thing costs.
	How are we supposed to find it?
	We can't find the cost even of this thing.
	It's $80 million. It's $100 million.
	It's $140. We don't know.
	Who cares? It's the Pentagon, right?
	Who cares about money? Who cares about finding this stuff?
	We send stuff to Ukraine all the time and it disappears, right?
	And they've been doing this.
	They were doing this before the Russians invaded.
	They've been doing this for the last eight years.
	As a matter of fact, one of the guys who blew the whistle on a lot of this corruption is just, you know, they're purging everybody now to try to convince the U.S. public and the EU public that they've taken care of the corruption.
	It's endemic in that country.
	The most corrupt country on earth, said Bill Gates, before all this stuff happened.
	So, yeah, stuff is disappearing all the time with the Pentagon.
	Six trillion dollars was missing, said Donald Rumsfeld, on September the 10th, 2001.
	And then, lo and behold, a plane crashed into the window of the people who were doing the accounting the next day.
	Poof! Just like that. Problem solved.
	Haven't heard any more about that since then, except from the quote-unquote conspiracy theorists.
	Anyway, none of this makes any sense.
	So I don't know what happened. As I said before, I think the Cuba thing was there to discredit people.
	But a lot of people are looking at this and saying, this story doesn't add up on these other aspects.
	So don't try to focus on what happened to the plane.
	I don't think that that debris is where the plane is.
	I don't know where the plane is.
	I don't know what they did with the plane.
	If somebody captured it or if they just flew it and said, we can do whatever we want to, watch this.
	Maybe you don't want to defend Taiwan because we own you.
	Right? But whatever, you know, if they flew it out to a ship or whatever.
	But there's so many other questions.
	Why would the wingman not follow?
	Why did the guy eject?
	Why was it on autopilot?
	Why was there no transponder?
	And I just thought, if he didn't push the eject button, and as one of these people talking about it said, you know, there is an auto-eject function.
	This thing is so smart.
	That it's going to determine that you're about to crash, and maybe you've lost consciousness or something, so we're going to auto-eject you.
	So that's under software control as well.
	So if somebody took over control of this plane, and this is my theory, somebody hacks the plane, and the other guy is saying, I can't control anything, my plane's been hacked or whatever, I think they probably let that be determined, then ejected the guy.
	And the other guy doesn't want to follow it because he doesn't want the same thing to happen to him.
	But imagine if you're in the plane, all of a sudden you just get surprise ejected.
	It's going to be difficult enough.
	It's got rockets that are launching you up at several hundred miles an hour, just at cruising speed.
	So yeah, I would imagine the wingman's like, I'm out of here.
	I don't want to have anything to do with this.
	And so the Daily Mail...
	Is talking about this.
	How did it take the Pentagon 28 hours?
	That's the amount of time now. We got a number on it.
	28 hours to find this.
	When they said it was only 80 miles away.
	And again, the figure that they use is $80 million for this thing.
	Because, you know, who knows how much these things cost at the Pentagon.
	You know, 80, 100, 140.
	It's all negotiable. The plane was flying in tandem with another jet, which returned to base after the mishap, rather than following the pilotless craft.
	They just leave that there.
	Does that seem strange to you?
	They just lay that out there and let it stand so you can think about that.
	The stealth jets transponder was not working, quote, for some reason that we haven't yet determined.
	Uh-huh. Yeah. A set of spokesmen at the military base.
	They don't know why that wasn't working.
	Meanwhile, it emerged on Monday night that the Pentagon in 2019 was Was concerned that the plane could be vulnerable to attack by hackers.
	Imagine that. So I guess I'm a conspiracy theorist.
	They said this is vulnerable four years ago, 2019.
	So that is a real possibility that was admitted by the Pentagon four years ago.
	It's not known where the locals informed the military of the crash.
	Which did not appear to have happened in a remote region again.
	Nobody reported this.
	Local news went out and said, well, we heard a jet flyover, but we didn't see any crash or any smoke or anything, and this was not a remote region.
	So again, I think the crash is a cover story.
	Whatever happened to the plane, whether they flew it into the ocean or whether they flew it to a ship.
	Again, the reason I say not Cuba, because there's not sufficient range for that to get to Cuba from there.
	Anyway, they say it now emerges that U.S. defense officials raise concern about safety issues concerning the F-35 as far back as 2009.
	And not just safety issues, but...
	Cybersecurity issues. A report from the U.S. Government's General Accountability Office, the GAO, four years ago, warned that the $80 million aircraft system, quote, provided a backdoor for hackers.
	That's the way they always get in.
	You know, talk to Goatree, and it's like, yeah, everybody always, the people who build this thing, right?
	There's backdoors in everything.
	They have backdoors for the developers.
	That's what I did when I wrote code, you know, for the point-of-sale retail system that we had in the video stores.
	You know, we had a password for it, but I thought, well, you know, I don't want to get locked out of this system somehow.
	Somebody messes with this password, so you hard-code something in there so that you can get in as the developer.
	And then there's also, if I wasn't the developer, they also create backdoors for the owners in case the IT guys go rogue.
	I want to shut this thing. So the developers have got it there.
	And, you know, the owners have got it there.
	And, of course, the real owners, the governments, always have their backdoor passwords to get into everything as well.
	So there's all these different ones.
	The real scandal Of one of these, when I was talking to Goatree, was that somebody used the same password for everything.
	You know, same backdoor password that you would have for the developers, for the owners, for the government.
	Let everybody get it.
	Because you can also set it up, of course, that you have different access based on, you know, which one of these backdoors you're coming into.
	So the GAO had said back in 2019, this has a backdoor for hackers.
	And knowing our military, they probably did nothing about that.
	The jet operates on Lockheed Martin's Autonomic Logistics Information System, which watchdogs said can be infiltrated by malware that spoofs the system to stealthily feed false information, taking perfectly serviceable aircraft out of service.
	And this is the frustration, you know, when I, again, when I talk to Goatree, you know, people go out there and they hire him, all these different industries and stuff, and he shows them what the vulnerability is, and then they do nothing about him.
	It's like, so why did you hire me to do this?
	Pentagon, same thing. GAO says, you know, you got a back door here that could take over your aircraft.
	Which I think is what happened, and they do nothing about it, I'm sure.
	Meanwhile, a report by a government watchdog warned that the F-35's weapon systems could be overtaken by, quote, relatively simple tools and techniques.
	The Project on Government Oversight, POGO. A watchdog group released a report in 2019 also showing that nearly every software-enabled weapon system tested between 2012 and 2017 can be hacked, including the F-35. This is why I'm saying, you know, every, every software-enabled weapon system, not just the F-35.
	And as we're doing that, we're losing our manufacturing capacity, our energy capacity.
	You know, the military is focused on, you know, how are we going to get our number one enemy?
	It's climate change. Remember, we've heard that.
	We've heard that from these people.
	So I guess the question is, you know, when are they going to come out with a battery-operated F-35?
	That's probably what they're back there working on.
	They can't figure...
	They can't work on these backdoor access vulnerabilities.
	They've got to come up with a battery-operated F-35, I guess, right?
	So again, every...
	Software-enabled weapon system can be hacked, including the F-35, said POGO, said the GAO. Multiple agencies warning them about what we all know is true.
	Common sense, right?
	The agency wrote, quote, despite years of patches and upgrades, the F-35's most combat crucial computer systems continue to malfunction, including the Autonomic Logistics Information System, As in previous years,
	cybersecurity testing shows that many previously confirmed F-35 vulnerabilities have not been fixed, meaning that enemy hackers could potentially shut down the ALIS network, the Autonomic Logistics Information System.
	Steal secret data from the network and from onboard computers, and perhaps prevent the F-35 from flying or from accomplishing its mission.
	And again, we may be at the point in this Cold War where it's important for Russia or China to tell us, you know, you think you've got these sophisticated weapons?
	Well, we own them.
	Pogo's Dan Grazier shared, the fully integrated nature of all F-35 systems makes cybersecurity more essential than for any other aircraft.
	In other words, it's more vulnerable than any other aircraft.
	It's one of the things I mentioned briefly yesterday about Michael Hastings, a journalist, and what happened to him.
	You know, the car that crashed was a Mercedes.
	And Mercedes was very proud of the fact that they had put so many systems already under computer control.
	Well, it just made it a lot more hackable.
	You know, if Michael Hastings was concerned about his vulnerability, he would have done well to rent a wreck.
	Some kind of an analog wreck that would not be as hackable as a brand spanking new Mercedes.
	So the Daily Mail says, so why then did the pilot eject?
	And so they talked to David Burke, who was a commanding officer in the Marine Corps, and their F-35 squadron in South Carolina from 2012 to 2014.
	So he knows what he's talking about.
	He knows what this plane is about.
	And he says the ejection is a last-ditch decision, just like you saw in that jet crash video.
	And so he said something happened catastrophically in order to have ejection.
	Again, the Project on Government Oversight, POGO, said that the F-35B has an auto-eject function.
	I'm curious to know if it ejected him involuntarily.
	The decision to abandon the aircraft meant that it would eventually crash.
	And again, this same article.
	I'm sorry, this is a different article.
	This is from the news. So, now the price of the F-35 is $140 million in this article.
	$80, $100, $140, $100.
	The military will want to know if it was done out of mechanical or software.
	Failure. Pilot error.
	Or something else.
	And so Burke, who used to command the F-35 squadron there in South Carolina, is now a development officer with a military-industrial company.
	He says, so the good news is that the pilots, nothing happened to the pilots.
	Yeah, bad news is that we've lost control of our jets.
	Why did the jet lose communication?
	Well, F-35s are equipped with transponders that allow the aircraft to be tracked, but military officials initially said the transponder did not appear to be working, but they didn't know why.
	A senior analyst at Teal Group, a defense consulting firm, said, well, maybe when the pilot was ejected, maybe it cooked all the electronics and cut off power to the transponder.
	Or, you know, maybe they took the thing over and then they turned off the transponder and ejected the pilot.
	That's another explanation. Berkey said the transponder may not have been turned on in the first place because it was flying with a lead F-35, which would have had its transponder on.
	He said the second jet transponder would have been off to prevent extra noise from interfering with the approach controller.
	He said this is just normal procedure.
	They've got two planes, and only one of them turns on their transponder, because otherwise they interfere with each other.
	That seems like kind of a bad design, don't you think?
	Kind of reminds me of the Uber autonomous car.
	Remember when it ran over that homeless lady pushing a golf cart who was jaywalking in the dark?
	You know, we had video of the woman who was supposed to be the human watching all this stuff, and she's sitting there playing a video game or, you know, messing with her phone and not looking.
	It's like, what? You know, as it hits the lady, kills her.
	But again, you know, this lady coming out of the side, she would most likely not have been seen by the human driver in the dark.
	But people say, well, why didn't the autonomous car...
	Hit the emergency brakes because it would have seen her because it was working not on visual, but on LIDAR. It was using radar to detect this stuff.
	It should have seen that and stopped.
	And so they replied and they said, yes, but the emergency brakes were kind of touchy and, you know, and it was applying the emergency brakes at the wrong time.
	That was kind of a dangerous situation.
	So we disabled the emergency brakes.
	Same type of thing here. You know what?
	Why don't you come up with some kind of a workaround?
	Maybe you don't have the two transponders on the same frequency, maybe.
	I don't know. You got two planes, two transponders, maybe two frequencies.
	None of this stuff.
	You understand how we're getting a glimpse at what we're paying for, the most expensive plane they've had, I think?
	Well, probably the stealth bombers are more expensive, but...
	So why did the aircraft keep flying for so long?
	Next question. Military officials also want to know how the jet, which was on autopilot, when the pilot ejected, again, that was a key thing right there.
	Okay, it's been hacked. Managed to keep flying through the skies for hours.
	Hours? Instead of crashing sooner.
	Now, if this crashed 80 miles away, That's only seven and a half minutes.
	I talked about that yesterday.
	You know, typical cruising speed, that'll only be about seven and a half minutes.
	I said, really? The wingman couldn't stick around that long?
	What was he afraid of? He really didn't travel for that long.
	They're now saying hours?
	Now, this also mitigates against the crash site stuff.
	This also indicates this is being flied out to rendezvous with something or flown out to sea or something like that.
	And so Berkey says, well, if the jet's engine is working and it's in a stable position when the pilot ejected, it's totally plausible.
	And again, that mitigates against the crash site story.
	Why are they talking about hours now when it only would have taken it seven and a half minutes to get there?
	The jet in question, the F-35B made by Lockheed Martin, Cost $100 million.
	Yeah, this is another one.
	So everybody's got their own price tag on it.
	Because again, you know, this stuff is just so expensive and nobody knows, really, how much it costs.
	Well, we're going to take a quick break and we'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	They created common past to track and control us.
	Their commons project to make sure the commoners own nothing.
	And the communist future.
	They see the common man as simple, unsophisticated, ordinary.
	But each of us has worth and dignity created in the image of God.
	That is what we have in common.
	That is what they want to take away.
	Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation.
	They desire to know everything about us while they hide everything from us.
	It's time to turn that around and expose what they want to hide.
	Please share the information and links you'll find at TheDavidKnightShow.com Thank you for listening.
	Thank you for sharing.
	If you can't support us financially, please keep us in your prayers.
	TheDavidKnightShow.com All right, and of course, one of the things that I did not show you was we had somebody left several memes on Twitter and social media
	They sent this to us, and Travis pulled that up.
	This is my favorite meme, I think.
	There's a shirtless Hunter Biden with a cigarette hanging out of his mouth flying the plane, or a plane.
	Okay, so let's talk a little bit about what is happening with Berkey water filters.
	And the EPA is coming after Berkey water filters.
	The EPA is claiming that Berkey, or wants to claim, that Berkey water filters are a pesticide.
	Isn't that amazing? And of course, it has tremendous implications in terms that would shut the entire company down while they test it as a pesticide.
	But it shows just how out of control these agencies are.
	And, I don't know, you've got all these Republican candidates who are saying, well, we've got to get rid of this agency and that agency.
	Look, you've got to attack this problem at a much more fundamental level.
	Because we have mission creep from every one of these agencies.
	And you have to stop this whole thing of them making rules.
	You've got to stop that.
	We can't have rules and fines created by unelected bureaucrats who stay there forever.
	That is taxation without representation, and it is regulation without representation, and we need to stop that.
	That's got to stop.
	People have got to get angry about this.
	And so I want to take a look at what is happening.
	This is sent to me by a listener.
	Thank you very much. I wrote down two sentences, and I forgot to put it on my notes here.
	But it's truly amazing when you look at the situation, and let's just pick on Palestine, Ohio.
	The EPA, rather than helping people there, they decide they're going to ban water filters.
	Gravity feed water filters that you don't have to have power for.
	And I've said for the longest time, you know, you look at the EPA, created by Richard Nixon with all of this, the beginning of Earth Day and all the environmentalism and the rest of the stuff.
	And so you had, you know, environmentalism was developing as a religion, focused again, as most of these satanic religions are, around the elimination of people, sterilization of people.
	Like the LGBT religion is about depopulation, and so is the environmental religion.
	But, you know, it's about cleaning up dirty sites.
	And everybody can agree, we want to clean up polluted sites, right?
	That's not what it was about at all.
	As I said, it has turned into the Emissions Prohibition Agency.
	But that's not even correct.
	It's the Everything Prohibition Agency.
	And they are now out there, along with the Department of Energy, Taking away appliances that are not on the centrally controlled electric grid and the rest of the stuff.
	And this is one of the most absurd prevarications and extensions that I've ever seen come out of any regulatory agency to call these water filters a pesticide.
	Yeah, it does kill bacteria and trap it and things like that, but it's not a pesticide.
	And their prescription for it, if it is a pesticide, they've got to do all kinds of special labeling and testing, and they've got to take it off the market while they test it for a decade or something like that.
	We don't test the vaccines that we inject into you, and Trump is so proud of that.
	But, you know, the EPA is absolutely out of control.
	It is the Everything Prohibition Agency.
	For more than a quarter of a century, Berkey has provided water filters to the public.
	Providing an effective and economical means of removing harmful contaminants from freshwater sources for consumers to have clean water at home or on the go.
	Gravity-fed. Don't need power.
	Berkey filters have never caused any harm to anyone, and the removal of Berkey filters from the market inexorably means that Berkey owners will not be able to replace the filters in their systems, and therefore the demand will be met with untested knockoff and counterfeit filters that claim to be replacements that provide the same benefits when in fact they do not.
	The EPA's decision to persecute the market leader.
	This is the key. Why are they coming after Berkey?
	There's nothing different about their water filters in any real sense, except for the fact, from a regulatory standpoint, except that they're the market leader.
	And the EPA is coming after them because they want to set a precedent and because they want to stop us from being able to filter our water.
	The very agency that was set up there to clean water doesn't want you to have clean water.
	Do you understand? I mean, talk about mission creep as one thing, but like everything else that we see, everything in the Constitution is turned inside out, upside down, and twisted.
	And this is the twisted evolution of the EPA to stop people from cleaning their water.
	As I point out, this will cause damage to the American people.
	Who the EPA is supposed to be protecting.
	For example, on July 11th, this year, 2023, CBS recommended the Travel Berkey system, both in print and in their broadcast news, based on testing by the Environmental Working Group.
	They found the Travel Berkey systems removed toxic PFAs to below detectable limits.
	PFAs, the forever chemicals.
	If I'm not mistaken, that might be some of what is the issue there at Palestine.
	However, EPA Region 8 is actively working to make these systems unavailable to the American people.
	And they talk about how there's a wide variety of things that they remove 99.99% of.
	I'll just say this. It's not even just the Berkey filters.
	There's several other filters that will take out 99.99%.
	I used to, when Alex sold them, I don't get anything from Berkey to tell you this.
	I'm not selling their stuff.
	Maybe I should. I would like to sell it now if I could get sued by the APA and get into a fight with them.
	I'm ready for a fight. I'm sick of this stuff.
	I hate this government and its regulatory agencies.
	I'd start selling their stuff just so I could have a lawsuit against them.
	Berkey filters, like these other filters, again, 99.9%, and look at it as we're selling, you know, Alex sells Alexa Pure or something.
	And you look at it, and, you know, there'd be a news story.
	About something that's found in the water with some kind of an industrial chemical leak in California or some other place.
	And I would look at that chemical and then I'd go get the data sheet and it's like, so, does this work on that chemical?
	And you find it, yep, 99.99% of it removed.
	Like, wow. Keep looking at these, and they're great.
	And again, gravity feeds, so you don't have to have power to make this thing work.
	As I said, Berkey filters have never caused any harm to anybody.
	The EPA's arbitrary and arguably irrational new interpretation of its regulations would have a huge impact, threatening not only the jobs of 500 plus employees globally, But also the well-being of the American people who now can't get these forever chemicals out of their water.
	The EPA has been regulating pesticides since 1947 through the Federal Insecticide Act.
	No, it's actually the EPA was not created until 1971, but the federal government has been doing it through the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rotenicide Act.
	So just make that one correction to it.
	The EPA is just, you know, the first step in the metastasizing of this cancerous monster.
	This particular one, out of the federal bureaucracy.
	This act, FIFRA, It's exactly what it looks like.
	A law that seeks to regulate chemical pesticides, primarily for agricultural purposes.
	The law distinguishes between actual pesticides, as it defines, quote, substances or mixtures of substances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest.
	So that's one category.
	The second category is treated devices.
	Which use registered pesticides in their construction.
	For example, seeds that are sold after being treated with a registered pesticide.
	The EPA has never sought to force registration of mechanical type water filters as pesticides until last year.
	And then they decided to come after Berkey water filters.
	Without warning, they said, after more than two decades of indisputably safe manufacture and sale.
	There was no notice or opportunity to discuss that issue.
	Berkey and its manufacturing arms agreed to a request from the EPA for Berkey filtration products to be identified as treated devices.
	Big mistake, I think.
	I think they made a big mistake.
	It was interpreted as a sign of weakness.
	And then they go on with the rest of this stuff.
	You've got to fight these people.
	And they're now going to fight them.
	And they did that, they said, because they have the filters incorporate silver in them.
	And silver is a registered pesticide.
	Silver does kill bacteria.
	That's a proven fact.
	It's one of the reasons why rich people would eat off of silver.
	When Karen and I went in 1980 or 84, I can't remember which trip it was.
	We're going around and we did museums all over the place.
	And we went into this one museum and had a bunch of school kids that were there.
	And they were trying to teach them about life in the 1500s, and so they had these costumes that were, you know, Velcroed in the back, and so the kids could, you know, put their arms through the sleeve, and then they would attach them on the back, and so they'd have a couple of kids in the class get to go to that, and the rest of them were asking questions.
	And so we thought that'd be kind of fun to watch, and so we just kind of stood there and watched them for a while.
	And as they're talking about everyday life and Elizabethan times, they said, well, they would also eat off of lead plates.
	And the teacher said, so how do you think that would make you feel if you ate off of lead plates?
	That's one kid, very eager. Oh, I know, I know.
	Yes, yes. Heavy.
	I think I make you feel heavy.
	Yeah. And I think he was doing a joke.
	And this is a kid next time, elbows him like, shut up.
	You know, this is...
	But...
	It was...
	That's the type of thing I would have done as a kid.
	I don't know. But the...
	It was...
	The rich people had silver.
	Not because they knew the effects of lead.
	But that was not discovered until later.
	How it would affect you mentally in other ways, negatively in your health.
	But they had silver, even though it was more of a pain to polish it and keep it up, because it was antibacterial.
	And so because it is antibacterial, even though it has no adverse effects whatsoever to people, And that's the way it's being used here.
	And of course, they still use silver in burn units and hospitals for people to keep down bacterial stuff.
	So the EPA has registered it as a pesticide because it kills bacteria.
	But it doesn't have to.
	The EPA should have no involvement in that because we don't need to be protected from silver.
	And so because of that technicality, they said, well, you know, they got us on this technicality, so we will let them do this as a device.
	But they said Berkey products were designated by the EPA as treated devices, first of all.
	Then the EPA comes back and says, no, we're going to do it under that other clause and call it a pesticide.
	They reinterpreted their own rules.
	Because, hey, if you're a dictator, the law's in your mouth, right?
	You can do whatever you want.
	You know, just like Fauci.
	You don't have to wear masks.
	Now you got to wear masks.
	Now you got to wear two masks.
	Now you got to wear three masks.
	Because Fauci says so.
	Well, the EPA says so as well.
	This is the arbitrary dictatorship.
	Of these regulatory bureaucracies that are under the president.
	You want to talk about draining the swamp?
	Pal, you owned the swamp, Trump, when you were there.
	Except that the swamp owned you.
	Anyway, so they just arbitrarily reclassify these Berkey water filters as a pesticide.
	Preventing Berkeley filters from being sold in some parts of the country.
	The Berkey filters are not, quote, substances or mixtures of substances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest, which is how pesticides are defined in that 1947 law.
	But, of course, words don't have any meaning anymore.
	The words mean whatever I say they mean.
	What is a woman?
	What is a pesticide?
	What is a dictatorship?
	When a water filter system is classified as a registered pesticide, because a whole host of time-consuming regulations and requirements go into play, including onerous labeling requirements, have to be put on all packaging.
	Regulations require that labels to go on the packaging have to assert that the product is a hazardous material.
	This is the implication of the EPA saying these gravity feed water filters, you're going to have to label them as a hazardous material.
	And as I point out, this is going to spook the customers.
	What? You know, all this stuff about, oh, this is very hazardous, and you've got to watch about how you dispose of these filters and everything else.
	It's like, come on.
	It's got silver in it.
	And that's the whole basis of this nonsense from these people.
	And it is nonsense.
	In addition, pesticide registration itself is an expensive process that can take years to get the EPA's approval, especially since the EPA has decided that they want to shut down Berkey, right?
	That's the bottom line here.
	Berkey products would not be available to the American public.
	As an administrative body, the EPA does not make actual law.
	Its authority is limited to creating rules which enforce laws that are passed by the U.S. Congress.
	As it is making these rules, it is obligated to give notice of new rules and to take input from those that will be impacted, which in our case did not occur.
	But that's not good enough, folks.
	That is, they accurately described what the issue is here.
	But, you know, it's not enough for them to ask for comments because they don't have to pay any attention to the comments.
	Isn't like, okay, how many people like this and how many people dislike that?
	Okay, well, and then they didn't like our new rule, so I guess we can't.
	They don't do that. It's just a comment period.
	And if anything, this is just a warning for people to be able to go out and get their elected representatives and say, hey, look what they're getting ready to do.
	Can you stop them from doing this?
	Maybe they can't. Maybe they won't.
	I don't know. Did you contribute to my campaign?
	That type of thing. This is why this exists.
	Because the government doesn't want to have responsibility for this.
	This is why Nancy Pelosi, when they were passing Obamacare, and it was such a joke, you know, thousands of pages of stuff, dropped on people, and they got a vote on it in like 24 hours, and it's all heavily technical legal language, and it's like, well, we just have to pass it so we can find out what's in it, she said. People said, is she senile?
	No. She was being very candid about the way the system works.
	You know, they create this new mission or they create a new agency and then they kick it over to these bureaucrats and then they put in the devilish details.
	On Rockfin, Christy Ripperger, thank you for the tip.
	She said, Jim Shepard, owner of Berkey, said himself, it's because it filters viruses.
	There you go. There you go.
	Yeah. The ivermectin clause of the government.
	Anything that goes against that.
	Well, thank you for that tip.
	That explains something.
	I was just wondering, you know, who they got up.
	Did they give money to the wrong politician or what?
	No, they said this is actually filtering viruses.
	On Rumble, thank you, Nick Ellenbecker.
	Thank you very much for that.
	Yeah, this is the way it works.
	It's regulation without representation.
	It is heinous.
	And that's the thing that needs to stop.
	This whole idea of saying, well, we're going to get rid of this agency, or we're going to get rid of that agency, or we're going to cut 50% of the people.
	Look, it's a fundamental...
	A problem. That fundamental problem needs to be addressed for all these agencies.
	And then, yes, get rid of a lot of them, probably more than 50%.
	It's bloated, as Jefferson said.
	We have, you know, by getting rid of these unnecessary people who are harassing our people and eating out their substance.
	Yeah. You know, we can cut taxes, but we still need to have a process where any regulatory agencies that remain are not able to rule us.
	And the problem is that Congress doesn't want to do anything about that because Congress doesn't want to have the responsibility for what they do.
	In the same way, and you see this especially with the executive branch, they want to kick this over to the judiciary.
	As Trump did with DACA. Because he doesn't want to take the heat for a decision.
	This is a difficult thing.
	DACA is saying, I'm not going to enforce the law.
	That's clearly not right.
	It was an executive order by the previous president.
	I should be able to get rid of that.
	But then if I get rid of it, that means these people are here illegally and we've got to remove them.
	I don't want to take the political heat for that.
	So let me kick it over to the judiciary.
	And the judiciary says, yeah, we can't do anything about that.
	Just leave it the way it is.
	These people are spineless.
	And it's simply about them and their political career.
	They don't want to do the right thing if it's going to blow back on them.
	And so that's what this is ultimately about.
	But you know, it's ultimately about a monopoly, isn't it?
	The government seeks to monopolize everything.
	And of course, they work in tandem with big corporations.
	And this is nothing new either.
	And that's one of the things that RFK Jr.
	got right in his initial speech.
	He talked about the crony capitalism and how that was a factor at the American Revolution.
	The British government working with large corporations to control tea and other things like that.
	And that's really what we're back to right now.
	Unlike most revolutions where the people rise against a real economic oppression...
	In our case here in Boston, we are fighting for purely an abstract principle.
	It is, however, not nearly so abstract as the young gentleman supposes.
	The issue involved here is one of monopoly.
	Today, the British government will monopolize the sale of tea in our country.
	Tomorrow it will be something else.
	Tomorrow it will be something else.
	Tomorrow it will be something else.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	Yes. How do we get people to eat bugs, right?
	No water filters.
	You don't want to get these PFAs out of your water or anything.
	No, not going to clean that up.
	And, you know, making these things illegal.
	And so they want us eating bugs and also drinking bugs, I guess, because why?
	They hate us. The story is how Germany, but not just Germany, the UK, as well as the EU, As well as the American government, searching for ways to increase bug consumption.
	Are they looking at ways to make it tastier, more nutritious, more palatable?
	To make it look more attractive?
	No, no, no. This is just how we can psychologically gaslight people.
	Because when you're talking about the different MacGuffins, whether you're talking about the COVID MacGuffin or whether you're talking about the climate MacGuffin, and we've got our MacGuffin t-shirt here, I'll just give a plug to our MacGuffin t-shirt, which you can find at thedavidknightshow.com.
	Whenever we're talking about these MacGuffins, a key thing is always fear.
	And psychological manipulation to get you to do whatever they want.
	That's why they have different things to scare you about.
	Be scared about COVID and about viruses and to be afraid of climate.
	And so do whatever we say.
	You should be afraid. So Germany's government funded a study published last month on how to persuade people to eat insects.
	And again, they've talked about this for a long time.
	How do we nudge people, right?
	And as I said from the very beginning, the only science involved in this COVID MacGuffin, the plandemic, the only science was behavioral science.
	And it was in July of 2020 that we found the Yale study on the NIH website.
	Talking about 10 different ways that they could nudge people, that they could convince people to take these vaccines.
	Well, you got to do it because it's the way that you love your neighbor.
	That's the one that they use for pastors.
	You got to do it because just think how bad you would feel if you passed this on to somebody and they got sick and died.
	This is a miracle of science.
	All of the experts say it, and on and on.
	They had war-gamed all these different things, and to see which ones of these would work, and of course, different ones worked better with different groups of people.
	And that's what that study was about.
	Depending on who your audience is, here's the lie that you tell them.
	So the research conducted two experiments involving 665 participants.
	Couldn't they have gotten just one more and made it 666, right?
	To test whether they could increase the participants' willingness to eat bugs through what they call UVI, not UBI, universal basic income.
	This is UVI, utility value intervention.
	So what is that?
	An interactive exercise geared to make the subject think about how a particular concept is relevant to their life.
	The technique has been used successfully in education.
	Why, of course, because education is not about education.
	Education is not about learning facts, and education is not about critical thinking.
	Education is about indoctrination.
	Whether you're talking about getting people and kids to eat bugs, or whether you're talking about getting people and kids to embrace LGBT grooming, it's all about indoctrination.
	It's all behavioral psychology, manipulation.
	So it's about, they said, we've used this very successfully in education.
	UVI has students contemplate There are personal relevance to a variety of concepts.
	Folks, get your kids and your grandkids out of school.
	I mean, it's just beyond sinister as a control thing.
	And understand they control us in a lot of other ways as well.
	Media, entertainment, but again...
	The schools where they take the kids away from the parents and while they've got them there, they can groom them and then, you know, have them doing things that don't tell your parents that we did this, okay?
	That's the classic grooming strategy.
	Now being enacted into law in California expressly as some parents have been able to get some control over the school districts, they at the state level want to shut that down.
	280 participants are asked to write a short essay about the relevance of eating insects to their lives or to the lives of others.
	And they gave them this little pep talk here to get them to it.
	It said, edible insects have gained a large amount of media attention recently.
	That's right, even Tucker. Tucker Carlson has had a couple of different programs where he went out there and modeled for people.
	Oh, let me try that bug there.
	Oh, that's yummy.
	Really? This is a bug?
	I'd hardly believe that's a bug.
	It's such controlled opposition from the CIA. Makes me want to puke.
	Anyway, it's widely agreed that insects have the potential to fulfill the need of being environmentally sustainable.
	Other than meat. You don't want to eat meat.
	You want to eat bugs. Please conduct a web search and type a short essay of one to three paragraphs describing the potential relevance of eating insects to your own life and to the lives of others.
	You see, you're eating insects.
	It saves the planet. It saves other people.
	You're wearing masks.
	It's not for your own benefit.
	It's to save other people.
	Taking the vaccine is loving your neighbor and saving your neighbor as well, right?
	The relevance to your own life and especially to others.
	Please focus on how this information could be useful to you and to others and please give examples.
	So they said other participants were put into another control group where they were asked to write a different kind of essay about, quote, healthy and sustainable diets.
	You know, you see, somehow we've been able to sustain the raising of cattle for meat for a very, very long time.
	Now, eating cows is something humans have done for millennia, but only people who had money.
	Everybody else was eating bugs and things like that, right?
	And that's the way they want to make us now.
	They want us to go from a society where we had enough money that we could afford to eat what we wanted to eat and what was healthier for us and more nutritious.
	And they want us now eating bugs.
	Maybe they'll have us eating off of lead plates soon, too.
	Going to go full medieval on us.
	They want us poor, but they also want us happy.
	Happy that we are poor because we're saving the planet.
	Happy because we're poor because we are loving our neighbor.
	They don't want us angry at them.
	They don't want us getting guillotines and coming after them.
	We have to be poor and we have to love it, the fact that we own nothing.
	The subjects from the value intervention group are significantly more willing to try the insect food.
	Furthermore, when they were brought back a month later and shown other images of insect food, they maintained their willingness to try them.
	As Tucker Carlson says, Yummy!
	Karen and I went to a place.
	We were just kind of walking and walking stores in Pigeon Forge.
	And it's this one place that they had hot sauce stuff.
	You would like it, Travis. They had a lot of hot stuff there.
	That's one of the reasons we went in to see if we could find something you'd like.
	And as we're just kind of browsing around, there was this bin.
	And there were these lollipops.
	And they had bugs in them.
	And Karen says... She said, that's a joke, right?
	You know, give somebody a lollipop and they go take a lick of it.
	It's like, yeah, it's got a bug in it.
	She says, no, that's for real.
	That's for you to eat. And they were like crickets and spiders and scorpions.
	Scorpions and big scorpions.
	I mean, these are real scorpions.
	They're not fake. Real scorpions in a lollipop format.
	Like, these are insects that have been trapped in amber or something, right?
	And she said, no, actually, people eat this stuff.
	It's like, no, not us.
	I would see that only as use for a joke thing.
	I thought about it, you know, it's like, yeah, the only thing I've, I used to think it was so crazy when I hear people, I think, was it tequila that they have the worm at the bottom of the bottle?
	Yeah. Travis is nodding his head, yes, yeah.
	They also do it with snakes.
	Really? They do what, the tequila with snakes?
	Yep, also sake.
	Huh, wow, wow.
	I guess, yeah, and I always looked at that and I thought, well, I guess the point is, is that Once you drink that whole bottle of tequila, you're so drunk that you'd eat a snake or a scorpion or whatever, a worm.
	And the lady said, oh, they've taken the stinger out of the scorpions and they've removed all the poison in it.
	And I said, oh, yeah, well, I can trust that, right?
	Yeah. And, you know, in case your tongue swells up and you can't swallow, maybe they made a mistake with that.
	I don't know.
	So in the second experiment, participants wrote an essay on a healthy and sustainable diet.
	They were asked to compose a food recipe containing insects.
	In this case, both groups rated the images similarly.
	The same was true a month later, suggesting that simply exposing people to the concept of bug food increases their willingness to try it.
	And that's the reason they've got Tucker Carlson doing it.
	Because they understand that conservatives are going to be the least likely to want to go out there and eat bugs because we don't believe that the planet is dying and we don't believe we need to save the planet by eating bugs.
	So you have Tucker Carlson do it.
	Same thing they did with Donald Trump.
	Right? Conservatives would not believe that there was a pandemic, right?
	If They don't see people dropping down the streets, and nobody was dropping down the streets.
	They faked it a little bit, and it's very clear that it was a fake in China.
	And if it was Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden or Obama trying to sell you this fake pandemic, you wouldn't have bought into it.
	But hey, Trump, we trust Trump.
	We trust Tucker.
	So let's be real.
	Yeah, we should give that a try.
	Let's try on that mask.
	How's that bug taste? Oh, good.
	Yummy. The only science behind any of this stuff is just behavioral, just like it was with COVID, just like it was with Trump.
	These results suggest that it may not be an increase in perceived value that is driving these attitudinal changes, but rather exposure to insects as food.
	So the key thing is they just keep putting it out there to us.
	And move the Overton window by constant exposure.
	Oh, that'll never work with me, you say.
	Oh, look at how our society has changed by what they keep putting in front of us all the time, you know?
	It does work. It does work.
	Edward Bernays began as a propagandist to get us into World War I for Woodrow Wilson, and then he went into Madison Avenue, and that's where he made it big, because all these propaganda techniques work.
	The study was followed by another one published last week from the University of Bristol.
	So that was all in Germany.
	Then they go to the University of Bristol because this is a global thing.
	So the UK and Germany.
	And then earlier this year, the European Union approved the use of cricket powder in major processed foods sold to the public.
	In Australia, as we pointed out, children are being fed crickets as snacks and conditioned to enjoy them as snacks.
	In Canada, July 2022, they announced an investment of $6.5 million Canadian dollars, $8.5 million U.S. dollars, and a new production plant to produce cricket protein for pets and for humans.
	So there you go.
	This is a worldwide thing, and that's why you've got to have Tucker and Trump around to sell this for you on the conservative side.
	Good news is that we've had the last three men charged in the Whitmer kidnapping plot have now been found not guilty.
	Again, this is yet another one of the standard operating procedures of the FBI to create an incident, to run an incident, to go out and get a few people that are patsies, and then to imply that they went along with all of this stuff.
	And so they can look like heroes.
	Or for their political agenda.
	And remember, this is a prelude to January the 6th.
	The same FBI agent who ran this scam.
	And all these people have been found not guilty.
	Unlike January the 6th.
	Because there is no other place where you're going to get juries like you get in Washington, D.C. That are that crooked, that controlled.
	But the same FBI guy who did this went to Washington and was in charge of the January the 6th stuff.
	The feds officially failed in their attempt to imprison three more innocent men on Friday over their involvement in the FBI-manufactured kidnapping plot targeting Gretchen Whitmer, governor of Michigan.
	This is from Information Liberation.
	And acquitted on all accounts.
	So, good to see that happening.
	And yet, there's many more places where this needs to happen.
	Jim Jordan, subpoenaing an FBI agent who is engaged in censorship, because again, this is the way that they control elections, a big part of it.
	Congressman Jim Jordan, acting as a chair of the House Judiciary Committee, has formally subpoenaed FBI agent Elvis Chan.
	Maybe he's not available. Maybe Elvis has left the building.
	I don't know. But accusations lobbied by Jordan point toward potential intimidation and collaboration between the executive branch and the larger corporate bodies in order to suppress speech.
	Seriously? At this point?
	Jim, this has been going on for five years, man.
	You know, you're just now one to investigate this stuff?
	Uh... Chan, who served as the FBI's Foreign Influence Task Force liaison to companies like Facebook and Twitter, were expected to cooperate with Jordan, but his refusal to appear without having either his personal or an FBI lawyer present paved the way for the issuance of the subpoena.
	The bottom line is, you know, we have known about this for so long.
	Isn't it time that instead of playing little dog and pony games and grandstanding for television, Jim Jordan, Jim, why don't you do something about this now?
	Instead of just holding more hearings, is this simply to get your profile up so that you can go work for Fox News like Trey Gowdy?
	I think so. Because you know about this.
	It's been well documented.
	It was well documented before we had the Twitter files and all the rest of this stuff.
	We always knew this was coming from the government.
	And it was coming from the government when Trump was running the government.
	It was still coming from the FBI. They were still the arms and legs of a politicized government giving direction to these companies to shut people down.
	But, of course, we had conservative think tanks, libertarian think tanks, saying, well, it's just Silicon Valley, and we don't like their values, but, hey, they can do whatever they want to because they're corporations.
	And since corporations have money, they can do to you whatever they want, and the government shouldn't get in the way of them taking your individual rights and your God-given liberties to speak in the public square.
	And their platforms had become de facto digital public squares.
	And Jack Dorsey even said it multiple times, and yet nobody would do anything about it.
	So, as we see this happening, Dr.
	J. Bhattacharya has had a victory.
	And an article done by the New York Post, and thank you to the listener who sent this to me.
	I reported the fact that he had a victory.
	Stanford epidemiologist Dr.
	J. Bhattacharya.
	But they went into a little bit more...
	Depth with this in an interview with him on the New York Post.
	And this is what he had to say.
	You know, this is really a fundamental issue.
	It's a fundamental issue for our individual liberties, and it is a fundamental issue for science as well.
	There's so many different things that are affected by this.
	And it's not just that we can say things freely, but it's also a fundamental political issue, because if we don't have free speech, we have a dictatorship.
	And so it affects our government structure, it affects science, and of course it affects us individually.
	So, earlier this month you had a federal court of appeals rule that the White House, the Surgeon General, the CDC, and of course the FBI violated the First Amendment by a pressure campaign on social media companies.
	So why is Jim Jordan doing this?
	Seriously, let's go back to that and just say, Jordan, quit playing games.
	I know you want to get on TV, but you get on TV if you do the right thing as well.
	So stop playing these games.
	Everybody knows this.
	It's been going on for years.
	Do something about it.
	You know, he went to court over this.
	He did something about it.
	He said, I think this ruling is akin to a second enlightenment.
	It's a ruling that says that there is a democracy of ideas.
	The issue is not whether the ideas are right or wrong.
	The question is, who gets to control what ideas are expressed in the public square?
	This applies to everything.
	This is one of the big issues that I have with DeSantis.
	DeSantis is right on so many issues.
	He's right on abortion. He's right on CBDC and many other important issues.
	And he is not completely there on the vaccine stuff, but he was the first one to push back.
	He's done more to push back than anybody else.
	I'll just say that. But when it comes to free speech, you know, what he's done now on a couple of occasions, in order to get political money from people who are wealthy donors in the state of Israel, he's gone to the state of Israel to sign anti-free speech laws and to say, if we don't like what you're saying, we're going to call that hate speech and we're going to criminalize that.
	That's fundamentally wrong.
	That's just as wrong as what the left is doing, saying we're going to cancel you and fire you and purge you if you talk about ivermectin.
	Whether something is right or wrong is not as important as whether or not we have free speech to talk about it.
	Anyway, he said in the New York Post, the court ordered the Biden administration and other federal agencies, quote, shall take no actions, formal or informal, directly or indirectly, to remove, delete, suppress, or reduce free speech.
	That's what the court is saying. And that's essentially what the First Amendment says.
	And for the longest time, they pretended it wasn't coming from the government.
	In the Trump administration, they pretended it wasn't coming from the government.
	They pretended it wasn't being done by the FBI and the CIA and the CDC and the rest of these people.
	But it was. Always.
	You know, goofy Trump holds these, you know, oh, let me just show, I'll bring in the people who have not been canceled and we'll have a garden party in the Rose Garden about it.
	That's what he did in August of 2018 when we got purged in Infowars.
	He brought in people who had not been purged.
	And he brought in the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute.
	See? There's no problem. See?
	Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine, economics, and health research.
	I apologize if I'm mispronouncing his name.
	He worked at Sanford University.
	He co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration in the fall of 2020 with professors from Harvard and Oxford who said, these were epidemiologists, who advocated for a focused protection of Safeguarding most vulnerable Americans while cautiously allowing others to function as normally as possible, rather than a broad pandemic lockdown.
	Again, they didn't even tackle on directly the lies of this pandemic.
	They just said, okay, let's just assume that we've got a pandemic.
	Here would be a reasonable way to approach this, if that were the case.
	And it would have been. He said, we're just acting as scientists, but almost immediately we were censored.
	Then they realized, oh, wait a minute, this is political.
	It's not anything to do with science or medicine.
	It's just political lies for political control.
	Google de-boosted us.
	Our Facebook page was removed.
	It was a crazy time, he said.
	And you know, through all this time, you know, this is fall of 2020, Russell Brand was still out there acting like a demented sex addict that he is.
	But now we've got to defend Russell Brand because he's now offended the powers that be and they're coming after him.
	And that is true. I mean, they're coming after him because he's offended them.
	And it's very interesting to see not only did Howard Stern Do his little political moves yesterday on these two women, you know, who have been involved in questionable behavior.
	But he completely overlooked the one that was way, way, way beyond anything Lauren Boebert did.
	And there's no question about what either one of them did.
	I mean, here we've got the video. But, you know, completely ignores all of that.
	Doesn't mention that at all, but just goes off for five minutes on Lauren Boebert.
	And I'm not approving of what she did.
	I'm just saying... I'll politicize Howard Stern is.
	And I said at the time, I said, Howard Stern is doing this because, and they leave him alone, no matter how perverted and disgusting he is.
	And they leave Joe Rogan alone when he pushes psychedelic mushrooms.
	They start to tug on his leash when he starts to talk about anything that they don't like in terms of health issues and things like that.
	But as long as he'll talk about, you know, things that are safe, As long as he'll push a culture, a civil war, things like that, he's okay.
	And we'll give him lots of money.
	And the same thing is true of Howard Stern.
	And so Howard Stern comes out and says, I'm a woke MF-er.
	As woke as I can be. And I love being woke because, you know, the opposite of woke is what?
	Asleep. And that's why I don't like to use that word.
	Because they picked that word.
	And Howard Stern knows, and that's what he is servilely doing.
	That if he were to tell people truth about what is happening, any of it, he's smart enough, he can read the room, and he knows that if he were to tell the truth, he would get the Russell Brand treatment.
	I mean, all the stuff is there, right?
	You know, they've got these guys.
	It's just like Dennis Hastert, a guy who was a pedophile wrestling coach in high school.
	The Republicans picked him, ran him for Congress, and then elevated him to be the longest-serving Republican Speaker in the House.
	Why? Because if he gets out of line, we've got so much dirt on him.
	And that's what they're doing to Russell Brand.
	I don't understand why conservatives point that out, point out that these people are doing that, but that certainly doesn't excuse what Russell Brand is doing, or has done, most likely.
	When you look at these other accusations out there, I think that the guy that they found who was the real-life model for his story for Sound of Freedom, and as Mitt Romney's not going to run for re-election, he decides he's going to run in Utah, and then all this stuff comes out.
	And so I think there's a real case to be made that maybe that's not real.
	But in terms of Russell Brand, I mean, you really want to go out there and defend this guy?
	And we've got now even Shapiro, Ben Shapiro, is out there saying, who's my friend?
	You know, and all the rest of this stuff.
	It's like, okay, you want to defend that stuff?
	You want to get down in the mud and you want to defend that?
	Defend free speech by all means.
	Defend the freedom to tell people the truth about what is happening with medicine and politics and the rest of this stuff.
	But we don't have to defend people like Russell Brand.
	I'm glad that they took him off.
	They should have taken him off a long time ago.
	I don't care what the reason is.
	Get him off. I don't want to see him on there.
	He's disgusting. He was used by the BBC and all the rest of these people to normalize that predatory, depraved, sex-addicted behavior.
	So get rid of him.
	Get rid of him for the same reason that you get rid of filth being pushed to kids in schools.
	We just had the red line on the Drudge Report.
	Texas teacher filed because she read about, or he read The Diary of Anne Frank to people.
	Well, this is not about The Diary of Anne Frank.
	This is about a graphic novel that was done about five years ago that picked up on an entry that this young teenage girl, Was pondering things about sex.
	In her isolation, in her puberty, trying to think of, you know, she's just writing down everything that she didn't expect anybody to read.
	Nobody else wanted to talk about that kind of stuff.
	But now, you know, five years ago, we have somebody who does a graphic novel of it.
	And so this teacher pulls up that part of it to read to people.
	Oh, I'm just reading Anne Frank.
	No, you're not. Come on.
	And Russell Brand isn't out there just defending free speech.
	It was never about that.
	And they gave him that pass because he was like Howard Stern.
	And they're coming after him because, unlike Howard Stern, he isn't still servile at their feet.
	So fine, fine. Listen to what he has to say.
	And, you know, we can praise him while he sits in jail for raping women and doing other things like that.
	Same thing with Andrew Tate.
	You know, you protect yourself from any prosecution.
	For your crimes by saying, hey, I'm with Trump.
	Oh, okay, well you get a pass because now everything is just political.
	And the defense of these guys, Russell Brand and Andrew Tate, is just as political as the persecution of them.
	And it makes me sick.
	Anyway, getting back to this.
	The kinds of things that the federal government was telling social media, says Jay.
	To censor, including us, along with millions of other posts from countless other people who are criticizing government COVID policy.
	It wasn't just Russell Brand, and he wasn't even doing that at that time.
	A New Orleans-based three-judge panel found that the federal government, quote, likely coerced or significantly encouraged social media platforms to moderate content.
	End of story. It's a violation of the First Amendment.
	They vaguely threatened adverse regulatory consequences, or they even blackmailed them, twisted their arm.
	If the social media companies did not suppress certain viewpoints on the pandemic.
	There you go. The deputized state.
	And this is happening, by the way, who was president in 2020?
	Oh, that's right, Trump. And his out-of-control swamp that he was king of.
	That he could have done something about.
	That he had chosen to do nothing about this kind of censorship at that point for two years.
	And then he chose to do nothing about it then either.
	And think about this.
	If Trump had pushed back against these lies, if Trump had pushed back against this censorship of the deputized state, We wouldn't have had to have a lockdown election.
	We wouldn't have had to have a mail-in election.
	And now we're still doing the mail-in election, even though they don't pretend even that there is a pandemic or any need to have a mail-in election.
	That Trump precedent stands.
	And that's what's really dangerous about all this stuff.
	Now they don't need to have.
	The pretense of a pandemic in order to have a mail-in election.
	Jay goes on to say the government had a vast censorship enterprise under Trump.
	Again, all this happened under Trump.
	You know, this Barrington Declaration happened in the fall of 2020.
	They came after him.
	It was systematically used to threaten and coerce and jawbone and to tell all these social media companies, you better listen to us and censor these people.
	You better censor these ideas or else.
	It was later revealed that then NIH director, Dr.
	Francis Collins, who used to appear on stage all the time with President Trump, along with Fauci.
	These are the guys who are running our country.
	These are the people that Trump turned the country over to.
	Francis Collins called for, quote, swift and devastating takedown, we've talked about that, of Dr.
	J. And Collins dubbed these people in his emails fringe epidemiologists.
	He taught at Stanford, you know, if you want to have the competing credentials and things like that.
	Subsequent reporting from Musk's Twitter files documented these communications or released by Musk.
	And it showed that Bhattacharya's profile was being suppressed on the platform.
	And Dr.
	J said it's akin to the efforts by governments to suppress the printing press.
	That's right. When at first it was invented, because books represented an enormous threat to power.
	The threat to power of the Catholic Church.
	The threat to power of Henry VIII. And so they wanted to curb the use of the printing press in the 16th century.
	They burned people at the stake for printing books that they didn't like.
	There is an analogous fight that is currently going on with social media, he says, which makes it vastly easier for anybody to express their ideas.
	But it also makes it easier for very powerful people to threaten them.
	And for very powerful people to push their ideas exclusively, you understand.
	He said the first victory, even though it was in a lower court, was the one that was most exciting to him.
	He said, I was absolutely thrilled.
	Especially the fact that it came out on the 4th of July.
	I think the judge was sending a message by issuing that ruling on the July 4th.
	Sending a message that we're going to restore free speech in this country.
	That's the key thing about this.
	We have to fight this on an individual basis.
	People like Jim Jordan aren't going to fight this battle for us.
	People like Trump are not going to fight this battle for us.
	Trump laid over and died for these people.
	Gave them everything they wanted.
	He enacted the full agenda from the World Economic Forum.
	He turned our government over to Klaus Schwab and Anthony Fauci.
	No, the battle is going to come from us.
	We have to stand up for this stuff.
	And, you know, I'll just throw in a personal aside here.
	Karen was working on trying to get some supplemental insurance, and she got in touch with a guy, and she said to him, she actually got the owner of the company that sells insurance, and she said, first question, did you get the vaccine?
	And he said, no, I didn't.
	And then as they were talking, he went on to tell her that he used to work for...
	He said, I had a job that everybody envied.
	I had a very high job in an insurance company.
	And he said, they mandated the jab.
	And I said, am I going to take it?
	So they fired me. And he said, I had...
	He had Christian issues with it.
	And he probably had...
	Because he's in the health industry, probably knew...
	It had common sense, this thing is not tested.
	But it was a principal thing.
	He said, I did it because of my Christian beliefs.
	And so he said, he looked around and he, again, you know, was a very high-ranking physician.
	And he looked at other insurance companies and they all had the jab requirement.
	And he said his wife was fully behind him.
	He said, I don't know what I'm going to do.
	But he said, so I decided that I would start this company that would, you know, represent and sell insurance in a different way.
	And he said it's been phenomenally successful.
	He's got a whole bunch of people who are working for him.
	Folks, it's an example of how if we stand up for our liberty, first of all, you have to do that regardless of the consequences.
	You have to do it. Because otherwise you're going to become slaves.
	Slaves are never safe.
	Slaves are never secure.
	They are never prosperous.
	To the extent that you give that stuff up, to that extent you become a slave, you become a prisoner.
	And you're just going to take whatever they get.
	But when you do it to obey God, God honors those who honor Him.
	That's His statement. And you can trust that.
	And I've seen that happen over and over again.
	I've seen it happen with Jason Barker, who helped so many people with the letter.
	Here's the different talking points that I have with this and things that have occurred to me.
	Write your own letter, but here's what I do.
	A lot of people that were helped by that.
	And I've heard this over and over again.
	People who stood on their principles, but more importantly, obey God.
	He will honor that.
	Just another example of that.
	Anyway, he finishes up, he says, this new technology has created enormous opportunities for people to participate in debate in the public square, he said.
	And I hope that this is the beginning of a legal infrastructure that enables that to happen, rather than the opposite, which would be a dark age where the government gets to decide what is true and the government gets to decide what is allowed which would be a dark age where the government gets to decide what
	��
	Thank you. Liberty.
	It's your move.
	And now, The David Knight Show.
	Well, let's take a look at what is happening.
	I mentioned that diary of Anne Frank story.
	And it truly is amazing how these people will continue to press against our kids.
	And it is...
	I'm trying to find the right thing here.
	Sorry, I had a problem with my machine here.
	The... It's a Texas teacher.
	A graphic novel adaptation, as I said, 2018.
	And they said, well, this is even more faithful to the original text.
	No, you're doing this because you want to throw sex in it.
	That was not the point of Anne Frank's diary.
	You should be humiliated to see this there.
	That's one of the other things about it.
	You talk about diaries.
	There was a diary of Samuel Pepys.
	He was a guy who was...
	A British official in the 1600s.
	And he was around at the time that they had the Great Fire of London and other things like that.
	But he was a guy who was kind of a functionary.
	And he worked his way up through the British government, a real Fauci, a real maneuvering bureaucrat.
	And he kept a diary.
	And he wrote the diary in code.
	And they were unable to break that code for several hundred years.
	And then when they broke the code, they found there was all kinds of information in there about his sexual liaisons and things like that.
	I remember I heard the audio book about 30 years ago.
	We carried it in the store because we also carried audio books.
	And it was narrated by Ken Brenna.
	I don't think the book is even available anymore, probably.
	And fortunately, you know, he had the good taste to, as he started getting into salacious details...
	He would start reading it in French, because that was...
	And then it sounded like Pepe Le Pew, you know?
	And then I took her hand, and then he would start saying stuff in French, and it's like, okay, that's a good way to handle it.
	But, you know, again, he wrote this stuff in code.
	He didn't want anybody to read that, and Frank didn't want anybody to read what she's thinking as an adolescent teenager.
	Because there were a couple passages there about male and female genitalia.
	And so they did a graphic adaptation of this.
	And I'm sure that they not only talked about it, but they showed it.
	And this is one of the reasons why this graphic novel of the Diary of Anne Frank has now become a fighting thing in a lot of different school districts.
	And rightfully so.
	It's not appropriate material for kids.
	And these sick, sex-obsessed Russell Brand teachers are pushing this stuff on people.
	That's the other thing that just bothers me with this stuff.
	It's like Russell Brand for decades has been doing this stuff in the UK. And all these conservatives who rightfully have a problem with stuff like, oh, well, let's defend Russell Brand.
	He's totally innocent.
	No, he's not.
	Even if he's not guilty of rape, he is not totally innocent.
	You don't need to make a hero out of this guy.
	If you do, just go ahead and put these books back in the school libraries.
	So, this has been an ongoing fight everywhere, and the left loves to portray this.
	Listen to this headline. Texas teacher fired after assigning an illustrated Anne Frank book.
	And people look at this, what's the matter with those conservatives?
	If you don't see what's actually in the book, right?
	Yeah, and you can see there it is.
	It's animated, but it's animated and it's prurient.
	It has a prurient interest that they're pushing.
	And this is where we are today.
	There's an article on World Magazine talking about Andy Stanley.
	Now, if you know anything about his father, Charles Stanley, you know, very famous as a Baptist preacher out of Atlanta and For many, many decades and all these radio shows that you hear, Charles Stanley.
	Well, his son has been very successful in terms of headcount with his church.
	And he's been working very hard to get rid of the Bible in this big megachurch that he has established for a very long time, going back to 2018.
	He's announcing, well, we don't even want to look at the Old Testament.
	Well, the Old Testament is context for the New Testament.
	As Augustine said, the New Testament is, in the Old Testament, concealed.
	And in the New Testament, the Old Testament is revealed.
	And so they work with each other.
	And you need them for the bigger picture.
	But he's just throwing it out.
	And one of the reasons that he wants to throw it out is because he wants to Say that the grace of God gives him freedom to do anything that he wishes, and there's no prohibitions on anything.
	And that's where this guy's going. Son of Charles Stanley.
	So Al Mohler wrote this op-ed piece on World.
	I saw it. And again, I've got, you know, Al Mohler, major blind spot.
	He was one of the big cheerleaders of the VACs, and he was out there pushing it.
	Using the talking points...
	Again, we saw and talked about from the Yale study that were put on the NIH site in July of 2020.
	And less than a year later, Al Mohr is repeating that stuff verbatim.
	You need to do it because you've got to love your neighbor.
	You need to do it because it's a miracle from God.
	This is a moonshot.
	And it's like, well, maybe he doesn't realize just how much it's like the moonshot, which I become more skeptical of every day.
	But, yeah, it was a major blind spot for Al.
	I don't think that he was necessarily malicious in it.
	You know, I think Franklin Graham, same thing.
	Franklin Graham just strikes me as somebody who doesn't really have much discernment.
	He had his group there in New York.
	And they saw that nobody was using their services, just like nobody was using the 2,500-bed hospital that had been set up by Trump.
	Nobody was using the hospital ship that was at New York, and nobody was using the hospital ship that was in L.A. And so he pulls out.
	So why would he take the jab?
	And I think he did take the jab, because Franklin Graham got pericarditis.
	And I wonder if even today he gets it.
	I don't know. I mean, that's...
	But anyway, Andy Stanley is going to have what he calls...
	It's a conference. It's going to be in Atlanta.
	He calls it the Unconditional Conference.
	Yeah, the Unconditional Love of God.
	That is a true thing.
	But it's also true that Jesus is going to say...
	Many people say to me, Hey, look at all these things.
	I died. Maybe one of the things people will say is I had a big megachurch.
	And we talked about you a lot, Jesus.
	And Jesus will say, why don't you call me Lord, and you don't do what I say.
	You see, that's the most offensive way we can take God's name in vain, is to call ourselves His followers.
	And I say, I'm not going to follow him at all.
	I'll do what I want. He's not my Lord.
	And you say it by your actions.
	You're not going to say that, you know, as a Christian.
	Oh, I am a Christian. I follow Christ.
	No. No, you don't do what he says.
	And that's what's going on with Andy Stanley's church.
	So, they're having this conference.
	They bill this as something designed for parents of LGBTQ plus children and for ministry leaders.
	You will be equipped, refreshed, and inspired as you hear from leading communicators on topics that speak to your heart, soul, and mind.
	One statement. It stands out, says Al Mohler, is that no matter what theological stance you hold, we invite you to reflect and learn as we approach this topic from a quieter middle space.
	Oh, really? Really?
	And by the way, you know, we're going to have a conference for the parents of LGBTQ children.
	Why don't we have a conference for the parents of children who are Or who are going to grow up to become adulterers or who identify as adulterers or something like that.
	My child identifies as a fornicator, so we need to have some conferences to figure out how we're going to just tell them, that's okay.
	Just unconditionally love you because you decide that you want to be a fornicator.
	Just as an example, you know, it kind of puts a fine point on it, I think, when we talk about what is really going on here, because those are listed in the same categories.
	Adultery, fornication, homosexuality, those are listed in the same categories, a litany of things.
	I just identify as somebody who wants to love money.
	I identify, oh well, I like that as a parent, you know, because I want you to be real rich, so you take care of me, right?
	I identify as somebody who is proud or rebellious or whatever.
	So, you know, we should have those conferences as well.
	And I'm sure that he's got a long list of conferences that Andy Stanley could do.
	He could probably go through the book of Romans where he got the long list of all the different sins and he could have a conference about all those things.
	That's okay. But see, as those sins are listed, then Paul says, and such were some of you.
	But... You were washed and you were changed.
	And you don't live like that anymore.
	Advertising for the Unconditional Conference indicates clearly that this event is designed as a platform for normalizing the LGBTQ revolution, writes Boulder, while claiming that the conference represents, quote, the quieter middle space.
	But there is no middle space in this.
	The scheduled speakers for the event include two men who are in a same-sex mirage.
	That's my term. Actually, that's Doug Wilson's term, I think.
	He says, one of the guys, Lee, is well known as a platform speaker who argues for the legitimacy of, quote, monogamous same-sex relationships.
	And then Nitzel, the other guy, presents seminars on, quote, restoring LGBTQ faith.
	As he says, this isn't the quieter middle space.
	Yes, God does extend to us unconditional love.
	But, you know, he says, you know, and now sin no more, right?
	It's not there to let us do whatever we wish because he has better things for us.
	And they are better things.
	You know, these are the paths Blazoned by Russell Brand and his father are not the way that you want to raise your kids.
	It's not the way that you want to live your life.
	And it's not just because at some point they're going to use that against you.
	No, he would be happier if he was not like that.
	He is driven, as he said.
	He's demented. He's rapacious.
	These are his adjectives about himself.
	A prominent intellectual, David Gushi, is also another prominent speaker there.
	He wrote a book, Changing Our Mind, which is subtitled as A Landmark Call for Inclusion of LGBT Christians.
	That's a big oxymoron there, quite frankly.
	In order for that to not be an oxymoron, you have to do what Andy Stanley said, and that is we're going to jettison the Bible.
	So first he got rid of the Old Testament in 2018, and he's getting rid of the New Testament.
	Now, he traces his own pilgrimage to becoming an advocate in the book.
	He says that he will, quote, grant the historical claim that the church has believed the same sex acts and relationships are always wrong.
	But now he knows better.
	He knows better now.
	He says, I'm instead asking whether devout gay and lesbian Christians might be able to participate in the covenantal marital sexual ethical standard of one person for life.
	He says, I can't find a compelling reason to say no anymore.
	Well, then you're not a Christian because you're not following the Lord.
	What if you had a covenantal lifetime relationship where you marry your horse or your dog or whatever, right?
	Look, Marriage has been defined.
	He just doesn't like the definition of it.
	And he wants to rewrite it.
	Which means that he doesn't take orders from Jesus or anybody else, right?
	Andy Stanley, one of the most influential pastors in the U.S., has been moving in this direction for years.
	And that's where we are right now.
	And we've seen this from Rick Warren, the guy who wrote A Purpose Driven Life.
	Well, now it seems like his purpose is to get rid of the Bible.
	He's now also rediscovered things that are different.
	You look at these big mega-pastor churches and these guys who write books and make a lot of money with books.
	Fame and fortune corrupts people in both politics and in religion.
	There's just no question about it.
	And it has always been that way.
	Lord Acton talked about that.
	And of course, the founders of this country understood that about politics.
	We need to understand that about religion as well.
	Be very careful of these big people.
	You know, whether you're talking about people like Andy Stanley or Rick Warren or people like Tucker Carlson or people like Alex, you know, just be careful about this.
	They serve the God of money.
	Texas Church, by the way, though, now had an AI-generated worship service.
	We've seen this in the UK. And so now it comes to Austin.
	And it comes to a United Methodist church there.
	Church service, he says, well, we wanted AI to write the church service for us because we want to consider the nature of truth.
	To quote Pontius Pilate, I guess we could say, what is truth, right?
	As he said to Jesus.
	So this last Sunday, this United Methodist Church in Austin, Texas, live-streamed a traditional service in which the order of worship, prayer, sermon, liturgy, and even an original song were created by ChatGPT.
	So who needs God?
	We've got these silicon dictators who say that they are creating God.
	Artificial intelligence. They said, we're creating God.
	And, you know, it's kind of like Mark Twain, who said, God created man, and then man returned the favor and created his own God.
	The church said the purpose of this one-time experiment was to invite us to consider the nature of truth and to challenge our assumptions about what God can make sacred and inspired.
	Well, where did they get those assumptions from?
	I don't know. They get them from the Bible?
	I don't know. He said, we're entering somewhat uncharted territory.
	Yeah, so let's just take the, you know, the Bible does chart our path in life and chart our so many different things.
	Gives us a safe course to follow.
	So let's just throw that into the water and do our own thing.
	Let's just see what happens here.
	So he told ChatGPT, he said, create a Sunday morning service for a church that values sharing life and belonging to one another.
	That values inclusivity for all.
	That values working for justice.
	Oh, and also following the way of Jesus.
	Let's put that in there, too. Just for grids.
	Include four familiar hymns or contemporary worship songs, a call to worship, a pastoral prayer, children's message, and we're done.
	He said, I want you all to know what we're doing, why we're doing this, not as some sort of gimmicky event.
	Oh, no, not at all.
	Yeah, that's why he's doing it.
	Or some misguided attempt to be provocative.
	Except that's exactly what it is.
	You know, the purpose of us gathering this morning is to wrestle with the nature of truth, and also, how do we see what is sacred in our world?
	Could we learn from artificial intelligence things that God never told us?
	Why, of course!
	Because, again, you know, it is the new God, isn't it?
	See, that's what's really dangerous at this.
	The trust and the naive belief, this artificial intelligence that, as I pointed out last week, simply goes out and hysterically either plagiarizes directly or goes out and plagiarizes an article and makes all these absurd substitutions like a non-English speaking person would.
	It's crazy. What does it mean that God can and potentially will work in and through anything and anyone if we just open our eyes and our ears to experience him there?
	So see, God is working through the machine.
	Really? Yeah, okay.
	On Rockfin, thank you very much for the tip.
	Alan Vijay, thank you very much.
	And on Rumble, RCF 2020, thank you.
	Says President Chump followed Rockefeller's operation lockstep to the T. He absolutely did.
	Oh, he's anti-globalist, but he just does everything the globalists did.
	Yeah, and he's going to bring together people to talk about abortion, just like he brought together all these people to talk about gun control.
	Yeah, we can do that. I can do that.
	Sure, I'll be happy to do that.
	We can take the gun, do the due process later.
	Is that what you want to do? Yeah, sure.
	One more thing here about churches and artificial intelligence.
	This is an article written.
	Can artificial intelligence save churches from mass shooters?
	Oh, so we don't have to protect ourselves.
	We can just... Higher security.
	They said they got this company, ex-Navy SEALs, are using technology to do just that.
	Houses of worship are beginning to look at ways to harness its power to protect congregants from mass shootings.
	So this guy who was hired by a Baptist church out of California, Bakersfield, California, said I came on staff after retiring from law enforcement.
	I was looking for some way to better protect our staff, and I found this company called Zero Eyes, and They use AI for gun detection.
	So perhaps maybe it looks at people's clothing and things like that.
	And it's got some Navy SEALs that helped to found it.
	So yeah, that's good. It's all good.
	And so maybe there is, however, some kind of middle ground where we can not necessarily be just passive sheep, In a setting like that, where somebody can walk in, a stranger can walk in, and they're welcome. But just like Dylann Roof in South Carolina, he goes in, he prays with these people, and he pulls out a gun and starts shooting them.
	What a heinous thing.
	But maybe there's some kind of middle ground where we don't have to turn our churches into some kind of a police surveillance state.
	Oh, I know. Maybe we could have trusted people who carry firearms, right?
	Concealed. To protect other people.
	And I've talked about that as well.
	Going back to South Africa when there was a revolution.
	Charles von Vick and how he was able to protect this church.
	They weren't going to kill everybody in that church.
	They came in with fully automatic weapons and throwing grenades.
	And they were able to kill 50 people when they walked through the door.
	And he stood up with a revolver at the back of this large church.
	And he took a shot.
	And I'm never going to hit anybody.
	He runs out the back and comes around the side.
	So he's closer to him.
	Takes another shot. At that point, they think that there's multiple people with guns defending.
	And they ran away.
	And they told all that later in the reconciliation stuff that the Marxists put in to excuse their crimes.
	So, yeah, there is an intermediate way that we can protect people without turning into a police surveillance state.
	Pope Francis fails to mention the unborn at a pro-abortion, pro-LGBT Clinton Foundation conference.
	Yeah, the Clintons have crawled out of the woodwork again.
	And this is from LifeSite News, a Catholic site, very critical of this particular pope.
	They said Bill Clinton's organization, of course, the Clinton Global Initiative, is pro-abortion, pro-LGBT, and the pope is just fine with that, doesn't push back against any of that.
	He knows how to read the room, but I don't think he's got any convictions that would oppose that anyway.
	You know, he's another one of these people like Charles, not Charles Stanley, but Andy Stanley.
	Chip Roy, meanwhile, has introduced a bill to repeal the FACE Act.
	And, you know, the FACE Act was supposed to protect people at crisis pregnancy centers as well, but that's not the way they're using it.
	And like everything else that's in the federal code, the Biden administration is using it in a very lopsided way.
	Using it to impose extreme penalties to the people that they don't like.
	Using it as a weapon while they ignore using it to defend the other side of the issue.
	And so Chip Roy has introduced a bill in the House to repeal the FACE Act as it should be.
	Senator Mike Lee of Utah is planning to do the same thing in the Senate.
	It was enacted in 1994, but now it's been weaponized by the Biden administration.
	You know, when we look at the Espionage Act of 1917, pretty much it was unused until Obama.
	And then he weaponized that.
	He came after more people in just the first few years of his administration than all the previous presidents over the previous 100 years combined in terms of charging them with the Espionage Act.
	It came after NSA whistleblowers like Bill Benny and Thomas Drake and Wirby and others.
	You know, just broad brush, coming after everybody.
	And that's what this corrupt Biden administration, which is the third term of Obama, is doing as well.
	I mean, these people, they are a bunch of crooks who don't obey the law themselves and then use it as a weapon against everybody else in a very twisted, perverted way.
	So again, it goes back to 1994, and it's time for this thing to be taken out.
	This was what was used against that father, Mark Hoke, and we reviewed the videos of it where this guy He's down at the other end of that because you've got to stay far away from these special abortion places because abortion is a right.
	And I mean it by R-I-T-E. It is a religious right of these people.
	And that is a religious practice that is scrupulously followed.
	And so he's down there with his son and this guy comes down and gets in their face and there's a shoving thing.
	But nobody press charges at the local area over any of that.
	But then Biden does a SWAT team raid on him and arrests him and does a SWAT team raid in front of his children.
	Again, subjecting them to risk.
	He has now been fully acquitted of all charges in January.
	But recently we've had eight pro-life activists.
	Charged, convicted, and immediately incarcerated for their involvement in a 2020 rescue effort.
	They waited three years to do it, and then they came after them.
	This is the same type of stuff we're seeing with January the 6th all the time as well.
	And so Chip Roy said, Biden's Department of Justice has brazenly weaponized the FACE Act against normal, everyday Americans across the political spectrum simply because they're pro-life.
	Free Americans should never live in fear of their governments targeting them because of their beliefs.
	By the way, these people who just got attacked and immediately incarcerated, they're leftists who are pro-life.
	So, yeah. And part of this is Trump's January the 6th that's being used now as justification for the left.
	Used to betray everybody who's conservative.
	Somehow, dangerous, radical extremists who are trying to overthrow the government and an insurrection and all the rest of the stuff.
	So that is another part of the betrayal that was there.
	We're going to take a quick break.
	And when we come back, we're going to talk to Jack Cashel, who I've interviewed before about his recent book, Untenable.
	But I wanted to go back and talk to him about a book that he wrote a few years ago.
	About TWA 800 and what happened with that.
	So we're going to take a quick break and we'll be right back with Jack Cashel.
	Stay with us. Decoding
	the mainstream propaganda.
	It's the David Knight Show.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	All right, joining us now is author and investigative researcher Jack Cashel.
	We talked to him not too long ago about his new book, Untenable.
	That's about white flight from these Democrat-run cities.
	As he pointed out, how do we describe this?
	And he goes, well, they just made these cities untenable.
	People are not leaving because they're racist.
	They're leaving because of what the Democrats have done to make these cities untenable.
	But as I said, he's a researcher and He did some excellent research on another book that he wrote a few years ago about TWA Flight 800, which exploded around Long Island, New York.
	Everybody on board lost.
	And there has been a lot of discussion about that.
	The FBI also dismissing that as a conspiracy theory.
	But if you look at the description of the book, the name of the book is TWA 800, Behind the Cover-Up and Conspiracy, a book to challenge the status quo, to spark a debate, and to get people talking about the issue and questions we face as a country.
	So thank you so much for joining us, Jack.
	Good to have you on. Hey, David, thanks for having me.
	Always a pleasure. Thank you.
	I appreciate the work you do.
	Well, thank you. It's, you know, we set this up, as I told the audience, last week because I wanted to talk about, I've been talking about what happened with 9-11.
	I've been talking about the anthrax attack and the things that followed on with that.
	So I thought it'd be good for us to talk about flight TWA-800.
	But, of course, you know, there's so many things that the FBI has been involved in terms of Setting people up, but also in terms of getting rid of evidence, and that is a key thing that appears to be a part of the TWA 800.
	But it turns out, as we've got the missing F-35, and a story that just doesn't seem to be very plausible, we're kind of seeing this happening from the government all the time, aren't we?
	Where they come up with this crazy story, and we're not supposed to ask any questions about it.
	No, in fact, you're right.
	The real tragedy now is we're not supposed to ask questions.
	Yes, that's right. And I was just reading through the Missouri versus Joseph Biden case, you know, where the media, where the government worked, the White House, the White House worked directly with the media to not just discourage question asking, but to punish it. Yes.
	And it's... Everyone should read that lawsuit.
	I mean, the judgment, rather.
	It's chilling. Yes, it is.
	I mean, you know, let's face it.
	Military have been screwing up and covering up since the beginning of military.
	I'm sure Caesar was covering up his misdeeds.
	Yeah. But there are very few conspiracies of execution.
	Those are rare. Conspiracies of concealment, however, are a dime a dozen.
	Yes. And White 800 is a conspiracy of concealment, not of execution.
	What makes it different from other such conspiracies, it was so much to cover up with so many eyewitnesses, so much evidence, right?
	Yes. Which actually made it easier rather than harder.
	But, yeah, that's the real...
	I think it's interesting.
	I went back and I looked at a New York Post article talking about this, and as I pointed out, you know, to put this in a historical context of what was happening at the time, this was...
	We just had the World Trade Center bombing.
	The Oklahoma City bombing had happened a little bit before that.
	The Olympics in Atlanta were just a few days away.
	And, of course, we know what happened with Richard Jewell and the FBI. I mean, Clint Eastwood did a great job of that.
	And they came up with a little he-said-she-said story to keep people from going to see that because that was a real expose.
	I think it was one of his finest films.
	Very important thing to see.
	That movie has faded from...
	Yeah. I don't think they read that on Netflix.
	Oh, yeah. Before they even put it out, they said, well, you know, the way that they portrayed this woman, they showed her as trying, the journalist is trying to seduce this FBI agent or something like that.
	I'm just going from memory here.
	But, you know, they just vilified it that way so that nobody would go to see it, and especially the people who really needed to see it, the people who trust everything that the government says.
	But we had all these different things that were happening.
	And then you had, as that was all happening, you had Jim Kallstrom, the FBI assistant director, was forced to hold a press conference November 8, 1996, because so many people were talking about this.
	As you said, there's so many different witnesses.
	And what he had to say was, he said, nothing, nothing like that has, the military would not shoot down anything.
	Nothing like that has ever taken place, would take place, would ever take place under any circumstances, and yet it was only eight years earlier that the U.S. military shot down an Iranian commercial airliner, Flight 695 in 1988.
	And it killed everybody on board.
	And there was a massive settlement that the U.S. government paid the Iranians and said, look, it's an accident.
	We're sorry. Here it is.
	But, you know, they couldn't cover that up because it was an unfriendly nation.
	But they engaged in a very heavy cover-up of this in the United States.
	Tell us a little bit about what they did.
	Yeah, and here it's, it began on day two.
	Day one, there was some innocent, honest reporting.
	In fact, there was a video shot of the actual incident.
	And there was a bidding war for the video.
	The winner of that bidding war, curiously, was MSNBC. They had been on for only two days.
	They came on here July 15, 1996.
	So for them, it was a coup to get it.
	I've talked to 100 people who've seen the video.
	But I also talked indirectly to the person who was running the tech at MSNBC that night.
	And he said that several gentlemen in suits came in and took all copies and made these guys fear for their lives if they ever talked about it or kept a copy.
	Wow. Curiously...
	So you said you've talked to about 100 people who saw it.
	So what did they see on that tape specifically?
	They saw a missile rising towards the airplane and knocking it out of the sky.
	My best witness in this regard is a 747 pilot and a former missile guy from Boeing who was recuperating in a Hong Kong hospital.
	For back surgery.
	And in Hong Kong, he continued to show the video.
	And his wife was there with him.
	He said, we saw it 50, 100 times.
	Right? It was like a regular news feature.
	They'd show the video. And he was curious, given his...
	You know, what he did for a living.
	And I've talked to him extensively.
	And a couple years ago, in fact, I worked with Judicial Watch to try to find a copy of the video in Hong Kong, and we could not.
	It's out there someplace.
	Nelson DeMille based his very compelling novel, Nightfall, around that missing video.
	You know, he fictionalized the circumstances.
	Throwing a lot of sex and stuff.
	Sure. It's a very good read, I must say.
	And he knows his stuff. DeMille knows his stuff.
	Wow, that's amazing.
	What other evidence did they cover up?
	Because I know that there was some, I think there's also some flight tapes that they came around and confiscated, didn't they?
	They confiscated all the radar tapes from the sites.
	The fellow who's been hounding them most effectively on this is a guy named Tom Stalkup.
	He's a physicist who's made uncovering this...
	I'm uncovering this cover-up, his life's passion.
	And he's a serious, no-nonsense, apolitical, technical guy.
	And he launched a lawsuit a year ago against Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, as well as the military defense institute, the Department of Defense, the U.S. Navy.
	It's very serious.
	And his accusations are very specific.
	And... I think they'll have a hard time denying him.
	What they will do, however, and are doing, is doing everything he can in the courts to block his discovery and to move the case forward.
	But that's probably where the best hope lies of unraveling it.
	One other thing they had to cover up, and they covered up very...
	See, I should say, Stalker believes the radar is the real smoking gun.
	The one thing they covered up most clumsily...
	Was the traces of residue, explosive residue, RDXP ETN found all over the airplane, outside, inside as well.
	And the New York Times was allowed to report on this for a month after the crash.
	That was the angle they were allowed, because it said bomb.
	You know, they were going for the bomb.
	Bombs are less scary than missiles.
	You know, if they had reported a terrorist missile attack in New York, Two days before the start of the Atlanta Olympics, they would have had a shutdown in traffic on the East Coast.
	It would have been a nightmare. But a bomb, you know, they could, oh, we can screen more effectively, whatever.
	So, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb.
	It culminates on August 23rd, five weeks after the crash, 1996, with the New York Times headline, prime evidence found that explosive device in cabin destroys TWA-800.
	That's a paraphrase, but it's very close.
	Explosive device in cabin.
	And then we didn't hear too much about it for the next four weeks, and then miraculously, in about September 20th, they decided that it was a mechanical failure, after all.
	And that was coming out of Washington, out of the NTSB, out of Jim Hall, who was an Al Gore flunky who had been put up the head of the National Transportation Safety Board.
	And the way they justified removing the bomb from Of bomb stories.
	They had to get rid of those stories.
	They were all in print, right?
	RDX, PETN, found here and there, everywhere.
	Was they decided that a sloppy police training exercise in St.
	Louis, weeks before the crash, had resulted in there being residue left on the plane.
	Right? And they put that story out and the New York Times just snatched it up.
	The New York Times was totally beholden to the FBI. When I wrote my first book on TWA Flight 100 with James Sanders, five years after the fact, I called the police officer.
	I was the first person in the media to talk to him.
	And this happens all the time.
	You wouldn't be surprised, David.
	You know. People in the outside world think reporters just go after stories.
	No, they don't. They go away from stories that they don't like the outcome of.
	He was a black guy.
	He was still pissed.
	He goes, they ruined me.
	And they blamed him and his dog.
	They made fun of him.
	And his dog, Carlo.
	Oh, these local police officers, they don't know what they're doing.
	They leaked explosives.
	This is Calstrom. They leaked explosives all over the plane.
	Calstrom lied bold, basically, about this before Congress.
	And so that was gone. It was that easy.
	Because the FBI was reporting exclusively to the New York Times.
	And the New York Times is beholden on the FBI for its information, which made it the big dog in this reporting.
	That's right. And if they had any ethics at that time, and that's doubtful, they sacrificed them simply to be the inside guys, right?
	That's right. Yeah, to get the scoops on everybody else and to be the first people to report the lie.
	Where anybody else gets the lie, yeah.
	When I was reporting on this initially, I spoke to the aviation editor of the Washington Post, and he was still angry, too, because he said they cut us out altogether.
	You know, it went to the New York Times.
	That was it. We had to rely on the Times, you know, for our coverage, as did all the media and everyone else.
	Of course, the CIA was working behind the scenes with its people, and that's even more diabolical, because there are people in the major media they own.
	Well, let's talk about that, but before we leave this, what was it that they said that this police officer had done to spread explosive all over the place?
	You know, what was he allegedly, how did he, I mean, this is like the magic bullet thing, right?
	What is their official story about how this actually happened?
	Well, you know, what they found is a plane on which a On which an exercise had been done.
	So what the police officer would do is he would bring his dog cargo.
	First he would plant these devices or these traces.
	They were packaged.
	They weren't leaking. There was no external affluence.
	He would post them.
	They would bring the dog and the dog would sniff them out, basically training the dog to make sure that he could smell these things.
	And then he'd take up the stuff and leave.
	Mm-hmm. Well, the problem with this story was, one of the most conspicuous ones, and it was easily broken if they chose to look, was that the plane in question, the TWA plane, at the time the officer was doing this training exercise in St.
	Louis. The TWA plane was parked there, but it was 15 minutes away from leaving with a full crew for Honolulu.
	The crew has to be on that plane two hours beforehand, you know, cleaning and preparing.
	You've got 350 passengers.
	And his exercise overlapped with the whole loading of the airplane.
	It was impossible. Sitting right next to it, Was another, because the officer did not note the plane that he was on, he just said it was a wide body, was another plane that was empty.
	So the training exercise didn't even take place on TWA 800 plane.
	It took place on another airplane.
	So they had overlooked that.
	I mean, it was just, the reporting is almost, I would say, more scandalous than the actual cover-up itself.
	It's the motive for covering up.
	You know, that's what people do, I mean, when you screw up.
	But there's no motive for betraying your mission as a journalist.
	What? Also, not only to keep the lead, but to get your boy re-elected in November, which is a big part of the story.
	Yes, yes. And, of course, all this is happening right around the same time as the Richard Jewell case as well was happening.
	So it tells us a great deal about the FBI, and this is one of the reasons why when I talk to people about what's going on with the FBI, you know, well, there's a really great agency before Biden got in there or whatever, you know, and it's like, no, it's got a history,
	doesn't it? It does, and there's a weird part to this, David, and that I can never quite figure out, is that Jim Kallstrom, who headed the investigation, was also, this really hated the Trump, I mean the Clintons. And in 2016, he was the national security expert for Fox News.
	And he was bashing the Clinton Hillary throughout the whole campaign.
	And he even endorsed Trump on the air, which was remarkable when you think about it.
	And yet, every time he appeared, I would hear from family members, you know, parents of the kids who were killed in a crash, etc.
	And they'd say, I see, every time I see Calstrom up there bashing Clinton when he holds the keys to unlocking this whole story before the election.
	Yes. Bill Clinton was, you know, the president at the time it happened.
	And it surely would have affected Hillary.
	So I sent a certified letter to Calstrom.
	I got his name, his address from a private investigator friend.
	Sent him a certified letter saying exactly that.
	I said, Jim, you know, we see you.
	Your family members are seething when they see you because they know you could break this open.
	This is your chance to do it in some meaningful way where you could have an outcome.
	Now, the story gets a little funny here, and I have to backtrack a little bit.
	In November of 1996, November 5th, I think it was two days after the election, Pierre Salinger, who had been the legendary press secretary for JFK, held a press conference in Cannes on the French Riviera.
	I was saying, in conjunction with the French Secret Service, because the plane was flying to Paris and there were a lot of French citizens on board who were killed.
	He said, he laid out the theory.
	He said, hey, the U.S. Navy accidentally shot down this plane.
	And I have the evidence, goes through his evidence, etc.
	That was unwelcome news.
	This is only three months after the crash.
	There was no official explanation for what happened yet.
	And yet, just in the month of November, the New York Times ran four stories or opinion pieces mocking Salinger in the headline, you know?
	Wow. Pierre, is there a man on the moon?
	You know, that kind of happens.
	And what they would do then is they would lump in his reporting on the TW800 with Whitewater, Vince Foster, etc.
	So making it just another right-wing conspiracy theory.
	Being offered in France by the respected former U.S. Senator and JFK press secretary.
	They humiliated, mocked him.
	I talked to a lot of people in doing the investigating who said, hey, if they could do that to Salinger, they could do that to me.
	And of course, make Pierre Salinger part of the vast right-wing conspiracy of Hillary Clinton's imagination.
	And this is 1996 November.
	Now let's fast forward to November 2016.
	I vote absentee, and to avoid all the hubbub around the election, it drives me crazy, because I live in a Democratic neighborhood.
	I don't want to be here. I go to France for a couple of weeks, right?
	And where do I go?
	I go to the Riviera, because we're in France in November.
	You want to go someplace where the weather's still nice.
	I'm in Nice. I'm sitting out in Nice, you know, just in the evening, just a pleasant evening watching the sunset or whatever.
	And on a bench, a bunch of French people around.
	And I get a call on my cell phone.
	It says, Connecticut. And I pick it up.
	Jack Cashel? I said, yes, Jack.
	And then I had heard that Jim Calstrom was a profane bully.
	So he totally lived up to his reputation.
	You effing effing!
	What the eff are you effing effing effing!
	You know what I mean? I left him my number and he called me.
	This is now a week or so before the election, right?
	Wow. And immediately I'm...
	And then he goes on like this.
	He goes... You know who you remind me of?
	I said, who? That effing Pierre Salinger.
	He held a press conference on the effing French Riviera.
	Where you were at the time, right?
	I said, if he knew where I was right now, he'd be convinced there was some major French conspiracy to get at it.
	But he was unrepentant and he was remarkably ignorant of some of the most basic details.
	I don't know how he could not have been aware of my two books.
	I was on CNN, I was on various places.
	Did he actually talk to you about any of the specifics about it?
	When you say he didn't know anything about the details, did he actually get into some of it?
	Or did you just call a yell at you?
	So what he said to me, are you trying to tell me that a terrorist missile took out this airplane?
	I said, no, I'm not.
	I wish I were. I said, I'd be more comfortable with that.
	I said, what I'm telling you is that the U.S. Navy accidentally shot down her airplane.
	And that's when he went into the Pierce Ellinger rant.
	You sound just like having Pierce Ellinger.
	I tried to calm him down.
	uh he may have been drinking then i know he's he was also i think in the early stages he had cancer he's going to die a few years later and uh i get him to come then i say mac we're on the same side in this election here you know i'm you know thinking you could help uh and then he goes were you ever in the u.s we were in vietnam i said no i wasn't you know and then he go off on me for being some sort of wuss or whatever um it was a uh useless phone call a day later You know,
	I pick up my phone and I see Connecticut again.
	I saw him. Maybe I got to him, you know?
	And I said, hello? He goes, who is this?
	I said, this is Jack Cashel.
	I said, oh. He goes, I butt-tiled you.
	Right. Well, yeah, he was the one that I mentioned, and of course it would have been just a couple of days after Pierre Salinger said that, where he holds that press conference and he says, it never happened, it could never happen, it's never ever happened, and yet it had happened, and it had happened just eight years prior to that.
	So they were running a Navy exercise that was off the coast of Long Island, just like they had been running a Naval exercise off the coast of Iran.
	And, you know, it looks like they accidentally shot down an airliner just like they had done eight years earlier off the coast of Iran.
	That was public knowledge, and he pretends that doesn't exist.
	And in this case, you know, the reasons why they were working in close, they were trusting a new Aegis missile system, which coordinated, you know, they called it a CEC, cooperative engagement capability.
	Very sophisticated. There was a reason for doing it in close.
	To a, you know, a heavily trafficked area, especially two days before the start of the Olympics.
	They had excellent intelligence.
	It's called about this Bajitka plot that came out of the, it involved Ramzi Youssef, the World Trade Center bomber at the time.
	He was, at the time of this, of TWA-800, he was in prison in New York City awaiting trial and You know, charges.
	He had been caught in the Philippines.
	They got a lot of his information.
	They found that they had been plotting to use planes as missiles.
	I mean, we saw it come to a fulfillment five years later in New York City with the hijacked airplanes.
	But another part of the plot was...
	To take a charter plane and fill it with high-energy explosives and attack major targets in populated areas like New York City or Washington.
	Of course, the Pentagon itself had wargamed that out with Operation Northwoods back in the 60s as well.
	When Peter Salinger was, he was a press secretary.
	He would have known about that kind of stuff then as well.
	So I'm sorry, go ahead. I just had to.
	No, no, but it was a legitimate reason for them to be working in close.
	It wasn't just, it wasn't, it was careless, but it was, nonetheless, it was some crazy that they, because they'd have to be operating in that kind of a high-density environment if they would have any effect.
	So, and it was a drone exercise.
	They were using a drone. The missiles were to attack the drone.
	They kept the TW-800 lower than it normally would because there's a plane going overhead.
	And something like 258 people, according to the FBI, saw the missile attack the airplane and destroyed it.
	96 of those people tracked the missile from the horizon all the way up to the plane.
	Some of the eyewitnesses were so spectacularly good, the FBI had to, and working, actually the CIA was worse than it.
	I had to go back and to rewrite their testimony or to create second interviews that never took place.
	I identified at least four key witnesses for whom that was true.
	And I talked to them and they were, sometimes they were shocked to know that they were second.
	Well, you gave them what the official interview was and I said, no, I didn't say that.
	Is that the way? In fact, I started my book with this woman called, I just identified as Witness 73, although I know her name.
	She was on the beach that night.
	She was engaged at the time, and she was on the beach with some friends of her fiancé.
	Her fiancé was working in New York City.
	She was an aviation professional, travel.
	She was very, you know...
	What do you call it? Current on airplanes and their flight paths.
	She noticed the TW-800.
	She thought she caught her eye because it was flying lower than she thought it should have been at that time.
	And she was right because they kept it down to, at the time of the attack, 13,000 feet.
	And then she noticed, as a separate item altogether, We're good to go.
	She described to the FBI the passage of the missile, the final passage, as an upside-down Nike swoosh.
	In other words, the missile corrected and attacked as its program to do.
	And she described the breakup sequence of the airplane to the FBI and the NTSB, FBI actually, even before they knew what it was, even before the debris field revealed that she was actually accurate in the way the plane fell apart.
	And so then she was telling me about...
	She had just learned about her second...
	Someone else did. I think Stalkup had contacted her and told her about her second interview.
	And I asked her about that.
	I said, you know, it says on the...
	At first I asked her, I was being naive, I said, why did you change your story when they came back at the same time?
	She goes, you know, because they say here that you were drinking Long Island iced teas that night and you weren't sure what a Long Island, you know, and you weren't sure what you saw that night.
	You may have had a few drinks.
	She goes, well, first of all, she goes, Jack, I don't even know what a Long Island iced tea is.
	And I said, could it have been another drink?
	She said, no, because I don't drink at all.
	And thirdly, she said, there was no second interview.
	This never took place.
	No one ever contacted me again.
	And her fiancé didn't want to talk to the FBI at all.
	He was angry that she had.
	The only reason she had come public to me, and this is, oh, at least a dozen years after the crash, because her then-husband, her old fiancé, was in a nearby hospital.
	He was dying. And so she wanted to talk us through.
	She still didn't want to go public, but she wanted to talk it through.
	And I said, well, there's something you may not know.
	And she said, what's that? I said, you're one of at least four key eyewitnesses that they concocted, fully concocted, second interviews with.
	And then put them in their files.
	And then to discourage anyone from following up with you, as though the media were inclined to do that in the first place.
	Wow. So that's one of the reasons why I never really put too much hope or anticipation in the, oh, let's get the FBI files on the JFK assassination.
	It's like, if there is anything there, do you realize how they've rewritten all this stuff and changed everything?
	And probably none of it is true if you could even find the paperwork there.
	That's the way these guys operate, isn't it?
	Well, you know, who did it here, though?
	It wasn't really, they had, this is a, you know, there are heroes and good guys in this FBI. Mm-hmm.
	There aren't in the CIA, but there are in the FBI. And one of them is a guy...
	I know his name...
	Yeah, I'll talk about him.
	He hasn't done anything to get him fired from whatever he's doing now.
	His name's Steve Bongard.
	I got a lead on him from a whistleblower at Raytheon who contacted me after my book came out.
	Steve was head of the FBI missile team.
	He was a good guy. He was also featured...
	In the book, Looming Tower, is it, by Lawrence Wright?
	Yeah, Wright's a New Yorker, mainstream guy.
	As he tried to blow the whistle in the cover-up to 9-11, it wasn't being done.
	It should have been done. So he was reluctant at this stage when I got a hold of him, and now we're in 2016, to go public anymore.
	He left the FBI, and he was working.
	He said, Jack, he goes, I got a new job, and I got two little kids, you know.
	It's not, I wish I could help you out here, but in his initial report, within two or three weeks of the investigation, Of the crash itself, he had reported back to his superiors that there were at least 144 excellent eyewitnesses to a missile strike.
	I have the CIA documents.
	I have the mother load of CIA documents, which were FOIA'd out.
	And the CIA guy in charge, who took over, really took over the investigation on day two, a guy named Randolph Tauss.
	He got a medal for his work.
	He's like Fauci, right?
	Exactly. He convinced the FBI that it was premature to go forward with this information for a variety of reasons.
	And he brags about it in his memo to his boss, you know, how he convinced him to hold back on this information.
	So the CIA was monitoring the FBI, who had...
	Illegally taken over the investigation from the NTSB. But at least that was...
	The FBI publicly took control of the investigation at the behest of the Clinton Justice Department.
	At the behest of Valerie Caproni, who went since ascending the ranks.
	Jamie Gorelick, the mistress of disaster, who's the Deputy Attorney General.
	They worked around Janet Reno.
	She was an impediment to their plan.
	She was just a figurehead.
	And it was being orchestrated at the White House, and they got away with it.
	Wow. It truly is amazing.
	Let's talk a little bit about the altitude of the plane and what was happening there.
	Now, you said the plane was at a low altitude.
	Was that a mistake on their part, or were they told that they needed to fly low because of the naval exercises that were happening?
	No, they were told to fly low because it just so happened.
	There was a flight going immediately overhead on the way to, I believe, Providence.
	Oddly, on board that flight was this guy named Dwight Brumley, who saw everything too.
	And he was a retired Navy missile guy, right?
	And they said they made up a new interview for him as well.
	Wow. It was semi-routine, but it was lower than it normally would have been.
	At that point, it should have been about 16,000 feet, and then it probably never would have happened.
	So that was just an unfortunate fate.
	There was no, I mean, a lot of people ask me, was there someone on that plane?
	No, they don't take out an airplane to get rid of an individual, except for perhaps the case of Ron Brown, but that's a story for another day.
	I've got a book about that, too.
	Yeah, they named a building after him right across from the UN. I remember I was at the UN covering the name.
	It was like the Ron Brown building.
	I was like, they should have put that in the name of an airport or something, I guess.
	That's a story for another day, David.
	It's an incredible story. But the...
	In this case, no.
	Nor was an LL plane.
	There was an LL plane.
	It was in the queue that had taken back, but not for conspiratorial reasons.
	747, the Flight 800, was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, basically.
	Wow. Wow. So this is, again, this has been going on now.
	That was 1996, so we've got 26 years.
	27 years. 27 years this has been going on.
	And there's a lawsuit that is happening now.
	You said another person has been investigating that.
	And has that just started?
	It's a year on now.
	And I know they're running into roadblocks.
	You know, legal roadblocks.
	You know, national security, this, that, and the other thing.
	I don't know. I was pretty optimistic because Tom Stalkup is such a serious, no-nonsense, apolitical guy.
	You know, I can be accused of being political because I kind of am.
	But what I try to do is tell the larger story of how this came to be and all the players involved, you know, the whole story.
	Whereas Stalkup focuses on the...
	On the technical details.
	He's much better at that than I am.
	And so when I read his lawsuit, I said, my gosh, he's got it nailed.
	And to me, he sees the radar as a smoking gun.
	He knows this stuff.
	Because the way the plane broke apart could not have been the result of a fuel tank explosion.
	Which is a soft, kind of below-energy explosion, a below-y kind of thing.
	This is something much more dramatic, dynamic.
	To me, the smoking gun is the Navy P3 Orion that was flying immediately overhead, Flight 800, when it was destroyed.
	And they had published, and I have this put in my book, I replicate it in my book, The TW800 book.
	The model of a cooperative engagement capability, exercise.
	The P-3 is a plane that communicates, I'm sorry, organizes the communication among the various, they call combatants in an exercise group.
	So the intelligence information stuff goes through the P-3 and it disseminates back to the various combatants in this exercise.
	And includes several submarines and several cruisers, etc.
	Mm-hmm. And so it very well may have, the missiles that destroy the stated TB-800 may have come from the submarine.
	There were several submarines in the area, and even Kallstrom admitted that, and there were at least a couple of cruisers that were equipped with Aegis equipment.
	But it's right overhead.
	What's it doing there?
	And then, except if when you see the diagrams of the CECs, you see it right overhead, right in the center of the action.
	So what happens afterwards, the accounting of what happens to the P3 does, so they said, and the P3 took shots immediately of the debris field, you know, while it was still smoking on the surface.
	I've seen those, and they're very enlightening as well.
	And then, according to the authorities, well, the P3 went on a routine sub-hunting exercise off the south coast of New Jersey.
	Huh? You mean a plane just blown up?
	And there's talk of missiles and, you know, taxed by foreign entities?
	And this is not a routine sub-hunting exercise?
	It doesn't even, it's not even plausible.
	Yeah, yeah. It's like what we've been seeing with the F-35, you know?
	So this guy's got it on autopilot, and then he hits the eject, and then the other, his wingman just turns back and goes back.
	There's all these different things.
	It's like, no, this makes any sense, except unless it was hacked or something.
	Now, you said you got some FOIA documents from the CIA. Were there any FOIA documents from the military as part of this with a P-3?
	No. The document, and I have to give the credit here to some other.
	I work with other people who do some of the The serious lifting, and it's like Ray Lair, who's now approaching 100.
	I mean, he's an incredibly healthy, good guy.
	But he was a retired United Airlines pilot and accident investigator.
	So these are people who know their stuff.
	There's a lot of high-level military people involved in unearthing the truth there.
	And Ray is the one who got the, you know, after years of You know, Freedom of Information Act request to the CIA sprung loose this incredible mother load of information that told the whole story from the CIA's perspective.
	And it's mind-boggling how candid they were among themselves.
	And like I was saying, Randolph Tauss, who was the head analyst on this, got some sort of freedom medal or something for his work on TW800. I mean, when you read that, when you see that, you see how really corrupt the CIA is.
	See, I think the FBI is salvageable.
	I don't think the CIA is salvageable.
	So when you say they were amazingly candid, is it the kind of stuff that we saw with, you know, like ClimateGate where they say, hey, our models aren't working, we've got to hide the decline?
	Was it that type of thing where they're talking about, hey, you know, nobody's buying this official story, how can we change it?
	It was pretty close to that.
	But what it really is is a brag by Taos to his superiors about how he's got this thing under control, right?
	How are you suppressing this information?
	You know, they're not bragging like, hey, they're not going to say, hey, we made up a whole second interview, right?
	But it's there. You know, it's just, you have to read between the lines.
	But he does brag.
	I mean, that's the weird, I mean, the scary part, I should say.
	So it's the kind of stuff like, you know, yeah, I know people are saying this and that, but don't worry, I got that narrative under control, that type of thing.
	That's right, pretty much, yeah. Wow.
	It truly is amazing when we see what the government does.
	And again, the motivation that they had for that, besides, you know, just...
	It was bad enough when it happened in Iran, and they gave...
	They gave a scandalously low amount of compensation to the people in Iran.
	Right, and the commander, Rogers, his last name, has his punishment.
	So let's say you're Derek Chauvin, you make a mistake in Minneapolis, you go to prison for 22 years.
	If you're the commander of the Vincennes, I believe it was, you get reassigned to be a trainer at a flight school.
	That's what happens. They protect their own.
	Okay, I get it. It's a mistake.
	I mean, you really shouldn't go to prison for a mistake.
	But... They were reluctant to share a lot of information.
	That would be forced out of them, right?
	And then it gets really political, too, because they were really on a hot seat.
	Congress was going after them.
	Because at that time, I remember when the congressional hearings were taking place in 91 or 92, a few years after the actual investigation.
	And the admiral who was responsible, Admiral Crowe, all of a sudden...
	Becomes the first high-ranking military official to endorse Bill Clinton for president.
	So you had a Democratic Congress doing the grilling of the Navy, and then Crowe was on the hot seat.
	Then Crowe endorses Clinton, and then all of a sudden all that investigation goes away.
	And then Crow ends up being, like, the ambassador to Britain or something.
	I mean, some really high-level thing.
	So they were playing games with it, right?
	Right from political games with that, even with that, you know, for reasons.
	And, of course, Wargaming is out.
	If this had all come out, if the truth had come out, that it was an accident.
	But, you know, hey, you know, you look at how...
	This had political implications for Jimmy Carter when they were trying to do the hostage rescue.
	And the Delta Force team, a couple of helicopters collide in the desert, and a bunch of guys die there.
	That was all put back on Jimmy Carter because Buck stops there.
	He's the commander of this, and it's like, have you got an...
	Incompetent military or whatever making mistakes like that, that reflects on the president.
	And so that is something that in an election year, you do not want to see that happening and coming back on Clinton.
	I mean, it would have been a huge thing.
	It's not even about the tremendous amount of money that would have been paid to the families, which...
	Don't get the compensation that they really deserve to have, so they were screwed on that.
	But the key thing was it was done to help Clinton get re-elected, because that would have been the nail in the coffin.
	It doesn't take much to turn people a disaster of that scale.
	That would have absolutely done it.
	Especially for a president whose vulnerability was his military weaknesses.
	He was a draft dodger, etc.
	And the real parallel comes in 2012 with Benghazi.
	And in both cases, what they do, you have a national security disaster before a critical re-election, as they just try to kick the can down the road past November and hope for the best.
	And they did in both cases.
	Yeah, that truly is amazing.
	Well, it's a fascinating book and it is a fascinating story and it is an important story because it shows us, you know, all these questions about integrity and our institutions and where they are and how even with good people in various places, it's the people at the top that can shut us down and cover it up.
	And so it shows us the institutional rot That has been there for a quarter of a century.
	And, of course, it goes beyond that as well.
	All of these things happening around the same time, you know, the Olympic bombing in Atlanta and all the rest of the stuff, it just shows how bad these institutions are, but especially the CIA. And, you know, no surprise there.
	Yeah. You know, because we've always had an uneasy feeling about the CIA. Yeah.
	I always liked the FBI, you know.
	And I think J. Edgar Hoover's gotten a bad rap.
	I think it was better if he had been head of the FBI at the time.
	I don't think we would have had this happen. Well, he certainly did a good job of PR, creating his own program with Ephraim Zimbalist Jr.
	That was drilled into everybody's head.
	That was a masterpiece of propaganda.
	Oh, totally. Yeah.
	Master strike. Yeah, he was somebody who knew his way around Washington, and he had documents on everybody there, I think.
	But yeah, it is interesting, and at a time that people are focused on how the FBI has become a politicized weapon, it's important to go back 26 years.
	I show just how weaponized it was, how weaponized the CIA was, the CIA that lies us into a war in Iraq and all the rest of this stuff with their lies about weapons of mass destruction obtained via torture.
	So it's important to see that and not look away.
	And that's the key thing about this.
	And so thank you, Jack, for doing this research.
	Very important. Jack Cashel and TWA 800, Behind the Cover-Up and Conspiracy is the name of the book.
	And you can find it on Amazon and everywhere that you can get a book.
	Barnes& Noble, right? Got it everywhere, right?
	Right, sure. Yeah. Okay.
	Okay, David. Thanks a lot for having me.
	Appreciate it. Thanks. Always great talking to you, Jack.
	Take care. We'll be right back, folks.
	Stay right with us..
	��
	��
	�� Liberty, it's
	your move.
	And now, The David Knight Show.
	All right, the time we've got left, I just mentioned, I didn't, it's available, of course, as a book, it's available as a Kindle, it's an audio book, a lot of different formats, and it is still a hot topic, and it should be, because it shows us what is going on in our institutions that have not been reformed, they've only gotten worse.
	And so as we look at that, and there's now, you know, yesterday, there's just so much stuff.
	Russell Brand, Ray Epps.
	Russell Brand, Ray Epps is what everybody wants to talk about.
	Ray Epps charged with a misdemeanor and long-delayed wrist slap.
	That's the headline from Zero Hedge.
	And, well, that's true.
	Here's where I'm uncomfortable with this.
	And I've said this before.
	I don't know if Ray Epps is an agent provocateur.
	But I do know that the agent provocateurs who got people to go to January the 6th, and the agent provocateurs like Trump that made hundreds of millions of dollars off of this and told people, meet me over there at the Capitol and all the rest of it.
	How many ways does Trump have to provoke this thing and be held blameless for it?
	It truly is amazing. And most of this stuff is coming from Darren Beattie at Revolver.
	He has used this as a ticket to fame.
	And as he has been talking about Ray Epps, he would go on with Tucker Carlson, he'd go on with Alex Jones, and he'd go on with Steve Bannon, all these different people.
	What were they doing, folks?
	Did Ray Epps get everybody to go to January the 6th, or was it people like Steve Bannon and Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson and Donald Trump?
	Did Ray Epps make millions of dollars?
	Hundreds of millions of dollars off of this stuff?
	Or did these other people? And why is Darren Beattie doing this?
	Because it is his ticket to fame and fortune and followers to find red herrings.
	To find scapegoats.
	To excuse the people who were the biggest agent provocateurs that were there.
	Yeah, there were going to be agent provocateurs from the FBI going to instigate violence, and that did happen.
	And I warned people about that up until and including that morning.
	It was very obvious that that was going to happen.
	And it was very obvious how these people were running this scam to make millions of dollars.
	And for Darren Beattie to keep focusing on Ray Epps like that, it's very obvious to me what is being done.
	And even if the guy is an FBI informant, he didn't do but an infinitesimal amount of what they're trying to distract you from with these other people.
	A misdemeanor charge?
	So that proves that Ray Epps is an inside guy?
	Darren Beattie was accusing Stuart Rhodes, who's now going to jail for like two decades or something like that.
	I forget the exact sentence.
	He accused him of being an agent provocateur.
	And Darren Beattie accused Enrique Terrio of being an agent provocateur.
	And when they were indicted for a seditious conspiracy, he said, see, that just proves it.
	It just proves it because they know there's no way they're going to be able to prove that case.
	And yet, when they were convicted and given decades in jail, total silence from Darren Beattie at Revolver.
	One of the most despicable people in the MAGA suck-up club is that guy.
	Just makes me want to throw up.
	And so, if your measurement is that this guy only got a misdemeanor, then what does that say about Owen Schroyer?
	Who got a misdemeanor charge?
	What does it say about Alex Jones?
	Look, I don't think that anything they did is worthy of a crime or jail time.
	But I think that what they did was they defrauded their listeners.
	They endangered their listeners.
	They threw their listeners under the bus.
	They didn't do anything to the government.
	Everybody has a right to redress their grievances.
	But of course, you know, when it happens to Owen, they turn it into a fundraising event.
	Oh, we're going to take this all the way to the Supreme Court.
	He pled guilty.
	I don't know how you appeal when you plead guilty.
	Maybe you can't. I don't know.
	And it was a misdemeanor charge.
	And the other people that they pushed to go to January the 6th are in jail for years.
	Life sentences for many of these people who are elderly, who did nothing but walk inside a building.
	So first, they're brought there.
	On this fool's mission, this quixotic quest to somehow keep Biden out of the White House, and then the police open the doors and tell them to come in.
	Ah, can I use the restroom?
	Yeah, it's right over there. 74 years old, you get a five-year jail sentence.
	This is disgusting.
	And it's disgusting to see this in the MAGA media.
	Oh, that proves that Ray Epps is a FBI agent.
	Well, if that proves that he's an FBI agent, if that proves that he's an agent provocateur, then so is Alex, and so is Trump, and all the rest of them.
	And, you know, the situation with Owen, and I said it before and I'll say it again, it was a misdemeanor charge because he'd been involved in a PR stunt.
	He had done community service time.
	He thought he had finished it.
	They said it was a paperwork error.
	You're two hours short, so you're still in violation of that, and you came back.
	But then they weaponized it based on his speech, what he had to say about the election on January the 6th.
	That's the only part that had anything to do with speech.
	And it was wrong for them to do that.
	And it is an excessive thing to put him in jail for two months.
	But it hasn't even come close to To what is happening to the people that they fleeced and then threw under the bus going into jail.
	And as I've said before, it's not just even the people of January the 6th.
	That'd be bad enough. But they have used this to create this public persona for those on the left that this is all somehow justified because everybody on the right is some violent insurrectionist.
	This threw everybody under the bus in one way.
	But of course, you know, Enrico Terrio, Stuart Rhodes, going to jail for decades.
	I'm not a big fan of going out and saying, and pointing the finger, this guy needs to be arrested, and that guy needs to be arrested.
	And you know why he's doing that?
	Again, it's a red herring, and he is creating scapegoats to protect these people who can make his career.
	One of the most disgusting people I've ever seen, Darren Beatty.
	So, you know, maybe you can just ask Trump why he was telling people to follow him on that day.
	Maybe some of these people ought to sue Trump and get some of their money back, some of the damage that was done with this stuff.
	Yeah, seditious conspiracy.
	Oh, that'll never hold, he said.
	That just shows, he said, that this whole thing is fake and these guys are agent provocateurs.
	And as this all happened with Ray Epps, Darren Beattie at Revolver does a 64-page article, Meet Ray Epps Part 2.
	Damning new details emerge exposing massive web of unindicted operators at the heart of January the 6th.
	Well, pal, you better hope that the mirror doesn't point right back at you.
	Talk about provocateurs.
	And as all this stuff is happening, Pennsylvania is rolling out automatic voter registration with driver's licenses.
	You know, we have so many ways to rig the elections.
	This is true even when we had paper ballots.
	You can rig paper ballots, of course.
	You can rig the old mechanical voting machines back in the election in Chicago when JFK got elected.
	All the talk about how the Democrat machine there in Chicago was running around with these voting machines in the back of their trunks.
	Now it's gotten a lot worse with the electronic voting, yes, because people can, you know, hack into these things just like they can hack into an F-35.
	We have no voter ID in many states.
	We have automatic registration in many places.
	We have manipulation of ballot access, manipulation of debates.
	You're excluded from debates. We have censorship, a discussion.
	And then, of course, Trump added the vote by mail, and that new precedent appears to have become permanent.
	And if you want to know who's responsible for Trump losing the election, it's Trump.
	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.

▲