Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 1, 2024 - The David Knight Show

03:01:11

The David Knight Show - 02/01/2024

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	you
	using free speech to free minds
	you're listening to the David night show as a clock strikes 13 it's Thursday, the 1st of February, year of our Lord 2024.
	Well, today we're going to begin with the FBI warning of Chinese infrastructure hacks.
	What is the FBI trying to prepare us for?
	This is something that the World Economic Forum and many others have been talking about.
	Meanwhile, we have the CEO of Ripple has been hacked for $112 million plus.
	And we also have many interesting court cases.
	I think it's time for some jury nullification.
	We have convictions of people for the FACE Act here in Tennessee.
	There's also some other Trump court cases.
	You know the ones where he used executive orders to ban guns?
	Those are coming up. For appeal and hearings in many different places, we have an update on ClimateGate trial.
	The dispute between Mark Stein and Michael Mann has begun.
	We've got an interesting clip of that.
	And Biden is still trying to take vengeance on people who had forged vaccine passports.
	Even though some politicians are calling for some amnesty, especially for themselves.
	We'll be right back.
	Let's begin with, of course, Tony will be joining us today.
	There's some interesting updates in terms of various states getting rid of sales tax for precious metals, as well as income tax.
	We're starting to gradually move to the acceptance of constitutional money, slowly and surely.
	But let's begin with the FBI director's warning that Chinese hackers are preparing to wreak havoc upon U.S. critical infrastructure.
	The World Economic Forum has been talking about, for a couple of years now, cyber polygon.
	We know this is all a possibility.
	And with an open border, you don't even have to hack.
	You can just come in and shoot the transformers up or whatever.
	I mean, they're leaving themselves wide open.
	But of course, it'll be the Chinese whenever anything like that happens.
	And if they take it down without doing a physical attack...
	If you remember during the Obama administration, they put out a statement.
	I remember it very well. This is really, really dangerous what they're preparing to do.
	They said any kind of attack on our infrastructure, any kind of a computer hack attack on our infrastructure, is going to be treated the same as if it were a physical attack.
	But the difference is that with a physical attack, you could look at evidence and you could solve the crime.
	With a cyber attack, you can't.
	And even before he said that, you had the release of Vault 7, which showed that our own government had created tools to make itself look like any of its enemies.
	They can look like China.
	They can look like Russia. They can look like North Korea.
	Anybody. And so, it's the ultimate false flag if they were to do something like this.
	And, of course, that is what this FBI director, who has shown over and over again, that he has absolutely no respect for the law of the Constitution.
	He is not working in America's interests.
	He's working for globalists.
	And this guy is laying this out here.
	So do be concerned about that.
	Do be concerned about this predictive programming.
	As he says, China is hackers.
	Our positioning on American infrastructure in preparation to wreak havoc and to cause real-world harm to American citizens and communities.
	He knows this, right? Because these guys are so expert.
	They just got owned by a collective of hackers.
	They just got their stuff stolen.
	The CIA and the NSA, these people, they know everything that's going on, right?
	They got their own tools stolen.
	Vault 7 stolen and exposed and passed around.
	And so, of course, anybody anywhere could do this and look like anyone they wished.
	And not much confidence in the cybersecurity abilities of our own government being hacked over and over and over again, even as it happened this week.
	And perhaps, maybe that's all that he's doing.
	Hopefully. Just trying to tell everybody how important their role is and how good they are at their job, just as they got owned this last week.
	Chinese government-backed hackers, Ray said, are targeting things like water treatment plants, electrical infrastructure, oil, natural gas pipelines.
	Maybe what would happen if the Chinese were to turn off the fluoridation?
	Wow. Wouldn't that be awful?
	Couldn't have that happen.
	As a matter of fact, we've got an update on the fluoride trial, which resumed yesterday as well.
	So, any of these things, though, and alleged, they've already said, An alleged cyber hack.
	And you can trust them to tell us the truth, even though there's no way for them to know who did it.
	There's no way. But they will tell you that they definitively know that it was coming from this country or that country, and now we have to attack them.
	Just remember this when they want to pull that war trigger.
	Don't believe them. Don't believe him.
	I don't believe him now. I won't believe him then either.
	I'll remind you if I'm still here.
	And then, to show how trustworthy all of these people in cybersecurity are, this is a James O'Keefe video.
	This guy identifies himself as a top White House cyber official.
	And he's got all kinds of juicy gossip.
	About Biden's health condition.
	About Lala's position on the ticket.
	About whether or not Michelle Obama is going to run again.
	But I'll just give you a sample of what this guy is like.
	And it's kind of funny to see James O'Keefe.
	He's got his hair orange and he's got glasses on.
	This guy doesn't know who he is.
	I mean, his voice is still pretty distinctive.
	So you're pretty high up.
	In the government? Yeah, I'm fairly high up.
	I'm good at keeping secrets. I'm good at keeping secrets.
	Two federal agencies, the State Department, and USAID. So when you say security, like you're protecting...
	The networks of the federal agency.
	You give all your information to them.
	The mission is to protect information.
	We serve, we are like the president's voice when we go into meetings in terms of discussing and promoting the president's priorities.
	He's a political hack that represents the president's priorities in these cybersecurity meetings.
	And he's really good at keeping secrets as he proceeds to monologue about all these individual secrets.
	You know what? The cybersecurity people aren't very good about keeping secrets, as I just pointed out, being hacked again this week.
	Maybe that explains it. You know, people like this.
	And so he has all these juicy bits of gossip.
	Biden is definitely slowing down, he said.
	Really? I would have never known it.
	Who knew? And then to say, well, yeah, Lala Harris, nobody likes her.
	She's hemorrhaging black staff.
	She can't keep black people on the staff.
	They're quitting en masse.
	But we can't get rid of her because she's a black woman, and so got to keep her.
	In terms of black women, he said, Michelle Obama, Is not interested at all in running, she said.
	Well, we'll see what happens.
	Of course she would say that.
	This is all a bunch of recycled political gossip.
	I think the most important thing about this is just how easy it is for James O'Keefe to get a date with these guys when they start monologuing about everything to impress him.
	It is... In Washington, D.C. is one hopelessly corrupt place, if ever there was one.
	I was reminded by Jennifer, a listener, who sent me an email, reminded that the Fluoride Action Network versus EPA case that has now been going on for years, Eight years.
	It began eight years ago. And I talked about this a couple of times.
	I talked about it once. I had the people who were reporting on it, The Last American Vagabond on, and we talked about that as well as some other things.
	And so now it has resumed, the fact that it was going to finally get back on track after being delayed and delayed and delayed and then shut down because of the so-called pandemic.
	Now it's back on track, began yesterday.
	The Last American Vagabond has Derek Brose there in the courtroom reporting.
	And so it just got started yesterday.
	But it's the second phase of this, and just to recap, so you keep an eye on it, began back in 2016 when the Fluoride Action Network sued the EPA, and they've been stalling in this.
	A recent pretrial hearing by the judge Agreed to allow additional discovery.
	One of the things that they discovered, of course, was that there were, and it really kind of breaks down to a lot of people who are technically savvy in terms of understanding what the risks are.
	Studies that have been done showing that there are a lot of risks with the fluoride, and of course, there's no benefit, really.
	And you don't get to make that choice, right?
	They dump it in the water. How do they control the dosage?
	As I've said many times, you want to argue about its safety or its efficacy?
	Why would you put anything in the water?
	Why would you dump it in? How do you control the dosage?
	So, by dumping it in the water...
	You cannot assure that it is going to be safe because some people are going to get too much.
	You can't assure that it's going to be effective because some people will get too little, even if it was something that you wanted to have in the first place.
	And there's a lot of counter data about that.
	But even before we get into how unsafe and how ineffective the fluoride is and deleterious it is, don't even need to have that debate.
	Just stop dumping it in the water.
	We know why they do it. They do it because it helps the aluminum industry, because it helps the nuclear waste industry.
	They would have had to dispose of this as a toxic substance.
	Instead, they get you to pay for it when they dump it in your water.
	And so, recently, there's been discovery that as some of these people We're reporting, some of these scientists are reporting on the harmful effects.
	We had the political appointees, you know, just like you got that guy you just saw.
	You know, you got political appointees like him.
	You got other people who are real programmers and engineers, software engineers that are doing the cybersecurity stuff.
	But he's representing the political side.
	We had the Assistant Secretary for Health, Rachel Levine, he calls himself.
	I call him Dick Devine.
	Dick Devine shut down these emails and tried to censor it, and they've got proof that that was censored.
	They also have had, so far it's come out, that one of the EPA chief witnesses, their key expert witness, as a matter of fact, apparently lied under oath.
	He not only lied in a study, because there's been numerous studies, Harvard's done it, many, many people have done it, looking at the negative effects, especially on IQ of children, and especially on the IQ of male children.
	And a lot of studies like that.
	Well, he looked at it, and he investigated it, and he said, no, I don't see that there's any...
	It doesn't lower the IQ for children.
	As a matter of fact, I see that it raises the IQ for children.
	If you believe that, you've probably been on fluoride for quite some time.
	And so in a pretrial hearing, the Fluoride Action News Network's attorneys shared an email that they'd been able to get through FOIA. And they had asked him, were you ever told to delete any information related to this fluoride study?
	He said, no, never. Never, never, never, never, he said.
	Said it four times. And then they showed the email where it was with the CDC's Division of Oral Health about his study, and the email ended with the words, please delete this message.
	Burn after reading, you know, that type of thing.
	You can always tell when these people are lying about climate or about the pandemic or about the fluoride and the rest of the stuff because they're trying to hide the information.
	And they do it very zealously to keep you from seeing it.
	So that's interesting.
	Not only did he lie in his study based on other studies, but they told him, delete this.
	Because this study is definitely an outlier based on what everybody else has done.
	So get rid of that.
	And we have some interesting legal issues.
	In Texas, the Attorney General Paxton there is now suing some cities over marijuana decriminalization.
	And this is an interesting story, regardless of what you think about marijuana.
	And I don't promote marijuana.
	I think that if somebody wants to use it for a medical purpose, and there's been a lot of information about how effective that is, especially for seizures, Especially, ironically, the fact that you've got a lot of kids who wind up having uncontrolled seizures because of the government-mandated vaccines.
	David Simpson, who was a very conservative, straight-up Christian legislator in Texas at the time.
	He was a legislator at the time.
	I think he's probably still straight-up Christian.
	Yeah. If I know David Simpson, I really admired that guy.
	Best person in government I met when I was in Texas.
	And he had some constituents in his jurisdiction who had children who had this uncontrollable seizures.
	And you can die from them, but it's just a debilitating thing.
	And they had tried all kinds of medicine.
	They couldn't get it to work. And they took their kids at the time to Colorado where they could get the marijuana.
	And they found that it was effective.
	One family, though, there's two families that had that issue.
	And one of them didn't have...
	Enough money that they could stay there on a regular basis or do other things, you know, conveniently go back and forth.
	And so he was instrumental.
	This is the same guy, by the way, who got a unanimous vote in the House to stop the TSA from putting their hands on kids and patting them down when all that stuff began, the naked body scanners and all that.
	And he nearly got it through the first time, and it got shut down by the lieutenant governor who'd worked for the CIA. He shut it down in the Senate.
	He tried a second time, but didn't make it that second time either.
	But he was instrumental in getting an exemption for kids who suffer from uncontrollable seizures, even though Texas does not recognize any medical use for marijuana.
	And they still have it as a Schedule I drug.
	Which, a Schedule I drug is by definition something that does not have any medical uses.
	So, he's very...
	It's interesting because that contradicts What they have in terms of Schedule 1.
	But what is happening inside of Texas, and this is interesting in terms of legal issues, because as I've said many times, there is no authority whatsoever under the Constitution.
	The Constitution makes it clear that the government does not have the authority to ban anything, folks.
	And whether you are talking about marijuana, medical marijuana, whether you're talking about ivermectin, Any of this stuff.
	The government doesn't have the authority to tell you what medicine you may take, and it doesn't have the authority to tell you what medicine you must take either.
	And so they have no authority for their war on drugs, any of it.
	And that's a legal issue.
	And as I said before, I don't support drug use of any sort.
	I don't support alcohol use either.
	But alcohol prohibition was a tremendous failure, yet they followed the Constitution and had a constitutional amendment for it.
	And so, can the states ban it?
	That's the issue here. They've got the Texas Attorney General who is taking action on this.
	The feds have not taken action on it.
	Jeff Sessions didn't take action on it.
	Because he knew that they did not have the authority.
	This is a slam dunk, folks.
	This is important because this is one of the biggest emperor has no clothes issues out there.
	And we've got to call the government on this fake usurpation of power.
	This action done under color of law.
	We have to call them out on it because it is hitting us in all of these different areas.
	You know, 2020, things that happened there, that's just one aspect of it.
	They're hitting us in a lot of different areas.
	But the state does have the authority to ban marijuana, regardless of whether you agree with it or not.
	They have the authority. The federal government does not have the authority.
	The state does have the authority.
	And so what is happening is that we've got five cities in Texas, Austin, San Marcos, Killian, Elgin, and Denton, Isn't that interesting, Travis?
	We lived in Elgin.
	I didn't know that.
	I'm very surprised.
	It's a very small town, very conservative town.
	I'm surprised. Austin, I'm not surprised at.
	But anyway, they have enacted laws to decriminalize marijuana one to three years ago.
	And I don't know that they've got laws so much.
	As a matter of fact, this article says that.
	But then it also says that they didn't pass a law.
	So I think they've got it wrong.
	What they are really doing, he sued them for, quote, instructing police not to enforce Texas drug laws concerning possession and distribution of marijuana.
	And so we talk about authority at the federal, state, and local level.
	The feds don't have the authority to prohibit or mandate anything.
	State has the authority to prohibit things.
	But then at the local level, At the local level, you know, they can prohibit things that are not prohibited.
	They can also, in many cases, but they can also, this whole issue that is at center of this, it's whether or not the cities can tell the police, who are not elected, you know, they work for the city officials, they're not accountable to us.
	Only the city officials are.
	So can the city officials tell the unelected police, not the sheriff, but the unelected police, not to enforce These laws at the state level.
	Any law. And forget about the fact that it's marijuana.
	Again, this is the legal issue, not the marijuana issue.
	None of these, see, they said they passed laws here.
	Decriminalizing it. They have not legalized it, okay?
	So it's kind of the decriminalization of it.
	They passed ordinances, not laws.
	And I think that's important.
	We understand that. You know, there's bureaucratic rules, there's laws, these things are different.
	They passed ordinances directing police and prosecutors to deprioritize pressing charges against people holding small amounts of cannabis.
	In Austin, for example, a 2020 City Council resolution directed by police, directed police not to press charges against those caught with less than four ounces of marijuana.
	In November 2022, Voters in the other cities are now being sued by Paxton resoundingly approved ballot measures that decriminalized up to the same limit.
	Though these reforms have drawn resistance from local law enforcement.
	And so when you look at what is going on in Austin, having lived just outside of it, I'm kind of surprised that they're focused on this thing.
	When the sheriff got elected in Travis County, which is the county that encompasses Austin, when she got elected, she went through a long list of laws that she wasn't going to do.
	Obviously, things like immigration.
	But it even included a lot of violent crimes.
	And so she said, well, I'm only going to enforce this, this, and this.
	And people said, well, you know, you didn't say that you're going to enforce sex crimes against kids, for example.
	I mean, she was like full-on Soros.
	There's a lot of things here I don't want to enforce.
	And so there's many other things to come after Austin for.
	I was curious that he would focus on this.
	But it gives us an interesting take on, you know, what can be done at the local level.
	It'll be interesting to see how they interpret that in Texas.
	And whatever they decide in this court trial is not definitive.
	I mean, you go to another court and you get another answer, one way or the other.
	And we need to understand that.
	And we need to make our own decisions and push our own things in terms of non-commandeering.
	I think that principle is true at every level of government.
	As we said before, part of the nullification at the state and local level of federal laws that are an overreach is to just refuse to comply with it.
	And to say, we're not going to allow you to comply.
	And we're going to talk about Trump's gun control executive orders.
	But when you look at the pistol brace, which was one that he put through, he withdrew it in the middle of the election dispute in December of 2020 because he wanted the support.
	But he had put it in and kept it in for over a year, about a year and a half.
	He had tried to do the pistol brace And so, you know, when we look at the push from the federal government to do these things, the appropriate response that we had in Tennessee was, first of all, they said these things are legal.
	And then they said, in general, if we've declared something as legal here in Tennessee, if the federal government says it's illegal, you cannot enforce those laws.
	And so, you know, that's the way they handled it here.
	So it's very important for us to look at those issues.
	Where is the authority? And how are we going to interpose on that?
	And then there's also this article at the federal level about marijuana.
	You've now got 12 senators, Democrats, people like Elizabeth Warren, Chuck Schumer, others, who are pushing the DEA to legalize marijuana.
	Now, interestingly enough, Reason Magazine, Jacob Sulem, and they're all for decriminalization, but he says the DEA can't make that decision.
	Only Congress can.
	And what is really interesting about his analysis of this...
	He says, regardless, even when you look at this, he says, we're tied into this because of an international treaty.
	And so that is really the most important aspect of this article.
	Because when we talk about international treaties, like the World Health Organization, a lot of people come up and say, well, this pandemic treaty that they want to put in here, they can't really enforce that on us.
	Well, you look at what is being done under the so-called authority of the Paris Climate Accord, which is a treaty that was never ratified by the Senate.
	That's the other thing, too. They all pretend that it's a real treaty that we're bound to follow, even though Republicans as well as Democrats know that it was never ratified by the Senate.
	And no Republican has called for it to be ratified by the Senate, for it to even come up for a vote.
	They just completely ignore this issue.
	In the same way that they just turned their head the other direction as all this nonsense in 2020 was happening.
	They just pretended that it wasn't happening.
	They pretend that there's authority for the Paris Climate Accord.
	Oh, you know, we got to get rid of all that CO2 and all this other nonsense.
	And they're going to do the same thing with the World Health Organization's pandemic treaty if this thing goes through.
	They play these games, they never bother to even ratify the treaty, but then they claim that we're bound by it, that it is superior to our laws, and we have to bow down and obey this.
	And this is what's happening with the drugs as well.
	And this is an argument coming from Reason, Reason Magazine.
	And he's got it exactly wrong.
	But there's interesting, his argument is very interesting, because I've asked these people, even people who oppose it, law enforcement against prohibition, LEAP. And I had, they're basically retired police officers, law enforcement officers, retired judges and stuff, because people don't want to talk about this.
	When they've still got their job, they'll lose their job.
	Those are mostly retired people.
	Talking about prohibition, and I had one of the people there on multiple times, and I asked him, I said, so where's the authority for this?
	Where's the constitutional amendment that we had for alcohol?
	Well, it's done under the supremacy clause.
	Well, the supremacy clause was there before prohibition.
	If the Supremacy Clause was a sufficient basis for this, then they didn't need the 18th Amendment, right?
	Everybody in the country agreed in the 19-teens.
	The whole thing got ratified in 1917, but they didn't do it overnight.
	It took several years for them to put together a constitutional amendment and then to get 36 states to ratify it in 1917, the 18th Amendment.
	So it was a long effort.
	Why go through all that effort if you got the Supremacy Clause?
	Well, because everybody was honest about it at the time.
	They knew there was no authority for them to prohibit anything like that.
	And so these are all legal prevarications.
	The Supremacy Clause is not the basis for any prohibition of the drug war.
	If you want to prohibit drugs, do a constitutional amendment.
	If you don't do a constitutional amendment, you have no authority.
	The emperor has no clothes.
	This is color of law stuff.
	And if you don't think that's important, take a look at 2020 and what is going to be coming at us again and again.
	We've got to solve this issue.
	We've got to get people to understand what's going on with this.
	This is why I hammer it. It's not because I want to trip out on LSD. I've had plenty of opportunities to use drugs in my youth.
	I didn't do it then. I'm not interested in it now.
	But we better be interested in the legal precedents that are involved around this.
	And many times you get really bad legal precedents come around to protect people from something that is bad, that they're very afraid of.
	And you should be afraid of drugs.
	But you should not destroy the government because of it, because of that fear.
	So, where are we?
	Again, what are they calling for?
	What are these 12 senators urging the DEA to do?
	They're basically asking them to do DACA, right?
	Deferred action. I guess you could call it DAMA. Deferred action on marijuana.
	Or just take off the A. Just call it DAM. Deferred action on marijuana.
	So they want this damn act out there.
	But that's basically, that's been done with the Dreamer thing.
	So why can't we run all of government that way?
	See, when you set up these precedents, the Constitution is just being shredded over and over again.
	You know, they've run it so many times through the shredder.
	They've run it, they've shredded it lengthwise.
	They've cross-shredded the pieces that came out of the back end of it over and over again.
	So, it's interesting because the attack that Jacob Selim takes is at odds with every single American at the beginning of the 20th century.
	There wasn't anybody that agreed that there was an authority for the government to prohibit this stuff.
	And we didn't have a treaty.
	He says the DEA is considering whether it will reclassify marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act, the CSA, as the Department of Health and Human Services recommended last August.
	He said the argument is sound as a matter of policy, but legally shaky because the CSA, Controlled Substances Act, incorporates, listen to this, International treaty obligations.
	And this is why this is very important.
	These principles apply to all kinds of aspects of our life, just like this pandemic treaty that they're trying to push.
	International treaty obligations.
	So Schedule 1 is where marijuana has been put since 1970, since Nixon's war on drugs.
	Schedule 1 means that this is a drug that has high potential for abuse and that there is no currently accepted medical use.
	Well, we know that's false.
	We know that's false.
	Even in Texas, they admit that it's false, and yet they still keep it as Schedule 1.
	And that it cannot be used safely, even under a doctor's supervision.
	And so Biden has said that marijuana Schedule 1 status makes no sense.
	But this is not just Biden, and this is not just a Democrat issue.
	A lot of Republicans were saying this before Biden was elected during the Trump administration.
	They were saying it makes no sense to have marijuana in as a Schedule I drug.
	As a matter of fact, as I pointed out, there was 36 states that passed the 18th Amendment to prohibit alcohol.
	38 states allow medical use.
	There's a bigger consensus.
	On the medical use of marijuana than there was to have a constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol.
	So HHS concluded that the DEA should move marijuana to Schedule 3, which would include prescription drugs like ketamine, Tylenol with codeine, and anabolic steroids.
	And Jacob Sullum at Reason Magazine agrees with all this.
	It's on the legal issues that he has a problem, and I think he's very wrong on the legal issues.
	Elizabeth Warren, John Fetterman, Chuck Schumer, 12 of them all together, are urging the DEA to, quote, deschedule marijuana all together, they said.
	They said this prohibition, quote, has had a devastating impact on our communities and is increasingly out of step with state law and with public opinion.
	But he says they don't have the authority to do that because of the Controlled Substances Act.
	The DEA doesn't have authority to do it.
	So his position is that since Congress created the Controlled Substances Act and tied it in with international treaties on the drug wars, that because of that, Unless you got rid of the CSA, I guess, is what he's assuming, because he says only Congress can fix it, but he doesn't really get explicit about how.
	I'm assuming that he's saying that if the Congress were to get rid of the CSA Act, that would somehow break the international treaty obligations?
	I'm not sure, but all I can say is that the Constitution is above all this stuff.
	And if you've got a treaty, if you create a treaty to say that you're going to censor everybody, and guess what?
	That may be another thing that's coming along the pike as well.
	A pandemic treaty, a zero...
	Zero out everything for the Green Agenda Treaty.
	Something like Paris Climate Accord is a good example.
	You can get even more detailed on it.
	Or a pandemic treaty.
	All these different things. Every way they want to control us.
	Of course, most of these things are now going to have an international treaty component to it.
	Well, you know, we'd like to do this, but we've got this obligation internationally.
	We really can't do it. That's the way they're going to roll these things out.
	And so this is something that really has to be addressed.
	He says the CSA, the Controlled Substances Act, includes an explicit limitation on the executive branch's discretion that complicates any attempt to unilaterally deregulate marijuana.
	So when these things first started, I remember, I think the first one was in California or Colorado, where they legalized marijuana and the UN was livid and screaming and stomping their feet about all this stuff.
	I said, what do they have to say about this?
	Well, it's this type of thing.
	You know, under the Control of Substances Act, you have, you see, it's not just a bad, Prohibition was not just a bad idea from Richard Nixon, the drug war.
	It was a global conspiracy.
	Put together, you know, with a regime, the Nixon administration, Henry Kissinger, They're opening up the U.S. to China because the globalists wanted to use China as a manufacturing base and transfer things to them and to slave labor and that type of thing.
	And so all these moves for world government were being made in the Nixon administration with the aid of Henry Kissinger.
	This is a big part of it right here.
	The Control Substances Act says, if control of a substance is required...
	By United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols that were in effect on October 27, 1970 when they created this thing, then the Attorney General shall issue an order controlling such drugs under the schedule that he deems most appropriate to carry out under such obligations.
	Just take that language. And insert the pandemic, you know, fear of viruses and all the rest of that stuff in there.
	Right? They're going to do the same thing with this other stuff.
	That's the pattern.
	The decision to keep or place a drug in one of the CSA's schedules is mandatory, it says.
	And it is to be made without regard to the findings or to the procedures that That are ordinarily required to schedule a substance.
	So if we have a pandemic treaty, what these globalist finger pointers, and it's like the body snatchers, you know, pointing it out, whatever they decide, well, that's going to be mandatory, regardless of what you find out about it.
	You've got to obey them.
	These are the pretenses under which they're going to enforce these globalist rules, these global bureaucratic rules.
	The United States is a signatory to the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, predated by decade, what Henry Kissinger and Nixon did with the drug war.
	And it requires strict control of cannabis, says Jacob Selim.
	In 2020, the Senators note, cannabis was removed from the single convention's most restrictive schedule.
	So the globalist organization, whoever these people are, that we didn't vote for, that whoever they are, wherever they are, They decided that they were going to remove marijuana from the most restrictive schedule, but it remains in a category that, quote, requires countries to limit the drug's use to only medical and scientific purposes, unquote.
	Rescheduling marijuana altogether, as the senator is urging the DEA to do, would flout that requirement.
	And again, they continue to argue about what the treaty allows and what the treaty doesn't allow.
	Because they claim that we are now subordinate to that.
	If we've got a treaty with somebody else, it doesn't matter what the Constitution says, right?
	You see the mindset here?
	Even with a libertarian-minded commentator and lawyer, And I'm just saying, you know, as Jefferson said, each generation has to decide the rules under which they're going to live.
	If those are the rules, get rid of them.
	If those are the rules, nullify them.
	If those are the rules, disobey them.
	Because we've got the Constitution.
	And the Constitution doesn't allow the government to do any of this stuff with the permission of a foreign government.
	And you've got to hold to that because they're going to do the same thing with the pandemic treaty.
	They're doing the same thing with the Paris Climate Accord.
	A phony treaty that was self-ratified said Obama and John go, yeah, we self-ratified that ourselves.
	And the Senate doesn't say anything about it?
	Doesn't call their bluff?
	So, the bottom line that Jacob Sullivan says, the only way to solve all these problems is to repeal the federal ban on marijuana, a move that 70% of Americans favor, according to the latest Gallup poll.
	But the power to repeal that federal ban lies with Congress and not with the DEA. There was never any constitutional authority.
	The Congress never had the authority to ban it.
	There was no authority for the Control of Substances Act.
	That was a violation of the Constitution when they put it in there.
	It was kowtowing to an international agenda, an unelected foreign body.
	And it was in direct conflict with the Constitution, and both the 18th and the 21st Amendment testify to that.
	At a time when, even though we had differences of opinion, and we had, the people were not perfect there, they weren't the kind of open criminals and disobedience to the Constitution that we now have running our government today.
	So, we're going to take a quick break, and when we come back, we're going to talk about what's happening with the schools.
	Maybe we can just prohibit our way to better schools, right?
	Do you think that's going to work with that either?
	We're going to try to get real about some of this.
	Actually, let me finish up with that before we take a break, because I don't have a lot to say about that.
	We have a couple of laws.
	One of them is in Arizona that was introduced.
	Another one is done by the Utah governor.
	The one in Arizona... It is a law that has been offered, and of course it hasn't even passed the legislative body yet, let alone put into law.
	But this is coming from a state GOP lawmaker who has come up with a bill that would require schools to teach about the harms of communism.
	Now, I've played for you in the last couple of days a couple of clips, and you probably had them to play again today just to remind you.
	But one of those, if you remember, you had this woman who went on and on and on about their activism day and how, you know, she could turn all of her kids into little activists about this and that.
	I mean, she was just a hardcore Marxist.
	Do you think that teacher, if there's a law, teachers like that, if there's a law, that they're going to obey that law?
	This is the same argument I have about refederalizing abortion.
	If you prohibit abortions at a certain, whatever your time frame is there.
	It could be 6 weeks, 15 weeks.
	It could be 36 weeks.
	I don't care. If you prohibit abortion at some level, the Democrats aren't going to abide by that.
	You can't make them do that.
	But the Republicans will fall in line when the Democrats take off all limits on abortion.
	And so, this is a bill.
	To make people feel good about a rotten education system that they have absolutely no control over.
	This is a bad bill.
	I understand that we don't want communism being taught to our kids, but I want parents to think that the problem is solved because it's not going to be solved by this.
	You're going to have one day where you're going to require schools to teach about the harms of communist regimes, including things like poverty, suppression of speech, and systemic lethal violence.
	And then the rest of the year, they'll tell them how wonderful communism is.
	If they even did that. And I can imagine all these teachers who are teaching that will roll their eyes and say, I'm required to tell you this.
	Okay, so I told you.
	Now here's the truth I'm going to tell you.
	Communism is great.
	That's what they're going to do. You know that.
	You've seen these activists.
	Libs of TikTok picks them up all the time.
	And so don't think that you are going to be able to control this rotten institution.
	It is thoroughly rotten.
	You get to a point where, like, a building that is riddled with termites, and that's what these teachers are.
	When you've got a building that's riddled with termites, don't try to fix it.
	Just tear it down and start new.
	And then you've got, in Utah, a bill that has gone through the legislature, been signed by the governor, Spencer Cox, and it's going to ban DEI programs and all the rest of this stuff.
	Look. The other video I played for you the other day was this school board woman who fancies herself to be some kind of sexual guide to everybody, just as completely enslaved to sex as you can imagine.
	And these are the people who love Marxism.
	These are people who are obsessed with sex and are going to push it to kids.
	And she's pushing every kind of perversion she can think of.
	And she's on a school board.
	It doesn't matter what the governor or the legislature want.
	It doesn't matter what the teachers want.
	In many cases, it doesn't even matter what the school administrator wants.
	It's going to be right there where that teacher is.
	And it's just a crapshoot.
	The only way that you're going to know what your kids are being taught, that they're not in the hands of some kind of perverted sexual groomer or some kind of a crazy Marxist, is to teach them yourself.
	Teach them yourself. That's the only way you're going to know.
	And it's an amazing thing to spend that time with your kids.
	Kids are not a selfish thing, as we've got this one guy saying for the ecology, it's a very selfish thing to have kids.
	You shouldn't have kids. No, they're a wonderful thing.
	They're a blessing from God.
	And if you want to enjoy that blessing, spend time with them.
	And it really does amplify that blessing.
	And you'll wonder why you ever waited so long to have kids.
	That's my perspective on it when we did it.
	Well, we're going to take a break. When we come back, we're going to talk about robots and the unimaginable wealth of these technocrats that I talked about yesterday.
	We'll be right back.
	If you like the Eagles, the cars, and Huey Lewis and the News, you'll love the Classic Hits channel at APS Radio.
	Download our app or listen now at APSradio.com.
	♪♪♪
	you right, welcome back. And I just want to thank Brandon Bennett.
	Thank you very much for the tip on Rockfin.
	I appreciate that. God bless, he says.
	Oh, thank you. That is a blessing.
	And on Rumble, Atomic Dog, thank you for the tip.
	He says, David in Ohio, on January the 10th, No-knock warrant by SWAT. Another baby injured by flashbang.
	This is at least four or five that I've heard of over the years, and I'm sure that's just a fraction of them.
	I had not even heard of this one.
	Post-raid statements filled with lies by police.
	They had the wrong address.
	Please look into Courtney Price SWAT raid if possible.
	I'll look into that. And, of course, this is happening.
	You heard nothing at all about this, but you heard about...
	Swatting of some of these elected officials, like Nikki Haley, and some of these senators and so forth.
	This happened to several of them.
	Nobody was hurt. That was a prank.
	And I think they knew that.
	I think they know that they're going to Nikki Haley's house or something like that, or her relative's house.
	But you notice that none of these people, they all talk about how outrageous it is.
	How dare somebody? Some of us could have gotten hurt.
	Well, you know, the rest of us are getting hurt, and you're not doing a thing about it.
	You don't care about anybody except your separate Brahmin class.
	I mean, it's amazing to me.
	Everybody talks about it. Look, we've got two different justice systems.
	Oh, you're just now noticing because of Trump?
	Because of Trump, you're noticing this?
	What kind of a justice system are the January of the Sixth people getting?
	We've got more than two levels, folks.
	More than two levels.
	And of course, when you allow even a two-level system, you're going to wind up with that.
	And you're going to find that the people in power are going to be the ones who are going to be the top dogs, and everybody else is going to have no legal protections whatsoever.
	And it gets a lot worse for the rest of us down at the bottom.
	And none of these elitists in the Republican Party care at all.
	Neither do the Democrats, of course, because now they're in power.
	And when the Republicans get in power, they won't care either.
	They won't change a thing. They don't care how many babies get killed in SWAT team raids, how many innocent people are shot, and why would we have militarized no-knock raids?
	That should be a non-sequitur, according to the Constitution in our country.
	Well, let's take a look at these elitists.
	We had Elon Musk showing his robot walking.
	There it is. As you look at this, people in the area, they're looking at everybody staring.
	This is going to be a very common sight, unfortunately.
	Because once they get these things working, they're going to be able to rapidly advance this by scale.
	But a lot of people looked at the way it was walking and said, that walk looks very familiar.
	And so they put this out.
	They mapped Joe Biden's head onto the Optimus Prime, and it's got that same slow, shuffling walk.
	But unlike Joe Biden, this robot, this Optimus robot is...
	Going to improve the way, be improving the way that it walks.
	You may be very upset about how fast this thing walks in the future.
	It'll be able to outrun you, probably.
	And then when you look, of course it'll be able to be scaled to an unbelievable number of these things very quickly.
	They'll be ubiquitous everywhere you look.
	The wealth that these people have is just beyond what you can even imagine.
	Mark Zuckerberg, if you look at the amount of the increase in his net worth because of his stocks and other things like that, just this last year, they went up $84 billion in his net worth.
	And what does that break down to?
	Well, it breaks down to him making $9.6 million per hour.
	$9.6 million per hour.
	Now, I think federal minimum wage is something like $7 and something.
	Other states have it at different levels.
	But he makes about a million times what a typical worker does, working at minimum wage, about a million times.
	It works out to $230 million per day.
	Now, you know, as I've pointed out many times, Jeff Bezos, he didn't have nearly as good a year as Zuckerberg did.
	But he had had a really good year so that buying the Washington Post at the time only accounted for a couple of days' work.
	But now, you know, that's $250 million.
	Zuckerberg is making $230.6 million, almost $231 million.
	He could buy the Washington Post for what he makes in one day.
	And he might be able to do that because it's probably worth less than $250 million now.
	As everybody catches on more to the lies that they're telling everybody on a regular basis.
	But Zuckerberg is only the fifth richest person.
	He's not even the richest person.
	He's the fifth.
	And makes $231 million per day.
	This is how much wealth is concentrated in such few hands.
	And why these people are going to be capable of rolling out some of these things if we don't stand collectively against them for individual liberty.
	In Florida, they have a law that they have, well, it's not a law yet.
	It's a bill that's been introduced in the Florida Senate.
	And in this, if you call somebody transphobic in Florida, it could cost the accusers $35,000 or more under a new law.
	Well, I don't like to be called transphobic.
	I don't like to be called homophobic.
	I'm not afraid of trans.
	I'm not afraid of homos.
	I'm theophobic.
	I'm afraid of God.
	But, you know, I've been called racist, extremist, terrorist by the best of them.
	Southern Poverty Law Center, ADL, these people have attacked me.
	I don't care. I really don't care.
	And they've used that to ban me financially in places as well.
	Again, I don't care.
	I'm theophobic.
	So, I really don't care about it.
	I don't like it, but I don't care about it.
	And this is the wrong way to go about it.
	To punish your enemies with hate speech laws.
	And this isn't the first time we've seen DeSantis and Florida Republicans doing this.
	I don't know what's the matter with them.
	We've got to fight this urge to become the monsters that we fight.
	And that's what this really is.
	Canceling people, controlling their speech, labeling them as hate speech, giving them massive fines, making it a crime where you can put people in jail.
	Because of their hateful speech, anti-Semitism, or something like that?
	I oppose all hate speech laws.
	All of them. Because they're all antithetical to free speech.
	And they're all totalitarian.
	They all seek to control what people think.
	And you also cannot accurately determine somebody's motivations like that.
	Always in the past, if somebody looked at someone's hate, they might use that to try to understand if they had the motive to actually do a crime.
	But I don't think we should go down this path of thought crimes.
	We need to be able to have open debates.
	And of course, by now, you have all seen, we've all seen it in so many different ways, how people have been canceled and shut down in debate because, well, that's hateful.
	You can't say that. And who gets to decide what is hateful?
	Well, in Florida, maybe you agree with them that you should be able to speak against this transgenderism and with kids.
	But you shouldn't be able to shut down other people's speech.
	We don't have to protect the truth.
	We have to unleash the truth.
	And so I don't have to worry about this.
	I don't need the government to come in and shut down the speech of these other people.
	I don't want it being taught in schools where I have to pay for it.
	Isn't that interesting that teachers can still push this stuff To some degree in Florida.
	That's what he was trying to stop in some ways with what they characterized as the don't say gay.
	They're saying don't, you know, push this on the kids and trying to stand for parental rights.
	But I don't think you're going to fix these schools as I just said.
	Introduced in Friday, the defamation false light, false light, an unauthorized publication of name or likeness would make it easier for people to sue each other.
	For defamation. Isn't that what we all want?
	More lawsuits? Instead of a free and open debate in the public square where people can determine for themselves what is true and false, where the truth will be able to win if we have a free market of ideas.
	And so this is putting their thumb on the scale.
	And it's just as wrong, even more so, than when you put your thumb on the scale and say, well, now everybody's going to have an electric car.
	We're not going to trust people to make their own decisions about what to drive.
	We're going to mandate this.
	We're going to ban that other thing.
	And these people are doing the same thing, except just in the opposite direction as the liberals.
	They have become what we despise in these totalitarian liberals, telling you what you can and cannot say.
	If you criticize Jewish people with a bunch of hateful speech, and it was hateful, I don't want to see them put in jail.
	Oppose it. It's easy to oppose it.
	You're better off to oppose it because when you shut this down and put people in jail, it's like, oh, well, maybe what they were saying was true.
	Maybe that's why they're putting them in jail.
	Anyone accused of these isms?
	Wouldn't have to prove actual malice a higher standard for defamation lawsuits following a 1964 Supreme Court case, New York Times v.
	Sullivan. In instances where someone is accused of homophobia or transphobia, defendants charged with defamation wouldn't be allowed to use the plaintiff's religious or scientific beliefs as part of their defense, and they could face fines of at least $35,000.
	It also...
	Significantly changes the definition of a public figure.
	And defamation lawsuits to exclude non-elected or appointed public employees, as well as individuals who became publicly known for defending themselves against accusations, either by giving interviews or being the subject of a viral video image or statement uploaded on the Internet.
	So... It also weakens protections for anonymous sources for journalists.
	And so, if you listen to the broadcast, you know the truth.
	You know that I'm not any of these pejoratives that they're throwing at me, but I don't even feel like I need to publicly defend myself against it.
	I really don't care at all what the ADL or the Southern Poverty Law Center say.
	They've completely lost all credibility with me and with the public.
	So it really doesn't matter.
	They've cried wolf. And I've said in the past, that's part of the problem.
	When you have people who are really racist, they ought to be called out on that.
	But since they call everybody racist, then nobody is racist.
	That's how it works.
	They've worn that out.
	And so, again, to shut all this stuff down, by law, they're shutting down free speech, they're shutting down the free press, and they're trying to defend the truth that can defend itself.
	One has to wonder if there's anything in this law that would keep it from being used as a cudgel of the left.
	And that's exactly how it will be used.
	These things will be used by the leftists when they get in power in Florida.
	And it will eventually happen everywhere.
	These types of things.
	We don't want to become the monsters that we fight.
	And we know that these monsters will eventually get the lovers of power.
	And they will feel entitled to do this.
	A good example of this, going back and forth, the fights in Florida, which is really the don't say gay thing, was really about trying to affirm parental rights in an institution that is designed to take away parental rights, the schools.
	So it's kind of a...
	I understand what they're saying.
	They need to admit to the core problem, which is the government-run school.
	Well, they don't do it. So, anyway, it was trying to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.
	And we could all agree that maybe the deck chairs do need to be arranged on the Titanic, but it's still going to go down anyway.
	Disney, by the way, has now, after somebody exposed this...
	They had in one of their break rooms, and this was in a room that was the production kitchen in Main Street, USA, Disneyland, Anaheim, California.
	Just amazing to me to think about Main Street, which was characterization of middle America in the early 1900s and how they would have something like this woke wheel of privilege that somebody had.
	Put out on social media when they put that out Disney move to take it down Because the backlash against these corporate values in the same way that Coke didn't want to see their racist seminars being held telling everybody to hate white people.
	Coke didn't want that scene.
	They're trying to cover the stuff up.
	They know that when they do this, that it's going to have a massive backlash.
	And we've seen a backlash from the propaganda that Disney's been putting out.
	It's no longer entertainment. It's just propaganda.
	The poster featured a wheel of power and privilege, showed that being a white, quote, cisgender male, owning property, speaking English, are signs of being privileged, while being dark-skinned, transgender, homeless, and not speaking English are signs of being marginalized.
	This is just Marxism.
	It's not wokeism. It's Marxism.
	And so an anonymous employee exposed this.
	The leftist wheel also pointed out that there is also a category of people who are neither completely marginalized nor totally privileged, the people in the middle.
	This is cisgender women.
	We're going to leave them alone for a while.
	Women who know they're women.
	Homosexual men. People with a high school education.
	And those who learned English, who didn't grow up speaking English.
	And it also gave a definition of privilege as unearned access or advantage granted to specific groups of people because their membership in a social group.
	But they've now taken it down.
	See, this is the way...
	That the market should work.
	We should be able to speak out against this stuff.
	We should be able to show this stuff.
	Now, if we give the government control over all speech and media, then they will shut down the exposure of things like this.
	The source who exposed it said, this isn't what Walt would have wanted for his company, and it certainly doesn't have anything to do with Main Street America.
	He once said to all, all uppercase, all who come to this happy place welcome.
	Things like this make people feel unwelcome, and they destroy the magic.
	Well, they're not showing that to the guests, but the employees know really what the company values are.
	Russell Brand went on with Tucker Carlson.
	Calling the allegations of rape painful.
	And, you know, it's kind of interesting to see the headline.
	And it was a story that was penned at the top of Zero Hedge.
	I don't know what's the matter with Zero Hedge anymore.
	Quote, one of the most brilliant explanations of the modern world.
	From Russell Brand?
	Are you kidding me? I mean, this guy has, he says, these are painful attacks.
	He says, I admit that my past promiscuous lifestyle put me in this position.
	He says, it was consequences, and it was foolish what I did, right?
	Well, at least he's better than Trump.
	Trump won't even admit the foolishness of his promiscuity.
	But look, sex was Russell's brand.
	It was all about sex.
	It's how he made his money.
	You know, those who live by the sword die by the sword, as we've heard, right?
	But look at what Tucker is doing.
	I mean, he's focused on Andrew Tate.
	He's focused on Russell Brand.
	He's focused on Jeffrey Epstein's brother, Mark.
	Doesn't talk to Jeffrey Epstein's brother, Mark, about what Mark said about Trump.
	No, not going to talk about that.
	How close these guys were.
	How if the public knew what Jeffrey Epstein knew about Hillary Clinton and about Donald Trump, they would demand that the 2016 election be canceled.
	He said that before the election.
	So, no, I'm not going to ask him anything about that.
	I mean, wouldn't that be interesting to kind of probe that?
	No. Because then he'd offend his audience.
	And so Zero Hedge says this is brilliant.
	It's a brilliant explanation of the modern world.
	Well, you know, Russell Brand's conduct speaks volumes, doesn't it?
	About the modern world and about what people want to see.
	But that's not the way they mean it.
	You know, is Russell Brand a wise and brilliant person?
	No, actually, the Bible says such behavior as his is the mark of a fool.
	The mark of a fool.
	And I think it's foolish to watch this stuff with Tucker and his people that he puts on there.
	It is a freak show, quite frankly.
	Brand, known for his left-leaning ideology, says Zero Hedge.
	In his articulate critique of the war in Ukraine, the history of NATO leading up to said war was rewarded with a clandestine shadow campaign against him, which, according to Tucker Carlson, began with governments, not with private organizations, but with governments with their intel services and their policymakers.
	Newsflash, Tucker. This happened to all of us except you.
	Why didn't they come after you?
	Is it because of your CIA operation and connections?
	Is that why they didn't come after you, Tucker?
	Anybody who told the truth about the intelligence agencies, anybody who told the truth about the war, about the war against us with COVID, the nonsense about that, anybody who told the truth about climate stuff, we've all been canceled.
	You could find somebody that's got character because there's so many people who have been kicked off with this stuff, and yet you choose to put up this pervert.
	It's just beyond belief.
	You can't find anybody with any character and integrity.
	Tucker Carlson is not Diogenes looking for one honest man.
	He's not looking for a man.
	He's looking for a big audience.
	That's the exact opposite of Diogenes.
	We'll be right back. Elvis.
	Ladies and gentlemen, the Beatles.
	And the sweet sounds of Motown.
	Find them on the oldies channel at APS radio.com.
	I'm going to be doing a video on the oldies channel. So, stay tuned.
	So,
	so,
	Liberty, it's your move!
	Move.
	And now, The David Knight Show.
	Welcome back. You know, I began the program talking about FBI Director Christopher Wray, saying we may have some cyber attacks coming up and laying the expectations, laying the groundwork for this stuff.
	Of course, they're totally helpless, but they will use, could use it as a false flag.
	Look, it's a very dangerous time.
	One of the things I want to remind you, There's some excellent information in Jack Lawson's Civil Defense Manuals.
	He's got two volumes here.
	Again, you want to have something that you can go back for reference to look at that is physical copy.
	And he's had a lot of experience as a soldier and he knows a lot of Special Forces soldiers who have written parts of this that pertain to their particular expertise.
	But it's great advice.
	Great advice about feeding yourself, medical care, getting a community together, all of these things.
	And so...
	Again, civildefensemanual.com is where you will find that.
	And we're going to be talking to Tony coming up at the bottom of the hour.
	So we've got all things monetary that we'll be getting to at that point in time.
	But also I want to remind you about Trends Journal, Gerald Salenti's publication at trendsjournal.com.
	If you go there, you can save 10% off of a subscription using the code KNIGHT. And Everybody is talking now about commercial real estate and the boom.
	And some people have actually talked a little bit about how it's going to affect banks.
	But of course, Gerald has been talking about this for years.
	We were talking about this, Gerald and I, on a regular basis going back to 2019.
	And then especially in 2020, immediately started talking about what was going to happen to commercial real estate.
	And the thing, you know, Gerald...
	He's very upset now every time I talk to him because he knows where we are with war.
	He has been certain about what's going to happen with commercial estate collapse, and he's just as certain as what's going to happen with war.
	And so everybody else is going to be upset when it actually happens.
	He sees it now as it's already a done deal, and that's why he's so concerned about it.
	So let's take a look at where we are right now with the war aspect of it.
	Ukraine war hawks.
	Are getting reckless as desperation is setting in.
	And so they're going to get more dangerous and more desperate.
	The reality is setting in, they point out, that things are not going well for them in their war.
	Stephen Biddle weighs in with an article of Foreign Affairs.
	He argues correctly, says Twitter site Big Surge, quoted in this Zero Hedge article, he argues correctly that Ukraine cannot defeat the Russian defense in-depth system, and that the USA has nothing to give them that will change that, including F-16s and Abram tanks and all the rest of this stuff.
	And you look at the number of Abram tanks that they've committed to people who are not trained to use them.
	It's a really tiny, tiny number.
	They've sent them, I don't know what it is, a couple of dozen maybe.
	And what did they take to the Iraq War?
	Many thousands of these things.
	So, news reports the Ukrainian President Zelensky has been trying to oust his top general, offer further confirmation that the Ukrainians are in dire straits.
	And so...
	The people in the West who have been pushing this war are now looking for what's the next thing that they can do to escalate it because it's not working for them.
	Bill Browder, of course, I talked about him a lot during all the Russiagate stuff, who is a descendant of communists, called for confiscating Russia's dollar assets now, and so has the Prime Minister of Estonia.
	She's been on social media and other places demanding it.
	This is what she said on social media.
	We need to press ahead with using Russia's frozen assets for Ukraine.
	I'm glad that my calls are being met with steps forward, not only within the EU, but also among the G7, including the U.S. Congress and the UK. Prominent legal and economic scholars have endorsed the idea.
	She is Kaja Kalas, the Prime Minister of Estonia.
	And the best response I saw of that was from a guy, David Pinson.
	He says, Kaja, why would any non-Western country hold dollar assets if we, quote-unquote, we do this?
	Think it through.
	And then this is the key phrase.
	If a coven of Western girl bosses like her can decide to rob them at will, why would they risk putting their assets in dollar accounts?
	Because that's what she is. She's one of these girl bosses that they have chosen to rule over us.
	We've also seen increasing calls in Western countries to prepare for direct war with Russia.
	As Armchair Warlord notes in his thread, he said, Thus far, we've seen fear-mongering from NATO itself, as well as national authorities at the highest levels of the British, German, Swedish, Norwegian, and Dutch governments.
	This suggests to me strongly that extremely bleak assessments of Ukrainian prospects have gone around.
	As an explainer, Syria is still technically in a state of civil war right now because foreign countries, Turkey and the United States, sent in troops to protect defeated proxy forces after the Syrian government won the war in 2017 with Russian and Iranian assistance.
	It should be noted that this is occurring in the context of continued collapses in troop numbers and failures to modernize across the West.
	So, in the U.S., in the U.K., in Germany, they can't get anybody to sign up for the military anymore.
	They're starting to talk about conscription because nobody's on board with their foreign wars.
	Which means that they're going to have to stage something like Christopher Wray was talking about to try to get everybody on board with it.
	Stage something, do something to us, and blame it on some foreign power that we can go take vengeance on.
	And they'll have a full-court press.
	And if you don't believe that the vast majority of people will go along with them, then I don't know what you were paying attention to in 2020 or since then, if you see this massive groupthink.
	It's far more powerful. Yes, people are a little bit more sophisticated about propaganda.
	And maybe if it was just rolling out in newspapers and other things like that, they don't have that much influence anymore.
	But the way that they can do it with social media is just astounding.
	But it's not just NATO that wants to confiscate assets.
	Of course, Russia is not good guys either.
	Everybody, worldwide, we have totalitarian values everywhere, all over the world.
	In Russia, the Russian parliament has approved a law to confiscate assets of people who criticize the military.
	Now, right now, the Associated Press is putting this up and telling you how evil it is.
	And it is evil. It is evil.
	It is totalitarian.
	It is Stalin-esque.
	And yet, when the American government does the same thing in the future, the Associated Press will be the first ones out there telling you how necessary it is.
	And telling you how these evil people deserve to have everything taken away from them.
	So the Associated Press is now saying the lower house of Russia's parliament on Wednesday approved a bill that would allow authorities to confiscate money, valuables, and other assets from people convicted of spreading, quote, deliberately false information, unquote, about the country's military.
	Fill in the blank.
	You know, that MacGuffin is going to change.
	Oh, well, we got to be able to confiscate stuff and we got to be able to put people in jail for fill in the blank.
	Spreading disinformation about our pandemic lies or our climate lies or our military war lies.
	And on and on and on.
	Always the same remedy in every country.
	And so Associated Press, again, look at this.
	They're going to confiscate these assets of people who criticize the military?
	The Associated Press, it never covers civil asset forfeiture in the United States.
	Never. People who have their assets confiscated.
	And they are not even charged with a crime?
	They don't even bother? Yeah, I mean, you could make the argument that the Russians are at least charging them with a crime and putting them through a kangaroo court process.
	We don't even pretend here in the United States.
	Don't even pretend.
	Just steal the stuff.
	Call it forfeiture. So, a speaker in the Duma said the measure would strengthen the punishment for, quote, traitors who sling mud at our country and our troops and strip those scoundrels of honorary titles, confiscate their assets, their money, and other valuables.
	Yeah, we do the same thing here.
	How far are we from this?
	I mean, they've already started debanking people, right?
	Meanwhile, the lunatics, idiots, ignorant people at Saturday Night Live don't even know what debanking is.
	And Trump knows, but he doesn't care.
	He's out there throwing out the different things.
	Oh, did I say something about D-Bank?
	Oh, okay, now you vote for me, right?
	I mentioned CBDC. You're not going to do that!
	CBDC. That's it. That's all he says.
	You really believe that he's not going to do anything about it since he had Jared Kushner and Steve Mnuchin, the Goldman Sachs banker, already starting it in his administration.
	But he throws these things out there.
	And then Saturday Night Live is like, can you believe this?
	He said something called debank.
	That's not even a word. No, I'm afraid it is a word and it is a threat.
	And it's not a theory.
	It's been done to a lot of people.
	So, how far are we away from this kind of confiscation?
	Well, again, they do it all the time.
	It's part of their war on drugs.
	They don't even charge you. It's part of their war against information.
	They can kick you out of PayPal or...
	Venmo? Any of these things?
	Any banks that can kick you out?
	They did it to Nigel Farage.
	They did it to me with PayPal back in May of 2021.
	Everyone who tries to destroy Russia, who betrays it, must suffer the deserved punishment and pay compensation for the damage inflicted on the country at the cost of their property.
	This is the insanity of the war mindset.
	And when the war mindset breaks out here because they've staged some kind of attack, And blamed it on somebody that they want to attack.
	You're going to see the same kind of stuff.
	You're either with us or you're with the enemy.
	And anybody who betrays America betrays democracy.
	so I hear from the Democrats all the time right their mockery of democracy anybody who betrays democracy must suffer deserve punishment pay compensation for the damages go to jail get the death penalty go to jail for life or whatever and that's what the majority of people who are gonna be jurors and the juror pool in Washington DC think the January 6 people they should get life imprisonment or death majority vast majority of them The proposed law does not appear to include real estate.
	See, this is where they pull back.
	In Russia, they say, well, you know, under Stalin, they would confiscate real estate.
	We're not like Stalin. We're not going to confiscate.
	We'll take everything else, but not the real estate.
	And that's our distinction between us and Stalin.
	It's a distinction without a difference.
	And, of course, that little difference will disappear as well, won't it?
	So we don't want to revise Soviet-style confiscation.
	We want Putin-style confiscation.
	We want Biden-style confiscation.
	Or we want Trump-style confiscation.
	That's the good stuff.
	That's what we want to have. So, Russian officials have used existing law against discrediting the military, which covers offenses such as justifying terrorism and Spreading a fake news about the armed forces in order to silence the critics of Putin.
	You see, these tactics are the same in every one of the countries.
	Human nature is the same, but the nature of these tyrants is always the same.
	There really isn't any difference in any of that.
	And sometimes when we look at how it is rolling out in another country, Where we don't have an actual dog in the fight.
	You know, when we talk about the criminality and the unconstitutionality of the war on drugs, it's difficult for some people who maybe have had family members destroyed by drugs to really see how the bigger overriding issues.
	They can't see beyond that.
	And yes, it is a problem.
	And yet, that is not a solution to the problem.
	You know, just as a solution to drug addiction, to addiction of anything.
	Whether it is addiction to sex or to drugs or to money or you name it.
	The answer to that is in Christ.
	And it's a spiritual issue.
	People are looking for something.
	They're looking to escape something that is hounding them.
	And they can't find that escape.
	They're looking to escape from reality.
	When the reality is, they need a bigger dose of reality.
	We don't need to protect ourselves against bad speech, against false speech.
	We need to move towards the truth.
	And we need to move more towards reality.
	And all of these political measures to punish people, to try to bring them in line, to whip them into submission, none of that is really going to work.
	That's not where the solution lies.
	We're going to take a quick break and we'll be right back.
	If you like the Eagles, the Cars, and Huey Lewis and the News, you'll love the Classic Hits channel at APS Radio.
	Download our app or listen now at APSRadio.com.
	Music Thank
	you. Making
	sense. Common again.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	We're going to talk about financial aspects.
	While we're waiting for him to come on, we have a man who traveled to Iowa.
	It was publicized that the Temple of Satan, Lucian Greaves is what this guy calls himself.
	That's not his name. I don't know if he's changed his name legally or not.
	The whole thing is theater.
	Tony is ready to join us. So let's get Tony on. And by the way, folks, please like the stream.
	That helps us, especially during the broadcast. And so people need to hear what Tony is going to be saying.
	So again, please like the stream if you're listening live.
	And joining us now is Tony Arterburn.
	Tony has wisewolf.gold to help you get gold and silver and any small or large amount on a monthly basis as well.
	And he supports this program with davidknight.gold, which takes you to Tony's site, but also lets him know that you're coming through us.
	So joining us now is Tony Arterman.
	Thank you for joining us, Tony. Good to see you.
	It's good to see you, David. Hey, if Diogenes was around today, he'd be a David Knight listener, I'm pretty sure.
	It's funny about Diogenes.
	I heard a story a long time ago from a friend of mine.
	He was my first squad leader in the Army, and he became a history professor, and he told me a story about Diogenes.
	You know, he's always on the lookout for an honest man.
	Mm-hmm. But he wouldn't look in a mirror either.
	If you held up a mirror, he'd turn away because he was looking for an honest man.
	So I always thought that was fun.
	A little bit of Greek philosophical history there.
	That's good. We all need to be aware of our faults, don't we?
	And that man in the mirror can be very, very accusing, can't he?
	If we really are honest about it.
	Maybe Russell Brand will get there.
	Maybe he's starting to get to that point.
	But I'm not so sure about Tucker.
	He's the one. Even more concerned about it.
	I'm not sure that he's looking for any honest people.
	He's looking for famous people.
	And sometimes it's good to be infamous if you want to build an audience.
	But let's talk about what's going on with gold.
	I mentioned earlier that there's even more states that are talking about getting rid of sales taxes as well as income taxes on precious metals.
	They mentioned the four states they mentioned.
	Kentucky and Wisconsin getting rid of state sales tax if you buy gold and silver.
	Georgia and Kansas would take it off of income tax if you're buying gold or silver or getting rid of it, that type of thing.
	Of course, other states like Tennessee, we don't have an income tax.
	So Tennessee has already taken it off of the sales tax.
	How many different states are there that don't tax gold and silver, precious metals?
	I think we're coming up on a majority of the states now that don't have a sales tax on gold and silver.
	It should be more and more getting added every year.
	One of the reasons that I have land in Northwest Arkansas, but one of the reasons I don't have my shop in Northwest Arkansas and I went across the border into Branson, Missouri, is because Missouri didn't have a sales tax on gold and silver bullion.
	And you can't be a gold and silver dealer.
	Nobody's going to pay it. Yeah.
	You know, just from a business standpoint, the states would be wise to lift those restrictions because no one's going to have that commerce going on in your state anyway.
	So, again, this is how you know it's grassroots and from the people because it has to do with lifting restrictions and getting rid of taxes.
	That's how you know it's not coming from the top down.
	I think this is part of...
	The demand from the bottom up, David, we're seeing that, again, people going to Walmart, going to Costco, they're selling out of gold bars.
	People understand instinctively there's something wrong with their currency, and this is what's happening.
	It's causing an effect all across the country of lifting these restrictions.
	Yeah, and what they're talking about is essentially all precious metals, gold, silver, platinum, and palladium bullion beginning in August if these things pass.
	Even in Wisconsin, they're talking about removing it from copper bullion.
	So, again, this is, but when you look at gold and silver, this is not only just helping people to get something that's going to be a preservation of wealth, but it's also, I think, a necessary component for it to be used in trade as a currency.
	And I think that's another thing that's driving that, the fear and the understanding of a lot of state legislators about how shaky the dollar is.
	And, you know, we don't want to have, if we have taxes on the exchange of gold and silver, then you can't use it as a currency.
	Well, I think this is the future, too.
	Because of the loss of the purchasing power of the dollar and the loss of the dollar as the world's reserve currency, I think is going to create a multifaceted currency selection.
	It's not going to just be something like the BRICS, Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa.
	It's not going to be something like the BRICS create the new world reserve currency.
	In my opinion, there's going to be a handful, maybe more, maybe a dozen different currencies used around the world, and the dollar will just get supplanted that way.
	I think this is, again, you're watching gold and silver become legal tender in more and more states.
	You know, internationally this is going on as well.
	So I think we're seeing this a very positive trend, David, because the dollar is losing that status.
	People are waking up to that.
	It's slowly but surely.
	And we're going to see more and more of this on the horizon.
	Yeah, I agree. The Kansas bill has two bills.
	They explicitly reaffirmed that gold and silver are legal tender.
	So that is a big part, as you pointed out.
	And as far as the taxation goes, Peter Schiff says, well, you know, the stuff has already been taxed when you look at inflation.
	That's a tax. Yeah. You can't double tax it.
	Exactly. And, of course, that's the argument that people make with the estate tax and things like that.
	When somebody dies and the family is taxed on the value of the estate, it's especially true of homes.
	of course land is going to go up in value. But you look at homes, you know, after they're paid off after 30 years or whatever and it's supposedly worth 10 times or more what it was when they bought it 30 years earlier and it's now 30 years old and not brand new. So that's built into it.
	When you look at the valuation of, you know, family business or a farm or something like that.
	That dollar figure that's there, they don't adjust that for the inflation.
	They say, well, you know, it's like this all happened in one year.
	You know, it went from X to 100 times X or something like that.
	And so, you know, a lot of that, or all of it, in many cases, is going to be just higher value based on inflation.
	So that is a really unjust form of taxation.
	And it is not about, you know, Jefferson was, Supportive of things that would stop wealth from being passed on from generation to generation because he wanted people to earn it themselves.
	But he wasn't looking at a central bank and the kind of engineered inflation that's going to artificially inflate this stuff.
	Well, no, he wasn't.
	Thomas Jefferson believed in tariffs.
	I mean, about 78% of all the revenue that the government collected for the first 120 years of its existence was from foreign imports.
	We taxed you at the border.
	And if you wanted to gain interest to America's markets, you had to pay for it, which that's a taxation I agree with.
	And I think... It can be strategic.
	It's called economic nationalism.
	Pat Buchanan wrote about it a lot.
	I think we were better off when we had economic nationalism.
	Now we tax from within, and you can't really own your home.
	You can't really own your property.
	You have property tax. You have income tax, which really wasn't a part of our history until 1913.
	You had the Lincoln administration to pay for the Civil War, and there was...
	Again, but that got struck down.
	It was deemed unconstitutional because we had to have the 16th Amendment, and that really goes hand in hand with the Federal Reserve because somebody has to pay the interest to the banksters.
	So, no, I think this is, you know, you look at something like Bitcoin, David, and I've been in the Bitcoin business since 2016.
	I had Bitcoin ATMs for a long time.
	The reason that it's not taxed, you know, there's no sales tax on Bitcoin, is because it was recognized as a currency.
	And more and more, in the consciousness, gold and silver.
	Now, gold and silver are money, and there's a difference between currency and money.
	Sometimes they can be the same thing.
	But I think more and more people are recognizing gold and silver, physical gold and silver bullion, is money and is currency, and that's why it shouldn't be taxed.
	Yeah, I was talking to Aaron Day the other day, and he's, you know, completely focused on the CBDC stuff.
	He'd been involved in politics.
	He said, now, this is the thing.
	This is the hill to die on.
	He even ran briefly for a president so he could get in and talk to some of these candidates.
	But, you know, he's written a book about it, and he said, you know, when they did this to Bitcoin, when they moved it from something that was designed to be used as...
	Currency to something that was a store of wealth.
	It completely changed the character of it.
	And so he said, you know, it's got an issue in terms of the speed at which you can do transactions, the capacity of that structure to handle a lot of transactions.
	But that is a key thing.
	So you talked about it being money as well as currency.
	What is your distinction between money and currency?
	Well, money has to inherently have a store of value.
	Currency can be like a fiat currency, just by decree.
	And of course, a currency like an electric current, if it stops, it dies.
	And so that's why there's something called money velocity.
	In the fiat currency world, you have to have more and more usage.
	It's basically a giant Ponzi scheme when people stop buying into the system.
	And that's why, if you look at the 80% of all the $100 bills ever printed are in the continental United States.
	It's the petrodollar.
	It's used in transactions all over the world.
	When people stop using that, and I've talked on your show earlier this year, we spoke about The economist Robert Triffin, you have Triffin's dilemma.
	Back in the 1960s, he was asked before Congress, what happens if we lose that status of the world's reserve currency?
	Because back then, as you know, a lot of countries were taking notice that we took the silver out of our coinage.
	We had guns and butter, and LBJ was going to make the Great Society on the Mekong, and there was something wrong with the U.S. dollar, and that's why eventually, in 1971, Richard Nixon has to take us off We're good to go.
	And we'll see how it all ends up.
	But it's not going to be well.
	And that's what I was... I did a little video last week on my channel.
	And I just talked to...
	I held up a one-ounce gold coin and I held up a U.S. dollar.
	And I said, what's the difference between these?
	One of them is currency and one of them is money.
	One is a store of value.
	It has a value inherently in and of itself.
	It could also be traded and used as currency.
	And one other thing is just it's given psychological value.
	And there's a demand for it.
	So for a brief period in time, it can give you some wealth, but it's an illusion.
	And that's what I think a lot of people are coming to understand, especially after the last three or four years, I mean, with the loss of purchasing power.
	I even asked in that video, does your dollar buy the same amount of groceries that it did three years ago, two years ago?
	Absolutely not. When you talk about velocity and keeping this currency flowing, that's one of the key things that they want to be able to manipulate with CBDC that is going to be even more powerful for them.
	Because they can impose negative interest rates and things like you either spend it or you lose it.
	And it's not just negative interest rates.
	They can put a timer on it.
	Here's some money and it's going to expire in such and such amount of time.
	And of course, it doesn't even have to be the money that they give you.
	It could be the money... That you've earned.
	And it's going to expire in a certain amount of time.
	So you better spend it. That's an amazing tool for these bankers to be able to prop up velocity.
	And that is such a tantalizing prospect for them.
	They're going to pursue this with every ounce of their fiber.
	Oh, absolutely. It's just the dream of these people who control all of this stuff.
	And of course, as you were pointing out, when they changed the U.S. from a...
	System of taxation at the border and no taxation internally.
	I think a large part of that was, as you pointed out, and we all know, they created the income taxes at the same time they created the Federal Reserve.
	They change and then they take down tariffs.
	They change it to internal taxation.
	I think that allowed them, one aspect of it, is it allowed them to have greater taxation.
	Because they really couldn't ramp up the tariffs.
	If they keep ramping up the tariffs, people just stop buying stuff elsewhere and they start making things internally and buying stuff from each other within the United States.
	But you can't escape the taxes when they make them internal and when they start to tax every single thing that you do, everything that you own.
	And so it was just the difference between night and day.
	They had everything now.
	There was no limit to the amount of money that they could make with taxes because there was no limit to anything that they could tax.
	Well, right. And I think, you know, I think history shows that it was a way for the elite to make sure that no one ever competes with them.
	They created their foundations prior to the 16th Amendment.
	This was part of the elite keeping their status forever and making sure that you can never climb up the ladder.
	That's right. Oh, that's just an arcane throwback.
	It doesn't work. It's isolationism.
	And I'm thinking, well, all four presidents on Mount Rushmore agreed with tariffs.
	But how's it working out in the modern era where all these free traders and all these free trade agreements?
	I'm all for free markets.
	But I think when you're talking about in the modern era, and this is something that almost never gets talked about anymore, but we throw our workers into some Darwinian contest survival of the fittest with countries with no regulation, with slave labor.
	And again, these multinationals, they just...
	Thomas Jefferson was right when he said merchants have no country.
	They don't fight for us, these big companies.
	They don't fight for lower taxes or deregulation or any of that.
	They just move wherever they want and ship the products back in.
	If you look at movies like Ferris Bueller's Day Off, when Ben Stein plays the teacher, if you listen to the lecture he's giving in the movie, he's talking about how the Smoot-Hawley bill back in the early 1930s That caused the Great Depression, which Smoot-Hawley was a tariff to protect the American workers in a time of economic downturn.
	And, you know, years later, Ben Bernanke would actually admit that it was the Federal Reserve that caused the crash.
	And we wouldn't do that again.
	So, you know, to channel Pat Buchanan, Smoot and Hawley were framed.
	Smoot and Hawley were framed, and the Federal Reserve was actually the culprit in the Great Depression.
	Again, tariffs have... Have always been a part of the American character, but when they started taxing inward, that was the play to give the elites free run of the game.
	They don't pay income tax.
	They don't, you know, what was the, I think it was a couple years ago, GE paid zero.
	This giant, General Electric, giant multinational paid zero income tax.
	So, you know, I'm paying more tax than GE. How does this work?
	And I think this is part of the Communist Manifesto as well.
	Graduated income tax, all of that.
	So we have to be careful not to get too comfortable with all of these things that are really anti-American in the first place.
	Maybe that's why the students didn't answer.
	Ben Stein. Anyone out there, they're all saying, is he feeding us that Keynesian BS again?
	It can be. It's funny. Years and years ago, I was just watching the movie, and I go, well, he's absolutely wrong about that.
	Of course, Ben Stein was a speechwriter for Nixon.
	Yeah, yeah. What is he getting at?
	We don't believe any of that stuff.
	Now, when you were talking about...
	These merchants who have no country, of course, the technocrats have no country either.
	I remember the discussion that Musk had with Vivek Ramaswamy, where they're talking about, yeah, we just got to bring the best people in here.
	I don't really care about these Americans.
	Let's just get some cheap labor in here, that type of thing.
	And I looked at them and thought, you know, these guys, they have absolutely no loyalty to this country.
	They want to just open up the gates and, you know, it's like an exploitation from the top down.
	You know, when you look at Musk and you look at what Ramaswamy were advocating in their little discussion, I thought it was absolutely reprehensible.
	It didn't get much attention, but Jefferson would have known where they were coming from, Whitney.
	Yeah. Absolutely. When you go back to, you know, what was it, three or four years ago, Disney was insourcing new employees and having the old employees train them before they let them go.
	I remember that. There are corporations in America today, ladies and gentlemen.
	Yeah, we're going to bring in cheap foreign labor, and you can just walk away, or you can train your replacements, and we'll give you a little bit more time, and we'll give you a little bit more of a severance package.
	That was the deal that they offered them, yeah.
	It was reprehensible on a lot of different levels.
	You know, one of the things we look at, Tony, that I look at when I look at crypto, one of the reasons why I... And focused on tangible things like gold and silver is because of this item here, the Ripple chairman, Chris Larson.
	It has just been hacked yesterday for a reported 213 million XRPs, which was $112.5 million.
	So you've got the CEO of this company that is offering Ripple.
	Ripple is one of the cryptocurrencies that they're trying to push out there as a currency, as a transactional thing, rather than something that's more of a store of wealth.
	They're trying to push it out there.
	For a transactional basis.
	And so you've got the guy who's the CEO there, and he gets ripped off for $112.5 million.
	The biggest hack so far this year.
	But that's the thing that concerns me.
	You know, it's just these are people who know what they're doing, and it's still vulnerable.
	Just like we see the NSA and see the CIA getting their information hacked.
	It doesn't seem to be, it seems to me like anything that's in cyberspace is vulnerable.
	It's vulnerable to what the government wants to do and it's vulnerable to what private criminals want to do, it seems like.
	That's my concern. Well, in about 13 days, I'll be speaking at Anarcapulco in Acapulco, Mexico, with all the libertarians and anarchists and pro-crypto.
	I mean, a lot of crypto specialists will be there.
	I'm the only gold guy there, and I get 30 minutes.
	So, I'm both.
	You know, I mean, my podcast when I talk about financials is the Wise Wolf Golden Crypto Show because I think the crypto space is very important to where we're headed in the future.
	And, yes, there's the threat of CBDC, but I like a lot of the innovations that have gone on in crypto.
	But it is a lot more volatile.
	I mean, let's just be honest. If you love crypto, you have to admit, you know, a gold coin in my hand, as long as I can keep it safe, has no counterparty risk whatsoever.
	Well, if I have...
	And I keep my Bitcoin...
	Most of that on an Exodus wallet, you have to write down your 12 phrases.
	You got to keep that somewhere safe in a fireproof box because you can reanimate the wallet.
	And I've done that. I've deleted my wallet off the phone and then reanimated it with my 12 phrases just to test it.
	So all that crypto stays on there.
	But again, somebody has to write that code.
	Somebody owns that. It's not completely safe because it is in cyberspace.
	So, you know, there's so much volatility in crypto, but there is, I think, a lot of opportunity there.
	And it's really, that's where the free market, whatever's left of the free market, it's in hiding.
	It's not like, you know, Gresham's Law, when bad money enters the system, good money goes into hiding.
	I think crypto is an interesting space.
	It has a lot of potential.
	I'm still optimistic about a great deal of it, but then you get the FTXs and Sam Bankman frides of the world, and then you just start shrugging your shoulders like, has this been hijacked too?
	These are great questions, but some of the coins, like the privacy coins, and I know you've talked with people from Pirate Chain.
	Yeah. There's coins like Monero.
	There's privacy coins. There's some good innovations, and you're mentioning Ripple, which is XRP. I own a little bit of that, and they want to make it a transactional coin.
	Like you said, it's kind of piggy banking off the traditional banking system.
	You know, so I'm not heavy into XRP, but I think that it's interesting.
	And then you hear these stories like where the CEO is just well stolen from it.
	Those aren't good headlines, especially for people.
	And BlackRock and all these other companies know that.
	And they're like, oh, well, I see that you are interested in crypto.
	Let us hold it for you, which would go back to the ETF, the Bitcoin ETFs.
	And that, again, is not...
	You truly are holding crypto, it's another way for them to manipulate the markets, in my opinion.
	Yeah. And when I had Aaron Day on the other day, he said, the final countdown to CBDC, warning people about what it's like.
	begins with a fictional account of life under CBDC and how they can destroy every last ounce of freedom under that system.
	And then he talks about, as you were mentioning, you know, having your own wallets and, you know, making sure that you're not on an exchange, any of your stuff.
	And he gives seminars on how to do this type of stuff. And subtitled to his book is, you know, getting out of this with gold, silver, and crypto.
	So he says, I look at all of them because we don't really know how they're going to move and in which direction they're going to move.
	I just look at it and I was like, you know, I just don't have the time to try to keep this stuff secure if the Ripple chairman is going to have this stuff ripped off his own currency.
	He's going to rip off.
	And here's the other thing.
	I talked about this other individual, high net worth individual, who had nearly a million dollars stolen from him in Bitcoin out of his wallet.
	And he found out about it when some guy noticed a whale transaction, a really big transaction, and he started tracing it down.
	And he was able to determine that it was coming from this guy.
	And the same thing with this Ripple chairman.
	He's not admitting how much money.
	He got ripped off for.
	But it's other people who saw it.
	Other people said, hey, that's him.
	And this is the amount that they got.
	And it's like, you know, why, again, Monera and Pirate Chain, they don't, they're not open like that.
	But almost all the rest of these cryptocurrencies are with the blockchain.
	It's, you know, people know how to find it.
	They can find it. Yeah, it's an open source ledger.
	That's why it's so laughable when you get people that...
	I tend to think they do know what they're talking about and they say, it's just all used for money laundering and terrorism.
	Not really.
	This is not something the cartels aren't using a Bitcoin Exodus wallet to do transactions.
	They have pallets of cash.
	Again, but I'm not anti-cash either.
	That's another trap you can fall into.
	Well, we've got to get it all on the ledger.
	That's what CBDC is.
	CBDC is getting everything on a ledger.
	As you mentioned earlier, one of the powers that they want, absolutely, is to do away with all cash.
	And where there's no variables in the system, and they can expand and contract the money supply at will.
	That's what they want to be able to do.
	Now, that'll be only a part of the problem.
	The real problem is the control.
	It's the social control.
	It's going to be disguised as money, but it's all about control.
	It's a control grid. That's why that phrase, the hill to die on, it must be opposed.
	Yes. With every fiber of our being, it must be opposed politically.
	We have to raise awareness.
	And it could be that they implemented and it falls short, kind of like a Nigeria situation.
	I would love that. They don't seem to know what they're doing much anymore.
	The Fed came out, now it's hawkish again.
	And then they released another report that possible rate cuts down to 4%.
	Nobody really knows.
	They've given several different signals.
	Even a couple of months ago, they had, you know, we're going to look like we've stabilized everything.
	We've reached a terminal rate.
	I know they use that phraseology.
	And then they said they had another spokesperson come out and say, well, no, we're going to stay where we are.
	We're not lowering rates.
	It's all over the place.
	It's coming, though. Within this quarter, they will do something to lower rates, in my opinion.
	Well, they thrive on the uncertainty and the volatility because that creates fear.
	And fear is the way that they can control people and control markets is with fear.
	Fear of missing out, fear of this, fear of that.
	And so it is all, you know, rumors and innuendo and very rapid movements up or down in order to create this kind of volatility and fear.
	It's engineered for that.
	Yeah. And, you know, when I talk about the crypto stuff, you know, if somebody feels comfortable, it's just I look at it and part of it, I think, Tony, is the very name, you know, cryptocurrency.
	Oh, well, this is crypto.
	If it's encrypted, that means it must be private.
	You know, a lot of people think that about the blockchain stuff.
	That crypto means private, and it doesn't.
	There's only a couple of currencies that really keep that privacy there of who owns it.
	All the rest of the stuff is completely naked and exposed to governments and to the public.
	Well, it's open source. I mean, you can download a Bitcoin wallet as long as it's not tied to an exchange that's decently anonymous, but not 100%.
	I mean, you can always find out who that is, especially when you start transacting with other wallets, and if they're commercial especially, because those commercial wallets are usually hooked up to an exchange.
	So it's not something you can be totally anonymous with but it is still the people's currency So the people's money in my opinion Bitcoin because if you you know internationally if I want to send a transaction, I certainly can't You know and I don't and all your eggs in one basket in the coming years is a bad idea in any respect I like things outside of the system because the system itself is gonna draw you in with this to create the crisis
	Then the solution will be you downloading your wallet biometrically and getting hooked up to central bank digital currency to save the currency and then we're all in this together.
	I've heard these phrases before, but that's the way they're going to roll it out.
	You've just got to be outside of the system.
	If you can do that by getting physical gold and silver, that's a great start.
	If you've had the brainpower and the time to look at crypto, absolutely look into it.
	I'm no expert, by the way.
	I do this all day long, and there's things I don't know about crypto.
	I need to have more guests on my show.
	Tell me what's happening. Neither is the CEO of Ripple, an expert on his own crypto.
	I don't feel so bad about not knowing.
	Luckily, I haven't had any major or any theft at all of my crypto over the years.
	It's mainly because I use it as service.
	You know, when I would, I just filled up the machines, we'd sell it out the next day and I'd keep wiring.
	And so there wasn't a lot of inventory just held over in my wallets.
	So that might be one of the reasons.
	But, you know, you can keep it decently safe.
	But, yeah, you're always a target, too.
	Those whales are always a target, and they should know better.
	Yeah, that's true. Well, we talked about diversification, gold, silver, crypto.
	Let's talk a little bit about silver, since we haven't talked about that.
	There's a Kitco article saying, silver market to see record physical demand in 2024 as industrial demand remains strong.
	And of course we know that's going to happen, right?
	Yeah, you just pulled it up.
	We know, we've talked about that before.
	You've talked about how undervalued silver is compared to, historically compared to gold and things like that.
	But, you know, even though we've got all of this green agenda and people are pushing back hard against it, Biden is still going to be subsidizing that.
	And it's such a big part of the green agenda.
	It's almost like it's, you could almost look at it as kind of a hedge against the green agenda, couldn't you?
	The silver. And that's part of it.
	Yesterday, I did an interview with Peter Kraut, who wrote the book The Great Silver Bull, and he's out of Canada.
	It's a great book if you want to get some history of why silver is priced the way that it is.
	It's a really fascinating history.
	Why is silver so cheap?
	Well, he started explaining to me, and if you look at the silver mining that goes on today, Only about 25% of the silver that hits the market comes from silver mines.
	You can hardly find any good silver mining stocks.
	There's just not a whole lot of entities doing that because the price point isn't there.
	It's not worth getting the contracts and digging through the ground and getting the ore out.
	And so you have a lot of problems with finding new supply.
	And he was telling me, you know, basically all the recycling and all the mining and most of the silver comes from gold mining, copper mining.
	It's just an added benefit.
	They get some silver out of that, too.
	So about a billion ounces a year are produced.
	And he said, well, what's been happening year over year, the demand is going to 1.2, 1.3.
	So you're talking about hundreds of millions of ounces that are missing.
	And a lot of that ends up in landfills.
	It'll never be recovered.
	Gold has been recovered over the years.
	There's a lot of, you know, people come to places like, like Wise Wolf and sell their bracelets or their stuff they've mined out of computers and any kind of scrap and that gets melted and it gets recycled back into the gold ecosystem.
	Silver is so cheap, it hasn't been.
	And so this is catching up with it.
	We're talking about hundreds of millions of ounces in deficits.
	So this is coming to a head.
	These days of silver in the $20 range, I think that's ridiculous.
	I've been saying it for years because I can tell just the variety of having to source product for people That we're nowhere near where we were in 2018-2019.
	I mean, I could get anything then.
	I'm still limited, even with stuff hitting the market.
	And when prices drop to a certain point, there's nothing to be had.
	So I think that we're going to see, and Peter Kraut agreed with me, I think we're going to see this...
	Resetting of prices and commodities very soon.
	And this is an investment that I always have to clarify.
	I'm not talking about investment and silver is going to the moon.
	But there is something seriously wrong with the pricing model.
	I mean, $52.50 an ounce in 1980.
	That's what I keep saying.
	I'm like, this cannot...
	Look at the debasement and the destruction of the dollar since that time.
	You know, it's 44 years ago.
	I know because I was just born.
	So there's a problem with the dollar and the silver-gold ratio.
	There's a problem with all of that.
	I think the deficits are going to kick in sooner or later, and the physical demand.
	Look at even the warfare state, David.
	It's 40 pounds of silver in a Tomahawk missile.
	Wow. And you're not going to recover that either.
	No, we keep blowing it up.
	We blow it up or we send it into landfills because it's so cheap.
	I just think there's a day of reckoning coming.
	I think silver not only is a monetary metal like gold and has been money longer than gold and traded longer than gold, but it is also an industrial metal.
	It's used in medicine.
	It's one of the... When you have antimicrobial, antibacterial developments in medicine, it's usually coming from silver.
	So silver has so many properties, and it's so cheap right now.
	There's so much emphasis put on That it never moves.
	People say, oh, I buy silver.
	It never goes anywhere. I know.
	But one of these days, I think that clock runs out and looks like it's going to come from the actual bullion supply.
	It's just not there. That has to be a reckoning for it.
	Well, as you pointed out, you know, getting about a billion ounces a year.
	But they're looking at a 4% increase.
	This is coming from the Silver Institute.
	So, of course, you know, they're going to be focused on silver and pushing silver.
	But they said 690 million ounces of demand for things like solar energy and electric vehicles.
	So just in that area alone...
	Looking at it to go up to almost 700 million ounces as a total amount that they're looking at.
	And then we have, on the other side of it, we have the concerted efforts of Russia and others to de-dollarize, to take the dollar away as being the reserve currency because that is so fundamental to our economy.
	Our power base there.
	And so that is essentially they realize how weaponized it's become, and they want to take that weapon away.
	And so Russia is saying that's one of their top priorities is de-dollarization and promoting internal trade between the BRICS countries and other countries like that and not using the dollar as an intermediate exchange.
	And that's going to be something that will, when that happens, that is going to have tremendous consequences for those of us who live in America.
	Absolutely. And we've never seen this before.
	We've never lost, never gained and lost the world's reserve currency status in our history.
	This is something that began in 1944 at Bretton Woods and was remained, for the most part, stable.
	But you can see that it's...
	The percentages, David, the decline in usage of the dollar since 2001, 75%, down to 45% of global transactions used in dollars.
	And this is only increasing.
	It's because of the sanctions.
	We have 40 different sanctions in 36 different countries.
	Now, I've been quoting that for probably six, seven months now.
	It's probably more sanctions.
	That's our favorite thing.
	We like to weaponize the dollar and use sanctions.
	But I think, again, you're watching more and more of these countries move away.
	They're getting out of their dollar holdings.
	They're getting into gold.
	The World Gold Council has just pointed out, again, year over year, central banks breaking records buying gold.
	There's only one central bank, major central bank, not buying gold.
	That's the United States. That's the Federal Reserve not buying gold.
	Yeah, that's right. Well, you know, I thought it was interesting when I saw this article.
	They referred to, the Russian reporting referred to the Russian Serpa for BRICS. They don't call him a czar for some reason.
	We call him a czar.
	We like to call our drug czar William Bennett and everybody else.
	You know, whenever they put somebody in charge of something in the U.S., we like to call them a czar.
	They don't like czars in Russia, so they call them a Sherpa.
	His name is Sergei Rybakov, and he says the top priority for BRICS in 2024 is de-dollarization for them and for everybody else so they can get in there.
	Wes Robertson on Rockfin.com.
	It says if the Federal Reserve is not abolished, it won't matter what we end up using as currency.
	The country will never be free.
	Well, I agree. But, of course, CBDC is a way to accelerate this trend and to take it to a new level that we have never, ever seen before.
	And that's across the board when we look at what is happening with so much of the technology, you know.
	Robotics and artificial intelligence and nanotech and all the rest of this stuff and genetics.
	All of these things are rapidly changing.
	And we're at the point right now where they want to redesign the financial system, as you pointed out and we talked about earlier.
	It's gone on for a very long time.
	And it's one of these institutions that people are going to change.
	As long as the Federal Reserve is there, it still is going to be a threat no matter how they redesign the system.
	But this CBDC is the worst thing, the worst possible scenario that we could have for a currency.
	So that's my interest in it.
	Anything that I can use as a hedge to not have to be 100% into that system, that's what I want to focus on.
	Tell us a little bit about what's going on at Wise Wolf.
	Wise Wolf Die Gold, and of course you can get to that by David Knight Die Gold.
	What's happening at Wise Wolf, Tony?
	Well, we just got lots of packages going out.
	Wolfpack's growing. We'd love more people.
	The more people to join, the better prices I can get for everyone.
	I just got a big shipment of goldbacks in, and we even have goldback wallets.
	I'd like to thank for Love of the Road.
	The David Knight listener who shares a lot of your content asked us about it, and so we ordered the goldback wallets.
	So you can get a special wallet for your Goldback.
	And I decided last month, I said, I'm going to put Goldbacks in every order.
	Now, how does a Goldback wallet differ from a regular wallet?
	It's just a little bit. It's just longer.
	You don't want to fold your Goldbacks.
	Oh, okay. All right. You want to keep those without folding and crinkling in the middle.
	So it's just a longer, it's a leather wallet.
	And we ordered it from the Goldback company.
	That's cool. There was a tip.
	Again, one of the listeners for Love of the Road said, You need to check this out.
	So we did, and we ordered some.
	I just decided we're putting goldbacks in every tier.
	And I bought the $1 denominations from different states.
	And we have New Hampshire, Wyoming, Utah.
	Some others, Nevada, I believe.
	And we're going to get shipments of that every month, and we're putting them in all of the Wolfpacks.
	It gives you a little bit of diversity.
	It's not the best way to get gold, but in that fractionalized sense, it can be very smart, because you're talking about 24-karat gold in a note.
	It's spread very thin.
	It's like one one-thousandth of an ounce or something like that.
	So it's something...
	Go check out davidknight.gold, and there's a tab on there to join Wolfpack.
	We've been adding a lot of new products.
	I've got so much pre-1965 silver, it's crazy.
	I've been buying it both at the Denison location in Texas and here in Branson, and we just keep stacking 90%.
	We're not going to run out of 90% anytime soon.
	I've got dimes, quarters, half dollars, and we've even got a lot of the silver dollars, the real ones, not the Eisenhower dollars from the 70s.
	I'm talking about real peace dollars and Morgan silver dollars that are going to be going into Wolfpack as well.
	So a lot of great stuff there.
	Thank you. Again, we pride ourselves.
	We did something different than a lot of the other gold and silver dealers, the big ones especially.
	They're going after the whales and going after people that, you know, $10,000 or more.
	I wanted that every day.
	Now, we can handle those transactions and we welcome them, but I'm handling just average people that are just, you want to save up something to be outside of the system and especially in the face of central bank digital currency.
	Wolfpack's a great way to do that.
	It's not a contract and you're going to get metals every single month.
	I'm trying to make the orders a lot more efficient.
	Like you bill and your billing date, like two or three days later, I want your package with a tracking number.
	So we're working on that. I love the goldback things.
	And when Aaron Day was on the other day, he was talking about using cash, talking about using goldbacks as well.
	He says, a lot of times I'll leave it as a tip along with a note explaining it and what it is to try to get people accustomed to using that.
	And that's the key thing.
	You know, we have to try to put these things in circulation.
	And just like we've got to try to make sure we keep using cash, consciously use cash, even though it may not be quite as convenient as just swiping plastic or something like that.
	It is important to use those freedoms or we're going to lose them.
	And already you're seeing this happening.
	It's happened in many countries where they shut down the ATMs and things like that.
	So, you know, having a gold back and something like that that you can use, if we can make that more popular, that is a great alternative.
	I really like those things.
	That's great. I'm a big fan of them.
	Yeah. Thank you so much for joining us, Tony.
	And again, davidknight.gold will take you to Wise Wolf, where Tony is.
	I've known him for a very long time.
	And he can help you with anything large or small.
	So thank you again, Tony.
	Appreciate it. Thank you, Dave.
	And have a good day.
	We'll be right back, folks. Stay with us.
	Hear news now at APSRadioNews.com or get the APS Radio app and never miss another story.
	Thank you for watching.
	Music by David Walsh.
	Thank you. Let's
	talk a little bit about some of Trump's cases here.
	And I'm not talking about charges against him.
	I'm talking about charges that he made against the Constitution.
	We have a Supreme Court who's going to hear arguments in the federal bump stock gun case, the prohibition that began with Trump, where he decided that he would give new gun prohibition powers to the ATF and to the executive branch.
	It was bad enough when you had Congress defy the Second Amendment.
	But now we want to have the executive branch doing it, thanks to the precedent that President Trump did.
	This particular case is one that involves Michael Cargill from Central Texas Gunworks that we know very well in Austin.
	And so he is shepherding this thing through.
	I guess we could call him maybe a Sherpa, right?
	Trump banned the bump stocks back in 2018 via a rule.
	Not even a pretended law, a rule that violates the Constitution.
	We have regulation without representation here, folks.
	Trump's ban came largely as a response to a Las Vegas 2017 mass shooting where nearly 60 people were killed, although CIA agent and liar Steve Pachenik came on my show and tried to sell the idea that nobody died.
	The whole thing was an obvious false flag.
	And yes, people died.
	But the whole thing was an obvious false flag.
	And then it was used by Trump to push through this new way of violating the Constitution.
	And then later on, Pacinic comes on and kicks off the Stop the Steal stuff with his lie about...
	The sting and so forth.
	It truly is amazing when you connect the dots and when you look at this.
	I just don't even understand how after as much as A.J. had focused on the Second Amendment, Alex Jones, how much he had focused on that and how much he had talked about the suspicious events of the Vegas shooting,
	how he could in any way, shape, or form We're good to go.
	And at that point, he got resistance from some of the gun groups that had just paid no attention.
	Now, some of them, you know, the NRA said, oh, okay, we don't care about bump stocks.
	You're the NRA and you don't understand the legal precedent being set here?
	They don't. They don't care.
	Now, gun owners of America opposed it.
	And then in 2019, when he banned the pistol braces, they said, whoa, now we oppose that.
	And eventually, in December of 2020, and Trump was in the middle of his $250 million fundraiser and trying to run his Stop the Steal Save America garbage, at that point, he pulled back the pistol brace, and then Biden started it again.
	And that's another case. So we got two cases here.
	Specifically, It says the ATF about the bump stock.
	These devices convert an otherwise semi-automatic firearm into machine gun.
	No, they don't. You could do the same thing with a belt.
	It still requires a pull of the trigger for each gun that is shot.
	So it's still semi-automatic by definition.
	One pull of the trigger and holding it down is what a machine gun, a fully automatic, is defined as.
	The Firearms Policy Coalition filed an amicus brief in this Cargill challenge.
	They said, when ATF first considered the legality of bump stocks over 20 years ago, it correctly concluded that they did not qualify as machine guns, said the brief.
	Yet, in 2018, in the face of acute political pressure, and who was president then?
	Trump. What did he want to do?
	He wanted to virtue signal to the people that he really respects.
	Not the MAGA people, but the people in New York.
	You know, Maggie Haberman, Carl Bernstein, these people that he keeps giving interviews to.
	If he becomes president, they're going to be the ones that he's concerned about, not the MAGA people.
	He'll be done with them.
	He will have gotten from them what he wants.
	So, in 2018, in the face of acute political pressure, the agency reversed course and adopted a new definition of the term that encompasses the bump stocks at issue.
	Petitioners' defense of that newfound interpretation either ignores the statute Congress enacted or it seeks to rewrite it. But of course it all ignores the Constitution.
	Top anti-gun groups are backing Biden now in this pistol-brace fight. So we have the bump stock, now we have the pistol-brace, and both of these cases are going to be coming up before the Supreme court.
	Four of the nation's top gun control advocates have joined in the effort by Biden's Bureau of Alcohol and Tobacco Firearms Explosives to regulate to tax and to eventually snuff out one of the most popular firearms in America, the AR pistol and the pistol brace.
	And, of course, they're fully on board with this precedent that Trump set.
	The gun prohibition by executive order.
	And as soon as Trump did that with the bump stocks, Lala Harris said, well, you know, when I become president, she was running for president at the time, when I become president, I'm going to tell Congress what I want them to enact in terms of gun control.
	And if they don't do it within 100 days, I'll do it by executive order, you know, just like Trump did.
	And I said that as soon as he did it, I said, you're going to see the Democrats do it.
	It didn't even take her a couple of weeks till she said, well, this is what I'm going to do as president.
	And so now we've got the Brady Center, we've got Bloomberg's Everytown for Gun Safety, Giffords Law Center, all of them love this Trump president.
	And they're all signing on board with this.
	We've got to ban these pistols with the stabilizing braces.
	And late last year, a federal district court judge in Texas put a nationwide hold on the ATF rule after it went into force.
	The judge said that ATF had overstepped its authority in targeting the braces.
	Well, that means that the Trump administration did as well.
	Except when you look at the conservative press, they'll only mention Biden's connection to this.
	They won't mention the fact that Trump did it in August of 2019, and then he removed it in December of 2020.
	This is all coming from the president's desk.
	This is not the ATF doing their own thing.
	This is being directed by the president's desk.
	So President Trump wanted them to do it in August of 2019.
	He stopped them from doing it in December of 2020.
	Biden then reenacted it, and that's where we are right now.
	The judge said that ATF had overstepped its authority in targeting the braces, which have been in use for years to help handicapped shooters hold the large AR-style pistols.
	The ATF rule faces several court challenges around the nation, and so it remains to be seen what is going to happen with that.
	But again, it's that dangerous precedent.
	Now, in terms of Trump's personal legal issues, I said just the other day, I said, don't cry for Trump.
	You know, all these people said, this is outrageous.
	$83 million, we've got to defend him.
	I want to see him win.
	You know, and all this kind of stuff. That's exactly what he wants.
	That's why he baits the judges.
	Because, you know, first of all, he's doing it for public grandstanding.
	Secondly, it's going to help him in his appeal.
	And we know that these cases are garbage.
	But that's beside the point.
	Even though...
	The jury is prejudiced against him, even though the judge is prejudiced against him, even though these are political cases.
	He hires these people like this lawyer that he had.
	And I said, don't worry about this.
	Trump is going to appeal it.
	He'll win on appeal with a different lawyer.
	He's going to get a better lawyer.
	He had three or four lawyers.
	From a highly regarded law firm walk on him in this case with E. Jean Carroll.
	The only one that was left behind was this junior lawyer who apparently he chose based on her appearance because she didn't know what to do.
	And she started acting like Trump with this judge.
	Which makes absolutely no sense for her legal career, unless she's only angling for a position in his administration, which may very well be the case.
	So now, he tweeted out on Truth Social that he's openly looking for any lawyers to help him with an appeal.
	So, he said in a post on Truth Social, Tuesday night, that he's currently interviewing numerous law firms to represent him in his appeal of, quote, one of the most ridiculous and unfair witch hunts in our country has ever seen.
	The defamation sham.
	His comments suggest that Alina Haba, the attorney who helmed his original case, may have less or no involvement in his appeal.
	That is, if he wants to win it.
	You'll be using new lawyers.
	I said it's not uncommon for people to get a new set of lawyers if they're going to go into appellate court.
	It's also not uncommon for them to get a new set of lawyers if they're going to scream at the judge.
	So much of the judge offers or threatens to put them in jail.
	Trump doesn't answer any questions when he is asked about whether he will use his campaign funds and campaign donations to pay these penalties.
	But again, as I said, I don't think he's going to pay these penalties.
	I think he's going to appeal it.
	I don't think he'll pay a cent.
	I think he's going to appeal it.
	I think he'll win on appeal.
	Because the jurisdictions that are doing this to him, you know, just like the January 6th people in Washington, D.C., Can't get a fair trial there.
	And he's not going to get a fair trial in New York, but he can appeal this outside of New York.
	The reporter asked, do you plan to use campaign funds or PAC money to try to pay some of the penalties in the New York defamation and fraud cases?
	He didn't answer it. Instead, he went on a long tirade about how he didn't do anything wrong.
	And then he makes an interesting claim.
	He said, I didn't do anything wrong.
	I mean, that's been proven as far as I'm concerned.
	And actually, we won in the Court of Appeals.
	No, he hasn't.
	No, he hasn't. That's still coming up, actually.
	As I point out in this article, he's referring to the civil fraud trial, which he has not won in the New York Court of Appeals.
	It hasn't gone to the Court of Appeals.
	I mean, he's still looking for a lawyer, and yet he says, I've won it.
	This is why I say, you can't believe a thing this guy says.
	I don't know if he's even deceiving himself, perhaps.
	Of the E. Jean Carroll defamation case, he said, that's a ridiculous case.
	That case is a ridiculous case, and we're appealing it.
	We had a very hostile judge.
	Yes, of course he does, but he also baits him as much as he can for his own personal benefits.
	We're going to take a quick break, and when we come back, we're going to take a look at the case being brought against the guy who destroyed the satanic image.
	Is that the right way that we should approach this?
	So there's legal issues.
	There's also ethical issues as to how we approach this type of thing.
	And then also we'll take a quick look at what happened with the and what may happen to these people who have just been convicted.
	Of course, they're going to appeal. People have been convicted of violating the so-called FACE Act.
	What an abomination that thing is.
	So we'll take a look at that when we come back.
	We'll be right back. Whether you're feeling like the blues or bluegrass, APS Radio has you covered.
	Check out a wide variety of channels on our app at APSradio.com.
	Let's go!
	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.
	Writing at Christian Post has an interesting take on where we are with our cultural slide.
	He said, think about the story of the guy who's known as Cato the Elder.
	Out of the Roman Empire, Marcus Portius Cato, soldier, senator, historian.
	He said it was sometime in the 2nd century BC when Cato expelled from the Roman Senate a politician who had kissed his wife in public.
	He'd kissed his wife in public.
	Within the gaze of their grown daughter, Plutarch, a Greek philosopher, condemned the display of affection as being disgraceful.
	One need not wonder what Cato the Elder would think of today's openly sexual and increasingly pornographic society.
	Whether you're talking about Trump who brags, well, you know, throughout history, famous people, you know, I guess we could include in that a politician in the Roman Senate.
	I guess he could just, you know, not even his wife, but he could grab anybody he wants in any way that he wants, right?
	And, you know, as he said in the case that he lost because of that admission, I think, he said, well, that's the way it's always been throughout history, isn't it?
	Rightly or wrongly, fortunately or unfortunately, and he kind of smirks.
	He says, that's what famous people are allowed to do.
	And the lawyer shrewdly asks him, so are you famous?
	Are you a celebrity? Get to do that kind of stuff?
	Well, I guess you could say I'm a celebrity, yeah.
	Well, you know, these kinds of ethics that we now have are the ethics of a civilization that is on the cusp of disintegrating, always throughout history.
	You know, one of the things that Travis really liked, we read G.A. Hinty books to him and my other son.
	And Travis taught himself to read by looking at G.A. Hinty books because he liked them so much.
	A whole bunch of books by a guy who was a Victorian writer.
	And he would go back and he would look at periods of time in history.
	Some of them really well known, some of them more obscure historical things that would happen, that had happened during the British Empire, that type of stuff, that were more contemporary to them.
	But in every one of these stories, it revolved around a young man who was on the cusp of manhood.
	And then he put it in a real historical context.
	But he would always portray the people as good, even the bad guys in the story.
	Always had a moral code that you don't see anymore in our entertainment or our fiction.
	And I think that wasn't just made up either.
	It was certainly a reflection of the morals of England at that time.
	But I think it was also a reflection of the morals of these other countries when you look at this.
	The fact that Cato expelled a Roman Senate politician who kissed his wife in public.
	Expelled him for morals.
	They had a much higher standard than we do today.
	So, we've got people like Tucker Carlson.
	Has no problem with Andrew Tate.
	Or with Russell Brandt. He's a big supporter of Trump, all the rest of the stuff.
	Do we really want to have leaders like that?
	At the Kinsey Institute in Indiana University, the place that has pushed so much of the given and academic sheen to this moral depravity, they recently announced that 22% of Americans admit to pursuing so-called consensual non-monogamy.
	And other types of sexual deviance.
	But of course, the Kinsey Institute is always pushing sexual deviance.
	As a matter of fact, when I started looking at who some of these institutions at the University of Indiana, they had this group called Oh So Me, which was, that's their Twitter handle.
	It's the Observatory of Social Media.
	And they were one of the groups that was running this censorship for the government.
	And the guy that was running it had been brought over from Italy first to be head of the Kinsey Institute.
	And then they moved him from that to censorship.
	Isn't that interesting? Until recently, such a claim of the 22% of Americans involved in consensual non-monogamy, he said, would have struck me as implausible until I crossed paths with a pastor who alluded to a disturbing trend that he was dealing with in his own church.
	It is everywhere. And it is the entertainment that we consume and the politicians that we support.
	And nobody rejects this kind of behavior.
	They just go along with it.
	Golden rules and golden ages.
	Can Western civilization survive the loss of its Christian underpinnings?
	This writer at lourockwell.com says, I've long subscribed to the sort of Jungian, Joseph Campbellian school.
	You know, Joseph Campbell, Power of the Myth.
	It was on public radio for quite a while.
	The idea that these archetypes and other things like that have value in and of themselves, regardless of whether or not they're true, that they're reflections of the human subconscious and of our fundamental drives, our needs, and our natures,
	and the fact that they are selected and preserved and We're good to go.
	Well, you know, the myths don't really have any power to them.
	Yesterday I talked about that sidewalk preacher got shot in the head.
	And everybody, that was actually before Thanksgiving.
	So he was, I don't know how long he was comatose and couldn't move, but it was a very long time.
	It's only just recently that he's gotten out.
	And everybody there gave him no chance.
	His wife, in a long interview that I didn't play for you, Was talking about how none of the doctors would do anything.
	None of the doctors offered any hope.
	The police officer said, well, no more after we do the autopsy.
	And yet, she said, I had a real peace that God was going to use this to show something.
	So she got very busy getting everybody she knew to pray for him.
	Myths can't do that.
	A myth, something that is, and of course, C.S. Lewis talked about the story of Jesus as being the greatest myth, and by that he means an epic story.
	But we typically look at myths and we think of something that is made up, in the sense of Carl Jung or Joseph Campbell.
	We think of it as something that we've just created for our own benefit.
	And, you know, a lot of people will say that about the Christian religion.
	Well, that's just something that was made up either by Jesus or by the people who wrote that down.
	And yet, as C.S. Lewis pointed out, you're saying that this is a great moral code that we should all live by?
	And yet you're saying the person who made this up is a liar?
	Whether it's made up by Jesus or made up by the people who wrote it down, you're calling them liars?
	He said, no, that's not really something that makes any sense.
	He said, Jesus is either liar, lunatic, or Lord.
	And then we have other things that we look at.
	But he said, people look at how useful religions could be based entirely upon lies.
	Can we have a useful religion, a basis for our civilization that is based on a foundation of lies?
	No. No, we can't.
	And we can't base this and what we're doing, we can't base it on people who don't believe that it is true.
	That's one of the key things and one of the reasons why that tack does not work because when you look at people who have, you know, the TV evangelists or the Joel Osteens who just retired his debt for his stadium that he bought of $100 million.
	There's people selling this prosperity gospel or he goes on tour and he's got, you know, tickets to watch him perform.
	$150 or, you know, average.
	When you have situations like that, that cannot be sustained.
	That's not the basis for civilization.
	And that type of thing is going to go by the wayside.
	It's built on a foundation of lies.
	It's built on a foundation of greed.
	It's built on a foundation of the love of money.
	And it cannot endure.
	But it's not Christianity.
	It's a phony version of that.
	So where are we with this guy that's been charged with a hate crime for vandalizing the satanic temple display in Iowa?
	Michael Cassidy is his name on December the 14th, as they had Christmas displays and stuff in the Iowa State Capitol.
	You had this group that the satanic temple is not about the free exercise of religion.
	They're about suppressing the free exercise of religion, specifically Christianity.
	And so they asked for and got permission to set up this mockery in the Iowa State Capitol.
	He went there.
	He didn't live in Iowa, but he traveled to Iowa, and he destroyed it.
	And now he has been charged with a felony.
	He defended his actions by saying, Satan is real, and we should not tolerate him in our midst.
	You see, the people with a satanic temple don't believe, they say.
	That Satan is real. And they're doing this simply as anti-Christian trolls.
	But it's more than just coming after Christianity.
	They're actually trolling the free exercise of religion.
	They're trying to get it shut down.
	These people don't have a religion.
	They don't believe any of this stuff, and they admit it.
	And I've said when I talked about this in the past, I said, I'm not in favor of having to pass some kind of a religious litmus test, as they were doing to everybody when people said, I've got a religious reason that I don't want to take these vaccines.
	Oh, really? Well, let me quiz you.
	And they even put out, and I reported it at the time, you know, well, we can trip them up this way.
	They say they don't want to... Take a drug that has been contaminated by testing it on aborted babies.
	Well, aspirin is like that.
	It's like, no, it isn't.
	Aspirin has been around forever.
	You know, willow bark and things like that, and even in the formulation that we take it.
	They've used in recent years, they've done some tests that had aborted babies.
	That's not the basis of why we have that.
	But the point is that they were actually sending out little scripts to people and say, when they say this, you say that, and you try to trip them up and confuse them or try to expose them, pretend that they are frauds.
	That's not what is happening with the Satanic Temple.
	The Satanic Temple is a fraud.
	And they publicly admit it.
	I don't want to see some kind of an inquisition where we test people on the, you know, we've done this in Western civilization, and we learned a lesson once upon a time, that we don't want to have an inquisition where we test people's religious beliefs.
	Or where we disregard them even if they're sincere because we disagree with their religious beliefs.
	That's not what this is about.
	These people are trying to shut down other people's free expression of religion.
	They want freedom from religion.
	And so from just a, even from a non-spiritual, non-Christian standpoint, they should have never been allowed to put that up.
	And it is weakness, weakness on the part of these politicians who stood in support of it.
	Essentially pretending that they are in favor of free speech and free exercise of religion when it's exactly where they're supporting the people who are trying to destroy that.
	And so, as they were putting up, you had a state representative there in Iowa, John Dunwell, a guy who is also an ordained minister and a pastor.
	And this is the problem with the church, that we have people like this who are ordained ministers and pastors.
	Who have no discernment and no backbone and are so afraid to criticize something.
	Oh, don't, you know, because I want to get reelected or because I don't want people to call me hateful or bigoted or something.
	I'm not going to tell the truth about this stuff to people.
	And I don't really have any real beliefs that I need to defend.
	I don't have any problem saying that evil is good and good is evil.
	That's what this guy was essentially doing.
	He says it's not really that radical.
	He says, I don't want the government dictating, approving, or regulating religious expression.
	It's not a religious expression for these people.
	They don't believe any of this stuff.
	You are not interfering with their free exercise religion because they don't believe it.
	This is just a way for them to control people who do.
	He said, I would rather have an evil, blasphemous display, or no display at all, than to have the state dictate what they think is appropriate.
	Well, as much as I dislike the government, it is not the greatest evil that we face.
	We don't wrestle against flesh and blood.
	We wrestle against principalities and powers that are evil, that are above that and behind that.
	It's amazing for me to see an ordained Christian minister say, well, I don't care if it's evil and blasphemous.
	I just don't want the government telling me what to do.
	That's where we are now. That's where we are.
	Isn't that crazy? Anyway, he struck that down, and they said, TST is classified as religion and is therefore tax-exempt.
	They're gaming that system as well.
	Although the members do not believe in the supernatural, and they don't believe in Satan, Yeah, they don't believe any of this stuff.
	Bulldog says, there's nothing like reading the Bible cover to cover, even if you only understand half of it.
	Yeah, you'll gradually get there.
	As a matter of fact, I saw this Danica something or the other.
	She was the little girl in the Wonder Years, and she's now in her 40s somewhere, I guess.
	She became a Christian, and she just said, this last year, I went all the way through the Bible, and she said, it was amazing.
	Yeah. And she still has a lot of questions about it.
	A lot of people will. So that's one way to do it.
	I prefer to just camp out on one spot for a long time.
	Numerous people responded by criticizing this pastor, state rep, Dunwell, calling him pathetic, calling him a coward, calling him a heretic.
	Quite a few accused the pastor of opposing God and needing to repent.
	Yeah, a lot of pastors are just taking a pass, aren't they, on all this stuff.
	Unwilling to take a stand.
	And again, I'd rather have a display that is evil and blasphemous rather than the state getting involved in all this.
	It speaks for itself, doesn't it?
	Cassidy has been charged.
	This is the guy who knocked it down.
	Cassidy has been charged with a felony third-degree criminal mischief.
	He is charged with violating Iowa's hate crime.
	See? Hate crime again.
	Hate crime again.
	Well, we're supposed to hate evil, aren't we?
	And so the government makes hating evil a crime.
	We have political pastors who say that it's not the greatest evil.
	A fundraising campaign for his legal costs that initially aimed to raise $20,000 has now raised over $104,000.
	I think, quite frankly, we should hate evil, and we should also hate the practices that seek to destroy our civil liberty.
	That is the purpose of that.
	Libs of TikTok put up a post containing authorities' responses to the defacement of various statues, such as those of Columbus, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, during the racial protests of 2020.
	She said, wokeness and Satanism is the new religion.
	Well, of course, we could also include Robert E. Lee, because remember, when they took down the statue of Robert E. Lee, they cut it up into pieces and did a ritual meltdown of it.
	Remember the pictures they put up there of that.
	Now, this is not wokeness.
	It is Satanism, but it is Marxism.
	And again, in case you didn't see that interview that I had with Sheevan Fleet, you need to see that.
	Mao's America, a survivor's warning to us.
	She said, this is not wokeism.
	This is not something new that they've just made up.
	They are recycling the playbook.
	Of Mao and of Stalin.
	That is what we're seeing.
	That's why these people are doing it.
	Now the guy who is facing this charge, he says, some say, who cares about satanic altars?
	They don't harm anybody. He said, well, I had an Iowa dad send me an angry email, angry because he couldn't show his kids the satanic altar after I destroyed it.
	He said, the presence of evil can harm kids and we should not tolerate evil.
	Well, I agree with him. I'm not telling you what to do, but, you know, when we look at this, when this came out initially, and you had some of these nominal Christians saying, well, you know, we need to let the Satanists do whatever they want with these statues and stuff.
	Some of the people... Came up with memes and it's like, well, we shouldn't knock down that satanic altar because, you know, that might set a precedent and we might have, the left might start taking down monuments all over the place.
	Oh, wait. That's exactly what the Babylon Bee says.
	Babylon Bee's guide to which statues you can and cannot tear down.
	And so they take it one at a time.
	Let's say, you know, Thomas Jefferson.
	Yeah, you can tear down his.
	He's known as a bigot and a slave owner.
	Satan? No, you can't take that down.
	He's brave and inclusive.
	George Washington?
	Yes, you can take down George Washington's statues because he's the father of a racist country.
	George Floyd, though?
	No, he's the father of Black Lives Matter.
	Andrew Jackson?
	You can take down Andrew Jackson, but not Michael Jackson, because Andrew Jackson is a white-skinned man who hosted dinner served by slaves, but Michael Jackson is a white-skinned man who hosted fun sleepovers with kids.
	Abraham Lincoln or Xi Jinping?
	Well, you can take down the Lincoln statue because he was a warmongering Republican.
	Xi Jinping, an honorable Chinese president.
	By the way, Spitting Image in the UK, a very funny puppet program.
	And I enjoy it, even when they make fun of people that I would agree with sometimes.
	But this is mostly political figures.
	But they make fun of everybody except Xi Jinping.
	Now, when they would characterize Boris Johnson, they would have him as this blithering idiot with his hair all over the place and everything.
	You know, those types of stereotypes.
	They would portray Mike Pence as kind of this grayed-out, cadaverous kind of guy with horns on.
	You know, satanic look.
	You had one of the aides to Boris Johnson was portrayed as a vampire.
	Another one was portrayed as a space alien.
	You get the idea, right?
	And they've come after the royal family.
	They've lampooned them.
	They've lampooned every politician.
	Now, they played it easy when they came to Obama and with Joe Biden.
	They just kind of gave a polite, cartoonish character of them with big, smiling grins and a really long chin.
	But not really anything that mocked anything about their appearance or their personality.
	They didn't portray them as bumbling or stupid or any of that kind of stuff, like they did Boris Johnson and Trump.
	And then Xi Jinping, they didn't mess with him at all.
	They didn't even distort, you know, in a long way his chin or anything like they did with Obama and Biden.
	No, they've got him exactly as he is, and he's always treated with reverence.
	You know, you're not allowed To criticize Xi Jinping.
	Everybody else is fair game.
	Robert E. Lee. Yes, you can tear down his statues because he is a model of character in the Confederacy.
	But male models in a fountain at the Derek Zoolander Center for Kids Who Can't Read Good and Want to Learn to Do Other Stuff Good Too.
	Oh, you can't tear down their statues, says the Babylon Bee.
	You got Marines hoisting a flag on Iwo Jima, symbol of male toxicity.
	Take it down. But if you've got drag queens who are hoisting a pride flag, that's a symbol of males being stunning and fabulous, so don't touch that.
	A Confederate soldier.
	Take him down. He killed his own countrymen.
	But an Antifa soldier who killed his own countrymen?
	No, don't take him down. As a matter of fact, it's kind of interesting.
	Where we used to live in North Carolina, they went around taking down these statues of...
	There was one in Pittsburgh, which was one of the oldest towns in North Carolina.
	And... They had a Civil War soldier that was up on a pedestal.
	Nobody in general, just a monument to the soldiers who died fighting off a federal invasion.
	You know, just the usual stuff.
	And then you have in Chapel Hill, which is close by, adjacent to that town, you had the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
	Where we have the people who were doing some of the gain-of-function stuff with Fauci and didn't stop in 2014 when they were told to stop.
	But it's also extremely, extremely left-wing.
	And their mascot is the Tar Heel.
	But they had a Civil War statue of a soldier.
	They called him Silent Sam.
	And they demanded that he be taken down, and they did take him down.
	They moved him for more than a year.
	Then there was immediately a fight about that, and they put him back, but he was gone for about a year.
	And throughout that time, do they really understand, you know, they're all about Tar Heel this and Tar Heel that and Go Heels and all the rest of the stuff.
	Do they understand? What they're talking about is the Tar Heels were the Civil War soldiers who would not move.
	It's like they got tar on their heels.
	They're stuck in place, you know, like Stonewall Jacks or something.
	Do they not even realize that they need to get rid of their mascot and their slogan, the Tar Heel, if they're going to get rid of the Confederate soldier?
	That's the left. They don't know anything, anything about history.
	Nothing about history.
	They just see something and they're told they have to hate it.
	So that's where we are with these people.
	We have on Rockfin, Audi, Modern Retro Radio.
	Good to see you there, Audi. Many pastors are owned by the big club.
	They are among the false prophets that the Bible warns us about.
	You're absolutely right. Absolutely right.
	So pick your...
	Pick your influencers carefully and always test what they are telling you.
	That's especially true of the TV guys.
	Six pro-lifers found guilty in Tennessee of federal felonies, and they're facing up to 11 years in prison.
	They say 10 plus, but I've seen it's 11 years.
	Six pro-life advocates convicted of federal felonies on Tuesday for violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances, the FACE Act, during a 2021 peaceful protest at an abortion facility outside of Nashville, a clinic that has now been forced to stop offering abortions by state law.
	But they still want to put these people away.
	A jury delivered its guilty verdict late Tuesday for six pro-lifers.
	It was in March of 2021 that they went to Mount Joliet, Tennessee, a suburb of Nashville, and it was a year and a half before the same facility was forced to stop committing abortions altogether.
	Paul Vaughn of Centerville, Tennessee, the Christian husband and father of 11, who was arrested at gunpoint at his family home in 2022, was also convicted.
	Paul Vaughn, his wife, and his 11 children and their father now faces 11 years in prison.
	Again, because you're going to stand there, and what did they do?
	Well, they were standing there at the clinic, and they were singing songs, and we can't allow that to happen.
	This should have been nullified.
	I'm disappointed that the legal team that is there, first of all, I would think that a jury in Tennessee, even one in liberal Nashville, If you talk to them about the fact that if you find these people guilty, they could get 10 and a half years.
	That's why they're saying 10, 11 years.
	The max is 10 and a half years.
	That's the exact time.
	They could get 10 and a half years.
	They could get fined up to $260,000.
	Now, what I think should have happened...
	But see, lawyers will not argue jury nullification because they're afraid they're going to get kicked out, sanctioned by judges.
	And that's one of the reasons why New Jersey Weed Man decided that he would represent himself.
	He was somebody who was a marijuana advocate in New Jersey.
	They were going to throw the book at him because of the amount of marijuana that he had.
	He was not selling it to other people, but they were going to put him in as a drug trafficker and away for a very long time.
	So he said, I looked at this and I realized that, you know, out of a group of 12 people, I can probably get a couple of them who don't agree with the marijuana laws and would be willing to nullify that.
	And so he put up, it's in the New Jersey Constitution, that says that jurors are there to judge not only the facts of the case, but also the legitimacy of this law and the penalties involved in it.
	So you can nullify it based on any of those types of things.
	And so he put that, he had that printed out and he put it on his desk and he started to talk about it.
	The judge said, take that down.
	If you don't take that down, I'm going to lock you up right now for contempt.
	So he took it down. As he pointed out, the jurors had already seen it.
	The judge said, disregard what you've seen from the Constitution of New Jersey.
	They'd already seen it, so they voted 7-5 to acquit him.
	And then the prosecutor decides he's going to come back at him again.
	And so in the second trial, he did the same thing again.
	He pulled that up, and that judge allowed it to stand there, and he talked about it to the jurors.
	And they quitted him 12 to nothing.
	They said, not guilty.
	He clearly violated the law, and this is what happened with William Penn.
	People did not want to lock up William Penn because he obviously violated the prohibition of meeting and having a religious service that was not the official state religion.
	That's what should have been done here at this FACE Act.
	And these people, if their lawyers weren't willing to do it, they should have done it themselves.
	Well, you know, there's nothing that you could do other than nullify it.
	Congress ought to get rid of this if you look at what happened with this.
	It says, a recording from the planned protest that was made public by the pro-life organization Live Action shows what actually happened.
	Pro-lifers were standing and sitting inside a hallway of a building.
	They were singing hymns.
	They were praying and refusing to leave.
	Some of the pro-lifers sat in front of the doors in a passive effort to prevent employees and patients from proceeding with abortions.
	On one occasion, the protesters attempted to engage an apparently abortion-seeking woman in a conversation about the preciousness of her pre-born baby.
	And for that, they want to put them away for 11 and a half years?
	Fine them up to $260,000?
	Jury nullification is what should have happened there.
	I can't believe that even in a suburb of Nashville, that you couldn't find at least one person who would say, I refuse to do that to them.
	They didn't commit a crime that is deserving of that.
	And nullify that law.
	That's the way they should have approached this thing.
	So, Senator Mike Lee of Utah says the Biden administration incarcerates people for praying at abortion clinics while ignoring violent acts at churches and at pregnancy centers.
	Yes, of course. They didn't even bother to have the FBI look to see who's burned down a crisis pregnancy center.
	They don't care if somebody comes along and defaces with graffiti, puts hateful things out there.
	That's not a hate crime. We don't care.
	He says, so many camels, so much obsession, attention paid to harmless things that were mistaken for gnats.
	Well, that's exactly right.
	And that's the problem with all of this.
	And when you look at the...
	The Biden administration, they never let anything go.
	They publish everything, they punish everything to the full extent of the law and even beyond.
	So we have trillions of dollars being spent on climate change based on temperature data that is absolutely false.
	We don't have much time to talk about this.
	Well, maybe we'll get through this article here today.
	I was going to say maybe we'll come back to it tomorrow.
	But... The idea that we have to stick to this so-called Paris Climate Accord.
	That's the thing that's hanging over us.
	Just as I pointed out before, well, you know, we can't adjust anything about the marijuana prohibition, for example, because we have these agreements with international treaties about drug control.
	And so we're going to let international bodies over the U.S. government, we're going to put them over the U.S. government, let them decide what they're going to do about this stuff, and we have no alternative but to obey that.
	That is what's being done by both Republicans and Democrats, because especially with the Paris Climate Accord, Republicans could have shut down this treaty, but that's the importance of these treaties.
	When you stop and think about this, well, we've got to keep everything from changing by one and a half degrees Celsius.
	Well, first of all, that's an assumption based on a model, and that model has been challenged.
	Secondly, one and a half degrees compared to what?
	What's your basis? And that's really the key in all this stuff.
	They don't have the information.
	They don't have the stations, as I showed the other day.
	This is going back to looking at weather stations in the 1840s and comparing that to a one and a half degree increase.
	And then if you had all of that stuff, you can't connect the dots.
	They've not shown. That there is any causation with all this.
	There's no verification of their model's predictions, but we've had a lot of verifications of the falsity of their predictions.
	And then, of course, there's no proof of any warming, and there's no proof of any CO2 connection to it as well.
	And then even if you had warming, and even if you could say that it's due to CO2, You don't have any basis to say that that is linked to our behavior and the devices that we have.
	We're going to talk about that tomorrow. I didn't get to Mark Stein versus Michael Mann.
	It's already an interesting case.
	Because Michael Mann is one of these people, and I was involved in this personally about 15 years ago, he's one of these people who will do anything, anything to hide his data.
	That's not science, folks.
	And as a matter of fact, he does hide behind credentialism with false claims of being a Nobel laureate, which he's not.
	Thanks for listening. The David Knight Show is a critical thinking super spreader.
	If you've been exposed to logic by listening to The David Knight Show, please do your part and try not to spread it.
	Financial support or simply telling others about the show causes this dangerous information to spread farther.
	People have to trust me.
	I mean, trust the science.
	Wear your mask.
	Take your vaccine.
	Don't ask questions.
	Using free speech to free minds.

▲