Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 25, 2023 - The David Knight Show

03:02:19

The David Knight Show - 10/25/2023

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	As the clock strikes 13, it's Wednesday, the 25th of October, year of our Lord, 2023.
	2023.
	Well, today we're going to take a look at free speech.
	Because even the Supreme Court supports government censorship.
	And the frameworks and the mechanisms for this are expanding rapidly.
	One of the things that I've talked about for a long time is now being implemented.
	Adobe, part of the CCPA, which you might think of, an easy way to remember it, is the Chinese Communist Party of America.
	That's what big tech is setting up, that exact same mechanism.
	They call it the Coalition for Content Provenance and Authentication.
	Same thing.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	Well, before I begin, I want to thank everybody who supported us yesterday, as well as Marty, who matched the funds.
	Thank you so much, all of you.
	And I've not updated the gas gauge yet.
	We still had people who were contributing, who listened to the program later, that were contributing on Zelle.
	And I'll have a list of people to thank on Zelle and...
	I'll have an update for that tomorrow.
	But let me begin with what is happening with free speech.
	And it is truly being weaponized, and this is a very, very ugly mirror to our society and to our government, but also to our society.
	People are demanding this.
	There is no tolerance for disagreement anymore.
	And that's on the right as well.
	And we can really see this with the division between support for Israel or Gaza or whatever.
	There is absolutely no tolerance on either side.
	And we're doing this without anybody having been killed yet.
	Can you imagine? When that begins.
	As people have always said, truth is the first casualty of war.
	And they have already begun a war with us, but it's going to get much worse.
	Well, the Supreme Court gave a green light.
	That's essentially the way Alito positioned it.
	He said this will be perceived as a green light because it is a green light.
	It's a big green light to government censorship.
	You had a majority of the court, six to three, voted to overrule...
	A lower judge, a lower court judge, who said that government telling social media what they want censored, in some cases being very direct about it, the judge said, this is a big affront to the First Amendment.
	And of course it is. And yet the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, and he put a stay on that.
	He said, you can't do this anymore.
	Until after we finish this trial.
	This is so bad, I'm going to stop it right now.
	And the government appealed it to the Supreme Court.
	And the Supreme Court said, no, we're going to let that continue.
	While the case continues.
	Samuel Alito, and you know, if we don't get rid of this idea of judicial supremacy, I've got to say, you know, Netanyahu is a warmonger.
	I don't know much about his domestic policies.
	But I know that they were in a fight over the Supreme Court there, being able to overrule anything and everything and legislate from the bench, as we have seen here for a very long time.
	And I agreed with him on that issue.
	Wrong on the vaccine, trying to push everybody into a war everywhere, especially with Iran for decades.
	But he was right about the Supreme Court issue.
	And we have to understand the threat to us as well here.
	And I say that especially because even though there's been some court decisions that we've agreed with, and the court is slightly leaning conservative, you have to understand that there's three people who are pretty reliable with that.
	Two who are really reliable.
	Gorsuch has mostly been on a conservative side.
	But the rest of them are not reliable.
	You've got three hardcore leftists.
	You've got two hardcore conservatives, Alito and Clarence Thomas.
	And they're getting close to retirement age.
	And so we don't know how much longer this is going to go.
	Roberts is not conservative.
	Roberts has not voted that way.
	Kavanaugh is another Roberts.
	And Coney Barrett has, this is another one of her very, very disturbing decisions.
	Kind of interesting that she was asked to enumerate the different parts of the First Amendment in her confirmation hearing.
	And she has been at her worst with the First Amendment.
	If you remember during the Trump lockdown, They said that people could, that casinos could open up, but not churches.
	And so you had, and that was supported by Coney Barrett and the Supreme Court.
	Now, we'll keep the churches shut down.
	We'll let the casinos open up.
	And so you had some people say, well, we'll hold a church service in a casino.
	How about that? She's been wrong on fundamental issues that are very surprising because she's made a public display of her faith and her activity with her church and so forth.
	But again, just like George Barna said, a biblical worldview isn't just how you refer to yourself and what you call yourself.
	It's shown in what you do.
	Yeah, you believe in God, so are the devils, and they tremble.
	Show me your faith by your works.
	And she has shown us what she truly believes in.
	Not the First Amendment.
	And so, federal officials in the Biden White House can now resume censoring conservatives on social media.
	And what the left does not understand about this is that the censorship is going to come for them as well.
	It's just right now they agree with it.
	Right now everything is going their way.
	And they have embraced the authoritarianism.
	It used to be the shoe was on the other foot.
	It used to be that it was the left that was being attacked and investigated and spied on and censored and all the rest of this stuff.
	And conservatives like that.
	And now the shoe's on the other foot.
	Nobody cares about this in terms of a principle.
	The Supreme Court on Monday stated a lower court injunction that blocked such censorship on First Amendment grounds.
	A decision that Justice Samuel Alito called highly disturbing.
	He said this case concerns what two lower courts found to be a coordinated campaign.
	That's been documented.
	We always knew that was the case.
	We always knew that this was coming from the government.
	But anyway, it's been documented.
	And now two lower courts found this to be a coordinated campaign by high-level federal officials to suppress the expression of disfavored views on important public issues.
	He wrote this in a dissent.
	Alito did. He said, either coercing social media companies to engage in such censorship, coercion, or actively controlling those companies' decisions about the content posted on their platforms.
	Again, we didn't need to see the documents of this.
	We knew what was happening because we could see that there was an agenda.
	Anybody who criticized narratives that were dear to the heart of the government were censored.
	Whether you're talking about the climate MacGuffin or you're talking about the COVID MacGuffin or you're talking about their wars and on and on, we knew that was the case.
	And we also knew...
	Because they were trying to use third parties as a beard and say, well, we're doing this because the Southern Poverty Law Center or the Anti-Defamation League are telling us this, or because, and we'll talk about this in depth, NewsGuard.
	We're going to take a look at NewsGuard.
	Who's really behind this?
	It is very interesting to see the connections.
	And when I saw who was behind NewsGuard, I've known for the longest time that NewsGuard and ElectionGuard We're coming from the intelligence communities, military and industrial corporations, from DARPA, the Defense Department, and that type of thing. But now we see the conservative connections to this.
	That's right. It's just like when I told people, I said, you know, Rick Stillerson, yeah, he was the CEO of Exxon, but guess what?
	He's one of the biggest pushers of the green agenda because they're making money on the green agenda as well.
	They're getting in on the ground floor.
	People say, no, it can't be Rex Tillerson.
	He was the CEO of Exxon.
	You don't know what's going on, pal.
	You don't know anything about this.
	He says, oh, really? Yeah, we'll see.
	And what did he do? You know, his first and principal thing that he did as Secretary of State was to continue to oppose trying to get out of the Paris Climate Accord.
	And he was successful in keeping Trump from getting out of it.
	Yes, Trump said, well, I'm going to get out of it.
	But he never did. He said, well, I'll get out of it in 2017.
	I'll get out of it after the 2020 election.
	How about that? Well, he kept that promise.
	He got out after the election.
	And then a month or two later, when Biden came in, he said, well, we're back in it.
	And there is no authority for them to self-ratify a treaty, which is what that is.
	But nevertheless, the bottom line is that Rex Tillerson, Exxon's CEO, was really on the side of the green agenda.
	And the people who are really on the side of this government censorship are conservative organizations.
	And we'll talk about that.
	Even though they're censoring conservatives.
	Then Missouri Attorney General, who's now become a senator, Eric Schmidt, And Louisiana Attorney General, now Governor-elect Jeff Landry.
	Yeah, it's kind of interesting. You know, these guys have both moved up and on with their careers.
	It's almost as if the American public, enough of them, and at least Republican states, don't like censorship, you'd think?
	Anyway, they...
	Several private citizens joined, including COVID medical experts whose views on COVID-19 were suppressed on social media, alleging that the Biden administration was censoring those views, including scientific analysis of data, as they have for the longest time with climate.
	A federal judge in Louisiana sided with Schmidt and Landry, granting an injunction against the White House and the Biden administration officials.
	The court said, quote, It is the purpose of the free speech clause of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of the market, whether it be by government itself or by private licensee.
	Well, exactly.
	And especially by the government.
	Especially by the government.
	For the longest time, when they talk about an uninhibited marketplace of ideas, again, nobody, even in the Supreme Court, goes back and references the 1946 case, Marsh v.
	Alabama, where it was a coal town, company-owned town, and you had somebody passing out religious tracts on the town square, and they said you can't do that.
	And they sued them and took it all the way to the Supreme Court.
	And the Supreme Court said, even if the public square is privately owned, You can't censor speech in the public square.
	Dorsey at Twitter said about eight times under oath and testimony to Congress that Twitter was a de facto public square.
	And, yeah, I've had these discussions with Robert Barnes about this and says, well, there's been cases since then that decided different.
	Said, well, even if they decided different, they're wrong.
	But they didn't decide that about a public square.
	Those court decisions that Robert Barnes talked about were decisions about somebody setting up, you know, getting on a soapbox in the middle of a mall.
	A mall is not the public square.
	A mall is retail space.
	The same as if you set it up inside of Sears or JCPenney.
	And one of the big anchor tenants.
	That is not the public square.
	So, again, everybody knows that, and he even refers to this as kind of, you know, everybody knows that Dorsey was correct when he said these have become the de facto public square.
	You know, in the UK, you have situations where when some product becomes so dominant, That it becomes, the name of the product becomes synonymous with a category of products.
	Then they lose their trademark name.
	For example, Kleenex or Hoover.
	Hoover has become a verb in the UK. You're going to Hoover something up.
	And so they've lost their trademark to that.
	And if you become the de facto public square, you don't have the ability anymore to suppress speech.
	You know, if you're a private company and you don't like what people are doing, you can fire them, right?
	But not if your private company is the de facto public square.
	You can't put a gag in people's mouths.
	So anyway, by six to three, the Supreme Court took the rare step Of granting the stay to restore the power of the Biden administration to pressure social media to suppress views of administration critics during an election year.
	Think about that.
	Six to three, not even close.
	Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Gorsuch.
	Everybody else went the other way.
	You know, we look at Coney Barrett, and you look at Kavanaugh.
	As I've said many times, when it comes to conservative court appointments, the Supreme Court is like a box of chocolates.
	You never know what you're going to get.
	And the liberals always know what they're going to get.
	They're going to get liberals.
	And they may get even more liberal when they get it.
	And more authoritarian. And more anti-constitutional.
	But many times, more often than not, you look at the three that Trump put in, only one, only one leans to the right.
	And so, again, as Alito said, today, a majority of the court, without any explanation, Because there isn't any.
	They're going to need some more time to come up with some kind of prevarication to beat around the First Amendment bush.
	Without any explanation, the majority of the court, 6-3, suspends the effect of that injunction until the court completes its review of this case, an event that may not occur until late in the spring of next year.
	Alito said, government censorship of private speech is antithetical to our democratic form of government, and therefore today's decision is highly disturbing.
	Well, it'd be better if he said antithetical to the Constitution.
	Because we have a republic. The injunction applies only when the government crosses the line and begins to coerce or to control others' exercise of their free speech rights.
	Does the government, said Alito, think that the First Amendment allows executive branch officials to engage in such conduct?
	Well, quite frankly, I guess they do.
	Including two out of the three Trump appointees.
	Despite the government's conspicuous failure to establish a threat of irreparable harm, the majority stays the injunction and thus allows the defendants to persist in committing the type of First Amendment violations that the lower courts identified.
	So the government can't say that they're harmed by this.
	We all know that the government, as currently states, What they have done and continue to do in so many different areas is so obviously unlawful, unconstitutional, and destructive of America, that free speech would be withering to the Biden administration, which is why they are so eager to shut it down.
	But this goes back to the Trump administration, and I'll get to that in a moment.
	That's really where the precedent, again, was set.
	Trump set so many precedents that the Democrats then grabbed that ball and ran with it.
	And it wasn't a fumble.
	It was a handoff.
	He said, Alito said, I fear this will be seen by some as giving the government a green light.
	To use heavy-handed tactics to skew the presentation of views on the medium that increasingly dominates the dissemination of news.
	And, of course, that's social media.
	He says that is most unfortunate.
	Well, it's more than unfortunate.
	How does this roll out?
	You know, and for what purpose?
	Well, a lot of this is originated...
	With the military and with DARPA and with the intelligence community, which is the real government, if you understand what's going on.
	And so it originated with them.
	But the Supreme Court is not going to shut this thing down.
	As a matter of fact, yesterday, one of the reasons I don't have an update on all the totals and everything is because I spent four hours going back and forth at the eye doctors.
	You know, just nothing serious, just getting some new glasses, but it took forever.
	And we're checking out the lenses.
	He gave me a thing to read and it was a paragraph.
	And so I read the paragraph and he says, you could read audiobooks.
	And I said, well, I kind of do.
	And eventually, we talked about it, and I told them it had a podcast.
	And so somebody else was there, and we were getting the glasses.
	And she said, well, I'd like to know where to find your podcast.
	And I gave them the information.
	I said, but you won't find me on YouTube, and you won't find me on Spotify.
	I've been kicked off the biggest platforms.
	Because of what I said about COVID and the vaccine.
	And then other things, of course.
	But as we got into lockdowns and stuff like that.
	But anyway, the woman who was there said, what did you say about the vaccines?
	I said, don't get them at all costs.
	And she goes, good, good, good. She said, I had to get a shot to get in to see my brother who was dying of cancer.
	And she said, I'm so angry about that, I still can't believe that that happened.
	I said, yeah, it's that blackmail.
	And because, you know, that was disinformation.
	Well, there is now a lawsuit, Consortium News, which has been around for quite a while, founded in 1995 by Robert Perry, who has now passed away.
	Consortium has, over the nearly 30 years, It created over 27,000 articles.
	And NewsGuard took exception to five articles.
	They said, well, there's five articles you did we don't like.
	And so they completely blackballed everything from Consortium News.
	They don't come after those articles.
	They come after the organization.
	And so as a result, they put a warning label on every single article from Consortium News.
	Same thing they do with me.
	You get purged, you get labeled, and all the rest of the stuff.
	But it's about to get much worse.
	And this is going through NewsGuard.
	So Consortium News is now suing NewsGuard for defamation and malicious acts and all the rest of this stuff.
	But understand that NewsGuard has a twin sibling, ElectionGuard.
	And both of them are coming from the Pentagon, coming from DARPA, funded by DARPA. ElectionGuard is a subsidiary of Microsoft.
	And its funding was, its only funding, was a $10 million grant from DARPA. So it's a DARPA thing, and they're using Microsoft as a beard.
	And all this stuff that I'm going to get into with CCPA, the Coalition for Content, Provenance, and Authentication, that is also a DARPA project that is being laundered through Microsoft.
	Oh, they own Microsoft.
	Going back to the antitrust stuff that they brought up with Bill Gates, you remember that.
	You've seen the videos where he's sitting there rocking back and forth, you know, under questioning.
	Well, they got what they wanted out of him, you know.
	He made a deal with them, and they've been using Microsoft ever since then.
	They let him get away with theft, and as a result, he's become...
	There's a word that I want to use that I won't use on this program.
	Anyway, a news guard attaches an electronic label to every Consortium News item on search engines and on social media that warns news guard subscribers to, quote, proceed with caution.
	Because they said Consortium News, quote, fails to maintain basic standards of accuracy and accountability.
	Such statements slander and defame Consortium News and are arbitrary, wanton, malicious, and reckless.
	Yeah, tell me about it.
	By the way, as I said, five articles out of 27,000 over 28 years.
	And that gets the whole organization is now permanently blackballed by NewsGuard.
	Whatever happened to the New York Times and the Washington Post, who over and over again have been caught and exposed in lies and done retractions?
	It doesn't matter if you do a retraction, right?
	And we'll talk about their standards here.
	But again, the New York Times had a reporter who got a Pulitzer Prize for a piece of fiction that she made up everything about it.
	Some inner-city girl or something.
	It didn't have anything to do with the government.
	Ah, that's the issue, you see.
	You can lie up one side and down the other as long as you don't criticize the government agenda or narrative.
	News Guard arbitrarily attaches such ratings to the entire production of a news organization, says the lawsuit, even where News Guard has taken issue with only one or a small number of the organization's productions.
	This means that any article produced by a targeted news entity will have attached to it the NewsGuard red flag and label even if NewsGuard never read the tagged article or if NewsGuard had no dispute with that particular article.
	So NewsGuard's got misinformation fingerprints and this is where the CCPA is going to be coming in.
	This is the beginning of this.
	They're doing it From the inside, disruption from the inside, and it's going to be iterative.
	They have a contract with the Department of Defense's Cyber Command, which is part of the intelligence community, in order to censor people.
	To censor people.
	The claim posits that media bodies expressing counter-opinions or contesting the U.S. stance on international affairs, specifically related to Russia and Ukraine, are systematically tagged as anti-American and spreader of Russian information.
	So when we got at Infowars and everybody got purged on the same day as Facebook and Apple or Facebook, The executive, you know, Zucker and Tim Cook are talking.
	And within 10 hours, everything, everybody's accounts are purged.
	Except for mine on Twitter.
	And then the Daily Beast tried to get me purged on there.
	But they just shadow banned me on Twitter.
	I've been frozen at that level ever since.
	So it jumped up.
	When I got fired for about a week or two.
	And then they started the purge on people on Twitter and everybody ran to Gab.
	And so it went up like 20 or 30,000 and then it went down 20 or 30,000.
	It stayed level since then.
	And we can see... How they are, you know, it'll go up during the week, during the weekend, and then during the week they would take it down.
	I mean, it was pretty obvious what was happening.
	But the reason I bring that up is because that happened on August 6th, 2018.
	Before the midterms, In 2018, in October, they got rid of 800,000, 800 different news organizations, things like anti-war and things like that.
	And I had the editors from anti-war come on and talk about it.
	The common thread was not that they were Trump supporters.
	The common thread was that they were opposed to the military-industrial complex and the police state.
	And that was in 2018 before they rolled out this pandemic stuff and these measures.
	So it was obviously coming from the Defense Department.
	And we've been peeling back the layers of this onion for quite some time, but it was pretty clear where they were coming from.
	When you looked at who they were using as a beard, when you looked at the speech that they were censoring, it was pretty clear where it was coming from.
	And now we've got the receipts because of what happened on Twitter with Elon Musk exposing that stuff.
	So it's not just the people that are...
	Critical of the Russian-Ukraine war.
	It's also people who are critical, of course, of Big Pharma or Big Climate or any of their MacGuffins, any of their narratives.
	And as this discussion with Consortium News expands, many people pointed out that Jimmy Wales, the advisor, co-founder, is an advisor to NewsGuard, and he's the co-founder of Wikipedia.
	This is one of the reasons why...
	Elon Musk said, I'll give you a billion dollars if you use a, let's just put it this way, self-deprecating label for your company for two years.
	And so maybe what he should do is offer some money for NewsGuard to rename itself.
	But NewsGuard is really kind of, maybe they could have them rename themselves Ministry of Truth so that everybody knows that it's really just this Orwellian thing.
	News Guard is just as cynical as the Ministry of Truth.
	Every bit as cynical as the Ministry of Truth.
	And so, when you look at, they're trying to get an injunction against News Guard.
	Well, good luck with that, because we can't even get an injunction against the Biden administration censoring people with social media.
	The Supreme Court doesn't like that.
	So, they're also suing them for $13 million in damage, defamation, civil rights violations, and things like that.
	Elon was told, again, by a guy who used to work for Trump, Mike Benz, that Jimmy Wales advises NewsGuard, the co-founder of Wikipedia.
	But it gets bigger than that.
	According to Uncover DC, NewsGuard has contracts with the Department of Defense, the World Health Organization, and Pfizer, Microsoft, and AFT. They're there everywhere.
	And then when you look, here's where the connections come to big conservative organizations.
	You look at the two co-CEOs of NewsGuard.
	First one, Stephen Brill.
	Brill was the CEO of a company called Verified Identity Pass.
	It was the first U.S. biometric voluntary credentialing program.
	It went bankrupt in 2009 because, you know, nobody wants to volunteer for that, right?
	Then it resurfaced as clear, which is used by the TSA. No longer voluntary, but coerced by the TSA. Would you like to get through this line a little bit faster?
	Well, you know, let's do this clear thing and do biometric.
	It went public in 2021.
	So this is a guy, Stephen Brill, who's an Ivy League graduate, and the corporations that he's founded have been set up to tag and identify us for the surveillance state.
	And he's now become successful because he went through TSA rather than making it voluntary.
	And then the other guy, Gordon Krovitz, We're good to go.
	A reliable piece of garbage like the Washington Post and New York Times.
	Always lying, always taking the government narrative and pushing it out as propaganda.
	Business insider. It has received over $30 million from Washington Post.
	Jeff Bezos, Washington Post.
	Another piece of garbage.
	And again, you notice that Jeff Bezos...
	Getting into all these different media organizations.
	That's why Elon Musk is doing it, by the way.
	You know, they understand, and you should understand, this is why I'm starting with this today.
	They understand how foundational speech and the press is.
	So Jeff Bezos decided that he would go in and buy the biggest newspaper in Washington, D.C., that he would also invest in other news organizations.
	Elon Musk decided, because he's a little bit richer, maybe he's a little bit smarter, more clever, he decided he'd go straight for social media and become a hero of free speech, which I don't really think that's sort of the case.
	I think he's in it for himself.
	Anyway, for whatever happens, we can be grateful that we've seen some of the stuff that's there.
	Krovitz's alliances...
	Might account for the organization's favorable 100 ratings for the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post.
	Since he's connected to them, he gives them a 100.
	Perfect score.
	He is also a contributor to books published by...
	Very conservative, very powerful conservative organizations and think tanks.
	The American Enterprise Institute, and the biggest of all, the Heritage Foundation.
	And when I saw this, I was like, that's it.
	That's why the Heritage Foundation and Cato probably got some connections to the Cato Institute as well.
	A lot of the people in the American Enterprise Institute, and I know this, I worked in this area, I dealt with these think tanks and stuff like that.
	You know... When this all happened, after this happened, between the time that we kicked off in 2018 in August and October, Trump had a garden party.
	And he invited all of these conservative MAGA influencers in.
	And then, of course, one of them, Ben Garrison, a cartoonist, was disinvited when somebody didn't like his content.
	Got disinvited.
	They were invited in to, you know, carry the torch for free speech, but none of them were censored.
	Now, Ben Garrison was censored by the Trump White House staff.
	He still carries a torch for Trump.
	But, again, I was disgusted by that.
	You know, I would have gone full speed with cartoons or anything if I'd been Ben Garrison.
	And everybody would have said, oh, it's just sour grapes.
	No, it's not sour grapes.
	You are censored by these people.
	You are not allowed to come to a free speech conference.
	What? And none of the people that were there at the free speech concert party, garden party, were censored.
	And they had that organization, representatives from Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute, saying, oh, it's okay.
	Private companies can censor whoever they want.
	And now we understand.
	So here's this guy running NewsGuard, and he has got big ties in with the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation.
	And so he's now shutting down people that the government doesn't like their narrative.
	NewsGuard's directors, advisors, investors are an interesting cast of characters.
	One of the investors, this is from Tom Fitton, One of the investors, Publicis Group, is, quote, the third largest communications group in the world.
	Allegedly has ties to Saudi Arabia, Pfizer, and Bayer, Monsanto.
	Are two of its top clients.
	Bayer-Monsanto now merged, of course.
	So Pfizer and Bayer-Monsanto, two of its top clients.
	Many of the advisors and directors are former government officials, entertainment moguls, and journalists.
	And this is where this is coming from.
	Among the government advisors is Michael Hayden, former director of the NSA and the CIA. Who was the architect of Bush's secret domestic spying program.
	Michael Hayden, who has never met a surveillance program that he didn't like.
	Michael Hayden, who threatened Ron White and said, why did he mention that, that we're spying on the American public?
	He knew that. He knew that.
	His staff knew that. All the senators and their staff knew that.
	Why did he make him lie under oath?
	Well, because there's no penalty for lying under oath if you're James Clapper in the intelligence community.
	Lying under oath about violating the Constitution and spying on Americans without a search warrant.
	But Hayden, Hayden, yeah.
	Tom Ridge, the first Office of Homeland Security director after 9-11, is also on NewsGuard.
	Do you understand how foundational this is?
	How foundational censorship and destruction of free speech is to this police surveillance state that is enveloping us Like an octopus, first squirting its black ink over everything so we can't see what it's doing, and then strangling us with its tentacles?
	Richard Stengel, former senior official at Obama's State Department, who once described his role as being that of, quote, chief propagandist.
	These propagandists, these lying intelligence people, are the ones who are out there with NewsGuard.
	With Election Guard to tell you what votes are real, what news is real.
	News Guard presents itself as objective and nonpartisan despite being created by these government propagandists.
	And by the way, as I've said many times, anybody that tells you that they're objective and nonpartisan is a liar playing you for a fool.
	Maybe they're really that stupid.
	These guys are not that stupid.
	They're liars. Everybody is partisan.
	An example I use all the time, Matt Drudge.
	He used to be rightist and now he's leftist.
	And he doesn't write anything.
	It's just what he chooses to feature.
	What you choose to even talk about shows your bias.
	You need to be honest about your bias.
	You need to say, here's what's happened and here's what I think about it.
	But if you tell everybody, oh, I'm just, I'm completely non-partisan, then you are the propagandist.
	The first criteria, specifically looked at by NewsGuard with all of this stuff, is whether or not somebody publishes a false claim according to them.
	They will be the arbiters of truth.
	If you publish something that the government disagrees with, or if you disagree with something the government said, then you are false by definition.
	Another criterion is whether or not you use accurate headlines.
	But if the headline says something that NewsGuard doesn't like, well, then it's inaccurate.
	Another criterion looks for a policy of regularly correcting errors.
	Well, who says if it's an error?
	Well, NewsGuard and the government says that's an error.
	And if you don't change it, you disagreed with our narrative about the pandemic or about the climate or something like that, well, then...
	And that's in your headline? Headline in the article?
	Well, you know, there you go. That's two strikes against you right there.
	Even if NewsGuard can't find anything to dispute, it can still dock points if the target doesn't sufficiently represent opinions that the company would like to see.
	Again, the pretense of objectivity.
	No. You have to be honest, and you have to allow, say, this is my opinion, and...
	And tell people why you think that and let people make that decision.
	This methodology becomes particularly problematic when NewsGuard itself is wrong.
	For example, they came out very, very hard against anybody who talked about the virus escaping from a biosafety lab.
	Oh, that was ruthlessly censored, right?
	It was going to be unreliable news if we talked about the biolab in Wuhan.
	Now, even though this has become the narrative of the mainstream media, it's now become the narrative of the alternative media, and it's now accepted by most people.
	I don't accept it, by the way.
	I think everybody's lying to you to cover up the real poison, the vaccine.
	And I said this in February 2017.
	Of 2020, and I've consistently said there's nothing to be concerned about.
	There is no pandemic. There is no virus.
	And we know now that nobody died in 2020.
	There weren't any excess deaths from the virus from the pandemic.
	The excess deaths were the medical protocols that were being financed that killed people.
	It was medical murder.
	Hospital death protocols that kill people.
	Not a virus. And so all of this talk about Wuhan lab is a cover-up for their hospital death protocol.
	It's a cover-up for their poison injections, the GCIs, the genetic code injections, as I've called them for a long time.
	And now we see. It's got the SV40. It's modifying DNA. The mRNA is there to modify your DNA. It is a genetic code injection.
	And that was clear from the very beginning, even if you just read the description from Moderna about what they did.
	We're going to modify your body to produce a spike.
	Okay, well then you're doing genetic code modification.
	This is GMO. How do you stop this?
	When does it stop?
	Does it stop? No, actually.
	NewsGuard eventually issued a correction to this.
	And, uh, but they don't say, um, now they say that the lab leak hypothesis cannot be completely ruled out, but they won't remove the penalties that they have placed on people who push this.
	And again, I don't believe it, but I don't think that they ought to get some kind of an Orwellian thing.
	And NewsGuard itself did an Orwellian 180, just as we have seen with Fauci so many times.
	Uh, I'll say one more thing and I'll take a quick break and we'll come back.
	I want to read some of the comments that people put up here.
	The UK, to show you how this is working, okay?
	It isn't going to stop just with their big project narratives.
	You know, they want a big pandemic or they want a war or they want to take everything away from us to protect us from climate change.
	It's not going to be just about that.
	It'll be about the most petty things.
	The most petty criticism of government.
	Take a look at the UK. The UK is monitoring teachers' online activity and recording criticism of government policies.
	The UK government has substantially amplified its surveillance of social media activity of educators, ranging from leading education experts to teaching assistants and librarians who earn modest salaries.
	The magnifying glass of surveillance closely monitors posts that criticize education policies.
	This will be every bureaucracy will be coming after you when you criticize them.
	A scenario where dissent or criticism of government policies not only monitored but also cataloged, potentially affecting your career.
	Of course, that's the purpose, to catalog it.
	It's just like background checks.
	It's because you want to confiscate the guns.
	Why do you catalog the speech of people?
	Because you want to punish them in some way.
	Keep them from being promoted or maybe even purge them out.
	It created a wave of shock and anger when some of the teachers found out about this.
	Many have submitted what they call subject access request, a SAR, to get their information.
	They found that the Department of Education, it requires the Department of Education to disclose information it holds under their names.
	These educators found file links.
	Some of them had 60 pages of information on them.
	You know, it used to be that the FBI would just do dossiers on people like Martin Luther King or something that they considered to be politically, you know, a threat.
	No, really a political opposition to them.
	But they did that, they're doing that now in the UK with teachers.
	And of course, they can do that now.
	It's easier to do it because we've got computers.
	It helps with all the Stasi record-keeping.
	They documented their tweets, their comments opposing government policies and criticizing schools' inspections.
	A higher-level teaching assistant was astounded to find that even her tweets concerning issues such as inadequate funding for school libraries...
	And criticisms of a government organization had been flagged and stored by the Department of Education.
	Cases have also surfaced of the department attempting to silence voices critical of government policy.
	Somebody, they call it early years specialists, this would be the early development, early childhood, kindergarten specialists.
	A couple of them have previously faced attempts from the department to cancel their conferences due to earlier criticisms.
	One renowned early childhood author, I won't mention the name here, was allegedly threatened with funding withdrawal for a conference she was scheduled, the keynote.
	As she recounts, the department also attempted to curtail her talk duration and verify her speech contents.
	By the way, this is coming from Exposenews.com.
	They pulled the strings of the academic dialogue, so to speak.
	Well, this is, like I said, this is going to metastasize to the most petty, smallest areas of our life.
	Everything. Everything.
	We'll be focused on that.
	We're going to take a quick break, and when we come back, I want to talk about how the FCC is now getting into this game.
	Making moves to perhaps shut down Fox News in its entirety.
	Yeah. Yeah, that type of thing.
	This began under the Obama administration, by the way.
	The FCC getting into news content.
	Not just allocating frequency spectrum, but getting into news content as a censor.
	They all want to get into the game.
	The central part of this.
	It's being driven by the Pentagon, by the military, industrial corporations, and by the intelligence community.
	But they're all going to get a piece of this.
	Greg Talent, thank you very much for the tip.
	And Dougalug has a question.
	He says, do we not have any recourse for those idiots in D.C. that failed to defend the Constitution and break their oath?
	We know we can't vote them out anymore.
	I think the only recourse that we've got is to be involved locally.
	And again, as I've said, we have our elections are upside down.
	We focus all of our attention on what is happening in Washington, especially to the presidency.
	The most important thing is who the local sheriff is in your area and who the local officials are in your area.
	And then move up from that. Second to that is the state level.
	And a distant third is what is happening in Washington, D.C., where we have no leverage.
	We'll talk about what is going on with the House and Trump's involvement with Emmer and shutting that down in a couple of hours.
	Very concerning. Nick Ellenbecker says, I heard the Supreme Court nominations were Trump's biggest success story.
	Yeah, he gets a 30%.
	I think in my book, a 30%, 33% is a failing grade, actually.
	Rabid Roach, it's amazing how much we allowed Trump to get away with simply because he's so funny in debates.
	Yeah. Well, it's kind of wearing thin, quite frankly.
	I'm getting sick of all of his thin-skinned insults, and I think a lot of people are going to get sick of it, I hope, after eight years of this stuff.
	Jim Z7, where are the conservative lawsuits to get this travesty overturned?
	Exactly. Consortium News is doing it, but I'm just one person.
	That's the way they get through this stuff.
	I haven't done any lawsuits.
	I haven't contacted the government to see what information they have on me.
	I mean, it's enough to get my eyes checked and do the news one day.
	It's absolutely crazy.
	Michael DeSilvio, let the lawsuits commence.
	Yeah. Well, there are some lawsuits that are commencing on the pharmaceutical stuff, and that's good.
	We'll talk about that in a moment.
	Had somebody asked me about that as well.
	Christopher Sally, how amazing that DARPA fits into most of the horror that is happening right now.
	Moderna? Yeah, they were right there.
	Moderna, COVID, the vax, all this is DARPA. Exactly.
	Internet, by the way. Even the Internet itself.
	Imagined by a DARPA psychologist, J.C.R. Leclerc in the 1960s.
	And it is social media heavily funded by DARPA, by the CIA with their venture capital firms, all these DARPA and NSA, CIA officials on the boards of these venture capital firms that let these corporations that created this now, these monopolies on the internet, let them operate, put this stuff out there for free for years.
	And now they're closing the gates on us.
	Brian and Deb McCartney, how can we bear Monsanto any longer?
	Yeah, yeah. Talking about bear buying them.
	Johnny Freedom, COVID-19 includes cold, flu, bronchitis, pneumonia, and other crap.
	Yeah, it also includes...
	Cancer and heart attacks and everything else.
	Running a motorcycle into a wall and dying, that is also COVID-19, according to a coroner in Houston who said, well, it could be.
	It's like, could be?
	Wait, he sneezed?
	It crashed because he, you know, couldn't see any more out of his home.
	I don't know what the deal is.
	Guard Goldsmith. Hey, Guard, how you doing?
	Liberty Conspiracy. Thank you.
	Thank you for the tip. He said, David, thank you for covering this.
	At MRCTV, I've had to spend many weekends writing responses to NewsGuard simply because, and you are NewsGuard.
	Guard is the news.
	Guard's got a great thing that he puts out on Sundays and Sunday recap.
	And he covered this.
	And so, yeah, get on his mailing list.
	He's got some good stuff that he puts out on Sundays especially.
	But also Liberty Conspiracy throughout the week.
	So I've had to spend many weekends writing responses to NewsGuard simply because they didn't hit hyperlinks to my evidences for arguments.
	I researched them, found out they were funded partially by the DOD via money from Portman Murphy Act of 2016, But this is much more detailed.
	This research, by the way, is epic news and also other people who have been, Tom Fitton and other people, a lot of people are starting to look at them now, which is good news.
	Good news. We're going to guard the news from NewsGuard.
	But this is much more detailed.
	MRCTV has its legal team.
	I hope they sue with ferocity.
	I do too. I do too.
	Stephen Kaspar, DC is so evil I'm surprised it hasn't turned to a pillar of salt.
	Brian and Deb McCarthy said they haven't looked back yet.
	Yeah, that's the only reason.
	And Audi at Modern Retro Radio says, now that we know that Trump is a shill for the depopulation agenda...
	His zingers and debates ain't so entertaining anymore.
	Yeah, that's exactly right.
	And Carlos Rex, thank you very much for the tip.
	That is on Rumble, I guess.
	Yes.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	We're going to take a quick break and we will be right back.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Show, we've got a problem.
	Hello, what? Who are you?
	It's the new mug they're selling at thedavidknightshow.com, right?
	So, basically, a mug is something that holds liquid, right?
	Right?
	Because basically you can't hold coffee with your hands, right?
	I'm a scat and a, but anyone tries to mug me, I'm being ready for it.
	You dog-faced pony soldier.
	They say the mug can help patriots drink coffee, then save the world.
	This could be bad for us.
	Save the world, but we owe the world.
	These people, they're supporting free speech with every month they buy.
	Come on. These people, I tell you, well, anyway.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	Well, I've got a couple more comments here.
	Nancy Chambers, my husband was given Moderna vax without permission and was dead seven days later.
	He had no comorbidities.
	I'm very sorry, Nancy. Rick Sanchez, New Mexico.
	There is a virus and they released it, but it's a weak virus, no big deal.
	Well, it's up to them to prove that.
	I haven't seen any proof of that.
	I've seen nothing but lies coming from these people.
	So, they want to make an extraordinary claim about something, then the burden of proof is on them.
	Prove you got a virus, prove it came from the lab, prove all this stuff.
	It's not my burden to disprove that.
	They've made extraordinary claims to lock down the entire world.
	The burden of proof should be on them.
	And just like with the climate change stuff, they don't prove a thing, except that they're liars.
	Liars and thieves and murderers.
	That's what they proved. Okay, let's talk about what's going on with Fox News.
	And again, I'm no big fan of Fox News.
	They've been a partner in all this stuff as well.
	But it is a very disturbing thing to see this happen.
	I would not support...
	The banning of CNN or MSNBC. And I think that everything that they say pretty much is a lie.
	Government lie. And pushing all three of them, just like most of the mainstream media, pushes the lies for the big pharmaceutical companies that fund them.
	They're owned by these people and by the government.
	They tell lies for the Democrats or lies for the Republicans so they can get these people on.
	So they can have fame, fortune, and followers.
	But the fortune part really comes from their sponsors.
	Big pharmaceutical companies.
	And so all of them.
	Why? For big pharmaceutical companies.
	So this is coming from some authoritarian liberal who is so blinded by his hatred of conservatives that he's cheering this censorship.
	What a fool.
	His name is Omar Rivera.
	Breaking. Fox News gets devastating news as the FCC... The Federal Communications Commission announces that it's launching the preliminary process of stripping Fox News of its broadcasting license in Philadelphia because Fox pushed Trump's big lie.
	He says, but it gets even worse for Fox News.
	It all started last July when media reform activists...
	Oh, I love that little euphemism there.
	Reform activists...
	Yeah, they're trying to reform the First Amendment, free speech and freedom of the press.
	They're trying to reform it so that it's more like Stalin.
	That's what they're trying to do.
	They're censors.
	They're Stasi activists, is what they are.
	Reform activists petitioned the FCC to revoke Fox News' local broadcast license in Philadelphia over its rampant election fraud propaganda and Which is a clear violation of the quote-unquote character clause embedded in the Communications Act that the FCC uses to determine if a network should earn and maintain its broadcasting license.
	They should have no authority over content.
	The FCC came into existence to allocate frequencies.
	So that you didn't have people stepping over each other.
	So the radios would work.
	So that you wouldn't be pulling in two stations on the same frequency.
	So they should have no involvement whatsoever in content.
	This all began during the Obama administration.
	The FCC said, we would like to embed researchers into your newsrooms to see how you put the news together.
	Get out of here. It's none of your business.
	None of your business how we put the news together.
	Absolutely insane. And of course, everybody gave him a cold shoulder.
	And so that kind of died.
	But it showed you where the FCC was headed.
	Because all these little bureaucracies are always trying to build their little fiefdom up.
	And that was the direction that they were headed.
	So... Again, it should be simply about allocation of frequencies.
	They should have nothing to say whatsoever about content.
	The character flaw thing there is it comes from the fact that this is being broadcast and everybody has access to it.
	And so they had speech rules and things like that, things that you couldn't do over the airwaves, which is the big marketing opportunity for cable to show nudity and sex and violence and language that the FCC would not allow.
	But again, it's up to us and it's up to parents to police this stuff.
	As we now see, because you can try to police it, but it's going to get through one way or the other.
	And it may get through in a big way just by going around these government sensors that are set up.
	Today, the FCC announced that it is moving forward with its investigation by opening up evidentiary hearings.
	In which citizens and advocacy groups can comment publicly and provide evidence of Fox News' election lies.
	See, here is the combination of News Guard and Election Guard, all in one.
	See how they converge? Well, because they're coming from the same snakes, actually.
	They're fruit of the same poison tree.
	Fox News and its army of lawyers adamantly opposed the hearing, but the FCC took the rare step of deciding to move forward with it, sending Fox News' lawyers spiraling into a frenzy.
	To make matters worse for Fox News, experts say that if Philadelphia activists are able to get Fox News pulled from the air, it could be replicable in other cities and markets across America.
	Of course it would be. This could be the beginning of the end of Fox News as we know it.
	Please retweet and love this if you think that Fox News must lose its broadcasting license.
	Well, line up.
	This is just another big nail in the coffin of free speech and the free press.
	And it's being pushed by so-called reform activists, losers, Who can't win an argument.
	Losers who can't stand to hear a dissenting opinion of theirs.
	Look, free speech, you only support free speech if you support the speech of people you disagree with.
	And you should be able to answer their objections.
	I don't run from critics of God or critics of the Bible.
	I look at their objections.
	I want to know what the truth is.
	I've examined all of that.
	And I'm convinced of my position.
	I don't try to shut them up or burn them at the stake or throw them into jail.
	We learned that lesson the Christians did a long time ago when you had people who didn't care what the truth was.
	They only wanted people to do what they said.
	And we understood how dangerous it was for government to take over a church, which is what happens when you merge church and state.
	And we understood how that is tied to free speech.
	And it's the same thing.
	You know, when I was talking to George Barna He said there's so many different worldviews.
	It's how you view the world. It's the position where you make your decisions and all the rest of this.
	Biblical worldview is just one of many dozens.
	And most people come up with something that's like a smorgasbord a la carte.
	Take a little bit of this, a little bit of that, make a worldview.
	But he said we're putting our worldview together from the time that we're toddlers up until the time that we're about 13.
	And then we spend most of our adult life Defending and evangelizing that worldview.
	We want people to agree with us.
	And these people are evangelists for whatever their left-wing activism is.
	They're very concerned that they are going to lose the argument.
	So they decided that they will knock the table over and not let anybody have that argument.
	That's why I call them losers.
	But let's look at the mechanism of this.
	As I said before, when you look at what's going on with News Guard and with Election Guard, it's really the tip of the spear.
	There's more that's coming.
	This is an iterative thing.
	When you look at the history of propaganda, just real briefly, we know how newspapers were used to lie us into wars.
	And you had people like Pulitzer and others bragging about how they could lie the American public into a war with their newspapers.
	Then we got radio, and it became a lot more powerful.
	And then we got video, and it became even more powerful with a visceral aspect to it.
	TV and film added the visual to the audio.
	And then what we have with social media is we have a situation where they can not only push out their propaganda, but now they can close the feedback loop and they can measure how effective it is with everybody.
	They don't have to rely on polls.
	Basically, they just use polls to tell us what to think.
	Most polling that you see out there is push polling.
	They can monitor us on social media to understand where we are and to understand if their narrative is working and to fine-tune their narrative.
	That's how sophisticated the propaganda has become.
	It's gone from printed newspapers to radio to TV and film and now to social media where they have closed the feedback loop.
	It's a very dangerous thing.
	But now what they want to do As I said, when you look at the CCPA, this is a way of preventing your information from ever getting out there.
	Because, you know, once this stuff gets out there, it travels very fast and people pick it up and they save it and they pass it on in other forms.
	So we've got to stop it In the launch phase, right?
	Just like their intercontinental ballistic missiles.
	You know, you have this MIRV, this multiple warhead rocket.
	You got to get that thing in the launch phase.
	Shut that thing down. And that's what they're trying to do with information.
	So Adobe is now jumping on the anti-disinformation bandwagon.
	Now, this is from Reclaim the Net.
	But, you know, they've already been on this.
	Adobe has been part of this coalition put together by Microsoft for DARPA and the defense industry and the intelligence community.
	They have been a part of this.
	As I said before, you have hardware manufacturers, Intel, ARM, the CPU manufacturers.
	They have agreed that they will mark anything that you produce on the computers in the future.
	That's what this CCPA is about.
	And then on the software side, Adobe, especially.
	But others have come in, but especially Adobe, to mark any meme, any picture that you might produce that they don't like, any article, text that you produce, any audio or video that you produce.
	So on the software side, they'll mark it.
	On the hardware side, even, they'll mark it.
	And then they partner with these same organizations that are pushing NewsGuard and stuff, New York Times, BBC, people like that, who are going to say, well, this is what the truth is, because this is what the government says.
	And so that's the coalition.
	Hardware, software, and government media propaganda.
	And so Adobe jumps on the anti-disinformation bandwagon.
	Well, that's not new, but what they are...
	We're now seeing...
	How they're going to start to do this on the software side.
	They're going to use artificial intelligence, and they'll use it in multiple stages.
	Listen to how this is going to be done.
	As Reclaim the Net says, as the war against so-called misinformation rages on, Adobe is stepping onto the battlefield with a newly filed patent application.
	That is focused on, quote, fact correction of natural language sentences through its data tables.
	The approach employs a trifecta of AI models to dissect sentences into palatable pieces, to scrutinize their veracity, their truth, with a fine-tooth comb.
	This initiative by Adobe might be seen as a double-edged sword, where the pursuit of truth could cross paths with the cherished freedom of expression, a fundamental cornerstone of functioning democracy.
	That's exactly what it is.
	Reclaim the Net is good, but they're walking on eggshells here.
	They're very afraid to come out with a full-throated criticism of this tyrannical thing that is being done by Adobe.
	Again, part of the CCPA, Chinese Communist Party of America, or the...
	Coalition for Content Provenance, who created this, and Authentication.
	I know who made this.
	The methodology is to tokenize sentences.
	I'm going to break it into pieces.
	It can be individual words or it can be phrases that they're looking for.
	Take it into smaller chunks, words or phrases, and then analyze those.
	So that's the first thing. Have artificial intelligence break it into chunks of words or phrases.
	Then a second AI model will evaluate whether or not any of the tokenized segments render the sentence false.
	Wow. So you've got a word or a phrase.
	If you use that word or phrase, automatically you're false.
	How does that work?
	Of course, they can't determine that something is true or false based on that phrase.
	They can determine that it is against the government's propaganda.
	That's what this is.
	And the final step, a different AI model will suggest alternate words or phrases to rectify the inaccuracies of the sentence.
	And of course, there'll be what they don't say as a fourth AI model to mark you and to report you.
	As I've said before, artificial intelligence, yeah, it's got things that it's going to do that may be useful to other people, but it is going to be an amazing tool for the tyrants, for the police state, for the surveillance, for human control. And this is an example of it.
	Three different AI programs to parse everything that you're saying, analyze it in fine detail, and to label you as false if they don't like the word or the phrase that you use.
	Adobe acknowledges the hurdles in curbing the disinformation of false information given the lightning speed at which it proliferates on these platforms.
	See, the problem isn't whether or not they are the arbiter of truth.
	The problem is that this stuff gets out there so quickly before they get a chance to control your speech.
	They point out that existing solutions have limitations and drawbacks as some can only serve as verification systems.
	Merely indicating the truthfulness of a statement, but they're going to be able to do a lot more than that.
	Adobe is pushing to create artificial intelligence fingerprinting technology to stamp images or memes for possible manipulation.
	No, they're going to be stamping you.
	Stamping you. It reminds me of, again, when we go back and we look at the Soviet Union, nothing really changes except the technology, right?
	When Solzhenitsyn was there, you had the dissidents.
	The writers call themselves producers of samizdat, dissonant literature, dissenting from what the Stalinist government said.
	And the government wanted to know very much where these people were, who they were, identify them.
	Every typewriter that came out of the Soviet Union's typewriter factories, they built the stuff, but since they owned everything, the government, they would do tests on every typewriter before it left the factory, would have to be identified as to its idiosyncrasies.
	And they would file that away.
	So that if they got a piece of Samizdat that they really hated, oh, they would go through all these paper files and compare them like you'd compare fingerprints.
	They're basically fingerprinting all of these typewriters.
	Be one reason why it'd be so hard to get a typewriter.
	Can you imagine all the amount of time that that would add to the manufacturing and distribution of typewriters to do that?
	But they had an army of police state people to sit there and look at all this stuff.
	And then kind of piece together who it was, where it came from, and to put up a pattern.
	Well, we've seen a lot of this literature that we really hate from this particular typewriter.
	Let's find out the provenance of it, right?
	Where did it come from?
	And that's what these people are doing.
	This is pure Stalinism.
	Just like the Stasi as well.
	We ought to be very concerned about this.
	But what they're doing is also something that we've seen from the Associated Press.
	The Associated Press will tell journalists, you can't use this word.
	You've got to use that word instead.
	You can't say pro-life.
	You have to call these people anti-abortion rights.
	And on and on, right?
	You can't use a phrase illegal alien.
	You got to say undocumented migrant or something like that.
	They've got their special phrases that you're going to use about everything.
	And if you want to get published by the AP, you use those terms.
	Otherwise, they shut you down. What Adobe is going to do is it's going to look at certain words and certain phrases, and it will stop you from being able to publish your stuff eventually.
	Eventually, it's going to make some recommendations to you and it'll probably snitch on you to some government organization that's funding it.
	But, you know, you'll see it as, oh, well, it recommends that I should use the phrase undocumented migrant instead of illegal alien.
	Nah, I think I'll use illegal alien.
	So then it'll report you, right?
	But now this is taking this kind of AP intimidation approach, soft coercion, if you will, and applying it at the individual level.
	Well, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Mike Huckabee's daughter, is now the governor of Arkansas.
	She was a press secretary for Trump.
	She was not picked for her look.
	She was picked for her intelligence, surprisingly.
	About the only person around Trump that was not picked for looks.
	And so now she's governor, and she just passed an executive order to prohibit the use of woke anti-woman words in state documents.
	She said it is the left that decided that woman is a dirty word.
	It's the left that decided that we need basic biology and basic grammar along with it.
	But the executive order says women are women.
	Government should reject language that ignores, undermines, and erases women.
	Government should celebrate gender distinctions between men and women, not erase them.
	The executive order prohibits all state offices, departments, We're good to go.
	Referring to women would be terms like menstruating person, menstruating people, birth giver, woman with an X and a Y instead of an A and an E, laboring person, birthing person, human milk, chest feeding, body fed, and person fed.
	Instead, the state must use alternatives such as woman with an A, women with an E, singular and plural, birth mom, breast milk, breast feeding, breast fed, pregnant women, pregnant mom, or birth mom.
	She said, today we're taking a stand against woke nonsense.
	What frankly started as a fad among a few grad students has now steeped down into corporations, into the healthcare industry, and increasingly into state government.
	At the signing, Governor Sanders was surrounded by Arkansas women who she described as influential and amazing.
	She said, we're all here to say, frankly, that we've had enough.
	Noting that she was the first woman and the mother to serve as the governor of Arkansas, she said, enough trying to erase women and girls, enough denying our biological differences from men, and enough of the craziness that is taking over our country.
	Well, she's exactly right.
	But you see, as I said before, They use labels and words and phrases as speech weapons.
	And I'm glad that she targeted that and said, we're not going to do that in government.
	You know, she doesn't have any control over what corporations can do.
	She does have control over what universities do.
	And I didn't see that in the list of organizations that she's putting those rules in there for.
	The universities get a lot of funding and that's where this disease is coming from.
	This mental disease.
	And so that's going to be the real test of it.
	As to whether or not this is just virtue signaling or whether they really want to do something about it.
	You really want to do something about it, you've got to do something about the universities.
	Christopher Ruffo and DeSantis in Florida have started to do something about that at the new college, which is a small adjunct in Sarasota to the University of South Florida, which is in Tampa, where I graduated.
	And that all came about after I left.
	But they started out with a very small institution because, you know, the bigger the institution, the more...
	People have got to fight, but they're working to take over that.
	She needs to apply those rules to the university.
	That's the seminary of this satanic insanity that's coming out.
	The university is heavily funded by government.
	Most of them completely funded by the state.
	Not completely funded by the state government.
	The federal government gets its hooks in it as well.
	But that's the way they weaponize this.
	And now you see how this is going to roll out on the software side.
	They're going to look at those for, are you going to use our terms?
	If you don't use our terms, we're going to block you, we're going to label you, we're going to identify you, we're going to snitch on you to the government.
	That's Adobe. Adobe.
	Just amazing how big that company is.
	There used to be a lot of different video editors out there, and they have got a monopoly on that.
	And so the military industrial corporations is part of that complex now, and a part of the intelligence community.
	They go in with these people, have a monopoly.
	And it used to be that you could buy...
	The Adobe software, now you just rent it.
	You have to rent it. Again, the renter model makes them a lot more money.
	You don't own anything.
	You don't even own the software.
	They're constantly updating it, and they're going to be constantly spying on you and reporting you to the government.
	So Americans' trust in news media is falling to new lows.
	Again, as we go back to Stalin and the Samizdat and the rest of this stuff, remember, they had two papers in the Soviet Union.
	Pravda meant truth in Russian and Izvestia meant news.
	And people said there is no truth in Pravda and there's no news in Izvestia.
	They were not fooled. And guess what?
	These propagandists are not fooling anybody here.
	By the way, when we talk about propaganda and we talk about, you know, all this stuff, understand we're talking about Tucker Carlson who is just worshipped by the right.
	His father worked his entire life For Voice of America, a government propaganda thing.
	Tucker admits he wanted to be in the CIA. They said, no, you can't join.
	Or maybe he did join. Maybe he's the mockingbird of the right.
	I don't trust a thing that guy says.
	Yeah, he does tell the truth about some things because you can't play a con game if you don't tell people the truth.
	And it's important to get their trust.
	You have to give them a lot of truth.
	And then zing them with a lie when it's really important and necessary to do so, right?
	That's the way the double agents work.
	So take a look at Americans' trust in mass media.
	By the way, this article is titled, Americans' Trust in News Media Falls to New Lows.
	They got a chart showing the decline in what Americans think going back to the mid-1970s, early 1970s, actually.
	The first data point is 1974.
	There's one prior to that.
	Maybe about 1972.
	At that point in time, about 70% of the people had great confidence in mainstream media.
	You know, we had Walter Cronkite.
	Well, that's the way it is.
	You know, that type of thing. Oh, well, that's the way it is.
	Oh, okay. And it helped that you only had three networks, that they all talked about the same things.
	Somehow they all knew which stories were the most important.
	And all three of them had the same perspective, the same worldview on all three of those stories, interestingly enough.
	Because they were being fed it by the government.
	But the people had great confidence in what the media was telling them.
	70% at that time.
	About 25% of the people had little or not much confidence.
	And then you had 5% of the people who had no confidence.
	Now, the great confidence thing actually increased by the mid-1970s, and it went up, as I guess you're looking at Vietnam ending and that type of thing.
	But then it's steadily declined until today, where you get to the point where now the prevailing view is not great confidence.
	The prevailing view is we have no confidence in anything, none at all.
	That the media tells us.
	38% of the people there.
	Then you have 34% of the people who still have great confidence in it, but that's down from 70%.
	That's in half.
	And then the people who said not much is 28%.
	And so that's stayed about the same.
	People are like, well, I don't have much confidence in what the media says.
	It's gone from about 25% to 28%.
	But the big difference is that people who have absolutely no confidence has gone from 5% to 38%.
	And the people who have great confidence has been cut in half.
	And it is also by party.
	70% of Democrats believe, have a great confidence in what the media is saying.
	Why? Well, because Democrat censorship...
	Has created essentially a confirmation bias.
	The same type of thing that you saw with just three networks all pushing out the government line.
	And that's really where the Democrats are.
	14% of Republicans who are being censored by social media and all the rest of this stuff.
	And 27% of independents have confidence in the media.
	Only 14% and 27%.
	So people are not being fooled.
	We understand that there is no truth in the media and there's no news in the media.
	YouTube is going to go even further into becoming PropagandaTube.
	It's not about you. It's not about you.
	It's about government propaganda.
	When are they going to change? Get Elon Musk to offer YouTube.
	A billion dollars to change their name to government boobs or something like that.
	Boob tube. That's what they are.
	You know, the thing.
	Nothing but propagandists.
	And I am so sick and tired of people who are so desperate to stay on YouTube or some big platform that they try to hide what they're saying.
	I saw this as the vaccine was rolling out.
	A lot of people were saying, well, what are we going to do when the vaccine comes along?
	And can you trust this?
	Well, I know it's being done by Trump, but can you really trust this thing?
	I remember seeing people like Todd Friel, who is a Christian podcaster, and he eventually told people when the mandates came along for the vaccine.
	Well, you know, Romans 13 says you've got to do whatever the government says.
	It could be very evil, but you've got to do whatever they say.
	If the government tells you to put pinwheels on your head, you put pinwheels on your head, said Todd Friel.
	Well, prior to that, when he was even talking about, well, is this vaccine going to be safe?
	He would not use the term vaccine.
	He would always say, you know, the thing, you know, that thing I'm talking about, I can't say it here, but you know that thing?
	A lot of people play that game.
	You cannot appease them.
	We don't need YouTube. We had free speech without YouTube.
	We don't have free speech with YouTube.
	Get rid of them. Don't rely on them for anything.
	They're not important.
	Neither is Facebook.
	And again, as I said before, you know, these people will tell you, yeah, the government's got a mark.
	It wants to give everybody. Well, take it.
	Take the mark of the government.
	Take the mark of the beast.
	Close your church. Do whatever the government says.
	Put a pinwheel on your head while you mask up and close your church.
	Great advice, Todd. And as we look at what is happening with our wide open borders, we are going to now have the EU and the U.S. are going to restrict their citizens.
	To travel. And require biometric scanning.
	But of course, you know, the border is completely open to anybody who wants to come here.
	We don't know or care if they've even got a criminal record.
	If they're terrorists, we don't know or care.
	They're going to come in and we're going to roll out the red carpet.
	We're going to give you discounted education rates, so free education, K-12.
	We're going to give you in-state tuition everywhere.
	Maybe a full-ride scholarship.
	Who knows, right?
	And we're going to provide you with housing and everything else.
	But if you're a citizen, you're going to have facial and fingerprint scans.
	The European Union is now rolling this out.
	They've updated the timing.
	They said they were going to roll it out. I reported this before.
	We're going to roll it out sometime in 2024.
	No, they're going to do it now. This is why they do all this stuff.
	You know, sometime 2040, 2035, we're going to ban all cars.
	Well, no, they're banning them, you know, sooner than that.
	They keep moving it up, moving it up.
	Well, this as well. So it was going to be sometime in 2024.
	Now it's going to be happening right away.
	And so, well, they said they were going to give us the date in 2024.
	Now they've given us a date.
	As of spring 2025, you'll have to request permission.
	It applies to travelers from more than 60 countries currently exempt from visa requirements.
	Americans will not need a visa, but they'll have to apply in advance for permission to visit any EU country.
	And they'll charge you $8 to apply for permission.
	Participating countries will no longer give passport stamps that travelers like to collect on their passport.
	In a move that is causing electronic privacy advocates to sound alarms, you'll have to submit both fingerprint and face scans.
	That information will then be stored in the European Commission's Common Identity Repository.
	Yeah, to have it available to police.
	Even those who trust governments to only use this for good should be wary of the risks of hacking by criminals and by other governments, writes Zero Hedge.
	And all this is being done, well, as they remind you in the article, that small island in Italy, Lampedusa, that had 6,000 residents and got swamped with 18,000 illegal aliens who had no housing, no means of support.
	They just move on to the island.
	And the Italians had just elected this woman, Maloney, as Prime Minister for this very purpose.
	She doesn't care.
	She's now making speeches at the UN World Economic Forum.
	This is the way these people betray us.
	And so, on Brownstone, Rob Jenkins asks, is serfdom humanity's default?
	He said, if you go back and look at Friedrich Hayek's The Road to Serfdom, he was warning us about the rise of centrally planned economies.
	Socialism, communism, fascism, authoritarianism of all different excuses is what that really is.
	Just totalitarianism.
	And of course, serfdom refers to a feudal system.
	Serfs, kind of slaves.
	People don't own anything. Serfs did most of the work.
	They kept society functioning.
	And feudal systems that lasted for thousands of years.
	And then they handed over most of the fruit of their labor to a strong central government.
	That's looking really familiar, isn't it?
	That system was eventually displaced by the rise of liberal democracy during the Age of Enlightenment, an experiment that's now lasted 300 years and brought to the West and other parts of the world where it's been embraced a freedom and a prosperity that's never before been seen in human history.
	You know, the people who instituted that were not patting themselves on the back.
	They said, this is a blessing from God.
	Liberty is a blessing from God.
	It's not just that we were somehow enlightened.
	No, we were blessed by the God of light.
	Anyway, is it true that in the popular phrase, every heart yearns to be free?
	I used to believe that. He said, now I'm not so sure.
	You know, it's one of the things I thought was very funny, the play, and then they made an awful movie out of it.
	Funny thing happened on the way of the forum.
	I'm familiar with it because I was in the pit band that played for the, in high school, played for the play that they put on a musical play.
	A funny thing happened on the way of the forum.
	You got a guy, Pseudalist, who's going to become, he's trying to get his freedom.
	He's got all these different schemes about how he's going to do it.
	Everything gets very complicated.
	And it's a Broadway play done by Stephen Sondheim.
	Everybody knows it from Comedy Tonight.
	You know that. But there was one song in there called Free.
	And he's telling his buddy there all the things he's going to do when he gets his freedom, when he buys his freedom in the Roman Empire.
	And then at one point, he stops cold and goes, wait.
	If I were free, nothing would be free.
	Wait a minute. If I'm free, I'm not going to be fed and housed and clothed even though I don't like all this stuff and I don't like these restrictions.
	I'm going to have to do all that stuff myself.
	I'm not going to have any free stuff.
	This is why I say the people coming across our border now, some of them are coming across because they're part of cartels or terrorist organizations, but for the most part, people are coming across because they want free stuff.
	They're not coming here because, you know, I'm being persecuted and I want to come here with my family and raise a family.
	That's typically not what is happening.
	You got a lot of people who are coming in here because they want economic advancement.
	And a big part of that economic advancement is free stuff.
	And I said that is what's really characterizing this from the wave of immigrations that we had in the early 20th century and the late 19th century.
	There was no welfare state.
	People got on the ship, came here with nothing.
	Nothing. You know, a dollar in their pocket or something.
	And they were coming for freedom.
	There was no free stuff being offered to anybody.
	Instead, now we've got this giant magnet that's pulling people across the border.
	And it'll pull them across the border.
	It'll pull them over, around, and under any wall that you put up.
	People will come for the free stuff.
	And that's true of the people who live here as well.
	Who want free stuff. If I really were free...
	We can certainly point to countries like Afghanistan and Iraq where the United States and its allies have attempted to liberate the people only to have them to return to centuries-old power structures and struggles to warlord tribalism essentially a form of serfdom As soon as the Western powers pull out.
	Do these people really yearn for freedom or democracy?
	Why don't they have it then if they yearn for it?
	You've got to want it bad enough to do it yourself.
	You can't give it to somebody.
	You can't give people freedom.
	And that's one of the lessons.
	And you know, the other thing is, is that freedom is something that you can't have unless you give it to other people in your society.
	If you're going to take away other people's free speech, you're not going to have any free speech.
	Especially among young people today in our country, in the West in general, but, you know, we're talking about America, but it's everywhere.
	Young people especially do not want freedom.
	Certainly not for others, but ultimately they don't want it for themselves either.
	They want the free stuff.
	They've had this moment. As Pseudalist did.
	Wait a minute. I want the free stuff.
	Witnessed a recent Buckley Institute poll in which 51% of college students supported campus speech codes, while 45% agreed that violence was justified to prevent people from expressing, quote, hate speech.
	What they mean by that is speech that they hate.
	Consider how many people vote almost exclusively for politicians who promise them the most free stuff.
	With no apparent thought to strings attached or what their free stuff might cost other people, even themselves, in the long run.
	I first observed this apparent willingness to trade freedom about 22 years ago.
	He said, again, this is Brownstone and this is Rob Jenkins who's writing this.
	At that time, my academic unit was led by a dean with more or less absolute authority.
	The faculty predictably claimed to despise this arrangement.
	They constantly decried the top-down structure and complained they had no say in anything.
	They demanded to be heard under the principle of shared governance.
	So the upper administration gave them what they wanted.
	The dean was transferred to another position and in his place was put a committee of elected faculty members whose job it was, collectively, to make all the decisions that the dean had previously been making.
	Within a year, the faculty were grumbling about this new system.
	They complained that they felt adrift, that there was no one they could go to who was empowered to make quick decisions.
	This reminds me of the story of Samuel.
	Israel's judge in the Bible.
	And the people came to him and said, give us a king.
	We want a king, right?
	He says, oh, you want a king? Well, here's what's going to happen when you get a king.
	He's going to take your sons.
	He's going to take your daughters for his own personal use.
	He's going to take your farms.
	He's going to tax you heavily.
	And he's going to take you to war.
	And, you know, Samuel had been there as a judge, an honest judge, who had, you know, people had disputes, who would settle them and other things like that.
	And he was also there to protect them, but it was ultimately God that was protecting them.
	And so God said, they haven't rejected you, they've rejected me.
	And we reject God when we make an idol out of our authoritarian structures.
	And so he says that the questions are, number one, can we actually mitigate these dangers by giving up our liberties?
	If we get a king, will he really protect us?
	No, he's going to send you to war.
	And he's going to send you to war when you don't need to go to war.
	He's going to be robbing you of your property and your children all the time.
	And two, even if we could do that, even if this authoritarian government could protect us and keep us safe, is it worth it?
	Always that trade-off.
	Of liberty for security.
	And it's a false trade-off.
	As Franklin said, anybody who will trade essential liberty for the promise of safety deserves neither.
	And history has shown us that you get neither.
	You don't get safety when you trade away your liberty.
	To that extent, you become a serf, you become a slave, you become a prisoner.
	And there is no...
	Benefit of being a prisoner, to whatever extent you become a prisoner.
	The real problem is that they wind their way blithely down the road to serfdom.
	They're taking the rest of us with them.
	Yeah. And so, when we look at all this, everybody is really looking for happiness, right?
	Happiness and joy. And what can they take from us?
	You know, happiness is this elusive thing.
	It's a temporary thing. It's what's happening to you.
	And you don't really have any control over what's happening to you, as we see all the time with the news.
	We can try to make some preparations as to what to do, understand what these people in Washington or globally or even at state or local level, what they're trying to do to take stuff from you or to oppress you or to enslave you, to control you, to spy on you.
	We can understand what that is about, and we can try to do some defensive moves.
	We can try as much as is possible with us to live with them peacefully.
	But ultimately, we don't have any control over circumstances and things that happen to us.
	But we do have control over whether or not we have joy.
	And we do have control over what we love.
	And we do have control over what we trust.
	And if you're connected to God, as Gershwin said, they can't take that away from you.
	No matter what happens, they can't take that away.
	You have that strong relationship there.
	As the Bible says, when the Son sets you free, you're free indeed.
	And we need to understand that we have, as the founders of this country said, no king but Jesus.
	Because he fulfills the desire that we have for leadership.
	These people in this university thing wanted.
	They wanted leadership. They wanted direction.
	People want justice.
	People want truth. They want order.
	But often, they believe that they've got a benevolent dictator.
	There's only one benevolent dictator.
	You know, if you look in the Old Testament, there was a process by which somebody could, if they wanted to, you know, slavery was a temporary thing there.
	You didn't become a slave and stay a slave as we had, you know, in this country, generational slavery.
	You would become essentially an indentured servant for a certain period of time.
	But if you wanted to, it was a process you could go through to say, I'm going to remain in the household of this person because I like their leadership.
	I like the way this is and I want to become a part of this.
	And that's who you would serve.
	Unfortunately, as he pointed out, we had a lot of people who were dragging us down to the road of serfdom to some Stalin-esque characters.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	Wow.
	All right, then. Obsolete Man, 1776.
	Thank you very much for the tip. I appreciate that.
	He says, put, or she, obsolete man, so it'd be a he.
	Get my pronouns correct here.
	Put your money where your mouth and your heart are.
	Thank you, David. I support when I came.
	Well, thank you very much. I appreciate that.
	And my son sent me a note.
	He says, you know, there's open source alternatives to pretty much any software, but also to Adobe software.
	Instead of Photoshop, he says, I use an open-source program called GIMP, which has been around for quite some time now.
	I've not seen that for a while.
	So you just have to do a little bit more work, have to do a little bit more searching, but you can find alternatives to it.
	And that's what we're going to have to do.
	We're going to have to work harder to find things to exist outside of their control structures.
	Let's talk real quickly about what happened.
	Well, one of the comments here.
	Audi Modern Retro Radio says, He says, Amen, David.
	I've been saying for two years that truthful content is not on YouTube.
	So many content creators censor themselves even after their channel has been demonetized.
	Yeah. Yeah. Or demonized.
	I've been demonized.
	I'm bonafide. They're going to give me money.
	They're going to let me stay on there.
	That was the other thing, too, about Russell Brand.
	It's like, this guy's been making millions of dollars off of YouTube or whatever.
	And it's like, they took away my monetization.
	But you're still there, Russell.
	They must like what you have to say.
	Babylon Bee, talking about what's going on with the House Republicans, says, chaos as Congressional Halloween party, as House Republicans all wear the same clown costume.
	Got a photoshopped picture of them all wearing rainbow-colored wigs and their suits at a Halloween costume.
	There you go, right there.
	Red noses.
	Well, we just had an interesting display of the Trump Civil War yesterday.
	Donald Trump, as soon as Tom Emmer, who has been the number three guy, he was the House Whip, And Tom Emmer was one of the nine people who threw his hat into the race for speaker after Jim Jordan did not make it.
	And that was after Steve Scalise didn't make it.
	And that was after they threw Kevin McCarthy out of the speaker seat.
	And so number four was the guy who was number three.
	And, you know, Steve Scalise was the number two guy.
	He didn't make it. Then they go to Jim Jordan.
	He didn't make it. Then they go to who was the number three guy, the whip, Tom Emmer.
	He got the nomination.
	And after he got the nomination, Donald Trump called him a globalist rhino and said it would be a tragic mistake.
	In other words, you better not vote for him.
	Because I'll come after you.
	And what was it that he didn't like about Emmer?
	Well, Emmer was of the nine people that were there, you know, there were nine, and then one of them before they even did the voting dropped out, so they had eight.
	But of the original nine after Jim Jordan dropped out, seven of them had supported, fully supported Trump with all of his election contesting.
	Two of them had not. Emmer was one of the two that had not.
	And that's all Trump had to know about him.
	That made him a rhino.
	And listen to the way he wrote this.
	It was all about Trump.
	Because Trump is the GOP. In Trump's mind and in the GOP's mind.
	They're all afraid of him. He says, Rhino Tom Emmer, whom I do not know well, is not one of them.
	Many great warriors in the Republican Party.
	He never respected the power of a Trump endorsement.
	Uppercase initial caps.
	The power of a Trump endorsement.
	In other words, he didn't kiss my ring.
	He didn't bow the knee before me.
	He never respected the power of my endorsement.
	Or the breadth and scope of MAGA. He fought me all the way and actually spent more time defending Ilhan Omar than he did me.
	He's totally out of touch with Republican voters who all love me.
	He didn't say that.
	He's out of touch with Republican voters.
	I believe he has now learned his lesson because he's saying that he is pro-Trump all the way.
	But who can ever be sure?
	Has he only changed because that's what it takes to win?
	Because, you know, that's what Trump does.
	He changes to whatever he needs to do to win.
	Voting for a globalist rhino like Tom Emmer would be a tragic mistake.
	Let me tell you, there is no better example of a globalist rhino than Trump himself, a man who's supported with money and votes Hillary Clinton and other people like that, a man who enacted the entire World Economic Forum, UN, globalist agenda against us in 2020.
	He is a globalist rhino, Republican in name only.
	The New York Democrat, Trump, who gave us gun control by executive order.
	The New York Democrat, Trump, who said, they got to take the shot.
	Got to get the shot. Not going to give people religious or medical exemptions from measles shots.
	No. And then he goes on, as some people have pointed out, other people pointed out, that Emmer had compounding problems with social conservatives for his support of the transgender agenda.
	Oh, wow. Okay. I looked at this and I thought, well, Emer, I don't know anything about him except that he has pushed back against CBDC. And I thought, well, that'd be good to have a speaker who was adamantly opposed to CBDC. It's not just this year.
	He had introduced legislation in previous Congress to do it, you know, but now with a Republican majority in his whip, maybe they'll put something together to stop the pushing of CBDC. So I thought, well, maybe that might be a good thing.
	I didn't know where he was on the transgender agenda.
	But I do know that that's not the reason why Trump called him a globalist rhino, because New York Democrat Trump also supports the transgender agenda.
	I'd like to see men in my beauty contest, he said.
	And I think men ought to be able to compete with women in sports.
	But conservatives all just forget about all that stuff.
	Don't talk about it. So within hours of Trump coming out with that, Tom Emmer dropped out of the speaker's race.
	And so, again, as a whip, he doesn't know.
	I mean, the point of a whip is to go around and get the pulse of everybody and to find out where everybody is and then to get them to move along with whatever the speaker's agenda is.
	He wasn't able to do that, or did everything change because Trump did that after he got the nomination?
	It was a secret ballot of 117 to 97 he won, but a secondary roll call vote showed that 26 Republicans voted against, voted president or for somebody else.
	And that happened after Trump came out against him.
	So, besides loyalty to Trump, is there any other qualification that we need for a Speaker of the House?
	I guess not. I guess not.
	And also being wrong on issues, wrong on the same issues that Trump is.
	I mean, they both agree about transgenders.
	Doesn't Trump cut him some slack for that?
	You know, where is he on other issues?
	Or do issues even matter to these Republicans?
	I don't think they do.
	I think it's all about personality.
	And it's all about loyalty to Trump because these people don't want Trump's wrath against them.
	They're very afraid of that. Well, it turns out there's some other issues with Emmer.
	He got kicked out because Trump didn't like him.
	But it turns out maybe that was a good thing.
	I don't know who's going to replace him.
	Is there anybody that's any good in the Republican Congress?
	Well, actually, no. It was Thomas Massey.
	He's the only one I would vote for.
	But other than that, forget about it.
	Emmer is a lobbyist-friendly moderate.
	Says... It was backed by big tech.
	Very favorable to the crypto industry.
	There you go, you see.
	Emmer is not opposing CBDC because he wants us to have privacy and to defeat the Stasi state.
	No, he's doing it because he's a friend of big tech and the crypto industry.
	And because...
	CBDC is a war against crypto.
	Liz Warren and the rest of these people have to outlaw crypto, along with a lot of other things, in order to get their de facto global ID and their surveillance and control device, CBDC. So Emmer is not necessarily opposed to any of that stuff.
	He just wants to keep the crypto industry going.
	As a matter of fact, he even sought to block the SEC's investigation into Sam Bankman-Fried and FTX. So it looks like they own him lock, stock, and barrel.
	That would not be a good thing.
	Opposition to CBDC is good, but, you know, being the puppet of big tech is not good.
	He's also perceived as being more socially liberal than many of his GOP colleagues.
	He was one of 47 House Republicans to vote in favor of codifying same-sex marriage into federal law last July.
	In 2019, he joined eight other Republicans to block the Pentagon from funding President Trump's ban on transgender military recruits.
	A video also of Emmer in 2011 made the rounds on social media at the time.
	He was a paid spokesperson for the National Popular Vote.
	You remember that, right? I talked about that a lot at the time.
	This was a group that had ties to George Soros, and its purpose was to defeat the Electoral College, which is a constitutional function.
	We don't run it the way that the Constitution says we should run it, of course.
	We don't do it. But, again, to completely eradicate it without amending the Constitution.
	Look, if Tom Emmer, a congressman now, if he doesn't like the Electoral College, amend the Constitution.
	Otherwise, obey the Constitution that you took an oath to serve.
	You know, I think that there's a practical reason, a very good reason, why we want to have an Electoral College and not have a national popular vote.
	But beyond that, I would argue that's a good thing.
	We want to keep it. But beyond that, it's the Constitution.
	It's the law, pal.
	And you swore an oath to it as a condition of your office.
	That Constitution is the king, politically, in our country.
	And you're nothing but a temporary steward who exercises your office as long as you stay loyal to the Constitution.
	That's the way this ought to run. And so, for all the wrong reasons...
	In other words, the fact that Trump didn't like him.
	We got rid of this guy. There's a lot of good reasons to not have Emmer there as Speaker of the House.
	So we got the right result for maybe the wrong reason.
	Trump, meanwhile, is popping up in New Hampshire, making strange statements, as listener Sam says, as megalomania and narcissism is reaching new levels under this pressure.
	He made an interesting statement, which a lot of people are really hammering him on, referring to...
	Viktor Orban, the Prime Minister of Hungary, as the leader of Turkey.
	Maybe he had Dr.
	Oz on his mind. You know, he supported a Turkish citizen for Senate in Pennsylvania that went down in flames against a guy who can't even speak, Fetterman.
	He's so hampered by his physical handicap and disease.
	He's not fit for office.
	But even Fetterman beat Dr.
	Oz. I mean, at least Fetterman...
	As an American, you know, Dr.
	Oz, we don't know where his loyalty is, but we know that he was not going to change his Turkish citizenship unless he got elected.
	And then he would do it so he could get access to our classified documents.
	Now, maybe that's what Trump was thinking of when he said Turkey for Viktor Orban.
	And then you have things in his trial in Georgia.
	As we point out many times, I think he's got 18 or 19 co-defendants in that trial.
	Those are being turned one by one into state witnesses against him.
	As you see, now the latest one is Jenna Ellis, the third attorney, who has taken a plea deal.
	She read a statement tearfully saying that she failed to do due diligence.
	She said, I relied on others, including lawyers with many more years of experience than I, you know, people like Rudy Giuliani, to provide me with true and reliable information.
	She said, What I did not do, but should have done, Your Honor, was to make sure that the facts of the other lawyers alleged to be true were, in fact, true.
	In the frenetic pace of attempting to raise challenges to the election in several states, including Georgia, I failed to do my due diligence.
	Well, you know, I had somebody who contacted me.
	I forget if it was an email or if it was, I think it was on Twitter.
	And said, you know, when you dismiss all this stuff about Trump's election thing, you haven't talked to these two people.
	You need to talk to them. They've got the receipts and they need to put it.
	I replied to him and I said, I've done my due diligence because I know who Trump is and I know I've been talking about all this election corruption way before Trump ever ran for office the first time.
	And so I know about it.
	It's longer and it's much bigger than Trump and his people are saying.
	The election corruption has been going on for a very long time and is much, much, much bigger than one electronic voting machine company or the mail-in stuff.
	And not only that, number two, Trump is the one who put in the vote-by-mail fraud.
	He did that with his lockdown elections.
	So as far as I'm concerned, he was hoisted by his own petard.
	And I don't really care. Blown up by his own bomb.
	I don't care. Because, number three, he turned over the rule of our country to a medical, bureaucratic, martial law.
	So why would I vote for anybody?
	We've got regulation.
	We've got orders. We've got taxation without representation.
	We've got all this stuff. Regulation without representation.
	And thanks to Trump, he did that on steroids.
	Why would I bother to vote for somebody who turned the government over to Fauci?
	By the way, I've got to share this with you.
	I thought it was really funny. On the transcript program that I use.
	I said something about Fauci's, you know, and I put it like Fauci apostrophe S. It translated that as fat cheese.
	Should that be my new name for Fauci?
	Fat cheese. He is the fat cheese.
	He is the big cheese in Washington, isn't he?
	I mean, the guy who makes more money than the president, who tells the president to do whether it's what to do, whether it's Trump or whether it's Biden, he is the big cheese.
	He is the fat cheese.
	He got fat off of government, Fauci did.
	So, Anthony, fat cheese.
	So, Jenna Ellis, like Sidney Powell, like the cheese bro, cheese bro, this guy, another cheese guy, another fat cheese.
	They will face no prison time.
	They've got a guilty plea here.
	They may turn out testifying against Trump because that's the whole point.
	I mean, you've now seen Sidney Powell say, well, I still believe in all this election stuff and everything that I was doing.
	Well, what she says publicly and what she says under oath in front of the judge who gave her this probation so she doesn't go to jail, those are going to be two different things.
	Very much like what we saw with Ray Epps, right?
	Ray Epps, this guy testifies under oath.
	Oh, no, he didn't tell me to do this.
	As a matter of fact, he told me to get back.
	That's what he's whispering in my ear.
	And then he goes on all these alternative media Trump shows and says, no, he told me.
	After that, he says, no, he told me to go tear that down or whatever.
	Completely changed the story.
	Well, it's one thing to talk on talk radio.
	To the MAGA crowd and the Trump lovers.
	It's another thing when you're under oath facing jail.
	So it remains to be seen what Sidney Powell is going to do once push comes to shove on all this.
	And that, of course, was the point of all of this.
	And another reason why it was so foolish for greedy Trump not to pay for the legal fees of these people.
	You know, he could have brought them in and made this a team thing and protected them.
	But Trump is not a team player.
	Trump is about Trump.
	He's a narcissist. He only values money.
	And, you know, that's what this is truly about.
	We're going to take a quick break. And when we come back, we're going to be joined by Eric Peters.
	And I've got a lot of car news that we want to talk to him about.
	So we'll be right back.
	The Common Man.
	The Common Man.
	They created Common Core to dumb down our children.
	They created Common Past to track and control us.
	Their Commons Project to make sure the commoners own nothing.
	And the communist future.
	They see the common man as simple, unsophisticated, ordinary.
	But each of us has worth and dignity created in the image of God.
	That is what we have in common.
	That is what they want to take away.
	Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation.
	They desire to know everything about us while they hide everything from us.
	It's time to turn that around and expose what they want to hide.
	Please share the information and links you'll find at TheDavidKnightShow.com.
	Thank you for listening.
	Thank you for sharing.
	If you can't support us financially, please keep us in your prayers.
	The David Knight show.com.
	Joining us now is Eric Peters.
	Excellent site, ericpetersautos.com or epautos.com.
	All kinds of information about liberty and mobility, as the car companies like to call it now, but actually it does car reviews, real car reviews, and practical car reviews.
	It's not, oh, look at this hypercar that is...
	It's going to cost you $4 million or something, and maybe they'll make it, maybe they won't.
	No, it's real stuff. And he's got great news today because it looks like things have broken our way on several different fronts, doesn't it, Eric?
	Tell us about it. It does, yeah.
	The wheels seem to be coming off of the EV bandwagon.
	Multiple, multiple things to talk about.
	One is... Maybe we can get some regenerative braking on this as well.
	Maybe we can get some money back in our pockets, too.
	But yeah, Ford is having difficulty moving the Lightning, which is the electric version of the F-150 pickup.
	Sales are down almost 50%.
	They've had to idle the line that builds them.
	Dealers are not ordering more of them because they can't sell the ones they've got.
	GM has had to scale back its expectations.
	That's the verbiage that they used.
	But the really big news, and this is huge, It has leaked the Dodge, which had said that it was going to end the current Charger and Challenger as we knew them with gas-powered engines and V8 engines and all the good stuff that makes them desirable, and turn them into battery-powered devices like all the other battery-powered devices.
	It has apparently seen that the people who buy vehicles like that don't want battery-powered devices.
	It's like trying to sell a blue-collar guy, Bud Light, with Dylan Mulvaney on the can.
	It's just not going to work.
	So it turns out that they're going to offer that thing with the new Hurricane inline six-cylinder engine.
	They'll continue to build a battery version of it, but that's going to be a compliance car.
	The one that people want is going to be the one with the gas-burning inline six-cylinder engine.
	Oh, that's good. Yeah, and I remember when they rolled the thing out, how they had speakers and the soundtrack to make it sound like it was the other car.
	It was such a joke that we laughed about that.
	Of course, he's the guy in charge over there, and I felt so bad for him, having to go through that awful pantomime and pretend that he was putting lipstick on the proverbial pig.
	But the bottom line is, they decided to, for once, do something proactive rather than reactive, like Ford did.
	Ford made this massive commitment to these battery-powered devices that's turning out to potentially be something that could ultimately kill Ford.
	And now they're having to try to figure out how to undo the damage that's been done And I think that Stellantis, which is the parent company of Dodge, looked at that and said, you know, we better not go down that road.
	And so they have apparently decided that they're going to put the gas engines in the new generation charger that's going to be coming out a few months from now.
	And that's big news because, again, it shows that this whole EV thing is starting to fall apart.
	It's not just Dodge, but Dodge, this business with Dodge is highly revelatory in my opinion.
	Sure. Well, you know, it's also, GM has said, because the United Auto Workers strikes and everything, the United Auto Workers have thrown this thing down and said, look, if we go to EVs, we're going to be out of business.
	And so are all these people who are supplying parts.
	There's not going to be any oil filters, any of this other kind of stuff.
	And so you've got a lot of the workers who have now, in this, have now taken a position on this.
	And so GM has said, We're going to completely rethink our EV strategy.
	So you've got, you know, Chrysler, which is Atlantis, owns them.
	They've said, well, we're going to continue to sell the Charger muscle cars that we're going to shut down.
	Then you've got GM says we're going to completely rethink our strategy.
	Then you've got the Ford CEO who just took that comical trip to see what it was like, you know, and, you know, try to take a cross-country trip.
	And this thing goes, well, this stuff really isn't ready.
	Now he is saying that EVs have become a political footballer.
	And so, you know, you got the big three in America, even though Stellantis isn't owned by America anymore.
	But, you know, these big three car companies here are pushing against it.
	And a whole bunch of different car companies are pushing back against the EPA's move to try to completely ban cars that have internal combustion engines.
	They said, that's too much. You're going too far, too fast.
	And so a lot of them are pushing back on that, aren't they?
	They are. Well, the mass hysteria is wearing off.
	There's an analog here with the pandemic.
	It took a while for people to understand what was going on with the masks and certainly with the vaccines.
	There was kind of a lag time. This was sort of like bum-rushed on the public.
	And the same has been done with electrification.
	Nothing but rosy stories about how wonderful they were, how superior they were to these clunky, old, filthy, dirty gas-burning cars that we have.
	And for a while, this created a kind of kinetic energy behind this push to electrify things.
	But over the course of the past year, just like with the vaccines, people figured out that they weren't being told the truth.
	The truth has begun to leach out about electric vehicles.
	And when you combine the truth with the fact that now interest rates on loans are much higher than they used to be, and the idea that the average person is somehow going to be able to afford an entry-level $50,000 EV or a $70,000 or $80,000 EV, Loaded EV is ludicrous.
	It's just not going to work.
	Yeah, and the insurance industry, because of things that you and I have talked about for a long time, the fact that if there's minor fender bender, how do we know that the battery pack has not been compromised somewhere?
	And if one part of the battery pack, one cell, has been compromised, this thing could go into spontaneous combustion, kill the people.
	Do a complete totaling the car.
	And so now you've got a lot of insurance companies that are either raising the rates by like 75% or canceling insurance contracts on EVs altogether, so you can't get any insurance on it.
	It doesn't even take an impact.
	I was reading a news article out of Scotland.
	I hadn't had a chance to confirm this, but I'm assuming it's accurate.
	A man had a Tesla, and he parked it outside in a downpour, and it got rained on, and then it wouldn't work.
	Did you know the story? Yeah, yeah.
	Something like a $21,000 bill or something to replace the batteries.
	Because it has a vent.
	So, you know, the vehicle was rained on, and water got into the vent, into the battery, and, of course, that creates a major problem.
	And the fix when the battery is damaged is to replace it.
	So, you know, now the guy's looking at a $20,000 replacement, which, I mean, nobody can do that.
	And, you know, this is not a unique circumstance.
	This is an inherent vulnerability to these vehicles.
	So think about hurricanes, think about weather, and think about what the insurance mafia is going to do when it realizes it's risk exposure to these losses.
	Yeah, that's right. Yeah, Jason Barker comments here.
	He says, the old N-Line 6 was a great motor that Ford made.
	It had a 93 F-150, and all I ever had to do to it was to keep the oil change.
	Yeah, you know, that's the thing.
	Completely true. What's that?
	Completely true. A buddy of mine, my high school roommate, he lives just a couple of miles down the road from me.
	Back in 1989, after he got out of college, he bought a brand new F-150 for his then beginning business as a roofing contractor.
	His son is driving that truck today.
	Yeah, yeah. My first car was a 1968 Fastback Mustang, and I didn't even change the oil.
	That was my first car.
	I didn't know anything. And, you know, I'm just driving it.
	I never had any problem with it.
	I mean, it had a bulletproof engine.
	That thing was amazing, considering all the stuff that I did to it as a new driver.
	I mean, I drove the thing like it was a Duke Sazer, you know, and I never had any problem with it.
	And then my next car, Eric, was a Triumph Spitfire, and I found out all about maintenance.
	Yes. And babying this thing.
	To get serious on this, you know, we hear these fatuities from these green people about sustainability.
	I'll tell you what's sustainable is a vehicle that lasts for 20 years, you know, that doesn't require you to get a new one every seven or eight with all the attendant earth rape that's involved in extracting the raw materials, manufacturing it, and so on, which is what you have with these electric vehicles.
	That's right. Yeah, if you go back and think about it, you know, the cars that we were buying in the 70s and stuff, you know, people were changing cars every three years, but they had more purchasing power, the cars were cheaper, and all the rest of this stuff.
	You know, if you go back and you look at, as you pointed out many, many times, all these government-mandated add-ons and everything, not only did they raise the price, but they reduced reliability.
	Can you imagine how much cheaper?
	They've done a great job in terms of increasing reliability, and, you know, with the competition from Japan and everything.
	All the cars are now really reliable.
	Can you imagine how long they would last and how much cheaper they would be without government interference pushing stuff on there that is expensive and breaks?
	Yeah, that's one of the tragedies of our time.
	You know, I've talked before about how tragic it is to the kids today, you know, just out of high school, early 20s, they're getting their first job.
	They've been priced effectively out of the car market because of all of this.
	And there's no reason whatsoever from a technological point of view, manufacturing point of view, At all.
	That we couldn't have brand new, basic, entry-level cars that got 50 miles per gallon that cost about $11,000.
	And I can say that with certainty because those vehicles exist and are available for sale in other countries.
	Yeah. Oh, yeah. I remember you talking about how entry-level people in France, you know, teenagers or whatever, they could buy a super cheap, cheaply made, and...
	Very slow car, but it didn't have a lot of add-ons to it, safety equipment, all that kind of stuff.
	If they wanted to get that, they were allowed to get it as young drivers, just to get them into the cars.
	Of course, we don't have any exemptions like that for any reason whatsoever.
	Well, there is a reason. What they're trying to do is to alienate the rising generation from vehicles and from driving, and it's been very effective.
	The stat that I quote is that something on the order of a fourth of the people in the 16 to 24 cohort don't even have a driver's license because they don't want to drive, and they don't want to drive because cars are forbidding for them.
	They're a debt albatross.
	They're beyond their means. They can't afford the car, they can't afford the insurance, and so they don't want to drive, and that's exactly what's wanted, and that's exactly the purpose and point of everything that these people, as Robert Lee referred to them, are doing.
	Yeah, that's right. And of course, a large part of that It's also what's being pushed to them.
	At the same time, they're bringing resistance for people to get out in the real world and do real things.
	They're making it very easy for you to stay home and just have online friends and online school.
	It's kind of like everything that we saw with the lockdown, but they're doing that to the younger group a lot more.
	And it's big training to lock everybody down for a year to do that kind of stuff.
	That made a big impression on a lot of people, especially the youngest people.
	And so they just want to stay there and, you know, hey, I'll just have electronic relationships with people and I won't get out and do the real stuff.
	Yeah, virtual relationships, virtual reality, nothing tangible, nothing real.
	You know, everything fake, fraudulent, and ultimately controlled by something that's out of their control.
	That's right. Yeah, and when we talk about the fact that people don't want to own a car...
	This whole robo-taxi thing, and that's something that's moved our way as well.
	The people in California hate these things.
	Had a big traffic jam in Austin because, you know, Austin wants to be California.
	They want Elon Musk to come there.
	They want to, you know...
	Streamline everything for the self-driving cars and trucks and all that kind of stuff in Texas.
	And so, yeah, big traffic jams in Austin.
	But this has been happening so much in California.
	People got very upset about it.
	They were putting cones on the cars, which would basically freak them out.
	And they would just stop in their place.
	And not damage the car, but just make it stop and not move.
	And so now the California Department of Motor Vehicles has now pulled Cruza's license.
	That's the GM subsidiary for autonomous vehicle deployment.
	They've now pulled their license for operating on public roads.
	That's a good move as well.
	No question.
	Absolutely.
	Anything that helps to dial this back.
	They're leveraging the government to push this.
	With these autonomous cars and the electric cars, they are using fleet purchases to try to push them into the so-called mainstream and to just kind of get people acclimated to becoming passive passengers of transportation as a service rather than people who own cars and control them and drive them.
	Yeah, that's right. Yeah, it is from the very beginning that has been the purpose is to pacify people, to take away private cars and to turn this over to some of their stakeholder partners who are then going to control your mobility.
	They'll rent you everything because everything's going to be about renting.
	They'll rent you everything.
	And then they'll only let you go places if the government is happy with what you're doing.
	And that's been the design from the very beginning of it.
	It also has to do with all the 15-minute cities and all the rest of this stuff, right?
	They want to make sure that you don't even need to rent a taxi because you'll be prohibited from leaving your area.
	You'll have maybe CBDC that only works in your little location and you can't even walk outside that area and use your money.
	They'll have it geolocated.
	It is a complete prison system that they're trying to design for people.
	And that's why you and I have opposed from the beginning all of this stuff, the autonomous vehicles and the way that Tesla, the way Elon Musk, you know, put that as the cherry on top of the EV cars that he was selling in order to make it futuristic and all the rest of the stuff.
	That's a key part of that.
	Always. But of course, the electric vehicle with its limited capability of getting different places.
	You get an article about the plug.
	Talk to people about that.
	You know, people who haven't owned an electric vehicle don't realize how non-standard these plugs are, right?
	Yeah, that's one of the inconvenient truths about EVs that people should be aware of.
	And I'll preface it by saying this.
	In the first place, to make an electric car practical to charge at home, you're going to need to have what they call a level 2, 240-volt dedicated circuit that's accessible to the cord for the EV. Most houses don't have that, so you're probably going to have to hire an electrician to come out there and wire that up for you.
	And your panel may not be capable of supporting it.
	That's point one. Point two...
	If you have more than one vehicle, I mean, if you have a single-family house, more than likely there's more than one vehicle.
	So this idea that we're going to replace the existing fleet of non-electric vehicles with EVs becomes problematic because most houses cannot support multiple 240-volt level 2 chargers, which means that only one car can charge in a reasonable amount of time, and the other one becomes a part-time vehicle, which makes no sense, and nobody's going to spend $50,000 on a vehicle that you can only use two or three days out of the week, if that.
	But wait, there's more!
	As you just said, the plugs are not standardized.
	So if you pay the electrician to rig up the outlet for your Tesla, let's say, that might not work for another brand of EV. So now you're stuck having to get the electrician to come out again and make another change or modification if you want to drive a different make of electric car than the one that you had when you first paid him to come out and install the outlet.
	Isn't it wonderful? Yeah.
	And of course, one of the commenters here in Narrow Way and Airgate Ministry says car garages are starting to collapse due to the way the EV is not being calculated and accounted for and the weight bearing built into the floors.
	And also saying in the UK, we're going to have to redesign the parking lots, not only for the weight, but we're going to have to redesign them so the cars are farther apart.
	So if they spontaneously get a bus, they don't all burn up.
	I mean, it's just one thing after the other.
	They're just going to say, sorry, you can't have any cars.
	Sure. And they allowed that lie to be propagated for whatever ulterior purpose
	we don't know. Same thing here.
	They're just trying to shuck and jive and mislead people for some kind of sneaky agenda that we haven't fully fleshed out yet, but we can be pretty certain has something to do with winnowing transportation for people to be able to drive their own private cars when and where they want to.
	Yeah, every time you look at this, whatever it is that they're completely focused on, it's always one facet of a prison cell that they're building for us, right?
	All these things come together when you understand this is all about making us imprisoned into their agenda.
	One of the listeners, Chevkin321, says, once auto workers and blue-collar people come to the realization that Trump, Republicans, and Democrats, and Biden, all of them, want their total destruction, Then maybe things can change in America.
	And that's what we hope.
	You know, people got to wake up to this agenda.
	They are so gaslit by their tribalism.
	Oh, it's not our guy.
	It's the other guys. No, it's both of these guys that's doing it, right?
	And it's also kind of abstract, I think, in that a lot of these regulatory regimes that have consequences for the market and for liberty are abstract for a lot of people, and they're not immediately obvious what the effect is.
	And it's really quite clever.
	The government doesn't say, we're going to prohibit the manufacture of gas-powered vehicles.
	What they do is set forth a requirement that every vehicle manufacturer must comply with a minimum mandatory fuel economy figure of, say, 50 miles per gallon.
	And that has the effect of outlawing pretty much every car that isn't an electric car But the people generally don't see that.
	They don't understand that. And they think, oh, this is just a natural evolution of the car market.
	Yeah, yeah. Well, let's talk about going back to the past.
	Let's go back to the past because, you know, back to the future.
	They just found a 1981 DeLorean found in a barn.
	It only has 977 miles on it.
	And I'm sure that it ever went faster than 85 miles per hour.
	Or maybe it did. Maybe that's how the thing.
	I mean, that's how the thing got there, you know?
	But, I mean, it's all dusty, and it's like it's straight out of the movie.
	Did you ever see a DeLorean, Eric, or even drive one?
	Oh, yes.
	I've seen several.
	And if you want to see one locally, well, if you're ever in my neck, there's a place called the Duncan Car Museum that's in Christiansburg, which is about half hour's drive away from me.
	And they have one there.
	They're really neat to look at.
	DeLorean was a brilliant designer.
	It wasn't fleshed out that great.
	It had a Renault V6 that wasn't particularly reliable.
	And it was about as fast as a Chevette, even though it looked super speedy.
	But, you know, again, it's just the tragedy of it is that people like DeLorean, who was just, again, he was one of the icons and for real with good reason in the car business, were able to design cars like that as an independent.
	And even though he wasn't able to be successful, he almost was.
	And he might have been.
	That's almost impossible today because of the regulatory capture, the difficulty of anybody getting into the business because it's so ossified now by the regulatory regime.
	And highly bureaucratic, too.
	I mean, you had people like Lee Iacocca comes up with a Mustang or whatever, and he rides that to fame and fortune.
	Same thing with DeLorean.
	But, you know, it's also, when you look, I had an opportunity to, we came to Pigeon Forge once about a decade or so ago.
	And they had a DeLorean convention, and we didn't know anything about it.
	We just showed up, and it's like there's DeLoreans all over.
	Never seen one in my life, in person.
	And they were everywhere, which was amazing.
	And they got to see inside of them, and it really was thinking outside of the box.
	I mean, very, very different.
	All of it was very, very different.
	When you look at it, I've seen some of them, people, they needed to be lowered a little bit.
	They rode really high, almost like a pickup truck or something.
	It needed to be lowered. I always hated the square headlights that were there, but of course, why did they have square headlights, Eric?
	It goes back to government regulations, right?
	Tell us a little bit about that. The headlights that they're requiring had government-mandated headlights that were allowed.
	Oh, yeah, and you have to go back even farther than that.
	The government got its dirty fingers involved in that in the 70s, and if you are familiar with Mm-hmm.
	Mm-hmm.
	And the round headlights.
	I remember we got a foreign car, and in Europe, it looked really nice because it had these glass headlights, like you see all the time now, that were halogen or something.
	But when they brought it into the U.S., they had to put in two of those round headlights that were the only ones approved by the government, and then put them in a plastic surround thing.
	It looked awful, you know?
	And plus, they weren't as good.
	They weren't nearly as good as the European things.
	But they dictated every headlight that was out there at that time.
	Yeah, and the fundamental question is, how did this come about?
	I mean, how is it that we live ostensibly in a constitutional republic where the authority of the federal government is, per the document, supposed to be strictly limited?
	How did we arrive at a point where the government is micromanaging what a car company can do in terms of styling and designing a vehicle, or telling you how many miles per gallon the car that you buy is allowed to use?
	That's right. Well, I just take a look at the...
	Okay, so part of the joke with the DeLorean that a lot of people won't realize if they're younger...
	What's the thing? If you go 85 miles an hour, 86 miles, what was it?
	88 miles per hour, right?
	Because the speedometer only goes to 85.
	So you're burying the speedometer, right?
	And that was something that was imposed by the government along with a 55 mile an hour speed limit to save fuel.
	You will not have any speedometer that goes above 85 because we don't want to get people to drive fast and that type of thing.
	And so that was a joke talking about that government-mandated speedometer.
	So they mandate the headlights, they mandate the speedometer.
	Silly stuff like that, but it's no sillier than this whole climate change nonsense and emissions.
	I mean, but that was a key part of it.
	And when we talk about how did they do that, right?
	How did they impose the 55-mile-an-hour speed limit?
	How did they impose this 85-mile-an-hour speedometer?
	Well, the 85-mile-an-hour speedometer, they just, I don't know, they, you know, I guess...
	They just decreed it. Yeah, they just decreed it.
	The 55-mile-an-hour speed limit, which was just decreed by Richard Nixon, was done on the basis of withholding money, though.
	That's the thing. I guess they tell the car companies, we don't want you to have a speedometer that goes more than 85, and so they don't want to fight with the people that can make their lives miserable or put them out of business, so I guess they just do it.
	With the speed limit, It's like, well, we're not going to give you any federal money if you don't do it.
	And that's why I was trying to get everybody to understand the people who hated me at InfoWars, the listeners at InfoWars who hated me because I opposed Trump.
	They said, Trump doesn't have anything to do with this stuff.
	I said, no, he does. He's financing it.
	You know, it's the same thing that Richard Nixon did with a 55 mile an hour speed limit.
	He's giving people massive amounts of money to run these death protocols in the hospitals and all the rest of this stuff.
	And that's why they're doing it.
	Because he's giving them money. The reason the governors are making this an emergency thing is because he's showering billions of dollars on all, or tens of billions of dollars on these different governors to do all this stuff, both Republican and Democrat.
	It's always the money. Yeah, and adding insult to injury, the majority of that money is sourced from the very states themselves.
	Yes. You know, the states pay the money, the federal government gets the money, and then the federal government says, well, we'll give you some of it back, provided you're obedient and do what we tell you with regard to something like the 55-mile-an-hour speed limit, which, by the way, wasn't silly.
	It generated how knows how many hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue for state and local governments via trumped-up speeding tickets, and also for the insurance mafia, which could use those tickets as the pretext for labeling you a risky and unsafe driver.
	Yeah. Oh, yeah. Absolutely.
	Yeah, they're partners in crime.
	You know, everybody makes something out of it.
	And that's what they did with the pandemic.
	You know, if you understand the way the government works, it's like they don't want to just directly decree this because then they're going to have some challenges from some people according to the Tenth Amendment.
	And so what they do is they make, you know, recommendations.
	And so now you've got Fauci saying...
	I didn't lock anybody down.
	I just made recommendations.
	And Trump said, I didn't lock anybody down.
	I just made recommendations and wrote them checks to do it, right?
	That's the way this stuff always works.
	Yeah. You have to give these people credit.
	I mean, it really is a sly, cunning, and effective way to game and manipulate people's attention.
	Yeah, that's right. Superface says, I've got a 1980 VW Rabbit.
	I had a 1978 VW Rabbit.
	It's still kicking. How is it that they knew how to get 50 miles per gallon out of a little four-cylinder diesel back in the 1970s?
	Is that not green? Yeah, that's exactly right.
	It really is.
	And, you know, get this thing to last.
	And the diesels, of all things, and we talked about this, how they hammered VW over the quote-unquote cheating, where nobody died, nobody was hurt, nobody was defrauded, and, you know, hit them with like $4 billion and came after executives with criminal charges, and they immediately ran away from this very fuel-efficient diesel that they had and start becoming big champions of electric vehicles.
	They got the message, didn't they?
	Well, yeah, and they absolutely, and they, the government, absolutely had to do that because of the existential threat that low-cost, high-mileage, endlessly durable diesels posed to this electrification agenda.
	I mean, how ridiculous would a Tesla look that costs $50,000 that goes 270 miles, when for $22,000 you could buy a Jetta that gets 50-something miles per gallon and goes 700 miles?
	Mm-hmm, mm-hmm. Yeah, exactly right.
	I've got a comment here from Trump Burger Forever.
	He said, we need to have some automakers fail before things are going to change.
	No more bailouts. But you know, that's another part of the DeLorean story as well, right?
	Yeah, he got desperate. He had everybody aligned against him, and, you know, they kind of set him up.
	But we also saw that with Tucker, a great movie that was done by Francis Ford Coppola about that.
	You know, you try to come up with something that is...
	I'll buck the system.
	And today, of course, if you want to come up with a new car, the only option that you would have would be to come up with some kind of a three-wheel vehicle because everything else is going to be so highly regulated.
	You'll never be able to compete with these corporations.
	And the corporations have really, you know, had the government as their ally.
	So, of course, they're going to do what the government wants with this EV stuff for the most part because the government...
	Essentially, sawed off the ladders of their competitors before they could get up to a level where they could compete with them.
	With all of these regulations, the big car companies love all of these safety and emission regulations because it makes the car very complicated and difficult.
	Sure, and once again, it's another facet of this push toward creating an elitist system where people who are very wealthy can get around it.
	You mentioned the three-wheeler.
	Well, you can get around these regs having to do with safety, And emissions, if you're a low-volume specialty manufacturer, for example, I can't remember the name of the company, but they are remanufacturing exact replicas of early, mid-60s Ford Mustangs.
	And you can buy a brand-new Ford Mustang, except it's going to cost you about $250,000.
	Yeah, exactly. Yeah, that's a super face.
	Her diesel, she went forever, ran it on waste vegetable oil for years.
	Yep. Yeah, I thought about doing that at one point in time.
	We had a diesel. The issue was, if you're going to start taking this vegetable oil from a restaurant, they want you to take all of their stuff, you know.
	Then they got wise to it, and they said, hey, we can start charging people for this stuff.
	And so, you know, we wound up not doing that.
	But that's the key thing, because that's the next thing they're going to take from us, and that's going to be the fuel.
	Yeah, they're going to try. And the advantage to the diesel engines, the older ones, the mechanically injected ones that will burn practically any oil...
	Is that that is indeed very green and very sustainable.
	You know, local people can make oil out of crops pretty readily that will burn in a diesel engine.
	So, you know, that would be a very, very clever way to get around some of the stuff that they're pushing on people.
	It reminds me of, I read an article the other day, it was great, about how one restaurant got around some of the lockdown restrictions during the Rona by declaring itself a private members-only club and therefore exempt from We're good to go.
	Open to the public. So you walked in there and you signed your name on a piece of paper and you gave them your $1 membership fee and you could function like a normal human being again.
	Yeah, that's been done a lot of times.
	We used to be in the video business.
	We didn't get into it until after there had been a Supreme Court case that said, no, after you sold these video cassettes to people, you can't tell them they can't rent them.
	But prior to that, there were all these legal restrictions and everything.
	That's why you had the membership charges at these different places because now we've got a private club.
	You see that with raw milk.
	You know, and things like that.
	Oh, or with Beef, although even though you can become a member...
	With a farm to get grass-fed beef and all the rest of this stuff, the USDA will still come in and jackbooted thugs and shut down your farm, as we saw with an Amish guy recently.
	If you try to slaughter the animals that you've raised cleanly and organically, and you don't want to send it to the government feedlots and the centralized meatpacking companies, if you try to do it yourself, they'll come in and shut you down and take away your entire farm, Yeah, and this sort of thing, as appalling as it is, the truth of it is getting out.
	And the deeper and more important truth, which is that the motivations behind this are not well-meant.
	You know, the lie that they were able to propagate before, that all we're only doing is to make sure that people don't get poisoned or get adulterated food, or we're saving the climate, or we're preventing granny from dying.
	People understand that That these are shabby window dressings that are being used by tyrannical people to try to diminish our lives and to ensurp us.
	The word has gotten out about this, and I think that's why the wheels are coming off the EV bandwagon.
	Yeah, yeah, I agree.
	Christine1235 says, I wish I would have valued my old cars.
	Always traded them in.
	When almost paid off, I was so stupid.
	Yeah, you know, it's just like this car, this DeLorean.
	You know, that is a different kind of car.
	But you stop and think about all the different cars and how Obama went through in the Cash for Clunkers program.
	Let's get rid of these old internal combustion engine cars that we can keep fixing and running forever.
	Let's get rid of all those, and we'll give you a little bit of cash for that because we want everybody to get all new stuff that we can control electronically.
	Yeah. Yeah.
	Well, you know, we've taken a lot for granted, all of us, I think, if we examine ourselves.
	And, you know, time has come to stop taking things for granted, cars being one of them.
	You know, it's time to take a cold shower and realize that we've been living in a false reality for a long time.
	And it's best that we just come to terms with that and get back to a productive, sound, healthy reality.
	Yeah. Yeah, they want to take us back to pre-industrial revolution serfdom, I think, is where they want to take us back.
	Sure. You know, kind of some weird combination of that, along with, you know, you live in a tiny 300-square-foot garage apartment and you spend all your time on virtual reality.
	They want to take us back to some mix between those two things.
	You know, use that to try to pacify us.
	But we need to, before that happens, we need to start to simplify our lives a little bit.
	As you point out, learning how to do some of these things ourselves and learn some self-sufficiency, start to get outside of this control grid.
	I was talking earlier about CBDC, because we had this whole thing about Emmer, the House whip who had put himself up for Speaker of the House and got the nomination, but then Trump came out against him.
	I said, well, the only thing I knew about him was CBDC, and I thought that was pretty good.
	I found out that he was...
	trying to he was opposing CBDC because he was for cryptocurrency and he tried to stop the SEC from coming after Sam Bankman fried and so forth and so there's some issues like that but you know when when you look at CBDC that is something that is really looming over the over the horizon for us so So one person commented before you came on and said, well, mark my word when they push it on us, they'll call it Trump coin.
	Well, it was Trump and Jared Kushner who were pushing CBDC when Trump was president.
	And Biden is pushing it everywhere.
	I mean, that's a key issue, isn't it?
	Oh, sure. Right after nuclear war, that is probably the greatest existential threat that we face, because if they can digitize the currency, they own us.
	They can, at a whim, at the stroke of a keyboard, they can restrict or turn off our ability to transact business, to buy to sell.
	They can determine what we're allowed to buy and how much.
	I mean, to the nth finest degree.
	People think that they feel a little anxious and worried about the way things are going, Imagine if they knew that if they were to voice any kind of a contrary opinion whatsoever, they might find out that their bank account has been locked up.
	Yeah, that's right. Yeah, it's even, you know, teachers in the UK, who probably don't disagree, they'd be left of the government probably in most cases, but they found out they're being recorded and, you know, information's been kept on them and files are being kept on them and all the rest of it.
	This is Stasi Germany stuff.
	This is, I remember years ago, there was a woman who was, she was a communist, she was an American, and she went to East Germany because she just loved communism.
	And so she went there just to enjoy the thrill of austerity and totalitarianism, I guess.
	But she married a guy that was there, and they were very suspicious of her because it's like, the people who lived under it, it was like, nobody could come here because nobody could be that stupid to voluntarily come here and live under the system.
	So they're keeping tabs on her.
	They figured she was an American spy.
	And she said she was very disturbed to find years later that when people started going back and started exposing what the Stasi were doing, she started looking at it.
	So she said she found out all of her neighbors were keeping tabs on her and spying on her.
	But they don't need people to do that anymore.
	They've got computers to do it.
	They've got software that's going to do it.
	All the software that we use is going to spy on us and inform on the government and put everything into a Stasi file on each and every one of us.
	And the CBDC will be the weapon that they use to attack us with that.
	There's a strange disconnect that people can imagine somehow that an authoritarian system can be benevolent.
	I don't understand how you can hold that thought in your mind.
	Yeah, but that's the nature of it.
	You know, I put something on Twitter slash X the other day that almost nobody likes a bully, right?
	I mean, most people just, you know, they don't like bullies, and yet they'll vote for them.
	And yet they'll endorse bullying when it's done by somebody else.
	But he's our bully. And that takes me to be the fundamental problem we've got.
	Yeah, he's our bully. He's our bully, and he owns the libs.
	Exactly. Yeah, it's okay if we bully people who don't share our point of view and who want to live their lives in a way that's different than ours.
	But then we get upset when those same people acquire political power and use it to bully us.
	That's right. Yeah, I think part of that...
	Oh, well, you know, Trump owns the libs, and I love it when he does that.
	Part of that is just the frustration of what's going on with social media and how social media has really kind of activated that hatred of, you know, one side versus the other.
	It's a constant debate, a constant fight over stuff like that.
	And so let's just get somebody who's going to be a bully and a thug, and he's going to just come in and, you know, knock the other side down, which is what the left wants, and it's now really what the right wants as well.
	And you see this reflected as people say, well, let's just forget about all these elections.
	Let's just have a fight, you know?
	Let's just... Isn't that wonderful?
	I mean, it's like we're reliving pre-war Germany where, you know, the Nazis were fighting against the communists and they were essentially the same thing, but you had to pick one or the other.
	Yeah. Oh, yeah. No, I think we ought to have Trump and Biden be our champions.
	I think they ought to go to the ring and fight it out.
	It would be funny if the consequences weren't so serious.
	But yeah, that's the problem that we've got.
	This idea that it's legitimate somehow to go after other people.
	And the social media thing, I don't know whether you follow Jordan Peterson.
	I like a lot of what he's got to say.
	and he was saying in one of his monologues that the social media thing wherein people can heckle each other anonymously under the cover of a fictitious identity has empowered narcissistic, psychopathic personalities and just ramped up this meanness and anger that is creating this social psychopathic personalities and just ramped up this meanness and anger that is creating this social friction and Oh, I agree.
	I've also seen Jordan Peterson call for, well, we need to end anonymity on the internet.
	I don't agree with that either.
	You know, I mean, that's a very dangerous thing.
	And so, you know, there's you look at these problems and doesn't mean that we've necessarily got a good solution for it.
	And certainly every problem can't be solved by government.
	You know, if government is going to end anonymity, they're going to do it with a bullying tactic is what's going to happen with it.
	And you see that everywhere.
	There's always this justification of why they've got to get an ID for us.
	And, of course, that's where the ending of anonymity goes.
	If you say, well, we've got to end anonymity on the Internet, that means everybody's got to have an ID so we know who everybody is.
	And we've seen that used to say we're going to stop child pornography.
	I'm not in favor of child pornography.
	I think you ought to arrest the toponographers, but don't make me have an ID to get on the Internet.
	And they say, well, we're going to have deep fakes from our artificial intelligence.
	Well, regulate your artificial intelligence.
	Don't regulate me, you know, or what DeSantis did.
	He said, well, we got all these people coming across the border, and so we're going to need to know if you're an American citizen.
	So you're going to have to get e-verified.
	It's like make them get an ID.
	Put an ID on the artificial intelligence and on the illegal immigrants, but not on Americans.
	But they always use it to identify their own citizens.
	Yeah, they create a problem, and then they have the pretext for their solution, which is always less liberty for us and more presumptive guilt for us.
	We haven't done anything, but we might do something, and therefore we must be treated as if we actually did do something.
	But to get back to your earlier point, I think we do have a way of dealing with these problems.
	It's an ancient one, and it's the golden rule.
	It's embodied in basic Christian theology.
	It's about... Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
	Leave people alone.
	Stop bothering other people unless they're bothering you in some tangible way.
	That's right. And yet, they can't apply that golden rule even to free speech, right?
	Because they're more than happy to have their speech clipped if they can clip the speech of somebody else that they don't like.
	And again, I'm seeing that on the right as well.
	You know, when we look at these highly emotionally charged issues, especially when we look at Israel versus Hamas, we're seeing calls for censorship, you know, from both the left and the right in terms of taking this stuff out.
	There isn't, there just isn't any, everybody is just, again, I think it's part of the fourth turning.
	Strauss and Hal talked about, and everybody is just itching for a fight, and they don't want to go through any of the things that are tried and true that keep a civilized society civilized.
	They just want to fight.
	It's amazing to watch it happen.
	Well, it's understandable, though.
	People are exasperated, and I get that.
	And I think the reason that they're exasperated is because there's no way out.
	There's no safety valve.
	Imagine being caught in an abusive marriage with somebody that you had nothing in common with, who was making your life miserable, but you couldn't get away from them.
	You couldn't divorce.
	You couldn't move on, go to another town, and have your life back.
	How would you feel? That, I think, is really, in a nutshell...
	What characterizes how people feel today and why they feel that way.
	Oh, I agree. Super Faye had a comment.
	We were talking before about the cash for clunkers.
	She said cash for clunkers was the worst thing for hobbyists.
	They destroyed every part of those clunkers, quote-unquote, so they could not even be recycled or reused.
	It was such a scam. It was the exact opposite of green.
	She's exactly right. She's exactly right.
	It also took the...
	The first-time car, the car that you would buy when you were a kid and you're 16, you get your driver's license, your first car, something cheap.
	You're not supposed to drive a new car when you're 16 years old.
	You drive a beater, you get your first car.
	It took those cars entirely out of circulation, and that helped to sour the rising generation on vehicle ownership.
	That's right. Yeah, one person there, ObsleepMan1776, said dealerships love the easy money.
	We had so many use that to get a ride that they couldn't afford, then they get stuck with an 18% interest rate and all the rest of the stuff.
	Yeah, exactly. I mean, there's something despicable about destroying perfectly usable equipment.
	And I used to watch until I couldn't take it anymore.
	The destruction where they would pour silica into the engines of a perfectly well-running vehicle.
	It was old, had high miles, so there's nothing wrong with it.
	It could have Wow.
	Because that was part of the requirements of cash for clunkers, that the thing be rendered unusable, to destroy it.
	And it's disgusting.
	Can you imagine a society that rewards, not only rewards, but the government promotes the destruction, the throwing away of valuable, productive things?
	But that was kind of just a foretaste of what was about to come.
	Because we see the government doing that with everything now, right?
	Look at what they're doing in the UK. They said, well, we don't want you to have natural gas heaters or ranges or any of this other kind of stuff.
	So we're going to ban those. You're going to get electric stuff that we can control on the centrally controlled grid.
	And not only that, but we're going to come along and we're going to rip up the gas lines out of the ground.
	And so it's this destruction, and we talk about pouring garbage into the engine until it seizes up as a requirement.
	That's what they're doing to everything in society.
	They're making the engines of society seize up everywhere, and it's just nothing but a path of destruction, and it's constant.
	Every week, there's something else that I report on that's coming from the Biden administration and from the EPA or from the Department of Energy or from the Department of Transportation.
	Every week it is something that they're coming out with to destroy that works.
	And you're not going to have this anymore.
	We're just going to destroy it arbitrarily and wantonly right now, and we're going to force you to buy some things more expensive.
	One of the examples of it, of course, are the power plants.
	You see all these power plants that are working fine, paid for.
	We're not going to destroy those so we can do massive solar farms and wind farms and then put these gigantic battery things out in the middle of the woods or middle of your neighborhood that are going to catch fire.
	They're going to be much worse than any car fire we've ever seen.
	It's not limited to the destruction of purely physical things.
	These same people are doing their very best to wreck the minds of kids, for example, by pushing this disordered thinking about you can be whatever you think you are, and then you are, and other people are obliged to say and affirm that indeed you are.
	So if you say you're a furry and you need a litter box, that's supposed to be affirmed, and it's hugely destructive to the minds of children.
	Yeah. And that's just one of many examples.
	You know, they've corrupted the medical system, the health system.
	They have destroyed trust that people used to have for good reason, and now they have good reason to not trust it.
	It's appalling, and it's everywhere.
	Yeah, and they've come after us body, mind, and soul, haven't they?
	I mean, just look at the fear of these kids.
	You know, there is no future.
	We're all going to die from global warming and climate change and all the rest of it.
	I'm not going to have any kids and all the rest of the stuff.
	I mean, it truly is amazing.
	And then they come after their bodies with the gender stuff.
	They really come after every aspect of society.
	It is really totalitarian in its aspect because it hits us in every aspect of our life.
	It's a death cult. But of course, it's our death that they want.
	They themselves think that they're going to be insulated from it at the apex of the pyramid.
	And that they're just going to rule over this disordered landscape of psychologically disturbed people who are insurfed and have accepted their insurfment and their diminished life that they've been bequeathed by the Klaus Schwab types of the world.
	Yeah. One comment on here, Denver Attaway says, China needed the steel, so Obama gave China the steel from the cash for clunkers.
	I didn't know about that, but I would not be surprised because he was doing the same thing with...
	So brass, spent brass at Fort Drum in New York, you know, it's like, well, we're not going to put this in the, and sell this into the market so people can reuse this.
	We're going to crush it and sell it for scrap metal at a much, much lower price to China.
	So they did that with the brass, you know, to keep people from being able to have ammunition.
	I'm sure they would do that with steel for the cars to keep people from having more cars.
	Well, how about power? You know, they have packed up and shipped to China utility plants, you know, that didn't meet current EPA regulations here, because apparently it's okay for the climate to have those plants in operation in China.
	Yeah, that is amazing.
	Yeah, under this Paris Climate Accord, they can...
	Build as many power plants as they want.
	They can be as dirty as they want.
	No limits on that whatsoever. And a lot of the people who believed all this stuff, very angry about that.
	They said, this is nothing more than just a transfer of manufacturing capacity to China and to India.
	And of course, you know, literally, I didn't know they were literally packing up plants and shipping them over.
	But, you know, for all practical purposes, that's what they're doing.
	They're allowed to build refineries, you know, for oil.
	We're not allowed to build refineries, any more refineries.
	You've got to shut them down. It is truly, like you said, that image of pouring stuff into the engine and running it until it seizes up, that describes the Biden administration to a T. Everything they do is really about that.
	And the sickest part about it is these people know that they're insulated from it.
	Joe Biden's never going to have to worry about whether the heat works at the White House.
	Or the air conditioning, or whether there's enough food for him and his to eat.
	Same with Obama at Martha's Vineyard, where he has a mansion that's, I think, a couple of feet above the sea level that's supposedly going to inundate the entire coastline.
	The arrogance, the insufferability of these people who want to live high on the hog while turning us into serfs.
	Yeah, he's got some kind of massive gas storage thing there that typically, you know, for a gas tank, natural gas tank.
	I saw that reported a year or two ago that you typically don't see except at an industrial place, you know.
	I think it's a couple thousand gallons.
	I've got a 200-gallon tank in my house.
	Yeah. Yeah, and of course, as you point out, he's right there on the coast, and if you look at these sites that say, well, we're going to have global warming and the sea level is going to rise, and well, if he believed that, his mansion would be underwater.
	So he doesn't believe any of that. None of these people do.
	No. Yeah, it truly is amazing.
	We had a comment here, Jason Barker, imagine delivering pizza in an $80,000 EV. Yeah.
	I don't think that's going to happen.
	It'll probably be delivered, I guess, by a drone.
	And I guess Amazon will have a monopoly on your drone piece.
	Because that's what they showed us with the World Economic Forum thing, right?
	You'll have nothing, and you'll be happy about it.
	And we'll give you deliveries to your home, you know, by...
	I don't think that's going to happen.
	I think that's science fiction.
	I think what's going to happen is something more Soviet, where when you want to eat something, you go down to the government commissariat store, and you stand in line for however long it takes.
	And maybe by the time you get to the front of the queue, maybe there'll still be a loaf of sawdust bread available for you.
	Oh yeah, absolutely.
	That's part of their 15 minute thing.
	I found it interesting that every time they talked about how they'd have all the essential stuff within 15 minutes of everybody where they lived, the first thing they mentioned was a pharmacy.
	Because they're going to keep us drugged up.
	Yeah. Well, they have to.
	I mean, there's a reason. In Russia, it was notorious that practically everybody there was drinking vodka all the time, and wouldn't you if you had to live there?
	That's right. That's right.
	Yeah, just come down and get your garbage.
	You know, there's an interesting thing.
	I'll get your comments on this.
	We talked about all the problems with the drug war and all of the fact that it hasn't worked for 50 years and the fact that it's corrupted our system and created so many prisons and all the rest of this stuff.
	But, you know, Trump, candidate Trump is out there.
	There's an article on Reason about candidate Trump wants to now execute drug dealers.
	He's not very specific about what drugs you're selling, though.
	Does that include Borla at Pfizer?
	That's what I was going to say.
	He wasn't specific about the drugs, so let's make it about the people that sell his shot.
	I would support that.
	But, you know, at the same time, same day, We've got a study that comes out.
	They did a double-blind study on opioids, and they found out that it was absolutely useless for people who had neck and lower back pain.
	And they did a double-blind study, and it's like, we're just now finding this out?
	After they've run this stuff for years, after they've addicted all of these people, after they've had all this stuff with Sackler and Family and Purdue Pharmaceuticals, And look at the way, Eric, that they treated Purdue Pharmaceutical and the Sackler family versus the way they treat the Sinaloa drug cartel and El Chapo, right? They didn't come in and confiscate everything that they had before anything starts.
	They negotiated with them and then found out they left billions and billions of dollars on the table for that family.
	It truly is amazing when you look at that kind of a double standard that they could go all this time with all these people that got addicted to opioids And just now admit that it doesn't do anything except get people addicted.
	Well, it's understandable because these big pharma cartels have got the resources to essentially buy the government and buy the regulatory apparatus, which permits them to do what they do.
	I think the figure is something like 100,000 people die each year as a result of prescription opioids that are given to them.
	And the first recourse these days of a doctor, when you come in there and say, oh, you know, my back hurts, here's a pill, here's a script.
	Instead of looking to see what the physical problem is and what can be done to correct it so that the person doesn't have to take drugs for the rest of their life.
	Yeah, I remember back in 2016 when Chris Christie was running for president and he said, oh, yeah, I support really tough restrictions on drug use.
	And he gave the story of a friend of his from law school who had a very successful practice and everything.
	He was jogging and he injured his back.
	They put him on opioids, and he got addicted to it, and he lost everything, his practice.
	He lost all of his money, went bankrupt.
	His wife divorced him.
	He lost his family, and he committed suicide.
	And Chris Christie then pivots and says, so that's why we've got to keep marijuana illegal.
	It's like, wait a minute.
	How is that a sequitur to go from that?
	When you look at what, you've got the Sinaloa drug cartel out there now, or I don't know if it's the Sinaloa drug cartel, but it's one of the drug cartels, is saying, we are going to execute anybody that sells fentanyl.
	And I thought, wow, you know, what if we did that here in America, you know, with the Pfizer stuff and all the rest of the stuff?
	They do a better job of policing dangerous drugs, the drug cartels do, than the FDA does in our country, right?
	This stuff is killing people, and we don't want you to do that because, you know, it's going to bring the wrath of the government down on us.
	So if you sell this fentanyl, we're going to execute you.
	I mean... Well, here's an interesting thing.
	You know, it's not legal for El Chapo or any of these cartels to advertise on CNN. That's right.
	He should have thought of that.
	He could have owned those places.
	People don't know, and this is key, they should know this, so I think it's important to talk about it, that the law was changed back in the 90s, where previously it was not legal for pharmaceutical cartels to advertise on public media, to put commercials on CNN, etc., and so on.
	That change they were allowed to.
	So enormous money thereby was allowed to be used to control the media, because after all, the media is dependent on advertising.
	The pharmaceutical companies were paying for the ads, and that's why brought to you by Pfizer.
	And that's why we had this concerted juggernaut of fear porn propaganda during the pandemic.
	It's because the pharmaceutical cartels paid for it.
	That's right. They absolutely own the media.
	And, you know, I've told the story before.
	We lived in an area where we didn't have, in 1996, we moved in an area where we didn't have any TV, really.
	And we didn't really want it.
	We had video stores.
	If we want to watch something, watch a movie.
	But we took a vacation after a couple of years.
	We weren't taking vacations every year.
	And after a couple of years, we took a vacation.
	We stayed in a motel. It's like, what?
	What's this on TV? It's like everything is a drug commercial, and it was kind of funny because, you know, they're rambling off as fast as they can talk, all the different adverse effects, and there's so-motion pictures of people running through a field while they're rattling off all these horrible things that the drug's going to do.
	They're normalizing pill-popping in the first place, and they're trying to persuade people that for whatever problem you've got in your life, including completely normal problems, like you're a little down because Something's not going right in your life right now.
	Well, instead of, you know, kind of soldiering through it, dealing with it, figuring out what's wrong and correcting it, here's a pill for you so you don't have to think about it too much.
	Oh, yeah. Absolutely.
	Well, I tell you, when we talked about the cash for clunkers, that really got everybody activated on this.
	Jason Parker says, Biden ought to give up his old Corvette.
	My son said, yeah. Yeah, exactly right.
	Well, how about giving up the beast?
	You know, that armored limo you carry him around in?
	How many miles per gallon does that thing get again?
	That's right. Oh, I don't know.
	Yeah, how many gallons per mile?
	I like it, I guess. And my son said, yeah, this Corvette's old and probably not up to today's emission standards.
	I think you could say that about Biden as well.
	Correct. Doesn't it speak to the contemptibleness of people like him?
	He personally has a cool old car, but he wants to make sure that people like you and I can't have cars like that.
	Oh yeah, that's the elitism, isn't it?
	And that is what's behind all of this stuff.
	They're going to have their private jets.
	I just talked about the fact that...
	Yesterday, the man formerly known as Prince, Harry, and Meghan go to a climate conference, and then they take a private jet to a private island that everybody says, this is where billionaires go to escape the millionaires.
	It's so elitist. Right.
	Right. They've got no self-consciousness at all.
	I'm trying to give them the benefit of the doubt.
	They just somehow don't see other people and think, oh, don't we all live this way?
	What's the big inconvenience?
	Yeah, oh, absolutely. Yeah, and a lot of people, you know, bemoaning the fact that you had a lot of classic cars taken out, or even things that, you know, some people on there were saying, well, maybe that's a piece of junk, and as Superface says, well, who's to say what's a piece of junk?
	That's everybody's determination to make, and that's where we get back to all this.
	Why should we have... The government dictates this to us.
	And again, the bottom agenda is that, bottom line agenda, all of this is, if you see the big picture of where they want to go with the smart cities and the rest of the stuff, it is all about our control and our enslavement.
	And there's nothing else that's really involved in it.
	Well, it's always great to talk to you, Eric.
	Likewise, David. Again, people will find you at epautos.com or ericpetersautos.com.
	And we've got just about two minutes.
	I want to ask you one question.
	I saw that, and it's good, you know, if people are in the market for a radar detector, I see that you have a sponsor there.
	Yeah. And, you know, it's...
	That radar, the Valentine 1, is a great radar.
	I guess it's a Valentine 2 now.
	I've got the first generation.
	Oh, yeah. The new one's even better.
	They've made it more sensitive, so it filters out the noise that you don't want to cause an alert.
	It's a wonderful piece of equipment.
	And these days, I recommend not leaving home without one.
	Oh, yeah. You know, every once in a while, I forget because I go from car to car.
	And I'm a couple miles down the road when I realized I left it in the other car.
	And I'm like, oh my god. And the drive is such a chore then because you have to watch the speedometer, look for cops.
	It takes all the joy out of driving.
	Oh yeah, yeah, yeah. So if anybody's on the market for something like that, I don't ever see you do any reviews of that or even of dash cams.
	What do you think about dash cams?
	You don't have any dash cams? I need to learn more about them.
	And this is an area of weakness for me.
	I'm not that hip and with it as Dr.
	Evil used to say. I've got this device.
	I don't even know what its name is, but I use it to take my videos, and people who've watched them will know the quality of them.
	It's an exactly top shelf.
	But I've heard the GoPro is really good, and it's neat because you can, I guess, suction cup and mount it to all kinds of things, motorcycles.
	uh atvs whatever you want your dog put it around your dog's neck and you can take a video of what he's up to oh yeah so there's a lot of really neat technology out of there and i out there and i really ought to bone up on it and learn more about it oh yeah yeah those have uh gotten very very good they they automatically correct any any movement and all the rest of that stuff but yeah i look at the uh i look at the radar detectors as a um uh defense against uh ambushes by police
	and i look at the dash cam as a defense against ambush by bad drivers you know if somebody if you get into an incident like a you know a wreck and and it's absolutely the other guy's fault you have objective proof of that you know should it become necessary to litigate it uh You know, so that's a small thing.
	And as far as the radar detector, you know, people, they'll look at it and see, okay, it costs $400, but how much does a ticket cost?
	Just one ticket, plus what the insurance mafia is going to hit you for.
	for i can tell you and i'm not pitching products here but the thing has saved me probably thousands of dollars over the years uh in trumped up traffic tickets and insurance premium adjustments oh yeah oh i agree i agree yeah we went a little over time because i wanted to hear let people hear about that i think that's a very important thing for people uh on the road always great talking to you eric and uh thank you to the audience thank you for your support and thank you for joining us today and letting us be a part of your day thank you very much thanks sir thank you david talk to you later
	Bye-bye. Okay. The common man.
	They created common core to dumb down our children.
	They created common past to track and control us.
	Their commons project to make sure the commoners own nothing.
	And the communist future.
	They see the common man as simple, unsophisticated, ordinary.
	But each of us has worth and dignity created in the image of God.
	That is what we have in common.
	That is what they want to take away.
	Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation.
	They desire to know everything about us while they hide everything from us.
	It's time to turn that around and expose what they want to hide.
	Please share the information and links you'll find at TheDavidNightShow.com.
	Thank you for listening.
	Thank you for sharing. If you can't support us financially, please keep us in your prayers.

▲