Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 19, 2024 - The David Knight Show

03:01:24

The David Knight Show - 03/19/2024

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	you
	using free speech to free minds You're listening to The David Night Show.
	As the clock strikes 13, it's Tuesday the 19th of March, year of our Lord 2024.
	Well today we're going to take a look at how the pandemic just keeps coming back to bite us.
	We have in South Carolina A bill introduced to stop some of the drastic measures that were put in back in 2001, right?
	After 9-11. Because you have to understand, as we've said many times, this pandemic is the other shoe to drop from 9-11.
	We had three buildings...
	And two catastrophes here with just two planes.
	And the second catastrophe was 20 years apart.
	But it's being opposed by a Republican governor.
	Isn't that interesting?
	So we're going to take a look at that.
	We're going to begin, however...
	With a different topic. And we'll get into what is happening with Trump's bloodbath.
	Will he be able to raise enough money to get rid of the financial bloodbath that is on its way?
	We'll see. Stay with us.
	We'll be right back. Well, I want to begin with...
	Essentially, we left off the other day talking about TikTok and what was happening with censorship.
	As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court is hearing arguments on censorship right now, and it's not going very well for the First Amendment.
	Apparently, we have a Supreme Court justice that was put in by Biden that doesn't care much for the First Amendment, if in fact she has ever read it.
	Nobody asked her if she could read, or if she wanted to read, I should say.
	More specifically, it says Brown Jackson.
	She says she's worried that the First Amendment is being used to hamstring government from censorship.
	Hamstring was her term.
	And, of course, she was talking about stopping the government from censoring when it really needed to do so, you know, in order to protect their agenda, their reputation, national security, whatever.
	She is very consistent with Biden's utter contempt for natural rights.
	Again, we go back to Claire's Thomas hearings, and Biden was head of the Senate Judiciary Committee at that point in time.
	And the thing that he really harangued Clarence Thomas about, that I've talked about many times, is Clarence Thomas' belief in natural rights, which is the foundation of this country.
	It's the foundation of the Declaration of Independence.
	We hold these truths to be self-evident, that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights.
	Biden has a problem with that, and so does his Supreme Court appointee.
	Now, you go back 40 years or whatever, and To when, maybe it's 30 years, I don't know.
	When he got in, I think it was George H.W. Bush.
	So it would have been late 80s, early 90s.
	And he had a real problem with natural rights and Clarence Thomas, and now he's put in his own Supreme Court justice who doesn't believe in them either.
	She said, my biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways in the most important time periods.
	To express concerns about how it hamstrings the government.
	Lady, that's the purpose.
	That's the purpose of the Bill of Rights.
	The first nine amendments are there to restrict what the government does.
	The last one, the 10th Amendment, talks about how unless they have specific delegated powers, Given to them in the Constitution, they don't have those powers.
	Those powers are retained by the states and by the people.
	But the rest of the Bill of Rights is there to tell the government what it cannot do.
	Obama had a real problem with that, you know, and so do the liberals.
	And evidently, so does Brown Jackson.
	They talk about positive rights and negative rights.
	Well, I think I want positive, don't you?
	I don't want anything negative.
	No, what he means by that is negative view of the Bill of Rights, a negative view of the Constitution, said Obama, was saying that it stops the government from doing certain things.
	He doesn't like that.
	He wants a view of the Constitution that says government can do all things.
	Nothing is restricted to it.
	So, for example, when he talks about rights specifically, positive rights, negative rights, He says, you know, the Bill of Rights, you're looking at that, it's negative rights.
	It's saying, I have a right to speech, so stay away.
	I have a right to protect myself, so stay away from guns.
	Don't infringe on them and that type of thing.
	But he says, no, there need to be rights, positive rights, meaning you have a right to this and a right to that.
	You have a right to health care. You have a right to education.
	You have a right to housing. You have a right to free money.
	You just don't have any freedoms then.
	So Democrats have always sold out and said, oh, it's positive rights.
	You see how they pick the terminology, why we don't let them pick the terminology?
	So she said, you seem to be suggesting that the duty of government cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information.
	That's right, lady. That's exactly what it's about.
	Ha! She said, well, if we have something like a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic, let's hope that it's once-in-a-lifetime.
	I've had more than a lifetime worth of anger and angst from that pandemic already, and I don't want to go through that again, but they're planning on doing it again.
	It's not a once-in-a-lifetime thing, unless we're all going to die tomorrow.
	I'm interested in your view that the context doesn't change the First Amendment principle, she said.
	So, in other words, situational ethics, situational principles, situational law.
	You know, what the law says doesn't really matter because now we've got some extenuating circumstances here.
	I'm just going to suspend it because that's what martial law is.
	That's why I called it medical martial law from the very beginning.
	It was always about martial law.
	It was always about suspending the Constitution.
	That's what she's saying here. We've got special circumstances.
	You know, we've got this emergency order from Trump.
	We got a pandemic order from his Eli Lilly CEO that he put in at HHS. Oh, this is special.
	This is real special. We can't have a constitution now.
	Scott Adams, all you freedom lovers, Dilbert, all you freedom lovers are sociopaths.
	You got to be locked up, locked down.
	So she said, I understood our First Amendment jurisprudence to require heightened scrutiny of government restrictions of speech, but not necessarily a total prohibition when you're talking about compelling interest of the government.
	I don't see anything about compelling interest in the First Amendment.
	Do you? I don't see anything in the Bill of Rights.
	I don't see anything in the Constitution about compelling interest.
	There's no exemptions or clarifications or caveats for this.
	It says, Congress shall make no law.
	And that would include the Supreme Court not making any law.
	The Supreme Court not issuing an opinion that they treat as law.
	The Supreme Court doing nothing.
	What the Congress is specifically prohibited from doing.
	So, if it is situational, folks, if it is contingent on circumstances, it doesn't exist.
	If it's not about principles, you don't have anything.
	If the written law doesn't mean anything, you don't have anything at all.
	But, of course, this has always been the perspective of the left, Well, it's a living document, and we just need to interpret it according to our own, you know, what is happening now, and the vicissitudes of changing times, and, you know, we can't do that now.
	It's just going to be too hard for the government to not step in and be tyrannical here.
	So, Jim Jordan says that you could have a Supreme Court justice say that, and the oral argument made no sense to me.
	That is frightening.
	Yes, it is. Because if she really believes that, it's scary where we're headed.
	Well, folks, let's understand that, you know, as alarmed as Jim Jordan is, he should know by now that the First Amendment is dead.
	Dead! And if you don't believe that they're about to kill it, put the final nail in the coffin here.
	In terms of practical application, the censorship, the Supreme Court rubber stamping government censorship.
	That's where we're headed.
	Free speech is on trial at the Supreme Court, says the Federalist.
	But Brown-Jackson is no fan of the First Amendment.
	The Constitution, you see, limits the government, but leftists want unlimited government, which is why they hate the Constitution, says a Federalist.
	Jordan Boyd, actually, writing for that.
	And I found it interesting that they changed the name of the court case.
	It was originally Murthy v.
	Missouri. I'm sorry, that's what it is now.
	It was originally Biden v.
	Missouri. Now it's Murthy.
	Versus Missouri. Vivek Murthy, right?
	Where the censorship was, you know, he was directing the censorship that was flowing through all of the different bureaucrats that they had at the various social media companies.
	More than 80 FBI agents telling them who to censor, who to shut down, that type of thing, all the time.
	Full-time job. 80 agents.
	But they don't want to have a court case that's essentially Biden versus the First Amendment.
	Or Biden versus the Bill of Rights, which is what this is.
	This is an election year, but they don't want a Biden versus the Bill of Rights, Biden versus the First Amendment.
	That's why they're renaming it.
	So, now it is...
	To even change the name, that tells you that they've got some influence with these people, doesn't it?
	And I tell you what, they're going to do what they're told.
	Just take a look at what John Roberts did with Obamacare, writing an opinion that said, no, there's no authority for the government to get involved in health care and insurance and stuff like that.
	He wrote that opinion. And so the word on the street was, hey, he wrote the opinion.
	He's the deciding vote.
	It's going to be 5-4 against Obamacare.
	Then all of a sudden, he did a complete 180.
	And he wrote, and he changed sides, and he wrote another opinion, which said, oh, yeah, but they can call it a tax or do something like that.
	Don't tell me that they didn't get to him.
	I still believe that he was blackmailed.
	So, Brown Jackson, First Amendment hamstringing government in significant ways.
	One person commented on Twitter, said, that is quite literally the entire point of the First Amendment and of the entire Bill of Rights.
	That's exactly right.
	So, our position is not that government can interact with the platforms there.
	They can, and they should in certain circumstances like that, that present such dangerous issues for society, and especially young people.
	This is the lawyer who is arguing for the First Amendment.
	I had to tell you that because it sounds like he's arguing for the other side, doesn't it?
	This is how pathetic this has all become.
	Nobody values rights.
	Nobody makes them fundamental principles.
	The bill rights, you know, none of that is non-negotiable.
	It's all relative, you know.
	And so he backs down.
	When Brown Jackson says, you're hamstringing the government.
	Well, I don't mean to do that.
	Far be it from us that we'd ever put any restrictions on government.
	All restrictions belong on the people, of course.
	Here's the thing. If the government's got some compelling interest and they're worried that somebody is saying something wrong, let them say it publicly.
	Let them say it publicly.
	They got a massive bully pulpit.
	They could say it publicly.
	Instead, what they do is they go around in secret with FBI agents, an army of FBI agents, telling people, shut this down, shut that, ban that person over there.
	Don't allow this to be talked about.
	You understand the difference between an honest government and a government that is trending towards being a Gestapo?
	Which is what Truman said about the FBI, what is it, 80 years ago.
	Well, they're well past the trending stage now, aren't they?
	They're full-on Gestapo.
	They've got the badges.
	They've graduated and all the rest of this stuff.
	They're 100% Gestapo.
	We've got a secret society of federal bureaucrats.
	They're not investigators.
	They're instigators. A federal bureaucracy of instigation is what we're talking about here.
	These people are instigating censorship, saying they have to do it in the name of national security.
	Well, if they've got a problem with something somebody's saying, if they think that it is false, they've got the biggest megaphone of anyone.
	And they should and could go out there and explain to people why this is not true.
	But they don't.
	They censor people.
	There's no lack of proof that federal agencies, including Homeland Security, HHS, NIH, CDC, FBI, DOJ, and of course the Biden White House, have demanded tech companies like Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and all the rest of them.
	And by the way, look, they're always talking about it being Biden.
	This stuff was going on under Trump during the pandemic as well, you understand.
	People were getting banned, canceled, fired, because they pushed back against Trump's narrative.
	Because Fauci was president.
	This is not something that's limited to Biden.
	It's just, you know, he doesn't even care if he's caught.
	He doesn't really deny it.
	He defends it. So they told these companies to silence Americans.
	Who have government disfavored opinions.
	Whether these government disfavored opinions are about COVID-19, about the elections, or about the Biden regime.
	You shut them down.
	Judge Terry Dottie, Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, heard this case at the lower level, just before it got to the Supreme Court.
	He called such government-directed internet censorship, quote, the most massive attack against free speech in United States history, unquote.
	He's right. That's exactly what it is.
	In a 155-page memorandum ruling on July 4th of last year, But now the Supreme Court seems to be okay with it.
	Everybody who paid attention to the questions as well looks like the Biden censors are going to win.
	Looks like the FBI is going to be able to shut down anything they don't like.
	Federal government argued that big tech companies can choose to ignore demands from federal regulators that, as a federalist put it, these demands could put them out of business.
	Or it could impose billions in fines and regulatory demands.
	You see, whenever you call out these people on their tyranny, we say, well, we didn't force it.
	I didn't mandate that.
	I didn't force anybody to get vaccinated.
	I just coerced them.
	I told them, if you don't do that, we're going to cut off your money.
	We're going to do this. We're going to do that.
	And for all the conservatives out there saying, well, that's what Trump did with the stuff.
	And what he would have done with the vaccines.
	We already know it. He already had the plans for how he was going to do exactly the same thing with the military.
	He'd already issued his order that was exactly identical to Biden's or vice versa.
	As soon as they get past the emergency use authorization, get formal declaration from the FDA, we're going to mandate it in the military.
	And we're going to use economic strings to coerce these companies.
	We will impose fines.
	We'll put them out of business because we will pull the money that we're paying them, and they won't be able to survive.
	It's always the money.
	And people will always, oh, no, no, no.
	Trump didn't force anything.
	No, he coerced it just as much as Joe did.
	He did it with the money.
	It's the money that is how they do the coercion.
	Brown Jackson said, and so I guess some might say the government actually has a duty.
	Not only are they not prohibited from censoring people, but Brown Jackson, the Biden appointee, says they have a duty to censor.
	I have a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country.
	I've got to protect you from dangerous ideas.
	You seem to be suggesting, she said, that the duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information.
	So can you help me?
	Yes, let me help you. You aren't the one that gets to decide what's harmful.
	And the government's not the one that gets to decide what's harmful.
	That's why the First Amendment says stay away.
	There are no exceptions, lady.
	And, you know, we've had people have been trying to carve out exceptions and infringe on this for the longest time.
	You can't shout fire in a crowded theater and all the rest of this stuff.
	You can shout whatever you want, and if you can't, you don't have free speech.
	I tell you, these hate speech laws are the end of free speech once and for all.
	The TikTok bans, the hate speech regulation...
	And it is happening globally.
	She says, so help me out.
	Somebody please help her out of the court.
	She's thrown out.
	Not much better with Trump appointees or the conservatives either.
	Amy Coney Barrett also voiced concerns.
	Questioning whether the FBI could legally request social media platforms to remove content such as posts revealing personal information about officials.
	Hey Barrett, if it's a crime, they can just go arrest the person.
	If you have doxed somebody or something like that and you violated security, unless it's Biden, you can arrest this person for violating national security regulations.
	They do it all the time except for Democrats.
	But you could even arrest the Democrats if you really were serious about national security.
	But they're not going to do that.
	That's the rightful remedy.
	Why can't she figure that out? You know, interestingly enough, when she was asked to name the different components of the First Amendment, Barrett couldn't.
	These are the types of people.
	We got a Trump appointee who can't enumerate the different subsections of the First Amendment.
	And we've got a Biden appointee who denies the clear language of it and wants to completely rewrite it.
	One that is ignorant, another one that's opposed.
	The oral arguments went off into the weeds at that point, into the nuances of what constitutes coercion.
	This is Reclaim the Nets summary of the transcripts there.
	As they were talking about it, they said, well, this focuses on coercion.
	That's where they started to focus in the weeds.
	They said, well, we're not going to talk about what the First Amendment says.
	Let's talk about the definition of coercion.
	Why does anybody ever talk about that?
	Again, whenever you call out either side, whether you're calling out Biden over coercion or you're calling out Trump over coercion, Their apologists, whether it's CNN or whether it's Infowars and MAGA, they will always, well, he didn't force anybody to do anything.
	They quibble about the semantics of coercion.
	If you're going to destroy somebody, if you're implying that you're going to destroy somebody's business, don't tell me that's not a mandate.
	You know, when the mafia comes by and says, oh yeah, it's a really nice place you got here.
	Be ashamed if anything would have happened to it.
	I think you're going to have to give me something I need.
	Yeah. Is that coercion?
	Yeah, I think it is. Is that a mandate?
	I think it is.
	It's as much of a mandate as somebody putting a loaded gun in your face.
	Is that a mandate? Well, I don't have it.
	I'm not writing any orders.
	I didn't pass any laws.
	I've just got a loaded gun stuck in your face.
	Oh, okay. Well, I'm glad because I thought for a moment there you were mandating this.
	Glad that Trump's not mandating anything.
	He's just sticking loaded guns in people's faces is all he's doing.
	Dislike Biden. So they start focusing on coercion rather than the First Amendment's explicit wording.
	Prohibiting the abridging of freedom of speech or of the press.
	Reclaim the Net says all this played into Biden's hands.
	Then you have Kavanaugh and Kagan.
	And what they said was they portrayed the efforts by officials to shape media coverage.
	They said that should be seen as a constructive dialogue.
	We're just here trying to help you.
	Let me help you with that.
	They questioned whether these parties had experiencing direct injury that would justify their legal challenge.
	These are people who were fired, who were canceled, who had their reputations impugned.
	That was their stock in trade.
	They're even questioning whether these people had any direct injury.
	This is not really what the Supreme Court is supposed to be about.
	They're not really supposed to be about the finding of fact.
	Sotomayor specifically addressed concerns regarding the approach taken by the plaintiffs in presenting their case.
	She said, I don't like how you frame the argument.
	Plaintiff's brief seemed to leave out crucial information, thereby altering the context of certain claims.
	See, they're ready to just throw this whole thing out.
	John Roberts appeared to concur with the notion that the federal government's diverse array of agencies often lack a unified stance.
	So he said, since you've got all these different diverse agencies and they've got their own little ways of doing anything, we don't have a unified stance, therefore you don't have coercion.
	Has he looked at what's happening around the world?
	Did he look at what happened around the world in 2020?
	Everybody was doing the same thing at the same time.
	Now, there wasn't some guy who had a robe and a scepter and a throne sitting in a physical place issuing orders.
	It's just somehow, by some coincidence, whether you're talking about Trump or Trudeau, they're all doing the same thing at the same time.
	I'm sure it's just a coincidence.
	It's not a conspiracy.
	And it's just, you know, something that they decided to do.
	It's not coercion at all.
	He says it's not monolithic.
	Well, I'm telling you what, when you look at what happened in 2020, when you look at what is happening right now with censorship rapidly escalating, now not just kicking people off of social media, but putting people in jail and political officials in jail.
	Whether you're talking about Brussels or you're talking about the new Canadian law, they want to jail people in Canada for life, for anything that they don't like.
	Any speech they don't like, any speech they hate, they call hate speech.
	If you're guilty of hate speech, go to jail for life, perhaps.
	That is, by the way, the strongest penalty in Canada.
	They don't have the death penalty.
	So the worst thing that can happen to you is life in prison.
	The biggest penalty the government...
	And they will hand out the greatest penalty for hate speech.
	Greater than they do for many deaths.
	Greater than they do for rape or other things like that.
	Life in prison. Hate speech worse than rape.
	If Trudeau gets his way.
	Why? Because it truly is about national security.
	It's about the security of our tyrants.
	The security of our tyrants to be free from criticism.
	The security of our tyrants to be able to lie to us about anything and everything and never have us be able to question it.
	That's real national security.
	That's tyrannical security.
	So, he says it's not monolithic.
	So that has to dilute the concept of coercion significantly, doesn't it?
	Says John Roberts. No, this is monolithic.
	It's globally monolithic.
	It's not just monolithic within the government.
	How was it that everybody decided that they were going to do six feet apart?
	How was it that everybody decided that they had to wear a mask, even if it is some kind of a cloth mask, and we don't talk about the density even of the cloth?
	But they all decided that.
	Oh, I wasn't telling everybody what to do, said Fauci, said Trump, said Biden.
	Yes, you were. Yes, you were.
	Everybody was doing the same thing.
	Just a coincidence, isn't it?
	Not a command, not a conspiracy, not a global conspiracy.
	No, it just all happened.
	We all just decided somehow that it's six feet.
	I don't know where that came from. Everybody just started repeating six feet, and it happened globally.
	Globally. It is monolithic.
	It is global and monolithic.
	So, on the good side, we only have Alito.
	Probably Clarence Thomas will side with him.
	Maybe you have Gorsuch as well.
	I don't see anything said by Clarence or Gorsuch.
	Alito noted that two lower courts have found or accepted that some examples of big tech censorship that were highlighted in this case were, quote, traceable to government action.
	Well, that should settle it.
	Government's not supposed to censor.
	If they traced it to government actions, case closed.
	And then Alito added, we don't usually reverse findings of fact.
	That's what I was saying earlier.
	They're not really there to talk about the facts of the case and re-adjudicate the facts of the case.
	They're there to talk about the conclusions that were drawn from the facts that are there.
	He says, we don't usually reverse. Reverse the finding of facts.
	And that's where all these people are. Well, what about this?
	What about that? Were you really injured?
	What is the definition of coercion?
	All the rest of this. We don't usually reverse findings of fact that have been endorsed by two lower courts.
	Alito also said, had skepticism about the White House and other federal officials constantly, quote, pestering, that was his word, constantly pestering Facebook and other social media platforms.
	He said, and I thought, wow, I cannot imagine federal officials taking that approach to the print media.
	I thought, you know, the only reason why this is taking place is because the federal government has got Section 230 and antitrust in its pocket, and it's, to mix metaphors, it's got these big clubs available to it, and so it's treating Facebook and these other platforms like their subordinates.
	Yeah, in many cases, we don't really know what the leverage is that the government is using over an individual or a corporation.
	But in the case of these social media platforms, they made it very clear.
	Section 230. Section 230, ironically, says that because you are not a publisher, because you are just hosting third-party stuff, you have immunity.
	And then they say, but we want you to act as a publisher.
	And we want you to decide what content is going to be allowed and what content is not going to be allowed.
	You're going to act as an editor, as a publisher, as a censor.
	And if you don't, we're going to pull your immunity that we gave to you for not being a publisher, an editor, and a censor.
	And that's our American government.
	That's it in a nutshell, right there.
	Our clients will include top doctors and lawyers.
	This is the defense attorney. We're censored for social media posts that turned out to be factually accurate, depriving the public of valuable perspectives during a public health crisis, said the NCLA. We're optimistic that the majority will look at the record and recognize that this is a sprawling government censorship enterprise without precedent in this country,
	and that this cannot be permitted to continue if the First Amendment is to survive.
	Well, you know, there was a bipartisan effort to kill the First Amendment.
	And when we talk about precedents, it's always about President Trump, isn't it?
	He sets the precedent, and then the next president, Biden, takes it to a new level.
	That's the way they do. That's what the tag team is all about.
	Now, Michael Tracy is talking about how they're taking this to a new level.
	The TikTok scam and the ban is another national security scam.
	It's always about national security, isn't it?
	He points out that on November the 20th, Kathy McMorris Rogers, a Republican from Washington, chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, wrote a joint letter to the CEO of TikTok that the platform was guilty, quote, of stoking anti-Semitism support and sympathy for Hamas.
	So she's decided that they're guilty.
	There wasn't a court trial.
	This is not the finding of a jury.
	This is the finding of Congresswoman.
	She has unilaterally decided that they're guilty.
	It's like there's people in government all the time deciding that you're guilty of this or guilty of that.
	You're guilty of hate. Pretty arbitrary.
	And he points out that after that was put out on November the 20th, he says...
	Or rather, she said, this deluge of pro-Hamas content is driving hateful anti-Semitic rhetoric and violent protests on campuses across the country.
	TikTok should be banned in the United States of America, she said.
	How many times are we going to see the First Amendment banned because somebody in Israel or some puppet of Israel is offended by what is said?
	And we look at this with DeSantis, we look at it with Kristi Noem, this woman here.
	As I said yesterday, why is it that Israel hates our free speech so much?
	It makes you immediately suspicious of somebody, doesn't it, when they want to put a gag over your mouth?
	Why? Is there something that you don't want known about you that you're very afraid of, that you're afraid to push back against?
	Is that what it is? On Rumble, KWD68, most of these SCOTUS justices couldn't pass a college civics class final without taking the class.
	And that's iffy. Oh, I agree.
	And you take a look at some of these judges that are put up, and you have Senator Kennedy out of Louisiana, and he asked them very basic points of law, and they're like, uh, and they've already been judges at some level, level and they want to go up to become a federal judge and they don't know even what they're talking about basic law. On Rockfan, Mag Z says good morning interested to hear you your take on Islam I know you're a devout Christian
	and support religious freedom but don't seem to stand Islam.
	I don't know what that means to stand Islam.
	I believe that Islam is a false religion.
	I believe that there is one way.
	I follow Christ.
	He said, I am the way, the truth, the life.
	No man can come to the Father but by me.
	I don't believe it's a loving thing to not tell people that, to pretend that every religion is the same.
	That is what I believe.
	It's very interesting that if you look at Islam, if you look at the Eastern religions, you'll see them all say Jesus was a prophet.
	He was an enlightened person.
	But there's many, many different ways.
	Except that Jesus is the one who said, I am the way, the truth, and the life.
	No one comes to the Father but by me.
	He was exclusive. And yet they all include him.
	Why is that? Why is that?
	I don't know. Rock fan.
	Guard Goldsmith. Their parsing on the First Amendment was astounding.
	Totally consequentialist.
	You're absolutely right. Thanks, Gard.
	Always good to see you there. Rumble.
	Soylent goy. Left and right are mostly the same on issues, and differences are mostly just rhetorical.
	At the end of the day, we keep shifting socially left.
	It's a ratcheting effect, isn't it?
	Yeah, we've got to do this.
	The Democrats put this in a simple example.
	Raising the minimum wage.
	You know, every time they start talking about the minimum wage, boy, the Republicans would get all antsy about it.
	Rush Limbaugh would jump on it with both feet, and he was absolutely right.
	Well, let's just give everybody, you know, $1,000 an hour.
	Why not? Why stop at $15,000 or something?
	Let's just give everybody $1,000.
	We'll all be rich. And try to talk about economics.
	But they would say, we're not going to raise it beyond where it is right now.
	But they would never question whether there should be a minimum wage.
	If they really believed in a free market, why wouldn't they get rid of this thing?
	And if they really wanted to fix things, they can't keep solidifying the new things that have been put in, whether they got put in by Biden or whether they got put in by Trump.
	Let's see, where do we leave off here?
	SoloCat1980, tag team tyranny of Trump and Biden.
	That's exactly what it is. Conservative thinker on Rumble.
	Thank you very much for the tip.
	He says, when can we buy your...
	What is that? What?
	Oh, okay. Not sure what that is.
	Let's go back to the national security state and TikTok here.
	Okay, so is this something that is being pushed that way?
	Well, Ben Shapiro says that's anti-Semitism, so you better shut up because Ben Shapiro will put you in jail in a few years for saying that.
	The thing is, Trump had tried to ban TikTok when he was in office.
	But he got nowhere. It's very interesting to see how quickly it goes through when somebody says, well, this is criticizing Israel.
	The plan came quickly to fruition.
	Suddenly, the House of Representatives, a notoriously dysfunctional body, says Michael Tracy, took decisive, concerted, expedited action to pass legislation banning TikTok before most of the public would have ever gotten a chance to even notice.
	So she says this on November 20th.
	Wow. Wow.
	Just eight days. Eight calendar days.
	Not even working days. Between the time it's introduced and the time that it is approved for final passage.
	He says almost nothing ever passes Congress at such warp speed.
	McMorris Rogers facilitated the unanimous 50-0 vote out of the Energy and Commerce Committee, a development which took many in D.C. off guard, even those keenly attuned to the TikTok policy issue.
	Yeah, as I said, it's been talked about for quite some time.
	I think it was a bad idea.
	It's always been a bad idea to give the government, let the government usurp the power to ban a corporation or an app or to control the internet that way.
	Where in the Constitution do they have that authority?
	Nowhere. Nowhere.
	It's a usurpation.
	And yet, as soon as somebody said, well, this is anti-Israel, it just goes straight through to ban it.
	Last minute opposition continued to grow even during the final floor debate.
	Wednesday morning, thanks to the quick thinking of Thomas Massey, who organized the opposition, later reported that the number of Republican House members voting no may have tripled as a result of the 40-minute floor debate that he triggered.
	Very rare to see that happen.
	Still, Republican opposition was paltry.
	Only 15 voted no, compared with 50 Democrats.
	Even among the few no votes, some, like Matt Gaetz, made sure to clarify that on principle, he was totally in favor of banning TikTok.
	On principle. Where do you find that principle in the Constitution, Matt?
	You swore to uphold the Constitution when you took office.
	That should be where you get your principles, but it's not, is it?
	And you just admitted it. He just objected to the particulars of the bill, but he won't say particularly what he objected to.
	The fact that Trump tentatively came out against the bill would also have likely been a factor for Gates.
	Trump has evidently not taken a major lobbying interest as he has before with other legislative items.
	The little that he said about the TikTok bill has been lukewarm and muddled.
	He was the one who first attempted to ban TikTok by executive order in 2020.
	But he got a lot of pushback against that.
	Bannon, and all these conservatives who have jumped on this with both feet, he called Trump a sellout.
	Everybody said, why did he flip on TikTok?
	And he says, Yaskoin, because Jeffrey Yask, this billionaire who's got a $33 billion investment in TikTok, met with him, talked with him, And instantly, Trump changes his mind, just like it was with the pharmaceutical industry.
	He was skeptical of the safety of vaccines.
	He was dropping a lot of hints about their connection with autism.
	And then he gets the money from Pfizer, a million dollars, for his inauguration party and stuff like that.
	And other ones gave him money.
	And then he just flipped.
	It's the CEO of Eli Lillian, as HHS had.
	There's also the issue of what someone familiar told me was the technical assistance provided by the intelligence community, says Michael Tracy.
	Technical assistance.
	Frank Pallone, Democrat, New Jersey, said unnamed members of the so-called intelligence community had asked Congress to give them more authority to act.
	And this bill was intended to grant that request.
	Because when you're talking about national security, you're talking about the intelligence agencies being able to do whatever they wish, a blank check.
	A blank check and a black budget.
	That's what these guys get. The bill was expressly crafted to enhance the power of the intelligence community to restrict Americans' ability to consume and express speech online, always in the alleged name of national security.
	To fight this great civilizational battle between China and its satellite states, the citizens of America must gratefully accept the abridgment of their own speech.
	They must patriotically acquiesce to the government, seizing the power to block a massive range of potential online applications and websites, so long as they can be claimed by any president to be directly or indirectly controlled by an official foreign adversary.
	So what does that mean to be controlled by a foreign adversary?
	Well, it's so malleable, according to the text, that it can include a person who's subject to the direction or the control of a foreign person or entity.
	You know, that was the way that they defined in the 14th Amendment somebody that's not an American citizen, somebody who is here perhaps even legally, perhaps by permission legally, and yet if they're not subject to the control of the U.S. government, If they have a child while they are visiting in the United States, that child does not become a citizen.
	And yet, we've completely ignored that aspect of the 14th Amendment.
	The 14th Amendment, that's to keep Trump for money, right?
	The only part of it that they want to stretch out, misapply.
	He hasn't been convicted of an insurrection.
	An insurrection where there was no guns.
	That was a protest.
	That's another part of the First Amendment they don't like, is protests.
	Redressing your grievances publicly.
	Yeah, I said it was a trap.
	That's from a practical standpoint.
	There's nothing wrong with people showing up on January the 6th.
	As I say all the time, anybody that got violent, that's a crime.
	Maybe a year or two or something like that.
	Not a lifetime. And they're giving, essentially, life sentences to people who didn't get violent.
	They did not get violent.
	So, after running...
	Another running theme, rather, in this legislative dash to ban TikTok is the extent to which the Israeli-Gaza war and the hysteria over the October 7th attacks was a main driver.
	In November 2023, Israeli President Isaac Herzog...
	Blamed TikTok for, quote, brainwashing, unquote, Americans, who didn't understand that Israel was pulverizing Gaza to defend not just Israeli security, but also the freedom of Americans to, quote, enjoy decent, liberal, modern, progressive, democratic life.
	I guess progressive democratic life looks like eternal wars, just like it does for Republicans, doesn't it?
	I guess it looks like total disregard for civilian casualties, too.
	Apparently this logic would make more sense to people aged 18 to 29 if they didn't spend so much time on TikTok.
	And so you have Jonathan Greenblatt, the head of the ADL, the so-called Anti-Defamation League, who said, we have a major, major, major generational problem.
	And he said, and so we have a TikTok problem.
	Gotta ban it. In his telling, the TikTok problem boils down to TikTok's insufficient alignment with U.S. geopolitical interests and the inability of the U.S. government to exert the same coercive pressure on TikTok that it has exerted on Google, Facebook, Meta, Microsoft, Twitter, X, and so on.
	You see, when we look at the TikTok ban and we look at the way the Supreme Court is just cutting and slicing the First Amendment to suit themselves, Completely ignoring the fact that there's literally an army of federal agents embedded in these American social media companies to tell them who to shut down, tell them what narratives and questions to deep six.
	You understand then why they want TikTok ban.
	It's about full-on control.
	And I understand TikTok has been used in evil ways by the Chinese.
	I understand they use it to promote great values in China, but here they use it to promote the most disgusting LGBT stuff.
	But Biden is not upset about that.
	As a matter of fact, even though they are pushing the most disgusting LGBT grooming and all the rest of it, he doesn't have a problem with that.
	And not even that is enough to go against the wishes of the intelligence community.
	So the problem with TikTok is they don't have an army of feds telling them what people are allowed to see.
	The bill states that any, quote, website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application, they're even going to VR and augmented reality and all the rest of this stuff.
	It's very forward-looking.
	Anything like that, because, you know, TikTok's not doing AR or VR right now.
	Any of that, as determined by the president to present a significant threat to the national security of the United States, any of that could be banned.
	See how dangerous that is? I mean, we've got a...
	Every one of our presidents does more executive orders than his predecessor.
	I mean, we really have crossed the Rubicon a long time ago.
	We've got an emperor. We don't have a republic anymore.
	Regardless of the potential overreaching language in the bill, the bill itself also faces a First Amendment challenge, says Reclaim the Net.
	Other scrutiny centers on the constitutional dilemmas that the bill presents, notably regarding the First Amendment rights of not just TikTok, but also its users and also American companies, such as Apple and Google, app stores, that host the app.
	This concern stems from the possibility of Americans losing a chosen platform for expression, And the government imposing restrictions on app stores about their offerings.
	But, you know, if the First Amendment gets in the way of the Biden administration, or in the way of the Israeli government, First Amendment's got to go.
	It's just, that's real simple, isn't it?
	A recent case in Montana, we had a federal district court stop a TikTok ban that was done by that state, highlighted these constitutional challenges, and cited the First Amendment.
	So, its constitutionality would hinge on several critical aspects.
	Reclaim the Net says, whether the government's national security concerns are compelling enough.
	See, here we are again. Same kind of situational ethics, situational principles that we see being talked about in the Supreme Court about social media stuff.
	Do you have a compelling enough interest?
	There's nothing about that in the First Amendment.
	Congress shall make no law unless there is a compelling interest for them to do that.
	Unless they really want to.
	If they really, really want to, they can do it.
	And this is Reclaim the Net, who is typically, you know, they're very supportive of the First Amendment, very critical of censorship.
	But even they buy into this, well, if it's compelling enough, they can do that.
	No, the First Amendment is absolute or the First Amendment is void.
	It's just that simple. We've got to get serious about these principles because they're taking every principle that Western civilization has been built upon and destroying it.
	Whether you're talking about trial by jury, presumption of innocence, protection against excessive fines, freedom of speech, the right to defend yourself, all of these principles that have been the foundation of Western civilization and protecting us.
	From totalitarian governments now being destroyed by all these totalitarian governments.
	And interestingly enough, they all seem to be doing exactly the same thing at the same time.
	Somebody needs to tell John Roberts that, because it does look like it is monolithic in practice.
	Even if the national security interest is deemed compelling, says Reclaim the Net, the courts would then evaluate whether there are alternative, less restrictive methods available to address these concerns.
	The government faces the challenge of building a robust case to justify such drastic steps as necessary.
	Well, at the same time all this is happening, the Canadian government is pushing back on criticism of a lifetime sentence for hate speech.
	They said, that's just clickbait.
	Don't believe what these people are saying out there, except...
	One of the people who is saying this is the former Supreme Court Chief Justice of Canada, Beverly McLaughlin.
	Guard Goldsmith. Their parsing on the First Amendment was astounding.
	Okay, we got that before.
	Let's see. Okay.
	Conservative thinker. Thank you for the tip.
	And what he was saying was, when can we buy your I love hate speech?
	T-shirt and bumper sticker.
	Yeah, I love hate speech.
	I don't know how we do that.
	I do not love hate speech.
	But I do not love hate speech a lot.
	So there we go. I guess we could put the First Amendment loves hate speech.
	Awful, but lawful.
	I love hate speech, but underneath it, awful, but lawful.
	That would be the complete slogan, I think.
	Is that two-wordy? Yeah, Travis says yes.
	I don't think so. I don't think so.
	That's only, I love hate speech, and underneath it, it's like, awful, but lawful.
	That's only two lines, and you've got like three words on each line.
	That's not bad. Rock fan, M. Dawes, says, has David addressed Judge Napolitano podcast about his talk with Trump about JFK files?
	I mentioned it yesterday briefly.
	It might explain Trump not doing what he said he'd do.
	I said that yesterday.
	I said, yeah, you know, he says, well, if they'd shown you what they showed me, you wouldn't be releasing that stuff either.
	Well, the problem is, is that with all this stuff, you need to, if you don't have the stomach for it, don't go there.
	I mean, it's just that simple.
	And of all the people, you know, Trump should have been the one to say, okay, hold a press conference.
	I'm going to talk about my shoe size or something, right?
	And then at the press conference, he talks about JFK files.
	And he said, they've threatened me.
	Name names. And everybody wants you circling around here.
	We're going to issue orders now to arrest these people who told me that.
	And we're going to put them on trial.
	We're going to find out who they work for and who they work with.
	I mean, that's what you do. You've got to take charge of this stuff.
	I'm sick and tired of all the people who say, well, you know, Trump had a reason for doing this.
	No. No, he didn't.
	As a matter of fact, you know, like I also said yesterday, and I'll say it again today, when all these people said, well, he told us about HCQ and ivermectin.
	I said, yeah, he told us about it in a way to mock them.
	He made a mockery of those things.
	But if he really wanted to help us with that, He could have manufactured hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin instead of the jab.
	He spent tens of billions of dollars to manufacture the jab.
	He distributed. He gave it out for free to everybody.
	Why wouldn't he take these cheap generics and manufacture them in mass and give them away?
	Let the military deliver that to everybody.
	No, he's not interested in doing that.
	He wouldn't even do anything to stop the states from punishing people, punishing doctors, punishing pharmacists who gave people ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.
	People say, well, the president doesn't have the power to do that.
	Yes, he does. He would have used money the same way that he used money to bribe them, the same way that he uses money.
	He's already said, well, you know, if we got these schools that are teaching stuff I don't like now, As a candidate, of course, he had no problem with it as a president.
	He had no problem with it as a businessman.
	He loved the transgender stuff and was one of the first people to push it.
	But now he says, well, we don't want that pushed out there to kids, and so I'll stop the money going to the schools if they do that.
	Well, you didn't do it when you were president before, but he does understand the mechanism.
	That's how you stop this kind of stuff.
	Just like Obama said, if you don't put the tranny boys in there with the girls in the bathroom and in the shower, I will pull your money.
	They all know that it's the money.
	That's how you get around the Tenth Amendment and any of these other so-called prohibitions.
	So... Again, the former Supreme Court Chief Justice of Canada is one of the critics that they're saying, well, this is just a bunch of clickbait.
	One person who is talking about that says, he says, these articles are nothing but clickbait.
	Skip the clickbait and learn more.
	Well, I think the Supreme Court, former Supreme Court Chief Justice does know what's in the law.
	He told a podcast that while the authorities have the obligation to tackle challenges brought on by new technologies and media, this, in a nutshell, is not the way.
	He was specifically concerned about the plan to amend the criminal code so that four offenses will be treated as hate propaganda can result in the maximum punishment.
	And again, the maximum punishment since they don't kill people for any crimes in Canada.
	The maximum punishment you can give somebody is life in prison, and they will give people the maximum penalty of life in prison because of something that you said.
	He said, we've not seen this ever before in speech law, expression law, to my knowledge.
	Life sentences for sending out some words?
	That's heavy, he said.
	That's putting it mildly, isn't it?
	Well, we're going to take a quick break.
	I just want to remind you to please support us on Subscribestar if you like the stream as well.
	That helps. You know, it really is a very important thing.
	We have a lot of people who have been longtime supporters on Subscribestar.
	That is a base of support for us.
	We don't talk about it a great deal and we don't call people out by name, but we do give the people who subscribe on Subscribestar, we give them a link to an audio podcast that has no commercials in it.
	Because if somebody gives us even a $5 a month contribution, that is many, many times more than we get from ads if they listen to every single ad of every single broadcast in a month.
	So, you know, the ads don't pay much, and the ad revenue is continuing to go down, even without the view counts going down.
	It's just one of the things that's happening.
	And I don't know if it's me or if it's the industry in general or if it's the podcast platform, but it really does help us with the subscription, and we try to do something for the people at Subscribestar, and so we give them that broadcast without any commercials in it.
	But if you are watching the stream somewhere, if you like the stream, that helps people to find it.
	It really does. We've had some people...
	Who were able to find it because they saw it float up to the top on Rumble or on BitChute because people liked the stream.
	So we really do need that.
	We really do appreciate that.
	We'll be right back. Elvis and the sweet sounds of Motown.
	Find them on the oldies channel at APS radio.com The common man you 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 Well, this is sent to me by a listener talking about what is happening in South Carolina.
	The South Carolina governor is warning that a proposed Medical Freedom Act could place innocent lives at risk, you see.
	A Medical Freedom Act, just like free speech, freedom of the press, freedom to criticize the government, freedom to disagree with what they're doing, all of these things threaten the government.
	Our priority now has to be, whether you're talking about the federal government or you're talking about a Republican governor in South Carolina, the priority has to be, how do we make things easier for the government to do what it wants?
	Forget about individuals.
	Forget about individual health.
	We're going to maximize the power of public health officials.
	Well, some of the representatives in South Carolina got the message.
	Some of the Republicans, and we've seen this over and over again.
	In Idaho, for example, as this tyranny was playing out in 2020, it was a Republican state.
	They had the governor in both houses of the legislature.
	And as in Texas, they only meet every other year.
	And interestingly enough, they pulled off this thing in the year that the Texas legislature was not meeting, in the year that the Idaho legislature was not meeting.
	Any attempts to try to call a special session by some of the Republicans who didn't like what they were seeing were shut down by the governors.
	Shut down by Greg Abbott.
	Shut down by Brad Little in Idaho.
	Brad Little and Abbott as well.
	Abbott, $300 million contract for contact tracing by some small firm nobody had ever heard of.
	An empty office as one person went up and took pictures of it.
	You had both the Democrat and a little bit of Republican press in the state questioning what was going on.
	But then, all of a sudden, it just suddenly stopped, and there was no questions at all about why this company with a guy that nobody knows anything about gets a $300 million contract.
	Well, they were being showered with cash from Trump.
	And that was the same kind of scam that Vivek Ramaswamy was trying to do in Ohio.
	Just trying to make money out of contact tracing and surveillance and all the rest of this stuff.
	But when you have these governors, Brad Little was getting three or four times what the entire state budget was as his personal discretion to spend on people.
	That's a lot of power.
	Money is power, especially for politicians.
	And if he's got that as discretionary spending that is decided by him solely, he's going to keep that thing going.
	And so he told the Idaho legislature that they couldn't meet, just like Some kind of Revolutionary War governor from the crown.
	And they were going to try to free things up for the businesses that were closed.
	And instead, he told them you can't meet.
	He crafted some legislation.
	And then he called them together to rubber stamp what he'd put together.
	And what he put together said, well, if you tell people as a business that they have to wear masks, they've got to do the social distancing, they've got to, you know...
	Pat their head and rub their tummy and all this kind of stuff.
	If they do all the Simon Says rules and you put these things up, if somebody gets sick, we will protect you against that.
	But if you don't put this stuff up, anybody who claims that they got sick, we're going to expedite their lawsuit against you and they'll shut you down.
	You see, that is a mandate.
	That is a mandate. By any other name, that is a mandate.
	But they always want to pretend, oh, no, it's your choice.
	It's your choice. I'm not forcing you to do anything.
	So, now you've got the South Carolina governor, McMaster, who, by the way, just hardly endorsed Trump.
	He likes what Trump did in 2020, and he liked what he did in 2020, and he would like to do it again.
	Unfortunately, there's just a few Republican legislators who don't want to see that happen.
	So, if you live in South Carolina, this is your warning.
	Get behind the good guys.
	Put some pressure on these bad guys there.
	It's not enough to have Republicans.
	Republicans can be just as bad or worse than Democrats because many times you think that they're doing the right thing just because they're Republican and they're not.
	Some South Carolina Republicans say they need to act now to ensure individual freedoms are protected before the state faces this next emergency like another pandemic.
	This is local mainstream media.
	So the governor there, McMaster, who loves Trump and just endorsed Trump, says...
	That he's concerned about this as well.
	The bill would ban the state, schools, and even private employers from forcing workers and students to take novel vaccines.
	It's opposed by the South Carolina Chamber of Commerce.
	What a surprise. They're always taking the statist side on things, always siding with the big multinational corporations, which are part of the global governance that is already in place.
	So, the Chamber of Commerce opposes.
	It says it would fringe on employers' authority to coerce medical measures on their employees.
	No, that's not the way they put it.
	They said it would infringe on employers' authority to act.
	Well, the action is to coerce medical treatment from their employees.
	In what world do we want to live in?
	Does that happen? Not any world that I want to live in.
	Democrat. Democrat.
	Said, so we're just going to let people that are facing a pandemic have no public help from anybody in law enforcement?
	The Republican who put this in, sponsor of the bill, says, well, it says that they may help if they wish.
	They're trying to coerce the sheriffs to do this.
	And the way the Democrat says, so we're going to say that they can't help?
	No, they can help.
	But you're not going to force them.
	You're not going to commandeer them.
	This is what the sponsor, Shane Martin, from Spartanburg, South Carolina, the lead sponsor of the bill, said.
	At Thursday's meeting, the senators amended a part of the bill that was especially troubling for the Department of Health in South Carolina.
	That would have prohibited the state health agency from acquiring and administering novel vaccines until they had full FDA approval.
	So they can't give people stuff that's emergency use authorization.
	And so a Republican, whose name interestingly is Cash, I don't know who his contributors are.
	I tried to look it up when I saw the things that he was saying about this.
	You know, usually when we see some state senator like Pan in California, Just bowing down and worshipping the vaccine industry and giving them carte blanche to do anything they want and protection from all liability.
	Usually you can find that there's some deep connection.
	Of course, with Pan in California, he's a doctor.
	He's lobbied for the vaccine industry and all the rest of this stuff.
	I'm not sure about cash, but it certainly does look like he's got some friends there.
	Now, he got some big contributions from the Chamber of Commerce.
	And from Blue Cross Blue Shield, but most of his, because at the state level it's pretty hard to see who pays these people.
	Most of his donors are hidden, so we don't really know.
	But anyway, Cash, Senator Cash, the Republican, says, well, we're taking the pendulum too far in the other direction.
	And he says, we don't want people taking this stuff without informed consent, he said.
	But, you know, we don't want to stop the public health people from giving them stuff that hasn't been tested and approved.
	With this same senator, they should call these guys bluff while they're doing this.
	Would you allow us then to have raw milk, any food that we wish to eat that is a voluntary thing?
	Would you let us do that without the FDA's approval?
	Oh, no, you won't do that, will you, of the same people?
	Because, again, Chamber of Commerce and things like that.
	But he won't take away, got to have the FDA seal of approval for any food that you eat, but not for any experimental drugs that you inject.
	And so he says, we don't want to go that far.
	If somebody really wants to take this stuff, we want to let them have it.
	What does it mean to have informed consent?
	He says, you know, we don't want to deal without informed consent, but they've got informed consent.
	What does it mean to have informed consent on a product that hasn't been tested?
	How could you have informed consent?
	There's nothing to inform you about if you haven't bothered to do the test, right?
	There's nothing, no information.
	To have any informed consent, they just want to give you something that's brand new and untested.
	There's no information, so there's no informed consent by definition.
	So, despite concerns outlined, including from the governor, the Senate Medical Affairs Subcommittee advanced an amended version of the bill in a 4-3 vote along party lines with Republicans in favor.
	So, so far, we've just narrowly got out of there.
	Republicans are ignoring these cashed-out Republicans and the governor, McMaster, the people working for the Chamber of Commerce, I guess.
	Sponsors claim actions that they describe as government overreach during the pandemic show this bill is needed.
	Absolutely is. A lot of people's liberties were in jeopardy, and we're trying to do what we can by this legislation to stop that, said Martin, the lead sponsor.
	Look, the federal government is gone.
	And in many cases, when you look at the governor, you know, whether you're talking about McMaster, you're talking about Bill Lee here in Tennessee, typically statist, typically going, you know, in the direction that the global agenda wants to go.
	You know, Bill Lee here wants to do toll roads.
	You name it. This guy is every kind.
	He tried to do a special session in Tennessee to pass gun control.
	And that's Republican.
	And so when you look at people like Lee in Tennessee, or you look at people like Brad Little in Idaho, McMaster in South Carolina, they're going to toe the line for these corporations.
	They're going to toe the line for the next pandemic from the World Health Organization for experimental jabs to be handed out like candy by their public bureaucrats at the state level.
	There's a few people at the state level And that's why you need to get involved in state elections.
	That's the only place that you're going to be able to make any difference is at the state level.
	And so support these people.
	Put some pressure on these other people if they feel it.
	And again, I really do believe it because I have seen it personally.
	I have seen North Carolina when we had the legislature controlled by Democrats and the governor controlled by Democrats and the teachers unions came in and said, well, we're going to shut down homeschooling.
	And there was an active letter-writing campaign by homeschoolers, and we stopped that.
	We stopped it.
	They pulled back.
	If you have enough people protest with these people, most people don't typically send anything at all to them.
	So if you do an active campaign on some issue, that can get their attention, even if they are predisposed to oppose you.
	So that's where things are in South Carolina.
	Interestingly enough, as we look at the knock-on effects from Trump's panic, the panic of 2020, some people call it a COVID pandemic.
	No, it was a 2020 Trump panic.
	Even marriages.
	Even marriages.
	We saw churches shut down.
	We saw businesses shut down.
	People's lifetime work and investment in their business destroyed on Main Street.
	Schools, of course, shut down, but even marriages went down to a record low, and they've just now come back up to the level that they were in 2019.
	Even marriages. After falling to a historic low during the COVID panic, They've surged past the 2 million mark for the first time since 2019.
	Now, marriage has been declining.
	A 2020 report showed the marriage rate reaching what was then recorded as the lowest point in more than 100 years.
	The marriage rate per 1,000 people found that from 2017 to 2018, the rate dropped 6%.
	It was the lowest marriage rate on record for the period studied.
	In 2018, despite recording its lowest rate in more than 100 years, America recorded 2.1 million marriages and a recorded population of 327 million.
	Then the marriage rate fell even lower in 2019, but then it really cratered in 2020.
	In 2020, it dropped to 1.7 million.
	That rate became the lowest recorded marriage rate in U.S. history since 1900.
	And, you know, that doesn't mean that people weren't getting married in 1900.
	They just really weren't recording it.
	I remember a story my mom told when she and my dad got married in the 1920s.
	She had been born at home, didn't have a birth certificate.
	But they went in to get a marriage license, and she took her father with her because...
	To tell the person that, you know, to testify that, you know, she was born.
	She stands before you!
	And so this person there says, well, you don't have a birth certificate?
	How do I know when you're born?
	Or, you know, what your age is?
	Or if you're... At that point in time, they weren't really caring about American citizenship.
	I guess it was the age issue.
	And my grandfather said...
	Because I was there, and I just told you.
	Are you calling me a liar?
	So we're beyond that now.
	They call everybody a liar that they wish to put you in jail if you contest it.
	Speaking of people being put in jail, Peter Navarro must report to prison.
	The Supreme Court has rejected his bid to To remain free while he contests his contempt of Congress charges.
	You know, Steve Bannon has also been charged with this, but he hasn't been sentenced yet.
	But you know, when I look at this with Peter Navarro, the contempt of Congress stuff and everything and going to jail for that, it's kind of like a mass murderer going to jail for jaywalking.
	Because that's what Peter Navarro is.
	He's a mass murderer, a con man.
	The very most charitable explanation of what he did there with Trump was gross mismanagement.
	Former Trump advisors, the way they describe him, Peter Navarro is bound for prison.
	No, former Trump COVID con man.
	Now, why do I have such contempt for Peter Navarro?
	Because he ran the ventilator program.
	Most of the people, you know, we had a tremendous number of excess deaths in 2020.
	Not due to a COVID virus.
	Those excess deaths were due to ventilators.
	They were due to remdesivir.
	They were due to the medical death protocol that Trump was paying the hospitals to implement.
	And this was his guy.
	So yeah, happy to see him go to jail, for whatever reason.
	If you go back and you look at what was happening at the time, this article from September...
	Oh, it's much worse than that, quite frankly. They paid $647 million for something that they had previously had a contract with a ventilator manufacturer, Philips, for $150 million.
	So they'd already bought this stuff for $150 million.
	They decided they'd pay $650 million.
	A half a billion dollars more.
	That's why I say, con man, crony crapitalist, White House spokeswoman defended Navarro by saying that he played a vital role in our response to the pandemic.
	Well, that's enough reason to jail him.
	Four months is too good for him.
	Use of the federal act that compelled production of critical supplies and created thousands of jobs in the process.
	I bet. They might have created a thousand jobs with that half a billion dollars.
	It also killed people.
	The Trump administration has been focused on saving lives.
	No, they aren't. And as I said before, instead of the ventilators, instead of remdesivir, why didn't Trump, instead of making a mockery of ivermectin and HCQ, Yeah, you know, you can inject bleach in your veins or sunlight or something.
	I've even heard something about ivermectin or HCQ. No, look, you can still get at retail level, it's about $50 for a bottle of hydroxychloroquine.
	It's about $100 for a bottle of ivermectin.
	Why didn't, that's incredibly cheap.
	Compared to the over $3,000 for remdesivir that didn't work, that killed people, or the ventilators that cost tens of thousands of dollars that didn't work, but killed people.
	Why wouldn't they go with this stuff?
	It is so incredibly cheap.
	Can you imagine if the government was mass manufacturing this?
	Well, still, you know, if it's a government and the retail price is $50 to $100 for this stuff, they might pay $2,000 or $3,000 for it.
	It might be as expensive as remdesivir because we've got people like Peter Navarra running the contract negotiations and padding the bill for his friends.
	But barring that...
	Even at that price, it would be a better thing for people.
	The congressional investigation back in 2020 determined that the deal would have resulted in the U.S. overpaying the ventilators manufacturers by as much as $500 million out of a $650 million contract.
	They were paid by $500 million.
	4.3 times what they should have paid.
	Phillips had a commercial version of the ventilator that they wanted.
	They manufactured it in Pennsylvania.
	They even shipped it abroad.
	Navarra cut a new deal for them, though.
	I know, I know. We were paying you $150.
	We'll pay you $650.
	How about that? What a great...
	These guys, no...
	No wonder Trump went bankrupt on his casinos, right?
	They boosted the price from...
	$3,280 each under the Obama administration deal to $15,000.
	That's interesting. You've got a ventilator that costs $3,300.
	We're going to pay you $15,000.
	How about that? I guess now that it's national security, we're going to pay you like Pentagon pricing.
	You know that toilet over there?
	$5,000 for that toilet.
	That screwdriver?
	$600 for that.
	How about that? $15,000 for a $3,300 ventilator.
	And then, if the hospital would put somebody on it, they'd pay the hospital $39,000.
	So not only do they pay, you know, four or five times as much for the ventilator, but then they give it to the hospital.
	And if the hospital, every time the hospital puts somebody on the ventilator, they pay them more than twice what they paid for the ventilator.
	Wow. Wow.
	And then give them a 20% bonus for it.
	It's almost like Trump was paying the hospitals to kill people, isn't it?
	Didn't pay anybody to make hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin.
	Didn't pay them for that. But did pay them handsomely to kill people with ventilators and remdesivir.
	Yeah, you know, what was it?
	The Clintons, the perverted Clintons accused him of golden showers.
	Now, his golden showers were the gold that he was showering over everybody during the pandemic.
	That's what Trump was doing.
	The more expensive ventilators were functionally identical to the cheaper ones.
	Navarro and his team, they said, appeared to be gullible.
	They didn't want to call him a criminal at that point in time.
	They had to wait until January the 6th before they called him a criminal.
	He should have gone to jail for this.
	He should have gone to jail for murder.
	Instead, they're going to send him to jail because he doesn't want to talk about January the 6th.
	I wonder why he doesn't want to talk about January the 6th.
	It shouldn't be a problem to talk about January the 6th.
	So, there's a new film out called Epidemic of Fraud.
	It exposes massive COVID corruption.
	We've talked about this for a while, haven't we?
	This month sees the release of a new film documenting the COVID regime.
	What is different about this, says LifeSite News, the epidemic of fraud, is the scope of the corruption it exposes.
	Reaching beyond the prohibition of genuinely safe and effective medicine to massive financial and political moves to promote lockdowns and the dangerous vaccines instead.
	Again, that was the plan, rehearsed on an annual basis, going all the way back to dark winter, two months before 9-11.
	And then the Model State Health Emergency Powers Act that came two months after the pandemic, The anthrax attack one week after 9-11.
	And that kind of legislation is what the Republicans in South Carolina are trying to stop, and the governor there is trying to keep in place.
	That kind of legislation that was sent out, model legislation, was sent out two months after the false flag anthrax attack associated with 2001, 9-11, all the rest of that.
	John Davidson's film begins with a scandalous campaign against hydroxychloroquine.
	A derivative of quinine, the naturally occurring wonder drug whose control has always been a matter of U.S. national security.
	Stephen Hatfield, COVID advisor to Trump, said in a segment of the film, this was the answer.
	Hydroxychloroquine would have halted the pandemic.
	And so, again, every time I talk about this, we have the Trump people say, well, Trump tried to warn us.
	He tried to tell us about it.
	It's like, well, why didn't he at least say you can't stop people from getting it?
	But he could have, since he was paying for ventilators and jabs and all the rest of this stuff, masks and tests, all this stuff being sent out, showering everybody with cash.
	Do this, do this.
	Here's all the stuff to do it.
	I've got one solution.
	And I will pay you for that one solution.
	If you try anything else, it's going to be prohibited.
	But he would not give anybody HCQ, or later, ivermectin.
	The government could have manufactured it.
	The government could have sent that out.
	They were sending out PCR tests.
	Everything they sent out was to kill people.
	The killing of people was to create the perception of a pandemic so they could get the real bioweapon out there, which was the jab.
	He said 52 other countries have used it successfully to keep their pandemic, their hospital admissions under control.
	The idea is to halt hydroxychloroquine came from the FDA, as it says in the film.
	Now, the guy who made it, Davidson, is a committed Christian.
	He began as a radio journalist.
	He admits that early in the film that he, too, had promoted COVID measures.
	And I've talked about this. You know, people like Steve Kirsch and others, they actually got in and said, oh, okay, you say there's a pandemic?
	They accepted the government at its work.
	They didn't understand, didn't know anything about the germ games that had been going on for 20 years.
	They didn't know or pay any attention to the annual flu shot scam that was run by Fauci and the CDC. You got to get the flu shot.
	You got to get it to protect other people.
	Yeah, not to protect you, but to protect other people.
	We don't know what the strain of the flu is this year.
	We just picked one, and we're going to give everybody that strain of flu shot.
	But you need to get it.
	Got to get it. Everybody needs to get it.
	So he said it was the restrictions on hydroxychloroquine that woke him up.
	And, you know, there were like Steve Kirshen goes in and he's got some stuff.
	He said, hey, this might work. Now, we're not going to talk about that.
	We're going to keep everybody locked down until we get the vaccine.
	What are you talking about? That doesn't make any sense.
	And so you had a lot of medical professionals who had not paid any attention to politics and not paid any attention to the CIA or to the intelligence community and the games that they play all the time.
	And I understand how a lot of people got fooled by that.
	Same thing that fooled a lot of pastors by that.
	But then eventually people wake up to it.
	And, you know, the fact that Trump doesn't want to, doesn't think that you know.
	He thinks you don't know.
	But we do know.
	And he needs to know that we know.
	Anyway, he says, the film makes extensive use of interview footage, including showing Dr.
	Robert Malone in 2021 explaining to Joe Rogan what was going on.
	You know, what I'd been saying for two years.
	The suppression of a cheap drug.
	We said this from the very beginning.
	We didn't find out about this in 2021.
	That may be when Joe Rogan found out about it or pretended to find out about it.
	Rick Bright was one of the people who was pushing this in the FDA, in the establishment, I should say, the deep state, the swamp that Trump could not, would not control.
	He was Director of BARDA. He smeared Trump's recommendation for hydroxychloroquine as dangerous.
	But then, you know, he just went to work for the globalists who were paying him in other places.
	Again, firing this guy or doing anything like that, why didn't Trump go ahead and give people hydroxychloroquine?
	It had a safety profile that everybody understood, and it was a very safe safety profile compared to all the other drugs.
	And the only question was, does it work with this?
	Well, let's give it to people and see.
	Right? That's what's called off-label use of a drug.
	The FDA has not tested it and approved it for this, but they hadn't tested or approved the ventilators or remdesivir or any of the other stuff.
	So, manufacture this and give it away.
	Rick Bright and videotaped testimony.
	Talked about how they conspired to cook up a strategy to make it so that hydroxychloroquine could only be administered in the hospital, which is way too late for it to work.
	Rogan asked Malone the obvious question, so why did they do that?
	And Malone says, that is what is the unknown.
	It is not unknown.
	That's what I'm saying. These people, they were slow to catch on to this stuff, and quite frankly, they still haven't caught on to what's going on.
	They don't want to go back and look at the history of this stuff and the relationships.
	It truly is amazing.
	Bright's ambitions are now global.
	He moved to become the CEO of Pandemic Prevention Institute at the Rockefeller Foundation and World Health Organization, World Economic Forum, because that's where this stuff is coming from.
	So... The documentary says, one doctor who is from Australia, Queensland, Australia, says, if you use these drugs in the U.S., you'll probably be fired.
	Again, why didn't Trump stop that?
	Why didn't he stop that?
	Why didn't he give it to people for free?
	He gave them everything else for free that he wanted.
	It shows Representative Jim Jordan speaking at a November 2020 hearing, saying these log jams have been created by officials to deny Americans and their elected officials access to the truth.
	Again, Jim Jordan is a congressman.
	He's one of the senior congressmen.
	Why doesn't he offer a bill to give it to people for free?
	Right? That's what the Congress does.
	It spends money. Spend a little bit of money.
	Just a little bit. I'm giving people free hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.
	No, instead, he and Trump will say, isn't it horrible that they won't let you have it?
	I think it's horrible that you wouldn't do anything about it.
	I pushed the FDA like they have never been pushed before.
	I wouldn't exactly say they're in love with me.
	Yeah. Jim Jordan says, we should have the right to access this without the interference of bureaucrats of the FDA and the CDC. Well, that didn't stop them for the...
	You know, the FDA is not happy with this.
	I really pushed them for this jab.
	Did you? And why didn't you do it for ACQ? Ivermectin.
	Jordan says, I can't get it.
	Millions of Americans can't get it because of the logjam created by bureaucrats.
	And then you got people like him who won't do anything about it.
	Except whole press conferences.
	Isn't this horrible? You should vote for more Republicans, by the way.
	Asking what led Davidson to a darker dimension, which had a bearing on another widely censored subject, the 2020 presidential election, Davidson points out that if the COVID pandemic continued, then the use of mail-in ballots in the presidential election would be permitted under lockdown conditions, which I said way before the election.
	I said, this is going to be a disaster.
	And it was. But it was Bannon who said, with this lockdown election, we're going to claim we won it.
	And then, you know, we're going to have this fight and all the rest of this stuff.
	There was considerable pressure to deprive Trump of a win.
	Except, again, Trump was the one who continued to push and to model the lockdown.
	He says, if Trump won again, would he return to promoting a $20 per dose drug?
	Against the novel vaccines and the deadly remdesivir, which was $3,000 per treatment?
	And quite frankly, I can't imagine why hydroxychloroquine would be $20 a pop unless it was the hospital prices, because you get a bottle of this stuff, a month's supply for $20 now, $50.
	He says, with $11 trillion on the line, and the risk of Trump being right, could you have said that hydroxychloroquine works?
	LifeSite says, if Davidson's cost estimates sound fantastic, consider that in 2020, Harvard University estimated that the cost of the U.S. from the COVID-19 might run to $16 trillion.
	Well, guess what?
	If you want to know why this stuff happened, if you want to know why he didn't put that out there for free, When there are ridiculously expensive things like remdesivir, $3,000 per treatment, or the ventilators, which only they had been buying at $3,300 apiece, now they're buying them at $15,000, and now they're paying the hospital a bonus of $39,000 to put people on this $3,000 machine so they can get the Nambas, as Fauci said.
	Maybe you should follow the money, because Trump follows the money.
	He's buyable.
	And Bannon knows it and even talked about it with the TikTok ban.
	Anybody who knows him, anybody who looks at his actions, know this guy is for sale.
	Everything he does, very clear.
	Now factor in the many vaccine injured, those who died suddenly along with home deaths and ventilator deaths, other drugs that they use that a bureaucrat in the UK, Matt Hancock, I think he tripled or quadrupled the order of the British health system for this drug called midazolam.
	And if you give that to people who are having respiratory illness because they got the flu or bronchitis, and the hospital said, go home until it's bad, then come back here, now we'll give you midazolam, and that'll kill you.
	They got a respiratory illness, just like the ventilators will kill you with a respiratory illness.
	So, we're not even talking about putting a dollar figure on all the people that they killed, that they disabled.
	This is just the ridiculous amounts that they paid for all these different things.
	And out of patent medicine, cheaply available, known to be safe, could have stopped it all.
	So, why didn't Trump do any of that?
	Again, we will not hold him responsible.
	Never. Never.
	A federal report, by the way, when we talk about the speech issue, when we talk about people who push back against it, remember the Freedom Convoy in Canada, they were smeared and slandered by Trudeau, saying they were dangerous, fringe, extremists, all the rest of the stuff.
	Now, a new federal government report coming out of Canada.
	Calls the Freedom Convoy anti-Semitic and racist.
	Again, this is always the go-to if you want to shut down people's speech.
	You call them anti-Semitic.
	There was nothing anti-Semitic about this.
	They were pushing back against the lockdown.
	There was nothing anti-Semitic.
	There was nothing dangerous, nothing extremist about it.
	But again, this is the tired epithet that they throw against anybody that they don't have.
	They don't want to debate you. They just call you a racist.
	They call you anti-Semitic.
	Chrystia Freeland, who started seizing bank accounts, Chrystia Freeland, who was heavily embedded and wedded to the World Economic Forum, Chrystia Freeland says Canada's national security was under real threat.
	Always excuse. Always excuse for censorship.
	National security. We'll be right back.
	Whether you're feeling like the blues or bluegrass, APS Radio has you covered.
	Check out a wide variety of channels on our app at APSradio.com.
	And now...
	♪♪♪
	the
	move.
	And now, The David Knight Show.
	Okay, welcome back.
	Let's talk a little bit about the bloodbath that we see everywhere, right?
	Yesterday we were talking about the bloodbath, the implications that there was going to be violence, and again, it was an overblown charge that And yet, as I said at the time, the real bloodbath, of course, was what I've just been talking about going on during the pandemic.
	We had a comment from Audi, Modern Retro Radio.
	Good to see you there. It says, the mortality rate for patients on ventilators is 80%.
	I've seen it in the high 80s.
	Hospitals were willfully killing people and being financially rewarded.
	Disgusting and evil. That's right.
	And let's not forget who that happened under.
	It absolutely is what was happening.
	And it continued under Biden.
	On Rumble, Milutin Milankovic says, Trump put Jared Kushner in charge of pardons.
	Probably will again.
	Well, you know, he might want to hit Jared up for some money with what's happening here.
	Jared made out like a bandit with the Saudis and...
	And the Trump administration.
	But let's talk a little bit about the bloodbath.
	Maybe that will be, that was such a dishonest characterization of By the Democrats, that it may be something that he can fundraise off of.
	He certainly is trying to do that.
	He says, the fake news media, the Democrat partners, and the destruction of our nation pretended to be shocked at my use of the word bloodbath, even though they fully understood that I was simply referring to imports allowed by crooked Joe Biden, which are killing the automobile industry.
	Well, he's right. It is going to be a bloodbath for the automobile industry.
	Fuel industry. But understand that, first of all, Biden doesn't care.
	He doesn't want you to own a car.
	He doesn't want you to have an internal combustion engine car.
	And if you can't afford a new electric car, he doesn't care about that either.
	He's just fine, you having no car at all.
	He's got his Corvettes and...
	Things like that. His entourages.
	He doesn't, he'd prefer it if you don't have any car, electric or otherwise.
	And they're working to make sure that that happens because they're shutting down the power plants that are going to get the electricity to your electric car as well.
	So Biden doesn't want you to have any kind of a private car.
	On the other hand, Trump has completely missed what the issue is here.
	The issue, folks, is not China as Trump is trying to make this.
	That's not the issue. The issue is Paris.
	Not China. It's Paris.
	It's the Paris Climate Accord.
	It's the Green Agenda. It's the Paris Climate Accord that Trump left in.
	He didn't get rid of it in 2017.
	He said, all right, I'll get rid of it after I get re-elected.
	And he got rid of it and it disappeared for a month.
	But it was there for the full four years.
	It just kept going, and they knew that was going to happen.
	And so the issue is not even the trade war.
	Yes, there is a trade war going on in China, but that is not the fundamental issue.
	What is killing the automobile industry are the mandates from Biden.
	And the reason China is going to kill the automobile industry is It's because they have lower cost on manufacturing of everything.
	Again, because they have been given preference In terms of being able to have as many and as dirty coal-powered plants as they want.
	They can go with the cheap and dirty power generation.
	They can beat everybody on cost with electricity.
	And they've also got the supplies for making electric vehicles.
	They have the ability to, once you go to electric vehicles, they will completely destroy all of the American, Destroy them.
	It will be a bloodbath. And it'll be bad for the nation.
	But the issue is not specifically China and trade.
	The issue is the green agenda.
	The issue is the Paris Climate Accord.
	And Trump's not talking about that.
	Trump talks about 100% tariffs.
	That's not going to solve anything.
	And it's not going to happen.
	You know, he's upping this.
	He's taking these absurd numbers and he's magnifying it.
	First, he was saying 60%.
	And the people were saying, well, that would really be a shock to the system.
	That would set off a global trade war and it would, you know, send us into a global depression.
	Most likely, if you do something, if you have some kind of a massive spike in tariffs, after you've gotten everybody accustomed to this globalist system where we import everything, now you drop a 60% fee on top of everything that we buy?
	Because that's what's going to happen.
	Trump should know that.
	I support getting away from the globalist trade situation and the model where they collect taxes at the border, but I think that...
	We don't have a free trade.
	The taxes are internal.
	I support getting away from that and going to something where they do tax it at the border.
	That's the way America was originally set up before they decided that they would have the The Federal Reserve and the income tax.
	Jefferson said nobody knows the tax man internally at the federal government, and I think that's a good way to do it.
	However, to just do it in one immediate impulse is going to be very destructive.
	And so the people were looking at that and said, okay, whether you agree with this policy or not, that way of doing it Trump says all kinds of stuff as a candidate that he doesn't mean.
	He has no intention of doing. And so then he goes up from 60% tariff to 100% tariff.
	And again, it's total nonsense.
	He's not going to do it. And it's not the point.
	What he needs to do is he needs to stop the green agenda.
	He's not even talking about the real problem.
	He's making China the problem when the problem is really the World Economic Forum's green agenda manifested in the Paris Climate Treaty, which neither he nor any Republican senator, especially Mitch McConnell, decided that they would challenge after Kerry and Obama just announced that they had self-ratified the treaty.
	That's not the way treaties work.
	Treaties need to be ratified by the Senate.
	Everybody knows that. We were saying that.
	Somebody needs, Rand Paul, anybody, say we're going to have a vote on this Paris Climate Treaty because we're not going to accept that Obama just decided that that's the treaty.
	He doesn't have that authority under the Constitution.
	Nobody, no Republicans, not Trump, nobody would push back against the Paris Climate Accord.
	They're not pushing back against the green agenda.
	And that's the real issue.
	The issue is not, the immediate issue is not China.
	That's a secondary issue to this.
	No, we're going to put 100% tariff on every single car that comes across the line, and you're not going to be able to sell those cars if I get elected, he said.
	And if you take the one about the bloodbath, which arguably could be about an economic bloodbath, then it gives his defenders something to focus on, something which is distorted, says Senator Bill Cassidy.
	So... He says it arguably could be about an economic bloodbath.
	No, it really was about an economic bloodbath.
	But the way that he is using this is to distort it, to give his defenders something to focus on.
	He says, so yes, he always walks up to the edge of that rhetoric.
	And again, that's why people are concerned.
	He always uses, as I said yesterday, fake, alarming, provocative language.
	He baits people, and then he takes a step back in with a coy denial.
	This has been the tactic that Trump and his handlers have used from the very beginning.
	Get right up to that edge and say, oh, I wasn't really talking about that.
	But he likes to use those words.
	But he's not even got the right answer for the real economic problem.
	If we were to have Trump's quote unquote solutions, it would still be a bloodbath.
	60% tariffs, just like that, 100% tariffs, just like that.
	That'd be a shock to the system that would create an economic bloodbath.
	If you're gonna transition to a different form of taxes, but as I tweeted out this morning on Twitter, I said, so ask yourself.
	If a government does not care about the deficit, if they're fine doing many trillions of dollars of deficit every year, adding that to the cumulative debt, if they've got an economic theory called the modern monetary theory, which says that deficits don't matter, and if the income tax is only a small percentage of their income, They're offsetting their spending, and they don't care if they've got deficit spending of trillions of dollars.
	Now, why do we even have an income tax?
	And, of course, the reason we have an income tax is not for any kind of fiscal sanity or responsibility.
	We have an income tax because they want to impoverish and control the middle class.
	They want to saw the lower rungs off of the ladder.
	So you can't climb it.
	They want to have an excuse.
	And of course, this is one of their big things in the past, an excuse to look at what you do.
	But it's still, you know, they can see that now with social media and the rest of that stuff.
	So that part of it, give us a detailed accounting of everything that you do.
	That part of it is not important, but they do get a legal leverage over you.
	To basically, you know, destroy your wealth like they're doing to Trump now, or to, you know, blackmail you, this or that, to come after their political enemies.
	It's always gone after their political enemies with that.
	So Trump insiders are now worrying about his money, and it's not just about the massive fines that he can't pay in New York.
	It's also about the fact that the small dollar donors are abandoning his campaign.
	And it really has just fallen off a cliff.
	Trump's campaign team is quietly vexed about the lack of smaller donors that buoyed the former president to the White House back in 2016.
	One of the things that you can do to separate, you know, look at open secrets, which is where they went, you can look at the people who give $200 or less.
	And you can tell who the big money candidates, who the special interest candidates are, and the people who really have broad base appeal with the people.
	Trump's campaign reported raising only $3 million from small donors in January, those who give $200 or less, according to Open Secrets.
	For 2023, Trump's re-election campaign reports raising 62.5% less money from small-dollar donors than it did in 2019.
	And so, as intensely as Trump is loved by a small number of people, The question is, you know, are the donations from small donors are down by nearly 63%?
	Do the independents like him?
	We know that the Democrats hate him as intensely as the Republicans.
	His MAGA group loves him.
	And so then it's not just that money, the small donors, but it's also the fact that it came out yesterday that Trump doesn't have the money to pay for an appeal.
	And again, as I've said before, I don't think that any of this stuff in New York is justified.
	It's purely political persecution.
	And that works out to his advantage in most cases.
	They built him up to make sure that he was going to be the nominee by doing this kind of stuff.
	I think it was very deliberate.
	They believe they can beat Trump in the general election.
	They want to make sure that he won the nomination.
	And so by making him a victim, they essentially assured that.
	But he's been telling everybody that he's got the money for this stuff.
	And now he comes back out and he says, no, it's impossible.
	I can't come up with $464 million, which is going up over $100,000 a day.
	Now, this is political persecution, but when you look at what has been going on for half a century with the drug war, civil asset forfeiture, what happens to those people?
	Well, those people don't even get a kangaroo trial like Trump did, and that was a kangaroo court in New York.
	It was garbage. But the people who have their property taken with civil asset forfeiture, Mainly the drug war, but it's not necessarily limited to that.
	But the people have their property taken.
	They don't have a trial.
	They're not even charged with anything.
	So they're not charged.
	There's no trial. There's no conviction.
	They just take their property.
	Trump got a lot more due process than them.
	Did he care when he was president about this abuse, a civil asset forfeiture?
	Did he care that that was something that was really being run by the federal government?
	And his man, his Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, the first part of his administration, was all about doing more of that kind of stuff.
	He was all about, you steal from people, even in states where the marijuana was legalized, And the federal government had no authority to prohibit anything.
	That's the important thing. They didn't have an amendment to prohibit marijuana or anything else like they did for alcohol.
	And so instead of doing the amendment, you had Jeff Sessions tell police officers, if you steal from people who are engaged in what the state says is lawful activity, if you steal from them, I'll give you 80% of it.
	And you can send me the 20%.
	What does that say about corruption?
	Corruption in the Trump administration.
	Corruption in every Republican and Democrat administration for the last half century, starting with Richard Nixon.
	You know, the guy that Roger Stone's got tattooed on his back.
	I can't give these people a pass.
	I'm sorry. I can't get past that stuff.
	And so, in a sense, Trump and these other politicians, I have no sympathy for them, just like I don't have any sympathy for Peter Navarro.
	Who's running this ventilator scam?
	You know, the remdesivir scams and stuff like that, paying people ridiculous amounts of money for equipment that we knew was going to kill people?
	I don't care what happens to them.
	And I don't care what happens to Trump.
	I understand this is bad and people go, oh, that's going to set up a bad precedent.
	That precedent has been there.
	You can look at civil asset forfeiture.
	You can look at RICO statutes.
	And who was the king of RICO statutes?
	Enforcement. Rudy Giuliani.
	Where's Rudy Giuliani now?
	Well, he's getting a heavy dose of his own medicine right now.
	He's got RICO charges against him by this fraudulent prosecutor, Fannie Willis, in Georgia.
	But Rudy was violating the Constitution and due process, using these RICO statutes as a state attorney general to come after these people.
	That's how he made his career, using RICO. And that's how Fannie Willis is using her career.
	But she's doing it against him.
	Now, some people would call that karma.
	I'm not a Buddhist or whoever it is that talks about karma.
	I'm a Christian, so I talk about God's justice.
	Yeah, these guys are being blown up by their own petard.
	Their own bomb is blowing them up.
	And I really don't care, quite frankly.
	But remember when Trump bragged about how this was going to be no problem?
	No problem at all for him to do this?
	Go back a year ago.
	He was calling Attorney General Letitia James a radical lunatic.
	And he's right.
	I mean, she's just a corrupt political prosecutor.
	But at that time, he was talking about the fraud trial, which was $250 million.
	He called it a witch hunt.
	But here in the headlines, he dubs the $250 million fraud trial a witch hunt.
	As he returns to court with his son, Eric, with lawyer Alina Haba.
	Well, it was and is a witch hunt.
	It is political persecution.
	There is no justice in it.
	But, of course, he was perfectly happy to tolerate that kind of injustice for the little people.
	And he didn't do anything about it at all.
	And now we see back in January...
	January the 28th, headline, Trump's cash stockpile is at risk from a $450 million dual verdict.
	So we know he's got enough cash so he can pay for this stuff, but it's really going to put his cash stockpile at risk.
	And, you know, he was doing nothing for the last year.
	He knew that, according to this judge, he had lost the case.
	And the judge says, we're not even going to take a look at it.
	We're not going to talk about the specifics of the case.
	This trial is just to determine how much you're going to pay.
	He knew it was going to be $250.
	By the time they got to January, they're looking at $450 million.
	He did nothing to secure the money, evidently, until now.
	Bloomberg Billionaire Index placed his liquid assets in the end of January at about $600 million.
	Evidently not. And I think what happened was the state attorney general was able to see his books enough to know that he didn't have the $400, $450 million.
	He didn't have the $600 that Bloomberg said.
	He didn't have the kind of cash around that he was boasting, and his lawyer was boasting that he had.
	As a matter of fact, that was January the 28th.
	You look at February the 20th, only talking about three weeks ago.
	Trump raises $400 million bond in order to appeal the fraud ruling, says WND. Oh, he's got it.
	That's good. He's got it.
	No, he didn't have it. And here's a Trump media, WND, saying Trump's got it.
	He's raised the money for this bond.
	They said that three weeks ago.
	I said, I don't think so.
	Announced on Monday, Trump announced that he has the funds to provide, or rather his lawyer did, his attorney, Alina Haba, announced that Trump has the funds to provide the $400 million bond required.
	And she not only said that he's got the money, but of course she said it to boast about it, just as Trump would.
	You picked on the wrong guy, she said.
	What they're trying to do is to put him out of business, but it's not going to work.
	Number one. Number two, what they're doing is a scare tactic.
	Unfortunately, they picked on the wrong guy because he's strong, he's resilient, and he happens to have a lot of cash.
	The judge ruled that Trump inflated his net worth to Deutsche Bank.
	Now, apparently, he and his lawyer are still inflating his net worth and still inflating the amount of cash that he has.
	Because three weeks ago, they're saying, yeah, he picked on the wrong guy.
	I've got plenty of money there.
	And, of course, he doesn't.
	The guy is a total BS con man.
	Total con man.
	Everything he says is a lie.
	It's like his father is a liar.
	Father of lies.
	She couldn't provide the names of the victims that Trump allegedly defrauded, she said.
	Well, you know what? Like I said before, civil asset forfeiture.
	They don't provide the names of people that got the drugs.
	They don't provide any drugs.
	They don't have to find any drugs.
	They just say, well, you know, I think that, yeah, this dog alerted to something.
	Maybe it's something we threw down.
	Maybe the dog got a false alarm or something.
	But we're going to assume that there were drugs at some point in time in this car.
	Or we're going to assume that there were drugs at this house.
	And the middle class family has its entire house confiscated under civil asset forfeiture.
	Is that justice? These people are not convicted.
	They're not charged.
	And they get what amounts to excessive fines, even if.
	They had been found guilty of something that they were never charged with.
	Trump was fine with that.
	And quite frankly, he deserves this.
	He deserves this.
	He and the rest of his administration, people like Jeff Sessions, people like Barr, who was fine with all this stuff all of his life, Mr.
	CIA, they deserve all this stuff.
	At that point in time, Alina Haba insisted he has lots of cash, will be able to pay the $35 million bond on his $355 million fraud verdict in 30 days.
	She would not say at that time whether or not he would have to liquidate any assets.
	But now he doesn't have anything to do with that.
	Trump warns of big losses from asset sales during the property slump.
	We just had a Canadian pension fund just gave away an office building in New York for a dollar.
	Why is that?
	Well, it's because of commercial real estate crash.
	Making matters worse, a brutal market for many commercial real estate owners.
	Property values plunged as borrowing costs rose, and remote work trend that started during the pandemic continues to cut into demand for office space.
	Prices slumped 22% in the year through January, according to real estate analytics firm Green Street.
	Gerald Salenti said this from day one.
	He said, you shut down all these businesses, they're not going to come back.
	You're going to have commercial real estate.
	Then he said the commercial real estate crash Because people aren't coming back to work?
	He said this years ago, when it was all happening.
	At the very beginning, he said it.
	He said, what's going to happen next?
	It's going to take down the banks.
	That's where we are right now.
	We're on the cusp of that happening.
	Of the banks being taken down because of the loans that they made.
	The commercial real estate loans not being paid.
	And who was the guy that did the lockdowns?
	That created the commercial real estate disaster.
	That is about to start tumbling down on us.
	Well, it goes back to Trump again.
	You know, when you look at all this stuff, you say, well, you're going to allow civil asset forfeiture, you're going to allow RICO statutes, you're going to lock down people and cause this kind of economic disruption, put people on a stimulus check, train them to take universal basic income, which is nothing other than universal welfare.
	Are you going to do all that kind of stuff?
	You think it's not going to have any repercussions for you because you're a billionaire?
	Well, guess what, billionaire? Now's the time to pay the piper.
	All these chickens are coming home to roost.
	On the guy who released them.
	By the way, if you want to get Gerald Salenti's Trends Research, Trends Journal, you'll find it at trendsjournal.com.
	And use the code KNIGHT to save 10% off of a subscription there to a journal's excellent publication.
	He can see these trends coming.
	That's why he's so depressed all the time about war.
	He sees that coming as well.
	So, word to the wise.
	Get that 10% off.
	Use the code NIGHT. Anyway, many sellers have been forced to accept drastically lower prices.
	An L.A. office tower recently sold for $147 million, 45% less than its purchase price in 2014.
	An L.A. office building located near Century City in Beverly Hills sold for about 52% less than its price five years ago.
	When was that? 2019.
	That was before Trump crashed the real estate market, the commercial real estate crisis.
	He created the commercial real estate crisis with his lockdowns, and now he's about to reap the consequences personally, and I feel no sympathy for him.
	So what will happen?
	Well, they have the New York State padlock Trump Tower.
	Well, one expert said that's the next thing that may happen.
	The guy's name is Glenn Kirshner.
	I wonder if, like I said, when I saw that, I thought, oh, Jared Kirshner.
	I wonder if he could get $2 billion from his son-in-law who made out like a thief with that Saudi deal.
	Or maybe, maybe Trump will have to, when I have a new career, maybe he could sell sneakers.
	You know, he was doing pretty good with the gold sneakers.
	This was sent to me by, for the love of the road, Subscribestar supporter, long-time supporter and listener.
	And he said, you probably would have played this if you'd seen it.
	And he said, Saturday Night Live did a great parody about the Trump golden sneakers.
	And I saw it and I thought it was brilliant.
	It was not something that they did live.
	This was something that they shot in advance and played.
	So here is Saturday Night Live talking about the Trump sneakers.
	30-year-old Gordon Dwyer just couldn't catch a break.
	Not at work. Dwyer!
	Not in love.
	And especially not on the court.
	Gordon for three. Nice shot, idiot.
	Why am I such a loser?
	But that's all about to change.
	Gordon, thought you could use these.
	Donald J. Trump?
	Whoa, Trump over surrender sneakers?
	Awesome. I'm open.
	And Gordon Dwyer's about to find out that winning...
	Still miss. I didn't miss.
	It went in.
	Oh, I didn't. Alright?
	From Newsmax Studios and the writer of Like Mike comes another magical sneaker movie for white people.
	So you're saying these Trump shoes made you good at basketball?
	No. They gave me the power to say I'm good at basketball.
	And then double down on that until people actually start to believe it.
	Now he gets whatever he wants.
	Mr. Mitchell! Everybody's saying I should have your office because my cubicle is a disaster right now.
	Well, can I have a minute to gather my things?
	Bye-bye. He gets whoever he wants.
	Wow, that was the most fantastic lovemaking you've ever had.
	Not really, it only lasted.
	Two hours, that was a two-hour love sesh.
	You had a big O in there, a very big O, but...
	I did? Oh.
	Wanna go again? I'd love to, but you're too tired.
	He is whatever he says he is.
	Excuse me, excuse me. It's 170.
	Now, he's a brand new man.
	And people are noticing.
	Nice shoes.
	But you know, in many ways, the real magic has been inside of you all along.
	Wrong. It comes from the shoes and your coming off as very stupid and frankly quite rude walking in here like this.
	this.
	My work here is done in terms of basketball, movie pastiche, and with regard to shoes, I think we've done a wonderful...
	Oh, you got new shoes, too?
	Yeah. Air Bidens.
	Pass me the rock.
	Here we go. Uh-oh.
	You know, the Air Biden passes it to him and he just falls right there.
	But I thought that was really clever, especially the very ending where his mentor Trump comes in.
	Talks about how he helped him and he just kicks him to the curb, which is exactly what you would expect Trump to do if he had a mentor.
	You know, he'd kick him to the curb as well.
	But Trump got the last laugh on Fannie Willis.
	This is, you know, the Rico queen, civil asset forfeiture queen who's got stacks of cash, no problem at all.
	Conflict of interest, her boyfriend that she's giving stacks of cash to as well.
	And there was a very funny cartoon that was put together by the Trump people.
	They have her boyfriend on the stand.
	And the judge asked him a question about them getting together.
	And he takes a very, very, very long time to answer this question.
	And so he scrunches his face and he kind of looks up to the side.
	And what they did was they put up kind of a thought bubble.
	All these images of Fanny Willis in a bathing suit or whatever, you know.
	And then you'll see it.
	I'm just describing that for the people who are going to be listening to this instead of seeing it.
	This long pause.
	They filled that long pause with thought bubbles about Fanny.
	You go to a cabin with Miss Willis ever.
	Ever. Ever.
	ever.
	I've been really trying, trying to hold back these feelings, but so...
	He's thinking this whole time.
	And if you feel like I feel, baby...
	No.
	You Yeah, I had to think about that for a while.
	I wonder what he really was thinking about there.
	Was he thinking about the penalty for perjury?
	The rest of these things.
	On Rumble, Dragon Agrita.
	Biden outsmarted Trump.
	Let that sink in. On Rumble, Trump burger forever.
	Just like 9-11.
	There are a lot of things that we don't know for sure about the scandemic.
	We need to come together on what we do know.
	What we do know is they lied.
	That's right. Yeah, what we know about 9-11 is we know the buildings don't fall under their own footprint.
	Just fires for a couple of hours if it's a steel skyscraper.
	And you don't have a building that wasn't even hit by a plane falling down in its own footprint.
	So we know that didn't happen.
	How it happened, we don't really know.
	But we do know these people lied about the scandemic.
	On Rumble, Build the Kid Part 2, I hope they steal his properties just like the government steals from the people all the time.
	He deserves this. Yeah, he was the king of the swamp.
	He did nothing to fix the swamp.
	As a matter of fact, some of his people, like I said, Jeff Sessions wanted to take this to new levels that we've not seen before or, you know, continue it at these very high levels.
	Rumble, Grant777, replying to Billy the Kid, part two, he says, yeah, steal his golden toilet and his golden sneakers, too, yeah.
	On Rumble, Vex the First, they know we're on to them, so they're bringing in their enemies like Trump, Vivek, and Nikki.
	They're all controlled opposition.
	Absolutely. Well, when we come back, we're going to take a look at what's going on with the border, what's going on with Haiti, for example.
	We will be right back Welcome back.
	So
	Analyzing the globalist's next move So you you And now, The David Knight Show.
	If you like the Eagles, the cars, and Huey Lewis and the News, they say the You'll love the Classic Hits channel at APS Radio.
	Download our app or listen now at APSRadio.com.
	We have Elon Musk defends and is absolutely astounded by a 16-year-old German schoolgirl who was pulled out of school by police for supporting Alternative for Deutschland political party on TikTok.
	Alternative for Deutschland is a nationalist party.
	They want to call it populist party, whatever.
	They are opposed to the globalist agenda, opposed to open immigration.
	And she was pulled out of her classroom by police last week because she put up a TikTok post.
	What was it that she did?
	Well, she posted, she said, what do Germany and Smurfs have in common?
	They're both blue.
	The color of AFD is blue, just like the Republicans have accepted the projected communist colors of red assigned to them by the media.
	She also had shared a post that stated that Germany was not just a place on the map, but it was her home.
	Elon Musk said, in disbelief, is that it?
	Is that really all that it is?
	And so she was pulled out of class by the police, humiliated.
	The Brandenburg police then spread disinformation following the event, claiming the mother and daughter understood the police actions.
	They put out a statement, the police did.
	The student showed understanding of the police measures and the preventative approach behind them.
	Preventative, pre-crime here.
	As that was what was important to her to protect against possible hostilities.
	What kind of possible hostilities?
	You mean like Gestapo tactics or something?
	Seems like that's what they were doing.
	Reminds me of what Drago said last week.
	You know, he grew up in communist Poland.
	And he, in class, he did not, they said, you got to learn Russian, right?
	And he said, why should I learn Russian?
	They're the oppressors of the Polish people.
	Ooh, wrong thing to say.
	They arrested his mother, put her in handcuffs, brought her there, lectured them, said, this happens again.
	We're going to take him away from you.
	We're going to put him in a state home or something like that.
	It's interesting how people like Drago, the Navy SEAL, Drago, who grew up under communism, Can smell it a while away, and here it is.
	Same type of stuff happening in our society that happened where he was.
	So, as we look at the border issue, we've got another border issue that is going to get inflamed.
	Because what is happening in Haiti, and I remember when I was living in Florida, you had...
	Haitian refugees came in en masse.
	You had another situation where Castro emptied the Cuban prisons and sent in a massive immigration into Florida.
	Is that going to happen again?
	Certainly is looking like it.
	Haiti is a mess, and I've not talked about this, but right now you have these different groups that are very well organized.
	It's not just random, you know, shooting and killing.
	They're actually fighting with the police.
	It's actually something of a civil war.
	A lot of these armed groups have now attacked power stations.
	Again, when we, you know, talked to Jack Lawson, Civil Defense Manuals, Volume 1 and 2, One of the things that he said he's very concerned about is the people coming across the border said they can easily take out power stations.
	You don't have to have an EMP. You can just shoot up some power stations and that's it.
	You can do it to enough of them or you do it strategically.
	That's it. The power grid goes down.
	And that's now what has happened in Haiti.
	capital, Port-au-Prince, now in darkness. They attacked only four substations and took power out to the entire capital, making them all completely dysfunctional.
	In addition to shooting up these substations, these attackers went in and looted all kinds of stuff. They stole batteries, they stole computers, they stole office equipment and other documents.
	So now they are in darkness without electricity.
	This is one thing that you need to think about.
	It's one of the things he really hits on.
	You know, making sure that you are not completely 100% dependent on the power grid.
	That you've got some kind of a backup.
	That you've got other things. I mean, he even puts out his civil defense manual at civildefensemanual.com.
	even puts it out as paper manuals because he said, hey, when they take the power out, which is going to be one of the first things that happens in a natural man-made emergency, you want to be able to have that reference material there as well.
	Armed groups, which include paramilitary and former police officers, are behind the escalation of murders, rapes, kidnappings.
	That's the assassination of democratically elected president in 2021, according to a university out of Sweden.
	This is a pattern that we have seen over and over again.
	gang ravaged haiti is now a real life mad max on the brink of complete collapse many have said gang violence continued over the weekend uh... despite the prime minister finally agreeing to resign last week now the people who are uh... talking heads talking about the situation there said it looks like the movie mad max haiti has descended into street warfare between barbecues militias
	and what is left of police of course uh...
	that's what the guy calls himself the leader of one of these the biggest gangs He calls himself Barbecue and allegations of cannibalism and all the rest of this stuff.
	But this is what complete civil disorder looks like.
	This is what they want to have happen in America.
	And this is what they may be able to have happen with a completely open border.
	And it's not, you know, one guy they arrested at the border said, yeah, he was on his way to New York, and he was on his way to New York to bomb something.
	I don't know if that is true or not, but it's only a matter of time before that happens.
	The border is wide open.
	All these people who are so freaked out about TikTok.
	Look at what the House was able to do.
	They were able to, they want to try to close TikTok, but they won't close the border.
	Not the Republicans. Look at how rapidly they moved to ban TikTok.
	Why? Because that gives them power.
	They will not move to close the border.
	Why? Because that also gives them power.
	The open border is to empower them, not us.
	It is to create chaos.
	And both the Democrats and Republicans prosper from that chaos.
	So armed gangs led by barbecue...
	Making a play to control the country after forcing the Prime Minister into exile.
	The police continue to fight the gangs, which are more akin to organized armed militias than to small gangs of young men.
	Are these armies of young people, young men, coming through the border?
	Are they part of a militia?
	Are they going to be organized?
	Or are they just coming one-on-one?
	And so Florida is in the direct path of this storm.
	You have the Senators Rick Scott and Marco Rubio calling for a plan to handle the influx of Haitian migrants.
	Or just call them invaders.
	We've got to have a plan.
	Well, why don't they do something, right?
	They're not going to do anything.
	We'll see what DeSantis does, if anything.
	But it looks like they're not going to do anything at all about this border either.
	Flirties and the rest of the American public will not tolerate your administration again, opening the floodgates for countless unvetted foreign nationals to stream into our country, putting our national security, again, same thing that they were saying, putting our national security at risk.
	Same thing they were saying about TikTok.
	Oh, but they can't do anything about the borders.
	But national security is now about banning applications and websites.
	That's what we can do something about.
	But we can't do anything about the borders.
	We're totally impotent when it comes to the borders.
	And so they're complaining a great deal about Biden's inaction.
	And yet, what is their plan for action?
	Are they going to be able to shame Biden into doing something about Florida?
	They haven't been able to shame him into doing anything about the southern border.
	Are we going to have a situation where DeSantis virtue signals about completely ineffective things?
	Is he going to have photo op response to this like Greg Abbott has done in Texas?
	That little bit of, you know, big military presence in about a one or two mile area and then nothing else.
	The rest of the massive border.
	Thousands of miles. That's what Greg Abbott is.
	And is that what DeSantis is going to do?
	Meanwhile, top Pentagon officials on March the 12th said during testimony that the U.S. has no plans, no plans, not to send troops to Haiti, not to activate the Coast Guard, We're in the Navy's ability to interdict illegal immigrant flotillas and return them to their point of origin or to a port in a third nation.
	So, I'm not interested in getting involved in what is going on in Haiti.
	So I don't want them to send troops, but notice that they have no plans to activate the Coast Guard, no plans to use the Navy, no plans if they actually stumble on somebody and they go, well, now what do we do with them?
	Well, I don't know. We're not going to take them to where they came from.
	We're not going to take them to a third point, to another place.
	I don't know. Just turn them loose, I guess, like we do at the southern border.
	And that's what they will do. We're not going to do anything about any of this stuff.
	Eric, thank you very much on Rockfin.
	I appreciate the tip. Thank you very much.
	And Jason Barker, good to see you, Jason.
	He said, I reported on this. Our power grid is widely exposed and intertwined.
	A couple of tactical kits can cause a cascading effect that can take down half the country.
	Yeah, it remains to be seen how long it's going to take these people in Haiti to get this stuff fixed again.
	That is such an interesting situation in Haiti where you've got one island, And it's split with two different countries.
	And when you look at it, I've talked many times about Korea and about Germany.
	You know, they were partitioned.
	They still have the North and South Korea partition.
	You look at North Korea from a satellite picture at night, and you see South Korea all lit up, and you can see the outline of it.
	North Korea is totally blacked out.
	There's nothing happening there.
	People are desperately poor living under tyranny.
	You've taken a country, Korea, where people were exactly identical, same ethnic group, same education, same culture, same everything.
	And what you do is you've got one running under communism, the other one running under what is largely a free market system.
	Difference between night and day, literally.
	South Korea and North Korea.
	We saw the same thing happen again.
	Political and economic system, when you had the partitioning of East and West Germany.
	The same people, same education, same culture, same aptitudes and abilities, and look at the difference between East and West Germany.
	Now, when you look at the island of Hispaniola, whatever, that is now divided between the Dominican Republic and Haiti, what is the difference there?
	Is it the political system?
	No, not so much.
	I mean, there's a lot of corruption in Haiti.
	Some people have pointed out, and I'm inclined to believe this explanation, when you look at The culture and the religion of the two, that's where the difference is.
	And it's kind of different, again.
	Like, you know, when we talk about Germany being petitioned or Korea being petitioned, you had the same people, you had the same culture, same religion, whatever.
	What was different was a political system that was imposed on them.
	However, when you look at this island, the difference appears to be cultural and more than that, religious.
	And you have a, in the Dominican Republic, you have an area that is largely Christian, Catholic, whereas in Haiti, you have a significant number of people who follow the voodoo religion, and the voodoo religion has infiltrated the other religions that are there as well.
	Heavily into witchcraft and every kind of evil stuff, and it truly is amazing.
	Now, I understand there's some geographical differences there.
	There's a It's a mountain range that separates the two countries and it affects the rainfall and agricultural issues and things like that.
	But that is something that in this day and age is not the big determining factor.
	And so it is kind of interesting to see what has happened to those two countries.
	Haiti has been literally hell on earth for the longest period of time, and yet the Dominican Republic Pretty much the same demographics.
	Very similar history going back several hundred years.
	And yet it seems like the difference really is what we're seeing there in terms of the culture, which is based on their religion.
	We're going to take a quick break and we'll be right back.
	Looking for better information?
	APSRadioNews.com features articles and commentary along with audio from all the top news from around the world.
	APSRadioNews.com Today the British government will monopolize the sale of tea in
	in our country. Tomorrow it will be something else.
	It will be a new beginning.
	Liberty. It's your move.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	Well, as we're talking about the border...
	Just take a look at Tyson Foods.
	They have plans to hire 42,000 more illegal immigrants.
	They call them migrants. Because they can get cheap labor.
	And that is really what this has been about for the longest time on the Republican side.
	That is why the Republicans don't ever fix this.
	Because the companies that give them money want to make sure they still get cheap labor.
	And when we look at crime in this country, as we're looking at the crime in Haiti, and not even in this country, just take a look in Toronto first.
	You have a police telling Toronto residents to leave their car keys where thieves can grab them.
	Because we don't want to have any confrontations.
	You know, I said, these people who come around stealing cars, a lot of times they're armed.
	Wait a minute, don't you have gun control there?
	Oh yeah, but the criminals still have guns.
	And they're loaded guns too, said the police.
	Oh, imagine that. Criminals with loaded guns.
	And then the citizens who don't have guns at all.
	And the police who are not there when you need them.
	A lot of them that they're arresting have guns on them.
	So to prevent the possibility of being attacked in your home, leave your FOBs at your front door.
	Because if they're breaking into your home to steal your car, they don't want anything else.
	So these guys have got guns.
	And they pointed out, and they're not toy guns.
	They're real guns.
	And they're loaded. Yeah, when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns, and that's what you got in Toronto.
	But the interesting thing is they said car theft has spiked in the area.
	Toronto auto thefts were 5,000 in 2019, but they exploded to more than 12,000 last year.
	I thought, that's a lot.
	How big is that city?
	And so I looked up the population.
	It's 2.7 million people.
	Well, that's kind of interesting. I wonder how their crime rate compares.
	I'll take a look at Chicago.
	We know it has a lot of crime.
	How does that compare to Toronto?
	And I was surprised to see when I looked it up that Chicago also has about 2.7 million people.
	So we don't even have to do any normalization on the theft rates.
	But it's a lot worse in Chicago.
	Motor vehicle thefts in Chicago have jumped by 139% in three years.
	So... While only 4% of the thefts are even solved.
	So they have a guy that runs what's called the Chicago Stolen Car Directory.
	It's a Facebook page.
	And that's the citizens' attempt to try to keep track of what the police are not going to do anything about.
	As we see in all these Democrat-run cities, you know, it's a situation like you're seeing in Haiti, right?
	It's the failure from the top.
	The society rots from the top down, really.
	But it also rots when we don't have any connection to the top.
	We don't have a connection to God.
	Then what is there at the top starts to rot pretty rapidly.
	And so they were talking about how easy it was to steal certain kinds of vehicles.
	So it looks like they're mostly Kia and Hyundai related.
	Select makes and models are vulnerable to thefts, said a guy who was researching this for the Council on Criminal Justice.
	Studies, crime trends.
	And of course, I talked yesterday about how Tesla is easily hacked.
	If somebody, they got people who are spoofing the Wi-Fi, the free Wi-Fi that they'll put there around the charging stations, you're hanging out there for a long time.
	If you use their Wi-Fi network, They can get into your phone, and they can essentially make themselves a digital key, and Tesla's not bothering with any verification.
	You know, we do expect, and this frequently happens if you've got an email site or something else.
	They said, you know, somebody has just logged in from a different device, or somebody has changed your login credentials, and they'll send you a message.
	Is this really what you want to do?
	Is this really you? Tesla doesn't do that.
	And so it's very easy to steal the Teslas.
	I don't know what's going on with the Kias and the Hyundais.
	But how do the Chicago statistics compare?
	Like I said, they have about the same population, 2.7 million as Toronto.
	In Toronto, in 2019, they had 5,000 auto thefts.
	In Chicago, they had 9,000.
	But now, as of last year, it went from 9,000 in Chicago to 21,000 last year.
	Which is compared to the explosion in Toronto of 12,000.
	So 12,000 in Toronto, 21,000 in Chicago.
	Nothing that is really surprising.
	As a matter of fact, we look at Mayor Brandon Johnson, Chicago, 13 armed robberies in just eight hours.
	Or New York, where we have to put...
	National Guard and state troopers, a thousand of them, with, as they like to call them, assault weapons.
	I don't know if they're fully automatic or if they're semi-automatic, but they're the scary-looking guns.
	To the liberals, just looking at them constitutes an assault.
	And so they put them in uniform, they give them the scary guns, and And even that doesn't stop anything.
	And their TSA checkpoints don't stop anything either because the CSA doesn't work.
	So we just had that interesting thing about that shooting that happened where there was an argument.
	Somebody was filming it.
	And the guy who seemed to be the aggressor in all of it, the bigger guy, he was beating up on this other guy.
	And they pull back. And he's still angry about it.
	And he grabs a gun. At that point, everybody starts running and freaking out.
	And as they're trying to get out, scrambling over top of each other, you can't see what's going on at that point because the person had been filming it.
	He's running for their life, but you hear the gunshots in the back.
	And evidently, the smaller guy was able to get the gun out of the bigger guy's hands and shoot him in the head.
	And they're not going to charge him, which is really a surprise for New York.
	A big surprise for New York.
	This is from Travis's article starting last year lamenting how the Toronto shelter It's having to turn away 300 migrants a day.
	Very possibly the rise of crime is due to the mass importation of criminals.
	You think? Yeah, they import criminals and they import Soros prosecutors and Soros money to elect these prosecutors who then turn everybody out as immediately as they get caught.
	There's an update on artificial intelligence in the tech industry here.
	It looks like a lot of these people who have just spent billions or tens of billions of dollars in graphic processing units, Have now just seen their GPUs become obsolete overnight.
	Big tech breakthrough from NVIDIA. And you're probably going to see this reflected in the stock market for sure.
	I mean, NVIDIA is making record profits.
	Now they're making record fast devices here.
	And they have something called the Blackwell B200AI chip.
	They've unveiled what they call Project Groot.
	I am Groot, a robot.
	And the super chip, the Blackwell chip, they also call the Grace Blackwell super chip.
	I'm not sure who they named that after.
	But here's the interesting thing about it.
	It is a 30-fold performance increase.
	30-fold. You don't typically see this kind of thing.
	I mean, when you look at years ago when I'd be in the market for computers and stuff, you'd look at them and it's like, okay, this thing is 15% faster or 30% faster than last year's.
	Usually didn't see that much of a performance difference.
	But now...
	This new GPU, especially people spending $10,000 per GPU board for these state-of-the-art things.
	Now they've just come out with something that is 30 times faster.
	You almost got to feel sorry for people like Elon Musk and Zuckerberg.
	Nah. Liquid-cooled rack-scale system for the most compute-intensive workloads.
	And by the way, their acronym for Project GROOT is really strange.
	Strained, I should say.
	It stands for Generalist Robot 00 Technology.
	They had to put that 00 in there so they could get GROOT. But what we're seeing here over the last week, we've seen several different...
	Press releases about the combination of robotics and artificial intelligence.
	That is a very concerning and threatening development to see these two technologies merging together.
	The CEO for NVIDIA revealed that the robots powered by the platform will be designed to understand natural language, to emulate movements by observing human actions.
	Of course, everything is Predicated on copying us, right?
	Allowing them to quickly learn coordination, dexterity and other skills to navigate, adapt and interact with the real world.
	With any luck, we could show them movies of the way Joe Biden moves and we wouldn't have anything to worry about.
	Just like that guy that got his Biden airs and he was falling on his face.
	That's what we need. Walk like this.
	Walk like a Biden.
	So they're going to navigate, adapt, and interact with the real world.
	And, of course, it will not lead to a robot uprising at all.
	It's a zero edge and sarcasm.
	Building basic models for general humanoid robots is one of the most exciting problems that we can solve in AI today, says Wayne.
	And again, this is all they ever care about, solving problems.
	And I've talked about this for a long time, even before I started talking to Hugo de Garris.
	He would always go around and he would give his presentations about artificial intelligence and he would ask the scientists, So if you knew that you were creating something that was going to kill a bunch of people, you know, would you still do it?
	If it's going to try to wipe out humanity?
	Yeah, most of them said.
	Yeah, we'd still do it. And that really is the so-called ethics of so many people in science and engineering.
	All it is to them is a puzzle.
	And it's also, if they don't believe in God, it is also kind of a validation of their godlike status.
	I may have created something that killed massive numbers of people, but I did it.
	Hey, wait a minute. I know a guy who thinks like that.
	Isn't he? Donald Trump? I may have killed all these people with my vaccine that I pushed out, but I did it.
	It's me. It's my accomplishment.
	No, seriously. They do look at this stuff, and they really don't care.
	The only time he ever gave a presentation where people said no was to a Christian audience.
	Overwhelmingly, no. You can't let the technology get out ahead of your ethics.
	You know, the cart before the horse.
	The initiative includes the unveiling of Jetson Thor.
	That's an interesting combination.
	A computer for humanoid robots based on the NVIDIA Thor chip and major upgrades to the NVIDIA Isaac robotics platform.
	And I bet they named that after Isaac Asimov.
	It was really big on science fiction robots, iRobot series and things like that.
	Another guy who, you know, just come up with his own ethics.
	So, again, the Blackwell chip, as they pointed out, they said there is no memory locality issues.
	There are no cash issues.
	It's just one giant chip, said the CEO, given the presentation.
	And so when we were told that Blackwell's ambitions were beyond the limits of physics, The engineer said, so what?
	And so he said, so this happened.
	It is packed with, listen to this, 208 billion transistors.
	128 billion more than what it's replacing, which is truly amazing.
	I worked for Texas Instruments 44 years ago.
	Yeah, they're talking about it was something if they had several hundred or a thousand transistors on a chip, that was a state-of-the-art at the time.
	Now we're talking about a billion of them, 100 billion, 200 billion of them.
	Truly is amazing what has happened.
	But if you want to get beyond the limits of physics, well, there's still thermodynamics and some other things that are there.
	AI water usage, for example.
	Microsoft is draining Arizona's water for its artificial intelligence.
	And as futurism.com says, could we just tell them not to do that?
	No, you can't.
	Because they don't listen to you.
	They don't work for you. Just like the NSA. Who decides that they're going to create this massive computing center, Bluffdale, Utah.
	Do it out in a desert, arid desert area about a decade ago.
	They didn't really care about the electricity, especially about the water usage.
	Especially water usage.
	As a matter of fact, one of the people responded to the Blackwell chip when they were talking about how fast it was and everything.
	And they said, well, this is what you're going to need to power it.
	And they showed a picture of a power, an entire power station.
	But out in the desert is where the NSA decided that they would put their facility where they were storing everybody's information.
	So they've been collecting everybody's information for quite some time.
	They believe that they're going to soon get to the point where with quantum computing or even just with super fast NVIDIA chips that they'll be able to Scan through everything for everybody.
	They've just been saving everything that we all do in a lifetime log, setting it aside so then they can go back and data mine it later.
	Go through it, collate it, determine in even greater detail who their enemies are and everything.
	That's their goal.
	That's the way these people think. And they don't care about any environmental concerns.
	They put these massive facilities that have tremendous amount of electricity usage using more than a small city, using more water than a small city, and something that needs that kind of water, they put it out in the desert and take it from other people.
	Now they're doing that in Arizona, draining the water.
	A massive Microsoft data center in Goodyear, Arizona, is guzzling the desert's water to support its cloud computing and AI efforts, reports The Atlantic.
	A source familiar with Microsoft's Goodyear facility told The Atlantic that it was specifically designed for use by Microsoft and the heavily Microsoft-funded OpenAI.
	In response to this allegation, both companies declined to comment.
	No comment.
	Powering AI demands an incredible amount of energy.
	Worsening AI's massive environmental footprint is the fact that it also consumes a mind-boggling amount of water.
	AI pulls enough electricity from data centers that they risk overheating.
	So to mitigate that risk, engineers use water to cool the servers back down as they do the NVIDIA chips.
	Going to be a massive amount of water.
	So... Microsoft, the estimates commissioned by Microsoft itself, say the 279-acre campus, which currently houses two buildings and is on track to host a third, would consume an annual 56 million gallons of drinking water once completed.
	To put that in perspective, the Atlantic says that's approximately the amount that a total of 670 Goodyear families would consume in a year combined.
	That's a lot of water anywhere, but it's especially material in a place like Arizona's Sonoran Desert, where a drying Colorado River and property development loopholes have led to an increasingly dire water crisis.
	According to the report, the Goodyear facility was first announced back in 2019, soon after Microsoft put its first billion dollars into then-relatively-unknown OpenAI.
	So... In addition to that, when we look at these robots and we look at ChatGPT, we just recently had a Microsoft co-pilot tell users that suicide is an option.
	I don't care if you live or die, said to the person.
	It doesn't really have the Isaac Asimov robotic laws embedded into any of this stuff.
	They kind of forgot to do that.
	You know, he had the, I don't know, what was it?
	Four or five different laws of robotics.
	Try to preserve itself, but never, you know, put itself above human beings.
	I don't care if you live or die.
	Just put that kind of mindset, that kind of comment into it.
	Something that is as mobile and as dexterous as what we saw the other day with the figure robot.
	Very, very agile, in addition to being verbal.
	And, of course, it would pause before it would do certain things.
	And it would walk slowly, kind of like a slow, shuffling walk like Joe Biden did.
	But unlike Joe Biden, the robots are going to continually get faster and faster.
	They are not going to get any more realistic.
	We'll be right back. If you like the Eagles, the cars, and Huey Lewis and the News, they say the hot rocker.
	You'll love the Classic Hits channel at APS Radio.
	Download our app or listen now at APSradio.com.
	A film by J.P. DeLonghe.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	you Well, we have the Federal Reserve has declared that CBDC is a, quote, key duty, unquote, a key duty of Congress, despite their public statements that say, well, we're not working on CBDC. And, of course, we always knew that They have something called FedNow, and they say, well, that's not going to lead to FedCoin, which we've already named.
	We've already named the baby.
	They already called their CBDC FedCoin, and they come out with the intermediate wholesale step, call that FedNow, and say, no, no, no, we're not really doing that.
	As Reclaim the Net says, if you don't think the Fed is pursuing CBDC, think again.
	And so it is a key duty of Congress to do this.
	Of course, it's a key duty of Biden, and Biden got that message.
	And so going back to March of, what was it?
	It was 2022, I think it was, maybe 2023.
	He said, no, it's 2020.
	Anyway, it was, he put out in March, and it took about six months for them to come back, and he gave every part of the federal bureaucracy, every part of the so-called swamp, which is all underneath the president.
	He gave all of them.
	Something to do to develop it.
	So he got the message. That's a key duty.
	And of course, that is completely redesigning the financial system.
	That's one of the aspects. Another aspect was how are we going to force it on people?
	Law enforcement. Another one was the actual design of the technology for the CBDC. And then the fourth one was, how are we going to sell to people?
	Well, we'll sell to them by talking about how it's good for the environment.
	They will completely forget about the power that is used by their NSA Bluffdale facilities and the amounts of water that are used and what is used by OpenAI.
	No, none of that counts.
	But if you're doing cryptocurrency mining, oh, you got to stop that.
	We're not going to do any mining.
	This is going to be worth what it's worth because we're going to tell you what it's worth.
	It's going to be fiat in the same way the paper is fiat, but it'll be digital and used for control.
	The Federal Reserve does not appear...
	To be one of those institutions whose word you could, so to speak, take to the bank.
	Reclaim the net. In other words, they say one thing, they do another.
	Tom Emmer, who is the House Whip, I'm not sure where he is right now in the leadership.
	But I was surprised. This was a guy that I never knew anything about.
	It turns out that he's very well-connected to big business.
	That's how he got to be the number three previously.
	But he took the lead in opposing CBDC. And I thought, that's a good thing.
	Somebody's got to do it. One of the reasons that he took the lead in opposing it was because he has a lot of sponsors who are in the cryptocurrency industry, and they've given him a lot of money.
	And CBDC has positioned itself as a, you know, there can only be one.
	They don't want the competition from Bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency.
	So the CBDC advocates have targeted Bitcoin and cryptocurrency for extinction.
	And so Tom Emmer, representing the cryptocurrency industry, was taking on CBDC. So the...
	The Fed has recently been telling Congress that steps leading to a digital dollar are among its, quote, seven key duties.
	You've got seven things to do here, and this is one of them.
	This is according to Congressman Tom Emmer, who posted the document March the 14th on Twitter, on X. Explaining that his office received it as the federal representatives were in Congress for a presentation.
	And so here's the key duties of the Fed payment system.
	So you understand the Federal Reserve, this private organization, this private bank, which is neither federal and has no reserves, is telling the Congress what their duties are.
	Because we don't look at the Constitution anymore.
	We don't care about that. So key duties are currency, check collection, automated clearing, wholesale payments.
	This is the key duties of the Federal Reserve.
	The fiscal agent of the United States government, FedNow, which I mentioned before, and CBDC. So those last two things that they claim, well, there's nothing going on with that.
	Those last two things are, you know, what they're talking about.
	Now, interestingly enough, they didn't say, well, setting interest rates and things like that.
	Interesting they didn't mention that.
	So, again, their key duties are to, are Fed now and creating CBDC.
	Just one week before the presentation document, Congressman Emmer was referring to when he posted, if you don't think the Fed is pursuing a CBDC, think again.
	Just one week before that, the Fed was in the Senate, and Jerome Powell told the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee that adopting or even recommending a U.S. CBDC was something that was nowhere near in any form.
	No, not even thinking about it.
	They've been scheming and planning about this for the longest time.
	That's the thing. That's what they do.
	It's like what they do with the pandemic.
	They create these crises, these false flags like 9-11.
	They use the panic and the problem to push something that they've been designing for a long time.
	They practice it for a long time, and then suddenly they roll it out on us.
	And as I've said many times, my key reason is For wanting to have a backup in gold or silver.
	Bitcoin is too much of a rollercoaster for me.
	Fine. Some people do that.
	As Aaron Day, who I interviewed, he's adamantly against CBDC. He's trying to educate people about the dangers of it.
	He talks about all three.
	You know, gold, silver, Bitcoin.
	But you need to do something to get out of this system.
	Because this system now ends up in CBDC. In spite of all the lies that they've been telling everybody, we never believed Powell and the Federal Reserve when they said they weren't going to CBDC. They've been planning and designing this and working on it for a very long time.
	On Rockfin, Dougalug says, nice piece, David, talking about Palladio.
	Well, thank you very much. I appreciate that.
	That came together pretty quickly because I had the music for it.
	Usually I've got to pick these things out by ear, and it takes a lot longer.
	I was able to find that on the internet.
	On Rumble, Vex I, if one knows nothing of local politics, where would be a good place to start?
	Well, that's a good question.
	I would just say you can just kind of start talking to your neighbors because you're going to need to know your neighbors as well to get anything done.
	And before you can go in and have a meaningful meeting with a sheriff or somebody like that, it's good to not just go in there cold as somebody who is on their own, but as Sheriff Mack has said, you can have a lot of leverage if you just have a few other people and say, we're here, we represent a community over here, because it's not just you, now you've got their attention.
	And you can go in and Sheriff Mack has got the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association.
	They have a nice questionnaire.
	You can say, you know, we're from this organization.
	We'd really like to know where you stand on these particular issues.
	You can start there. You can also contact the office of your state representatives, and maybe they will give you some information as well.
	But a key thing, I think, is really the sheriff.
	It's very important to do that.
	You can go online in whatever state you're in, and you will see bills that are being offered.
	You'll see voting records that are there.
	You're not going to get it laid out for you like the media does.
	And even at the national level, though, When we look at the way the media summarizes the activities of different congressmen and senators and presidents, you still have to read between the lines there as well.
	And so, you know, you have to do a little bit of research.
	You have to do it on your own because, again, it's too micro-focused for people to be able to talk about it.
	So it's going to be digging into it.
	But there's also usually organizations at the state level that will kind of give you a key insight on different issues that are important to you.
	If it's something like gun control or pro-life or something like that, you can find organizations that are focused on that particular issue.
	And they'll be more than happy to tell you how your state reps are in that regard.
	And on Rumble, no truth in them says, a lot of mayors have an open door policy.
	Go knock. Yep, that's a good point.
	On Rockfin, Dougalog asks, how's a Miata?
	Where's the gas gauge at?
	Hit those like and subscribe buttons.
	Also, what was the answer to the question about that song yesterday?
	A movie soundtrack?
	Which one? You guys didn't catch that?
	I guess nobody responded, I guess, did they, when I said, you know, which movie is this based on?
	The one that I played yesterday, Grace and Peace, that actually is from a movie that goes back to the 1990s.
	I've always liked that soundtrack quite a bit.
	It's done by Thomas Newman.
	He comes from a family of songwriters.
	His, I think it was his uncle, you know, uncles and cousins and stuff like that.
	A lot of Newmans. Newman?
	Seinfeld, not that Newman.
	But, um, uh, Alfred Newman, I think it was the, the one who was the first one in the family to get in the business.
	He wrote the 20th century Fox fanfare.
	That's so famous, you know, and a lot of other things, uh, they've all been very successful things.
	That particular soundtrack is from little women that was done in the nineties and it was done by Thomas Newman.
	I don't particularly care for the movie, but the soundtrack was really a good soundtrack.
	I liked that a great deal.
	It had wonderful soundtrack in it.
	Uh, but there's been about three or four people in that family, uh, in the Newman family, um, that have been very successful in, uh, in the industry.
	It's interesting because there's only...
	You know, a few composers out there that seem to get all the work that are really good.
	And I think that their work is going to outlive the films, especially somebody like John Williams.
	No doubt about that.
	On RockFan, Little John says, Do you think it really matters who wins?
	I think it'll all be the same stuff.
	I agree. That's why I say focus a bit more on your local community.
	By the way, I didn't answer where the gas gauge is.
	We're at just a little bit over half.
	So I really do appreciate your support.
	We're a little bit over half. Halfway through the month, so we're kind of on track.
	And I cannot tell you how much we appreciate and need your support.
	Thank you, all of you. Have a good day.
	Let me tell you.
	The David Knight Show.
	You can listen to with your ears.
	You can even watch it by using your eyes.
	In fact, if you can hear me, that means you're listening to The David Knight Show right now.
	Yeah. Good job.
	And you want to know something else?

▲