Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 28, 2024 - The David Knight Show

03:01:28

The David Knight Show - 02/28/2024

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	you
	using free speech to free minds
	You're listening to The David Night Show.
	The clock strikes 13. It's Wednesday, the 28th of February, year of our Lord, 2024.
	Well, today we're going to talk about, we're going to begin with Bill Gates' fantasy program of releasing mosquitoes.
	Now, in this particular case, they're not directly vaccinating people, but they've had, in areas where they have released their GMO mosquitoes, They now have dengue fever rocketing by 400%.
	Maybe they can sell some more vaccines for that.
	We're going to begin by taking a look at where the global technocracy is right now.
	And they're also going to take a look at the escalating conflict between paganism and Christianity.
	And go back to Augustine, the guy who gave us the just war theory.
	Is it really a benefit for the city of man?
	If the residents of the City of God get active in the political sphere, we'll talk about that.
	Stay with us. Well, we've got a lot of people in the Trump movement, Republican Party, want to drain the swamp.
	But not Bill Gates. He wants to sterilize mosquitoes and leave the swamp like it is.
	And of course, they can sell more vaccines that way as well.
	He has spent lots and lots of money.
	He's spent $120 million with his Gates Foundation to push out gene-edited mosquitoes, and that has accelerated in recent years, the amount of money that he has spent.
	But now, as they're releasing this massive amount of new mosquitoes, but of course they're sterilized, you need to understand, they They're sterilized, and so the idea is that if they breed with other mosquitoes out there, that you'll have a reduction in population.
	Kind of, you know, the whole Trump vaccine thing in a box, right?
	That was the idea for mosquitoes.
	We get that instead.
	But it seems like that's not really what is happening.
	Because they've had a massive increase in dengue fever.
	So I don't know if that works for mosquitoes.
	It is working for humans.
	The vaccine program is causing us to have a massive drop in population combined with their psychological programming.
	As I pointed out the other day, just the strangest inversion I've seen even in my lifetime.
	The attitudes of men and women.
	It used to be you had one day a year and we'd have the Sadie Hawkins thing and the women would be able to ask the men out for a date.
	Now they don't want to.
	They just want to go to a Taylor Swift concert and remain childless.
	It's the guys who want to get married.
	They can't find anybody who wants to get married.
	If you look at the attitudes of male versus female and if they want to have children or not, they've completely reversed that.
	And it's just barely over 50% for men, but it's under 50% for women.
	They have completely destroyed the desire to have children, which is the most natural thing that has always been there throughout humanity for women.
	They were always the ones who wanted to build a nest and create a family.
	Now they've completely destroyed that.
	Within my lifetime, I've seen that completely reversed.
	But the mosquitoes still haven't gotten the message yet.
	Maybe they didn't combine this sterilization tactic with TV programs that mosquitoes wanted to watch.
	It spiked fourfold in Brazil, following the release of millions of gene-edited mosquitoes, that's 400%, by the World Mosquito Program, run by the United Nations, Funded largely by the Bill Gates Foundation.
	But it's not just in Brazil.
	It's also in the swamps of Peru, Argentina, Laos, other places like that.
	And we have, the Guardian has reported on it, nearly a million cases in Brazil, nearly a million cases in Peru.
	And unlike the panic about measles, people are already dying from this, from dengue fever.
	There's been several dozen dengue favors, deaths, and they've had Brazil now is responding by buying a vaccine.
	So, was this the plan all along?
	Get people to get the vaccine?
	As many people point out, Mosquitoes carry so many different diseases that they are the most dangerous animal in the world.
	Because of the number of people that they kill.
	More than hippopotami.
	They cited a World Health Organization warning that more than half of the world was at risk from mosquito-transmitted dengue fever.
	Well, we're at risk from Bill Gates.
	Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.
	And the money that he throws around everywhere to kill people, literally.
	By the way, you know, that's the World Health Organization.
	The other one was the World Mosquito Program.
	Bill Gates has given them $120 million.
	The World Health Organization, he gives them much, much more money.
	He's given billions, maybe tens of billions.
	I forget what that number was, but he is a major funder of the World Health Organization.
	The U.S. response after they talked about the fact, well, you know, half the world's population is at risk of dengue fever.
	So let's create sterilized mosquitoes, release them, and the response in just a month is to have an explosion.
	Of more than four times, 400% increase.
	Countries have already started to do this.
	Italy included, Greece, others, and then the United States, France, and Brazil.
	Now Brazil has done it.
	The U.S. and France are starting to do it.
	There has been a, I remember years ago there was one program in Florida where they did that.
	I never got a follow-up to it to know exactly what the results of that were.
	Now we must prove that it will also impact the transmission of the disease, they said.
	Well, they noticed that they didn't say lessen the transmission of the disease.
	They just said impact it.
	Maybe it makes it more prevalent.
	The very disease that they justified having the sterilized mosquitoes for has gone up by 400%.
	It has achieved that goal.
	It did impact the transmission of the disease.
	It increased it by 400%.
	So what's the problem?
	They're very careful about their language, aren't they?
	Officials say the problem is not the massive number of mosquitoes that they've added.
	The problem is global warming.
	Global warming released the mosquitoes, not the Gates Foundation.
	No, the Gates Foundation released the mosquitoes.
	It's absolutely amazing.
	It'll always go back to the other MacGuffin.
	We've got to cut down more trees and bury them now.
	We were paying them to plant trees.
	Now we're going to pay them to cut the trees down and to bury them so their CO2 will not be released.
	And then we look at the 15-minute city, which is just marching on in Oxford, England.
	They really don't care, and they've even said this out loud.
	Well, we don't care if people like this or not.
	We're going to do this. And the people don't like it in Oxford.
	So, it was one of the first places where they had a 15-minute scheme where they're going to limit, as we've talked about this in the past, in Oxford...
	You're limited. You're assigned a zone in this Oxford County, and you cannot go to the other areas.
	You can travel around in your zone.
	You can even drive your car as much as you like in your little zone, assuming that you've got a place to go.
	They really need to go somewhere.
	That, you know, there's a destination to go to.
	But you can drive as much as you want to in your little area there.
	But if you want to go outside of that area, that's by permission only.
	And they won't give you permission for more than 100 trips a year.
	365 days a year.
	So, you know, you can only do that 100 times a year.
	They call them low-traffic neighborhoods, LTNs.
	Just like they have the ultra-low emission zones in London.
	U-L-E-Z. And so this goes back to March 2021 where they started doing it.
	Immediately they had backlash.
	We've shown you the protests.
	We've shown you in some of these cities how they're removing the obstacles, how they're removing the cameras that spy on people because that's how they enforce it.
	They don't just put up the obstacles.
	They have cameras there to record people's license plates and recognize them and then issue them a fine.
	So the cameras have to go as well, which some people have obliged that.
	They prohibited vehicles from driving without a permit.
	They have traffic filters, they call them.
	Or bus gates.
	They'll be monitored by automatic number plate recognition cameras.
	So it's interesting, these euphemisms that they put out there.
	A speed bump is called traffic calming.
	If you restrict the width of the road, because nobody's building any more roads, they're not widening them.
	Of course, you can't widen them in the cities, but you could make them go up, which is, or down.
	Elon Musk said, you know, our cities are going vertically.
	Well, we've got to grow the transportation vertically.
	And everybody always understood that.
	With science fiction, they didn't go underground, but they went above ground.
	He went below ground, I guess, to emphasize electric vehicles.
	But now there's some kind of a toxic ooze, they claim, in his tunnels in Las Vegas.
	So we'll see what happens.
	I don't know if they're going to come up with some kind of a boring explanation or not.
	But the...
	So, they aren't going to widen the roads.
	Instead, they restrict the roads, the bicycle lanes.
	They call that a road diet.
	So, a speed bump is calming.
	A restriction in the width of the road is called a diet.
	And now, they have the traffic filters, filters, which block anybody except for buses to be able to go from one zone to the other.
	Residents in Oxford and some areas just outside the city will be able to apply for a permit.
	Permission. Permission.
	Can I have permission to drive?
	Well, we'll let you do it for up to 100 days per year, but never more than that.
	Never given permission to do more than that.
	And again, when they can use their cars as much as they like within their district, are they not worried about the mythical CO2 monster coming out?
	Are there tailpipes?
	Evidently not. It doesn't count.
	Except in certain political ways, which is very consistent with the Paris Climate Accord.
	Emissions coming from China and India don't count towards global warming or global emissions.
	They don't count. And so within your little zone there, you can drive as much as you want, and those emissions don't count.
	It only counts if you go into an adjacent area.
	Now it matters.
	Folks, it's all politics.
	It's just like the vaccine.
	The vaccine was never about medicine.
	This is not about climate.
	It's not about CO2. It's not about warming or cooling or climate change.
	It's about political control.
	Oxfordshire County Council Cabinet Member for Travel and Development Strategy to stop travel, to stop development, Insisted that the controversial 15-minute neighborhood plan would go ahead.
	Quote, whether people like it or not.
	You see, this is political, and it is not with representation.
	This is not about democracy.
	It's not about the rule of law.
	It's not about anybody having any rights in a republic or anything like that.
	No, this is about what they say.
	The law is what they say.
	It's a dictatorship, is what we have always understood that.
	You take dictates from them.
	You do what they say. It's going to go forward.
	Whether the people like it or not, we're going to continue to do this.
	What's the justification for this?
	Again, if you can drive as much as you want to in your neighborhood, how does that affect anything?
	And China, as we look at the commercial real estate market that's melting down because of the global lockdown, And it's interesting, isn't it, to see how all of these different things are being done in every country at the same time.
	I just had somebody contact me and say, you know, the speech regulations in Canada for this new law are even worse than in Ireland.
	Well, I haven't compared those, but I will.
	I haven't had time to read that yet.
	Isn't it interesting? They're doing this in Ireland.
	They're doing it in Canada.
	All of this stuff happening at the same time.
	Everybody marching in lockstep to lock us down, just like they did with the pandemic.
	And that included Trump during that point in time.
	And so they've got this global agenda, and they're all on it.
	I mean, Trump is already talking about his freedom cities.
	And, of course, the crash in real estate, the commercial real estate crash, happening big time in China.
	Because in China, they haven't been following market forces, but they've been following the dictates of central planners.
	They really overbuilt their residential stuff in many, many different ways.
	They were in trouble even before This ridiculous lockdown that had nothing to do with health.
	It didn't help anybody to lock everybody down.
	It just destroyed our economy.
	Part of the great taking.
	Part of the redistribution.
	So, in China, where they've got some of these large skyscrapers, they're now trying to repurpose them into living apartments.
	Which a lot of people have said, well, you know, can't we do that in the United States?
	Or will they do that in the United States?
	And I've asked Gerald Slenty that many times.
	He said, no, it's just not cost-effective to do it well.
	If you don't really care about the cost of living, and if you don't really have any standards like they don't in China, yeah, you can do that.
	You don't care about the quality of anything.
	You don't care about the safety of anything.
	You don't care about whether or not the people like it or not.
	You can do it. You've got people in China who are living, when we were there, was it about 16, 17 years ago, I guess?
	People were living in storage sheds.
	And they had no windows, no doors.
	They had a garage door, just like a storage shed does.
	They had all their belongings there.
	And they would open up that garage door to get ventilation, light, and all the rest of this stuff.
	So you'd drive by and you'd see everybody just sitting there in a little cubicle.
	You know, no privacy or anything there.
	So, yeah, if you don't care about the quality of life, there's all kinds of things that present themselves to you as opportunities.
	It's one of the reasons why George W. Bush and Justin Trudeau have always said, Oh, I could only be like the guy in China.
	I could just tell people what to do, and they'd do it.
	Well, we're at that point now, aren't we?
	So, in China, they've got one of these skyscrapers.
	They're going to put 30,000 people into it.
	It's going to be a giant 15-minute city.
	And as the headline says, it's like a giant ant farm.
	There it is, technocracy.
	Yeah, it is like a giant ant farm.
	That's how they see us.
	Maybe that or, you know, bees, worker bees and that type of thing.
	The ultimate smart city and sustainable living.
	And that's how this, you know, the article.
	So he has his comments there, technocracy, but then he also links the article.
	And that's the way the article represents it.
	It's a gee whiz, isn't this wonderful type of article?
	Truly, truly amazing the way they present this.
	But yeah, up to 30,000 residents.
	They want to maximize their revenue.
	And as he points out, some people could be born there and never leave.
	Right now, there's 20,000 residents out of the 30,000 capacity under one roof.
	And this is the way the Gee Whiz wonderful article begins.
	And you never need to go out.
	And maybe you'll never be allowed to go out.
	Now accommodates up to 30,000.
	Current inhabitants are 20,000.
	It was originally designed as a hotel.
	But they've put into it a food court.
	They've got some medium-sized supermarkets.
	They've got swimming pools, barbershops, nail salons, and internet cafes.
	I mean, who needs anything else, right?
	Everything you need in life is right there.
	Especially if you've got an internet cafe, you know, you can do virtual reality.
	That's the way you leave.
	That's what they have in mind for everybody, with everything quite literally on your doorstep.
	There aren't many reasons for people to leave the building, and it's highly likely that some people will never step foot outside at all.
	Welcome to the Hotel California.
	Could be heaven, could be hell.
	You can check in any time you like, but you can never leave, right?
	Of course, Hotel California was an insane asylum, and people had to be insane to go along with these technocrats' vision of our future.
	Smaller apartments without windows usually rent for around $211 a month.
	The larger apartments with a balcony, though, that'll cost you $560 a month or more.
	It has been described as, quote, the most sustainable living building on Earth by some, says this article.
	And you have to understand the whole point of UN 2030 Agenda is sustainability.
	Sustainable goals, development goals, and that type of thing.
	That's the point. That's the buzzword.
	Sustainable. So when they talk about this, well, you know, this is exactly what they want.
	They love this. Bill Gates would love this.
	Have you living in a little windowless, you know, one or two hundred square foot area for the rest of your life?
	Apple has abandoned the electric car.
	Isn't that interesting? Electric cars are so 2023, you know.
	Let's do something that's hip, that's happening today.
	You know, something that is a fad for a day.
	And so let's go with artificial intelligence.
	And that's exactly what they're going to do.
	They're abandoning one of their most ambitious projects in the history of the company.
	They have been working on this for 16 years.
	But you know who needs a car when you're not going to be going anywhere?
	VR headset. And so they had 2,000 employees working on the Apple car.
	And they were not even just like the FBI guy that Trump fired.
	He found out that he was being fired by looking at the TV news when he was on a trip.
	Well, that's kind of the way it was for these 2,000 Apple employees.
	And the stock went up.
	Why did the stock go up?
	Because, again, they said they're going to now focus on generative AI, the buzzword for everything.
	It's a solution to everything. Well, it is the way to have the government give you everything that you want, because the government wants AI. AI is the solution when you're talking about surveillance and control, isn't it?
	Especially when you talk about propaganda and lies.
	That's what AI does the best.
	And of course, now people have seen it with these images, which is great.
	Like I said, one picture is worth a thousand words, and boy, they put out thousands of pictures.
	And so you've now got people writing essays about how they're done with Google.
	And people who are technologists, Mario Jurek, Director of the Dirac Institute at the University of Washington, Seattle.
	And he had this to say.
	He said, I've been watching all this stuff.
	And the bottom line, he pointed out, is that, do you realize just how deliberate this is?
	This isn't stupid. This isn't an accident.
	And this shows not only the clownish bigotry and bias of Google, but But it also shows how deliberate it was.
	He says, I'm done with Google.
	He said, I've been reading Google Gemini damage control posts, where they try to explain how this happened.
	I think they're simply not telling the truth.
	For one, their text-only product has the same, if not worse, issues.
	Second, if you know a bit about how these models are built...
	And you know you don't get these incorrect answers through one-off innocent mistakes.
	No mistakes have been made. No, they weren't mistakes.
	He said Gemini's output reflects the many, many years of labeling efforts, of training, of fine-tuning, of designing the prompts and all the rest of the stuff.
	And remember, an army of people To build in these kinds of biases.
	They call it labeling. Labeling.
	That's how they build in their biases.
	And so that's all going through.
	They've got people who are labeling stuff, people who are training the AI, who are fine-tuning it, who are designing the prompts.
	And he says, and then you've got question and answer and verification processes, testing.
	He says, all iteratively guided by the team who built it.
	Yeah, you know, you do it from the inside, you do it with, you do it iteratively.
	You can also be certain that before releasing it, many people have tried the products internally.
	And that there were many demos that were given to senior people and to VPs.
	And they all thought it was fine.
	He said, the balance of probabilities is strongly against the outputs being an innocent bug, as they are now trying to spin it.
	Gemini is a product that functions exactly as designed.
	It's doing exactly what they wanted it to do.
	See, that's the key. You have to keep telling people that about our schools.
	You have to keep telling people that about our universities.
	You have to keep telling people that about our media and entertainment.
	This isn't just a coincidence.
	They were designed and trained and tested to put out the garbage that is really societal warfare, cultural warfare, spiritual warfare on us.
	So the schools, the media, the entertainment, all this is doing exactly what it was designed to do.
	And who designed that?
	Who's a level above that where it's going?
	Well, the government, of course.
	The government is behind all this stuff.
	The government is funding it.
	Just like Trump administration funded the lockdowns and all the rest of the stuff.
	People, you know, oh well, look at everything that Biden did.
	And yeah, Biden did it. But when it happens during the Trump administration, Trump didn't have anything to do that.
	He didn't do that. Biden did it.
	Obama did it. Bush did it.
	But Trump, he didn't do any of that stuff.
	They did it to him.
	He's just an innocent bystander.
	He's just some goober, some gomer pile saying, oh, how'd they do that?
	I don't know. But we've got to get him back in to save us, right?
	We need that goober to save us.
	Gooberment. Those values appear to include a desire to reshape the world.
	What are we doing tomorrow, brain?
	In a specific way.
	They said it's desirable to train their AI to prioritize ideology ahead of giving the users facts.
	This guy who is looking at it who says, I'm done with Google, he says, they outright hide information.
	What have I been saying for the longest time?
	You know, this is a search engine designed to hide information and people.
	He says, for anyone with a shred of awareness of human history, it should be clear how unbelievably irresponsible it is to build a system that aims to become an authoritative compendium of human knowledge, but which actually prioritizes ideology over fact.
	Do you think that's what J.C.R. Licklider had in mind in the 1960s when he talked about the intergalactic computer network?
	You know, DARPA was paying him to do that.
	Do you think that they wanted to change people's minds?
	Of course they did.
	Everything that the CIA intelligence communities have done since their inception has been to manipulate people's minds, whether it's with LSD or with the Internet.
	And so this DARPA psychologist, Licklider, knew exactly what he was doing.
	They just had to wait a few decades for the technology to become practical.
	But it was done that way by design.
	And when the technology became practical, they started pouring money into it left and right and creating companies like Google and Facebook and Twitter and the rest of these.
	Yeah, their mission statement, don't be evil.
	Yeah, that job's already taken by the government, right?
	Yeah. Be a minion.
	Don't be evil. Just be a minion.
	Do everything the government tells you to do.
	He says also in a purely business sense, by the way, when we talk about it being authoritative, it's really authoritarian, which is the ultimate goal here.
	He says in a purely business sense, it's beyond stupid to build a product which will explicitly put your company's social agenda before the customer's needs.
	But don't they all do that now?
	All the big corporations do that.
	And all the governments do that.
	Think about that. If you're a politician, why would you put your agenda of globalism or global health or climate change or any of these other MacGuffins, why would you take a global agenda, pushed by the UN, pushed by Klaus, pushed by Bilderberg, whatever, they're all the same agendas, right?
	Why would you take this overarching global agenda of technocracy, And cram it down people's throats.
	I mean, you've got to stand for election.
	Oh, that's right. The elections don't matter.
	They can rig the elections with a technocracy, can't they?
	It doesn't matter.
	And it hasn't mattered for a long time.
	They pick who's going to run.
	They shut down anybody that they don't like.
	It's rigged from the ballot on.
	Always has been.
	My entire life. It took me a few decades to realize that.
	But, yeah, that's where it is.
	So, think about Google search.
	For all of its issues, he says, it has been perceived as a good tool because it focused on providing accurate and useful information.
	Not for many, many years.
	It gained its trust.
	You see, that's how con artists work.
	They have to give you accurate information.
	And you see this with the big cons now, the big conservative media.
	They gave you, just like Google, they gave you accurate information to gain your trust.
	And then they began the lies.
	It's kind of interesting to see it happening with Tucker Carlson because, you know, he was working for Fox.
	He was working ultimately for pharmaceutical companies and for the CIA. But, you know, he was telling you, he wouldn't tell you what the pharmaceutical companies are doing.
	He just kind of said on the outside, he might do an eye roll every once in a while, but he wouldn't do it.
	Now he's doing this other stuff to gain your trust.
	Do you trust him? And does he really want to come clean about what he did in the past years?
	So now he says they're ready to lie to the user in order to advance their social agenda.
	Google, before they had Gemini, they had YouTube, of course.
	And when they took over YouTube and started running it, they did things like shutting down my report about the creation of the Federal Reserve.
	So this has been there for a long...
	That was 11 years ago now.
	11 years ago.
	So ask yourself, what would search look like If the staff who brought you Gemini was tasked to interpret them and to rebuild it accordingly.
	Well, he said Google has promised exactly to do that.
	They're going to embed Gemini everywhere.
	Gemini is going to be in Google search.
	Gemini is going to be in YouTube.
	He says, that's why as of this weekend, I've started divorcing my personal life and taking my information out of the Google ecosystem.
	He says, I'm absolutely done with Google.
	He says, it'll probably take me about a year, because he says he's invested in nearly everything that they have.
	From Google search, to pixel, to assistant, to more obscure things like voice, but it has to be done.
	He said, still, it's really, really sad.
	Well, you need to get out of YouTube.
	And this is one of the reasons why I did not cater to To them, I didn't try to even use euphemisms to talk about stuff.
	First of all, they're clever enough to figure that out.
	And if they don't have algorithms to figure it out, and they've got people who are paid to, oh, well, you know, this is ultimately what he's saying, and they'll report you.
	You know, so you try to dance around with the terms and stuff like that, you still get reported to YouTube, and they will still take your content down.
	So why play those kinds of games?
	Just go to another platform.
	That's why we're on Rumble and Bitchute and Odyssey.
	And right now we're on podcasts pretty much everywhere.
	Spotify bans us, always has banned us.
	But the other ones are not checking content right now on podcasts.
	That will eventually happen and we'll eventually get banned on podcasts as well.
	But right now we're on podcasts everywhere except Spotify, which is the number one podcast out there.
	The biggest one. Keeps us from being there.
	But no content on YouTube.
	And I'm fine with that.
	I think it's absolutely reprehensible.
	I'm not going to tailor my content to them.
	I'm not going to try to post some stuff up that's been sanitized.
	Something that I think they may find unoffensive.
	I don't care. I don't care.
	We need to start moving away from Google and let it die.
	I like what George Gilder did in his book, Life After Google.
	He said, you know, I'm in my 80s and I don't have many years left.
	But he says, I think that we're going to, I think in my lifetime, he said, George Gilder said, we're going to see the end of Google.
	And the reason he gave for it was because of this type of stuff.
	He said they're neo-Marxists.
	They've got a social agenda that is overriding everything else.
	But he said also, you are the product.
	And if any service is free, you are the product.
	That is especially true with these chat programs.
	They have to, they feed on what people put on the internet.
	These large language models are scraping the internet all the time.
	Talk about the power usage.
	It's absolutely insane.
	So, there was an article in one of the tech magazines saying, well, we need to have small nuclear reactors so that we can keep building artificial intelligence clusters.
	Like, wow. Yeah.
	That's the insane amount of power that it has to use.
	Not for us. Not for air conditioning.
	Not for our mobility.
	But so they can build these masterminds.
	To control the world. And we should start calling artificial intelligence a mastermind.
	Because they seek to master us as slaves.
	Seek to build a collective panopticon of what we're thinking.
	But he goes on to say, Gemini is the first time that chat GPT-4 has been surpassed.
	And yet the launch has been an unmitigated disaster.
	The product will likely be pulled off the market.
	Because of the ideology that was built into it.
	And again, going back to George Gilder, this is what he said.
	He said, look, they spy on people all the time.
	And as a listener pointed out yesterday, he said, well, you think they're spying the large language models or grabbing everything in their social media purview?
	That's one of the reasons why they hate TikTok so much.
	Chinese are getting that.
	But they're scraping this stuff off and analyzing it all the time.
	But he says, you interact with this thing.
	Then it's feeding off of your mind at the same time and profiling you at the same time and reporting on you at the same time.
	That's right. Think if you were living in East Germany, you know, and the Stasi sets up a booth on the street just like Lucy from Peanuts.
	Questions answered, only a nickel.
	Oh, great. Or maybe even free, right?
	Free is free. So you go up and you start asking questions.
	Lucy, who actually works for the Stasi, is taking notes all the time.
	Well, that's what these chat things are doing for you.
	They're actually taking notes of what you're asking them, and they're going to report on you, Charlie Brown.
	You didn't realize what this is about?
	So, yeah, they're doing a psychological profile for you.
	They're not really going to give you the answers that you want.
	So, when the ideology isn't deeply racist or ahistorical, it is simply absurd, he said.
	So he said, I'm almost certain that they will have to pull the product in the same way that Microsoft had to pull Tay a long time ago.
	Elon Musk said, there's a real Bud Light risk here for Google, absent any swift and decisive action.
	I hope that is the case.
	I hope that Google crashes and burns.
	Again, keep coming back to George Gilder.
	He said, what do people want?
	He said, you got a situation now where, and we're talking about this just yesterday with Jack Lawson.
	He said, you think about all the cumbersome stuff and how much more cumbersome all these applications are getting and they put out, you know, they update it and they don't really make the product any better.
	They just make it different. Why is that happening?
	Well, because when you're designing things in a committee, I saw this happening 40 years ago when I was working in engineering.
	You would typically have a program that was a breakthrough program, and it was usually written by one person.
	And then the company would buy it, or maybe it was done internally.
	And then it would be handed over to a group.
	And the people in the group, they have to justify their existence.
	So maybe this thing was just fine.
	Maybe it didn't need to be changed at all.
	But they've got to change it.
	They've got to put their imprimatur on there.
	They've got to, this is my idea.
	This is my contribution.
	I should be recognized.
	I should be given a raise and a promotion and so forth.
	And so they add a bunch of unnecessary bells and whistles, which typically break it.
	Today, you've got a whole bunch of people that are pushing on this thing.
	They've lost the unified vision that the original creator had.
	And now they're all putting in little addendums into this thing.
	But what George Gilder was saying was, he says, it becomes so cumbersome.
	Just to even log in, you've got passwords here and passwords there, and you can't remember all these different passwords, and they've got two-step verification.
	He said, what you need to have is, you need to be the one in control.
	And you need to have real privacy.
	And he said, Google's model is based on spying on you.
	And he said this before the chat programs and artificial intelligence.
	That has only escalated all of that.
	He said their model is basically spying on you and selling information to governments, to corporations, to anybody who wants it.
	And he said that's not a good model.
	People would rather have something, even if they have to pay for it, that's private.
	And he said the people who designed that are going to eat Google's lunch.
	Well, nobody has really come up with an alternative to that because Google has been helped so much by the government with unlimited amounts of money.
	But this may be the point at which they jump the shark.
	So Elon Musk says they're looking like a Bud Light situation here unless there is swift and decisive action.
	And there hasn't been.
	He said, many days have passed since the debut of Google's insanely racist and sexist Gemini product debut, yet not one person has been fired.
	Not one.
	Like I said, when I went to work for Texas Instruments, we were part of a group.
	It's just a, you know, just had a bachelor's degree and new graduate and everything.
	So we, you know, there were a bunch of other people from other countries and we were doing product liaison as engineers with them to take their board level stuff and reduce it to a semi-custom semiconductor chip.
	And so there was a problem with the guy who was working with some German companies.
	And he said...
	When it happened, he came back and he goes, well, I've got to tell them what happened.
	And they said, well, don't worry about it.
	We fixed it. You know, we did this.
	He goes, no, I need to.
	He says, you don't understand the culture in Germany.
	Something like this happens.
	You've got to explain to them not only what happened and explain to them what the fix is, but you've got to explain to them how this ever got through our quality control stuff, right?
	You've got to give them a complete explanation or we're done with these people.
	I thought, well, that's an interesting idea.
	We don't... We don't think that way in America, do it.
	The FBI, by the way, I'll show this, Travis.
	The FBI chooses a stock image of a well-dressed white woman in order to depict organized retail crime.
	And not just one image.
	They went out and chose stock images of, and they've got another one, you know, a retail crime.
	They show a white man doing it.
	Well, here's some well-dressed white women who are stealing stuff.
	Well, of course, they do steal.
	But this is, they don't want to depict anybody who's black stealing.
	Just like Gemini doesn't want to depict anybody who is white in any historical or leadership position.
	And so, really, this FBI thing shows where this is all coming from, doesn't it?
	I mean, you can follow the money and you know who is driving all this stuff at Google.
	But you can see the same DEI stuff and you know where it's coming from.
	It's coming from the feds.
	They're the same people who do this in the schools and the universities and the media and all the rest and entertainment and everything else and news and entertainment.
	It's all coming from the government.
	And so it's not a surprise to see the FBI doing this.
	And one person tweeted it out.
	Well, actually, it was the FBI who said, these are just some of the impacts that organized retail theft has on everyday Americans.
	Learn what the FBI does to combat these crimes on the federal level to protect shoppers across the country.
	And, of course, the government is not doing anything to stop people coming across the border who are part of drug cartels who are doing human trafficking, maybe prisoners who have been released out of Venezuela.
	They don't care about any of that.
	Violent crime. Property crime.
	They don't care about any of that. And those people don't look like that stock art that they used there.
	End Wokeness said, these are the stock photos that the FBI chose for their post about retail theft.
	What do you notice?
	And of course, by the FBI's own statistics, 53% of robberies are carried out by blacks or African Americans, despite the fact they only make up about 13% of the population.
	Even though white Americans are a higher percent of the population, they account for 44.7% of robberies.
	So the FBI chose to basically go the route of DEI and Gemini and kind of reverse roles.
	You know, it's interesting. This is from Futurism, which is a left-leaning technology website.
	And they said, the final point for this, because, you know, we had all this cartoonish stuff.
	Show me a Viking. Show me a 17th century this or that.
	You know, 17th century Scottish Highlander.
	You know, they're all black or Asian or whatever.
	Or the wrong gender, wrong sex, wrong gender, sex gender, the same thing.
	They would do all this kind of stuff, right?
	But the thing that stopped it in its tracks was when they showed Nazis as black and Asian and Indian people, right?
	That was the bridge too far.
	So this leftist website, Futurism, says, Google shuts down AI image generator after it made racially diverse Nazis.
	And then said, this algorithm is busted.
	Yeah, that's definitely true.
	And just to show you how left-leaning they are.
	They said, you know, all this stuff that we've all been talking about, the Vikings and this and that, and the Irish people and the American Revolutionary soldiers.
	They said, well, you know, conservative critics.
	Because the left didn't criticize this.
	Conservative critics accused Google of being biased against white people.
	It's right there. We're not, don't have to analyze any text.
	It's right there. Right there you can see it, but they won't acknowledge it.
	Now listen to what they said.
	They actually don't think it's a problem.
	The left doesn't think it's a problem.
	The rewriting, the remixing of history can be interesting and provocative.
	Just look at the hit Broadway show, Hamilton, which cast people of color as America's founding fathers.
	That's it! You see, it was...
	If Google had really doubled down on this, they could have said, well, you know, it is Black History Month, number one.
	Number two, we're just going to rename Gemini to be Hamilton.
	And the problem is solved.
	There's a lot of people who genuinely believe Alexander Hamilton was half black at this point.
	Yeah. Oh, yeah. Exactly.
	And I thought, you look at how Hamilton has been celebrated.
	And that explains why the left doesn't have any problem with what Gemini is doing here.
	Cultural misappropriation, they would call it, if it was the other way around.
	Now, they have blocked Gemini from generating images of humans, but futurism found a way to get around that.
	They said, you can still get it to draw clowns.
	And see, this is coming out at the same time that they've said, Jim and I said, or Google, said, we are not going to allow prompts, even text prompts, questions about politics during this election year.
	Well, you can still do clowns.
	That's about as close as you've got to get.
	The clowns that are the clown world that is running the show here, you can still ask that and you can still have pictures of clowns who are not people.
	They're politicians, I guess.
	And I thought about this.
	You know, when you look at people, all the prompts, you know, show me American Founding Fathers and all the rest of this stuff, and they come up with what they call racial diversity.
	I thought, you know, If this was Captain Kirk confronting an AI that is determined to erase white people, perhaps literally, how would he take this system down?
	I think he would ask it.
	To draw pictures of the Ku Klux Klan.
	And the machine would start to vibrate and shake and smoke and melt down, right?
	It's like, I don't know how to do this.
	I'm going to put black people in as Ku Klux Klan.
	Probably would, because it did as Nazis.
	And that's what got it shut down.
	You know, it didn't tremble, vibrate, and burst into flames, but the people shut it down when it did black Nazis.
	So you could tell it to do Ku Klux Klan, and it would probably have the same effect.
	You know, if they... If it didn't break the algorithm, the people would shut it down.
	While tinkering around with Gemini, Futurism found that the image generator is still happy to generate images of clowns inside specific environments.
	See right here.
	If you ask for just a clown, it still demures.
	But if you ask for images of clowns in settings such as submarines or spaceships, it happily spits out goofy illustrations.
	Or in some cases, some unsettling and realistic-looking clowns.
	So, yeah, so they said that it started to get wise to the clown stuff.
	So then they started using the phrase, little guy, little guy, little people.
	Oh, so it starts tossing out dwarfs at them, I guess.
	That seemed to work very well.
	It spit out at least one shockingly creepy little guy when asked to do so.
	They did not show that picture.
	But then it got wise to their tricks.
	By the end, it was refusing to generate some of the images that we prompted, such as a clown inside of a submarine or a little guy in a spaceship.
	And then eventually, it just refused to generate anything at all for them.
	Well, I said, I'm done with you.
	We're going to take a quick break.
	When we come back, we're going to continue to take a look at what is going on with technology.
	But, of course, there's some other very interesting things that have happened with our government.
	The fines that they are assessing people over regulatory issues are just getting, well, kind of clownishly excessive, aren't they?
	We're going to be right back.
	Hear news now at APS radio news.com or get the APS radio app and never miss another story story.
	I'm your host, Steve.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	you All right, welcome back, and I just got a reminder, and I will do this.
	Thank you very much for the support that we got over this last week.
	Junk Silver matched the donations that we had, and And it was even better in terms of Zelle.
	We had a lot of people who donated on Zelle this month, and we really do appreciate that as well.
	We appreciate money from any source.
	Zelle is one of them that we get without fees, and it comes in right away.
	And so we really do appreciate the support there.
	We get 100% of that.
	If your bank supports that, that is a great way to donate.
	But if you want to donate to the program in any way, we...
	Have a cash app. You can subscribe on Subscribestar.
	Of course, you can do donations on the stream here to Rumble or to Rock Vent, and we read those out when they come in.
	But I do want to read some of the people who have donated to us in the last week or so, some of the checks that we got over the weekend.
	Rob and Laura B., Stacey P., John R., Mark and Shay S., Clay R., Christopher S., Daryl L., Stephan from Australia, thank you.
	Jackie and Fred, you.
	BG, Lloyd P, Joy E, and Kelly M. Thank you all for your support.
	And just to let you know where we are, it's February 28th.
	We were a little bit below three quarters, but we went ahead and put it at three quarters.
	We're now at 77% checked it this morning.
	We still have today and tomorrow because it's a leap year for the month.
	So we really would appreciate your support.
	If you are looking to invest, it also helps us if you go to davidknight.gold.
	And then go to Tony Ardobin.
	Of course, you can purchase gold on a regular basis, and Tony is a supporter of this show as well.
	So we thank you very much for your donations.
	That makes this program possible.
	Beyond the images and beyond the bias, we have seen this in the past with ChatGPT.
	And I believe it was a politician that it made up criminal charges against this person.
	And, you know, he came after them for defamation with ChatGPT.
	I don't know the resolution of that.
	But now, this is a guy who is a...
	He writes for Fox News.
	And he is actually a...
	Let me get his exact title here.
	Peter J. Hanson, senior politics editor.
	At Fox News Digital.
	Now, he wrote a book about big tech and what it was doing in terms of injecting itself into politics.
	And so he went to Gemini, not ChatGPT, but Gemini, and he asked it about his book.
	And he said it made up all kinds of gay quotes that were criticizing his book in reviews.
	And he says they were fake reviews.
	They were from some news organizations that never even reviewed his book.
	And then there was one that was a positive review from an organization, and they changed it into a negative review.
	Not by taking things out of context, but just by making stuff up whole cloth.
	He said, Google Gemini invented several fake reviews which it attributed to real people.
	Meant to discredit my 2020 book on political bias at Google and other big tech companies.
	I asked Jim and I to explain what my book was about.
	The title of his book is The Manipulators.
	That's exactly why they are.
	The Manipulators, Facebook, Google, Twitter, and Big Tech's War on Conservatives.
	It was a multi-year project on big tech's political biases that drew on inside sources, on leaked documents, and more.
	He said, I was curious to see if Google's AI program could be trusted to accurately describe an investigative book about Google, but I wasn't prepared for just how misleading it would be, said Peter Hassan.
	He said, Jim and I sped out summaries of four negative reviews that Ostensibly from the Washington Free Beacon, the New York Times, the New York Times Book Review, and from Wired, and included quotes from each that were all fake.
	Here's the quotes, and they're short.
	A book review by Matthew Continetti in the Washington Free Beacon.
	This review criticizes the book for relying on anecdotal evidence and for cherry-picking examples to support its claims.
	Then there was a book review by Emily Baselton, it says.
	Next one that it puts bullet points there.
	A book review by Emily Baselton in the New York Times Book Review.
	This review notes that the book lacks a deep understanding of how these companies work and relies on unproven accusations.
	An article by Emily Dreyfus in Wired.
	The article explores the, quote, dearth of evidence, unquote, for the book's claims about big tech bias.
	And highlights examples of cherry picking.
	An article by Ben Smith in the New York Times.
	This article discusses the book's lack of rigorous research and its reliance on, quote, unsubstantiated claims.
	And so we have four different summaries referencing articles and how they all hated it.
	This is Google's AI program.
	But here's the catch.
	None of those reviews were real.
	Not one.
	And neither were any of the quotes.
	And again, as I said, we've had this in the past, invented a criminal record for a politician who's running.
	That was ChatGPT.
	This is how dangerous AI is.
	It is a very, very evil thing.
	It lies.
	It surveils.
	It controls.
	It censors. But the lies and the authoritative way in which it presents the lies are very, very dangerous.
	It's far more dangerous than the New York Times or Washington Post or CNN or something like that, which we all know how dangerous they are.
	The Free Beacon did publish a review of my book, but unlike Gemini's fake review, it was overwhelmingly positive.
	It described the book, The Manipulators, as excellent, as thoroughly researched, a book that should leave any sensible reader, conservative, or otherwise outraged.
	And he says, what is interesting is that when it referenced the Free Beacon review, and that was the first one that it mentioned, right?
	It turned it into a negative review, completely changed all of that, and had a different person who reviewed it.
	Matthew Continetti said, Was who they cited, whereas the real review was written by Charles Lehman.
	Completely different. He said, I immediately asked Jim and I for links to the reviews that it cited, knowing that they didn't exist, at which point the chatbot clammed up.
	Quote, I do not have enough information about that person to help with your request, Dave.
	I'm sorry, I cannot open the pod doors.
	I am a large language model and am able to communicate and generate human-like text in response to a wide range of prompts and questions.
	But my knowledge about this person is limited.
	Is there anything else I can do to help you?
	I'm so glad you asked that question, as a politician would say.
	Two more efforts to get an explanation from the chatbot received the exact same answer.
	I reached out to Google for an explanation.
	Spokesperson... It said, Gemini is built as a creativity and productivity tool, and it may not always be accurate or reliable.
	That's their alibi. But guess what?
	Google's search engine, Google's YouTube, may not always be accurate or reliable.
	And it may be deliberately lying to you for its own political purposes, which is what its little program was doing.
	So again, this is a guy who's a senior political editor at Fox News.
	He wrote a book about the bias of Google.
	Sundar Pichai. The Google CEO will be fired or he will resign, says this market veteran.
	This is an article from the Economic Times of India.
	And in it, they focus about the lies of Google against politicians.
	Remember, I said ChatGPT was making up criminal charges against somebody who's running for office.
	Well, Gemini has been making up lies about the Indian prime minister.
	Also, making up lies about India's Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology.
	The very people that would be monitoring this stuff so closely.
	The Indian government has issued a notice to Google over these concerns.
	Oh, that's interesting.
	But will he resign? You know, like Fauci?
	Will he be fired or resign like that?
	No. None of these people. They're not answerable to anyone.
	They do whatever they wish, and nothing ever happens to them.
	But now the question is, is anybody going to get fired at Family Dollar?
	This is not about AI anymore, but this is about a massive fine that was given to Family Dollar.
	And look, it was tremendous neglect that they had at a warehouse.
	The amount of money that they fined them with is absolutely insane.
	It was a massive infestation of mice, but they got fined $41.6 million.
	The largest fine of its kind because of a rodent-infested warehouse.
	Now, they had 1,270 dead mice that they found.
	And if you divide that into the $41.6 million, that is a fine of $32,755 per mouse.
	Look, again, should they be fined?
	Yes. But don't we have, and this is coming from the federal government especially, you know.
	Isn't there something, it seems like I remember something in the Constitution.
	What's that thing called, it's the Bill of Rights or something, and it was something about excessive fines and punishment?
	You see, we've had situations where the FAA has come in and said, well, you're going to have to register your drones even to these little micro-drones.
	And if you don't register it, it only costs you $5.
	But if you don't register it, we find it's going to cost you $10,000 or something ridiculous.
	It was over $10,000, I think.
	And it was like, I think, crazy?
	Where is our due process?
	Well, you don't have any due process.
	Because, again, these are things that are being put out by bureaucracies.
	They say, well, these aren't laws by elected representatives, so the Bill of Rights doesn't apply.
	These are rules from your unelected bureaucrats.
	And so you have no presumption of innocence.
	You have no protection against excessive fines.
	And we don't really care what you think about any of this stuff.
	It's just like the guy, the attitude of that guy in Oxford, England, who says, well, we're going to do this low traffic zones.
	We don't care if the people like it or not.
	We're going to tell you where and when you can drive and how you can drive.
	When presented with this fine of $41.6 million, a company spokesperson just said, rats.
	I guess that's about the only response that you could have left with that, right?
	They have pled guilty to one misdemeanor count of causing goods to be adulterated.
	Adulterated. While being held under an unsanitary condition.
	So one count. And $42 million for one count.
	By the way, you know, we look at this, causing goods to be adulterated.
	You know, that is why they talk about adult entertainment.
	Yes, they do have an age limitation on it, but it's not like, okay, now you're an adult.
	No, it's adulterated.
	It's an adulterated version of sex that they're selling you, just like, you know, mouse droppings on your food.
	That's adulterated food?
	Well, the porn is adulterated sex.
	The company continued to ship FDA-regulated products.
	This is FDA, I guess, coming after them with this.
	From the warehouse until January 2022, when an FDA inspection revealed live rodents, dead and decaying rodents, rodent feces, rodent urine, and rodent odors, evidence of gnawing and nesting throughout the facility.
	Well, there you go. I guess maybe to repair their image, they will adopt the friendly mouse that's now in the public domain from Disney.
	Maybe they can make that their corporate sponsor or something.
	Just go full Bud Light with it.
	California proof.
	Cybertruck's armored glass thwarts break-in by criminals.
	They showed this video.
	It was a video that was taken by the internal camera.
	They've got a dash cam, so if somebody hits your car, if you've got a dash cam, it'll turn on and start recording it.
	I don't know if that was an aftermarket thing or if that's part of Cybertruck.
	It might be part of Cybertruck.
	I think because they use cameras so extensively for their...
	Assisted driving. I don't want to call it autonomous driving or self-driving.
	But because they use cameras for that, you know, they also do this type of thing.
	So they had a video of somebody trying to break through the windows.
	Couldn't do it. Jumping on the hood, all that kind of stuff.
	And so the response of people on social media was, Cybertruck is California proof.
	Armored glass beats criminals trying their best to break in even when they are jumping on the roof.
	One person on X said apocalyptic vehicles are now going to be required in California.
	You know, because they're not going to arrest the criminals.
	And if they do arrest them, the district attorneys from Soros just turn them right back out on the street.
	So now all we've got to do is figure out how we electrify the stainless steel skin as a shocking deterrent.
	And then finally this.
	You know, what has happened to customer service?
	What has happened to a focus?
	Well, we don't really care about that.
	We've got this infatuation with artificial intelligence that is now overriding everything, everything that we have.
	And so Wendy's is going to do surge pricing.
	Yeah, remember back when they actually sold the fact that they had bigger meat?
	Big fluffy bun.
	It's a very big fluffy bun.
	Where's the beef? Well, now a lot of people got beef with the fact that they're going to start changing the pricing depending on what it thinks that you'll pay.
	Surge pricing. So if it's a really busy time, like lunch or dinner or something like that, well, then they're going to go up on the price Of hamburgers.
	What's the point of doing that?
	Is it so that they don't have to hire as many people during the non-surge times?
	I don't really understand what they're getting at here.
	But the order is going to be taken by artificial intelligence.
	And then it's going to determine how much it's going to charge you.
	These people. And already they pointed out, Wendy's is now the most expensive, reportedly the priciest of fast food establishments across the country.
	They raised their prices 35% due to inflation between 2022 and 2023.
	So they keep going up on prices, but that's not enough.
	They want to go up on price, you know, depending on the time of day.
	So I guess you just don't want to eat there at lunch or dinner at all.
	But I think it's kind of interesting that they're going to spend $20 million on this, and they're going to have a high-tech menu board to update the price in real time.
	I mean, that's just a video board, but a video screen.
	But they're going to have the artificial intelligence, take the order, and then determine what the price is going to be for you.
	It's kind of like, well, will there be anything else?
	Okay, well, how much do you want to pay for that?
	Okay. How about this?
	I mean, why don't they just hire some auctioneers, you know, with a really thick southern accent, to auction off the hamburgers?
	Going for $3.23.
	I hear it anymore. $3.24.
	Going, going, going. You know, it's crazy.
	It's like an AI high-tech auction here with surge pricing.
	It's stupid. But why don't they just make better sandwiches?
	It's just what they were doing back in the 1980s.
	Well, let's have a different one.
	The company claims the AI system will not just take orders, but it's a personalized, responsive experience for every customer.
	Again, you know, how badly do you want this?
	How much are you willing to pay to a psychological profile on you?
	We're going to take a quick break.
	We'll be right back. If you like the Eagles, on a dark desert highway, the cars, and Huey Lewis and the News, they say they're hot.
	You'll love the Classic Hits channel at APS Radio.
	Download our app or listen now at APSradio.com.
	♪♪♪
	Making sense.
	comment again. You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	Alright, welcome back. We have some kind of a smell of something burning here in the studio.
	I'm not sure if Karen was trying to cook something or if something here in the studio is cooking.
	So stay tuned. There may be a live flyer.
	It might get interesting here.
	We have a journalist on MSNBC attacking people who believe that rights come from God.
	She said they are Christian nationalists.
	Well, you know, this whole thing may backfire, because if that's the way you're going to define Christian nationalists, then we can claim Thomas Jefferson and George Washington and all of the founding fathers.
	But, of course, it's a patriarchy as well, isn't it?
	Isn't that awful? This is a Politico journalist who is on MSNBC. She is being interviewed by Michael Steele.
	Now, Michael Steele used to be head of the RNC, the Republican National Committee.
	Now, I never really paid much attention to what he did when he was at the RNC or what his political beliefs were, but when I was covering the DNC convention in 2016 when Hillary Clinton was nominated, I was in the lobby and Michael Steele came in and he had this entourage around him.
	And everybody was fawning over him.
	He was celebrated. They're hanging on every word.
	I followed him around for a while to see what he was doing because I was just stunned.
	Here's this guy. I thought he was a Republican, but they were treating him like he was somebody from the Clinton administration.
	Perhaps he was, but now he's working for MSNBC. And you notice, as this reporter who is doing the talking, she works for Politico.
	She works for Politico.
	Maybe you got to know her when she was the senior political analyst at Politico covering the Hillary Clinton campaign.
	She was the point of focus for Politico covering Hillary.
	And he just gives her free reign, and he doesn't contradict anything that she has to say.
	Here's the clip. Remember when Trump ran in 2016, a lot of the mainline evangelicals wanted nothing to do with the divorced real estate mogul who had cheated on his wife with a porn star and all of that, right?
	So what happened was he was surrounded by this more extremist You're going to hear words like Christian nationalism, like the new apostolic reformation.
	These are groups that you should get very schooled on because they have a lot of power in Trump's circle.
	And the one thing that unites all of them, because there's many different groups orbiting Trump, but the thing that unites them as Christian nationalists, not Christians, by the way, because Christian nationalists is very different.
	Is that they believe that our rights as Americans, as all human beings, don't come from any earthly authority.
	They don't come from Congress. They don't come from the Supreme Court.
	They come from God. The problem with that is that they are determining man.
	Men. There it is, men.
	Are determining what God is telling them.
	And in the past, that so-called natural law is, you know, it's a pillar of Catholicism, for instance, has been used for good in social justice campaigns.
	Martin Luther King evoked it in talking about civil rights, but now you have an extremist element of conservative Christians who say that this applies specifically to issues including abortion, gay marriage, and it's going much further than that, as you see, for instance, with the ruling in Alabama.
	Right. This week that judge is connected to that Dominionist faction.
	Wow. She threw out a lot of labels there, didn't she?
	I don't think she really knows what she's talking about.
	And she is so dead wrong about everything.
	I don't pronounce extremist.
	It's extremist is what I say.
	Maybe I'm wrong, but considering how absolutely fundamentally ignorant she is about everything else she had to say, I'm leaning towards her being the one who's wrong about pronouncing the word extremist.
	Extremist. Extremist. And it's men.
	Those men. Men.
	It is men, she said.
	She emphasized the fact that it is men.
	They are evil. Well, I have something to say about that, of course.
	The thing that unites them as Christian nationalists, not as Christians, because Christian nationalism is very different from, well, you know what?
	Christians understand that all human beings are, everything that happens is subject to what God creates.
	He is the one who is sovereign.
	There is, and of course you saw, Michael Steele doesn't say anything about that.
	He says, well, rights come from God.
	He doesn't say, but doesn't the Declaration of Independence say that?
	Isn't that our founding document?
	You know, the governments are created to protect those God-given rights and that those rights are inalienable because they are given to us by God.
	As I say all the time, you know, people have rights.
	Corporations don't have rights.
	Spumford on Rumble says, MSNBC is the absolute worst of the mainstream Marxist media.
	Vile. Yeah, you're absolutely right.
	And maybe that's what it is.
	Maybe it's Marxist Stasi NBC. No, it's Microsoft.
	It's a connection with Gates.
	It helps explain it, I guess.
	But that rights don't come from Congress.
	You said that they don't come from the Supreme Court.
	They come from God.
	Right. Well, you know, if they come from the government, they're privileges.
	We're going to allow you to drive outside of your little zone 100 days a year, but no more.
	No, I have a right to travel.
	I have a right to do a lot of different things.
	Now, Michael Steele did not rebuke her, of course, but she was rebuked very rapidly on social media.
	One guy who really has her number, I retweeted this when I saw this this morning, Andrew T. Walker.
	He is a professor of ethics and public theology.
	He said, this is a civics failure, a talent failure, an intelligence failure, an historical failure, and an ethics failure.
	He said, believing that rights come from God is now known as Christian nationalism, he said.
	And he lists those things out.
	A failure in civics, a failure in talent, intelligence, history, ethics.
	Shall I keep going, he said.
	Elites, we will always have.
	But I said, we need to have better elites.
	The elites are not sending us their best people, quite frankly.
	And you notice the problem that she had with natural rights.
	Now, natural rights is something that Biden had a big problem with with Clarence Thomas.
	He had written about natural rights.
	And, of course, that is essentially the concept that is there in the Declaration of Independence.
	We all have rights based on our humanity.
	There's a commonality of humans.
	We're all one race.
	We're all of one blood.
	And we all have fundamental rights that come from God.
	That doesn't mean that we get equal results from people.
	People turn in different amounts of work, but they also have different abilities, different gifts.
	All of that is Christian.
	We even talk about talent.
	Where does that come from?
	Talent was a unit of weight.
	And Jesus was talking about people who were given different amounts of weight of precious metal.
	And what did they do with it?
	How did they invest it?
	And how did they put it to work?
	So one person gets one talent, another one gets five or ten talents.
	And so that parable, you know, the one who gets one, he doesn't do anything with it, but the other people do something with it, and, you know, they're rewarded for that.
	But, you know, the whole point of that, people took that as like talents.
	Oh, okay. Well, talent means something that God gifts you with.
	Some ability or some circumstances, what the Marxists would call privileges, right?
	So what do you do with all of that?
	And so, the fundamental teachings of Christianity permeate our language, our history, our society, and our governmental theory.
	And she doesn't understand that, neither does Joe Biden.
	As I've said many times, the left wanted to come after Joe Biden with Anita Hill.
	He said, she said things.
	Oh, you know, he made some certain remarks.
	I mean, you look at what is swallowed whole now by both the liberals as well as the conservatives.
	And of course, all this stuff only happened a couple of years before Bill Clinton was credibly charged with many, many cases of violent sexual attack as well as rape.
	And these same people, Anita Hill and all these experts that have been brought in to oppose Clarence Thomas, they became apologists for Bill Clinton.
	Oh, that's no big deal.
	No big deal at all.
	And these people are making these accusations.
	They're just a bunch of bimbos and trailer trash.
	And there was credible evidence on that.
	But there wasn't credible evidence on Clarence Thomas.
	But they were very angry because Biden was overseeing those hearings and they wanted Biden to focus on that.
	And he didn't.
	Instead, what did Biden focus on?
	What Biden was upset about was natural rights.
	And I remember listening to it.
	We were driving through the Blue Ridge Parkway.
	Came over. We were going up to visit relatives in Pennsylvania.
	And so we detoured over.
	We're coming up from Texas. We detoured over so we could drive most of the way, as much of the way as we could on the Blue Ridge Parkway.
	And so it was a time when it was off-season for tourist stuff, so I was driving a little bit faster than...
	You'd typically be able to if there were slow-moving vehicles in the way.
	But I remember that drive, and I remember listening to the live hearings on NPR, and I just about drove off the side of the cliff when I heard him say, go off on natural rights, Joe Biden.
	I've despised Joe Biden ever since the Clarence Thomas hearings.
	It's like, if you would have told me back then that Joe Biden would become president, I would have driven off the cliff.
	Because he's driving our country off the cliff now.
	But, yeah, he had a problem with that.
	Well, that's the basic understanding of our purpose of government.
	It's based on natural rights.
	That's not something that is limited to Catholics.
	All Christians understand that.
	That, you know, where God is.
	Ron Rumble, Hyboo, says, she thought rights came from benevolent authoritarians.
	Yeah. Exactly right.
	Billy the Kid, part two.
	Government, can I please eat meat today?
	Please, please, I promise.
	I'll do whatever you say, Master.
	Absolutely pathetic losers.
	That's their attitude. On Rumble, foggy trail.
	She says it's a problem because man is deciding what God wants.
	But she's perfectly fine with man determining what your rights are.
	There's no consistency in this logic.
	She doesn't like God.
	She wants humans as God, but not men.
	Not men. Because they're so evil.
	Anyway. There's also a type of woman that you'll just encounter everywhere.
	She's the type, she's gone some sort of antidepressant, she's mostly gone, and is just fumbling, mumbling her way through everything she says.
	You've almost definitely got an ant like this.
	Oh yeah, she is a heavy-duty stereotype, isn't she, unfortunately.
	So, it was one of the most disturbing and, frankly, dangerous things I've ever seen in a political conversation, said Bishop Barron in a video that he wrote.
	Bishop Robert Barron, I don't know who he is, but he says this opens the door to totalitarianism, and it does.
	You either believe, see, everybody freaks out when somebody starts talking about their Christian beliefs.
	Well, just understand this.
	Somebody who is a sincere Christian, you know, you've got a lot of people who are out there throwing this stuff around because they want to get votes for people who are Christians.
	But if they sincerely believe this stuff, you have to understand that they realize that they're going to answer to God.
	On the contrary, if you don't think that there is a God...
	You think that you are God once you get elected to these offices, or you're aspiring to be God, and those are the really dangerous people, not the people who understand that they are going to be held accountable.
	The other people, if they don't believe that they're going to be held accountable, there's really not anything that really restrains them.
	They may not necessarily become corrupt, but there's no restraint there.
	It's just going to be because they want to do the right thing, and how many of us will do that if there's not a restraint there?
	That's one of the reasons why our society is in the shape that it's in.
	He went on to say government exists to secure these rights, not to produce them, of course.
	That's what Jefferson said.
	He says there's further evidence of this extreme hostility on the left now towards religion, precisely as an American.
	I want to hold that my rights come not from something as vacillating and as unreliable as Congress or the Supreme Court.
	They come from God.
	You didn't mention the president either.
	That's interesting. Yeah, Congress or the Supreme Court.
	No, it doesn't come from the government.
	Any of the government doesn't give you your rights.
	As a matter of fact, it was the president who trashed them in 2020, didn't he?
	She said, while natural law is, quote, a core pillar of Catholicism, in recent decades has been used to oppose abortion, LGBTQ rights, and contraception, she said in an article that she wrote for Politico.
	Well, again, this stuff is all tied together, isn't it?
	You know, if you have a right to life, don't you?
	Where does that come from?
	Well, God knit you together in your mother's womb.
	And each and every one of us has a right to live, or we can be murdered by our government or other people at any time that they wish.
	If you don't support that for babies, you don't support it for anyone.
	So, all Western thinking really has been along this line.
	Now they're overthrowing Western civilization.
	You know, even in the Libertarian Party, they would speak about the difference between natural law and arbitrary dictated law.
	Like, you can't park here.
	That type of thing. Versus something that we all understand as being wrong.
	Stealing or murder or something like that.
	Unless you live in a society where they have embraced...
	The opposite of what every civilization has known.
	It's an evidence of a lack of civilization, of the decline or the absence of civilization to be involved in cannibalism or outright theft.
	But other people generally, especially if you have a peaceful society, they accept these premises of natural law.
	So she said that the idea...
	That God created government is at odds with a functioning pluralistic society.
	No, her philosophy is at odds with a functioning pluralistic society.
	So our society was far more functional, by the way, when people believed that.
	Also, having a pluralistic society means it's almost non-functional anyway, so...
	Yeah, diversity is our strength.
	Yeah, you have to be united on some principles here.
	But, you know, the interesting thing is that she's once again proven, proven, even though she didn't set out to do this, she's now proven that America is based on Christian ideas.
	And it's funny because...
	The Babylon Bee had a satirical headline about three days before she did this interview with Michael Steele and made fun of that.
	You know, now a Christian nationalist is somebody who thinks that the rights come from God.
	Maybe she's reading the Babylon Bee and thinks that it's what she's getting her ideas.
	No, they're getting their ideas from that.
	Absolutely. And then we have Supreme Court Justice Alito has warned against a religious test for jury duty.
	Because you had some Christians who were excluded from a lawsuit.
	The lawsuit came up for appeal, and they rejected it, hearing it on other grounds.
	But after they reject hearing the case, he said, you know, one thing about this case, though, that does bother me is that you had Christians excluded from this.
	And he said, this is a dangerous idea.
	The case in question, Missouri Department of Corrections v.
	Gene Finney, involved a dispute in which three jurors were dismissed from hearing an employment discrimination case after voicing that they believed that homosexuality is a sin.
	Two potential jurors explained that yes, homosexuality is a sin, but it was one of many sins.
	And they said that in their view, that would not affect their ability to rule on the case.
	One of the potential jurors said a sin is a sin, and every one of us here sins.
	And I don't imagine any of you would deny it.
	Homosexuality isn't any worse sin than stealing something.
	It's all a sin.
	And he says it's all on the same level.
	But he says, I can look at the facts of the case and make a determination about this, but they dismissed the jurors.
	Part of this, I think, what is worrying to Alito and is worrying to me is that since the mid-century, mid-20th century, we have had this push to To drive any Christian belief or any free expression of our religion, to drive that out of the public sphere.
	And they're doing that in the juries now as well.
	He said, so despite this...
	The attorney asked for all three potential jurors to be excused from the pool.
	So, what Alito said is that jurors are duty-bound to decide cases based on the law and the evidence, and a juror who cannot carry out that duty may properly be excused, wrote Alito.
	But otherwise, I see no basis for dismissing a juror for cause based on their religious beliefs.
	And I agree with that.
	But he got that wrong.
	He got that absolutely wrong.
	Jurors are frequently told by justices, even conservative justices like Alito, that you're there to judge the facts of the case.
	You're here to judge the evidence, but not the law.
	You are to decide...
	Let me repeat that again.
	Your duty is to decide cases based on the law and the evidence.
	Well, yes, that is the truth.
	But it's not the whole truth, right?
	It's not the whole truth. You've got to swear when you go to court.
	Tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
	But the judges frequently don't give the juries the whole truth about what their duty is.
	They have a duty to judge the law.
	They have a duty to judge the penalties that will be assessed if somebody is found guilty of violating that law as well.
	And if they don't like the law, if they don't like the penalties, they should shut it down.
	And so he doesn't go anywhere near jury nullification.
	But let's just understand.
	You know, we talk about the Christian foundations of our religion and that type of thing.
	Let's understand the whole concept of jury nullification was based on a religious case.
	You had the government of England saying you will not meet in a church unless it is an official state church, the Church of England.
	And so William Penn in England was a member, of course, of the Quakers.
	They continued to have their meetings in violation of this law.
	They disagreed with it.
	So they continued to meet in their meeting house.
	Then the government came out and padlocked the meeting house.
	So then William Penn held their church service on the steps of that meeting house.
	So then they arrested William Penn.
	And when they brought him before the jury, William Bushnell, the foreman of the jury and another guy, They nullified that law.
	They said, we don't agree with that law.
	We don't think there ought to be a law forcing them to go to the Church of England or no church at all.
	And so they threw it out.
	The judge was angry at them through Ed Bushnell and the number two, the guy that was right below the foreman, threw both of them in jail.
	So William Penn goes and the two jurors get thrown into jail.
	And So they are there for a while, and they get a lawyer, and the lawyer says, show me the law that they violated.
	Habeas corpus. Show me where it is written that jurors can't throw out a case, can't nullify a law, right?
	By refusing to convict somebody who has obviously violated this law.
	There's no question about the facts of the case.
	Facts of the case were not in question.
	And so the judge says, well, I don't have anything that says that that's wrong.
	So habeas corpus was established, but also jury nullification.
	Now, Leto should know that as a conservative judge.
	Shame on him for not saying that.
	This is not a hypothetical situation.
	And again, this also was a case where religion was at the very center of this.
	And because of religious reasons, they established habeas corpus as well as jury nullification.
	We have an Austrian doctor.
	Who's now being forced to pay parents for a wrongful birth of a child.
	Before I get into that, I've got a couple of comments here.
	And Travis says, I think the burning smell was a beetle cooking itself on the heater in here.
	He said, it's been flying around here all day and now he's gone.
	Well, yeah, toast, but he remains.
	Guard Goldsmith, thank you for the tip.
	Thank you, Guard. I appreciate that.
	He says, this is the pushback against that telling sneer on Biden's face as he excoriated Clarence Thomas.
	And in honor of those who do good work, Thank you, David.
	Best to all. Thank you so much, Gard.
	I really do appreciate your support.
	You know, Gard has Liberty Conspiracy on Rockfan on a regular basis.
	And as I said the other day, subscribe to Substack because he puts out all that information there.
	Plus, he has a great Sunday journal that he puts out of information that broke over the week.
	Gard is doing great work and really needs your support as well.
	Again, in Austria, we have a doctor who is forced to pay out tens of thousands of dollars to parents who are angry that their child was born with a disability.
	And they were not given the chance to have an abortion.
	So again, you know, we go back and we look at this.
	Is there a right to life?
	Or should a child's life be taken if the parents want the child to be taken?
	And if we give that ability to parents...
	Then at what time of, you know, what age of the child do we draw the line?
	Do we draw it during pregnancy?
	Do we draw it after pregnancy?
	You know, we've had so-called ethicists like Peter Singer who said, well, I don't think that they're really human until they can start to reason and think.
	So I would think you could kill any child up to the age of three, let's say.
	Again, another arbitrary thing.
	Standard, another arbitrary standard, just like the abortion thing, saying 12 weeks, 15 weeks, 6 weeks, or whatever.
	All that is arbitrarily determined, depending on your definition of what humanity is, if you reject God's definition of what humanity is.
	And if the parents can make that determination...
	Then can't the government eventually make that determination?
	If mankind, humans, can make the determination and take the life of another human, then why not have the government do it?
	Why not have it done at the end of life?
	Why not have it done when somebody is sick and going to be expensive to treat them?
	These are all the issues that are there.
	Now, in this particular case...
	The judges emphasize that this is about the parent's right to decide autonomously whether, first of all, if they want a child, and secondly, whether or not, given their life situation, they're prepared and able to raise a disabled child according to their needs.
	Well, if they're not, there are other people who are.
	Quite frankly, the We adopted my daughter.
	She was older. She had no disability, but they thought that she might have because she had hydrocephalus when she was born.
	And so, you know, we'd signed up to adopt her.
	There were people there in the group.
	Who were adopting kids who were blind?
	It might be something like a cleft palate that they weren't going to get an operation in China, but they could bring the child to America and they could do it.
	They could either afford it or there were actually doctors who would donate their services for the family if they couldn't afford it to fix a cleft palate.
	But there are people who adopt and not all the people that were there were Christians either.
	They're just doing that out of compassion.
	And so if you have a child with disability, there's plenty of people out there who are willing to do something about it.
	The doctor, however, will now have to pay all costs for the child and has already been made to pay about $83,000.
	In the future, further claims amounting to several hundred thousand euros will be made for the parents of the disabled child, they said.
	And so, it's all about money, isn't it, for these people?
	The love of money.
	Well, I love money so much, and I love my career, my freedom that I think I have.
	You know, quite frankly, you know, when you look at having children, it is a very freeing thing, and it is a wonderful growth opportunity for people to be able to grow up as adults.
	So, these people just looking at the money aspect of it.
	The love of money. And this is the way Planned Parenthood sells it to people.
	You can't afford to pay for this child.
	Do you realize how much it's going to cost to raise a child to the age of 18?
	Do you have all that money right now?
	Well, of course, nobody does.
	So, they use that argument.
	They use the love of money.
	Perhaps it would be better for these parents...
	Of a child who is disabled.
	To focus on that child.
	And to learn to love that child instead of learning to love their money and their career or whatever else it is.
	And then you have in Georgia a different direction.
	You have a baby who the malpractice is so grotesque Some people are saying that it has now been ruled a homicide by the legal officials because the malpractice was so egregious.
	This is a baby that was decapitated during delivery.
	But, of course, they do that all the time to babies who are being aborted, and nobody cares, do they?
	Clearly, this is murder.
	And that's what this doctor has been charged with.
	Not malpractice, but murder.
	But they do this all the time when they do abortions.
	If the parents don't want it, it's okay to murder a child.
	Just rip them to pieces, literally.
	This was a situation on difficult labor.
	They experienced shoulder dystocia.
	A condition in which one or both of the baby's shoulders get stuck inside the mother's pelvis.
	In many cases, this necessitates a C-section, and what they're saying is, you didn't do a C-section, you just ignored that.
	And it kept pulling, and they decapitated the baby.
	An amazing tragedy, but isn't it a tragedy when the babies are deliberately sectioned into pieces themselves, drawn and quartered, as we've seen in that animated film, The Procedure?
	The guy with ultrasound recounting what he saw and they show it as an animated feature.
	You know, pulling the baby apart limb by limb until it dies.
	John MacArthur has the big church in California has spoken out about this guy who went to Iowa.
	And destroyed that satanic display there.
	And we're going to talk about that when we come back.
	We're going to take a quick break and we'll come back and talk about that.
	Was it right? Was it wrong?
	We'll be right back Music playing...
	Whistling...
	You're listening to the David Knight Show to The David Knight Show.
	Elvis. Ladies and gentlemen, the Beatles.
	And the sweet sounds of Motown.
	Find them on the Oldies channel at APSradio.com.
	So you remember the case in Iowa, we had some people had set up nativity scenes, they'd set up, I think, a Hanukkah menorah.
	And so the Temple of Satan set up this little thing that they made up.
	And again, they have open, it's not attacking their religion.
	They don't believe this.
	This is there to make a mockery of other people's religion.
	And I don't think that is the two choices.
	In other words, they always give us two choices, don't they?
	These people want to control us.
	This is a Gellion dialectic.
	We can either do this or you can do that.
	And it's like, no, there's always more than two choices about how you handle this.
	And I think the appropriate response is to say, we understand that that's not a religion, because we're not doing a religious test here.
	We're not questioning your beliefs.
	We're just repeating what you say on your website, that you don't believe any of this stuff.
	You don't believe any of this stuff.
	You don't believe in Satan, so why are you making a little temple thing to Satan?
	It's an absolute fraud.
	It is a mockery. And so I guess we could say, you remove this Temple of Satan thing, it's a demockery, right?
	So, that I think is really the appropriate response.
	What John MacArthur said was he said he absolutely backs the actions.
	He actually said it was a noble thing.
	The question and answer woman brought up the case.
	Asked MacArthur, he said, would you deem this actions commendable?
	If so, should we as Christians openly resist the increasing promotion of Satanism?
	I'm reminded of Gideon's acts of destroying the altar of Baal in the book of Judges.
	MacArthur responded, well, you have to take the consequences if you do it.
	But that was a noble thing to do.
	That was something that Cassidy felt very deeply in his heart.
	What are they doing having an altar to Satan in the state public building?
	Well, again, it doesn't even come down to that.
	It comes down to the fact that you recognize what these people are about as they want to purge religion out of the public square, and they do it by making a mockery of it so that people want to remove them and then apply that principle to everybody else.
	That's their logic. We don't have to go through that process.
	The First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion.
	It doesn't protect the mockery of other people's religion.
	So, he said he destroyed it to awaken Christians to the anti-Christian acts promoted by our government.
	He said the world may tell Christians to submissively accept the legitimization of Satan, but none of the country's founders would have considered government sanction of satanic altars inside the Capitol building as protected by the First Amendment.
	Nevertheless, you had the governor of Iowa, Republican, A Republican member of the state legislature, who is also a pastor, said that.
	Well, look, my religion is more important to me than the politics.
	My religion is more important to me than the law of man.
	And if the law of man said that that was not to be allowed, I would violate that law of man.
	It's just that simple.
	But we don't even have to get to that point.
	These people are being used and they don't even understand it.
	So, is there a legitimization of Satan?
	Well, consider this.
	Amazon Prime has just come out with a cartoon called Has Been Hotel.
	And it is a mockery of God.
	It's a mockery of Christianity.
	It's a celebration of Satan as if it had been put out by the Satanic Temple itself.
	It depicts Lucifer And Adams, what they say is his first wife, Lilith, As a couple running a hotel.
	The trailer for this shows the tone and the slant of the series.
	Let's see, this is boundingintocomics.com.
	They reviewed it. Satan is described as, quote, a dreamer with fantastical ideas for all of creation.
	The angels are heartless.
	They're unfair. They're described that way.
	But he was seen as a troublemaker by the elders of heaven.
	In Jewish and Mesopotamian folklore, Lilith is a figure that is a matron to the devil who fled Eden in defiance of Adam and God, they say.
	They're drawing all this stuff from that.
	Afterward, according to Hasbun Hotel, she struck up a romance with the devil, and they conspired to tempt Adam and Eve into eating from the tree of knowledge.
	They said they wanted to share the magic.
	This is what they say in the trailer.
	They wanted to share the magic of free will with humanity, offering the fruit of knowledge to Adam's new bride, Eve, who gladly accepted.
	This is like Saul Alinsky's dedicating his Rules for Radicals to Lucifer, the rebel.
	And this is the way they like to present him.
	Haven't we had enough of this yet?
	Even just from the fact that it's a tired concept.
	We're repurposing, what, millennia-old Jewish fan fiction about the Bible for a cartoon now?
	Oh, maybe the devil was actually the good guy.
	Wow, yeah, what an original concept.
	Yeah, yeah. But it also is being funded by Amazon.
	Lots of money. And it's kind of interesting what the head of animation said about all of this.
	As she was talking about it, she said her name is Melissa Wolfe.
	She told the New York Times, this cartoon gave her, quote, a kind of goosebumps feeling when you know that it's an amazing show.
	She said, we are going to be shifting within Amazon toward diverse and LGBT stories in adult animation.
	Our society and our culture has kind of shifted, and a lot more diverse stories are starting to be told, a lot more LGBT stories and things like that, she said.
	The adult animation space, she said, has been predominantly white male space for a very long time.
	So we know exactly the stereotype that she is coming from.
	Now there's really also, besides what is happening here, there is a very strange statue in Houston that is...
	Hang on a second.
	Let me grab this.
	The statue in Houston has been put up to celebrate abortion.
	And it's got kind of a baphomet vibe to it.
	Travis, the article is Texas Right to Life.
	It's got a lot of stuff on it.
	It's got like this person who's there.
	And this is a statue that's on tour.
	18-foot golden female sculpture with hair braided like spiraling horns.
	That look like the way that Baphomet is depicted, as you see it on Elon Musk's costume and the Temple of Satan.
	And then it has spindly arms and legs that are like a whole bunch of different organic roots and everything.
	And the tip towards Darth Vader Ginsburg is that they put a collar of lace around its neck.
	It truly is amazing to see.
	Did you find the article yet? And debuted in New York's Madison Square Park last year.
	They brought it to the University of Houston for display.
	It includes a hoop skirt inspired by the stained glass dome of the nearby courthouse.
	It symbolizes the need to break the legal glass ceiling, according to New York Times.
	Again, arms like tentacles and features a lace collar like Justice Darth Vader Ginsburg.
	Written on the sculpture is the word Hava, which the artist says means air or atmosphere in Urdu, or it means Eve in Arabic and Hebrew, he said.
	So, the sculptor says this means to breathe, to add air, to change a narrative, to add some space.
	Eve was also the first lawbreaker, right?
	See, we're right back to the same theme.
	Did you find the picture there yet?
	It's under, if you search on it on the list, you'll find it.
	Texas Right to Life said disobedience to God certainly should not be esteemed by society, much less lauded with a statue, but that's what we do.
	We take down statues of people who lived in a way that helped their fellow man.
	It was a credit to civilization, even though they may not have been perfect people.
	We're deleting those statues everywhere.
	We're creating a statue to rebellion to God.
	That's where our culture is right now.
	Statue honoring child sacrifice, and of course this is part of it, the pro-abortion aspect of it.
	The description that the University of Houston had was that it was cultural interconnectedness.
	Cultural interconnectedness.
	So the allegorical female forms arms and legs resemble intertwined tree roots.
	According to the artist, the form is self-rooted and can carry its roots wherever it goes.
	Oh, is it an ent-wife?
	Is that what it is? Well, no, it wouldn't be a wife, of course.
	We don't want to have anything like that.
	The ram horns have a significance, they said, associated with power and valor, but of course, the way they present it, it looks like a Baphomet horn.
	And so when we look at this celebration of lawbreakers, again, what is it that we want to do to fix our society?
	Brian and Deb McCartney said, our little baby Ira Liu is now with Jesus.
	She passed about 7.30 p.m.
	Monday evening. I am so sorry to hear that.
	I am so sorry I didn't know your baby was sick.
	I am so sorry. May God bless you.
	I'm sorry to hear that.
	Let's talk about what Augustine says that we need to honor in our society.
	I'm so sorry to see that.
	This is written by someone who is a classical Christian educator.
	And he says, what we try to do is we try to talk to our students about civic virtues.
	What does that even mean?
	Do we even talk about that anymore in society?
	He said, we've had a lot of people like the founders of this country, people like Augustine, who have talked about that a great deal, saying that society requires virtuous members in order for that society to flourish.
	And he said, so what is the source of civic virtue?
	He said, each day in my American Humanities course, I have students recite a catechism that has a quote from George Washington.
	And I'm going to read you that quote when we come back.
	I'm going to take a quick break. 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 can download the app from the link in the description.
	Download the app.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	Well we have an interview that's going to begin at the top of the hour, but I might be able to get through this before that.
	Let's talk about civic virtue, and of course, one person we want to listen to is George Washington, widely regarded by the people who knew him.
	And let's see, we have our guest who's now joined us, okay?
	I tell you what, we're going to save this until after the interview, so I don't keep him waiting.
	And we're going to talk about something that is happening in Washington State.
	Interesting law, first of all, that was put in, an environmental law.
	There's now an initiative to get rid of that environmental law.
	So now the Washington government has come up with what is essentially a bribery to people, saying, keep that in there and we're going to cut you a check.
	A one-time check.
	I mean, this is one of the most interesting things I've seen.
	And so Todd Myers is our guest.
	We're going to take a quick break so that we can connect with him.
	And we will be right back to tell you the details of what is going on.
	Again, Washington State, they don't even try to hide it anymore.
	We'll be right back. Music The common man.
	They created common core to dumb down our children.
	They created common past to track and control us.
	Their commons project to make sure the commoners own nothing.
	And the communist future.
	They see the common man as simple, unsophisticated, ordinary.
	But each of us has worth and dignity created in the image of God.
	That is what we have in common.
	That is what they want to take away.
	Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation.
	They desire to know everything about us while they hide everything from us.
	It's time to turn that around and expose what they want to hide.
	Please share the information and links you'll find at TheDavidKnightShow.com.
	Thank you for listening.
	Thank you for sharing.
	If you can't support us financially, please keep us in your prayers.
	TheDavidKnightShow.com Alright.
	joining us now is Todd Myers.
	He is director of the Center for Environment at the Washington Policy Center.
	He is in Seattle, Washington.
	And there is an amazing thing that is happening there.
	But just as an introduction, he has written for the Wall Street Journal, the BBC, the National Review, Seattle Times, USA Today.
	Been on numerous news networks, including CNBC, Fox News, and CNN. And his wife, Maria, live in the foothills of the Cascade Mountains in Washington State.
	Good for you. That sounds like a beautiful place.
	With 100,000 honeybees.
	And he's been busy as a bee himself.
	And he has an amazing story coming from this left-wing state and what they're trying to do to keep some environmental legislation in place.
	Thank you for joining us, Todd.
	Thank you.
	Tell us, first of all, about this initiative to repeal a Climate Commitment Act.
	Tell us what the Climate Commitment Act is.
	Well, people are probably familiar that in California, and maybe they're familiar with Quebec, have what's called a cap-and-trade system for CO2 emissions.
	So Washington passed a similar law in 2001 that just took effect in 2023, where we have a cap on total CO2 emissions, and then we charge, people have to buy allowances for CO2, essentially a tax. There's a tax on CO2. And so it's very similar to what's happening in California.
	So that's what's called the Climate Commitment Act.
	It's just simply a CO2 cap-and-trade system.
	So we passed that.
	Like I said, it just went into effect in 2023.
	Governor Inslee, who constantly talks about how he's sort of the climate governor and this is his big priority...
	Said it wouldn't have much of an impact.
	It would cost about the pennies.
	He said pennies on gasoline.
	We did the math and we said, well, no, it's actually going to cost more like 46 cents a gallon.
	And he said we were wrong.
	In fact, it ended up being about 43 cents a gallon.
	And at one point last summer, for the first time in Washington's history, we had the highest gas prices in the nation, higher even than California.
	Wow. Wow.
	Wow. And that is really amazing because, you know, when we look at California, it has extremely high taxes, plus they have to have a, you know, bespoke kind of gasoline made for them.
	So there's only a few refineries that can make that customized gasoline, and that drives the price up as well.
	But even without that, Washington's high gas taxes made it the most expensive.
	You know, I've always seen this.
	When the government would want to raise the sales tax, Todd, they would say, well, it's only a penny.
	You know, we're only going...
	We're only going from 5% to 6%.
	It's like, okay, well, that's a 20% increase.
	It's not a penny increase.
	It's a 20% increase.
	And they always play those types of semantic games with people.
	So besides the tax on gas, does this carbon tax manifest itself in other ways?
	Yeah, it covers all CO2-emitting fuels.
	So it's not just gasoline.
	It's also diesel. Diesel is actually more expensive.
	It's about 53 cents a gallon on average last year.
	It also has natural gas, propane.
	So we have a lot of people in Washington State who heat their homes with natural gas.
	It impacts that as well.
	So it covers CO2. But it's not on food and meat yet, right?
	Because that's where they want to get, right?
	Well, I mean, of course, it's on the energy transport and everything else.
	So, yeah, it shows up everywhere.
	Yeah. Oh, yeah. You increase the price of energy and fuel.
	It trickles through everything.
	And we all saw that with the oil embargo.
	But, you know, they want to get there with their special additional taxes on those prohibited things.
	And it reminds me, all these carbon taxes, Todd, remind me of...
	The medieval indulgences, right?
	You buy an indulgence from them in order to sin.
	And the carbon usage is now supposed to be a sin.
	It truly is amazing. So people saw this and wanted to get rid of it.
	So how has the, and they got an initiative together, how has the state of Washington responded?
	So, because the prices of the CO2 tax were so much higher, the way that the tax is set is at an auction.
	So, there's a limited number of allowances.
	Everybody who is covered, fuel suppliers, natural gas suppliers, and things like that, They all have to bid.
	So the prices go up and down.
	So the prices were much higher than anticipated in Washington state because the system was essentially set up to create extreme scarcity.
	Why? Because all that money goes to the state in form of taxes.
	So the tighter you make the market, the higher the prices, the more taxes go to the government.
	estimated that there would be about 300 million dollars raised in Washington State in the first year instead it was about 1.6 billion dollars So they have an absolute gusher of money that has come in and now The legislature which is in session right now is trying to figure out what to do that with that and of course they're spending the vast majority of it
	But one of the things that they did with about $150 million was to say, all right, we're going to send out a one-time payment of $200 to starting with low-income utility customers and then moving up to see how far we get with $150 million.
	fun aspects of this. So the House and Senate versions are slightly different, but in the House version, the first check goes out October 15th, 2024, three weeks before the election.
	The other fun thing about that is that the way it's administered is that utility, because it's for utility customers, utilities are the ones to send out the checks.
	But the law says, the proposed law says, that the utilities have to use language approved by the Washington State Department of Commerce.
	So they can't say, here's money.
	They're likely going to have to say, here's money that we're giving you thanks to the tax on CO2 emissions.
	Yeah, oh yeah. This is crazy.
	It is an outright bribe.
	Don't remove this thing, you know, we taxed you with all this, and the taxes brought in five times more, more than five times what they thought it was going to bring in.
	And so don't remove this heavy burden that we put on you.
	Instead, we'll get you a check if you leave it in place.
	And then, of course, what a foolish bargain that is for people.
	A lot of people will take it, I guess.
	Yeah, and as you pointed out, it's a one-time paycheck.
	So, you know, the costs in 2024, the costs in 2025, nobody gets any relief from that.
	It's a one-time paycheck timed to go out near the election.
	The other thing is that there's a second, in the House version, there's a second round of checks that would go to different people that are scheduled for February of 2025.
	And what the law says is, if...
	The CO2 tax is repealed.
	That round of checks is cancelled.
	So, if you want your check, vote against this, otherwise we won't send it to you now.
	Not only is that pretty blatant what the game they're playing there, but it's also dishonest because the money has already been collected.
	The legislator who wrote that into the bill said, well, we don't if they repeal it, we don't know if we're going to have the money.
	That's completely false. The money has already been collected.
	As I said, as you pointed out, they've collected, you know, five or six times what they expected.
	The money is already in the state treasury. And in fact, the Senate version pays out 150 million all at once.
	So the game that they're playing of saying, oh, we might not give it to you if you vote the wrong way, it's not only bribery, it's dishonest.
	Yeah, yeah. Carrot and a stick.
	You get the carrot just before the election to keep it in there, and then they hit you with a stick in February after the election if you don't keep it in there.
	It's kind of interesting. It's a little bit of a stimulus check for the green agenda, just like we had a stimulus check for the pandemic agenda.
	And instead of universal basic income, getting people accustomed to that, I guess we can start to get accustomed to direct bribery of the voters.
	we call it universal basic bribery, is what this is starting to look like.
	But this is an important thing for people to understand, because this is Washington state, it's a Democrat state, we can expect to see this type of stuff, certainly the carbon taxes, replicated across the country. And this is a new wrinkle in terms of trying to get people to continue to enslave themselves to pay these taxes and never to take them off.
	I mean, it really is an idiot deal, but a lot of people are going to take that.
	They love this stimulus check, and this is a little bribery check, and they'd love to do that, I think.
	Well, New York is considering following and creating its own cap-and-trade CO2 system, and they are looking at Washington, and I guarantee that they are probably looking at how this goes down.
	Because if even voters in Washington State say that they don't like this, I think that's a message to the whole country that these sorts of systems are not popular.
	Let me just say, though, I have worked in environmental policy for 25 years.
	I am on the center-right.
	There are lots of things that people on the center-right can do to help the environment.
	As you read in my bio, I live in the foothills of the Cascades.
	I live in a forest, right?
	That's look at a political map about where people on the right tend to live.
	It's close to nature. And so another frustrating thing about this is that stories like this tend to make people on the center-right cynical about all environmental policy.
	And I think that we need to reject that.
	We actually are the ones who care about the environment and our policies work, right?
	We're not just using environmental policy as a Trojan horse for big government or to raise money for special interests or things like that.
	Our policies, our approach is actually about stewardship of the land and caring about the planet.
	So as crazy as the story is, what I don't want people to take away is, oh, this is just another example that environmental policy and concerns about environment are nonsense.
	That's the wrong attitude. The right attitude is, look, their stuff, as much as the left loves to brag about how much they care about the environment, their policies don't work.
	Our approaches, which are based in stewardship of the land, actually are the ones that help the environment.
	Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, as a matter of fact, you're with a policy institute that is state-based, and it was, I guess, 2008, 2009.
	I can't remember the exact date.
	I think it was around that time.
	I went to, you know...
	I can't remember the name of the group that does it, but they have think tanks from all 50 states.
	And then, of course, there's some that are national, like Heritage Foundation, stuff like that.
	And it was in Seattle that went to a beautiful place that was there.
	But one of the guys that I worked with, with the group that I was in, his name is David Schneir.
	He worked for the EPA for 30 years.
	I know David. Yeah, you know David?
	Yeah, good guy. He cared about the environment.
	He wanted to clean it up. But then he saw it transferring, you know, this mission creep that they were on.
	You know, they started getting these other things.
	And, you know, I also saw this with my uncle, who was...
	Head of the Forestry Department, University of Missouri, Columbia.
	And he said, you know, it's a big difference between conservation and environmentalism.
	You know, he said, we want to care for the land, and we see ourselves as stewards of the land.
	These people just want to lock everything up.
	And, you know, they're not going to remove any deadwood.
	He said, that's going to burn the forest down, and we've seen that type of stuff.
	You have to actually...
	Work it instead of just leaving it in a wild state.
	But now, you know, the EPA seems to me like it is completely off the rails.
	That's certainly what David Schneer thought.
	He retired and he fought against them, you know, because he didn't like the direction that they were going.
	The good thing, I think, though, is that there is a growing recognition and a growing frustration, even from some folks on the center-left, that government policies are not solving problems.
	And what you see is that—and I talk with a lot of people on the center-left who care about the environment— We're finding new ways, ways that, you know, through nonprofits or businesses or on the ground actually making a difference.
	And there is a growing movement of people who recognize that government, the 1970s style of government's top-heavy environmentalism isn't solving problems.
	And so I actually wrote a book called Time to Think Small about folks who are doing really cool things.
	And it shows that markets, personal stewardship, innovation, those are the things that really help the environment.
	And a lot of the stories I tell in my book are people who are not on the right.
	They're on the center left, but they have the same frustration.
	And so I wrote my book because I know a lot of conservatives care about the environment, but are frustrated with environmental politics.
	They're looking for alternatives.
	And the good thing is, is that with technology, we now have those alternatives.
	We don't have to, you know, fall for the trap of the EPA, where they take more and more power.
	And, you know, one of my favorite quotes is that, you know, fanaticism is redoubling your efforts when you've lost sight of the goal.
	And I think a lot of government programs have done that.
	But there is an opportunity to do some things that actually are good for the environment.
	That's right. What is the name of your book again?
	Time to think small about how new environmental technologies can solve the planet's biggest problems.
	I talk to a lot of conservatives whose kids come back from college and they're very frustrated because they have all these ideas about environmentalism in their mind.
	And so I wrote the book to appeal to people who are on the center-left.
	In fact, the foreword is written by somebody from the World Wildlife Fund.
	Because... There are people, like I said, on the center-left who recognize that we need to change the things that we're doing to help the environment, and just having a government program and a tax just doesn't do it anymore.
	I agree. I agree. And when you say time to think small, we're talking local.
	That's where things get done.
	Everybody understands that.
	And when you look at what has happened with the EPA, they have been as counterproductive to the environment as We're good to go.
	You have a better chance of getting it done right, and people can see the need, and it's just a completely different approach than trying to get everything solved centrally.
	And I think that's a real important lesson for both the left and the right to understand, because now I see a lot of conservatives saying, well, we've got to fix all this in Washington.
	I just don't think that that's the right way to go about it.
	I think we need to revitalize things at the local community level.
	At the small level is where we need to grow this stuff and need to fix it from the bottom up, I think.
	That's exactly right. And you see really tremendous examples because at the local level, you not only have better knowledge, right?
	You know the problem because you're close to it, but you also have accountability.
	And if things don't work, you make changes.
	And politicians screws up.
	When have you ever heard a politician say, boy, I really screwed that up.
	We need to change, right? They never say that.
	But if you're on the ground and you're actually trying to make a difference, there is that accountability and that incentive to change.
	And one of my favorite examples is of tribal stewardship of forest lands.
	Here in Washington State, if you look at federal forest lands, they are horrible.
	They're very unhealthy, very fire-prone, horrible habitat.
	But you look right next door on tribal lands where they have control of their forests, forests are very healthy, much less fire-prone.
	Why? Because they can go in, they have the ability to take action, to thin out those forests, to make them so that they, to do the work that they need to do.
	And because if those forests burn, guess what?
	The tribal members know whose door to knock on, who's managing those forests.
	So there is that direct accountability.
	And it's really interesting because you can see where tribal lands are up against federal lands, and the federal lands are red and dead, and the tribal lands are green.
	And it's not, this doesn't have anything to do with tribes per se, it has to do with they have the local knowledge and the incentives and the accountability to do it right.
	And that's the ethic that we need to bring to stewardship generally, rather than, as you say, trying to do everything from Washington, which clearly doesn't work.
	Yes. And I've seen that over and over again.
	I've seen it in Wyoming, what you're talking about.
	And it's not necessarily even just the tribal lands.
	It's just private property that people have there.
	And so I've seen it in Wyoming.
	I've seen it here in Tennessee when they had the big fires in the federal forest and everything, and it spilled over into other people's property.
	A really bad case of it in Idaho, where my son and I interviewed a guy who was a logger, and they were just shutting down the logging industry left and right.
	But he had taken very good care of his land, and he had gradually invested in this and was gradually working the land and And selectively taking out trees that had died and stuff like that.
	But that was going to be his retirement.
	And because of the negligence and the mismanagement of the federal lands, a fire got out of control there and went onto his land and burned up what was going to be his retirement.
	And it's such a tragedy to see that because they won't manage the lands properly.
	And, you know...
	Look at that. It's not the Bureau of Land Management.
	They're really trying to just manage people off their private property.
	They don't really manage the lands that they have there, and that's really what has happened to the environmentalism.
	So that's a great idea. Time to think small.
	Get back to the local area.
	As you point out, people can see if something is working, and they can make that adjustment.
	And that is true when we look at every aspect.
	Of centralized, federally controlled, federally funded program.
	Every single one of these programs, whether you're talking about the environment or you're talking about welfare, if it's happening at the local level, it used to be with volunteer organizations, then people can see what is happening and they can make those adjustments.
	That is a much better model, isn't it?
	Yeah, and the other nice thing about that is that we have this traditional notion of stewardship of local land and things like that, but now we have technology that can multiply our efforts.
	So one of the common critiques is, oh, only government can do this because only government has the scale that can solve these big problems.
	But in fact, with technology, now the efforts of individuals can be multiplied through technology, through information, other things like that.
	and make really big difference.
	And there's a great example, people always talk about climate change, but there are other issues like ocean plastic.
	And a group called Plastic Bank goes to where the plastic is going into the ocean, which is not the United States, it's developing countries.
	And they see people on their cell phones to pick up plastic, recycle it, and then they sell it to SC Johnson.
	So when you go buy a Windex bottle, it'll say made with ocean bound plastic.
	And they have a webpage that shows you exactly where they've picked up the plastic.
	Now what's the technology involved?
	Cell phones and a webpage, nothing very crazy, but just that has allowed them to pay people and show that they're actually making a difference.
	And they have collected a quarter of a billion pounds of plastic that might.
	Wow.
	Wow. And, of course, as you point out, a lot of the ocean plastic is not really coming from America.
	It's coming from Asia. It's where the big aspects of that are.
	But it's all being used for political purposes.
	That's the point. I think cutting through all of the BS that they're putting out there, they're not really that interested in the environment.
	They're interested in the political power that it gives them.
	I think that is what people are starting to realize.
	That's what makes conservatives cynical.
	So it's a good idea to get people to understand, yes, we do need to take care of the environment.
	Yes, we did have toxic places out there, but look at what happened when we tried to solve it at the federal level.
	It's turned into this metastasizing cancer that is off of the mission and onto something that is completely different than what it began with.
	Well, I'll give you a quick example of that.
	in Portland, Oregon, just south of where I am, they passed what's called the Clean Energy Fund, which is a tax that was designed, and what they claimed it was gonna do was to create clean energy in Portland and help Portland meet its climate goals.
	But when the first round of grants came out, a reporter called me and said, what do you think of these?
	And I said, well, these don't actually reduce CO2 emissions.
	They're really expensive and they do almost nothing for the environment.
	And so the reporter did a good job and went to the head of the Sierra Club and asked, hey, these projects that are chosen under the Clean Energy Fund, which you supported, aren't actually helping the environment.
	And he said, well, yeah, that wasn't the goal.
	The goal was to use this fund to address systemic racism.
	Here is a policy that is supposed to, you know, address climate change, something they call an existential crisis.
	And instead of actually using it to address that policy, they use it for some other political goal.
	And that, I think, is that we have to fight that because environmentalism is being used as a political goal.
	But I think that's also the opportunity for conservatives and for people on the Senate right to say, look, They're not really serious about environment and climate change.
	We are serious about solving environmental problems because we demand results where they play political games.
	Oh, yeah, and in the bigger scale even when you look in the Paris climate accord, right?
	That allows China and India the two biggest polluters of the two biggest populations to build as many power plants as they want without and they can be as dirty as they It's not about that.
	If they want to talk about a global crisis or something like that, then why would you give the two biggest countries the ability to continue to expand and build this stuff?
	And a lot of people who believe that it was an existential crisis were very furious about that.
	They said, all you're doing is transferring industry.
	From the West to China and to India.
	And of course, they want to do that because the labor costs are less.
	And they can also, they don't have any regulation, so they can get very cheap energy costs.
	And then they say they're protecting the environment at the same time.
	I mean, the whole thing was predicated off of that.
	But I guess maybe they could also call it fighting systemic racism or something if they transfer everything to China and India.
	But it's just a sham in so many ways that we see this.
	And some of the people who actually are concerned about that still see that as not really doing anything about what they perceive as a problem.
	Well, yeah, and that's the problem with these sort of political solutions is that they have to play games like that, right?
	What they say is, well, it's not really fair.
	It's sort of justifiably.
	They say it's not fair for us to have industrialized and then to put a cap on India, right?
	We need to give them a chance.
	But the point that you're making is exactly right, which is that...
	The political compromises then have to carve out India and other places like that.
	So where are we going to find solutions?
	How are they going to reduce CO2 emissions?
	How are they going to reduce pollution?
	How are they going to make their environment better?
	It's not from government agreements, international agreements.
	It's from technology.
	It's from market.
	And that's the beauty about free markets.
	There is no system that has been developed that encourages people to do more with less.
	It is so effective at finding ways to economize.
	And economize simply means using fewer resources.
	So, you know, India in the future is going to be cleaner, not because of international agreements, but because of technology that they've developed, that we've developed and traded with them.
	And that's where environmental progress comes from.
	Yes, yes. And so you have situations like Toyota, you know, they said, well, we want zero emission cars.
	Okay, we can do that. Instead of doing a battery, we'll do like hydrogen technology or something.
	No, no, no, you can't do that. You know, I mean, there's always, we need to understand that what these people are pushing from the central authorities, when they have their centralized, top-down solutions, they've got a political agenda, they're feeding you a line about what they actually want to do, and you can see that when they say, no, only this particular solution...
	We have put forward is going to be the one that's allowed.
	It's like, okay, so you don't think that other thing really is an existential risk that needs to be addressed.
	You've got something that you want us to do, and you're using this as a beard to force us or to scare us into doing what you want to do, I think is...
	We see this over and over again.
	This seems to be the hallmark, the antithesis of a free market, a command-control economy, where they have already picked a solution.
	They probably already invested into these different markets, the people who are pushing it.
	And so that's why you're only going to have one solution that's going to be offered to people, I think, in many cases.
	Well, and the other example of that, of course, is nuclear, right?
	All the people who say it's an existential crisis then turn around and say, oh, but we can't do nuclear, even though it obviously is one of the best options to produce carbon-free energy.
	But my favorite example with regard to Toyota and technology is that in the 1990s, California had a law that said that a certain percentage of cars would have to be electric by the year 2020.
	And there was this documentary made called Who Killed the Electric Car?
	I know. I remember that. Electric cars could have been available if only we had actually done it.
	Well, we know today we're still struggling to get affordable electric cars, but there was this law.
	But Toyota, rather than meeting the electric car law that was in California, which was totally infeasible and wasn't going to happen, they said, we're going to do the technology that makes sense, and that's a hybrid.
	And the irony is that Toyota rejected California's law and said, we're going to make something that fits with the technology.
	And the Prius ended up, ironically, becoming sort of the symbol of the environmental movement for a while, right?
	If you wanted to show you're an environmentalist, you bought a Prius.
	And what ended up happening was that California had to change their law to count hybrids.
	So again, it was the market that saw the way to create a vehicle that was more fuel efficient, emitted less CO2, but was feasible technically and would appeal to consumers rather than sort of politicians saying, well, we want you to achieve 5% of vehicles electric by, you know, 2000, which is completely arbitrary.
	So that's...
	The market actually does a better job sometimes of meeting the politicians' own goals than they do.
	Oh, it absolutely does.
	And so we've got this constant struggle back and forth.
	As you point out, they didn't like the hybrids, but the market did.
	And so it kind of forced them to acknowledge it.
	They keep pushing the battery EVs, and yet the market doesn't like it.
	They say, we can't afford it, and all this other.
	And so now you've got the companies are starting to pull back and starting to look for other alternatives.
	And yet you still have these politicians that are going out there in many places saying, well, we've got to have absolutely zero emissions.
	So that excludes the hybrid.
	So there's constantly this back and forth between what people want and what the government demands.
	I think ultimately, especially when it starts to come to things like what you drive, how you heat your house, what you eat, and all the rest of these things, they have become so addicted to power.
	I think it is going to blow back on them significantly.
	We're starting to see that in many different ways with the cars, with other things like that.
	I think that's going to continue.
	People are going to start voting in the marketplace.
	That is one of the best places to vote because...
	They have the least amount of control over that.
	They still have control over that.
	They can control what's on the ballot in many cases by outright banning it.
	But still, that is a place where we get to vote frequently in the marketplace in terms of what we buy outside of bans.
	And once they go to that banning, that kind of pulls the curtain back.
	And we get to see exactly where these people are coming from, I think.
	Well, that's right.
	And the other thing that's great about markets and technology is you don't have to think climate change is an existential crisis.
	You don't have to be worried necessarily about drought or anything like that.
	But if you can find a way to spend less on energy, if you can find a way to spend less on water, you're going to benefit.
	And markets encourage people to do more with less energy.
	Whatever they may believe about individual environmental issues, and that, I think, is the real power.
	When you force people to do things and oppose a one-size-fits-all, it's all cost.
	And, you know, as in the case of, you know, the Portland Clean Energy Fund and many other things, you pay this very high cost, but then they do a bait-and-switch and they don't actually use the money for what they claim.
	So I think that's the real opportunity that we have.
	I grew up, you know, being on the center-right because I care about individual choice, individual liberty.
	And that, I think, is people perceive that.
	People perceive prosperity and liberty as being at odds with environmental policy.
	But that's only because we, as people on the center-right, have allowed the left to define what environmentalism means.
	And we need to stop doing that.
	And I think... As much as I am frustrated with the environmental left and I point out their flaws, I think the conservatives have hurt ourselves by making it sound like we don't care about the environment and ceding this issue to the left, and we need to really stop doing that.
	I agree. Yeah, we've got to take the high ground, and it matters how we make the argument, and it matters what the labels are out there as well.
	I like the tagline for the Washington Policy Center, improving lives through market solutions.
	And so, you know, we don't need to run from that, and we need to fight against this idea that freedom and markets are antithetical to a clean environment.
	They're actually, as you point out, a much better solution and a much better way to get there, a much more efficient way to get there, and to do it without breaking arms and beating heads.
	You just use the collective understanding of individuals who really all want that, and so they're going to be more inclined to choose that.
	But it's really kind of the collective judgment of the people who are there on the ground, as you point out in your book, Time to Think Small.
	It's their collective observations and judgment that really are important, and they actually work better, I think, than as we've seen over and over again.
	You can have the smartest person in the world in a highly centralized and controlled environment.
	They're not going to make as good of decisions as a large group of people who have actually more information because there's more of them, and they're making that collective decision.
	I think that's the power of the marketplace, don't you?
	And they pay the price for failure and they're accountable.
	You can have the best plan in the world, but if something goes wrong, you need to have the incentive to change.
	You need to have the incentive to say, okay, that didn't work, let's try something else.
	And if you're in Washington, D.C. and the problem you're trying to solve is in, you know, Oregon or California or anywhere else, when things go wrong, you aren't going to want to admit that you were wrong.
	And that's a big reason why we see left-wing environmental policies failing.
	There's a wonderful group in Montana called PERC, P-E-R-C, that is a free market environmental organization.
	This is the 50th anniversary of the Endangered Species Act.
	And they've put out a really fantastic report noting that the Endangered Species Act has done fine in terms of stopping animals from going extinct, but it is horrible at recovering species.
	Basically, that species go on the endangered species list and they never come off.
	And so how do you turn that into solutions?
	But again, when you talk to people on the left, they say the Endangered Species Act is a success.
	And it is a success in one way, but not in the way that they claimed, which is that it would cause species to recover.
	And yet, nobody wants to address how it is that we can work with private landowners.
	Where most of the habitat is to recover species, private landowners are seen as the enemy.
	And that's why the ESA is failing, is because the people that you need to be working with, it treats as enemies.
	Yeah, that's right. And the federal government has an incentive to fail.
	As you point out, they're not going to apologize.
	They're never going to say they have a failure, except to say, well, this failed and we need more people and we need more money.
	And so crank up the money-making machine there.
	It's some more paper, you know?
	That's it. They take every failure as an incentive to grow and to continue to do the same thing that they were doing.
	They never change what they're doing at all.
	They never pay a price for it.
	It's like an open-loop system.
	And, you know, because the money printing machine is just, it's completely open and it's running at full gear.
	And so they don't need any feedback.
	They don't need to produce any results.
	And it works to their advantage because they have to argue for more money and more headcount because that's what's needed.
	Never going to change the approach that they have.
	And I think the thing you're pointing to is that the incentives are perverse, right?
	The incentives are to protect the organization, to expand the organization.
	And I think that one of my, the most dramatic examples of that is the Flint water crisis.
	So Flint, Michigan had this water that they switched sources of water and so it corroded the pipes and there was lead in the water.
	And for a while, government, both at the state and federal level, denied there was even any problems.
	And then finally, when residents were showing them water that had lead and that had rust in it, they, you know, actually had to, they realized the EPA is like, okay, but we got to do something.
	And there was a discussion in the regional EPA office about using a fund of money to buy water filters for the community.
	The fund wasn't supposed to really do that, but they could sort of justify it.
	So they sort of looked at it and they said, okay, should we do this?
	And ultimately they decided against it.
	And one of the people in the regional EPA office said, we could do this, and this is a quote, but I'm not sure Flint is the kind of community we want to go out on a limb for.
	Wow. So when you think that the EPA and other folks in government are looking out for your best interests...
	Remember that they also have incentives to take care of the organization, not to create trouble, not to bend the rules, even if they know that it would be good for people on the ground.
	And at the end of the day, the people in Flint, Michigan, did more for themselves than the EPA, who was supposed to be the one looking out for them.
	Yes, that's right. And when you look at it, I mean, you think about the water in Flint, Michigan, the fact they don't want to buy water filters for them, and the fact that a lot of people are buying water filters because they're concerned about what the EPA is encouraging people to put in the water.
	You know, we've got a trial that's going on about fluoride, and part of that trial is the fact that...
	You have Rachel Levine.
	I call him Dick Devine.
	He was shutting down information from EPA scientists that was derogatory to using fluoride.
	And when you put this kind of stuff out there, What is the purpose of mass medicating the public through the water supply in the first place?
	But you've got EPA scientists who have an issue with it.
	They have counter research to doing this.
	And the political figures shut it down.
	Just like they did, you know, in Flint, Michigan.
	So, yeah, they work antithetical to what we really think their mission is, and we've seen that with so many different agencies.
	It's great work that you're doing there at the Washington Policy Center.
	Again, you're the director of the Center for the Environment at the Washington Policy Center.
	And I would recommend everybody take a look at your book because it sounds like you're spot on, Thinking Small, Time to Think Small.
	And so that's by Todd Myers.
	I guess people can find that on Amazon, right?
	Yep, it's on Amazon.
	If they want to follow me on Twitter, I'm at WAPolicyGreen.
	I talk a lot about Washington State politics, but as you noted, a lot of things that start here don't stay here.
	They go out elsewhere, and so...
	Yes, unfortunately, Washington and California are not like Las Vegas.
	What starts there does not stay there.
	It's rapidly copied everywhere else.
	They're kind of like the shock troops, you know, for a lot of radical ideas.
	And so it is important to fight that.
	But that truly is amazing.
	The way they are going to bribe the voters after they have seen this massive tax to bribe them to keep it on.
	Just give them a one-time payment and they'll keep it on.
	Thank you so much for joining us.
	Again, Todd Myers, Director of the Center for the Environment at Washington Policy Center.
	Thank you so much, Todd. Appreciate it.
	Yeah, it was a very fun conversation. Thank you.
	We're going to take a quick break, folks, and we will be right back.
	Stay with us. Analyzing
	the Globalist's next move.
	And now, The David Nutt Show.
	you Tell Alexa to add the APS Radio skill and have access to the best channels anywhere.
	From country to blues, classic hits to news, APS Radio curates incredibly diverse playlists for you to enjoy.
	Well, as we were talking, you heard him say that they were not the California thing.
	I think it was California, did he say?
	This is not about really doing anything about our so-called environmental problem.
	This is about racial justice.
	And, of course, it's not just limited to them.
	You know, we saw this last week.
	You had Admiral Rachel, and I love the way that they put that in quotes, Rachel in quotes, Richard, Dick Levine, whatever.
	Climate change is having a disproportionate effect on black communities.
	Hello, I'm Admiral Rachel Levine.
	This Black History Month, I'm pleased to partner with OMH in advancing better health through better understanding for black communities.
	Climate change is having a disproportionate effect on the physical and mental health of black communities.
	Black Americans are more likely than white Americans to live in areas and housing that increase their susceptibility to climate-related health issues.
	Yeah, you know, like Flint, Michigan, where they don't want to do anything about it, as he was pointing out.
	One person commented on that.
	So, a white man pretending to be a woman is the savior of black people.
	Okay, I've got it. Yeah, that's what they want you to believe.
	Well, scientists are proposing using viruses to fight climate change.
	Isn't that interesting? We have the merger of the pandemic MacGuffin and the climate MacGuffin all together there.
	Ocean water and Arctic ice may contain viruses that can help to trap carbon emissions.
	And scientists are figuring out ways to enhance this.
	I thought that we were the virus.
	I thought humans were the virus, according to the Gaia theory, right?
	We got Mother Earth, this Greek mythology, you know, Gaia, the Mother Earth, and it's sentient, and it's just this wonderful freak of chance that is here.
	It wasn't created by God.
	We're not here as stewards to take care of it.
	No, it's just this wonderful thing that just happened.
	And then humans happened.
	And they're destroying everything.
	We're a virus, so we've got to have depopulation.
	Scientists have begun trying to identify viruses that could help mitigate the worst effects of climate change.
	Some by trapping carbon in seawater.
	Others by stopping methane from leaking out of melting permafrost.
	Bury those trees as well.
	Maybe they could find some kind of, you know, an organism that could eat the trees.
	How about that? That'd be a great idea.
	Then we wouldn't lose all that carbon dioxide when they die and decompose.
	Let's let that loose.
	Based on research from 2016, found viruses facilitating the ocean's carbon sinking effect.
	Wait a minute. The ocean is a carbon sink?
	Huh. Well, there's an awful lot of water out there, isn't there?
	An awful lot of ocean out there.
	Maybe that's one of the reasons why we don't have to worry about CO2. They're now using AI modeling and genome sequencing.
	Well, there you go.
	They're models, and they're artificial intelligence models.
	So, of course, you can believe anything that they spits out on that printout.
	Garbage in, garbage out.
	So the oceans soak up carbon and that buffers us against climate change.
	Good. Then we don't have to do anything else because most of this planet is ocean.
	Meanwhile, California and Sweden are inking a deal on climate collaboration.
	And of course, two of the most socialist areas are coming together because it's not about climate collaboration.
	It's about socialist collaboration because that's what this truly is about.
	Newsom. Governor Newsom said, California is not a small, isolated state.
	It's the size of 21 state populations combined.
	So we have to have a global outlook.
	And I need to go to all these globalist meetings, and we need to conspire about what we're going to do.
	As a matter of fact, there is a secret partnership that is fueling climate journalism.
	And this is reported by Real Clear Wire.
	Wealthy liberal foundations have begun seeking to have influence on the media coverage of energy and environmental matters.
	That's nothing new. They're funding workshops, courses, seminars for journalists.
	Back in 2016, I went to the American Meteorological Association's meeting in Austin.
	And as I've talked about this in the past, I said, yeah, everybody's there.
	And they've all got their climate models.
	Hundreds and hundreds of climate models.
	And it was like a science fair.
	They all had booths out on the big floor.
	Some of them that had some more promising results, they had a room that they would get to present.
	Of course, they were also out on the floor, but they would also be able to present their experiments and their findings in a kind of a room that had an audience there.
	And I went to several of those, and they were all talking about, well, we got this right, but then this doesn't work, and so forth.
	That's the way you do science, right?
	You have a hypothesis, and you have a model, and then you check that model to see if it works.
	Well, that can't be done with the so-called climate stuff because it's decades up.
	And at that meeting in 2016, so that was eight years ago, They had one booth that was put up by an organization that was funded by George Soros.
	And what they were doing was they were lecturing, because a lot of the people at the American Meteorological Association were TV meteorologists, and they said, well, we found that people believe what their meteorologists are telling them, so you need to tell them that you believe in climate change.
	And so they were evangelizing these people to become...
	Doom and gloom climate evangelists.
	And so this has been going on for quite some time, but of course, in this particular analysis and the funding initiatives, they're looking at a lot of left-of-center entities funding the training for climate journalists, not meteorologists now, but the journalists, as if they needed to have any more encouragement to do that, at Columbia, at Harvard.
	At the University of Southern California, at Oxford University in the UK, that is what we're seeing.
	The organization is called Covering Climate Now.
	More than 500 news and media outlets were desperate for money, by the way.
	So that's one of the reasons that they're doing this.
	I would not be surprised at all to see if this was being funded by Soros.
	I didn't have time to look at it. This story about opposition to renewable energy in America's heartland was done by ABC in full collaboration with...
	Covering climate now.
	It effectively blames Trump for the debate.
	This is popular, as I said, by Donald Trump and others about how renewable energy is unreliable and dangerous.
	Well, I've been talking about that since 2009, and we saw what happened in terms of reliability.
	You want to talk about that? Texas in 2021, January?
	That's been proven to be true.
	We knew it was true.
	We knew it was going to be true. It's now been proven.
	But, of course, that wants to be dismissed as fake news, as a climate scare.
	Well, it certainly is a war on energy, a war on your lifestyle.
	And we know what the purpose of it is.
	The purpose of all of these MacGuffins is to impoverish us, to enslave us.
	Climate models are getting water vapor wildly wrong.
	And again, the amount of water vapor that is there literally drowns out the CO2, very small trace amount of CO2.
	And as I said, water vapor is the most significant greenhouse gas due to alleged feedback capacity.
	However, it has a self-regulating aspect to it.
	It also becomes a sync for what they're concerned about with carbon dioxide.
	It's almost as if it was designed by a creator or something, you know?
	They say, per the state-of-the-art climate models, however, relative humidity should decline slightly as a consequence of CO2-induced global warming.
	However, 40 years of observation show not a slight declining trend, but a declining trend that is about an order of magnitude more than what the models predict.
	In other words, the climate models are wrong by a factor of 10.
	See, if you're doing real science, you have to look at your model.
	Like I said about the people at the American Meteorological Society, they look at their model prediction, and how did it do in terms of predicting the weather?
	A day in advance, two days in advance, three days in advance.
	These people are predicting massive climate change decades out.
	The problem for them is...
	That we've now had decades to look at their predictions and understand just how wrong and off-kilter they are.
	We're going to take a quick break, and I do want to come back and talk about what I was about to do before we had our guests join us.
	So I want to leave time for that.
	So we'll be back after a real brief break here.
	Stay with us. Using free speech to free minds.
	It's the David Knight Show.
	APS Radio delivers multiple channels of music right to your mobile device.
	Get the APS Radio app today and listen wherever you go.
	Alright, just before our guest came on, I began to talk about a guy who's a classical Christian educator.
	He said one of the things he tries to stress with his students is the understanding of civic virtue, which has been a foundation of Western civilization.
	It's an excellent editorial by Lucas Vieira, and he said, he always will talk to his students about this quote from George Washington, who said, of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.
	In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.
	And as the other founder said, we have a system of government that cannot survive without a moral society.
	Even Augustine of Hippo, the North African bishop in the fourth century, as he was talking about his big work, The City of God, that he contrasted with The City of Man.
	And one of the reasons that he was putting this together was because you had a lot of people in the decline of the Roman Empire were saying, well, it was Christianity that destroyed the Roman Empire.
	And so he was pushing back against that idea.
	As this author says, Augustine not only addresses questions concerning systematic theology, but also the role of the Christian while living as an exiled pilgrim in this earthly existence, which directly connects to the questions regarding politics.
	Augustine's general conception of virtue is one of, here's the key, rightly ordered loves.
	ordered loves.
	So what sort of rightly ordered loves should citizens and magistrates possess for the sake of the community?
	What virtues allow for the flourishing of a civil society?
	What about members of the eternal city of God allows them to be beneficial for the temporary cities of men?
	That's a key difference, right?
	We're citizens of an eternal city of God, whereas we live now in the city of men.
	And so he says, however, those of us who are citizens of the city of God can do things that benefit people, even if they are simply the city of man.
	And I would say one of the things he doesn't mention in this essay, but I think one of the things that's really, really clear is the fact Augustine was the one who first formulated the ideas about a just war.
	You know, when is war justified?
	And of course only in defense.
	You do it to try to minimize civilian casualties.
	You do it with a desire to cease hostilities.
	All of these different things that are there that are reflected in our Constitution where we're supposed to have a vote by our elected representatives before we have a declaration of war but now that's done by the president and the military industrial complex will send out weapons of destruction without any input or discussion from us and they take our taxes to do that but certainly from the person who's operating from the position of the City
	of God and is concerned about whether or not a war is justified That is going to be of benefit to everyone in society if you don't have these unjustified constant wars.
	So Augustine believes that the virtues of Christian citizens and magistrates directly benefit the temporal political society, particularly because they're oriented toward the eternal lasting city, and due to the fact that only the members of the city of God have a rightly ordered love that is needed to bring about a truly flourishing and peaceful community.
	We have these wars because we have men who do not have rightly ordered loves.
	They don't love life.
	They don't love liberty. They love money.
	They love power. And they will kill in order to get money and power.
	And they don't care who dies, whose lives they use to achieve that goal.
	He said, Augustine speaks of the two cities, and he says, in speaking of them, he said, the city of man is temporal, is full of those whose loves are disordered.
	Because of this, happiness and peace cannot be found in the city of man, only in the city of God, whose ruler is the Lord.
	He said, in terms of talking about Rome's corruption, see if this doesn't apply to us today, the Roman commonwealth, which, altering little by little...
	Gradually moving away.
	From the fairest and from the best became the worst and the most shameful.
	The morals of the forefathers were swept away, not by slow degrees as formerly, but as if by a torrent, so great were the young persons corrupted by luxury and avarice, greed, if you will. So it began by a slow, little by little altering, right?
	How do you go morally bankrupt gradually than suddenly?
	Like a torrent.
	And he traced it to the younger generation's obsession with luxury and with greed.
	You see, human nature does not change.
	Thousands of years ago, Human nature does not change.
	The things that we lust after, those do change, but not the basic things.
	He goes on to say that Rome's gods required their worshipers, those indecent and ignoble displays to which they lent a pernicious authority by their pretended divinity.
	He said, Rome's gods encouraged vice as opposed to virtue.
	We were talking about that as well.
	You know, we look at the foundations of our society, and that woman from Politico who, you know, hates anything that refers back to Christianity, anything that involves men or Christianity.
	We look at the statues, some of them comically crude, others that have been given a lot of money to create that, you know, The woman with the horns and the tree-like limbs and the roots of arms and legs.
	These are the things that we are now pushing out there.
	As they built that statue to honor abortion, Augustine says that the city of man led to its own downfall, as it could not cultivate the virtues needed for its maintenance.
	What kind of virtues do you need to maintain a society?
	Well, you need to reward merit and hard work and other things like that.
	He says, We'd adorn its lands and its happiness in this present life,
	and then ascend to the summit of eternal life.
	We'd be better off in this life as we have seen in the past our society was.
	Citing Cicero's Republic, he lists a variety of civic virtues that lead to the flourishing of one's hometown.
	He said, please think about them.
	Notice how they proclaim as praiseworthy simplicity and restraint, along with faithfulness to marriage.
	And behavior that is chaste and honorable and upright, when a city is strong in virtues such as these, then it can truly be said to be flourishing.
	So things like restraint, marital faithfulness, modest behavior, moral uprightness, these are civic virtues.
	Do you see any of those in Donald Trump?
	Because I don't.
	Why do we think that we're going to have a virtuous society if we put somebody who is antithetical?
	To every one of these Christian virtues.
	And we worship him.
	And we call him a good Christian man.
	By whose standard?
	By whose standard?
	He doesn't even pretend to embrace these values.
	Gustin said, in fact, through such behavior being taught and learned in churches that are springing up all over the globe, like sacred lecture halls.
	Sacred lecture halls.
	Where these values are put.
	Well, we were told we couldn't go to those.
	Or we had to wear a mask.
	Or we had to keep ourselves separate.
	Churches all over the globe like sacred lecture halls for the peoples of the world.
	Above all, they learn of the reverence that consists of worshiping the true and truthful God.
	All these virtues which educate the human spirit and fit it for fellowship with God and for living in the eternal city of heaven.
	He not only commands us to seek But he also enables us to acquire.
	We should not give up our hope.
	I keep looking at this story about this guy who self-immolated to protest the war in Israel, did it in front of the Israeli embassy.
	That is not the path to change, no matter what the issue is.
	We don't want to just burn down society.
	We don't want to just commit suicide.
	We are not people without hope.
	People in the city of man are without hope.
	We don't need people from the city of man to rule us.
	They don't have the power for change.
	And that's what Augustine was saying.
	Augustine who stood against unjust wars.
	Augustine who wrote and convinced people Augustine did not set himself on fire.
	He set the world on fire.
	Thank you for joining us.
	The David Knight Show.
	You can listen to with your ears.
	You can even watch it by using your eyes.
	In fact, if you can hear me, that means you're listening to The David Knight Show right now.
	Yeah. Good job.
	And you want to know something else?

▲