Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 28, 2023 - The David Knight Show

03:00:26

The David Knight Show - 11/28/2023

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Using free speech to free minds.
	Music You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	As the clock strikes 13, it's Tuesday, the 28th of November, year of our Lord, 2023.
	free.
	Well, today we're going to take a look at budgets.
	What did Trump do to our deficit?
	What did he do to capitalism in general?
	Joining us in the third hour is going to be David Stockman.
	He was Reagan's director of the Office of Management and Budget.
	And he has been a fiscal hawk.
	So we're going to talk to him about what happened in the Trump administration.
	And why are people still supporting this guy?
	But we're going to begin by talking about the news and taking a look at government theft.
	We have updates as to what is happening with vaccines and how we see an establishing...
	Tyranny of vaccinations as well as return of the pandemic in China.
	Which is not really a surprise, is it?
	We'll be right back. I say it's not really a surprise because we know that this is always about a dictatorship, wasn't it? It was always about medical martial law.
	And if it is about a dictatorship, that's the real China virus.
	The world became China in 2020.
	And Trump was right there from the very beginning.
	And so we understand...
	That the Chinese are never going to stop this, as long as they've got that current form of government.
	And as long as we've got our current form of government, that tyranny is not going to stop here either.
	But I want to begin by a couple of messages that were up yesterday we did not get to at the very end of the program.
	First of all, I want to thank Wayne Wonder.
	Thank you for the tip. And he said, pray that our pastors get involved.
	Where is the church in this spiritual war?
	That's right. It is a spiritual war, isn't it?
	And we're to be involved in all aspects of life.
	There's not one aspect of life that God does not have jurisdiction in.
	So we have something to say about politics.
	We don't want the government to ally itself in any particular religion, because then that'll be, the government will take over that religion, whatever it is, and then use it to impose that on everybody else, which is what they're doing with the LGBT stuff.
	And the green religion and other things like that, secular humanism.
	But we have something to say.
	And that is part of our free exercise of our religion, the free exercise of our speech.
	Audi MRR also said, JFK is a secret that the establishment no longer cares to hide.
	Any current narratives are just another distraction.
	I completely agree with that.
	And I mentioned that yesterday because I thought it was funny that Rob Reiner, He's now going to do a documentary after all this time.
	60 years. And he says he's got the names of the people who were shooters and so forth.
	So now it's important for us to take a look at it because they want us to not look at what they're doing.
	That's the key distraction, I think, is the...
	Reparations, the slavery stuff, the colonizer issues and things like that, because they want us focused on slavery of centuries ago.
	So we don't see the slavery that is being put on us right now, the chains that are being put on us right now at this moment.
	But I want to begin with, we're going to have, as I said, David Stockman, who was Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
	He was a congressman before that.
	He's been involved in economic issues.
	Ron Paul speaks very highly of him.
	He's been involved with the Mises Institute and so forth, a fiscal conservative.
	And so we're going to be talking about economic issues and what they look like during the Trump administration, what they might look like in the second Trump administration.
	But in the first Reagan administration, remember, he was going to get rid of the Department of Education.
	The Department of Education was created by Jimmy Carter in that election year of 1980.
	And Reagan said he was going to get rid of it.
	Well, he didn't get rid of it.
	And now the guy who is in charge of it, and it really expanded.
	It was a brand new baby, birthed under Jimmy Carter.
	And Reagan did not get rid of it.
	But the guy who is now head of the Department of Education, the Secretary of Education, Cardona, had this to say about Reagan.
	You know, we're going to set up follow-up calls with every governor we met with to make sure we're available.
	As I think it was President Reagan said, we're from the government.
	We're here to help. There are resources there, there's technical assistance there, and there's a playbook that could support the work you're doing.
	Count on us as a partner in this.
	Our students are waiting. Thank you.
	Yeah, count us as a partner in this.
	We're here to help. We've got money.
	We've got money to bribe, coerce, cajole you.
	That's what we do as the government.
	That's the way the government does everything, the Department of Education.
	Well, you know, we've got money, but we'd like for you to teach this 1619 Project.
	We'd like you to put boys in the girls' bathroom and things like that.
	And if you don't do that, we're going to pull that money that you got used to and dependent upon.
	We're going to pull that away from you.
	So we create dependency.
	We have an unlimited amount of fiat money that we can print, and we're going to use that to coerce and to blackmail, to bribe people.
	That's the way they do everything.
	And it was astounding to me that conservatives could not see that during the Trump administration, during the vaccine rollout.
	You don't understand how this works?
	You don't understand how the lockdown...
	Oh, no, it's the Democrats.
	It's the Democrat governors who are doing it to us.
	No, it's coming from the Trump administration.
	It's coming from the bribery and then the blackmail under Biden.
	But this is actually what Reagan said.
	He said, well, you know, Reagan said, I'm from the government and I'm here to help you.
	No, actually, the Secretary of Education is profoundly ignorant.
	And I say ignorant because he wouldn't set himself up for this kind of ridicule if he knew anything about it.
	But this is what Reagan actually said about the government being here to help you.
	I think you all know that I've always felt the nine most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
	Yeah, the nine most terrifying words in the English language, I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
	But he says, hey, the government is here to help you.
	We've got cash. No limit to the amount of cash.
	And, of course, we have seen this as they locked us down, told us we were non-essential, stole our jobs, stole our businesses that many people had worked on.
	And David Stockman, who's going to be our guest later today, this is not...
	Well, we'll be talking a little bit about this, but we'll be talking about his new book.
	Talking about Washington's fiscal doomsday machine.
	And he says the four-year cumulative deficit has now reached $9 trillion in just four years.
	Because, you know, they're from the government and they're here to help us.
	Trump was helping everybody with those stimulus checks.
	Helping you with a problem that he created.
	We locked everybody down.
	Was anybody dying? Was there a pandemic?
	No. They didn't even claim at that point in time that people were dying.
	They said they're going to die.
	China locked down without anybody dying.
	You had four or five deaths, as Joe Salenti loves to point out.
	And this is a pandemic in a country of one and a half billion people.
	And you're going to lock it all down because you've got fewer than ten deaths.
	And of course, we didn't have that many when Trump locked us down.
	But he's from the government. He's here to help you.
	He's going to give you a helping hand, a stimulus check, and all the rest of this.
	What does this look like? During the last 1,461 days, fiscal year 2020 through 2023, The government has generated $6.2 billion of red ink each and every day, including weekends and holidays and snow days, says Stockman. For anybody who's keeping score at home, that's $4.2 million of red ink per minute.
	$4.2 million per minute.
	It's just hard to get your head around numbers that are trillions, right?
	And by the way, while we're talking about trillions...
	You know, we're talking about trillions of dollars.
	That's $6 billion a day, the $9 trillion.
	$4.2 million a minute.
	And think about what they used to scare everybody, these PCR tests.
	They magnified the stuff by 1.1 trillion times.
	And we magnified our debt by 9 trillion times.
	For the purposes of perspective, here's how long it took to generate the first $9 trillion of U.S. government debt.
	It took all of 43 presidents and 219 years to reach $9 trillion of public debt in July 2007.
	So the national debt clock has now accelerated into hyperdrive.
	It's one of the reasons why Thomas Massey's got the clock on his lapel that's constantly running up.
	And he said, look at this Look at this crazy trick that they played, that the Biden administration played.
	And this is why they always cook the numbers.
	And I said that, you know, they cook the numbers when it comes to debt, they cook the numbers when it comes to inflation, they cook the numbers when it comes to unemployment, and of course they cook the numbers when it came to the pandemic.
	But he says, take a look at this budgetary Mickey Mouse trick that they pull.
	He said the federal deficit for fiscal year 2023 clocked in at over $2 trillion.
	But they posted it and reported it as $1.4 trillion last year and $1.7 trillion this year.
	And He says, the Wall Street Journal recently explained that the comparison is misleading because what they did was they took a $380 billion budgetary shuffle between the two years.
	Sleepy Joe's student debt cancellation got recorded as a cost in September of 2022.
	But when it got canceled by the courts in fiscal year of 2023, they turned it into a savings.
	A savings. Well, this is what they always do.
	This is why I said, you know, you have even Michael Johnson, the new conservative, quote unquote, Speaker of the House said, well, and prior to him, Kevin McCarthy, you know, Biden wanted $80 billion to expand the IRS, which currently has a budget of $13 billion.
	So he wanted another $80 billion over that.
	And McCarthy said, no, no, no, we're going to cut that.
	And so he said, we'll only give it $60 billion.
	And then Michael Johnson says, well, we're going to cut it by $14 billion because we want to give that money to Israel.
	They didn't cut anything.
	They're still giving $46 billion more to an agency that currently has a total budget of $13 billion.
	That's what they mean by a cut.
	And so he says, we don't use the Mickey Mouse epithet lightly.
	Surely booking the next 50 years of student loan repayments during a single month of August 2023 amounts to exactly that.
	Still, the Biden thing behind the teleprompter has the audacity to keep making the hideous claim that he's been slashing the federal deficit.
	He says, so, you know, the world is on the verge of breaking out into a hot war in the Middle East.
	Ukraine is hanging by a thread.
	Both of them owing to the neocon perfidy of the last several decades.
	So the $1.3 trillion of the comprehensive national security budget is going nowhere except up, way up.
	And so then you look at, so that's the warfare side of it.
	Look at the welfare side.
	He said, it looks like Trump's got a lock on the Republican nomination, and he's made it clear he's not going to touch Social Security or Medicare.
	And he says, understand that Trillions of those benefits are just pure transfer payments.
	They're not a return of money that people have paid over their working lifetimes.
	And so he says that's going to be $34 trillion over the next decade.
	And so when you look at the Social Security, Medicare, and the defense budget with all the wars, that is massive.
	But he says even when you look at the pork in the small amount, less than 15% of the budget, That is called non-defense discretionary spending.
	So it's discretionary spending.
	It's not the Defense Department. It's not entitlements.
	That has gone from Obama's last budget in fiscal year 2017.
	That's exploded from $600 billion to nearly $900 billion.
	$895 billion.
	So it grew by 50% during Trump.
	During Trump. And that's not tied to the entitlement state.
	That's not tied to the defense budget.
	That's just the other stuff.
	The other stuff. The small stuff.
	So he says, we are in financial la-la land.
	And so I guess maybe it'll be Lala Harris as the next president if they get their way.
	On the eve of fiscal year 2020, He said the $9 trillion public debt explosion, on the eve of that rather, the federal debt held by the public had already more than tripled before that even happened.
	Then came the $9 trillion.
	And what was even more interesting, as he points out, is the fact that even though they expanded the federal debt by $9 trillion, that massive amount that took centuries to get to, The actual debt servicing, what they've had to pay in terms of interest on that debt, actually went down because of what the Federal Reserve was doing.
	And so there was no, it was an easy payment plan.
	Now Trump loaded us up with debt, you know, Trump, Obama, and of course Biden as well.
	They loaded us up with that nine trillion dollars.
	Actually, that came after Obama.
	That's just Trump and Biden.
	And there was no cost really to pay for that because the interest rates were artificially low.
	Now, the chickens are coming home to roost.
	Now they're raising the interest rates.
	And a painful reality is beginning to assert itself.
	He says, in this context, the core economic policy platform of the Washington GOP is a tale that is straight out of fantasy land.
	Even as they want more for the warfare state and are loudly taking a powder on the welfare state, they still feel compelled to demand that Trump tax cuts be permanently extended when they expire in 2025.
	And of course, those are tax cuts primarily for the biggest corporations.
	So what do you do?
	What do you do as an individual?
	Well, as he points out, there's not much you can do to change this trajectory yourself, but you can stay informed.
	And you can try to protect yourself.
	Prepare for what's going to happen.
	And as I said, you know, we have Tony Arterman supports this program.
	He set up DavidKnight.Gold.
	The thing about gold is that it is a double protection.
	It's a double protection from this kind of fiscal meltdown.
	It's a protection against the CBDC surveillance and control, which, by the way, both Trump and Biden support.
	Biden has put together his plan for doing it.
	You've got Elizabeth Warren, who is leading the charge to try to outlaw crypto.
	It's a competitor and so forth.
	But during the Trump administration, we got a head start with Mnuchin, the Goldman Sachs banker that Trump put in at the head of the Treasury, and with his son-in-law, Jared Kushner.
	They were already starting CBDC. This is a professional wrestling tag team match.
	They just hand this stuff off from one to the other.
	And it continues to go down the same path.
	But take a look at what has happened.
	Let's talk about the theft of government.
	You know, King Charles, the man formerly known as Prince.
	Is now using a medieval law, a kind of feudal law, to grab up the property of people who die, and in some corporations that are dissolved, people who die without a will.
	And he's gotten tens of millions of dollars personally off of that.
	It truly is amazing.
	Charles, formerly known as Prince, is using, has made tens of millions of pounds, I should say, not dollars.
	This is supposed to be charity.
	It's coming from the death of thousands of Brits to upgrade his real estate empire.
	The phrase that they use is bona vacantia.
	So this is supposed to be vacant goods, is what it means in the Latin terms.
	Property that's owned by people who died without a will, or without a known next of kin, And he's taking this money, he said, well, we'll use it for charity purposes, but he's using it to upgrade his personal rental properties and other things like that, and to upgrade his castles.
	In the past 10 years, he's reportedly collected more than $75 million in funds like this, despite pledges to donate all proceeds to charity.
	He has used this...
	To renovate properties that he rents out for profit.
	And there's a couple of different duchies that he's got and that the royal family has.
	One of them is owned by Prince William, who is the next in line.
	And he is also operating under this system.
	Both of these duchies operate as real estate empires.
	They control vast tracts of farmland, hotels, castles, offices, warehouses, businesses.
	And some of London's most expensive real estate.
	See, ultimately, we're going back to this feudal system where you own nothing.
	And they own everything.
	Neither of them pays any corporate income tax.
	Neither of them pays any capital gains tax.
	In spite of the fact they made more than $1.6 billion over the last six decades.
	Only 15% of the money has gone to charity over the last 10 years, even though that's what it's supposedly earmarked for.
	Instead, what he did was he changed the rules while Elizabeth was queen to make sure that this is going to be money that's used for the quote-unquote public good.
	They said they're going to repair and protect duchy properties that he owns.
	Deeming them as a heritage asset.
	I guess the king is something of a heritage asset.
	Just take off the last part of that last word.
	The Guardian found that the Duce was permitted to burn its bona vacantia earnings on roughly half of its property portfolio after repairs like renovating walls, foundations, floors, chimneys, as well as electrical and insulation work.
	And these are things that he...
	It's renting out.
	It's holiday rentals, country cottages, barns.
	Some of them are used for pheasant and partridge shoots.
	But, you know, hey, you've got to have some fun, right?
	It's good to be the king.
	You can do that type of thing.
	So he has garnered more than tens of millions in pounds and profits each year from this.
	Revenue that Buckingham Palace has said is private.
	And when Zero Hedge reported this, they filled their article with pictures of Charles grinning and celebrating and having fun with such stellar characters as Jeffrey Epstein and Jimmy Savile.
	The known pedophiles.
	And that is, you know, what the royal family is truly about.
	Siphoning off tens of millions of dollars and partying with, you know, he as well as Prince Andrew with Jeffrey Epstein.
	But we have a different way of doing that here in the United States.
	Don't think that this is something that's just British.
	We have come up with something that's even worse.
	We have something called civil asset forfeiture.
	Where they don't wait for you to die.
	They don't wait for you to be convicted of a crime.
	They don't wait for you to even be charged with a crime.
	They just steal your property.
	And so, isn't it great that our federal government has instituted this system and that we have various jurisdictions around the country that have really weaponized this against their own people?
	Well, the worst ones is Harris County in Texas, where Houston is.
	And there is a lawsuit about that right now, as the New American points out.
	There's also been a lawsuit up in Detroit.
	Sixth Circuit Court has weighed in on that.
	So what is happening?
	Let's take a look at what one of these cases actually looks like.
	In 2019, Harris County in Houston, Texas, police confiscated over $42,000 from a Mississippi man who was driving to Houston to buy a semi-truck.
	Four years later, having kept the cash while filing no criminal charges against the man, the county faces a class-action lawsuit challenging their civil asset forfeiture.
	The Institute for Justice Which has been involved in this as well as the case in Detroit.
	It says, Harris County has one of the most abusive forfeiture programs in the country.
	They have police out specifically looking for cash.
	They have police looking for cars that can be seized.
	And guess what? They find cash.
	And they find cars. And they steal them.
	They're also pretty bad in Houston about tickets and also with lockdown.
	It was one of the worst places.
	Lena Hidalgo is not an American.
	She might be naturalized now, I guess.
	But she came from another country, Central South America.
	She went to Harvard, and she made some connections there.
	And she's been on the fast track, and she is the executive of Harris County.
	And she was ruthless during lockdown.
	I really hated going to that place.
	I had a dentist that I had some work done on there and it was not complete.
	And I had to travel all the way to Houston.
	And then they hassled me during this lockdown stuff and told me I needed to put on a mask to come into the office.
	I said, no, I'm going to be sitting there and my mouth is going to be wide open the entire time.
	Don't tell me I've got to put a mask on to get in your office.
	And we had a big fight about that.
	Eventually they gave in.
	I started threatening to sue them.
	Anyway, the seized cash and other belongings are put on trial.
	No, that's not what happens.
	That's what Fox News says.
	There is no trial.
	There is no due process.
	They take the cash.
	They take the car. And they do the due process later?
	No, they don't do any due process.
	You know, just like Trump and his red flag laws.
	Just steal stuff.
	That's what our government does.
	Is it really any different from Prince Charles, King Charles?
	And so, the seized cash is charged with a crime.
	The inanimate object, whether it is a car or a house or cash or a jet plane, It's the U.S. government versus this, you know, $9,000 or $42,000 or Learjet, serial number, such and such.
	No criminal conviction is required.
	They just steal it. This is, again, there's nothing criminal about it.
	That's why they call it civil.
	They call it civil because they pretend that if it's a rule created by unelected bureaucrats, then it's not a law.
	And so it can't be criminal.
	And so therefore you have no presumption of innocence, you have no due process, you have no protection against excessive fines.
	$42,000. Because he had cash, they took it.
	The plaintiffs in the case A couple of people who are married.
	A truck driver who's looking to expand his business by buying a used truck from a dealer in Houston.
	He was driving through Harris County, May of 2019.
	He was stopped by the police, allegedly for driving too close to a tractor trailer, which he disputes having done so.
	Like I said, the traffic cops in Houston are horrible.
	According to the complaint, a Sergeant Wade asked the person driving, Woods, if he had any weapons in the vehicle, to which Woods truthfully responded that he had a loaded gun tucked under the seat in the center console.
	Next, Wade asked Woods to step out of the vehicle and talk to him and his partner, which he did.
	Woods claims to have answered all of the officers' questions, truthfully telling them the purpose of his trip and alerting them to the $42,300 in cash that he was carrying.
	Which consisted of his own savings and a loan from his niece.
	Then he made the mistake of consenting to a search of his vehicle.
	And lo and behold, they found the money.
	Although he was able to confirm Wood's account via telephone call, he confiscated the cash anyway.
	Police officer did. He said, I think this money is connected to drugs.
	Oh yeah, he would think that, wouldn't he?
	Yeah, he would say that.
	After that, the officers gave him a, quote, citizen's info card.
	They've got a whole little system here.
	Stating simply that a currency seizure of no specific amount had taken place.
	They didn't even specify the amount.
	They didn't even fill that in. Then they sent this dangerous drug criminal on his way without even taking his gun.
	Because, hey, you got $42,000.
	Based on an affidavit claiming that the police dog later detected the odor of narcotics on his money.
	And of course, they found that because cash is moving around for decades, they said, you know, you can get a dog to alert to any cash because it's got traces of drugs on it because it's constantly moving around.
	Doesn't mean that the person who is currently in possession of the money has used any drugs.
	But, you know, it's got the odor of narcotics on it, according to the dog.
	Well, I think these cops have the odor of thievery about them, don't you?
	They smell like thieves to me.
	They certainly act like them.
	And so they signed an affidavit by an officer who was not at the scene of the seizure.
	And then the county proceeded with its forfeiture case.
	Woods, meanwhile, got no word at all about this for 27 months, over two years.
	When he finally got a letter about it, he responded in writing twice, only to be met with silence.
	This May, four years after his money was taken, the Institute of Justice argued in civil court that Harris County should have to return it, but the jury sided with the prosecutors, ruling that law enforcement had probable cause to believe the money was contraband.
	Prosecutors celebrated the win and wrote a press release saying that Woods had been, quote, paid to transport the money to Houston to purchase illegal narcotics and then transport the drugs back to Mississippi.
	Of course, as the Institute of Justice says, they didn't prove it.
	They didn't even attempt to prove it.
	They couldn't identify a person that was going to buy the drugs from.
	They couldn't tell us what drugs.
	They couldn't tell us what amount that he had sold the drugs in the past or if he'd done so since.
	Pure conjecture. The jury, however, that convicted him.
	Imagine that, that a jury would convict somebody of that.
	Did not get the last word.
	And typically, they don't have a jury trial.
	That's what I find most unusual about this.
	The Institute of Justice claims a complaint.
	After the complaint, they looked at 113 Harris County civil forfeiture petitions.
	So once they file the lawsuit, they can do discovery.
	In discovery, they looked at 113 of these thefts that they call civil forfeiture.
	They found that every single one of them...
	It was based on an affidavit that was signed by somebody who wasn't even present at the time the money was stolen by the police.
	So they are filing another lawsuit about this.
	They said, Harris County officials have asked a district court judge to dismiss the case, but earlier this month he rejected the immunity claim and allowed the constitutional challenge to proceed.
	As a matter of fact, we've got a picture of one of these civil asset forfeiture cases here, I think.
	It's a cop car pulling over a Krispy Kreme donut thing, and I'm sure that it's got a lot of white powder on it that they could suspect was cocaine or something.
	They probably could get a dog to alert to that.
	I don't know. They've earned that kind of ridicule, quite frankly.
	These are crooked cops.
	It's a crooked system.
	It's a system based on theft, and it's a racket.
	In Detroit, their civil asset forfeiture racket is Has been flagged by the Sixth Circuit Court there.
	They said that after these cops steal your property, they have, especially there, it was cars.
	And we see in Detroit, what they're typically doing is they're typically going after cars that are not high value.
	They're around $1,000, $2,000.
	They're older cars. And they've got a process set up here where if you want to challenge it, so they're going to take your car, and then you have to sue them, right?
	And you don't have a presumption of innocence.
	You've got to prove that you're innocent.
	And so you have to take civil action against them because they pretend that they're not acting as the government under color of law.
	And so to begin that process, you have to give them $900.
	So they're stealing a bunch of cars that are valued, not much more than $900.
	And then you have to pay for towing and you have to pay for storage fees the entire time that it's there.
	They're just going around stealing poor people's cars in Detroit.
	And because they know that they don't have the money to fight it.
	And then they've loaded it with these fees on the front end.
	So the Sixth Circuit Court has said many of these people were having to wait for two years.
	Imagine what storage fees would be on for two years.
	Okay, you can sue us, but you have to pay the $900, the towing fees, and then while we're waiting for the thing to come to trial, you're going to have to pay storage fees, and it's not going to come to trial for two years.
	Ha ha ha! So, the Sixth Circuit Court says, no, you're going to have to do this within two weeks.
	Two weeks. Which is still not good enough.
	They should not be able to steal people's property without having a conviction.
	Right? This is essentially a pre-conviction forfeiture of assets.
	It's theft. I used to always...
	Tell the kids growing up, talking about Lysander Spooner, who said, government is no different than a highway robber.
	Boy, what would he say if he saw this today?
	He said, the key difference is that a highway robber will steal your property on the road, like the police are doing now.
	But the government will steal your property and follow you down the road, nagging you.
	Lysander Spooner said that back in the 1800s.
	And so, we're going to take a quick break, and when we come back, we're going to talk about the delusions of some of these trans influencers who are now suddenly, as the LGBT and BLM and all these progressives now, have found a new cause in Palestine.
	They are now enamored with the Quran and with Islam.
	And you've even got LGBT people who are saying that they love the Quran.
	Well, the Quran does not love them.
	We'll be right back. If you like the Eagles, the Cars, and Huey Lewis and the News, you'll love the Classic Hits channel at APS Radio.
	Download our app or listen now at APSRadio.com.
	Thank you.
	listening to The David Knight Show.
	Well, as I said, we've got a lot of tranny influencers who have now discovered Islam and the Quran.
	And they're pushing it. So excited about it.
	And of course, some people remind them, you know, they toss homosexuals off the rooftops.
	These people are, to paraphrase Marx, he said, the capitalists will sell the rope that is used to hang them.
	I guess these people will sell this religion of peace that will be used to throw them off of the rooftops.
	And yet, here in the United States, we now have a move to push people To have government funding of news outlets.
	And I know what you're saying. Aren't they already paying them?
	Aren't they already telling them what to do?
	And haven't they already worked this out somewhere in the back?
	Well, no, that's at the national level.
	They want to get their hooks into the local papers that are folding at a very rapid rate.
	And so in the sense of saying, well, we have to support local news outlets, they are going to put them on the dole so they can control them, just like the Department of Education controls local schools with Washington money.
	Top journalism school is pushing the idea of taxpayer funding of reporters and media.
	I guess, you know, at the local level, they're not funded maybe by the big pharmaceutical companies, but they are still, we have, I guess they could get NewsGuard involved, right?
	We've got to guard the news.
	We've got to guard the elections.
	So let's get local news papers on the dole from the federal government.
	But Elizabeth Warren is concerned primarily about sandwich shop monopolies.
	Not about a monopoly of news, but about sandwich shop monopolies.
	And so this woman who is now pushing a monopoly...
	For currency, the CBDC, saying that we've got to shut down crypto and anything that conflicts with it, is now saying, well, since the owner of Jimmy Johns, who now owns Arby's as well, He's just bought Subway, and so she's very concerned that all of these fast food outlets are going to be monopolized.
	Seriously? Yeah, that's what she's really worried about.
	But nothing to worry about with the monopolization of the money.
	And of course, I don't really know what the carbon footprint is of the fast food.
	Is it really meat?
	What is in these sandwiches here that they have to worry about it?
	But she is concerned that there's going to be what she calls a sandwich shop monopoly.
	We don't need another private equity deal that could lead to higher food prices.
	And yet these are the people who want to restrict what you eat.
	These are the people who want to put additional restrictions and taxes and fees on all energy and all food, demand certain types of food.
	But that's what she is focused on.
	Finally, let's talk a little bit about artificial intelligence.
	And are they going to be able to establish a monopoly on music?
	I came across this, and I thought it was really...
	What caught my eye was the name of this AI program.
	It's called Anna, Indiana.
	Sounds like another song.
	But here is this cringy music program that brags that it wrote the lyrics, wrote the melody, wrote the chord progressions, And then of course you have this plastic looking character who is singing it to you.
	See what you think.
	And I guess it's a depressive mood that she's got here.
	At my favorite cafe, sipping my tea, it's Saturday, thinking about all he's done to it.
	This town is full of broken dreams Shattered hopes and silent screams Somebody please help me The trade by this town I've lost it all.
	The trade buys this town.
	Okay. This artificial intelligence seems to be very depressed.
	Maybe you should get it some SSRIs.
	Or maybe not. Maybe it'll kill everybody if we give it SSRIs.
	But yeah, this town is just awful.
	Everything is awful. Quite frankly, I think it's got kind of the music feel that's there.
	It really sounds like a contemporary Christian.
	Doesn't it, Travis? I mean, it was really awful and very cringy.
	But like I said, the thing that caught my eye about that It was a name, Anna, Indiana.
	It's got a certain ring to it, you know?
	And, of course, it reminded me of the song that little Opie Cunningham did in The Music Man.
	Gary, Indiana, Gary, Indiana, Gary, Indiana, that's the town that knew me when.
	If you'd like to have a logical explanation.
	Oh, yeah. I have to spend on this elliptical pace yawn.
	I was a year younger than little Opie Cunningham when that movie came out.
	And you hear him going through a great deal of effort to try to sound like he's got a lisp and spitting in the lady's face as he's singing that.
	He got better over time.
	He got better as Opie.
	But yeah, I saw the music, man.
	That was a real seminal song.
	Movie in my life when I was very young.
	Like I said, a year younger than him.
	And I wanted to get in a band after that.
	Even in spite of that.
	I was a year younger than him and that was a cringy performance.
	Kind of like Shane when I showed that western to my sons.
	I said, this is a great western.
	You've got to see Shane. And that kid that was...
	I just ruined it for them when they were little kids, and they could not watch that Western and get into it.
	But, you know, Ron Howard almost ruined The Music Man for me, but not quite.
	It was a great musical.
	And I always mention this.
	Karen laughs because I've mentioned it before on the show.
	How Meredith Wilson, the guy who wrote it, wrote The Music Man, was there at the grand opening of Walt Disney World when I was in high school.
	And I was just devastated because he's going to be conducting the biggest marching band ever.
	And the guy who wrote The Music Man was going to be conducting 76 trombones and everything else as part of the opening ceremony.
	And I didn't get to go. All of my other friends did.
	They didn't have any saxes in the...
	And the thing is, like, what's going on with that?
	Can he cut me some slack?
	I mean, you know, he was in John Philip Sousa's band, but he played piccolo.
	And he's got to understand that, you know, some of us are playing instruments that don't get that kind of respect, you know.
	But maybe it was a little from Disney.
	We don't know. We'll take a quick break, and we will be right back, and we're going to talk about what is happening with politics and elections.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	Okay, let's talk about something serious here.
	We have a man who was charged with murder after he shot his wife and the unborn child died.
	And so, when you look at this and you say, well, is this, is it really murdering?
	We see this happening all the time.
	And she survived, she's in intensive care, but the baby died.
	And these people are recent migrants into the United States.
	And so they're from India.
	And this was reported by an Indian news outlet.
	They said, and this I thought was a very interesting thing I had not seen before.
	They said, violence during pregnancy is very common.
	According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, over 300,000 pregnant women experience domestic abuse.
	Furthermore, it's a well-known statistic that homicide is a leading cause of death for women during pregnancy.
	Being killed because somebody doesn't want them to have the baby.
	When they could just take it to Planned Parenthood, Planned Parenthood would kill the baby for them.
	Yeah. In fact, women are more likely to be murdered during pregnancy than they are to die from the three leading obstetric causes of death.
	High blood pressure disorders, hemorrhage, and sepsis.
	And yet it is murder that is happening.
	And yet this lady was not killed, but the baby was.
	And so they're going to come after the father for aborting the baby.
	And then you have a teen girl who, 16 years old, I guess she didn't know that she could get the baby murdered by Planned Parenthood.
	Nobody had told her that, I guess.
	And her parents called the police because they said something...
	There's been an attack on our grandson.
	They found...
	They said their grandson had been hurt.
	When the police got there, they said there was blood everywhere.
	And the 16-year-old has now been charged with first-degree murder with a deadly weapon.
	The baby was born...
	And they gave birth to a healthy baby.
	And then she took a knife to it.
	It cut its throat so deeply that she went through the windpipe and then continued to stab the baby.
	And so there was blood everywhere.
	And when I talked to my son about it, he said...
	Well, that's not really any worse, maybe not as worse as what they do to the babies when they abort them, tearing them limb from limb.
	You know, when you look at torture by some of these English kings, they had a practice, they called it drawn and quartering.
	They did that to William Wallace.
	What they would do is cut them up in pieces.
	And they would cut out their bowels and they would cut off their arms and legs and eventually they would behead them.
	But they wanted to prolong the process.
	They wanted to make it as painful as possible.
	I thought, well, it's actually, did they get the idea for this, for the way they do abortions from drawing and quartering?
	Because that's really what they do to the children.
	And yet, that is legal.
	Isn't that amazing? You've got two murder cases here.
	And yet, this is legal.
	It was a grandfather who found his grandson stuffed into an empty dog food bag in his daughter's closet.
	He also later located the weapon taken from the kitchen earlier in the day.
	The police report said a large pool of blood on the carpet and blood smeared on the walls.
	An execution. But isn't it interesting how we draw the line legally on these executions?
	Meanwhile, you have the minority leader, Hakeem Jeffries, a Democrat in the House, who, if the Democrats get the majority, he would be the Speaker of the House.
	And Hakeem Jeffries said there should be no abortion restrictions.
	Period. Full stop, he said.
	No abortion restrictions.
	So why are we punishing this father?
	Why are we punishing this mother for killing babies?
	Well, perhaps the Democrats would allow that as well.
	He said this should be a choice between a woman and her doctor.
	Was it a choice for the Democrats between a woman and her doctor or a man and his doctor or a child and the family physician when it came to vaccination?
	Of course not. These people are such lying hypocrites.
	There's no choice that they want you to have about anything except killing your child.
	And I said this way before.
	We had the mandated vaccines and all the rest of the stuff.
	They just proved it in spades.
	And yet they are still using that line.
	And people are still going for it.
	So he said, this should be a choice between a woman or a doctor.
	Period. Full stop. Not these extreme politicians.
	This should be a healthcare decision that a woman should be able to make to kill a child.
	But of course, no decision about whether or not you are going to abort a baby.
	And as LifeSite News points out, the Supreme Court Dobbs' decision was not a pyrrhic victory.
	Tens of thousands of lives have been saved from abortion since then.
	In the first half of 2023, states with abortion bans had an average fertility rate that was 2.3% higher than states where abortion was not restricted.
	Abortion activists, as you might expect, see this rise in the birth rate as a negative thing.
	And of course, this would be people like Gates and the Bush family who have always been a part of Planned Parenthood.
	They come from families that are deeply embedded in that.
	Bill Gates as well as the Bush clan.
	George H.W. Bush's father, Prescott Bush, was a treasurer for Margaret Singer.
	His name is on the letterhead of the very first fundraiser done by Planned Parenthood and Margaret Singer.
	When they were explicitly eugenicists, that's where the Bushes come from.
	That helps to explain a lot of things like Terry Schiavo and other things like that.
	It also is interesting to know that as Jeb Bush was making a big case, a big point about restricting money from the state of Florida to Planned Parenthood, the Bush family personally made up the difference that he cut and then some.
	CNN explicitly stated that the rising birth rate is evidence that abortion is necessary, they said.
	And in their story, pull that back up, Travis, that article, look at that picture that they've got there.
	That's the picture that CNN puts up.
	They put up a picture of a baby's foot with footprints in it and everything else.
	You see the tiny baby in the background as they're arguing to kill this baby.
	Their choice of photo for the article was actually the tiny foot of a newborn baby.
	They said, earlier research has found that there are many consequences of unintended birth.
	Well, you know, there are consequences to unintended consequences to sex sometimes.
	That's where this all begins, in case we can still remember that.
	It says these consequences affect the health and livelihood of the mother, the child, and the family in general.
	Well, so does abortion.
	CNN warned that abortion bans have been especially affected Hispanic women, a 4.7% increase in fertility rate in the first half of 2023, as well as younger women, with a 3.3% increase amongst those in their early 20s.
	They see that as a problem because they are depopulationists.
	All these people are.
	And so it's kind of interesting to see that there's so many celebrities that are suddenly talking about how they aborted their children.
	Some of them regret it, but if they had it to do over again, they probably would do it.
	You get the sense as they're talking about it.
	But isn't it interesting now that it's something that they can talk about and essentially...
	So, Paris Hilton said when she was 22 years old in her recent autobiography, I guess you should call it my life so far because she's not that old, in her memoir, Paris, she said when she was 22 years old, she had an abortion.
	And was it about money?
	I mean, she could not, you know, CNN is selling this as like, look at the consequences that it has for people.
	And, you know, how are they going to be able, you know, you're going to have to support this kid for 18 years.
	Do you realize how much that's going to cost you?
	And they total up what it would cost for a kid for 18 years as if you've got to pay it right now.
	You can't afford this kid.
	That's the way they sell abortions at Planned Parenthood.
	She now writes that she looked back on all this with sorrow.
	Even though I know I made the right choice, she said.
	But then she said, I had thoughts like, what if I killed my Paris?
	But she's still certain that, quote, I was in no way capable of being a mother, and denying that would have jeopardized the forever family that I hoped to have in the future, at a time when I was healthy and healed.
	Years later, she would purchase that family, says LifeSite News, via rounds of in vitro fertilization and the rented womb of a surrogate.
	And many tens of thousands of dollars later, she had a son.
	She doesn't say how many of his siblings died during the process.
	But of course, you know, she does not regret the decision.
	She had some second thoughts about it.
	Then you have actress Kerry Washington released an autobiography.
	She uses her personal experience to advocate for abortion.
	She said, you know, life is complicated.
	And so she said, I never imagined that I would be in an abortion clinic surrendering, quote, surrendering my insides to a surgical vacuum.
	Except she didn't surrender her insides.
	She surrendered a baby.
	And so, as LifeSite News points out, aborted children are ghosts that lurk on the margins of these memoirs.
	They still think about that.
	Comedian Leslie Jones of Saturday Night Live published her memoir, Leslie Effing Jones, a memoir, September.
	Proudly childless, she has launched many viral tirades against pro-life legislators.
	She has pictures where she's wearing a shirt with an arrow pointing down and the word mine across it.
	She writes that she had three abortions between the ages of 18 and 27 and that she was using it as birth control.
	She said, without aborting those three babies, perhaps she would have never become a TV comedian who makes, as they point out, angry jokes about laws protecting babies from abortion.
	But the trade-off was clearly worth it to her, she said.
	Finally, Britney Spears, as we've always talked about, talking about what a difficult time it was aborting her baby with one of these abortion pills.
	And that was the thing that really turned Abby Johnson around.
	What a horrific experience it was for them.
	And I'm not talking about The fact that they are there to see the child that they aborted, but the pain of it.
	And Abby Johnson said she thought she was going to die.
	And she was running an abortion clinic, and now she's one of the big opponents of abortion.
	And it was a horrific thing for Britney Spears.
	And yet, that is where they're focusing their efforts now.
	They want women to be able to do an abortion by pill without having an examination to determine the age of the baby or the size of the baby or whether or not it's even going to be safe for the mother.
	Because these people just want to kill.
	If they get the mom, that's fine with them as well, quite frankly.
	They're not about women's health at all.
	Inadvertently, each of these abortion memoirs tell us something profound about our culture.
	Not that abortion is normal, but why it's normal.
	Because we're so broken that we have forgotten basic facts about what it means to be mothers, fathers, and human beings.
	And that really is true.
	We have been sold a bill of goods.
	And we don't have leaders who will tell us any differently.
	As a matter of fact, when you look at Donald Trump, he is moving very rapidly away from the pro-life position.
	Many people were very excited about him.
	They would tout that as one of his major achievements.
	Look, he somehow appointed Supreme Court justices, and we got lucky.
	And they got rid of Roe v.
	Wade, which never really had any authority because, as the Dobbs decision says, the Supreme Court doesn't have the authority to make those kinds of decisions.
	They don't have the authority to decide when life begins.
	They don't have the authority to decide and define marriage and many other things like that that they have gotten involved in.
	So they suddenly discovered the Tenth Amendment, but only on this issue.
	And that's sent a real shot across the bow for a lot of people who said, well, this could unwind a lot of things that the federal government did if we actually paid attention to the 10th Amendment.
	But Republicans don't like this.
	They wanted a permanent situation that they could always present themselves as pro-life advocates.
	And they started running away from this stuff as fast as they could.
	And now Trump is really running away from it.
	He says Republicans have to be more moderate.
	In order to win elections.
	And he talks about this in the context of abortion.
	I would just remind him that extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.
	And it is no vice when you do it in defense of life either.
	And moderation in pursuit of justice or moderation in pursuit of life is not a vice either.
	And yet for Trump it is.
	Why? Because Trump believes his worldview is the same as that of Vince Lombardi.
	Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing.
	That's all he cares about.
	He has nothing else that he cares about.
	Except, you know, of course himself, but that's about him being a winner.
	And as we look at what is coming up in Iowa, in just under 50 days, He's had a lot of people in Iowa who are not supporting him, from the governor to people who are running Christian organizations there.
	He didn't do well in 2016 against Ted Cruz in Iowa either.
	These people there get to see the candidates up close and personal, and they can really understand where these people are coming from.
	He got very upset about the fact that these people back in 2016, I don't know if you remember this or not, he went to Liberty University.
	And they had a slogan on some sign or something as you go into the university.
	From what we would say is 2 Corinthians.
	And I forget what the verse was and I forget what it said.
	But he was trying to relate to them.
	Oh yeah, that's my favorite verse too type of thing.
	That 2 Corinthians.
	And so they started laughing at him.
	And I defended Trump at the time.
	I said, look, this guy is obviously not a Christian.
	And by mocking him, which Ted Cruz was doing at the time, two Corinthians, you know.
	Again, it was a shibboleth.
	Everybody who is a Christian who's been in church a little bit knows that in the U.S. it's called a second Corinthians.
	But you know that they don't do that in England, by the way.
	So it's just a shibboleth, you know, the way that you talk about something.
	Why mock this guy? He's clearly not a Christian.
	Maybe you ought to try to be a little bit more understanding and gentle and try to talk to him about this rather than mocking him because he doesn't pronounce it the way that you do.
	I thought it was really reprehensible of what Cruz and his supporters did.
	Trump got really angry about it.
	He said these so-called Christians are real pieces of excrement.
	And so that's going to be in a book that is coming out from a guy named Tim Alberta.
	The Kingdom, the Power and the Glory, American Evangelicals in the Age of Extremism.
	I came across an article where one guy was criticizing The support of the warfare state by evangelicals, and he called them warjelicals or something like that, and warvangelicals.
	But he's true. I mean, it is this devotion to political power.
	Which is really part of the warfare state.
	Projecting geopolitical power globally.
	Why would Christians sign on to that in any way, shape, or form?
	But anyway, he's writing a book about this.
	Actually, his father was a pastor, and so he's looking at the juncture of these Christians who, many of them, are still coming up with false prophetical statements about Trump winning the election.
	They doubled down on that, kept saying, well, he's going to be restored.
	He's going to be restored to power one way or the other.
	And never pull back, even though they were made very specific predictions about the fact that he was never going to leave the White House and other things.
	They have been a real disgrace to Christ, quite frankly.
	Just as I thought that this mocking of him was a real disgrace.
	But look, the guy does not support any principles.
	It's not just that he's not a Christian.
	He doesn't have any political principles either.
	He's completely malleable.
	We're going to talk about the fact that he is hinting about what he might do to use the military inside the United States in his second term.
	We'll be right back. Thank
	you. We're
	good to go. You're
	listening to The David Knight Show.
	Well, Trump is hinting an expanded role for the military within the United States.
	He has got not only his campaign organization, but he's got an organization put together that is talking about policy initiatives that they're going to do.
	And two heavy supporters or institutions that are usually funding Democrats very heavily supporting Trump in this.
	And so I look at this. Trump hints at an expanded role for the military within the United States.
	Why didn't he do this at the border?
	You know, as soon as he got elected, he had promised to end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
	And I said, well, bring the troops home and put them at the border.
	He says, well, we're going to get Mexico to pay for the wall.
	Then he came back and said, well, Congress won't let me pay for the wall.
	Wait a minute. Which is it? You're going to have Mexico pay for it?
	You're going to have Congress pay for it?
	You can't get it done.
	You don't know how to do this. You can't use the military to protect the American border.
	You can use the military to protect every other border or to get involved in other wars and you won't end any of these wars.
	But now he's saying, well, yeah, I'm going to do that in the next term.
	He's also saying that we have rampant crime in cities, Democrat-run cities like Chicago and New York.
	He calls them crime dens, and he says that we need to perhaps use the military there to keep law and order.
	And yet, what did President Trump do in the summer of 2020 when BLM and others were burning down cities?
	Nothing. People were calling on him to use the military to stop it.
	He did nothing. But this time around, he's going to do it.
	And what is happening in these places is a direct consequence of Of the tactics and the strategies of Obama and Eric Holder, who during the transition period between the 2016 election and Trump taking office in January the 20th of 2017, they were openly strategizing and talking about how they were going to focus on electing district attorneys and state attorneys general.
	And that's exactly what they did with money from Soros.
	You want to know why there's chaos?
	It's very simple.
	It's the leaders in those areas, and it's the fact that you've got Soros attorneys, district attorneys, who do not want to prosecute crime.
	They have given a free pass to these people to essentially loot whatever they want.
	It does not call for the military to come into those cities.
	When people have had enough of this, they will get rid of these district attorneys.
	There's already been some of them recalled.
	They thwarted the attempt to do it in L.A. by playing with the signatures, which is another tactic that these politicians always use to make sure that they control the ballot.
	They make independents and third parties do a signature campaign, And then they will go through and throw those out to make sure that you don't get on the ballot.
	Well, they did that to keep a recall election from happening because it already happened elsewhere in California.
	But now he's saying...
	New York City and Chicago are crime dens.
	The next time, I'm not going to wait.
	One of the things I did was to let them run it, and we're going to show how bad a job they do.
	Well, we did that, and we don't have to wait any longer.
	You don't have to wait any longer.
	He says he was prevented during his presidency from using the military to quell violence, especially in Democrat cities and states.
	Well, he was prevented.
	Prevented by whom? Who was controlling Trump then?
	Why couldn't he do it?
	If he now realizes that he's got the authority, did he not know?
	Did he not have any advisors who could tell him that he had the authority?
	He tried to do all kinds of things after the election for which he had no authority, but he would not use the authority that he had to stop the summer riots.
	So, who is, by the way, who controlled him then?
	Who's going to control him the next time?
	He's certainly not going to be controlled or restrained by the Constitution.
	He's made that clear in his first term with the lockdown and the rest of the stuff that he did.
	Trump has not spelled out precisely how he might use the military during his second term, although he and his advisors have suggested that they have wide latitude to call up units.
	While deploying the military regularly within the country's borders would be a departure from tradition.
	The president already has signaled an aggressive agenda that if he wins, he will have mass deportations to travel bans imposed on certain Muslim-majority countries.
	A law first crafted in the nation's infancy would give Trump as commander-in-chief almost unfettered power to do so, military and legal experts said in a series of interviews.
	And it's called the Insurrection Act, interestingly enough.
	So he wants to double down on the so-called insurrection.
	It allows presidents to call on reserve or active duty military units to respond to unrest in the states, an authority that cannot be reviewed by the courts.
	One of the few guardrails merely requires a president to request that the participants disperse.
	The principal constraint on the President's use of the Insurrection Act is basically political, said Joseph Nunn, a national security expert with the Brennan Center for Justice.
	He said, most presidents don't want to be the guy who sent tanks rolling down Main Street.
	Except for his purposes, or I should say for the purpose of the globalists, Trump already told Main Street they were not essential, so why not run tanks down the center of Main Street?
	And, you know, when you look at this, so, you know, the president can call up troops if he wants to.
	He's the commander-in-chief under the Insurrection Act.
	I mean, technically, the presidents are supposed to get the permission of Congress to go to war, send troops abroad, but now they pretend that they have this perpetual authorization for the use of military force.
	They declared war on a tactic on terror, and now that war on terror allows them to go anywhere they want without a formal declaration of Congress, they say.
	That's what we call under color of law.
	But of course, domestically, they already had that power with the Insurrection Act.
	And we were told right after the election, if you remember, Steve Pchenik and Owen were telling everybody that's exactly what Trump had already done.
	Two days after the election, this is what we were told.
	What's happening now, and the reason I couldn't come on the Alex Jones campaign, The show last night was I was not given the permission that I needed to in order to say what I'm about to say now.
	He wasn't given the permission. Trump wasn't given the permission.
	This is really a sting operation.
	Contrary to what everybody else said, Trump knew this was happening.
	Eric knew this was happening and warned the public.
	I knew this was happening.
	However, I could not say anything about it.
	What happened was we marked, watermarked every ballot with what's called the QFS blockchain encryption code.
	In other words, we know pretty well where every ballot is, where it went, and who has it.
	So this is not a stolen election.
	On the contrary, We reversed the entire game of war along the lines of Sun Tzu, the art of war.
	And Trump was brilliant and still is brilliant at it.
	All of this was expected.
	All of this is part of the sting operation we're running.
	And let me tell you that 48 hours ago, not only did we put markers on those ballots, but I can say now, with the permission of people in the intelligence community and elsewhere, That we have sent out thousands and thousands of national guards to 12 different states.
	Washington, Delaware, Texas, Arizona, Alabama, and everywhere.
	So now you have to consider and rethink what this is really about.
	Yeah. Yeah.
	Reconsider and think about what that was really about.
	You want to talk about an insurrection?
	That was the lie that kicked off the January the 6th Stop the Steal stuff.
	Owen said, oh, I wish you were here.
	I would kiss you on the lips.
	And so, yeah, he had already sent out troops.
	You know, this has been done before, right?
	He sent out troops two days after the election in 2020.
	It was a law that was created in many ways for a country that doesn't exist anymore, said one of the constitutional experts at this mainstream media outlet interview.
	This is ABC. And of course, that was one where leaders had character.
	And they wouldn't misuse this kind of power.
	But of course, you know, the reason we have the Bill of Rights is because James Madison said, let's not put our trust in men.
	But, you know, we need, well, it's actually Patrick Henry who said that.
	Let's bind them down with the chains of the Constitution.
	That's exactly what James Madison did with the Bill of Rights.
	Yeah. It is one of the most substantial exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally prohibits using the military for law enforcement purposes.
	Just declare an insurrection.
	Well, if he had something that looked like an insurrection, it certainly was maybe the Black Lives Matter riots in the summer of 2020, but he didn't do it then.
	But now he's saying he's going to use the military at the border.
	He's going to use the military to help cities that are just struggling with violent crime because of their policies.
	Because they don't want to lock up criminals, because they want to take guns away from law-abiding citizens and things like that.
	That is not an insurrection.
	And so he would be fought on that.
	And yet, there is a history to this.
	It's kind of interesting. The few times that it has been done, there have been 40 times throughout the history of this country in the last couple of centuries, that they have invoked this law.
	One of those was by Lyndon Johnson.
	Well, actually, he did it three times.
	Baltimore, Chicago, and Washington in response to civil unrest over the assassination of Dr.
	Martin Luther King in 1968.
	And then also during the civil rights era.
	You had President Johnson and JFK as well as Dwight Eisenhower.
	Use the law to protect activists.
	Dwight Eisenhower called out the army to oppose the National Guard that was under the governor in Arkansas to keep the students, to put the students into a high school.
	George H.W. Bush used it during the Rodney King riots in L.A. in 1992.
	And yet Trump would not use it in 2020.
	But now he's going to do it this next time.
	He's going to do it to fix the border, which he wouldn't do.
	Throughout his first four years.
	And you have to really wonder if that is really what he's talking about doing with this.
	Or is he talking about grabbing the military so that he can pursue personal revenge?
	I would not put anything past him, quite frankly.
	And I think we need to be very concerned about his desire for revenge.
	Deeply wounded narcissist.
	William Banks, a Syracuse University law professor, said military officer is not forced to follow unlawful orders.
	Well, this is what we were saying all the time about the jab mandate, isn't it?
	Unlawful orders you don't have to follow, and yet that was something that was done across the board.
	Finally, when we talk about Trump here, just remember when he went back, when he spoke to the World Economic Forum, and he went there for the second time.
	It was January of 2020, and it was...
	Just two months before he declared the pandemic emergency here and shut everything down.
	It was three months after the clip that I used to play for you all the time about Fauci.
	How in October of 2019, Fauci went to the Milken Institute.
	They asked him, how do we get everybody to take an untested vaccine?
	He says, well, you do it from the inside.
	You do it with disruption.
	And you do it iteratively.
	That's how you do it. And so, it was three months after that, Trump goes to the World Economic Forum.
	Two months later, he declares, just like all these other leaders around the world, a global pandemic.
	Isn't that interesting?
	That the only difference between Trump and Trudeau and people of Trudeau's ilk, Macron and all the rest of them, the only difference is, In terms of what they said, Trump opposed the globalists verbally, while Trump, while Trudeau and Macron supported their agenda, and yet when it came to what he actually did, Trump did everything that the globalists wanted.
	And so when we look at him there at the World Economic Forum, this is what it looked like in January of 2020.
	Mr. President, what is your message?
	We hope to call climate change.
	Why is it better to be here in Davos than in Washington, D.C.?
	Well, we're here meeting with the world leaders, the biggest, most important people in the world, and we're bringing back tremendous business in the United States.
	We look forward to being here.
	Klaus has done a fantastic job.
	And again, we're meeting with the biggest companies in the world, the biggest businesses in the world, and world leaders.
	Yeah, we're meeting with the biggest businesses in the world.
	They're all right here at Davos.
	That's what this is, right?
	This is a global corporatocracy and technocracy.
	These people are the biggest companies in the world.
	They are the stakeholders, according to Klaus Schwab.
	Stakeholder capitalism.
	That's what this is truly about.
	It really was a betrayal.
	He really was on board with everything that the World Economic Forum and the UN wanted.
	He did it all. You know, it's one thing to say that you oppose them.
	It's another thing to say that you are anti-globalists.
	And it's another thing to do everything that they wanted.
	On Rockfin, Guard Goldsmith, good to see you there, Guard.
	And good comment, he says.
	The Constitution stipulates the only way that the president can use troops inside the nation is if a state legislature or the governor of a state asks.
	That's right. And the...
	Insurrection Act is unconstitutional, but of course, so is everything else that the government does.
	But when you look at the timing of all this stuff, Isn't it interesting how the first one of these, as they point out, it's not just Fauci at Milken Institute in October, but they were also running Event 201 three months before that.
	So they ran the simulation, Event 201 simulation, three months before Before he declared the emergency, you've got Fauci saying that three months before they declared the emergency, he's saying we're going to do it from the inside with disruption and chaos and iteratively.
	And then he lowers the hammer on everyone.
	But we saw that back in 2001 when these germ games first kicked off.
	We had dark winter two months before 9-11.
	And then that happened, and this is the other shoe, really, to drop of 9-11.
	So as he was speaking with Schwab, Schwab said, Mr.
	President, we discuss here very intensely the questions of inclusiveness.
	But all of your politics certainly are aiming to create better inclusiveness for the American people.
	Well, we know exactly what Klaus Schwab means by inclusiveness.
	Trump was their 50th anniversary of them, and he had to attend and meet the world leaders and the stakeholder capitalists who are holding the stakes that they want to drive into our hearts.
	He says, we look forward to being here.
	Klaus has done a fantastic job, said the stealth globalist.
	And this is not a conspiracy theory.
	Trump did everything that they wanted.
	As Wine Press News says, if you're still defending this guy, then you're just being willfully ignorant to the facts.
	He's not some superhero. He's not some godsend that is going to drain the swamp or restore America.
	That was and is nothing more than total propaganda.
	He didn't do it his first four years as president.
	He certainly will not do it later if he's elected again.
	He said it's a false hope.
	And a mega rich con man and slime ball who gives people false hope and vanities to trust in.
	As he continues to do the same as all the rest.
	As I said, they all did it.
	They all did exactly what the World Economic Forum and the UN wanted in 2020.
	When we come back, I want to play for you a clip of a soldier who really, you know, when they finally did pull out of Afghanistan because they got thrown out, Trump didn't bring the troops back to protect the border, but when they got thrown out, This guy who just separated from the service has a story to tell about what happened to him.
	We will be right back.
	If you like the Eagles, the Cars, and Huey Lewis and the News, you'll love the Classic Hits channel at APS Radio.
	Download our app or listen now at APSradio.com.
	APSradio.com
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	Wow.
	Okay, let's talk about what happened to some of the troops.
	We have former troops who punished over the Biden vaccine mandate are now suing for billions in lost wages.
	I've got a lot of stories about people who are suing their employers and many other things.
	And this is one of the ways I said this when this was all happening.
	I said there's going to be a lot of lawsuits, especially against corporations, who have violated people's religious liberty and discriminated against them on the basis of their religion.
	And if this happened to you, as they say on TV, lawyers are standing by.
	I need to make these people pay for this.
	I see a comment here from KWD68. He said, every time I hear a Trump supporter complain about COVID tyranny and a stolen election, I feel like I've been handed a gift.
	Then the fun ensues. I've awakened a couple of people with this.
	Well, let's talk about some of these troops who've been...
	Again, they are suing for billions in lost wages.
	Former troops are suing the U.S. government for lost pay and benefits over Biden's mandate.
	And one of the lawyers who's represented him successfully brought down the anthrax vaccine.
	He got that stopped. That was being used against the military at the time.
	And so he's got a good history in terms of fighting dangerous...
	Untested vaccines. That's what both the anthrax vaccine that was done to the military as well as this COVID vaccine, the Trump shot.
	But listen to what happened to this soldier in Afghanistan.
	I want to share something with you guys today.
	I want to holler.
	I want to scream. I want to yell.
	But it won't do any good.
	Today is gear turn-in day for me.
	I turn in all the gear that I've collected over the last four years of being active duty with the Army, with the 82nd Airborne Division.
	Two years ago, my unit deployed to Afghanistan for the Afghanistan withdrawal.
	We spent a few weeks over there.
	It was hectic, it was chaotic, it was disgusting, and it made me very disappointed in our government.
	Today, I'm reminded of how disappointed I am in our government.
	Go to turn in my gear.
	They want to charge me $500 to $1,000 for gear that I was ordered to leave in Afghanistan two years ago.
	Because as the last two birds were sitting on the tarmac, ready to leave, there wasn't any room for extra gear or extra weight.
	Therefore, we were told to leave it.
	Some lower enlisted dudes, including myself, were like, no, this stuff is expensive.
	I'm not leaving this.
	I'm going to get charged for this when it comes time to leave.
	Don't worry. We're going to catch you on the back end.
	We'll flipple it.
	No. It's time to get out of the army and they want to charge you for that.
	Meanwhile, we can continue to give millions of dollars to the Taliban.
	We can give billions of dollars to Ukraine.
	We can give billions of dollars to student debt relief.
	We can give a bunch of stupid stimulus checks.
	We can cut those to the American people.
	But we can't cover $500 to $1,000 for a dude that left gear in Afghanistan.
	For a dude that left gear in a place that you put me to begin with.
	The government is so stinking backwards right now, man.
	Yeah, I think we all see that on Rockfin.
	We have a comment here.
	Trump is as elite and as globalist as they come, all while wearing a Christian liberty-lover costume in every rally.
	Yeah, I don't know why these people are still fooled by this.
	But isn't that amazing?
	The government, which doesn't care about how much equipment leaks out of Ukraine, They know it leaks like a sieve, but they just keep sending military equipment there by over $100 billion they've sent, and yet they're going to lean on these soldiers.
	They ordered them to leave that gear behind.
	They said, no, we can't leave that. We'll get charged for that.
	Now they're going to charge them.
	Let's talk a little bit about the vaccines, though, and especially this update that came out from Handy on his substack on Thanksgiving and the day after, warning people that About the new flu shots that are there.
	He said, here's a short EMS update.
	He said, earlier today I had a seizure call.
	From about an infant patient.
	When I arrived, I found a child, about 12 months old, who had a seizure.
	During assessment, I realized this child most likely experienced a febrile seizure, a high fever, had a 102 degree temperature.
	He said, I learned this child had been given two flu shots recently.
	The first injection was given in September, the second injection in October.
	Notice that? Two flu shots.
	They're doubling up on everything now.
	This child's older sibling was also given a flu shot in October.
	Then both children have been sick off and on since they were injected.
	The older sibling seems to have mostly recovered, but the younger child relapsed two days ago And the flu-like symptoms of cough, fever, vomiting, lethargy, which ultimately caused the seizure today from the fever.
	He says, this is the second child I've had this season who is extremely ill after receiving vaccines.
	The Prevnar pneumonia vaccine was given to the last one who ended up with full-blown pneumonia just four days after their injection.
	And he said, but after doing some research, he says, I was wondering if this is an mRNA type of thing because they're giving him two shots now.
	So I did some research, and I found that now the CDC is recommending two flu shots, one month apart for certain children.
	They just can't get enough.
	Already in this country, we've got six dozen shots that you wind up getting as a child if you follow all of the directions from the CDC. 72 shots.
	Nobody else does that in any other country.
	And now they want to give you two flu shots every year in addition to that.
	And this is coming, you know, when we started looking at this, right away from the very beginning, it was very clear that this was a scam.
	Why? Anybody who had looked at the vaccine and the flu shots as everybody at Infowars had done, and as people like...
	Other people who had followed this vaccine thing had done.
	You knew that this was a standard lie that they would use every year.
	Look at all these cases and look at how they're going up.
	And so you've got to get the flu shot.
	Never mind the fact that it's not been tested, really, to see if it's effective.
	Because they just guess.
	They say, well, we think that this year this is going to be a flu strain.
	So they just create a bunch of these vaccines way in advance.
	And then put them out. Now, what are the chances of that working?
	Zero. And in spite of the fact that we realize that all these people, as soon as they would get the shot, they would get sick.
	I said a couple of weeks ago, I went to have a blood test made, and the guy who was taking the blood, the technician, Karen asked him, did you get a vaccine, get the COVID vaccine?
	Oh, yeah. He says, no, I immediately got sick right after with COVID. He said, it always happens to me with the flu shots, and yet he continues to do it.
	And he's a medical technician.
	You know, some people just can't put two and two together.
	And when they do, they get five.
	Can't figure this stuff out.
	And so now, after they got people used to doing the two-shot process, which is a real novel thing, and we questioned that.
	We said, you know, why are they doing this with two shots?
	Is this some kind of bivalent weapon or something, bioweapon?
	You know, we've got Part A and Part B, and now they interact with each other.
	You know, but it's just an opportunity for them to vaccinate people more.
	It really is. And to get people sick.
	And so now they're back, you know, the COVID shot was nothing but a glorified flu shot.
	They did two of those, and so now they're going to make the annual flu shot two.
	So he said the CDC recommends two flu shots one month apart for certain children, quote-unquote, six months to eight years of age.
	But they don't mention what qualifies as a certain child, quote-unquote.
	Which certain children should have this between the ages of six months and eight years?
	They should have two of these shots.
	Well, how do we determine which kids are the ones that should have that?
	He said, maybe they leave that part up to the salesman.
	I mean, the doctors.
	And that's exactly right.
	CDC has been a vaccine salesman.
	The doctors have been vaccine salesmen all this time.
	And then he says, after the last email...
	We were dispatched to a gas station with two unconscious males inside.
	One was in the bathroom in respiratory arrest, not breathing but still alive.
	The other was in the drink coolers in a zombie pose against the wall.
	The one in the bathroom had several hypodermic needles in his pockets.
	I'm pretty sure this is some of the fentanyl and horse tranquilizers.
	It's been on the news recently.
	Narcan brought the guy that was in respiratory arrest back to the land of the living.
	The other one was obviously intoxicated, but he was also violent when he was roused from his drug-induced stupor.
	He went to jail after shoving a police officer.
	Andy said, I've treated fentanyl overdoses for many years, but this is my first experience with Trink.
	So it has finally made its way to Atlanta.
	You know, when he talks about the guy who's, you know, under respiratory arrest or in a zombie state, there was, and I did not show the picture, the video of it.
	It's a very distressing video.
	There was an EMS technician who was called to a guy who was on some kind of public transport, a bus or a train or something like that.
	And he was in that state, and the guy brings him out of it.
	And as he points out, as Handy pointed out, this one guy who was brought out of his zombie state attacks a police officer.
	They haul him off to jail. Well, this guy, you see the...
	Body camera footage from the EMS guy, actually a fireman, who was doing EMS work.
	And he's talking to him, and they're talking about how he's feeling and all the rest of his stuff.
	And then a police officer is there.
	The police officer said, I see a bulge there on the side of your jacket.
	He says, are you carrying a gun? Oh, no, no.
	Can I check that? No, I don't want you touching me.
	He winds up pulling the gun out.
	To get the police officer, but he shoots and kills the fireman who saved his life.
	Just amazing to watch what is happening in this country.
	China's COVID trauma returns.
	Just take a look at what is happening in China.
	We have, if I can find the clip here, let me play that.
	Well, I don't seem to have that.
	Oh yeah, here we are, right here. This is the video that they took of, they've got the hazmat workers back wearing their white suits, look at that, and got these, kind of like a leaf blower, but it's spraying out some kind of chemical substance, like a fog, throughout various rooms and down the hallways.
	Who knows what's in that kind of stuff?
	And this is what they're doing in China.
	Hazmat workers disinfecting streets, disinfecting hallways and offices and buildings and that kind of stuff, just spraying this stuff everywhere.
	You understand that the disease that we're looking at here is not anything other than tyranny.
	And it's going to keep going, both there and here, until we change some things about our government.
	There's not any changes in the works for China.
	But as they locked everything down with their zero COVID and just did it a year or so ago, About a year and a half in Shanghai to teach them a lesson.
	They're going to do it again and they're going to make this a regular basis.
	In the past days, China's state-controlled media have reported on hospitals in Beijing and other northern areas, said that they're at maximum capacity.
	I said when all these things were coming out of China, I said, do you believe anything that's coming out of China?
	They can say anything that they want.
	As they were sealing people in their homes and doing it.
	Beijing's Children's Hospital alone reportedly admitted over 7,000 daily cases, said one report.
	Again, is any of that true?
	So people are saying, here are these, they call them Dubai, which means big white figures because they are covered head to toe in a white hazmat suit.
	And so they said, they're here again.
	Can we really say that there won't be epidemic controls again?
	Said another one. Well, of course there will be.
	Because it was never about a disease.
	It was always about politics.
	The disease is political.
	Another one said, it's almost 2024 and the scene has returned.
	I pointed out that it was just a couple of months ago in Shanghai.
	People... We're dressing up as Dubai, as these guys in the white suits, as a Halloween costume.
	Because if you really want to scare somebody, you put on one of those things, right?
	There's mass murder and imprisonment and open-air prisons and all the rest of the stuff.
	That's what those Dubai costumes represent.
	But, of course, they did that in the United States as well.
	I remember very clearly.
	They said, well, here's somebody who was exposed to COVID. And they took a long shot and then put it out to the media.
	And they had all these guys in a hazmat suit carrying the personal possessions of this person and putting them in isolation.
	That was all PR to push this MacGuffin on us.
	The surge in infections has been attributed by Chinese health authorities to a confluence of typically mild mycoplasma pneumonia.
	Adenovirus and other seasonal illnesses.
	So this is going to be something, the seasonal illnesses, the flus, will be interpreted as COVID-19 was.
	They're going to be interpreted as some kind of a pandemic.
	Send them into the hospitals and have the hospitals use the death protocol, as Trump did.
	The surge is exacerbated by children's reduced exposure to these illnesses during lockdown, they say.
	This is not anything other than a pretense, just as it was the first time around.
	The UK has detected its first case of swine flu strain.
	So you see how this is happening?
	We have all these different publications now starting to try to scare people with this.
	So it's in China, they don't even bother to make up some new imaginary novel flu.
	They just say, well, you know, we've we've admitted a lot of people to the hospital, so we're going to use this to lock everybody down.
	So in the UK, they've got a new strain, they said, of his first human case of swine flu.
	Thank you.
	Well, you know, if pigs could fly, we'd all be worried about swine flu, but they can't, so we shouldn't be worried about this.
	This is coming from The Guardian, leftist Guardian, pushing, one of the big pushers of both the COVID MacGuffin and the climate MacGuffin.
	I guess the question is, who guards The Guardian's news, right?
	Well, we know who was telling them what to write.
	50 cases of the strain have been reported globally since 2005.
	So, therefore, it's a global pandemic because, I mean, we didn't have that many people affected in 2020 when they locked everything down.
	And, of course, this is over 18 years.
	A person infected who has not been identified, of course, has had a mild illness and has recovered.
	But be very afraid. You should be very afraid of the medical dictators who are going to be coming after you.
	The French government is taking aim at COVID conspiracy theorists.
	And they have a draft bill that starts referring to people who question the government as sects.
	S-E-C-T-S. Like a religious sect.
	Anyone daring to criticize medical treatments could fall afoul of this law.
	Think about that.
	Since so many people had religious objections to these vaccines, of course they're going to couch this in religious terms.
	You're part of a sect.
	And if you criticize the medical treatments, you could get arrested.
	Remember, I called this medical martial law when Trump did it in March of 2020.
	And that's really what it has truly become.
	As they talk about this, they have an organization that they've created, the French government has created, to fight what they call sectarian excesses.
	The organization is the Mission for Vigilance and the Fight Against Sectarian Abuses.
	A sectarian is typically defined, has always been defined in the past, as somebody who follows a religious or a philosophical doctrine.
	But here, they are going to use it to refer to people who are government dissidents.
	Because, you know, you don't buy into the cult of the omnipotent state, as they used to refer to it in the libertarian principles, you know.
	And it is. It is a cult of the omnipotent state, which is no longer just merely omnipotent, but it is also omniscient and omnipresent as well.
	So for the...
	Mission for Vigilance and the Fight Against Sectarian Abuses, they define a sectarian problem as a misuse of freedom of thought.
	Think about that. A misuse of freedom of thought.
	I'm sorry, you're not using your freedom appropriately.
	We're going to take that away. And your thoughts.
	Your thoughts are not appropriate either.
	You know, that woman praying silently on the corner where they're doing abortions.
	Sorry, you're misusing your freedom of thought.
	Or misuse of your opinion.
	Or misuse of your freedom of religion.
	Because it undermines public order.
	Yes, we must have order and safety, and they will define what that is.
	You'll not be safe unless you follow their orders.
	And so, you have to, again, it's about safety.
	The sectarian excesses that they refer to are things like the recruitment of children or anti-social discourse.
	You know, like on social media, things that you have to say.
	Disturbances of the public order.
	Don't tell people that the government is wrong about something or what the consequences will be of that.
	Or attempts to infiltrate the authorities.
	All of these things are to be punished in France.
	But, of course, we know this is coming everywhere because we know that all these people are marching to the same orders of the UN and the World Economic Forum.
	And they're going to put a refinement on this when they start to meet real soon with COP28.
	They're going to talk about how they're going to roll out these new orders.
	And, as I said before, you've got many people who are suing, people who are suing the military, people who are suing their employers.
	This is one, a Christian, who was part of, you know, who was, I guess, the French would call him sectarian.
	He said, no, this COVID shot is a violation of my freedom of religion.
	And he said he worked for Newmont Mining Corporation, the world's leading gold company.
	And they claimed that they were just following various mandates for employees.
	Who's mandating this?
	Again, this is the way that it would have rolled out with Trump.
	It would have been done through the private corporations.
	Trump may or may not have done it through the military, but they definitely would have used the private corporations, and that was a big part of how this all worked.
	You know, you just look at the hospitals and the fact that CMS under Trump was rewarding them for identifying people as COVID patients and giving them a 20% bonus for everything and then giving them a bonus if they even made a clinical diagnosis.
	And then when Biden came around, he didn't give direct orders for the hospitals to vaccinate everybody.
	Instead, what he used was money, the money thing.
	Trump would have done exactly that.
	That's exactly the approach that Trump would have taken on that.
	As I said, the difference might have been with the military.
	Whether or not Trump would have mandated it for the military, that's a question.
	It still remains in my mind.
	But I know that he would have used CMS because he already used CMS to push the lockdowns and to push the ventilators and other things that killed so many people.
	But not as many people as the shots did when they rolled out.
	So... As WND, which is a tireless Trump cheerleader, they were chumps for Trump, I guess we should say.
	They said that Newmont Mining says that it was just following various mandates for employees, having the experimental and now known to be dangerous COVID-19 shots.
	So they won't call it the Trump shots.
	And they will call it dangerous.
	This is the true Trump derangement syndrome.
	The bipolar Trump derangement central that you see MAGA under.
	The lawsuit filed, said he notified the company immediately that the order conflicted with his deeply held religious beliefs.
	He said, I'm a Christian. Complying with this mandate would definitely burden my religious exercise because in my faith, my body does not belong to me.
	I do not make the choices for my body.
	My Heavenly Father made those choices for me through His Word.
	If you're mandating to me What?
	To place into his temple?
	Then you're burdening my religious freedom by taking the choice of what goes into my body away from God.
	Well, they didn't care about any of that.
	And quite frankly, it doesn't matter whether they agree with it or not.
	Other people have expressed their religious differences, their religious objections in different ways.
	I think that Jason Parker, you know, his reasoning on it was much better, but it doesn't really matter whether you agree with the reasoning or not.
	You have religious freedom and they are not allowed to do that, so he is now suing them.
	And I think this is something that needs to be replicated in many other places because these same companies are going to do the same thing again if we don't stop them this time.
	Not 14 million lives saved, but over 17 million dead, says Robert Malone.
	And of course, every time you see Trump talk about this, whenever anybody asks him about the vaccines, as Candace Owens did, he immediately talks about the millions and millions of lives that he saved.
	Millions of lives he said he saved just in the United States alone, but all over the world he saved lives.
	No, he killed people. But she backed down.
	She didn't really want to challenge any of that.
	But we know that is now the truth.
	And how is that happening?
	And they're still killing people.
	New evidence is showing the mechanism of this.
	Again, what they call hyper-progressive cancers, or what has colloquially been called turbo cancers, caused by the COVID vaccines.
	They now think that they've found the mechanism that does this.
	They call them the IgG4 antibodies.
	And they said these antibodies are usually created in response to persistent irritants, such as worms.
	Unfortunately, repeat injections of mRNA COVID vaccines are perceived by our immune system as a persistent irritant.
	And it causes these antibodies to switch on.
	The persistent irritation effect possibly occurs not only because of repeat injections, but But also due to mRNA gene expression never stopping in half of these vaccinated people.
	That's what I said from the very beginning.
	I said, so they're going to, you know, in his little dog and pony show, he's got everybody lined up around the table.
	How long is it going to take you to do it?
	How long is it going to take you? And he had them all lined up in decreasing time amount.
	And the last one was, of course, Moderna.
	And he said, well, we've already...
	We're ready to go now. We'll turn your body into a vaccine-producing thing.
	And so I said at the time, if they're going to do that genetically, what's the off switch for that?
	Well, it turns out that in at least half of the vaccinated people, it never stops.
	It just keeps producing this stuff, the spike protein.
	So are these antibodies harmless?
	Do they have any effect outside of our immune reactions?
	Is there something to worry about?
	Unfortunately, a 2020 study published by the British Medical Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer suggests that having more of these particular antibodies, again, I think it is the IgG4 vaccine, Having these antibodies of any kind enhances cancer progression.
	The study was done two years before the discovery of the mRNA vaccine-related class switched to these types of antibodies.
	So these mechanisms are now being discovered.
	But we knew from the very beginning, from watching these crooks, liars, and politicians, I know I'm being redundant here, We knew this from the very beginning, what this was about.
	It said local application, if they apply this particular type of antibody, it accelerates growth of breast and colorectal cancer.
	So they have a substance that gets accelerated, the people who are vaccinated.
	They know that that substance they've already proved in the past That that substance increases cancer, and then they find, two years later, that, oh, and the thing that increases the cancer is increased by the mRNA vaccines.
	So it comes together, but don't expect the mainstream media to talk about any of this.
	The Daily Skeptic will, but the rest of them won't.
	Pfizer, by the way, is suing Poland because Poland isn't going to buy any more of their Trump shots.
	And there was, back in April of 2021, if you remember, Ursula von der Leyen, the European Union president, had been negotiating the biggest contract ever, and it was a sealed contract.
	And she was negotiating that with Pfizer.
	And there were some text messages that went back and forth between the Pfizer CEO, Albert Borla and Ursula.
	But the texts then disappeared.
	They were flushed down the memory hole.
	And Poland says, well, we were concerned about this because, you know, it looks like there's something shady going on with this purchasing.
	So we're not going to buy any more of that.
	So now Pfizer is going to sue Poland.
	And tell them that they have to buy this stuff because Ursula von der Leiden signed a contract on their behalf with the European Union.
	Slovakia, meanwhile, will not be entering into any international pandemic agreements with the WHO. We're good to go.
	Of course, we will have some bureaucrat who will sign on to it, like John Kerry did with the Paris Climate Accord.
	He said, well, we self-ratified it.
	We don't bother to take this to the Senate.
	And, of course, Mitch McConnell never called for a vote on the Paris Climate Accord.
	They will probably do the same thing with the World Health Organization Treaty.
	But other countries say, well, we have to have this approved by Parliament, and we're not going to do that.
	They said, we're not going to approve it because it's a project of greedy pharmaceutical companies.
	They're exactly right about that.
	Before we break and bring on our guest, a couple of comments here.
	Trump is an elite globalist as they come.
	I read that one before.
	Jason Barker, I was forced into taking many anthrax shots.
	They lied and said it was mandatory and I'd be kicked out if I didn't take it.
	And then you find out that a lawyer pushed all that stuff back.
	You know, they really bluffed it, didn't they?
	On Rockfan, Handy said, I have a friend, a Marine, who has to take weekly injections now because of that anthrax shot.
	Yeah, they keep doing it.
	Well, we're going to take a quick break, and when we come back, we are going to have as our guest David Stockman.
	He has a new book coming out, Trump's War on Capitalism.
	It's going to be released the beginning of January.
	Very excited to talk to him about that.
	We'll be right back. The Common Man.
	They created Common Core to dumb down our children.
	They created Common Past to track and control us.
	Their Commons Project to make sure the commoners own nothing.
	And the communist future.
	They see the common man as simple, unsophisticated, ordinary.
	But each of us has worth and dignity created in the image of God.
	That is what we have in common.
	That is what they want to take away.
	Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation.
	They desire to know everything about us while they hide everything from us.
	It's time to turn that around and expose what they want to hide.
	Please share the information and links you'll find at TheDavidKnightShow.com.
	Thank you for listening.
	Thank you for sharing.
	If you can't support us financially, please keep us in your prayers.
	The David Knight Show dot com.
	If you like the Eagles.
	the Cars, and Huey Lewis and the News, you'll love the Classic Hits channel at APS Radio.
	Download our app or listen now at APSRadio.com.
	All right, joining us now is former congressman, former director of the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, under Ronald Reagan, David Stockman.
	And he is someone that Ron Paul said is...
	One of the most astute observers of the tragic and unnecessary implosion of our economy, our monetary system, and society in general.
	And he's got some observations about Trump's first term and some warnings about what the second term might look like.
	So joining us now is David Stockman.
	Thank you for joining us, sir. Glad to be with you, and we've got a lot to talk about here on that topic.
	And the book that's going to be coming out in January, I should say, is Trump's War on Capitalism.
	I have referred to President Trump because he set so many precedents that were good precedents during his first term.
	So take us down his precedents in terms of attacking capitalism.
	Yeah, well, the whole point of my book is that there are certain principles, fiscal rectitude, sound money, free markets, open international trade, that really define what I think is the conservative position in today's battle of governance in Washington.
	And when it comes to those core principles or items, Trump came down time and time and time again on the wrong side.
	He was a big spender.
	He was constantly harassing the Fed for easier and easier money when we already had interest rates that were barely above zero.
	He got taken to the cleaners by Fauci and that whole group of malpracticing doctors around him when he was persuaded to lock down the economy and destroy the life work of millions of workers and small business people and so forth.
	So I think you have to say, with four years of that kind of record, why do we want it again?
	That is not going to solve the huge problems of debt, of weak economic growth, of inflation, of a Washington uniparty, as I call it, you know, bipartisan consensus to bury us in debt and, you know, endless government intervention and manipulation.
	So those, I think, are the core issues.
	Trump is on the wrong side.
	And the idea that, well, maybe he, you know, went off base a few times with the, you know, $6 trillion worth of stimmies that he pushed through in less than a year.
	And he should be forgiven for this because there was a strong MAGA economy, so-called.
	It's not true.
	And I sort of lay out in my book On every measure that you could look at, job creation, real economic growth, real GDP per capita, that's kind of a proxy for standard of living, savings rate, investment rate, productivity growth, all the items that comprise kind of the core metrics for the economy were actually worse.
	Under Trump's four years than any president going all the way back to Truman.
	Okay, so we're talking about a period of time in which we had nine presidents, 11 different recessions and business cycles.
	If we average it all out, real economic growth during Trump's term of four years was 1.5%.
	During the prior 62 years of all those presidents, Republicans, Democrats, liberals, conservatives, Reagan, Lyndon Johnson, and everybody in between, the growth rate averaged 3%.
	So, you know, it was less than half You might call the long-term post-war average.
	So, you can't say there was a MAGA economy that was so good that we can forgive all the deviations and all of the, you know, Trump...
	Policies that were inimical to everything conservatives, I always thought, believed in.
	Because, you know, the record isn't there.
	So why do we need a big spender?
	Why do we need another easy money man?
	Why do we need a guy who may go off half-cocked in another direction if he gets bad advice from government bureaucrats?
	And, you know, I think at the end of the day, and I heard you talking earlier about all the issues related to the COVID, the lockdowns, the mandatory shots, all the rest of it.
	He was wrong on that.
	And, you know, he...
	Basically, could have had good advice from a lot of people on the outside who were saying, no, no, no, this isn't the black plague.
	This isn't, you know, something that requires the Constitution to be set aside or the economy to be wrecked.
	He didn't listen. He just plowed forward by the seat of his ample britches, as I call it.
	And, you know, we ended up with a real mess that we're still living with.
	I mean, the period in which all this terrible inflation we've had under Biden, and I don't give Biden any pass either, but the inflation was germinated.
	It was cooked up during the last year of Trump's administration when he told the Fed to print money like there's no tomorrow, and when the federal government You know, deficits soared to $3 trillion, more than $3 trillion,
	just an incredible surge in government borrowing and spending that turned the economy red hot, but unsustainably so, and we ended up with the inflation that we're struggling with at the present time.
	Yeah, I agree. So, those are some of the themes that we're trying to discuss in the book that will be coming out shortly.
	Yeah, when we look at the, and you say, you know, the metrics, you look at the other metrics, and you talk about how it was half the economic growth that we've had post-war with all the other presidents, and yet, you know, he would constantly go back, he would cherry-pick his metric that he wanted to look at, which is going to be the stock market.
	Oh, look, the stock market is doing great, or whatever.
	Forget about job creation.
	Talk a little bit about job creation.
	What happened to job creation under Trump?
	Well, I mean, if you really want the number, it's pretty devastating.
	When Trump took office, there were 145.4 million jobs in the U.S. economy, according to the BLS. The month he left, January 2021, there were 42.4 million.
	In other words, 3 million jobs less.
	At the end of his four years than when he started.
	And if you look back at the record, there is no other president going all the way back to Truman that ended up with fewer jobs at the end of his term than existed at the beginning because capitalism works pretty well.
	The economy grows, jobs are created, and the number always goes up.
	It always goes up.
	Every president, whether they were good, bad, or indifferent, whether they hurt...
	Our free market economy or not, jobs continued to grow, but not under Trump.
	Because of the lockdowns, because of the brutal government intervention in the normal course of daily commerce, which is what that was all about.
	When you shut down, and we have a lot of statistics in the book to show how bad it was in certain sectors, and we can talk about that, but when you do that, You know, you end up at the end of a four-year term with three million fewer jobs than when you started.
	Now, that's the truth of the matter.
	Then Trump says, well, you know, the COVID, it wasn't my fault.
	It came from China or something like that.
	Well, you know, there's a whole debate about where it came from.
	The issue was...
	The appropriate, constitutional, economically productive response.
	And the response was not to shut down the entire service sector of the economy.
	Not to shut down all the restaurants and bars and gyms and movies and all the other places where people congregate.
	That was a hugely unwise response.
	Counterproductive, destructive policy.
	He embraced it, hook, line, and sinker.
	He, you know, allowed the so-called White House task force to be on, you know, bully pulpit, as I call it, day after day, scaring the hell out of the public, encouraging people to, you know, hide under their bed.
	And stay in their homes.
	And all of this badly disrupted the economy.
	Now, he has to take accountability for that.
	And I have a little section in the book going back to Truman.
	You may recall Truman famously had this sign on his desk.
	That said, the buck stops here.
	In other words, I am the president.
	Ultimately, I'm not going to blame somebody else if things go good or bad.
	The buck stops here.
	Trump has never been willing to accept the fact that he shut down the economy unnecessarily.
	That impact is in the numbers.
	And it makes his tenure look extremely bad.
	Yeah, yeah. Yeah, the buck stops with him.
	And I've said many times the buck actually started with him as well because he financially incentivized these hospital protocols that were deadly.
	He incentivized the hospitals to do a clinical diagnosis and give them a 20% bonus and all these other things.
	So he was incentivizing that.
	that you mentioned earlier uh the the devastating loss to so many people who lost their businesses and that was one of the things that really bothered me i i come from a family uh where both my grandfathers were small businessmen my father was a small businessman i understand how people pour their life uh their capital and their life's work into that and be told that you're non-essential and to shut down and destroy your business as he did everywhere and it wasn't just that we saw this
	this shock to the uh to the distribution system so that you had people destroying food on the farms while there was nothing on the shelves i spent time talking to people about i pencil i said you understand We don't need to have the government micromanaging everything.
	This guy is acting like some kind of Chinese dictator.
	And I said, that's really what the real virus is.
	It's this political virus, this approach that he's taken.
	Talk a little bit about you.
	You cover that in your book, right?
	I'm assuming. Yeah, I do.
	I do. And, you know, Trump on this issue was an authoritarian.
	He had the wrong diagnosis.
	It came from Fauci.
	It said the government needs to step in massively with its huge boot heel and regiment the behavior of the public and thereby control a virus completely.
	That was not a fatal threat to 98% of the population.
	But Trump signed on, and once he decided that was the mission of government, then there's no holds barred.
	I mean, Trump doesn't have any principles about limited government, about observing the Constitution, about the need to preserve free markets and therefore encourage entrepreneurship and small businesses to create the economic about the need to preserve free markets and therefore encourage entrepreneurship and small businesses to create
	But I was going to say on your point about especially small businesses and that massive harm and damage that was done.
	Probably ground zero of the lockdowns is what the BLS calls the leisure and hospitality sector.
	And that covers bars and restaurants and movie theaters and sports arenas and the whole range of things where people gather in small or large groups.
	Now, if you look at that sector in the single month, and this is a startling figure.
	I have a chart on it in my book, and I think people aren't going to believe it.
	In the single month of Which is big.
	You know, there's 17, 18 million people employed in that sector.
	Dropped by 58%.
	In one month, 58%.
	Now, this is hours work.
	So if people were part-timers, you know, instead of 12 hours a week, they got two or none.
	Now, how do we describe this?
	That 58% crash, plunge, We've eliminated all the gain and hours worked since April 1978.
	Wow. If you can imagine that.
	In other words, in one fell swoop, Trump gets up to the White House microphone, looks over at Fauci, agrees to a question that all these sectors should be shut down for several weeks.
	And the consequence of that was to wipe out 42 years worth of growth in one of the largest sectors of the economy where most of our small businesses and entrepreneurs thrive and get their start.
	I mean, if you look at that sector, It's not like big tech where there's a couple of firms in Silicon Valley, or it's not like steel or autos where there's two or three or four competitors.
	It is, you know, it is populated with millions of small businesses, and Trump came in and wiped them out.
	And, you know, that's reflected in that number that I just gave you.
	Real GDP, as a result of the lockdowns in what I call the Trump U-case mandate, dropped at an annual rate of 33%.
	Now, you know, the viewer might say, well, 33%, how big is that?
	Well, we know that the Great Recession was pretty bad, remember?
	Back in 2008, 2009, they're saying this is the worst recession since the 1930s.
	Well, in that downturn, which was pretty traumatic, real GDP sank in the worst quarter by 8%.
	So in the second quarter, the lockdown quarter, the Trumpian mandated standstill of the economy, we had a four time larger collapse of GDP. We're still recovering from that because it messed up everything in the economy.
	People soon became so fearful about going to public venues, or they weren't allowed to because, you know, the restaurants were closed, the bars were closed, and the gyms.
	Can you imagine this? There are so many thousands of small-time entrepreneurs In localities all over the country who have three or four gyms, or maybe one, they've put their heart and soul in it, their sweat equity, they build up their business over years, and they were catering to the single most healthy, strongest part of the population, basically young people that go to the gyms.
	And these fools came in and shut down all the gyms, destroyed the sweat equity of literally thousands of small business people.
	And Trump let them do it.
	Yeah.
	Oh, yeah.
	And encourage them to do it.
	You can't overlook these things.
	This is what I'm saying.
	I know there's a lot of concerns that say that Biden's bad.
	Of course, he's bad.
	But we're never going to make any headway if we keep electing people on the Republican ticket who implement big government, big spending, big borrowing, money printing policies.
	And it might be better, even if the election is lost, as I look at it, to go another four years with the status quo than to put Another, Trump, you know, put Trump back into the White House to even further undermine the cause of conservative economics.
	Well, I agree. Yeah, the Constitution didn't matter.
	Conservative economics didn't matter.
	He just did whatever he wished.
	And I thought it was interesting that he was doing essentially the same thing.
	That all these politicians are doing in every single country, as we saw their propaganda turned our country into a nation that had OCD. Everybody had this obsessive compulsive disorder.
	They were wiping everything down and running around wearing masks and afraid to engage with other people.
	But let me ask you about this.
	You know, I remember looking at this and you talked about how it dropped 58 percent, you know, for the service sector and hours worked and that type of thing.
	I was looking at this stuff and said, wow, this is way worse than the Great Recession.
	This is looking like the unemployment numbers that we're seeing here instantaneously were the kind of thing that we saw with the Great Depression after it kind of rolled along for two or three years and got to its peak.
	But this happened as a spike.
	Very damaging.
	And then the response that Trump put out there in terms of stimulus checks.
	And, of course, you know, this massive three plus trillion dollars that he put out there.
	The only person in Congress who opposed him on that was Thomas Massey.
	Remember how angry he got about that.
	But I want to talk about the stimulus check.
	And I look at this and it seems to me like preparation for universal basic income.
	What do you think about that?
	You think that is something that is going to be we haven't really had any of the candidates opposing that or really even focusing on universal basic income as an economist.
	Is that something that you see being pushed and perhaps coming to us regardless of whether it is a Republican or Democrat?
	Since everybody else seemed to kind of go along with it except for Thomas Massey, are they going to use this as conditioning for universal basic income?
	Well, you know, I don't know that there are that many people, even in the Uniparty in Washington, explicitly advocating universal income, but they're stumbling into it through, you know, the back door, because that's what these STEMI checks were about.
	Household with up to $150,000 worth of income, which is 90% of households, were eligible for the checks both for each husband and each spouse and half that amount for the kids.
	Over that period, the total number of stimmy checks, and remember we had them in March 2020, then they renewed them in December 2020.
	Trump signed the bill.
	It became effective in January.
	But he had advocated during the campaign another $2,000 check for every adult American and another $1,000 for every child.
	And they got half of it in his Christmas Eve bill in 2020.
	And Biden put in the rest.
	Okay.
	But effectively, the Biden American Rescue Act, so-called, was simply funding the tail end of the Trump program that he campaigned on in November 2020.
	He advocated another $2,000 per person on top of what had already been done in the March period earlier.
	The problem with this is not only the massive amount of money that was pumped into the economy, not just through the STEMI checks, but also the unemployment toppers, you know.
	Just take this one. None of this was considered.
	They passed this in 11 days.
	If you can remember, the press conference happened, I think, on March 16th, and that was where, you know, we got the two weeks to flatten the curve and all that.
	The CARES Act, so-called, which was the first $2.2 trillion.
	And in that, without any hearings, without any analysis, they said anybody who's getting federal unemployment, federal state unemployment, or getting the new emergency benefits under this act will get an additional $600 on top of their regular check.
	Now, the average unemployment check at that point in time under the normal system was about $380 a week.
	They put $600 on top of that.
	All of a sudden, each unemployed person in a household was eligible for $1,000 a week.
	Now, if you go through all the math and you add in the tax credits, you add in the stimulus checks that occurred three times, You know, it's possible that a family of five, three kids, two working spouses, could have collected somewhere between $30,000 and $40,000 over that one-year period.
	So it is no wonder that suddenly the labor supply dried up.
	People had an alternative.
	And it's no wonder that the red ink just exploded when you start to pass out money in that magnitude.
	I'll give you one number that I think is just startling.
	But the... Federal statistical bureaus put out all kinds of data, obviously, but one has to do with the run rate of transfer payments by all levels of government, federal, state, local. By transfer payments, we mean obviously welfare, food stamps, but also Medicare, Medicaid, housing assistance, all the rest of it.
	The normal growth year to year of transfer payments was about $150 billion.
	That was growing, you know, and we've been talking about this for a long time and conservatives have been warning that transfer payments are undermining, you know, the health of the economy and so forth.
	But that was about $150 billion, $180 billion a year.
	During the peak of the Trump stimmy bacchanalia, as I call it, the rate of transfer payments Increased, surged to $4.9 trillion at an annual rate.
	In other words, the growth, that's the growth.
	That wasn't the level, that's the growth.
	The growth was $4.9 trillion compared to normally $150 on an annual basis.
	So the growth rate of spending that was being pumped into the pockets of everybody, employed, unemployed, high income, middle income, low income, everybody was getting it.
	State and local governments were getting it.
	Indian tribes were getting it.
	The Defense Department was getting it.
	Everybody was getting it.
	But when you look at the transfer payment element alone, The growth in transfer payments was 33 times higher than the normal year-to-year gain.
	33 times higher.
	So now do we wonder why the economy got totally disheveled, got knocked out of kilter so bad, why the inflation, which allegedly had been too low, I don't buy that, but that's what the Fed was saying in the pre-pandemic, Suddenly soared to 7%, 8%, 9% or even more if you measure it correctly.
	Well, of course, it happened right then and there when all this money was randomly, willy-nilly, pumped into the economy through legislation that was sight unseen.
	Let me give another illustration of how crazy this was.
	As I said, in the three bills, March 2020, Then December 2020, and then Biden's stimulus as soon as he got in the front door of the White House, March 2021.
	So that's 12 months.
	With $6.2 trillion of new money pushed out through every kind of program imaginable, no standards, no controls, no accountability, you know, and we can talk about some of these too, but Just take this number, $6.2 trillion pushed out within a 12-month period in which there was practically no hearings, no analysis, no diagnosis of where this might lead.
	The entire budget of the federal government going into the pandemic, let's say, you know, fiscal 2019, was $4.2 trillion.
	So in that 12 months, now when I say $4.2 trillion, that's the entire Defense Department.
	That's all of Social Security, all of Medicare, all of Medicaid, all of food stamps, all of farm subsidies, all of education.
	The whole ball of wax was $4.2 trillion.
	It was already, by our lights, Out of control, yet in 12 months, Trump sponsored effectively $6.2 trillion of new spending on top of that, or 150% more.
	Now, how in the world can any government We can't responsibly or even rationally spend that much money on a relative basis in such a concentrated short period of time.
	It can't. And so this really became the greatest fiscal calamity ever recorded in our history, and we're still living with it.
	And that alone disqualifies Trump from ever, in my view, ever being within a country mile of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
	He had his shot.
	He blew it.
	And he blew it badly.
	And, you know, the Republicans got to find someone else.
	Yeah, I agree with you.
	I like your term, bacchanalia.
	It really was. And what it did was it got people – you talk about easy money.
	Economists always talk about, well, the Fed's going to lower interest rates and they're going to do quantitative easing and they're going to print money and all the rest of the stuff.
	I mean, this was way beyond that.
	And everybody participated – Directly in it.
	This is not something that's flowing through Wall Street or the banks.
	Everybody participated directly in that.
	And I think down the road, you know, we've already had Andrew Yang based his little candidacy on it, Universal Basic Income.
	We had Michael Bloomberg talking about how he's going to pacify people once he took their jobs.
	Well, you know, Trump took their jobs and gave them a taste of this stuff.
	And there's going to be this memory in the population.
	It's like, yeah, I remember when that happened back in 2020.
	And that was really a good time, as you pointed out.
	We didn't have to work and, you know, the money was still there.
	Yeah, I'm all for universal basic income.
	And that is a path to slavery, just like all these welfare programs.
	It's a path to dependency.
	And so when you look at that, when you look at the medical martial law that was there, and we haven't even talked about what's going to happen with commercial real estate, you know, they They set this time bomb up, locking everything down, closing businesses.
	Now the small mom-and-pop businesses are not there and people are not going back to work.
	This commercial real estate issue is going to unwind through the banking sector as well, isn't it?
	Yeah, you know, and I like your term.
	I actually use it in my book, Medical Martial Law.
	Good. That's what it was, okay?
	I got called out by the Daily Beast for that in April, the first week of April.
	They said, look at this conspiracy theorist down here.
	He's calling this medical martial law.
	We've got to lock down. Everybody's going to die.
	Yeah. But it was.
	Going back to my number, when you shrink the GDP by a third overnight, when you wipe out 42 years worth of growth in one of the biggest job sectors in the economy, if that isn't martial law, I don't know what is.
	And also, you know, martial law has a connotation that it's arbitrary, that it's, you know, dictatorial, authoritarian, without rhyme or reason.
	And that's exactly what happened during the Trump lockdowns.
	Half of these sectors that were being locked down, like nightclubs and gyms, well, those were elderly people, okay?
	Those were young people.
	And they were told that you can't engage in commerce because...
	You know, some older, co-morbid person might be impacted.
	Now, that gets into the whole other part of this, the medical freedom part.
	And, you know, Trump would like to say, and I have a quote in the book, by the way, from him.
	One, like, two days.
	This was two days after the March 16th, you know, two weeks to flatten the curve.
	He said, many of you are going to lose your jobs.
	You're going to be laid off.
	But don't worry.
	Help is on the way.
	Washington will be sending you money.
	No, no, no. He actually tweeted that.
	And see, this is a big kind of...
	Additional point in my book, and that is totalitarian or authoritarian intervention against the Constitution in harm of free markets, in harm of personal liberty.
	It's very hard to do in a democratic society where people can react and they react badly when they're told, you know, how to live their daily life.
	But if you try to pay them off, if you try to buy them off With huge amounts of goodies from the Federal Treasury, at least you can damp down the political reaction and get away with it for a while.
	And that's what was really wrong with the $6 trillion of stimulus money.
	It was not only a waste.
	It was not only creating future inflationary conditions.
	It was not only massive add-on to the public debt.
	But also, it was used to remove the inherent political opposition that would have risen up in opposition to the lockdowns.
	I think the lockdowns wouldn't have lasted through June or May, even, of 2020, had not all this money been pumped out to the public to keep them quiet.
	And that's a big lesson for the future.
	Yes. And what that means, though, is now how did Congress get away with passing these bills sight unseen, trillions of dollars, we've talked about all this, without any kind of check coming from the financial system?
	I mean, any kind of opposition?
	The answer is the Fed monetized it all.
	If you tried to spend that much money that fast, Four and a half trillion dollars with a transfer payment increase overnight.
	You would have blown interest rates sky high if the debt to fund that had been financed honestly in the bond pits.
	But instead, Trump told the Fed, and they were happy to oblige, go out and buy in debt hand over fist That's called monetization, okay?
	And thereby prevent the natural supply-demand balance in the bond pits in the financial markets to drive interest rates high.
	Now, back in my day, when I was a budget director, the one thing that politicians feared was that big deficits would lead to crowding out of private borrowers, homeowners that wanted to mortgage small businesses.
	That needed to fund working capital or growth because Uncle Sam's sharp elbows would force interest rates higher and higher.
	That was the old crowding out theory and it was at least one check in balance on the propensity of politicians to spend and borrow.
	But once we got into the Greenspan era where the Fed Short-circuited that mechanism by continuously stepping in and buying billions and tens of billions and hundreds of billions worth of bonds.
	The crowding out thing didn't happen.
	The bond vigilantes, you know, stayed dormant.
	And as a result, the politicians got no signal that you're creating a huge problem here, a huge financial bind.
	And so therefore, at the end of the day, the problem goes back to the Fed.
	The Fed is really the culprit here.
	The Fed has enabled all of this spending, and all of this stimulus spending enabled all of this lockdown and curtailment of normal economic activity, normal economic freedoms, and it actually was a form of taking...
	Taking of property without compensation, without any kind of due process.
	And so you see how it's all tied together.
	If we want to lose our democratic constitutional system, the best way to do it is to keep the Fed in business the way it is today.
	Because, you know, in other words, Whereas it prints enough money to allow the Congress to borrow enough money to basically buy off the public and create the acquiescence that we saw to these terrible lockdowns.
	Now, finally, we're coming out from under that, But as you say, next thing you know, they're going to say the climate crisis, which is totally phony, is so severe that we've got to go into lockdowns so we don't emit CO2. It'll just be another COVID by a different name.
	Oh, yeah. You know, I think we're at a point in time where the lessons are pretty clear and we can't allow this ever to happen again.
	I think you nailed it when you said that it was the Fed that enabled all this.
	We could think of it as really driving the getaway car for this massive bank robbery where the banks rob us.
	Yeah. So they do the getaway car.
	But they weren't driving merely the getaway car, they were driving the getaway train.
	I mean, they loaded so much pork, so much spending onto those vehicles It's really kind of startling.
	I know people can hear a number this big, $6 trillion.
	It sounds pretty massive.
	But I did have the experience of being a congressman and then a budget director for a half decade.
	And I can tell people, $6 trillion, almost in one setting, that was all passed within 12 months, is an astounding amount of money.
	And it is certain to have every kind of adverse impact.
	Impact down the line, over time, imaginable.
	And we're just beginning probably to reap some of the harvest from all of that folly at the time.
	You know, you mentioned the fact that Trump came on and said, I know it's difficult, but don't worry, help is on the way, right?
	Right. And everybody, you know, on the internet yesterday blew up because we had the Secretary of Education, Cardona, say, you know, even Reagan said, the government is here, we're here to help you.
	And of course, you know, as you know, he said, I know, I mean, I've heard that story many times.
	He said, what are the most dangerous words in English language?
	And the answer, of course, is I'm from the government and I'm here to help you.
	And that's where Trump is, and that's where the Democrat Secretary of Education is.
	And so they're all on the same page, and they've got to tell people something.
	And yet, that's the key thing.
	When people keep looking at this, Trump opposes, in principle, everything that conservatives say they believe about economics, everything they think they believe about the Constitution.
	We didn't even get into gun control issues and things like that, that he kept off setting a precedent and doing that by executive order.
	So there's all these things that are conflicts, And yet they continue to give him a pass.
	So I really do hope that your book, which comes out January the 9th, Trump's War on Capitalism, I hope that can wake some people up.
	Because, and I'll just say one last thing before we finish here, and that is, when you said that...
	By financing this, you know, if they come out with an order, a mandate, that's going to be hard for them to enforce.
	But if they give it to you with a lot of cash served, and I said that about the 2020 election, I said, I'm not voting for this guy.
	Look what he's done to us for the last nine months.
	And, you know, he's turned us over to the bureaucracy to be ruled.
	Why do we even have an election for?
	And, of course, you know, they played with the election as well.
	But, you know, when you look at that, and I said to people, they said, well, you better vote for Trump because Biden's going to put mandates out there.
	And he did put out mandates.
	But I said, what? What Trump is going to do is he's going to incentivize it.
	And I said, that's going to be even more dangerous than the mandates because people look at the mandates and they'll push back against that.
	And so I guess that's really where we are.
	You know, when we look at this, there are other ways to push back against government tyranny instead of who we elect as president.
	And so perhaps, you know, if whatever happens with the Trump thing, I still think the most dangerous option is going to be Trump because people blindly follow him without questioning Anything they do, they will question anybody else.
	Any other Republican, and certainly the Democrats, they will question, but they won't question Trump.
	And so that's really key.
	You know, if I could just, one final point on that.
	I opened the book by saying the one admirable quality of Donald Trump is that he had all the right enemies.
	The Washington Post, CNN, the New York Times, the bipartisan establishment in Washington.
	The problem was he had all the wrong policies.
	He did have the right enemies.
	He did stir up, you know, the establishment to worry about their rule.
	But he didn't help resolve that.
	He actually made it worse by implementing all these policies.
	Now, the thing is, at the peak of government, there are two dangerous things.
	One is an excessively egomaniacal A person in the Oval Office.
	And the other thing is a person utterly unprincipled.
	Okay, so, you know, you could say Lyndon Johnson was utterly unprincipled and there have been any number of egomaniacal presidents.
	But when you put the two together, which is what Trump's problem is, he's an egomaniacal blowhard who is unprincipled and is likely to dash off in any unpredicted direction, expanding government, expanding borrowing and spending and the size of the state for no justifiable reason.
	That's That's the danger.
	You don't know where he'll go next, but he proved in March 2020 he's totally unreliable as a guardian of all the things that conservatives believe in.
	Oh, I agree. I agree.
	And in terms of competency, he can't even run a casino without going bankrupt.
	Which is the biggest sucker scam in the history of business.
	If you can't run a casino with a profit, how are you going to run anything else?
	The book is Trump's War on Capitalism, and it's going to be released on January the 9th.
	And so take a look at it.
	It might have some ways for you to convince people to actually hold him to his record and to get them to take him responsibly, be responsible for what he actually did.
	And that's going to be a task. It's a difficult thing.
	Nobody wants to oppose Trump.
	That's what's so amazing.
	It's like an echo chamber in the press.
	Everybody is afraid to criticize him.
	They want to tailor the news now to a particular demographic rather than to what is actually happening.
	Thank you so much for joining us.
	Thank you for taking on the headwind of the massive Trump movement and trying to poke some holes in this sale with the truth of what he actually did during his four years as president.
	Thank you so much, David Stockman.
	Happy to be with you. Great.
	Thank you. All right, again, that book is January the 9th, 2024.
	We're going to take a quick break, and we will be right back.
	Stay with us.
	Stay with us.
	Stay with us.
	The David Knight Show.
	Whether you're feeling like the blues or bluegrass, APS Radio has you covered.
	Check out a wide variety of channels on our app at APSRadio.com.
	Alright, welcome back.
	It's going to be interesting to see what happens.
	Again, there's no good options at the presidency.
	So, you know, when people say to you, well, who are you going to vote for if you don't vote for Trump?
	You want to vote for a Democrat? You support a Democrat?
	in there understand that that actually may wake up more people and that the way we're going to be able to fight this is really at the local level that's where we have the most leverage and we saw that throughout 2020 that people were able to cope with that at the local level let's talk a little bit about guns in the time that we've got left there's been some interesting developments in gun control and we've had in san antonio they decided to do a gun buyback program and i think
	This is one of the most ingenious responses to it.
	You've got a guy who's got a large YouTube channel, Brandon Herrera, and he went to the gun buyback show in San Antonio, and he holds up a sign and says, hey, I'm a licensed federal firearms dealer, and I will pay you cash, and I'll pay you more than they're going to pay you.
	Ha, ha, ha. Then the city, the police are going to pay you to buy back the guns.
	The city was offering people $300 for semi-automatic rifles, $200 for handguns, $150 for a rifle or shotgun, $50 for malfunctioning or homemade guns.
	But they gave the people gift cards.
	And they could only use the gift cards at the grocery store, HEB, one particular grocery store.
	Of course, most of the grocery stores in Texas in that area, almost all of them are HEB anyway.
	But again, give you a gift card at HEB for this.
	He was giving them cash.
	And so he put the sign up and he used that on his YouTube channel as well.
	He was able to get some really good buys because those are not very good prices for the guns.
	They've had people in the past have shown up with 3D printed guns.
	So they were wise to that.
	You notice that they had a different tier for what they called homemade guns.
	But it showed a couple of different things.
	The police came out and ran them off and said, you can't do it here.
	This is private property, so we're not going to let you do this here.
	But it also shows, as all these things do, that only law-abiding citizens are going to show up with this stuff and sell the guns.
	And then we have...
	The Biden ATF, and this is the way the headline reads from Zero Hedge.
	Did Biden's ATF expand the definition of suppressor?
	I understand that Biden's ATF is also Trump's ATF. Nothing is really changing.
	In the same way that we had what happened at Waco, that was Janet Reno and...
	Bill Clinton. Well, no.
	Actually, these same characters had also been involved in the Randy Weaver shootings and the tail end of the George H.W. Bush administration, and it was the same ATF people, many of them involved in both of those incidents.
	We have a permanently entrenched Unaccountable, unelected bureaucracy that persists between these different people.
	It's one of the reasons why I say, yeah, okay.
	So it all depends on who's president, does it?
	Really? No, we're being ruled by a bureaucracy.
	You could see that most directly during 2020 when the bureaucracy was telling everybody what to do, the medical bureaucracy.
	But, you know, we have all these other bureaucracies that are out there ruling us all the time that never change, regardless of whoever gets elected president.
	And it was Trump who actually accelerated this precedent that we're going to let the ATF do gun control by fiat.
	And so now they're doing it again.
	You know, they changed the definition of bump stock at the urging and bragging of Trump.
	The Obama administration, they said, under the Obama administration, the people who were running the ATF at the time said, no, we're not going to do anything about the bump stock.
	We're fine with those things.
	And then Trump wants it banned for political posturing.
	And you can only imagine what he's going to do in his second term when he's thinking about how he will be remembered.
	He's already pivoting to being a moderate on abortion and many other things.
	He's going to pivot on all of these issues to make himself look good if he gets elected a second time.
	And so they redefined a bump stock.
	They've redefined what a pistol brace is, and they've changed it.
	They arbitrarily do it. So now they're talking about suppressors.
	Or as they're commonly called, silencers.
	And there has been a tactic for, you know, they've sold things they call a solvent trap.
	And it's a way for you to make a homemade suppressor.
	Now, of course, if you make it into a suppressor, you still have to pay the $200 tax stamp on an annual basis to them, just like if you had a fully automatic weapon.
	Fully automatic weapons are not necessarily banned.
	You have to pay the tax.
	And that's really what they were coming after David Koresh.
	They said, well, you've got fully automatic weapons that you haven't paid the tax on.
	And so it can be deadly if you violate these ATF rules.
	And so the suppressors are treated like a fully automatic rifle.
	And you have to, if you were to make one from something, there's many ways that you could make your own.
	Some people just get something with a screwing attachment and they put on an oil filter.
	And that's got some issues with it.
	It doesn't last too long. Or you can screw on and put on a two-liter bottle or something like that.
	It's a bit awkward, but it is a homemade thing.
	But of course, so are the bump stocks and other things like that.
	But the solvent trap was something you could buy the part...
	You can put it together yourself, and they were allowing you to then send in your $200 stamp to have this silencer.
	Now they're going to say that if you do that, they're going to come after you because they don't recognize that anymore.
	And so they're just redefining what a suppressor is and what they will accept as a suppressor.
	So even if you're not going to be able to pay them the $200 for your homemade suppressor.
	And the penalty, of course, is 10 years in prison.
	Up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
	Same as being caught with an unregistered machine gun.
	Or you may wind up with an ATF showing up at your door one day and all of them piling out of the van and start shooting like they did at Waco.
	The ATF appears to be broadening its definition of suppressors, possibly labeling even end caps as suppressors.
	The ATF said the end caps by themselves are suppressors, even if an end cap is only part of an end user, if that's the only part that the end user has, I should say.
	The ATF clearly believes that the silencer does not have to be complete or functional before the owner crosses the line, just the mere possession of a single part.
	That some other people have used in the past to make a suppressor, but that's the only, you got one part of many parts to make a suppressor, they will then send you to jail for up to 10 years and a $250,000 fine.
	This is a very dangerous precedent, and of course, it always comes back down to language, doesn't it?
	The kind of tyranny that we have seen from the LGBT tyrants in terms of, you must say this, you can't say that, but always redefining everything.
	And redefining the language, redefining the terms.
	That's how they win the arguments, but it's also how they enslave us.
	The ADF also claims that users with solvent traps cannot legally convert them into suppressors even if they complete the proper paperwork.
	They said the originating company has already created an unregistered suppressor by just creating the solvent trap.
	And they didn't go through the appropriate steps to transfer it.
	So once those steps are skipped, they can never be made legal in the eyes of the ATF. Well, if you have, you know, the principle, I guess, is something that's the fruit of a poisonous tree, right?
	We see that over and over again.
	Except that if we apply those same standards to the ATF that we apply to the creation of a solvent trap or suppressor, we see that the ATF and everything that it does It's the fruit of a poisonous tree.
	Since there is no authority for the ATF to exist, then everything they do is essentially the fruit of a poisonous tree.
	They said over the years, many companies involved in making such solvent traps have asserted that they're permitted to manufacture, transport, or import these items because they're not yet complete.
	And therefore do not qualify as a firearms silencer under federal law.
	However, this is incorrect, says the ATF, because a component of a firearms silencer need not be fully functional before it is recognized as a part intended only for use in assembling or fabricating a firearms silencer.
	So again, this is an Orwellian line that has been crossed for this gun control dictatorship where gun control comes out of their mouth.
	It's bad enough when we have gun control that's being conducted by our elected representatives, but now this is the bureaucracy, and we can thank President Trump for doing that.
	They want to felonize gun ownership basically by regulation, and we have regulation without even representation.
	And they do it in direct response, or in direct opposition, I should say, to the Second Amendment, as everything that the ATF does.
	When you look at how they are approaching all this stuff, By going after little things like bump stocks and pistol braces, and now the suppressors, because you call them a ghost suppressor, something like that, right? Talking about ghost guns, and Jason Barker has talked about that a great deal.
	They're going after these things that are not...
	You could say that they're fringe issues, right?
	And by going after these fringe issues...
	To infringe on the Second Amendment, it's all this gun control around the edges, right?
	Instead of coming out and directly banning the commonly used guns and the commonly used ammunition, they're going around these things on the edges.
	And it really is infringement, isn't it?
	Which is prohibited by the Second Amendment.
	But again, everything the ATF does is an infringement of your God-given rights that they were told not to infringe upon.
	We don't get our rights from the Second Amendment.
	Our rights are there because we are human.
	So again, a very disturbing precedent that keeps another gift from Trump.
	Thank you very much for the tip.
	I appreciate that. Sergey is the one who did that excellent documentary on the World Economic Forum, putting together the core stuff about the World Economic Forum that I used on the show, opened the show with on Friday after Thanksgiving.
	SoloCat1980, Reagan and Trump.
	Both could deliver a conservative-sounding speech that they probably did not write.
	That's right, yeah. It was...
	What's the writer?
	She writes now still for the Wall Street Journal.
	Peggy... It'll come to me eventually.
	But anyway, she was a speechwriter.
	And she wrote some good speeches.
	But of course, totally disconnected.
	And when you look at a candidate, there was hope that because Trump had never been a politician before, he had no record...
	Except for his many donations and all of his support for Hillary Clinton.
	That was troubling. But if somebody identifies the right issues, as David Stockman said, he had all the right enemies.
	And he had identified all the, he had said the right things about all the right issues that needed to be opposed.
	But of course he did everything wrong.
	And he brought those enemies into his cabinet and put them in charge of things.
	And then they became his enemies as he kicked them out.
	But anyway, Solo Cat says their actions and their inactions prove that they were not conservative.
	Absolutely right.
	On Rumble, Geesebusters, thank you very much for the tip.
	I appreciate that.
	And on Rumble, Colton Kimberly, thank you so much.
	That's very generous.
	Giving Tuesday, he says, well, thank you very much.
	On Rumble, Marty, appreciate the tip.
	He says, this is no rant Tuesday.
	And on Rumble, Ripper 6720 says, got to get the guns first.
	Then we'll worry about the law.
	Yeah, that's right. The due process and the law, as if any of that stuff mattered.
	By the way, to all the people giving us tips, I just want to thank everybody.
	I was going to put up a read the list of people who had sent contributions to us via Zelle and mail that we got.
	And so we updated that yesterday.
	As I said, I was working through the weekend on trying to get these Christmas songs done.
	And had not updated that.
	We are now, I don't know if it's been updated on the site or not, but we're now just over 75%.
	So we really want to thank everybody for the support that you have given us.
	We really do appreciate that.
	You know, if people listen, we really do appreciate even a small contribution.
	We keep seeing the same people, Geesebusters and Superfae and many others who are always supporting us.
	We really do appreciate that.
	But, you know, just a cup of coffee, you know, $5.
	With inflation, that is really not too much anymore.
	Five dollars isn't worth much anymore.
	So you might as well send it in as a part of listening.
	And if you think about the number of hours that we do in a broadcast, it's really cheap per hour.
	So we really do appreciate the support.
	And I'll just say that...
	As we get closer to all the...
	Oh, by the way, Karen will be upset with me if I don't, and rightfully so, if I don't tell you about our Black Friday specials.
	And, of course, I didn't mention yesterday we have the tumbler, the Koozie tumbler, and it is now $16.99.
	It is a double-wall tumbler.
	It has stainless steel outer and Triton plastic inner.
	Screw-on, leak-proof lid, 16-ounce capacity fill to the rim.
	It is sweat-proof, keeps drinks cold or hot for hours.
	And one of my favorite features is that it's got rubber on the bottom so it doesn't make any noise when you set the thing down.
	But you'll see that we've got some other sales there at TheDavidKnightShow.com.
	We will find a way to get this Christmas album out eventually to people, and we want to get it to some of our contributors as well who have already paid enough.
	We're not going to charge them for that, but we're going to try to put this out as something for sale on the album.
	We will give it to people who have been supporting us, but look for that pretty soon.
	Hopefully we're going to get that up. Thank you for listening.
	Let me tell you, The David Knight Show, you can listen to with your ears.
	You can even watch it by using your eyes.
	In fact, if you can hear me, that means you're listening to The David Knight Show right now.
	Yeah, good job.
	Ha ha ha! And you want to know something else?

▲