Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 10, 2024 - The David Knight Show

03:01:23

The David Knight Show - 04/10/2024

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 Wednesday, the 10th of April, year of our Lord, 2024.
	Well, as Hollywood this week will push out its ideas for civil war, you won't believe what they say our only hope is.
	As they're pushing that out, we're getting closer and closer to them pushing out the next MacGuffin.
	The pandemic treaty or more accurately the IHR rules.
	We have James McGuffin is going to join us in the third hour.
	We're going to talk about how to resist this.
	What is happening with current actions at the state level and other things that are going on with it.
	How are they going to enforce it?
	But we're going to begin by taking a look at what is happening here.
	At home, as they are pushing us in, it's the same people that are pushing the pandemic MacGuffin.
	They now have a study coming out of the UK, out of the Imperial College of London, no less.
	Oxford, Cambridge, those people.
	Same people who produced the studies to produce the pandemic are now producing studies to say that within a decade there will be no meat, there will be no airports.
	The rest of this.
	We'll be right back. I've got MacGuffin on the mind.
	I absolutely do. It truly is amazing to see.
	It's the same people using the same tactics and strategies and nobody can get their head around it.
	We're still going to elect one of the two clowns that ran this pandemic MacGuffin on us.
	We're going to elect them to do it again.
	And to also continue the climate, McGuffin, on us as well.
	But yeah, it'll be James Roguski who'll be joining us in the third hour.
	Not James McGuffin. I haven't found that guy yet.
	So, as I said, this Friday they're going to release this Civil War.
	You've seen the trailer. People said, so what's going on?
	There's like, as this thing jumps in, there's an alliance between California and Texas.
	Well, this guy said he deliberately wanted to make it Ambiguous.
	Politically, you didn't want to pick sides, conservative or Republican.
	Of course, they say red or blue.
	I hate that. But that's what they're talking about.
	This director, Alex Garland, has an interesting history.
	The only one of his films that I've seen is Ex Machina.
	I thought it was technically good.
	I didn't care for it, but he's got some really weird stuff out there.
	As they do the film review on Yahoo, they said, whatever you think of his most divisive film, Men...
	It's unlikely that anyone will ever forget Roy Kinnear giving birth to himself.
	This is the kind of twisted vision this guy's got.
	That's why they're making a great deal out of this director.
	A bellowing and haunting big screen experience.
	The country has been at war with itself for years by the time we're invited in.
	Through the gaze of a few journalists documenting the chaos on the front lines and chasing an impossible interview with the president.
	So, as I described the president, the guy, Nick Offerman, who was in Parks and Rec as a libertarian, he is a rising despot who has given himself a third term, who is, you know, like FDR, who has taken to attacking his citizens and shut himself off from the press.
	Now, what they don't mention is, and it did come out in some interviews, that he also abolished the FBI, so he's not all bad.
	That'll get me on the list, if nothing else.
	Anyway, they said, all we really know is that we've got this alliance from Texas and California.
	They have seceded from the country.
	They're closing in to overthrow the government.
	We don't know why.
	We don't know what the other side wants.
	We don't know any of this.
	And you start to realize that many of the characters don't seem to really know or care either.
	And so the interesting take about this is that they said, well, what you find out from this is that really our only hope is the journalists.
	Well, if we have journalists like we do today, you are not going to know why the war started, what anybody wants, all the rest of the stuff.
	They'll keep you in the dark about all of that.
	They'll pick a side, and they'll tell you which side, but they're not going to let you talk about the other side or debate anything.
	The journalists are not about exposing the truth.
	That's the ultimate naivete.
	Civil War film is more about war reporters than anything else.
	The vital importance of bearing witness and the moral and ethical dilemmas of impartiality.
	I've said this more than once.
	Impartiality, the idea that journalists are impartial, has always been a fantasy.
	It's always only been believed by fools and liars.
	Well, not liars. They don't believe it.
	But it's used by liars and it's believed by fools that people who report the news are impartial.
	Nobody is impartial.
	The most obvious example of that is Matt Drudge.
	He doesn't write anything on the Drudge Report.
	Nothing. All he does is link to articles.
	He's an aggregator.
	He doesn't produce any content.
	He doesn't offer any opinions either.
	But what he does, in terms of what he decides to report, is very, very political.
	And if all you did was to select what you're going to talk about, that is not impartial.
	He has clearly switched sides.
	He was strongly on one side, he's now on the other side.
	There is no impartiality.
	And the people who tell you that are either fools or liars.
	And if you believe them, you're a fool.
	It's never been about that.
	You need to look at a lot of different sources, and you need to think about it critically.
	Don't just go with one source.
	You need to look at a wide array of things and understand everybody's got their biases.
	The best you can do, I came to this conclusion, as I said before, when I was in college.
	I would see Time, I'd see Newsweek.
	They were supposed to be the objective sources, but they were incredibly biased.
	I said, well, I would rather go to extreme right-wing and extreme left-wing publications that are obviously editorializing about everything.
	Here's what we see.
	Here's why we think that this is what it's about and where it's going and so forth.
	And interestingly enough, those people usually get deeper into the facts as well.
	They'll disagree over what the facts mean, but they get deeper into the facts than the shallow stuff that you get from Time and Newsweek and CBS and ABC and NBC. And I would say now, a lot of the big conservative media, same way.
	All they want to do is to cheer Trump.
	Civil War will be released on Friday.
	And here's what you really need to know, folks.
	Civil War, you're going to pay a lot of money to go see this in the theater.
	Set through it for a couple of hours.
	I don't know, maybe three hours.
	I don't know. Is this thing long or short?
	I don't know. But here in 18 seconds...
	It's what you need to know about a civil war.
	Oh, sorry. That's the wrong one.
	Here it is right here.
	Okay. This is drone footage.
	Soldier laying in a field.
	This is an artificial intelligence drone.
	It's coming up. It's examining him.
	Well, no movement. It must be dead.
	Moves on, but then turns around.
	The soldier thinks that drone has gone, and it was tricking him.
	It comes back and blows up.
	That's an AI drone assassination right there.
	I'll let you see it again. Comes up to him.
	He's down. It says low battery light is flashing.
	But this is AI drone mapping out what it's going to do.
	This is in Ukraine, by the way.
	Turns around. Oh, he's up.
	He's okay. He was faking it.
	Comes back and blows up itself and him.
	These things are being made on the cheap in Ukraine.
	This is not high tech.
	This is very simple.
	And it doesn't even need to have AI involved with it.
	When you look at these wars, and I've gone back and looked at a lot of different wars when they began, and Now everybody, oh, it's going to be a cakewalk.
	We're going to just wipe up the other side and so forth.
	And you hear a lot of that talk from both Biden and the Democrats, and you hear it from conservatives.
	Look at how many of us are armed and all the rest of the stuff.
	You have no idea what weapons are going to be used to fight the next war.
	Already it is rapidly changing in Ukraine and Russia.
	Rapidly changing. And it's always been the case.
	The beginning of the Civil War, the very first battle there at Manassas.
	The North called it Bull Run because they named everything after rivers, which was a good insight on their part.
	But at Manassas, Virginia...
	All these people showed up like a picnic.
	They show up in their dress clothes.
	They bring a picnic lunch and everything to watch the battle.
	They're absolutely clueless about the kind of carnage that was about to be released.
	And we still haven't seen that kind of carnage in America since then.
	If we were to have that kind of a war today, a civil war like that today, even if you were to, you know, just forget about the technology involved.
	They can kill a lot more people at the same time.
	If it was just proportional.
	To the population. You would have, depending on what you're talking about, north or south, you'd have like 25-50 million people killed.
	Just in direct combatants, not counting the civilians that are there.
	You can't even imagine the kind of carnage that is.
	And yet people flirt with this idea.
	I am so sick and disgusted of these people on the left and right.
	People like Biden and Beto O'Rourke and Eric Swalwell.
	Saying, yeah, we got jets and we got bombs and we can take your guns and all the rest of this kind of stuff.
	And then equally, on the right-hand side, all these people, if Trump doesn't win, it's going to kick off a civil war.
	And we're fine with that, that type of thing.
	I'm disgusted with these people.
	They're fools. They're idiots.
	They're completely detached from reality.
	Once you start a war, this is one of the reasons why you need to have a just war scenario.
	Once you start a war...
	There's going to be accidental killings all over the place.
	And then you're going to have people who do targeted killing.
	As I said before, just look at the collateral murder tape that was released by WikiLeaks and really put Julian Assange on their hit list.
	And we have a similar thing with what happened in Israel.
	They've had some people now that have been fired.
	Was it those, you know, dismissed the people that were in charge of that?
	They dismissed them and took action against them.
	But then you have people like Ben Shapiro say, well, any criticism of that is blood libel against the Jews.
	Is it systemic?
	Is it to be excused by people who have never seen combat like Ben Shapiro?
	At least it should be condemned.
	But that type of thing, whether it is being done by design, or whether this is somebody who has an accident, or maybe you've got somebody who goes off the rails.
	I mean, we had the My Lai incident and the Vietnam War.
	They go in and just shoot and kill everybody in the village.
	Once you start killing people, once life becomes cheap, this is one of the reasons why we have to stand firm on abortion.
	And there's been a big development on that as well.
	Big political consequences for this Arizona court case.
	We're going to talk about that. But you have to stand firm on protecting life.
	You have to stand firm on saying, we want to try to avoid war at all costs.
	And I mean all costs.
	You better debate it.
	You better understand what it's going to cost you.
	You better make sure that you don't go to war unless it is in defense.
	Unless the killing has already started against your people.
	You don't jump into preemptive wars.
	And you better make sure that you try to avoid targeting civilian populations because if you don't, your civilian population will be targeted as well.
	We've gotten away from all of that since World War II. Oh, World War II was the last good war?
	Well, maybe it was because we don't even care about preemptive attacks.
	We became the Japanese after World War II. You have to be careful that you don't become the monsters that you fight.
	And we truly have. Yeah, everybody's kicking around this idea of civil war.
	Bunch of idiots. Idiots without any moral backbone.
	And the idea that journalists are going to set all this stuff up.
	We had a long-time editor at NPR, National Public Radio, as I call it, propaganda radio, yesterday challenged NPR. He's worked there.
	He challenged them to diversify their views.
	He says, we're producing news for liberals by liberals.
	This is bad when somebody who's worked there for 25 years is saying this.
	Because I remember when I was listening to NPR, when I was in college, I would listen to WSF. That's where I went, but you could get it all over Tampa.
	They were a really good classical music radio station.
	But they also affiliated with NPR, and they kept putting more and more and more and more news on.
	And even if you didn't want to listen to their morning edition or their drive-home afternoon stuff, and then they started inserting things other times, even if you didn't want to listen to that, they would always put the news break in at the top of the hour and give their leftist slant on it, and that was 50 years ago.
	50 years ago.
	Exactly, when I started college.
	Anyway, so, yeah, this guy's only been there for 25 years.
	He said, with declining ratings, sorry levels of trust, an audience that has become less diverse over time, the trajectory for NPR is not promising.
	We can either keep doing what we're doing, hoping that it'll all work out, or we could start over with the basic building blocks of journalism.
	And we can face up to where we've gone wrong.
	Look, the bottom line is that you shouldn't even have a government news organization.
	They're not necessary. You know that a government news organization is there for one purpose, propaganda.
	And that is exactly what NPR is.
	It's government propaganda.
	It's biased.
	But now we don't just have bias in a government propaganda news or the Operation Mockingbird Press, like the main networks that were getting fed stuff by the CIA. That's everywhere.
	Search engines are propagandized.
	Artificial intelligence has a bias built into it.
	They pay people slave wages to put that bias in there.
	And so, he said, in a 3,500-word essay, the senior business editor explained the changes inside NPR that have angered taxpaying conservatives for years, as it has turned from both sides' coverage to uber-liberal bias.
	Well, again, it wasn't both sides' coverage when I was listening to it 50 years ago.
	I haven't listened to it, probably, for at least 25 years.
	At all. At all.
	In 2021, he said he looked up the party registration of staffers and found that 87% were Democrats, zero were Republicans.
	He said it was met with profound indifference when he told other people in the organization.
	Race and identity became paramount in nearly every aspect of the workplace at NPR.
	Journalists were required to ask everyone we interviewed their race, their gender, their ethnicity and had to enter it into a centralized tracking system.
	We were given unconscious bias training sessions.
	This is struggle sessions.
	Bye.
	Denounce yourself. Denounce your unconscious bias.
	I know you don't really harbor any conscious hatred of people who have a different skin color or something like that, but unconsciously you have to be that way because your skin color is white.
	So you have an unconscious bias.
	This is pure Marxism.
	So he says, the growing DEI staff offered regular meetings imploring us to start talking about race, quote-unquote.
	Monthly dialogues were offered for women of color and men of color.
	Non-binary people of color were included also.
	These initiatives, bolstered by a million-dollar grant from the NPR Foundation, came from management from the top down because this has been the long march through the institutions.
	They've completed their march.
	They've won their war. They control the institutions.
	And it's time for us to start taking these institutions down.
	We need to pull down the pillars that are propping up this oppression, this Marxist oppression.
	Because it is there to not only take everything from our lives, not only to take away our energy, our food, our clothing, our travel, everything.
	It is there to take away our lives.
	As a matter of fact, when we get to it coming up here, when we talk about the reports that have just come out from the Imperial College of London and Oxford and Cambridge and all these elitist UK organizations talking about how in just a few years they've got to eliminate meat and other things, they kind of look at it and they say, well, this is going to be a hard thing.
	It certainly would be a lot easier if we had fewer people.
	That's going to be the solution.
	When all the rest of the stuff fails, we're going to try to kill everybody.
	They've already begun with a pandemic injection.
	And that came from the same people that are selling this idea.
	It doesn't matter what the excuse is.
	It doesn't matter what the MacGuffin is.
	The solution, the final solution, is the same.
	Kill people. It began that way with Paul Ehrlich, the first Earth Day, that the people who were running that were all zero population growth, reduced the world's population, the Georgia Guidestone type of people, Paul Ehrlich, the population bomb. It was about depopulation from the very beginning.
	It always has been.
	They want to enslave us.
	They want to impoverish us.
	They want to kill us.
	We have to take down these institutions.
	So it came from management.
	It came from the top down.
	And they were in sync with what was happening at the grassroots of producers and reporters and other staffers, he said.
	NPR stayed away from covering, for example, first son Hunter Biden's scandalous laptop, which the media dismissed until after Biden was elected president.
	Who cares? At this point, I don't even care.
	I don't even care about Hunter Biden.
	Everybody knows that they're corrupt.
	We knew they were corrupt then.
	When they started talking about this in late October, I said, these guys have waited too late.
	There's no way they're going to get any traction with this in time.
	Oh, you're going to do an October surprise late in October?
	Oh, we've got this stuff about Hunter Biden.
	So this has been talked about to some degree for a couple of years at that point.
	And they needed to go further into it, deeper into it, much sooner than that.
	Because you know there's going to be a lot of pushback.
	There's going to be a lot of censorship.
	There's a big miscalculation on the part of the Republicans with that.
	But folks, that doesn't even matter anymore.
	There is so much Jeffrey Epstein corruption.
	There is so much financial corruption from both Trump and Biden.
	It doesn't matter.
	What matters are other things that they're identical on.
	Other things that are more vital to our lives than the scandals.
	Of the Bidens and the Trumps.
	Because now the next thing is it's going to be all about Stormy Daniels' payoffs and then this other playmate, McDougal, that was there.
	But look, the things that matter to us are the pandemic lockdowns, the jabs, the climate lockdowns and bans and all the rest of these types of things.
	That is what they are not going to talk about.
	They will talk.
	About Trump's scandals and Biden's scandals so they can avoid the criminal mass murder of Trump and Biden.
	They're more than happy to talk about the rest of this stuff.
	It never cost Bill Clinton anything to have all that stuff.
	They could easily dismiss all of his victims as bimbos.
	Despite our missteps at NPR, defunding, he says, is not the answer.
	No, it absolutely is.
	It absolutely is.
	Nothing less than defunding these unconstitutional organizations.
	Well, we're going to take a break, and when we come back, we're going to talk about some of the technology that has gone wrong.
	We're going to talk about the climate issues as well.
	It's interesting when we talk about climate, we talk about how they're manipulating things.
	With chemtrails. You know, the geoengineering watch and a lot of other people have been showing videos for a very long time.
	I got a video to show you that was on social media yesterday.
	But even Paul Joseph Watson is now doing articles on Zero Hedge about chemtrails.
	That used to be his pet peeve.
	Stop talking about chemtrails.
	I was like, well, it's real, Paul.
	But now even Paul Watson is doing it.
	It's amazing to me.
	We're going to take a quick break, and we'll be right back.
	Tell Alexa to add the APS Radio skill and have access to the best channels anywhere.
	From country to blues, classic hits to news, APS Radio curates incredibly diverse playlists for you to enjoy.
	Get details at APSradio.com.
	♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ do Thanks for watching
	you
	you. You're listening to The David Knight
	Show. Yeah, if you want to watch a movie about Civil War, watch that one, Shenandoah.
	On Rockfin, Michelle Obama, thank you very much for the tip.
	I appreciate that. Let's see, and I appreciate what was sent to me by Robert W. He talks about Tesla's self-driving problems, and he goes, Elon Musk could easily solve his self-driving hit-or-miss problem if you just employ people in India to drive the Teslas remotely.
	What he's referring to is the fact that Amazon, they're just walk-out stuff, and Supposedly, it was going to be determining everything that you're buying and all the rest of the stuff with its super smart surveillance technology, but it was actually a thousand people in India being paid very low wages to watch everything that you're doing and tabulate it down.
	It wasn't artificial intelligence.
	It was a different AI. It was an army of Indians.
	Instead of artificial intelligence.
	So he said, you'd think Jeff Bezos would have discussed this with Musk at the last World Economic Forum.
	I wonder if that's how AI is going to work as well.
	So we can have some Indians driving our cars.
	I'll sign up for that.
	It would be about the only way that you get to drive a car by remote control.
	As a matter of fact, he needs even more help than with the self-driving stuff.
	The Cybertruck rollout looks to be a disaster.
	A lot of people are complaining about it, and of course, they're talking more about all the ups and downs of Elon Musk now because the mainstream media hates him.
	The left hates him, so they're going to highlight every one of his faults.
	But there's plenty of faults out there to highlight.
	He's going to be fine.
	Don't worry about Elon, and just don't think of him as your savior.
	He is a transhumanist demon trying to rope you in.
	A billionaire who became the world's richest man by selling this green MacGuffin.
	Anyway, Tesla's long-delayed and pricey Cybertrucks are getting panned by furious owners for malfunctioning at alarming rate just months after it's hit the road.
	Tales of the stainless steel Cybertrucks dying after traveling just one mile.
	Randomly hard-breaking on a wide-open road, already showing rough spots, among many other gripes, being shared by the Tesla Owners Club Forum.
	And guess what? If you start talking bad about the Cybertrucks, Mr.
	Free Speech, the guy who is, we keep hearing this from our big conservative influencers, you know, this is the guy who single-handedly saved Free Speech in the West.
	Well, he'll kick you off of the Cybertruck things if you criticize this product.
	If he doesn't like you on Twitter, he will keep you shadow banned or he will make you shadow banned.
	Worst delivery in my life.
	The truck died in five minutes, said one person.
	Made it one mile down the road, started getting steering air, a flashing red screen.
	This is so different from Microsoft where you had the blue screen of death.
	Well, at least I have a red screen of death.
	Pulled off side of the highway.
	Now the truck is dead and I'm waiting for a tow truck.
	Dealer couldn't do anything for me.
	It was great for five minutes.
	I tried everything.
	Tried restarting it. The screen is stuck black now and keeps beeping.
	The owner got the vehicle, which begins at $80,000.
	Of course, you're not going to drive it out showroom door for $80,000.
	If it's in high demand, like these were, they're going to load them up with some features and you will pay that price or not get the car.
	But one month after the highly publicized trucks went on sale, two years behind schedule.
	The disappointed owner said, Tesla really rushed these trucks out.
	What a nightmare.
	Another user said he got a flashing red screen.
	It warned, pull over safely.
	Critical steering issue detected.
	He said a lot of trucks are having high voltage issues, which makes the trucks unusable.
	Another thread, my cyber truck suddenly made a hard brake stop.
	When we both have a clear, wide enough space between us, he said.
	Luckily, there was no vehicle in the back, as it would have been a definite collision.
	Note, the autopilot is simply a glorified, reactive cruise control, he said.
	Call India.
	Maybe they can fix this for you.
	On another discussion board, Tesla Motors Club...
	A Cybertruck owner wrote a review so critical of Tesla's supposedly highest tech vehicle that he was barred from the Cybertruck owner's forum.
	So much for free speech.
	Another person says, No, it is not glorious.
	A Cybertruck isn't a truck.
	It's a toy truck at best, an experimental concept at worst.
	I rented mine in L.A. And spent 24 hours with it.
	During the test drive, he said, I don't know what the heck happened to the suspension.
	It doesn't take bumps.
	It doesn't take potholes well.
	This is supposed to be like an apocalyptic, you know, it's, you can throw, you can throw metal balls at it.
	And of course the windows break, you know, but you shoot it.
	All the rest of these things is supposed to be your post-apocalyptic vehicle.
	It doesn't handle potholes too well.
	He said the steering was actually nice, but the steering wheel is way too small, like awkwardly small, he said.
	So the vehicle says that it's got a range of 320 miles on a full charge.
	However, it can take anywhere from 7 to 14 1⁄2 hours to get that 320 miles.
	Instead of, you know, like 30 seconds to pump up your tank with gasoline.
	One YouTuber, Kyle Connor, who has a YouTube channel, Out of Spec Motoring, was only able to reach 79% of its targeted range, about 200 miles, during a live-streamed unofficial range test.
	And of course, we've also seen video in the early days of it being, it was stuck.
	It couldn't get up a snowy incline.
	It was a little bit of snow on the ground.
	They had to get a Ford internal combustion engine driven truck to pull it out.
	And you could see that was what was happening at one point in the video.
	But it's not the only technology that has failed us.
	We have some people who have looked at the efforts to keep your data private on Apple, and their conclusion is that privacy is virtually impossible on the iPhones.
	This is not news, actually.
	This is something that has been around for a very long time.
	And it was something that the NSA even bragged about in some slides.
	It was a presentation slide that they did that was leaked by Ed Snowden.
	And this goes back to before he leaked the information in 2013.
	This is the key slides over there.
	I've talked about this many times.
	Who would have thought in 1984, the Super Bowl commercial about the Mac, that this would be Big Brother, Steve Jobs of the iPhone, and that the zombies would line up to pay for it.
	So the NSA was bragging about all of this stuff.
	Even before Snowden.
	This is nothing new.
	But what is new is the study that looked at some of the default apps on the iPhone, the iPad, and the MacBook, said it collects your personal data even when they appear to be disabled.
	This is the first study to research the privacy settings of Apple's default apps, specifically looking at Safari, Suri, Family Sharing, iMessage, FaceTime, Location Services, Find My, and Touch ID to see whether the corporation is living up to a slogan, privacy. That's Apple.
	And of course, Android's no better.
	Google is probably even worse.
	These apps are glued to the platform and getting rid of them is virtually impossible.
	Due to the way the user interface is designed, users don't know what's going on.
	For example, the user is given the opportunity, the option rather, to enable or to not enable Siri, Apple's virtual assistant.
	But enabling only refers to whether you use Siri's voice control.
	Siri still collects data in the background from the other apps that you use regardless of your choice.
	A bit deceptive.
	Unless you understand how to go into the settings and specifically change that.
	So it makes you think that you've not activated it when in actuality it is there.
	Now, Thomas Massey, as they're talking about the reactivation of Section 702 to give them legal cover to spy on people without a warrant, Thomas Massey said Congress is giving itself a carve-out in the reauthorization of FISA 702 warrantless spying on Americans.
	The bill requires...
	The FBI to notify and to seek consent from Congress before violating the privacy of congressmen.
	And this will persuade many members of Congress to vote yes.
	They've done a carve-out for them.
	You see, you'll go to jail for a very long time if you do insider trading, but if you're a member of Congress or somebody who is part of their staff, you can do that kind of stuff.
	No problem. And so they're saying, well, we're going to do warrantless surveillance on all of America, but we'll put in an exception that if the FBI wants to spy on us, they're going to have to get a warrant.
	They're fooling themselves.
	They are the people who are the most interesting ones.
	They are the people who are most likely going to be surveilled without a warrant.
	And they'll do it regardless of what these guys put in there.
	Years and years ago, it's probably been about a decade now, it wasn't all that long after the Snowden leaks, that Michael Hayden went to Washington and Lee University, talked to a legal class there, and you'll see in the background here, he's got a poster up, and it's got like, you know, a single eye looking at things.
	Pretty creepy guy. Anyway, this is what he said about who they do surveillance on.
	This is not about guilt. In fact, let me be really clear.
	NSA doesn't just listen to bad people.
	NSA listens to interesting people.
	Who do you think is going to be most interesting to them?
	Are you going to be more interesting to them than a congressman?
	Probably not.
	Probably not. At least the congressperson will be at least as interesting.
	We know from the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover, and these are quotes from a lot of different presidents.
	You know, Nixon talked about it.
	You had Truman talk about the fact that J. Edgar Hoover was creating dossiers on all these politicians to blackmail them.
	They'd have to be really naive, but I think there's a lot of politicians that are really naive.
	And self-interested.
	Narcissist. And so this is going to get it passed, probably.
	But it is a deal with the devil that is not going to really help him.
	As a matter of fact, here's what Snowden had to say about this program, which had been going on for a very long time, has continued to go on since his leaks, and...
	They're giving legal cover to them to continue it as well.
	In my final position, working directly with the tools of mass surveillance, I can see anybody's emails.
	I can see what you're texting back and forth.
	You know, the guys that are working on the left and right of me are turning their monitor to show me nudes of the wife of one of their targets.
	And they say, bonus.
	But then I see...
	This picture, it was actually a video of a child in the lap of his father.
	And, you know, it's like a toddler.
	They're smacking on the keyboard.
	And they don't realize what's going on, but it kind of glanced at the camera, and I felt like he was looking at me.
	And this really shook me, because when we talk about surveillance, we're talking so much about abstraction.
	We're talking about things that don't feel real.
	I realized that the machine, I was a technologist in the NSA. All of the different parts that I've been working with, all of the systems...
	They had stolen and were stealing not just one person's memories, they were stealing everyone's, everywhere, all the time, and they still are right now.
	And so I got up out of the chair, and I didn't try to burn down the NSA. I've published zero documents.
	I gave them to journalists, and there's a long, complicated thing in the book about how and why and where the lines are.
	But... I wanted not to say this is the way the world should be.
	I wanted to give it to you.
	I wanted to say this is what's happening.
	And really, guys, the question for you is how do you want to live?
	We are today being used against the future.
	We're being used against our children.
	Everything we do now lasts forever, not because we want to remember it, but because we're no longer allowed to forget.
	And, of course, William Benny said that.
	They were talking about Russia this and Russia that.
	And he goes, if they think there's something going on, they've got all this stuff.
	They've got it stored at Bluffdale, Utah, and other places.
	The NSA's got all this information.
	We're not going to speculate about it.
	If they've got it, show it. But, yeah, that's the key, folks.
	When you go back and look at the Snowden documents, the key was they wanted this stuff released.
	Because they put that stuff out and nobody does anything about it, right?
	Nobody in Congress did anything about it.
	The public didn't demand that this stuff be stopped.
	And so only a few people had an issue with it.
	And so that was taken as an endorsement as consent.
	This is one of the reasons why they leaked this stuff out.
	And the same thing is happening right now with the pandemic.
	It happened because we didn't demand that these people be fired or punished who did this to us.
	As a matter of fact, we're going to re-elect one of the two guys who did it to us.
	None of that happened, and so they're going to make it worse, and that's what they're working on right now.
	We've not demanded that these people be fired or penalized who are working to destroy our economy by taking away our energy.
	Energy in the UK is now five times what it costs in China.
	So guess where everything's going to be manufactured?
	China, of course. If the energy costs are five times as much, you can't manufacture anything.
	Manufacturing takes energy.
	I've seen this all my life. I remember back in high school when this Earth Day garbage was kicking off.
	And everybody was saying, ah, we've got too many kids inside, too many people.
	It's like, no, we don't. You know, which ones are you going to get rid of?
	You know, are you going to kill Einstein or Beethoven?
	You know, you don't know in advance what anybody's going to be.
	You're going to be crippling society.
	And they said, well, you know, look at how much energy is being used by America.
	Look at this. And it's like, yeah, we manufacture everything.
	Now look at where all the energy is being used.
	It's being used in China and in India.
	Why? Well, because they were given a pass under the Paris Climate Accord.
	They can have as many, as primitive, as dirty, as cheap and dirty energy plants as they want.
	And yet they're shutting them down left and right everywhere else.
	This is a planned, systematic takedown.
	They planned it for a long time.
	They're doing it step by step, just like Fauci said.
	You know, how do you get everybody to take an untested vaccine worldwide?
	Flu vaccine? Well, you do it from the inside with chaos, and you do it iteratively.
	That's the way this is going. Well, when we come back, we're going to talk about Second Amendment issues, hunting, guns for school protection.
	There's been another state that has now jumped into that, and the gun controllers are very upset about that.
	We'll be right back. If you like the Eagles, the cars, and Huey Lewis and the News, You'll love the Classic Hits channel at APS Radio.
	Download our app or listen now at You're
	listening to The David Knight Show.
	And on Rumble, thank you very much, Militin Milankovic.
	Thank you very much for the tip.
	God bless you, David. Thank you for sharing the truth.
	Well, thank you for supporting us.
	Without your support, we couldn't do this.
	And so I really do appreciate the people.
	I've got a list of...
	And, uh, well, let me do it right now.
	I'll do it real quickly.
	Uh, this is not as long as a list of people that have sent us contributions via Zelle, which also want to get to, uh, but, um, this is what we received in April in terms of, uh, um, things mailed to us, Lois L Jeremy W Susan L Mary N Martin T uh, H D from N C Molly P Anna Maria, a Dale L Tina G Ryan F.
	And, uh, Sunday Wolf packs.
	so thank you to Love of the Road.
	And so...
	Those are people who have sent checks, and the people who support us on Subscribestar, we really do appreciate that.
	And we don't read that off like we do the Zelle, and I read the Zelle off, and I read the mail off because we have no way of responding to people, but we have been so busy, we just have, I feel bad about the lack of response on I've
	noticed since the eclipse that the night is dark.
	That's right. We celebrate the darkness, right?
	That's crazy.
	And that was the craziest thing, that CNN reporter who was in Fredericksburg, Texas.
	Yeah! Karen said, you should have played the clip from Howard Dean.
	There's probably a lot of people who don't remember Howard Dean.
	He won this primary and he just starts, and it completely blew him out of the running because it's so crazy.
	At least for the CNN reporter, she was in the dark.
	People are not really sure who that is, I think.
	But we have some interesting stories in terms of Guns and hunting and other things like that.
	In Germany, they are very concerned about the fact that Botswana is allowing controlled hunting of elephants.
	And they want Botswana to stop because they know better.
	And so there were calls by Germany's federal environment ministers, always the environmentalists, right?
	Who wants a ban on trophy hunting?
	You see some of these people who go out and do a trophy hunt, and again, you know, the economics of this, why do we have so many cows?
	Well, because we have a use for them.
	Because they're tasty.
	And it actually helps in terms of the population.
	We're not looking at cows and chickens going extinct unless these environmentalist ministers get their way, in which case they may go extinct.
	We may go extinct if they get their way.
	But the animals that you're using there for food, or if you're using them for hunting or something, there's going to be a lot of them.
	And it's going to be a controlled thing.
	But don't expect the Greens to understand this.
	And so, as they're complaining about this, Botswana political leaders said, well, the hunting, when it is done sustainably, when it is done under control, it actually helps to protect crops because the elephants...
	If a population gets out of control, they're a lot more damaging than a lot of deer running through and eating your flowers or something, actually eating their food.
	And they can actually destroy villages, cars and people and things like that.
	And we can boost tourism and all the rest of these things.
	And so they said in response, they said, okay, tell you what, Germany, we'll send you 20,000 elephants and you can take care of them.
	You know where the expression white elephant comes from, right?
	So in India where they had a lot of elephants, if they really wanted to punish anybody because the elephants were sacred, like a lot of these animals, but especially the elephants as part of their religion.
	So if the government, the grand poobah, whatever he was, wanted to punish you, he would give you an elephant, and you would have to take care of that elephant.
	It would ruin you.
	You couldn't get rid of it. I mean, it's like tying this thing around your neck.
	You have to feed this thing for the rest.
	So how about 20,000 white elephants that we'll send to Germany?
	Maybe since it's the environmentalists, maybe they could be called green elephants.
	How about that? Not pink elephants on parade, but green elephants on parade.
	Not since Hannibal would they have had so many of these elephants in the Alps and everywhere else.
	You know, and it is kind of interesting, you know, when you look at, unless you control the population in some way, it's kind of interesting to think about the fact that lions used to be all over Europe.
	All over Europe.
	They didn't just discover them in Africa.
	Before people started traveling to Africa, they were dealing with lions.
	There were lions all over Europe.
	There were lions all over in China as well.
	There were lions all over the Middle East.
	You can go to the British Museum and you can see pictures of the Assyrian king in chariots and the lion hunt.
	You know, they'd get in chariots and they would hunt them down with the chariots and with bow and arrow.
	They were everywhere. And there was something of a nuisance.
	Killing people, things like that, you know.
	Go back and look at the ghosts in the darkness and you understand why they got rid of lions.
	Speaking to the Bild newspaper in Germany, Botswana president said his country was suffering from an elephant plague after recent conservation efforts and the Botswana people are dependent on some of the animals being culled through controlled and sustainable hunting.
	We are paying the price for preserving these animals for the world, he told the German paper.
	And he said, for you to sit in Berlin and have an opinion about our affairs in Botswana, he explained the government had already offloaded 8,000 of the animals to nearby Angola due to their exploding population, and they threatened to send 20,000 of them to Berlin so German politicians can, quote, live together with the animals in the way that you're trying to tell us to.
	We would like to make such an offer to the Federal Republic of Germany, and we don't take no for an answer.
	20,000 wild elephants for Germany.
	And he said, this is not a joke.
	That would be interesting.
	So, as I point out, the elephants will have to then have something to eat, he said.
	Again, we're back to the white elephant aspect of it.
	In Washington state, they passed a very restrictive ban on high-capacity magazines.
	And that has now been overturned, I should say, by a county judge.
	You know, those local elections that you can vote in?
	You can vote a judge who's going to nullify some of these bad laws.
	Now, of course, this law, they've still put a hold on his ruling because they believe they're going to be able to get it overruled at another level.
	But it's great to have somebody who really understands what the Constitution is, doesn't it?
	A 2022 law bans the sale of import and manufacturing of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.
	And the Cowlitz County judge ruled that this is unconstitutional.
	I wonder where you get that idea.
	Is there anything in the Constitution that says you can't infringe arms?
	Yeah. Yeah, it's pretty explicit, isn't it?
	This comes after the Washington State Attorney General Ferguson filed a lawsuit against a gun store in Kelso in September 2023, last September, for selling the magazines after the ban went into effect.
	After the Monday ruling, his office, the Attorney General of Washington State, filed an emergency stay that was approved by the Washington State Supreme Court.
	So any purchase of the illegal magazines will still be a violation of the law until they have more review of that.
	And then in Tennessee, we had the Senate pass a law that would allow teachers to carry concealed weapons.
	And of course, they have to be trained, have to take a class and other things like that.
	And this is not the first state to do it.
	As a matter of fact, they've been kind of dragging their feet on it compared to a lot of other states.
	But nevertheless, you had a lot of people who were being pushed by these Bloomberg gun control people.
	Moms demand action in every town for gun safety.
	This is all stuff that's set up by the globalist Michael Bloomberg.
	To try to take away our right to keep and bear arms.
	So they had about 200 people go to the Senate and disrupt the proceedings.
	This is reported by the Independent out of the UK and the way they report these people who are anti-freedom, anti-law, anti-constitution, anti-self-defense.
	They call them gun reform advocates.
	Yeah, they want to reform, completely change our government, don't they?
	The bill still needs to pass the Tennessee General Assembly House.
	If the new rule comes into effect, Tennessee would join over 30 states.
	That's what I'm saying. Already 30 other states have done this.
	What's taking these guys so long?
	Glad they did it. Better late than never, but they are late getting there.
	And so the people who are speaking on behalf of Bloomberg, We should be listening to Tennessee law enforcement teachers, superintendents, and more who've spoken out against arming teachers.
	And most importantly, we should be listening to Tennesseans who are worried that their children won't come home from school every day.
	Well, that's why they want the teachers armed.
	If you think the teachers are so crazy that they're going to, I don't know, what would they do to kids if you got a crazy teacher?
	Would they tell them they're in the wrong body or something?
	Would they try to sexually molest them?
	Would they gaslight or whatever? Yeah, they...
	You might want to pay attention to what is happening in your school, even in a conservative state.
	A mother from Covenant School, where they were shot up by a crazy tranny.
	It was the crazy tranny aspect of it that they don't want you to say.
	They tell you everything about the gun, but they don't tell you anything about the shooter, right?
	Keep that under wraps.
	Don't tell anybody about that.
	Well, a Covenant School mother...
	She was at the Senate session and she said that active shooter training saved her kids from the shooter armed with an assault-style rifle.
	Well, there are a lot of young kids who were not saved by active shooter training and she's not specific about what that is.
	She said, you know, this person had an assault-style rifle.
	She said a handgun will do nothing against that.
	This is the stupidity.
	This is absolutely ignorant and stupid.
	She doesn't understand.
	It hasn't paid much attention to these mass shootings.
	Do you remember the one in the mall, for example?
	We had some guy go in.
	He had an assault weapon, and he had extra magazines that are banned in Washington State.
	He had all of the stuff.
	He must have been a liberal because there's all this that, well, if I have an assault weapon, if I have a large capacity magazine, that's it!
	I'm king of the world.
	You know, a man with one eye is king in the land of the blind type of thing.
	And he would have been, except there was somebody else who also had a gun.
	But he didn't need to have an AK-47.
	He didn't need to have all the extra magazines that this guy did.
	This guy was carrying in a mall where they said, don't bring your gun in here.
	And fortunately, he did not pay any attention to that.
	And so he leaned up against the column and took aim, and he shot this guy and stopped it with a pistol.
	Well, I think it was a revolver.
	He didn't even have an older handgun.
	And so this ignorant mother says, a handgun will do nothing against an assault weapon.
	She doesn't know what an assault weapon is.
	She doesn't know what's happened with these shootings.
	None of it. If what had happened on March the 27th had gone down the way that it did with a teacher armed with a handgun attempting to put the perpetrator out, my children would likely be dead.
	She has no idea.
	The perp might have been killed before other people.
	We've seen this over and over again.
	A good person with a gun.
	And here's why you armed teachers.
	And I said this from the very beginning as well.
	When we look at the Parkland shooting, for example, you have a uniformed officer.
	First problem with that is that if somebody was really serious, they might take that person out.
	Oh, he's the only one here with a gun.
	I'll shoot him first, and now I can do whatever I want.
	So that makes that person a target, except this person was not inside the school.
	And when the shooting began, he went the other direction, right?
	Now, he would have been a hero if he would have run into the shooting, into the building where people are being shot.
	He would have been a hero because he would have risked his life to stop that shooting.
	That's why we honor people like that as heroes.
	Some fireman who runs into a burning building to save somebody or a police officer.
	Who is armed and he still goes in to the unknown to try to take this person out.
	However, it's a very different situation if you were a teacher and you have a gun and somebody comes into your classroom to shoot you.
	You're not a hero to stop this guy.
	You're just trying to save your life or maybe save the life of the kids that you know intimately in your classroom.
	That's just a natural instinct.
	And that's either me or him type of situation.
	That's not a heroic thing.
	You don't have an option of going away.
	It's like kill or be killed.
	And that's what this is set up to do.
	But... I wouldn't trust my kids as a school teacher anywhere anyway, because there are things that are far more dangerous than firearms.
	The pen is more dangerous than the sword in many ways.
	These teachers who do not wish to carry a firearm, the teachers who do wish, rather, to carry a firearm, will have to get an enhanced handgun carry permit.
	They'll have to complete annual training with law enforcement, 40 hours of training a year.
	So, you know, that is...
	That's not good enough for them.
	It'll never be good enough for them.
	We all need to be at the mercy of any thug, any criminal who gets their hand on a firearm.
	Congress could overturn a new rule limiting credit card late fees.
	And Reason thinks that's a good thing.
	And Tim Scott thinks that's a good thing.
	Now this is coming from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
	And they say, well, you know, you might think that it's a good thing to have the fees of the credit card companies limited somewhat.
	But they said they would cap them at no more than $8 per month.
	But that's still pretty high.
	That's not much of a cap, quite frankly.
	But anyway, they said on the surface, it sounds great.
	Nobody likes to pay fees.
	However, they're going to put them somewhere else.
	Yeah, we noticed. Because all of this is just window dressing and virtue signaling.
	Because what the real issue is, is the fact that they're charging you on any unpaid balance 30-40%.
	Nobody will talk about that.
	Not the so-called Consumer Financial Protection Board either.
	Tim Scott's not going to stop that.
	Elizabeth Warren's bureaucracy is not going to stop that.
	The CFPB is not going to stop that.
	Reason doesn't talk about it.
	Folks, this usury is a crime.
	We used to, that used to be one of the main rackets of organized crime in the mafia.
	They would loan people money at excessively high interest rates.
	We said that's criminal.
	I think that there is a reasonable amount for people to pay.
	If you're going to loan somebody money, there is a time value on that money.
	And that actually helps to create capital flow.
	But it gets to the point where when it's excessive like it is now, it's totally fraudulent.
	Especially when you look at what they pay people who put money into their bank.
	It's absurd. And they're dropping those interest rates now.
	The big banks are now dropping those interest rates.
	Somebody talked about it and said, oh, see, look, the Fed will probably drop interest rates because the banks are already dropping interest rates in anticipation of that.
	Yeah, they know what's going to happen.
	They know it's an election year. But, you know, where are they going to go?
	From one-tenth of a percent down to one-half of one-tenth of a percent?
	While they're charging people 30 to 40 percent?
	And as reason says, well, if you just take away these fees, they'll just put it somewhere else.
	So maybe they'll go up to 35 to 45 percent or something on what they charge people.
	It's criminal. That spread has never been, you know, people will talk and do nothing about the transfer of wealth.
	Oh, look at how the rich are getting richer, and we're transferring all this wealth from middle class and poor people to the rich, and they just keep accumulating more.
	Well, of course, if they're going to pay you on the money that you can scrimp and save and put into a savings account, a tiny fraction of a percent, and they're going to charge you 30, 40, 50 percent interest on this stuff, that you don't have enough money, so you put it on a credit card and you carry that balance forward, that is absolutely criminal.
	Dave Ramsey is right.
	Get out of credit card debt.
	It's a scam. It's a criminal thing.
	However, these people should not be allowed to operate that way.
	Yeah, certainly don't put yourself in that position.
	Do everything you can to get out of credit card debt because it is such a fraud.
	Why is the government allowing that to happen?
	well because they're criminals themselves and because it is crony crappable ism uh... at its finest so we're gonna take a quick break and we will be right back when we come back uh... we're going to talk about uh...
	uh... what happened uh... with this abortion decision uh... going back to eighteen sixty four and you got people like kerry lake running for cover because she was just like the last time they had the last senate candidate that was uh... favored by trump who was also a celebrity uh...
	with no uh... principles whatsoever As soon as she sees this, she's running for the hills.
	We'll be right back. Whether you're feeling like the blues.
	Really? or bluegrass.
	APS Radio has you covered.
	Check out a wide variety of channels on our app at APSradio.com.
	And now...
	Here's a look at some of our other videos.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	Bye.
	Alright, welcome back.
	We have, when we go back to the eclipse briefly, I played the thing from Trump.
	And I said, well, you know, this is just his deranged MAGA fan club that is out there.
	But it turns out, because I said, you know, if it's a Trump commercial, this is paid for by Trump.
	But evidently, that is not true for social media.
	And so it appears that actually he put together this piece of idolatry.
	The most important moment in human history.
	Because, you know, Donald Trump is the most important person in human history.
	He's done more for Christianity than Jesus Christ has.
	I sped this up because I couldn't stand it.
	Oh my god!
	Oh my god!
	Oh yeah.
	Yes, yes, there he is.
	The dawn.
	The dawn of the fall of civilization.
	It just keeps getting worse and worse, doesn't it?
	The excitement about an eclipse, the excitement about a politician.
	This was an interesting picture.
	Look at this picture here. That is the eclipse, and you've got the two arcs that are formed there, touching the top of the pyramid and the side there, and the pyramid is silhouetted.
	That's a really interesting picture.
	What is, the caption says, this photo from the eclipse is funnier when you realize that the pyramid is a Bass Pro Shop.
	So this is the Bass Pro Shop that is in Memphis.
	As you go over the bridge there at Memphis, you see it.
	They put that there. They thought it'd be funny.
	I forget what the original building was supposed to be, but its original purpose stopped or they went out of business or whatever, and Bass Pro bought it.
	But they thought, you know, oh, Memphis, like Egypt, we'll put a pyramid there.
	And it is an interesting oddity.
	We've stopped by that.
	We always pass that thing on the way to Texas when we drive out there.
	But it's not just the politicians that ran this stuff through.
	I thought, you know, when we look at all of the phony baloney prophets who are a stench to Christianity, one in particular was undeterred.
	By the fact that the world didn't end yesterday.
	As a matter of fact, what he was saying was that the solar eclipse was going to release the sixth seal of revelation.
	And it was God's warning to America.
	I was like, there's so much wrong with this.
	Where do I start? Well, let's start with who this guy is.
	He's a guy who was convicted nine years ago for what he had done about a decade ago to people who trusted him.
	But, you know, when he said in 2015, he pleaded guilty to defrauding elderly victims of millions of dollars in investment scam, And so now he's telling everybody the solar eclipse is a warning from God to America, to America, and that it is connected to the release of the sixth seal of the book of Revelation and the Bible.
	Well, you know, part of the problem is that the book of Revelation, if you actually look at it, if you actually pick up the Bible and look at it instead of listening to people like this guy, the title is actually Revelation of Jesus Christ, right?
	It's not a revelation of the end of time.
	It's not a revelation of America, which is the way people treat it.
	It's not fundamentally about Israel.
	It's about Jesus Christ.
	It's a revelation about him.
	You put something else in the center, you've got a problem with the way you're reading this, when you're reading something else into it.
	It's not about Trump either.
	And I guess he thought he could get away with this because he says it's the sixth seal.
	And we didn't notice what happened when the other five were broken or whatever.
	So I guess he figures he's not going to be found out.
	He's warning America that our light will go out.
	It says God is warning America that our light will go out and it'll go dark if we do not turn from our wicked ways.
	Well, again, like I said yesterday, you want a warning to America?
	Just read the Bible. It's full of warnings.
	It's also got some...
	It's got warnings.
	It's got corrections. It has grace.
	It has mercy as well.
	It's not just fire and brimstone.
	God has graciously paid for your sins with His Son if you follow Him and trust Him.
	So it's not just judgment, but there is judgment there.
	And people should be concerned about that.
	But you're not going to really get any information about what it is that displeases God or how you can pay for your sins or how somebody else has paid for your sins.
	You're not going to get that from looking at the sun.
	Yes, it does tell you that everything is precisely organized.
	It does tell you that there is an intelligence that a creator God and creation Night after night is testifying to the fact that there is an intelligence designer that created.
	But did he speak? Yes, he did, in the Bible.
	And these people don't want to look at that.
	Instead, he said, there were only eight total solar eclipses that have happened over the United States since our founding in 1776.
	And incredibly, all of these are connected to war and pestilence.
	Well, that's not true.
	Those are the most notable ones, but there's been more than eight.
	So it's not always associated with that.
	And what he's doing is, he's actually engaging not in astronomy, which is fine, you know, looking at the mathematical precision of what the Creator has done in the universe.
	But he's going into astrology.
	He's going into the occult.
	And he says things like, oh, this is a very bad omen.
	Well, I'll tell you what's a bad omen is if you're starting to take advice from somebody who has built elderly people out of money.
	As a matter of fact, he confessed in 2015 that he cheated investors out of $3.3 million and he pocketed $570,000 for himself.
	He called his church that he set up.
	Passion for Truth Ministries.
	And now he's out there selling occult astrology to people a decade later.
	He said he told the congregation that he didn't confess what he had done, that it was wrong.
	He says, well, I didn't even realize I'd been arrested.
	And so he did make a confession to the judge, but not to his congregation there.
	The attorney that was defending him stressed that the crime had nothing to do with his role as a pastor.
	No, it had everything to do with his role as a pastor.
	It had everything to do with his character.
	The assistant U.S. attorney said some of the investors trusted him because he was, quote, a nice religious man, unquote, who referred to several of them as grandma.
	So, this company that he was selling, and by the way, he started selling this stuff at the same time he started the church there.
	Now, how did he scam people at the church?
	But this organization that he was, this financing company in California that he was doing, it required the lender and investor to invest in the insurance policy for a fixed period of time, varying from 18 months to 2 years.
	During this period of time, he represented the clients of this company, That they would sell the bundled insurance policies on the open market with guaranteed returns.
	However, he was aware that if they were unable to secure a buyer for the bundled insurance policies, that his clients would lose all of their money.
	Those invested in the expensive product that he sold.
	He cheated people out of three and a third million dollars and made 570,000 himself.
	Didn't bother to tell his church.
	So the question is, when we look at what is happening to the morality in our country, yeah, we really should be concerned about what is happening.
	A lot of things are wrong, and they're wrong not just because we had an eclipse.
	This was an interesting article, and I thought I would just mention a couple of these things.
	I'm not going through all ten reasons, at least not today.
	Ten reasons why our kids are leaving church.
	Maybe it's because they've got crooks like this inside the church.
	People need to understand there's a difference between God and man, right?
	A lot of these people who represent themselves as God We're actually representatives of the devil.
	And you need to make that distinction.
	You know, God doesn't change.
	God is different from the people that you interact with.
	That's a difficult thing for us to understand.
	But this guy says, you know, I work in a major college town.
	I've got a large number of 20-somethings.
	Nearly all of them were raised in very typical evangelical churches.
	nearly all of them have left the church with no intention of returning.
	He said the statistics are jaw-droppingly horrific.
	Seventy percent of youth stop attending church when they graduate from high school.
	Nearly a decade later, only about half of them return to church, only about half.
	For all the talk of children being our greatest resource, he says, being our treasure, and for all the multimillion-dollar Dave & Buster's, Starbucks-type of knockoffs that we build in these churches and fill them with all kinds of entertainment and rock bands, he said the And so he said, here's some of the reasons that I saw.
	He said, number one, kids leave the church because the church is relevant.
	He said, I didn't say irrelevant, but I said it's relevant.
	We've taken a historic 2,000-year-old faith and we've dressed it up in plaid and skinny jeans and tried to sell it as cool.
	It's not cool.
	It's not modern.
	What we're packaging is a cheap knockoff of what's real.
	He said kids are leaving church because they never attended church.
	A lot of kids will go to something called...
	Children's church or something.
	Noah Ark type of nursery with pizza parties and cookies and all the rest of this stuff.
	I think there's a lot of value of kids sitting there and hearing it.
	I don't think we need to speak down to kids.
	I think they can understand things.
	I never spoke down to our sons.
	They always understood it.
	Far more than we give them credit for.
	I know when I was a young child, I'd sit there and color crayons in the pew, but I was still listening to it, and it was still having an effect.
	So he says, it's not quite the church when you put them in some of these entertainment facilities.
	And is it any wonder that when you go to such trouble to entertain them as children, that if they stick around, it's like, well, you know, so now what do I do for entertainment?
	You mean I now got to go in and just sit there and listen, or...?
	Something like that. He said, kids leave the church because they get smart.
	They didn't get smarter, but they went to college or somewhere where people treated them as if they could think.
	Instead of giving them this dumbed-down stuff, he said, they have questions about things that are going to come up as they get older.
	People are going to bring up these questions.
	If you don't teach the controversy, he said over thousands of years, people have looked at this and they've got good answers for this.
	As I said before, whenever somebody challenges your faith, that's an opportunity for you to dig deep and to see, well, is this the real stuff?
	And if you dig deep, you'll find that it is.
	But a lot of times, that's not what we do.
	And so instead, we don't give them an answer.
	We don't teach the controversy.
	We don't, or we might show the controversy.
	We might show the challenge as a straw man argument.
	No, give them the full thing.
	And then say, this is why I don't believe it.
	I never taught the kids about Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny because I knew I was going to have to teach them about Darwinian evolution.
	I didn't want them to think I'm just making stuff up.
	I didn't make up any stuff with them.
	Kids leave church because we send them out unarmed, ignorant of our faith.
	How many times have we seen kids or families that I've talked to try to convince them to get their kids out of school 40 years ago?
	Oh, 30 years ago.
	And I said, well, I think I need to send my kid in as salt and light into the system.
	It's like, they're not ready for that yet.
	There'll be a time for that.
	They're not ready for it yet. In North Carolina, the Homeschooling Association was called the Greenhouse Report.
	They had a monthly magazine they put out called the Greenhouse Report.
	Because that's the metaphor.
	When your kids are young, you treat them like you would a delicate plant in the greenhouse.
	There will come a time when you're going to have to put them out in the real world and they're going to have to face everything.
	But when they are young and tender like that, they can't handle it.
	And most of them will not survive it.
	Some might, if you don't put them in a protected environment.
	And so what do we wind up with?
	Well, we wound up with a situation in Idaho where you got a teen accused of planning a church attacks.
	He's now loyal to the Islamic State.
	I don't know if he ever went to church or not.
	He's 18 years old. And he had a plan to attack churches with guns and flame-covered weapons, explosives, knives, and a pipe, and all the rest of this stuff.
	He's maybe facing 20 years in prison.
	I looked at this and I thought, well, that's kind of strange.
	How did the FBI know about all this stuff?
	Well, they know about it because they're the ones who set it up.
	I mean, you know, there is a lot of hatred and anger.
	It's been inculcated.
	It doesn't really show up this way.
	It usually shows up in ostracism and canceling and things like that at the moment.
	But yeah, it's eventually going to show up as violence like that.
	And as information points out, it looks like the feds are trying to drum up support for America and Israel's wars in the Middle East by entrapping an idiot 18-year-old in a plot to attack churches on behalf of ISIS. Yeah, that's your Federal Bureau of Instigation.
	Instigation. The FBI is famous for this.
	As a matter of fact, years ago, Judge Napolitano did a very long essay, just rattling off all the times that they had taken a patsy or a dupe.
	And, you know, they talk about all this stuff, and then they give them a plan, and they give them weapons, and then, you know, they stop them at the last minute like they're heroes.
	These people, nothing but a bunch of arsonists who dress up like firemen and then stop it at the very last moment.
	It's absurd.
	But still, there's a lot of hatred that has been inculcated.
	But here's how it typically manifests.
	Not as some young guy, equipped and armed and even given flags and photographed by the FBI and then arrested.
	It doesn't typically manifest that way.
	It typically manifests in feminism.
	61% of Gen Z women identify as feminists.
	And these are, I think, Gen Z, the oldest of Gen Z in their early 20s.
	But this is what it looks like in one...
	State legislature, this person who was speaking was actually elected.
	And fittingly enough, her last name is Marks.
	So, Senator Marks?
	Thank you, Madam Chair.
	So, I am a mother.
	My children call me mother.
	They call me quite a few other things as well.
	And I just, to the proponents of this amendment, if we are going to be inclusive, would you also add then pregnant father, pregnant surrogate mother, I truly believe that pregnant person covers everybody.
	This is not about me.
	This bill is not about me.
	And this bill is not about any of us sitting here.
	This bill is about children with mental health.
	And that is what we have to remember.
	And we have to remember that the families that this bill is addressing are Are made up of lots of different kinds of people, lots of different colors, lots of different identities and I just ask that if you must add pregnant mother that you be inclusive then and I believe go down a slippery slope and add every other That will show up with a
	baby in their womb and will not identify as you do.
	This is not about us.
	This is about children with mental illness.
	I will adamantly oppose this.
	I hope that everybody really thinks about the children and families that this bill is affecting and not about what we think and my, my, my as we sit here debating this bill.
	Thank you. Thank you.
	Now, my first response, as you heard there, I just, yeah, eye roll, laugh, walk away.
	That's my first response.
	We can't do that, though.
	You see, this is where our war is.
	Our war is not with a guy who's got a, there are people who will do that and go around and shoot up churches.
	They've done that in the past.
	And we need to be aware of that.
	But here, that is an exception to the rule.
	Where our warfare is, is with people like Senator Marks.
	We're selling these lies that capture our children.
	These lies that capture our society and destroy our society and destroy our children.
	That's really where our war is.
	And you've got Christians who are afraid to engage in that because they don't want to hurt somebody's feelings.
	I don't want to, they've got their truth, and I don't want to step on their toes.
	I don't want to have a confrontation with anybody.
	I don't want to get canceled by anybody either, and I'd like for them to all come and be happy, and, you know, we can all listen to rock music and eat ice cream and whatever we do at their churches, right?
	And that's the issue.
	Yes, we need to understand there's going to be some people who are going to get physically violent.
	We need to be prepared for that.
	But that is the key fight that we're in.
	That's the spiritual war that we're in.
	You've got to take those thoughts captive.
	You've got to resist those things in society.
	And we're not doing it.
	And so as a result, we're losing our children.
	Because we're sitting in places where people like that are writing the curriculum.
	People like that are teaching your kids.
	A lot of different people are going to present with women, besides women.
	No, they're not. That's just lunatic idiocy.
	And it needs to be opposed.
	So they said, as long as we've been conducting polls on religion, men have consistently demonstrated lower levels of religious engagement, but something has now changed.
	A new survey reveals that the pattern has now reversed.
	It's now women reversed.
	That are walking away more than men.
	Older Americans who left their childhood religion included a greater share of men than women.
	In the baby boomers, 57% of people who disaffiliated were men, while only 43% were women.
	But Gen Z has seen this pattern flip.
	54% of Gen Z adults who left their formative religion are women, and 46% are men.
	61% of Gen Z women identify as feminist.
	Well, they're not equal.
	We've had this conversation for the longest time.
	Did they not get the memo about what's going on with sports?
	When you put men and women's sports, they're not equal.
	Men and women are different.
	Newsflash! For these people who've been gaslit by the feminist movement.
	Feminist movement was telling everybody that Billie Jean King beat Bobby Riggs.
	No, it was rigged. He had beaten another tennis player before that, and Jimmy Carter beat somebody else.
	But that debate has been buried by this transgender stuff.
	Men and women are not equal.
	They are different.
	They're created for different purposes.
	They complement each other, complement with an I. It should be with an E as well.
	But they have different purposes.
	Yes, they are treated equal before God.
	There is no male or female or Jew or Greek, as the Bible says.
	In other words, we're all created in the image of God.
	We've all sinned.
	Before God, we all need a way to have that sin removed.
	We all stand unable to meet God's standards.
	That's what Jesus came to do.
	And from that standpoint, we are equal.
	But in other ways, we are not.
	And we have different purposes.
	That message has not been given to women.
	They have been given a very different message from Marvel movies and from Hollywood and from people like Senator Marks.
	And so, part of this is what is causing the issues with abortion.
	Because that's another part of the feminism.
	Well, men don't have to have kids.
	I shouldn't have to have kids either.
	I want a career instead, or whatever.
	And I don't want kids getting in my way.
	I just saw a really heartbreaking story about...
	Jay Leno. And his wife has Alzheimer's or something like that.
	And they were covering it because he had to go before the judge and get guardianship of his wife because she's mentally incompetent.
	And there are professional health people there talking about how good he treated his wife.
	And it was a very sad story.
	But, of course, the tabloid press shows up and makes a big deal out of it.
	But they didn't have anything at all bad to say about him.
	And they didn't have anything bad to say about either one of them.
	They'd been happily married for nearly 50 years.
	She had done an interview a few years ago before she started to have the mental illness.
	And she said, I told my mom when I was in elementary school that I didn't want to have any kids because that's how they trap you.
	I thought that's just pure feminism.
	That's a lie. You know, the two of them are very happy with each other.
	I know Jay Leno would have a lot of fun with his kids.
	He missed all of that. And she missed all that.
	Because they didn't trap her with kids.
	They trapped her with the lies of feminism.
	And she said, yeah, Jay understands that.
	And, you know, he honors my wishes on that and that type of thing.
	So they remained childless.
	But this is a story from the UK, a nurse who was traumatized by an abortion survivor. And she's pleading with legislators to not allow the abortion pill to continue to be dispensed through the mail. She actually wrote an op-ed for the Daily Mail. Her name is Nadine Doris. She said she was there as a nurse
	helping with an abortion at 27 weeks. She said the baby was born alive. The expectant mother, who was only 16, had been injected in her uterine cavity with Several excruciating hours later, the fetus, the little boy, was delivered.
	He was dropped in a bedpan, and the ward's sister handed him to me, saying, Take this into the sluice room and leave it there until I come.
	Stay with it.
	As I closed the sluice room door, I removed the paper covering over the bedpan.
	I've never forgotten what I saw.
	There lay a tiny baby boy, blinking, covered in mucus, blood, amniotic fluid, gasping for breath, his little arms and legs twitching.
	I was shocked to my core.
	Weeping, I rocked the bedpan in my arms.
	I wanted to pick him up, but he was so small I didn't know how.
	After a minute or so, I couldn't bear it any longer, and I was about to run for help when I heard the ward sister's unmistakable footsteps approaching.
	As she took the bedpan from me, he stopped breathing.
	I checked my watch.
	This little boy had been born, lived, and died in the space of seven minutes, and mine was the only face that he had seen, and my sobs the only sounds that he heard.
	Distressed, I turned to the ward sister, and I said,"'He was breathing!' And through her dark-rimmed glasses, she glared at me and said, No, he wasn't.
	You didn't see that.
	Interesting thing about this is she says she still supports safe and legal abortion.
	Even though this event scarred her for life, she said.
	I don't understand that.
	I don't understand that.
	There's so many different alternatives.
	She said, but the move to allow women to receive abortion pills in the mail, no matter how far along they are, is a step too far for her.
	And it's going to be a step too far for many mothers who are going to see their own child in that same condition.
	Blinking and struggling to survive and not able to.
	They will suffer mental and spiritual trauma as she did.
	But they may also have physical trauma because they will be using these abortion pills without the oversight of a professional who will look to see whether or not they should have that kind of abortion or whether that kind of abortion is a threat to their health.
	The people who are providing this stuff don't care about the woman any more than they care about the child.
	Infants surviving abortions are often derided as a myth.
	I've played you clips of people who survived.
	But it happens all too often, and as she pointed out, giving women access to abortion pills at home without medical supervision, and at any point throughout pregnancy, could very well mean that women will see their babies born alive after an attempted abortion.
	Women who have undergone chemical abortions themselves have said that seeing their pre-born children struggling to survive is deeply traumatizing.
	One said, I delivered this baby.
	It was like the baby was like this big laying fetal position and I saw the little tiny limbs, the little arm like everything.
	There was a tiny umbilical cord, tiny.
	It was like this big and motions to the size of her thumb.
	So small and the baby's heart was still beating.
	That killed me.
	That was a lot.
	I screamed. So that's the reality.
	Behind these political fights.
	These political fights about who's going to win an election and the rest of this stuff that, frankly, I don't care about.
	A pox on all of these murderers who are running for president.
	Trump fumbles badly on abortion.
	This is from Al Mohler, the guy who was telling people a couple of years ago that he's a head of Southwest Theological Seminary, some of the Southern Baptist seminary, Seminary, one of the biggest ones.
	And he was telling everybody. He went right down the talking points, the psychological gaming talking points that Yale had put out there.
	Oh, you've got to do it to love your neighbor.
	You've got to do it. Look at how guilty you'll feel if somebody gets sick because of you.
	This is like a moonshot.
	Yeah, it was like the moonshot.
	This is like the moonshot.
	And we should thank God for modern science, because modern science is a miracle.
	Well, I tell you, I've talked a lot about that, what Al Mohler said about that.
	But now he's now on abortion.
	And he's upset because Trump said that this is a states' rights issue.
	Now, Trump didn't say that because he believes in the Constitution.
	Trump didn't say that because he understands the Tenth Amendment.
	Trump said that because he doesn't want to take a stand on anything.
	And as I said yesterday when I talked about it, he's just as likely to change his position yet again because he doesn't care.
	He simply wants to get elected.
	And so it's a waste of time, really, to talk about this, except that we need to understand both the principles, the pragmatism, the law, the Constitution.
	Those are real things.
	And so... A lot of these people really don't care what the Constitution says.
	They just want to get what they want.
	And that's true of people on both the left and the right.
	They just want what they want.
	And they don't care what the Constitution says.
	They don't care what the law says.
	I want my guy in there to dictate.
	And I don't care what the Constitution says.
	The conservatives are doing that now.
	The Trump campaign had been hinting for weeks that the former president would release a statement on abortion.
	Over the weekend, Trump teased the issue, promising a major announcement.
	Thus far in the campaign, Trump had made comments on abortion that were confusing and confounding, says Al Mohler.
	He claimed credit for making his three strategic nominations to the Supreme Court for the reversal of Roe v.
	Wade, but he dismissed Florida's ban on abortion after six weeks of pregnancy, calling it terrible.
	He also called it too harsh.
	It called DeSantis, Sanctimonious, and all the rest of this stuff.
	But the statement, he said, where he says, my view is now that we have abortion where everybody wanted it from a legal standpoint.
	The states will determine, by vote or by legislation, or perhaps by both, whatever they decide must be the law of the land.
	Now, Mueller says that statement is factually wrong, since the pro-abortion side does demand national legislation ensuring virtually unrestricted abortion rights throughout the nation.
	And see, this is the other aspect of this.
	Look, many pro-life people want to see, want to reduce, because we're never going to eliminate it, just like we're not going to eliminate murder, we're not going to eliminate poverty, we're not going to eliminate war.
	We try to minimize these things.
	And so, you know, you could show people a video of kids being ripped apart, and you would still have people do it.
	I mean, that's just the way things are.
	A lot of people, that would stop them.
	But a lot of people, it's not.
	Because people still commit murder.
	But if we nationalize it, if we raise the limit, Florida, it's six weeks.
	If we raise it to 15 weeks, you're going to have more people killed in Florida.
	You're going to have more people killed in Arizona and a lot of other places where it's going to be a relaxing of that.
	And if you make it a federal issue, it's just a matter of time before all abortion restrictions go away.
	Folks, that is the reality of this.
	Because you will have established, again, that it can be determined at the federal level, and there won't be any opportunity for people to protect life at the state level.
	That's why I oppose it.
	The Constitution is important.
	The Constitution is not more important than one baby's life.
	But it's still important.
	And from a pragmatic standpoint, what these people ignore is the fact that you're going to have a lot of pro-life states where you're going to have more abortions if you federalize it.
	Even if you federalize it with what some of these Republicans are talking about.
	So, that's what Mueller and other people don't get.
	He says, it doesn't matter that some pro-life advocates argue for the issue to remain in the states.
	Well, again, from a pragmatic standpoint, from the standpoint of the Tenth Amendment, from the standpoint of the Supreme Court that ruled on Dobbs about the Tenth Amendment, I think all of those things matter.
	He says, what's going to happen is there is going to be a federal policy.
	In the end, the only relevant question is what that policy will be.
	Yet again, we see that everybody wants everything decided at the federal level.
	Why do we do that?
	Isn't the federal level the most corrupt level of our government?
	Isn't it the level of government that we have the least amount of control?
	Why would we want to put these babies in the hands of the federal government or anything for that matter?
	And it is an indictment of the conservatives that they've now abandoned the idea of limited government, of distributed government, of checks and balances, they have now fully embraced this fantasy of a benevolent dictatorship in Washington.
	And it is an absurd fantasy that they have embraced.
	It will never happen.
	It has never happened.
	And it will never will happen that we're going to have a benevolent dictatorship on this or any other issue.
	Al Mohler is just as wrong about this as he was about the moonshot jab.
	He is absolutely clueless about politics.
	And he needs to either get an education.
	He's a head of a university.
	Get an education, Mohler, or shut your trap.
	You don't know anything you're talking about.
	Unbelievably ignorant about everything.
	So, other people talking about the same thing.
	Other people are pro-life. Again, this is ultimately not about politics.
	This is ultimately about spiritual war.
	And you've got somebody who's head of a seminary, all he cares about is the politics.
	And he doesn't know anything about politics.
	Maybe he doesn't know anything about spiritual issues either.
	You might want to start questioning him on those issues.
	If he's so clueless about politics...
	Is he that ignorant about spiritual issues?
	Maybe he is. Because he didn't understand the issues that were there with the vaccine at all.
	He didn't understand any of those issues.
	He wasn't pro-life when the vaccine came around.
	He didn't care that babies were being aborted for these medical genetic code injections.
	He didn't care about that at all.
	Where was his moral compass when all that stuff was happening?
	Thump, thump, it wasn't working.
	This thing's stuck somewhere.
	It's stuck all the way over to the right.
	I can't figure out why my moral compass is not working here.
	So, we have this law now in Arizona, the 1864 law.
	Now, I guess we can go to Civil War over.
	Arizona's Supreme Court ruled 4-2 yesterday.
	The state's strict abortion law can take effect effectively banning abortion in the state for any reason except when allegedly necessary to save a mother's life.
	This is LifeSite News.
	Current Arizona law limits abortion to the first 15 weeks of pregnancy.
	But the state also has on the books an abortion ban that dates back to 1864, decades before Arizona even became a state in 1912.
	Which had been blocked from enforcement because of the supposed idea that Roe v.
	Wade was the law of the land.
	So the ban was codified, put into law in 1913.
	But then, you know, a Supreme Court decision supposedly erased state constitutions, state laws, the Tenth Amendment.
	All that was just swept aside with Roe v.
	Wade, and we were told for decades that it was the law of the land.
	To date, our legislature has never affirmatively created a right to or independently authorized elective abortion, said the justices.
	We defer, as we are constitutionally obligated to do, we defer to the legislature's judgment, which is accountable to and thus reflects the will of our citizens.
	Now, in Arizona, they've got a far-left Democrat governor, Katie Hobbs.
	They have an attorney general, Chris Mays, who is also hard-left.
	They have declared that they will not prosecute violators of the state's current abortion laws.
	Pro-abortion activists in the Grand Canyon State, Arizona, hope to render the outcome moot by putting on the November ballot a proposed constitutional amendment that would establish a quote, fundamental right to abortion.
	Well, this has already been portrayed as grossly out of touch.
	Oh, this is from 1864.
	Everybody's complete. So it must be out of touch, right?
	Because we know that in every way, we're a better country than we were in 1864.
	We're more intelligent.
	We're more moral people.
	Are we? Are we?
	Is America in 2024 better than America was in 1864?
	I'm not so sure about that, quite frankly.
	But the Democrats are going to use this.
	They're hoping that this is going to be a big help to them in the election.
	Because they're going to portray everybody as being backwards that supports it.
	And you already got Carrie Lake, there in Arizona, struggling and struggling, trying to do backstrokes to try to get away from this thing, just like Blake Masters did when Dobbs came out.
	Both of them, celebrity candidates without any principles, Pushed by Donald Trump and, you know, these other people.
	But they grabbed these celebrity candidates like Blake Masters and Carrie Lake.
	Blake Masters was, oh, he's proudly pro-life and all the rest of the stuff.
	Until the Supreme Court said, well, Roe v.
	Wade's gone. It's up to the states.
	It's like, oh, no. And he quickly scrambled and changed all the stuff on his website.
	Carrie Lake is doing the same thing.
	She's already running away from this, rejecting this, trash-talking this.
	Like Trump, Carrie Lake always was a leftist Democrat.
	Always was. Until she realized that she could take these conservative rubes and she could mold them like putty in her fingers.
	And that's exactly what she's been doing.
	We'll be right back. Elvis.
	Ladies and gentlemen, the Beatles.
	And the sweet sounds of Motown.
	Find them on the Oldies channel at APSradio.com.
	Thank you. You're
	listening to The David Knight Show.
	Well, it wasn't that long ago that we had all the mainstream media laughing and mocking Tennessee legislators who said, and also it happened in New Hampshire.
	If you're going to inject something in the atmosphere, we need you to let us know about that, or we're going to hit you with some really big fines, because we know something's happening here.
	Oh, those crazy conspiracy theorists with their chemtrail ideas and all the rest of this stuff.
	Well, researchers at the University of Washington have covertly carried out what is being touted as the U.S. first ever.
	They never did it before.
	No, they have.
	They've been doing it for a very long time.
	Supposedly the first ever outdoor test to curb global warming by increasing cloud cover by launching a mist of salt crystals into the atmosphere from the deck of a decommissioned aircraft carrier in San Francisco Bay.
	They've been doing this kind of stuff for a very long time.
	As a matter of fact, here's one of the videos.
	You'll see a lot of videos like this if you go to Geoengineering Watch.
	There it is. Okay, well, that's a plane.
	He's going lingering behind a really thick contrail.
	And then he just turns it off, and all of a sudden it stops.
	I guess if this is due to weather conditions, all of a sudden the weather conditions just stopped abruptly, and so did his contrail that was there.
	Oh, contrail or chemtrail?
	What is it? It's very persistent there.
	And, of course, we have, in the past...
	There was a little documentary as well as they called it Skyder Alert.
	And they said, look, if you see a big crisscrossing pattern of clouds in the sky, take a picture of it and send it to us.
	And they were forwarding that to Congress.
	And they actually did a correlation.
	And they said, well, when we have a really big cross-hatching of these things in a particular area that were reported by some of our people, we actually see the temperature goes up a little bit.
	So could they be using that to create their narrative that there is global warming or something?
	The New York Times has special access to watch this experiment that they're now admitting as it was taking place, indicating that the secrecy was intentional.
	The idea of interfering with nature is so contentious that organizers of the test kept the details tightly held, concerned that critics would try to stop them.
	Yeah, who are you to be able to inject stuff into the atmosphere and experiment on us?
	Why should you be allowed to experiment on the public?
	Well, that's what we saw happen in 2020, wasn't it?
	They used us all as lab rats, not just in America, but everywhere.
	And this has been happening for quite some time.
	And so... The White House distanced itself from this and said, the U.S. government is not involved in the solar radiation modification experiment taking place in Alameda, California, or anywhere else.
	But the Times said, well, if it works, the next stage would be to aim at the heavens and try to change the composition of clouds above the Earth.
	Well, they have been doing this for a very long time.
	As a matter of fact, we've had things like Operation Popeye, cloud seeding during the Vietnam War, and To increase the storms over there, they thought that was going to be in their advantage.
	They actually gave a medal to the guy who was running that after the war for doing weather modification.
	They had a geoengineering treaty that was signed after the Vietnam War.
	Why would they do that if there wasn't the ability to change the climate and change the weather?
	Well, they are changing everything else as well.
	As a matter of fact, as I said at the beginning of the program, in the UK, you've got the elite universities, the Imperial College of London, the very college that gave that flawed, ridiculously flawed and absurd study that was proffered by Fauci and Birx to Trump.
	Two very smart people gave this to me, he said.
	And as I said before, it doesn't have a curve in it.
	They weren't trying to flatten the curve.
	In the model, it didn't have a curve.
	Every person that got exposed was going to expose two and a half other people.
	And that was going to happen forever.
	And it also was complete garbage.
	It was like a random code generator.
	The University of Edinburgh said, we run the same input into your model.
	We get different answers every time.
	What's going on with your code?
	It was like 15,000 lines of Fortran and a lot of...
	But this is coming from the Imperial College of London.
	Well, the Imperial College of London, Oxford, Cambridge, a lot of named universities in the UK, have put together a new report.
	And in it, they are saying that by 2029, we're talking about five years, in five years, they want all airports in the UK closed.
	I'm not exaggerating. This is what they're saying.
	This is their conspiracy, a conspiracy of academics, a conspiracy of globalists, a conspiracy of various politicians and countries in every country of the world.
	It's just that they got this report from the UK. They want all airports closed by 2029.
	They want beef and lamb banned and many other things.
	And we've seen it. There's so many different organizations that have exactly the same plan.
	You have C40. That's a lot of urban cities that have joined in.
	Originally, it was like 40 cities, and it was started by London and New York.
	It was Bloomberg, and it was Sadiq Khan.
	But now a lot of other cities have joined.
	It's more than 40. It's up to at least 100 last time I looked.
	The UK government reveals that all airports will be ordered to close.
	Eating beef and lamb will be made illegal.
	Construction of new buildings will not be permitted because in order to meet the legal commitment of zero emissions by 2050.
	I talk about these MacGuffins and of course it was zero COVID that was so destructive to China.
	Oh, we're not going to have even a single case of With a positive PCR test where we magnify it by 1.1 trillion.
	And whatever they're looking for, they wouldn't give it to other people.
	Do you have an isolation of this virus that you're looking for?
	Well, I can't give that to you.
	No, no, I can't give that to you.
	But we know what we're looking for.
	Oh, you do? I don't even know what they were looking for.
	But whatever they were looking for, they magnified it by 1.1 trillion times.
	Same game that Fauci had run to say that AIDS was caused by a virus, HIV. But this is the same people who gave us the pandemic MacGuffin and the lockdown.
	The report states that all airports must close between 2020 and 2029, including Heathrow, Glasgow, and Belfast airports.
	They can only stay open on the condition that transfers to and from the airport are done via rail.
	Ha ha ha. You better believe that they're going to have airports open for these politicians to go anywhere they want.
	Oh, well, I've got to go for a climate change conference.
	All remaining airports must close between 2030 and 2049 because to meet the legal commitment of zero emissions by 2050, every citizen of the UK must stop using airplanes for a significant period of time.
	Now, C-40... This agreement, these cities, have said that you'll be allowed to have, every three years, one flight of about 900 miles max.
	That's it. Every three years.
	And you get three articles of clothing.
	They're not even talking about that in this article.
	Three articles of clothing a year.
	In addition to the report, they state that to obey the law of the Climate Change Act...
	The public will be required to stop doing anything that causes emissions regardless of its energy source.
	This will require the public to never eat beef or lamb ever again.
	To do this, the national consumption of beef and lamb will drop by 50% between 2020 and 2029.
	Drop by 50% in five years.
	Then between 2030 and 2049, beef and lamb will be phased out.
	And that's exactly what C40 had.
	They said, we've got two different ways.
	Here's the less aggressive thing.
	We'll reduce it by this amount, by this amount.
	And then this is our ideal goal.
	Where's zero meat? Zero meat.
	And it's all because we've got this law.
	We're going to let these people, these corrupt politicians, enslave us with a document?
	Look, folks, if the Magna Carta and the Constitution aren't worth the paper that they're written on, neither is their Climate Change Act.
	Rip it up. Burn it.
	Do it in their face. I'm sick of this stuff.
	The report also confirms that construction of new buildings must cease by 2050.
	The underlying point is that any asset which uses carbon will have essentially zero value in 2050.
	This, in turn, may encourage greater use in the run-up to 2050, for example, putting up new buildings at a much faster rate for the next 30 years.
	Oh, we can build them all at warp speed, right?
	Watch them all fall down.
	And then we just have to stop.
	Well, if this is a crisis, and again, you notice when you, this is, again, like the pandemic thing.
	Well, you know, we're going to have to do this and this and this, but we're going to do it in stages.
	And so we're going to, here's the next stage we're going to do.
	We're doing this today. And of course, France and the United States and Canada are also doing it at the same time.
	And then in two months, all of us are going to do this next thing.
	It's like, hey, if this is an emergency, if we're all going to die because of a climate emergency, or we're all going to die because of some pandemic, don't you think you ought to do it now instead of waiting another couple months?
	If you're going to wait for months or for years to do this kind of stuff, you don't have an emergency.
	You have an agenda of gradual change.
	Can't we see through this?
	Then the construction must halt.
	So, Universities of Cambridge, Oxford, Nottingham, Bath, Imperial College of London, which is where Neil Ferguson was.
	The report is titled, Absolute Zero.
	It's absolute stupidity.
	It's absolute tyranny.
	It is a prescription for absolute authoritarianism.
	Research collaboration which the authors reveal what the UK must do to meet its legal requirements to reach net zero emissions by 2015.
	It makes for a harrowing reading.
	This is one of the reasons why I want to have James Roguski on.
	Nobody has followed this in more detail.
	For longer than has James Roguski.
	And so we want to find out what's going on with this other scam.
	Because they're going to play that scam.
	Well, you're legally obliged to do this and that.
	You're legally obliged under the climate treaty to do this and that.
	Or under our climate law that we just passed.
	And it's like, no.
	No. So...
	The timeline events may speed up significantly because the government enshrined a new target law in April 2021 to slash emissions by 78%.
	By the year 2035, that's only nine years away, folks.
	The report says there are two key implications for how we live our lives.
	It's talking about jobs and things like that.
	First, buildings will become much more expensive because the restrictions on buildings, which generate substantial scarcities, Second, transport will become much more expensive because the limits on air travel will generate excess demand for other forms of transport.
	Now, see, they're going to be more expensive.
	Who are we paying this to?
	This is a massive wealth transfer to a few people.
	It's such an amazingly obvious scam, isn't it?
	Oh, well, you know, everything's going to be a lot more expensive.
	Well, who are we paying this extra money to?
	Oh, well, we've got to pay it to these mandarins out there who are telling us that we're all going to die from a 1.5 degree temperature when they don't even have any proof that it's going to go up.
	It goes on to say, those who are starting secondary school now in 2019 will be 43 in 2050.
	Thinking about what education is appropriate for a very different set of industries is a key question.
	Should we still be training airplane pilots, or should we be training aeronautical engineers?
	No, we should be training people that 2 plus 2 equals 5.
	We should be training them that there is no correct answer, that math is racist because we want dumbed-down idiots who aren't going to be a challenge to us.
	They don't want to have pilots or engineers.
	They want to have slaves, ignorant slaves.
	And that's why people like Bill Gates are putting these types of curricula together.
	The changes in behavior to achieve absolute zero, again, that's what they want, absolute zero, are clearly substantial.
	In principle, these changes could be induced through, these are the people plotting all this.
	These are the conspirators talking.
	These changes could be induced through changing prices, thus providing clear incentives for behavior to change.
	The alternative is that the government prohibits certain types of behavior and regulates production processes.
	So we either tax this and send the money to me, or you just ban it outright.
	We could argue that they're already well on their way to ensuring the closure of many airports.
	And, you know, when you look at all the stuff that's happening with United Airlines and the DEI stuff with pilots and the planes that are falling apart midair, You think they're trying to nudge us in that direction?
	I do. Is it just a coincidence that four months after the release of the report, the UK government brought in the Coronavirus Act and implemented a national lockdown which decimated the travel industry?
	I also decimated small mom and pops and small farms and all the rest of this stuff.
	A quick read through the report certainly suggests that the real reason for lockdown may have been so the government can meet its legal commitment to reduce emissions.
	That's the MacGuffin.
	The purpose is to steal your money to enslave you.
	They manage all the above through psychological manipulation and coercion.
	That's not an opinion, it's a fact.
	Documented and official government documents from the U.K., And they've got a lot of links.
	By the way, this is from Exposé News out of the UK. They are going to use the exact same tactics to ensure that you allow all airports to close, that you never eat beef or lamb again.
	This is what the report recommends and what the UK government implements to achieve their legally required targets, they say.
	And then they go on to say in their report, there is a misalignment between the scale of actions recommended by government.
	Notice that they say recommended.
	Isn't that what they said about Trump?
	Trump didn't lock us down.
	He just recommended things.
	And it was those bad Democrat governors who locked us down.
	He just recommended things.
	Fauci says that too. I just made recommendations.
	Don't get mad at me.
	It's those other people who did it.
	They're recommendations. So, scale of action is recommended by government for energy conservation, for example.
	Those that are most commonly performed by individuals, such as recycling, they said there's a misalignment between the scale.
	So, the government wants us to conserve energy, but individuals are out there recycling, and of course, that's always been a crock from the very beginning.
	And they're not even pretending to do that anymore.
	Certainly not with wind turbine blades.
	That's a big use of plastics, isn't it?
	How many of these little plastic bottles do you have to collect in a container to equal one blade from one of these turbines?
	Actions which can have a big effect, such as better insulation in houses, not flying, are being ignored in favor of small, high-profile actions such as not using plastic straws, they said.
	This is enabling individuals to feel satisfied that they're doing their bit without actually making the lifestyle changes required to meet the zero emissions target.
	If large-scale social change is to be successful, we need a new approach, says the government.
	While the thought of society taking radical, meaningful steps to meet zero-emission targets could be criticized for being idealistic, we can learn from historical cultural changes.
	Not long ago, smoking cigarettes was encouraged, and it was considered to be acceptable in public spaces.
	How do we do that?
	We did it with propaganda campaigns, and I've argued that that's far more effective than psychological approach.
	It's been far more effective with tobacco use reduction than has government prohibition.
	The closest that they came to anything was these ludicrous just say no campaigns and things like that.
	But they were very effective in terms of stopping tobacco by using psychological attacks.
	Evidence from behavioral science and the long experience in public health of changing behaviors around smoking and alcohol...
	To make the types of changes described in the report, we'll have to think more broadly.
	And we will have to help the public make decisions to determine carbon emissions.
	In other words, to get this done quickly, we're going to need to have a little bit of, not so much carrots, but more sticks.
	Starting with the difficult decisions, an educational setting should provide a timeline for actions to be taken by humanity in order to ensure that we hit our carbon reduction targets by 2050.
	They're going to do propaganda through the schools.
	They're going to get everybody on board with this goal that we've got.
	And these people got very specific actions that they want to have happen by very specific dates.
	They are good at accomplishing things.
	You know, if you've got some things that you'd like to see happen, but you don't have a specific date that it's going to happen by.
	You don't have a goal.
	You have a wish list.
	Well, these people are going to make this into a real goal.
	So they've got a very specific time frame, and they're going to get you on their agenda.
	And embracing this date.
	You don't think they can do that with crowds?
	Just take a look at what's going on with all the mania about different things, whether it's a solar eclipse or whatever.
	They can pump up enthusiasm about anything like that.
	Everybody's all hyped about it.
	Across the secondary school system, this roadmap is essential in eliciting the questions which will inevitably come from school children.
	Like, why do I have to go back and live like the dark ages?
	Oh, well, Johnny, we're all going to die if you don't.
	This will enable an exploration of real changes in the mindsets of those who will need to embrace the change more than ever before later in their lives.
	In other words, we've got to start with these kids because they're going to be the ones who are going to live with nothing.
	And they're going to be asking, why can't I live, why can't I have the things like the people had in the movies that I see?
	Oh well, we would have all died long ago if we hadn't taken away the automobile.
	Huge questions will emerge such as, will internal combustion engines disappear?
	Will airplanes disappear?
	Will meat and dairy agriculture disappear?
	Will we need to stop building things?
	These people are insane folks.
	This is what they're saying. No meat, no dairy.
	Stop building things. You can't go anywhere.
	You can't do anything. This is what they want.
	And they say this change must be embraced through education.
	And when we go back and we look at the communist revolutions, We look at the Hitler Youth or the propagandizing of Mao people.
	Boy, they are a long way down this road already in America, and we can't even see the similarity.
	Most people are calling it, oh, this is something new.
	I guess what we call it, I guess we'll call it woke.
	These people are aware.
	No, they're not at all aware.
	And the population is not either.
	When you consider a population of 68 million people in the UK alone, now this is a commentary, this is not their report.
	It's a commentary from Exposé.
	When you consider 68 million people in the UK, nearly 8 billion people worldwide, and all of a sudden it sounds like in order to meet a target that is enshrined in these new laws, it may be easier just to reduce the population.
	Because it was always about population reduction.
	It was always about killing everybody else and stealing what we have.
	The Absolute Zero Report, authored by Oxford University and Imperial College London.
	Oxford University was the inventor of the AstraZeneca COVID vaccine.
	Imperial College of London was the one that was used to justify draconian lockdowns to Trump and then to everybody else.
	Once you realize that the past two years have been part of a much more sinister agenda that has only just begun, and that's where we're going to be talking to James Orguski about the other side of this, and that is the pandemic treaty, or more specifically the IHR, the International Health Rules.
	Because as I pointed out the other day, they've got these two documents, and once you start to say, well, you're going to do this, oh, no, that's not in...
	That document. Because it's in the other document, and they pretend that it's not there in either.
	Biden, as we look at the U.S. That was the U.K. Biden, same thing.
	He's spelling out how to decarbonize American buildings.
	He's got a plan for it.
	And folks, he's not going to stop at getting rid of air conditioning.
	He's not going to stop at getting rid of gas ranges and things.
	He's going to get rid of buildings as well.
	No new building. Sweeping changes to appliances, power grid, smart control systems.
	That is what the Biden administration is talking about.
	As part of a whole of government approach.
	And where else did we see that?
	A whole of government approach with CBDC as well.
	The DOE, the Department of Energy, is outlining for the first time ever a comprehensive federal plan to reduce energy in our homes, schools, workplaces, lowering utility bills.
	No, it's not going to lower utility bills.
	It says Jennifer Granholm, Secretary of the Department of Energy.
	Where did she get her engineering degree?
	Oh, that's right. She doesn't have an engineering degree.
	She doesn't know anything about science.
	She's got a BS degree in political science, which is not science.
	Yeah, she's full of Bolshevik.
	That's what she's got. She's got a Bolshevik degree in political science.
	The DOE's report also describes grid-responsive smart thermostats, water heaters, and other appliances as key measures.
	That's what RFK Jr.
	was talking about. You see, they've got us boxed in with these presidential candidates.
	No matter which way you turn, these people are all on board.
	They're all on the same team. They've got different faces.
	They say some things that are different.
	They have a different person so that you can think that there's really something different, but they're all on the same page.
	They're all marching to the same destination.
	I also talk about bi-directional EV charging infrastructure.
	In other words, they are not going to let you drive your EV. Your EV is going to be a big, expensive battery for them to use for their grid.
	Virtual power plants.
	What they mean by that are these massive battery energy storage systems.
	I think what would be a better term for it would be a massive arson device.
	It even has a nice acronym, MAD, because it's insane.
	You're going to take, I just showed you yesterday, the e-bike and how these things are spontaneously catching fire in all the cities and things like that, killing scores of people, setting hundreds of fires.
	That's a little e-bike.
	Let's get a battery collection here that's big enough to back up the grid for hours.
	What is that? That is a massive arson device.
	It's crazy. It's mad.
	The Biden administration is setting its sights on these major changes while simultaneously moving to reshape the power grid by 2040 using regulations crafted by the EPA. You've got the EPA. You've got the Department of Energy.
	These things have to be shut down or they're going to kill us.
	It's just that simple. The EPA dies or we die.
	The Department of Energy dies or we die.
	These were things that were created in my lifetime.
	They're not that old.
	They're only about 50 years old and they've already done enough damage.
	It is regulation without representation.
	It is taxation without representation.
	The plan for building electrification will save Americans $100 billion in energy costs, says the DOE. That's absolute nonsense.
	It's a total lie.
	It's going to cost us everything.
	And so, it's so bad, as a matter of fact.
	There's another article out of the UK out of Exposé.
	So oil is running out.
	So think about what you're going to do as a personal survival plan.
	And we're running out of time, so I won't go into any of the details here.
	But it's basically they're starting to look at prepping.
	Prepping without having – what are you going to do when there's no power grid, when you can't get the food that you want to eat, that you need to eat to be healthy, because they're going to shut all this stuff down?
	As I said earlier, these net zero policies have already made electricity five times more expensive in the UK than in China.
	Why? Because of the Paris Climate Accord.
	Supposedly, this is global warming, but it doesn't matter when the CO2 is put up by China or by India.
	In Canada, Trudeau is acting like an imperial colonial government.
	Governor in terms of, he won't even meet with the premiers from these various provinces about his oppressive carbon tax.
	Again, this is how we're going to affect, we're going to propagandize the kids in school and we're going to steal money from the adults with carbon taxes.
	Trudeau's refusal to meet with five Canadian premiers who have demanded a meeting with him to discuss the ever-escalating carbon tax that shot up by 23% April fools on April 1st shows that he lacks leadership, said one of them.
	They have respectfully asked him for a meeting, but he gave us a snarky answer.
	I've already met with you before.
	That's not leadership, they said.
	And so you've got a lot of different ones.
	Here's Doug Ford.
	He says this carbon tax has got to go, or in a year and a half, the prime minister is going to be going.
	It's as simple as that. He will be going, I guarantee you.
	He said taxing people doesn't reduce emissions, and that's what they're doing.
	They're hurting the economy. They're hurting people.
	It's unacceptable. That's the plan.
	And they have been doubling this stuff.
	And we all know that...
	He's Klaus Schwab's boy.
	We've got our people in all these different administrations.
	Very clear what they're doing.
	One last thing, and then we're going to go to our guest, James Roguski.
	2,000 elderly Swiss women have now won a landmark climate case.
	This is a lawsuit that's been going on for eight years.
	And... All these women were over the age of 64 when they began this thing, and they said, you know, climate change is hurting us the most.
	You know, the world is going to end, and women and elderly people are affected the most.
	That was actually a national lampoon headline.
	They made fun of that in the 1970s.
	But look, it is a human rights issue.
	They don't want us to be able to eat.
	They don't want us to be able to build anything, travel anything, have clothing, have buildings, none of this stuff.
	They want to take away all of our freedoms.
	They want to lock us down. And they're using lawsuits, just like we see in Hawaii, using lawsuits to try to shut all this stuff down.
	It's not a theory.
	These people are not in any threat situation.
	But what they are saying must happen is a threat to people.
	We have seen, 15 years ago when I was talking about the climate stuff, we had retirees in Germany who were on a pension and didn't have enough money to pay for the increased electric bills due to so-called renewable expensive energy.
	They were turning off their heating and they were dying.
	We had a hurricane that went through Florida, took out the electricity.
	We had a lot of elderly people in nursing homes who died from the heat.
	They will die with extreme weather, but of course, if they get their way, there won't be any heating or air conditioning for people.
	It's just amazing to me that people can't think this through, that they can't see the massive transfer.
	But it all fits together, and we have these so-called treaties that they say that we are obliged to obey.
	And so we're going to take a look at the other side of this.
	After we come back from break, we'll be talking to James Roguski.
	Stay with us. We'll be right back.
	If you like the Eagles, the cars, and Huey Lewis and the News, they say You'll love the Classic Hits channel at APS Radio.
	Download our app or listen now at APSradio.com.
	The common man.
	I thought I heard something.
	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. TheDavidKnightShow.com Alright,
	welcome back. And joining us now is James Roguski.
	You can find him on Substack at James Roguski.
	That's R-O-G-U-S-K-I. JamesRoguski.substack.com.
	And I wanted to get him on.
	As I said earlier in the program, nobody has...
	He was the first person really to alert everybody to what was going on with the WHO situation.
	So I wanted to get an update from James about what is going on with this, as well as people pushing back with it.
	Because they keep doing the same things.
	It's very similar what they do with these different tactics.
	And so here we've got yet another so-called document, global document, that they're going to claim gives them some kind of a legal mandate to control us.
	So joining us now is James Roguski.
	Thank you for joining us, James. Good to have you back on.
	David, thanks for having me.
	I think you were the very first person to give me an opportunity to have a platform to share this with probably about two years ago now.
	I actually want to start off by talking about the image behind you with all the trees because I think I can give an analogy to what is really going on.
	Let me see if I can paint a mental picture.
	Will we be able to see the forest for the trees?
	Exactly. That's the other one.
	If you could imagine walking down the little lane there in sort of a wooded area with your dog, and your dog breaks off the leash and sees the squirrel and goes and chases the squirrel up one of those trees.
	And you noticed that the squirrel went up to the top and was going across the treetops and was way on the other side of the woods and your dog is still barking up the tree that he saw.
	Okay. This is what we're dealing with right now.
	Okay. A slightly different analogy.
	If you can imagine being in contract negotiations, and you're looking for a job, and you put your demands down, you know, somebody wants to hire you, and you want a certain wage, and you want vacation, and you want health care, you want benefits, and, you know, you throw in there a couple of things like, well, I want to use the company Maserati and the company Yacht, and, you know, I want to have, you know, 20 personal assistants and all these many other things.
	But negotiations often start out with some crazy demands that, you know, if nobody's paying attention and you sign off on it and it's given, wow, that was great.
	I never expected to get those crazy, crazy things.
	But then, you know, at the end, when this push comes to shove and you've got to make a decision and sign the contract, you go, well, okay, I'll do without the Maserati, but I want all these other basic things.
	This is what's going on.
	I don't know if people watched a TV show from a decade or so ago.
	I didn't really watch it, but I know about it.
	It was called Punk'd, right?
	Everybody's getting punk'd.
	Oh, look over here. Look over here.
	There's a squirrel. Look at these horrible, horrible things.
	But what's really going on in the background, nobody's paying attention to.
	So, you know, there's a lot of decoys being pushed around.
	A lot of things that were in the documents when we first talked two years ago.
	There were a lot of things that were in the documents a year ago.
	Four weeks ago, I published a leaked version of the negotiating text of the amendments.
	I thought I found the holy grail.
	I was actually looking for a new version of the other document, the quote-unquote treaty, And one of the local Geneva civil society organizations, nonprofit, whatever, you know, one of the insiders who has a seat at the table made the mistake of publishing something that they weren't really supposed to publish.
	I was, you know, blessed by the heavens to stumble upon it.
	I republished it, and they quickly took theirs down, because somebody must have said, hey, you let it out, what are you doing?
	And, David, I might as well have dropped it into a black hole People still want to look at the old documents.
	They're still barking up the wrong tree, chasing the old squirrel who's long gone.
	And last week I published, I should say I republished, because of all places Politico was the first one to leak it, a leaked version of the other document, the amendment. And we can talk about both of these things. I'd like to get into just a little bit of the detail about the secrecy behind them.
	Mm-hmm.
	When I published the secret version, or I should say again, republished the secret version of the new proposed treaty, it was almost a year to the day that I published an article about someone that most people probably don't even know, Ambassador Pamela Hamamoto.
	She went to the same school in Hawaii as Obama, so make of that what you wish.
	But she was nominated over a year ago in October of 2022, I think it was, to be the lead negotiator for this pandemic treaty.
	And over a year ago, the Chinese delegate stood up in their April meeting in 2023 and said, we want, meaning China, we want these negotiations to be secret in the sense that we don't want to publish the terms that each nation wants to put into the agreement.
	And who stood up to second the motion other than Ambassador Pamela Hamamoto from the United States saying, yeah, yeah, yeah, let's keep this all under wraps and keep it secret.
	The documents that leaked out that I republished Have the edits of this nation said that they want to change this and that nation said that they want to change the other thing.
	So, you know, the secret is out and there's a very good reason why they don't want anyone to know what each nation is saying because despite what everyone is saying, you know, in the alternative media about the old squirrel that ran up the tree and is long gone with the documents from well over a year ago, The nations are having a really difficult time.
	So the last meeting that was supposed to be for the amendments...
	It was in December.
	When they set up their original schedule, they were going to be done the first week of December.
	They were going to hand over their package of amendments to the International Health Regulations Review Committee, and it was supposed to be submitted before January 27th of this year, 2024.
	Well, in October, I reported that their co-chair said We're not going to make our deadline.
	They know that they were not able to reach agreement.
	Invite 194 delegates from nations around the world over to your house for a pizza party and see how long it takes to figure out what they want on their pizza.
	Let me ask you that. You saw some of the edits and said some of, you know, this is what one nation wants, this is what another one wants.
	What are the points of disagreement that they can't come to consensus on?
	We'll talk about the two separate documents because there's two separate things going on in there.
	And in the amendments, they were supposed to be done by December, supposed to be public four months in advance of the May meeting.
	And so, what ends up popping up in there that is not in the original documents is they want to strengthen the ability of nations to quarantine foreign travelers who are, you know, traveling internationally.
	We could go way down the rabbit hole, but just imagine the irony and the hypocrisy of having an open southern border, and you're negotiating.
	This is often confused, so I'm going to take my time and try to be very precise.
	This is not the WHO saying that the nations have to do this, that, or the other.
	This is a gentleman's agreement amongst 196 nations in the IHR where they are essentially saying, well, we know that we can't force our people to do jabs or drugs or quarantine or all those sort of things, but we have all of the right in the world to do it to all of the members of the other 195 nations.
	We can abuse foreigners who want to come into the country.
	If you're familiar with the story with Novak Djojkovic, the tennis player, his name is Novak, but he's living up to it because he wouldn't get the vaccine.
	And so he wasn't allowed in to play.
	I think it was the U.S. Open and other countries.
	I think Australia wouldn't let him in, not just because he wasn't jabbed, but because he wasn't a citizen.
	His rights are not protected by our Bill of Rights.
	And so there's a lot of talk going around right now.
	People are trying to get states to pass resolutions or laws saying, oh, the WHO doesn't have jurisdiction in Louisiana, right?
	There's a Senate Bill 133.
	Well, no shit, Sherlock, right?
	Of course the WHO doesn't have jurisdiction in any state in the union.
	That isn't the issue.
	There's no state law that is going to protect you when, if you're from Louisiana, you go on a Caribbean cruise and you want to disembark in the Bahamas and the Bahamas say, well, you know, we're going to institute our quarantine on your ship because, you know, somebody didn't pass a rapid antigen test and there might be some scary disease on board.
	Mm-hmm, mm-hmm. Everyone is barking up, you know, the tree on the left, and they're sneaking in stuff that nobody's paying any attention to.
	And there's a certain symmetry to that, to what happened with us between the federal government and the states in 2020.
	And you go back and you look at after the anthrax attack, We're good to go.
	And so after all this stuff runs, you know, we hear from people trying to make excuses for Trump or trying to make excuses for Fauci or Fauci making excuses for himself.
	I didn't order anybody to do anything.
	I don't have that power. I made recommendations.
	And of course, we've got fiat currency to back up our fiat orders and flood them with cash, declare an emergency, flood them with cash, and let the rest of the stuff happen.
	It's going to be, as you pointed out, it's going to be a very subtle way that they get exactly what they want, whether they do it with the international stuff.
	One of the things that concerns me is you're pointing out the hypocrisy, the absurdity of having a wide-open southern border.
	And it's got a lot of different issues with that.
	But one of the problems is a lot of people who oppose that are coming after it from the disease standpoint and saying, oh, we've got all these people coming in with measles and all the rest of the stuff.
	We've got to lock that down. And we have to have stricter controls.
	And that kind of thing can backfire, just like, you know, oh, well, we've got all these people coming in that are illegal aliens, so all of you need to get an ID. All of you need to get some kind of a vaccine ID or permit or something like that because we've got people coming in So they can use things like that to push their agenda.
	We've got to be careful that we don't become suckers for that, that we take a look at what the longer-term agenda is, I think.
	What do you think? Dave, I'm going to have to charge you rent for taking up residence inside my head.
	Take the words right out of my mouth.
	That's exactly the point.
	What happened with the decoy, with the original documents, were language that was convoluted because it came primarily from Bangladesh and India.
	India, I can still remember, I was sitting right where I'm sitting right now when I read the document for the first time, and India had proposed a change to Article 3.
	They proposed crossing out language that is currently in the international health regulations.
	They would cross out the words that said, The regulations have to be implemented with full respect for the dignity, human rights, and fundamental freedoms of people.
	They would cost that out.
	Well, I remember my jaw hanging open going, oh, well, that's crazy.
	And I pushed my jaw back up and it came right back down.
	And I'm like, okay, this is insane.
	There's no way in... Oh, wait a minute.
	That's a decoy.
	That's them saying, oh, look over here.
	And so you've got to dig in deeper.
	It's like, well, what are we not looking at?
	And so I've spoken to people in India, and at some point they said, oh, that was just a misunderstanding.
	We've retracted that.
	Now, Bangladesh and the African nations, the reason for these negotiations, they called for them on December 1st, 2021.
	It's not that WHO said, we want to take over the world.
	It's the relatively poor nations.
	We're dealing with something that, you know, you have to erase the blackboard of your mind and forget everything you've talked about and everything you know, because that's going to get in the way.
	You've got to let yourself be stupid for a moment.
	And here's what is actually going on.
	In the end of 2021, after 2020 and COVID and then a year of everybody getting jabbed like that was going to save the world, the relatively poor nations, think about South Africa and Botswana, they identified Omicron.
	And they handed over the genetic sequences, just like, you know, the WHIV-1 was handed over.
	Think about that genetic sequence and how many hundreds of billions of dollars that data file was worth.
	It's the new gold rush. They turned that into Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, everybody else.
	Billions of dollars.
	So when South Africa and Botswana handed over Omicron's sequence, believe it or not, it is undeniable that there was a digital file that was said to be this new variant.
	Well, they were not happy because they were greeted with travel restrictions, hurt their economy, and then they watched Pfizer and Moderna turn that into a couple of more billion dollars by putting it into the booster.
	So what they're actually negotiating, it says in the treaty principles that sovereignty includes sovereign control over biological resources, right?
	In the amendments, they said, you're not getting any more sequences unless we share in the benefits.
	They want to create what they call a pathogen access benefit sharing system.
	We'll give you our biological weapons data.
	You could go turn it into drugs and jams, but you're going to have to share the profits with us.
	So this is, you know, the treaty is a corrupt business deal.
	I've dubbed it the new OPEC. I'm sure you're familiar, you know, the oil producing and exporting countries.
	The new OPEC is the Organization of Pandemic Emergency Corporations.
	What they want with the treaty...
	Is $30 billion a year coming from nations in the global north because they're the ones with the money or they're the ones who know how to print money or digitally create money.
	They want to put that into a fund that would be governed by either the WHO or most likely the Conference of the Parties, which should be reminiscent of the Framework Convention for Climate Change, You sign on to a framework empty convention, and then you have a bunch of unelected bureaucrats have a party once a year, get together and decide the fate of the world.
	And since you signed on to the blank agreement, whatever they decide somehow finds its way into your local laws.
	They want to distribute up to $30 billion a year to go looking for pathogens.
	They refer to them as pathogens with pandemic potential.
	Whenever I hear that, I hear pathogens with pandemic profiteering potential.
	Yeah. So they want to set up a WHO-coordinated laboratory network so that you have a Wuhan Institute of Virology on every street corner.
	Yeah. Bring in your pathogens that you find in your septic system or your sewage treatment, wastewater.
	The CDC is monitoring wastewater around the country.
	Just go look it up, you know, wastewater surveillance, CDC. All around the world, they're doing that.
	They're taking black water out of the bathrooms in airplanes when international flights come in, looking for pathogens.
	Yeah. They might want to check your chicken coop or your pigsty or your dog or cat's stool sample when you go to the veterinarian's office because you typically find pathogens in excrement.
	They might need to go to the local bat cave and get some guano to bring into the lab so that they can find a sequence that could be turned into money, make some products, and then in the amendments...
	Currently, people maybe are aware that the Director General can declare what's called a Public Health Emergency of International Concern, P-H-E-I-C, or fake.
	You can't make this stuff up.
	He can declare a fake.
	That's in the International Health Regulations from 2005.
	Well, what they're adding with this latest leaked version of the amendments is an early action alert, which has fewer requirements than the zero requirements to declare a fake.
	Just if he wants to.
	So I call that a pre-fake.
	And then he can also declare a post-fake, which is called a pandemic emergency.
	So if you can go looking for pathogens, tweak them a little bit in the lab, turn them into drugs and jams, and then find some compliant local officials who Who will attempt to coerce and overstep their authority and do some kind of, you know, fear mongering and say, oh, we found this pathogen.
	Oh, one bird died in a flock of a million and we cranked up the PCR test to a hundred and, you know, they had bird flu.
	We got to kill all your birds or we got to jab all your people or we got to, you know, put you in quarantine or whatever it might be.
	If you keep falling for the hypnosis psychological operation from the World Hypnosis Organization, the WHO, they're going to keep doing it because it's really, really profitable.
	And the treaty is essentially a trade deal.
	It is constitutional.
	Now, this hurts people's heads, I know.
	Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, it's the Commerce Clause.
	The federal government was given the enumerated authority by the original states to regulate international commerce with foreign nations.
	So if we want to give billions of dollars to the WHO to redistribute to oligarchs in the third world who are going to be building laboratories and testing equipment and mRNA manufacturing facilities so that they can get in on the deal, To scare people and make products to jam the black and brown people that the big pharma missed the first time around.
	Is that how you would prevent the next pandemic?
	Or is that how you would set up a racketeering organization, a crime syndicate, to profiteer from the next scary thing?
	Well, do you recall, I'm sure you probably do, Event 201?
	Oh, yeah. Okay, the same group that did Event 201 in October of 2019, in October of 2022, same group put on catastrophic contagion.
	And what they were simulating in their tabletop exercise was For the oil,
	yeah. Could it be that in the Caribbean, off the coast, there's all kinds of oil?
	Well, interestingly enough, the planned, or I should say the simulated outbreak scheduled for 2025 is in eastern Venezuela.
	Catastrophic contagion.
	So I noticed, and this is back in October of 2022, that That they neglected to reserve the domain name, catastrophiccontagion.com.
	So I'm the proud owner of catastrophiccontagion.com.
	If anybody wants to know what they're planning for 2025, go check it out.
	Well, I think it's amazing, you know, that they're still doing these germ games, because they got away with it, you know, the first one two months before 9-11, and they've done one every year, and they're still doing it.
	After this COVID routine, still during their annual germ games and its usual suspects, usually Johns Hopkins and people from the CIA, people from DARPA, BARDA, all these different people there, they're all there, still doing the same germ game.
	And so, you know, they know where and when and what is going to happen.
	And so the idea is they want to have the WHO be in charge of the global distribution and logistics network.
	Tedros gave a talk at the World Government Summit and proudly said that they have a 20,000 square meter distribution hub in Dubai. That's about four football fields. So if you were the godfather of pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response, and you had four football fields in each of your six regions that you had to fill up with
	pandemic related products, who do you think is going to get those contracts, Dave? Oh yeah. Right?
	You think they're going out to bid, or do you think your cronies who are sitting around the table trying to get a piece of the pie, why do you think all of the small nations want this agreement to go through? It's because they won a piece of a multi-billion dollar pie.
	Yes I want to ask you a rhetorical question.
	It's a trick question, and I don't want to mess with your head.
	I'll give you the right answer for my opinion.
	The right answer is none of the above.
	Would you rather have The WHO set up a search and exploration mission with billions of dollars looking for pathogens with pandemic potential to bring into the WHO-coordinated laboratory network so they can run it through the pathogen access and benefit sharing system so whoever found the pathogen gets some of the profits when...
	They ease the regulatory restrictions and all these drugs and jabs get put into play real quick and then they could distribute all of the products and have their leader be the one who could declare a pre-fake, a fake or a post-fake.
	Or, option B, would you rather have the United States Defense Department pledge $5 billion over the next five years in the December 2022 National Defense Authorization Act to do pretty much the same thing And in 2023, they doled out about $340 million to 37 countries around the nation to start building, you know, the biolabs.
	Oh, imagine that.
	12 Caribbean countries were first on the list.
	Maybe that's connected to catastrophic contagion.
	And, you know, others in Africa, South America, and so forth.
	Would you prefer to have the WHO in charge of the research, development, distribution, and proliferation of biological weapons, or do you think that we should keep that as part of the United States Defense Department?
	Yeah, exactly.
	Yeah, you're right.
	None of the above. It is very dangerous.
	And, you know, let me, before we run out of time, We talk about these treaties, and this is one of the reasons why it's been so concerning to me.
	You know, we go back and we look at the Paris Climate Accord, for example, on the climate side.
	When they put this thing together, all these different nations get together at their conference, you know, the COP, whatever the number was.
	And John Kerry comes back and says, yeah, Obama and I self-ratified that, you know.
	Well, that's not what the Constitution says.
	So all the people who think that, well, we've got to have something ratified here, That's not the way they're going to use it.
	They have these agreements.
	They say, well, we've agreed to this.
	Whether or not they have followed any legal procedure, they will still use it.
	That's the key thing. And so regardless of, you know, once there's an agreement, and that's, I guess, the key thing is whether or not these countries can come to an agreement.
	But once they do come to an agreement, then what the United States government will do is say, well, that's it.
	We're part of that treaty. And nobody in the Senate, Ever.
	No Republican, not Mitch McConnell, not Rand Paul.
	Nobody ever came back and said, you know, we never had a vote on the Paris Climate Accord.
	That was supposedly ratified by John Kerry, by himself, Secretary of State.
	But that's not how this works.
	Nobody ever called their bluff.
	And they're not going to call the bluff on anything that's coming out of this World Health Organization negotiation either, are they?
	I completely agree with you, but it's actually even worse than that.
	If you could imagine.
	Let me try to explain.
	I know we've got maybe 10 minutes.
	When we first met, when you first had me on two years ago, what I was talking about then, what had happened, what I had uncovered, was after the nations on December 1st, 2021, said that they wanted the WHO to oversee negotiations for equitable access to pandemic-related products.
	We don't want to give you our pathogens anymore.
	That's a sovereign resource.
	You guys aren't paying us for all the money you're making.
	After the nations said that, and they said that they wanted to have manufacturing be distributed all around the world, the Biden administration, a month and a half later in January of 2022, submitted amendments to the international health regulations putting stricter requirements on nations.
	And the problem that they have, and they still have, is there's very strict, you know, poor nations shall do this and shall do that and shall do the other thing.
	All of the comments or suggested edits from the United States and the EU are like, well, you guys have to do what we want you to do.
	But, you know, the shalls, right?
	It's a shall game. When you see the word shall in the document, it means you must, unless there's a qualifier.
	And so for all of the requirements on Big Pharma, it's like you shall consider making your contracts, you know, transparent.
	You shall, you know, share intellectual property if you kind of want to, right?
	You got to look at the qualifiers.
	But what happened in 2022...
	Is the Biden administration was planning ahead, got to give them a little credit, they were planning ahead saying, well, any amendments in the future, rather than going into effect in 24 months, they wanted to shorten it down to six.
	And if you look at the calendar, if the assembly ends on June 1st, six months from June 1st is still in the Biden administration.
	If it was, you know, 24 months or whatever, that would go into whoever's going to be the next president.
	And so they were trying to speed this process up so that they could ram through something in the future.
	Well, the poor nations looked at that and they said, no, not doing it, not going to have it.
	Mostly about the requirements.
	And then what happened is in violation of Article 55, which it should be called the anti-Nancy Pelosi rule, because they say that any amendments have to have four months advance notice.
	So, the deadline...
	You know, you can't just roll the bill in, thousand-page Obamacare, and Nancy famously said, oh, just vote for it.
	You can read it later. Yeah, you've got 48 hours to decide what you want with this thing.
	Right. So... In the middle of the 2022 Assembly, the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Union, a handful of other countries, illegitimately submitted new amendments to be considered.
	And four days later, the World Health Organization published a document that said they had adopted these amendments.
	Well, little problem.
	They didn't bother to vote. They just said they were adopted.
	Now, I know we have election integrity issues in the United States, but they at least pretend to have a vote.
	Yeah, we're at that point now.
	It says in the document that it's certified by their legal counsel, and then down on the bottom it said it happened in their eighth plenary session.
	Well, you could go watch the eighth session, and they never even talked about it.
	So, 18 months to the day after that, on November 28th, 2023, we did get a dozen members of the European Parliament to write a letter to Tedraus.
	And say, you know, we see these amendments and, you know, we got a deadline to reject them, but there's no proof that you ever voted.
	These are all null and void.
	Rob Roos, who's the member of the European Parliament, and Philippe Caruso, who's a lawyer in Switzerland, I'm, you know, talking to him all the time, They flew to the United States and presented this to Senator Ron Johnson at his last meeting that he had about a month or so ago.
	And it was a collective, eh, whatever.
	Really?
	And so the issue here is it's a boys club, meaning the members of each nation, the delegates, they decide what the rules are amongst themselves.
	It's not the WHO saying you have to do this.
	And so if all of the nations agree to have stricter quarantine requirements on foreign travelers who are coming in legitimately, and they say, well, we'll abuse your people, and you abuse ours.
	That way, we can still be within our constitution, but we get planet lockdown whenever we want it, because people are going to be afraid to travel.
	They don't want to sit in quarantine and get forced jabbed.
	So this game is far more sophisticated.
	Everybody wants a simple answer.
	It's very similar. What you're talking about is very similar to what they already do with their intelligence agencies.
	The Five Eyes, for example, you know, the five English-speaking countries, the U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia, New Zealand.
	They will say, well, you know, we can't legitimately spy on our own people, but you can.
	And then you can give us that information.
	And so it's the same thing.
	You know, like you point out, it's like a club, a cartel, a mafia.
	You know, they come up with these little workarounds that are just semantics, really.
	And so, there's a lot of panic and fear-mongering, and there's...
	I heard a little bit of your intro before we started this interview, and if what is going on in the world is, you know, analogous to a thousand-piece jigsaw puzzle, and maybe the treaty and the amendments and WHO are like one or two pieces in that puzzle, okay? People are rightfully talking about central bank digital currency and digital ID and geoengineering and the pact for the future and the sustainable development goals and all these many, many, many things.
	But then they're saying all of that is in the treaty.
	Well, the treaty is a piece of the puzzle, and it is connected to all of those things, but you do yourself a disservice by quoting horrible things about some other aspect of what these demons are doing.
	And when people go to look in the treaty, you're not going to find anything in the treaty that is an attack on national sovereignty.
	That's a lovely red herring.
	It's not an attack on national sovereignty.
	It's actually strengthening national sovereignty so that nations can abuse individuals.
	Yeah, and very similar to what we saw, again, between the feds and the states.
	It actually strengthened. Here's some legislation.
	Strengthen your authority, because at some point in the future, we're going to tell you there's a pandemic, and we'll give you some money if you do this stuff.
	But you're going to be the ones who get to do this.
	You know, it's going to be your state and local public health officials that are going to be able to do this.
	We'll help you with that.
	But yeah, it's very interesting how they have...
	I've set this thing up.
	They will keep these entities that are around now that everybody likes so much.
	We've got our flags and we've got our national anthems and we've got our official state bird or whatever.
	They'll keep these different artifacts around so people have this sense of continuity.
	And yet the reality is that it's controlled from top to bottom.
	And they're all kind of...
	On this, but we won't see like a global government that is set up over here.
	It'll just be this global governance network of people who are kind of, you know, working behind the scenes to make sure they're all on the same page, I think.
	To summarize it in a sentence, the local tyrants who abused you over the last four and a half years didn't need any amendments to the international health regulations and they didn't need any stinking pandemic treaty to overstep their authority and trick you and coerce you and hypnotize you and just abuse you.
	So those local issues are not going to be solved by a little one-paragraph state resolution or state law that says, oh, the WHO doesn't have any jurisdiction here.
	I want to give a shout-out to Catherine Watt.
	If you haven't met her, we should introduce you.
	Catherine Watt writes bailiwicknews.substack.com, B-A-I-L-I-W-I-C-K news.
	You know, like a bailiwick like in England, like the trees behind you.
	She's put forth a sample state legislation to repeal all these crazy laws and actually address, you know, why is it that the laws have been corrupted to take away liability from Companies that produce products that are harmful and all of the emergency rules, you know, give dictatorial powers.
	So if you want to work on a state-by-state basis, by all means, give me a phone call.
	310-619-3055.
	It's not easy.
	It's not, oh, you know, they can't touch us.
	They're not the ones who abused you the first time.
	It's your local officials and your local laws.
	In the amendments, they want to strengthen international travel restriction quarantines and make the process of quarantining people and have a pre-fake to add to the fake and a post-fake.
	But the treaty is just a bunch of mob bosses trying to set up a cartel to go looking for pathogens with pandemic profiteering potential so they can scare the bejeebers out of you again and again and again.
	And because... There's going to be so much money, they'll financially incentivize it again.
	You know, that's the other part of it. People don't realize that, and you're right, you've got to go back and remove a lot of this legislation that was put in.
	A lot of it was put in at the end of 2001 in response to the anthrax thing.
	That's the stuff that's got to be pulled out.
	I keep telling everybody their motto for the longest time has been think global globally act locally So we got to cut off those those hooks that they've got into us at the local level. You're exactly right. That's that's how it'll happen That's where the rubber meets the road and that's really where the work needs to be done And we need to root that out because they'll do it again as long as they've got their hooks in us and it'll be financially Driven with the money that is there
	That's one of the things, the key things that they're working on right now with the WHO is that money aspect.
	Now, you've also got exitthewho.org.
	I swear, Dave, I'm going to charge you rent.
	You're inside my head.
	Those are the next words out of my mouth.
	Good. Exitthewho.org is an activist toolbox.
	I've connected to people in dozens of countries around the world, obviously including the United States.
	If you go to exitthewho.com, that's dedicated specifically to the United States.
	Andy Biggs, Representative Andy Biggs from Arizona, well over a year ago put forth HR 79, which is the Who Withdrawal Act.
	Very simple, page and a half, stop giving them money, tell them we're leaving and get out of here.
	When a relationship has gone so bad, you know, sometimes you just need to get divorced.
	And so we need to exit the Who.
	You know, I think we need to go further and abolish the who.
	But if you go to exitthewho.org, exitthewho.com, and my favorite, if you want to take action, record a little video of your opinion about this.
	Put it out on the Internet.
	I've collected several hundred videos along those lines, and they can all be found on screwthewho.com.
	Yes. So have a little fun with it.
	If you don't speak up, you're not doing your job.
	Absolutely. Exitthewho.com for the USA information.
	Exitthewho.org for world information.
	Screwthewho.com.
	And also, you can find James Roguski at Substack, and his last name is ROGUSKI. Thank you so much, James, for the hard work that you do.
	You've been on this like a bulldog for a long time.
	Thank you very much. Everyone have a great day.
	Thank you. Thank you.
	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?

▲