Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 10, 2024 - The David Knight Show

03:03:05

The David Knight Show - 05/10/2024

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	you
	using free speech to free minds
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	As the clock strikes 13, it's Friday the 10th of May, Year of Our Lord 2024.
	Well, yesterday I talked about the bloodlines of the technocracy.
	The technocracy in terms of setting up the internet.
	I didn't talk about Elon Musk.
	Of course, he is directly part of the technocracy bloodlines.
	But today I'm going to talk, I'm going to begin.
	We've got a lot of things to talk about.
	I'm going to begin by talking about the soul-crushing aspects of technology, I think epitomized by this Apple iPad commercial that everybody is talking about.
	I think when we look at what is happening with technology, I think there's going to be a real pushback on this, and I think that's a really healthy thing.
	So we're going to talk about that. We're going to talk about declining populations.
	Are we going to...
	These people want to get rid of us.
	Are we going to let the technocrats absolutely crush everything in our life?
	Take everything from us that is authentic?
	Well, yours truly is not.
	I don't think you will either.
	We'll be right back, stay with us.
	And we're going to be joined in third hour by Gard Goldsmith.
	Looking forward to talking to Gard.
	It's always a lot of fun to talk to him.
	He's always so energetic, upbeat, and enthusiastic.
	I try to be, but Gard is always that way.
	So we're going to begin by taking a look at the picture that they painted in this ad of just crushing human creativity.
	And it got such negative responses.
	It is pretty amazing when you stop and think about it.
	Do they vet their ads with a group?
	I mean, I was once upon a time.
	I don't know how it happened, but it was shortly after Karen and I got married.
	They invited us in to be a test group looking at some ads and things like that.
	Ask us questions about after we watched the ads and see if we had retention and some things like that.
	But, you know, wouldn't you think they would kind of test this with audiences and get a response?
	Evidently, they didn't.
	And there certainly isn't any...
	Understanding or discernment by the bean counter who was running Apple, Tim Cook.
	They had Scully who nearly ran it into the ground.
	It was Jobs' visions that really moved them forward.
	I remember when the Segway came out.
	I talked about that yesterday when we were in Chicago with the FreedomWorks thing and we rode the Segway.
	And before the guy who did it rolled it out, He invited in a bunch of Silicon Valley CEOs and had them try it and take a look at it.
	And they were all pretty amazed at the technology.
	Steve Jobs' comment was, well, first of all, it doesn't look cool.
	It certainly doesn't.
	It feels really neat.
	I mean, you just kind of lean and you go flying off in this direction.
	And when you just, you know, a foot off the ground or less and...
	All the wind in your face.
	It feels like it's a lot faster than 12 miles an hour.
	And so just this, you just kind of think about it and you go in that direction.
	Anyway, he said it looks really nerdy.
	It looks really stupid. You're going to have to change that.
	And he said, and don't release this all at once.
	Do a very controlled rollout because if you release it all at once, you're going to have some celebrity that's going to get on it and is going to fall off of it.
	And that'll be the end of it.
	The guy didn't listen to Jobs with either one of those suggestions.
	So he had this really cool piece of technology.
	The person who got on it that became famous was George W. Bush.
	He was the nerd that fell off of this thing and gave it a bad image.
	But when you look at his discernment about products and his understanding of the marketplace and what people wanted, he was really a master at that.
	Not so much with the current management that's there.
	Here's this commercial.
	I call it Apple Crush.
	Okay, this big metal slab is coming down.
	There's all these things. There's a trumpet being crushed.
	Okay, there's a computer.
	All I ever need is you.
	There's a piano. It's going to crush the piano.
	A lot of paint there because, you know, you don't want to do any artwork.
	You don't want to play anything.
	There's a metronome being crushed.
	A bust of someone.
	And games, as well as every kind of musical instrument that you can imagine, pretty much books, everything is being crushed by this.
	Yeah, it's all being crushed.
	And then when it pulls back, after it's crushed, the paint, and all the musical instruments, and all the books, and...
	The most powerful iPad ever is also the thinnest.
	Yeah, it's compressed it all in this little thin iPad.
	Isn't that great? Isn't that what you want with your iPad?
	Don't you want everything that's real in your life replaced by some Silicon Valley imitation?
	Isn't that what you want? Well, no, people don't want that.
	As a matter of fact, this is coming, as I said, they've lost touch with reality of what consumers want.
	They're so involved in their virtual reality, their augmented reality, and it is soul-crushing.
	This comes right after the big new product because they really haven't had a new product since Steve Jobs, except for becoming paid spies.
	And I really do think that that began with Tim Cook.
	But when you go back and you look at the Snowden documents, it's around 2012 after Jobs is He doesn't seem to have made the kind of connections in D.C. that Bill Gates did.
	But then when Tim Cook comes in, they get into Prism, and they were the last company to come in and came in at that point.
	But either way, Tim Cook hasn't really done anything until this VR headset.
	Virtual reality headset, augmented reality headset.
	And incredibly expensive in price.
	Incredibly expensive even after they dropped it, you know, cut the price in half.
	The public has rejected that.
	One person who is a professor of marketing at the Wharton School of Business said, I had a really disturbing reaction to that ad.
	I understood conceptually what they were trying to do.
	But I think the way it came across is, here is technology crushing the life of Out of that nostalgic sort of joy from former times.
	Yeah, we look at trumpets and we look at, you know, paint and pianos, everything just being crushed by all this stuff.
	And I think that there's a lot more to that as well.
	When we look at everything that's, you know, all of the endeavors, the human endeavors, they're trying to replace it with artificial intelligence.
	Oh, you're not going to do...
	I'm not going to do film anymore. You just describe to Sora or some other program what you want to see, and it'll generate all that stuff for you.
	You don't write anything.
	It'll write it for you.
	You don't do any music.
	You just describe again in a prompt what kind of styles you would like.
	I see that all over YouTube now.
	So much stuff.
	Oh, yeah, the digital audio workstation is dead.
	Singing is dead. Playing is dead.
	All the rest of the stuff. Oh, no, it's not, actually.
	I think it's always going to be there, and I think it's going to be a pushback.
	I think we might go Amish with our music.
	We might wind up with real acoustic music instead.
	There's something about watching somebody perform.
	And there's something satisfying about doing it yourself as well.
	You know, I look at these programs, we just go and say, well, I want this style, this instrumentation, whatever, and you create it.
	And it is just generic.
	There's nothing special about it.
	And I'm not...
	I'm not a Luddite when it comes to stuff.
	The music I do for the show here, I do that with samples.
	And so it allows me to play different musical instruments.
	And a lot of people say, well, that's not real either.
	But when you work with it, you have to do the articulations.
	You have to play each of the instruments.
	If you just run this thing through using MIDI, it sounds awful.
	And so you've got to balance the stuff, you've got to write the parts, you've got to determine whether you're going to do this, how you're going to articulate each and every one of the notes, or it sounds awful.
	So there's a great deal of detail involved in it.
	And it's a different kind of thing.
	I used to always play live music, and it was always frustrating because you'd always have something that you nailed and something that you totally missed.
	I always found that to be frustrating.
	And so, you know, with this, you just keep coming back until you nail it, you know, make fine adjustments.
	It's like, yeah, that's what I wanted.
	That's what I heard. And so it really is more of an additive process like doing a painting.
	It is more like a composition type of process rather than a performance type of process.
	But it's still a lot of human interaction involved in it.
	And even as I saw, I don't have the clip here, but Randy Travis, who is a well-known country and western figure, if you follow that, I don't really, but he had a major stroke, 2013.
	He can't sing, he can barely talk, and they...
	Looked at some of this AI stuff that could reconstruct his voice.
	And of course, they had a lot of unaccompanied vocals from him that they could train the AI with.
	And even after they did it, with all of this vocal stuff that he had, the engineer who was there said, yeah, I still needed a tweak here and a tweak there because there was things that still didn't get right.
	So they did that. And he's just released a new, I don't know if it's an album or a song.
	I heard a little bit of the song.
	It's like, yeah, that sounds very realistic in it.
	It seemed to sound like his voice as well.
	I can see that, and I can see that they're going to do that for a very long time.
	I remember it wasn't that long ago that he had somebody who had the voice simulation of Johnny Cash, which he was just throwing out there quickly without a lot of adjustments.
	And he had a Johnny Cash version of a Taylor Swift song that I'd never heard before.
	And I listened to the Johnny Cash song.
	It was about a minute long, and I listened to about 15 seconds of the Taylor Swift song.
	That's all I wanted to listen to.
	And the Johnny Cash song was much better than the Johnny Cash AI thing.
	It sounded much more authentic.
	Then the supposedly live Taylor Swift.
	So, you know, we look at this for a long time.
	They've been doing things like getting attractive young girls and having the auto-tune stuff, fill it in.
	So it's been a lot of things like that that have been going on for a very long time.
	And so the question is, what is authenticity?
	And that's why when you look at this Apple thing, you know, crushing physical instruments like that, It really, you know, I think struck a lot of people like it did me, at a real visceral level.
	You're trying to kill the nostalgic joy, as that Horton marketing professor said.
	The ad also arrives during a time when many feel uncertain or fearful about seeing their work or their everyday routines replaced.
	By so-called advances in technology, particularly amid the rapid commercialization of generative AI. The destruction of human experience, courtesy of Silicon Valley, wrote actor Hugh Grant about that commercial I just played for you.
	Another person, filmmaker Justine Bateman, said the commercial crushes the arts.
	And I think that's interestingly really kind of the first place that it's gone in terms of that.
	You know, everybody thought it would be replacing different types of things initially than it did, but it's actually come into the arts, I think, first.
	Science Fiction Magazine has stopped taking submissions because they've gotten so many AI-generated stories hitting them.
	See, that's the other aspect of this.
	The thing that will be our undoing Our downfall will be our laziness.
	Our laziness. Clark's World, as a renowned science fiction and fantasy magazine, temporarily closed its doors to new submissions after being inundated with a large number of AI-generated stories.
	Neil Clark, the magazine's publisher and editor-in-chief, revealed that as of February 20th, he had received a staggering 700 legitimate submissions from And 500 machine-written ones.
	Situation had become so dire that the magazine felt compelled to take action to curb the flood of low-quality machine-generated content.
	Yeah, I mean, to me, in essence, I think that's really what has happened to pop music.
	I think it's one of the reasons why there are so many songs from the 70s that are still in the top 20, or at least not too long ago there was articles about that.
	Because it's become essentially machine-generated in so many different ways.
	While the magazine has chosen not to disclose the method they use to identify AI-generated stories to prevent individuals from gaming the system, he noted that the quality of the writing in these submissions was exceptionally poor, which I guess helped him to determine what that looked like.
	And then when you look at this, Travis, show the pictures of that Chinese humanoid robot factory.
	You know, their future that they want really does not want us.
	And so, yeah, show them.
	When I look at this, a lot of these still pictures and even some of the stuff that is moving, it looks like it's the Hall of Presidents from Disney World going back to the 1960s.
	You know, it looks like animatronics.
	Play that video there.
	Yeah, look at that. Now, what you see is some people in the background, but you also see these guys in shirts.
	Those are robots as well.
	They're all doing that telltale thing with their hands, right?
	And so that's the way they identify.
	Apply that one more time. Watch how they do this thing they do with their hands where they, you know, sweep it around and they move their fingers.
	And it seems like they're all doing the basic same hand movement.
	And to identify themselves, I've got a couple of Chinese guys besides robotic girls.
	One of them looks like an old guy wearing white shirts, no tie, you know, as the other workers are wearing them.
	So... At the 2023 World Robot Conference, this company, EX, not to be confused with the imaginatively named X of everything that Elon Musk does.
	By the way, there was, when I started looking that up, there was actually, in the 1800s in London, there was a club of elite scientists, a lot of the types of people that Elon Musk Really admires and copies.
	And they organized themselves into the X Club.
	And they really were the elites of the scientific community at that Victorian time.
	Maybe that's where he's getting it from.
	I have no idea. His obsession with X. But this is EX Robots.
	And they started in 2009.
	They started doing humanoid robots in 2016.
	And they said, well, I'm surprised everybody with their realistic-looking robots.
	To me, they still look like the Hall of Presidents.
	Not all that interested.
	But they really don't care anything about us.
	And they really want to get us out of the way.
	I also talked this week about the line.
	The dystopian dream of the clown prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman.
	And the fact that he's had to scale it down by 98% and it's still dubious as to whether or not they're going to be able to afford that or get that done.
	And even to the extent that as they're starting to excavate things from Marina, they're pouring the dirt on the area that they're going to have to run the water through to it.
	So they're going to have to excavate it a second time.
	They built a camp for the workers and the administrators to live in.
	then they changed the where they were going to locate this thing so now they're going to have to tear that down because that's in the way. They'd started on the foundation long before they had plans and then the plans came through and it was nothing at all like the foundation. Who would have thought?
	You know, that's like setting up a vaccine for whatever the flu is Oh, wow, I didn't see that coming at all.
	So they start doing the foundation before they even know what the thing's going to look like or where it's going to be exactly.
	And so that was all so wasted.
	Well, a whistleblower has said that Saudi Arabia told them it's okay to kill any villagers that get in the way of this.
	This is out in the middle of the desert, but of course this is also Saudi Arabia, so people do live in the desert.
	The bottom line is that these global politicians hate their own people.
	You can see it with Trump, you can see it with Biden, you can see it with Netanyahu.
	They hate us. They want to inject us with their Kool-Aid.
	You can see it with Mohammed bin Salman.
	They especially hate their enemies.
	You know, the way he had his thugs kill Khashoggi and dismember him.
	I mean, everybody was horrified by that.
	But, of course, Fauci and company do that to babies all the time, and nobody really cares, right?
	They ripped Khashoggi apart limb by limb, live vivisection, as if he was a baby.
	Come on, we only do that to babies, don't we?
	An ex-intelligence officer, Robbie Alanezi, who had been living in exile in the UK since last year.
	You better watch out.
	He's going to get the Khashoggi treatment himself.
	He told the BBC that Saudi forces were given the green light to use lethal force to clear land for the sprawling construction site.
	This is amazing to me that, you know, you have this vast desert country, Saudi Arabia.
	And yet people will fight over who's going to put their tent in this desert.
	I mean, you know, it's just, I don't know.
	People get attached to that.
	Anyway, this guy, the ex-intelligence officer, claims that he was told to move a nearby village away.
	Resulting in a protester getting shot and killed.
	Serious allegations that highlight a worrying cost to Saudi Arabia's megalomaniac city project.
	Now, the megalomaniac is Mohammed bin Salman.
	But, you see, that's the thing.
	Somebody's got a village. Somebody's invested their time.
	Even if it's building some really poor structure in the middle of the desert, they don't want to move.
	That's kind of indicative of what these guys are going to run into, right?
	Now, if we're not completely obsessed with comfort, they might be finding that kind of reaction from us.
	If they start to move us out of our own countries where we have been for a very long time.
	The line was meant to be a car-free city that measured 650 feet wide, 105 miles long.
	It's as tall as a skyscraper as well.
	Now they're looking at it costing trillions, and so they tried to cut it down by 98%.
	Still may not make it.
	While the line's path largely passes through uninhabited desert, more than 6,000 people still had to be moved or shot, depending on how they reacted.
	I guess, you know, I said they had to, they figured out that they were going to be going through the camp of the engineers and construction crew that were there.
	Did they have to shoot them to get them out of the way?
	No. It's amazing to me that the people who are building this thing don't even know where it's going.
	A total farce in the desert.
	And then we have the Arctic Doomsday Seed Vault being given a prize.
	A world food prize.
	These are a couple people 20 years ago.
	They got the idea that they needed to set up some kind of a seed vault.
	That's going to preserve the food.
	Why do you think they would do something like that?
	Why would that be necessary?
	GMO stuff, glyphosate killing everything.
	I don't know. Kerry Fowler and Jeffrey Houghton.
	20 years ago, Fowler is now the U.S. Special Envoy for Global Food Security.
	Houghton is an agricultural scientist from the U.K. They said, well, we should set up a doomsday vault, and they did it up in the Arctic.
	Actually, it is on a Norwegian island.
	They opened it in 2008.
	It holds one and a quarter million seed samples.
	From nearly every country, the largely concrete structure built on the side of a mountain provides genetic protection for over 6,000 varieties of crops and culturally important plants.
	And so, you know, they're not going to make that available to us.
	You better do your own. But they do see the risk, right?
	They see the risk of what could happen.
	And isn't it interesting that for so long, Our governments have poo-pooed the idea of anybody preparing for the future, preparing for a worst-case example, being a prepper.
	Mock them. Well, you better prepare.
	As a matter of fact, what they said was, this is a chance to get our message out, to say, look, this relatively small amount of money is our insurance policy, our insurance policy that we're going to be able to feed the world in 50 years.
	Repeated it, for emphasis.
	Our insurance policy.
	Do you have an insurance policy?
	Do you have something to make sure that you're going to be able to have food, that you're going to be able to have money, that you're going to be able to defend yourself?
	You should think about that.
	These people think about it.
	And they are not going to help you with their food vault.
	You're going to need to have your own food vault.
	By the way, I'll just put in a plug here for the Civil Defense Manual, civildefensemanual.com.
	Jack Lawson, he's got a lot of things there that are insurance policies.
	Things that train you about how to prepare for food, how to defend yourself, tips on creating a community type of program.
	Not creating something that's going to be a militia that's going to get the FBI's attention, but doing it in a smart way.
	He's got a lot of really good advice.
	Two volumes of a book, and you can see that at CivilDefenseManual.com.
	I've had him on several times.
	One of the things I guess that they're worried about is the new GMO tomato.
	And I think this is interesting.
	This is the new genetically modified purple tomato.
	Purple tomato. Purple because they have modified it with some of the genetics of blueberries and things like that.
	They say that makes it healthier.
	Well, we don't really know, do we?
	And what I thought was interesting was that they're going to put it out for home gardens first.
	Because I guess they figured that if they go full industrial with this and offer it to the grocery stores, people are going, eh, what is it?
	I don't know. No thanks. But if they can sell you on this, tell you how wonderful it is for you.
	And, you know, people start to grow it in their home garden.
	And, you know, they really are working on funky purple ketchup.
	There we go. That's good, Travis.
	Yeah, we've had purple ketchup for a while.
	So, you know, just no food dye necessary.
	See, that's how healthy it is.
	you don't even have to dye it to get it to be purple. With claims of heightened antioxidant levels and potential health benefits, this novel GMO creation has stirred both excitement and controversy with consumers and scientists alike. Biotech investors hope that it can usher in a new era of public trust in genetically engineered foods. While skeptics worry that the tomato's near total lack of regulation or review might hide dangers
	to human health and or the environment.
	So this was developed by scientists in the UK.
	They wanted to set, they said they wanted to harness the natural properties of anthocyanins compounds found in blueberries and blackberries in order to enhance the nutritional profile of tomatoes.
	Or, you know, you could just eat blueberries and blackberries.
	Yeah. Maybe the tomatoes are easier to grow.
	Maybe they genetically modified them for that as well.
	But here's the interesting thing about it.
	It was deregulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 2022.
	You know, these people who are trying to put such a fine point on what an Amish farmer does with his organically raised cows.
	Oh, no, you can't slaughter those cows that you own and that you've raised on your own property.
	No, no, no. You've got to send them to the USDA food processing plant.
	Got to put them on a feedlot.
	We're going to feed them GMO corn and other stuff like that first.
	No, no. We're going to take everything from Amos Miller.
	We are going to start looking, not in, you know, we're worried about bird flu, but we're not going to look at the chickens.
	We're not going to look at chicken meat.
	We're not going to look at chicken eggs.
	Instead, we're going to look at cows.
	And we're going to look at their meat.
	And we're going to look at their dairy.
	And we're even going to not look at steaks.
	We're going to look at ground beef.
	Because, you know, hey, if we're going to do a PCR test...
	And I had one person correct me.
	He said, don't call it a test.
	That's giving it too much respect.
	Eh, probably right. You know, everybody uses that phrase.
	Says, you know, call it a procedure.
	So using a PCR procedure...
	They tell you that they have found fragments of this stuff.
	But don't worry, it's not going to get you sick.
	The cow's not sick, but we're going to have to control and track the cows and vaccinate all the cows.
	And yet when it comes to this GMO tomato, USDA says, ah, that's fine, not a problem.
	Not even going to look at it.
	We're going to deregulate it.
	So then what happens with the FDA? FDA says, well, we're just going to declare it generally recognized as safe.
	Grass. G-R-A-S. Or gratis, I guess.
	Maybe you could say. Kind of said, yeah, yeah.
	You know, FDA and USDA that strain at everything.
	The FDA telling people, come on, y'all, stop it.
	Don't take ivermectin.
	It's horse medicine.
	Those people, those liars, thieves, crooks.
	Yeah, those people.
	Who had approved it and had been used for many, many decades.
	And this is just an off-label use of it that they had not tested it for.
	We're not interested in ever testing it.
	And we're going to punish people who used it, doctors who prescribed it, pharmacists who fulfilled the doctor prescriptions, all the rest of the stuff.
	These people who are so careful about certain things.
	We'll just let a new GMO product sail right through without even looking at it.
	So, caveat emptor.
	As a matter of fact, we've got a couple of comments here.
	Let me read these before we take a break.
	On Rockfin, Little Ford Schoolhouse.
	David, my mom goes the same church as you.
	Wow, great. Great.
	Yeah, I don't know if that's Smoky Mountain Bible Church or if that's one that I visited with my sons that they go to.
	I visited that church this last Sunday.
	But, well, good to see you there.
	Little Ford Schoolhouse.
	Say hi to your mom. I'll try to see if I can figure out who that is.
	On Rumble, North American House Hippo.
	Thank you for the tip. Good morning, hockey fans across Canada, the U.S. and Newfoundland.
	I hope we're all having a great day.
	I was taking my lunch break at your favorite place, Universal City Walk.
	Yeah. You know, you've listened to the program enough to know that the last time I was there, which was probably about six or seven years ago, I was going to go there to get something to eat with Karen because we were in Florida for some family business and I had to go through a TSA clearing thing.
	It's like, forget about it.
	Just forget about it. Let me out of here.
	I didn't even say much to the people who are doing it because it's not their decision to do it.
	It's just their job. Sitting on a beach, eating my lunch, listening to Richmond, north of Richmond, playing on the outdoor speakers.
	And yes, I had to go through security.
	But the obese security guards kept their hands where I could see them.
	Life is good. There you go.
	The one way to get through it.
	Travis tells me people are talking about bagpipes in the Rumble Chat.
	And I would like to hear your bagpipe story.
	Well, I have two bagpipe stories.
	First one was when I was in high school.
	I was in the pit band.
	And I always enjoyed that.
	I guess that's where I got my love of some Broadway things.
	Broadway stuff can get really weird.
	But, you know, Lerner and Lowe and Oscar and Hammerstein, you know, that's...
	Anyway, that's kind of where I got left off.
	But really old stuff like that.
	And some Stephen Sondheim.
	They did, if anything happened on the way to the forum, I was in the pit band for that.
	But one of the ones that we did was Lerner and Lowe, which was Brigadoon.
	And we brought in some bagpipe players at the very end.
	And they were from a school...
	I think it was in Dunedin that had Highlander as the mascot and they had bagpipe players that were part of their band.
	And they came in and played it in dress rehearsal.
	They do their thing down the aisle.
	They go off the stage and they're backstage and they let the air out of the...
	The bagpipes. And it was just like this massive hive of bees dying.
	And I rolled on the floor laughing.
	The funniest thing ever, because it completely, they're trying to go on with the next scene on stage.
	Completely drowned out everything that everybody was doing.
	And it's like, cut, cut. You've got to take that thing outside and let the air out of it.
	So I always wanted to get bagpipes.
	Yeah. I thought it'd be a lot of fun.
	And so when Karen and I went to the UK on our honeymoon, and we just kind of camped around different places.
	We didn't camp, but we hung out in very, very cheap places and stuff.
	And I guess, you know, the guy could tell we were pretty young and we didn't have any money.
	We went up to Edinburgh and went into a shop there.
	And I asked the guy, I said, hey, I'd like to see some bagpipes.
	No, you don't want to see those, you know?
	And it's like, no, I really do.
	I really want to see them. No, you don't.
	He wouldn't even show them to me.
	It's like, I'm not going to pull these things out and even show them to you because you're not going to buy them, so go away.
	He didn't even try to pretend.
	Because he owned the place. I mean, if it had been an employee, maybe they would have shown it to us.
	But that's my bagpipe stories.
	Wally Walrus, the only good GMO is garlic mushroom onion.
	Yeah. I guess so.
	That's probably right.
	We're going to take a quick break and we will be right back.
	♪♪♪
	Making sense. Common again.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	Well, on Rumble North American House Hippo about the bagpipe stories, thank you, David.
	Travis, that was awesome. Well, you're welcome.
	I hope it was. As a matter of fact, I was going through and...
	I don't have the list with me.
	I was going through the Zelle contributors.
	I wanted to thank them by name and by first name.
	And I left it with me, so that won't happen today.
	But the one person left a message.
	And people can leave a little bit of a message on Zelle if they want to contribute there.
	And that is a really good way to contribute if you want to do it because there's no fees on Zelle right now.
	So if your bank supports that, I'm sorry, please forgive me.
	You're forgiven. I have no idea.
	No offense taken as to whatever you did, but, you know, glad to tell you that you are forgiven.
	Made me feel like, I guess, you know, God is going to be, when he says that he casts our sins as far as the east is from the west, they will be remembered no more.
	I don't remember what you did that you would need forgiveness for.
	I think that'll be God's approach.
	If we're in Christ, he'll say, what?
	Oh, I don't remember that.
	No, I have no recollection of that whatsoever.
	And that's the way we should live our lives as well.
	Understanding that God has forgiven us, we can move on.
	And we don't have to keep hammering ourselves about our failures if we have confessed it.
	And if Christ is our Savior who has paid for our sins.
	Now, if we don't have anything to pay for our sins, God is just.
	He is just and he is merciful, but Jesus represents both justice and mercy.
	And so I want to talk a little bit about the Christian issues here.
	We have that report about the elderly pro-life woman who is being harassed.
	Multiple ones, actually, being harassed.
	One of them, after the report, got a little bit of relief.
	I mean, they're denying them medical treatment.
	They're putting them in essentially a lockdown and isolation, getting one to a couple of hours a day outside of the cell, and the rest of the time having light on all around the clock.
	We've had international organizations that call that torture.
	That outlaw that kind of treatment.
	And yet, what we see from this Biden administration, and the scary thing about it is, it's not going to go away when Biden goes away.
	Because Biden is not the Biden administration.
	He's merely the face of the bureaucracy that is going to continue, that is going to persist, regardless of who is there.
	And for their political enemies, whoever they may be, They are, you know, Trump is talking along the lines that if he gets in, you know, he's going to do the same kind of stuff as well.
	He'll feel justified to do it.
	You know, all these things that they're doing to him, trying to humiliate him and all the rest of the stuff is building to have him feel justified to authorize and not oppose any of that as if he needed any help.
	But this type of tyranny, federal tyranny, you can see it in the J6ers, for example.
	We've seen it a great deal. And we've got more people being arrested this year than we have previous couple of years.
	They're accelerating it.
	They're not slowing down. They're accelerating it.
	And so this elderly woman, 74 years old, Has excruciating hip pain.
	She needs an operation. They're not going to let her have it.
	She has been denied urgent medical treatment for eight months.
	They've kept her in jail.
	You think, look at that picture of her.
	Pull that up again. Do you think she's a dangerous individual?
	The public needs to be protected from?
	Just like that other lady who was brought in in shackles.
	Shackles around her waist, around her wrist, around her feet, her ankles.
	And the judge said to the marshal, what are you doing?
	Take those off of her.
	And, you know, they got into an argument.
	And so the U.S. marshal relented only to the extent of taking the shackles off of her wrists.
	We should all be concerned about this.
	You know, regardless of what your religious or political beliefs are, we don't want to live in a country like this.
	We don't want to live in a country that is going to okay something like Justin Trudeau is trying to push through in Canada.
	That is antithetical to everything that we have learned about civilization in Western civilization for the last 1,000 years.
	I mean, going back to Runnymede and the Magna Carta, we need to understand why these types of things were put in it.
	It took a lot of generations, and a lot of people were tortured, a lot of people were killed, before we realized how we needed to put the handcuffs and the shackles on government.
	There's nothing more dangerous than a criminal government that terrorizes its own citizens.
	And that's what we're creating in every Western country right now because that's what global governance wants.
	And global governance is already in place, folks.
	I don't think they're going to set up some kind of a formal throne or, you know, headquarters.
	They're going to maintain the illusion of sovereign nation states.
	Even as they have global governance with these NGOs and these multinational corporations.
	They're going to maintain that veneer.
	Just as they maintain the veneer of elections.
	Elections are a sham.
	The national governments will be a sham as well.
	I still think that there are some things that you can do, perhaps at the local level.
	It is certainly worth a try.
	Washington's gone. There's nothing in Washington that you're going to be able to get a hold of.
	It's too corrupt. Too much money, too much corruption has followed that money, and the elections are far too controlled for anything in the federal level.
	Besides, they have kicked everything over to the bureaucracy anyway.
	Your elected representatives don't do anything.
	You have taxation without representation, and even more importantly, regulation without representation.
	And we'll talk about that when we get into the climate and the pandemic stuff.
	She said, I don't understand why we couldn't have gone home until we were sentenced in May, as we were not violent, she said.
	Well, because it is about the political persecution, and it's about setting up these new precedents that are there.
	And so, here is a...
	You want to know one of the reasons why we're losing...
	All of the protections that we've had, that's because we're losing our Christian foundations as well.
	Now just take a look at this.
	This is a poster child.
	For what has gone wrong with the establishment Christianity here in America?
	This is a woman who is a professor, an author, and she calls herself a pastor of the Presbyterian Church USA. Presbyterian Church USA has, that's the original Presbyterian Church,
	and in the last century, I did a research project about 18 years ago where I interviewed women who had second trimester abortions for wanted pregnancies where there were fetal anomalies.
	And those were wrenching for many of those women.
	But they also recognized that it was a blessing that they could end those pregnancies.
	That it would have been torture if they'd been forced to continue a pregnancy that they knew wasn't viable.
	I had one woman who told me she didn't have her procedure in Virginia because she had been told that nurses there, many of these women had labor and delivery.
	When you're very far along, it's often labor and delivery.
	And if she labored and delivered and the child...
	They would take it away from her and do everything they could to save it.
	Even though the circumstances of what was going to happen with that child's life for however many months it was able to live were not something that she and her husband wanted to put that child through, right?
	So there are ways and situations where abortion is truly a blessing for people.
	Oh yeah. And as she's talking, she's got in the background there, if you're looking at this, if you're listening on audio, she's got signs up, abortion bans are against my religion.
	Well lady, I don't know what your religion is.
	My religion says thou shalt not kill.
	And my religion says that God will judge those who kill the innocent, who have innocent blood on their hands.
	Maybe you don't pay attention.
	Maybe we're not reading the same book.
	She also has another sign there.
	Abortion is moral.
	She represents the PCUSA at the World Council of Churches.
	I would just suggest that the church or the nomination that you go to as part of the World Council of Churches, get out of there.
	I mean, seriously.
	She also is part of the Clergy Advocacy Board of Planned Parenthood.
	Do you realize that they would have a Clergy Advocacy Board?
	Oh boy, I tell you, we're in deep trouble here.
	Anytime you hear something called an advocacy anything, just know it's garbage.
	It's designed to ruin your life and the world.
	Yes, I'm advocating for the climate.
	I'm advocating on behalf of the babies.
	I want to advocate them to be killed.
	She's also vice president of the Society of Christian Ethics.
	There's a lot of wolves out there amongst the sheep, aren't there?
	During a message given to the North Carolina Council of Churches, that's what you just saw there.
	North Carolina Council of Churches.
	She spends an hour on why abortion is good and why Christians need to embrace the message that it is a blessing before complaining about how some nurses in some states try to save breathing babies.
	Wouldn't want to do that, would we?
	Absolutely amazing. You know, I wish in just one of her presentations she would play this.
	I'm a secular progressive activist.
	Last year, I recovered the remains of these five babies from an all-term abortion center in Washington, D.C. These are the faces of a genocide supported by Joe Biden and my own Democratic Party.
	We can provide for the working class and resist this extremism.
	I am challenging you to never vote for a pro-choice Democrat again.
	I'm Teresa Bokovinak, pro-life Democrat, running for President of the United States, and I approve this message.
	Yeah, yeah.
	I don't approve of babies being ripped apart, which is what she's talking about.
	Those are the age babies that she's talking about, babies that were still breathing, and we have to kill them.
	And isn't it horrible that the nurses are trying to save them?
	I think it's horrible to have somebody who calls themselves a pastor and tries to kill those babies.
	RFK Jr., He made his statement about abortion.
	He is very quickly showing where he's coming from.
	This follows just a couple of days after he said, in terms of mutilation of kids, Oh yeah, I don't know what that is, but I'm not going to get in the way of that.
	People want to do that. They can do that.
	You mean really? To kids?
	To kids? Oh, I don't want to tell parents what they can do and all the rest of this kind of stuff.
	Okay, so if the parents want to kill their babies, that's their decision.
	If the parents then want to mutilate their children at a later age, that's their decision.
	Let me ask you, RFK Jr., what if the parents want to sexually molest their child?
	Is that okay as well? I mean, it's their choice, right?
	Is incest okay if it's parents?
	Is rape okay if it's parents?
	Is that okay? How and where do you draw the line?
	How do you draw the line? What is your standard, RFK? Seriously.
	You know, he says, well, my brain was eaten by a worm that then died.
	It's like, okay, I thought he was a Democrat just because of his family.
	I learned like he had a worm eat his brain as well.
	That explains a few things.
	But then, of course, as he said that, and here's the, okay, that may be true.
	I don't know. It sounds really strange.
	That may be true. Or that testimony came out in the midst of a divorce where he was claiming that he couldn't remember this and he couldn't remember that.
	I don't know, RFK Jr.
	seems to have a pretty clear mind to me.
	He even bragged as people were saying, well, does that mean you're not qualified to run as president?
	And he had a spokesperson who said, are you joking?
	You look at these other two guys, look at RFK Jr.
	And again, I don't think that he seems to be mentally impaired.
	Morally impaired? Yes, very impaired morally.
	Again, I think that has more to do with his family than the worm eating his brain.
	But he rose to the challenge and says, something to the effect, I'll let six more worms eat my brain and I'll still be better than these two guys that are running on the other side.
	But he says he's against any government limits on abortion.
	Is he against any government limits?
	Regulation of murder?
	Because, you know, even Bill Maher said, hey, it's kind of like murder.
	I'm just okay with that.
	And, you know, RFK Jr.
	knows it's kind of like murder.
	He knows it is murder, and he's okay with it.
	Just like Bill Maher is.
	That's where these Democrats are.
	Backing legal abortion through the entire gestational period.
	You should look at this ad from this other Democrat.
	Who is pro-life? RFKJ. Arguing that the state should not play a role in determining abortion access.
	Well, see, here's where we have, you know, when it's your body, it is your choice.
	The problem is that this is not a woman's body.
	This is another body, somebody else.
	And when you have two people, and one of them is going to commit violence against the other one, it is the duty of government to do something about that.
	Michelle Obama, thank you very much for the tip on RockFan.
	I appreciate that. By the way, I mentioned that on RockFan.
	Karen said she'll look at comments anybody wants to put on the David Knight Show at ProtonMail.com.
	She'll pass them over to me if you've got any questions or comments.
	I think we're going to start doing some more questions and comments and kind of make it an open program on Fridays, I think.
	But anyway, if you've got any questions or things, since...
	We don't have the ability to check all these different places where people are.
	If you're listening to the show live, go ahead and send it.
	Or you can also send us questions later on if you want.
	But I'm saying if it's live, I'll take those as well.
	But anyway, going back to RFK Jr.
	and abortion, he said, I wouldn't leave it to the states.
	My belief is that we should leave it to the woman.
	We shouldn't have government involved.
	And he was asked, even if it is full term?
	And he replied, even if it's full term.
	Like those babies you just saw.
	The position stands in contrast with previous statements that he's made on abortion.
	Isn't that interesting?
	So I say, you know, he comes from a political family and he's all over the place.
	Even as a candidate, he's all over the place.
	And with how his running mate, Nicole Shanahan, has characterized his abortion position.
	In an interview with Steele released last week, Shanahan said, My understanding is that he absolutely believes in the limits on abortion.
	And that's Sage Steele, by the way, that I had the interview with.
	When pressed by Steele to confirm if Kennedy supported no government limits on abortion, Shanahan, his running mate, Nicole Shanahan, said that's not my understanding of his position, and I think maybe there was a miscommunication there.
	In a statement to CNN, Kennedy campaign spokesperson said the candidate believes, quote, And that the mother has the final say in moral responsibility in such decisions.
	Well, you know, you should look at how horrifying it really is.
	It's one thing to say it's horrifying and we're going to allow it.
	It's another thing to take a look at the pictures that are being put out there on that ad.
	You know, Randall Terry, who, for better or worse, with Operation Rescue, I'd really...
	That was before I was really following it.
	But he's gotten the nomination of the Constitution Party.
	So he could run... His big issue is abortion.
	He could run ads like that as a presidential candidate pretty much anywhere.
	We'll see if he does.
	EU country is going to allow 15-year-olds to get abortions without parental consent.
	Well, why not? Because, you know, we don't really care.
	Technically, we say that if a child who is a minor is pregnant, that is statutory rape.
	It doesn't matter if you got the minor to consent to it.
	They don't have the maturity to consent to it if they are a minor.
	That's been the law for a very long time.
	Just like we don't let them drive cars or drink alcohol or smoke or own guns or all these other things as minors, we would say, no, they don't have the maturity to consent And so if somebody is pregnant that's a minor, there's statutory rape and they ought to be reported to the police.
	And yet Planned Parenthood doesn't do that, typically.
	And so we let that stay.
	And now we're letting Planned Parenthood and other places mutilate them as minors.
	And they can do all that stuff without parental consent.
	They can have the abortion, not have it reported to the police.
	They can be mutilated, not have it reported to the parents or the police.
	I mean, it's just, why would we be surprised that an EU country is going to do that?
	Why are fertility rates in Israel climbing as most other countries plummet?
	That's an interesting question.
	And this is from LiveAction.org.
	They said, as the Christian Post reported, the fertility rate in Israel is the highest amongst developed countries.
	To sustain a population, a country needs 2.1 birth rate per woman.
	The average in both Europe and the United States is only 1.6.
	Countless Asian countries, such as Japan and South Korea, are likewise struggling to boost birth rates.
	And Japan has an even lower rate there.
	As their populations plummet, But Israel, remember, you've got to have 2.1 to maintain your population.
	At 1.6, our population is rapidly declining.
	Israel's rate, however, is 3.1, so what's the difference?
	Is it religion?
	Is it economics?
	What is it? The Christian Post noted that it does not appear to be tied to families with extreme religious devotion, having more kids.
	Religion appears to make no difference among Israeli families when it comes to fertility.
	There also seems to be no correlation with social welfare policies, as numerous countries have put many policies in place meant to encourage more births, but they don't get any success.
	Typically come back and they'll say, yeah, let's incentivize this.
	We'll give special benefits to mothers after they have the baby.
	We'll give them tax benefits.
	We'll do all kinds of things they've come up with.
	That doesn't seem to work.
	Education and poverty don't seem to play a role either.
	Elsewhere around the globe, the more money and education a person has, the less children they're likely to have.
	However, this doesn't make a difference with the Israelis.
	So none of these things.
	It is exceptional because a strong pro-family, and they call it pro-natalist, norms are cutting across all educational classes, all levels of religiosity, and because fertility has been increasing alongside increasing age at the first birth and education.
	So even though people are getting older before they start the family, the birth rate is still going up.
	Well, all this is in contradiction everywhere else.
	Well, they value children because they value the future of their society.
	And that's one of the key things.
	You know, when you start to look at people who are going to make a difference...
	For society, it's typically going to be the people who, first of all, know that this life is not all that there is.
	This is just the beginning.
	And the things that we do here will matter for eternity.
	But with God.
	But it is just a temporary thing.
	So that's the first thing. Second thing that you see in countries that grow and people who will...
	Risk for the future, risk for their children, is that focus on their family.
	You see that with the founders of this country.
	They always talk about securing the blessings of liberty for ourselves and for our children and that type of thing.
	So that's always in view.
	We're going to look to see what happens to future children.
	In 2022, the abortion percentage there was only 8% compared to the United States, where we have 20% of pregnancies aborted.
	And so I'll just close with a quote here from one of the people that they talked to.
	He says, we have a culture that celebrates life.
	He says, as a Jewish sage once put it, a child without parents is an orphan, but a nation without children is an orphan people.
	I would say that a country that kills its own children is like a cut flower.
	It might look like it's alive.
	It might be pretty for a little while.
	But it's not going to survive for very long.
	And those flowers, those petals are going to be falling off very, very quickly.
	It's gotten so bad that in Japan, a diaper company has switched to adult diapers because the fertility has crashed so badly in Japan.
	Isn't that amazing? Maybe if Biden loses, he's got a career promoting diapers in Japan.
	It depends, I guess.
	But this is, you know, here, I'll play this again for you.
	I've played it earlier this week.
	Larry Fink, the BlackRock CEO at the World Economic Forum.
	Now, these are the people who don't want us to have kids.
	And this is what he says about a declining population.
	He thinks it's a really good thing, of course.
	I could argue in the developed countries, the big winners are countries that have shrinking populations.
	That's something that most people never talked about.
	You know, we always used to think shrinking population is a cause for negative growth.
	But in my conversations with the leadership of these large developed countries that have xenophobic immigration policies, they don't allow anybody to come in, shrinking unemployment, excuse me, shrinking demographics, these countries...
	We'll rapidly develop robotics and AI and technology.
	And if the promise, I didn't say it's going to happen, but if the promise of all that transforms productivity, which most of us think it will, we'll be able to elevate the standard of living of countries, the standard of living of individuals, even with shrinking populations.
	And so the paradigm of negative population growth is going to be changing.
	And the social problems that one will have in substituting humans for machines is going to be far easier in those countries that have declining populations.
	You mean substituting machines for humans?
	Countries that have rising populations.
	The answer will be education, and so rapidly developing.
	You know, for those countries that do not have a foundation of rule of law or education, they're going to be left, that's where the divide's going to get more and more extreme, and unfortunately...
	Yeah, well, again, how many times do I have to say it before we believe it?
	Declining population is good because it's going to make it easier for them to replace and to control us with robots and with technology.
	That's what that's ultimately about.
	He thinks it's a really good thing.
	It'll be a good thing for people like him for the time that he has left.
	On Rumble, RHA42A, thank you for the tip, writes, there are no churches, quote-unquote.
	There's only one church.
	It is the body of believers and Jesus Christ.
	I agree. I agree.
	And we use it just like the individual said, don't call the PCR thing a test.
	It's a procedure. I agree.
	And semantically, you know, we talk about that.
	We understand that the word for church really came from a word for being called out.
	It's not about the building.
	It's about the people. I understand that.
	It's not about denominations and things like that either.
	He says, that demon-possessed woman who calls herself pastor is not part of the church.
	God help her. One does not go to church.
	One is either the church or outside of the church.
	I agree. I agree.
	Rumble, A-C-S-A-B, thank you for the tip.
	Thank you. And he thanks me or she.
	Thank you. That's really kind.
	Thank you for what you said. Unrumble, DG8. What do you think of Vivek debating the Libertarian vice presidential candidate at their convention?
	Maybe they're going to do that.
	I guess maybe the Libertarian Convention is going to be the one place where we have debates again, as if policy mattered.
	I think debates are good.
	I think debates ought to be everywhere.
	And he's very good in terms of being unafraid to talk about his policies and things out there.
	He had Ann Coulter on, and she said, I liked a lot of your policies.
	Some of them I didn't like or whatever, but I would not have voted for you because you're an Indian.
	He wasn't taken aback by that.
	He went ahead and interviewed her on other things, and they found points of agreement and so forth.
	And I think we need to be at that point.
	Instead of throwing bricks at each other, I think we need to understand that we've got disagreements about things and have debates about that.
	So I think that's a healthy thing.
	But I just don't think at the national level it's going to make any difference.
	And I think, based on my experience with the Libertarian Party, it was forced to focus on the presidential races in order to get ballot access.
	But what they should have focused on is to build a party from the grassroots up.
	They should have focused on winning elections from the grassroots up.
	And my experience with that process convinced me what a distraction and what a red herring it is to push people into national and presidential politics and make that the be-all and end-all of everything.
	I think that's a dead end.
	I think that is what they want you to do so that you don't do anything that matters at the local level.
	Rumble, no truth in them.
	What's the immigration situation in East Tennessee?
	I'll say this.
	After seeing signs in English and Spanish everywhere in Texas, and even Spanish signs first in Texas, I haven't seen any place that I've gone here where they have signs listed in Spanish.
	That's one of the interesting things I've seen.
	The only place I've seen that is at the Mexican restaurant I went to.
	Oh, you did? Okay. You saw it there.
	Okay. Well, I haven't seen it anywhere.
	I haven't been to that Mexican restaurant.
	But, yeah, the immigration situation here is mostly tourists.
	They're just temporary. They're just passing through.
	They do create a traffic jam, though.
	It really is if you try to go there.
	On Rockland, Little Ford Schoolhouse.
	Let's see. On the church, their mom goes to Smoky Mountain Bible Church.
	Okay, good. Okay, that's that one.
	Okay. Okay. Rumble, DG8. Then did the people of Israel get the same shot?
	Because fertility is a huge item after the vax.
	Yeah, and they did.
	A lot of them did. And I don't know if that's changed or not.
	I don't know if these are old figures or if these are new figures.
	It's been that way for a while in Israel, the higher fertility figures.
	I don't know if that's gone down.
	I've talked about people who were injured in Israel, and I know that Netanyahu said, we'll give you the data for two years on our people.
	Just put us at the front of the list to get that Pfizer shot so we're not limited as to where we can go, that type of thing.
	And he bragged about it. Multiple times.
	I've shown clips of two different times.
	They've bragged about it on a World Economic Forum, how he's getting all of Israel vaccinated.
	They pushed the ID card stuff, the vaccine passport thing.
	They pushed that as much earlier than anybody else did.
	So, yeah. We'll have to see if that remains.
	On Rumble, M. Sellers, my younger sister got the jab in all boosters and is now seeing a fertility specialist because they can't get pregnant.
	Otherwise, help the 30-something adult.
	Sorry to see that.
	And it's not just the vaccine as well.
	There's other issues.
	This article did not focus at all on any issues.
	Environmental issues, drug issues, vaccine issues.
	It was said, you know, look, we've got all these factors that are societal and cultural, and that doesn't seem to be at play in Israel.
	So, and on Rockman, MJ Nichols, thank you very much for the tip.
	And he thanks me.
	Thank you. Before we take a break, This article, truly amazing.
	Evangelicals see Donald Trump's hedonism as godly masculinity.
	You know, these trials that are going on, especially this one right now with Stormy Daniels, there is not really any legal basis for this trial.
	This is a show trial that is there to show independence because the people who support Trump are going to support him regardless and the people who oppose him are going to oppose him regardless.
	But the independents that are there, they're hoping that they can get them to be disgusted if they bring up salacious details about him and what he did with Stormy Daniels.
	That's really what the game is.
	And his game is to hurl insults at the judge, to try to goad the judge into throwing him in jail over contempt, which at this point, anybody else...
	Regardless of whether or not the trial is justified, if there's a trial going on and you're ignoring the judge's orders and you continue to do it, they would throw you in jail for contempt.
	So far, the judge has not taken the bait.
	If he throws Trump in jail for contempt, then all of the parading of his gross immorality is going to be overshadowed by him being thrown into jail.
	So that has not happened yet.
	And when you compare Trump to Bill Clinton's public humiliation to some degree, As I said, Ken Starr, who was trying to cover up for what Bill Clinton did, really ignored all of the very credible charges of violent rape,
	sexual assault of a lot of different women, and ignored all of the credible charges of financial corruption and things like that, and focused on a consensual relationship with Monica Lewinsky that Clinton lied about under oath.
	Now that was a clear crime.
	Perjury. And he's a lawyer.
	He knows how serious that is.
	And he was disbarred for that.
	But I remember talking to my leftist friends.
	Who are absolutely outraged.
	You conservative prudes, you think that he ought to be impeached because he had, you know, extramarital sex and adultery and all the rest of this stuff.
	I said, no, it was because he committed a crime of perjury.
	But all these other serious crimes were ignored.
	So, yeah, I support his impeachment, that type of thing.
	But now, but they didn't care.
	And they wouldn't look at it.
	It was too nuanced.
	That's one of the reasons why Ken Starr did that.
	Because he didn't want Bill Clinton to be part of that.
	Ken Starr had this reputation for being a conservative, for being a Christian, and all the rest of this stuff.
	And yet, he defended Bill Clinton as a special prosecutor by not charging him with the things that he should have been charged with.
	And then he became a defender of Jeffrey Epstein.
	He was Jeffrey Epstein's lawyer, along with Alan Dershowitz.
	And they got him off.
	And then he goes to Baylor and becomes a president of a supposedly Christian college, and he defends the football team.
	It's doing pretty well, so let's defend them against charges of sexual assault and other things.
	I don't know the details of all that stuff.
	But yeah, three different times he let it go.
	And so I always thought that what he did was a complete cover-up.
	It was too nuanced. And this is so nuanced that nobody knows, nobody cares.
	But they're going to go into all the salacious details.
	And so this op-ed piece here...
	It was written by a guy who says, you know, what do the Christians say about this?
	People call themselves Christians.
	People call themselves evangelicals.
	What do they think about this? He said they compare Trump to King David, a flawed man who committed serious transgressions yet was used mightily by God.
	Well, I haven't noticed Trump writing any psalms.
	He's basically defaced the Bible with a lot of political, secular things.
	I love the Constitution, but it has no place in the Bible.
	But, good try with that.
	Now, one thing that may be like King David, you know...
	He was told God was going to forgive him.
	However, there's going to be consequences from God.
	And one of the consequences from God was that there will be constant civil war in his country, right?
	His sons would rise up against him and other people would be trying to push him off the throne and that type of thing.
	Well, it seems like that's going on with Trump.
	I'll give him that. That is a similarity with King David.
	As long as he's there, I guess we're going to have a constant civil war within the country, within the GOP party.
	But he said this argument seems to have morphed into, at least in some quarters, into a more sinister theory that sexual sin isn't just a stumbling block that can be overcome.
	It is proof of a man's masculinity and even his worthiness to be used by God.
	I guess this would be the followers of Andrew Tate, the Andrew Tate denomination that is there.
	My takeaway from the recent Politico interview with Samuel Perry, a sociologist of religion, author of the book Addicted to Lust, Pornography in the Lives of Conservative Protestants, he contends that many evangelicals see Trump as a quote, Of a kind of masculinity that is so masculine that his sexual appetites cannot be contained.
	Perhaps he should start playing that song, I'm Too Sexy for My Body or something.
	Wasn't that? For my shirt.
	For my shirt? Is that what it was?
	Yeah. G. Gordon Liddy used to do that.
	A hallmark of being a real man is not being able to control yourself.
	Everyone knows that. That's right.
	Absolutely. In other words, he said, Trump is not like Mike Pence, a kind of asexual Ned Flanders kind of Christian, the character from Simpsons, that is a feat and ineffective.
	No, Trump is power personified.
	He is a warrior.
	And with all that comes all the temptations of being a warrior.
	Well, except that, you know, Christ was very strong.
	But, you know, he didn't do that.
	That was not his example.
	Where are these people coming from?
	As a matter of fact, I had this discussion with Alex once about Mike Pence.
	He was really contemptuous of Mike Pence.
	He thought he was just a goody-goody two-shoes.
	He said, you know, he won't even get in an elevator alone with a woman.
	I said, well, I think that's really wise.
	I said, you know, we had, I think it was Gary Bauer who was running for president, and he was meeting repeatedly with a woman alone in his office.
	And with the door closed, with the door closed for extended periods of time.
	And people started whispering.
	Now, I don't know if there was anything there or not.
	But the bottom line is, is that you don't give an opportunity for any of that to be.
	And that busted his campaign.
	And so, you know, there's some people who are not divorced.
	Yeah. No, there is other benefits than just getting elected to office in terms of not doing that kind of stuff.
	It can make you very miserable from many different standpoints, as well as everybody in your family.
	Back in 1998, Slate's Franklin IV listed 17 reasons why Clinton screws around, he said.
	And one of them was, it's just evolutionary.
	It's just natural selection.
	Men are like animals, right?
	Evolutionary. Natural selection rewarded men who clawed their way to positions of power by having many sex partners.
	He said this is to say that faithfulness and monogamy are for losers.
	They're for betas. Not for real winners and conquerors who frankly are tempted constantly and cannot help themselves.
	That's basically Alex's position.
	Definitely. And now, if this author is correct, some of Trump's defenders have taken this unchristian rationalization and baptized it, so to speak.
	That it's a good sign, you know, to have this type of thing.
	Well, the Bible says that we should not fulfill the lust of the flesh, and this certainly includes sex, but it also transcends sex.
	When it comes to being a man, part of overcoming the flesh also involves other types of sacrifice and even suffering.
	That's one of the reasons why Jesus essentially calls us to fast and to pray.
	He doesn't say, if you fast, he says, when you fast, you know, And denying yourself from certain things, and we're not called to be stoics or whatever, but, you know, the bottom line is that you are told that there are certain things that you should not do.
	We don't do it because it makes us stronger, because we've got willpower like G. Gordon Liddy or whatever.
	It's not about that.
	It's not about just another macho thing.
	It's about humbly acknowledging that God is God.
	That Jesus is Lord.
	He says, why do you call me Lord and you don't do what I say?
	It's just that simple. This isn't about you being an alpha male.
	This isn't about you, your mind over matter or your discipline or your backbone or any of that kind of stuff.
	It's just the fact that you either accept that Christ is Lord or you don't.
	He said, the other day I was in the restroom of a church and there I witnessed a sacrificial act that is no doubt repeated often.
	A Christian father lifting his paraplegic son onto the toilet.
	My first thought was, this is a real man.
	This is a man who knows unspeakable suffering.
	He said, I'm not sure I'm strong enough to handle what this man endures.
	He said, my second thought, he said, I hate that my mind turns to politics, but it's the truth.
	That's where I am as well.
	It was that Donald Trump probably sees these people as losers and suckers.
	Because he saw that with people who were military vets.
	Who are in wheelchairs because they sacrificed for the geopolitical ambitions of people like Donald Trump who despise them, who use them, who treat them as if they were dirt.
	And these people lay their lives down for those people.
	The vast majority of Christians I know would still view this father as a hero.
	How they can bestow that same hero status on Trump?
	It's something, he said, I will never understand.
	We'll be right back.
	♪♪
	Analyzing the globalist's next move.
	♪♪ And now, The David Knight Show.
	Well, on Rumble, DG8 said, Trump wants to get thrown in jail so he can cut off pieces of his jail suit like he did in the mugshot suit and sell it for millions.
	Yeah, it'd be the best thing.
	As a matter of fact, somebody sent this to me.
	I don't know if you've ever seen one of these things before, but it's a Trump ad with a lot of red hair.
	I was just telling Travis the other day, I said, you know what I need is more red hair.
	And then I got this in the mail.
	I need some red hair on the top of my head.
	Can you spare me? Somebody did.
	They could sell that.
	I think the people that put this together...
	I actually did not mean to use this as a joke against Trump.
	That's the saddest thing about it.
	Now, the people who sent it to me did mean it that way, but I think they meant it as a form of imitation, I guess.
	I don't know. It is truly a bizarre cult, isn't it?
	On Rumble, Junk Silver says, Have you seen the homoerotic Trump memes that his supporters post on Gab?
	No, I haven't, but that's one of the reasons why I don't get onto social media anymore.
	I am politically and social media-like homeless.
	I don't have a constituency out there.
	People who say that they like the kinds of policies and principles that I like, just like these Christians we were just talking about, they love Trump.
	And so they don't like me.
	And then the people who typically hate Trump and would agree with me about his policies, actually they don't care about policies either.
	And if it is a policy, they disagree with me on policies.
	So people either disagree with me on policies or they disagree with me on Trump because the people who are conservatives can't understand, they have this cognitive dissonance That even though Trump opposes all the things that they love, they can't get that through their heads.
	It's just amazing. A shirtless, muscular Trump standing on a tank and so on.
	Truly bizarre. Yeah, it is.
	It is. It is a personality cult.
	But let's talk about the shots here.
	Yeah, because it was last week that it got hit on Vimeo, which is the home base for Roku.
	So I'm kind of not sure what's going on with the Roku channel.
	I had listeners say, well, I haven't seen anything there since the, I think it was the 26th or something like that.
	We're still uploading to Vimeo and Roku.
	I filed an appeal with them, sent them the articles that we covered.
	I'm not sure if we've heard back.
	I'll have to check the email. I did get an email back from them and they did say they just reiterated their policy, which I take it as a rejection.
	And we're going to go back and cover those again today because what I was talking about a week ago was what was happening with AstraZeneca, the fact that in a court proceeding where they actually are under oath, And they'll actually go to jail if they lie there.
	Well, there they told the truth about their vaccines and about the blood clots and things like that.
	And here we are a week later, and they're telling everybody, we're going to take our shots off the market everywhere.
	Everywhere. And they said, well, it's because we want to have the new kind of shots that address all these different variants out there.
	It's like, well, you've been telling us that there's variants out there like Omicron and Delta and on and on and on that.
	So many of them, they just ran out of Greek letters, starting to use the numbers.
	But, you know, they've been telling people that there's all these different variants out there, and they've continued to sell this AstraZeneca vaccine.
	Even with all the variants out there, they've sold it for years that way.
	I remember when it was Thanksgiving 2021, First time we took a break from the show, we did it to come here house hunting, and Tony was doing the show, and I cut a short thing and sent it to him, kind of introducing the fact that we're going to be gone, and he's going to be taking the show for a couple of days.
	And that was when Omicron had just broken, and I was laughing about how ridiculous that was.
	But that was November of 2021, and so they've been selling their vaccine now, you know, for two and a half years.
	And even though there's all these variants that they claim are out there, but now they're saying, well, we're going to take it down because there's these new kind of vaccines that are multivariant.
	I don't think that's the case at all.
	But, you know, what we clearly know and what they even say under court, that's no defense whatsoever.
	For being censored if you say something that is negative and true about the vaccines for a lot of these places.
	This was sent to me by Bennett Cecil, whom I've interviewed.
	And it was from Karen Kingston, who has a substack.
	What happened to their babies?
	In Pfizer's baby and toddler study, there was a subgroup of 344 babies.
	Only three babies, less than 1%, made it to the end of the study.
	These vaccines are lethal.
	They really don't care.
	In July of 2022, she said, I began, Karen Kingston, I began reporting on my analysis of Pfizer's Phase 3 trial data of babies and toddlers from the ages of six months to four years.
	And you know, when we look at this, we live in a society, as I was just saying, we don't value children.
	We have absolutely no compassion for babies.
	When you look at the outrage, and it was appropriate, the outrage against Fauci for taking beagle puppies and torturing them with sand flies and things like that.
	And yet, Fauci was already ordering baby organ parts from Planned Parenthood And to get them, Planned Parenthood was ripping the babies apart while they were alive, sending the organs to Fauci so he could make humanized mice.
	Now, what is wrong with a society that would do that?
	You think a society that would do that cares about having a family?
	Cares about having babies?
	And you have this type of situation here where these babies are experimented on by Pfizer.
	Is anybody going to be upset about that?
	No. No.
	Pfizer's FDA submitted data.
	The FDA doesn't care either.
	They submitted data, documented that some of the babies and the toddlers experienced fevers greater than 104 degrees.
	Here's a second, send you into a seizure.
	And it did send a lot of them into seizures.
	It can kill you if it stays there sustained.
	Seizures with eye rolling, convulsions, seizures that lasted more than five minutes.
	Multiple seizures a day, sometimes a dozen or more.
	Brain damage confirmed by EEG. Hypotonia, that means a limp, lifeless baby.
	And lysinecephaly, genetically induced brain malformation characterized by the absence of convolutions and foals in the brain.
	All of this was done to babies and toddlers as part of this heinous experiment.
	And they gave the information to the FDA, and the FDA didn't do anything with it.
	These are all babies injected with the mRNA nanoparticles.
	This was mass murder of babies and toddlers under the guise of an FDA clinical trial.
	Pfizer operated outside of their contract, outside of the laws that regulate the U.S. biologics industry.
	Pfizer is not protected by any U.S. laws for the crimes they have committed.
	Crimes that are documented in their FDA-submitted data.
	And the FDA is a partner in this crime.
	And that's why the FDA and Pfizer wanted to keep this stuff secret for 75 years.
	One of many reasons why they wanted to keep this secret for 75 years.
	Pfizer is not protected.
	And there was no placebo, as far as she can tell.
	All the babies and toddlers were injected.
	Unless the parents of the placebo group figured out that the trial was essentially infanticide and withdrew their baby or toddler before any of them were injected with mRNA nanoparticles, more than one out of three babies and toddlers never made it to the end of Pfizer's pediatric trials.
	They said on November 20, 2020, that the risk-benefit ratio of mRNA vaccines was not favorable for children.
	Based on data from 100 children, 12 to 15 years old, From the Phase 3 trial.
	But they moved ahead with clinical trials and with emergency use authorization in pediatric population to place children and infants at unnecessary risk for disease, disabilities, and death.
	You see? Nothing stopped them.
	This unmitigated greed.
	And, of course, you had a president who was goading them on and bragged about goading them on as well.
	Trump. The injection of children with mRNA technology was never merited because, according to the FDA's own documents, they were not at risk.
	It was the elderly people, right?
	And then they changed it.
	Oh, now we've got to inject the babies to protect the elderly people.
	What kind of a society does that anyway?
	Even if that were true.
	And, of course, it was all a lie.
	On June 10th, 2021, the FDA stated that it would be infeasible, in other words, impossible, to conduct a clinical trial that would clinically and statistically prove a vaccine could safely prevent this infection or COVID disease in children, specifically younger pediatric patients, such as infants and toddlers, because pediatric population rarely became infected or rarely presented any COVID-19 symptoms.
	And so again, less than a third of the babies made it to the end of one trial.
	Of the originally estimated 4,526 babies and toddlers enlisted, only 31% made it to their two-month post-MRNA dose 3 doctor's visit.
	They were hitting them with multiple injections and boosters.
	Throughout the body of this Pfizer document, there are horrifyingly detailed descriptions of the disabling and painful harm done to these babies and toddlers.
	Anaphylaxis, appendicitis, fevers greater than 104 degrees, convulsions, status epilepticus, seizures lasting more than five minutes, and so forth.
	All these can lead to permanent brain damage, she says.
	So what happened to 370 toddlers who were between the ages of 2 and 4 years?
	An unwinded placebo subgroup of 370 toddlers and 2 to 4 year olds, they were injected with the first dose, then with the second dose, and 98 toddlers were injected with the third dose, only 21. Made it to the one month post-third dose follow-up.
	An unblinded placebo subgroup of 377 babies, 6 to 23 months old, 344 babies were injected with the first dose, and others of this group, only 1% made it to the one month after the third dose.
	So what happened to them?
	Well, according to their study, the reasons they would not be there would be because of adverse events, neurological dysfunction, admission into intensive care units, hospitalization, and death.
	That's what happened to the 99%.
	Other reasons include a parent removing their child from the trial due to permanent disabling injuries or death or an investigator removing a baby or toddler from the trial due to permanent disability or death.
	The clinical trial design submitted by Pfizer to the FDA. Was not in compliance with laws that regulate the industry.
	Therefore, were criminal experimentations on human adults and children.
	I just described 690 babies and infants who never made it to their two-month follow-up.
	There was a total of 3,102 babies and toddlers who never made it to their two-month follow-up visit.
	So again, she keeps asking, what happened to the babies?
	Do we care? Evidently, as a society, we don't.
	We're going to have an election where one of the key issues is going to be abortion.
	And it's going to be about making sure that mothers can kill any baby that they wish.
	If they can abort them, they can even put them into a Pfizer drug trial if they wish.
	AstraZeneca, meanwhile, is pulling this COVID vaccine.
	As I pointed out, they admitted these rare side effects.
	This is something that was hailed as a triumph for British science by Boris Johnson.
	He said it saved over 6 million lives.
	There you go. Well, isn't that interesting?
	Where did they come up with this number?
	And then you have Andrew Bridgen, who talks about the effects, as quoting a scientist who said, this is a holocaust.
	Oh, can't talk about that.
	We saved six million lives.
	The pharmaceutical giant voluntarily withdrew its marketing authorization in the European Union earlier this week.
	But as I said, it's because, well, we've got some new, better vaccines.
	Well, I don't think so because they needed those for quite some time.
	Legal experts and victims, however, see the withdrawal as a vindication of their long-held concerns over the vaccine's safety.
	As they admitted in court...
	What we have known from the beginning.
	We were seeing people get these blood clots and other things like that in January.
	Actually, we had some of them in December of 2020.
	Because they first started rolling out some of these things to the medical community.
	Then they started getting a wider release in January.
	And we had reports right away.
	As a matter of fact, the blood clots were the first thing.
	Not the heart attacks, not the sudden death, and all the rest of this.
	So, the other issue...
	In the UK, because, you know, AstraZeneca was primarily in the UK. They didn't get approval for anything here in the United States.
	But, you know, that's the political nature of this stuff.
	You know, in the United States, we had Moderna, we had Pfizer.
	We were going to approve them. Those were our companies, I should say.
	They were in alliance with Trump.
	They had bought him. And so they were going to push that out globally.
	And then other countries had their own, and this was the UK's vaccine, but it did go into some other countries.
	And so as the Daily Skeptic is looking at this, I said the government's vaccine damage payment scheme has been criticized for not providing sufficient compensation for those people that they admit now were hurt.
	And folks, this is your uni party in Congress as well.
	Not only do the Democrats and the Republicans in Congress and both presidential candidates, not only do they not show any concern for those who have been harmed by the vaccines, by the Trump shots, by the Biden mandates, there is not one cent for the border, but there's not a penny for any of these people who have been harmed.
	As a matter of fact, they're ignoring them.
	But we do have unlimited money for wars.
	And we have unlimited money to help the migrants, not to close the border.
	And so, in the UK, again, it has been a very big issue.
	People are saying, what is the matter with their equivalent of the FDA? And, of course, you know what the issue is.
	This is politicians and corporations that are shoving this stuff through and these regulatory agencies are there just to give them political cover.
	The speed at which the vaccines were developed and tested was unprecedented.
	But has the haste meant necessary steps in accruing this were skipped?
	Well, I think they were.
	I pushed them like they've never been pushed before, and that's why we have it.
	The greatest achievements was getting the vaccine done in nine months instead of five and a half to twelve years, but...
	Well, if that's his greatest achievement, I'm going to pass.
	I'll pass on somebody who says that was his greatest achievement.
	For example, followers of the Pfizer-Corminati stuff did not carry out any carcinogenicity studies.
	In other words, does it cause cancer?
	Does it cause genetic mutation?
	And the regulators let them get away with it.
	And they showed a snapshot of the study.
	We didn't do any genetic testing.
	We didn't do any testing of cancer.
	And they admit it right up front.
	Now, the interesting thing about Trump is that even though he's bragged about his wonderful vaccines and how many millions of lives he saved and how it's his greatest thing, I like to talk about it, but my wonderful people, even people like you, don't like to hear me talk about vaccines.
	And so now he's gone from being the proud father of Of the vaccine.
	And now, this just came out in the last day or so.
	He is attacking RFK Jr., saying that RFK Jr.
	is not sufficiently anti-vax.
	Isn't that amazing? Isn't that amazing?
	I mean, you know, he does have children's self-defense.
	He has said, I'm not against vaccines.
	I just want to have safe vaccines.
	And Trump used that.
	In order to get the pharmaceutical companies to give him millions of dollars in the transition period.
	And then he responded by putting Alex Azar, the CEO of Eli Lilly, in charge of the FDA to run this whole scam.
	And so he knows all about that.
	He knows and he used that same kind of rhetoric.
	Yeah, we want to have safe vaccines.
	He used that rhetoric to get money.
	And again, I have criticized RFK Jr.
	for saying, oh yeah, I'm not anti-vaccine.
	And yet he is far more anti-vaccine and definitely anti-Trump vaccine.
	And Trump has been proudly boasting about this.
	This is exactly what Trump did with DeSantis, if you recall.
	What he said was, oh yeah, DeSantis locked everybody down.
	When DeSantis and Kemp were the first two to stop the lockdown briefly, they locked down briefly, they were the first two governors to do it, and Trump railed against them for opening up at the time.
	And then he criticized DeSantis for opening up.
	I'm sorry, for keeping it locked, for locking down, as he said to do, as he bribed people to.
	So now he's on RFK Jr.
	about the vaccines. Listen to this and look at his face.
	You can always tell when Trump knows he's lying.
	He gets this face like a kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar.
	And by the way, he said the other night that vaccines are fine.
	He said it on a And so did you, you lying murderer.
	He's all for them. And that's what he said.
	And for those of you that want to vote because you think he's an anti-vaxxer, he's not really an anti-vaxxer.
	That's only his political moment.
	He said it the other night.
	He's okay with the vaccine.
	Yeah, and he's okay with the vaccine as well, isn't he?
	Isn't that amazing? Can you believe that Donald Trump would have the audacity to say that?
	After all that he said in support of the vaccine, now he is saying, I'm more anti-vax than RFK Jr.
	is. Of course, he doesn't say that he is anti-vax, does he?
	He just criticizes RFK Jr.
	for not being anti-vax. Dr.
	Birx is making the rounds, interestingly enough, with Chris Cuomo, who got a lot of attention when he talked about the fact that people have been injured by these Trump shots.
	Are not being helped.
	And then Chris Cuomo said, yeah, I'm injured by them as well.
	He did not give any specifications.
	But I remember a couple of years ago, he was still at CNN. He got vaccinated.
	He disappeared. And there were some descriptions about it.
	And we all said, yep, he's vaccine injured.
	But he wouldn't say anything about it at the time.
	And as people have now criticized him, why didn't you tell people about that?
	You know, why didn't Tucker Carlson tell people about it either?
	Well, they're both being paid lots of money by the vaccine companies to shut up.
	He says, I don't have any regrets about this.
	I don't feel like I should have told anybody about it.
	Uh-huh. Yeah, money talks, doesn't it?
	And so now he has Dr.
	Birx on. And what are they talking about?
	They're talking about vaccine injury.
	And Dr. Birx is saying, well, we need all the people to come forward that have had reactions, as if she doesn't know.
	This is put up by a concerned citizen, and this is a Pfizer document that Pfizer, this is 29 pages of symptoms, adverse effects, that Pfizer knew about, that Pfizer reported to the FDA, 29 pages worth.
	And so Concerned Citizen made a video of this, you know, one page at a time for 29 pages, and said, Dear Normies, now that TV has told you about AstraZeneca clots, and Pfizer wanted these 29 pages suppressed for 75 years, and of course it wasn't just Pfizer, but it was also the FDA, will you wait for TV to tell you that these things are dangerous, that Pfizer is dangerous as well?
	They can admit now that the AstraZeneca caused clots, but we've got 29 pages worth of stuff here.
	Just like the listener when I was talking about remdesivir.
	Kidney versus liver.
	And yeah, they were right.
	It was more kidney than it is liver, but both of them.
	And you look at any of these things.
	It's, you know, what is the side effect, the adverse effect for Pfizer?
	Well, we got 29 pages of them.
	Maybe that's why they didn't put it in the insert.
	Not just that they didn't want you to know, but that they couldn't fit the number of adverse effects into any kind of container.
	So, Chris Cuomo is talking to Dr.
	Scarf, Dr. Burks.
	Doc, AstraZeneca made a headline today pulling the vaccine.
	They say it's because the demand curve isn't there anymore.
	Others suggest it's due to the inferiority of their product.
	What's your take? Inferiority of their product.
	Yeah, you might say, given people blood clots is inferior.
	She said they were very effective for what they were supposed to be used for, which was preventing severe disease and hospitalization or death.
	That's what vaccines were studied to do in this country, and that's what they did.
	You see, these people will always lie.
	Always lie. Even somebody who's been injured.
	Even somebody, and he uses the fact that he's injured, he uses that to still lie to you.
	To still cover up, because he can put it out there, and he can get an audience talking about it.
	It absolutely is amazing.
	I'm going to stop it at this point, this particular subject, because I want to move on to the pandemic stuff.
	I've got some stuff I want to talk about with that.
	But on RockFence, Scott Helmer, thank you for the tip.
	He writes, I released a song in 2022 protesting the forced vaccination of our children called Shouting It Out Loud.
	It's available on all streaming platforms and at Scott Helmer, that's H-E-L-M-E-R, Scott with two T's, S-C-O-T-T-H-E-L-M-E-R.com.
	Good, Scott. I'll check it out.
	I'll see if I can find it. On Rockfin, Yona Anawodi says, when I think of these hypodermic needles, Immediately, the hollow fangs of poisonous serpents come to mind.
	Yeah, that's right. Atomic Dog on Rumble.
	David, many media people were injured and kept quiet, even pushed the vax still.
	That's how scared of or influenced by or owned by the system.
	Yeah, I mean, Ben Shapiro, I mean, he's railing about vaccine hesitancy and stuff like that.
	And then you got people like Rand Paul.
	Who knows? Who knows?
	He really didn't want to be mandated to have to take the vaccine.
	Well, Dr. Fauci, I've had it.
	Can't you say that there's natural immunity?
	Well, I don't know. Send it to Paul, you know.
	And so it fought back and forth, and then he just comes out.
	You're going to make people vaccine-hesitant.
	Oh, we don't want people to be vaccine-hesitant, do we?
	Seriously, Rand? Amazing.
	Atomic Dog about the Trump hair.
	Screenshot taken. That's going on Twitter.
	I shouldn't have done it.
	Anyway. Yeah.
	Future Generations. We'll be genuinely agog that the evidence has been ignored for so long, that genuine concerns are disregarded, that those raising them were gaslit, were smeared, were vilified.
	Yeah, as a matter of fact, you know, when Dr.
	Burke says, oh, we need all those people to come forward.
	No, they did come forward.
	You gaslit them, you vilified them, you kicked them off of social media.
	You shut their programs down like mine?
	Yeah, we came forward.
	We told you about it. Haven't changed what I've said now for four years.
	I knew this was going to happen.
	Reported it as it was happening in December of 2020, the beginning of January of 2021.
	Even at that point, I'll never forget the guy who was 30-something, right?
	30-ish. And he'd been working in a nursing home, and he was in tears.
	And he said, we kept these people safe.
	Nobody got sick.
	Nobody died throughout the pandemic.
	Well, yeah, because there was no pandemic.
	But he said, we started jabbing them in the nursing home.
	And he said, they'd had, I forget the exact number, but it was like a dozen, 12, 14 had died.
	And he said, of the ones who have not died, most of them are just kind of sitting around just gazing in space now.
	He says, I can't keep doing this.
	Well, there's a lot of people that would take his place.
	A lot of people who would do it for money.
	And you have people at the FDA, people at Pfizer, you've got people at facilities like Vimeo who will do it for the money.
	You know, PayPal, all the rest of them, they'll do it for the money.
	There's no shortage of people who will do anything to anyone for even small amounts of money.
	We're going to take a quick break and we'll be right back.
	So, let's go.
	show.
	Well, I got an email.
	I mentioned it earlier.
	It's from Steve Swan.
	He said, I don't think you should call PCR a test.
	It's a process rather than a test.
	I think calling it a test makes it more difficult to criticize it.
	Just my two cents, he said.
	And I agree. I think it's true.
	It's not for diagnosis of any disease.
	Kerry Mullis, the guy who invented it and got a Nobel Prize for it, If they could find this virus in you at all, and with PCR, if you do it well, you can find almost anything in anybody.
	It starts making you believe in the sort of Buddhist notion that everything is contained in everything else.
	Because if you can amplify one single molecule up to something that you can really measure, which PCR can do, Then there's just very few molecules that you don't have at least one single one of them in your body, okay?
	So that could be thought of as a misuse of it just to claim that it's meaningful.
	It allows you to take a very minuscule amount of anything and make it measurable and then talk about it in meetings and stuff like it is important.
	It doesn't tell you that you're sick and it doesn't tell you that the thing you ended up with really was going to hurt you.
	That's right. And I keep playing that for everybody.
	I want you to burn that into your memory.
	I'm sorry, but we got to be able to quote that to people.
	And now let's take a look at this pandemic thing.
	We have 22 attorneys general in the United States have written a letter to Biden about this WHO pandemic treaty.
	We've had 49 of the 100 senators, all of the Republican senators, have written a letter to Biden.
	Now, what's going to happen?
	I think it's very important that these people have to stand up and do more than write letters.
	And there are some hints that maybe they will.
	You see, when you look at the state attorneys general, one of the reasons that Fauci and Trump and Biden were, I didn't order anybody to do anything, they paid to have it done.
	We'll talk about that, belabor that point.
	The fact that, you know, they want boys in the girls' bathroom, well, then they say, well, we're going to pay you to let that happen, and if you don't let that happen, we're going to pull the money that we've gotten you addicted to over the years, we're going to pull that money away from you.
	And so Trump's Emergency executive order, that Friday the 13th, was about releasing the money.
	Releasing the money to the states.
	The states who had already put in the suggested laws and the public health rules that had been suggested to them going back to 9-11, you know, The dark winter assimilation, germ game two months before 9-11.
	The anthrax attack one week after 9-11.
	And then two months after that, the model state Health Emergency Powers Act, if I got the order right.
	But that's what they had states enact legislation so that they would do this.
	Because there is no authority...
	In the Constitution, because of the Tenth Amendment, there is no authority for them to order people to do that.
	They're very afraid of that.
	Jeff Sessions was very afraid of that.
	He wanted to get rid of marijuana, but he had all kinds of back-channel tricks that he could pull.
	We'll do the civil asset forfeiture thing.
	How about that? I'll partner with the law enforcement people who will steal property.
	I'll keep 20% and give you 80%, and you keep stealing stuff from people in the name of the war on drugs.
	But I can't go there and say, well, you legalize marijuana for medical or recreational use.
	I'm going to shut that down. If he had taken that to court, he would have lost big time.
	And it would have exposed the legal bluff of the drug war.
	And so they're afraid of that.
	So they always have rules that are created by the bureaucracy.
	And then Congress and the President release this money through these bureaucracies.
	Whether it's the Department of Education, or whether it's Homeland Security, or the Department of Justice, they use the money to get the states to bribe the states, to blackmail the states, to do what they want.
	That's the plan. And so, this pandemic treaty is going to have to be implemented at the local level.
	All politics are local, and so is all tyranny, folks.
	All tyranny is local.
	And all this federal tyranny is bribery and blackmail of local politicians.
	That's what it is.
	And so it's a good thing that you've got 22 attorneys general in the U.S. have told Biden that they will not be making this WHO pandemic treaty or these new rules.
	That will not be enforced in their area.
	And they reminded Biden that That this is not a power.
	He can't give this power to the World Health Organization that they claim they want to have through the treaty and the new rules.
	He can't give that to them because it's not his power to give.
	That power is not being given to them.
	And that's what we saw. With the Model Health Emergency Powers Act, we saw that the federal government didn't have that power directly.
	So what they did was they got the states to put the rules in, and then when it came time, they had Trump bribe them.
	And then Biden bribed them and blackmailed them.
	And so it's going to have to run through the states.
	If you've got 22 states that say no, well, that's a good thing.
	And so, as they look at this, and then on the other hand, we've got the 49 senators.
	They are telling Biden they don't like this, and they're asking him to submit it for a vote as a treaty.
	Which, as I said, I'm concerned about.
	Because the Senate doesn't need to ask Biden to give this to them.
	Under the Constitution... It is not a treaty.
	It is of no effect unless you have two-thirds of the Senate or whatever a vote to make it happen.
	Since they've got 49 people who say they don't want it, that's not going to happen.
	Not with this one.
	Not with this Senate. So going back to the letter from the AGs or the state attorneys general, we therefore oppose such accords for several important reasons.
	First, The two proposed instruments, that's the treaty and the IRH changes, the international health regulation changes, these two proposed instruments would transform the WHO from an advisory charitable organization into the world governor of public health.
	Absolutely right. And I got to say, kudos to James Roguski again.
	He was the guy who started all this stuff.
	He really was. He did a lot of detailed...
	Research on it. And he reached out to me and said, nobody wants to talk about this.
	I said, well, I want to talk about it.
	And now he's been on a lot of different places, a lot of big platforms he's been on.
	And he has followed this in amazing detail.
	And so I give James Roguski the credit for what is happening with this stuff.
	Number two, the federal government cannot delegate public health decisions to an international body.
	The U.S. Constitution doesn't vest responsibility for public health policy with the federal government.
	See, that's why you have the Model State Health Emergency Powers Act.
	And so, you know, you don't have that power.
	You can't give it away. And, you know, we oppose this because the WHO is trying to move from an advisory capacity to a world government organization.
	Third, the proposed IHR amendments and the pandemic treaty would lay the groundwork for a global surveillance infrastructure.
	Now, what are they going to do about it?
	They said, this is the last sentence, we will resist any attempt to enable the WHO to directly or indirectly set public policy for our citizens.
	Well, good. Good.
	So maybe they will do something about it.
	Now, on the Senate side, are these senators going to do anything about it?
	Before we get to that, the UK has said they are not going to sign this treaty.
	That blows a big hole in the WHO's plans right there.
	This global vaccine treaty being drafted by the World Health Organization will be rejected by Britain amid concerns that it would have to give away a fifth of its jabs while ceding sovereignty to the unelected UN subsidiary.
	So their issue is not just the...
	Sovereignty issue, but they don't want to be compelled to send vaccines and things like that.
	And that's part of it, you know, because these people like Tedros are nothing but Marxists.
	They've always got a redistribution plan.
	And part of this is to say that richer countries would be asked to help to cope with pandemics, including giving over 20% of their tests, their treatments, their vaccines.
	To the WHO so it can distribute this to the poor countries at its discretion and probably at its profit.
	Give it to the World Health Organization and they sell it to these other people.
	We will only support the adoption of the accord and accept it on behalf of the UK if it is firmly in the UK national interest and respects national sovereignty.
	And so this idea of...
	Wealth redistribution or health redistribution, they're not going for it.
	At least this particular government, which is, in a sense, this conservative government has lost its credibility in so many different ways, it's kind of circling the drain there.
	So we'll see what happens with the next one.
	In 2022, over 100,000 people in Britain signed a petition demanding a referendum on this so-called pandemic treaty.
	That's now gone up to 150,000.
	So there's a lot of resistance there.
	The government has announced they're not going to sign it.
	We've had 22 state attorneys general say they're going to resist it if it's brought in, and they understand what the problem is.
	We've got 28 who don't, but we've got 22 who do.
	And then there's this that a lot of people are bringing up.
	Under the existing rules, and of course James Roguski was the first one to talk about this as well, he said under the existing rules, now they're trying to change the rules so they can do this kind of stuff on the fly as quickly as possible without any notification to anybody, but under the current rules they can't do that, and they haven't changed those rules.
	And so they have to have the document out there For countries to move on and agree to this or to not agree to it, that document has to be put out there four months before they hold a vote on it with all the different countries.
	And that hasn't been done.
	As a matter of fact, they're talking about this vote happening in just the next couple of weeks, and nobody's got the final document yet.
	There's been a lot of stuff that has been released, but nothing that's final.
	It is a rush without a reason, said the Daily Skeptic out of the UK. And why is that?
	Well, because I had a listener send this to me.
	Look at this. If pigs get bird flu, if pigs could fly, or if pigs could flu, we could be in for a real nightmare.
	This constant fear campaign that's out there.
	The bird flu outbreak among dairy cows.
	No, none of them are sick.
	None of them are sick. You use this PCR procedure to identify fragments of You won't tell anybody how much you magnified it, how many cycles you ran this thing through.
	And you have used it, it says it continues to generate alarm.
	No, you're continuing to generate the alarm.
	That's the press. That's what they're doing out there.
	The planned vote does not respect the current rules that are there.
	So let's get to what the Senate has to say about all of this stuff.
	And when we look at what they're saying, there is some hope that they may push back on all this, but we'll have to see.
	We'll have to see what they do.
	The thing I want to say before we take a break and before we get Gard Goldsmith going to join us is that we are having a convergence of MacGuffins here.
	They want to pull climate change together with the pandemic.
	And so, again, you know, this is something, why would that be surprising?
	I call them a MacGuffin because it doesn't matter what the thing is that we're chasing, what it is we're scared to death of, what it is that they're sounding the alarm about.
	The solution is always the same.
	It doesn't matter if it's global cooling and we're going to have a new ice age or then they flipped it and they said it's going to be global warming and everything's going to melt down.
	Same thing had to be done.
	And then when you come to a worldwide pandemic, according to them, and it wasn't even an epidemic anywhere, when you have a pandemic, guess what?
	The same rules that you would have if we're going to go into an ice age or if we're going to have a global warming and a planet's going to burn.
	All three of those were the same thing.
	So it's not surprising that they would combine these.
	Since the war on climate change and the war on pandemics represents two of the greatest sources of wealth and power for the global elite, a lot of work has been put into conditioning the public to be terrified of the existential risk each allegedly poses.
	This is from Technocracy News.
	The pandemic treaty seeks to link both of these together.
	We're going to have one MacGuffin to rule us all.
	To paraphrase Tolkien, right?
	One MacGuffin to rule us all.
	So the pandemic treaty wants to pull these together, arguing that climate change is the root cause of pandemics.
	It causes everything, doesn't it?
	The problem thus necessitates giving the globalist control over how we interact with the environment.
	In other words, they argue that habitat loss brings humans in contact with deadly diseases.
	And they've been talking about this for quite some time.
	One Health began in 2004.
	The idea was put forward that public health needed to be expanded into an umbrella that could control every aspect of our lives and profit off of it as well.
	For example, climate change was folded into public health under the rationale that dire environmental threats that we face necessitate making ecological health a core facet of public health.
	You see this with him coming in and saying, we need to get the doctors to tell people that we've got to have gun control.
	Because it's a matter of public health, right?
	They're going to try to bring everything together under public health because they always steal our liberty with the promise of safety.
	And of course, that's what they promise with public help.
	They just don't want you as an individual to have any safety.
	They don't want you to have any concern about things they're going to do to you.
	Before we go to guard, real quickly, on Rumble, Johnny Freedom says, My mom was in assisted living.
	They jabbed her and lost the record.
	So they jabbed her again, or they would kick her out.
	This is in Florida.
	Wow. On Rumble, Artisaman says, COVID found in goat's milk, papaya, and motor oil tested by the president of Africa shows that PCR was a fraud.
	That president in Africa was taken out for exposing the PCR test.
	Yeah, that's the way it works.
	I agree. I remember that.
	And Handy was telling us, hey, we had a nurse took this thing out of the package and ran it through, and it says it didn't apply it to anything.
	This ARIA came preloaded with whatever it was that they wanted to prove existed.
	We're going to take a quick break and we'll be right back.
	We're going to take a quick break.
	you. You're
	listening to The David Knight Show.
	All right, and joining us now is Gard Goldsmith, and of course he has Liberty Conspiracy.
	He's got a Liberty Conspiracy website.
	You can see him on Rumble, on Rockfin.
	He's just telling me he's giving YouTube a chance.
	We'll see what happens with that. Good luck.
	And of course you can find him on Twitter at Gard Goldsmith.
	Thank you for joining us, Gard. Thank you, David, and thank you for being just such a stellar supporter.
	And personally, for me, I can't say enough good things about you.
	Thank you so much. Well, thank you. That's really kind.
	And I didn't mention the fact that he's got a Sunday news thing that you can subscribe to wrap up.
	It's an excellent piece.
	You do a great job of putting together several important and a lot of important things that not everybody picks up on.
	You know, stuff that I don't see there.
	I see in your Sunday wrap-up.
	So I would suggest everybody subscribe to Guard's Sunday wrap-up as well.
	What is it exactly that you go?
	It's on your Substack, right?
	Yeah, it's on the Guard and Goldsmith Substack, and I call it the Sunday News Assembly, sort of, you know, reference to church, that sort of thing, getting together, and I'm assembling the news there.
	Oh, okay. All right. That's good.
	Yeah, so I would suggest that to everybody.
	So what's on your plate? What are you thinking about here?
	Well, first, I'll just mention, to do this Sunday News Assembly over at the Substack, I was actually inspired by you, because before you and I were in contact, when I was working on that Marxism documentary for MRCTV, I would tune in to you every morning, and I would be writing down stories that you were covering.
	And I was like, what's that website?
	I've got to get to that website.
	And then I would send those story ideas to the editors at MRCTV, and they would say, oh, this is great!
	We're doing such amazing investigation.
	I was like, oh, okay, fine.
	So there you go. You are my AI. You are the AI. I'm a chat DK, right?
	Yeah, we're here all the time.
	Yeah, absolutely. Every day, it seems like.
	You know, and I wanted that you talk about different stories that are out there, and I'm so glad that you have been talking about the WHO situation, because it's been very confusing, especially over the past week or so, to find out where they were backing down and where they weren't, and Daily Skeptic has been a very good site for that.
	And as you mentioned, James Roguski, hats off to him.
	Literally, in interviews, giving out his phone number and saying, give me a call.
	We have to stop this. Just very admirable things to see.
	And I was thinking about the bird flu scare, you know, the bird flu pandemic.
	And it just made me think of one flu over the cuckoo's nest with a twist on flu.
	It's just a homonym rather than the same word, you know.
	It is medication time.
	It's soon going to be medication time, and the nurse is going to ratchet this whole thing up into a pandemic if we don't watch out.
	It is interesting, too, because economist Robert Higgs would talk about the ratcheting effect, and you really nailed it so well.
	His book, Crisis and Leviathan, and he has a sequel to it.
	He's done a lot of work for the Mises Institute.
	One of the most admirable people.
	He's got a terrific speech for a voluntarist, a Christian voluntarist like me.
	He has a great speech at the Mises YouTube channel called, The State is Too Wicked to Tolerate, or something like that.
	And he goes through so many of the things that it does and how it seeps into people.
	And that's one of the things, that ratcheting effect.
	Nurse Ratched, it's perfectly apt.
	Because they establish these things.
	They come up with the MacGuffins.
	I was going to wear my MacGuffin t-shirt, by the way.
	I have two. But they come up with these MacGuffins and then they hand out all that money.
	And it's so important to try to get the local people, as you say...
	What was it? 22 AGs are going to be standing up against this, saying, we will not comply.
	And as much as the federal pressures and the handouts of money are so key, if you can really stress that to people on the local level and say, look, your political future is not dependent on taking money from Washington that you're not supposed to take.
	That's right. You have an obligation to your locality.
	As you mentioned, we've got the lesser magistrates.
	That's a very important point going back to Runnymede.
	And I think it's important to remember this heritage that's been handed to us.
	And they've destroyed federalism in so many ways through these tentacles of federal handouts of money.
	But at least it's worth trying.
	And I think we're seeing some movement there.
	So that's good. I agree.
	Here in Tennessee, so much of this stuff is running through the schools, and it's running through the schools because of the money they give to the schools.
	And so you've got some state reps have tried to put through a thing saying, we're going to pull back and not take any education money from the federal government.
	That's going to be necessary.
	You're going to have to do that.
	And even beyond that, you have to do that as a parent.
	You know, as a parent, you have to say, well, I'm not going to take the free school because it's not free.
	You're paying for it.
	But I'm not going to put my kids in that government school and just accept the responsibility for their education yourself and not have this pressure that these people try to put on you that you have to conform to whatever they decide education is going to be.
	I thought it was a very good exercise for us to get away from that as parents when we go to Barnes& Noble or something like that.
	And they would have these books that, you know, what your first grader needs to know, what your second grader needs to know.
	And we'd just go there, Karen and I would go there and we'd sit down and say, yeah, we should tell them about this, but no, we're not going to tell them that.
	And this we're going to directly teach against.
	We'll teach it and we'll deconstruct it for them.
	You know, so, I mean, you need to take that kind of mindset, I think, And take control of your kids' education and say, I'm not going to be bribed, I'm not going to be bullied by this stuff, and I'm not going to be blackmailed, and I'm not going to care what this society thinks.
	Now, if they come in and say you're going to mandate this legally, now you've got to get involved.
	But right now, there's not a legal mandate that you have to do the homeschooling thing, that you can't do the homeschooling thing, that you've got to do government school.
	So as long as that's not there, take that freedom and run with it, you know, and don't Don't get caught up in saying, well, yeah, we want the government money because we want to have our kids in sports or we want to have our kids in band or something like that.
	Do it yourself. You know, don't let yourself be set up into that.
	And I thought it was really surprising that they would start to try to do that at a state level, but I think it's very encouraging.
	Well, you know, getting back to this WHO thing, as James Roguski has pointed out, they love to muddy the water and confuse people.
	It's one of the reasons why they started with these two different things, because you would say, well, we don't want to do that, and this is what the so-called pandemic treaty wants to do.
	Oh, well, it doesn't say that at all.
	What they don't tell you is that that's in the IHR, in the international health regulations that it's in.
	And so they play that shell game, you know, moving it back and forth.
	And so a lot of different things that they're doing with it.
	But I think people are really, really wised up to this, even though these government officials don't want to go back and relitigate.
	Any of these obscene crimes that were done against humanity, a lot of people look at this and say, nope, you're not going to do that again.
	They may be willing to let this first thing slide, and I think that's unfortunate, but they, I think, are starting to pay attention.
	At least a sizable minority of people are paying attention to this and saying never again.
	So I think that's a very healthy thing.
	Yeah, and you know, David, in my work for MRCTV, and I know that in your work, we observe these things.
	You mentioned the bribery and the bullying, you know?
	So you've got the carrot and the stick, really.
	You know, it's a manifestation of the same thing.
	And this is a time when, even though I'm feeling satisfaction with what I'm seeing, I realize that even in expressing That I'm feeling some satisfaction with that.
	That could inspire people to say, okay, the danger is past.
	And it's not. And that's it.
	We have to supply. And every generation has to constantly supply pressure to say, is this a treaty?
	Did you swear to the Constitution?
	Are they going to try to do this through the regulatory means of bribery and bullying?
	Because if they are, let's...
	Look deeper at the Constitution and find out whether those things are valid or invalid based on their oaths.
	And I'll give you a great anecdote, David.
	When I was teaching at a school, it was a charter school, and they had a meeting, and they had their attorney come in.
	Every teacher had to attend.
	And the lawyer said, okay, you must conform to Title IX. And, in fact, I was relating the anecdote on Liberty Conspiracy Live the other night at about 10 minutes after 6.
	I probably just jumped into this thing.
	And I said, so I'm sitting there, and, you know, all the staff is there, and the attorney says, you've got to conform to Title IX. There's got to be, you know, you've got to be careful of what you say, you know, your words...
	And I was lucky. In fact, in your chat earlier, I was lucky.
	I was mentioning that when I taught, my classroom was actually in the library.
	So the librarian, who was very pro-liberty, was always there to watch what was going on.
	So I always had a witness.
	If somebody claimed that I had said something bad or gone off the rails in some way, he was always there.
	It was great. It was terrific.
	And by the way, he's a listener of yours, by the way.
	Yeah. Yeah, yeah.
	He's a great guy. Great guy.
	And so... So, I'm sitting there, and this man is saying, you know, you've got to conform to Title IX, and if you don't conform to Title IX, then the state could run afoul of getting education funds, even highway funds.
	So, I raised my hand.
	Yeah, nobody else is responding, and the name of the school, and I'm going to say the name of the school, it was called the Founders Academy.
	And... I raised my hand and I said, excuse me.
	He said, yes. I was like, well, considering the fact that we are sitting here at the Founders Academy, and it's supposed to be about the founding fathers and so on.
	Of course, they wouldn't allow me to criticize Lincoln.
	And they say, oh, no, this is the Founders Academy.
	I said, he wasn't even a founder.
	He stood against everything the founders stood for, except for...
	He founded the modern state, I guess, the centralized modern states.
	I guess he's the ultimate founder now.
	He refounded it.
	He did the great reset on America.
	Yeah, that's for sure.
	You make me think of the film Shenandoah again.
	What a fantastic film.
	And thank you for creating that music to go with that video clip.
	It hits my heart.
	Oh, I love that movie.
	I love it. I love that movie.
	I love that song, too. Oh, so good.
	And the way, just as an aside, the way they set up Jimmy Stewart's character, because he's in between.
	He doesn't want to be with the North, and he doesn't want to be with the South.
	He wants to be with his farm and his family.
	That's right. And it's a, you know, as a person who's anti-state, the way that they set it up to draw him in to have to deal with this, and then as he tries to help his son, it is just a fantastic, fantastic story about personal choices, whether one takes revenge or doesn't take revenge, whether one sticks to Christian virtues. It's phenomenal.
	Not so much in it, you know, it had that relationship thing there where he's talking to his future son-in-law, you know.
	Yes, yes.
	Wasn't that Patrick Wayne?
	Was that Patrick Wayne? Yeah.
	I think it was John Wayne's son.
	Yeah. He was the one.
	No, no. Actually, that was Doug McClure.
	Doug McClure. But Patrick Wayne was in it.
	He was already married at that point in time.
	That's it. Yeah. That was really insightful.
	They had Jimmy Stewart play this really grumpy guy that's not like Jimmy Stewart at all, right?
	Yeah. Yeah. So he was really kind of gruff and angry about pretty much everything.
	And he had a real chip on his shoulder, perhaps because his wife had died with God.
	So he starts out saying, well, thanks for the food, even though we planted it, we grew it, we harvested it, we cooked it, but thanks nevertheless, that type of thing.
	And then it wraps up With his son, who he's given up for dead, being given back to him.
	And he gets it, and they meet at church.
	And so it had so many different aspects of it that were really, it really was a wonderful film, unlike anything you'd see today.
	Yeah, that's so true.
	I mean, to me, it reminds me almost of something that Dostoevsky would do with Crime and Punishment or something like that at an Americana level with the Civil War mixed in.
	It was just beautiful. And it's not that he's a criminal or anything like that, but he has to learn and express himself and understand God's power.
	The interesting thing is when I asked that question at the Founders Academy, I said, since this is the Founders Academy, can we just note that this money is not constitutional?
	And the lawyer, he nodded and he said, well, you're right, but that ship has sort of already sailed.
	That's how I get paid, right?
	Yeah, so I said, are we on the SS Titanic?
	Because I'd like to get off.
	Thank you. But it is interesting, and I think to fight these sorts of connections is very, very important.
	And they have the advantage because they've got the central bank.
	So they already shell out so much money that they're dangling these little treats over everybody.
	And just on a moral level, whether I'm successful or somebody else in another state is successful, at least we did the noble action of speaking up.
	And if we don't do that, future generations won't do that.
	So every opportunity, speak up.
	That's right. You have to do what you know is right.
	And, you know, even if the world's going to end tomorrow and you know it, you've got to plant the tree today.
	You know, that's the key.
	That's the attitude you've got to have, I think.
	I've got a comment and a tip on Rumble about what we're talking about here.
	Junk Silver, thank you very much, writes, Should we all stop calling this WHO nonsense a treaty?
	Are we being tricked into giving this thing legitimacy by using that term?
	What do you think, Garth? Yeah, absolutely.
	Because, well, first of all, any connection to the United States government with the WHO that is in any way under the UN and the treaties signed with the UN, those break United States constitutional parameters all over the place.
	So any original treaty signed with the United Nations are bogus in the first place, and people should recognize that.
	But the World Health Organization, and hey, you know, as much as I'm critical of Donald Trump, at least for a little while, and maybe he was throwing people a curveball, at least he was not going to fund the WHO. Maybe it was all for political purposes to try to, you know, buy into things, you know, get people to buy into him as somehow authentic for freedom.
	But it's not technically a treaty.
	Per se, and even if it...
	And, of course, the health regulations, what they're doing is they're revising regulations already agreed to.
	So I don't know how that even works.
	How can you say, okay, well, years ago you agreed to these regulations.
	Now we're going to revise those regulations, and you don't even have to agree to the revisions.
	They're just going to stand.
	That's insane.
	That's absolutely crazy.
	Oh, yeah. Even if you're using an app, you know, they change the terms of service and you've got to click yes as if you read it, which we never do, right?
	Right, right. And so, you know, Biden is changing the, we call it the terms of service.
	Here's what I think about it, though.
	I kind of lean towards calling it a treaty, and the reason I do is because that gives us a mechanism to shut it down.
	And I really do think that an argument could be made that it is a treaty, because even though it's being brokered by a non-governmental organization, a third party, you know, WHO or the UN or whatever, what they're doing is they're bringing all these, they're brokering it, right?
	but you do have all these countries that are signing on to it.
	And so then the question is, so are we signing on to a treaty with the UN, with the WHO, or are we signing all together, coming together and signing on to this thing that was presented by them?
	I think that's the argument that they will make.
	And that's where it gets fuzzy for me.
	I was going to ask you, because I look at this as a new treaty that they're putting out.
	And this is where, again, it gets very slippery.
	Because if they're going to be putting it out as a treaty, then it should be put out as a new treaty with the WHO. And the United States Senate would have to approve.
	The President would have to bring it to the Senate.
	They would have to approve. Mm-hmm.
	So I honestly can't answer that.
	I don't know whether they're going to be presenting it as a real treaty or it's going to be one of these accords, like the Paris Climate Accords, where they're going to try to implement things through the regulatory structure.
	And that's an excellent question, and I wish I could answer it better, but I just don't know.
	Look at NAFTA, for example.
	Right? NAFTA, North American Free Trade Agreement.
	We have the Paris Climate Accord.
	We have the pandemic.
	They call that a treaty, right?
	But when you look at these different things, you look at NAFTA, for example, right?
	That's U.S., Mexico, and Canada.
	That was a treaty.
	Even though they called it an accord, if you look at the arbitration process that was agreed to by the three nations...
	That is, they have treaty lawyers who put that together.
	So the people who would represent, you know, corporations had legal parity in that abomination.
	Corporations had legal parity to the governments or whatever.
	And so they could go to arbitration, and the people who would represent any of these parties were called treaty lawyers.
	And so I think when you've got agreements between sovereign nations, that by de facto is a treaty.
	And I think that could be used to our advantage, because if you look at the Paris Climate Accord, the argument going back and forth in the Trump administration, Rex Tillerson, who was one of the climate alarmists, And Ivanka were saying, no, no, no, don't do anything to it.
	And then there were people, that was the one area where for a year or two he had somebody that was good, and that was in charge of the EPA, that's Scott Pruitt.
	He had been a state attorney general, and he had fought a lot of the EPA encroachments.
	And so he had better people in the state.
	That he had in the EPA thing.
	Of course, it shouldn't have existed, but given its existence and given the fact they're not going to get rid of it, the next best thing was that they had some people there who were going to fight a lot of this agenda, and they were telling him, no, you must get rid of it.
	And so what he did was he said, all right, I'm going to get rid of it, but I'm going to get rid of it after the election, after the 2020 election, which he did.
	He said, well, this is, you know, this was something that was an agreement that was entered into by Obama and Kerry.
	They self-ratified this.
	I'm going to undo it.
	And then immediately within a month or two, you have Biden coming back into it.
	But Trump left it in for the entire four years.
	And so it was being used as a legal excuse to say, well, we must do this because we've got these goals that we've signed on to.
	So therefore, the regulatory apparatus has to do these things so we can meet those goals.
	So they have the effect of a treaty, but they never had a vote and...
	They should have had a vote.
	McConnell never called a vote.
	And Steve Malloy, I had him on, he was talking about the fact, trying to put pressure on it, say, call a vote on this thing now before you're out, because we knew that they were losing their majority in the Senate.
	But they never would.
	And Mitch McConnell, you know, was put in in 2015.
	For most of that time, Mitch McConnell was the majority leader of the Senate.
	And there wasn't a single senator who ever suggested that there should be an up or down vote on the Paris Climate Accord because they would not have made it.
	And so I think that it's a good thing to say that we're going to have to have a vote and do it.
	But the real power is going to be at the state level.
	And if we got 22 attorneys general who are going to fight it at the state level, I think that's a very good approach.
	Absolutely right. And I think, as you bring up, David, if it is, and this is sort of one of the reasons when you first address the question to me, because I am not really sure, based on the viewer's question, I am not really sure.
	And I think I would love to talk to James Roguski to find out whether this is going to be put forward as a treaty and treated that way.
	One of the things when you, and you've brought this up numerous times, that behavior of Mitch McConnell is extremely revealing when we look at the Paris so-called climate accords.
	Because with all their machinations inside and the ways that they can do things in their various chambers, even not allowing something or allowing something to come out of a particular committee, you can really see the way these guys stand.
	Yeah. And how deceptive they are.
	The perfidy of these people.
	And so, just as far as the character of Mitch McConnell goes, right there.
	You've got it in a nutshell.
	Right there. It's a perfect example.
	He's part of the global. He's on board with the global agenda, which is on board with all this climate change.
	I've got another question here.
	This is from Andromeda on Rockfan.
	Thank you for the tip. He asks, What is the definition of geospatial intelligence?
	Well, geospatial is like looking at where things are on a map.
	So essentially, its core thing is to map people's political experiences And religious ideology.
	And to analyze, first of all, to identify them.
	You know, what type of person is this, religiously, politically?
	Secondly, to put them on the map.
	And as part of that, they look at relationships that you have with other people.
	So they start making hops out there and assumptions about other people that are there.
	You see this with some of the geofencing stuff.
	That's kind of a one...
	A small aspect of it that's not the full part of it.
	But, you know, when they started reporting about all the people who had financial transactions in and around Washington on January the 6th, Bank of America did that.
	But even more importantly, you've had situations where the police, if a crime was committed somewhere, they would go to the cell phone companies or they'd go to the cell phone companies.
	You know, people who would have that information, and they would say, give us the information, give us all the people who were in this area at a given time.
	Now, that is really unconstitutional.
	It is a warrantless search of a lot of different people.
	It exposes people to jeopardy when there's not really any basis to say that they participate in the crime.
	So it is a big dragnet.
	They've had a lot of court cases where people have challenged that.
	But geospatial intelligence is one way to identify people's political and religious beliefs primarily.
	But they can look for other things.
	But primarily, it's those two things.
	And then to map it out.
	And they're really doing it with an intention to anticipate what these people are going to do in the future.
	And do it as a political weapon.
	That's the key thing about this.
	It's part of the politicization to censor people, to put them on a list, and all the rest of the stuff.
	It is kind of similar to what you see with the geofencing, except it's more extensive.
	I hope that answers your question.
	Would you add anything to that, Garth?
	Yeah, no, I think you say it very, very well.
	And of course, as an engineer, you understand that this, and let me know if I'm putting words in your mouth, but I sort of view this as it's data collection, political propaganda, psychological engineering.
	And so that's the the end goal is the engineering but you need the data collection beforehand And then you want to get into some they try to get into some sort of predictive templates to apply their propaganda To start to shift people's psychology, and it's very clear what they try to do And they've been doing it of course very successfully in the school systems for decades and through the media And I think one of the greatest manifestations of it is how you see Chris Cuomo
	Still holding on to this idea of well, you know at the time I as a reporter was You know I I was fine You know, sure, Joe Rogan was right about ivermectin.
	Sure, but that's not the point.
	It's like, no, actually, it is the point there, buddy.
	That's the point. The point is, yeah, he was right.
	You demonized him, and you demonized him not because you were a reporter, but because you are a propagandist, and you got fed information, and even now you're trying to claim that the position you had back then was totally understandable.
	Well, it wasn't, because some of us actually researched this stuff.
	That's right. Some of us, yeah, and there were doctors, thousands of doctors losing their licenses, losing their entire careers.
	Well, that man, and by the way, I even mentioned on my show, my nephew works for him now at that One News whatever, and he seems like a pleasant guy, but he's come grudgingly one step, but he's got a lot of steps further to maybe somebody could talk to him and say, hey, You kind of missed the boat there, and you need to give these people a little more credit, because they were right, and I hope you admit that you were wrong, and you were wrong because you were lazy, and you took this information.
	Scott Adams, who holds himself forth as a sage and raconteur, Dilbert cartoonist, and he says, well, okay, these people just got lucky.
	Nobody could have known that that was a...
	Yes, we could. We all knew.
	We knew the history.
	We knew what these people had been up to for the longest time.
	And there wasn't any doubt about it.
	We had the data. We had the history.
	We knew what was happening.
	We got it exactly right.
	And you were exactly wrong.
	You were calling us freedom lovers who are nothing more than sociopaths.
	Yeah, there's a bit of a conceit for both of those men.
	And I've seen some things that Scott Adams has done and some things that Chris Cuomo has done, and you say, okay, look, if I were in a room with these guys, I'd try to say, hey...
	You know, I just think that there's some arrogance there that I hope you can get off that platform a little bit.
	And at the time it was happening, I was very upset with Scott Adams for saying that sort of thing.
	And I think rightly so.
	So many people were really taking risks in their lives and to say, well, yeah, you know, you were right.
	You got lucky. No! No, they were really taking risks with their churches, with their careers, and they were right.
	You know, this was persecution, and you don't just blindly say, well, okay, well, look, bygones, I was wrong.
	It's sort of like if you're dating someone and they do something really, really terrible, and they say, oh, well, yeah, they don't apologize.
	And it's very hard to forgive a person when they just say, oh, yeah, let's just forget all about that.
	Like, no, I'm citing you for wrongdoing.
	Do you have a response? You know, it's too bad, you know.
	Oh, yeah, and I remember the time that he did it.
	I responded to him and I said, well, it's getting harder and harder to tell pragmatists from totalitarians because he was trying to present himself as a pragmatist, but he was actually supporting totalitarianism.
	We were not being sociopaths.
	We were not putting anybody at any risk to anything.
	There was no risk, and we knew that there was no risk.
	But getting back to one more thing I wanted to say about the geospatial intelligence, one way that you can think about it is surveillance and tracking.
	But, of course, not for a disease, but because of your political or religious views.
	And they justify this kind of stuff.
	Because, hey, we have to look at religion and things like that.
	Because we've got all these Islamic terrorists there, but then they change it to people who are Christians, for example, right?
	Just like they take the RICO statutes, which were an abomination, they put that in there to come after organized crime, and then what do they wind up doing?
	Very quickly, they use it against pro-life demonstrators.
	So they will come up with this type of thing, saying, we've got to have surveillance, we've got to have tracking, so we don't have another 9-11.
	And then they use that Against their political enemies.
	Because as far as they're concerned, anybody that is a dissenter to them is a disease.
	We are a pandemic. We are a virus.
	Just as the climate people say, human race is a virus.
	It's going to kill Mother Earth, Gaia.
	So, yeah, that's what that is really about.
	It's surveillance and tracking to really attack those of us that they like to label as extremists and terrorists if you speak up at the school board about what they're doing.
	And, you know, David, if I could, one final thing to sort of tie that back into the WHO treaty.
	You know, you were one of the only people I know, and I was on the air, I was on the radio in New Hampshire, trying to fight this in New Hampshire against the model state health emergency plans.
	Around 2005-2006, they pushed this in New Hampshire, and it ties into...
	The overconfidence that one might have in possibly, and again, I don't know whether they're going to put this forward as a treaty, or it looks like they're going to put it forward as a treaty, but will it be treated as a treaty?
	I don't know. Will it be part of an existing treaty?
	Will, you know, will nation states have to sign on to this, see the president sign on that will have to be approved as a treaty?
	I don't know. Then you've got the revisions, the international health regulation revisions.
	So that's the second prong of their, you know, their pitchfork there.
	But if we look at the model state health We're good to go.
	That could be depicted as, well, our state has this.
	Our governor has this control.
	To say, literally, they can go into pharmacy shops and seize all the material in those shops.
	They can stop gatherings of X number of people.
	So then it takes a second level, at least on the constitutionalist side, to say, where do these things either comport with or destroy the concept of the Bill of Rights and the enumerated powers in the Constitution? On the federal side with the enumerated powers, the Bill of Rights, because very clearly, most of those aspects of the model state health emergency health plans breach so many aspects of just the Bill of Rights themselves.
	And I think that's a...
	That's a very important thing.
	Jay and Jessica contacted me and said, you know, we need to start doing something to roll back these model state health emergency power plans.
	And I agree. I think that's really where the rubber meets the road.
	That's what they had to, you know, that's why Trump bribed the governors so that they could do that and do this with the public health things.
	And I think if we went back and we showed people what you're talking about, how these rules and these laws that were put in at the state level We need to...
	Shine the daylight on these things and pressure legislators and get the public aware of this so we can build a grassroots movement to rip out this Model State Health Emergency Powers Act because that is foundational to all this stuff.
	And if we were able to get the Model Health State Emergency Powers Act removed, that would go a long way to doing what we hope.
	Some of the state officials, the state attorneys general and things like that would do.
	But we can do that at the local level because they've already, because of the bribery and everything, they've already shown you that they don't have the power to do this from the federal government.
	So we stop any powers that they were able to stick in at the federal level.
	That'd be, I think, really the best thing that we could do.
	And we could do this as a grassroots movement, I think.
	I wouldn't want to sound like I'm posing a great effort, setting up as being overwhelming for people or anything like that, but it takes these multiple levels of effort, I think. I don't want to be presumptive for other people, but to say it's going to take work.
	It's going to take work of making connections with local friends, going to your churches, and not...
	Backing off when you say, I need to educate people if I can on what the Constitution stands for.
	I need to get either myself involved in the political sphere just to get the expressions out there.
	And there's nobility in this struggle.
	Even if you fail, you're getting the education out there because it starts with locally educating people with a constant, constant barrage of I think?
	Can you seize this property without due process?
	Can you block us from gathering at this church?
	No. You cannot do these things.
	Can you even send inspectors in to look unless you think that there's a crime?
	No. Do you have a warrant?
	No. All of these things, they're extremely...
	And in the end, they become satisfying, I think, because you gather with people and you say, I'm stepping in a tradition that was handed to me by people.
	And, you know, as I say, I would even prefer to go back to the Articles of Confederation, because I think the Articles of Confederation were much looser than the United States Constitution.
	But they did say, yeah, they did say, anybody who's entering these offices, you've got to swear by this Constitution.
	So that means that if we want these politicians to abide by these things, we've got to be really up on what the Constitution says and express that.
	And tell people about that, because that gets it into the zeitgeist.
	And they can't, you know, even if they get around it, at least we've spoken up, you know?
	And I agree with you. People need to understand that it's unconstitutional.
	People also understood instinctively that it was unethical, immoral, and illegal.
	You had people saying, sorry, you've got to do this or that, or you can't do this or that.
	It's like, this is the law.
	No, it's not the law. You didn't pass a law telling me that I've got to put a mask on my face.
	This is a rule that somebody has come up with, typically some public health official.
	So how do we short-circuit that?
	Do we take it to court, and do we make the arguments that this is unconstitutional, it needs to be overturned, and make that argument in court?
	Courts are really kind of...
	I always talk about the courts, especially the Supreme Court, like a box of chocolates.
	You never know what you're going to get. They are very politicized, these courts, these judges.
	And so, to me, that's kind of like a crapshoot.
	You never know what you're going to get when you take it to court.
	I think we ought to try a different approach.
	I think what we ought to do is go back.
	It shouldn't be too hard to identify these things.
	I mean, it'd be a lot of research that, you know, honestly, I don't have the time to do it.
	I'd have to change things around significantly to do it.
	But if we started something, if anybody started this, They should be able to identify some of this model legislation in your state, and then guess what?
	Other people are going to see it in their state as well, right?
	Because we're all following this model.
	If we can start to identify these things and attack these things individually, I think we get at the very foundation of it without going through these corrupt courts, because I think the justice system is just garbage.
	And even if you've got a good court At a local level, these people will appeal it up to the corrupt Supreme Court or a corrupt federal appellate court.
	And so I think the way to do it is to shine the light on these rules, talk about...
	Excuse me.
	Talk about the fact that it isn't a, we're not saying this is a slippery slope.
	You know, something likely could happen really bad.
	We can point to how they used it in 2020 and say, it's already been done to you.
	You want to stop that from ever happening again?
	You take away this power out of this model legislation.
	This thing right here, this is what they hung themselves, you know, what they hung their authority on to do this kind of stuff.
	And I understand that it's not constitutional, but let's remove their excuse.
	I think that could be very productive.
	David, you remind me of a couple things.
	First of all, that makes me think about free speech and the debate over these college campuses and the protests and so on going on there.
	I just saw recently Marsha Blackburn, and she's good and bad.
	She's all over the map.
	She's got a proposal now to put college protesters on the no-fly list.
	And you just say to yourself, look, first of all, there should be no such thing as a no-fly list.
	You've got no due process.
	You're punishing people that it runs contrary to the Fifth Amendment, the Sixth Amendment, and the Eighth Amendment, okay?
	So, Marsha, you swore an oath to that document, okay?
	Marsha, Marsha, Marsha.
	Marsha, Marsha, Marsha!
	You're hitting us with the football.
	Come on! This is ridiculous, you know?
	It is just amazing.
	And then we've got other instances where, if you look at the way things break down, when the state takes more of this power, it starts to create more instances of the tragedy of the commons, which, you know, when I'm teaching economics, I try to tell people, if you don't have private property control over something, you're going to get everybody arguing over how that thing is being used. So is it going to be a baseball park or is it going to be a nature preserve?
	Well, the government runs it, so now the people who want the baseball park are going to argue, and they're all paying taxes, so they all have some valid claim, and then are you going to have to parse it and break it down to say, well, this person paid ten times more in taxes, so his voice should be heard more.
	And then you get into Marxist arguments about, well, the little guy's voice is now being suppressed.
	It becomes ridiculous. All government entities remove the ability of individuals to be able to value for themselves how they spend their lives, how they spend their money.
	And so if we look at these college campuses, we have people like Stepanek calling in the heads of the universities.
	She's got a major problem.
	With the president of UPenn, Harvard, and so on.
	And she's doing it again now with the chancellor of the New York City schools in Brooklyn, I think it is.
	He's calling him in and saying, well, they were saying terrible things about Jews in the hallways.
	He says, well, actually, we have no record of that.
	There's no evidence of that in any way whatsoever.
	There was an investigation of that.
	But that's the superficial side of it.
	Nobody questions the idea that a Washington politician...
	Is calling in the head of a local school in New York to say somebody in your hallways might have said something bad about a Jewish person.
	How in the world did we get to this position?
	Well, that stuffy politician can do that and not actually bring up the question of, hey, here's an idea.
	Maybe a person living in New Hampshire or Alaska shouldn't have to be bothered with that.
	Maybe there's a bigger problem.
	And it's you imposing your will to take my money and my future progeny's money to pay for a school in New York.
	And now I should have some say over it.
	Maybe I should not.
	How about that? And that's exactly the problem.
	It goes with the college campuses as well, because even though these college campuses are private, they become de facto public places when they're taking this government money.
	And you see Hillsdale College and Grove City College, they ran into that situation too.
	They originally were taking federal money, they would take federal grants and things like that, and the Fed said you have to conform to Title IX. You have to have equal sports teams for women.
	Hillsdale said, my brother was going to Hillsdale a few years after the Supreme Court case.
	They said, we can't do that.
	We can't afford that. Nobody goes to the women's things.
	We can't afford all these equal sports for women.
	We'd love to do it, but we can't.
	So then the Fed said, okay, we're going to stop taking federal grants.
	Then the Fed said, of course, well, if you have any students who are getting federal money, It is a de facto subsidy from the federal government because they're choosing to give you the money we gave them.
	So you still have to conform to Title IX. So Grove City and Hillsdale said, alright, we're not going to take any students that get government loans.
	Nobody questions...
	The underlying misassumption, which is that the government should be handing loans out for universities.
	That's right. And then you get the carrot and the stick and the strings.
	So that gets into this question I mention on the program a lot called unconstitutional conditions.
	And unconstitutional conditions, one of the best examples of this, generally speaking, if you look at the Cornell Law site or any of these law sites where they have an easy reference to Supreme Court dockets and things like that, The concept of unconstitutional conditions, The majority of Supreme Court cases on this have ruled that the federal government providing you and the state government providing you with some benefit does not allow them to say
	in an ex-ante fashion, if you're going to take this benefit, you must give up a constitutionally protected right.
	So the greatest example of this is the Cabrini-Green housing case, where in that housing building was actually, the tearing down of it occurred a number of years ago and it was under Michelle Obama's, she was attached to some state thing when they were back in Illinois years ago.
	Chicago Welfare Project.
	Yeah, exactly.
	And so as you probably are aware, a child was killed in a drug thing out in the parking lot.
	And so it was a Section 8 housing.
	And so they said, okay, if you as a poorer person are going to take this Section 8 housing, you are going to have to be open to no-knock drug searches in your apartment.
	Mm-hmm. You know, ACLU got involved in things like that, and, you know, as spotty as they are most of the time.
	But in this case, they said, no, you know, you can't tell them that they're going to have to give up a supposedly constitutionally protected right in order for them to get the housing.
	In order for them to get unconstitutional subsidies.
	I know. Exactly.
	It's absolutely amazing.
	You know, it's amazing. And it is a real mixed bag because I think ideologically or intellectually, the same way when we look at corporations, you say, what exactly are you, you're asking for something from the government.
	Can the government say, you must do X, Y, or Z in order to maintain this status?
	So it's very tricky.
	And a great example of this, they found in favor of the plaintiffs, they said, no, you can't do this.
	But if you look at Hillsdale and Grove City, they said, these are unconstitutional conditions.
	They found any other way against Hillsdale and Grove City.
	And I think if they were to apply it to the TSA at the airports, which by their nature, you know, every second of the day they're breaching the Fourth Amendment.
	Many times they're breaching the Sixth and Eighth Amendments because they're taking things without due process, making you put stuff in trash baskets and things like that.
	I don't think the Supreme Court would find against...
	The TSA and cite unconstitutional conditions there.
	I think they'd be very selective.
	And I think also, if you look at the universities, that's a very tricky thing, because if you've got pro-Zionist supporters at, let's say, I went to Boston University, and I often mention my last name's Goldsmith, but it's not Jewish.
	So a lot of people thought I was Jewish at BU, because it's like 85% Jewish there.
	So, you know, if I were to be leading a protest in favor of the Palestinians and the occupied territory, I think by definition, occupied territory ought to tell some people something.
	So, you know, duh.
	But if I were to be there in protest, if I were on the college campus and some pro-Zionist people wanted to be on the same exact plot of land, well, they have just as much right because BU takes federal money.
	So how do we work this? And this is one of the things where Robert Higgs says the state is intolerable.
	As an anarchist, I try to say when the state tries to manage things like, let's say you have free speech rights.
	Okay, you got a right to free speech.
	And I won't even go into how it's actually supposed to be up to the states, and it's only Congress shall make no law, as you know.
	And they had speech laws and religious schools for decades after the Constitution.
	But let's say, just on the theoretical level, I've got a right to free speech.
	Well, I can't go and sing in a courtroom because the person on trial has a right to due process.
	So how do those two comport?
	They don't. So the state managing these things always makes it such that if you actually dig down, this is one of the reasons why I try to talk about voluntarism and anarchist philosophy, if you really look at the state, the state does not work properly.
	So I would be willing to at least go with the decentralized federalist system that says, smaller spheres of control where these problems arise, at least you can work them out better.
	If you're not satisfied, you can get away.
	The larger the area of control, the more often these problems are going to occur.
	And we're seeing it now. Universities, thousands of miles apart from each other, or, you know, hundreds of miles apart from each other, running into the same problems.
	You should be able to have choice.
	You should be able to go say, this is a private university.
	I do like their policies here.
	I don't like their policies here.
	I'm going to go or I'm not going to go.
	And that's it. And other people shouldn't have to worry about it.
	Well, again, it comes back to the fact they're going to have this anti-Semitism awareness monitor.
	They don't monitor anything else.
	They continue to fund it.
	And it always comes back to the money.
	You don't do what we like, we'll take the money away.
	But when we look at what is happening, you pointed out, you know, Marsha Blackburn wants to...
	You know, put people on a no-fly list.
	So then you got also here in Tennessee, Andy Ogles, who wants to take the people who were, if you're convicted of some of these activities that they're doing on campus now, then they transport you like you're in Australia, ship you to Gaza, make you do six months of community service in Gaza.
	I think that kind of qualifies under unusual punishment.
	It may not be cruel, but it is unusual.
	But you know, it's not about what it's about, is it?
	You know, that's always the situation.
	What is the real thing, the MacGuffin that they're out, they got all these different MacGuffins, but it's not about free speech, right?
	And it's not even about anti-Semitism.
	What this is about is about these politicians finding some way that they can get in front of the group, and it's like, ooh, ooh, ooh, I got a way that I can please you.
	Okay, this is AIPAC, and this is the Israeli lobby that's here in America.
	Let me do this, and then you can, you know, if you like me, they're going to send me lots of money, because they do that, right?
	It's about them coming up with these ridiculous things that are setting very dangerous precedents that are against the law, against the Constitution because they're trying to curry favor with AIPAC and other big donors that are out there.
	And that's what this is really about.
	It's not about free speech.
	It's not even about the violence on campus.
	It's about pleasing these people.
	Because we've had these protesters who have been violent, they've been racist, they've been hateful to other groups.
	A lot of times, it's just that our group does not have the kind of influence of Congress that the other group does.
	Yeah. So that's what it is.
	It's about them virtue signaling to a group that's going to give them a lot of money, and they're coming up with very dangerous precedents that are going to be used against all of us.
	And this stuff about putting people on a no-fly list, that is a star-chamber process.
	The first report that I did when I went to InfoWars was a guy who got stuck in Hawaii.
	Oh, I remember that!
	Yeah, he was going to visit his wife who was in the military, and she's stationed in Japan, and he's flying on a military plane, and he goes across, you know, he's flying going across America, then he goes from California to Hawaii, and then he's making the last leg of the trip.
	And he's already on the plane.
	Just before the plane takes off, these marshals come on and say, you, come with us.
	And they take him off the plane.
	So, what this is about? He doesn't know.
	He's never been presented with any charges.
	This is a star chamber process to put somebody on a no-fly list.
	And he never could find out, either, what he was charged with.
	And now he's in a situation where, how does he get out of here?
	How do you get away from Hawaii if you can't fly, right?
	How do I even get back to the continental United States?
	He was in a big problem.
	We got him a lot of publicity, and he was able to find some allies in the military to shut this thing down.
	But last I talked to him, he never knew why he was on a no-fly list.
	He never had any charges presented with him.
	That's an abomination.
	Anybody who supports a no-fly list for any reason is somebody who doesn't support the Constitution.
	It's just That simple.
	And yet we see these knee-jerk authoritarian reactions to so many things.
	Trump wanting to say, now he's saying, elect me and I'm going to send special forces in into Mexico to fight the drug war.
	It's like, seriously? Oh, it's insane.
	Just keep stacking more crazy stuff on top of bad rules and bad regulations and bad prohibitions.
	David, it's so interesting because it's so energizing seeing you talk about these things.
	It's the best source of energy.
	We're talking about people taking some time to do their things and so on.
	I know how much time you devote to this, and I know how much time I devote to this, and I know how much time so many other people devote to this in their various ways.
	It's just such a refreshing thing to know.
	This isn't to blow smoke or anything.
	It really is. And I'm looking at you on the screen, and I'm like, man, this guy is just so full of power and thought.
	And I just want to mention, you know, we talked about, before I came on, we talked about just the amazing two-facedness of these people that just about four or five days ago, almost a week ago, we had Antony Blinken and Joe Biden both announcing how much they were in favor of press freedom.
	Well, Julian Assange sits in Belmarsh Prison.
	While literally, last November, Biden put forward President Biden and Blinken, both speaking about press freedom.
	Biden put out his AI executive order, which would mean that any software maker would have to open up and show his security protocols and software under the executive order.
	And we've got them fighting in court in the Supreme Court in the Murphy v.
	Missouri case. Jay Batacaria.
	And they have the gall to talk about free speech.
	So if we can turn that into energy and think about people like you and other folks, you look at Gerald Salente and other good people out there and the people who come into the chat and so on in their local areas.
	I just love it and we know the bad guys are out there and it's upsetting and yet I can't help but smile.
	It's just great to know that we can fight these guys and call them out for how ridiculous Well, I'm glad that you do it as well.
	And a great contribution. You've got a weekly program that people can catch live, again, Liberty Conspiracy.
	You can find it on Twitter, at Guard Goldsmith, as well as on Rumble and Rockfin and YouTube right now.
	And people can go to your Liberty Conspiracy website as well.
	Thank you, Guard, for what you do.
	I know you put a lot of time into it as well.
	You've got a very long live program that you do on a daily basis.
	That's why we don't have any...
	Sympathy for somebody like Chris Cuomo, who doesn't do his homework.
	It's like, are you seriously? I mean, this is the guy sitting in the back of the room, the most popular guy in school, who doesn't do a single thing, but he's the star of the team for some reason.
	I don't know. But anyway, no, seriously, I hate to see people misled.
	And that's really what is happening with these people who are influencers like that.
	But again, thank you so much for what you do, and great contribution.
	Always a pleasure to talk to you.
	My David Knight pen is getting a lot of work, that's what I'll say.
	That's good. Go to the store.
	Go to the store. Thank you, Gard.
	Have a good day, and everybody have a good weekend.
	Hopefully we'll see you on Monday.
	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?

▲