Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 25, 2023 - The David Knight Show

03:01:42

The David Knight Show - 12/25/2023

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	The David Knight Show
	The David Knight Show
	you. Welcome
	All right, welcome back.
	Joining us now is Mark Thornton.
	He is the Peterson Luddy Chair in Austrian Economics and a senior fellow at the Mises Institute.
	And so I want to talk to him a little bit about the Mises Institute.
	I refer to their articles frequently.
	And so I'd like to talk a little bit about what do we mean by Austrian economics, who was Ludwig von Mises, and a little bit about the Mises Institute, but he also wrote a book That is available at their site, and Skyscraper Curse, and it looks like with a crash in commercial real estate that we're going to be looking at a Skyscraper Curse coming back, the return of the curse.
	But joining us now is Mark Thornton.
	Thank you for joining us, sir. David, it's great to be on your program, but with government solving all the world's problems, I'm not sure if we're going to have anything to talk about.
	That's right. If we've got a problem, we just have it done by government, but especially at the federal government level, because all the problems need to be solved there.
	Tell us a little bit about the Mises Institute.
	The Mises Institute is now 40 years old.
	It was founded by Mr.
	Lou Rockwell. We're right here in Auburn, Alabama, and we're about economic education, really.
	From the perspective of the Austrian School of Economics, Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Henry Hazlitt, Ron Paul, and many others, we're the smallest But fastest growing school of economics, and I think it's the science really behind free markets, and we're trying to get it out to as many people as possible.
	That's right. Give us a little bit of an idea of the audience.
	When we talk about Austrian economics, you know, several of the founders were from Austria, of course.
	But, you know, what is it that's different about Austrian economics versus what we typically have with our, you know, what people learn in college with macroeconomics or Keynesian economics and things like that?
	Tell us a little bit about what distinguishes Austrian economics from that.
	Well, it was founded in Austria by Karl Menger in the 19th century and one of his primary students was Ludwig von Mises and Ludwig von Mises applied Menger's method which is based on deduction and logic and human action rather than on mathematical models and econometric analysis We're good to
	go. And everybody can basically agree on them.
	But most economists, which we call the mainstream, they go off, you know, and use their mathematical models and their econometric analysis to come up with anything they want.
	But with Austrian economics, you have to stay very close to the logic of human action.
	And through that method that Mises developed...
	He was able to develop modern monetary theory in his very first book.
	He was able to critique socialism in the socialist calculation debate and prove that pure socialism was an economic impossibility.
	And then of course his magnum opus, Human Action, basically laid out everything from basic economic analysis To things like the business cycle and fiscal policy and everything else that we want to basically talk about today.
	He was the person who put forward all of those great contributions and that's why we celebrate him and we try to extend his work and to teach his work here at the Mises Institute.
	And it's still not, you know, I know when I was in college and I was taking economics and we'd get to macroeconomics and it was like, okay, forget all the, you know, the real physical world of how your budget will work and everything.
	Because if we're the government and we make, if we make this thing really, really big, then none of those rules apply anymore.
	And it's like something about this seems really fishy.
	This is kind of like saying if I get a big enough rock, it's going to float up into the sky.
	Yeah. So, it was like, that just doesn't make any sense to me.
	And, you know, Austrian economics is really, as you pointed out, it's more focused on human action, on reality, than on this obfuscation of This fiction that this massive debt just doesn't matter.
	But of course, it's not that I think that Keynesian economics has really been capable of explaining things, because it hasn't, but it's been a useful crutch for the central planners, hasn't it?
	Oh, absolutely. You know, we stick with supply and demand in real world prices for the most part.
	Keynesian economics, for those who have suffered through it in introductory college courses, God bless you, is more like an exercise in plumbing where you have a series of pipes and valves and you have leakages and injections and all is more like an exercise in plumbing where you have a series of pipes and valves and you have leakages and injections and all sorts of plumbing-related problems that seemingly the expert plumber could
	And we all know that the real world economy in the US alone is made up of 330 million people.
	The worldwide economy is many billions of people, and they're all doing their own thing.
	The Keynesian macroeconomic approach of turning a few dials overlooks all of the basic problems, overlooks the negative effects of taxation, the negative effects of regulation.
	They just assume that, for example, regulations will fix problems at a zero cost.
	And the world will be happy thereafter, when in reality it distorts all sorts of decisions on the part of entrepreneurs, on the part of input suppliers, and on the part of consumers and laborers, and basically just gums up the work and works.
	And so Austrian economists try to stay very close to the real world and how it actually works And as a result, we have a general policy outlook where we want to have the government have hands-off as much as possible in every conceivable situation to allow the free actions of individuals that respect property rights and so
	forth, that that's the way to allow people to achieve their potential.
	And in achieving their potential, they're really serving other people.
	And it's really, you know, economics is thought of as, you know, a fierce cutthroat competition thing, but 99.9% of it is cooperation between employer and employee and Between the consumer and the supplier,
	between whole giant worldwide webs of networks of the factors of production coming together in order to produce the goods that we want to consume.
	So it's really much more of the idea that the economy is cooperation Competition certainly exists.
	We all compete on the basis of price, whether it's the price of our products, the price of our labor, the price of the resources that we own, and so forth.
	We all have to compete at that level, and that Profit and loss statements that we all have to measure up to keeps us all, in a sense, honest in this game of competition and cooperation.
	Yeah, that's a good way of putting it.
	I especially liked your analogy of this complicated plumbing thing.
	I think of it, maybe they should call it the Rube Goldberg School of Economics.
	Okay. You just keep adding another complicated bag on the side.
	Oh, this didn't work. Okay, let's add this other complication to it.
	It's highly analytical.
	It's highly complicated. It doesn't really work very well.
	I've always thought of the free market versus Keynesian economics as a neural net distributed system versus a centralized computer.
	It just seems to me that even if they think that they are the smartest person in the room, there's no way that they've got sufficient information to be able to do that.
	That's the invisible hand and the open market where everybody is interacting with each other.
	And that's the one thing that they haven't been able to do.
	When we look at the central bank digital currency and the surveillance aspect and the control aspect of that, that they're trying to impose on us, to me, it seems like, again, because it's ultimately authoritarian, it isn't like they're going to look at this and say, well, you know, what would be the most efficient way for us to do this or that or Now we've got more information about what everybody is doing.
	I think it is simply more of a ham-fisted, authoritarian, centralized approach.
	It's not really going to be leveraging technology to even get a better view of what is happening so they can run the system.
	They just want to run the system, whatever happens.
	They want to make the system run to their advantage, I think, is really what we're looking at.
	What do you think about this coming central bank digital currency, the efforts to do that?
	Are we going into a more centralized control approach in economics?
	Certainly, that's what the politicians want.
	Oh, yeah. The central bank digital currency, the only positive is that it's positive for central banks and positive for the government to oversee and be able to check on everything we do.
	There's no positive economic benefits to having that type of system.
	If they really wanted to have a close to ideal monetary system where they didn't need monetary policy at all, where they didn't need the vast bureaucracy, thousands of econometricians and tens of thousands of bureaucrats thousands of econometricians and tens of thousands of bureaucrats to manage the system, then they would go back to a gold standard that we established with this country and silver money and things of that nature to manage the system.
	That is the ideal monetary system for a human economy.
	And the idea that, you know, well, you can have digital currency, you can have digital money, but there's no benefit that they can describe that isn't just solely a benefit to the central bank and the government itself.
	And I, you know, it would be terrible for the economy itself.
	It would hurt A lot of people, there's memes going around on social media of all the harms it would do to certain groups, in particular, as is typical with policy, it would hurt the most disadvantaged groups in society, from the paupers and the poor people, the beggars, to people who live hand-to-mouth, to the people who don't have bank accounts.
	What are those people supposed to make of this Central bank digital currency.
	They're completely shut out.
	All sorts of transactions that we make on the fringes of society to the streets of Manhattan, cash transactions are absolutely necessary and required.
	required, it's really the only way to conduct business of any sort for those particular groups.
	And of course, it helps large corporations, it helps the government, it helps the taxing authorities, it helps the central bank.
	I think they're probably going to lure those people in with a lure of welfare payments and health care.
	Because that's what they've already done in India.
	Take the number and you get this stuff.
	Because it's all about dependency.
	And that really is a key way that they want to pull people in.
	And I think they'll use that dependency to rope in the poorest people and to get them to take the ID, to take the central bank digital currency.
	I think that's you're right.
	They're going to victimize them.
	They'll be the first ones inside the open air prison being surveilled and controlled with everything.
	You know, they could make the argument that, hey, we'll be able to we'll be able to have more visibility about the the metrics of the economy.
	We'll be able to fine-tune it and do that better.
	They may make that case, but that's not why they're doing it.
	They're just doing it simply for control, right?
	Yes, and I anticipate that they're going to cause some crash of the system where people are going to lose access to their money and lose access to their accounts and won't be able to transfer money.
	And whether or not the government can solve it immediately with central bank digital currencies, they will implement a central bank digital currency or they will attempt to implement a central bank digital currency.
	of them crashing the system in some way.
	And we're already seeing little hints of this where transactions between banks and settlements between banks are getting gummed up at various points in the system.
	And I think that a comprehensive crash of the system would scare people into accepting this idea of a central bank digital currency and that's something that they could pull off really at any time.
	And even if they didn't do that of their own volition, of course, we are talking about government and they have screwed up everything else.
	And so they can certainly manage to do something like that as well.
	I agree. Absolutely.
	By accident. Yeah, I agree.
	I got a comment here from Gard Goldsmith who has Liberty Conspiracy.
	And he says, when I was teaching Austrian economics here in New Hampshire, It was great to see how many students got it and then continued their education by watching Mises Media and getting Mises Institute documents.
	That's good. And, of course, I want to talk about that as well.
	And I want to talk about your book, which is available for free, right, at themises.org.
	Of course, people can also get an audiobook.
	There's a fee for the audiobook, but you have it in various locations.
	Welcome to my show!
	And he says, Mises almost didn't make it out of Nazi territory.
	He and his wife were trying to make it to France, I believe, and almost were arrested by the SS. Richard Ebeling did great work in the 1990s in saving a lot of his work that the Soviets had stolen at the close of World War II. Amazing stories related to his work and life and his economics.
	That's interesting. I wonder why these centrally controlled economies like Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union would want to have his works, except perhaps to destroy them, right?
	Ha ha ha. Yes, when the Nazis invaded Austria, one of the first things they did was send a crack troop of intelligence officers to Mises' apartment to get him and his papers and so forth.
	But he had already left the country.
	They took his papers, they took his furniture and everything, and brought it back to an intelligence lab in Germany.
	And we thought the papers were lost, but Richard Alboulin and others found the papers and In an intelligence warehouse in the Soviet Union.
	So when the Soviet Union invaded Germany, they took all of Mises' materials, thinking, because Mises had discovered that pure socialism, which both the Nazis and the commies both advocate...
	That's right. The Nazis were the national socialists.
	Yeah, the Nazis were the national socialists.
	That's right. Mm-hmm.
	So they both wanted this complete totalitarian socialism.
	Mises said, no, that's impossible.
	You have to have property rights, you have to have prices, you have to have money, you know, wage rates and all those kind of things determined in marketplaces.
	And so, the Nazis thought that Mises had held back some secret of how you solve the problem of socialism, and then the Russians, the Soviets, also thought that Mises had hidden that problem, and of course, there was no solution.
	Mises didn't have the solution to socialism, except that To get rid of it, to abandon it.
	And of course, the world has seen, not only was Mises right about the fallibility of any kind of socialism, but they've also seen that throwing off the socialist yoke in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, and to a large extent in Communist China, Once you throw off this yoke of complete totalitarian socialism, production starts happening.
	People are better off.
	People live longer.
	People are happier.
	And all of these things that Mises predicted about the economic system came true.
	And we could do that here in the United States.
	You can do that anywhere in the world.
	Just reduce the amount of socialism and government in your economy and you'll get the benefits of the free market economy.
	Yes, yes. And of course, this isn't a theory.
	We've had massive experiments to prove it.
	Just take a look at East versus West Germany or North versus South Korea.
	The same people, you know, exactly identical.
	And what you do is you cut the country in half and you have half of them living under a centrally planned economy.
	The other half have a freer economy, if not a very free economy.
	See the same thing with...
	Communist China versus Hong Kong.
	And of course, Milton Friedman did a long series for you to choose where he spent a lot of time talking about Hong Kong and how things at that time were very free in Hong Kong.
	So we've had the experience and we know exactly what this looks like over and over again.
	If you had a satellite picture, I've seen this over and over again, a satellite picture of South Korea at night and it's all lit up and North Korea, it's all dark because there's nothing there.
	They just completely destroy everything with their economic system.
	There was something that was a...
	I can't remember the name of it.
	I'm trying to think of the name of it as we started the interview here.
	It came to mind. The economic theory that's being put out by the Biden administration and these other people, that was really kind of the basis of their so-called Inflation Reduction Act.
	There was a woman who came up with this, and she kind of rejected the technical aspects of Keynesian economics.
	She kind of simplified it and everything, but it's still just an excuse for the government to do whatever they wish.
	Maybe you remember the name of it.
	I can't remember what it is. Well, Modern Monetary Theory.
	That's it. Modern Monetary Theory.
	MMT, and I used to always call it the magic money tree.
	That's what it really stands for.
	So yeah, Modern Monetary Theory.
	Tell us a little bit about that.
	Yeah, that's a long-established fable that goes back...
	For centuries, really, and is the basis, really, of our monetary policy, the idea that you can print up pieces of paper to create economic prosperity, that you can take ink and paper that are very well and good and productive,
	put them together in the form of a dollar bill or a million dollar bill or a trillion dollar bill, And somehow or another, that's going to create more resources, it's going to create more workers, it's going to create more energy and more productivity and more products,
	goods and services. It's always been thought of as a fable by economists, except now that we get to more recent times where economists are so unhinged from reality Well, maybe this does have something to it.
	Maybe we can just print up money and put unemployed resources to work.
	And so modern monetary theory basically says that you can borrow, you can print, and you can spend To keep the economy on an upward, an always upward trajection.
	That any shortfall from full employment, any shortfall of GDP growth from trend, you can just make up by borrowing and printing money and then having the government spend it.
	But actually, you know, right now, I think is a good case in point because right now the government statistics tell us that GDP is growing at a fairly brisk pace and yet when you look around the country and I'm sure many people in your audience right now Are suffering from inflation and lower wages and things of that nature.
	Why all the economic suffering in an economy that's growing at a brisk pace?
	Well, the problem is that they've been printing up money, they've been borrowing money, and the government has been spending it on programs and subsidies that don't make sense.
	In the family budget.
	It's not food, clothing, shelter, electricity that they're producing.
	They're actually doing things that actually undermine the production of food, clothing, shelter, and so on.
	And so that disconnect of economists And the implementation of that disconnect, that modern monetary theory disconnect, we're seeing that in real life today.
	Yes, the government is borrowing, the government is spending, the government is printing up money to pay for the whole thing, but what happens in the real world is that we're not getting the things that we actually need.
	We're just getting entries Yes, yes.
	Yeah, we've never had a more centrally planned economy where they're planning to shut down our energy infrastructure, change all of our transportation system.
	They don't have anything that works to take its place.
	It's all just rewarding their friends.
	When I look at this modern monetary theory, like you point out, it's just taxes and printing money, and you can't replace supply and demand with taxes and printing.
	But that seems to be what they think they can do.
	And you look at the inflation reduction tax, whatever they called it, they decided that when they print this money up, they give it to their friends.
	And if things get out of control, they raise taxes on their enemies.
	That's really kind of the way this thing works in practice.
	And so it's just another excuse, again, for what it is that they want to do.
	And so they use it as kind of...
	Economic theories is kind of their court gestures to do whatever they want.
	But if we get back to the real world, you know, we look at Austrian economics, it looks, you know, in the real world, it's got to follow the same examples that you have if you're running a business or you're running a household or something like that.
	And so with that in mind, let's talk about your book, 2018, The Skyscraper Curse, and how Austrian economists predicted every major economic crisis of the last century.
	Now, that's pretty large, but we've got this developing commercial real estate problem that seems to have been kicked off by the lockdown and people working from home and the vacancy rates and everything.
	And even in a booming area like Shanghai, because the Chinese communists wanted to show their power, I think was perhaps their motivation.
	I'm kind of reading into what their motivation is, but it seemed to me like it was a power play, kind of like Mao's Cultural Revolution or the Great Leap Forward.
	He decided that he was going to lock down Shanghai and show his authority there because maybe they're getting a little bit too much freedom and a little bit too much independence.
	And now you see there and in Guangzhou and so many other places that were bustling and Unbelievably crowded when I was there.
	Now they're ghost towns that are happening.
	And there's a concern that, you know, even though it's not at the same dire straits that Shanghai is in, New York City's got vacancy rates of about 40%.
	And you've got a lot of people holding these high interest rates that are variable that are just, you know, collapsing and turning them back in.
	How does that... The current phenomenon, how does that fall back into what you were talking about back in 2018?
	Well, the skyscraper curse is just really an illustration of the Austrian business cycle theory.
	And the Austrian business cycle theory turns on artificially low interest rates.
	That artificially low interest rates now cause entrepreneurs to make bad investments.
	Investments that won't pay off In the future when interest rates rise.
	And so, of course, we had more than a dozen years of artificially low interest rates because of quantitative easing, because of zero interest rate policy, all sorts of Fed mechanisms to reduce interest rates all sorts of Fed mechanisms to reduce interest rates to spur on the economy.
	They wanted to turn the dial down in order to increase investment and increase employment during a slow time in the economy.
	But, of course, it was slow because of the housing bubble, the previous housing bubble.
	And things started to look really bad after I published my book in 2018.
	In 2019, the economy was going down the tubes, and it was essentially saved by COVID and the COVID rescue package, which sent interest rates back down to zero.
	And the Fed soaked up trillions of dollars of government bonds and mortgage securities.
	So for those couple of years, you could borrow money essentially worldwide at almost no interest at all.
	And so we had a big boom of additional spending, investment spending in commercial real estate.
	On top of all of the real estate that had been built over the previous decade.
	And so we have a massive overhang of real estate, commercial real estate, office buildings, houses, you name it.
	We overbuilt it.
	And now that inflation has forced the Fed's hand and forced them To raise interest rates to try to squelch the price inflation that they in effect caused.
	Now we're seeing the initial signs of breakage in commercial real estate, skyscrapers big and small.
	Are failing. They're going into bankruptcy.
	They're being resold at a small fraction of what they originally cost to build or what they might have been sold for a few years ago.
	Now they're selling for pennies on the dollar or quarters on the dollar.
	I expect to see much more of that Going forward with the Fed holding interest rates higher and possibly inflation remaining much higher, much longer than anyone in Washington, D.C. cares to admit.
	Wow. Yeah, that's an interesting way to look at it.
	I thought about it as you were talking about it.
	I never really, you know, we talk about the stimulus checks, you know, that they tried to appease people, that they locked down and put out of business and put out of work.
	Now, here's your little stimulus check.
	But they wrote a really big, gigantic stimulus check to all the big guys, the big players, the big banks, the Wall Street people and everything.
	Gave them a massive stimulus check to keep this thing going.
	And it seems like, you know, the first bubble when they created the real estate, Bubble, the residential real estate bubble.
	Low interest rates, they kept them down for a very long time.
	You look at one point, the Federal Reserve just starts raising it, you know, like every month or whatever, a quarter of a percent, you know, 25 basis points.
	And then they just, until everything popped and it crashed, And then they started doing the same thing again, but even bigger.
	And then, as you point out, you got the stimulus check that's written with zero interest rates to all these bankers and businesses as part of COVID. And then the whole cycle has been started all over again since the real estate market crash, as you point out, with all the...
	The quantitative easing as well as interest rates and everything.
	They created it and did it even bigger this time.
	And then they started, when it came time for them to burst it, they started jumping it about three or four times as much as they did the first time.
	And created massive disruption with this.
	So as you're looking at this, you're thinking that we're going to continue on with inflation quite some time.
	Do you think it's going to go into a hyperinflation type of scenario like we've seen in Argentina or Venezuela or some other place, Zimbabwe or something?
	Are we going to go into really, really high hyperinflation?
	How do you see this? Well, I mean, I'm worried about that because it's not just real estate that's been borrowing money, but the federal government has been borrowing, you know, trillions of dollars of new money, trillions of dollars rolling over of the national debt.
	And remember, they were borrowing, you know, 10-year government bonds for less than 2%.
	Many governments around the world were borrowing money at less than 2% for 10 years.
	And now they're having to start rolling over that stuff.
	And so interest payments on government debt is rising because everybody's upside down on their portfolios.
	And as a consequence, the interest payments on the national debt have risen very sharply.
	From a half a trillion to near a trillion dollars now in a very short period of time.
	And we're adding a trillion dollars of national debt.
	It seems like every few months.
	And we're on pace to be borrowing trillions more over the next fiscal year with that interest payment on national debt increasing over time.
	And the Fed itself is upside down on its portfolio.
	So it is losing money now for the very first time.
	It's lost $100 billion in the last year.
	It's probably projected to be losing $200 billion.
	And that's added into the government's debt.
	And so everything is going in the wrong direction.
	And the only thing that has continued to hold up Well, the seven technology companies in the S&P 500, if you take them out, the stock market is either flat or falling and has been, if not for those seven giant tech companies.
	You know, so that's just not a good sign.
	And the other thing that's been holding up is the US dollar.
	The value of the US dollar has been holding up and it's precisely because all of the other currencies in the world are so weak that people are sending more and more of their money to be invested in the United States as the least Worst currency in the world.
	So that's been holding up.
	But once that starts deteriorating and that starts fueling oil prices directly, for example, yes, I mean, we're on the path to hyperinflation.
	We're early enough now that we could do something about it.
	But, you know, there's no stomach in Washington, D.C., To make the kinds of changes, slashing government spending, cutting taxes on workers and investors,
	rolling out or rolling under vast swaths of government bureaucracy, returning those resources to the productive side of the economy.
	That's what we really need, and there's no stomach In Washington, D.C. for that, there's no stomach for reducing welfare payments and curbing entitlement programs.
	All of those things seem to be off the table generally, and those are exactly the types of things that need to be on the table immediately so that we can get off the road not only to hyperinflation, but of course hyperinflation is just one but of course hyperinflation is just one step short of the road to totalitarianism and dictatorship.
	So this, you know, it's not just that prices go up and everybody has more money in their pockets and so forth.
	This is the road ultimately to the destruction of the economy and the destruction of the American way of life.
	I agree.
	And the takeover by totalitarianism.
	Totalitarian government.
	We're all, you know, everybody recognizes that that's the direction we've been going with the COVID lockdowns and so forth.
	That's the direction that our politicians have us I agree.
	Yeah. They want us on the road to serfdom because they'll be the feudal overlords that are going to be running this.
	I mean, you know, we look at this like, no, we don't want to go the roads, but they do.
	And that's one of the reasons why I think this appears to be really kind of a deliberate takedown.
	You know, I think it was last week.
	I think they did hit a trillion dollars in terms of just the interest payment on the debt.
	I think I reported that last week.
	It did hit finally a trillion dollars because I was like, wow.
	It's amazing, but as you point out, they keep going further and further into debt, and the interest rates keep going higher, so of course that's going to happen.
	And the famous saying, the road to serfdom, was actually the famous book by F.A. Hayek, who was a student of Ludwig von Mises.
	And Mises and Hayek both wrote books in 1944.
	Hayek wrote The Road to Serfdom.
	Mises wrote the book, Bureaucracy, and Omnipotent Government as well, Mises wrote.
	And they were warning us that the tendency in American government that far ago was that we were going in this direction where we just felt good about having more government programs.
	But ultimately, you would get to a point Where the people no longer had control over their own very government.
	That's right. Yeah, that's the path that it always takes.
	You know, when you talked about the fact that the dollar is doing well because we have the least worst of the central banks, it reminds me of, you know, we've got, I think it's this weekend, there's going to be the election in Argentina with Javier Malay, who is a free market economist.
	I don't know if you know him or if he's connected with you, but that's one of the things he was saying.
	We've got to get rid of the...
	The Argentine, I think it's peso, and we've got to replace it with the U.S. dollar.
	He says, I think all central banks are awful, but he said exactly the same thing.
	He said, you know, they're not as bad as our central bank.
	Do you know anything about Javier Malay and what is happening there?
	Has there been any correspondence with the Mises Institute and him?
	Well, he's not affiliated with us at this point, but we've written about him on our webpage several times, and we're following him very carefully.
	He considers himself an Austrian school economist and a student of Murray Rothbard.
	Who was really the great modern Austrian economist and our first vice president for academic affairs.
	So he's very much in our camp.
	He's a very obviously intelligent person and he's got the right instincts with respect to policy and he doesn't want to make The US dollar, the currency of Argentina, that's just a transition policy away from their hyperinflationary tendencies down in Argentina.
	They've tried these kind of measures in the past.
	And ultimately they've come back to fail and that's why he views dollarization as a temporary transition policy back to a sound monetary system of gold and silver where everybody out there in the economy Their money is gold and silver coins, something the central bank can't do anything about, something the government can't do anything about.
	If we hold money that has an intrinsic value and cannot be printed At the whim of a central banker or at the whim of some economist or a politician.
	So he's definitely from the Austrian school.
	We have very high hopes for That he'll do well and he'll be able to implement a lot of his reforms.
	But basically he wants to cut a lot of government spending down there.
	I mean they have a bloated government sector down there which forces the current government to print money to pay for it.
	If you cut the government sector significantly enough and you open up the free market economy then you simply don't need The printing press and sound money is really a prerequisite for sound government.
	That's a point that Mises made.
	Made a long time ago is that he was considered a medalist because he believed in gold and silver coins in the hands of individuals as the most significant guardian of the free market society that prevented government from, in effect, taxing the population through the printing press.
	Yes. And so...
	And of course that explains...
	That's right. The American founders experienced that.
	That's why they say, you know, it's going to be gold and silver.
	It's going to be minted. Because they'd lived through a continental dollar that was just a worthless piece of paper.
	Worth less than a, you know, not worth a continental.
	And so they wanted the same type of thing.
	He's living through 150% inflation.
	It was interesting. I found a book that was done by Axel...
	Axel Kaiser called street economics, very much like what you're talking about that Mises did, taking practical examples out of everyday life and saying, you know, this is how the world works, and this is why we need to organize ourselves this way economically and so forth, as opposed to, you know, the Keynesian abstraction and saying, you know, no, everything works differently when the government is doing it.
	That's become a very, very popular book in South America.
	He knows Javier Malay, and he just recently got it translated into English.
	But it is interesting to see whether they're going to come back to their senses or not.
	It seems like the biggest obstacle to him coming back is they're trying to throw Taylor Swift against him.
	Exactly. I mean, she's got a big popular following there, and right before they're going to have the election, she's going to be there for the opening concert.
	And she and the lefties that are following her are already starting to make noise about Javier Malay, so we'll see if he can beat Taylor Swift and all this.
	But let's get back to your book here, The Skyscraper Curse.
	That's an interesting title. Explain to us what that means.
	Well, it's just that there's a long history dating back about 150 years now where whenever a world record-setting skyscraper is built and completed, Right in the aftermath of that is a world economic crisis.
	And so what this tells us is that when central banks go through long, concerted efforts to artificially lower interest rates For a very long time that eventually somebody comes up with the idea that they're going to build a record-setting skyscraper.
	It's very difficult technologically, not just the money, but every time you build taller, You've got to come up with completely different and new ways of building a building, designing a building, all of the elevators and the water system, sewage, air conditioning.
	Everything about it has to change a little bit in order to make a record possible.
	And so you can go back into the 19th century and every time You see these low interest rate periods, a record-setting skyscraper, and then a big economic crisis.
	And so the skyscraper is really just an illustration of what's going on throughout the economy.
	Everybody's, you know, with these new low interest rates, everybody's implementing New technologies, stuff that is future-related technologies, and we're seeing that today with artificial intelligence,
	for example, that probably wouldn't have come about for several years, but because Google and some of these other companies have just tons of money sitting around, they were able to finance Those kind of research efforts and bring them online before their time.
	But the skyscraper, again, is just an illustration of what goes on In the economy, except for maybe mom-and-pop grocery stores and restaurants, where everybody's adopting new technologies before their time,
	they're changing their structure of production that's not really in sync with With the true interest of consumers, and as a consequence, once interest rates start to rise, all of these investments, all of these investments in technology and future technology really break, and it brings the economy into an economic crisis.
	I'm all for technology, and I love futuristic things, but if we do it, As a society, we're barking up the wrong tree, essentially.
	And the skyscraper is just a really good illustration of how that takes place when we can't really see it in our everyday lives.
	And I explain how this works using some simple examples for people to understand.
	And also examples of...
	How the economy develops naturally in terms of implementing new technologies and new production techniques and new structures of production in the economy.
	So there's a natural way to do this.
	And there's an artificial way to do this, and the artificial way leads to economic crisis.
	That's interesting. That's very interesting.
	As you're talking about this, as they build these skyscrapers and they're pushing everything to an all-new level, going to do this in a way that's never been done before, I'm thinking, maybe it's a Tower of Babel curse that's...
	Or the Titanic, right?
	We got this new ship and it's unsinkable.
	Because at the heart of it is really kind of a lot of pride that goes before these falls.
	But it is interesting to see that happening as a phenomenon.
	And as you're talking about this, the skyscraper curse, you know, one of the things in the commercial real estate As it's starting to become a real issue, they have these things called mezzanine loans.
	Maybe you know what it is, but I've never seen that before.
	For the people who aren't in the business, They said it's called a mezzanine loan because people do this high-risk loan because they're not at the top of the capital stack.
	And so they're further down if the skyscraper gets cursed and it collapses.
	They're a few floors down, and they don't get paid right away.
	And so it's much riskier, and they get a higher loan in it.
	But after the 2008 crash, The government prohibited that for the big banks that they bailed out, they said, because it's riskier, so you're going to do safer things, they said.
	But that's another level of risk that these small and medium-sized banks assumed in the interim, which is going to be another thing that's going to wipe them out, perhaps, because now these mezzanine loans are really, you know, they're collapsing left and right.
	Yeah, I mean, the idea that the government bureaucrats can regulate financing of investments is just ludicrous, you know, and they themselves opened up this opportunity by not allowing certain banks to be involved, and then yet making funds available to In the economy for 1% or 2%.
	So naturally, somebody is going to come along.
	Somebody is going to be willing to borrow money at 2% in order to lend it, making these mezzanine loans for financing large construction projects and earning 10% or 12%.
	Somebody's going to do that.
	Even though they don't...
	Yeah, that's right.
	They take the bait. Even though they don't have collateral in the building...
	And even though it's maybe not as long a term loan as the initial investors, the people who are covered with the collateral and so forth, somebody's going to be willing to take that bait.
	And I don't know what the overall figure is, but of course the market as a whole Thank
	you for coming on.
	Mark Thornton.
	And he is a senior fellow at the Mises Institute.
	You can find his book that we've been talking about.
	There's a lot in there.
	You can see that for free as a PDF or an e-book.
	They have an audio book that they do sell.
	But you can find other information, very useful information, at Mises.org.
	That's M-I-S-E-S dot org.
	Thank you so much for joining us, sir.
	Thank you, David. It was my pleasure.
	Thank you. And thank you, everyone, for joining us.
	And thank you, Dougalug. I appreciate the tip.
	tip.
	Thank you very much.
	Have a good day, everybody.
	The Common Man The End 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.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	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
	APSradio.com
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	I'm delighted to present something born from my love for music and the Christmas season.
	Christmas night is a perfect accompaniment for anything from family gatherings to moments of peaceful reflection.
	I hope us to provide a fresh take to the soundtrack of Christmas.
	Christmas night is a perfect ending.
	This collection of 20 instrumental songs brings new life to timeless Christmas classics.
	with original orchestrations alongside lesser-known yet equally enchanting carols.
	For the listeners of The David Knight Show, this is more than music. this is more than music.
	It's part of our shared journey.
	Christmas Night is available at thedavidknightshow.com.
	May it bring a little extra joy and peace to your Christmas season.
	Thank you for your unwavering support and for joining me in this new musical adventure.
	music Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good Christmas night.
	Well, today we're going to begin with our interview.
	Usually we have our interviews in the third hour.
	But joining us now, because he's going to be involved in events in New York City today on the anniversary of September 11th, joining us is Richard Gage, AIA, an architect of 30 years from the San Francisco Bay Area, a member of the American Institute of Architects, founder and former CEO of Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth.
	He's now independent.
	He, along with his courageous wife and assistant, Gail, continues to lead the charge toward a real investigation into the destruction of all three World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9-11.
	You can find him at richardgage911.org.
	Mr. Gage became interested in researching the destruction of the World Trade Center high-rises after hearing the startling conclusions of the reluctant 9-11 researcher David Ray Griffin on the radio in 2006, which launched his own unyielding quest for the truth about which launched his own unyielding quest for the truth about 9-11.
	The organization he founded, AE911 Truth, now numbers more than 3,500 architects and engineers, demanding a new investigation into the destruction of all three World Trade Center high-rise buildings on 9-11.
	As an architect, he's worked on most types of building construction, including numerous fireproofed steel-framed buildings.
	Most recently, he worked on the construction documents for a $400 million mixed-use urban project with 1.2 million square feet of retail parking structure and mid-rise office space.
	Altogether, about 1,200 tons of steel framing.
	Please welcome Richard Gage, AI.
	AIA Architect. Thank you so much, sir.
	Thank you, David. It's an honor to be here with you.
	Well, thank you. Let's talk a little bit about the key thing.
	You know, over my shoulder here, there's a picture of 9-11 New York City, the commemoration that they put up where they have two beams that are shining up into the sky.
	Interesting that they didn't do a third one.
	Let's talk about that third one.
	Yeah, we did do a third one about, what was it, 10 years ago now.
	We actually rented four searchlights, put them on the back of a pickup truck, and then from where we were, it looked like three beams.
	It was all designed to be that way, and we called the media in downtown, well, around New York and said, there's a third beam in the sky, and we showed it to them and tried to create a thing out of it.
	The third beam is about Building 7.
	Yeah. Building 7, most architects and engineers don't even know about the third worst structural failure in modern history.
	And most people in New York knew about Building 7.
	They didn't know it came down.
	And most of them didn't know that it went back up again.
	It was rebuilt.
	So that's quite a story.
	On the afternoon of 9-11, about 5-20, witnesses heard explosions.
	Then, this building drops like a rock, straight down, uniformly, symmetrically, into its own footprint, in under seven seconds.
	So this is exactly like the old hotels in Las Vegas when they bring them down with controlled demolition.
	You know, there's explosions first, and then the building drops.
	Yeah. Well, the building drops at free fall, David, straight down, but free fall means as fast as a bowling ball falling from the sky.
	So what does that mean?
	That means that not one of the 81 columns in this building gave any resistance to this seven-second-long fall.
	Well, where did they go?
	There's 40,000 tons of structural steel framing in this building.
	Well, NIST says that it came down due to normal office fires.
	But wait a minute. We have never in history lost a steel frame, fire-protected building, Type 1 construction, Ever due to fires.
	I mean, we've had dozens of much hotter, larger, and longer-lasting fires in these buildings.
	So not one of them.
	And we've had many fully engulfed fires in these kind of structures after 9-11.
	But no, not one of those came down either.
	So we've got to have a real investigation.
	And in fact, FEMA did that investigation for us.
	And others have done it since.
	But right away in 2002, FEMA finds in the metallurgical sampling of the steel...
	A hot corrosion attack on the steel.
	Its author, Jonathan Barnett, a fire protection engineer, says the ends of the beams were partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures.
	Well, what does that mean? I'll stop and let you...
	I'll take a breath and you tell it.
	An ordinary office fire.
	And, you know, I would just say to the people, because I've done this and I think everybody needs to do this, just go to YouTube.
	And look up building demolitions.
	And you can watch. You've got so many videos that have been put up that just chain one after the other.
	Watch all those and ask yourself if this is something that just happened out of ordinary office fires.
	Just not possible that this type of thing would have happened.
	I remember you mentioned that it was 2006 when you...
	I saw an interview of the researcher talking about this that got you interested in it.
	When this happened, my recollection, we didn't have any television.
	And so I didn't see any video of it.
	We had horrible internet as well at the time in 2001.
	We were living out in the woods.
	We weren't doing some kind of homesteading thing.
	We were just in an area where it was dead in terms of broadcast signals, in terms of internet, and all the rest of this stuff.
	So I was relying on friends and family calling because we had family in New York.
	We actually had a family member who was in one of the buildings and then got out.
	And so I'm listening to this and it's like these planes are hitting the building.
	Then they call back later and they say one of them just collapsed.
	And in my mind, I saw this thing going down at an angle, taking out a large part of Manhattan.
	It wasn't until years later that I really saw these things going right down into the footprint.
	It's like, what? What's that?
	You know, they said, well, it didn't hit any other buildings.
	I'm thinking, how in the world did that happen?
	And then when I saw it in free fall, that was, you know, when it's like, okay, okay.
	I know. I was mainly concerned with how they were using this event to take away our liberties.
	But then I saw what that was, and it's like, oh, yeah, that perfectly fits.
	It exactly does. It really does.
	And the evidence, they just give it to us.
	I mean, hot sulfur corrosion attack on the steel?
	Well, guess what?
	Fire, especially normal office fires, do not corrode steel with silver dollar-sized holes.
	It just doesn't happen.
	Steel is not flammable.
	And yet, out of the towers are ejected laterally.
	Four and eight ton structural steel sections landing 600 feet away.
	Ejected at 80 miles an hour laterally.
	Clocked by physicists.
	So these sections are freely flying.
	You can see them in the videos.
	There's thousands of them.
	And they are on fire.
	Well, steel is not flammable in office fire conditions.
	So here's yet another of the dozens of pieces of evidence we're going to talk about that gives us absolutely...
	This is not a classic progressive collapse, as NIST claims.
	Mm-hmm. They claim that the upper part of the North Tower and the South Tower drove the rest of the building down to the ground and then destroyed itself.
	Well, that violates Newton's third law of physics.
	There's an equal and opposite destruction when two bodies collide.
	The top part is the lightest.
	It's the weakest. It would have crushed it.
	It destroyed itself, even coming into contact with the first part of the cold, hard, heavy, steel, intact, and not hot.
	So, that gives it away, but what really gives it away is the videos.
	They don't show in these towers either of any of the videos a top section driving the rest of the building down to the ground at all.
	That's right.
	It had to be a little bit of a delay.
	It had to be a little bit of delay as one section hits the next one.
	You know, it would go down.
	It would have jolted.
	But it's a sudden, smooth transition.
	The upper part is destroying itself.
	Actually, it's not driving the rest of the building down to the ground.
	It's telescoping in on itself, disintegrating its internal cohesive structure.
	And you see these squibs coming out, particularly the South Tower.
	Dozens of them, squibs, are isolated explosive ejections.
	And they're emerging simultaneously out of the South Tower.
	And you go, what's that?
	You have to kind of look for some of these videos.
	But they're everywhere to find.
	Well, it begins to tip over the South Tower.
	But as it's doing that, these explosions are coming off of it.
	And it then begins to settle back because it lost its internal integrity there.
	Well, after the first three seconds, it's a very different story because...
	Well, then is when we have these belt of explosions down below that the first responders heard.
	156 of them are on record, orally, in the oral recordings, they call them, by Thomas Von Essen, the Chief Fire Commissioner, He required everybody to be recorded because he didn't want the memory to be reshaped by a collective memory.
	His words, well, 156 of these first responders talking about explosions, hearing explosions, seeing explosions, being blown around the building by explosions.
	Like a belt, all these explosions going all the way around the building.
	The building. Others further away said, like a train running under my feet.
	I like you wanted to grab onto something.
	The, the, the firefighters said like, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.
	Uh, like they wanted to take out a building.
	These are all on record.
	Some of them are released and more just on video.
	It's incredible. But then the building comes down in just 12 seconds, both of them, identically.
	I mean, these are very different damage patterns to these buildings through the fires and the planes, the columns breaking.
	But they all come down symmetrically, uniformly.
	And you can see the belts of explosions advancing rapidly down the face of the building.
	Individual explosions.
	Twelve of them, you can actually count them in the close-up.
	You can, but don't believe your lying eyes, just listen to the government.
	It's crazy. And, you know, as you pointed out, it's not just the freefall collapse.
	We've had a lot of fires before, and even since, we have steel buildings that will burn for days.
	And I've shown those when they happen.
	You see a twisted metal skeleton, but it doesn't collapse.
	You know, it might be bent over a little bit and everything, but it's still there because of that steel frame, even though the thing burned for days.
	And so nothing makes sense out of this as an architect.
	When you look at this, one of the big smoking guns about this as well is why haven't there been any changes in the way that they do firefighting?
	Why haven't there been any changes in architectural rules?
	Why haven't there been any lawsuits against the people who designed this building or against New York where they had the code and they did the inspection on this?
	Because they had already had...
	that it hit the Empire State Building way back when.
	And so they knew that was a possibility.
	That was something that they designed for, right? - Yep, they did.
	John Skilling said this plane could take two hits from a 707, which when they were built in 73 was the largest building to a plane of its kind.
	But the problem would be, he said, that the fuel would dump into the building, but the building would still be there.
	Well, it's fireproofed.
	Yes, it should have still been there.
	But if we look, we can get a clue, David, if we actually look at the In the dust, in the aftermath, what does the U.S. Geological Survey find in every sample previously molten iron microspheres, billions of them, all the samples, up to 6% of some of these samples All of them are molten iron microspheres.
	What does that mean? Iron, we haven't used iron in our skyscrapers for 100 years.
	This is elemental iron, not steel.
	It's molten, meaning it achieved 2,800 degree temperatures, which fires don't even get a quarter that hot, typically.
	These fires were probably less than that, because they're indicated by the thick black smoke.
	They were going out at the time of the collapse.
	They were oxygen-starved.
	So the USGS finds these microspheres, spheres, because aerosolized liquids form themselves into spheres by surface tension.
	That's just what they do. The EPA says, we don't know what these molten iron microspheres are or where they came from, but they're a signature component.
	Of the World Trade Center dust.
	In other words, it's not even World Trade Center dust unless it has these billions of microspheres in them.
	R.J. Lee, an environmental concern, confirmed doing work on this dust, says these are formed not before when the building was being built by the welders, not afterward by the iron workers taking says these are formed not before when the building was being built by the welders, not Well, wait a minute.
	What does that mean?
	Iron, molten iron.
	Thermite is the byproduct of thermite.
	Thermite is an incendiary used by the military to cut through steel like a hot knife through butter.
	So we have all the dust giving us exactly what happened here.
	We're talking about the residue of thermite everywhere in the dust, every sample.
	In fact, A team of eight international scientists, led by Niels Herrod in Copenhagen, find all of those, and they confirm that, but they also confirm something that others have not found.
	And this is little chips of red-gray material.
	They thought it was paint, but it's attracted to a magnet, so it has a high iron content.
	Well, this is interesting.
	Why does it have a high iron content?
	They do XEDS analysis, X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy.
	What do they find? Aluminum and iron, the key ingredients of thermite in the red layer of these dual-layered red-gray chips.
	They go, whoa, we've got to get to the bottom of this.
	They zoom in 50,000 times and they find nanoparticles of iron oxide and aluminum powder.
	Now we're talking about superthermite, nanothermite.
	They identify it as thermite because not only do they know the key ingredients, they put it in a heater, a differential scanning calorimeter, and it ignites.
	What does it do when it ignites?
	It makes all of these molten iron microspheres with the same chemical signature as the molten iron microspheres found in the dust by the US Geological Survey, R.J. Lee and others.
	So we know exactly where those molten iron microspheres came from.
	They came from these red-gray chips.
	So we have unignited evidence of unignited thermite in the molten iron microspheres and evidence of ignited thermite I got it backwards.
	Ignited thermite in the molten iron microspheres, unignited thermite in these red-gray chips, which are ubiquitous in all the seven samples that they had independently collected all over Manhattan, from all over Manhattan that were sent to them.
	So this is pretty incredible because when you reduce the size of these particles in these chips to nano, that's a thousand times smaller than the diameter of a human hair, the surface volume increases exponentially.
	So the chemical reaction is virtually instantaneous.
	You've engineered an incendiary, which works by means of massive heat, to become more explosive.
	Which works by knocking things over.
	Let me interject and say it's kind of like what we see when we'll see a grain elevator explode or something.
	It's because the fine particles there can ignite because of the increase in the surface area.
	This is something that is already set up to ignite in the first place.
	Well, you mean the grain elevator?
	Yeah, I mean, it's small particles of grain, but you know, when you talk about this, it's small particles of thermite.
	Right. Well, where does it come from?
	Thermite is made only in the most advanced defense contracting laboratories.
	Excuse me, nanothermite.
	This is very special.
	Lawrence Livermore exposed this to us before 2001.
	They developed the peer-reviewed literature on it.
	They called it superthermite.
	They did these tests on it, and, yeah, it ignites at 758 degrees in the differential scanning calorimeter, and that's exactly what these seven independent samples did.
	So we know exactly what this stuff is.
	They put out a 24-page peer-reviewed paper on this in the Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal in 2009.
	And it's literal proof now we've had for, you know, more than 10 years of this material.
	But yet nobody submitted their own peer-reviewed paper to challenge these results.
	It stands uncontested.
	So, I mean, people will say, oh, that's just paint, but it's been proven six ways from Sunday that these are extremely exotic materials and responsible for the destruction of all three World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9-11.
	If we got it into a court of law, David, it would put the real perpetrators away for mass murder and treason.
	Yes. Yeah, it reminds me of what happened a week after 9-11.
	That's the anthrax attacks.
	At first they said, well, this is coming from Iraq.
	And then they said, well, no, it's a special kind of anthrax.
	And then as they look further, as they tried to found a patsy they wanted to blame it on, turns out that the delivery mechanism, just like you're talking about how this is not just ordinary thermite, it's super thermite.
	They found that the delivery mechanism for this anthrax was also something that was limited to just two labs.
	In the United States, of course, this guy that they picked for the Patsy didn't work at one of those two labs.
	The bottom line is that the technology is very advanced and allows them to get away with this stuff, but it also points directly to them.
	It's a blessing that they've left us with.
	They do make mistakes.
	I mean, they're big. They've got lots of money.
	They've got evil intentions, it seems.
	They're murdering 3,000 of their own people here.
	And, you know, since in the latest...
	with the disease that's going around, this false disease with its false solution.
	Um, they, they've got a lot of power and influence, obviously, but we capitalize on and they just had this last week just before the anniversary, they said that they use DNA to identify two more victims of this.
	And they seem to find the victims just before the anniversaries, you know, when, when this And there's still over a thousand people that disappeared on that day that they have not identified, they said, with DNA. Let's talk a little bit about the symmetry in the pile and the destruction of evidence.
	Well, I'm...
	In the pile, first of all, you brought this up.
	This is extremely important.
	There's more than 1,100 people for which there was no trace found.
	I mean, 6,000 pieces they did find were small enough to fit into a test tube.
	Wow. And they were distributed 600 to 800 feet outside each of the towers.
	So the explosive mechanism was incredible.
	I mean, yes, we found 300 whole bodies.
	We should have found 3,300, 2,700 bodies.
	A lot of people were literally blown to bits.
	Absolutely. In fact, there were bone fragments a half an inch long found on top of the roof of the Deutsche Bank building across the street from the South Tower.
	How did they get there?
	These bodies should have been trapped between 110 floors, each of which...
	It was made of 4- and 8-inch thick concrete, and none of which are found at the base of the tower.
	We don't have an acre in size, these floors.
	We don't have 50 of them.
	We don't have 10 of them.
	We don't have one of them.
	What we do have at the base is a four-, five-story pile of twisted steel.
	Hmm. Where's the concrete?
	It's been pulverized in mid-air.
	All the photos, all the videos show just that.
	And it's been laid like a blanket of 100 micron average size dust across lower Manhattan from river to river.
	Three square miles of dust.
	That's where the concrete is.
	Which means what?
	That the concrete is not available to crush the building.
	If it's been distributed and pulverized in midair, well, neither is the steel.
	About 95% or more of the steel has been ejected laterally, like we talked about, outside the building's footprint.
	That's 100,000 tons of steel that's not available to crush the building either.
	And yet that's the whole theory of mist.
	There's so many ways to take apart that story.
	They said it drove the building down to the ground.
	It wasn't there to drive the building down to the ground.
	And yes, the North Tower particularly came out almost symmetrical, which means all of those columns had to give way at once automatically.
	Otherwise, it would have tipped over.
	Like you said, no jolt.
	It would have hit the cold, hard, intact steel.
	It might have fallen over if it was to be that badly damaged.
	But in reality, the initiation of collapse never would have started.
	And if it did, it would have slowed down and stopped.
	That's been proven by physicists as well.
	But we don't have the platform that we need to prove these things.
	Yes, yes. So much for the domino theory of NIST, right?
	Domino theories that led us into the Vietnam War.
	Now we have this domino theory about the collapse of the buildings.
	It absolutely is amazing.
	You're very thorough in terms of this.
	Of course, you've been on this for a very, very long time.
	What about the destruction of the evidence?
	I remember a lot of people that are still suffering after all these years It was because they were so bent on getting this stuff removed, as much of it as they could, and subjecting people to the dust because at that point in time they didn't care about masks.
	They care all about masks now, but they didn't then.
	And so it was a mad rush to remove a lot of this evidence, a lot of stuff that was still burning, right?
	Yeah, within two weeks after 9-11.
	This evidence is taken out from under the noses of those who would investigate it, like structural engineer Abul Hazan Astani Azzel from UC Berkeley, given a National Science Foundation grant to study the steel.
	He said they're taking all the steel to China to put it in a melting pot for 15 cents a pound.
	That's nothing. That's what he says.
	And others couldn't get their hands on it to do a proper forensic investigation.
	400 truckloads per day were lined up starting just two weeks after 9-11, taking this steel and putting it on barges sent to China for recycling.
	Wow. And prompting Bill Manning, editor-in-chief of Fire Engineering Magazine, to cry out on his magazine, the magazine that ties all the fire protection engineers together in this country.
	Crucial evidence, he says, is on the slow boat to China, showing an astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough scientific investigation.
	The destruction of evidence must stop.
	It didn't, of course.
	It continued at an incredible pace.
	This is the illegal destruction of evidence in a crime scene, but guess what?
	This was an act of war because of the attack on the Pentagon.
	So they were not bound, they said or imagined, by the rules of preservation of evidence.
	Wow. Yeah, it was an attack of war, wasn't it?
	But not from the people that they identified.
	And that's the key thing when you look at this.
	The government story, regardless of what happened, the government story is just not even close to being possible.
	And that's why you got involved in this, investigating it.
	Talk about the jet planes themselves and information that you found from that.
	Well, we know the planes hit the towers, but we don't know what planes hit the towers.
	There's all kinds of problems matching serial numbers.
	I do have firefighters that were picking up plane parts.
	There's some people who say there's no planes.
	But we have lots of evidence of planes.
	They're picking them up.
	They're putting them in the bin.
	The FBI is supervising that part of it so they can control it, certainly, because they don't want...
	They don't want those parts getting out.
	They got the wrong serial. What does that mean?
	Well, if you were going to execute a plan to bring down the tallest buildings in the world, at least in 1973, and one of the largest in Manhattan, each floor of this building was the size of a football field, would you trust?
	And this one wasn't hit by a plane, of course, and came down anyway.
	But for these two, would you trust hijackers who failed Cessna Flying School to bring those planes to their targets?
	Probably not.
	In fact, there was remotely guided aircraft technology in those planes at the time, though it was not well known.
	And this has been researched by several others, including Captain Dan Hanley, who runs pilot whistleblowers.
	Mm-hmm. 911pilots.org You can learn more about that.
	But yeah, there's some real problems with these planes where they switched out We're more refined military craft used with the same fuselage and wings which they had.
	And some people actually said they saw a gray plane.
	So did they have time to paint it?
	I don't even know. Now when you say the different serial numbers, where did the different serial numbers come from?
	Do they find pieces or what?
	Well, I don't have the details on that, David.
	There's some things I research, and there's some things I hear that have been researched.
	That research does exist.
	I'm not the source of it, and on top of my head, I can't take you there.
	Yeah, you focus more on the architectural stuff and the buildings.
	You know, I find it interesting, and I've said this before, That there really wasn't, even though we knew that there was remote control capability for, you know, commercial jets and things like that, because they had used remote control to crash them as they would look to see what happened to occupants inside during a crash.
	Just like you got crash test dummies for cars, they did that for airplanes for years.
	Yeah. And then immediately after this, you've got the war in Afghanistan.
	The stars of the war were the autonomous drones and things like that.
	And so, you know, they come out here.
	Oh, by the way, you know, we've got this fleet of these things now.
	You know, they kind of kept it under wraps in terms of doing that.
	But even going back into the 1960s, they'd even talked about in Operation Northwoods That they would do exactly this type of thing in order to create public opinion around an attack on Cuba.
	So we could fly these planes into buildings.
	We could take them out and fake the fact that there are people on board and say it was blown up over the sea.
	We could even use it to attack military stations.
	And we could use all that then and identify Cuba as the people doing it in a false flag operation.
	That was what Operation Northwoods was all about.
	They had proposed that. JFK shut it down.
	But they had already proposed that back in the early 1960s.
	And so for the longest time, they'd had the capability of doing remote control commercial jets.
	You know, it was nothing new, even though it seemed new to the public.
	It was not in the public eye.
	And, in fact, remote control goes all the way back to World War II, where we even had remote control.
	We didn't have to use kamikazes.
	But there's a plane in Florida, in an Air Museum, Air Force Museum, that is noted specifically for its remote control capability back in World War II. So this is not, you know...
	Some kind of sci-fi thing.
	Futuristic. Talk about, did you get involved, were you primarily involved with the three buildings in New York?
	And of course, that's a key part of it.
	You know, everybody says, well, you know, it was hit by a plane, and then it caught on fire in the plane.
	But, you know, the airplane fuel and everything, they believe that that would do that, and you've addressed that.
	But the Building 7 was a key thing, because it was not hit by an airplane.
	It wasn't loaded with airplane fuel and all the rest of the stuff.
	That's why they don't like to talk about Building 7.
	Or even this... Yeah, NIST says in the case of the planes that did hit these, 90% of the fuel was burned up outside the building.
	NIST is the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
	It was tasked by Congress to explain these collapses to the American people.
	They said the rest was gone, burned up in just 10 minutes.
	So we didn't have any jet fuel in these buildings for about an hour while they were burning, almost an hour, less in the south town.
	Yeah, you're right.
	But, you know, the public perception is, well, you know, of course they collapsed.
	They were hit by jets and all this kind of stuff.
	But building seven was not hit by a jet.
	You know, the key thing is three buildings but only two planes.
	You know, and that's the key.
	Do the math. Yeah, exactly.
	It's like two plus two equals five.
	You know, it's... And you've got witnesses that hear explosions here.
	Kevin McPatton says, like, ba-boom!
	Like you wanted to grab onto something.
	I knew that was an explosion.
	You know, because people who tell the truth around these matters, they get ridiculed.
	And so they try to be very specific.
	The first responders were extremely specific with regard to their quotes before the towers came down.
	And then many of them saw flashes of light.
	But Daryl, a medical student in the case of Building 7, says we were watching the building and there was a clap of thunder and then the building came down, crashing down.
	Very specific.
	Bill Rosati says there's a flash of light in this building and a loud explosion.
	We've got all the evidence we need.
	Have you been focused on the Pentagon and what happened there?
	Or are you primarily focused on the New York buildings?
	Yeah, I am focused on the New York buildings, but at the Pentagon, while there's controversy among 9-11 truth researchers about what did or didn't hit it, all of us agree that we need a new investigation.
	For instance, we have Honey Honger, who failed Cessna Flying School himself, Who is said to have maneuvered this 757 coming into the Pentagon, not dropping through the vulnerable roof structure to Donald Rumsfeld's office.
	Now, that could have been done, a dive bomb.
	A 270 degree turn and dropping 3000 feet per minute in what's more of a fighter jet type maneuver coming straight in and level with the ground hitting what?
	The Naval Intelligence Department, who was tasked with locating and accounting for the $2.3 trillion that Donald Rumsfeld had announced the day before 9-11, was missing from the Pentagon budget or unaccountable in it.
	So that's...
	That's really suspicious.
	Oh, yeah. Yeah, I had a friend who was in the military, went to West Point.
	He was telling me, you know, years before that, talking about cruise missiles and stuff, he said, you know, we can, they're so accurate, we can pick which window of the Kremlin we want to fly them through.
	I know. And then I had a personal experience, which I was caught between.
	Karen and I, my wife, were in this tourist shop in an area in Texas down in Wimberley, and there was a lady there, and she and her husband had retired from the military.
	And it was a slow season, and my wife is looking through, and I'm just kind of standing there.
	And she was desperate to talk to somebody.
	She just starts monologuing about their career and how they came here.
	She said, you know, when I used to work for the Pentagon, we were finding trillions of dollars that were missing.
	And we had all kinds of people taking early retirement to avoid being incriminated and everything.
	She goes, and then my husband retired, and I followed him.
	We came here and did this.
	She said, you know, it was really a blessing because it was in my very office where that thing flew through.
	And she could not connect the dots.
	It's just amazing.
	You know, she did not connect the dots.
	I said, who do you listen to for news?
	Fox and CNN and stuff like that.
	It's like, okay, okay.
	She's never heard anybody question that.
	I imagine if she heard it, it would all of a sudden, it would click with her like that, but it didn't.
	I'm sitting there, I'm thinking, I need to get my phone out and start recording this, but I was afraid she was going to stop talking.
	You need a sick me on her.
	Everybody who sees this evidence, and we're just talking about it, right, David?
	But I have a 30-minute, an hour, and a two-hour presentation that I do on these subjects, and it is overwhelming to watch this Building 7 dropping as fast as a bowling ball, falling out of the sky.
	We've all seen the old hotels, so we know immediately what it is.
	We know it was taken out.
	Therefore, we know it was part of the 9-11 conspiracy.
	I mean, it takes months of planning to execute these controlled demolitions.
	So, in Building 7, they say nobody died in this building, although there's one witness, Barry Jennings, who says he was crawling over dead bodies to get out of that building.
	Yeah. Regardless, the public is more open to Building 7 because it doesn't have the trauma associated with all of those deaths and the incredible jumping out of the building and then the planes hitting the buildings.
	So we start with Building 7 and people go...
	Oh, of course. That's a controlled demolition.
	That's what we do at the American Institute of Architects conventions.
	Before they kicked us out, we had gone to five of these conventions.
	And architects stop.
	We're the busiest booth there.
	They come around and they just look at this controlled demolition.
	We say, well, do you know when this happened?
	Because they say it's a controlled demolition on the monitor in front of them.
	And we go, they go, no, I don't know when that happened.
	Well, that happened on 9-11.
	Yeah. What? That's not a twin tower.
	No, it's not.
	This is the third tower.
	We tell them what happened. And then they're open to looking at the towers and all of the incredible evidence that we have there, just like a geometry of fireworks, freely flying structural steel sections, laterally distributed, trailing thick white smoke clouds on fire.
	Yeah. Which is the thermite, of course, and can only be that.
	It looks more like a volcanic eruption in the Tongan Sea in 2009.
	We show them that and compare the two.
	You can't tell the difference.
	Wow. Wow. That's amazing.
	What about, you know, the, what was it, Shel Silverstein?
	Was that his name? They had buildings at the same point.
	Very Silverstein. Okay, yeah.
	Yeah, well, let me say, because that's really important.
	A year later, Larry Silverstein's interviewed on America Rebuilds, and he's talking about Building 7.
	He's asked about it. He goes, oh, well, there's been such terrible loss of life.
	I was talking to the fire commander.
	Maybe the smartest thing to do was pull.
	And so they gave the order to pull, and we watched the building come down.
	That's the owner who built this building here.
	He says later, oh, I didn't mean pull the building.
	I meant pull the firefighters out of the building.
	Well, guess what? They weren't in the building.
	They were told not to fight the fire.
	They were told it was going to come down because the structure was weakened.
	It could come down on its own.
	So we're just going to wait.
	So hundreds of firefighters were nearby watching the building with these few small scattered fires that were in it.
	And they're waiting for it to come down.
	And sure enough, after these mysterious construction workers walking away from Building 7, hearing an explosion over their shoulder in the late afternoon of 9-11, looking back at the building and then looking straight into the CNN camera and saying this, You hear that? That building's coming down.
	A flame of debris coming down.
	It's going to blow up.
	Wow. It's amazing.
	It has a few small scattered fires.
	Yeah, it is.
	Yeah, and so what is the status of 9-11?
	I mean, many of us have looked at this.
	The evidence that you have given is just astounding, and it demands an answer.
	And yet, everybody seems to turn a blind eye to it, for the most part, in official circles.
	What is the status of any investigation?
	What is the hope of any investigation with this?
	They're on notice. All 435 members of Congress, or is it 535, right?
	We've given them our petition.
	Every third year or so, we go to Washington, D.C., we give them the latest DVD, the latest book, the latest efforts we're making.
	We talk to their staffers.
	They're very interested.
	They say, I'm going to get this to the congressperson.
	This is... This is really important.
	But nothing ever happens.
	So they're going to be held accountable one way or another.
	The media, of course, won't even talk to us.
	They won't. We've given...
	Well, it's not completely true.
	Geraldo Rivera had one of the family members, one of the engineers on, and he said, this looks...
	It looks suspicious to me, particularly Building 7.
	Now I know why there's 1,350 architects and engineers demanding a new investigation.
	Well, there's 3,600 now, right?
	I'm separated from the organization, Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth, but they continue focusing on getting the engineers going.
	I work on the public and...
	And the media where I can get in.
	But the way we're going to get a real investigation is by educating the public and getting a grand jury investigation, which is why we've submitted this evidence in 60 exhibits to the U.S. Attorney for a special grand jury investigation.
	Now, he's done nothing with it, and so we've sued him.
	And that's gone through the legal process, and now we're going to be taking the evidence to a federal judge to be given directly to a special grand jury and we're making a set of film 9-11 crime scene to courtroom and that is a series of two dozen episodes with myself and 24 experts giving the evidence in a boardroom jury a grand jury setting with our stand-in grand jurors we
	present all the evidence And Mick Harrison, the litigation director for the Lawyers Committee for 9-11 Inquiry, whose board I sit on also, we're partnering and making this film.
	He's going to be educating the grand jury and the public about what are the implications of each different type of evidence that we're going to be presenting, eyewitness testimony, forensic evidence, etc., And he'll give them their opportunities to subpoena people who might they subpoena for more information about this.
	What are their duties, their obligations?
	So it's an extraordinary film.
	We filmed it already in Washington, D.C. We're raising funds for the completion of it in post-production.
	And so people can actually get this film produced by becoming a co-producer.
	And your name's on the credits with a $500 donation.
	So all of that can be done here at richardgage911.org.
	So we encourage you guys to help us.
	That's great. Yeah. And so, yeah, richardgage911.org.
	And people can help to crowdfund that and to complete it because you've already, as you said, you filmed a great deal of it.
	I just need to get that together.
	That would be very important to do.
	You know, Richard, I was...
	I was talking to Jay Warner Wallace a couple of weeks ago.
	He is a cold case detective.
	And then we go back and look at...
	At murder scenes where all they've got is the evidence and the people, the witnesses to the crime or whatever have long since died.
	The detectives have died, but they've got that stuff there.
	That's why what you're doing is so important.
	And of course, he eventually became a Christian and he applied those same types of investigation to looking at the veracity of the biblical account, the Christian account.
	But the key is what we're looking at here.
	We've got over 3,000 murders just in New York.
	This is something that is not going to go away.
	And just as we see with JFK's situation, there's a lot of people who have maybe not yet come forward, but you have collected so much information.
	That ought to be damning in and of itself.
	And this is something that may be done by future generations, but the truth will eventually be discovered.
	And I think it'll happen when the people who have a vested interest in the lies...
	I think that the most important thing to do, certainly we need to raise the awareness of people to ask for an investigation, but by collecting this information as you've done and you continue to do, it is going to be a body of evidence that is eventually going to show what the truth is about 9-11, I believe. Yeah, I do too, David, and that's why I'm still at it 18 years later.
	I got really angry when I heard about this in 2006, and it's been fueling me ever since.
	Justice for the 9-11 victims' family members is my primary motivation.
	That's right. Yeah, it's hard to get your head around the death of that many people.
	And, you know, we looked at the beginning, I came at this from, look at how they're using this, right?
	How they're using this to destroy the Constitution.
	And they've laid so many authoritarian foundations for our government by using this event.
	And that in and of itself is criminal by itself.
	And that's another angle of attack to this.
	But the deaths of these people...
	I think this is going to continue to go on.
	I think people are going to demand an answer to this stuff.
	And the evidence that you guys have put together continues to expand.
	People are still looking at this, and it is going to continue to expand because there is so much evidence there.
	People can continue to investigate that, and the investigation is going to continue until we get to the end of this.
	Again, you know, when you look at these architects and engineers, to me, another smoking gun about this is just the fact that they haven't changed any firefighting procedures, they haven't changed any building codes based on this.
	They want us to believe that this is an ordinary fire that took down Building 7, but no building code changes.
	Is that correct? There's no changes to the structural codes at all.
	They've added some fireproofing, they've added some stairs, get people out faster, but nothing to keep a building from free-falling due to a few small scattered fires.
	So that's telling. It's extremely telling.
	And the firefighting policies...
	They're still going into burning buildings without fear of them coming down because they don't know about Building 7.
	It wasn't the big controversy in architecture or in firefighting manuals.
	The NFPA doesn't even discuss it and yet is the third worst structural failure in modern history due to fires.
	And the National Fire Protection Association is ignoring it, which is why we went to their convention in Las Vegas this summer and before that, Boston.
	Oh, good. Last year.
	Good. Again, the whole story, they're just blown away because they say we go into skyscrapers routinely to put out fires, Big fires, much bigger than the few small fires they had in Building 7.
	So their policies have not changed.
	And I'm one of 90,000 members of the American Institute of Architects, and we have not received one bulletin on this major disaster of a collapse.
	It was just completely swept under the rug.
	Yeah, absolutely. I remember years ago, I talked to Tony Rook of the UK, and they were trying to get firefighters together there to ask these same questions, you know, because they're using the same kind of rules as we do, the same kind of guidelines for the building.
	Do you realize Building 7 wasn't hit by a plane?
	It burned down ordinary fire, supposedly, according to...
	Why aren't we changing anything that we do?
	And so this is a concern that...
	Beyond this country, in terms of people looking at these rules.
	Tell us what you're doing today in New York.
	I know you're there for a special event.
	Yep. This is an exciting day for those of us who have the passion in our hearts to reach the public.
	I know it's a very sorrowful day, too, because we lost so many.
	Yes. But this is the opportunity for us to tell them the truth about those who died and how and why.
	Some people get into the why.
	I don't as much.
	But we'll be at Ground Zero on VZ Street near Building 7.
	All day. And we brought hundreds and hundreds of brochures to hand out.
	We're going to be telling people that right there stood Building 7, 47 stories.
	It came down to, it wasn't hit by a plane.
	Did you hear about it? I heard something about it.
	It's fairly typical.
	But then you give them the facts and they just wake up and give them the brochure, which has a complete outline of all the information we discussed, which is, by the way, available.
	Our brochure, our DVDs, the documentary 9-11 Explosive Evidence Experts Speak Out is on our website.
	RichardGage911.org But we tell them all of this and there's some people who can't hear it, David.
	They'll get angry.
	And we give them love.
	We were there too.
	I was. I wanted to go into Afghanistan and Iraq and get those you-know-whats that did this to us.
	I was a flag-waving Reagan Republican.
	When I heard David Ray Griffin on the radio in the San Francisco Bay Area March 29th, my world turned upside down as I was hearing this evidence and went to see Kim speak.
	The next night, they were sold out.
	600 people packed in the Grand Lake Theater.
	I had to go home and watch on live stream.
	I had to prove this.
	So I made a PowerPoint.
	I took it to the firm I worked for, 14 Architects.
	Because they had thought I was kind of nuts, but over the next couple of months, I assembled this research.
	I took it to them. I bought them pizza.
	I made them come in and drive them.
	Forty-five minutes of visual, technical evidence.
	All of them agreed. Oh, my God, you're right.
	These are controlled demolitions.
	We've got to have a real investigation.
	Now there's 3,600 architects and engineers demanding just that.
	Well, thank you so much for caring about the truth and your consistent holding to it and pushing for it.
	That's the key thing.
	If you've got the truth, It's the other people who run away from this.
	The other people who don't want to debate it.
	The other people who don't want to show what is there.
	You've got the truth. You're not worried about debating it.
	Now, the documentary you mentioned, Explosive Evidence, that's at RichardGage911.org.
	That is not the one that is currently under crowdsourcing.
	There's already one that's finished.
	Is that correct? Yeah, that one combined experts and that was made 10 years ago.
	9-11 explosive evidence.
	Now we're propelling it into a new dimension.
	9-11 crime scene to courtroom.
	That's the one that we're finishing up.
	We've already filmed it. It's been filmed in Washington, D.C., at the Supreme Court, and at our venue for a special grand jury investigation.
	It's extraordinary.
	It's the most comprehensive body of evidence we've ever compiled, also.
	Which is why it's 24 episodes, but they range from 10 minutes to 20 minutes each.
	That's great. Well, you know, that's the key thing.
	And again, I just want to thank you because I know that it's difficult to swim against the tide.
	And, you know, when you tell somebody something that they don't want to believe, they've already heard something else, and the government is pushing, and all the authorities and the experts are pushing in a different direction, and this is settled.
	You know, we hear that. We've got settled science about climate.
	We've got settled science about the pandemic and all the rest of the stuff.
	And when the experts and the government are all telling you this, and you come out with it, you know, then they've got these...
	Pejorative terms that they throw at you, conspiracy theorists, and all the rest of the stuff.
	You're a lunatic, your tinfoil hat, and the rest of this.
	So kudos to you for standing by what you know to be true for so many years and for pushing this.
	It is making a difference.
	The truth is eventually going to be understood by the wide majority of people, and the people who are going to be...
	Tart and feathered by future generations, in retrospect, are the people who lied to us and who continue to cover this stuff up.
	So thank you so much for doing that.
	Again, it is RichardGage911.org, and I even had someone, Richard, contact me who had already set up the interview, and he said, I hope you cover 9-11 on Monday.
	I'm in New York. So that listener, you can find Richard there at the site of Building 7, and he'll be there all day, right?
	Is that correct? Yep. You bet.
	Good. Thank you so much for what you're doing at Tireless Pursuit of Truth.
	We'll be right back, folks.
	Stay with us. Thank you. The Common Man.
	They created common core to dumb down our children.
	They created common past to track and control us.
	Their commons project to make sure the commoners own nothing.
	And the communist future.
	They see the common man as simple, unsophisticated, ordinary.
	But each of us has worth and dignity created in the image of God.
	That is what we have in common.
	That is what they want to take away.
	Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation.
	They desire to know everything about us while they hide everything from us.
	It's time to turn that around and expose what they want to hide.
	Please share the information and links you'll find at TheDavidNightShow.com.
	Thank you for listening.
	Thank you for sharing. TheDavidKnightShow.com Thank
	The End
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	The End Hear news now at APSRadioNews.com or get the APS Radio app and never miss another story.
	I'm delighted to present something born from my love for music and the Christmas season.
	Christmas night is a perfect accompaniment for anything from family gatherings to moments of peaceful reflection.
	I hope is to provide a fresh take to the soundtrack of Christmas.
	This collection of 20 instrumental songs brings new life to timeless Christmas classics.
	The End with original orchestrations alongside lesser-known yet equally enchanting carols.
	For the listeners of The David Knight Show, this is more than music. this is more than music.
	It's part of our shared journey.
	Christmas Night is available at thedavidknightshow.com.
	May it bring a little extra joy and peace to your Christmas season.
	Thank you for your unwavering support and for joining me in this new musical adventure.
	music Merry Christmas to all, and all a good Christmas night.
	Merry Christmas to all, and all a good Christmas night.
	It is yancelaw.com.
	That's Y-O-U-N-T-S, yancelaw.com.
	And we've got so many things that have happened legally that I would like to talk to him about.
	He contacted me and said he'd like to talk about Trump's indictment and the GOP debate.
	But, of course, there's been a lot of things that have happened, Mr.
	Jan, since we last talked about the military mandates.
	What is the current status, as far as you know, on that?
	Have they made anybody whole on this?
	We just had some whistleblowers talking about the DMED database and how many conditions have escalated, even after they went back and said, oh, well, you know, you're comparing this to the previous five years.
	Oh, the previous five years are all wrong.
	Even after they went back and manipulated the data, it's still a huge increase.
	What is happening in terms of the military and this vaccine?
	Yeah, so unfortunately, not a lot has changed when we look at trying to make military members whole as well as trying to get really solid military members back into the service.
	So you still have more than 12,000 military members that were kicked out.
	They were alleged to have committed misconduct because they had a religious accommodation that was unlawfully denied.
	Those individuals are still out there, still struggling with negative service connotation on their DD-214.
	And unfortunately, you know, the decimation that happened.
	Remember, at one point there were 264,000 members of the military that were not fully vaccinated.
	Many, many of those, and no one has accurate data on it.
	And there's reasons why they don't, I'm sure.
	But many, many thousands simply left the military.
	They either retired, retired early, didn't re-enlist or otherwise.
	So those folks are still out there.
	So a lot of the work I'm doing now is going to be based on trying to restore rights to military members who were persecuted for their religious faith, try to make them whole, as well as try to get others back into military service that were Wow.
	Wow. Some of my clients are telling me there's a lot of chatter from commanders from the Pentagon talking about what it would look like to bring a new mandate back.
	Yeah, we just had Biden saying, yeah, we're going to have a new vaccine and this one's going to work.
	So, yeah, they're going to try.
	And, of course, they can force the people.
	Yeah. In the military, they can try to force the people without it.
	Jason Barker was a listener who was in the military at the time, and he wrote a great letter that we had on our website for quite some time outlining his religious objections to it.
	A lot of people used that that were in the military, but even people who were nurses and other things, who were there having that dictated by their employer.
	He hung in until he got up to his 20 years.
	He was getting pretty close to it.
	He's one of those people who left as he got to that point, and he's now a commentator with Knights of the Storm.
	So he's out there still doing good work telling people about this stuff.
	But, yeah, they've pushed so many people out, and as you pointed out last time we were talking, people who managed to remain in now that they've kind of paused this mandate, if you're still there, they're saying, well, you can't do this and you can't do that, and that's going to essentially drive them out of their career if they're blocked from being able to do certain things that they have to do in order to get a promotion, right?
	That's absolutely right.
	So the impact still exists.
	It's still there. It's still a problem.
	And again, nothing Congress has done so far prevents the DOD from issuing a new mandate.
	So if we look at the leadership in the White House, we look at the mentality of senior military leadership, we're looking at a real issue.
	Now, I think... There's also a possibility of a budget fight, right?
	So if Congress does engage in a budget fight and starts talking about funding for the military and those things, it's possible they will hold off until some sort of a budget agreement is reached.
	But I am concerned we're going to see increasing chatter in September.
	And then if there's some sort of a budget deal that happens, I fear if there's going to be a new mandate, it will follow shortly on the heels of that.
	And since we've established with Warp Speed that they don't have to test any vaccines or anything like that anymore, this quote-unquote new vaccine, that could appear any day now as well.
	They don't have to do any testing whatsoever.
	We've established that as a precedent.
	That's going to stick with us.
	It's already sticking with one type of medication after the other, isn't it?
	Absolutely right. And remember, still to this day, they're not manufacturing the FDA-approved version of these vaccines for COVID. They're still not manufacturing the FDA-approved version, which is still an unresolved legal issue when we talk about the military and others.
	So tons of issues.
	And unfortunately, they're going to continue for our military members as well as anyone else, particularly those that work for, you know, liberal state governments or the federal government.
	And you're talking about the label specifically, right?
	The Corbinati issue, is that correct?
	That's absolutely right. Which the FDA said, look, these products are identical, but they're legally distinct.
	Well, if they're legally distinct and you haven't approved the one that's available in the United States, then how can you legally try to require people to have this?
	That's the fundamental issue.
	It's just this kind of double talk that we see happening all the time with all of these issues.
	That's what the government has become, isn't it?
	That's right. Yeah. It's become more about political will than the rule of law, unfortunately.
	That's right. That's right. Well, when we talk about political will versus the rule of law, you want to talk about the indictments happening in Georgia.
	That is truly amazing.
	I think many people have talked about how this has criminalized free speech in the practice of law.
	What's your opinion of that?
	Yeah, I think that's the biggest concern I have as we try to look at this indictment, right?
	So Georgia is using sort of a very robust RICO statute, the Racketeer Influence Corrupt Organizations Act.
	This is something used to go after the mafia.
	And the reason that it's attractive to prosecutors is you can essentially...
	Group people together, say 20 people, 19 people are part of a conspiracy, and then try to hold each individual member responsible for all of the actions of everyone else in the conspiracy, right?
	So this is what was used to take down the mob.
	It's important to understand that.
	You don't have to get someone for murder.
	You just have to say that a murder happened and it was part of the organization.
	Well, now what's interesting about what's happening in Georgia is they're bringing all of these other individuals in and they're arguing that things that were done after the election that dealt with trying to investigate and try to understand whether or not there was election fraud or election interference.
	And that's being charged as a conspiracy.
	Yeah, it is amazing.
	So imagine, I mean, things like phone calls, things like phone calls to individuals responsible for ensuring a free and fair election and saying, hey, we're hearing concerns.
	We're hearing problems with drop boxes.
	We're hearing things like people are coming in the middle of the night and putting hundreds of ballots in a drop box.
	Can we look into that?
	Are you seeing these same concerns?
	Is there anything we can do to try to understand what happened, right?
	So I haven't seen anything yet, and I'm a former federal prosecutor.
	I'm a former defense counsel.
	I still practice criminal law.
	I haven't seen anything that goes to this idea, what we are going to do is change the outcome of the election.
	Our intent is to change the outcome of the election.
	You don't see that.
	What you see is we don't agree with the outcome.
	We have concerns about the outcome.
	We think there may have been fraud.
	But the narrative that you hear in all of the media continues to be there was no fraud.
	It was a fair election.
	But look at 2016.
	The same media was saying there was Russian interference.
	It wasn't a federal election.
	You can see multiple times where former presidential candidates like Hillary Clinton said, hey, the election was stolen.
	Right.
	Unproven interference there.
	So, again, my big concern about what's happening in Georgia is you are using a county that is very, very heavily Democrat.
	Right.
	70, 75 percent of the voters in that county are registered Democrats.
	You're using an elected official, a DA, to bring a conspiracy charge against individuals who were, at worst, at worst, trying to determine whether or not there was fraud, and based on their belief that there was fraud in the election, figure out legal means, legal means with which to challenge the election and the outcome of the election.
	Very, very dangerous precedent.
	Now, there may be things that were done that were illegal, but it's very, very dangerous precedent to do that because now you're creating a scenario where, I mean, frankly, if we take If we take morality out of it, we take ethics out of it or anything else, you're creating more and more incentive for politicians to cheat in elections because if you lose, you're gonna be criminally prosecuted.
	I mean, is that really what we want going forward?
	Again, those are some of the things that I have concerns about when we look at these cases.
	I covered an op-ed piece that was on Brownstone from a lawyer, and he was essentially saying the same thing.
	He said, you know, I've been amazed, he said, to see how mainstream media would just let Julian Assange twist in the wind for doing investigative journalism and wouldn't do anything about that.
	Do they realize that that's not going to come back to them?
	And he goes, and now when I look at what is happening here, he says, you don't have to agree with what they were saying.
	He says, I've looked at the legal briefs and I thought they were garbage.
	But he says they were still investigating this thing.
	If you're going to criminalize the practice of law, and he says most lawyers are being silent about this, just like most of the journalists are being silent about Julian Assange.
	If you're going to criminalize the practice of law and investigation around these cases and stuff like that, and he says that's an amazing precedent that's being set.
	And, you know, the mainstream media and the mainstream of the legal profession are not worried about these types of things.
	This really is the ground shifting under our feet, isn't it?
	It is, and one of the concerns I have is, you know, what attorney is going to want to go and work for President Trump in a future White House or is going to want to work with him when most of the attorneys that have worked with him, it seems more and more, are getting criminally charged, right? Yeah. I mean, that's a very scary thing when we think about the practice of law.
	We want attorneys.
	We want a society where attorneys will represent individuals and advocate for a fair trial for anyone, regardless of their political affiliation, regardless of what they're alleged to be doing or their background.
	Everyone deserves a fair trial, but if we continue a process where we've decided we don't like President Trump, we're going to go after him by any means.
	Included in that is going to be coming after these attorneys.
	Just imagine this.
	These attorneys that were just involved in exploring and trying to figure out, can we file litigation?
	Is there something we can do within the legal process to challenge this election?
	Those attorneys are now being criminally charged.
	They're facing half a million dollars in legal fees just to defend themselves in a case like this.
	And quite frankly, I'm also hearing there are attorneys that are afraid to represent them.
	There are attorneys that are saying, I'm risking my license, my entire legal career in order to defend you.
	So it's going to be a half a million dollars or a million dollar bill because I'm risking everything.
	I'm risking my ability to make a living by doing this.
	And that bothers me.
	Much like it bothered me doctors that are losing their license because they recommended alternative treatments for COVID or they approved religious accommodations or recommended medical exemptions.
	So I just, again, I think those are the big picture concerns we have to recognize and deal with.
	Or in a situation like, you know, journalism, for example, you know, how I get kicked off all these.
	I've had PayPal ban me and so forth because they don't like what I talk about.
	And so, you know, this is happening everywhere in our society.
	You know, this is taking it to a new level in terms of coming after the lawyers, and we should all be very concerned about that.
	But this is just in general the new totalitarian rules that they're imposing on everybody.
	Everybody feels the lash when it comes to social media to one degree or the other, don't they?
	No, they absolutely do.
	And I think we have to be wise.
	We have to be careful in how we evaluate this.
	And the last thing I'll say about these criminal cases is this.
	There's a subtle shift that's happened over, I would say, over the last hundred years in our legal system.
	Most people outside the legal system wouldn't recognize Yeah.
	concept called jury nullification was part of our system.
	It was part of our system when our nation was founded.
	It was understood as critical.
	And jury nullification is this idea that when we take a criminal case and we put it in the hands of a jury, those 12 citizens can make a decision that say, we know that the law was violated technically here, but the right outcome is to find this The government's wrong to persecute this person for this violation of the law.
	This concept of jury nullification, that has fallen completely out of favor.
	Many states have laws on the books that you can't even argue for jury nullification as an attorney.
	That you can't stand up and say, this is not the right thing to do in this case.
	I believe there's only one New England state that even has jury notification as a possibility on it.
	Now, why do I bring that up?
	It's just something to pay attention to and think about.
	Ultimately, the jury is supposed to be something critical in our system.
	Thomas Jefferson said the jury was the only anchor yet imagined by the mind of man through which a government could be held to the principles of its constitution.
	That's right. I mean, think about that.
	So I pray, especially given what I do, but even for any case, I pray for juries, for citizens who are wise, who are discerning, who are clear-minded, and are willing to push back against totalitarianism and tyranny from the government.
	But I do think that concept of jury nullification is something we need to figure out how to bring back, whether it's through legislation or otherwise.
	It needs to be a part of our system because in some cases, and I have tried cases, Where we have won, my clients have been acquitted because of jury nullification, and we weren't allowed to argue it as you have the authority to do this under the law, but we were allowed to argue the right thing, the fair thing, the just thing, is to acquit in this case.
	So that's just an important principle we've lost sight of in the law.
	It needs to come back. Yes, that's how I got hired at Infowars.
	I was doing reports about the Fully Informed Jury Association and some people who were standing up for it.
	And if you just hand out general literature about jury nullification downtown in front of the courthouse, not about any particular case or anything, they would come after them and try to get them in jail for jury tampering.
	That's how serious it was in terms of challenge.
	But it has always been a very important part.
	Trial by jury had Gilbert and Sullivan writing an opera about trial by jury because it was understood to be such a bedrock of a society that was going to have rule of law and individual liberty.
	And it goes back to William Penn's trial.
	I've talked about that many times, establishing jury nullification as well as habeas corpus.
	And so this is something that's always been there.
	But the way that they get around this is in many cases you have the judge just lie to the jury and say, you're not here to judge the law or the punishment.
	You're here to just judge the facts of the case.
	And nothing could be further from the truth.
	I had one person that I interviewed out of New Jersey, and he called himself New Jersey Weed Man.
	He had Rastafarian dreadlocks and stuff, and he smoked pot a lot.
	And he got – And they arrested him.
	He had quite a bit of marijuana for his own personal use.
	And if you talked to him, you'd realize that it really was for his own personal use.
	But he actually lit up when I was doing the interview with him over Zoom.
	But he looked at it and he said, I couldn't get a lawyer to argue this case, but I knew it was in the New Jersey Constitution.
	So I printed up that part of the Constitution.
	And when I was representing myself, he said, I knew that the majority of people did not support criminalization of marijuana in New Jersey.
	So I thought I could get off with jury nullification.
	So he puts up the sign and the judge immediately says, take that down.
	I'm going to hold you in contempt, throw you in jail.
	He said, but the problem is that the jury had already seen it, that it was in the New Jersey constitution.
	And so they voted, uh, seven to five to acquit him.
	Uh, but, uh, with a hung jury.
	So that the DA came back after him again and the next trial had a different judge and he did the same thing.
	And that judge allowed him to put that up, you know, the show, the New Jersey constitution and that time they acquitted him 12 to nothing.
	But we don't usually have jury trials anymore because they play this game.
	And this is another thing we've seen in these charges against Trump.
	They come in with so many trumped up charges that they try to get you to plea bargain out of it.
	That's the other issue.
	It seems to me like that's the really big issue, Davis.
	How do we break this cycle of people who, A, don't believe that their fellow citizens are really going to take a stand and are really going to judge the law or whatever.
	And the fact that they're so overcharged with this stuff because the game is they add all these additional charges and then say, well, we'll drop the additional charges if you plead guilty to what we really want to get you for in the first place.
	They don't present it that way, but that's essentially what's happening.
	How do we break that cycle?
	No, it's a really, it's a hard challenge to break that cycle.
	But the reality is, just look at federal courts.
	98% of federal cases results in a plea agreement.
	98%, right?
	And, you know, there's this joke, we hear it all the time, it's become a trope.
	But it's scary to me how much of a trope it's become that we all violate, we all commit violations of federal law unknowingly every day, right?
	Each citizen does that. There's something to that.
	So what happens is, especially with the way the federal guidelines work, and sentencing is all in the hands of the judge, not in the hands of the jury.
	So federal judges, appointed federal judges are in charge of sentencing.
	And the issue is the way the guidelines work, you know, many individuals face, you know, Dozens and dozens, sometimes hundreds of years in prison over the allegations.
	So they're sitting there going, okay, I'm looking at $25,000, $30,000, $50,000, $200,000 worth of legal fees, number one.
	And number two, I'm looking at the possibility, if this goes poorly, of doing decades in prison.
	Or I can take a deal.
	I can do two years of probation.
	I can save a lot of money on attorney's fees.
	And I can try and move past this.
	But there's no thought to the coercive nature of these charging decisions.
	So one answer is to take a hard look at how we pick, how we select, and how we use United States attorneys.
	That's on the federal level.
	On the state level, I would encourage people...
	To be very, very cautious.
	If you have the ability to vote in an election for a district attorney in your county at the state and local level, take that very, very seriously.
	Look hard at those people and try to find other people that are willing to run for that office at that local level that have some control and discretion and can do the right things because these DAs and these U.S. attorneys do have a great deal of discretion and charging and that would be A great step.
	So there are political solutions to it.
	Unfortunately, we've created a system where there are so many people going through the process, they can't properly give everyone a jury trial.
	The system breaks down.
	And so the system is built on plea bargain.
	And, you know, it was, um, I remember in the transition period before Trump, after he got elected in 2016, before he sworn in 2017, Obama and Eric Holder talked about how they were going to focus on district attorney races and on state, um, uh, attorneys general. And, um, and they had a lot of money from Soros as we've seen.
	And so we've seen that type of thing being done in all these different places with Trump.
	see it being put into practice.
	And I don't support Trump since he did what he did in 2020 with the lockdowns and the vaccines.
	But I think it's an outrage what is happening.
	This weaponization, as you're pointing out, is setting up some very, very dangerous precedents for so many different things.
	And people can see what the strategy of district attorneys and state attorneys, generals, they can see how dangerous that is and why that was so important to radical leftists like Obama, Eric Holder, and George Soros to spend lavishly on these races to put people on.
	I mean, they're spending millions of dollars on local district attorney races.
	So that tells you how important it is to them and that they're going to use this for something.
	So what you said is absolutely true.
	We have to look at the sheriff very carefully.
	We have to look at the local district attorney.
	We have to look at the state attorney general.
	Those are races that I think in many ways are far more important than even the president because the president is so insular from all these different concerns.
	And it really is the people who are closest to you that are going to have the They can make things better or they can make things much worse than whoever's in Washington, can't they?
	That's absolutely right.
	And whether or not you support President Trump running again, you have to look at the reality of the plan that was put in place with these prosecutors, with these DAs, with these elections, the importance of these U.S. attorneys.
	And now you have situations where the federal judge, the D.C. case, that judge has set the trial date for March 4th.
	That's the day before Super Tuesday.
	The DA in Georgia wants to set the trial for the same date.
	The day before Super Tuesday.
	So again, we should all just take pause, whether we are a Trump apologist or not.
	And I'm with you. I have great concerns about how COVID was handled and what happened there.
	But the reality is this is partiality.
	This is using the criminal justice system to political advantage.
	And when you start looking at trial dates, you just have to roll your eyes and go, wow, this feels a lot like election interference, doesn't it?
	They're doing that in our face, and they're doing it deliberately, and they're trying to escalate things into a civil war.
	And the thing that concerns me, I didn't get to the clips today to play them, but we've got people now openly talking about civil war and assassination of Trump.
	Tucker talking about the assassination of Trump.
	You've got John Voight, the actor, saying this is a civil war.
	And everybody, Trump is becoming the Mason-Dixon line.
	He pushes this stuff because he makes money from this stuff.
	And so he's taking the indictments to the bank and his poll numbers are going up.
	But the other people are doing the types of things like you talked about, the fact they're going to put the trial date the day before Super Tuesday and all the rest of this stuff.
	And it really is polarizing the country into a civil war.
	I think that is a very, very dangerous thing.
	And it looks like both sides want that to happen, seems like to me.
	I mean, again, we have to go there.
	We have to be wise, we have to be discerning, and we have to have those concerns.
	And then we have to look to things like, what will Congress do?
	The Republicans in Congress can vote to defund the DOJ, right?
	They can restrict the powers of the person.
	So there are political things that can be done, but if they're not done and we're not seeking political solutions, Then the divide gets greater, the differences get greater, and we reach into some very, very dangerous times.
	I pray that's not the direction this goes, but if political solutions aren't being sought, I agree with you.
	I have the same kind of concerns.
	Yeah, you know, when we look at this, too, as soon as I saw the RICO statutes and I saw Rudy there, and he actually talked about this.
	And his statements, the fact that he had used RICO so extensively as a prosecutor before he became mayor in New York.
	And, you know, when you look at the RICO statutes themselves, I've always had a big problem with the way they were organized.
	And it really was kind of an evolutionary path into civil asset forfeiture because the whole point of a big part of the RICO statute besides RICO, Making the prosecutor's job easier to come after organized crime.
	It was also to take away the money so they wouldn't have the money to hire the best lawyers and defend themselves and get off on technicalities and things like that.
	And so that gradually evolved over a period of time with people like Rudy and, ironically, with people like Joe Biden.
	And to civil asset forfeiture where they come in, they confiscate property from people that never even charge you with a crime, let alone find you guilty.
	And so I thought it was kind of ironic that Rudy is getting charged with the RICO statutes.
	What do you think about the RICO statutes in general?
	Yeah, I have grave concerns with them.
	You know, I'm a big believer in looking to the Bible as a foundation for how we approach our legal system.
	And one of the concerns I have with RICO statutes is just fundamentally it was designed to make prosecutions and getting convictions easier.
	That troubles me.
	Just notionally, whether it's my time as a prosecutor or as a defense attorney, anytime we're changing the law to try to get more convictions or make prosecution easier, I'm troubled by that because that's not supposed to be the point of our legal system.
	Our legal system is supposed to be designed to punish the evil and protect the innocent.
	It's not about numbers, prosecutions or anything else.
	So RICO statutes have a troubled history.
	They were used with some effect against the mob and you could see how you could bring down an organization by doing that.
	At the same time, whenever you have a conspiracy like that, whenever you have a RICO statute, the problem is I represent individuals.
	Sometimes I do court appointed work in the federal system.
	So you'll have a very low level drug dealer, right?
	Mm-hmm.
	When all they were was a bag man or something else on a very low level, right?
	A user that sold a little bit and they're responsible for anything else.
	So one of the things that bothers me about it is it does lead often to what I would consider unfair outcomes and really escalates the criminal liability for individuals who are just, you know, bit players and something or even just didn't fully understand the scope of what they were getting involved with when they did.
	Yeah, this whole civil asset forfeiture thing.
	I talked about a case that's getting some publicity now.
	It's several years old, about six years old, up in Muskegee, Oklahoma.
	And just, you know, pulling a guy over, going through his car.
	You know, he's got a taillight out or something like that.
	And just finding cash and taking all the cash.
	And it was cash that they'd been doing as a Christian band, concerts they were doing for people.
	And... And so it was their pay as well as donations that they had picked up, cash donations for an orphanage and all the rest of the stuff.
	But this has become kind of standard operating procedure, and the police have been corrupted by this heavily because they get to participate in the booty.
	But it's, you know, just taking the stuff, never even charging the person, but charging...
	The object, the inanimate object, you know, they make a, it's like, you know, the government versus this car, serial number this, or a jet or a house or a stack of cash or whatever.
	They don't even bother to charge a person, let alone find them guilty.
	That's the thing that I see just so amazing to me.
	And, you know, it's kind of another one, you know, with Trump when he said about the red flag laws, you just take the gun and do the due process later.
	Due process later. I said, well, that's not due process.
	If you don't do it when it's due, right, it's going to be done beforehand.
	Right. But this is a really dangerous thing that's happening, and it's been happening to ordinary people for a very long time.
	I was talking about civil asset forfeiture back in the 90s, and yet now that it has gotten to the point where they're coming after their political opponents using this type of tactic, RICO and civil asset forfeiture, That's still not really being talked about by either the left or the right press.
	They're still not talking about these injustices.
	It's still strictly about Trump versus Biden.
	They're not looking at the overarching issues and the precedents that are being set here, I'm afraid.
	Yeah, I agree with you. I think that's a grave concern and that's why we have to stay engaged.
	We have to stay alert. That's why I appreciate the work that you do in trying to help people understand and educate people because we have to pay attention to these things and we need to remember the law should be the law.
	It shouldn't matter. There shouldn't be partiality.
	There shouldn't be concerns.
	Justice is supposed to be blind for a reason.
	That's what we should fight for.
	Yes. I know very little about Senator Tuberville.
	I wasn't necessarily optimistic about him as a senator, but he has done so much to protect the military from woke ideology as well as to push back against the abortion policy by simply saying, I'm going to object to unanimous consent to these military nominees.
	We can either go and have a full hearing and have a floor vote, or I'm going to keep my block in place and I'm going to object I think?
	That's a really good example.
	Do they have the best interests of our country in mind or not?
	That's right. It's a really good example of what one person can do if they're committed to this.
	You can really be a fly in the ointment and there's things that you can do to stop that instead of just rubber stamping everything that's going along.
	And that's typically what we have seen with Congress.
	You know, the other part of it is let's just kick it over to the bureaucracy and let them have the hot potato.
	Right. Fully Informed Jury Association.
	And that is not the association, but an informed jury.
	That is a key thing, I think.
	And it is something that is so vital that we have lost.
	And just to state it again, everybody needs to understand that That if you're a juror, you're there to judge not just the facts of the case, but you're there to judge the law and the penalties that will be applied.
	And if you think that the law is unjust or the penalties are going to be excessive, it is your right and your duty as a juror to oppose that, but you're told exactly the opposite by almost all these judges.
	And I guess what I've heard is that if you start talking about it to your fellow jurors, they'll kick you out of there and put in an alternate, right?
	Because that's typically what happens.
	That has happened.
	There's been documented cases of that happening.
	Absolutely.
	Truly amazing.
	Well, you know, when you look at these other cases, just real quickly, not just the one in Georgia, that's particularly egregious in terms of its politics.
	And before we leave it, let me just ask you your opinion about this.
	As I've looked at this and other people have looked at it, it looks like another part of the strategy is to have so many people that are there that they can get the lawyers to turn on Trump.
	And by charging the lawyers, she can break the attorney-client privilege.
	That's another important precedent that they're trying to get rid of.
	So by charging the lawyers, then that breaks that, makes them co-defendants, and then hoping that they will turn on Trump.
	And then Trump is not paying for anybody's big legal fees.
	And that's kind of a dangerous thing for him as well.
	Even one guy who had to sit in jail for over a week because he couldn't make bail and couldn't afford a lawyer, he's now got Online fundraising, give, send, go, or something like that.
	But what do you think about that strategy?
	Do you think that's going to backfire on Trump and that some of these lawyers are going to flip?
	Is that what her ultimate strategy is, you think?
	You know, the reason, in my opinion, the reason that you charge people under a RICO statute, the reason you bring in multiple defendants in these cases is because you are going to try to flip someone.
	You know, I heard yesterday...
	I don't know how much of it is true, but I heard yesterday that in the Mar-a-Lago case, the classified documents case in Florida, that someone is already flipping.
	Someone's already cooperating, at least with regard to like the obstruction, the destruction of video charges, things like that.
	So, you know, it's a very common practice for prosecutors to use that.
	You know, as far as what Trump does and how he approaches it, I do think there is a feeling among many that they can't possibly afford, many people associated with them, they can't possibly afford the legal fees that this requires to fight this.
	And he is raising unprecedented amounts of money for his campaign or through his campaign.
	And his legal defense fund money isn't hurting.
	So there probably are some concerns about whether or not he can provide money to COVID. Codependents and what that does if that looks like obstruction because they're not cooperating, but he could certainly go out and say these people are patriots.
	You need to support them and help them just like you're supporting and helping me.
	I do think there are things he could do to do that.
	It's dangerous.
	It's unprecedented legal issues we're dealing with.
	This idea of trying to pierce attorney-client privilege, very, very dangerous, but I do think He should be doing, at least to the extent he possibly can, everything he can for these other co-defendants because they're just caught up in issues that many of them have no control over.
	They're just trying to do the job, do a job the best of their ability.
	That's right. Yeah, and it's not good optics even for the politics to let these other guys go to jail because they can't afford a lawyer or bail.
	That's something that's not very wise.
	You know, when you talk about the documents case, I don't know.
	What is your general take on this?
	I'll tell you, I look at the documents case.
	To me, that seems like the only one where they have a clear violation, and yet, again...
	You know, why it is selective prosecution.
	They don't appear to be interested in anybody else violating these laws.
	I mean, technically, he appears to have violated.
	I haven't seen any lawyers that came up with a plausible defense for it.
	Dershowitz, as hard as he tried, said, well, maybe the documents were already declassified and maybe he didn't know it.
	That's the best he could come up with.
	But what everybody sees is the fact that, no, they haven't come after Biden or Hillary or anybody else about these things.
	And so they still see it as a lawfare against him, a weaponized legal attack against him, even if he technically did violate it.
	But what is it from your position?
	Because you've been involved with military trials and things like that.
	I'm sure that classified security and things like that have come up in the past.
	What is your opinion about that particular case?
	You know, I think my frustration with that case is it is an example, I think, of, you know, politically targeted and selective prosecution.
	Because here's the issue. You're really dealing with two different laws.
	You're dealing with the Espionage Act that goes all the way back to World War I, Woodrow Wilson, which is really what they're charging him under.
	But it was never designed, it was never intended to go after the President of the United States.
	There's another law called the Presidential Records Act, right?
	The Presidential Records Act, which really is what's supposed to apply to presidential documents and the requirement to archive these documents for historical purposes, but there are no criminal penalties in the Presidential Records Act.
	So in the past, with other presidents, everything's been handled.
	They've had to turn over documents under the Presidential Records Act, but they were allowed to keep things, again, under that act for personal historical reasons.
	So it really is a selective prosecution issue.
	So yes, technically, if things that That President Trump believed were covered under the Presidential Record Act or believed that he was allowed to take, even maybe his attorneys advising him thought it was okay for him to take, but they weren't technically declassified yet.
	Yeah, there could be some technical violations to the law, but that, again, goes back to one of those issues of what was the intent of the law when Congress passed it, and is a prosecutor twisting the intent of the law and using essentially a technicality to try to come after a political opponent?
	And I think the answer to that is yes.
	Yes, and you go back to that Espionage Act that you talk about, you know, Woodrow Wilson, the 1917 Espionage Act, and I remember very clearly talking about how the Obama cohorts, which are essentially, you know, what's around Biden at this point in time, running his administration, but during the Obama administration, they charged more people In his eight years, they charge more people with the 1917 Espionage Act than all of the previous administrations combined.
	And so it is a favorite tactic of theirs to use the 1917 Espionage Act.
	So it's got his fingerprints and that whole group all over that thing.
	But yeah, it truly is amazing that it's gotten to this point.
	But my big concern with it, again, as you pointed out, there's some very dangerous precedents that are being established.
	And it is also being used to intensify this tribalization and this polarization, and everybody's getting ready to fight over this stuff.
	And it is coming up to, I don't know if you pay attention to the fourth turning or not, but it's something Strauss and Howe talked about in the early 90s.
	The guys who came up with the names millennial and everything, they looked at a cycle of about every 80 years, about every fourth generation.
	There'd be a turning in society where there would be a major restructuring of all the different institutions, usually accompanied by a financial crisis or and or war, you know.
	And the previous ones were World War II and the Great Depression.
	Prior to that, Civil War.
	Prior to that, the American Revolutionary War.
	They went back 500 years in American and British history.
	And so we're at a time where the people are really kind of primed for this.
	And this seems to be the flashpoint, in my opinion, what they're doing here with Trump.
	It truly is amazing. But, I don't know, it's great to talk to you.
	And is there anything else on your mind you'd like to talk about?
	Homeschooling, anything like that that's happening?
	Yeah. Well, you know, I think one of the things that I think you would be interested in being aware of, and I think something we need to keep an eye on, is a trend we're seeing with regard to, it affects all parental rights, but it in particular can affect homeschoolers.
	It's this. There was a story that came out this week where Pennsylvania, that's where I live, where I practice local law, They engaged in a training program.
	So the state of Pennsylvania created a training program in partnership with the University of Pittsburgh.
	And what they did is they put out training materials that say, essentially, if the parents are homophobic, if the parents are opposed to their child transitioning, that could be a danger, that could be a threat, and you should consider whether or not it's appropriate to remove a child from the home in Pennsylvania.
	Wow. Wow. Okay, so it's big news that I want people to see because there was a lot of attention that was paid to states on the West Coast like Washington who came out with laws that specifically had legislation on the books that says that's a reason not allowing a child to get an abortion or Opposing an abortion or opposing medical treatment, so-called medical transgender treatment, child mutilation, puberty blockers, those things.
	That could be a threat to the child.
	Well, other states now, and we're seeing this in Pennsylvania, the training materials have now been released.
	They're publicly available.
	Just no one was paying attention.
	You have your local county social workers being trained to look for people who have religious beliefs.
	It talks about Traditional religious beliefs that oppose this and the danger and threat that may make to a child.
	So when we talk big picture about homeschooling, the biggest continued drum that I will beat is homeschool your children or get them into a really good small community.
	Christian, private school, do everything you can to do that because the cases we have seen in Pennsylvania, the cases we'll continue to see in Pennsylvania, will usually involve some sort of an interaction with a public school counselor, teacher, otherwise, that starts a child down the path of confusion that these individuals will play into their mental illness.
	They will drum that up and then you will see this and then all of a sudden, You know, the county is knocking at your door and removing your children.
	So I'm not trying to be alarmist on that, but it's something we have to pay attention to.
	Yeah, as a matter of fact, that's another level up.
	I just talked about this week about Massachusetts where they had, I think it was yesterday I talked about it, They had a couple who wanted to adopt, and so they were going to get into the foster care program and adoption program.
	And as part of that, they realized that they were Christians and that they were not going to go along with the LGBT agenda and that type of thing.
	So they kicked them out of the program.
	So there's a lawsuit happening there.
	But what you're talking about there in Pennsylvania is even worse.
	That's coming after people who are parents and taking the kids away from them simply because they don't go along with the LGBT agenda.
	And as you point out, it's going to be the schools are going to kind of act like the Stasi informants, you know, saying, well, this is what we see, you know, sending child protective services, so-called, and to attack the parents, isn't it?
	Yeah, absolutely.
	Absolutely. So homeschool your kids, get them in a good private school, a good Christian school, a small one that you know what's being taught, that you understand what's happening.
	The other thing I tell parents all the time, particularly homeschool parents, is pay very careful attention to who your doctor is.
	Yes. Your primary care physician, people miss this completely, but your primary care physician, your doctor is It has a critical role in all of this because you have progressive doctors, you have clinics that won't take you as a patient if your kids don't get every single vaccine as soon as they're born or otherwise.
	But you also have these clinics that will push this medical mutilation of children and feed into these things.
	And so you need a really good primary care physician that at least understands and is sympathetic to your religious beliefs and basic parental rights.
	And that's a good buffer against the county, against the state, or otherwise when it comes to protecting your children and protecting your family.
	So that's the other note of encouragement I would have for folks that are out there is pay attention to who your doctor is.
	Be very careful about that.
	That's real important advice.
	Yeah, because they can become the informant to get you into trouble if you don't do the vaccines and that type of thing.
	And that is something a lot of people don't think about.
	And it's getting harder and hard to find doctors like that because they've taken over the institutions and they're the gatekeepers and they're looking for people who are going to go into their political side of things and then they heavily push this as part of the medical curriculum as well.
	It has always been about parental rights.
	I don't know if you saw the The article about Michael Ferris, Homeschool Legal Defense Association, Washington posted a detailed article about him.
	And they focus on parental rights.
	And because he's understood that parental rights is at the essence of all this stuff, homeschooling and everything else.
	And so that is really going to be where the fight is going to be.
	It's going to be about parental rights.
	Well, it's always great talking to you.
	Again, Davis Yance and his website is yancelaw.com.
	And... It's great to have somebody, we talk about not just doctors, but to talk about lawyers who look at things from a Christian moral perspective, and therefore they're going to try to uphold the law as it is written.
	It is great to talk to you.
	Thank you so much for coming on.
	Hey, thank you, brother. God bless you.
	Thank you.
	God bless you.
	We're going to take a quick break and we'll be right back, folks.
	Using free speech to free minds.
	Music It's the David Knight Show.
	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.
	TheDavidKnightShow.com
	Thank you.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	you Sometimes your day needs a little smoothing.
	Check out the Jazz Channel at APSRadio.com and the APS Radio app and leave the stress behind.
	I'm delighted to present something born from my love for music and the Christmas season.
	Christmas night is a perfect accompaniment for anything from family gatherings to moments of peaceful reflection.
	I hope us to provide a fresh take to the soundtrack of Christmas.
	Christmas night is a perfect accompaniment for anything from family gatherings to moments of peaceful reflection.
	This collection of 20 instrumental songs brings new life to timeless Christmas classics.
	With original orchestrations alongside lesser-known, yet equally enchanting carols.
	For the listeners of The David Knight Show, this is more than music. this is more than music.
	It's part of our shared journey.
	Christmas Night is available at thedavidknightshow.com.
	May it bring a little extra joy and peace to your Christmas season.
	Thank you for your unwavering support and for joining me in this new musical adventure.
	music Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good Christmas night.
	So the Pentagon has launched what they call Operation Prosperity Guardian.
	And the question is, whose prosperity are they guarding?
	I think they're guarding the prosperity of the military-industrial complex.
	Because this ever-escalating war is not about our prosperity.
	It's about the prosperity of the war machine.
	Wars make countries poor.
	And they kill us as well.
	The operation will be within the framework of the existing Combined Maritime Force 153, a partnership of 39 nations focusing on countering this.
	Do these other countries, do they have missiles that are capable of defending themselves against drones at sea?
	Just asking for a friend.
	Or are they going to be sitting ducks out there, you know?
	Well, look, you know, we had the Albanian naval ship or the Argentine General Belgrade.
	It just got taken out by, you know, they got some World War II vintage thing they take out of mothballs and put it in as part of the coalition.
	It gets taken out by an Iranian drone.
	Now we've got an excuse to go to the next level of war, right?
	Is that what this is really about?
	I mean, you got American ships, you got...
	The British, maybe the French or whatever.
	These other countries, do they have the ability to take out these drones?
	We'll see. Or maybe this is just another setup to get us further in.
	Australia does.
	Australia has bought some of these ships from America.
	They're reportedly in talks of the Pentagon over a U.S. request to send Australian warship to the Red Sea to assist.
	This is, folks, this is a training exercise, I think, for the most part.
	Are the U.S. media failing to report all the current cyber attacks that are happening everywhere?
	Well, you know, Goatree told me, we talked to Goatree last week, and he contacted me at the end of the week.
	He said, you know, I said holidays are going to be a busy time in terms of cyber attacks because you've got the core people are taking time off, and so you're going to have, you know, people who may not be as quick to respond to some of this stuff put into jobs that they don't necessarily typically do.
	But he said at the end of the week, he contacted me and he said, boy, these cyber attacks have just lit up.
	Never seen anything like it.
	It's going to be a busy holiday, he said.
	Well, there's many reports of cyber attacks on the news right now, but there's many, many more that are not being talked about.
	As a matter of fact, they actively discourage that, and they give companies, when they have been attacked, they give them protection, so they don't have to disclose that necessarily.
	But when we talk about Operation Prosperity, as I said before, who is this prosperity for?
	Well, it's for our guardians who get us into wars, the military-industrial complex.
	Because as I mentioned at the top of the program, we're going to be taking out their $2,000 drones with our $2 million missiles.
	We spend a thousand times more on that to take those things out.
	And so the question is, you know, can the Feds continue to print money faster than the Hooties can manufacture these drones?
	When you look at this, as I said, this is like asymmetric warfare that has now gone to the sea.
	Asymmetric warfare, you come in, massive shock and awe, your advanced tanks and your advanced planes and everything, and you just wipe out an area.
	And then you occupy it.
	And that's when the asymmetric warfare begins.
	That's when they have the improvised explosive devices on the roads and the sniper attacks and the suicide bombs and all the rest of the stuff that just goes on and on and on.
	Just drones on and on and on.
	Well, now they've got drones that they're sending against the naval ships.
	Very cheap drones.
	In the same way, very unsophisticated drones from Yemen, from the Houthis.
	They're probably provided by Iran.
	We're paying $1,000 more for these things than they are.
	They said they've got some other things.
	They could take them out with guns at a closer range, but they don't want to take that risk.
	So they use longer-range missiles.
	The Pentagon's not going to tell you exactly what they're doing, but the people who are in the business know.
	These things cost $2.1 million.
	They've got some other ones that cost only $1.8 million, but we don't have anything that's cheap like those people do, besides the money that's involved there.
	What about the manufacturing process?
	Is it a lot, lot easier to make these crude drones than it is for us to make these very expensive missiles?
	I would imagine there are a lot of mission-critical electronics in there that...
	May not be readily available.
	Destroyers are limited in how many missiles they've got.
	They've got about 90 or so missile tubes, so they've got to go back and get more.
	But then, you know, they've got a lot more destroyers that they're putting in there to minimize that.
	But when you look at the cost, again, you know, we're using these $2 million missiles to take out $2,000 drones.
	Go back to the asymmetric nature of Reagan's attacks on Gaddafi.
	You know, when a Qaddafi was a terrorist before he calmed down, and then later they killed him after he'd no longer attacking people.
	But when he was a terrorist and, you know, they had the Lockerbie, Scotland terrorist attack, killing all those people on that plane, Reagan unleashed a bunch of cruise missiles blowing up Qaddafi's tents in the desert.
	You know, that was a good example of this.
	But, you know, when you look at the cost of Of a lot of stuff that we have.
	Yes, it's very sophisticated. However, because we have in the military industrial complex, we used to have about 50 contractors not that long ago.
	Now we're down to five. Same type of consolidation that you've seen in the banks.
	Same type of consolidation that you've seen in entertainment and news and all the rest of this stuff.
	And what does that come with?
	Well, that comes with price gouging and corruption.
	And so you have Boeing, which had been selling a trash can for $300.
	To the AWACS, these are the big planes that are, you know, basically doing reconnaissance and feeding all that back.
	So the AWACS plane was based on a civilian plane.
	So they couldn't charge more than they would charge for the same part on a civilian plane.
	And they were charging $300 for a trash can.
	Well, I don't know about you, but I've never bought a $300 trash can.
	I can't imagine how fancy that thing would be.
	What is it about a three?
	How in the world could you justify a $300 trash can even for commercial flight usage, right?
	But then after they retired its commercial usage and they said, well, now we only make this plane for the military.
	Then Boeing was able to raise the price to whatever they wanted to.
	And they raised the price from $300, which is outrageous, to $52,000 for a trash can.
	These are the types of things we've always seen all of our life.
	You know, the $600 toilet seat and stuff like that.
	Well, now we've got a $52,000 trash can.
	And they're not the only ones to do it.
	You know, Lockheed Martin... Add some electrical conduit that they just raised the price on that by 1400% increase.
	So this is the corruption that is part of the guardians of our prosperity.
	I think they're guarding their own prosperity, don't you?
	I think that we need to rethink this whole American empire thing.
	I'm delighted to present something born from my love for music and the Christmas season.
	Christmas night is a perfect accompaniment for anything from family gatherings to moments of peaceful reflection.
	I hope is to provide a fresh take to the soundtrack of Christmas.
	This collection of 20 instrumental songs brings new life to timeless Christmas classics.
	music with original orchestrations alongside lesser-known yet equally enchanting carols.
	For the listeners of The David Knight Show, this is more than music. this is more than music.
	It's part of our shared journey.
	Christmas Night is available at TheDavidKnightShow.com.
	May it bring a little extra joy and peace to your Christmas season.
	Thank you for your unwavering support and for joining me in this new musical adventure.
	Music Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good Christmas night.
	Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good Christmas night.
	Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good and to all a good Christmas night.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	Whether you're feeling like the blues or bluegrass, APS Radio has you covered.

▲