Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 4, 2023 - The David Knight Show

03:00:40

The David Knight Show - 10/04/2023

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	The End free speech to free minds.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	As the clock strikes 13, it's Wednesday, the 4th of October.
	You're of our Lord, 2023.
	3.
	Well, today we're going to be talking about Speaker's Corner, I guess.
	No, actually, Cornered Speaker.
	And I have a very different take on this than most people do.
	And... Typically, people are focusing on personalities.
	That's the big thing. There's some people talking about policies as well, and that is important.
	That's more important in many ways than personality.
	Certainly, character is always a fundamental issue in somebody's personality.
	But regardless of who you like in this, regardless of what their policies are, This has big implications about whether or not Congress is even going to operate as an institution.
	We'll talk about that when we come back.
	As well as an update on what is happening with the Second Amendment.
	Will Hunter Biden inadvertently become a landmark case to protect the Second Amendment?
	That would be interesting, wouldn't it?
	We'll be right back. Well, I think the Babylon Bee got the headline right.
	A panicked McCarthy looks for a fire alarm.
	It didn't take long.
	And so they had the vote yesterday.
	And you had, I believe it is, eight Republicans who voted with all of the Democrats to remove McCarthy as Speaker.
	And, of course, this has never happened in the history of the U.S., A lot of them will say, well, this is the first time in 100 years or something.
	No, there's been attempts in the past to try to remove a speaker.
	There was going to be an attempt to remove Boehner, but he resigned instead of going through that, because it might have happened then.
	But we were already in a fourth turning at that point in time, and this is one of the hallmarks of a fourth turning, the fact that people realize the institutions have failed.
	Even people within the Congress Realize that the institution of Congress has failed.
	And we're going to talk about exactly how that has failed and how this is going to make things worse, quite frankly, regardless of what you think about the policies that McCarthy supported or the personalities involved here.
	But Babylon Bee has some fun with it.
	So, yeah, where is it?
	Where is it? McCarthy could be heard shouting desperately as he ran through the halls.
	It worked for that guy the other day.
	Maybe it can buy me some time.
	Come on, come on. Where is it?
	Witnesses within the Capitol reported saying a panicked McCarthy's printing by them.
	As far to Congressman Matt Gaetz's motion to vacate the office of Speaker was officially brought up for vote.
	I'm used to seeing members of the Congress running urgently through the halls, said a Capitol Hill staffer, but usually they're either running to their offices because they got an insider stock trading tip or they heard there was free ice cream at the commissary.
	This time there seems to be a different vibe.
	He was very desperate.
	Unfortunately for McCarthy, he was unable to locate a fire alarm in time to stop the proceedings.
	He was last seen picking up his personal belongings to remove them from the speaker's office, while Jamal Bowman offered to helpfully pull the fire alarm in order to open the door to let him out.
	Well, here's the reality of what's going on.
	I think Brian Shohavi sees the bigger picture.
	It's not exactly what I was talking about when I said the bigger picture in terms of what is the internal workings of this failed institution.
	But as Brian Shohavi of Health Impact News said, this is economic and political chaos that has now descended upon the United States.
	October 3rd will be a historical day in the U.S. as chaos now reigns in American political and financial sectors.
	McCarthy was removed from his position by a vote of his fellow members.
	Something's never happened before in the U.S. stock market.
	Closed the Dow Jones Industrial Average, losing over 400 points.
	The biggest loss since the banking collapses back in March, and giving up all of its gains on the year.
	The huge loss in the stock market today is being blamed on rising treasury yields.
	And so, when you look at it, it's the same thing that is depressing to some degree, the price of gold, although gold is...
	Got real value unlike the stock market.
	Stock market is based on this thing called hopium.
	It's a drug that they get high on on Wall Street.
	A lot of hopium about things that are going to happen.
	I mean, I'd rather have something that is literally rock solid.
	That's what gold is.
	But anyway, yeah, just mention davidknight.gold.
	Take it to Tony Arterman, where he'll know that you're there from us.
	And he sells gold and silver at any amount that you want, small or large.
	And unlike Costco, he can place the order.
	If they don't have it immediately, he can fix that price and then send it to you.
	And, of course, he also can help you with advice.
	There's a community there, Wolfpack, that can help you with advice to help you to save on a gradual basis and so forth.
	But anyway, back to the Fed.
	The Fed's problem and the U.S. Treasury's problem just became the problem of every American who has their retirement savings stuffed in their stock market 401k.
	Stocks do not like yields on the 10-year U.S. Treasury note rising to a level that is competitive with a return on stocks, especially since the principal on the Treasury note is guaranteed at maturity, while the principal especially since the principal on the Treasury note is guaranteed at maturity, while the principal on the stock market is guaranteed to take one's stomach
	This is commentary from Wall Street on Parade within the article that Brian Schelhavi has at Health Impact News.
	In response to the competition from Treasury Securities and chaos in running the government, Stocks have sold off in eight of the last ten trading sessions through Monday.
	See, it's not just the arbitrary interest rates, the high interest rates, but it's also the fact they're not working.
	And so we've got a lot of different issues that are happening that get Wall Street jittery.
	But who's going to replace McCarthy as Speaker of the House?
	You know, Speaker of the House...
	Just to remind everybody, is the second in line to the president.
	You know, if something happens to the president, then you have the vice president.
	And if something happens to the vice president, then the Speaker of the House is the one who assumes the presidency.
	That's a pretty high office.
	But as part of this fourth turning chaos...
	Again, we see this kind of revolution even within the failed institutions as people begin to realize this, how they have failed, and the economic shock that is accompanying them.
	And so yesterday, after he was voted out, McCarthy said he will not seek re-election.
	And Matt Gates, as he was attacking him, called him a feature of the swamp, not a creature of the swamp.
	Kevin McCarthy couldn't keep his word.
	He said he made an agreement in January regarding the way Washington would work, and he violated that agreement.
	We are $33 trillion in debt.
	We are facing $2.2 trillion annual deficits, he said.
	And then...
	He added, we face a de-dollarization globally that will crush the American working class.
	Kevin McCarthy is a feature of the swamp.
	He has risen to power by collecting special interest money and redistributing that money in exchange for favors.
	Well, you know, that is very true, and that would have been maybe one of the central issues a few years ago.
	But now what Matt Gaetz is not talking about is CBDC. That should be the center of all this stuff.
	And yet, he isn't.
	That's one of the reasons why I say when you're looking at these issues and these people, frankly, I don't like, I don't have a lot of admiration for either Kevin McCarthy or Matt Gaetz.
	And I don't like their policies.
	But there is, again, another issue.
	One Congressman, Troy Neils, has said, I nominate Donald Trump for Speaker of the House.
	Let's turn this into a complete show here.
	It is a civil war that's going on in the GOP, and the Democrats are more than happy to let that happen.
	You know, again, all the Democrats plus eight Republicans voted to throw Speaker McCarthy out.
	They want to keep that infighting going.
	In the same way that they are happy to come up with all these phony indictments against Trump because they want to see the fighting continue.
	They know that Trump is a source of friction, of internal civil war, And they know that by indicting him, they have brought him up in the polls.
	He was below DeSantis until these indictments began, and then, you know, he took off.
	And he gets a big boost financially, and in the polls, every time they indict him for something, they know that.
	Everybody knows that.
	Trump's opponents know it in the Republican Party.
	Trump's opponents know it in the Democrat Party that the Democrats are boosting him with these indictments.
	So they think that they can beat him in the general election.
	You had Financial Services Chairman McHenry will temporarily serve as the caretaker speaker.
	Legislative activity in the House will temporarily cease as Republicans reorganize.
	See, there's the big silver lining out of this whole thing.
	We have effectively shut down the Congress.
	They did, right?
	And with any luck, they'll shut down the government as well.
	Coming up.
	The guy who took his place, by the way, McHenry, was somebody who was chosen by McCarthy.
	The Speaker of the House chooses a Speaker pro tem.
	And does it privately?
	It's not made public who the person is going to be to replace them in the case that they are incapacitated or, you know, with health issues or die suddenly or whatever, or basically thrown out, which is the first time this has happened.
	And so as McHenry took the gavel after his friend and mentor was thrown out as Speaker of the House, here's how that went down.
	down.
	Look at the anger of McHenry.
	Chair declares the house in recess, subject to the call of the chair.
	Play that again.
	He just put everything he had into that gavel slam trying to break the gavel.
	Watch this. I would say it's safe to say that he's not happy with the results of this thing.
	So... In terms of analysis, a Goldman Sachs analyst said, well, we think it's very unlikely the House will remain without a leader until November the 17th, which is when the continuing resolution about what they're going to do about the budget happens.
	The leadership change raises the odds of a government shutdown in November.
	With many policy disputes and a $120 billion difference between the parties on the preferred spending levels of fiscal year 2024, it's difficult to see how Congress can pass the 12 necessary full-year spending bills before funding expires November 17.
	We continue to view a shutdown, says the Goldman analyst, And quarter four as the base case, likely when funding expires November the 17th.
	That said, while a leadership vacuum raises the odds of a government shutdown, we still view a prolonged shutdown of more than two or three weeks as unlikely, given the political consequences of certain aspects of a shutdown, particularly a failure to pay service members, which occurs twice a month.
	It is getting, November 17th gets very close to Thanksgiving.
	I wonder what they will do.
	Will they continue to fund TSA? Will we be able to fly without TSA? I mean, wouldn't the terrorists just start taking planes out of the sky?
	No, of course not. Because going back to, I think it was 2011, when Texas was trying to stop the naked body scanners and the pat-downs of kids, the TSA said in their own documents that they accidentally published online in a court case, there is no threat to Against airports or airplanes.
	Because we know that as incompetent as the TSA is, if there had been threats, we would have seen terrorist attacks going down.
	So, again, you have McHenry, who is not very happy about this.
	And there's a lot of people who are not very happy about what happened with this.
	One of them is Newt Gingrich.
	And we'll get into that in a moment.
	But before we did, I just wanted to stay on this fourth turning issue here.
	Brian Shulhavi says, look at this.
	Financial and political chaos is descending on us.
	We had Tucker Carlson talking to Victor Davis Hanson.
	He is an historian.
	And he told Tucker, we're in the middle of a revolution.
	The next 12 months will be the most explosive in history.
	Well, maybe the next 12 months, but I think it's only going to accelerate until they get their wish of trying to destroy everything or until the grassroots get a clue as to what's going on and rise up and shut these people down.
	By not complying.
	By nullification.
	And by other means of very powerful, peaceful resistance.
	Don't take the trap of violence.
	That really is a trap.
	Just like January the 6th was a trap.
	And that is what they always want to do.
	They want to goad you in to an attack.
	They can then portray themselves as victims as you see them doing with January the 6th.
	Don't take that bait.
	You're not going to defeat them that way.
	You're not going to defeat them if you have a situation where they can portray themselves as the rational party that was attacked first.
	No, we have to shut down their aggressions.
	And that includes the aggressions that were put in place in 2020 under Trump.
	The aggressions that were extended and built upon by Biden.
	But Victor Davis Hanson, he's an historian, as I said.
	Do you know anything about him?
	Quite frankly, I did, and I thought, who is this guy?
	And as a historian, he doesn't really see the pattern of Of a massive change in society about every 80 years, every four generations, as Strauss and Howe did in their book, Fourth Turning.
	Certainly he must be aware of it.
	I think most of the intelligentsia is aware of it.
	They use the terms. Millennial, you know, we got Gen Z and X and all these other things.
	You know, they look at it as a generational change.
	Constantly writing articles.
	Well, this is what we see of this new generation and how's their response to different things and so forth.
	But they avoid talking about the fourth turning because they don't want you to know what period of history we are in.
	And the fact that we have been in the middle of a revolution for several years now.
	They said, Strauss and Howe said in the early 90s, that sometime in the mid-2000s there will be a global financial crisis.
	And that'll kick off the fourth turning, as it does most fourth turnings.
	And they're usually accompanied by war.
	The previous one was the Great Depression, World War II. Prior to that, we had the Civil War.
	And the economic aspect of that, the disruption aspect of that, was not about slavery.
	It was about the Industrial Revolution and about the creation of the nation-state.
	And Italy had their civil war at the same time.
	Over those issues. The creation of a nation-state and the shift of power from agrarian powers to industrial power.
	And those weren't the only two nations where that happened at that time.
	You know, in the middle 1800s, we didn't really have strong nation-states except for Great Britain Empire.
	But... You could argue the French, but for the most part, power was decentralized.
	It was agrarian. Prior to that, we had the Revolutionary War, and there was also, you could include in that, the French Revolution, because at that point in time, in the late 1700s, you didn't really have a global synchronization in terms of time stuff.
	But now we are, globally, all on the same time schedule as of the 20th century and the Great Depression and World War II. But when it comes to a historian, I have my questions about Victor Davis Hanson, besides the fact that he doesn't really talk about, you know, the generational change that happens here.
	He said back during the Iraq War, he wrote, quote, It's whether the U.S. still possesses the moral clarity to identify evil as evil, and then the uncontested will to marshal every available resource to fight and eradicate it.
	In 2002, he said that to push us into the Iraq War.
	And so I thought it was kind of interesting that...
	An historian who pushed us into the Iraq War will be interviewed by a journalist commentator like Tucker Carlson who helped to push us into the Iraq War.
	The two of them are talking about whether or not we can have the clarity to identify what is evil.
	Well, Victor Davis Hanson and Tucker Carlson didn't have that clarity 20 years ago.
	They couldn't understand that it was our government that was evil.
	They would poo-poo the idea that 9-11 was an inside job.
	They would poo-poo the idea that we are going to this Iraq war based on lies about weapons of mass destruction.
	Oh, no. They must have pulled off that anthrax attack, too.
	So it was our government that was evil.
	Do we have the discernment to see that even today, 20 years later?
	I don't know if Victor Davis Hanson does.
	I don't know that Tucker Carlson does.
	Tucker Carlson hasn't really called them out on that.
	He says, well, you know, you're not allowed to ask any questions about Building 7.
	Well, that's hardly calling them out for being the people who took it down.
	That's a very different thing.
	It's a very passive observation.
	Do you have the will to marshal your speech, Tucker?
	To call these people out?
	To point out how evil they are?
	Do you have the will to oppose it?
	I don't know. Anyway, Victor Davis Hanson, as he's talking about this, remember that these are two guys who misdirected us on the Iraq War, 9-11, and these other things.
	Now he, the two of them, Victor Davis Hanson, Tucker, Trump represents a significant threat to the specific vision held by liberals who have a critical legal theory in which traditional moral values are abandoned in favor of whatever gains power.
	Well, that's not anything that's new.
	You don't need to try to come up with some new phrase, critical legal theory.
	That's been recognized for a long time as Machiavellian.
	Machiavelli talked about that in his book, The Prince.
	That's exactly how he defined politics, and our politics have been Machiavellian for a very long time.
	And if you look at what Trump does, he is totally Machiavellian.
	Nothing matters other than loyalty and flattery to him, the Prince.
	There's never been a more openly Machiavellian leader than Trump.
	At least the other Machiavellian leaders we had had the decency to try to pretend that they weren't like that.
	Trump doesn't even try to pretend.
	And Victor Davis Hanson and Tucker want to push them?
	Especially push Trump as the solution to all this?
	He's right in the fact that Trump has been put at the center of this.
	As I've said before, he's our Mason-Dixon line for a new American Civil War.
	And look at how this guy who told us When George W. Bush was trying to push us into a rock war.
	And so the real question is, can we identify evil?
	Do we have the will to resource, to marshal every available resource to fight against that evil?
	And so here's a guy who says, I think they've come to the conclusion that Trump is an existential threat.
	And by association, half the country is to their vision of what they want to transform us into.
	So they feel that whatever means are necessary are justified.
	Again, this is nothing new.
	But when you look at whatever means are justified, haven't we heard that over and over again from Trump?
	He says, we're in the middle of a cultural, economic, and political revolution.
	We think that we're still playing within the same sidelines or parameters, and we're not.
	Everything is under negotiation.
	Again, that is a forthcoming.
	It surprises me.
	How many people, Zero Hedge, World Net Daily, Infowars, Bipart, people think, wow, this is really amazing stuff.
	These guys are giving us the inside scoop as to what's really good.
	No, they're not. They misled you 20 years ago.
	They're misleading you into another war, a civil war now.
	A civil war, a world war, a revolutionary war.
	That's what this fourth turning is going to be.
	He said, the legal actions against Trump are politically motivated.
	Really? Oh, you noticed that, did you?
	And he says, the idea that we now have the power to do this, and because we've got the power to do this, it is moral and right, and if you don't like it, what are you going to do about it?
	You see, now it matters because it's being done to Trump.
	This has been the way the government has operated my entire life, and I'm not very young anymore.
	I've watched government say, I've got the power to do whatever I want, and I don't really care what the Constitution says, so what are you going to do about it, huh?
	I've seen this kind of bullying, blackmailing, bribing government out of Washington my entire life.
	Nobody cared, evidently, until it happened to Trump.
	And now we're supposed to care.
	What they're doing to Trump is not setting a precedent.
	Trump set a lot of precedents.
	He set precedents about executive orders to lock down the country and take away informed consent and take away our guns without due process.
	He set a lot of precedents.
	But what is happening to Trump now is not a precedent.
	It's just that they've left each other alone, these two warring tribes in their Game of Thrones.
	Basically just bullied and bribed and blackmailed us.
	Now they're bullying each other because we're coming up to a civil war.
	That's the only thing that's new.
	So Hansen noted that there are legitimate efforts to rectify and to stop this madness, and we'll see what happens in 2024.
	You notice what he just did there?
	Well, there's nothing you can do locally.
	There's nothing you can do in the state level.
	There's nothing you can do yourself.
	Put all of your hope on Trump.
	Trump is our only hope.
	Help us, Obi-Wan Trump.
	You are our only hope.
	And then what do you do if he doesn't get elected?
	Right? You see how they're setting us up?
	They're setting us up for failure.
	They're setting us up for failure even if Trump wins.
	Right? Do you really want Trump as a dictator?
	Do you really want to embrace the idea that has been embraced for decades by the Democrats?
	Do you Republicans really want to embrace the idea that the way we get what we want is with an all-powerful Republican president?
	Because that is the path to civil war.
	You know, Democrats, this is why there's so much fighting going on over who's going to become president.
	And that's why whenever I say, well, look at what Trump did.
	Well, who do you like for president?
	It's like, when are you going to realize that that's not the solution?
	Government is not the solution.
	Government is the problem. And the biggest problem in government is the power of the presidency.
	Anyway, he says, you need to have leaders who tell people that we are in a Jacobin takeover of this country.
	And the old get-along at any cost does not work, said Hanson.
	And I hope that everybody can keep their heads, because I think the next 12 to 18 months are going to be the most explosive in our history since the Great Depression.
	Well, he doesn't want to understand really where we are.
	But meanwhile, that's what his viewpoint is.
	And I think that really is a background as to what is happening in the House, even if he doesn't tie it into that.
	On Rockfan, Angry Tiger, thank you for the tip.
	I hope you're feeling better.
	He says, Treasury bonds are being dumped even with the Fed's Herculean effort.
	They can't keep up with buying them back.
	Don't worry, we are in control here.
	Whenever we get into these inflationary times, And bad financial times.
	And I've seen it, you know, in the 1970s as everything is going down and inflation is going crazy and the economy is going down.
	It always makes me think of the Wizard of Oz.
	At the very end of it, where the wizard gets in that hot air balloon, they inflate it with a bunch of quantitative easing.
	And it starts taking off.
	And Dorothy says, wait, wait, you left me behind.
	Come back. I can't.
	I don't know how this thing works.
	Well, that's really kind of how our wizards of Wall Street and the central banks are.
	You know, they get into this balloon of inflation that they created, or whatever, and they don't really know how it works.
	They can't pull this thing back.
	There's the illusion of control.
	But these guys are floating around like they're in a hot air balloon.
	And there's a lot of other factors that are operating on them.
	They're not in total control. They want us to think that they've got a fighter jet.
	Not an F-35 that's under Chinese control.
	Or Russian control.
	Or whoever it was that hacked it.
	But they want us to think that they're flying some kind of a jet that they actually control.
	On Rumble, Rabid Roach, thank you for the tip.
	It just felt like tipping my favorite blunt commentator.
	Thank you. Appreciate that.
	Everything helps. I appreciate that.
	So the House Republicans are moving to now expel Matt Gaetz, and this is what I wanted to talk about.
	I think this is key to understanding what is happening.
	This is another aspect of the Civil War.
	So Gaetz kicks out McCarthy, and understand that all the Republicans voted to keep McCarthy, except for eight of them.
	So there's a vast number, the majority of Republicans in the House disagree with Matt Gaetz.
	And So J.D. Rucker writes, in case you still think the Republican wing of the uni-party swamp is better than the Democrat wing, think again.
	Oh yeah, but of course you can trust Gates and you can trust Trump even though Trump endorsed McCarthy and Gates endorses Trump.
	Anyway, you know, Trump endorsed McCarthy.
	He made a campaign video about Fauci saying Fauci endorses me.
	Fox News has learned that GOP members will seek to expel Gates if the Ethics Committee report finds him guilty.
	But again, you know, are they going to?
	There's no talk, really, about getting rid of George Santos.
	But they'll come after Matt Gates.
	Kevin McCarthy evidently wants to get him out, but does not want to get out George Santos.
	Isn't that interesting? That tells you something about McCarthy and his character.
	This member also mentioned that Gates is increasingly disliked, and other people described him as, quote, a smart guy without morals.
	Expelling Gates requires a two-thirds vote, and Republicans currently hold a slim majority.
	Gates argued that his efforts to remove McCarthy were not personal, but motivated by disagreements over spending.
	Well, and that's really where I think we need to see what is going on in this vote here.
	Because Thomas Massey, who was part of the group that resisted Kevin McCarthy and then, like with Chip Roy and others, they got some concessions from him about the way that the House was going to operate.
	And Massey was the only one who voted against This massive spending pandemic of Trump's.
	And it was a pandemic of spending, you know.
	He voted against those trillions of dollars and Trump angrily was furious.
	Most angry I've ever seen him against a member of Congress.
	Said, we're going to primary him out.
	Well, fortunately, they didn't.
	You know, Trump seemed to get along really well with Dianne Feinstein, especially when they're talking about gun control.
	But he was angry at Thomas Massey.
	Because Thomas Massey didn't go along with this pandemic of spending.
	By the way, Matt Gaetz did.
	Matt Gaetz was there at the time.
	And he assumed office in 2017.
	Gaetz did. And every member of Congress voted I think?
	It would essentially be serving at the pleasure of the Democrats.
	I'm somewhat suspicious that people who have this long list of ethics issues, like Ken Paxton in Texas and stuff, when they start doing these other things that make them something of a folk hero to the MAGA cult, I'm just cynical enough to say, well, maybe they're doing this to counter these ethics charges against them.
	Anyway, So he'll be serving at the pleasure of the Democrats, who are happy to unanimously vote out McCarthy and to stoke the GOP Civil War.
	Going back to John Boehner, in 2015 again, Mark Meadows...
	He became Trump's chief of staff, and he was leader of the conservative caucus there.
	But he threatened in 2015 to remove Boehner, who was speaker.
	Boehner, another guy who was horrible.
	You know, Boehner said always, he said, I'm unalterably opposed, for example, to marijuana in any way, shape, or form.
	Well, Mark Meadows was going to lead a movement to move him, and Boehner resigned rather than letting that happen.
	And then he became a marijuana salesman after saying that he was unalterably opposed to marijuana in any way, shape, or form.
	After he got out of Congress, he got a job hawking marijuana.
	So, tell Jill, you really need to know about him.
	And then there's Newt Gingrich.
	Newt Gingrich is one of the people who was vociferously calling for Matt Gaetz' expulsion because he got rid of Kevin McCarthy.
	Newt Gingrich, by the way, just remember that back in 2011, Newt Gingrich, who had been Speaker of the House, And Ron Paul were both running for the Republican nomination.
	And there was a lot of bad blood between them.
	As a matter of fact, Ron Paul had been a congressman for many years, and then he was the first person to get behind Ronald Reagan, because Ronald Reagan did a great job of talking about how he's going to make government smaller and that type of thing.
	And he endorsed Reagan way back when Reagan was running in 76 against Gerald Ford, who was president at the time.
	And Reagan didn't win, but he was a strong supporter of Reagan in 80, and he'd been a congressman for several terms.
	But he was, Ron Paul was very disappointed in Reagan growing the deficit and not getting rid of the Department of Education, many other things that he did.
	And so he was so upset about that, especially over the growth of the government and the deficit, that Ron Paul resigned from Congress and resigned from the Republican Party.
	And then a couple of years later, he ran for president as a libertarian for the Libertarian Party.
	And then he stayed out of politics for a few years, and they decided he would run for Congress again.
	And when he ran for Congress again, Newt Gingrich was Speaker, and he opposed Ron Paul, even to the extent he didn't just oppose him in the GOP primary, but Newt Gingrich opposed him in the general election.
	He actually endorsed the Democrat against Ron Paul.
	And so there was a lot of bad blood, and when the two of them were running for the Republican nomination in 2011, Newt was coming after Ron Paul, and Ron Paul was coming after Newt.
	Here is Ron Paul's ad that he put together on the internet, really defining Newt Gingrich.
	This is the core challenge of America, is that beyond the words is a real question of policy.
	And a real question of values.
	And a real question of seriousness.
	The real question of policy.
	We don't always see eye to eye, do we, Newt?
	No, but we do agree...
	That's Nancy Pelosi....take action to address climate change.
	Newt Geert has been on...
	Climate change....have a long list of issues, sometimes in the same week.
	I don't think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering.
	With allies like that, who needs the left?
	It cuts Paul Ryan off at the knees.
	It supports the Obama administration.
	There is no explanation for it.
	And a real question of value.
	A question of value.
	If you want to put people in jail, let's look at the politicians who created the environment, the politicians who profited from the environment, politicians who profited from the environment.
	Newt Gingrich on the defense for taking one and a half million bucks.
	After he left Congress, Freddie Mac paid Gingrich at least $1.6 million.
	$1.6 million, some of it just before the housing market collapsed.
	Newt Gingrich can ridicule Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac publicly while privately pocketing millions.
	That's hardcore lobbying and that's what Newt Gingrich was doing.
	The politicians who profit from the environment.
	There are now reports about controversial ties to the healthcare industry.
	A think tank founded by Newt Gingrich collected at least $37 million from major healthcare companies.
	The group supports individual mandates.
	Newt Gingrich renewed his support for an individual mandate, a key tenet of President Obama's healthcare law.
	Support for an individual mandate?
	Folks, don't ask me to explain this.
	And a real question of seriousness, serious question of seriousness.
	Everything that Gingrich railed against when he was in the House, he went the other way when he got paid to go the other way.
	You're an embarrassment to our party.
	He's flipped and flopped based on who's paying him.
	He's demonstrating himself to be the very essence of the Washington insiders.
	It's about serial hypocrisy.
	It's wrong to go around and adopt radically different positions because then people have to ask themselves, what will you tell me next time?
	So what is Newt Gingrich telling us today?
	By the way, you notice that, right?
	He gets out and he starts making his peace with all these different industries and throwing his principles to the wind, just like John Boehner.
	That's how these guys get into this position, by the way.
	And it's how these people who are running for president get to that point as well.
	We have a system that filters out anybody who has integrity.
	It's just that simple.
	If you're for sale, if you'll tell one group what they want to hear, and an opposing group diametrically opposed to that, what they want to hear, well, that's your way to win politically.
	But if you tell everybody the same thing, if you stick to your guns, and if you support the Constitution, you haven't got a chance in this country.
	That's why Washington is done.
	Stick a fork in it.
	It's done. And that's why I cover it, to tell you that it is done.
	Anyway, so now Newt Gingrich came out and wrote an op-ed piece for who?
	The Washington Post, of course.
	He said Matt Gaetz should be expelled from the House Republican Conference.
	And he said the former speaker justified his call by pointing to the House Republican Conference rule.
	Which states that the privilege of bringing a motion to vacate, quote, should only be available with the agreement of the Republican Conference, so as not to allow Democrats to choose the Speaker.
	So the threshold for forcing a vote on the motion to vacate was revised, and So that one member could do so during concessions that McCarthy made in January in order to secure enough votes for the speakership.
	However, Gingrich wrote that the agreement made when McCarthy became Speaker doesn't supersede the conference rules.
	Gates still needs a majority of the conference.
	Now, this is the key issue.
	And this is the key thing that I wanted to talk about.
	I've gone on now for about 40 minutes about the background of this and, you know, the fact that we're in a fourth turning And we're seeing these institutions recognized as corrupt, even by the people who are inside them.
	They're fighting over this corrupt institution as it's collapsing.
	But here's the key issue in this particular speaker fight.
	And that is that under rules that Nancy Pelosi had put in, especially, they put together these big omnibus bills.
	And, you know, thousands of pages covering everything.
	That's what omnibus means.
	And you would have maybe a day, maybe two days for you and your staff to speed-read this highly technical legal language and try to find all the details in it.
	Yeah, you've got to pass it so we can find out what's in it, said Nancy Pelosi, because she was going to let the bureaucracy basically go with it.
	But, no, they...
	Part of this fight over McCarthy becoming Speaker was that Chip Roy and many other people, Massey and others, Came to McCarthy and said, we don't like the way the House is being run.
	We're not able to, as an individual member of Congress, there's not really anything that we can do because everything is being tightly controlled, centrally controlled, by the Speaker and by the committees.
	You know, the Speaker gets to choose who's on the committee and who's head of the committee and all the rest of the stuff.
	And so the Speaker's got an agenda.
	The Speaker makes sure that certain legislation doesn't make it out of committee.
	And so the people on the individual congressmen don't have any power at all.
	It's the speaker in the committees that are controlling everything.
	And so they came to McCarthy and said, we want to have a situation where we can bring stuff up and actually, you know, act like congressmen in a parliamentary procedure.
	And he agreed to that.
	And the interesting thing about this, the irony of this, is that that was now used by Matt Gaetz to push him out.
	Because one person could bring something up on the floor now, instead of it being tightly controlled by the Speaker and the committees, because one person could bring that up, that's what happened.
	You had Matt Gaetz do an order to vacate on the floor, using the powers that they had negotiated from McCarthy as a condition of McCarthy becoming Speaker in the first place.
	And that's what Massey and others are concerned about.
	Because now, the net result of this is going to be probably a return to that old system of tight central control.
	Now, what Newt Gingrich is saying is that, well, we had conference rules.
	You know, the Republican conference is supposed to abide by these rules and not allow the, you know, supposed to have, go to the Republicans first and say, is there a majority of Republicans who are for changing the speaker?
	Well, obviously, there weren't.
	There's only eight Republicans.
	We wanted, who voted to change McCarthy.
	So that would have failed in a Republican conference.
	And so Newt Gingrich is saying that Gates is simply violating the rules of the Republicans in the pursuit of personal attention and fundraising.
	He's destroying the House GOP's ability to govern, calling him an anti-Republican.
	Now, one of the problems with Newt Gingrich's approach here is that in his mind, Removing Gates is fine because Gates went against the Republican rules.
	The problem is, is that Gates was voted in by his constituents.
	So you're going to say that if the Republicans don't like you politically...
	They can remove you, even though you are elected by other people.
	That's Newt Gingrich's approach, just so you know.
	I did that little bit of a clip there of Ron Paul defining who Newt Gingrich is, and now we have refined that definition a little bit closer to what is happening right now.
	Newt Gingrich says the Republican Party should make all the rules, the Republican Party should do whatever it wishes, and the voters can take a hike.
	That's really what he's saying.
	But again, as Thomas Massey has said in his speech, he says, are we going to go back to the old rules?
	And he talks about the fact that, you know, we want to have regular order.
	And he said, you got people like Matt Gaetz.
	He says, I'm not against this.
	Well, let me let him speak for himself.
	Massey said this in terms of opposition to removing McCarthy.
	Gentlemen from Kentucky, Mr.
	Massey is recognized for two minutes.
	Mr. Speaker, as the only still serving co-author and co-sponsor of the motion to vacate, Speaker Boehner, I can tell you this motion to vacate is a terrible idea.
	As the only member who's serving here who took every chance to vote against Speaker Boehner and to vote against Speaker Ryan, I can tell you that this chamber has been run better, more conservatively, and more transparently under Mr.
	McCarthy than any other speaker that I have served under.
	As a member of the Rules Committee, One of three.
	One of three conservatives who were placed there out of trust.
	The Speaker gave us a blocking position by putting three of us on there to keep an eye on the Rules Committee to make sure the process was fair and even.
	I can tell you it's been fair and even.
	None of us are voting against the Speaker today.
	Regular order is at odds with predetermined outcomes.
	Yet the Speaker is being accused of not holding to regular order and predetermined outcomes at the same time.
	It is not possible.
	You cannot be for both at the same time.
	I was a party to the January agreement, and I can tell you That there were promises in there.
	But there was never a promise for an outcome.
	There was never a promise that you could force Joe Biden to sign something.
	There was only the promise that we would try.
	And try we have. We have tried in the Rules Committee.
	We have tried on the floor.
	We've been trying this since this summer.
	And there's enough blame to go around for why we don't have 12 bills.
	But part of it was a re-litigation of the debt limit deal.
	By the way, there was no promise on the debt limit deal.
	No conditions on that in January.
	Zero whatsoever. I was in the room for that.
	So the 12 bills were delayed over what?
	$100 billion. That's a lot of money.
	But it's nothing compared to the $2 trillion that I came here to object to when Speaker Pelosi and President Trump pushed that bill through.
	We've had over 500 amendments.
	Listen, this is a referendum on this institution.
	We have tried regular order.
	Speaker McCarthy has tried regular order.
	If regular order fails today, if you vacate the speaker, nobody is going to try it again.
	This institution will fail.
	Please do not vacate the speaker.
	Again, as usual, Thomas Massey is right.
	And to break that down, he's talking about this is regular order versus predetermined outcome.
	That's their terms for it.
	I say regular order is like operating under Robert's Rules of Orders.
	Instead of having this stuff rammed down your throat by whoever is speaker, whether it's Boehner or whether it is Pelosi, they're going to ram this down your throat.
	They're going to not allow anything to come to the floor that hasn't gone through their approved committee leaders and all the rest of this stuff.
	They've completely shut down the entire process, which he's referring to as regular order.
	And he says, you know, he's being criticized as, Saying that he's violated regular order for supporting regular order, but that he's also doing a predetermined outcome.
	He says you can't do both of these things.
	They're opposite things of each other.
	And he said that is the most important thing.
	So let me ask you, what do you think is going to happen with the next speaker?
	Are they going to say, well, you know, let's go with regular order like we used to have, you know, before Pelosi and Boehner and things like that.
	Well, let's go back to that type of thing where people of Congress get to represent the people that voted them in and offer things.
	Or are we going to return to an imperial speaker who wants to operate under central control for their own preservation?
	Of course, it's going to be the latter.
	And so what Gates has done...
	It's not just a threat against McCarthy, but it's a threat against the institution being reformed in a way to make it work.
	We're just continuing to go down this path of a failed institution that even as you get one thing fixed, you kick that away.
	It reminds me of when New Gingrich got elected with the midterms for Clinton's first term in 94.
	He had his contract with America.
	He had a 10-point program. One of those points was to have A balanced budget amendment.
	And he actually had a line item veto.
	And he actually had the support of Clinton because Clinton would love to be able to veto things with a line item.
	But I still think that that was an important thing to do.
	I think it's important to give as many possible vetoes as you can.
	I think that's what the founders of this country were trying to do when they divided the government into three different branches and they divided power between the federal government and Which only had power if it was specifically given that power.
	But divided power between the federal government, the states, and we the people.
	They always wanted to lean towards vetoes.
	And so I think a line item veto was a good thing.
	And they actually got that passed.
	The Republican Congress did under Gingrich.
	And then you know who shut that down?
	Rudy Giuliani.
	I don't like this.
	I want to get my pork barrel projects.
	And he challenged that in the Supreme Court.
	And he won. He was wrong.
	And the Supreme Court was wrong.
	But when I look at this, regardless of what you think, as Massey was talking about, he said, this is not about whether or not we're going to get the budget deal that we want.
	This is about how this is going to operate and whether or not we've got some, you know, he says, we've been able to get rid of these rules and we're going to go back to those old rules.
	So I think what we're seeing here is as we press into this fourth turning institutions that have failed to the point that they can't they've fallen and they can't get up.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	Thank you. We're
	Thank you.
	Making Sense.
	common again.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	By the way, Joel Skousen is going to be our guest today in the third hour.
	It's been a while since I've talked to Joel Skousen.
	It's always interesting to talk to him.
	And as I saw the fact that Russia is doing nuclear drills now, you know, the U.S. government never really does any civil defense drills.
	But of course, today we're going to have our emergency broadcasting system thing.
	Is that a coincidence that the U.S. is having their emergency broadcasting drill while Russia is having their nuclear drills?
	You know, they may have some shelters or something for people to go into, but since we don't have any shelters, I guess the best thing is to be able to test whether they can...
	Let us notice, give us notice that there's incoming after they have pushed us down this road for such a long time.
	That's perhaps more what this agenda is, if it's anything other than just a standard test, and I think it is.
	But we'll find out what Joel Skousen thinks about that.
	Again, that's going to be 2 o'clock today, the EBS system, which now many conservatives have made that stand for extraordinary BS, as in bovine excrement.
	So... And I think, again, that is a distraction from what is going on in terms of the bigger picture.
	I think it's a distraction from both the dangers of 5G and the dangers of the vaccine.
	They have added this goofy, stupid theory.
	You're not going to turn into a zombie apocalypse.
	It's not going to be an unleashing of the stuff today with this.
	They could do it at any time if that was a technology that they've injected into people.
	They don't need to make an announcement and do it today.
	And I think by putting that out there, they've done everybody a disservice.
	I've talked about the health issues of 5G. I've talked about the surveillance and control issues of 5G. I've talked certainly a great deal about the health issues of the vaccine.
	Many of the things we already know a great deal about.
	That doesn't mean that we know all of the health issues with the vaccine.
	And of course, with nanotech, You never really know what these people are doing.
	I've said many times, they're morally and technologically capable of anything.
	But let's talk a little bit about just general news.
	I had, for the love of the road, he was a trucker.
	He gave me some feedback on the trucker story that I talked about the other day, how the guy was just saying, well, that's it.
	I just can't handle the over-regulation from the federal government.
	I talked about that in depth because that's just one industry.
	This is not specifically just a problem with the trucking industry.
	It's a problem for everybody.
	And I've seen this my entire life.
	This metastasizing cancer of the federal government and the bureaucracy especially, destroying people's ability to live their lives and choose their profession.
	Start manufacturing stuff or whatever, even to be able to have a retail business.
	They've been told they're non-essential.
	Shut down. That was the thing that really made me angry.
	Me fighting mad when Trump said that.
	Leave these essential businesses like Walmart opening, because that had happened to me, and I told that story.
	I'm not going to get into it again. Once during a A tornado, not tornado, hurricane emergency.
	I lost power for several days and we were shut down.
	But when we got power up in one area, I went back there and the police came by and told us to shut our store down.
	I said, we got Walmart right across the street.
	You're going to tell them to shut down? No, they're essential.
	And so when Trump said, these small businesses have to shut down, I went into like PTSD. No, it still makes me mad.
	So anyway, for the love of the road, said the trucker story.
	I saw that on Friday.
	He says, I feel for the man.
	I started with Snyder in 05, washed out after my co-driver wanted to find a local job.
	I just wasn't ready to go solo.
	So my best friend, Mike, and I went to work for Warner.
	Warner, I think he says.
	Weimar. Weimar. It's a very small print when I print out the email.
	Sorry about that. After three months, we were supposed to get a sign-on bonus.
	Instead, they cut out back pay from splitting $0.32 a mile to $0.26 a mile.
	So we quit. And we each went to work for our own family's trucking company.
	His father-in-law had worked for my dad back in the 90s, so we both had good people to learn from.
	As for the story that I covered, the ELDs, that's the electronic logging devices...
	And the DPFs, that's a digital, is it particulate filter or something?
	Anyway, it's this troublesome thing that they have to change every 5,000 miles, and it's incredibly expensive, and it's causing trucks to break down the side of the road.
	He says, that's where I draw the line, is on those ELDs and DPFs.
	He said... I'll find a 9 to 5 before I drive a truck that's required to have that BS on it.
	Luckily, they gave me exemptions for the ELD. We had to swap out our 2005 engine for a 1995, which ended up being more fuel efficient.
	So I saved us money in the long run, and I'll live with HOS, which is hours of operation and a manual log, he said, and with speed limiters.
	I like to keep it at 60 miles an hour, about 1,200 RPMs for better fuel economy, and the hours of service.
	Our necessary pain as they protect rookies from being overworked.
	But he says loose leaf logs help to get the job done.
	That instead of some kind of a big brother electronic device.
	Let's talk a little bit about the bump stock thing.
	It's back in the news again. We've had another judge has upheld the federal bump stock ban.
	That's kind of interesting.
	There's been several court challenges.
	And for the most part, it is lost.
	The only place where it is won, and it's now won at the Fifth Circuit Court level, is a case by Michael Cargill.
	Remember Michael, Travis?
	Central Texas Gunworks.
	Good guy. Used to come on all the time at Infowars, but I imagine since he went to a war with Trump over the bump stock stuff, maybe he's persona non grata with Alex.
	I don't know if he's on there now anymore or not.
	But he's been part of a lawsuit to stop the...
	Bump stock, and his lawsuit has been successful, but others have not.
	A federal judge has upheld the Trump ban on bump stocks.
	And you know, it's interesting because this is an article from the Epoch Times, and they do not want to call it the Trump ban on bump stocks.
	They call it the ATFs ban.
	And they're more than willing to rewrite history In order to whitewash the involvement of Trump in all of this.
	Just like they're more than happy to rewrite history to whitewash Trump's involvement in the vaccine and the lockdowns and the masks and the Fauci presidency.
	You know, it's this Trump precedent of gun control by executive order.
	That is so important. And yet what they say as they talk about this, they say a U.S. district judge ruled on September the 29th that the prohibition on bump stocks that was imposed administratively.
	This is the way that the Epoch Times phrases it to keep it away from Trump.
	It was imposed administratively by the Bureau of Alcohol and Tobacco Firearms several years ago.
	Who was president then?
	Who was it then in a meeting that He bragged that he was going to impose that.
	And it really ticked me off when I saw the way the Epoch Times was dishonestly portraying this thing.
	Well, it was something that was done by the ATF. It was imposed administratively, and it was done several years ago.
	I don't know. Trump didn't have anything to do with that, did he?
	No, he was at the very center of that.
	As a matter of fact, remember, he had that little meeting.
	And he loved the fact he had all these senators in.
	He had Cornyn from Texas on his right-hand side, a Republican.
	And then on his left-hand side, he had Dianne Feinstein, who was nodding approvingly and smiling at everything that Trump was saying.
	He wanted to present himself as the great statesman who's going to unify both parties on this gun problem.
	And he was going to lead them to a solution that everybody was going to love.
	And we keep hearing this about all this stuff, right?
	I'll do that about abortion, he says, right?
	I'm going to come up with something that everybody loves.
	You're all going to love it. I know you're going to love this.
	It's going to be great. Because it's me.
	I'm doing this. Nobody could do this but me.
	I'm the great negotiator that couldn't make a profit running casinos, right?
	Maybe it was the people he hired, like it was the people he hired in the White House.
	I don't know. But, you know, he wants to present himself as a great unifier.
	He has no principles.
	His whole purpose of being in office is to promote Trump, which makes him very dangerous if he gets a second term, because he's going to be looking at how do, you know, so many people hate me.
	How do I make them love me?
	Well, I've got just the idea of how I can make people love me.
	So here's a short clip of how he summed up everything in that meeting, because it wasn't just imposed administratively several years ago.
	It was imposed by Trump.
	So if I could just sum up...
	Chris and John, Pat, Joe, maybe you could all get together.
	You'll start it from that standpoint.
	Other people, Diane, you have some very good ideas.
	We all have, I think, everybody.
	Marco, I know you have a lot. Fellas, if you could all get together, if we could put in...
	Yeah, Diane wants to ban all guns.
	Chuck, I think that...
	You're going to have an amazing result in the vote.
	The votes are hard to get in Congress.
	That's what's been happening. You're going to have an amazing result.
	People are going to be shocked to see the number.
	It's not going to be 60. It's going to be way above 60.
	It may be a number that nobody would even believe.
	People want to see something happen.
	We're going to have a bill. Steve, it's very hard to add.
	The one thing that you want, I mean, I will tell you.
	I'm a fan. It's still worth considering.
	Let's consider it for a separate bill.
	We'll consider it for a separate bill.
	But again, we also want things that can be approved.
	You have to look at the age of 21 for certain types of weapons.
	I mean, some people aren't going to like that, but you're going to have to look at that very seriously.
	And I think we're going to have a vote.
	I think it's going to be a very successful vote, and I will sign it.
	And I will call whoever you want me to, if I like what you're doing, and I think I like what you're doing already.
	But you can add to it.
	But you have to be very, very powerful on background checks.
	Don't be shy. Very strong on mentally ill.
	You have to be very, very strong on that.
	And don't worry about bump stock.
	We're getting rid of it. I mean, you don't have to complicate the bill by adding another two paragraphs.
	We're getting rid of it. I'll do that myself.
	Because I'm able to.
	Fortunately, we're able to do that.
	Fortunately, he's able to do that.
	You know, like when he had his deposition.
	He said, so you think that celebrities can grab women?
	Well, that's the way it's been for thousands of years.
	Fortunately or unfortunately, he said.
	Are you a celebrity? Well, yeah, I think I'm a celebrity.
	So he grabbed the guns.
	Let's grab, he's a gun grabber.
	He grabs other things, but he is definitely a gun grabber.
	And so, again, going back to this Epoch Times story, listen to this.
	Bump stocks were banned in 2019 when the Department of Justice, whose Department of Justice was that?
	I don't know who was in charge of the Department of Justice at that time.
	Does the Epoch Times know?
	Could it have been Trump in 2019 in charge of the Department of Justice?
	Well, no. Let's not put his name anywhere in this article.
	Nowhere in this article.
	When the Department of Justice amended regulations of the ATF, classifying bump stocks as equivalent to machine guns and making them illegal, The New Civil Liberties Alliance, in one of their cases, their litigation council, said this is a perfect example, unfortunately, of what we call the administrative state.
	Or we could call it the deep state.
	Because, you know, the deep state is under the presidential, the administrative branch, right?
	Under the president's administration.
	The administrative state, the bureaucratic state, the deep state, was all under Trump.
	And he made it worse.
	He not only let them do this, you heard him there saying, I'm going to do it.
	You don't worry about that. Fortunately, I can do whatever I want because I'm president.
	We don't have to put this in a bill.
	I'll take care of it.
	I'll take care of it. And so the lawyer for the new Civil Liberties Alliance said, what I mean by that is that with no intervening action from Congress, with no change in the law...
	The ATF has said that they know better than Congress.
	And the ATF is trying to rewrite the statute.
	But that's not their role.
	Well, see, the President, President Trump, said he knows better than Congress.
	And he's going to write his own law.
	And he knows better than the Constitution.
	And he doesn't care what the Constitution says, because the Constitution says, shall not infringe.
	Shall not infringe what?
	The right of the people.
	The rights of the people to keep and bear arms.
	Congress is supposed to write the laws, and the executive branch acting through the agencies are supposed to apply them.
	But instead... You see that that is not what President Trump decided he was going to do.
	He decided that he would write the law.
	Just like the Supreme Court is not supposed to write the law.
	But everybody says, oh, Roe v.
	Wade, the law of the land. Well, Roe v.
	Wade is a decision written by the Supreme Court.
	And so what you're saying when you say Roe v.
	Wade was the law of the land, and people said that for, you know, 50 years...
	And what they were saying was, the Supreme Court gets to write law now.
	Well, the presidency gets to write law.
	And I said, when he had that meeting, I said, you watch, the Democrats are going to jump on this with both feet.
	Dianne Feinstein was so happy, she was giggling in that meeting.
	And then immediately after that, Lala Harris, who was running for president at the time, Said, when I become president, I'm going to give Congress 100 days, and if they don't do what I tell them to, to ban guns, I'm going to do it by executive order.
	Where'd she get that idea? From President Trump.
	Believe me, I know why the Epoch Times is refusing to put anything at all about the Trump administration in here.
	I know. You will be politically homeless if you're a conservative, a constitutionalist, a libertarian.
	If you attack Trump, you will be politically homeless.
	You might become financially homeless as well.
	But it certainly is your ticket to fame and fortune to suck up to that guy.
	As a matter of fact, in this article, pull it up, Travis.
	The one picture that they put up in this Epoch Times article is Dianne Feinstein, Pointing a picture at a gun.
	You know, got to get rid of this.
	Now, you know, Feinstein was right there, sitting right beside Trump, nodding the entire time.
	But they're not going to show you Trump and Feinstein at the table.
	An honest reporting would.
	And I talk about this not because I've got some vendetta at the Epoch Times.
	Look, I generally agree with what they put out there.
	But, you know, we got to stop...
	This cheerleading of parties.
	Yeah, New Gingrich.
	Well, Matt Gaetz.
	Let's forget about how Congress should work.
	He came against the Republican Party.
	We need to kick him out, and I don't care what the voters said about that.
	We've got to get past party.
	We've got to get past personality.
	And we have to look at what these people actually do.
	As a matter of fact, Jason Barker, thank you for the tip on Rockfin.
	He says, I think most people know that 9-11 was a false flag by now.
	It dragged us into 20 years of war, but people still trust the government.
	How do we wake them up?
	Well, I wish I had the magic formula, Jason.
	You know, what you're doing there with Knights of the Storm is very important.
	We can just speak the truth and speak it as loudly as possible.
	We can point out, so you're telling me that three buildings fell into their footprint like a controlled demolition.
	Steel reinforced after just a couple of hours, even though only two of them, only two of them were hit by planes.
	Two planes, three buildings collapsed into their footprint.
	Nothing to see there.
	We can try to tell people that, but the key thing is that it's a lot easier to fool people Than it is to convince them that they've been fooled.
	People who have bought into this have a reason to continue on with this.
	And also because what I've seen when people tell me, you know, when I say, well, look at Trump, you know, he did this and this and this and they'll get very defensive of Trump.
	Well, then who do you like, you know?
	And there's a desperation there.
	But wait a minute. You know, he's going to fix things for us, isn't he?
	I mean, is there somebody else?
	You know, part of it is anger.
	But part of it is fear and desperation that I've put all my hope on the right person getting elected president.
	And I don't really know what to do.
	And I think that's one of the biggest things that makes people reluctant to connect the dots.
	You know, it's the thing that lets them continue on with this double think of 2 plus 2 equals 5.
	Because if you say that the presidency cannot and should not be able to fix this stuff by itself, You know, the fact is the government has gotten too big.
	The best thing the president could do would be to shut down things and to fire people.
	But they're not going to do that.
	And we've gone way past that point.
	Even when you see the discussions, as Ramaswamy was talking about that, everybody getting, you know, up in arms about that.
	No, you can't do that. You can't fire anybody as president.
	And it's like, well, how did we get into this?
	You know, there were some executive orders that were put in place.
	By some previous presidents that could block the firing of people underneath him.
	But if you're president and you can't fire the people who work for you, and of course, it's not really that.
	They don't even want to do it.
	Just like Trump did not want to have a conflict.
	He did not want to get rid of the executive order that Obama had put in, called DACA. He wanted to pretend that that wasn't within his power.
	And so he asked the court to rule on it.
	We see that with DeSantis when he says, well, you know, we need to, you know, I know that these vaccines are pretty dangerous, especially for young people who don't have any risk at all of this so-called pandemic.
	But maybe we ought to have the Supreme Court of Florida Run some kind of a grand jury investigation about the vaccines or something.
	It's like, you do it. You're the executive.
	So all these people, Congress is looking for a way to pass the buck over to the administrative state.
	And the administrative state and the president are looking for a way to pass the buck over to the Supreme Court.
	Always want to pass it to somebody that doesn't have to stand for election.
	But the general voters...
	Are the ones who are the biggest sissies out of this.
	Let's just put it that way. They don't want to take responsibility for their lives.
	You know, most of us are trying to pass this stuff off to a president who's going to fix everything.
	In the same way that, you know, Congress sends it over to the bureaucracy and the president's bureaucracy and his bureaucracy send it over to the Supreme Court.
	We say, let's let the presidency fix it.
	We don't want to try to get this fixed locally or at the state level.
	We don't want to do anything to fix it ourselves.
	Let's let the president fix everything.
	So several bump stock owners have been challenging this ban.
	A common argument has been, and this is such a ridiculous argument, I'm actually kind of glad that it lost, that the ATF promulgated the rule in violation of the Administrative Protection Act.
	And so...
	The idea of that is that, you know, you have to, if it's something major policy or something, you got to get the approval of Congress to do that.
	Look, it should not be the default case.
	That the bureaucracy gets to do whatever it wants to, except in a few places like this.
	You've got to publish the rules, and you've got to do this and that.
	Of course, when they publish the fact that they're going to change the rules, they don't have to listen to feedback from anybody.
	It's just, oh, you've got to go through this period of time to publish the rules.
	It slows them down, but it doesn't stop them.
	They still do whatever they wish.
	And so one of these attorneys said, this is a case about who gets to write the law.
	Is the law going to be written by Trump?
	By Biden?
	By any president? Is it going to be written by the swamp?
	By the regulators. Are we going to have regulation without representation?
	In a series of decisions, the U.S. Court of Appeals has rejected this APA-based challenge to the rule.
	The Sixth Circuit Court was evenly split, leading to a district court upholding the ban.
	The U.S. Supreme Court then declined to review these three cases.
	However, the Fifth Circuit Court in this case is being brought by Michael Cargill, ruled in January 2023 that the rule violates the APA that an act of Congress is required to ban bump stocks.
	This is brought by Cargill.
	Cargill is correct.
	He said a plain reading of the statutory language paired by close consideration of the mechanics of a semi-automatic firearm reveals that a bump stock is excluded from the technical definition of machine gun that was set forth.
	And so the Fifth Circuit Court ruled that semi-automatic weapons fitted with bump stocks don't fall under the definition of a machine gun because one pull of the trigger corresponds to the firing of a single bullet.
	This is what the U.S. Circuit Judge Jennifer Eldrod wrote.
	She said, without a bump stock or the use of an alternative bump technique, that could be like tying it to your belt.
	The user must provide manual input by pulling the trigger with the muscles of his trigger finger.
	With a bump stock, the shooter need not pull and release his trigger finger, but the shooter must still apply forward pressure to the weapon's forebody in order to maintain the shooting mechanism.
	Again, the manual input remains, even though the form of it changes, she wrote.
	But even that misses the point.
	This is about not infringing our right to keep and bear arms.
	The bureaucracy in the Congress are on full auto.
	They're the ones who are on full auto.
	And Trump was the one who gave them a big bump in power with his power grab.
	In April of 2023, the Department of Justice petitioned the Supreme Court to hear its appeal of the Fifth Circuit's ruling in favor of Mr.
	Cargill That halted the bump stock.
	And so, you know, the case is now pending before the Supreme Court.
	But just a reminder, you know, quick recap of this.
	It was Trump's bump stock ban, bragging about how he had fortunately the power to do whatever he wanted to destroy the Second Amendment.
	Very strong on mentally ill.
	You have to be very, very strong on that.
	And don't worry about bump stock.
	We're getting rid of it. I mean, you don't have to complicate the bill by adding another two paragraphs.
	We're getting rid of it. I'll do that myself.
	Because I'm able to.
	Fortunately, we're able to do that without going through Congress.
	Yeah, so I can do that myself.
	I don't have to pay any attention to Congress.
	I don't have to pay any attention to the Constitution or any of that stuff, right?
	How does Trump like it when somebody in power unilaterally decides...
	What that judge will do, regardless of the law.
	That's what's happening to him right now in New York with that judge.
	And I gotta say, I got a certain schadefreude about that.
	Dark joy to see him get a taste of his own medicine.
	His own dictatorial lawlessness.
	He's now on the receiving end of this New York judge who's taking Trump's property.
	It's take the buildings, take the business, do the due process later.
	Maybe, right? That was another thing that Trump said in that meeting.
	Yeah, you know, the mentally ill, you've got to be really tough on the mentally ill, and we've got to just take the turns and do the process later.
	So now this judge is, you know, even before he found Trump guilty, he took away his control over these different businesses and things like that.
	Because, you know, who cares what the law says?
	Here's what this judge said, and he said, look, I'm...
	I know I'm on camera here, but I'm going to say this.
	I can basically, you know, and he goes on to explain how he can basically do whatever he wishes.
	And he can come up with any kind of lie or prevarication to do whatever he wishes.
	This is the judge that now Trump has got.
	You know, it's kind of interesting.
	Hindus call it karma.
	Christians call it God's justice.
	And sometimes it's God's mercy, you know, while we're still alive in order for us to get a taste of our own medicine.
	Sometimes it's God's mercy to punish us at the time we still have an opportunity to change our lives, to ask for forgiveness and to turn around.
	I don't know if that's what's going to happen with Trump.
	It doesn't seem to be any sign of it because now the same judge has now put a gag order on Trump.
	But here's what this judge was talking about, how he gets to do whatever he wishes.
	Now, I'm going to say something controversial.
	Even though I'm being taped, juries get it wrong a lot.
	That's my own opinion.
	I do only civil trials, personal injury cases, contract disputes.
	But I've had situations where, like, oh, my heaven's sake, how could they have thought that?
	Well, I have a tool that I can deal with.
	It's called judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
	I can say there is no possible way that a reasonable jury would have reached that conclusion.
	Am I following the law or am I making law?
	Okay, I'm following law, I'm an impartial referee, but it's hard to factor out my own emotions.
	And I have tools.
	Somebody can say, well, Your Honor, you have to throw out this case because it's just like another case.
	Well, is it just like another case?
	What if the defendant was wearing a red sweater instead of a blue sweater?
	By the way, I worked for the Columbia Daily Spectator for a couple of weeks.
	What happened was I went there every day and I wrote a few stories.
	One I got criticized on because I wrote that some Ku Klux Klaners had murdered some people and I was told, you can't say that.
	How do we know? You weren't there.
	Well, that was what everybody thought.
	Yeah, we should have absolute immunity.
	What if we defame somebody?
	That's how it usually comes up.
	You know, you call somebody a murderer or a heroin addict, that sort of thing, a pedophile.
	And if it's done in court, yeah, I think we should have absolute immunity.
	I can do whatever I want.
	I can accuse people.
	I can label them as anything I want.
	But of course, you know, now that Trump has labeled him, Trump's got a gag order.
	And he violates that. He goes to jail for, what, 30 days or something like that.
	But yeah, this guy says, you know, hey, jury nullification?
	Juries get it wrong all the time.
	I'll nullify the jury.
	That's what he's basically saying.
	I'll nullify the jury.
	I'll say, no reasonable jury would have decided that because I know better than the jury does.
	They don't know anything. I know everything.
	And he says, just like Trump, fortunately, just like Trump, fortunately, I have the tools to do whatever I wish.
	You see, when you embrace this idea of That we're going to be ruled by men rather than by law.
	Then you wind up with people like Trump and this judge over Trump right now.
	You wind up with a situation where they say, well, we can take anything away from you that we wish.
	Let's take a look at civil asset forfeiture, for example.
	It's gone rampant.
	It's gone global.
	we've been confiscating people's stuff and doing the due process later, if at all, for the longest time.
	As a matter of fact, there's civil asset forfeiture.
	And this goes back to the Reagan administration working together with Joe Biden because Joe Biden hates the law.
	He hates natural rights.
	He hates the Constitution.
	He hates the Bill of Rights.
	He hates due process.
	So it's like, we're not going to do the due process, just like Trump.
	We'll take your property.
	We don't have to charge you with a crime, and we don't have to find you guilty.
	We should take your property at the very beginning.
	And that's exactly what Trump was talking about with the red flag laws.
	The Europeans are doing this.
	Anybody who drives into Europe now with a car that has Russian plates, Russian registration, the European police, the EU police just confiscate the car immediately.
	It's just amazing how our government, and this is the way that they're going to just confiscate whatever they wish from us in the future.
	You look at this and say, well, you know, let's imagine, says World Economic Forum, a future where you own nothing.
	Well, how do they do that?
	Well, they just sent out their hired thugs in uniforms with badges to take everything from you without any due process at all.
	That's what's so dangerous about taking the guns with no due process.
	That's what's dangerous about the civil judge Taking the business of Trump without any due process.
	But if anybody deserves it, that SOB does.
	He deserves what he put out there.
	Trump is getting a taste of his own medicine.
	I have the power. I have the tools.
	And so, real quickly, I've got some other things I want to talk about here, and I'm starting to run out of time before Joel gets on.
	Hunter is reported to be relying...
	On the Second Amendment case that came out of the Supreme Court, the Bruin decision that Biden hates so much and all the gun controllers hate so much, that is looking like it's going to be a key line of defense for Hunter Biden in these charges.
	And they said that the crux of Biden's defense is expected to revolve around his assertion that the federal law prohibiting gun ownership by illegal drug users lacks historical precedent.
	And infringes on his Second Amendment protected right to keep and bear arms, as outlined in the Constitution and as supported by the Bruin decision.
	Legal experts suggest that he will argue for the dismission of the possession charge on these grounds.
	Hunter Biden's legal team is correct in their opinion of the matter.
	The issue, says the New American, the issue of whether Hunter should own a weapon or not, It's not up to the president.
	See, that takes us back to Trump and his Dianne Feinstein meeting and party.
	That's not up to you, President Trump.
	It's not up to you. You don't have the power, fortunately or unfortunately, to grab our guns.
	It's not up to the president.
	It's not up to the ATF. Is that up to you or me?
	Owning a weapon is a God-given right.
	That is protected explicitly by the supreme law of the land, the Constitution, that all these people swore to uphold.
	And so the interesting thing is, as I pointed out the other day, they don't talk about it in this New American article.
	I think it was Reason that talked about it.
	They said this same idea that they can ban Hunter because he is a drug user from owning guns is the same thing that there was this big kerfuffle about at the end of the week when Trump...
	Went to South Carolina.
	He saw a gun that had his face on it at the gun show.
	He's like, oh, I want to buy that.
	And then his, you know, he's kind of awkward with it.
	He doesn't want to talk. So his spokesperson said, oh, yeah, he really did buy it.
	He's a Second Amendment guy.
	He bought that gun. And people said, well, you know, he's been indicted for a felony.
	And so he's not allowed to buy a gun.
	Notice that he's been indicted.
	He hasn't been convicted, right?
	And so again, so this guy over here is a drug user and Trump has been indicted.
	Should we ban people for that type of thing?
	Where is the authority to do that?
	Regulations are not laws.
	Therefore, Hunter Biden, at least in his ownership of a firearm, while apparently addicted to crack, did not break the law.
	He violated a violation of the law, a usurpation of the law.
	A government bureaucratic regulation that is not the law.
	And this is important because this applies to everything that Trump did to us then in 2020.
	In 2019, he decides that he's going to violate the law.
	He's going to have regulators go out there and violate the law, violate the Constitution, and ban bump stocks.
	And then within a year, he's telling all of us, well, we've got these regulations out there by unelected bureaucrats at every level, federal, state, and local, and you better obey them.
	And we're bribing them and giving them money to give you orders.
	Well, it was all usurpation.
	So, again, the irony of all this is that Biden's drug addict son...
	Might actually strengthen the resistance to this regulatory state, the unconstitutional control that's being exercised by them.
	While the possession charge, however, may be dismissed, Hunter Biden still faces two counts related to providing false information on the background check form.
	Other experts believe that these counts may be more challenging to dispute We're good to go.
	This is interesting because as we've talked about many times, you know, a perfect example of this is Martha Stewart, who was being interviewed because they suspected that she might be involved in insider trading.
	Turns out she wasn't. I don't think they even charged her.
	They certainly didn't get a conviction of that.
	But what they did do was they sent her to jail for lying to the FBI as they were questioning her about insider trading.
	They didn't send her to jail for insider trading.
	They sent her to jail for, they said, lying to the FBI. That's part of their investigation.
	And so there's two separate issues here.
	One of them would be whether or not the ATF, a regulatory agency, has the ability to ban guns to people because they're a drug addict or because they are an indicted felon.
	And then the other issue would be whether or not he lied.
	Now, he obviously lied.
	But I don't know.
	That is actually one of the charges against him.
	If the charges against him are simply the fact that he bought the gun illegally according to the bureaucratic regulations, Then he could beat this rap and he could set a new precedent to enforce our rights, interestingly enough.
	Hunter Biden, who would have thought Hunter Biden would be a champion of our rights, inadvertently?
	How's that for irony?
	But, you know, we'll have to wait and see.
	In this context, the Fifth Circuit has already invoked the Bruin ruling to argue that banned individuals under restraining orders from owning firearms goes against an historical precedent.
	Describing the regulation as an outlier that our ancestors would never have accepted.
	Yeah, I kind of think I know what would have been done by Jim Bowie and Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson if he would have told them that kind of stuff.
	By the way, Henry Quail, our Democrat from Texas, got hijacked, hijacked, carjacked.
	He got his car stolen in D.C., He said, three guys came up to me.
	He said, I've got a black belt in karate, so you have to think what to do.
	He said, the guy on the right had a gun, and the guy on the left had a gun, and there was a guy behind me.
	So I gave him the keys and took off, and they took off.
	You've got to know when to hold him and when to walk away.
	You've got to know when to hold those car keys and you've got to know when to walk away.
	If he's just got a black belt in karate, just one guy with a gun might have been something that he might want to think about.
	Karen Used to be a district personnel manager in Houston of convenience stores.
	And there's like three dozen convenience stores underneath her.
	She did the hiring for that and stuff.
	And there was one guy who was, I don't know if it was a district or whatever.
	There was one guy who had a district.
	I think she had several districts.
	Because one guy who was a district manager that was underneath her was an Asian guy.
	And he was a martial arts expert.
	And he used to love to show off and he would, you know, throw a sidekick and get it real close to somebody's face before they could even know what was happening and everything.
	He's doing that kind of stuff all the time.
	Tough guy. Big guy.
	Very strong. Really, you know, massive.
	It wasn't tall, but he was really, really massive.
	And so he was in a convenience store one day.
	I don't know if there's a supervisory aspect.
	It was getting robbed. Person at gunpoint.
	And he decided that he could take this guy out, just one guy with a gun.
	And he got killed doing that.
	So I think Quaylar made the right decision.
	But the interesting thing is how we're seeing this massive explosion of people on the left, people who don't like guns, like the Democrats, and people who think that crime is not really an issue.
	We've had at least three of these things happen just within the last week, the most recent one being...
	A guy who described himself as the COO of Antifa, the Chief Operating Officer of Antifa is how he described himself.
	Stabbed to death by a black man in Brooklyn.
	So he decided, if you look at the tape, they've edited out the part where they actually have the stabbing.
	But you can see the argument if you look at the tape.
	And then the next thing they show is this blurred out body on the ground.
	But he thought that he could lecture this guy.
	He thought he could reason with him because he's a leftist.
	You don't want to carry a gun.
	You don't want to pull out a gun and take this guy out or whatever else.
	But he just thought he could reason with him.
	He's waiting for a bus in Brooklyn.
	I guess in retrospect, even though he's a hardcore leftist, he should have had a car, maybe a gun.
	Who knows? But, you know, he's telling the guy, chill, chill.
	It's okay, chill out. Let me help you.
	I know you're just misunderstood.
	And the guy's like, what are you looking at?
	And then he stabs him twice in the chest as he's doing this.
	So he described himself as the chief operating officer of Antifa, touted his close friendship with Chuck Schumer.
	And of course, it's just one of at least three of these things that have happened.
	The leftist reporter who was shot dead in Philadelphia after mocking concerns about violent crime.
	You had in his own apartment.
	And then you had, of course, the lady who was a tech CEO. Very left-wing, very diversity, inclusivity, equity, all that.
	She was murdered in her Baltimore apartment by a guy.
	I don't know if he raped her, but she was beaten to death violently.
	Yeah, this is amazing that we're now seeing this really escalate.
	We're going to take a quick break.
	I just want to say that this proves that some of these leftists are every bit as dumb as you think they are.
	They are not just cynically repeating lines.
	He literally believed he could reason with this person and that, oh, he's just a misunderstood Aladdin type.
	If I just explain to him that I'm on his side, everything will be fine.
	Yeah. No. No.
	That's right. He's going to kill you.
	And that's the problem that we have, isn't it, as conservatives?
	You know, we think if we just get this Republican in, you know, we're going to get this.
	A reasonable person would not do that type of thing.
	And so I know that our own government would never do that type of thing to us.
	Our own government is as dangerous as these homeless people.
	Like Sam Gamgee, we need to realize we're not in reasonable places.
	That's right. That's right.
	Good point.
	We'll be right back.
	Good point.
	It's your move. .
	And now, The David Knight Show.
	This is a story that has been around for about a week, and I've been meaning to get to it every day, but I haven't talked about it.
	This is the UK dropping charges against a woman who was arrested for praying silently.
	I've played that clip for you in the past.
	In an abortion buffer zone.
	She's just standing there doing nothing.
	Has no sign. Doing nothing.
	Not talking to anybody. Cop goes up and interrogates her.
	Are you praying? Oh, in my mind, yes.
	You're under arrest, you know, that type of thing.
	So, she was defended by the Alliance Defending Freedom UK. This is an American organization, the Alliance Defending Freedom.
	First time I saw anything about them goes back to 2012 where they were fighting the IRS's regulation.
	Saying that churches could not talk about politics.
	And of course, that only applied to conservative politics.
	That only applied to people who were saying, don't vote for Joe.
	He's not pro-life.
	Vote for this other person over there.
	Not allowed to say that.
	Well, all that time, you had all the Democrats going to churches all the time, typically black churches.
	Oh, that was just fine. But you must not talk about that.
	That was something that was put in, by the way.
	When we're talking about the regulatory state, it's been around a very long time.
	Going back to the 1950s when LBJ was still a congressman, he got opposition from some churches, and so he wanted to put a gag order on them.
	And so as a congressman, he went to the IRS, and they called it the Johnson Amendment.
	It was not an amendment. It wasn't an amendment to the Constitution.
	That's the way people understood it.
	Oh, they amended the Constitution so that we don't have the right of free speech in a church building anymore?
	No, it was an amended rule.
	And this whole thing about an out-of-control regulatory state, of course, that all began with the IRS. It used to be uniquely the IRS. Now all of the bureaucracy operates that way.
	But they would write the rules.
	They would take away the presumption of innocence.
	They would have their own court where they try you, and, you know, you have to prove that you're innocent, that type of thing.
	And so they put in an amendment saying you can't talk about this.
	Well, the Alliance Defending Freedom organized a protest of this.
	They got a few brave pastors who not only specifically talked about candidates in the election, but taped it and sent it to the IRS and said, do something about it.
	The IRS ignored it. So then, next year, they had more.
	Maybe they had a dozen or something.
	Every year, it was building exponentially.
	They kept sending more and more of these things to the IRS. The IRS did not want to touch it with a 10-foot pole, just like Jeff Sessions did not want to touch the nullification of marijuana prohibition done by over half of the states because he knew that he was on the wrong side of the Constitution.
	And one of the things these people do...
	Is to rule us by bluffing.
	They love to bluff us.
	And they don't want to have that bluff called when it comes to this type of stuff.
	So the ADF has done great work in the US. They were there in the UK as well.
	And the person who did this...
	Who's arrested Isabel Vaughn Spruce.
	She's now gotten an apology from the police department for the six months that the investigation took to reach a conclusion.
	She was under severe stress during all of that time.
	As a matter of fact, this is what it looks like as they arrested her initially.
	What are you here for today? Physically, I'm just standing here.
	Why here or in places?
	I know you don't live nearby.
	This is an abortion something.
	Okay, that's why I just...
	Are you standing to be part of the protest?
	No. I'm not protesting.
	Are you praying? I might be praying in my head.
	So I'll ask you once more, will you voluntarily come with us now to the police station for me to ask you some questions about today and other days where there are allegations that you've broken public spaces of protection?
	If I've got a choice, then no.
	OK, well then you're under arrest against suspicion of failing to comply with the public spaces of protection order, which is in the Antisocial Behaviour Commons BCF 2014.
	Now, of course, again, you do not have to say anything.
	It may harm your defence.
	If you do not mention one question, something which you later on...
	Of course, you don't have to say anything.
	We're already going to arrest you for what you're thinking.
	One person put up on that video.
	Did his badge say, thought, police?
	Well, that's what he was hired to do, and he's just following orders, even though they're the wrong orders.
	That's not an excuse.
	Anyway, the police's decision to not prosecute came after the UK Home Secretary.
	It's like their Homeland Security.
	Suella Braverman published an open letter directing police departments across the country to avoid politicized policing.
	Braverman's letter directly spelled out that, quote, silent prayer within itself is not unlawful, unquote, and holding lawful opinions is Even if those opinions may offend others, it's not a criminal offense.
	She's not the only one who did that.
	Who got arrested for praying silently.
	Adam Smith Conner.
	Also was arrested for praying silently at an abortion clinic.
	So, Lord Jesus, please speak through me clearly today.
	Fill me with your holy wisdom of truth and love.
	In the name of Father, Son, Holy Spirit, Amen.
	I want to thank everyone who's come here today to support, and thank you for your prayers in the court today.
	That was really, really important.
	We are standing in the nation of the Magna Carta, the nation which has championed democracy and freedom.
	We have a history of upholding human rights that we can be proud of and a respect for freedom That I fought to uphold when I served this country for 20 years as an army reservist and Afghanistan veteran.
	Yet here I stand before you on the steps of Paul Magistrates Court being prosecuted for a thought crime.
	The facts of my case are clear.
	I am accused of breaching an abortion clinic buffer zone for praying for my son Jacob and other victims of abortion, for their families and the abortion clinic staff on Ophir Road in Bournemouth.
	I did not approach anyone.
	I did not speak to anyone.
	I did not breach anybody's privacy.
	I simply stood silently.
	I am being tried for the prayerful thoughts I held in my head.
	Let me state clearly that I absolutely condemn the harassment or intimidation of anyone, anywhere, especially vulnerable pregnant girls and women on what is likely to be one of the worst days of their lives outside of an abortion facility.
	I've been praying and offering charitable support to families outside of abortion clinics since 2019.
	And if I ever saw a woman or family being harassed, I would be the first to intervene and call the authorities.
	Buffer zones which have been introduced through PSPOs and are soon to be rolled out across the UK are wildly disproportionate.
	Banning not only harassment, but prayer and charitable help and support to people that may wish to receive it.
	And now I'm being prosecuted for my silent prayer.
	Okay, and the lady who went through this six-month ordeal, her legal counsel, said the arduous process of this criminal ordeal has been punishment for Isabel.
	Moreover, her story has put the world on notice that fundamental freedoms are vulnerable in the UK. She had this to say, she said, Investigation,
	potential prosecution, if caught exercising their basic freedom of thought.
	Of thought. You see, the UK used to brag about things like trial by jury and free speech and all the rest of the stuff.
	They celebrated at Speaker's Corner, but now it's gotten to the point where you don't get to stand on a soapbox and say whatever you want and have the police protect you.
	The police will arrest you if they don't like what you say.
	The police will arrest you if they don't like what you are silently thinking.
	Now, temporarily this has been removed.
	A CBN News, as CBN News reported, Canadian Broadcasting, sorry, Christian Broadcasting News, she was also arrested a second time.
	For silently praying in an abortion buffer zone.
	And, you know, she'd already been acquitted in a previous thing.
	This other one that lasted for six weeks after that came after she'd been acquitted.
	She went out and did it again.
	She's not going to stop.
	As a matter of fact, she had this to say.
	When I told the police officer that I disagreed, that my prayers were offensive, he became more empathetic.
	Your prayers are an offence, he told me.
	I'll tell you what's offensive here.
	Abortion pills being sent out to women and teenage girls through the post without a doctor so much as speaking to them, let alone seeing them.
	And what is offensive is women in late-term pregnancy being able to phone abortion providers who require no scans or face-to-face consultations because they accept the say-so of every desperate and distraught woman who phones them.
	And of course, if the baby is far enough along, that could be a real threat to their health.
	This is not about women's health.
	But part of this, the way that they're rolling this through is the fact that everybody is afraid to speak the truth.
	Even the women that they claim that they love, that they want to support, they're willing to sacrifice their lives to uphold the principle of unrestrained abortion.
	And is the church really any better?
	You know, we have both the Pope and we have Protestant megachurch leaders like Andy Stanley.
	They're out there saying, you know, we have to be compassionate.
	And I really liked this op-ed piece from LifeSite News.
	A former homosexual says, does Pope Francis believe that he is more compassionate than Christ?
	I thought, that is the essence of this, isn't it?
	You have people like Andy Stanley out there saying, you know, biblical Christianity is just not compassionate.
	We're going to do it this way.
	We're going to tell people, don't worry about what you do.
	No guilt. You know, God doesn't define what you do.
	God doesn't have anything to offer you.
	Forget about, you know, who am I to judge, essentially.
	And this is the way this is operated.
	Pope Francis. Says this person, he believes that he's more compassionate than Christ regarding homosexuality and the need to live chaste lives.
	He said the Pope is abandoning the world's same-sex attracted, leaving us adrift in the world, caught in a web of pride, masterfully spun by the father of lies.
	I used to say for a long time before Trump was really, you know, Trump had his own program, and he was pretty famous for throwing his wives under the bus and that type of stuff.
	But I didn't really pay any attention to him.
	I never watched Apprentice.
	I never cared about any of that stuff.
	And I used to say, as all this pride stuff was starting, I said, you know, what is this about this?
	Why would you be proud of this particular sin?
	Don't they realize that pride itself is a sin?
	And why are they holding parades about their private lives and their sexual practices, and they're proud of their sins?
	I said, do you see parades out there for people who are adulterers?
	Of course, I could get you into a very messy divorce case, as some people have found out.
	But, you know, even if you are, you know, past your divorce...
	It's no longer an issue. You're going to now hold a parade about how you are an adulterer and proud of it.
	I said, you know, you don't see this anywhere except in the LGBT stuff.
	That's what this guy is saying. He said, you know, the Pope is abandoning same-sex attractive people.
	But then, of course, we had Trump, who is proud of his adultery.
	Very proud of it. You know, that's the key issue.
	We have... And it really is a reflection of where we are as a society that we've now moved past the point of shame about any of these things.
	And people can now be free to be proud of their sin.
	Now that's not a compassionate position to take if you believe in God, and if you believe that God has spoken to us.
	Because that puts people in the way of God's wrath, not on the path to His mercy.
	While you're alive, God is abounding in mercy.
	If you repent and turn to Him and ask for forgiveness, that's why He sent His Son to die for us.
	But it's not a cheap grace.
	And it is not something that He then puts you in a very difficult position where He doesn't give you any ability or assistance to change.
	The Holy Spirit gives you An ability to change your life as well, if you truly are seeking God.
	And so you're not abandoned to this.
	The Pope is not being compassionate.
	Andy Stanley is not being compassionate by saying, that just doesn't matter.
	They are sending people on the path to hell.
	Based on the book that they say they're following, even though they have both essentially denied it.
	You have Andy Stanley saying, well, at first they began by saying, we don't need the Old Testament anymore.
	Let's not worry about that.
	And now he's rejected the New Testament as well.
	But this person who says, I have same-sex attraction...
	But they're sending people like me, putting me at the mercy of the pride movement, a web of lies.
	He said instead of truth presented along with Christ's compassion, Pope Francis presents a human compassion that is tinged with ambiguity, which obscures the truth, which is never ambiguous.
	And a clear path forward out of the world and toward Christ, concealing the truth rather than revealing it.
	Cardinal Robert Serra, one of five authors of something called Dubia, but he warned a few years ago that we cannot be more compassionate or merciful than Jesus.
	And he wrote a book, The Day is Now Far Spent.
	He said... If you look at the spiritual, moral, and political collapse of the West, he paid particular attention to how the church cares for those who experience same-sex attraction and gender dysphoria.
	He had harsh words for clergy who depart from the church's clear sexual teachings and instead promote ambiguity.
	And it is amazing to me that you see the exact same path Happening in megachurches now that is happening in the megachurch of the Roman Catholics.
	You have the leadership there has realized that, hey, we can get more people coming if we follow the culture and we adopt whatever there is.
	So how can we make this all fit?
	Well, we'll just say that there is a lot of ambiguity here.
	And, you know, Jesus didn't, you know, draw lines for us as Andy Stanley likes.
	He made circles. He made circles.
	So that's what I guess he was drawing on the sand.
	Circles. To be inclusive of everybody.
	To not exclude anybody.
	Well, he does exclude a lot of practices.
	Jean Lloyd, a former lesbian, PhD, now happily married, mother of two, said to her fellow Christians, May I make two requests?
	Continue to love me, but remember that you cannot be more merciful than God.
	It isn't mercy to affirm same sex acts as good.
	Practice compassion according to the root meaning of compassion.
	Suffer with me. Don't compromise truth.
	Help me to live in harmony with it.
	I'm asking you to help me take up my cross and follow Jesus.
	And that is true of anything.
	We all have different areas that are more tempting to us.
	It could be sex. It could be heterosexual sex, homosexual sex.
	It could be money. That's a big one.
	Our obsession with money, our love of money, the root of all evil.
	It could be all these different drugs, whatever it is, the pride that we are, things that God condemns.
	That's one of the reasons why he puts us together in churches where we're supposed to get together physically with people so that we can help each other struggling with these things.
	It is a struggle. We all have different struggles.
	But Christ has paid the penalty for how we have fallen and how we have failed and how we will continue to fail.
	But he's also given us the ability and he's given us other people in community to help us with that.
	But this is where we are now in our society.
	God's word is abandoned.
	As I pointed out, when the faith of the clergy grows weak, something like an eclipse takes place in the world, and we're plunged into dark shadows.
	And so you've got the response from some of these Catholics to say, you know, well, pray for the conversion of Pope Francis.
	Because we know that the Pope is not Catholic.
	You know, that's the rhetorical question.
	No, he's actually, it's not a rhetorical question anymore.
	The Pope is actually not Catholic.
	And Andy Stanley...
	I would say has left Christ and the church as well.
	He had this, again, I've talked about this.
	You notice that he called his conference the unconditional conference.
	Well, God does leave conditions for us.
	But what he was saying in the unconditional conference, he's saying, we have unconditional love for you.
	No, you don't. God does.
	What he's saying is, I am more compassionate than Jesus.
	I am more compassionate than God.
	We are unconditional here at this church.
	He said the version of biblical Christianity is why people are leaving Christianity unnecessarily.
	So Andy Stanley is there to sell you an unbiblical version of Christianity that we can all just feel good about.
	Just an unconditional version of that.
	Well, that's not the way to God.
	That's the way to hell. And it is also not the way to a happy life.
	Here's an example, positive example.
	A couple with the longest-running marriage in the state of Arkansas has simple advice for a successful marriage.
	They said, get you a Bible.
	These two of them are very old, and they have been blessed with good health to live that long.
	They've been blessed with good mental health.
	He is 102, and his wife is 98.
	They got married in 1939, so they've been married for 84 years.
	I don't even know what kind of an anniversary that is.
	You know, from paper to silver to gold and diamond.
	Anyway, they said...
	Just pray. Know how to get on your knees.
	Get a Bible, because the Bible's going to have to take you through all kinds of storms, they said.
	That's the advice that America needs.
	This is a family.
	They've got tons of children, and they've been able to go through difficult times, and the thing that has got them through is a rock.
	A rock that is established, not some kind of wishy-washy church leader like Andy Stanley or the Pope who says, well, you know, we're more compassionate than Jesus.
	But is our guest ready?
	Okay, Joel Skousen is ready to join us.
	So we're going to take a quick break, and we'll be right back.
	And we have a lot of things to talk about with Joel.
	It's been a while since we've talked.
	We'll be right back. Music The common man.
	They created common core to dumb down our children.
	They created common past to track and control us.
	Their commons project to make sure the commoners own nothing.
	And the communist future.
	They see the common man as simple, unsophisticated, ordinary.
	But each of us has worth and dignity created in the image of God.
	That is what we have in common.
	That is what they want to take away.
	Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation.
	They desire to know everything about us while they hide everything from us.
	It's time to turn that around and expose what they want to hide.
	Please share the information and links you'll find at TheDavidNightShow.com Thank you for listening.
	Thank you for listening.
	Thank you for sharing.
	Thank you for listening.
	Alright, welcome back and joining us now is Joel Skousen.
	Always great to talk to Joel.
	I like his, he's got a very original take on things and he can back them up with...
	Of course, you'll find his newsletter and get a sample of that, I think, at worldaffairsbrief.com.
	He's got a lot of books to tell you where to select a strategic location to live in the United States, which is getting more and more important.
	He's been doing this for quite a while.
	How to Build a Secure House and many other things.
	You can find those books at joelskousen.com.
	Thank you for joining us, Joel.
	Good to talk to you. David, it's always good to be with you.
	Thank you. We're living in interesting times, aren't we?
	As we were discussing briefly, and as we're getting you put on here, you said, wow, we look at what is going on in the House.
	Historical day as we have the Speaker for the first time thrown out.
	Speaker of the House, first time that's happened.
	What's your take on all that?
	Well, and for very good reason.
	You know, the only reason he got to be speaker after 15 votes was that he made some very specific promises to the Freedom Caucus, and especially the hard-line conservatives as part of that caucus.
	They aren't totally unified.
	But he broke those promises in the April deal with President Biden, where he passed that omnibus spending bill, which was way over budget and Didn't consult the conservatives.
	And so, basically, Matt Gaetz, as leader of the hardliners in the Freedom Caucus, said, if you don't stop this, if you do it again, we're going to oust you as speaker.
	And he did it again. And Matt Gaetz, in his press conference, it wasn't a formal press conference, he just gets besieged by the press as he leads the House chambers.
	And after our debate with the chamber on...
	The motion to vacate the chair, he outlined very specifically, again, as he did before the House, why he is voting to vacate the chair.
	Number one, in general, he's talking about violations of the regular order of the House.
	The regular order of the House is that you have the 12 bills, appropriation bills, passed through committee, and then you have debate, and then you have amendments.
	You allow amendments to those bills And then you pass them individually.
	And he's complaining because they were running behind schedule.
	McCarthy wasn't in any hurry to get this thing done.
	And Gates requested that he cancel the August recess.
	He said, we don't have time for six weeks to take off.
	We've got a deadline in September.
	We've got a lot of hard knocks to go through this.
	McCarthy didn't do it.
	He allowed the recess to go forward.
	He also has instilled a four-day work week.
	A four-day workweek, when you're talking about a huge backlog of an appropriations bill, that means they start at 6 p.m.
	on Monday, and they quit on Friday.
	And that's essentially a four-day workweek.
	And Gates was complaining about that.
	But here's the specifics.
	McCarthy promised that he would never be a bill presented to the House over $100 million without the possibility of amendments.
	And he violated that on numerous occasions, refusing to allow amendments.
	He said he would never use the Democrats to provide a majority over the wishes of the GOP majority.
	And he did that on the Ukraine funding bill.
	He passed that with the majority of Democrats voting with the minority of Republicans to pass the Ukraine funding bill.
	Which didn't make it, obviously, into the main bill.
	And McCarthy created also a secret side deal with Biden over a separate Ukraine spending bill that would be done.
	And it basically says, you know, both these border tightening regulations and the Ukraine spending need to be a separate bill.
	You don't want to put these in an ominous bill.
	They're very controversial.
	And they need to have an up or down vote from everybody on those two specific issues.
	And this goes to the problem of the omnibus bill where you lump everything together and then you make everybody vote yes or no on the entire bill.
	And so if you want to, you know, anything at all in your agenda, you've got to vote for the whole package.
	So omnibus bill is very bad.
	But in any case, there were seven or eight total Republicans that voted to oust McCarthy and they got their way.
	I was surprised that McCarthy said, I'm not going to run for Speaker again.
	Before he left the Speakership, he appointed Pat McHenry of South Carolina to be the Speaker pro tem.
	And, of course, he's a puppet to McCarthy, and he immediately said, well, we're not even going to vote for the next speaker until October 11th, which is a full week away.
	I played a clip of McHenry.
	He was really trying to break the gavel when he slammed.
	I don't know if you saw the picture of him, but he's like, well, that adjourns it.
	And he goes, with all of his might trying to hit that thing, he was pretty angry about that.
	I'm sorry, go ahead. Well, Gates was very unhappy about that.
	He said, you know, we don't have time.
	We've got to put together another bill and resolve these things by November 17th when this continuing resolution ends.
	And so he said, you know, we've got to go to work right now.
	We need to have the election this week.
	Gates is suggesting Steve Scalise, who is the GOP majority leader in the House right now, as the replacement for McCarthy, I think Jim Jordan, although he was opposed to this vacating the speakership, and he's kind of happy with McCarthy because McCarthy, true to his word, he did give conservatives major positions on the committees.
	But that's about all that McCarthy did is give conservatives major positions.
	So Jordan was head of the Judiciary Committee, very powerful committee right now relative to the impeachment of Joe Biden or the impeachment investigation.
	But he still, I believe, would be a good speaker as well as Steve Scalise.
	Well, it's going to be interesting to see what happens.
	And again, Wall Street's take on this is that it increases the chance that there's going to be a shutdown in November.
	But maybe it won't be quite as long, more than two or three weeks.
	But they think it will happen now because of the delays that will be involved with this.
	But I talked about this earlier, Joel, and I was looking at it.
	I had a little bit different take on it.
	Because of what Thomas Massey said.
	I played the clip for people what Thomas Massey said there.
	He was part of that team that negotiated regular order with McCarthy as a condition of his speakership.
	And he said, look, I voted to...
	I'm the only person here who voted to remove Boehner, who voted to remove Ryan.
	He says, I'm not voting to remove him because we did get back regular order to a greater degree.
	He said, yeah, a lot of things happen that we don't like here.
	But, you know, you'd had this situation with Pelosi and Boehner and others who had put in these omnibus bills and ran everything from a centralized speakership through very tightly controlled committees and people were not allowed to make amendments from the floor, basically shutting down The rules of order, Robert's rules of order, whatever, you know, the regular order that would allow people to participate in it.
	The whole thing was tightly and centrally controlled, and that was the key sticking point, I think, in all that.
	And he felt like things had improved in that direction, and they'll keep going in that direction.
	But you're right, it now has turned this whole thing into turmoil.
	And... Chip Roy had pushed very hard for that.
	Thomas Massey had pushed very hard for that.
	And they both voted to keep him in at this point in time.
	But, of course, we have Newt Gingrich now, very upset about this.
	And I played a clip for people just to remind them where Newt Gingrich has been.
	It was a political ad that was done by Ron Paul back in 2011 when both of them were running for the GOP nomination, really kind of defining what a flip-flopping snake Newt Gingrich has been.
	And his point is, he said, well, you know, we've got these rules, and so Matt Gaetz needs to be kicked out.
	Forget about what the people thought who elected him.
	He has violated the Republican Party rules, the rules of the Republican Conference, and we need to kick him out of Congress for doing that.
	What do you think about that?
	And what do you think about what Thomas Massey had to say?
	Well, you know, I have a good deal of respect for Jim Jordan and Thomas Massey and Chip Roy, too.
	They are voting, in fact, for the fact that they did get good committee assignments on this and that McCarthy did come their way.
	But my response to Massey would be, but remember, he only came your way in terms of allowing amendments or allowing the regular order on easy things, on all the things that were the tough issues.
	He went over to the Democrats.
	So he betrayed you on all the crucial issues and only gave you the easy stuff, which you didn't really need.
	Well, you need it, of course, but they weren't the crucial things that are sticking points like border regulations and the Ukraine vote, etc.
	And But, you know, Newt Gingrich is really a snake in the grass.
	He's a globalist, I believe.
	You know, he got elected with his, what was it, contract for America, and I think it was a contract on America, basically.
	And as soon as he was elected, the first thing he did, did he pass anything on the contract with him?
	Not a thing. He went for world trade acceptance of China, red China, into the World Trade Organization, WTO. That was his first issue.
	It was a total globalist sellout right from the get-go.
	And, you know, he has played both sides of this issue.
	He's really a very slick operator.
	So he has called for Matt Gaetz to be removed from the Republican Conference, which is the conference which decides a lot of these issues, etc., Now, I'm not a big fan of Matt Gaetz in terms of his moral conduct.
	He is a party guy, and I don't think he's been necessarily moral in his conduct, but he's really a good debater.
	He is a person who really laid down the issues to the press as clearly as anybody on the violations of McCarthyism.
	And, you know, to remove him would be, I think, a big mistake.
	We need somebody who's doing it right out there.
	I think it'd be a big mistake to violate, to say, well, you know, we don't like him in the party, so I don't really care what the voters think.
	I mean, that would be the biggest mistake of it, just in terms of a precedent that they'd be setting to remove him for that.
	Well, you know, they are having an ethics committee, and this was kind of McCarthy's threat over his head.
	It's interesting that McCarthy said after he was engaged, said, I'm going to put in a resolution to...
	He said, well, go ahead and try it.
	McCarthy was defiant.
	He really didn't think it would pass.
	I thought perhaps, maybe even the Democrats would come to the rescue of McCarthy because he'd been so helpful to them.
	But I think they voted in favor of watching the Republicans be in disarray rather than rescue somebody who really was helping them.
	They're not going to get someone as bad as McCarthy, I believe.
	And I think they're going to have to go to someone who is a little bit more to the right, or they're not going to, you know, get elected.
	These eight people can stop anybody from getting to be Speaker.
	Unless the Democrats want to throw in with the liberal Republicans and really get a very bad person in there.
	It'll be interesting to see what happens as you point out the ethics issues that Gates has.
	And then, of course, you know, there's George Santos who's got huge ethics issues.
	And McCarthy was absolutely supportive of George Santos.
	So it'll be interesting to see what happens with that.
	I think one of the things that really surprised me was, as you point out, McCarthy said to Gates, he said, go ahead, bring it on.
	So I thought, well, okay, he knows what's going on.
	He's going to win this thing.
	His inability to read the room, you know?
	I mean, how do you... How are you that clueless as a speaker that you don't know if you got the votes for something like this?
	I mean, but maybe he's just bravado.
	But that was one of the key things to me.
	Going back to Newt Gingrich's contract with America, I remember that thing.
	Ten-point program. You know, Joel, I ran for Congress the next election in 96.
	And my central theme was, I said, I've got a contract with America.
	It's called the Bill of Rights.
	And here's how it's being.
	It's a 10-point solution to what our government is right now.
	And I said, here's how it's being violated in every one of those things.
	I've made flyers of that, but that was my campaign, to run for the contract with America, the Bill of Rights.
	What district did you run in?
	It was in North Carolina, and it was in the Charlotte district.
	So I did that back in, I think it was nine.
	It wasn't where I lived, but you don't have to live in the district.
	You just have to live in the state.
	And I was kind of the sacrificial lamb for the third party to run there.
	But I was able to get into some debates.
	But, you know, it is interesting to see where this is going to go.
	And I guess the key thing is, you know, is there anybody, when you look at the people that are there, you've got Tom Emmer, you've got Scalise, you know, maybe Jim Jordan.
	I mean, you know, you think it's going to be one of those three?
	Those seem to be the highest profile.
	Of course, you know, the majority leader and the whip, and then Jim Jordan is always, you know, out front and in front of the cameras.
	Who do you think might make it through?
	Well, I think it's either going to be Scalise or Jim Jordan.
	Whether or not Jim Jordan will run or not, you know, and lose his position on the Judiciary Committee, I have my doubts.
	So Steve Scalise is in the prime position.
	The mere fact, though, that Gates wants him will speak against him to the people who were very angry with him about this.
	And there are a lot of Republicans that were angry, but I don't think...
	I don't think...
	Yes, it's true that McCarthy would have compromised it and would have avoided a shutdown.
	But as I pointed out many times in the World Affairs Brief, we really need to shut down the government in many ways.
	And, you know, they don't have to actually close the national parks.
	They don't have to close the passport office.
	They don't have to do any of the stuff that really inconveniences America.
	Plenty of money coming in constantly to keep those funded.
	But they need to shut down...
	Foreign aid, they need to shut down any money going to Ukraine.
	I'm not against, as we've talked about on our program before, because Russia faked their own demise and put Ukraine into the boundaries, put the Donbas and Crimea into Ukraine to give them an excuse to invade at some future time.
	I'm not in favor of letting Putin get away with that.
	We need to supply arms to keep that Ukraine from falling.
	But I'm not in favor, because of the corruption in Ukraine, of any further actual funds going to Ukraine.
	Whether to pay the salaries of other people or to pay for their deficits.
	No money for Ukraine.
	It's just too corrupt. This is a leftover from the Soviets.
	Because when they faked their own demise, they left all the communists in the bureaucracy, and that's why they continue to exact bribes.
	That's why you had Buddhism and all the former presidents of Ukraine have been corrupt, and secret buddies with the oligarchs in Russia.
	It's a very bad situation, but there's plenty of ways to cut funding.
	And I realize you can't cut Social Security and the welfare thing.
	They'd scream bloody murder and But there's plenty of things that you can cut that don't hurt most normal people and keep the government in limbo while you hammer out these things.
	But we've got to stop this going under.
	Yeah, you look at the plan that Republicans came up with when Biden says, we've got to get $80 billion more for the IRS, an agency that's now getting $13 billion.
	And the Republicans said, that's crazy.
	Only 60. Only a $60 billion.
	We won't do it to be, what is it, seven times the size?
	We'll only make it five times bigger than it currently is.
	And that's the kind of stuff that just makes my head spin with Republicans.
	It's like, what is the deal?
	Just a little bit less government than the Democrats want to give us.
	And of course, you talk about the corruption in Ukraine.
	Even Bill Gates said, most corrupt country on earth.
	The Pentagon is even saying, we got so much stuff that we sent to them that's leaking out everywhere.
	This is a big problem. Ukraine is getting, I mean, the UK is getting tapped out in terms of, you know, it's a war machine in terms of sending them stuff.
	And this is all highlighting something I think that is an even bigger fundamental problem of the West, and that is the erosion of our manufacturing database to the extent, our manufacturing base and infrastructure to the extent that we can't sustain some kind of a big war situation.
	What do you think about that as somebody who follows us much more closely than I do?
	Well, we can certainly ramp up like we did in World War II and start to produce these things.
	Whether or not there's a will to do that, there usually isn't until you get attacked.
	But, you know, with the speed at which attacks can come now with nuclear missiles instead of just ships across the sea coming towards you like happened in Pearl Harbor, which, of course, was provoked by Roosevelt.
	Mm-hmm. This was a false flag operation, if there ever was one.
	But yeah, we have the manufacturing capacity to do that.
	I mean, even in strategic minerals, for example, the only reason that China has a lock on the strategic minerals is they've undercut the prices.
	We used to produce all the strategic minerals in the United States, out of Nevada and parts of California.
	We have them all in the United States.
	They just aren't as economical to produce.
	Unless China decides to cut it off and then we could start producing again.
	I think that both the West can come up to speed and they are ramping up in military production in order to provide the arms for Ukraine.
	The big problem in Ukraine is this triple layer defense system that while the Ukrainians were waiting for American tanks to arrive...
	Four to six months, the Russians built this three-tiered mined trench system that is very difficult to penetrate.
	Now, if they had strategic bombing, as the West has the capability, you could obliterate that line.
	You could blow up the entire minefield so that you could drive right through it.
	They don't have strategic bombing.
	All they've got is artillery and HIMARS and other types of things.
	So they have to slug it out trying to get through that line.
	And I don't see Ukraine doing that.
	I just don't think without strategic bombing that you're going to be able to penetrate that line.
	Now, neither do I see Russia being able to take anything more than the Donbass or the Crimea.
	So I think this is a war of attrition that's going to go on.
	As long as the West continues to provide military arms to keep the artillery and the rockets supplied, I don't think Russia can win and I don't think Ukraine can win.
	So where this is going in the long term, I'm not sure.
	But I'll tell you, conservatives have really been snookered by Putin, who has been putting on a propaganda show about being anti-LBGT and pro-Christian and all these types of things to convince Putin An anti-New World Order to convince the West, or at least the conservatives in the West, that he's going to save us from our own globalists.
	And it isn't true at all.
	It's just, as Trevor Loudon has pointed out from New Zealand, got a very good series of things showing that this propaganda move by the The continuing Soviets, as I called them, in Russia has been very effective towards getting conservatives to be pro-Russian rather than Yeah,
	it's kind of a Hegelian PR move because, again, you know, the West cannot control their contempt for Christian conservative values.
	You know, no matter, even though they see Putin doing this, they can't bring it upon themselves to pull back at all from the rainbow flag or any persecution that they're doing of people or the pronouns or any of that kind of stuff.
	So they're tone deaf or they're defiant about that.
	And so that leaves him a strategic opening.
	You know, when you're talking about the minefields and everything, I saw a thing the other day, a thing called spider boots.
	Maybe you probably know about it, but the audience probably doesn't.
	And that's their approach to trying to cross these minefields, just how crude that was.
	And all it is is just a little elevated platform they put shoes on.
	And it has like four extended prongs and a steel plate underneath it, so that if you step on one of these mines, the explosion is not going to be directly under your foot and your leg.
	It will be maybe a little bit in front of you, and it will be directed somewhat away from you.
	It's still going to really severely injure the person, but maybe not take their leg off and have them bleed out immediately.
	And I thought, that's the best they've got.
	Yeah. Here's some spider boots.
	Go walk across that minefield.
	No, it really isn't the best they've got.
	They have the flailing machines that go in front of an armored vehicle that extend out about 20 or 30 feet, and it's a big rotating series of chains that flail on the ground, set off the mines, and it doesn't hurt the chains when it blows off, but they can drive right through a minefield.
	It's just that Ukraine doesn't have very many of these.
	Okay. All right. Yeah, it seems to be a real sticking point, as you point out.
	You know, it's a very... Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Yeah. The Western elite want to invite a nuclear strike.
	That is part of their long-term plan.
	We see Russia doing civil defense drills.
	And, of course, civil defense has never been really a concern of the American government.
	We're going to have an emergency broadcasting system thing happening this afternoon.
	So what is it that you would tell people?
	Because that's something that you cover in your books.
	Strategic location, and that's a factor.
	You know, now there's other aspects to strategic location, which is the breakdown of society and, you know, the Soros district attorneys letting people back out on the streets, criminals back out on the streets.
	We're seeing that kind of violence escalate.
	But also proximity to nuclear targets as part of strategic location.
	Relocation. And then Your Secure Home and other aspects of this.
	People can find those books at joelskousen.com.
	Tell us a little bit about... Give us a little bit of advice as the best we're going to get is maybe an emergency broadcasting system or call on our phone.
	Well, there's a lot of hype now about the 5G test that's going to come out at 2 p.m.
	And there's been an awful lot of hype around the Internet about 5G. And one of the most...
	I think spectacular falsehoods is being promulgated is that 5G can somehow trigger little nanomachines that have been injected with the vaccine and create havoc, you know, in your body.
	Well, you know...
	That's really a lot of hype in my opinion.
	First of all, 5G cannot trigger any biological device.
	It can destroy things.
	If you get too close to a 5G radiating source for too long of a period, it can destroy biological processes, but it can't trigger any biological processes.
	I have a son who works in the cell phone industry as an electrical engineer, and he does testing on all the 5G devices.
	4G and 3G, you know, cell phone technology and their towers for radiation frequency, etc.
	And, you know, he admits, yes, any EMF can be dangerous if you have a very strong radiating source up against your brain, you know, for a long period of time.
	But they're very careful. Interesting enough, he says that 5G, by the way, because it is a higher frequency, It has much less power.
	It takes much less power to transmit than 4G and much less power than 3G, which is at a lower frequency still.
	And so actually the radiation effect is lesser in terms of damage because of the lower power of the transmitter.
	Now, that said, if you've got an apartment and across the street is a building with a 5G antenna radiating right into your apartment, that's too close.
	Yeah, yeah.
	And what we've seen in New York is exactly that same type of thing.
	They started putting it up in neighborhoods and people, you know, wake up in the morning and there's this thing right next to their window, right next to the window of their kid in the cradle.
	And they look at it and it says this should be located at least 10 feet away from somebody or whatever.
	And they call the people and said, hey, this is what this tag says on here.
	Can you come out and do something about this?
	They came out and they removed the tag.
	I'm serious. That's a true story.
	It was reported by the New York Post, I think it was.
	But that's the total disregard that they have for people.
	And, of course, the other aspect of it is that different frequencies, of course, affect us differently.
	We don't really have a lot of data about 5G. You know, the only EMF biological research that was really done to a large extent was Alan Fry, who was doing it for the Navy.
	And, you know, the Fry effect, they found people hearing clicking noises and things like that at different frequencies.
	But different frequencies are going to affect you in different ways.
	To me, I see, Joel, this 5G stuff rolling out.
	I see it being done in the same way they rolled out the vaccine.
	They're just contemptuous of any particular health effects, and we'll figure that out down the road, but we've got to get this thing done right now, so you're just going to deal with it.
	And that's my concern about all this talk about the test later today.
	I think there's very real concerns about how 5G is going to be used with a broader band and more capability of carrying data.
	It's going to be used for surveillance and control purposes.
	That's a given.
	I'm also concerned about the lack of health information about these things.
	And I think that, you know, the sensational detail that's out there.
	Is going to be used to discredit those real concerns about potential health and the reality of the, you know, smart city control grid that they want to establish with faster bandwidth.
	All of those are legitimate concerns, especially the lack of long-term testing.
	And the ones tests that have been done, unfortunately, don't tell us the two crucial aspects.
	We have to know whether or not the tests are carried out properly.
	Yes, they irradiated mice with 5G. They don't tell us how far away and how strong the signal was from the mice.
	You see, and those are the two crucial factors.
	I can put a transmitter right up against them and fry their brain, you know, within a couple of weeks.
	But unless you know that it's been a realistic setup, we just don't know how these things operate.
	Now remember that we've now been operating cell phones in the 3G and 4G now for decades.
	And we don't have a lot of strong evidence of any medical effects of people even having the cell phone up against the ear.
	Now, 5G is coming in.
	I don't have a 5G phone, but other people do.
	Even though they're not doing a test, we're going to see...
	If holding that phone to their ear is going to have deleterious effects to people.
	Yeah, and we have situations where they put cell phone clusters close to an elementary school because they said, hey, it's convenient for us.
	And they said, well, we've got some cancer clusters with this.
	And so you've had some local communities say, well, you know, we want to fight this.
	There was a 1996 crisis.
	Telecom Act put in by Clinton saying you will not object to antenna locations based on any health concerns.
	Only aesthetic concerns.
	So if this is a historical district and we got this antenna there, you can object to that and we'll come out, we'll put a box around it that blends in with the surroundings.
	But if it's a health concern, forget about it.
	But a lot of these jurisdictions, this is an important thing I tell people, the federal government can say whatever it wants, but where the rubber meets the road is at the local level.
	And we need to start standing up at the local level.
	And we've got several examples in communities where they felt that it was a hazard and they stood up to the telecommunications industry and had them move those antennas.
	And so, you know, that 1996 Telecom Act came 10 years after...
	Fauci shepherded through that childhood vaccine act that gave product liability to big pharmaceutical companies.
	So we see certainly a pattern here, and it is something that we need to be concerned about.
	But as always, adding false details to stuff And the people who've talked about it have said, you know, well, it's 18 gigahertz that's going to trigger this.
	And it's like, well, as far as I can tell, 18 gigahertz is not even a 5G signal.
	It's not one of the frequencies that they focus on.
	And then at the same time, they say very specifically, it's 18 gigahertz.
	We'll come out and say, well, my concern is that it's all these frequencies at once.
	It's like, well, all these frequencies at once are hitting you all the time anyway.
	You need to be concerned about the cell phone that you leave in your pocket all day.
	That's going to have, you know, just like holding that cell phone next to your head, your cell phone is sending and receiving signals, you know, even when you're not making a phone call.
	And so if you've got that thing sitting in your pocket or on your body all day, you ought to be concerned about that.
	That's not a wise decision.
	But it is, you know, there has to be some...
	Some context for this and some wisdom about this stuff.
	And it is, again, unfortunate that the government wants to put out stuff like this without doing any health tests.
	But, you know, the big issue is, and again, you know, fast internet with broad bandwidth is not a bad thing.
	It's a good thing. But, of course, it does enable these surveillance and control systems that they want so they can do real-time biometric analysis.
	And that's the thing that really concerns me is artificial intelligence and how it can be used for data mining and rapid recognition of the biometric data that they have for people.
	I see AI's threat to...
	Not as, you know, some computer that's going to become self-aware like the Terminator.
	But I see it as a very, very dangerous tool of very, very dangerous people.
	What do you think? Yeah, I agree with you on that, David.
	You know, it's very important to understand two basic things about overall preparation.
	You've got to first of all understand, what are the big threats coming?
	So many people get so many concerned about these tiny, small threats.
	The big threat coming, of course, is a nuclear world war with Russia and China.
	And, you know, the reason I say it is inevitable is because all three basic power structures in the world want it.
	Chinese communists want it.
	Russia wants it. And the globalists want it.
	They want it because it's the only way to drive Americans into losing their sovereignty and joining a militarized global government.
	In order to do that, of course, that's why they passed in 1997 the PDD-60 instructing our nuclear missile forces to absorb a nuclear missile first strike.
	Because they know that the Russian and Chinese want to neuter the American military and then blackmail us into submission.
	They do not want to nuke cities.
	They don't want to destroy the infantry.
	They don't want to nuke power plants and pollute the land forever.
	They want to occupy them.
	They want living space because China can't feed their own people.
	You know, most of China is desert.
	And they cannot grow enough food.
	And what is irrigated often gets flooded by the Yangtze River and other rivers, etc.
	But what I'm saying is that that's the big threat that you ought to really be preparing for.
	And one of the deterrents for preparation is the hope of a savior, an earthly savior.
	Now, I'm all for hoping that God will intervene, but unfortunately, I think we've lost the moral blessings and Of God because of the corruption of people within our Western society.
	I agree. And this transgender and homosexual craze which is growing by leaps and bounds is guaranteeing that we lose the blessings of protection of God.
	And there has to be judgment and consequences for these types of things.
	But, you know, when you tend to think that Trump is going to save us, if only he can get re-elected, and I think that's very unlikely due to the ability to steal the election, as they showed in 2020.
	For example, you know, the biography of my Uncle W. Cleon Skousen just came out, and it's available on Amazon, and It's very interesting.
	He ran this great Center for Constitutional Studies and gave thousands of seminars, educated over 400,000 people in the United States on the Founding Father version of the Constitution.
	And then when Reagan got elected, the second term, all of the funding from private donate dried up.
	Everyone said, well, Reagan's going to save us.
	And then when Trump got elected, the same thing happened again.
	And when the phony fall of the Soviet Union happened, it happened again.
	He said, oh, well, communism isn't an issue anymore.
	And the sale of his famous book, The Naked Communists, just dropped through the roof because people thought that communists had gone away.
	And that was a very great propaganda coup on the part of the Soviets to fake their own demise, to get aid in trade, and to disarm the West.
	So it's been a very difficult battle, but my point as a preparedness expert is that when people have hope That someone's going to come in and save them politically, they will not prepare.
	I agree. I agree.
	And we even see that with gun purchases, right?
	Well, what happens to gun purchases?
	You know, while Obama or Biden get in, everybody starts buying guns.
	Trump gets in, well, the gun sales go way, way down.
	They don't even care about that level of personal protection.
	Which, by the way, you know, if there's crime in your state, in your city or whatever, whoever is present isn't really having an immediate effect on that.
	But it does have an immediate effect on even that level, at the street level.
	As people see it. I agree with you.
	So, what's happening is that people really need to be concerned not only about 5G, which is always in major metro areas.
	5G is not a problem in rural areas.
	The antennas cannot be close to you as they are in buildings in high cities.
	You just need to be out of the big cities when this war comes because, believe me, this war is going to be precipitated by a nuclear EMP strike which takes down the grid.
	And it's going to be down for at least a year because we don't stockpile any of the long-distance transformers that allows you to get the grid back up again.
	You may be able to start an individual power plant, but it can't transmit across the country without these transformers that up the voltage to go thousands of miles and then Down the voltage again to a usable voltage.
	All those transformers are made in China and they're big as a truck.
	And we don't have any of them stockpiled except maybe two or three.
	And there are thousands of them in the US. So if the grid is down for a year, within three to five days, people are going to start to pillage.
	There'll be starvation. There won't be electricity.
	The sewers won't be operating.
	The water system won't be operating.
	And so, you need to be able to get out of the big cities.
	Now, people are obviously tied to the big city because of jobs.
	That's where most of the jobs are.
	But I can tell you, That when the cities become a Mad Max scenario, they're not going to be any jobs, and they're not coming back for a long time.
	And so it's a matter of when do you prepare to leave?
	Do you want to leave during the chaos of a Katrina hurricane when all the freeways are backed up and people have run out of gas from the traffic jams?
	You want to be able to get out of town before that, and that means that you have to prepare an exit plan.
	In my book, Strategic Relocation, I talk about how in major cities, there are beltways, freeways going, essentially a moat, because you can't get across those freeways except in places where they're on or off ramps.
	Now, if you look carefully on Google Maps, you'll see there are at least two or three places to get across the freeway with an underpass or an overpass that do not correspond, I repeat, do not correspond to an off ramp or an on ramp, which will be jammed.
	You need to know where those crossing points are.
	If you have rivers that block you need to know where the bridges are and how to get through those things and map a route that doesn't get on the main roads but uses the back roads.
	I recommend to people in strategic relocation that if you cannot leave the big cities at least you get moved to the periphery of the city.
	Get to the outskirts of the city.
	Get to the suburbs on the edge of the metrol and commute in Then at least your family has a chance of being the first out without going through all the major suburban areas in the city.
	Now, in terms of danger, the greatest danger during any period of social unrest is due to population density.
	Now, there's a major exodus going on of all of the major democratic controlled cities that have these woke prosecutors that are There's no cash bail anymore.
	You just release them and as soon as the police arrest them, it's very demoralizing to the police.
	They don't show up for their court dates because they're not having to pay bail anymore.
	And so we have a major exodus going on from LA, San Francisco, Seattle, Chicago, New York, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
	Every major democratic controlled city is having an exodus of people because of these crime problems.
	And, you know, I wish the conservatives were leaving, too.
	And some of them are, like they have left California.
	What it's done is it's driven up prices in the West, which are highly rated in my book, Strategic Relocation.
	Because, for example, the Intermountain West, the cities of states of Idaho, Utah, western Montana, northern Arizona, etc., they're hundreds of miles from major metro areas.
	And you have to cross deserts and mountains to get to those areas from those major metros, which precludes people from walking from Nevada to Idaho, for example.
	But the trouble is that the Californians have driven up all the prices in those areas because of the excess of California.
	So now the cheapest areas are still in the Midwest, Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, other places like that.
	The South still has a great deal of...
	Some cheap land, but the problem is the South has a warmer climate.
	That's why people are flocking to Florida, for example.
	But Florida is a zero-rated state because it's only got two ways out of that state.
	Without electricity, you can see those traffic jams trying to leave the state and it becomes very difficult to live in a place like Florida or the South without electricity for air conditioning, etc.
	Oh, yeah, I know. I grew up in Florida without electricity.
	I know how miserable it was, and I know that it was the electricity that made it livable for people to come there.
	Let me ask you this, though. You know what you're talking about?
	Planning your escape route, making sure you got some bug out and you got some place to go.
	But what about the cars and the effect of the EMP on the cars?
	What do you think is going to happen from that standpoint, since all the cars have gotten increasingly under electronic control?
	That's true. There are dozens of computers.
	You can't hardly even fix a car anymore, any of the modern cars.
	You have to have high-tech computer reading equipment, etc.
	It's a mixed bag.
	Nobody really knows what's going to happen, especially with the new super EMP weapons that are being developed.
	But this much the government has published in their test that it's going to take at least eight or nine weapons around the United States to take down the entire grid, not just one EMP. Because you've got to blow fuses as you go across the country.
	You can put up one EMP and it goes out for 500 miles and then it dies because the fuses are blown around things and it doesn't continue on through the interconnectivity of the grid.
	And so with eight or nine weapons, it means that only Russia and China are going to be able to do that.
	North Korea or Iran don't have that kind of power to do those.
	But under each weapon, there's an area about 300 miles where the radiation is the most advanced, which can really damage cars.
	But outside that 300-mile circle, it's likely that most cars will restart again.
	Any currents formed in the computer chips will maybe shut it down, but you can turn the key off and turn it back on and they'll usually restart.
	That's what the government testing shows.
	So I'm not sure...
	Where those eight or nine weapons are going to be placed, but here's the basic philosophy.
	You ought to have older cars.
	You don't have to go pre-1985 to non-computerized cars, but that's the best solution to have one of those older vehicles around.
	But you can even have prior to 2004, and if you get, for example, Volkswagen diesels, they have one You can buy them cheap in a used market.
	You can have a spare computer.
	You can just plug in if it goes bad.
	But generally, they only have one ignition computer, and it's much less likely that they're going to fry those cars from 2004 earlier than that.
	There's a lot of nice cars still available.
	In that range that are fairly EMP resistant.
	And there's certain things that you can do.
	There are EMP covers you can put over a car, like a car cover, which will diminish the radiation that gets to the computer chips.
	You can also put toroids, which are small, round magnets that open up.
	They have little hands that open up.
	You can put it around the cabling, leaving to your computer, so that it absorbs...
	The electromagnetic pulse that comes down towards your computer.
	A lot of people don't know about that, but they're fairly inexpensive, maybe $4 a piece on the internet.
	I cover these types of things in my book, The Secure Home.
	And then you can EMP protect your house with Siemens puts on a first surge protector for about $300 that you can put on your panel that stops the surge from the power lines and Shunts it to ground.
	It doesn't protect the house from absorbing EMP within the electrical wiring in the house unless you've wired your house in conduit, which nobody does anymore.
	And so you do have to have individual protectors on your computers and other things, but all those are readily available.
	So to have a surge protector, that would be because...
	The electromagnetic radiation would be carried, perhaps, in terms of a surge.
	The surge going through the power grid would be greater than the direct electromagnetic radiation from the EMP, is what you're saying.
	That would kind of extend the effect.
	Through the grid. Well, that's interesting, you know, and of course, so again, you know, having a place that you can go to bug out, as you pointed out, getting on the outskirts of the city, having a route that you can take that's not going to be blocked by the interstate, because that's where everybody's going to go, and you're not going to have, and that's the other part of it, is that everybody's getting accustomed to driving with the maps on your phone, and nobody's using paper maps anymore.
	That's all right. Better run this route so that you know it, or you got a paper map to follow.
	I wonder if they even sell these things anymore.
	AAA even does triptychs or something like that.
	But yeah, make sure that you got some kind of a paper map and paper instructions on how to get out there.
	But any other things that you would say in terms of an EMP? Because I do agree that that is most likely something's going to happen, and we get more vulnerable to it all the time, don't we?
	Well, that's right. And remember that if you've got a natural gas heating supply, that can't run without grid power.
	They need compressors to keep the pressure up in the gas pipelines, etc.
	So having propane tanks as a backup is one thing, but that will only last a certain time.
	Without electricity, the propane refill trucks won't be able to refill because it requires electric compressors to refill the trucks that come out to service your tanks.
	And the service stations where you're going to get refills for your tanks are not going to be operating because they're out of power.
	I've always seen that whenever there's a storm coming through in Florida, you know, we've lost all the power to the tanks, so you can't get a refill.
	So many things to think about with all that.
	But, you know, here's another thing.
	As we're talking about all these different aspects here, Joel, if they don't do an EMP, they might just go the really, really slow route, which is climate change.
	Because all the stuff that we're talking about in terms of taking down the grid and making life miserable for us, they're doing that in a very slow-motion way through climate measures that they're taking against people, aren't they?
	Through all this emissions control and everything.
	The EPA now even putting out prohibitions and demands for shutting down power stations, which is a first.
	We've never seen that before. Well, I have a theory, though, that I think the minions at the lower level in the globalist conspiracy do not know about the war coming.
	All of the people touting at the WEF, AI, robotic society, climate change, shutting down all electric vehicles, they're going to be a world of hurt when EMP comes along.
	Can you imagine all the people with electric cars with no way to charge them who haven't installed a fairly substantial solar system to do that?
	Yeah, yeah. And it's the same thing with central bank digital currency.
	You see, none of that works without the internet.
	And the internet isn't going to be working when the grid comes down.
	Even the elite are going to need cash.
	And so I've been saying in my World Affairs brief, If it comes, and it probably will come before the war, it will run concurrently with cash and they won't be able to eliminate it.
	Besides, there's trillions of dollars of American dollars everywhere.
	All of them honored. Even the elite, you know, are going to need cash because, you know, when the electricity is down, cash will be king for a period of time.
	It'll take a while before gold or silver will get back into circulation.
	Because most people don't recognize, you know, my brother gives out silver dollars as tips and often he gets bellboys and says, what's this man?
	You know, they don't know what it is.
	Yeah, that's funny. Talk about what happens, you know, when you try to prepare and get off the grid, the vulnerability of solar panels to an EMP. Well, there are MP protectors for panels, and all it does is blow out the diodes, and you can buy replacement diodes and just put them back in to the back of your solar panels, and they're operating again.
	MP will not affect the solar cells itself, just the diodes.
	But then you also might have, you know, if you've got some kind of an inverter to change it over for AC power for your appliances or something like that, that is also vulnerable as well, right?
	Yeah, and there are EMP protectors for those too.
	TransTector Corporation has a full range of solar and EMP things.
	So this stuff is available.
	You can protect your systems.
	It does require some expertise, but it's all available online.
	The most important thing that you can't buy, that you have to create yourself...
	Is remember that when there's pillaging and refugees and massive social unrest, think Mad Max movie.
	I mean, it's going to be that bad someday.
	You need a place to get out of the way and not just a retreat that's in a rural area because as they pillage the suburbs and then all of that's gleaned out and they'll start to get out into the rural communities too.
	If you have a rural retreat or even a semi-suburban home that's got a basement built I am a very big believer you need to put in a high-security shelter into that basement that's concealed so that you've walled off, you've got a fake cabinet that you have to find the door to get in there so that when people come through pillaging your house, etc., you can just leave the doors open so they don't break in, go into your high-security shelter where they can't find you and get out of the way.
	That's the most important strategy, especially in a nuclear war, that you can put a 10 inch concrete ceiling over the top and in most places that's sufficient to cut the radiation significantly so that you can survive.
	The radiation. And, you know, a lot of people give up and say, well, we're all going to die in a nuclear war anyway, so I'm not.
	But you don't die. 50% of Hiroshima and Nagasaki survived without any protection.
	Now, they wish they were dead.
	They all got sick. Yeah, that's right.
	You see? That's right, yeah. But they survived.
	And you see, God only determines, you know, when you die and you may live and wish you had prepared.
	So... I've spent my life not only trying to warn people about these existential threats like the nuclear war that's coming, but how to prepare against them.
	And I hope that people take my advice and not rely on Trump or any conservative getting elected again and saving us.
	Because even if Trump were elected, even I would not be able to root out the deep state because they control the judges, they control the NSA that would have to get the wiretap evidence on them.
	To present to the judges, and the judges are controlled and might throw it out.
	I mean, this is way, way too big for electoral and conservative activism to eradicate.
	We've waited too long.
	It's really in power now.
	So we need to prepare and pray to God and get on our knees and ask not just that he saved the country, which is not probably in the cards, but that he inspire us of how to use our limited resources to be able to prepare so that we can survive.
	Because he will provide a way for most people and for a remnant, as Gary North used to say, to survive this.
	And I think I intend to be part of the remnant and hope people listening are too.
	That's right.
	And it is going to be something that, again, as you point out, God has a history of taking down entire nations to show his justice.
	and And yet, even in the midst of all of that, as we see as Israel was taken away into captivity, one of the most hopeful passages in the Bible, in Jeremiah 29, which says, I know the plans I have for you, to prosper, not to harm.
	And he tells them, even though you're going to be in captivity, on the other side of this, I've got plans for you.
	And God does have plans for us.
	The key thing is for us to see him as our protector and not some politician.
	That is the trap in all of this stuff.
	And that's why I try to tell people, it seems to me like they're trying to make him the focus, just as, you know, the Democrats are...
	Are wily enough in Congress to say, the Republicans are having a civil war.
	Let's not get in their way.
	Let's just pull back and we'll let them have their Civil War and we'll watch it.
	They are using, I think, Trump as kind of the Mason-Dixon line.
	Everybody knows, including the Democrats who are doing it, everybody knows they're trumping up these ridiculous charges and they see how corrupt and one-sided, how there's no equal protection on the law.
	And they know that that works to help Trump.
	But they're setting everybody up, I think, for this massive...
	I was just talking about that earlier today.
	Joel Tucker was interviewing Victor Davidson about that, and he was saying, well, we'll see.
	Let's see what happens in 2024.
	And it's like, don't put your hope in that.
	There are things that you can do individually, and that's why I wanted to get you on to talk about that.
	Things that you can do individually, things you can do locally in your community, in your state.
	And we don't need to just focus everything and all of our hopes on the presidency, because if we do, that puts us in a very vulnerable position.
	And like you, I don't think that the election is really going to be an honest one.
	I have thought that for the longest time anyway.
	And now that we've had this vote-by-mail stuff, which was put in by Fauci and Trump in 2020, that wasn't taken off.
	That's now become a fixture of our lives.
	And so, you know, that type of stuff has gotten even more corrupt.
	I mean, it's gone from control of the ballot and control of the debates and, you know, not going to have any debates.
	But, you know, they control every aspect of this process, including the final counting of the votes and the stuffing of the ballots.
	And now they've got a brand new way to do that.
	And nobody's even talking about fixing that part of it.
	And I look at this just like I said in 2020.
	It's like, I don't know why I'm voting for anybody because all the people that I voted for just stepped aside and turned the government over to a bunch of unelected bureaucrats who are issuing orders to me to wear paper masks on my face and all the rest of the stuff.
	I said, I am.
	I'm kind of done with this politics stuff at this point in time.
	So I think that's really the key issue that we haven't done anything to take back those aspects.
	And we need to understand that if there's not going to be any legal reform of these new institutions that have been put in place and are solidifying around us, that we need to make individual preparation.
	That's why what you do is so important.
	Again, joelskousen.com is where you're going to find the books.
	Joel, we didn't even get into building a secure home.
	I'll have to get you back on and talk about that soon.
	But joelskousen.com to find the books and worldaffairsbrief.com to get his take on what is happening geopolitically.
	Thank you so much for joining us, Joel.
	Thank you. Thank you.
	It's always good to be with you, David.
	Thank you. Have a good day, everybody.
	Thanks for joining us.
	Let me tell you, The David Knight Show, you can listen to with your ears.
	You can even watch it by using your eyes.
	In fact, if you can hear me, that means you're listening to The David Knight Show right now.
	Yeah, good job.
	Ha ha ha! And you want to know something else?

▲