Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 5, 2023 - The David Knight Show

03:01:31

The David Knight Show - 10/05/2023

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	As the clock strikes 13, it's Thursday, the 5th of October.
	One day after the EBS, which is perhaps not the emergency broadcast system, but the extra BS that we were told by all these people.
	So we're going to go back and take a look at this, what did and did not happen, what we should be concerned about and what we should not be concerned about.
	But we also had some very important court decisions that have come out.
	A very... Disturbing decision about David Daleiden and the Center for Medical Progress.
	We'll talk about that.
	Also the direction that these court decisions are heading.
	And by the way, one of our guests today, Tony Arterman, will be joining us, Wise Wolf Gold.
	We'll also have Guy Ralford, who is a lawyer, Second Amendment lawyer in Indiana, who's going to talk to us about some very important self-defense cases there and an important law that he got pushed through that made a big difference in one of these cases.
	Stay with us.
	We'll be right back.
	Well, yesterday, Angry Tiger commented on a video.
	My wife saw it because they got sent to her because he commented on it.
	And she follows him.
	So, you're not too shadowbanned yet, Angry Tiger, but we'll see what happens.
	But it was a comment that he made, posted by High Impact Flicks, Who said, InfoWars is saying the emergency alert system is going to be broadcast at a specific high-frequency signal today, yesterday, with the intention of activating graphene oxide and other nanoparticles that have been inserted into billions of human beings through the Jabberino.
	Does anybody know where they're getting that information?
	If true, what will graphene oxide activation, quote-unquote, actually look like?
	Will it kill people?
	Will it then turn them into zombies?
	So does it kill you, resurrect you as a zombie, or does it turn you into a zombie and then kill you?
	We need to know. And, of course, he says, do you buy any of this?
	And he posted this little clip from Greg Reese's report.
	On October 4th at 2.22 p.m.
	Eastern Time, the emergency broadcast system will be activated across the entire United States under the leadership of FEMA, disguised as a test.
	However, this test will be used to send a specific high frequency signal through devices like smartphones, radios, and TVs with the intention of activating graphene oxide and other nanoparticles that have been inserted into billions of human beings around the world through the obvious mediums.
	If the October 4th date does not occur for any reason, the backup plan will be to do it on October 11th at the same time.
	In the case that this is not able to be stopped, I ask you all to shut off your phones and all other relevant devices at 2 p.m.
	Eastern Time for a period of two hours to be safe.
	Okay, well, we didn't follow his advice, but Angry Tiger's comment was utter and total BS. They spelled it out a little bit more specifically, though.
	Hope it gets you lots of clicks and views.
	And, of course, it does.
	They got a record number of clicks and views when they sold the nonsense about the sting.
	Even though it was easily disproven.
	Right now, we've got 20,000 troops out there rounding people up because, you know, Trump has laid this trap for them.
	They had special blockchain watermarks planted on the balance.
	They know who forged this stuff, and they've already got National Guard troops fanning out across the country.
	On Rockfan, Handy said, Trump must have done a covert mission.
	Yeah, see there. And saved us all at the last second.
	You don't want the bad emergency broadcast.
	It's just a good one.
	Well, you know, that's the funny thing.
	It's what I saw in terms of follow-up on this stuff.
	I wasn't, you know, well, did anybody turn into a zombie?
	I wasn't looking for that, of course.
	But I saw these articles about how, first of all, people were complaining because it was early.
	It was two minutes early. And then, of course, you heard in that clip, I think he said 2.22.
	It was actually 2.20 it was scheduled, but it actually went off at 2.18.
	But other people were saying, I didn't get my signal.
	Complain about that. Where's my test?
	Where's my mask?
	Where's my jab?
	And that's really what they mean.
	By zombies when the government refers to us as zombies.
	I had a lot of people very upset with me, as a matter of fact.
	And one person, as I mentioned earlier in the week, said, you're controlled opposition.
	Seriously, you won't look at proof.
	And so as proof... He sent me a video that I'd already debunked.
	I don't know if you watch his program or how much.
	I may not cover the same information every day.
	I covered it. Somebody asked me a question.
	I gave him a quick answer at the very end of the show on Friday, and I looked at this, and I was like, what is this nonsense over the weekend?
	And I talked about it on the following Monday.
	But anyway, he also sent me another video.
	Here is what the...
	Here's what the crew selling this stuff looks like, by the way.
	This is the video that he wanted me to pay attention to.
	5G, Dr. Rashid Booter, Attorney Todd Callender, Karen Kingston, retired, it says force, means Air Force, retired, they lost the Air Force, anyway, retired Air Force Lieutenant General, Thomas McInerney, How 5G, hydrogel, and nanotechnology will be used to activate pathogens in the COVID-19 vaccines.
	Now, as one person said, we don't rule that stuff out.
	And as one of the listeners contacted me, he said, this is never about the dates.
	He says, this is a ruse for the actual zombie event.
	And so, don't you understand these dates are simply placed there to dismiss the whole of the event as just woo-woo.
	And I told you so.
	All the while, the public will be completely unaware and unprepared when it actually does happen.
	Well, I think all this stuff is a bunch of woo-woo to distract people from the real concerns about the vaccine and the real concerns about 5G. And those remain.
	And it doesn't have to be that, you know, the concerns are not that it's going to turn us into zombies.
	It's going to kill us.
	Also, have you met the average...
	What? Yeah.
	What were you saying? Have you met what?
	The average one? Have you met the average leftist?
	The average leftist?
	What about them? They're already zombies.
	They're already zombies. That's right.
	That's right. Well, you know, and we've seen them referring to us As zombies many times, I've talked about the NSA slides that were really only published in Germany by Der Spiegel.
	They were part of the Snowden documents, but the U.S. press decided not to do it because it cast a negative light on Apple that buys ads on their platforms.
	But it said, you know, who would have thought in 1984?
	And it shows the Apple commercial pushing the Macintosh, you know, the Ridley Scott commercial, Super Bowl commercial that only ran once.
	But people played it over and over again.
	That 1984 commercial.
	But this would become Big Brother.
	And they show Steve Jobs holding up the iPhone.
	Then they show an Apple store.
	And everybody lined up.
	And they said that the zombies would line up to purchase it.
	They refer to us as zombies.
	Because they have absolutely no respect for us.
	They think we're walking dead, brainless idiots.
	And they've got to kill us.
	And so that is one aspect of it.
	But look, none of this is to say that the jabs are not dangerous.
	Anybody who listens to me knows that I've been talking about this even before they went out.
	We knew they were going to be dangerous. And I know we had lots of evidence of this.
	We don't know what is in the nanotech stuff.
	Could be anything. We have seen particulates come out of millions.
	One batch was 1.4 million.
	Another batch was a million.
	Two different batches in Japan that they just destroyed because they had black particles that had precipitated out of the vaccines and they interacted with magnets.
	We don't know what this stuff is.
	And I said at the time, I said, perhaps this is why they have to keep these things super cold.
	We don't know what is going to activate them, if it's going to be time released or what is going on, or if it's 5G. 5G has got its own issues, of course, as I've said over and over again, its own untested health issues and concerns, as well as the real concerns about privacy.
	In a very real sense, just like the vaccine also has issues of civil liberties in terms of saying, your health doesn't matter, you're going to get this or else.
	The 5G has both civil liberties issues as well as health issues.
	So none of this is to say that there's not concerns about those things.
	My concern is the same thing he's saying here.
	Even though he thinks that the end game here is zombies, I think the end game is just to kill us.
	Not to make us brain dead.
	Not to kill us and resurrect us.
	I think they just want to kill us.
	And of course they want to control us if we remain alive.
	As long as we remain alive.
	That's the real agenda.
	And any of this stuff about a specific date, any specifics about how this stuff works, I think is just a bunch of nonsense.
	Let me go back to the EBS crew here.
	Now, I talked about Dan Callender, and it was pretty clear when he was giving all this specific information about the EBS system, the extra BS system that was coming out there.
	I'll just recap it quickly.
	He said it's 18 gigahertz, and that's going to cause this stuff.
	They've got pathogens that are sealed inside the lipid nanoparticles.
	It's going to cause the lipid nanoparticles to dissolve and release those pathogens, and it's going to create a new plague or whatever.
	Well, 18 gigahertz is not a 5G frequency.
	And then he goes on to say, even though he focuses on the 18 gigahertz over and over again, he goes on to say, what's troubling about this EBS, this emergency broadcast system?
	It's going to be activating all the frequencies.
	Well, look, if you understand, and I talked about the fact that you've got all these frequencies, every frequency of AM radio is out there all the time.
	It's just that you tune in to specific ones, specific carrier signals.
	You tune in to specific FM signals.
	They're all out there all the time.
	All the TV, all the Wi-Fi, all the cell phone stuff is constantly there.
	And so nothing changes with the fact that they are sending out information to everybody at the same time.
	Your phone is constantly sending and receiving if it's not turned off.
	None of that changed by the emergency broadcast system.
	So we know it was complete lunacy.
	And, you know, Todd Callender has got some real critical thinking issues here, number one.
	Then we go to Karen Kingston, who disappeared.
	Remember, she was a whistleblower for Pfizer.
	Then everybody in the mainstream media was, what's going on?
	Is she being killed? She's been killed, you know.
	Because we had Rashid Butar.
	Who had talked about these health effects, and he died, so therefore it was a conspiracy.
	I don't know if it was or not.
	But then right after that, Karen Kingston disappears.
	Turns out she was the one who disappeared herself.
	She eventually came out. Mike Adams tried to resurrect her credibility.
	I'm sorry. I don't see her credibility.
	And then the worst of all, Lieutenant General Thomas McInerney.
	And if you remember...
	It was McInerney who, with the election fraud, was doing the same stuff as Steve Pchenik.
	He was the one, McInerney was the one who came out and said, there's been a special forces operation on a German facility in That had a German computing facility that was involved in rigging the elections or something to that sort.
	Not true at all.
	It's just like Steve Pachinik saying, oh, you've got 20,000 troops out there arresting people.
	McInerney said right after the election, he came up with his own fable.
	And both of these guys have got a history of selling lies for the right-wing military-industrial complex that wants perpetual war.
	McInerney sold the lies about the Iraq War.
	The lies that were the product of torture, and the woman who was head of the torture, and the woman who covered it all up, Gina Haspel, was promoted by Trump to head of the CIA. And so McInerney was selling those lies to get us involved in the Iraq War.
	And he was pushing the Iraq War very hard for George W. Bush.
	And then he's pushing this nonsense narrative about special operation forces that are happening over the election information at the very beginning of all this stuff.
	Getting everybody hyped up about all this stuff so they could push everybody into January the 6th.
	What a bunch of traitors.
	What a bunch of Judas Goat liars just looking for clicks and views.
	And always given a platform by Alex Jones.
	So, anyway, there's real concerns out there.
	This stuff takes people's real concerns away.
	But again, as I said yesterday, people were concerned because it didn't go off at the scheduled time.
	It went off two minutes early. As a matter of fact, we were on the phone.
	We had a conference call, Karen and I did, with another person, and the other person's phone did not go off.
	Both of our phones went off.
	We had to shut them down, but hers didn't go off.
	And Karen's phone, excuse me, she's got an iPhone.
	I've got an Android phone.
	Hers said presidential message or something presidential on it, on the announcement.
	Mine said emergency message or something.
	So I guess that's the difference between the two systems.
	But the third person's didn't even go off.
	And so other people are complaining that theirs didn't go off.
	I didn't get my emergency broadcasting system.
	I didn't turn into a zombie or whatever.
	And so people are going to social media to complain that they'd been left out.
	I didn't get my test or my mask or my vaccine or my EMS. Why didn't I get the emergency alert?
	All upper cases.
	Oh, I am so dead when the apocalypse comes.
	Yes, there are... Delusions on both sides of this.
	So, some of them were joking about it.
	I didn't get the 5G zombie emergency alert rip-off, said another person.
	We'll be right back.
	The Common Man. .
	They created common core to dumb down our children.
	They created common past to track and control us.
	Their commons project to make sure the commoners own nothing.
	And the communist future.
	They see the common man as simple, unsophisticated, ordinary.
	But each of us has worth and dignity created in the image of God.
	That is what we have in common.
	That is what they want to take away.
	Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation.
	They desire to know everything about us while they hide everything from us.
	It's time to turn that around and expose what they want to hide.
	Please share the information and links you'll find at TheDavidKnightShow.com.
	Thank you for listening.
	Thank you for sharing.
	If you can't support us financially, please keep us in your prayers.
	The David Knight Show dot com.
	Well, I'll see you next time.
	on Rumble, Harps, thank you for the tip.
	He says, I can't speak for the brain-dead idiots, but when I do, I say, bah, bah.
	I have gotten so much hate mail over this when I denied that the 5G was going to be used that way.
	It had anything to do with that. And I had to comment on it, not just to debunk these liars and grifters, But because we don't want to allow these people to, we don't want this narrative to take hold, so the establishment can then dismiss any concerns that we have about the vaccines or about 5G. That's the key issue.
	And that's the reason why you have things like Steve Pachinik's sting and like McInerney's, you know, special forces operation in Germany and all the rest of this stuff.
	That's just a bunch of nonsense.
	It's put out there to discredit any real concerns that people have about this stuff.
	On Rockfin, Richard Williams, thank you very much.
	He said, the Kennedy assassination, 9-11, and Trump's vaccine.
	If your default is to still trust the government, ignorance cannot excuse your stupidity.
	There, I said it.
	And on Rockfin, thank you, James.
	I appreciate the tip. Let's talk about something that I think is really tragic.
	It's a personal tragedy for one individual.
	It's a personal tragedy for who knows how many babies.
	And it's a real tragedy for us legally, constitutionally, and our liberties as well.
	The Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal from David Daleiden in the Center for Medical Progress.
	If you remember years ago, I think it was 2015, They did an undercover, you know, Project Veritas style thing.
	I say Project Veritas, but it's not just Project Veritas.
	As they pointed out in their brief to try to get the Supreme Court to hear it, this was the same thing that was done by mainstream media, ABC News 2020 investigation.
	And it was actually even an ABC News 2020 investigation of abortion clinics.
	And so, but now things have changed, haven't they?
	You're not allowed to do that.
	Not in radical, vicious, degenerated California.
	Run by people like Grabbin Nuisance and Lala Harris and Javier Becerra.
	Because it was those three who were involved at coming after them.
	They came in. You remember the clips?
	People say, yeah, I want to get my Lamborghini.
	Well, we need to have these body parts.
	And we will pay you handsomely for this stuff.
	What can you get for us?
	Well, you tell us exactly what you want and when you want it, we'll get it.
	And so as we talked about that, We pointed out that this is actually murder for hire.
	These are not dead babies that are sitting over here in a stack and they go back and they get the organs.
	No. As we've talked about organ harvesting in China from prisoners and things like that, they take the organs out of living bodies.
	Because they want them to have to be fresh.
	They start deteriorating right away.
	And as soon as the body dies, certain things begin to happen in the body.
	And so you want to take the organs out while the body is still alive.
	That's why they are so eager to get brain-dead patients' organs.
	Because, you know, their body is still functioning.
	But in the case of these abortions, they're looking for babies who have a specific level of maturity.
	And they would then make an appointment, have everything ready to transport the organs.
	And then they would induce labor to some extent.
	But they're not going to start ripping the baby apart as they would in a typical abortion procedure.
	You know, forceps and all the rest of the stuff, you'd damage the organs.
	They're also not going to inject saline.
	That would damage the baby or poison it in any other way.
	Anyway, they have a solution that they burn the baby with and kill it.
	So that type of thing, that type of poisoning or physical damage they can't do.
	So they have the baby born normally, extract the organs and kill the baby that way.
	That's the way it has to be done, and we've pointed this out from the very beginning.
	And then, as part of this trial, this ordeal of David Daleiden over the years, as part of their discovery, they found that you had Francis Collins and Fauci at the NIH. As well as the University of Pittsburgh.
	I used to live in that area.
	But anyway, they found that they were buying these baby parts and they had the prices and everything else.
	And so what is the issue here?
	Well, the issue is that these are Democrats and they will come after anybody that they don't like with lawfare.
	And they'll get away with it.
	And they'll get away with it all the way to the Supreme Court.
	And so, the high court denied to even hear this.
	Following a 2022 ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which again is the most left-leaning court in the country.
	The 5th Circuit Court is the most right-leaning, and the most leftist-leaning is the 9th Circuit Court.
	They come up with lunatic stuff.
	But the 9th Circuit Court upheld...
	Most of the damages that a lower court had awarded to Planned Parenthood in its lawsuit against California-based Center for Medical Progress and its founder, David Daleiden.
	The pro-life organization first made headlines in 2015 when it published online secretly recorded conversations with Planned Parenthood doctors and staff.
	Haggling over the prices of baby body parts.
	As the joke goes, we've already established what Planned Parenthood is.
	We're just haggling over the price.
	In its 2016 lawsuit, then, Planned Parenthood argued that the organization's actions constituted fraud, trespassing, breach of contract, and a violation of the RICO Act.
	You see, I always bring that RICO Act in.
	Well, the people who weaponized that, well, of course, it was Biden who helped to weaponize that.
	The person who used it a great deal is Rudy Giuliani.
	It's now being used against him.
	But Planned Parenthood, that has been their favorite approach to come after pro-life individuals and organizations.
	They came after Randy Alcorn years ago.
	Randy Alcorn, a Christian pastor and an author.
	And he had gotten involved in pro-life.
	He basically had not been involved in that.
	And there was a crisis pregnancy that he got to know the young mother.
	And it changed his mind.
	And so he started showing up at the abortion clinics and things like that.
	They came after him.
	Planned Parenthood did. And one, you know, this face act type of thing.
	Got to stay away from the clinic, stay away from the people, all the rest of this.
	And they charged him with RICO charges.
	They got, I think it was an $8 million judgment against him.
	And Randy Alcorn has had a lot of very, very big books.
	He's got a great book series on heaven.
	Another one, I would also highly recommend The Treasure Principle because Jesus talks a great deal about money.
	Where your heart is, there your treasure is also.
	That is an excellent book.
	Everybody should read or listen to that book.
	And he also did a lot of fictional stories as well.
	Very good writer, fictionally.
	And so they said, well, we're going to get a lot of money from him, $8 million judgment.
	Randy Alcorn resigned as pastor of the church, and he continued to write and publish books, Christian books.
	But he lived on whatever the allowable minimum wage was for over 20 years.
	He said, I will not pay Planned Parenthood one penny.
	And so his organization took all the proceeds, millions and millions of dollars that he made from these books, and gave it away.
	Pro-life organizations, Christian organizations.
	So when you look at what Planned Parenthood is doing here, it's not their first rodeo with RICO. But the issue is, you know, what is the fraud?
	What fraud is involved here?
	Is it the fact that these people didn't want to pay up for the body organs or that they never actually placed an order for any body parts?
	They never took delivery.
	Of any body parts. They just talked about, well, what would you commit this murder for?
	That type of thing. And it's also interesting that Planned Parenthood did not sue them for defamation.
	Why not? Wouldn't you think that that would be the very first charge there?
	Defamation? You're accusing us of trafficking in body parts.
	You're accusing us of murder for hire.
	Murder of babies for hire.
	No, that wasn't an insult to them.
	As a matter of fact, one person said, you know, if you look at this Tucker Carlson, it's been alleged, I don't know if it's actually been filed, that Ray Epps would file a lawsuit against Tucker Carlson because Tucker Carlson and others had accused him of being a Fed.
	There has already been a lawsuit where you had a guy who, I think he was a rapper, he was accused of being fed informant, and he was not.
	And so he sued, and the judge said, he sued for defamation.
	And the judge said, what's wrong with being a federal informant?
	I think that's great.
	You haven't been defamed.
	This person is saying, well, you know, that's why it's been established that, you know, being a federal informant is not a dishonor to the federal court system.
	So, I don't know how far Ray Epps' case against Tucker would go in that kind of situation.
	Well, you know, they don't think, Planned Parenthood doesn't think that it's any big deal to be a baby killer for hire either.
	So they didn't put defamation in there.
	They put fraud. You know, you said you were going to pay us to get these baby organs, and you didn't, you know, do that.
	So, anyway, three years later, a jury sided with Planned Parenthood and also said that the pro-life group had violated the Federal Wiretap Act, although the appeals court later overturned that aspect of the verdict.
	It accounted for less than $100,000 of the $2.4 million in damages, plus $13 million in attorney's fees that was initially awarded.
	So they argued before the Ninth Circuit of Court that their journalistic methods were protected under the First Amendment, but that argument was unanimously rejected by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
	We said, invoking journalism in the First Amendment does not shield individuals from liability for violation of laws applicable to all members of society.
	No, it was an investigation.
	And this is done this way and has been done by many organizations and should be done that way.
	And there had already been, it doesn't mention it in this article here, but there had already been hearings in Congress saying that this was going on.
	And they said, because of those hearings, we conducted this investigation.
	What this is, is a big attack on the First Amendment.
	It's a big attack on the free press.
	It's a big attack on truth.
	But it also lets these killers go free.
	So, the Center for Medical Progress actually pointed to a very similar undercover investigation that was conducted by Chris Wallace that was published on ABC News' 2020.
	Quote, Their three-month investigation revealed a host of illegal and unethical practices in the industry related to the sale of tissue from aborted babies.
	At the time when it was not the focus of the investigation, Planned Parenthood praised ABC's report because they were investigating Planned Parenthood's competition.
	You see, this is the only difference between what the Center for Medical Progress and David Daleiden did and what ABC's 2020 and Chris Wallace did.
	ABC and Chris Wallace didn't want to come after Planned Parenthood.
	They went after their competition.
	David Daleiden went after Planned Parenthood.
	That is the only difference.
	The only difference.
	That's how politically connected they are.
	That the Democrats, even when it was against the law, were giving them millions of dollars of subsidies.
	They don't care. At the time, when it was not the focus of the investigation, Planned Parenthood praised ABC's report and condemned the abortion provider who was its target.
	Gloria felt, then the president of Planned Parenthood, publicly stated, where there is wrongdoing, it should be prosecuted.
	And the people who are doing that kind of thing should be brought to justice.
	You see, they'll come out and do that when it's some individual like Kermit Gosnell or something, as long as they're not affiliated with Planned Parenthood.
	But if you come after Planned Parenthood, Understand, you're coming after somebody who is, you know, a made man in the mafia, if you will.
	You know, somebody that is protected and under the protective care of the federal government because they have bought so many politicians.
	According to the Center for Medical Progress, Mr.
	Leiden modeled his investigation on ABCs using nearly identical methods and means.
	The group also charged that Planned Parenthood had euphemistically labeled its losses as infiltration and as security damages to circumvent the challenges presented by the defamation case, which would include showing that the published speech in question was false, and yet they were not making it about defamation.
	It was about, you defrauded us and the rest of the stuff.
	You know, you didn't pay us the money you said you're going to do.
	The complaint contains a list of grievances that are inextricably intertwined with the Center for Medical Progress's decision to publish videos detailing the results of its investigation.
	Thus, even though Planned Parenthood failed to file a defamation claim, they said it sought substantial damages to reimburse it for expenses that it voluntarily incurred to prevent similar investigative reports by others in the future.
	See, this is a key part of this.
	Yes.
	Don't mess with Planned Parenthood, or you're going to be in court for eight years like David Daleiden, and you're going to come out with $13 million debt.
	Planned Parenthood has denied selling the body parts of aborted babies for profit, even though discovery showed that one of their clients was actually Fauci and Francis Collins and the NIH and the University of Pittsburgh.
	They said this was part of a smear campaign against Planned Parenthood.
	A smear campaign, and yet they didn't charge them for defamation.
	It's not defamation of character.
	This is definition of character.
	Planned Parenthood.
	Murders for hire.
	It's just selling the baby parts was a new wrinkle that the public hadn't really understood yet, just like they didn't really understand the whole concept of so-called comfort care.
	Where if a baby survives their attempted murder at ripping them apart or bringing them to death with a solution, then they just stick them over on the side and let them die like happened in the pagan societies of the Roman Empire and others.
	The Supreme Court announced this rejection of the case on the very first day of its 2024 term, which will run through June.
	Not a very good beginning.
	And as a matter of fact, there were other things that were not very good coming out of the Supreme Court.
	Vox is very, very happy about the fact that as they see it, the Supreme Court had an uncharacteristic moment of sanity when they decided that a lawsuit...
	That was trying to shut down the Consumer Protection Financial Board or Financial Protection.
	I get those mixed up.
	Anyway, this thing that was a Frankenstein monster that was a special creature of Elizabeth Warren that came out with a Dodd-Frank bill in 2010.
	It was supposed to fix us ever having another mortgage crisis, that type of thing.
	What it did was it strangled to death.
	Hundreds, hundreds of small and medium-sized banks on an annual basis.
	I remember when Drudge was still doing conservative news, he would talk at the end of the year for several years running after this thing was created, and the new rules that it created, he would run an article talking about how many small and medium-sized banks had been put out of business by this Consumer Financial Protection Board rules.
	Of course, now he's gone to the other side.
	He's got articles like this from Vox.
	Imagine the Supreme Court of the United States spent an entire morning debating whether penguins are the primary cause of colon cancer.
	They think it's that absurd to question the constitutionality of any of these bureaucratic organizations or their actions or their very existence.
	That's just insane.
	The federal government can do anything that it wants.
	Says Vox, essentially.
	So, they said that's more or less the quality of the arguments of the former Trump Solicitor General, Noel Francisco, presented at the court on Tuesday as part of a quizzical effort to convince the justices to declare an entire federal agency unconstitutional.
	Who can imagine that?
	I mean, that's like, you know, talking about if penguins are the primary cause of colon cancer.
	Any and every imaginable bureaucracy is, of course, constitutional to the leftist press like Fox.
	All three of the liberal justices took turns beating up Francisco as an exasperated Justice Sonia Sotomayor telling Francisco at one point that she's trying to understand his argument.
	And I'm at a total loss.
	I just can't imagine a government.
	He'll be limited by the Constitution.
	What is this guy talking about?
	So, Sotomayor appeared to be joined in her frustration by Kavanaugh and by Amy Coney Barrett.
	The agency that he was trying to get them to strike down, they said, at the end of the argument, even Clarence Thomas appeared to be fed up with the inability to articulate a coherent argument.
	Is this a bad lawyer?
	Well, he does have a very bad argument for getting rid of it.
	But this is the conclusion from Vox.
	They said it seems very likely that the CFPB being struck down will not happen.
	And that's a very good thing, they said.
	Listen to their logic. As the banking industry warned in a brief to the justices, striking down the CFPB would mean striking down the agency that writes the rules, telling them how to comply with federal laws governing mortgages.
	And without these rules in place, the entire U.S. mortgage market could seize up.
	How did we exist?
	How did the banks operate before 2010?
	Well, we didn't have such a concentration, and now it's that concentrated banking industry run by the few banks that are too big to fail.
	And that have now used this very agency to strangle their competition.
	They say, oh, we've got to have that.
	Of course they do. That's how they kill their smaller competitors.
	What an absurd argument.
	So that it would seize up.
	Well, you know what's effectively seized up right now is the housing market.
	Interest rates have gotten so high and prices have continued to climb because there is a shortage of housing and people are afraid to renegotiate their loans.
	They're locked into a lower mortgage rate so they don't want to put their house on the market.
	They can't afford a new loan on a new house.
	And so Because of all that, the market is frozen up.
	It's frozen up by the actions of the federal government, or actually, more effectively, the actions of the Federal Reserve, which is not the federal government.
	But a decision against the CFPB, they said, in other words, could usher in the kind of economic ruin that has not been seen in the United States since the Great Depression.
	That's right. It would have dogs and cats living together.
	It would be the apocalypse, even the zombie apocalypse.
	No, it's Vox that is unhinged here.
	So, his argument, which is not a good argument, was not, where's your authority for this to exist in the first place?
	His argument was, well, they were created with perpetual funding.
	And so the judges, even Clarence Thomas, are scratching their heads and saying, well, wait a minute.
	We've got all these entitlement programs that are out there that are created with perpetual funding.
	What is the difference between them?
	Oh, but it's different. I'm not saying they're going to get rid of any of the welfare programs or Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and that.
	You know, this is...
	But this is different because it's got perpetual funding and, you know, somehow...
	And that's what none of them could get their head around.
	Because it's a nonsense argument.
	And... He never made the case that, hey, you know, the federal government doesn't possess any powers that have not been expressly given to us.
	Where is the authority for them to do this type of thing?
	Because that would affect pretty much everything the government does, including the welfare programs.
	But they want to try to carve that out somehow, and they can't make an intellectual argument for that.
	I think clearly when you look at things like Social Security, people have been lied to all their life.
	I remember about 30 years ago, there was a poll.
	They asked people, how many of you believe you're going to get your Social Security versus how many people believe that there were UFOs and aliens and that type of thing?
	And there were a lot more people who believed in UFOs and aliens even 30 years ago.
	And now that they're pushing that, After seeing the efforts of the Biden administration against Social Security, they're actually the ones trying to strangle it.
	But again, when you look at what the government is doing, I think you need to transition out of these things that people have been promised and planned around for their entire lifetime.
	There needs to be a reasonable transition for these things, but you need to stop the programs that are wrong.
	But more than that, It's just one agency after the other that is strangling our economy, that's strangling our liberty and the Constitution.
	But they don't like the Constitution.
	You know, for the longest time, we've had a difference of opinion.
	The majority opinion has been that the words don't really mean anything, right?
	This is the living Constitution viewpoint.
	And then there are the people who are...
	Originalists or textualists or whatever, who say we have to go with what the text actually says, and in its original meaning, it means what it says.
	And we understand what, when we talk about a militia, we understand that that was the yeomanry of people, men, 16 to 60, at the time.
	And if we understand that, we understand the reasoning behind it.
	But whether or not you understand what the militia is, Those words shall not infringe the rights, the right of the people.
	That kind of is non-negotiable.
	And it should be. And so the words mean something.
	But then you have the people say, well, it's a living document.
	And, you know, I don't think that we need to be governed by these things that were written down before.
	Well, if you don't do that, then you have total chaos.
	Because now everything is subjective.
	There is no objective standard.
	We have an objective standard.
	If you don't like what that objective standard says, there's a process for changing and amending the Constitution.
	But you don't just get to write it away.
	But now they've got a third way.
	Because now we're getting so far removed from reality.
	They're talking about crystal ball constitutionalism, if you will.
	And this is to make rulings, and this is being pushed, By Washington University Law Review.
	They call it judicial moral prophecy.
	That's their claim.
	They're pushing this. They need to be able to think about how these things are going to be perceived in the future.
	And so these people not only see themselves as lawgivers, these judges.
	Judges are never to be lawgivers.
	But they not only see themselves not only as lawgivers, but as prophets who can foresee the future.
	And can take this, you know, we've gone so far away from the original text, and something that is grounded in objective reality, this is kind of like the furries version of courts here, you know?
	With all the transgender stuff, you get people dressing up like furries.
	This is the equivalent of that.
	Courts should contemplate and heed the moral judgments of coming generations.
	Total nonsense! But they say doing so is not an arbitrary projection of personal fancy.
	It is.
	But they say it's a corollary of the shared practice of retrospective condemnation.
	Tenets of cultural morality often achieve judicial recognition, and those truisms inevitably shape how courts perceive their interpretive responsibilities.
	This is kind of academic, you know, pablum.
	That is the basis of the chaos and confusion that we see in so many sectors of our society.
	Despite the formalizing pressures of modern legal discourse, a counter trend has begun to emerge.
	That of judicial moral prophecy.
	It's not even philosophy.
	You shouldn't be injecting your philosophy into the law.
	But now they're going to inject their prophecies into the law.
	Factors that will ultimately eclipse logical precision can and should inform conceptions of judicial duty in the present.
	In other words, we want to move away from precision.
	We want to move away from logic.
	We want to move away from objective truth.
	If originalism and textualism are focused on the text as written in the past, says the commentator on this, and this is actually coming from a Second Amendment site, bearingarms.com.
	If originalism and textualism are focused on the text as written in the past, and living constitutionalism favors in the present vagaries and vicissitudes, judicial moral prophecy seeks to divine an unknowable, unpredictable future.
	And turns the judiciary into psychics and soothsayers.
	What has been running the MacGuffins, right?
	With their models and their projections.
	Oh, we see a pandemic is coming.
	It's coming. I can just see it.
	I can see it in my computer models.
	We don't have anybody that's died yet of any of this stuff.
	But, you know, we need to lock down the country in March of 2020, even though nobody has died.
	And we don't have anything that could even be called, we don't have a pretended body count in China or Italy or any place like that where they said this is where it started.
	There was no body count that would support an epidemic there, but a worldwide pandemic, they said.
	They could just see it.
	And so we had the psychics and the soothsayers.
	But, you know, instead of looking at goat entrails or, you know, some kind of Ouija boards or tarot cards, they had computers.
	And so that made it all believable to idiots, zombies.
	And same thing has been going on for decades with the climate stuff.
	Again, instead of goat entrails, they've got computer models that are probably as worthless as, maybe even more worthless, because at least people can see through that scam.
	But, you know, that's where we are right now.
	That's where they are advocating for the judiciary to go.
	Before we take a quick break here on Rockfin, Angry Tiger, thank you for the tip.
	Thank you for the tip showing us what was that little clip.
	He says, yes, Dave, it is to marginalize all of our information and group us together with the grifters.
	That's right. Yeah.
	That's why the CIA does this stuff.
	That's why I call it the EBS thing that happened.
	It was the extra BS as an excrement.
	Because it's that extra BS that they add to the truth that allows them to discredit the truth.
	It allows them to discredit the concerns about 5G, the concerns about the jab, and all the rest of this.
	On Rockfin, Spencer Long, thank you for the tip.
	He said, David, since I didn't die in the apocalypse yesterday, consider this my October subscription.
	Thank you. I saw a Babylon Bee article a few days ago that Congress signed up for Ukraine Plus, like Disney Plus, for only $40 billion a month.
	So I consider this subscription to be much, much more affordable.
	Well, yeah, it is.
	We're going to take a quick break and we'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	you you you you Let's take a look at the new hero of the left and the mainstream media in the Supreme Court, and that is Justice Kavanaugh.
	This guy, if you remember, they vilified him like a Me Too monster.
	Remember how they did that? And now he's their new hero.
	Because this Trump appointee has done everything that they love, with the exception of the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v.
	Wade. This is the headline from the LA Times.
	Justice Kavanaugh taps the brakes on the Supreme Court's sharp move to the right.
	Now, he's always been a leftist.
	You know, a guy coming from the usual place.
	It seems like they get most of their Supreme Court appointees from one Jesuit university, George Washington University.
	He's always been a leftist.
	He is just like Roberts.
	And they actually point that out, you know, that he's even more of a swing vote.
	He used to clerk for Kennedy.
	Who became a pretty hardcore leftist as well.
	I think it was Reagan who put him in, if I remember correctly.
	I was talking about it here.
	I had not looked that up.
	But I think they had expectations of him being conservative or libertarian, but he had unhinged from reality decisions and unhinged from liberty decisions.
	Totally unhinged from the Constitution and from liberty.
	And Kavanaugh is the same way.
	So he's now the new hero.
	To the leftist establishment.
	They said stoch conservatives at the L.A. time may have reason to worry about Kavanaugh.
	We do. He voted most often with Roberts, and he voted more often with the court's three liberal justices than he did with Thomas, the most conservative.
	They said Kavanaugh cast a deciding fifth vote to poll the Biden administration's plan to require a COVID-19 vaccine.
	That basically tells you all you need to know about this guy.
	That is the dividing line.
	If you can force somebody to inject an experimental thing into their body as a condition of living their life, How could you call anybody like that?
	Conservative. Or libertarian.
	And, of course, the new absurdity is that Biden is now claiming that he didn't have any mandates.
	Yeah. Well, what a bunch of liars these people are.
	You know, just like Fauci.
	Yeah, I didn't tell nobody to do nothing.
	I didn't make nobody do nothing.
	I made some, you know, recommendations, you know.
	It's kind of like when the mafia would show up at your small vegetable shop in Brooklyn.
	I'd suggest that you pay somebody for some protection.
	Well, we've never been robbed here.
	Beaten up, you know, this is old school New York.
	No, you know, something could happen to you, you know.
	Like from me.
	You're buying protection from me.
	And that's what Fauci was selling.
	It was a protection racket, which government always is.
	But it had some real clear blackmail involved there for the corporations if they did not run this stuff through.
	You know, there's going to be carrots and sticks, financial carrots and sticks.
	That's why I said, you know, Trump was down with that.
	He had already said in 2019.
	Hey, they've got to get the shots.
	It's going around about measles and that type of thing.
	We're not going to listen to any parents' objections about this.
	We don't care what any medical objections are about this.
	We don't care about any religious objections, and we don't care if this is a private religious school.
	You're going to get that measles shot, said Trump.
	So... It was in.
	These people just play this game.
	As I said before, this is like the Nuremberg excuse, but upside down.
	Here in Nuremberg, people said, I was just following the orders.
	There's orders from above.
	Well, these people are saying, I didn't give nobody no orders.
	I didn't have any mandates.
	Well, they did. And you had a majority of the Supreme Court said they could.
	And now, even after that, even after it went all the way to the court, they argued that they could force people to get it, and Kavanaugh signed on with those people.
	And now Biden says, we didn't order anybody.
	So what was that case about?
	What a bunch of liars.
	And this was, again, you know, the financial extortion, blackmail.
	Millions of workers in hospitals and nursing homes that had to get it or those hospitals would have their Medicare and Medicaid funds turned off.
	And so here's the prevarication at the heart of Kavanaugh's decision.
	Kavanaugh said, well, the hospitals didn't object to this requirement because they're going to get the money.
	They're being bribed for this or blackmailed for this.
	The rules were challenged by 16 Republican state attorney generals who did it on behalf of the medical staff who were going to be used as guinea pigs.
	Kavanaugh didn't care.
	The majority of the Supreme Court didn't care in a 5-4 decision.
	And he was a swing vote on that.
	Four other conservatives, including Trump, Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett, Trump appointed Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett.
	The other two would have been Clarence Thomas and Alito dissented and said that hospital workers should not be required to undergo what Alito called an irreversible medical treatment, quote-unquote.
	And yet, Roberts and Kavanaugh joined with the quote-unquote liberal branch.
	They are the liberal branch of the Supreme Court.
	And I don't mean liberal in terms of being focused on liberty or freedom, which is how they stole that term.
	I mean authoritarian, anti-constitutionalists.
	Twice, Kavanaugh played a key role in upholding Biden's immigration policies against lawsuits Against lawsuits brought by Texas Republicans.
	As a matter of fact, remember, also going back to this, they don't mention it in the LA Times thing, but I think it was one of the key issues is that you had Trump, under Trump, the CDC said, we're going to tell people that you can't evict anybody because now we've done this novel approach of locking people down.
	Never before in the history of America or the world have we done this type of thing?
	But we're going to do this now.
	And so now that we've locked everybody down and we told them that they can't work and we put them on universal basic income, you can't throw people out of their homes and you can't eject them for non-payment of rent.
	Okay? You can't evict them.
	And so that happened under Trump.
	It was extended multiple times under Trump.
	Trump had no problem with that because he was pushing that universal basic income.
	You'll have nothing and you'll be happy with what we give you.
	And then it continued to be extended under Biden for quite some time.
	And so you had several lawsuits that said, CDC doesn't have the authority to come in and do something like that.
	That's a private contract.
	How in the world can you imagine that the CDC has that kind of authority?
	And they were winning court decision after court decision.
	And, of course, it's a very clear issue if you look at the law.
	And when it got to the Supreme Court, you had Justices Kavanaugh and Roberts.
	Again, making a 5-4 majority, saying, no, they don't have the authority.
	They don't have the authority, but they promise that they're going to stop soon, by the end of the month.
	So I'm not going to take that away from them.
	Well, why wouldn't you? They're only going to do it for another month or so, so we'll let them.
	And then when another month or so happened and they didn't do it, the case came back up.
	And then Kavanaugh and Roberts says, all right, You never had this authority.
	You said you were going to stop it, and so we didn't want to clip your wings here, you know.
	But now that you're continuing with this thing, we're going to say you can't do it.
	That's the kind of judges that Roberts and Kavanaugh are.
	I think they're more contemptible, quite frankly, than even the three leftists.
	They're just so dishonest.
	They have the same values as the leftists, but they lie to you about it.
	This is why I'm so angry at Trump.
	I see a traitor.
	As being far worse than the enemy soldier who flies his flag and wears his uniform.
	And these people are traitors, and Trump is a traitor as well.
	Because he does the same thing.
	Stabs you in the back.
	Pretends to be one thing when he's another thing.
	As I've said many times, you treat prisoners of war very differently than you treat spies in your midst, don't you?
	The immigration law that he said affords substantial discretion to the executive, he said, in a 5-4 ruling in Biden versus Texas.
	And he says, and different presidents may exercise it differently.
	Well, I think that they treat different presidents very differently at the Supreme Court, don't they?
	Because with Biden, they let him do whatever he wants to do.
	With Obama, they let DACA go through.
	Obama's administration doesn't have to enforce the law.
	They can declare they're not going to deport anybody.
	They're going to defer action on childhood arrivals.
	And then when Trump comes along, you know, again, he didn't want to do it.
	He kicked it over to the Supreme Court because he clearly has the authority to overrule an Obama administration executive order.
	He's now the executive. But he kicked it to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court said, no, you can't do anything about that.
	Now, in this one, when it comes up to Biden, the Supreme Court says, five to four, no, the president can do whatever he wants to with immigration.
	It's not about the law.
	It's about whether they agree with that policy or not.
	And so... LA Times.
	He may become the Supreme Court's swing vote.
	Yeah. Lots of cheering in the mainstream media over this.
	And we know already what has happened with them and also with the Supreme Court when they talked about shutting down churches and lockdowns.
	Yeah, you can shut down the churches.
	But you can't shut down the casinos.
	What? And so you had a church that lost that court decision.
	Went to a casino.
	And held their church service in the casino to make a point.
	It's just insanity.
	And so now the pronoun debate is likely to come up to the Supreme Court, says Politico.
	So is the Supreme Court now going to tell us what to say?
	It's really more about whether or not other people are going to be allowed to dictate what we can say.
	And it's really fundamentally about parental rights.
	About parental rights.
	This article from Politico says, once again, a pitch battle in America's culture wars is making its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
	In this round, which...
	Whether you're talking about marriage or you're talking about when life begins and all the rest of this stuff, these are not issues for the Supreme Court.
	In this round, the emerging question is whether public school children have a right to choose names and pronouns affirming their gender identity or whether parents' rights to manage the upbringing of their children overrides it.
	Well, you know, it's kind of inherent in the way we always refer to them.
	As public school children.
	You read that phrase there from Politico, and most people just kind of skip through that.
	And what does that really mean?
	What they really mean by it, and they've been very explicit about it in past court decisions, public school children are children that the parents have abandoned to the state.
	In previous court decisions, They said, once you bring your child to the public school and drop them off at the steps, you have abandoned your child to the care of the school and we will do whatever we wish to them.
	We will talk to them about any kind of sex that we wish.
	You know, when that was first done, that was an eight-year-old girl.
	The father did not want her to be involved in a sexual class where they were just explaining heterosexual sex, but he thought it was too early for her to have that kind of detail.
	So he wanted her out of that class.
	They said no. So he went in to take her out of the class.
	They arrested him for trespassing.
	You know, you drop your kid off, you've abandoned them to the state, and we will operate in place of the parents and loco parentis.
	And so, all this stuff about parental rights, people need to start understanding that in the view of the government, you have surrendered your rights when you surrender your child.
	They belong to the state, at least for that majority of the day.
	And the pronouns that we see here don't really matter.
	The pronouns are just a proxy of who has power and who will dominate and who will raise the children.
	Will they be raised by the parents or by the public school?
	That's the real issue.
	And people, even all of this fighting, the school boards and all the rest of this stuff, is a distraction from that fundamental issue.
	Parents sued over these gender issues here, and Politico says they alleged that the defendants violated three different rights derived from the 14th Amendment.
	One, their fundamental parental rights to direct the education and upbringing of their children.
	Two, their fundamental right to direct medical and mental health decision-making for their children.
	And three, their fundamental right to familial privacy and family integrity.
	Okay, now, I don't know if that was in their brief, saying that these rights were given to us by the 14th Amendment.
	The Constitution and the government does not give us rights.
	If they give us rights, they're not rights.
	They're privileges.
	Rights come based on our humanity.
	They are God-given and therefore inalienable.
	Government is told in these amendments to respect those rights.
	There should be a parental rights amendment to the Constitution, not to grant those rights, but to tell them that they need to respect those rights, just like they need to respect our free speech and our ability to protect ourselves with firearms and that type of thing.
	But all of that is true except for the fact that it comes from the 14th Amendment.
	Politico says none of these rights are expressly identified in the Constitution.
	They don't have to be.
	We have the 9th and 10th Amendment, which says you don't have these powers, federal government or any government, unless this has been given to you by the people, by the states, or whatever.
	You cannot assume these powers.
	And the idea that parents get to direct the upbringing of their children, that they get to direct medical and mental health decision-making, and that the family is an important institution, this is not something that we have to be told.
	From a right or privilege that we have to be granted by the government?
	The government needs to be told this in a very explicit way.
	Leave these things alone.
	The children do not belong to you.
	This is all this. It takes a village to raise a kid stuff.
	All this Melissa Harris Perry stuff from MSNBC. We've got to get over this idea that the children belong to you.
	Well, you better understand where these people are coming from.
	And where Politico is coming from, they said all these rights stem from the same aspect of the 14th Amendment that produced the original decision in Roe v.
	Wade, that of substantive due process.
	That is total BS. They're trying to tell you that Roe v.
	Wade gave us parental rights?
	This is such a perversion and an inversion of the concept of rights.
	It's a perversion and an inversion of what the Constitution is all about and what the Bill of Rights is all about and what parenting is all about.
	But that's where these people are coming from.
	And that's where they stand.
	And they are going to stand on that, and they're going to try to enforce that.
	But I think it's very important to understand where these people are coming from.
	On Rockfin, Duke Newcomb.
	Thank you very much for the tip.
	He says, I enjoy your show immensely, especially when we talk about religion and God.
	Well, thank you. It's a very divisive issue.
	It certainly is. Here we talk about religion and politics.
	Nothing controversial, right?
	Though I generally abide with notions of peace, faith, and love for others, you can see how the Bible is used as yet another tool used to fracture humanity, us versus them.
	The violence justified by biblical mandate throughout history makes me blush when you come off as an apologist for this.
	Well, let me be an apologist for that.
	And I'm not apologizing for any of it.
	I'm just explaining it. That's what an apologist is.
	You know, when you look at a situation, I think the one that comes up most often is As, you know, as God tells the Israelites to go in and take the land from the Canaanites, He said, kill everybody.
	Take the babies and bash their heads against the rocks.
	Completely eradicate that civilization.
	And we should ask, why that hasn't happened to us?
	And why God was saying to do that to them?
	It was because if you go back and you look at history and you look at the context of this, and later on you see that in the Old Testament, when he says, stay away from these people, their culture is a disease.
	And it was a disease.
	And it pulled the people of Israel into it.
	And rather than multiplying and taking the land and that type of thing, instead what they did was they intermarried with this culture.
	They adopted it.
	You even had kings of Israel who were passing their children through the fire.
	It was a religious rite that had the two big things that you see coming back over and over again.
	These Ashtaroth poles, the goddess Asherah or Ashtaroth, variations of that.
	That was a free sex celebration, right?
	Big festival, all around free sex, everybody, right?
	And then a few months later, you would have this other festival, That would be where you could sacrifice your children to Moloch for prosperity.
	Murder your child.
	Now we know from archaeological digs, we know that this was rampant throughout the Canaanite area, Palestine area, and down into northern Africa, the area that would later become Carthage.
	They had these big, I think it's called tophets, where they had massive graveyards of bones of children.
	And God had, you know, that is something that, you know, they didn't need a direct revelation from God.
	They didn't need law from Moses or anybody else to tell them that.
	They needed to, everybody knows that.
	You know, there is a natural law that everybody knows.
	You don't kill other people. You don't steal stuff from them.
	But especially, you know, you don't kill your children.
	That is so incredibly unnatural.
	And so they were justified.
	God was justified in terms of telling them to execute judgment.
	And over and over again in the Bible, we see tremendous hardship even on his own people, Israel.
	When they rebelled, he brought in other nations to judge them.
	Unbelievably harsh things that happened with the Babylonians and the Assyrians.
	And even in many cases, God would come back to them with a prophet and said, you know, well, I pulled in these nations.
	I moved them to come against you as a punishment.
	They did so much more.
	I'm going to punish them now for their excesses.
	But we should look at the Bible, and we should tremble.
	And what happened in Sodom and Gomorrah and the judgment that they suffered?
	What happened to the people in the Canaanites who were doing this child sacrifice?
	And it continued on. Even after Israel went into that area and so forth, and during the Roman Empire, in Carthage, where you had Hannibal, who was always fighting the Roman Empire.
	And you had, you know, he's the one who crossed the Alps with the elephants and things like that.
	But he was a big threat to them.
	And perhaps because of that, but I think it was because God was moving them to judge Carthage, because Carthage was involved in these same child, ritual child sacrifices, and these sexual orgy cult followed up by child sacrifice cult, and they go hand in hand. And there was one Roman senator, I think it was Cato, I can't remember, Cato the Elder or Younger anyway, Who ended every one of his speeches in the Roman Senate, he'd say, oh, and one more thing.
	Carthage must be destroyed.
	And they did destroy it.
	God will execute judgment on people.
	So the question when we look at this and the harshness, the question should not be, why were these people judged harshly?
	The question should be, why has he been so merciful to us?
	To delay this judgment to us.
	It's God's mercy and long suffering.
	He has shown us, you know, part, this is justified punishment to these people.
	He has shown that to us, that that is what will happen to us.
	And yet he has, in his mercy, both shown us what is right, shown us the consequences of what is wrong, and given us time to do the right thing and turn towards him, both as individuals and as a culture.
	It may be too late for our culture.
	But it's not too late for any of us as individuals.
	And all of this is those types of concerns that people have for that.
	Or again, the types of concerns that people have for would God actually throw somebody in hell?
	He makes it very clear.
	And if you believe the Bible, that's very clear.
	People reject that because they don't like that.
	That's what the Bible says.
	But the key is that all of us I've been given extended time.
	We've all been given an offer of God's free grace and mercy and forgiveness and the offer of a new beginning.
	And every day that we thumb our nose at it, There's another day that we're building up, storing up wrath to come, whether it's society or whether it's us as individuals.
	But anyway, that's my perceptive, the way I see it.
	On Rockfin, Dougalug, thank you very much for the tip.
	On Rumble, Rabid Roach, thank you for the tip.
	He says, I was happy to suffer through a class with my worst high school group.
	Because I knew I'd follow it up with David Knight.
	Well, thank you. Thank you.
	Here's another piece of history here.
	You still have Jack Phillips, the guy who was at the Masterpiece Bakery.
	And... If you remember, you know, this is a bakery.
	He says, well, I got pre-made goods and I don't discriminate.
	I sell to anybody who comes in here.
	But if you come here and you tell me that you want a particular cake to celebrate your homosexual marriage, then I'm not going to do it.
	Because you're only doing that because you want to rub my nose on this.
	Because, you know, I'm a Christian. He's playing Christian music, I think, in the bakery.
	I'm not sure about that, but I think I remember that.
	But, you know, you know that I'm a Christian.
	It's like going into a Jewish deli and saying, you know, I want you to spell out, I love Hitler or whatever, you know.
	It's just that they were targeting his beliefs.
	And telling him that he had to create that.
	So he fought that in Colorado.
	And there's a Colorado state government that was coming after him.
	The Colorado Supreme Court was also involved in it, but it got overturned at the U.S. Supreme Court.
	And on the day that it was overturned in the U.S. Supreme Court, You had one of the local Colorado lawyers, who was an LGBT radical, came in and he was now a tranny.
	And he said, I want you to make a cake to celebrate the anniversary of my transition.
	I guess that'd be a traniversary cake.
	He demanded that.
	And he says, no, I'm not going to do that.
	And so that began a new round.
	And that began a new round of the government in Colorado coming after him.
	And again, it's the same principle.
	And they really don't care.
	So now he's fighting them again for years.
	And this is another case that is going to be heard by the Supreme Court, presumably.
	The state, even though it had just been slapped down, Launched an almost identical lawsuit against another Christian owner of a digital corporation, 303 Creative.
	And that was also shut down by the Supreme Court.
	But again, they're coming after this guy for the second time after there's already been a Supreme Court ruling about him.
	And about these practices, specifically there, I mean, it's no different.
	It's kind of like this judge in the Trump case I played yesterday goes, well, okay, there's no two identical cases.
	You know, maybe this guy was wearing a red shirt on that day instead of a blue shirt.
	So I guess maybe that's the difference in this was that when this guy came in and demanded that he do that cake, maybe on that day he was wearing a green shirt instead of a red one or something.
	No, the principle is still the same, and so they're trying to get the Supreme Court, without having to go through all the legal process, to shut this down, tell the Colorado state persecutors to just stop this.
	Because this is something that should affect everybody.
	Whether or not you agree with this, you should not be compelled to do things that violate your religious beliefs.
	That was what Thomas Jefferson said.
	The thing that he was most proud of was not the Declaration of Independence, but his document for religious liberty in the state of Virginia.
	That's what he wanted to be recognized for.
	He said it is abhorrent to compel people to pay for and to engage in beliefs and to do things that they don't agree with.
	This is a fundamental violation of that for everybody.
	As I said, I used to go to Colonial Williamsburg all the time.
	There's a guy there who is very good.
	It's Thomas Jefferson. He's no longer there now.
	I looked at him up the other day.
	He is now at Monticello as an older Jefferson because he's quite a bit older now.
	But it was back in the 90s.
	When he was doing Jefferson, and he would be brought down to Raleigh, close to where we lived, and there would be think tanks that would invite him in.
	So I would go there, and I engaged him in those meetings, and I engaged him at Williamsburg.
	I'm sure that he was tired of hearing the question, but I said, well, you said that it was wrong to compel somebody.
	To fund a religion that they didn't believe in.
	That's what establishment of religion really is.
	You know, they would require people, all these different states had different state religions.
	And the First Amendment came up because they didn't want there to be an established federal state religion.
	And that would be imposed on everybody else.
	Because, you know, in Rhode Island, it was the Baptists.
	In Maryland, it was the Catholics.
	And it was the Congregationalists in most of New England and things like that.
	And so they didn't want to give up their state churches, their established state churches.
	And those established state churches would, in many cases, require you to attend that church.
	But in other cases, they said, well, you don't have to attend it, but you still got to pay for it.
	Still got to pay for it. And so I would tell the guy who was a Jefferson actor, I said, so I agree with that principle.
	But, you know, education is very fundamentally about religion.
	So isn't it wrong to compel people to continue to fund beliefs that are abhorrent to you, even if you and your children are not compelled to attend?
	It is abhorrent to me to fund this gender grooming that is going on, this Marxism, this hatred for our country, this abuse of children.
	That is abhorrent to me to fund that.
	It violates everything in my conscience.
	My idea of government, my idea of civility, of the family, of the Constitution, it violates my religion to fund that.
	But anyway, that's where we are.
	So, and we had this discussion.
	I remember when it was going on and Gary Johnson was running for president as a libertarian.
	And he made the ridiculous analogy.
	He said, yes, you know, this guy, Phillips, should be forced to make this cake.
	Now, what has happened to the Libertarian Party?
	If they're going to have this guy be their candidate who makes this argument.
	And the absurdity of what he had to say was, he said, just think about this.
	Think about if an electric company could turn off your electricity because you're gay and they don't like that.
	It's like, this is not at all what we're...
	Do you realize you're talking about electric utilities?
	You're talking about a company that's been given a monopoly.
	This guy does not have a monopoly of bakeries.
	There's any number of bakeries that they could have gone to.
	They chose to go to him because they wanted to rub his nose in the cake.
	I said a better analogy would be to look at the censorship that's being done on social media, which is a de facto monopoly of the public square or a duopoly or an oligarchy, if you will.
	You know, a few companies that are enforcing this stuff.
	Even before we had all the receipts to show that it was coming from government, we knew it was coming from government.
	But I said, if you want an analogy, Gary Johnson, Then the analogy would be the phone company, when the phone company was Ma Bell or AT&T or whatever, and they had a monopoly on the phones, and you got the operator, one ringy-dingy, what was her name?
	Anyway, you wouldn't know. It was very old.
	But she's listening in on the phone, and she doesn't like what you say.
	She doesn't like you. So the Monopoly phone company turns off your phone service.
	I said, that's the analogy.
	If you want to bring a Monopoly thing in there to it, it's not an individual small baker who is being targeted.
	But this latest lawsuit about the Traniversary cake was this lawyer came back who had been fighting him, you know, and opposing him publicly.
	Came in on the day that he won in the Supreme Court and said, I'm starting a new case against you if you won't make my anniversary cake.
	So that is where we are.
	And that is something that should affect everybody.
	No Americans should be compelled to express or to do what they don't believe.
	And, of course, it's surprising that the Supreme Court got that right because they were standing behind the fact that people could be compelled to do what they don't believe when it comes to the public health and the jabs and all the rest of this stuff.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	Make it possible.
	sense. Common again.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	Yeah, follow-up comment.
	Thank you, Rabbit Roach.
	He says, bake a cake to celebrate the fact that I chopped off my genitals and set myself up for a life of misery.
	You bigot. Yeah, that's, uh...
	It is a sad situation.
	And, uh... It's just the saddest thing about it.
	I mean, you know, we see a lot of adults who regret this.
	And I remember when all this stuff began, we didn't hear anything about this until about 2015, 16 or whatever.
	Back in 2014, Michael Flynn was taking the lead with that with an adult Navy SEAL who had done that.
	And he really regrets it.
	And he says, you know, I was set up by these people.
	And he says, if I can be set up as an adult, we need to protect these kids.
	We've heard this over and over again from adults who were set up for this stuff.
	How easy is it to groom children?
	It's just reprehensible what is being done.
	What is being done by the medical community and the psychological community, psychologists.
	These people have been sources of misery and suffering for so many people in so many different ways.
	And now they're focused like a laser beam on the kids.
	That's what's so reprehensible about it.
	Anyway, this, while we're waiting for Tony to come on, this is a short story.
	And it is one of the funniest things I think I've seen quite some time.
	Sam Bankman Fried.
	And there has been a very detailed biography that has come out just recently by the guy who wrote the book about the Big Short.
	A very good book about the Big Shorts.
	I don't know about SBF. But this detail.
	He evidently has a dog that is trained to kill.
	But Sam Bankman Frye doesn't know the activation word.
	He's like, lost the password for the dog.
	It's kind of like all these stories about Joe Biden, you know?
	We're getting this constant stream of people that the dog has attacked, his Secret Service agents, and now it's attacked somebody who is just there in the garden.
	But I guess he's the biting family dog.
	But in this particular one, this story is that, and again, the book is Going Infinite by Michael Lewis.
	Filled with strange anecdotes about this so-called crypto hero, or maybe he's a heel, or maybe he's an inside plant to discredit crypto in general.
	At the end of the book, the writer includes what may be an allegory for the entire debacle.
	An aside about his parents getting a German shepherd that is trained to kill if it hears a German language command that they learned, but that their son failed to memorize.
	He doesn't know the password for his dog.
	He better not have any German friends.
	I guess I gotta say that. So when Sam was in a room with a dog, it always felt as if an accident was waiting to happen, he wrote.
	It would have been very Sam Bankman fried to have been eaten by his own guard dog.
	While the whole story sounds like a potential metaphor...
	The existence of a canine killer named Sandor was well documented at the beginning of 2023 when the Bankman Frides welcomed the pup into their Palo Alto home while their son was on house arrest.
	As Forbes reported at the time, Sandor was indeed trained to attack with a secret word, quote-unquote.
	And Puck, a publication in the UK, revealed that SBF's parents got the dog for him as an unsolicited gift.
	Maybe they've got a death wish for their son.
	Per his reckoning, he'd just shown up one day.
	So, you know, when you look at this, and then we'll get back to SBF later in the show, probably.
	But isn't that the most amazing thing?
	You've got an attack dog trained to kill.
	But this doofus doesn't bother to learn the password, the kill word, setting himself up for this stuff.
	So we're going to take a quick break, and we're going to be right back with Tony Ardeman.
	Stay with us.
	Stay with us.
	Stay with us.
	All right, welcome back, and joining us now is Tony Arterbin of Wise Wolf Gold.
	Of course, he's kindly set up davidknight.gold to direct you there and to let him know that you're coming from this program.
	It's good to have you, Tony.
	Welcome. Good to see you, David.
	Thanks for having me. I think SPF's dog, maybe the password is audit, perhaps.
	He lost the keys to his own dog, like people lose their keys to their Bitcoin wallet.
	I know! Isn't that funny?
	How many people have we seen...
	I don't know.
	But yeah, tell us what is on your mind.
	As we were talking in the break, you said there's a lot of banks that have been put on a death watch.
	Tell us a little bit about that. Yeah, I was looking at a tweet from Robert Kiyosaki from back on the 1st of October and I wanted to read it.
	I was about to retweet it on the Wise Wolf Gold Twitter account, but I was going over it this morning.
	It says, the FDIC has over 725 U.S. banks on a death watch list.
	It says, what does that mean?
	It means America does not need enemies.
	America has bankers.
	Our criminal bankers start with Jerome Powell, the Fed, Janet Yellen of the Treasury, and Jamie Demon of our banks.
	God help us, USA does not need criminals.
	We hire them as our bankers, so said Robert Kiyosaki on his Twitter account.
	This is, I think, the biggest story of our time, David, is going to be the collapse of this financial system, this fake financial system that really has accelerated since 1971, since Richard Nixon took us off the gold standard.
	And I wanted to talk with you a little bit today about You opened up and you're talking about Sam Bankman-Fry, but the crypto, there's been so much movement there and so many things going on with Bitcoin and crypto, and it's global.
	We see Bank of America has launched its own crypto.
	We've talked about CBDC. All of that, the private sector and the decentralized market is a response to the collapsing fiat system.
	This is all going on at the same time.
	And I mean, we're watching gold.
	We're watching central banks buying gold at record pace.
	Shift Gold put out an article today on Zero Hedge.
	So there's so much happening all at once, you know, and the powers that be are trying to capture that momentum by creating CBDC. Honestly, David, I'm watching this and I'm just I'm wondering if they can.
	I wonder if it's gotten out of the control at this point.
	Yeah, yeah. Who knows?
	It is amazing how many different times I have seen these articles, and we talked about this, you know, before you and I, about Costco selling gold and being sold out and everything.
	You know, this is not about central banks collecting gold anymore.
	This is about the public starting to realize what's going on here.
	And they've got a new inflation floor, they're saying.
	The... This is Mark Spiegel of Stanfield Capital.
	He says the new inflation floor is going to be 3% to 4%.
	They're not even trying to get back to it.
	The magic standard has always been, let's get inflation down to 2%.
	They want to have inflation, but they don't want it to be any higher than 2%.
	Now they've just doubled that goal.
	Which tells you that there's something else going on.
	And of course, you're seeing people going through Costco and other places showing snapshots that they took a few months ago or a year ago of what prices are and how things are not up just a few percent.
	There may be double or triple of what they were.
	Well, the UN put out a notice asking governments to stop the 2% goal of inflation because it's hurting the economies by not being more inflationary.
	And wait a minute, I thought this was supposed to be transitory.
	I thought that's what Jerome Powell said, this was all transitory.
	And Janet Yellen used that word, transitory, that this wasn't going to be an issue after they printed 80% of all the dollars ever created.
	Everything about the financial markets worldwide is fiat.
	It's fake. It's built into the system, and it's unsustainable.
	I mean, we're talking about trillions upon trillions upon trillions.
	None of this is going to be able to be reeled in.
	And as we start to see, and the market in the U.S. is schizophrenic, as we talked about every week on your show.
	We're watching the price of gold go down at the same time.
	A lot of the traders are saying, well, we're fearful of the future.
	Well, why aren't you buying gold?
	But they're saying, well, it's because the Fed has raised rates.
	And, of course, they have raised rates faster than any time in history.
	We don't have interest rates to the teens yet.
	But they're believing that, and that's why I think you're seeing the numbers in precious metals, they're believing in the supremacy of king dollar.
	I think that's very short-sighted.
	I don't think they understand what has happened to the system.
	This itself is in decline, and I think that's what we're watching here.
	Yeah, you know, we went back and re-watched recently The Big Short, and it was that same author who was doing the biography of SBF. And the common thing, as I was looking at it this time, I was thinking, you know, they came up with these financial derivatives that they had, securitized mortgages and everything.
	We just mix it all together, put it in a blender, and, you know, you get this whole...
	Slush fund thing, essentially.
	But, you know, they've always got a different angle.
	And everybody always thinks that it's something that is different.
	And yet there is a fundamental similarity there.
	You know, history doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes.
	And this financial history rhymes.
	They come up with these new schemes that are out there.
	But the fundamental thing is you've got to look at it and say, is this real or not?
	And you've got to get back to what is real.
	And that was the thing about the two characters, the central characters in his book.
	There's a couple of them that saw that this whole securitized mortgage thing was going to go really bad and that it was not real at all.
	And they saw that this was, you know, whatever you make the financial instrument, the thing that remains is that it is some way for them to remove you from reality.
	And you've got to get back to something that is sound and that is real.
	And I think there's nothing that's more sound and more real than physical gold.
	That's the key thing. When you try to evaluate all these different games and tricks that they play, they're always going to have a different game and different tricks.
	But again, your question always has to be, is this something that is solid and is it real?
	The term hard money, it comes from the actual hardness of the asset and how hard it is to produce.
	Every time when you talk about the subprime mortgage market or just credit itself, after 1971, every time that you create a loan, when you create a mortgage, that's new currency that's being created into the system.
	So if you have this bonanza, this market that's looking at something like the mid-2000s, where they have low interest rates and the government is creating the environment to say, no, you have to write these loans.
	And you can get the ninja loans, the no income, no job loans.
	And just again, over and over, these subprimes built into this giant bubble.
	That is built to crash, whereas something that is backed by gold, we have a currency system that has to have checks and balances.
	That's where you can have a safe environment.
	There's an economy that you can build something on.
	You can have savings. All of that's been taken away from us.
	So we're in this freefall where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer because of that system.
	That's why the elites built the Federal Reserve.
	That's right. The money supply is the issue.
	You go back to 1913, you have a dollar as good as gold.
	Again, a $20 gold piece is roughly an ounce of gold.
	By 1933, because the Federal Reserve had taken control of the money supply, which is really the banksters, they took control of it, they crashed the system.
	You know, they had people were borrowing funds.
	They had liquidity to borrow against stocks.
	And then margin call happened.
	So, you know, you have the Great Depression.
	And FDR made it illegal for you to own gold so they could get the gold out of the hands of the American people.
	He said, turn your gold in.
	And people did. And all of that gold, David, went to the bank.
	Of international settlements.
	And once those $20 gold pieces were turned in, all those gold coins, Franklin Roosevelt raised the price of gold to $35 an ounce.
	So they got the gold and they got the higher prices and they were able to offset whatever their losses were that they caused in the Great Depression.
	So it's a club and you ain't in it.
	You're not going to win this game.
	So you've got to look and see what the elites do and what the banksters do and not what they say.
	They want you in their fiat system.
	And I was reading an article yesterday.
	And I didn't even know this, just a little bit of history, but it was on Zero Hedge by the International Man, and they were talking about, in the 19th century, aluminum was very sought after.
	It's very rare. It doesn't occur naturally that often.
	And now we just think it's ubiquitous.
	It's like 20 cents a pound or whatever it is because we have the ability through chemistry to make it en masse.
	Back then, Napoleon had his utensils.
	When you go to his parties, the poor staff ate off the gold and the silver, and the rich had the aluminum, which is funny to us now, but it was so much more expensive.
	By the Industrial Revolution, the price cratered, but people were getting their hands on aluminum.
	And so what the article was saying was if something is rare, something cannot be reproduced easily, it becomes an asset.
	And again, it's another example of hard asset.
	Well, gold has stayed steady.
	I mean, we see what's happened to aluminum.
	Gold and silver have stayed steady, especially gold.
	You know, silver, I think, is manipulated beyond the point where I can even explain it.
	And we've talked about this many times where, you know, even the paper price...
	You look and it's estimated that for every ounce of silver that they sell in paper, you know, 240 times one ounce exists in the real world.
	We don't really know what they're doing.
	But I look at these. These prices right now are just absolutely ridiculous.
	And I think it has to do with the schizophrenia in the financial system.
	And we really haven't reached a point where reality is rearing its ugly head, but I think that that day is coming.
	Look at this tweet by Robert Kiyosaki.
	The damage done, and again, inside job, controlled demolition, FTX, Silvergate Bank, Silicon Valley Bank, and all the regional pressure that was put on.
	We're watching, David, I think the auditioning of the major banks to roll out the central bank digital currency is going to come after a crisis.
	Oh, yeah. That's a long way of saying you need to look at what value is in the future, not your dollar.
	And that's true. And, you know, how come you've got so many banks that are on the death watch list now?
	Well, it's because they manipulated them.
	With what? With their bonds and their treasury bonds and everything.
	Rapidly changing the rates on these things to, you know, make those bonds worthless and they couldn't adjust their position quickly enough.
	So, you know, now people are saying, hey, bonds are a really good investment.
	It's like, seriously? It was only just a few months ago that we saw that as the weapon to destroy these banks.
	When you've got something that's like a manufactured collectible or something, everybody go get the Beanie Babies because their value is only going to go up.
	And it's like, you're kidding me, right?
	They're just making this stuff up all the time.
	And it's not anything that's going to have any lasting value.
	We see 725 of them on the watch list.
	And as I mentioned earlier in this court case that went before the Supreme Court about the Consumer Protection Financial Board, that was put in place supposedly to protect consumers and put in that was put in place supposedly to protect consumers and put in a lot of new rules about how they could do And that was what was driving these banks out of business at the rate of a couple hundred a year.
	And Drudge doesn't report on that again.
	But again, that was a couple hundred a year.
	Now we're looking at 725 based on the actions of the Federal Reserve and their rate manipulation in just this last year.
	And the ridiculous commentary from mainstream media was, it was Vox, who said, oh yeah, we don't want to get rid of the Consumer Protection Financial Board.
	And all the banking industry is telling us they don't want to get rid of it.
	Because those are the guys, the big guys who profited from these rules.
	They made it impossible for small and medium-sized banks to do home loans anymore.
	And that put a lot of them out of business.
	And they want to keep that thing going.
	But that's the insider game.
	And when we talk about silver...
	And paper silver and paper gold.
	I mean, that is essentially the same game that they were playing with securitized mortgages, you know?
	What do you really have here?
	Well, do you really have a valuable mortgage here?
	Is there anything of any value here?
	No, we just put this all together, and then you can buy shares in it.
	And that's what they're doing with the silver and gold, and they're doing it in Shanghai, China.
	You want to get yourself Shanghai'd, you know, buy into the paper gold and the paper silver shares.
	It's easy to buy into them.
	You know, you just go on to the stock market and they'll sell you this stuff.
	But does it have any real value?
	I don't think it does. I think that this is another scam just like the securitized mortgages.
	It's funny when history, when governments pick up on that long before the people do.
	And you look at what happened in the 1960s after the assassination and murder of John F. Kennedy by the deep state.
	We took the silver out of our coin, something JFK didn't want to do.
	He actually signed an executive order on silver and had printed $5 bills and notes direct from the Treasury.
	The only president since Lincoln to do that.
	Well, you look at the debasement of the currency that happened post-1964.
	The governments around the world started to take notice because we were technically on a gold standard.
	We had the Bretton Woods Agreement in 1944.
	Gold was $35 an ounce, and these countries would come over and take their notes that they collected U.S. dollars and go to the gold window.
	Well, after we started debasing a currency, countries took notice.
	As a matter of fact, the president of France, de Gaulle, he sent warships over from France to pick up his gold.
	And again, I think they started to understand that.
	So there's a hint here that when you start debasing things, and especially since we've We've done this with a massive amount of printing, historical.
	These numbers, you can't even fathom them, but we delved into post-2020.
	And that's why I think everything that's based off dollars right now is really askew, and it doesn't make any sense.
	And this may be a time when they're accumulating.
	You really just don't know.
	But these numbers aren't reflecting reality.
	I mean, the price of gold broke its all-time high in August of 2020, David, as you know.
	And what's happened since then?
	We've had a massive debasement of our currency since then.
	And even the amount of dollars used in financial transactions has dropped close to 15% globally since that time.
	I mean, that's... Again, unprecedented.
	So I don't think the financial elites and the mainstream media, they're never going to talk about this until it's too late.
	And from what I'm seeing, these stress tests and other things, you're talking about the banks going out of business, and we're talking about bonds and other things.
	The countries that are dumping us rapidly, and it's happening, even going into gold or going to the Chinese yuan, this is historic, and it's happening rapidly.
	Oh, yeah. And, you know, in an article where they're talking about how the use of the euro has really collapsed in the last nine months, again, because of this Ukraine stuff, their economy is on the ropes.
	And they point out that the share of transactions in the euro has dropped from 38% in January to 23% at the end of August.
	And they said what is unusual about all this is the fact that it hasn't happened to the U.S. yet.
	That is, right now it's just in the Eurozone economy.
	But, you know, they continue to be able to suspend reality with their manipulations, and the question is, you know, how long can they play this con game?
	That's another thing I noticed from the big short.
	You know, these guys are going around and saying, you know, look...
	This is what's being done and this is totally criminal and there's absolutely no value here and they're going to the regulators and they're going to the people who do the rating of the bonds and the ratings of the investments and stuff like that and they said...
	Yeah? Okay. Well, so what?
	I'm not going to do anything about it.
	And this one character is like, I just can't believe the system is this corrupt.
	I mean, he just could not get his head around the fact that these people are knowingly doing this.
	But, you know, that's where we are right now.
	There's many of us who understand that.
	And that's really what is happening.
	But in spite of all that...
	There's a Zero Hedge article talking about how gold has held up extremely well in September, even against rising real rates, even as the home mortgages are starting to go up to 8% and everybody is talking, oh, now you need to get into bonds and things like that.
	No, actually, gold is holding its own.
	Yeah, and it always will.
	I mean, again, the charts, if you look at the actual supply of gold, I mean, right now, you know, the annual supply is not, well, it's not in flux.
	There's not a lot of volume based off of what's happened in history.
	Most of the gold right now has already been mined, and then it's come from centuries and centuries of mining.
	So this isn't something that you can't just go and And create a new stock of gold.
	They're not going to hit some mother load anymore.
	This is not going to happen. Any new exploration, any new mining is very well crafted, very well planned.
	It takes years. It takes lots of work.
	So you just can't create it out of thin air.
	And again, that's why governments are accumulating it.
	Well, and as we look at, you know, this mess in the Civil War and the House GOP, and I was looking at that somebody came up with about 10 or 12 possible candidates.
	You know, you've already had Jim Jordan throw his hat in the ring, then Steve Scalise officially.
	There's other people they think may run, like the House Whip Tom Emmer.
	And I thought, well, that'd be interesting.
	I don't know anything about most of these guys.
	I learned yesterday that McHenry, who is, you know, the secret speaker pro tem, you know, they don't tell people who it is until the speaker's taken away for some reason.
	And then it's like, you know, well, let's open up the sealed letter and find out who the replacement is.
	So the temporary replacement, McHenry, somebody who's been involved with the World Economic Forum, Speaking there many times, just like McCarthy as well.
	But when you look at Emmer, I don't know his background except for the fact that he has, for several years running, it's been a big issue for him to oppose this CBDC thing.
	And to me, you know, when we talk about all the different things happening, the economic uncertainty, inflation rearing its head, and all the rest of this stuff, and getting something that is real physical money, to me, it still goes back to the CBDC thing.
	One of the reasons why I don't think that Emmerich would get it, because I think the powers that be would want to keep somebody away from the House speakership who is that...
	That's strongly in opposition to CBDC because that is a big push for both Trump and for Biden and for the establishment to get that through.
	But I think that is the key thing is what is going to happen with a CBDC. That's always what I look at in terms of the gold stuff.
	And it's going to be interesting because economic pressure is really where the rubber meets the road in politics.
	It goes back to the economy, stupid.
	But that's really what it comes down to.
	Right now, we're still floating.
	There's a lot of, I mean, psychological, but the economy, despite what Robert Reich and Paul Krugman say, the economy is not doing well.
	I know that because I have almost inverted my business where I'm buying more instead of selling.
	And that's fine because we're here.
	That's what we do.
	We're a professional gold and silver exchange.
	But I can tell people are raising money.
	And I know people that are experiencing harder economic conditions and having a harder time getting liquidity.
	And some sectors are really hurting, especially lending.
	So it's not good.
	And you look.
	When you have a financial system that's on the ropes like ours, and when we reach some sort of calamity, candidates like Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
	are going to be a lot more attractive.
	He's talked about the ability to hold Bitcoin, being sovereign, and having your own keys and your own wallet.
	That's good. I think people are going to start turning to gold.
	I mean, look, you talked about the Costco story, and you can't find gold there.
	Well, you can get gold from me. You can lock in the trade.
	You can get gold from me anytime. If the trading floor is open, I'll lock it in for you.
	But people, I think, again, this is the beginning of the end result of what's called Gresham's Law.
	And Gresham's Law is when bad money enters a system, good money goes into hiding.
	And that goes into hiding until the system is complete, when it runs out of everything.
	It's, you know, again, Richard Nixon took us off the gold standard in 71.
	You got to know this history because that's when our money became completely faken.
	And then other countries all over the world started to follow.
	So it's a complete worldwide financial fake system.
	And they just print. It's Keynesian.
	You know, and I think even Nixon said, we're all Keynesians now.
	Well, good luck with that.
	You know, John Maynard Keynes said that gold was a barbarous relic.
	Well, okay then. I guess I'm a barbarian because I like value and I don't want to take part in your fake fiat system, which has created so much evil around the world.
	So I think people need to understand there's going to be a shift in our perception of what value is, and especially even the average consumer.
	If you're selling out of gold at Costco, that's a tell.
	Yeah, yeah. Yeah, I think Keynesian economics is a cane that people are going to lean on that's going to pierce their hand, you know?
	It's great. And as you're talking about, you know, the Gresham's Law, as the system runs through its completion, in other words, you go through a cycle where everybody realizes, wait a minute, this is garbage.
	And we're in that right now.
	That's what the fourth turning is really about.
	People realizing that, hey, you know, Congress doesn't work.
	Even the congressmen in Congress understand Congress doesn't work.
	The federal government doesn't work.
	None of these institutions work.
	Schools don't work. They're weaponized against us.
	And, you know, when people look at the financial system, they see how it's not working and how it is also weaponized against us.
	That is all part of a fourth turning.
	Fourth turning, a key thing in all of them.
	Has been economics. You don't always have a war, but you always do have massive economic unrest because of these institutional things that are failing.
	Tell us a little bit about what's going on at Wise Wolf, and how are you doing personally there?
	And with a store that's opened up now in Texas, physical presence there as well as in Arkansas.
	But tell us a little bit about Wise Wolf.
	What's going on? Well, this morning I'm in Branson, Missouri, and I'm here at this shop for the next week or so.
	I've got a great team up here, and we've got Denison, Texas running.
	It's doing well.
	We're just kind of one customer at a time, and it's proximity to the trading floor, and we did that on purpose to create a supply chain, really, David.
	I mean, I think that's... All gold dealers will be defined by their ability to source product in the future.
	So that's what I'm doing here.
	And we have, for your listeners, if you're listening live, we haven't announced it yet, but I did a big silver buy-in for 90%.
	So all those coins I was talking about pre-John F. Kennedy, 1964, or 1963, and before 90% quarters, half dollars, and we have some 10-ounce silver bars and about...
	I think about $40,000 worth.
	So we're going to be putting that on a flash sale for all Wolfpack members, and that's going to go out probably a little bit later today.
	I've had it for a couple of days.
	But we're giving away constitutional silver for anybody who joins Wolfpack or upgrades on Wolfpack.
	If they're a David Knight listener, you can go and just make sure you give David Knight credit, and we'll put your name aside, and we're going to send you free constitutional silver.
	Or if you recommend somebody to join, To me, Wolfpack has been put out front because it's the community I want to build and the...
	The network, the purchasing power, all that.
	I'm able to do buy-ins.
	It's a good way to save.
	It's a good way to stack in kind of the face of dollar cost averaging and the loss of purchasing power of the dollar.
	Whether gold's up or down, you can just kind of set it and let us go out and source your product for you.
	So go to davidknight.gold and check out the tab that says join Wolfpack.
	We have a lot going on there.
	Like I said, there's a flash sale going on today.
	If you want to Go ahead and email us or go to davidknight.gold and just let us know you come from here.
	We haven't put it out anywhere, so this is the first time anybody's really hearing about it.
	I had a David Knight listener call me yesterday and I actually sold him some.
	I said, well, you get the first crack at it because I have it sitting over here on the shelf.
	Lots going on. We definitely want to make gold and silver affordable.
	And that's why we developed Wolfpack.
	So every call is important to us.
	It doesn't matter how much you have.
	So go to davidknight.gold.
	We want you to be a part of our pack.
	Well, that's a great thing, you know, that you set this up to help people be able to exchange information with each other and learn, as well as, you know, the flash sales like you're talking about, and then provide for you a means to save on a regular basis.
	You know, that's the key thing for any kind of an investment program.
	Just doing it gradually and repetitively, and that really does accumulate.
	And so, All those things are just indicative, I think, of the way that you view the business, Tony.
	You do a great job of service for people, and Tony, I've known him for years, a great guy, trustworthy, and all of that is very important, but we're now starting to see that shift there.
	there.
	That's why you're seeing the talk about, you know, people can't find this stuff at retail, but Tony's got access to the stuff there at the trading floor.
	And, you know, he'll eventually, he can lock in that price and eventually get that for you.
	And that's the key thing.
	So thank you so much for joining us, Tony.
	Again, Wise Wolf Gold, and you can find it at davidknight.gold.
	We'll take you there and let Tony know that we sent you.
	Thank you so much, Tony.
	Thank you, Dave.
	Have a good day. Okay, folks, we're going to take a quick break, and we're going to have Guy Relford join us, the gun guy.
	He's got some very important information about a self-defense issue.
	He is a Second Amendment attorney there, and I think you're going to find this very interesting.
	Stay with us. We'll be right back.
	Music In
	a world of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	Yeah, you bet. All right, joining us now is Guy Relford, and we've had him on several times.
	Guy is an attorney, as well as an NRA firearms instructor and other things like that, but he focuses on the Second Amendment.
	His practice is in Indiana, and there's a couple of very interesting cases that he was directly involved in, as well as a law.
	In Indiana that helps to clarify what our rights are when we have to use deadly force and self-defense.
	And so we want to talk about those two cases with him.
	Thank you for joining us, Guy. It's always a pleasure, David.
	Let's talk about this. There's a couple of different cases.
	Christy Phillips was one that you got involved in.
	And tell us a little bit about the facts of that case and then how that got you to get involved in changing the law.
	And then now you've had another second case, and you've seen how important it is that that law was changed.
	But first, tell us a little bit about Christy Phillips and what happened in that particular case.
	You bet. Kisti is a very heroic young lady who lives down in southern Indiana in a very small town called Rising Sun, Indiana.
	And here, about four years ago, she was involved in a situation where there was a traffic stop right in front of her house.
	And it being a very small town, the officer who had pulled over this guy for suspicious activity in the neighborhood, that officer's son was actually at Kisty's house because he knew Kisty's daughter.
	And so they're watching, basically, as this kid's dad and their fellow community member, this police officer, had pulled this person over.
	The person turned out to be on drugs, on methamphetamine, as well as other illegal drugs.
	He immediately got out of the vehicle.
	He's screaming profanity.
	He's screaming undecipherable gibberish.
	The officer tells him to get back in his vehicle.
	He doesn't.
	He ends up running up on the officer, tackles the officer, and is trying to get the officer's gun.
	The person was a former high school wrestler, pretty stocky guy, and he's winning the fight.
	And the officer's losing control of his firearm.
	They're still wrestling over it to some degree.
	But Kisti realizes this is about to turn very bad very quickly.
	She grabs her gun.
	She runs out to the front.
	And she's yelling, get off him, get off him, stop, stop.
	Bad guy doesn't stop.
	The gun's literally seconds or milliseconds away from being aimed at the police officer's head.
	And she shot the bad guy and ended the threat.
	And that person ended up dying.
	But that officer actually later on told me, he said, you know, when I heard that gunshot, I really thought it was me dying.
	And I was saying a prayer that I just hope my son didn't watch me get killed.
	But in fact, the gunshot was Kisti, which is like Christie without the R. It always sounds like people are mispronouncing it.
	Yeah, I see that. I thought it was Christie.
	I was writing that really quickly.
	Yeah. Well, it's not as weird as Guy, but it's a little bit of an unusual name.
	But at any rate, the local prosecutor's office called her a hero.
	The local police officers called her a hero.
	This particular officer definitely called her a hero, saying that she clearly saved his life.
	But just shy of two years later, just before the statute of limitations would run, she gets sued for millions and millions of dollars by the family of the deceased bad guy.
	Saying that she was just a hysterical female who had overreacted.
	And there was never a reason to use deadly force.
	And this was wrongful death.
	And she now owes the family millions of dollars.
	Wow. Did they not have a...
	Was there a police officer's body camera?
	Or a camera in the police car?
	Yeah, there was no video.
	There was no video of the event.
	Everybody there, everyone who witnessed it, including the officer, told the same story.
	I mean, there was really no ambiguity about what happened.
	But because this was something that happened literally in her front yard, her homeowner's insurance was implicated.
	And what's really interesting about homeowner's insurance in this situation is there's an exclusion for intentional acts, like if I intentionally hurt somebody on my property, but there's an exception to the exclusion, which is if I acted lawful and justified self-defense or defense of a third person.
	So her insurance company sent her a letter and said, well, we're going to defend you, but one, we have the right to settle if we want, and two, if it turns out you were not justified, you have no coverage as against any verdict that might be imposed against you.
	So the local police officers, the Fraternal Order of Police down there, looked at this whole situation and said, we don't like anything about this, the fact she's being sued, that the insurance company has the ability to control the defense and any potential settlement.
	And they actually called NRA at the same time they set up a GoFundMe account and raised a bunch of money, almost six figures.
	And so we want to hire the best self-defense lawyer that we can find in Indiana.
	And they called NRA, NRA Thankfully, at least I'm grateful.
	They recommended me and she hired me.
	And I told her two things when she hired me.
	I said, I said, Kisti, we're not only going to win this stupid case because it's a frivolous lawsuit, but we're going to use this case to change the law.
	And that's exactly what we did.
	We got that case dismissed.
	But in the meantime, we had a bill pending in the General Assembly.
	In Indiana that says there's complete immunity for the lawful and justified use of force and self-defense or defense of a third person.
	You can't file a lawsuit if you were injured by that justified use of force or if you're the family of a person who dies as a result of that justified force and self-defense or defense of a third person.
	And if you say Damn the torpedoes and file a lawsuit anyway in the face of this immunity.
	There's a mechanism to get the case dismissed early on what's called summary judgment.
	And there's a mandatory attorney's fees provision that says that the plaintiff then has to pay back all the defendant's attorney's fees for having brought that frivolous lawsuit in the face of the immunity statute.
	Oh, that's excellent. That's what we did.
	You were involved. That is an amazing case, the facts of that and then the follow-up to that.
	And then you were involved in that legislation.
	Is that correct? Yeah, I was.
	And I'm real active legislatively.
	I started a group called the Two Way Project, which is focused on Second Amendment rights.
	As you mentioned, my law practice is focused on Second Amendment rights.
	And so I've always been very involved legislatively, and I've helped write other bills or written other bills.
	And so here, I wrote a self-defense bill that laid out what we just described.
	And then took it to some legislators here in Indiana and said, hey, we want to get this thing passed.
	And I was able to do that in the context of Kisti's story, which made it that much more compelling.
	And by the way, I always like to brag that I wrote this thing and then helped to get it passed.
	But Kisti came in and testified in both the House committee that heard the bill and the Senate committee in Indiana.
	And there wasn't a dry eye in the room because of how compelling her story was that she really was forced into this to defend a neighbor and a police officer.
	And then her life Basically could have been destroyed by her being sued for millions and millions of dollars, and it was very compelling.
	So Kisti Phillips is the reason we have that new statute.
	Well, that's great. I'm glad to see a happy ending to this, and it is a happy ending.
	And, you know, she went through this, but it's going to be something she can be proud of.
	You know, there wasn't pointless suffering, and it had a good resolution in it.
	You know, you talk about her particular...
	It reminds me of years and years ago, the Luby cafeteria situation.
	We had a woman who was a dentist, and she was there with her parents.
	At the time, she wasn't allowed to carry her firearm, so she left it.
	She was worried about the legal implications of it, so she left it in her glove compartment.
	You had somebody drive through into the building with his car and gets out and starts shooting people.
	And her testimony, she later became a legislator.
	And I remember seeing her testimony many, many times.
	Tearful testimony of how, if she had had her gun, she could have saved her parents.
	But she was told that she couldn't, and that made a big, big difference.
	Unfortunately, it was a very tragic situation for her, because she lost both of her parents, and a lot of people were killed in that.
	The good thing in this one is that even though Kisti went through a real ordeal with that, and it is an ordeal whenever you have to use your gun to kill somebody, But it is preferable to seeing your loved ones or friends or someone killed, murdered unnecessarily.
	And so, you know, for all the stuff that she went through, it had a great outcome.
	That's a super story.
	Well, you know, and what really hit me hard...
	It meant a lot to me, is in one of the committee hearings, it was in the House Judiciary Committee, one of the legislators, seeing that Kisti was very emotional about this and was obviously putting herself through the trauma again by coming in and testifying publicly about it, when she didn't have to do that, she could have stayed home.
	And avoided having to relive that whole traumatic situation, including the trauma being sued where she was worried about losing her kids.
	She was a single mom. She was worried about losing her daughter's college savings funds and her house.
	But at any rate, one of the legislators asked her and said, you know, what made you come in and speak to us and support this bill?
	And she said, you know what?
	Without an immunity bill like this, if these people were able to successfully sue me, for instance, then I'm worried that the next person won't run out their door and save that police officer, or the next person won't take their gun into Libby's And have it available to them to save innocent lives.
	And I'm worried about the negative effect that a lawsuit like this has.
	And I'm willing to put myself through this because I think that we need this law for exactly that reason and as a deterrent to those lawsuits so that the lawsuits aren't a deterrent to law-abiding citizens defending themselves or defending other innocent people.
	And again, that was incredibly compelling.
	Oh, yeah. And, of course, the insurance company, if they didn't throw her under the bus, they would have thrown everybody else under the bus even by making some kind of a settlement.
	You know, that's probably what these people had calculated.
	She's got deep pockets because of the policy that's there.
	And, you know, that would have established that kind of precedent that you talked about for everybody else and put a lot of people at risk.
	It would have raised everybody's insurance premiums, because that's why the insurance company doesn't care about that kind of stuff.
	It's like, yeah, we'll make a settlement with them, and we'll just raise everybody's premiums.
	So it helped in so many different ways.
	It truly is amazing.
	And that's something, the law getting passed is, how long ago was this case?
	You said they waited two years before they came after Kisti.
	And then when did this law get put through?
	Did the law just get passed through recently?
	Actually, the law went into effect in 2019.
	So I guess the event with Kisti was perhaps a little earlier than what I described.
	But the law was passed in 2019, and that was a little more than two years after the original incident.
	And it was kind of neat because we had the NRA annual meeting here in Indianapolis that year, and our governor, Governor Holcomb, actually signed the bill into law from the main stage at the NRA Leadership Conference, which was a big event.
	So it was very satisfying.
	A lot of work went into it.
	But I was able to be there with KISTE when the governor signed it, and so it was...
	It was a big event, but it's a really important change.
	And I'm proud that it happened in Indiana, but one of the reasons I was so enthused about talking to you about it, David, is there's no reason why this shouldn't be the law in all 50 states.
	Now, we know there are blue states out there that would never consider it in a million years.
	They despise our ability to defend ourselves, but for the majority of the states in this country, there's no reason why there shouldn't be a similar law out there protecting people.
	I'll tell you, I mean, for instance, I'm not only an instructor, but I'm kind of a training junkie when it comes to firearms and self-defense, and I go to multiple classes every year, and I bet I've been, literally, I bet I've been to Three or four dozen classes where at some point there's a lecture that says, oh, by the way, if you use force, even if you're completely justified, you just better count on getting sued.
	The bad guy's going to suit on you.
	It doesn't matter if he breaks in your house.
	If he gets hurt, he's going to sue you.
	Or if he gets killed, his family's going to sue you.
	And I would always sit there listening to that lecture, especially as a lawyer, going, well, why is that?
	Why is that okay? You know what?
	Let's fix this thing.
	You know, we got this nail that we've been, the old sleeping dog has been laying on this nail on the front porch and it's just too much problem to get up and do something about it.
	Let's fix this problem.
	Exactly. And by the way, Kisti at the time was the seventh person that I had represented who had lawfully and justifiably used force and self-defense and either got prosecuted or got sued or both.
	And I looked at that and said, you know, that's just not okay.
	I'm not trying to cut into my own business, but I'd rather have citizens have immunity.
	And that mandatory attorney's fees provision is so important because that's a big deterrent.
	Because before that plaintiff's lawyer, I mean, how many times have you heard the commercial Well, unless I recover for you, you don't have to pay me any attorney's fees, right?
	I mean, you see that commercial all the time.
	Well, now they can say, well, you don't have to pay me any money as your lawyer, as the plaintiff's lawyer, unless we recover.
	But, oh, by the way, there's this immunity that we probably can't defeat.
	And if we can't defeat it, the case is going to get dismissed.
	And once the case gets dismissed, you have to pay all the other side their attorney's fees back.
	Yeah, yeah. After recovering nothing.
	So it's a huge deterrent, and we're really proud of it.
	That's good. Yeah, people need to look at that.
	And, you know, we see these types of things going around.
	The gun control laws, you know, California will come up with some idea, New Jersey, and they'll start passing that around.
	But it works the other way as well.
	We've seen the increase in constitutional carry bills going around and increasing in states, and this is the type of thing that really does need to increase.
	I've heard all the commercials about, well, if you carry concealed, you need to join this organization.
	We've got an insurance policy here to defend you, but cut it off at the beginning.
	You know, don't clutter, don't expose anybody to this jeopardy.
	If it is justifiable and the law enforcement people realize that it's justifiable, you should not have any legal jeopardy over some kind of a civil action that is being taken over that.
	That really is the right approach.
	You're correct about that. And that's how our statute works, actually, picking up exactly on your point, David.
	Which is that if there's no criminal prosecution from the use of force where self-defense or defense of a third person is claimed, that lack of criminal prosecution raises a presumption of justification which implicates the immunity and you can use that presumption of justification to get the case thrown out early based on a lack of criminal prosecution.
	So it really works exactly like you suggested, and that's how we wrote the statute that we've had for a while.
	And here just recently, what was really satisfying, and I know you've seen this opinion, is we were able to use that statute to get a case where I represented two homeowners who defended their home against somebody trying to break in in the middle of the night and then got sued for it.
	We were able to successfully have that case dismissed here more recently, and that's a compelling story too.
	Yeah, yeah, let's have this story.
	So you were involved in the landmark case that pushed through the legislation that you helped to write, and now you had somebody who decided that they felt lucky, so they were going to go against this law, and you got that shut down.
	Tell us about that particular case.
	Tell us the details of that. Stewart, that one, much more recent.
	In fact, it's really still pending over a couple of administrative issues.
	But this is one where two homeowners in Indianapolis were asleep in bed at 3 o'clock in the morning.
	The dog starts barking.
	They realize someone's pounding on the front door.
	They ran out, or the man did, and someone is kicking on their front door.
	Then he's putting the full force of his weight and his shoulder into the door, trying to break the door down.
	He's screaming, let me in, let me in.
	The homeowner yells, I don't know you, go away.
	And the guy outside is cussing a lot and doesn't make a lot of sense, but he runs around to the back of the house, tries to get in the back door.
	It's locked, thankfully.
	But then he breaks the window next to the back door in an apparent attempt to reach in and unlock the door.
	And the homeowner at this point has retrieved his handgun and he said, listen, go away.
	I have a gun. And the guy that responded by saying, well, then you're going to have to shoot me.
	Word I won't use.
	It starts with a B. You're going to have to shoot me.
	And at which point he tried to gain entry and the homeowner having no alternative shot him.
	And exactly the same thing in the sense that the prosecutor's office looked at it, the police investigated.
	All the physical evidence matched up with what the story that both he told and his wife told.
	It was a clear case of castle doctrine where you can defend your home, including with deadly force, the way our law is written in Indiana, against an unlawful entry.
	And even to prevent an unlawful entry, you don't have to be in your house.
	If they're trying to get in your house, you can prevent that unlawful entry, including with deadly force.
	And that's the way the law is written.
	That's the way it should be written. And we included in our immunity statute, we defined as a forcible felony, someone trying to break into your home in violation of the Castle Doctrine, committing a crime.
	A lot of states call it breaking and entering.
	In Indiana, we call it residential entry.
	But anyway, we said if you're trying to commit residential entry, that's a forcible felony.
	And in Indiana, stopping someone from committing a forcible felony is also justified in terms of the use of deadly force.
	So again, no prosecution.
	And we raised this new immunity or put it in my answer to the plaintiff's complaint and said, you can't file this lawsuit.
	We have immunity for this.
	And there's going to be an attorney's fees award.
	They said, damn the torpedoes.
	No, no, we think we can defeat it.
	We think we have evidence it wasn't justified.
	And just a couple of weeks ago, we went in and had a hearing here in Marion County, which is Indianapolis.
	And just a matter of days ago, got the judge's opinion where he said, nope, the law is clear.
	There's immunity under this situation.
	The presumption that arises from a lack of criminal prosecution could be used to get a case dismissed where the plaintiff has no affirmative evidence to rebut the presumption that the use of force was justified.
	And here they had speculation.
	They said, well, he was just asking to come in.
	He wasn't trying to break in.
	Really?
	What about the broken window?
	I mean, it was really kind of silly.
	And I give judges a lot of credit because judges don't like to dismiss cases early.
	If you look at when judges get reversed on appeal, dismissing cases early is fertile ground for getting that reversed.
	Not here because it's very, very clear cut.
	But generally speaking, judges are reluctant to grant summary judgment or motions to dismiss.
	And this judge had the fortitude to do just that and said the law is also clear that the plaintiffs have to pay the defendants back their attorney's fees.
	And so asked me to submit my final statement on my fee.
	Which the court will review, and then they're going to award an attorney's fee.
	So my client doesn't have to worry about paying me any money because they're going to get that paid from the plaintiff.
	And you deserve it.
	You've done a great job.
	You defended that other person.
	You got a law run through there, and that law has held up now.
	And for a second time, you defended some.
	Of course, you said you defended a lot of people like that.
	But that's exactly what we should see with that.
	Let me, and of course, I did mention at the beginning of the program, you've also got a radio program, besides being an NRA instructor, and besides having a law firm that specializes in the Second Amendment, Guy Relford, R-E-L-F-O-R-D, if you want to find him on Facebook, if you need his help.
	But you also have a radio program, The Gun Guy, I love the title, that's Yeah, again, the radio station likes making use of my odd name, but yeah, it's just a weekly show, David.
	It's just on Saturdays in Indianapolis, but they also put it out there as a podcast as well, so a lot of people who can't listen in live from 5 to 7 in central Indiana.
	We reach, I think, 52 counties, so it's a good-sized radio station.
	But people who can't listen in can go to wibc.com and find the podcast as well.
	And we just talk about Second Amendment issues.
	And it's kind of fun because it's a call-in show for the whole two hours.
	Yeah, that's great.
	And that's my favorite. Actually, my very favorite is when people call in and want to argue with me.
	Because I do this for a living, right?
	Yeah. But it's a lot of fun.
	But, you know, people call in with everything under the sun, from legal questions.
	I don't give legal advice on the radio, but I can explain what the laws say.
	To technical questions, gun questions, you know.
	I mean, how do I fix this problem with my trigger on an AR-15?
	I'm just... It's really interesting.
	I never know what I'm going to get, which really makes it fun for me to do.
	Of course, I always have somewhat of an agenda in terms of what I want to get into, but the listeners often take us in different directions based on the calls we get, which makes it a lot of fun.
	I bet it is fun, especially when somebody calls in and they want an argument.
	When you said that, That made me think of the old Monty Python skit.
	You want an argument? Okay.
	He starts arguing about whether he's going to do an argument with him or not.
	But you've got more substantial arguments to talk about.
	Let me ask you this, because we've had some interesting things, as you point out.
	It brings up a lot of different interesting points of law.
	And we've had an interesting back and forth.
	I talked about last week about the fact that Trump went to South Carolina and they had a commemorative gun that had his face on the handle.
	And it's like, oh, yeah, I got to get one of these and everything.
	And then his assistant said, yeah, he bought it.
	And then he had all these people say, wait a minute, he's indicted for a felony.
	He can't buy a gun, which is very similar.
	As Reason pointed out, it was exactly the same type of thing that they're coming after Hunter Biden.
	You know, they're saying, well, you know, you're not allowed to buy a gun if you're a drug addict or a drug user or whatever.
	Both of these things are non-violent issues.
	Trump hasn't been convicted of anything.
	He's just been indicted for something, and indicted for something that is not a violent crime even.
	And so they were looking at this, and they said, you know, we need to look at these laws and not be so colored.
	You know, you've got people who are Sharing the fact that, oh, maybe we've got another thing on Trump here, or other people saying, yeah, let's get Biden on this thing.
	But, you know, maybe the law itself is the thing that needs to be changed as to whether or not the ATF has it.
	And then I saw another issue where they said, it looks like...
	Hunter may wind up trying to use Bruin in that decision to say, you know, this is an unusual restriction that's been put here that doesn't fit in the historical context of what was meant by the Second Amendment.
	So according to Bruin, maybe he still has an issue, I would imagine, of lying on a form.
	But nevertheless, what do you make of that?
	Of those two juxtapositions, I thought it was an interesting juxtaposition of those two, that you might have actually the Biden family supporting the Second Amendment and some freedoms involved there unintentionally.
	Yeah, war and litigation make estranged bedfellows.
	Yeah. But yeah, I mean, if anybody would have ever asked me, I would support a legal argument that Hunter Biden was making.
	I would have doubted it.
	But here, you're wise and you're dead on, David, to focus on the Bruin decision, because both in the Trump scenario and the Hunter Biden scenario, that's exactly where they're going.
	In fact, the exact law that you mentioned relative to Hunter Biden-y, It was recently found to be unconstitutional.
	This is in a district court case in Texas, so it has no direct bearing on his case.
	But I can see it really snowballing because, as you said and as you know, Bruin says, look, we look at text, history, and tradition.
	And we look at the text of the Second Amendment.
	Does this law implicate a protected right or not?
	If it does, then we say, all right, does the long history and tradition of the regulation of this right Mm-hmm.
	Mm-hmm.
	And in this case that found the law that says if you're a user of or addicted to any illegal drugs, you can't possess a firearm and makes it a felony to do so.
	This court in Texas looked at that and said, hold on, we can find historical restrictions on saying someone can't possess a firearm if they're currently intoxicated or inebriated, impaired.
	But we don't see anywhere just the occasional user.
	And important distinction, that was a case where this guy was an occasional marijuana user.
	And he admitted to authorities, yeah, he said, you know, I'm a recreational marijuana user.
	I said, oh, well, marijuana is still illegal at the federal level through the Controlled Substances Act of 1970.
	So therefore, it's illegal under federal law.
	Therefore, you've admitted you're a user of or addicted to an illegal drug.
	Therefore, you're going to prison for 10 years or at least a maximum.
	And that's what they found to be unconstitutional under the Bruin analysis.
	But the very similar thing, and in fact, Amy Coney Barrett, now on the Supreme Court, wrote an opinion that said just this.
	It was a dissent, but it was at the Seventh Circuit.
	They said laws saying even people convicted of nonviolent felonies Should not lose their rights.
	And the law that says that if you have any felony conviction, even a nonviolent one, I mean, you could have an accounting conviction based on tax fraud or something, and suddenly you're being likened to a violent criminal we can't trust with a firearm.
	And Amy Coney Barrett wrote an opinion before Bruin.
	Obviously, that said this is unconstitutional.
	There's no history and tradition of limiting nonviolent people just because of a criminal conviction.
	And then compound that and say, well, here, Trump hasn't even been convicted of a nonviolent felony.
	He's only been indicted. So the law that says if you're just under an indictment for a felony, even a nonviolent felony, to say that's unconstitutional under a Bruin analysis is not a stretch.
	Because we're seeing...
	He was saying these different laws, a lot of these very recent laws, a lot of them part of the Brady Bill, some of them part of the Gun Control Act in 1968, but a lot of these are following one after the other.
	And I'm somewhat expecting the pendulum to swing back because, for instance, there's a...
	There's a case in front of the Supreme Court right now that involves the law that says if you are under a domestic violence order of protection, you can't possess a firearm.
	And that doesn't mean you've been convicted of a crime.
	It's been proven that you are a violent person based on your criminal history.
	It's just a judge found enough of a threat to say you ought to be under this domestic violence order of protection.
	The Fifth Circuit, again, another case coming out of Texas, found that law to be unconstitutional to say, wait a minute, there's no criminal conviction here.
	There's a potential threat, but we don't take people's constitutional rights away on that basis, at least not historically and traditionally under the Bruin analysis.
	That is in front of the Supreme Court right now.
	And it doesn't feel very good, I will tell you.
	Do you think they might take the gun and do the due process later, as Trump said?
	But this one had been under multiple domestic violence.
	This particular litigant had been under mutual domestic violence order of protection involving multiple women.
	And he does appear to have somewhat of a criminal history.
	Now, there's a reason the blindfold is on Lady Justice, right?
	And the judges aren't supposed to look at the facts of any individual case and be influenced by that.
	We're supposed to do a strict legal analysis under the concept that justice is blind.
	But I think anybody who wouldn't think that these particular facts wouldn't lead the Supreme Court to go, well, maybe we ought to roll this back just a bit.
	I think it's probably being a little naive because there's no saying among lawyers that bad facts make for bad law.
	And these facts are not great.
	It's not the case I would have wanted to have taken up on that issue.
	But anyway, based on the analysis out there right now and based on Bruin as it exists, these laws, the fact that an 18 to 20 year old can't buy a handgun in a gun store under federal law.
	What's the history and tradition of having to be 21 to be armed in this country?
	When, if you join the militia, quote-unquote, in 1791 at 17 or 16.
	So there's a lot to talk about for a lot of these laws.
	Where you get drafted in modern America at 18 and sent to Vietnam.
	Yes. Right? That you can't buy a gun.
	And, you know, that's the kind of stuff that, you know, we see.
	And, of course, you know, that was even, you know, when I mentioned, you know, take the gun and do the due process later with the red flag stuff and everything.
	That same meeting, you know, Trump was pushing the idea of let's raise the age that people can buy guns.
	It's kind of interesting because this whole Bruin thing, I think, is going to, you know, hit a lot of these different issues.
	Again, the bump stock, for example, you know, what's Bruin going to do to the bump stock?
	We've seen a surprising number of losses in terms of the challenges against the bump stock.
	And to me, that was a very, very big precedent because it established the fact that not only could they infringe against our constitutional protections of a God-given right, but they could also be done not just by the legislature, but it could be done by the bureaucracy or by but they could also be done not just by the legislature, but it could be done Now we've seen, you know, Biden exercising that as well.
	And so when you go back and you look at the bump stock thing, we've got this, I think it's the Fifth Circuit.
	I talked about it just the last couple of days.
	Yeah. The Fifth Circuit Court where you got, I know Michael Cargill back at Central Texas Gunworks who's running that through, he's had a victory there, but there's been losses on the other side of this with a lot of other courts.
	What do you think is going to happen with that bump stock?
	Because that is a big precedent.
	You know, we've never had regulation of attachments and things like that before.
	Especially by executive order.
	It's such an important point, David.
	I'm glad you raised it because I said when it happened, you know, Trump, you remember the news conference, he said, well, bump stocks are gone, right?
	He's responding to the horrific shooting in Las Vegas.
	And he said, I can do that.
	I don't need to have you guys pass.
	Well, that's exactly right.
	And so many people on, you know, our side of the Second Amendment debate said, well, you know what, if we give them bump stocks, then maybe they won't come after so-called assault weapons, semi-automatic rifles.
	And so nobody really cares about bump stocks anyway.
	So, you know, even the NRA came out and I strongly disagreed with the NRA on this.
	And I said this publicly, huge mistake.
	NRA came out and said, we invite the ATF to re-examine the legality Of bump stocks.
	And I'm saying, I'm sorry, you're inviting the ATF to rewrite laws written by Congress?
	And simply because the president tells them to do so doesn't make it legal or constitutional.
	It's an inappropriate use of the legislative power by an executive agency, and that's what we need to reel back in this country.
	But when Trump did it, and people say, well, guy, do you really care about bump stocks?
	I go, no, bump stocks are stupid.
	If you come to my range where I'm teaching a class and you've got a bump stock on your rifle, I'm going to make fun of you.
	Even, you know, before the ban.
	Because you're trading accuracy for rate of fire, which is typically stupid.
	So, at any rate, I didn't care about bump stocks.
	Bump stocks are dumb. I would never own one.
	But the precedent, and that's why the point you made is the important one, the precedent he made by saying, I'm going to snap my finger.
	Well, what did Obama say?
	I got a phone and a pen.
	Yeah. Well, he never much delivered on that, but President Trump did.
	And then now, what are you seeing?
	ATF on so-called ghost guns.
	ATF on what they're calling forced reset triggers.
	ATF on short-barreled rifles, where they're saying, oh, well, we told you 10 years ago that if you put a brace on your pistol, it doesn't make it a rifle, but we changed our mind.
	So now we're going to rewrite a definition of short-barreled rifle as written by Congress.
	And all that's based on the bump stock precedent.
	I think we have a great shot at destroying a lot of these, not only under the Bruin analysis, but because they are unconstitutional in the fact that they're legislative authority being exercised by the executive branch.
	And we even had an important decision that had nothing to do with guns of the Second Amendment.
	It came out of the Supreme Court here a couple years ago.
	It was West Virginia, and it was an EPA regulation case.
	I think it was a clean water or clean air case.
	I don't remember now, but they said, hold on.
	You know, the EPA just going out there and making up its own rules without an express delegation of authority from Congress doesn't fly anymore.
	We're reeling back on that fourth branch of government that's become so dangerous in this country that our founders never intended.
	For the IRS and the ATF and all these executive agencies to be able to have the power they do and a bunch of armed agents running around putting people in prison, that's not what we ever envisioned in terms of enforcing rules that they've written and that they've created without Congress.
	That's what was never intended by our founders.
	And so hopefully we get that reeled back.
	And ATF is fertile ground for that right now for all the reasons you mentioned.
	Yeah, that really, it just, I couldn't believe when that happened, because I've talked for the longest time about the power of the bureaucracy of the regulatory state.
	I said, you know, we had the slogan for 1776 was, you know, no taxation without representation.
	Well, we have now taxation without representation, because these people can fine us, but we also have regulation without representation.
	And what's even worse is they say, well, because this is a rule and not a law, you don't get due process, you don't get the presumption of innocence, and you don't get protection against excessive fines.
	And so we've seen this metastasize.
	Originally, I think it was the IRS that was doing it predominantly, but now it's metastasized to all these different agencies.
	And so now they're going to just do gun control by doing that as well.
	That's a really, really dangerous thing.
	And it was not just the bump stock.
	It was also the pistol brace under Trump.
	And that got put in in 2019.
	Then they pulled it out in December of 2020.
	But then Biden puts it back in.
	Lala Harris, when she's running, said, yeah, I'm going to give Congress 100 days to do all the gun control stuff I want if you elect me as president, and then I'll just do it by executive order if they don't do it at that point.
	It really is a horrific thing, and it is a much bigger problem than even just the Second Amendment to try to get this regulatory state under control.
	So it'll be interesting to see what happens.
	With the Supreme Court decisions on this, and again, I think the bump stock issue is such an important thing, even though the bump stock itself, as you point out, is a total piece of garbage.
	You know, everybody says it's a piece of garbage, but it's an important principle, and that's the key thing.
	The principle is so important, even if the item isn't.
	Well, it's always great talking to you, Guy.
	And again, people can find GunGuy, and they can find that at, what's the call letters for the radio station again, where they can find that podcast?
	Oh, it's WIBC. Yeah, you can find me at wibc.com, or my Twitter, or X, I guess we're calling it now, is just at Guy Relford.
	Great, great. Thank you very much, Guy.
	Always a pleasure to talk to you, and thank you for what you've done, and that's a great example that you've got there, and other states do need to implement that.
	That is an important law to protect people who are doing what they can to protect themselves and protect other innocent people at the same time.
	Thank you so much. You bet. Thank you, David.
	Always an honor. Thank you.
	We're going to take a quick break, folks, and we'll be right back.
	All right. The seed in our homeland, boys, let it grow where all can see.
	Feed it with our devotion, boys, call it the Liberty Tree.
	It's a tall old tree and a strong old tree.
	And we are the sons, yes, we are the sons, the sons of liberty.
	The End
	Liberty, it's your move. it's your move.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	Well, we had a disturbing thing happen yesterday in the UK. Always a lot of disturbing things happening.
	They're the patasticizing Orwellian state.
	Lawrence Fox, who was an actor until he spoke out about his politics and he got banned.
	But, of course, he still is a very good actor.
	He played Hunter Biden, of all things, in My Son Hunter, that was done by Phelan McAleer.
	And... He has run for mayor of London against Sadiq Khan.
	He has been involved in the creation of a political party to try to undo this globalist attack on our society and on our liberties called Reclaim.
	But he was arrested yesterday for things that he had to say.
	And I thought it was kind of a...
	This is an interesting case because they have charged him with conspiracy, not with hate speech or something.
	He has been arrested on suspicion of conspiring to commit criminal damage to these despicable ultra-low-emission zone cameras.
	And we've seen the videos of the people out there, you know, wearing masks and hiding their identity and cutting these things down.
	And I sympathize with them.
	Actually, I'll say that I applaud them, but I'm not engaging in any of this conduct myself.
	But he had declared his intention to participate in that openly defying these cameras.
	And so it was, you know, this is a bit of activism.
	It's not strictly speech.
	But let me show you what happened.
	Here he is as he's live streaming the police coming into his home prior as part of his arrest, doing a search of his home.
	Morning guys. In London's knife ridden capital city where a 15 year old girl was stabbed to death with a sword.
	We've got one, two, you can show them.
	One, two, another three upstairs.
	Stealing, going through my house to intimidate me because this is what the police are.
	They don't police with consent anymore.
	They police with fear and intimidation.
	That is the starzy police force that we've got nowadays.
	Instead of being on the streets solving crimes like the murder of the poor 15-year-old girl, they're all over social media.
	I take it.
	The ULES scam cameras outside of London are a complete...
	The outer ULES zone is a complete scam.
	There's no scientific evidence.
	Sadiq Khan rubbished the evidence and had it rewritten to serve his own needs.
	No-one voted it.
	It's the beginning and bringing in of a surveillance state.
	And he's trying to make noises so that I can't say that.
	It's the beginning of a surveillance state and these boys are the Stasi.
	Stasi. Bless them.
	So have a lovely day. I'm going to spend my day in the clink, innit?
	Yeah, and he's absolutely right about all that.
	It's the beginning of the, well, it's not the beginning, but it's metastasizing in the next level of in-your-face surveillance state.
	These guys are acting as the Stasi.
	But he had also, the reason that they were there, this clip shows him talking a little bit about them being there, but also about what he said, which is what they claim gives them their right to come there.
	What? Look how many coppers there are in my house.
	Look at them. Coming to steal everything, take everything out of my house.
	That, ladies and gentlemen, is the country that we live in.
	The only way to deal with this, be it tearing down Uless cameras and to tear down every single camera there is.
	And I will be joining them to tear down cameras as well, because I'm one of those people that puts my money where my mouth is.
	So I'm pretty close with several, and I will be...
	Yeah, I'll be out there with my angle grinder.
	I would encourage mass, mass removal of the surveillance state because once it's there, you cannot remove it.
	I would be happy to be arrested myself.
	When I go out and take their cameras down, which I will be doing, I will be taking my phone with me so they know exactly where I am.
	I would happily sit there and go, sit in court and go, who voted for this?
	What's your evidence for the Outer London Clean Air Zone?
	What's your evidence for that?
	Why are you doing this?
	You know, I'd sit there and do it, but I do that.
	I've got several court cases going on, as you know.
	But, yeah, I would.
	So, I think he knows what he's doing.
	I think he is doing this knowing that he's going to be arrested.
	And this is the issue, you know, when you think about how do we...
	How do we approach these things?
	And the same thing is going to happen with these robot police that are now being rolled out in New York City and other places.
	You have these surveillance Daleks, if you want to call them that.
	You know, the Doctor Who things is what they look like.
	They don't shout, danger, danger warning, Will Robinson, like the Lost in Space robots.
	But, you know, if you don't like these things and you kick them or vandalize them or something like that, they'll probably come after you as if you kicked a police officer.
	And if you declare that you're going to do that, and open defiance of it, and I think he knows that.
	He's not stupid. He knows that, and he wants to challenge that directly.
	And so, hats off to him, you know, to take that on directly, to challenge this directly.
	I hope that they have a better trial-by-jury system than we do here in the U.S., because, again, the...
	As we saw from the Trump judge, well, I can do whatever I want.
	Juries don't know what they're talking about.
	And this is what we see from judges as they shut down trial by jury.
	They lie to the juries.
	They say, well, you're not there to judge the facts of the case or the law or how it's going to be applied.
	You're not there to judge whether or not the ULA's cameras are correct.
	Your question is just, was he going to damage these things?
	Was he conspiring to do it, talking to other people and that type of thing?
	So if they're able to pull that same kind of game that they do here, he'll be courageous, but he'll be a martyr at the same time to do that.
	I would like to see it establish a precedent where a jury says, yeah, that's right, we don't like these things, and we're going to let people off if they want to tear them down.
	But that is, I'm not sure if that's the world that we live in.
	I'm not sure if that's the judicial system that they're going to see there.
	It's very much like what he's talking about in terms of cutting the heads off of these Eulahs, Surveillance cameras.
	Reminds me of the beginning of Cool Hand Luke, where you see, as the credits are rolling at the beginning of the film, you see a drunken Paul Newman who is out there with a pipe cutter, and he's staggering around, and he's cutting the heads off of parking meters and everything, and he gets arrested, and they send him to jail for a considerable amount of time for the property damage that he did.
	And he gets there and, you know, what are you here for?
	And he says, cutting heads off parking meters, sir.
	And he goes, well, what do you think that's going to get you?
	He says, I don't know, sir.
	Well, it's going to get you a couple of decades here in prison.
	And then, of course, that key scene from the movie where they were putting the handcuffs and the chains on his ankles and his feet.
	Which is really what these utilize cameras are really about.
	Yeah, there they are, hammering them in.
	And that's what's happening right now.
	As they're putting those cameras up, as they're enacting these restrictions against us, it's the handcuffs and manacles that they're putting on us.
	...and them chains after a while, Luke.
	Don't you never stop listening to them clinking?
	Because they're going to remind you of what I've been saying.
	For your own good.
	Wish you'd stop being so good to me, Captain.
	Don't you ever talk that way to me.
	Never! Never!
	What we've got here is...
	failure to communicate.
	Some men you just can't reach.
	That's right.
	And some men you just can't beat into submission, right?
	And I got an idea that Lawrence Fox is one of those men you can't beat into submission.
	Well, you have this case in Switzerland about free speech.
	This is more typical of what we see happening.
	A Swiss writer who called a journalist, quote, a fat lesbian, unquote, was sentenced to 60 days in prison.
	And the LGBT is applauding that, and so is the mainstream media.
	And this woman is objectively a lesbian.
	She makes that very clear.
	She's an activist about that, so there's no question about that.
	Of course, fat is subjective, and it's meant as an insult, so we're not allowed to insult somebody.
	And I guess when you pull up one of the pictures there, the NBC News AP report from Information Liberation shows her picture.
	I guess the truth is no defense.
	Look at this. But again, it's an insult.
	You're not allowed to insult people if they're politically connected or if their causes are those of the government.
	NBC News and the AP, as Information Liberation points out, are praising this jail sentence.
	This guy who said that got 60 days in jail for calling this woman a fat lesbian.
	But again, you know, in this particular picture, she doesn't look like she's that heavy.
	But again, it's all subjective.
	And it fundamentally was an insult.
	So he gets 60 days in jail for insulting her.
	LGBT groups, says NBC, hailed the 60-day jail sentence of a court in Switzerland gave to a writer and a commentator for deriding a journalist as a fat lesbian, among many other critical remarks.
	You know, we used to have really...
	Harsh things said about people, even during campaigns.
	People called Abraham Lincoln a nutmeg addict, among other things.
	They made fun of his physical appearance and the rest of the stuff.
	The term was actually a hatchet face.
	That's right. Son of a nutmeg dealer.
	That's right. That's right. Yeah.
	Thank you for correcting me on that.
	You're exactly right, Travis.
	Hatchet-faced son of a nutmeg dealer, because that was essentially a kind of a drug at the time.
	The AP goes on to say, this court decision is an important moment for justice and for rights of LGBTQI people in Switzerland.
	The conviction of Alain Sorrell is a strong signal.
	That homophobic hatred cannot be tolerated in our society.
	These are people who hate free speech.
	Because, again, your ability to—you should be able to say hateful things, even if I don't agree with that sentiment, even if I don't like hearing hateful speech from people like Trump or other people.
	He should be allowed to say that, and it should not be a crime.
	It is only a crime if you hate speech.
	I don't know—the AP was chiming in on this, and, of course, the AP— Has been famous for quite some time about having its own speech rules.
	So I'm not really exactly sure what terms the AP would like you to use for a fat lesbian.
	That would be acceptable to them.
	On Rockfan, Chris M., thank you very much for the tip.
	He says, Thanks for all you do, David.
	I'm a long-time listener, and I've learned a lot from you.
	Well, thank you. Two favorite things that I've learned from you.
	Precedent Trump. That's right.
	This simple title summarizes Trump in just two words.
	I'm afraid that's correct. And the term MacGuffin.
	I'd never heard of this term before you introduced it to me.
	I like the term so well that I ordered a MacGuffin t-shirt from your website today.
	Well, thank you very much. I have one here.
	I don't usually talk about merchandise, but here is the MacGuffin t-shirt.
	And you can see that in real, real time here.
	There we go. And so thank you very much.
	I appreciate that. And I'm proud of that design.
	By the way, I want to thank the love of the road for the Trump chew toy that he sent to us.
	And our dogs really do like this as well.
	As you can see, he's missing two legs or one leg and an arm.
	And it's been a rough time here for Trump and Trump.
	In this, the Knight household.
	But we have, on multiple occasions, thrown him to the dogs, both metaphorically and literally.
	So, it really was a surprise to see that package when we opened it.
	I was like, what is this?
	This orange hair that was sticking up there?
	But... On Rock Fan, Chad Warren, thank you very much.
	I'm glad I finally started watching David's show after all this time.
	Well, thank you. Appreciate that.
	Before we run out of time here, we've got about eight minutes left.
	I wanted to talk about what's going on with immigration.
	And you may have seen that at the top of the Drudge Report last night, I think it popped up, The fact that Biden is going to build a wall!
	And of course, it'll be just as ineffective as Trump's wall was, and it's just as much of a dodge for the immigration problem, because that's not really getting to the fundamental aspect of it.
	And let's talk about the fundamental aspect of it.
	I've always said that it's about the welfare magnet and what you can get when you come in.
	Well, of course, as we talked about, the person who had all these people who were seated, they had been caught and they were going to be released by the US government.
	And so they're asking them, this reporter's going down the line, asking them in English and also in Spanish if necessary.
	But a lot of these people are coming from Africa or from Asia, all these different places.
	But asking them, you know, where'd you come from and where are you going?
	Almost all of them are going to New York.
	Why? Well, because like the bank robber said, that's where the money is.
	And it's where the nice hotels are for people.
	And so Babylon Bee had a funny headline.
	Vacationing family poses as illegal immigrants to get a free hotel room in New York City.
	Good evening. I mean, hola, amigo.
	Amigo? Amigo?
	It says amiga. I guess.
	I don't know. Am I Spanish? I guess one is gender-related, right?
	How is that going to happen in all these languages like Spanish and German?
	So if you have to know the gender of something, they've got to really be confused.
	This goes way beyond pronouns for those people.
	Anyway, we're weary, illegal immigrants looking for a top-floor corner suite, preferably with a jacuzzi.
	Away from the ice machine, por favor.
	Feeling compassion for their plight, the hotel employee offered condolences to the Donaldson family for Governor Hochul's harsh words about illegal immigrants coming to New York.
	Such ignorance, responded Mrs.
	Donaldson. You know, a little room service would go a long way toward healing the wounds.
	Some, what do you Americans call them?
	Margaritas, perhaps? Well, that's not too far away from the truth that we see happening there.
	In New York...
	They're spending on these migrants between $300 and $500 a night on hotel rooms.
	It's one of the reasons why they're looking at a bill, a total tab because of the number of people and the amount of money that they're spending.
	A bill of about $4.5 billion.
	And, of course, these rates that they have now negotiated with these hotel owners...
	Are, in many cases, twice what the hotel owners were paying or charging for rooms before.
	Well, I tell you, those New York liberals drive a hard bargain, don't they?
	Tell you what, we've got this big contract, and we're going to, you know, one of the hotels, talking about this about three months ago, it's a hotel that was declaring bankruptcy because Nobody other than illegal immigrants from other countries.
	Illegal aliens want to go there and get free stuff, but most people don't want to go to New York to vacation for so many reasons.
	But, you know, after the lockdown and everything, they've not recovered.
	Things of, you know, a lot of issues, reasons that you would not want to go to New York City.
	In the past, people used to want to go for Broadway.
	I don't know if that's even opened up yet, really.
	But anyway, they were going out of business.
	And then Eric Adams comes around.
	It's like, well, I will give you like, you know, 90% occupancy guaranteed, and we'll pay you twice of what you were charging people before.
	Wow. You know, that's driving a really hard bargain.
	If you're going to come in and give somebody full occupancy and pull them out of bankruptcy, don't you think you'd negotiate a price?
	But no, not these guys.
	And so this is the type of thing that is pulling people in.
	And there was about 450 miles of wall that is there now at the border out of 2,000 miles.
	And, you know, those 450 miles, most of that was a repaired wall that Trump did.
	He didn't really do anything new.
	So think of this in terms of, well, we've got a, you know, we've got a 20-foot wall here, but there's only four feet that actually have a wall.
	The rest of it is a big open walkway.
	The other 16 feet is a big open walkway.
	That's what our border looks like.
	You know, so maybe you got two feet on this side and two feet on that side, and then you got 16 feet of an open walkway for people to come right through.
	That's what our border looks like after Trump's wall.
	You think it's going to get any better with Biden's wall?
	And, of course, you had the Department of Homeland Security come in and say, well, we've just waived all these environmental regulations, and I forget, it's like 30 different regulations they just waived.
	Why didn't Trump do that?
	Why didn't...
	And again, it's not going to stop anything.
	They said, well, we have an emergency.
	This is something we need to do something about this immediately, says Mayorkas at Homeland Security.
	And yet, the only thing they could do would be to, you know, set up some concertino wire and put the military there at the border to defend our border for once.
	Except that the Biden administration has been sending troops down to cut that concertina wire or whatever.
	There was a recent video by Michael Yan who I interviewed.
	He was down at the Darien Gap doing reports about how these traffickers, these NGO traffickers who are charging people a fortune or they're getting paid by Soros or other people like that, bringing them in.
	They're now indebted to them.
	Maybe they have to work in prostitution or they bring these kids in for trial trafficking.
	But however they get there, they're coming in to various places in Central America, and then they have to funnel through that Darien Gap.
	And so he was showing all the people coming in.
	But he had a picture of somebody in uniform, and you see a big crowd of people on the other side of the concertina wire.
	And then this is an American official in uniform, and he's got heavy gloves on, and he's holding the wire, and he's cutting it, and there's a patch on his shoulder.
	And when I saw that, I don't know if there was an update to that to say where the guy was from, but Michael Yan put that out, and he says, so, who is this?
	You know, what is this patch?
	Anybody recognize this patch?
	And, you know, what group or organization or branch of the military or border patrol or, you know, what bureaucracy is this guy part of?
	Now, we need to know what's going on.
	And quite frankly, it has gotten so bad now that Biden is going to talk about building a wall.
	But it's just talk.
	If you've got the welfare magnet, you're going to pull people over it, under it, through it, around it.
	That's why they're coming in.
	And you've got to stop that welfare magnet.
	The wall is every bit as much of a distraction as a beard, as a head fake, as it always was with Donald Trump.
	But isn't it interesting that Biden is now resorting to that?
	Of course, you know, the jab was bad until he became president, and then it was a good thing, and he mandated it.
	And of course, maybe he sees an opportunity to build a wall around us, because that's what Ron Paul always said, to be careful about that wall, it can keep you in a country as well.
	Thanks for listening. The David Knight Show is a critical thinking super spreader.
	If you've been exposed to logic by listening to The David Knight Show, please do your part and try not to spread it.
	Financial support or simply telling others about the show causes this dangerous information to spread farther.
	People have to trust me.
	I mean, trust the science.
	Wear your mask.
	Take your vaccine.
	Don't ask questions.
	Using free speech to free minds.

▲