Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 27, 2024 - The David Knight Show

03:01:46

The David Knight Show - 06/27/2024

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 Thursday, the 27th of June, Year of Our Lord 2024.
	Well, today we have a lot of Supreme Court cases that I want to talk about, especially the fact that Amy Coney Barrett is, as we suspected, clueless about the First Amendment.
	So we're going to talk about what is up with this decision and why there may still be an opportunity to have something done, but it may not be the right thing.
	The Supreme Court decisions are supposed to be the big victory of Trump, aren't they?
	And yet, Trump couldn't even figure out who was betraying him.
	And we're going to begin with this.
	The Trump CIA chief knew about the letters claiming that there was nothing with Biden in both 2016 and 2020.
	It was the usual suspects in the CIA that went after Trump.
	Totally clueless about it.
	He and the rest of his followers.
	We'll be right back.
	And of course there's more absurdity about banning cows and cattle and that type of thing coming out of Denmark, putting a huge tax on each and every animal in the name of saving the planet from global warming.
	You see, these people are not content with destroying the fruit of the Industrial Revolution, good or bad.
	And there's good and bad in that.
	They want to even go back and erase the agrarian society that people have had for millennia.
	I thought that this was all something that was man-made global warming.
	Wasn't that about the machines, as my son was saying last night?
	We're talking about this. It's like, ah, they've switched their narrative now.
	It's not about your car and your washing machine and your air conditioning.
	Now it's about animals that we have, that humans have raised forever.
	They have to be eliminated.
	It is unbelievably idiotic.
	But before we get to the climate stuff, let's talk about the politics.
	Yes, there's going to be a debate tonight.
	And no, I will not be covering it.
	I will not be covering it live.
	I... I have to see some proof of life in the candidates before I cover this thing live.
	I have to see some proof of life in the discussion, quite frankly.
	I will do an autopsy tomorrow, but I will not be covering this so-called live debate tonight.
	It is just...
	All it is is...
	This is like some reality TV show, which I also don't watch.
	The Real Housewives of Phil and the Blank.
	This is the real White House of America.
	Yeah, that's just as phony.
	The whole thing is all about gossip and innuendo.
	As a matter of fact, when you look at this, it reminds me more and more of high school elections for student government.
	What did they do? Nothing.
	They never had anything to do.
	There was no policy that they had any involvement in.
	And yet, you had cliques form around these individual people.
	Fortunately, it didn't matter who was there.
	But it mattered a great deal to those people.
	Take a look at this from Laura Loomer talking about what happened in the Virginia primary to Bob Good.
	Now, Bob Good... Was the guy who was the head of the Freedom Caucus.
	And, well, still is, I guess.
	He's still there. But they came after him.
	Why did they come after him?
	He had both the Trump camp and the McCarthy camp came after him.
	Because he stood up to McCarthy.
	Because he's a real conservative.
	And he endorsed DeSantis.
	Because he's a real conservative.
	And so Trump said, well, we've got to get him out.
	And so both of them worked on getting him out.
	And he only lost by something like 300 votes and tens of thousands on each side.
	So it's a tiny fraction of a percent.
	I imagine it would go into an automatic recall or recount.
	But he's going to challenge that.
	And it was something of an embarrassment for clout.
	For both Trump and McCarthy, that combined, neither of them really had the clout to kind of squeak this out.
	And it appears that the guy who is going to be there is going to be another Dan Crenshaw, another statist Navy SEAL who is part of the Uni Party.
	But Laura Loomer had this to say.
	What happened to Bob Good last night needed to happen for the sake of restoring fear back into the minds of elected Republicans.
	Fear of what? Fear of the Constitution?
	Fear of we the people?
	No. Fear of Donald Trump.
	She says, Donald Trump is the leader of the Republican Party.
	If you try to resist that, you'll be removed and replaced.
	Traitors will be punished. Laura Loomer is the epitome of Of the high school personality cliques.
	Absolutely the epitome.
	It disgusts me to see what the MAGA people have become.
	And she is the tip of the spear of disgusting.
	So, is Trump really the leader?
	Does Trump know what he's doing?
	Can Trump handle the deep state?
	Can he handle the CIA? I've said over and over again that it was Gina.
	Look at Gina Haspel.
	Everybody was so excited when Trump said, we got lied into the Iraq War.
	Well, everybody knew that.
	He was the first politician, really, I guess, to admit it, but everybody knew it, that we were lied into the Iraq War.
	Well, who did the lying?
	It was Gina Haspel. She gave data that was based on a torture program.
	You can get people to say anything if you torture them.
	And after people found out that it was based on a torture program, they said, well, we've been had.
	But she did that.
	And got us into a war.
	And, of course, she covered up the torture program.
	John Kiriakou, who was a whistleblower who exposed it, went to jail.
	The criminal who perpetrated it and who covered it up and who deleted, most importantly, she got rid of the video files.
	Can you imagine if the video files had gone out?
	It would have been far more damaging than anything that people got from WikiLeaks.
	And so she deleted the video files, covered everything up.
	John Kiriakou, the whistleblower, is the only person to go to jail.
	Not the people who did the torture, not the people who lied us into the Iraq War.
	She gets promoted to being the director of the CIA by Trump.
	From the very beginning, folks, because Pompeo was a figurehead.
	She was the deputy director from the very beginning.
	She was the number two. She was the one who ran it.
	And then after a year or so, he promoted Pompeo to Secretary of State.
	And Gina Haspel was moved up to the official director.
	But I said at the time that she was appointed, I knew all that.
	I also knew that she had been at the London station with all this Russiagate stuff.
	Remember all that? The dossier, the Steele dossier, and all the rest of the stuff.
	How that came out of London.
	You had the London-Langley axis about how they were passing information back and forth.
	But it was really key what was happening in London.
	She was the head of the London station.
	She was right there from the very beginning of all this stuff.
	And all of the Trump press did not want to talk about that.
	Did not want to talk about how clueless it was that Trump would appoint her as her of the CIA. It's almost like the CIA was in control of the government.
	Right? And so in 2016, they put out a bunch of lies about Trump, kept him busy, kept him preoccupied.
	They manipulated and managed him in the open, quite frankly.
	And then we find out now with these hearings that the Trump CIA chief, that would be Gina Haspel, knew about the infamous letter dismissing the Biden laptop as propaganda before publication.
	This is the headline from Fox News.
	They said the Hatch Act forbids most spy agency employees from engaging in partisan political activities.
	In theory, right?
	In theory, the Constitution would prohibit them from even existing in all of what they're doing, quite frankly.
	But the conservative press likes to focus on Brennan and Clapper.
	And Hayden. And they completely ignore the woman who used torture and lies to get us into the Iraq War.
	All the rest of this stuff.
	Pompeo is just a beard.
	And so is Trump, quite frankly.
	Active CIA intelligence contractors colluded with the Biden campaign when releasing a statement dismissing Hunter Biden's infamous laptop as Russian disinformation ahead of the 2020 election.
	And the then-CIA chief was in the loop before the statement's release, according to a joint report released by three House panels.
	We knew, says Jim Jordan, again, more TV trials.
	We knew that the rushed statement from the 51 former intelligence officials was a political maneuver between the Biden campaign and the intelligence community.
	So, 2016, you had 17 intelligence agencies, according to Hillary Clinton.
	James Clapper, I think, was the one who put out, oh, yeah, yeah, it was a 17.
	Yeah. And then you had 51 different officials in 2020.
	They keep running the same place over and over again because they work on people.
	So, yeah, we knew that, he said.
	And so the House Judiciary Committee is looking into it.
	You know, when I saw that, I'm just so fed up with Jim Jordan and the GOP in general in Congress.
	They do nothing at all.
	They preen for the cameras.
	You know, before Jim Jordan, you had Trey Gowdy as well.
	He's got his contract with Fox News.
	I wish Jim Jordan would just retire and go to Fox News.
	Give it a break. So he's got the Judiciary Committee.
	And it made me think about that quote from Karl Rove.
	He said, you know, he said it to journalists, he said, you are the reality people.
	But we create our own reality.
	And while you are studying it, as you will, judiciously, even in the Judiciary Committee, right?
	While you study it, as you will, judiciously, we will act again.
	At the very beginning of it, he says, you know, you're reality people, but we are an empire now, and we create the reality.
	And while you're studying it, we're going to create a new reality.
	And you can study that.
	He said, we are history's actors.
	And Jim Jordan is a TV actor.
	He doesn't do anything.
	He never acts...
	These people do their stuff.
	And I'm not just picking on Jim Jordan.
	He is emblematic of the entire Congress, the Republican side.
	The Democrats are acting.
	They are taking action.
	They are rolling out their agenda.
	And the Republicans are acting, as in hypocrites, as in the Greek definition of hypocrite or an actor.
	They're pretending, going through the motions of caring, of resisting.
	But they never do anything.
	And so Jim Jordan and the GOP will be left to study what these global empirists like Karl Rove are doing.
	And again, Karl Rove is a Republican.
	The report reveals new information detailing how the highest levels of the CIA, up to and including then-CIA Director Gina Haspel, were made aware of the public statements of the Hunter Biden emails by 51 former intelligence officials prior to its official publication.
	And they're like, oh, you know, some of these people are still involved in all this stuff.
	It's like, yeah, okay. It wasn't enough to disqualify Gina Haspel to lie us into the Iraq War.
	I don't really care which candidate she was supporting at which point in time, why she was supporting one candidate or another.
	And then you look at Real Clear Politics.
	And there's a very long article, not Real Clear Politics, Real Clear Investigations.
	They have a very long article about this same thing about rigging the 2020 debates, but also the 2016 and how the intelligence agency was there, but they place it all at the door of James Clapper How silly is that?
	They even say in the article Everybody considered James Clapper to be the Barney Fife of the CIA Yeah, Brennan is the true evil genius.
	You can see it in his eyes when he talks.
	And Hayden. I mean, those two guys.
	But Clapper is like, oh, he's just a stooge that they've got out there, even though he was head of the CIA at one point.
	But I don't know if he's head of the CIA or if he was head of...
	He was Director of National Intelligence.
	Anyway, it's ridiculous that they don't even talk about Gina Haspel in this.
	What's going on with that? I think you know who the really powerful people are.
	They're the ones that they don't talk about, isn't it?
	You want to know who rules this?
	It's the ones that they don't talk about.
	It was former FBI Assistant Director Chris Swecker who said that Clapper was the Barney Fife of the Intelligence Committee.
	Are you spying on Americans without a search warrant?
	Senator, no sir, not intentionally I guess.
	But we're all going to be saved.
	We're all going to be saved by Trump.
	He's such a stable genius.
	Just take a look at this little campaign thing that he staged.
	He had set this up with Byron Donalds.
	To go to a barbershop in a black community.
	And he wasn't going to show up.
	He was just going to phone it in.
	And he phoned it in and listened to what he had to say.
	Watch their expressions.
	The mugshot is the best.
	It just beat Elvis Presley and Frank Sinatra by a lot, by the way.
	Beat it by a lot. But that's the number one mugshot of all time.
	It's really an amazing thing.
	Since it happened, the support among the black community and the Hispanic community has skyrocketed.
	It's been amazing. Really been amazing.
	I'm one of you now.
	I've got a mugshot. Mr.
	President, it's In one way, you say, gee, isn't that too bad?
	But the truth is, it's really a lovely thing when I see that.
	We have great support now in the black community and in the Hispanic community.
	Idiot, idiot. First of all, the mugshots of Elvis and Sinatra?
	I don't know anything about it.
	I looked that up. And people had put out a picture of Elvis holding up this card that had some numbers on it and everything.
	It was not a full phrase and a profile like you typically see with a mugshot.
	That was not a mugshot.
	That was him getting out of the army and they were taking an exit picture of something.
	Frank Sinatra actually was arrested and actually did have a mugshot.
	He was charged with seduction and adultery.
	Trump better be glad that they're not arresting people for that anymore.
	I guess the seduction part is really only of his voters, but the rest of it he pays for.
	Trump sent his black friend, Byron Donalds, so that they can call into a black barbershop and tell them how he has the number one mugshot of all time and now he's got something in common with black people.
	Says someone on Twitter.
	He says it's been a really great thing for him.
	One person says, what does it even mean to be the number one mugshot of all time?
	The best mugshot.
	Not mugshot. It's the best.
	Another person says, look at their body language.
	They're bored. They're embarrassed.
	Another person, Ray Pride on Twitter, said Trump claims thug life in Atlanta barbershop.
	Another one says, I thought Trump was y'all guy in the hood.
	He didn't want to come to the barbershop to chill with black MAGA? Yeah, couldn't even make it there.
	Kind of interesting.
	Well, a new poll shows a record number of people don't like Trump or Biden.
	Had the first debate. 25% of respondents have unfavorable views of both of them.
	Yeah, they don't want Donald Duck or Goofy.
	I like that. That's from Wine Press.
	It says Donald Duck or Goofy.
	You have the Rutherford Institute.
	Whitehead there had an interesting piece that's been picked up by a lot of different outlets.
	Free Thought Project, Zero Hedge, American Dictators.
	Uncomfortable truths you won't hear from Trump or Biden.
	Or from their supporters and their captive partisan media.
	He says, history has shown us that no matter who assumes the office of president, all of our problems will remain the same.
	We need to understand they don't care.
	They don't represent us.
	They're not even in control of what happens to their lives, as you can see with Trump, being batted around back and forth by these different forces.
	He can't even defend himself.
	He doesn't even know who his enemies are and his allies are.
	Yes, he doesn't do anything except in his own perceived self-interest, but he perceives his self-interest incorrectly because he's such a narcissist.
	The 2024 elections will not do much to alter our present course to a police state.
	You know what, Will? What made the difference?
	All across the country, We had a top-down plan from Fauci and the science and the money from Washington.
	What made the difference?
	It was the local officials.
	And they made a big difference from place to place.
	It could be better or it could be worse.
	So he has a few points here.
	Read a couple of them.
	He's got about 15, actually.
	I'm going to read about three or four.
	He said, It doesn't work for we the people.
	Number two, gradually it is whittling away our freedoms.
	It has liberated itself from the contractual agreement, the Constitution, you know, for years.
	It was, I think it was back in the 90s that Russell Means, who was, he ran at the same time, actually in 1986, he ran for Libertarian Party nomination for president at the same time that Ron Paul did, 1988, I'm sorry. And Ron Paul got it.
	Russell Means wrote a book, and he called it Where White Men Fear to Tread.
	And he said, the federal government has broken every treaty it has made with the American Indian.
	He said, white man, the Constitution is the treaty that the federal government made with you, and they've broken every aspect of it.
	What are you going to do about it?
	So that's the question for us, right?
	He says... Republicans and Democrats act like there's a huge difference.
	However, they're united in a common goal, which is to maintain the status quo.
	Maybe it's not so much maintaining the status quo anymore.
	Maybe it's maintaining the status quo of their position there.
	I would say that it's about pushing forward the fourth turning.
	I would say they are united in a goal of taking our country down.
	That's what they're really about.
	Presidential elections merely serve to maintain the status quo.
	Just make sure, folks, that you're not dancing to the Hegelian two-step, okay?
	When they play that tune, don't start tapping your feet, okay?
	Like an idiot. The U.S. government is spending money it doesn't have on foreign programs it can't afford, all the while piling up debt that will be put on us and used to take everything away from us.
	He says, 40 years past the George Orwell envisioned the stomping foot boot of Big Brother, the police state is about to pass off the baton to the surveillance state.
	Now he says, and now we are at a position where exposing a crime is treated as committing a crime.
	This is what I said before about John Kiriakou and Gina Haspel.
	She gets promoted by Trump to the head of the CIA. He goes to prison.
	And even after he serves his time, he can't get a pardon from Trump unless he pays Rudy Giuliani a million dollars.
	That's the corruption and the lunacy on the Republican side.
	And you know about it on the Democrat side.
	But Julian Assange is another example of it.
	Somebody exposing crimes is the one who goes to jail, not the criminals.
	He says, as I make clear in my book, Battlefield America, the War on the American People, and in its fictional counterpart, the Eric Blair Diaries, you know, the real name of George Orwell, he said, these problems will continue to plague our nation unless and until Americans wake up to the fact that we are the only ones who can change things for the better.
	The question is, where do we work to change things for the better?
	Well, you might want to listen to Elon Musk.
	You might want to pay attention to what George Soros does.
	That's what Elon Musk said. He says he's not focused on presidential election.
	He's focused on district attorneys because he gets the biggest bang for his buck focusing on local elections.
	That's where he can really change things.
	All politics is local.
	We've been told that by these people forever.
	The rest of this stuff, folks, is just a distraction.
	These debates are just a distraction.
	The change that's going to happen is going to have to happen at the local level.
	And it can be blocked to a large degree at the local level.
	The federal government does not represent you.
	It does not represent change.
	A dictatorship in Washington is not going to solve your problems.
	Washington is no longer a republic.
	And it's not a democracy.
	It has become a mockery.
	That's what it is.
	You know, you had James Carville.
	What's the matter with these people? They're so stupid.
	They think that we got a republic.
	And it's like, yeah, well, that's what the Constitution says.
	You know, we got a democracy here.
	You know, all this kind of stuff. Well, no, we have a mockery.
	This is a mockery.
	So, everybody's talking about age.
	Are you going to drug test Biden and all this other kind of stuff?
	See if they get him hyped up.
	Everybody's so concerned about that.
	Of course, Biden is 81. Trump is 78.
	What they're doing in their commercials, and there was actually a brilliant commercial, even though it doesn't matter and it's, you know, lies and all that kind of stuff, but it was a brilliant hit job by the Lincoln Project on Trump.
	Because what they did was they had all these conservative commentators like Sean Hannity and others who were talking about Biden's obvious senility and And they would have these people and they wouldn't say Biden.
	They would just say, he's this and he's that, you know, as they're talking about that.
	And then they would show Trump and some type of stuttering thing or where he uses the wrong word or whatever.
	Everybody can see that there is a huge difference in terms of cognitive ability between Biden and Trump.
	That's about the only difference that there is between them.
	And when it comes to policy, they don't want to talk about that.
	So focus on age.
	And if you focus on age, you focus on senility.
	What is that telling people? That these guys are really in charge?
	Do you really think they're in charge?
	Do you really think that Biden is in charge?
	And do you really think that Trump is in charge when he's got all the people around him?
	He doesn't even know that they're on his side or not on his side.
	It's a perfect fit, isn't it?
	You know, the MAGA people think that Trump's on his side.
	And Trump doesn't even know who's on his side when he's in the White House.
	It's pretty pathetic.
	Everybody's living in this fantasy projection that they've got there.
	So the age anxiety only matters if you think that these guys are in charge.
	And they're not in charge.
	But if you want to watch the debate, I suggest that there is a way that you can maybe tolerate it If you use some kind of an age filter to knock off about 75 years off of each of their ages.
	He wants to shut down this country.
	And I want to keep it open.
	Wait a minute, Joe. Let me shut you down for a second, Joe.
	Just for one second. I don't wear masks like him.
	Every time you see him, he's got a mask.
	He could be speaking 200 feet away from it.
	He shows up with the biggest mask I've ever seen.
	You could never have done the job that we did.
	You don't have it in your blood.
	You could have never done that job.
	I know how to do the job.
	I can do the job.
	Neither one of them can do the job, folks.
	But yeah, if you want to watch the debate, maybe you could do that in real time.
	I don't know where that filter comes from.
	Probably on a phone somewhere.
	But it's ridiculous.
	And when you look at what these people, at the time, everybody was talking.
	That's their previous encounter.
	At the time, as Reason Magazine points out, a disastrous Biden and Trump debate could be the best possible outcome out of this.
	When they did that, back in October 2020, that just showed you that the Washington Post called it, quote, the worst presidential debate in living memory.
	For media analyst Tom Jones at Poynter, he said it was a dumpster fire full of constant interruptions, constant talking over one another, name-calling, juvenile bickering, Reason says a transcript of the debate reads like gibberish.
	Because it is gibberish.
	Because it's about their personality.
	Just like with the Laura Loomery thing.
	So are you about Trump or not?
	Okay. I'm sick of that.
	Now, it would have been interesting to have some other candidates in there actually talk about issues, but that's not going to happen.
	They control that very carefully.
	Everything about this is a controlled pageant.
	It is a wag the dog pageant.
	Remember that movie? Just think of it as a pageant.
	Reasons Jacob Selim argued then that the debate was good for the republic because it shattered the unfounded respect for the people who rule us.
	So what if the debate doesn't simply confirm that the Biden-Trump debates in 2020 showed that these men deserve neither our respect nor our affection?
	No, I mean, what if it was actually really bad?
	Democrats have been working hard to counter-program any suggestion that Biden's mental acuity has declined.
	The evidence keeps piling up.
	And so, you know, where do we go with this?
	What is the best possible outcome of this?
	Well, the best thing would be for you to...
	Direct your attention away from this pageant, this show, this entertainment, and the things that matter.
	RFK Jr. did not make as planned the cut, but he says that he's planning to join the presidential debate with a miracle of technology.
	And so he's going to have some people who are going to evidently green screen him into the debate.
	And maybe they'll pause it so that he can make a comment on it.
	I will not be, like I said, I'll not be covering a live debate because I don't believe these people are really live.
	They're a couple of zombie puppets.
	I'll do an autopsy of some of the stuff tomorrow, but life is too short.
	It really is.
	We're going to do a kind of live stream, said RFK Jr., that includes me in the debate.
	It'll have a podium. It'll kind of look like I'm on stage.
	He said the most consequential political issue of the last two presidential administrations had to do with COVID-19 pandemic.
	And you can rely on the fact that they won't be talking about that.
	They may use it to criticize each other.
	They didn't do it enough. But here's what RFK Jr.
	said. He's right about this part.
	I don't support RFK Jr.
	I'm just saying that we need to have somebody that's going to talk about, I said at the very beginning, there's absolutely no way I was going to vote for him.
	He never was honest in terms of taking back what he said about locking up people who disagreed with him about the Green Agenda and many other things. Then he jumps in and supports the war, other things like that.
	But an abortion, of course, big support of abortion. So there's a lot of reasons that I would not support him.
	However, I thought it would have been good to have him in the debates because he would bring up some of these issues that these other guys are not going to talk about and that they won't be asked by CNN.
	He said, they locked down our country for 500 days, which both President Trump and President Biden went along with.
	That decision shifted $4.3 trillion of the American middle class to this new oligarchy of billionaires.
	They created a billionaire a day in 500 days.
	500 billionaires were created.
	And they shut down 3.3 million businesses.
	They shut down all the churches.
	See, you weren't essential, as Trump put it.
	He goes on. They shut down freedom of speech.
	Companies started actively censoring for the first time in history, pressuring social media and media companies not to publish critiques of their policies.
	And the biggest cheerleader was CNN, he said.
	Jake Tapper was out there shaming people who violated mask mandates or who weren't staying in their homes.
	I feel somebody should be on that stage asking all three of them about their role in it.
	All you see is criticism of Jake Tapper because he doesn't like Trump.
	Because he's biased against Trump.
	And he is biased against Trump.
	They put him in as a moderator.
	But he joined Trump and Biden in pushing this pandemic of fear, lies, and propaganda.
	RFK Jr. goes on to say, Louis Brandeis says that the role of media in a democracy is to maintain a fierce position of skepticism toward government authorities and toward official pronouncements.
	This is what the media did in this country for the first 285 years as part of our existence, but in the last decade...
	And particularly, culminating in COVID, you saw the need to completely take the opposite.
	A posture. The media has become a mouthpiece for government policies and shamed people.
	It silenced them.
	It marginalized them.
	It gaslit them.
	And let me say, what we saw for the first time in the Trump administration was conservative media Well, that was the last bastion of this.
	The liberals went over to play this game to be on the side of government a long time ago.
	And now we have the conservatives and the people who used to be on the outside.
	They used to not push the idea that all our problems could be solved in Washington.
	But they all became uncritical cheerleaders.
	They all looked for a demographic that could make them money, and then they serve up to that demographic, whatever that demographic wants to hear, whether it's about Trump or whether it's about Biden.
	When asked if he would accept a job from Trump if the former president was elected in November, Kennedy said that he would consider a proposal, but he doesn't think he would accept the offer.
	He said, I don't think so.
	I would listen to a proposal, but I don't think so.
	He said, one of the reasons that I don't think I'd go to work for him is because he offered a job in the last administration, but instead he took a billion dollars from Pfizer.
	And you know what he's talking about.
	It's well covered. You know, Trump posed during the election as a vaccine skeptic.
	He believed that, you know, he put indications out there.
	He believed that childhood vaccines had been part of the autism issues.
	And so he called in RFK Jr.
	to Trump Towers during the transition period.
	And as he was coming out, the press was there.
	They said, what did you talk about?
	You're going to ban vaccines?
	No, no, no. We're going to actually do some science and test them to see if they work, if they're safe, that type of thing.
	That's the way he put it. Well, Trump is just using RFK Jr.
	to bid his price up for the pharmaceutical companies.
	And they paid him millions of dollars each.
	And what he did was he hired Eli Lilly's CEO, the most politically connected of all the pharmaceutical companies, Alex Azar, put him in charge of HHS. And it was Alex Azar that put out the first emergency order in January of 2020, before Trump released the emergency cash that paid everybody to do what Alex Azar and the pharmaceutical companies wanted them all to do.
	We're going to take a quick break and we'll come right back.
	We've got some Supreme Court decisions about the First Amendment that are very important and many other things.
	You know, we've not had a decision yet on whether or not there was a couple of issues about January the 6th and about Trump.
	They've not released decisions on those, and I don't think that they will until after this debate.
	I think that was deliberate, but something else leaked out.
	The common man.
	They created common core to dumb down our children.
	They created common past to track and control us.
	Their commons project to make sure the commoners own nothing.
	And the communist future.
	They see the common man as simple, unsophisticated, ordinary.
	But each of us has worth and dignity created in the image of God.
	That is what we have in common.
	That is what they want to take away.
	Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation.
	They desire to know everything about us while they hide everything from us.
	It's time to turn that around and expose what they want to hide.
	Please share the information and links you'll find at TheDavidKnightShow.com Thank you for listening.
	Thank you for sharing.
	If you can't support us financially, please keep us in your prayers.
	TheDavidKnightShow.com Thank you for watching.
	you you Welcome back, and I've got a couple of comments.
	I've got a tip here as well.
	And by the way, I just want to thank everybody for the support yesterday.
	Marty did matching funds, and we had a lot of support yesterday.
	I apologize for not getting an update.
	I did not go through and total everything up.
	Yesterday, I was just so exhausted.
	I went to bed early. So sometimes this really gets to me.
	So I apologize.
	We'll get that done today.
	I'll do that instead of watching the debate.
	How about that? It's going to find something to do.
	Duke Newcomb, thank you for the tip.
	He says, research flat Earth deep in the rabbit hole.
	D-I-T-R-H on YouTube and Rumble.
	NASA, moon landings, globe Earth, our world is mass deception, as you well know.
	We can see many miles beyond purported global curve.
	It's undeniable and a no-brainer.
	Well, I agree. I just, look, you know, We have a lot of exceptions out there, and so I like to focus on the things that have a direct influence on us.
	It is hard enough to get people to believe that buildings just collapsed on their own, you know, to not believe the 9-11 official story.
	Many people want to cling to that.
	And so, you know, if we could get people to pay attention to that, we could look at some of these other things as well.
	But that's really my focus because it's tied to what happened to us in 2020.
	That was the other shoot or drop.
	Those two things were happening at the same time.
	As a matter of fact, they even did the first germ game two months before 9-11.
	Octospook. Does David list an itinerary someplace on the subjects that he plans on the subjects of the day or just chosen from current events?
	Either is acceptable. Of course, just asking.
	I used to put some of the key topics that I was going to talk about up, but quite honestly, when I'm doing a show, sometimes I'll just change it, and I always have more stuff each day than I can actually get to.
	And so sometimes I don't go in the order that I had planned.
	Sometimes I skip over to something else.
	So I stopped doing that because I'd mentioned that I was going to cover this, this, this, and this today, and I wind up covering some different things.
	But I do every day.
	We have started trying to get the show up earlier.
	So I first put the show up without any description, saying the description will follow.
	And then when I get that done...
	And it's usually by about four hours after the show.
	I put up a transcript with time codes that shows the topics discussed in general and about where you can find them.
	Because I know it's a long show.
	And I know most people don't listen to all of it every day unless you're traveling or working or something like that.
	And so... I put the subjects there if people are looking at it after the fact.
	But it takes a while for those to get there.
	But they do show up.
	So we used to wait until I had everything ready and put it up because I'm not sure if when I put it up for the podcast, it immediately pushes it out to other places.
	And I'm not sure if it pushes out the change to the other places.
	So you guys can let me know if you don't see the update.
	If you only see a generic description there each day, we'll have to change that.
	But I thought it'd be better to get it up sooner, a couple of hours sooner, rather than waiting until I had all of the description topics by time code and everything in there.
	So, Chefkin321, I'm tired of being told that if I don't like Trump, I must like Biden.
	Are we really that dumb? Yeah, we're really that dumb.
	Bipolar. AP Rumble seat.
	Bragging about a fake mugshot.
	That's what you want in president.
	They have dismantled this nation.
	I know, wasn't that ridiculous?
	And again, incapable of acting except out of his own perceived self-interest.
	And a totally consumed narcissist.
	Of course, he will act out of revenge as well.
	About the child version of the debate, Najeeet Lovin says, you should air that version of the debate on your show.
	Probably the most watched broadcast, yeah?
	Get the whole thing and do that.
	It's kind of interesting because CNN has got lots of rules for anybody that wants to cover it.
	You must put it full screen.
	You've got to put their Chiron there.
	Nothing about your network if you want to cover it.
	When they go to commercial break and you go to commercial break, You can't do any commentary about it and all the rest of the stuff.
	Well, that's not going to happen on Twitter.
	A lot of people will be doing commentary.
	I'm not going to do that. I've done that in the past.
	I think the best way to do commentary, quite frankly, so that people, you always wind up Having to talk over them if you're going to say anything, if you do it live.
	I think it's better to do it as a tweet, but I'm not going to do that.
	Anybody else want to do that? Knock yourself out.
	I can't stand watching these guys.
	I literally despise them.
	It's just, you know, like I said, life is too short.
	A Syrian girl. I don't think the debate can be anything but a disaster.
	Neither candidate can talk to the issues.
	Just Laura Loomer type personality bashing.
	That's all it is. Are you for this guy or against the guy?
	And that's why they do only two candidates, because it makes it easier to do the ad hominem attacks.
	And they always ask the same stupid, irrelevant questions.
	They never address the issue of the day.
	And that's on the news media people, CNN and other people of that ilk.
	That's why they pick them, and that's why the debates are not even controlled by a third party like the League of Women Voters.
	They don't want to have somebody like Ross Perot or Third Wheel that they don't control on again.
	And so they created a debate commission that was run by the Republicans and Democrats.
	Everything is a duopoly.
	And it really, the debate commission...
	It's just another example of the uni party.
	So, Chepkin321, Trump, the vaccines are great.
	Biden, just blah, blah, blah.
	Yeah, I agree. OctoSpook, I wish RFK Jr.
	was not blocked from the debate.
	I think he would have forced a bit of honesty to these debates.
	I agree. I suspect the majority of Americans' real concerns will never be addressed.
	Perhaps RFK Jr.
	Dubin will cover those.
	Well, I'm glad that he's going to fight all of that, but of course we've always seen that.
	And I realized a long time ago when I was involved in third-party politics that their whole agenda was to keep you focused on the race for president, or maybe the race for governor in some cases.
	So you didn't really put a lot of resources in getting somebody elected at the local level.
	It's like, hmm, if they are so concerned to keep us over here, maybe we shouldn't be doing what they want us to do.
	Maybe that's a really stupid way to do politics, to do exactly what they have designed for us to do.
	Well, let's talk a little bit about the Supreme Court.
	And the Supreme Court has acknowledged accidentally posting an Idaho abortion case document.
	Isn't that interesting?
	You know, we had the Dobbs decision that was leaked, of course, about the overturning of Roe v.
	Wade. Now we have another abortion decision being leaked.
	Huh. Maybe if they want to know who's doing this, maybe they look to see who in this inner circle of just a few people is rabidly pro-abortion.
	They might be able to figure out who actually leaked this stuff.
	So they say it was inadvertently posted.
	And then they removed it from its website, but some people got a snapshot of it.
	The court appears...
	We don't know if this is the actual decision or if it's going to change or not.
	They said the court appears set to allow emergency room doctors in Idaho to perform abortions in certain situations according to a copy of the decision.
	And, of course, this would...
	Contradict what they just did with Dobbs.
	With Dobbs, they just said with the Tenth Amendment, we don't get to make these decisions.
	These things belong at the state level.
	Now they're going to go back in and start micromanaging at the federal level these different decisions.
	Now they're going to start writing law about things over which they should have no jurisdiction.
	And they're going to do it in the federal sphere.
	And it's kind of interesting to see that they are wading into these areas where they have no jurisdiction, where they disrespect the clear language of the Constitution on issue after issue.
	It's interesting to see that even as they pretend that they don't have any authority to rule in some of these controversial cases like the free speech case, the social media free speech case that they just took a pass on and said, well, these defendants don't have standing.
	Oh, yes, they do.
	Yes, they do.
	Everybody sees through that dodge.
	And it is a dodge.
	The bottom line is, as they pass on a couple of these controversial cases saying they didn't have standing, they are jumping into areas where they have no standing, where they have no authority under the Constitution.
	No federal agency has any authority.
	You see, there's not any authority when it comes to abortion.
	There's no authority for the federal government at any level.
	For the Supreme Court, for the President, for the Congress, none of them have the authority to have a say about that.
	That belongs at the state level.
	So, this case, this Idaho case, concerns whether a federal law, again, if the federal law comes into an area that the federal government has not been expressly given power, then it is usurping that power, because that power has been reserved by the Tenth Amendment to the states and to the people.
	But it's a federal law that regulates emergency room treatment and it overrides Idaho's strict abortion ban.
	Brown Jackson wrote separately to say the court should have gone ahead and decided the bigger issue, which is likely to come up in another case in due course, would have an impact on other states with similar abortion restrictions.
	She said today's decision is not a victory for pregnant patients in Idaho.
	While this court dawdles and the country waits pregnant people.
	Why does she keep talking like that?
	Why does she say pregnant women?
	Oh, well, because it's pregnant patients and pregnant people.
	Remember? It was Brown Jackson.
	That Marsha Blackburn asked point blank, what is a woman?
	That was Ketanji Brown. And she still doesn't know.
	Well, she knows, but she won't say.
	She's still playing this game.
	Pregnant people, pregnant patients.
	Famously would not acknowledge what a woman is.
	And she's never going to.
	She's going to keep up this charade with all this stuff.
	So, Supreme Court is also, in terms of free speech, they're going to allow the government to pressure social media companies to censor.
	You know, we all knew what was happening for a long time.
	We knew that was exactly what was happening.
	Then we got the Twitter files, and we had the documentary proof that they were doing it.
	And so you had two states...
	And you had five individuals, high-profile individuals, who had been censored by Facebook because there was a paper trail showing that the government wanted them to censor people but disagreed with the government's agenda, and they did it. And so Amy Coney Barrett wrote the decision, and she pretends that these people don't have standing.
	One of the most ridiculous evasions I've ever seen in my life.
	CNN says the Supreme Court allows White House to press social media companies to remove disinformation.
	Well, in reality, it was really more not saying, well, this is okay.
	They just said, well, we're not even going to issue a decision about the substance of this claim.
	We're just going to dodge this completely by saying that you don't have standing.
	The FBI may continue to urge social media platforms to take down content that the government views as misinformation, says CNN. How is that not censorship?
	Censorship by proxy.
	I've always said that. The iron fist of censorship in a velvet glove of private companies.
	That's what this stuff all is.
	Social media was created to do this.
	The government helped to create it for this very purpose.
	CNN says, rather than delving into the weighty First Amendment questions raised by the case, the court ruled that state and social media users who challenged the Biden administration did not have standing to sue.
	Barrett, who wrote the opinion for the 6-3 majority, said, To establish standing, the plaintiffs must demonstrate a substantial risk that in the near future they will suffer an injury that is traceable to a government defendant and redressable by the injunction that they seek.
	Because no plaintiff has carried that burden, none has standing to seek a preliminary injunction.
	How clueless can you be?
	As Information Liberation says, it's more conservative cowardice on the part of two Trump-appointed Federalist Society-approved justices.
	Justice Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Gorsuch were the ones who dissented.
	And so what we see here is a pattern.
	People like to say, well, it's a conservative court.
	Well, how do you come up with that?
	And we've got a hardcore radical left, the Obama-Biden women that are there.
	That's the three. Call them the squad, if you will.
	And then you've got John Roberts, who more often than not, folks, especially on the big issues, more often than not, he sides with the left.
	Now, he didn't. He and Kavanaugh didn't on Roe v.
	Wade, but they came really close, according to discussions that were had.
	But Kavanaugh is like a clone of John Roberts.
	He seems to do everything that he does.
	Which leaves us with...
	Amy Coney Barrett.
	And do you remember when she had her confirmation hearings and she was asked about the First Amendment?
	And she couldn't summarize it.
	Didn't understand why things like religion and politics would be talked about in the First Amendment.
	What are the five freedoms of the First Amendment?
	Speech, religion, press, assembly, Speech?
	Press? Religion? Assembly?
	I don't know. What am I missing? Redress or protest.
	Okay. Why is there one amendment that has these five freedoms clustered?
	Why do they hang together? I don't know what you're getting at on that one.
	What is the common denominator?
	Why five of them in the same amendment?
	I don't know why, actually, as a historical matter, those were grouped.
	I'm sure there's a story that I don't know there about why those appeared in the First Amendment altogether rather than being split up in different amendments.
	I mean, assembly and protest and speech bear more relation to one another than necessarily free exercise, say.
	No, no. Sorry.
	Thanks for playing. Next contestant is what they should have said.
	But no, they went ahead and passed her on to the next level, and this is what we get from some idiot like that.
	Okay, so there's the Bill of Rights, which to many of us is kind of important.
	And you can't be bothered to even...
	Learn what the first one says, let alone understand why it was put together.
	Why do we have religion and politics there?
	Well, it's because that's the kind of stuff that the government doesn't want you talking about, right?
	Everything is about religion or politics that they want to censor for the most part.
	That's what the First Amendment is trying to prevent.
	They know that that's what the government wants to shut down.
	So, Justice Alito and Thomas, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch wrote a dissent that dubbed this case, quote, one of the most important free speech cases to reach the court in years.
	They said the challengers had brought forward enough evidence to establish standing.
	And by the way, all the lower courts thought so as well.
	All the lower courts didn't throw it out because of standing.
	The court, however, shirks that duty, says the decision written by Alito and Thomas.
	I think it was Thomas. They all signed it together.
	Gorsuch. The court shirks that duty.
	And thus permits the successful campaign of coercion in this case to stand as an attractive model for future officials who want to control what people say, what they hear, and what they think.
	That was written by Alito.
	He called the conduct of the officials sued in the case unconstitutional, coercive, and dangerous.
	He said it was blatantly unconstitutional and the country may come to regret the court's failure to say so.
	He had a 34-page dissent that went through the details of the case as he sought to counter the court's conclusions that they didn't have standing.
	So he wrote 34 pages to show that they did have standing.
	He said for months, high-ranking government officials placed unrelenting pressure on Facebook to suppress Americans' free speech because the court unjustifiably refuses to address this serious issue, this serious threat to the First Amendment.
	I respectfully dissent.
	Well, what do we expect?
	She was a diversity pick.
	Just like Sandra Day O'Connor was a diversity pick for...
	She was Trump's diversity pick.
	His DEI, if you will.
	Just like Sandra Day O'Connor was Reagan's diversity pick.
	And it was a big one because it was the first time anybody put a woman on the Supreme Court.
	I remember they even came out, rushed a really garbage piece of quote-unquote entertainment.
	Even Hollywood was so excited about Reagan doing this diversity thing with Sandra Day O'Connor.
	I think they even had it like first Sunday or Monday in October or something like that.
	And it was about, you know, the first day of this female Supreme Court justice.
	And, of course, Sandra Day O'Connor, huge disappointment to all the conservatives that thought, well, we don't have to fight Roe v.
	Wade at the local level because Reagan is going to do it for us in Washington with Supreme Court picks.
	And she turned out to be one of the most leftist, statist shills in there.
	And she's wrong on nearly everything.
	Nearly everything. Well, Alito railed about this again as Barrett read her.
	And this is from the Hill.
	And they said, these three guys were so furious that the Supreme Court just pushed this thing out of the way.
	And they talk about how Alito and Thomas, who were there, how they reacted while her decision was being read.
	And the fact that Gorsuch wouldn't even attend.
	Wouldn't even attend.
	As Barrett read her opinion, Alito mainly looked down at the set of papers in front of him with his head sometimes leaning on his hand.
	He did not read his dissent aloud from the bench.
	Like Alito, Thomas also looked down for the greater portion of the opinion reading and leaned his head on his hand at times.
	About halfway through Barrett's reading, Thomas could be seen putting back on his glasses, reading papers in his hand, and occasionally looking up and out into the courtroom.
	Gorsuch was absent.
	And so...
	The Alito wrote in his decision, I assume that a fair portion of what social media users had to say about COVID and the pandemic was of little lasting value.
	Some was undoubtedly untrue or misleading, and some may have been downright dangerous.
	You know, like what Fauci was telling us.
	But he said, we now know that valuable speech was also suppressed.
	Most importantly, it's not for the government to decide what we are allowed to hear or not hear.
	It's not their prerogative to decide what is true and false.
	It's also not their prerogative to decide what is acceptable and what is hateful speech either.
	The Biden administration contended that it was merely encouraging the platforms to moderate content so the communications didn't cross the line into outright unconstitutional coercion.
	How could that be? How could you coerce somebody through social media?
	Government has a monopoly on coercion.
	And it was government that was coercing.
	Alito rejected that view in his dissent, insisting that White House officials browbeat Facebook into deleting posts, and the platform's response, quote, resembled that of a subservient entity determined to stay in the good graces of a powerful taskmaster.
	That's what this all is.
	He said, if the lower court's assessment of the voluminous record is correct, this is one of the most important free speech cases to reach the court in years.
	So, what do we go from here?
	Well, this particular case, as Coney Barrett and the others take a pass on it, refuse to really judge it and allow it to continue.
	There's another one that is making its way up, and this is coming from Children's Health Defense and RFK Jr.
	And class action suits that have now been combined.
	And in this particular case, they said they also are very disappointed in this.
	They said the decision reversed decisions by two lower courts, which held that when the government, quote, coerced or quote, significantly encouraged, unquote, the platforms to moderate content that presidential elections and other controversial topics that they transformed the social media companies decisions into state actions and violating the First Amendment.
	And so Children's Health Defense CEO Mary Holland said, we consider the government's role in coercing and encouraging censorship by social media platforms, the greatest threat to free speech in our time.
	Children's Health Defense and its founder and chairman on leave, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., in March 2023, made similar allegations in a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of all American news consumers.
	Holland said that these two suits don't face the same problem of standing as some of the plaintiffs in Murthy v.
	Missouri, and that Kennedy v.
	Biden is expected to move forward.
	We note that the Supreme Court did not reach the merits.
	In other words, they didn't get to the point where they actually discussed the issue, the First Amendment.
	They dodged it by lying about the fact that these defendants didn't have standing.
	These are people who have been censored.
	We will continue with Kennedy v.
	Biden, a separate lawsuit in the Western District of Louisiana, where we believe that there is no issue regarding lack of standing for RFK Jr.
	or Children's Health Defense who were directly and traceably censored and continue to be heavily censored.
	We expect this case to move forward even if standing remains an issue for the Missouri plaintiffs.
	If Kennedy v. Biden is heard on its merits, which the court did not do in Murphy v.
	Missouri, the outcome could have wide-reaching implications for the First Amendment and online speech.
	On X, RFK Jr.
	said there is no question that he and CHD have standing.
	He said the Supreme Court got it wrong and has failed to uphold its responsibility to the Constitution by finding no standing in Murthy v.
	Missouri. My case of Kennedy v.
	Biden will proceed in the trial court where there is no question that I have standing.
	The New York Times called the decision by the Supreme Court...
	One of the most important First Amendment cases of the internet age because the constitutional question is at stake.
	Judge Dottie in July of 2023 even issued a preliminary injunction telling the Biden administration officials that they could not communicate their desire to have stuff removed or silenced.
	Then the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals narrowed but upheld what Barrett, writing for the majority, called a sweeping preliminary injunction in September of 2023.
	Barrett then wrote the Fifth Circuit was wrong to do so.
	The people, by the way, are people that you've heard quite a bit about.
	Jay Bhattacharya, Martin Kulldorff, Aaron Cariotti, Gateway Pundit, and one person I don't know, health activist Jill Hines, argued that the censorship they experienced on social media could be tied to government action and that they're also likely to be censored in the future.
	Barrett said they did not show specific causation, and they did not show that the moderation was tied to the government.
	Did she not look at the evidence at all?
	His Twitter files were very, very clear what was happening with it.
	She said that the relationship of the government to these social media companies is more complex, and this lawsuit glossed over those complexities.
	We talk about projection That's exactly what she did. She glossed over the censorship. She glossed over the censorship by corporate proxy the coercion and the cronyism To destroy the First Amendment. She glossed over all of those quote-unquote complexities. They're not complex They're right out there for people to see day.
	So this is, it was simple, clear, direct censorship.
	And she refuses, and the majority of the Supreme Court refuses to pay any attention to that.
	This is why I say, judicial supremacy is a very bad idea.
	It was never the intention of the founders.
	It was usurped.
	And Marbury v. Madison, and Jefferson said, well, that's it.
	Destroy the Constitution.
	And they have, over and over again.
	The record reflects that government defendants played a role in at least some of the platform's moderation choices.
	But the Fifth Circuit, by attributing every platform decision, at least in part, to the defendants, glossed over complexities in the evidence, said Barrett.
	So she said that they did play a role in at least some of these platforms' moderation choices.
	Moderation is censorship.
	How many times does Facebook have to censor somebody at the request of the Department of Justice for it to be censorship?
	I'd like to know. Well, what is the level?
	How many times she says, well, at least some of these, they did do that.
	Okay, well, what's the number?
	Is it five times?
	Is it ten times? Is it fifteen times before you care that it's censorship?
	I think once is enough, isn't it?
	So she said the plaintiffs must demonstrate their own standing for each claim against each defendant.
	No, you just have to say that it's being done.
	But I don't think there's a problem with that anyway.
	Alito said the court is shirking their duty, permitting the successful campaign of coercion to stand as an attractive model for future officials.
	He said there is a, and he wrote 34 pages, he said there is a vast, that was his term, a vast record of evidence that shows that federal officials communicate with social media platforms about so-called misinformation and relevant to the Kennedy case, because it's still the Children's Health Defense article where they say, yeah, our case is still coming up.
	They said, our record includes specific evidence that Biden officials sought to censor tweets by RFK Jr.
	For example, the White House specifically targeted Kennedy's January 22, 2021 tweet about the then-recent death of a baseball Hall of Famer, Hank Aaron, 18 days after he publicly received the Moderna vaccine.
	So, I said, well, you know, we got evidence saying, shut down RFK Jr.
	It was not a generalized thing.
	So, this is not a conservative court, and Trump didn't put in conservative justices when two or three of them were constantly making the wrong decision.
	And not even Gorsuch is completely reliable.
	But it's gotten to the point where Amy Coney Barrett and Kavanaugh are completely unreliable.
	Just like John Roberts.
	So, again, statist.
	Amy doesn't have a brain.
	Kavanaugh basically does.
	I'm with him, you know, type of thing with Roberts.
	Alito's dissent included a lengthy summary of the dubious actions taken by the federal government to induce social media companies.
	34 pages of it.
	He said, Well, I'm glad that they're not yielding, but still, your God-given rights are not up for a vote, you see.
	If we have a republic...
	Then your rights can't be taken away by a majority of the people, like they can in a democracy.
	But if we don't have a republic, then a majority of political appointees wearing black robes can take away your rights as they see fit.
	We're going to take a break.
	Well, Gard Goldsmith says this opinion was one of the most disingenuous and factually empty SCOTUS decisions I've ever read.
	Well, that's because...
	Good way to describe it, Gard.
	That's because it was written by a disingenuous...
	A factually empty person, Barrett.
	He also says, the velvet-clad glove of regulatory attack, Section 230 and the FCC, all were behind the government pushing the social media sites to conform.
	The ever-present threat.
	Yeah, we know. Yeah, it is amazing.
	It truly is amazing. And it's how they twist everything, too.
	Right? It is interesting to see that they would always use FISA, that Section 230 stuff.
	FISA was supposed to stop the tracking of people.
	And yet they now use it as the court to give them legal cover to do exactly what the intention was.
	The intention was to stop the CIA and the NSA from spying on Americans Which they had been doing from their inception right after World War two so now they use the FISA bill and the FISA court as legal cover To do what they were always doing But now they took the thing that was supposed to prohibit it and they use it as legal cover That's the way they always turn this thing around Brian and Deb McCartney. It is
	Conservative court. All right. Yeah, that is a big con Jason Barker I got several emails in the past 24 hours about changes to terms of service and some accounts. I Wonder if this decision is why?
	Yeah, I don't know. I don't know Syrian girl, remember when they were pushing Barrett as a conservative Catholic mother of a large family?
	The lies just keep on coming.
	I remember that. You know, all of the stuff that was put out publicly about her, I thought, oh, you know, she's...
	I was actually...
	I felt like she was a much better possibility of being an outsider than Kavanaugh because they talked about the fact that, you know, she, I think she didn't go to Georgetown or something like that, which most of these people have.
	And so I thought, well, maybe, you know, there's more of a hope for that.
	And yet right away, she started making decisions about lockdown and closing churches and stuff Oh, yeah. You know, here is this woman who's all about family, all about being a Christian and so forth, all the things that we're told, and she's shutting down churches and voting for that kind of stuff.
	They're just awful. Don'tFragMeBro says, How can we be denying women's rights if we don't know what a woman is?
	That's right. Well, it's...
	That is their big problem, isn't it?
	As I said the other day, you got the T's versus everybody, including the LGB's, because the T's are at war with biological women and have been all along.
	A very bitter war with biological women.
	And then, of course, you've got the Gs, the gays, who said there's a gay gene.
	They were saying that everything was biological, so, you know, that's the basis for having homosexual marriage and things like that.
	But then the Ts come along and say, no, there's nothing biological.
	It's all in our minds.
	Gender is a mental construct.
	And so they're at odds with the G's.
	And then when you go to the B's, the B's are bisexual.
	What does bi mean? That means two.
	It means there's two sexes.
	Oh, the trainees think there's a gazillion of them.
	It's just, it's strange.
	I don't know how they, well, they just lie, you know.
	How do they keep this coalition together?
	They lie about it. DGA, David, Trump, Pompeo, Cotton, Tim, Scott, Rubio, Stefanik, all want to prosecute whistleblowers.
	Yes. How is that draining the swamp?
	And all of them are Trump's potential VPs.
	You're absolutely right. Don't frag me, bro, says a judge that doesn't know the history of our founding.
	What a POS. Doesn't know and doesn't care.
	If you're going to ask somebody in the Constitution, just read it out to them.
	Just recite the First Amendment.
	I would think, you know, if I was going to be a Supreme Court justice, I think I would be able to at least memorize the Bill of Rights.
	Because it's so important. They don't because it's not important to them.
	Guard Goldsmith. Alito nailed it.
	He cited examples, specific and direct 34 pages of it.
	And he noted the overall threat that inspired the changes in social media terms of service, quote-unquote.
	Guard Goldsmith also says this decision is one of the worst in the last half century.
	I agree. I agree.
	And, you know, if...
	If you'd had two votes that switched, if these two Trump judges had gone the right way, they would have had a 5-4 majority.
	Because, you know, Roberts is going to go with the squad that's there.
	Syrian girl, they are an embarrassment.
	The worst decision the founding father made was the establishment of the Supreme Court, and many of them saw the danger it posed at the time.
	The Supreme Court is the greatest enemy of our Constitution has ever faced.
	And they continually get away with destroying this country from the inside, tearing it down, constitutional right by right.
	I agree. We've got to get rid of this idea of judicial supremacy.
	And we have to have the only way to stop this is at the state level.
	And what are the dynamics of all this?
	How do they get away with all this?
	Well, the Congress has abdicated its legislative ability to the bureaucracy.
	And then what's even worse is that they all pretend that a rule from the bureaucracy doesn't come with due process or constitutional protection, Bill of Rights protections.
	They say, well, that's a rule.
	And so whether it's the IRS or whether it is the EPA or whether it's the ATF, you are guilty of And you have to prove your innocence.
	That's why they call it civil asset forfeiture when they steal your property and don't even charge you with a crime, let alone get a conviction on you.
	And so, you have no protection against excessive fines, you have no presumption of innocence, you have no due process, because our elected legislators, we're all so worried, are we going to have a majority of Republicans or Democrats?
	We're all so worried about that.
	Well, they kick everything over to the bureaucracy.
	And so we have representation, we have taxation as well as regulation without representation.
	And it's been that way for a long time.
	And then when you get to Congress and you get to the President, just as we saw with Trump and DACA, that was a political hot potato.
	He had promised people he was going to do something about DACA, that he was going to end it.
	Maybe even deport the people who were here under DACA because if you stop deferring action, that means that they would deport the people who were young and who had come here when they were young and Come here and stayed illegally He didn't want to have to do that So he kicked it to the Supreme Court Which again got it all wrong and gave but gave him legal cover so that he didn't have to do it He could pretend that he couldn't do it because the all-powerful
	Supreme Court wouldn't let him. So we have to have people at the state level Who are going to say well the Supreme Court's had their ruling Let's see them enforce it.
	Which is what Andrew Jackson said.
	And he was wrong on the issue, but he was right on the principle when he was talking about the removal of the Cherokee.
	Rational Lampooner Terms of Use, also known here now as slip this ever more restrictive and exploitative noose around your subjugate sheeple's necks.
	Guard Goldsmith, the Beard opinion is insulting to the great Barrington folks.
	The concept of free speech and limited federal powers and it opens the door for more fascism speech influence.
	OctoSpook says, media acting as criminal proxies for criminals embedded in American government.
	Absolutely. Yeah.
	And, Syrian girl, I'm sure Barrett was too busy taking care of all of her conservative Catholic children to take time out to read the evidence for First Amendment infringement.
	I don't know what she's doing.
	What a...
	These people... Besides not caring what the Constitution says, they don't give the impression of intellectual heavyweights.
	They're pretty lightweight in terms of the stuff that they put out there as well.
	Somebody who's really come into his own, I think, is Clarence Thomas.
	Thomas and Alito are solid, for the most part.
	They occasionally get something wrong or something that I disagree with, but they've been pretty solid.
	And there is a big back and forth and a lot of resentment from and bad blood between Amy Coney Barrett and Clarence Thomas.
	And she's got a lot of things wrong. There's some other Supreme Court things that I might get into later today, but I wanted to move on before I run out of time to climate stuff.
	Brandon Bennett, thank you very much for the tip. I appreciate that.
	And again, I apologize to everybody for not going through and totaling everything up and updating the gas gauge.
	We're getting right up to the last minute here.
	And I really do appreciate everybody rallying around.
	As Marty said, he was going to match the contributions.
	It's just I was really exhausted.
	I needed to get one night where I got more than six hours of sleep.
	So I turned in early last night.
	Older comments here.
	We got DG8. David, unfortunately, 90 plus percent of the Trump cult will never accept that he did anything wrong in 2020 under COVID tyranny.
	That's right. I know I've had these discussions with people.
	I've even had discussions with people face-to-face who have not listened to my program, but, you know, I try to make the same points with them.
	They just don't want to hear it. Do not obey says we can't see beyond the left-right paradigm.
	Stop participating as a collective.
	Yeah. Najit Levin says it's not a duopoly, it's a monopoly.
	With the WWF spin.
	Professional wrestling.
	Well, we have seen the bird flu going for what we all know is the next thing.
	To shut down meat and dairy.
	They've said it's about shutting down meat and dairy for quite some time.
	And so, now we have had the...
	We've had the...
	Legislature in Denmark.
	They have not passed the law, but it has begun the process.
	And here's the headline.
	Flatulent cows, sheep, and pigs face the world's first carbon tax in Denmark.
	I gotta say, I think there's really only one appropriate response to this kind of nonsense.
	I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty-headed animal food trough whopper!
	I fart in your general direction!
	Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!
	Is there someone else up there we can talk to?
	No, now go away or I shall taunt you a second time.
	If you do not agree to my commands, then I shall...
	Yeah, the farmers in Denmark need to get themselves a cow-tapult.
	You don't need to throw cats at them.
	Let's give them the real thing there.
	So, look, we were talking about this last night, and Whistler, who's running the board, said, I thought that it was about stopping the Industrial Revolution, right?
	Why are they now trying to get rid of these animals that have always been around?
	You know, is it the car?
	Is it the gas range and all these other things that they've been hectoring us about?
	It's cows? Seriously?
	Like I said, you know, they want to get rid of not just everything in the Industrial Revolution.
	They want to get rid of our agrarian society because, folks, they want to get rid of us.
	The ultimate goal is to starve us to kill us.
	That's what these zero people are all about.
	All of these agendas, zero this and zero that, it's all about shutting us down.
	Whistler says they're taxing farting cows, but I think it'll be the farmers who pay it.
	Do they think calling a tax on cows sounds better than taxing farmers?
	Yeah. I guess they have absolutely no shame.
	They don't mind people talking about a fart tax.
	The absurdity of this stuff.
	It is Monty Python level, and we ought to just catapult the cows right back at the legislature.
	That's kind of what they're doing when you look at the riots that are breaking out in Kenya.
	It was eco-austerity, and they said, we're not having any more of this stuff.
	What? It's going to be the tipping point.
	Will the cows be the tipping point?
	Cow tipping. People have always had these animals.
	Why are they pretending that this is now somehow an existential threat to us?
	What an absurdity.
	Just like this bird flu stuff and their incessant focus on cattle.
	And Redfield, Trump's propaganda meister, Out there saying, oh, it's inevitable.
	It's going to happen to humans.
	And it's inevitable. There's going to be 25 to 50% casualties.
	Well, then, you know, imagine that.
	If people are going to buy that, then we're going to do something even more draconian than what they did with COVID. Because COVID didn't even come anywhere close to it.
	We had respiratory casualties and that stuff about one-tenth of a percent, just like with flu.
	And it was the hospital protocols that was killing people.
	As of 2030, Danish livestock farmers will face a punitive financial imposition of $43 per ton of carbon dioxide.
	And so I guess my question was, how many unicorn farts make up a ton of carbon?
	Well, they've got an answer, quite frankly.
	They've already thought this through.
	They said that a Danish cow emits six tons of carbon per year.
	But you next need to find out, is that laden or unladen?
	Yeah. A tax will increase more than double.
	It'll go up to $108 by 2035.
	So by 2030, it's going to be $43.
	Then they're going to rapidly take it up to $108 by 2035.
	However, because of an income tax deduction of 60%, the actual cost per ton will start at $17 and increase in 2030.
	So, okay, so it's a tax, but then we give you a tax deduction.
	Is that acceptable? Well, actually, they've already tried this in New Zealand.
	New Zealand, where, by the way, they have more sheep than they do people.
	They have a lot of deer there.
	So much of that, I think they've got now more deer than they do sheep, because they have massive exports of venison to Germany.
	But when they tried that with the New Zealand farmers, they got the law passed.
	And then the New Zealand farmers undid it.
	None of this stuff is written in stone.
	None of it is in concrete.
	We don't have to obey any of this stuff.
	You look at what happened in, you know, this is in Denmark and neighboring Netherlands.
	They threw Mark Ruta out.
	Now, of course, you know, where does a disgraced politician globalist go?
	To NATO. He's going to be the head of NATO. So he's going to still be at war with everybody.
	We'll take a big step closer in becoming climate neutral in 2045, they said.
	Folks, this is utter nonsense.
	And you can spell that with T's or with D's.
	Either way, it is absolute garbage.
	And I no longer want to talk to you people about any of this stuff.
	This doesn't rise to the level even of debate.
	Just ought to shut them down.
	Denmark will be the first country in the world to introduce a real CO2 tax system.
	On an unreal threat.
	No, they're saying that it's a real CO2 tax on agriculture, and we hope that other countries will follow suit.
	Again, when New Zealand did it, it was put in when they had that globalist Jab Senda Arden And she's gone.
	But she wanted to tax the cows and get rid of farms.
	Sounds like that's what you want to do.
	Yep, yep, that's what I want to do.
	Sounds like you're going to have two classes of people.
	Vaccinated and unvaccinated. Yep, yep, that's what it is.
	Yep, yep. Well, we've got two classes of people.
	People like her. And then the rest of us, who for at least the time being, enough people are just passively going along and ignoring what is really going on with this stuff.
	And when we look at this, what is the matter with these people?
	They're now looking at, we don't need cows, we don't need meat, and we don't need dairy, and we don't need eggs, and we don't need chickens.
	You know what we need? We need skin for the robots.
	Full Terminator stuff.
	These people are absolutely insane.
	And big bucks.
	This is coming from Harvard University.
	So you know this is being funded by the military industrial complex and the people like that.
	Don't frag me, bro. So here's the deal.
	I'll spend 24 hours in a closed garage with a cow.
	Bill Gates can spend 24 hours in a closed garage with a running car.
	Let's see who walks out in the morning.
	KWA68 says, SCOTUS is a 6'3", but it isn't conservative.
	Trump's picks were as awful as he is.
	Brandon Bennett, my Trump or dad thinks I'm a Democrat while he swallows all the excrement from the New York Democrat idol.
	Yeah, that's true. Yeah, people, oh, you're a liberal Democrat?
	You don't like Trump? ConThink says, tonight's debate, drinking game, take a shot every time one of the candidates puts forward an incoherent sentence.
	Or if you really want to get drunk, every time Trump refers to himself, because it will all be about him.
	Everything about it will be him.
	Better get some extra bottles and get the ambulance service on call, ready to pick you up, because you're going to have alcohol poisoning if you play that game.
	So, you know, what is the problem with these people?
	What is the problem with DARPA and government?
	Right? These people, it's the same groups of people, The technocracy that wants to destroy our cars, our homes, our air conditioning, our food supply, and yet they want faces and skin for robots.
	As a matter of fact, this is what it looks like.
	Look at this. This is really creepy.
	Here it is, smiling for you.
	Oh, there you go. And it's got some little manufactured eyes in there.
	Yeah, they've managed to create a cultured mix of human skin cells grown in a collagen scaffold and placed on top of a 3D printed resin base.
	Are human-like robots something that we should aim for?
	Well, PC Gamer thinks, yeah, maybe.
	They said, these staring eyes, why does it have eyes?
	This rictus grimace, this stretching skin just made me feel rather queasy and more than tad unnerved, says the writer.
	I wasn't the only one in the office to fight the urge to torture it all before there was any chance of it being wrapped around a metal skeleton and then starting romping around with murderous intent.
	Leaving aside the nightmare-inducing robot faces, there's some really good science going on behind all this, they said.
	Oh, well, as for science, then, yeah, absolutely support that.
	At the moment, mechanical actuators were required to make the face, but the authors of the research paper behind the study say that if we substitute them with cultured muscle tissue, it presents an intriguing prospect in the realization of a higher degree of biomimetics.
	You know, we're back to where Michael Crichton was with Jurassic Park.
	Just because you can do something doesn't mean that you should, right?
	That was the whole point of that book.
	If artificial skin and flesh can be perfected, then it's not just the world of surgery that can benefit, but also cosmetics.
	Cosmetics? Are we going to have celebrities that...
	That look like this.
	I think we've already got a lot of celebrities that look kind of like that.
	They've had so much plastic surgery.
	And pharmaceutical research into drugs administered via the skin.
	These people can't come up with any reason to do this.
	Oh, well, we could have plastic surgery or we could have no way to administer drugs into the skin.
	You've got to do a little bit better than that.
	Examining the correlation between facial muscle contractions and resulting facial expression can offer insights into the physiological aspects of emotion, leading to new exploration and the treatment of diseases such as facial paralysis surgery.
	And the Terminator was designed to help little old ladies go across the street.
	What is the Department of the Defense Advanced Research Projects doing, right?
	Defense Advanced Research Projects, DARPA. Why are they involved in this kind of stuff?
	Why are they involved in mind control and brain control and all the rest of this?
	Well, it's a rhetorical question.
	These people are monsters.
	And they're creating monsters.
	And they're doing it and getting obscenely rich doing it.
	Off of us.
	They are using this while the city sleeps, as Chicago said in their lyrics.
	Men are scheming new ways to kill us and tell us dirty lies.
	Let's have at least one technological advancement that doesn't masquerade as a fellow human being.
	Can we do that? They said, just leave the robots metal.
	James Cameron is no mere filmmaker, but he is a genuine prophet of the future, they said.
	No, you want a prophet of the future?
	You want to know where this is all leading?
	Go read Ted Kaczynski's Unabomber Manifesto.
	He laid it all out there, just like James Cameron, but a little bit more explicitly.
	And then we go to the Paris Olympics.
	The Olympic Village will not allow air conditioning there.
	And so, the U.S. is going to bring its own air conditioning units.
	B-Y-O-A-C. Because they said that air conditioning is a very high priority for its athletes to reach peak performance.
	Well, you know, they're going to Paris, but they're not going to play by the Paris Climate Accord rules?
	What would that entail?
	Well, if they played by the same rules of the Paris Climate Accord, that would mean that, yes, the US would still not be allowed to have air conditioning, but athletes from China and India would.
	Because that's what they do under the Paris Climate Accord.
	They take the two most populous countries on Earth and let them have as many power plants without any cleaning or filtering or anything.
	It can be as dirty as they want, and they can make as many of them as they want, while the rest of us have to get rid of ours.
	So if they were to play in the Paris Olympics by those rules, only the Chinese and the Indians would get air conditioning.
	Everybody else would have to sweat it out.
	And then we have this from The Guardian.
	As they are pushing the lies about global warming, the headline, Why Pregnant People Are More At Risk During Heat Waves.
	Pregnant people. Who would that be?
	Again, we're back to Brown Jackson and the pregnant people thing that she wrote in her decision.
	It's ridiculous.
	Everything about this Guardian article is ridiculous.
	The fear-mongering, the non-science of their sky is falling, the climate change stuff.
	I mean, it's all chicken little, isn't it?
	The bird flu is chicken little.
	The heat is chicken little.
	They're about to have an election on the 4th of July next week in the UK. Labor is way out ahead.
	It's about 2-1 over the Conservative Party.
	I saw they had a debate.
	There's a lot of different parties running in the election.
	And of course, they are polling in the two top positions, but it's pretty much a dead heat statistically between the conservatives and reform.
	They should have at least had a three-way there.
	Can you imagine if they'd had Nigel Farage on with Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer?
	That would have been something to see.
	He would have eaten their lunch for sure.
	But now labor, which again is the favorite to win, about two to one, where both conservatives and reform are.
	And if the conservatives get out of the way, reform might be able to win this thing.
	But labor looks like it's going to win.
	They're going to create an office of net zero.
	An office of net zero.
	Just call it the Department of Nihilism.
	Because that's what this is.
	We're going to push the green agenda.
	As Daily Skeptic says, I'm sorry, this is the bright part.
	In the mad dash towards eliminating carbon emissions in Britain, Labor Party leader Keir Starmer's transition team, headed by former top bureaucrat and chief of staff for Starmer, will look to establish an office of net zero.
	So... You know, I have zero tolerance for all this zero nonsense that is out there.
	Zero is just a code word for destroying everything.
	They want to destroy all of our material wealth.
	They want to destroy all of our food.
	They want to destroy all of our liberty.
	They want to destroy all of us.
	It's ultimately about depopulation.
	They use zero to strip us.
	And yet, it's these emperors who have no clothes.
	When are we going to stop this stuff?
	Just tell them to go pound sand.
	Rishi Sunak has already established the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero last year.
	So again, conservatives are there before even labor.
	The only difference is that their office has an oversight role, while the envisioned office of net zero by labor will make their office more active in policy.
	So there you go, the unit party, just like we have here.
	The only difference being in the speed at which they put it out there.
	Whichever party is in there first, usually it would be the left that would move things forward, and then the conservatives will make that the new normal, right?
	They will make that the new baseline.
	It's like a ratcheting effect.
	You're never going to go back, but we're going to lock that in.
	Okay, you guys raise the minimum wage up to here.
	Well, we're not going to move the minimum wage when we get in backwards.
	We're not going to get rid of the minimum wage.
	We're just going to oppose any increase in the minimum wage from this point on.
	But we'll leave everything that you did in place.
	That's always the way that it is.
	It's a ratcheting effect. In this particular case, it was the conservatives who did it first.
	They create a net-zero bureaucracy, and then the left gets in, and they will make it more involved in policy.
	This unit party approach has been challenged by the pro-energy approach of Nigel Farage's Reform UK, which has vowed to cut all green subsidies, all crony capitalism, which they claim could save the taxpayers 30 billion euros per year over the next 25 years.
	But see, what's going to happen with that is that the people who are going to get taxed those 30 billion euros, I'm sorry, not euros, they're pounds.
	People are going to have to pay that.
	For each of them, it's going to be thousands of dollars, perhaps.
	And that's a lot of money, but it's going to be spread out over a period of time.
	The people who are going to fight tooth and nail for this are the few people who are going to get the 30 billion pounds.
	They stand to have this.
	They've got the biggest incentive, and they're going to fight the hardest for this.
	And this is why government continues to increase.
	Well, look at this, and it's like, well, you know, we've got to stop this.
	This is unjust, and it's corrupt, and it's going to make the government worse and more centralized and stronger and all these other things.
	But, you know, I've got all these things that I've got to do, and, you know, what is it going to cost me?
	You know, if it was going to take out your business, it was going to shut down your farm or something, Yeah, you do something about it.
	But if it's only going to raise your taxes, most people don't take the time to do it.
	But the people who are going to get the money from everybody...
	From everybody. They are going to fight tooth and nail to get that stuff.
	Faraj, the Reform Party, not Faraj, but his party, said, Net zero is pushing up bills.
	It's damaging British industries like steel.
	It is making us less secure.
	We can protect our environment with more tree planting, more recycling, and less single-use plastics.
	See, this is the bad part, though.
	Even the Reform Party is out there playing by the rules.
	And Christopher Monckton, I'll get to this coming up here.
	Christopher Monckton says, if you're going to play by their rules, you've lost already.
	So you don't use their labels.
	You don't let them frame the debate.
	You don't try to craft a policy that is going to be sitting on top of their shifting sands.
	You've got to get to the bedrock foundation of truth.
	And that means you don't play this emission game.
	Well, you know, this would actually be fewer emissions if we were to do this.
	We must not impoverish ourselves in pursuit of unaffordable, unachievable global CO2 targets, they said.
	Reform has also called for fast-track licenses for companies to drill for natural gas and oil in the North Sea.
	The party would also open up shale gas, fracking test sites for two years, and then pursue major production after safety and local compensation schemes are implemented.
	Farage's party went on to call for a push toward clean nuclear energy, particularly with the creation of new, small, modular nuclear reactors in Britain.
	Of course, that would be the move to try to make common cause with the people who are standing to make a lot of money.
	Even the Hillary Clinton people and the Arnold Schwarzenegger people and Larry Fink, all of them are now pushing toward small nuclear reactors.
	So it's kind of a no-brainer to throw that carrot out to them.
	Corporations that concede the science are doomed.
	Christopher Monckton.
	And here's an example.
	And it's not just corporations.
	It's us as well.
	If we're going to concede this quote-unquote science, we're doomed.
	If you concede that there is a virus, that it leaked out of the lab, oh, we've got to do something about it.
	Maybe we should take the vaccine.
	Maybe we should rush this thing out.
	You accept their lies and their false premises.
	If you start fretting about CO2 or nitrogen or plastics, got a word for you, plastics.
	If you start following that, oh, how can we minimize that stuff?
	You've already lost it. By three votes to two, he says, the UK Supreme Court ruled last week, in a 100-page judgment, that the Surrey County Council, in granting planning consent to UK oil and gas for oil production at Horse Hill,
	Surrey, had neither requested nor considered in their assessment an estimate of the CO2 emissions from third parties combusting the 3.3 million barrels of oil that Horse Hill Field might produce over its lifetime.
	And so now the company says, now they've lost the Supreme Court.
	They said, well, we'll work closely with the Surrey County Council to rectify the situation.
	We will do an amendment to the environmental impact assessment or whatever.
	We'll have a new retrospective application.
	We'll try again. But he says, you know, if you're going to play this game, you're going to lose.
	He said, out of the 100 pages of the judgment...
	There was only one page that discussed the facts.
	Only one page out of 100.
	He said the reason is that as usual the corporations behind the project did not dare to argue against the science.
	Don't question any assumptions about CO2 or global warming or any of that.
	No.
	Instead, they tamely accepted the party line as a direct result of their failure to get to grips with either the physics or even the economics of global warming.
	They lost the case.
	The judgment made no attempt to calculate how much global warming the 10 million tons of CO2 emitted by Horse Hill Project over its lifetime would cause.
	He said, so let's do something in this case that nobody did.
	Least of all the judges.
	He said, let's do the math.
	He said, so start with the 10.7 million tons of CO2 emitted, either directly or indirectly by the project.
	But this value must be reduced right at the outset because, as the judgment says, if the oil at Horse Hill is not extracted, some 40% of the unextracted oil will be extracted somewhere else.
	So, again, knock that out.
	And then we take a look at the mass of the atmosphere.
	He said according to NASA in 2022, that is 5.1 times 10 to the 15 tons.
	And he says in the current CO2 concentration, as measured, is 427 parts per million.
	Therefore, the total mass of CO2 in the air, and he works this out as the number of tons it is, and so he says the reduction in CO2 concentration by not proceeding with a horse hill project, I'm not going to read all the numbers to you because you can't follow that when we're doing this verbally anyway.
	He says the radiative forcing from a change in CO2 concentration would be this number.
	And if we want to convert watts per square meter to warming abated, then we do this.
	The bottom line, he says, that is before we allow for the fact that the decadal rate of global warming in the third of a century since the IPCC in 1990...
	Has been half of what it was then, and still is predicted.
	So, half of what they predicted.
	So, let's make that less than one three hundred thousandth of a degree.
	Or just one-third of one percent of the one one-thousandth of a degree that would be abated if the UK actually attained net zero emissions by 2050, which it will not.
	In other words, he runs out all these different facts.
	Let's just take a look at how much CO2 are we talking about?
	It's nothing.
	And even if you run their estimates, which are consistently wrong, use their math.
	And show that it is going to be less than one three hundred thousandth of a degree change.
	It's absolutely ridiculous.
	And we just need to put some cows in the catapults and shoot them at this point.
	Scarcely a day passes in the UK without the Met Office announcing another record temperature.
	But how many of its weather stations are next to airports and solar farms?
	He says, every day the Met Office, this is from Chris Morrison, publishes the highest recorded temperature for a number of areas across the four countries in the United Kingdom.
	England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland.
	Every day, many of the same sites feature at the top of the various local lists.
	Last week in Scotland, the measuring station at Edinburgh Botanic Gardens, Glasgow and others, featured four days out of seven, along with another one that was up for three days.
	In England, Heathrow and Hull East Park, We're joined by Killowan on four days, along with Usk, Durham, and Pershore College on three.
	He said, could it be a coincidence that on such a large island, the hottest days, more often than not, occur in very specific geographical locations?
	How could it be that it's always the same?
	Three or four days out of seven, the highest temperatures are always in the same places.
	And nowhere else, right? He said, just a few places are so blessed.
	Well, it's not a coincidence.
	He said, the obvious clue is if you look at Heathrow and Hull Park East.
	Heathrow, of course, is an airport.
	And that picture right there, scroll it down a little bit more.
	See that red dot? That's where the temperature reading is.
	It's right there next to a massive solar farm.
	A massive heat island that is right there.
	So, when we talk about man-made global warming, could it be that what is man-made about it is our temperature readings?
	Could it be that what's man-made about it is that they put their thumb on the scale to get what they want?
	And then even when they put it up on the maps...
	I've seen several articles talking about how the BBC has changed the colors.
	They made everything more red.
	You know, so you have the highest temperatures.
	Oh, they're really blood red.
	But even the ones as they pull them down, you know, they never get off of anything less red than orange.
	To scare people.
	Make them think how hot it is.
	And they showed the colors that they used to use.
	It's just every bit of it is about propaganda.
	Someone of a suspicious mind might think that they're deliberately adding these junk sites simply to make current UK temperatures artificially higher.
	Yeah, someone might think that if they had a suspicious mind.
	I think I do. Eric, thank you very much for the tip.
	Thank you very much. Jim Z7 says they always violate their own rules.
	How many gigawatts of energy are wasted by the NFL, by Major League Baseball, by NBA games?
	That's right. And by CBDC, by the NSA, by the CIA, by their data sites, by their constant surveillance everywhere.
	I wonder how much energy they could save by just getting rid of all these cameras that they're putting up everywhere.
	But then of course it's the big computer centers where they store everything that everybody does on the internet Storing it for the day in which they have quantum computing And I'll have the ability to quickly go through and correlate everything and completely profile each and every one of us Risha M. They already tax farmers for every single head of livestock is BS They want to put them out of business
	That's the thing yeah, I again it's also though about killing us all Because if it was just about the money, people like Bill Gates would be out there buying up every single farm.
	Now, he's bought a lot of farmland up, not growing anything on it.
	They just want to shut down our food supply.
	Tom McDog says, so a cow emits six tons of carbon per year?
	That's 33 pounds of dung and gas.
	I would argue the manure has value and it's not polluting.
	And I would argue that this is something that has always gone on.
	And this is, if you're trying to tell us that we've got some new existential problem, why wasn't that a problem during the agrarian period or all through the Industrial Revolution?
	This is nothing that's new.
	You know, again, they go, oh, we've got to get rid of the cars.
	The cars are destroying everything, and the factories are destroying it.
	No. No. Now they're coming after cattle that have always been there.
	If we didn't have AC where I live, says Atomic Dog, there'd be a lot of dead people.
	Yeah. And you can even see that when...
	Takes a power out in Florida.
	You see people, a lot of elderly people in nursing homes die from that, just like for years.
	After Germany was one of the first places to start ramping up the price of energy, With all these green mandates.
	And so retired people who are on a pension couldn't afford to pay for it.
	So they were shutting it down and they were getting sick and dying from the cold.
	So, you know, that's the thing. Extreme cold, extreme heat.
	And it's not just about the quality of life.
	It's even about life expectancy.
	Cheap, available energy affects the quality and the quantity of life.
	AP Rumble seat. They will tax us next on exhalation of each breath.
	Pay to exist or else.
	Atomic Dog, our electric company, offered free smart thermostats.
	They failed to tell people that they could control them.
	People started coming home to 85 degree homes.
	That program was scrapped.
	What a shocker. Yeah.
	Divided. And that's their intention too, you know, with electric cars.
	They want to use your electric car as a battery for their grid.
	They'll tell you when and if you can drive.
	Divided states, CBDC will be the end of freedom.
	When the state controls whether or not you can spend your money, they have you suspended by the throat unless you are self-sufficient.
	It's absolutely right. We're gonna take a quick break and we'll be right back
	music playing
	You're listening to the David Knight show Well as they add solar and they add wind everywhere, of course the follow up to that is that they have to add battery energy storage sites And you know, they tend to have fires.
	I talked about this briefly, but I didn't show the pictures of it.
	In South Korea, this is what it looked like when a lithium battery plant caught fire.
	At least 16 people died in it.
	It's very difficult, of course, to put out these very radical fires that are there.
	Here's a news report about their efforts to put this out.
	Now, a large fire is burning at a lithium battery plant in South Korea.
	One person's confirmed dead, and at least 21 others are unaccounted for.
	More than 140 firefighters have been sent to the factory to try to stop the spread of the blaze.
	But fire chiefs say it's impossible for crews to enter because battery cells are constantly exploding.
	Let's get more on this and talk to Eunice Kim.
	She joins us on the phone from just south of the capital, Seoul.
	Eunice, sir, this sounds like a pretty big fire.
	What more can you tell us? Right, Darren.
	The Hwasong Fire Department holding their first briefing on this blaze, confirming that the fire's first casualty, and they are also trying to assert how many people are trapped inside with some 21 unreachable at this hour, as you noted, so that casualty count will likely creep up.
	firefighters have been struggling to even get inside of the three-story structure as the blaze raging since this morning is Believed to hold tens of thousands of lithium-ion batteries, which burns hotter and for longer than traditional batteries Yeah, as a matter of fact, the numbers are 35,000 battery cells on just the second floor where the batteries are inspected and packaged with more stored elsewhere and
	Now, if we're going to back up the grid, we're going to have massive battery energy storage sites.
	And if you don't want to see this happening in your neighborhood, where there's going to be trees and maybe your home, we've got to do something about these idiots who are doing that and who have absolutely no concern about the cost of electricity.
	They'll just pass it on. Of course nothing is too expensive to save the planet, right?
	We don't care about that.
	here in Tennessee the TVA is talking about putting in these big battery energy storage sites, these things that are put together by Musk. And they don't care what it's going to cost people, no concern. They don't care about the risk of fires either. About 100 workers were on the premises at the time, at least 21 dead.
	I should have gotten an update on this because this came out a couple of days ago, came out at the beginning of the week and I have had it here and haven't talked about it.
	I wanted to show that before we went any further. They point out in this article from the BBC, they said a lithium fire can react intensively with water. So firefighters had to use dry sand to extinguish the blaze. We need to tell these people when they say they want to put a battery energy storage site in our area, we need to tell them to pound sand before the thing catches fire because we'll be pounding sand afterwards. It took several hours to get it under control.
	Lithium batteries are at risk of exploding if they're damaged or overheated.
	While a fire can be extinguished, it remains at risk of reigniting without warning due to a chemical reaction.
	Yeah, they're like the joke birthday candles that keep relighting.
	And we've seen this over and over again when we talk about electric vehicles that catch fire.
	And, you know, they use an amazing amount of resources to try to shut this stuff down.
	They finally get it on something and take it to the junkyard, think that it's out, and it starts to catch fire again a couple of days later.
	A Green Party leader admits that she has a gas boiler.
	Oh, the shame.
	Instead of a heat pump.
	Isn't that amazing? No, it's just hypocrisy.
	They want nothing for you.
	They will have everything, but you're the one who gets nothing about this.
	And so, when we look at this, the approach that they're taking, it's always the same stuff.
	No meat, no dairy, no cows, no...
	No conveniences that you have in your home either.
	They have to shut everything. Everything is going to be zeroed out.
	And we should have zero tolerance for this.
	Brandon Bennett says, I wonder, is that David picking a guitar or is it samples?
	No, that's actually me playing.
	Well, I guess it's a bit of both in a sense.
	What happens is when you get these instruments, it's not a loop.
	That I'm putting in there. And so what it is, is you get different instruments.
	It might be a harp in this particular case, an Irish harp that you were just listening to, or a flute, and you play it with a keyboard.
	Now, the problem is, unless you've got a breath controller, which I don't have, you have to go back in.
	You can play... Some of them are smart enough to...
	are starting to get to the point where it can read the way that you're playing.
	If you play, like, really short...
	I'm sorry, they'll put in staccato or staccatissimo or something like that.
	Really short. But many times you have to go in with some of the different types of instruments, depending on how the instrument is set up.
	And you have to...
	They'll record these instruments...
	And they'll take a particular instrument, and they'll have people play all these different notes, and they'll have them play it at different volumes because it may sound very different when you play it loudly than when you play it soft.
	And then they'll have them play long, sustained notes.
	They'll have them play very short notes and all that type of thing.
	And so it's kind of this back and forth of trying to get from one articulation to another to make it sound right.
	And sometimes that can be done in the way that you play, or sometimes you have to do it after the fact if they have the stuff that's there.
	So it's really playing the different pieces, the different parts one at a time to put the stuff in there.
	That's really the way that it works.
	I had somebody else talk about this.
	You know, we had the piece that kind of stumped everybody for a while.
	And Will wrote this to me.
	He says, well, even though I was stumped, he said it was a lot of fun.
	This should be something you do on a regular basis.
	It adds some beauty and joy and levity to the podcast.
	He said, by the way, I do have the score for the Cowboys.
	The suite, the segment you played is sort of buried in the middle of the score.
	That's right. And I got hung up on the main title for getting that interlude.
	The opening title seems to borrow from Aaron Copland's Rodeo.
	Yeah, that's true. You know, just like...
	The Empire Strikes Back has some similarities to Mars from Gustav Holtz.
	He says, anyway, many thanks for your hard work.
	Although we're unable to donate this time, you are in our prayers.
	I really do appreciate that because it is God who ultimately provides.
	We really do appreciate if people are able to do that, but that's why we want to leave it as a way that people can listen to it for free.
	If... If somebody's donating, we want it.
	The one thing that I would like to be able to do that I can't do cleanly, we do it for the people on Subscribestar.
	We give them the audio podcast without any commercials.
	But the way that a lot of these services do it, like Pandora, you can listen and have commercials, or you can pay a monthly fee and you get it commercial-free.
	Technical issues have kept us from figuring out how to exactly do that, but that's really where I would like to go.
	But we don't want to put it behind a complete paywall.
	So we're going to take a quick break, and I'll play the Cowboys, the Yellowstone thing here.
	This is from John Williams' soundtrack for the Cowboys.
	We'll be right back.
	♪♪
	the
	defending the American dream You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	Well, Johnny Freedom writes, the green agenda is going to destroy the environment.
	Absolutely true. My son said, I like the strategy to leave the dead trees to start fires.
	Well, the first times I saw that, even before the massive devastation that happened near Austin close to where we lived, they had a state park there that had a lot of pine trees that had been planted as part of FDR's make-work projects back in the Depression.
	And they had grown to really nice forest.
	And just before we moved there, they had a fire, and because they did not get rid of the dead trees and just left them there as fuel, it burned almost 100% of the forest It truly was amazing, the devastation.
	And then spread on to private lands, killing cattle, destroying homes, that type of thing.
	But prior to that, as we saw the pictures there of Yellowstone, a trip that we took out to Yellowstone with a family back in I think it was 2002.
	They'd had a big fire that even had threatened the Yellowstone Lodge.
	I don't know if that's the name of it, but it's this lodge and one of the first things that they built in Yellowstone.
	Massive timbers and this log lodge that was there.
	And it nearly took that out.
	They were able to save it and get the fire away from it.
	But we're driving along and it was nice, cool weather.
	And we rolled the windows down, and we're just smelling the pines, and then all of a sudden, boom!
	You hit this line right as we got onto government land, and it was just devastated with a forest fire.
	Prior to that, it was the private land, where people had been taking care of it.
	And then it got into that.
	Saw it over and over again.
	Went to Oregon on a reporting trip with Travis and we talked to a logger Who had had his private land destroyed by the negligence of the federal government?
	And this is something that I was told about by my uncle who was a forestry He said the forestry department University, Missouri and Columbia And he was telling me about this in the 70s and what was gonna happen with to it So we've seen that all along.
	Jason Barker says the issue with lithium-ion batteries is that they can produce very high current so that when they short out, they go into thermal runaway.
	No putting them out.
	Well, you know, it's just this unproven technology.
	And in a marketplace, unless this is being coerced and forced down our throats, as it is being done, it's a technology that would not be used.
	You know, people will be taking a look at some other technologies.
	Every technology has got issues with it that need to be solved.
	But we're only allowed to go one direction.
	You notice that, right? They don't want to do anything with hydrogen electric cars, for example.
	Which have no emissions either.
	They put out a little bit of water vapor.
	But they don't want to build an infrastructure with it.
	And they discourage, in many different ways, people doing anything with it.
	They don't subsidize it, push it like they do the EVs.
	And I think the reason for that is because they want everybody on the grid.
	That's why they're focusing on this EV technology that people are not that happy with.
	They want to keep you on the grid.
	But as we're talking about the neglect...
	And the devastation that is done by their policies where they don't care about the environment.
	Even though they call themselves environmentalists, it's really more of a religion for them.
	And it's not about stewardship.
	That was another thing that my uncle always talked about.
	He said, yeah, we always talk about stewardship and conservation, taking care of the land.
	These radical environmentalists, it's like this religious thing with them.
	Don't touch it. It's sacred, right?
	And, you know, we are put here, you know, God has put together an amazingly complex world, and, you know, night after night it pours out speech, but it doesn't say anything.
	You can see creation.
	You can see that it's designed.
	You can see how complex and complementary all these different systems are that God has put together.
	And you don't need to be told that.
	It speaks for itself.
	It speaks silently.
	And these people worship it as if it somehow came together by chance.
	And so it's very special.
	Don't touch it at all.
	That's the New Age superstition.
	It really is. You know, the sacred earth Gaia that you must bow down to.
	Be careful, you know, don't leave a footprint there.
	It's not about, this is a very different approach than what we get out of the Bible.
	That God has created this.
	He's built it. He sustains it.
	But we are here to work it, to till it, to make it sustainable, and to maintain it.
	You know, we're kind of the maintenance crew for what God has created.
	They don't look at it like that at all.
	Soaker Joe 2 says, there is no such thing as self-sufficient.
	If you don't pay your taxes, it'll seize your property.
	If you don't submit to the new money system, you won't be able to pay your taxes.
	Well, again, I think that if we were to do something locally, I think it really would make a difference.
	But it has to be a lot of people who are awakening to this, or you have to keep a low profile.
	One guy that I knew back in North Carolina said, well, if it all hits the fan, I know how to survive on my own.
	I can go out without any fingerprint.
	And he says, they'll never find me.
	So, I mean, that's one way to look at it in terms of being self-sufficient.
	You'd have to have absolutely nothing, I guess.
	Don't frag me, bro. We'll all have to make a choice as to what hill we're willing to die on, especially when they collapse the system and force biochip implants.
	That's right. There will be a point, and we've reached that point in the Netherlands, in New Zealand, other places like that.
	The farmers said, okay, that's enough.
	That's enough. You see it with the farmers.
	You see it with the truckers.
	You're going to see it with people who actually are the ones that we really rely on, that do the real work, that do the heavy lifting, that do the real stuff.
	Everybody else is, you know, on top of that and maybe being paid more than those people who are doing the vital stuff.
	But they are the foundational thing, and they can bring it all to a halt.
	They really can. Atomic Dog.
	I know Dave's an engineer. He understands the amazing amount of potential a luthium battery has.
	I've seen these batteries short and act like a solid rocket propellant.
	Wow. Impressive, but dangerous.
	Yeah, it is true. It is amazing.
	You know, when you look at the power and electricity, I remember working on my car in the footwell.
	I was doing, I think it was stereo stuff or something like that.
	I was in high school. And...
	Uh, I had not disconnected the battery when I was working and I shorted something out there and it's a big flash in my eyes and just vaporized some metal there.
	And I'm thinking, wait a minute.
	That was only... I was in high school.
	I was like, that was like 12 volts and I can put my fingers on it.
	But when you get something that's zero resistance, the battery has a lot of power involved in it.
	So yeah, the lithium batteries, I've never played around with those things.
	But I imagine it is really something to behold.
	Is China hiding how much gold it really has?
	There's an article from Michael Mahari.
	And Tony's not going to be joining us today, but I do want to talk about that.
	It's an excellent article on RT. It's not written by somebody for them, but it really goes into what's going on with the petrodollar and the reserve status of the U.S. But is China hiding how much gold it really has?
	The fact that the People's Bank of China, their central bank, We're good to go.
	Officially, their central bank added more than 300 tons of gold to its reserves during the buying spree.
	Many analysts have long thought that China has far more gold than it officially reports.
	Jim Rickards pointed out, On Mises Daily back in 2015 that many analysts believe that China keeps several thousand tons of gold off the books in a separate entity called the State Administration of Foreign Exchange.
	They call it, that spells safe.
	Chen Long is the founder and lead economist for a company called Plenum.
	He starts by pointing out that Chinese central bank gold purchases are a drop in the bucket compared to the country's gold imports.
	The country imported over 1,400 tons of gold in 2023.
	This despite the fact that China ranks as the world's largest gold producer.
	Chinese mines dug up 375 tons of gold in 2023.
	That they admit. Yeah, and that's one of the things that Tony and I talked about many times, the fact that gold, how much gold they have in all the different countries, they guard that as a secret more so than they do the number and location of their nuclear weapons.
	Why is that? And, of course, the amount of gold that they are adding to secretly, that they mine, they're not going to talk about that either.
	In other words, there's a lot of gold flowing into China, and the country exports very little of it.
	Only a handful of commercial banks hold licenses to import gold due to the central bank's tight regulation of the market.
	So, that allows them to kind of get...
	You know, ballpark guess as to what is going on with the central bank.
	When you dig into the numbers, total official gold holdings by the central bank retail buyers and the big commercial banks only rose by 431 tons last year.
	Total gold imports and production came in at 1,775 tons.
	So that's a gap of more than 1,300 tons.
	Over the last two years, there have been about 2,700 tons of gold unaccounted for.
	So where did that go?
	Long-sided is common to see gaps between these figures, but they're usually within a few hundred tons at most.
	Such a huge gap like this is rare.
	So where is it?
	How do we account for the missing gold?
	Well, he said there's three possibilities.
	Number one, the central bank in China could have bought more gold than it reported.
	They've massively increased their gold position if they have.
	It may want to withhold a full disclosure in order to avoid shocking the market.
	Second possibility is China's sovereign wealth fund holds some of that missing gold.
	And a third possibility is that other numbers have been fudged.
	In other words, some. Like most governments, they don't tell you the truth or the whole truth.
	Chinese commercial banks may have overstayed the reduction in their gold holdings, while household gold purchases were understated.
	So, we don't really know what is happening with that, but we do know, as we look at the United States, we've gone from Fort Knox that had a lot of gold, and we're backing the U.S. dollar to...
	The petrodollar, as people realized that that was fraudulent, they were lying to people about that.
	You know, it's interesting, all the talk about what happened to the petrodollar.
	The Atlantic did a retraction.
	It was widely reported over the last couple of weeks, oh yeah, this petrodollar agreement disappeared.
	Well, as this RT article points out, that agreement was a piece of fiction.
	The spurious reports appear to originate in India or in some crypto investment websites.
	There was an official agreement between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia that was signed in June of 1974 and another secret one that was reached later that year, according to which the Saudis were promised military aid in exchange for recycling their oil proceeds into U.S. Treasuries.
	The deal whereby Riyadh would sell its oil in dollars was informal and there was no expiration date.
	That's what I was saying from the beginning. It's like, well, I know, okay, there's this agreement that we give them weapons and we give them protection and they do all the trading in U.S. dollars to help us to be the reserve global currency.
	But I've never seen the agreement, and nobody had any specifics about it.
	It turns out that there wasn't literally an agreement.
	It really grew up kind of de facto and organic, as a lot of it was.
	But it was based on this defense agreement.
	This fiction, however, points to an underlying truth that the petrodollar has entered a long twilight from which there will be no return.
	No other economic arrangement has done more to ensure American preeminence over the last half century And so it is being very heavily targeted and attacked by Russia by China by everybody who is an enemy of What Karl Rove says is an American Empire so all the people who want to take down the Empire. They're all focused on this
	It's going to have massive economic consequences for all of us if we don't have at least a foot or something outside of the system.
	It's ultimately America's inability and unwillingness to maintain this backing that is gradually dooming the system.
	In exchange for agreeing to sell their oil and dollars, Saudi Arabia became a protectorate of the U.S. military.
	Many people have seen this deal as a kind of godfather thing, making you an offer that you can't refuse.
	As we talked about before, Kissinger, Schlesinger, who was the defense secretary, they openly talked about what they might do to take over the oil fields.
	In case OPEC tried to strangle the West.
	And as this RT article says, it apparently has worked out well for the Saudis because unlike a lot of Arabic oil-producing nations, there hasn't been a civil war there.
	There hasn't been a color revolution that the U.S. does with their regime change operations.
	But now at this point, When you look at what the American government has done and what they're doing right now in terms of interest rates, they compare it to Paul Volcker.
	Very, very high interest rates and drove the U.S. into a deep recession and made everybody's lives a lot more...
	Difficult, and they said it showed at that point in time he really strengthened it when we got into the late 70s because he showed that he was willing to put the strength of the dollar over and above the U.S. economy.
	And I think that's something that we're starting to see now.
	It made clear that international considerations, specifically the defense of the dollar, were influencing American economic policy to a degree that was unparalleled in the post-war period.
	That's what the New York Times said about Volcker's policies.
	And so, in other words, they prioritized their dollar for...
	Over our economy.
	And I think that is the type of thing that we've been seeing the opposite of.
	Well, we've seen parts of that.
	But it's always, as Tony has said, it is about them preserving their fiat currency to the extent they can because that is their power.
	And so when it comes to politics or anything else, they're not necessarily going to drop the interest rates to help Biden.
	They're going to try to preserve their power.
	The perception was created at that time that the U.S. was willing to subject its own economy to pain, as Volcker put the U.S. through two punishing recessions, in order to preserve the value of the U.S. dollar for all global players.
	But then everything changed in the 2000s period.
	2003 to 2008, when everything kind of blew up in 2008, at that point in time, oil moved to the top of its 30-year range.
	Over the next couple of years, oil prices would rise steadily before peaking at $145 per barrel in July of 2008.
	Another way to think about this is that a drop in the value of the dollar against oil, an ominous development for those who are holding dollars and buying oil.
	And who is it that is the biggest importer of oil?
	China. So because this was a power, a big power of the United States, gave them their key part of their power, and because they were a big buyer of oil, China has been motivated to get rid of this in any way possible.
	And yet, it was Biden who really did it for them.
	Since 2008, they've been looking for a way to weaken and to get rid of the dominance of the U.S. dollar.
	And they wanted to be able to just print up, print currency like we do in order to buy oil.
	And as they put it in this article, finally, under Biden, the U.S. obliged and did it for them.
	In March of 2009, the head of the People's Bank of China issued a boldly titled white paper called Reform the International Monetary System, and it called for a neutral reserve asset to replace the dollar-centric system.
	China, the world's largest importer of oil, had made it clear that its desire was to be able to purchase oil using its own currency, It also has cut back on buying U.S. Treasuries and been acquiring gold at a blistering pace, both clear votes of no confidence in the dollar.
	But it's really just been within the last couple of years that Saudi Arabia has openly gone along with this, and other nations are going along with it.
	And you want to talk about a domino theory?
	This is the domino theory, the one that they don't want to talk about.
	So if you want to try to get something that is outside of this system that is under collapse, and it's being attacked from the inside as well as from the outside, Because again, I think when they talk about America first, I think many of these people will say, we've got to take America down first.
	It's not Americans first, it's America first.
	We are the first target.
	If you want to have something that's going to be outside of this, Make sure that you've got some gold or silver.
	You know, they just had a dip in the price of Bitcoin.
	I thought it was interesting because they said, and I forget the exact amount, it was maybe $240 million worth of Bitcoin that they had taken out of Silk Road at one point in time.
	And so this massive dump of Bitcoin.
	And they traced it back to a U.S. government wallet.
	And so I thought, there's a couple of interesting things about that.
	You know, they manipulate every market.
	They're capable of manipulating the crypto markets with things like that.
	And other people are as well.
	Of course, they manipulate the gold market, the silver market.
	They manipulate the stock market.
	They manipulate the dollar.
	Everything out there that is financial, they're manipulating.
	But there are certain things that I think if you keep them private, the other thing was the privacy aspect of it.
	I've said before that I thought it was very surprising when some billionaire was notified by some guy and said, why didn't you sell $900,000 worth of Bitcoin?
	He said, I didn't sell $900,000 worth of Bitcoin.
	He said, well, yeah, you did.
	I could tell this is attached to your wallet.
	This is your wallet. So he checked, and yeah, somebody had taken nearly a million dollars out of his wallet.
	He didn't even know it. He's a billionaire.
	So, first of all, anything that's electronic can easily be hacked.
	You are at risk to thieves from all over the world, not just the ones in your neighborhood.
	And there is no anonymity.
	Just like with this recent, everybody's saying, what happened?
	Why'd the price of Bitcoin go down?
	Well, $240 million or whatever dumped into the market, sold into the market.
	And they go back and they trace it and they find that it's the U.S. government because there's nothing anonymous about any of that.
	I mean, there are some cryptocurrencies that are out there.
	Bitcoin, Monero, they are at least for the time being, before they get to quantum computing, they are anonymous.
	I don't know what happens at that point in time.
	But there's no anonymity to it.
	Cash, gold, silver, things like that, there's anonymity and that is very important.
	So if you want to get into that, DavidKnight.gold will take you to Tony Aardman and he has Wise Wolf Gold.
	By the way, Tony will be doing his program today, immediately following this one.
	So make sure you tune into that on Twitter and elsewhere.
	And you'll find out what Tony is following at the moment.
	I don't know if he's anticipating this stupid debate tonight.
	I doubt it. I'm sure that he's on to something that's far more real.
	But if you want to go to Wise Wolf, we can help you with a group buying program where you can gradually accumulate on a monthly basis.
	You decide how much you want to put into it.
	He's got different levels that are there.
	And so you can gradually start to accumulate gold or silver and or silver.
	You can buy either of those in large or small quantities.
	Again, Tony Ardobin, you can find him with davidnight.gold.
	I'll let him know that you're coming through us.
	Some of the comments here.
	George Madonna, thank you very much.
	That is very kind and generous.
	I appreciate that. He says, hi, David and family.
	Making up for lost time.
	My apologies. God bless you guys.
	Thank you very much. That is a blessing, George.
	Thank you. I appreciate that.
	OctoSpook. I put an...
	1-8-6-5-0 lithium in my pocket.
	Shorted with keys.
	Burnt me badly, but cured my ignorance of lithium batteries.
	As dangerous as carrying a car battery in your pocket.
	Yeah, I bet. DGA. David, notice all over the world, people notice tyrannical government and don't support it.
	But in the USA, they beg for more government under a different ruler.
	Yeah. Yeah.
	Or even under the same ruler.
	Yeah. That's what we would be praying.
	That seems like what we're doing now, isn't it?
	As my son says, because it's good service.
	That's absolutely right.
	We're going to take a quick break and we'll be right back.
	So, let's go.
	Making sense.
	It's Common again.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	Well welcome back.
	I also want to thank people who have put in checks over the past two weeks.
	Now, these we did include in the gas gauge, but I just wanted to give people a shout-out.
	George and Shawna T., John and Beth J., David and Deborah W., Stephanie K., John R., David and Ann Marie N., Brian and Hannah V., William G., Jeremy W., Scott C., Margaret Mary T., Peter G., Scott and Samantha T., Kelly and Phillip M., Jackie and Fred U., and Walter Y. Thank you very much.
	I appreciate that. And we do want to read out the checks when we get them from people because I know a lot of people, you know, they'll see the checks canceled, but a lot of people, because they don't get any immediate feedback from that because it's going through the mail.
	So thank you very much. I appreciate that.
	Let's talk a little bit about the idols of this world as we're heading into this personality debate tonight.
	The modern idols of the world, transgenderism, for example.
	This is an op-ed piece from the center.
	They pointed out one of the things that was really abominable on the side of God when you look at Israel in the Old Testament was the sacrifice of children to false gods.
	And isn't that where we are today?
	We sacrifice the lives of our kids with abortion.
	If they survive, we sterilize them, mutilate them.
	And the contemporary form of idolatry rejects the natural order created by God.
	Instead, exalts self-definition and personal desire above everything else.
	And so it is really foundational to our human identity when we look at how we move forward from this.
	He says, what about the call to love and acceptance?
	You know, that is the key thing.
	That is the strategy at which Christians lay down their faith and walk away from it, isn't it?
	Oh, we've got to be loving and acceptable of all this.
	True love of God does not affirm sin.
	It does not attend gay weddings or practice pronoun hospitality.
	Instead, it calls for repentance and faith, he says.
	In John 8, that was the woman caught in adultery.
	Jesus tells her to go and sin no more, and that is really the heart of the gospel.
	Grace and truth, without compromising either one of them.
	He says, we're your accusers.
	Well, neither do I condemn you.
	Go now and sin no more.
	So in God's love, he calls us to repentance, not to an affirmation of sin.
	And part of that is so that we can have a relationship with him.
	You know, when we are indulging in our sin, as Bob Dylan said in his song, he said, you're going to serve somebody.
	Yeah, you're going to serve somebody.
	It may be the devil, it may be the Lord, but you're going to have to serve somebody.
	So, that is the issue when we create these idols in our lives.
	This kind of pagan idolatry.
	And part of what we see from that It's this idea that sex is above everything else.
	That's one of the things that's so disturbing about these people that are being picked by Biden.
	When you look at them, their whole life is assumed by their sexual...
	Let's just say politely their activities, their perversions, or whatever.
	You look at people like Sam Britton.
	You look at this person that he's just put into another position.
	Somebody like the guy who calls himself Rachel Levine.
	You know, everything that they do...
	Is focused on that.
	As a matter of fact, Rachel Levine wants kids to be able to have this kind of transgender mutilation at any age, and that's not surprising, because what did he do?
	He was a child psychologist.
	What do you think that was about?
	Just like if you look at Sam Brinton, he was part of a group that mentored disturbed teens who were unsure of their sexuality.
	Well, you know, somebody like Brinton who dresses up in these weird outfits and bondage outfits and everything.
	I'm sure that he'd be able to help them get their heads straight, you think?
	No. No.
	These people are there as predators.
	And this is a kind of slavery that we enslave ourselves to.
	He said these people want sex.
	Their entire world revolves around sex.
	Quite literally, they worship sex.
	It is an idol to them.
	And that's why when we look at this, we say, I don't know this guy's necessarily serious enough that we would want him focusing on nuclear waste issues.
	That seems like that might be a little bit dangerous to have somebody like that in that position.
	Too preoccupied with their private sex life and making that public.
	But I think all this comes back to, you know, we've talked many times about Augustine and his just war theory.
	And I think he really laid it out comprehensively.
	But there was something else that he's even more famous for.
	And that was his idea that there's two cities.
	That there's the city of God, and that is what we need to be focused on.
	There's an interesting op-ed piece on World, and the title of it is Augustine and the Ballot Box.
	And he said, you know, there's a lot of parallels to where we are in this society today versus where Rome was with Augustine.
	In his lifetime, the Roman Empire was in decline and falling.
	He said in this op-ed piece, you know, when people look at Rome, it is the quintessential Western Empire.
	The situation confronting 5th century Roman Empire on the eve of its collapse holds a superficial similarity to contemporary America.
	Out of touch elites were governing Rome.
	institutions, a stark divide existed between the needs of rural and urban populations, and citizens faced economic uncertainty as the government manipulated the currency by experimenting with different coinage.
	Wow, checks all those boxes today, doesn't it?
	Rome even had its own immigration crisis, failing to assimilate the German Goths, who a generation earlier sought asylum in the empire when fleeing from the Huns.
	Other German tribes illegally crossed Rome's porous border, exasperating an already desperate problem.
	So on August 24th, 410...
	Germanic Goths, led by their king, Alaric, sacked the city of Rome.
	The first time foreign enemies had breached the city walls in 800 years.
	And news of the devastation shook the foundations of the empire.
	The empire's mood darkened over the following months as the government failed to contain the failure.
	But during this destruction, Augustine of Hippo wrote one of Christianity's greatest literary works, The City of God.
	And he argued that the city of God and the city of man are not the same thing.
	This writer says this is a timely reminder for Americans as our country finds itself in the midst of another election cycle.
	And he points out that he began this work Because there was, and you still see this train of thought, a lot of historians, they blame the fall of Rome.
	They said, ah, it got soft because it became Christian.
	This was about a hundred years after Constantine had...
	I've become a Christian, and after him, all of the Roman Empire would swear to Christianity.
	Of course, he set up the eastern capital in Constantinople, not Istanbul.
	That's what it became later.
	I always laugh because of that song.
	But anyway, he...
	So, a lot of people said, well, the thing that went wrong with Rome, and people will still say today, was it got soft because of Christianity.
	And so, for Augustine, he wanted to first attack that, but then he expanded it into looking at the city of God versus the city of man.
	As this writer says, for many, both left and right today, politics has become a religion.
	But it is a religion that is filled with fear and trembling because the whims of a voting populace, in which each half distrust the other, shapes the world's destiny rather than the designs of a good and sovereign God.
	I've said many times that when Hillary Clinton talks about the politics of meaning, I said the saddest thing about that is that she looks to politics for meaning in her life.
	For her, that's everything. That's the sum total of her life.
	It's what she's able to achieve in politics, and of course she wasn't able to achieve what she wanted.
	We don't live, those of us who look for the city of God, and those of us who are citizens of the city of God, don't define our lives that way.
	It's got to be a very frustrating thing.
	And I really do feel sorry for people like Trump and like Hillary and Biden.
	That's all that they've got.
	And when I play those clips I played earlier this week of Trump asked by people, will you ever ask God for forgiveness?
	And of course we know that he needs it.
	We all need forgiveness.
	He has nothing that he can do with his sin.
	And that is typical of most religions.
	Most religions don't have works that they need to do to make up for the mistakes or the rebellion that they've had in their life.
	But they can never know that they did enough.
	You know, you can talk to a Muslim and it doesn't matter what they do.
	Maybe even if they, maybe the only thing is if they can take out a bunch of infidels or whatever.
	I don't know. I don't study their theology.
	But it's all about works.
	And that's characteristic of man's religion.
	It's all about trying to justify yourself before God.
	That's what's different about Christianity.
	It's that Christ justified us.
	Christ did what we could not do.
	He did it completely.
	And it's a free gift.
	That's the amazing thing.
	It surprises me that people don't rely on that more.
	I guess there's a lot of cynicism, you know, when you offer somebody something for free.
	Ah, it can't be that good.
	Well, actually it is. Our impulse, though...
	It's to rely on a benevolent dictator who's going to give us what we want in this life.
	And whenever we do that, by saying that we're going to trust in Washington, trust in a president, all that does is make us more fearful, more insecure, and with good reason, because we're asking for a dictator.
	So, as he points out, he said, the situation in 5th century Rome...
	On the eve of its collapse, it has a superficial similarity to where we are today.
	He said, while Italy burned, Augustine served as a bishop in a small town of Hippo in the Roman province of Africa, modern-day Algeria.
	Though Hippo lay across the Mediterranean, hundreds of miles from Rome, those living there saw firsthand the effects of the empire's collapse as they had refugees flooding into North Africa.
	Fifth century Christians often viewed Rome as a Christian empire, and many American Christians fall into this same trap, talking about the United States as if it is analogous to the city of God rather than just another manifestation of the city of man.
	He talks about here, Senator Ted Cruz will talk about that all the time.
	Of course, it was Reagan who famously talked about the city on the hill.
	Now Ted Cruz talks about it 40 years later, 45 years later.
	But prior to that, Reagan wasn't the one to come up with that analogy.
	Other people had come up with that, going back to the founding of this country.
	But he said, Christians began to expect more from politics.
	Then it can ever deliver when we start to look at it that way.
	He said, Augustine worked on the City of God for over 15 years, explored the interplay between the City of God and the City of Man in a book that would run up to 1,000 pages.
	The initial goal was to answer the criticism of pagans who blamed the Roman Empire's precarious situation on its embrace of Christianity.
	The Sack of Rome took place about 100 years after Constantine began favoring Christianity.
	And so a lot of them were saying this is the fault of the Christian nationalists.
	It's something that we see again today.
	In Augustine's day, many Christians had adopted Eusebius' idea that the Roman Empire was the manifestation of Jesus' coming kingdom.
	You know, we see that all the time in our politics.
	It's amazing how many people do that about Israel, how many people do that about America.
	They don't see the difference between the city of God and the city of man.
	And once they make that leap, they'll embrace all kinds of actions because, hey, I'm doing it to serve God, whatever it is that I'm doing.
	Torinator, thank you very much for the tip.
	Soylent Goy says, if you want to make a society to crumble, make nudity and promiscuity the norm.
	It will take time, but it will crumble into dust.
	Yeah, it has with the LGBT pride parades.
	Last year I talked about somebody was disgusted that Karen saw something somewhere where there was literally men parading down the street stark naked.
	Somebody last year called up the police and said, I want to report a man who's naked on the street.
	He says, oh, where is he? Oh, she said, such and such.
	Oh, that's just the pride parade.
	Don't worry about that. How does that get a pass?
	Well, they put a pass on pretty much everything.
	They put a pass on mutilating kids.
	They put a pass on saying the kids don't, um, you can't stop them from doing this.
	Even though we have all kinds of activities and always have had all kinds of activities that children are not mature enough to decide they want to participate in.
	But, hey, when it comes to the LGBT agenda, oh, well, uh, we throw that all away.
	Um, Don't frag me, bro, responded.
	Soylent Goi said, throw in some materialism, some drugs, and some visual programming, and the process accelerates.
	You'll own nothing and be happy.
	Of course, we will steal your property, kidnap your children, we'll feed you drugs that make you think you're happy.
	Soylent Goi said, I don't think this radical individualism nonsense helps either.
	We excel through family and community, not individualism.
	And, you know, we just have to keep things in balance, I think.
	You know, there is something to be said for the individual.
	We have to learn how to rule ourselves as individuals.
	We also need to understand how to function in community and how to function in family.
	But we've got to do all three of those.
	It's just that our unbalanced society has put everything into government.
	Everything is about government. And it's really sad to see that people, conservatives, are just as dependent on getting meaning and getting what they want out of life.
	They're just as dependent on government as all the socialists and communists that I've watched all of my life.
	And it's a sad thing to see.
	It goes on to say...
	Let's see. Be careful because the individual is very important.
	The only justice system might recognize the rights and sovereignty of the individual if you ignore the individual.
	Then you are embracing collectivism, and that is just a euphemism for totalitarianism.
	I agree. One comment here says about the debate tonight, they will dress it up, though they'll make it look like these two senile puppets are capable of being Walmart greeters.
	Yeah, that's right.
	Trump was talking about how...
	Franklin Graham had contacted him and said, hey, I want you to think about cleaning up your language a little bit.
	And then he goes on and on about, oh, no, it's really important that I be able to emphasize, you know, for the point of emphasis.
	Well, whatever. Franklin Graham was saying there's kids watching it and that type of thing.
	That's why we try to keep it clean with our guests here.
	But I remember, and I've told this story before, about how we went to see Penn and Teller when we were on a vacation.
	They were performing. And...
	I enjoyed the show and the humor and what they were doing until they decided that they would stop in the middle of the show and lecture everybody about how much they hated God.
	And Penn was saying, he said, when people use the F word, he said, it's just because they don't have any vocabulary.
	And they sound really stupid.
	He said, every other word is an F word.
	If you look at some people in some of the movies, and of course, Robert De Niro is one of the best examples of that, or worst examples, I guess.
	And he said, so I don't do that.
	He said, I want to have a better vocabulary.
	And it's ridiculous.
	He said that a lot of people who are writers don't have a better vocabulary than that.
	They use it as every form of...
	They use it as an adverb, a verb, an adjective, and all this other kind of stuff.
	And he said, no, I don't do that.
	Instead, he said, I want to deliberately blaspheme God.
	So I use Jesus Christ's name in vain.
	And so he starts going on with that.
	And we were in the middle of this.
	It was like a big circular table.
	And we were in the smack dab middle of it.
	And we made about 10 people Get up out of the table to let us get out of there, because it's like, I'm not staying here while he's doing that.
	That's the one that really bothers me.
	I don't really care that much about the F word.
	Try not to use it because it's coarse, but try not to use it because we have kids who listen to the program.
	It'll be an interesting night to see what Trump does, if he's going to get really frustrated.
	Turning his microphone off, I don't know if that's going to do anything for him or not.
	He's got a pretty loud voice.
	He may scream over that.
	He may curse over that.
	Who knows what he's going to do?
	If he thinks that that is a very effective rhetorical principle, I think, as Finn was saying, it reflects a lack of vocabulary.
	We certainly... Certainly you see that in Donald Trump.
	He doesn't have, he thought it was a real big deal, and he thought it was intellectual showboating or pedagogy for somebody to say existential.
	Oh, that sounds really important, doesn't it?
	Is that a big word for you, Donald?
	That's not something that you typically talk about, an existential threat?
	With all of this stuff around there, we're always hearing about existential threats, about COVID, about every MacGuffin, the climate especially.
	It's all existential threats about everything, and yet it seemed to be a new word for him.
	New word for the week. But as we move forward, we want to make sure that we don't put our trust in what is happening in this world.
	Going back to this op-ed piece, he said, some contemporary conservative politicians, like Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri, claim that America is a Christian nation because the founders said so.
	But do the founders or contemporary politicians get to decide, or does God?
	Some also claim the country must turn back to God if it is to achieve its former glory.
	Even some pastors succumb to this politicized rhetoric that portrays the goal of Christian religion as restoring and supporting a proper social order.
	Well I think that it is clear that it is clear principle throughout the Bible that God deals with us as individuals.
	and He also deals with nations as well.
	You know, nations don't really have any way that they can, they typically wind up raging against God and His anointed, don't they?
	But God does bless nations that follow Him.
	He does, many times, offer them a chance to repent, as He did with Nineveh in sending Jonah to Nineveh.
	And He held His hand of judgment until they returned to their ways.
	And then He eventually did judge Nineveh.
	But, you know, when we look at this, it is...
	The good news about this, I think, besides the best news about the grace of God and the forgiveness through Christ, is the fact that this is not something that is dependent on us having to do it collectively.
	We're just having that discussion back and forth about individualism.
	Your relationship with God is individual.
	You know, everybody in your family could have a relationship with God, but it's still up to you, right?
	That's not going to get you a relationship with God. You have to establish that as an individual.
	And that's why we look at this collective issue. God has blessed America, I think, because Americans were looking to God.
	That is a clear principle throughout the Bible, that God does do that type of thing.
	But it is not the sort of thing where we want to put that kind of...
	We don't put our hope in the collective reform of America.
	Yes, it would be good if America were following that, because there will be consequences if it doesn't.
	But we can still, whatever happens with Trump, whatever happens with this election and Biden and all the rest of this stuff, it really does come back to us as individuals.
	Just like I said before, all politics is local.
	Well, your religion and your relationship with God is as local as it gets.
	It ultimately is between you and God, and they can't take that away from you no matter what happens.
	Things can get very difficult under the circumstances, but our hope and our great expectation is that we can have that relationship with God no matter what happens.
	With Trump, no matter what happens with Biden, no matter what happens with this election, our life does not depend on it.
	And even if our life depended on it, our life is but a tiny little blip in eternity.
	And so the key thing is you have to look at your relationship as a citizen of the city of God.
	And that's what I think he's trying to say.
	He's trying to say that the city of man offers no hope.
	And that's especially true when the City of Man is the District of Columbia.
	There's not going to be any hope at all in the District of Columbia.
	It has turned its back on the principles and the law that is there, as well as on God.
	And there are consequences for us as individuals, blessing and curses.
	There's not some neutral area there, right?
	Everything is always a blessing or a curse.
	That's true of us individually.
	It's true of us as a nation as well, I think.
	But, yeah, the good news is that the city of God is something that is far more important and outside of the city of man.
	Have a good night if you want to watch the debate.
	We'll talk about it tomorrow and do a post-mortem.
	you.
	They created common core to dumb down our children.
	They created common past to track and control us.
	Their commons project to make sure the commoners own nothing.
	And the communist future.
	They see the common man as simple, unsophisticated, ordinary.
	But each of us has worth and dignity created in the image of God.
	That is what we have in common.
	That is what they want to take away.
	Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation.
	They desire to know everything about us while they hide everything from us.
	It's time to turn that around and expose what they want to hide.
	Please share the information and links you'll find at TheDavidKnightShow.com Thank you for listening.
	Thank you for sharing. If you can't support us financially, please keep us in your prayers.

▲