Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 24, 2024 - The David Knight Show

03:01:41

The David Knight Show - 07/24/2024

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 Wednesday the 24th of July.
	Year of Our Lord 2024.
	Well, today we're going to take a look at what the mainstream media is not really looking at.
	Everybody is so focused on Lala Harris.
	You know, she may not even be the final nominee.
	All of this stuff is just shifting sands.
	So we're going to take a different tack today.
	And we're going to take a look at the beginning.
	We'll look quickly at what just happened with the Secret Service director.
	But then we're going to take a look at viruses.
	As people were looking at the COVID virus, asking for proof, they started to realize, wait a minute, maybe there's not any proof for viruses.
	So we'll give you the case against viruses existing.
	I think it is a pretty interesting case.
	And we'll also take a look at the escalating push by the technocracy to put us all on universal welfare so that we're dependent on what they give us.
	We'll be right back. Well, you know, it was amazing, the hearings on Monday, when the Secret Service Director, former Secret Service Director, went to Congress.
	It was, people were just ripping her apart, swearing at her, and the rest of the stuff.
	Of course, a lot of that was for effect, right?
	It's the type of thing, Nancy Mace doing that, it's like...
	Megyn Kelly doing it, I even had a listener who had written me before that happened, talking about how coarse the language has become, because they have to do it for effect.
	So this is for us, deliberate.
	It's a deliberate effect. But apart from that, the bigger issues were the fact that she was stonewalling everybody, and the outcome of that was that there was a bipartisan call.
	For her to resign, which she did yesterday during the show.
	So I've not played a lot of these things.
	It's not really necessary.
	We all know what the issues are there.
	I just want to say when it comes to the assassination, it's not necessary for us to really know what happened.
	And we never will, quite frankly.
	Take a look at 9-11. I don't think we'll ever know what happened with 9-11, definitively what brought the buildings down.
	We do know what did not happen, and we do know how it was used, and that's what we need to focus on.
	So two things you need to know.
	Number one, we were lied to, so that number two, they could create Homeland Security.
	They could create the Patriot Act.
	They could create the Germ Games and the Model State Health Emergency Powers Act.
	To pull off what they did in 2020 after they'd practiced it for two decades.
	That's what you need to know.
	You don't need to know if it was bombs planted or if they had, you know, remote-controlled planes or if there was a directed energy weapon.
	You don't need to know any of that stuff.
	What you need to know is that they lied to you, that people like Rudy Giuliani destroyed the evidence to prevent an investigation and things like that.
	If you knew that about 9-11, Rudy, you might not have fallen into that trap for January the 6th and stopped to steal stuff.
	But, yeah, what you need to know is that they lied.
	And you need to know just enough of it, common sense, and we already do.
	I mean, when you look at the wealth of questions that were brought up, you know, why did nobody cover that roof?
	And then the lies that she came up with, the ridiculous lies, well, it's too sloped.
	No, no, it wasn't.
	And so, good news for her.
	She's already got another job with a law firm.
	Dewey, Cheadle, and Howe.
	Senator Ron Johnson.
	This was in the house where she faced the grilling.
	And Senator Johnson is talking about just a couple of issues.
	He said, you know, the Secret Service didn't even attend a security briefing for the local SWAT and sniper teams.
	Isn't that interesting that we now have, in a small town like that, Butler, Pennsylvania, we have SWAT and sniper teams.
	Are we militarized here yet?
	That's the other thing about it, right?
	As I said at one point in time, why is it that we have to have an army of people to guard the presidency or the presidential candidates?
	For the same reason that we've got so much money in Washington.
	It is an abomination what is being done.
	I don't know. Drudge is all about Lala Harris, right?
	He puts this up.
	Harris roasts Trump and the crowd goes wild.
	Well, it was her own campaign staff.
	She raised over $200 million.
	I don't know, $230 million, $280 million.
	I'm trying to remember what I looked at.
	People had stopped donating, so then they just fled into that.
	So we'll see what happens.
	It is so incredibly early.
	As a matter of fact, if you go back and look at where the headlines were three months ago, they were telling you that Biden was unstoppable.
	Three and a half months ago, right?
	Same people. Now they're telling you that Lala Harris is unstoppable.
	The point of all of this election stuff is to prepare you for a civil war.
	They want you fighting mad if your candidate didn't win, believing that it was stolen.
	And by the way, whoever wins, it will be stolen.
	These elections are at the top level.
	Here's a prediction. The election will be stolen.
	Let's just make sure we don't have a civil war over it.
	Come on, folks, they do it every time.
	It's just going back to JFK, Chicago, and the voting machines and stuff.
	They got ways to do it.
	It's a lot more sophisticated, and it's a lot easier now to steal the elections, especially when Trump put in the vote-by-mail stuff.
	But getting back to, you know, so what do you need to know about Lala Harris?
	First of all, all of these polls, and it's amazing to see these polls, Anywhere from, oh, look at this, she starts out 11 points below Trump to another poll that shows her two points ahead.
	I didn't put it in the thing here, but you know, the beginning of Guys and Dolls, the guy standing on the corner.
	I got the horse right here, his name is Paul Revere.
	And then the three of them, called Fugue for Ten Horns.
	In a fugue, they are singing about how each of them's got a favorite horse.
	And they're all different, right?
	No, no, no. My horse is the one that's going to win.
	You can get a pole to say anything you want.
	And they usually use the poles to push you in the direction that they want.
	It's called a push-pull. Very well-known tactic.
	So, it's way too soon to even tell if she's going to be the nominee.
	And so, again, three and a half months ago, Biden, he was a shoo-in, according to these people.
	There's no way Trump's going to win.
	He's got all these convictions, the newly found convictions.
	So that's a lot of smoke and mirrors to keep you distracted.
	And to a large extent, getting micro-focused on the details of this shooting.
	And I call it the shooting because, you know, it could be an assassination attempt.
	It could be a false line. Who knows?
	I don't care.
	I don't have an opinion on that.
	Just understand that the purpose of that is to get you more invested in this election.
	It could be a lone shooter and a DEI compromise and incompetent and sloppy secret service.
	That's a simple explanation.
	It could be Biden in a plot to have the Secret Service stand down.
	Multiple shooters. I really don't care about that stuff.
	Or it could be even Trump, you know, having somebody somewhere else shoot into the crowd while he pretends that his ear was hit.
	You know, who knows what it was?
	And you've got people putting all of these conspiracy theories out there.
	So pick one. But the bottom line is that this is happening, and it didn't happen To Jefferson.
	It didn't happen to Adams.
	They were able to walk down the street arguing with each other over policy because they disagreed, president and vice president, from different parties.
	They were able to walk down the street in disagreement and nobody came up and attacked them.
	Why? Because the federal government wasn't seeking to run everybody's lives.
	The federal government wasn't seeking to micromanage everything.
	As I said before, in the 90s, most of the people in Switzerland didn't know who the president was.
	They didn't care. It didn't have any impact on their lives.
	Oh, but we know every detail about these people, or at least think we do, right?
	We know all about their backgrounds and all the rest of the stuff, and we want them to do even more micromanagement.
	We want even more power in Washington.
	Well... Just briefly, as you look at it, the Secret Service didn't attend the security briefing for the SWAT and sniper teams that are local.
	Local law enforcement and communications were siloed.
	They were not in frequent radio contact directly with the Secret Service.
	Local law enforcement notified command about crooks prior to the shooting, received confirmation the Secret Service was aware of the notification.
	Number four, following the shooting, Secret Service was seen on the roof of the American Glass Research Building with local law enforcement.
	Photos of the shooter were sent to the BATF, which is, I think, interesting, for facial recognition.
	I don't know who got the DNA information.
	Was that the FBI? Talked about that yesterday.
	Collecting blood samples for everybody.
	They got a DNA base for everybody.
	Facial recognition.
	They've got such a comprehensive database of facial recognition at the BATF. Isn't that something that Senator Johnson should be interested in?
	Why? Why?
	And Secret Service was initially not going to send snipers to the rally, according to the local law enforcement people.
	He said there are so many unanswered questions, and of course the director refused to answer any questions, stonewalling everybody.
	And maybe that's because the first time she tried to answer a question, she came up with a blatant, ridiculous, absurd lie.
	And we didn't have anybody on it because it's too much of a slope.
	You know, that was ridiculous.
	As New American says, perhaps her job was apparently too steep a slope on which to stand safely.
	After she resigned, the GOP oversight chief, Comer of Kentucky, said that more heads might roll.
	What will they do in a criminal investigation?
	Criminal negligence?
	Cheadle only became director after she was a gal pal of First Lady Dr.
	Jill Biden. As the New York Post reported, she was well-liked by the future First Lady and her most senior aides, including top advisor Anthony Bernal.
	She had served on Jill's security detail, and Anthony Bernal pushed for her, the top advisor to Jill.
	I guess she runs the show.
	But, again, when you look at one of the questions that somebody asks.
	So, at the same time that Trump is at this rally, tens of thousands of people, and Joe Biden is addressing a couple hundred people, she's at a venue, I think it was maybe...
	At a casino or something?
	It was somewhere where they had security there already.
	So there's local security, and it's in a building.
	And she got two or three times the number of Secret Service agents that Trump did when we're talking about an outdoor event with 10,000, 20,000 people out there.
	Well, I guess that's because Jill is a friend of Cheadle, maybe.
	That's not the answer that she gave.
	She just said, well, I'll have to investigate that.
	I don't really know anything.
	So, I heard at the time that she was being considered for director that Anthony had pushed her forward as an option, said an anonymous source to the New York Post.
	The Washington Post explains Secret Service insiders oppose the appointment, quote, according to a half dozen written complaints that Secret Service agents sent to the Post around that time and in the two years since.
	The complaints have said that Cheadle had never worked a senior post on a presidential protection detail.
	Later in her tenure, she was excessively focused on hiring and promoting more women agents, as we've all talked about.
	She wanted 30 by 30.
	In that particular case, 30% of the agency be female by 2030, regardless of merit, right?
	That would mean passing over combat-hardened special operators from armed surfaces, such as Marine Raiders and Navy SEALs.
	In addition, six of the former agents, all of whom have served in presidential protection details, told the New York Post that they found Cheadle's public statements about security for Butler, Pennsylvania, campaign event embarrassing.
	They said they were particularly outraged by the comment she made after the shooting saying that police were responsible for securing the outer perimeter of the event in the AGR building and then to say what she did about the slope which was particularly stupid and particularly clear that it was a lie.
	So She had been adamant that she was not going to resign.
	As a matter of fact, Babylon Bee had a headline saying she reassures the nation that she is just incompetent and not trying to kill Trump.
	But Trump said, well, she never gave me proper protection.
	And I think it's interesting that in this environment where we are electing somebody who, as Joe Biden says, all these people think it's the job of the presidency to not just rule us, not just to rule all Americans and insert themselves into every minute detail of our lives, but it's also to rule the world.
	Like Joe Biden said, I'm running the world.
	Well, if you're running the world, and if you've got people buying favors from you for hundreds of millions of dollars a day, you know, she got over, Lala's pulled in over 200 and something million.
	Trump got a pledge just from one guy, Elon Musk, for 180 million.
	And that's just part of it.
	I wonder how many billions will be poured into Washington for all these corrupt politicians to buy favors from them.
	This is why we have such a corrupt government, because there's no restriction on what people can spend.
	You know, they'll send somebody like Dinesh D'Souza, who writes a check straight ahead, writes a check, $2,500.
	Oh no, you've got to do it through a political action committee.
	And if you do it through a political action committee, you can give whatever you want.
	You can give... Hundreds of millions of dollars.
	But if you give more than $2,500 directly to somebody without playing that game, oh, well, then you're going to go to jail.
	Like Dinesh D'Souza.
	See how corrupt this system is?
	And the metric for the corruption is how much money they are giving the politicians.
	So, when you look at the fact that she never gave me proper protection.
	Trump is a billionaire. Why didn't he pay for it himself?
	I mean, if you want it done right, you've got to do it yourself, right?
	Is he foolishly relying on the deep state?
	Yeah. Yeah.
	The deep state that's been trying to kick him out of office?
	A deep state that may be trying to kill him, and he's going to let them provide security for him?
	I think it was probably better for RFK Jr., To provide his own security than to...
	Now he's got it from Secret Service and he's...
	Does he trust them? These are the people who failed to protect his uncle and his father.
	And there's a lot more power and money involved today in Washington than there was then.
	Many requests were made by on-site Secret Service for more people.
	Always a turn down or a no response, said Trump.
	I have the biggest crowds in history.
	They should be treated accordingly.
	But even in his own life, he's not willing to do for himself what he can get the government to do for him.
	And neither are the conservatives who support him anymore, either.
	Now, one last thing I'll point out here, and I think it was interesting, not only from the standpoint, just like I think it's interesting that, you know, they didn't meet with the local sniper teams and stuff.
	The local sniper teams. Well, or the SWAT teams, the local soldiers.
	Want to talk about a standing army?
	That's what the SWAT teams are.
	You know, we didn't even have SWAT teams until the 90s.
	Really. Where Daryl Gates in L.A. started doing it.
	What did he do during the Rodney King riots with the SWAT teams and the armored cars that he had?
	Oh, they protected themselves in City Hall.
	They didn't do anything to protect the public.
	They didn't do anything to stop the rioting.
	And, again, you go back to the early 80s when Terry Gilliam did the film Brazil.
	That over-the-top raid that we show frequently?
	Yeah, that was really over-the-top?
	Not anymore. And so this is an interesting story because what it reveals to us about the surveillance that is happening in this country, just like I said before, send facial recognition stuff to the ATF. They've got a facial recognition database.
	You realize that? Well, here's mobile data.
	This is something that was discovered by the Heritage Foundation, you know, the people behind the Project 2025.
	They also have what they call an oversight project.
	And so, who visited Thomas Crook's home before he attempted to assassinate President Trump?
	And they were able, the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, was able to get a hold of mobile ad data and analyze it.
	And they were able to get the geospatial intelligence to show, okay, here's a person.
	These are people who are close to him, right?
	We're talking about how pervasive geospatial intelligence has become.
	These are people who were in the proximity of Thomas Crook.
	Where else did they go?
	And they were able to find an individual who, actually nine devices, Linked to ad IDs that were located at Crook's home and work within the last year.
	And out of those nine, they tracked devices that regularly visited his home and his place of work, and they followed them.
	And they were able to do this with publicly available data.
	I find that fascinating and disgusting at the same time.
	Someone who regularly visited Crook's home and work also visited a building in Washington, D.C., located in Gallery Place.
	This is in the same vicinity as an FBI office.
	So, the question is, is this person, is he being run by some FBI people?
	As we've seen these types of things done over and over again.
	We found a device linked to his work that traveled to Butler, Pennsylvania, on July 4th and July 8th.
	And this device stopped all activity on July 12th, the day before the shooting.
	For the protection of whistleblowers and for our investigation, the Heritage Foundation said, we will not be sharing further information with the Congressional Task Force due to the connective tissue between that entity and the FBI, the Secret Service and other entities, said the Oversight Project.
	Well, told how they found the data, anybody can go there and find it, of course.
	But isn't that strange?
	I think it's strange that they won't share any more information when they're told where they got it from.
	And I think it is strange that that kind of public information is available to people.
	Imagine what the government has in terms of being able to track people.
	And then we also see that there was an office, and you probably have seen the video as well.
	But it came out in some questioning in the congressional hearings, the House hearings.
	You've seen the pictures of the office that the people walked out of right before the shooter crawled onto the roof.
	Maybe that's a coincidence.
	Who knows? And it directly looked down upon, just a few feet away from that roof, directly looked down.
	So they weren't on the roof. They were up in a building behind that.
	They said they got reports that there was somebody walking around.
	And so the two guys that were in that room left.
	Left it unsupervised.
	And again, question after question.
	But the real question that we have is why is there so much power in Washington?
	Why is there so much of a militarized police state surveillance already?
	That's what you should be asking yourself.
	Well, we're going to take a quick break.
	And when we come back, we're going to take a look at viruses.
	Viruses. Did they ever isolate the SARS virus or the COVID-19 virus?
	Did they ever isolate any virus?
	We'll talk about that when we come back.
	Stay with us.
	I'm going to be a hero.
	Making sense.
	Common again. You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	Well, welcome back. And thank you, conservatives.
	Thank you for that, Arkhan Think.
	Thank you for the tip. I appreciate that.
	He's a commander of common sense, bringing you all the information you missed.
	The same one, David Knight.
	Thank you. I appreciate that.
	And by the way, while we're talking about that, the contributions, we have got part of the mystery solved with Cash App.
	According to them, and of course, we finally were able to get a hold of a real live person.
	And perhaps there was some hallucinating going on with the artificial intelligence help.
	I don't know what was happening with it.
	But first it told us that we had too many contributions, and we'd had 10 that month.
	The 11th one was blocked.
	So I thought that's really strange.
	I never had that kind of limitation before.
	So I started Google searching.
	I couldn't find any limitation on the number of transactions that you had.
	But I knew that they had just changed the way that they were, the processor that they had for it, and they had changed their fees.
	And I had to accept a contribution.
	I never had to do that before.
	I had to create a PIN number in order to accept the contribution.
	So I thought, well, I guess they've changed a bunch of stuff here.
	They came back and they said the person was trying to send the money that was on their side and it wasn't on our side.
	So it wasn't blocked because of that.
	So I had another, I had somebody who has sent me frequent contributions on Cash App sent me a dollar yesterday so we could confirm that it was, I didn't tell him that he just did it.
	It's like, oh, okay, that's working.
	So Cash App does seem to be working.
	It is still strange, though.
	What was going on with the banking requirements?
	When we finally got the person on the phone, he said, well, maybe you were a victim of a phishing attack.
	No, I wasn't. I know what a phishing attack is.
	I would never click on an email.
	Oh, this is, hi, this is so-and-so.
	Please give us your password.
	It wasn't that at all. It didn't come from an email, even.
	It came from within the app that they were asking for the password to my bank account.
	And I still think that's very strange.
	And I still haven't resolved that yet.
	So, anyway.
	But it appears to be working.
	I don't know. Let's talk about viruses and virology.
	You know, I mentioned this last week.
	There was an op-ed piece that somebody put in, and they were talking about abstractions that people have in order to, in science, in order to try to understand something that they can't really observe.
	Um, and they can't isolate.
	And he contrasted physicists with virologists.
	And he said, the physicists admit that they don't know.
	You know, they've got all these problems in terms of astrophysics, you know, creating concepts of dark matter and things like that.
	And then when you go to the subatomic level, quantum mechanics and replacing, um, Not only Newtonian physics, but also Einstein's physics.
	And so, you know, they're looking at it and say, wow, we really don't know.
	This is really surprising us.
	And if you think you understand quantum physics, you don't understand quantum physics.
	That type of thing, right?
	So, they make money and get grants by telling people they don't know what's going on.
	The virologists make money by telling people they absolutely know everything.
	They're totally certain.
	And as he pointed out, they haven't really done any real science or any new theories or anything since the late 1700s.
	Whereas physics is constantly changing.
	And of course, that's going to be the nature of it because they can't really...
	It's not like...
	You know, when you're looking at physical things that are large, like Newtonian physics...
	Where you're looking at the static levels on a bridge or something, where you're looking at the kinetics of collisions or stuff like that.
	I really enjoyed that stuff when I was in school.
	You had things like you're going to have a roller coaster and you're going to drop it and it's going to do a 180 degree loop.
	What height do you have to drop it?
	Assuming it's just going to be The momentum that it gets from a gravitational fall.
	What height do you have to drop it in order to make sure that you have sufficient centripetal force at the top of the curve, that nobody falls out of their seat without wearing a seatbelt?
	And you can do that kind of stuff with Newtonian physics.
	Very interesting. My favorite one was that you're in a Volkswagen parked at a stoplight, and we're going to assume a...
	Inelastic collision. In other words, there's not going to be any defamation.
	You're not going to be smashed.
	No energy is going to be absorbed in the impact.
	And you've got your foot on the brake and your coefficient of friction is this.
	And barreling down on you is a dump truck going this speed, weighing this amount of money.
	Calculate what instantaneous acceleration is on the people inside the Volkswagen.
	That type of thing. Assuming that there's not going to be any energy absorbed by collapse.
	All this kind of stuff. So that was a lot of fun, and you could do that kind of stuff, and that's the basis for people building real stuff.
	And again, even with that, there's certain assumptions, right?
	What is your coefficient of friction?
	How much energy is going to be absorbed in a real-life collision?
	You make some simplifying assumptions so that you can do it.
	Well, they do the same thing with virology.
	They make simplifying assumptions.
	And sometimes they're just completely made up.
	They have no basis for this.
	LiveSite News had an interesting article, a headline, in case you want to look at it.
	This goes back to last Wednesday, a week ago.
	Scientists challenge fundamental precepts of virology.
	Do viruses even exist?
	They said... June 20th, an interview with Tucker Carlson had a Scottish TV presenter, Neil Oliver, who said he was not persuaded that there was such a thing as COVID-19 virus circulating in the population between 2019 and 2020, or nevertheless today either, explaining that in his judgment, based on hospital bed and death statistics, there was no pandemic, but rather a pandemic of propaganda.
	A pandemic of lies.
	A pandemic of false PCR testing.
	That is exactly right.
	And if you listen to the show, you know that I've been saying this for four years.
	I said this when it was happening in the beginning of 2020.
	You know, we talked about Cary Mullis and all the rest of this stuff, and the fact that there was no science in any of this except for behavioral science.
	Yet he and others may be surprised to learn that many scientists have asserted proof that he is correct, that no virus even exists, SARS-CoV-2 even exists.
	Further, they argue with compelling confidence and detailed demonstrations, and with logic, that there actually is no proof that viruses exist at all, and that virology itself is a pseudoscience.
	In a 40-minute video titled, Official Evidence That Virology Is a Pseudoscience, Canadian researcher Christine Massey explains how she and others have issued freedom of information requests to hundreds of scientific institutions in 40 different countries.
	Quote, asking for any records of anyone in the world ever finding this alleged SARS-CoV-2 virus in bodily fluid or tissue or excrement of any people anywhere on Earth by anyone ever.
	And this is very key because, you know, they're going around looking for bird flu and milk and cows.
	They're looking for it in sewers and all the rest of the stuff.
	They're not done with this game.
	They're going to play this bluffing game again.
	And we all know that whether or not viruses exist or not, that this PCR thing is a lie.
	It is absolutely a lie.
	The guy who invented it said you can't use this.
	He said, mocking Fauci, he says, Fauci thinks that you can look into a microscope and see a virus.
	You can't see that, and you can't infer that there's, using a PCR test, you can't use that to infer that AIDS is caused by HIV. A virus.
	He and many other scientists at that point in time.
	And... Oh, okay.
	Conservative thinker left a tip and said, Sikh is pronounced sick, not Sikh.
	Okay. I just mispronounced it.
	Don't forget these people are Sikhs.
	I think he's making a joke there.
	I think it is Sikh.
	I'm not sure. I'm not sure.
	Anyway... Christine Massey and the FOIA requests 40 different countries, hundreds of requests.
	She said, to date, we have responses from 216 different institutions in 40 different countries.
	And so far, no one has been able to provide us with even one record.
	Further, they can't cite any record.
	So they've all admitted that they don't have a sample of the alleged virus.
	And they don't know of anyone else who ever did obtain a sample of this alleged virus.
	In order to sequence and characterize a particle and study it with controlled experiments, which is the foundation of the scientific method, she said.
	And if nobody has a sample of the alleged virus, then nobody can have conducted any science.
	See, this is the genius, the diabolical and evil genius of Fauci.
	The fact that he would abuse the PCR test, To make people think that science was actually being done.
	That they could actually observe and measure a virus.
	Or, you know, whether it is COVID or whether it is HIV. And they can't!
	You see, that's the fundamental lie.
	The PCR is the fundamental lie.
	Because the PCR is the lie that says that they are doing science.
	They're not doing science.
	They haven't isolated anything.
	And you can't use, as said Cary Mullis, he's dead now.
	He died just before, conveniently, about a month or two before this all kicked off.
	But he said you can't use it for that.
	So, what is the purpose of science?
	You have theories, and then you tell people how this works, and then they're supposed to be able to reproduce and observe this.
	And if they can't reproduce, you'll see this all the time.
	People say, well, we got fusion at room temperature.
	Oh, yeah? What did you do?
	Sorry, I can't reproduce it.
	I don't know what you're talking about.
	You know, I don't know what.
	Yeah, but you see this all the time.
	We constantly get news breaks talking about how somebody's come up with room temperature fusion.
	And then other people try to reproduce what they did and they can't do it.
	So that's science. If you have a group of experts, or even if you've got something that is peer reviewed, that doesn't make it science.
	You have to actually review the phenomenon.
	That they said that they saw.
	So who is Christine Massey?
	She's a former cancer biostatistician holding a Master's of Science degree, providing full documentation of her research, including a list of organizations she contacted, which includes World Health Organization, the CDC, the Research Council of Canada, the Public Health of England, and hundreds more.
	She said Mount Sinai Hospital in Canada replied, And she said, they told her, quote, we are not aware the isolation of a virus in the manner that you have described is possible for any virus.
	It is not within the scope of current scientific processes.
	And she says, well, this is not a limitation of technology.
	We have proteins and other smaller particles that are purified, and we can observe them.
	It isn't that the virus is so tiny that they can't do it.
	We have smaller particles than viruses.
	We have proteins and stuff. So why can't you isolate a virus?
	It isn't because it's small.
	As a matter of fact, they go on in this to talk about Electronic geometries.
	And, you know, it's been about 40 years since I worked for Texas Instruments.
	And I didn't work in the manufacturing facilities there, but I knew what they were working on and what the state of the art was at that point in time.
	And 40 years ago, they were trying to get down into the nanometer-sized particles.
	And actually, they've now gotten there as of a few years ago.
	And so they can not only observe stuff that is smaller than a virus, they can manufacture and manipulate stuff that is smaller than a virus.
	And then you have biological things, such as proteins, that they can isolate and observe.
	So, they said...
	Smaller particles are purified.
	She said these letters indicate that such purification and isolation never happens.
	Never happens in virology.
	So why is it that the people who are making circuits can work with stuff smaller than that, but they can't work with it, and they never bother to, and they never question it?
	She said because if they did purify particles, they would not be able to show that they actually fit the definition of a virus.
	Like other experts in the past several decades, Massey says that she and fellow researchers came to realize this anomaly was not limited to COVID-19, but to all virology.
	She thus surmised that this field of study is, quote, not scientific.
	They never have a valid independent variable.
	Instead, they go in the exact opposite direction.
	She said this is blatant pseudoscience.
	You see, the virus is just a concept.
	It's an intellectual placeholder, like dark matter or something.
	Okay, so we see some things out there, and they're not moving in the way that we think they ought to move, and so we can try to explain it by imagining that there's some matter that we can't see that is dark, and it's having some kind of gravitational effect on the stuff that's out there.
	But they don't know if there's any dark matter.
	It's just an idea. As a result, Christine Massey and her colleagues made similar Freedom of Information requests for other alleged viruses, she said.
	We asked for any record of any alleged virus that supposedly infects human beings being purified from a sick person.
	And they admitted they didn't have any whatsoever.
	Such inquiries included institutions such as the CDC specifically requesting the same information regarding any alleged virus that is supposedly covered by a so-called vaccine on their vaccination schedule, either for children or for adults.
	They were unable to provide any records.
	And she's not the only one doing this.
	Similar research is being done by Dr.
	Mark Bailey, a medical doctor in New Zealand.
	He wrote a 29,000-word thesis, Farewell to Virology.
	He's also been made into a three-part video series for explaining his arguments to a broader audience.
	The first video describes Bailey as, quote, a microbiology medical industry and health researcher who worked in medical practice, including clinical trials for two decades.
	He says, virology invented the fictional theoretical virus model, but has consistently failed to fulfill its own requirements to prove their existence.
	It's claimed that viruses cause disease after transmitting between hosts such as humans.
	And yet, outside of cartoons, computer models, and Hollywood movies, the scientific evidence for these claims is missing.
	Like I said, physicists admit the things they don't know to get grants.
	The virologists pretend to know to get grants.
	Perhaps virology's greatest failure has been the inability to obtain any viral particles directly from tissues or fluids of organisms like humans said to have viral disease.
	And yet we're told all the time, oh look, we got it here and we got it there.
	It's the PCR. The lie of the PCR. In order to obfuscate this state of affairs, virologists have resorted to creating their own pseudoscientific methods.
	Maybe that's what the P stands for.
	Ha ha ha ha. Pseudoscientific COVID research, PCR. That was polymerase.
	I forget what it was.
	But yeah, that would be a better description of it.
	Pseudoscientific COVID research.
	So he says, a virologist have never isolated this extracellular vesicle particle alone and apart from thousands of other particles found in human tissue fluids and their petri dish and their test tube experiments.
	To genetically characterize it and prove that it is a virus particle.
	Virologists must isolate a particle they believe through photographic imagery to be a virus in order to in fact prove it is a virus and not just cellular debris garbage.
	Again, the diabolical genius of Fauci is to seize upon the PCR and to create an illusion that That he can magnify cellular debris and garbage by 1.1 trillion times or more now, more now, and say that somebody is sick.
	The reason that they're, even when they're not sick, right?
	Oh, you got the cooties.
	And you may not have any symptoms, but hey, my PCR test says that you do.
	Well, it's not a test and it's not science.
	What it does is it gives a veneer of science, a false facade of science, to a pseudoscience of virology, because they're just magnifying cellular debris to a ridiculous, absurd level.
	Not one published scientific paper exists today.
	Which legitimately finds a virus.
	Viruses such as SARS-CoV-2 are nothing more than phantom constructs existing only in imaginations and computer simulations.
	And we'll talk about what they have to say here.
	You have people like Peter McCullough, who pushes back on this very thing.
	and they answer him back as well. In this paradigm, cases of invented diseases like COVID-19 are nothing more than the detection of selected tiny common genetic sequences and proteins that are purported or pretended to be viral. The existence of an actual virus is not required in this fallacy loop of circular reasoning.
	Thus, entire fictional pandemics can be built upon fictional digital creations, then falsely sustained through meaningless in vitro test tube molecular reactions, and magnified not just by the PCR test, but magnified by the media.
	And the government and the authorities.
	Another physician, Dr.
	Thomas Cowan, MD, says the fact which every virologist agrees to is that there's not one published scientific paper where any particle that you could call a virus is found in any biological fluid or sick human or animal anywhere.
	And everyone agrees.
	All the virologists agree.
	They say that's not how you find a virus.
	But again, they use the PCR to pretend that they can observe it, to pretend that they can measure it.
	In a document where Cowan is a primary author, it's titled Settling the Virus Debate, the point is made that similarly described particles called exosomes have been successfully isolated through purification and have not been shown, though, to be replication-competent Infectious or disease causing, hence they cannot be said to be viruses.
	And particles exceedingly smaller than alleged viruses are regularly isolated, experimented on, manufactured, and even constructed as nanotechnology.
	Density gradient centrifuge is the scientifically required standard technique for the demonstration of the existence of a virus.
	Yet, even though this method is described in microbiology manuals as the virus isolation technique, it is actually never applied.
	An experiment meant to demonstrate the existence of any pathogenic virus, they said.
	Additionally, they explain how virologists describe viruses as being 30 to 150 nanometers in diameter.
	And we talked about this kind of stuff.
	The absurdity and the superstition of thinking that a N95 mask, let alone some kind of cloth handkerchief that you put over your face.
	I mean, come on. We're back to people playing cowboy robbers, you know, going to rob a stagecoach and put that mask on.
	That's going to protect you?
	Seriously? They demand that you wear that to go into a store or something?
	And so they're supposed to be 30 to 150 nanometers in diameter.
	Yet molecular scientists or chemists find and isolate molecules smaller than one nanometer.
	Again, viruses are supposedly 30 to 150 nanometers.
	And yet people are constantly working with one nanometer.
	That's what nanotechnology is.
	And some of these things that are smaller than a nanometer.
	That's one billionth of a meter by the way.
	Every single day they work with this. Every single day they do all sorts of things with them. IBM unveiled in 2021 the world's first two nanometer chip technology with two nanometer nano sheets.
	Peace.
	Which are easily able to manufacture, to find, to isolate, to even attach to other nanostrips that are only 12 to 44 nanometers wide.
	And only 75 nanometers long.
	All this much smaller than what they claim the virus is.
	Well, we haven't isolated any of it yet.
	Why not? Take it over to Texas Instruments or somebody.
	Or send it, you know, if they don't have the technology, send it to South Korea.
	Um... They can clearly manufacture things of this size, smaller than the size of a virus.
	They can find and isolate them in order to attach the smaller two nanometer nanosheets onto them.
	As a matter of fact, see, this also goes back to the beginning of virology.
	People could see in a microscope bacteria.
	But then they saw these diseases that were happening and they couldn't observe any bacteria that might cause it.
	So they came up with the idea of a virus.
	Too small to observe.
	Not too small to observe anymore.
	Virologists can't find a 30 to 150 nanometer virus in a large sample of spitum.
	Despite COVID-19 government propaganda suggesting that those infected carry the virus in such significant levels that it can cause a person to become dangerously ill from up to six feet away and can also be filtered out with an N95 mask.
	Again, the mask is the most comprehensive test of IQ or the most comprehensive test of compliance we've ever had.
	The whole thing was a large Milgram experiment.
	Somebody in authority tells you to do this.
	Somebody in authority tells you to do it to other people.
	You make those people put the mask on Even if it's going to harm them.
	Even if they've got a respiratory issue.
	It makes it difficult for them to breathe, but it doesn't keep them from getting a tiny particle like that.
	No way that it could stop that.
	We've talked about that over and over again.
	I mean, just all the pictures of people inhaling some smoke, and then you see a picture of them with a mask, and they're blowing it through the mask, they're blowing it around the mask, and all the rest of the stuff.
	And logically, it doesn't make any sense either, as I said, for the longest time.
	Going back to 2002, they made it a criminal offense in New South Wales to sell these masks to tell people it was going to protect them from the disease.
	And at the time, they were also saying, and even physicians weren't wearing them because after 20 minutes...
	Your mask is saturated with spittle.
	And if there is anything in there, it's going to get smaller spit particles, and they're going to stay airborne longer and travel farther, all of that stuff.
	So they had a significant fine on that in 2002 in New South Wales.
	The dominant view that viruses do exist, defended by other health freedom physicians, they said the proverbial baby has been thrown out with the bathwater.
	And so there's a bit of a debate coming from Michael Palmer and Sukharit Bhakti, and they pushed back on this.
	They said, okay, just because they lied to us about COVID doesn't mean they're lying to us about all viruses.
	So they put out a paper, do viruses exist?
	They acknowledge that the public has ample reason to mistrust the scientific community.
	Yeah. But they say don't take it too far.
	Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
	So they make some fundamental statements that were soon countered by Massey in an email that she sent them, also in a 43-minute video analysis by Cowan.
	First, they propose viruses often have a very characteristic shape that is not likely to be confused with any particles produced by living cells or debris left behind.
	In response, Cowan points out that they implicitly admit that these viruses have never been isolated, using the common definition of isolation.
	Then he says their statement on this matter is clearly false, as demonstrated by many papers which directly refute it, including one which says that there's no way to distinguish such alleged viruses from particles by visual only.
	Secondly, they, P&B, Palmer and Bakhti, Went on to say there's many biochemical methods for characterizing viral particles.
	Cowan says that is simply circular reasoning.
	He says, how can you know that they're actually dealing with viral particles if they've never isolated or properly identified them?
	How can they know they're establishing genetic information that is characteristic of the virus rather than a host cell culture if they have never isolated?
	That is, they have never separated the virus from the host cell culture.
	He said, no particle has ever been sequenced, characterized, or studied with valid, controlled experiments and shown to fit the definition of a virus.
	Again, when they look at the exosomes, they say, well, but they haven't been shown to cause disease or transmit it.
	So, third, they said that not all viruses can easily be grown in cell cultures.
	He says, well, that's an amazing thing to say.
	He said, in other words, they tell us that the way that you isolate or find or prove the existence of a virus is that you grow it in a cell culture.
	And he said, and then you see the cytopathic effects of these very specialized cells.
	So that is how you identify that a virus is present?
	And then they turn around and say, well, some viruses you can't grow in a cell culture.
	Didn't you just tell me that the definition of how we know there is a virus is that it causes a cytopathic effect in the cell culture?
	And now you tell me that not all viruses can be grown in a cell culture?
	Do you know it was a virus?
	How do you know it was a virus in the first place?
	Because that was what you just told me was how I would know.
	And so they do this over and over again, this circular reasoning.
	Christine Massey added, when an argument relies on an abstract concept, as if it were an established concrete fact.
	When a hypothetical scenario or situation is referred to and treated as if it was a real thing, continually referring to particles as viruses doesn't make them so.
	It isn't evidence that they are, and it is misleading given the absence of valid logical evidence.
	No amount of analysis of made-up computer genome that has never been shown to have a physical counterpart could tell us anything about an alleged virus.
	Hence we come back to the PCR to give them an alleged foundation of scientific observation.
	That is the evil genius of Anthony Fauci.
	He realized that.
	He was coming from the field of virology.
	He realized they had no hard evidence for anything.
	And so he abused the PCR test to pretend that they did.
	I literally have hundreds of freedom of information responses from over 200 institutions in 40 countries in zero cases.
	Has any institution been able to cite a study describing actual isolation and purification of an alleged virus?
	And so it goes back and forth.
	I wanted to get to the statements of Dr.
	Peter McCullough. Oh, by the way, one more thing before I skip over this.
	When they, when Palmer and Bakhti were pushing back on this and said, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
	Yeah, we realize that there's not really anything out there that's been isolated for COVID-19.
	Maybe that's a special case, but don't say there's no such thing as viruses.
	And so they went back to a 1985 study in which they claimed that a virus was directly isolated with a new use of notobiotic, that is a germ-free pigs.
	Cowan provides an extensive analysis of the study claiming that it first presumed the presence of a virus without demonstrating it, that the experiment had no control group, and merely further presumed the effects of diarrhea in pigs was caused by a virus without sufficient scientific verification.
	And the question is, only one study?
	It was done 40 years ago?
	He said, they're having to use this study, having to go back to 1985 to find a study, Where they actually isolated the virus directly without using a cell culture, and yet there is no evidence that there is a virus in this to begin with.
	There's no evidence of any isolation of a new virus, new or otherwise.
	They never have a pure form of this virus, so they could never possibly study it.
	Cowan said, when PMB said, well...
	This is all based on the fact that solely on the rigid demand that isolation be accomplished without the use of cell cultures.
	Phil Cohen says this isn't a rigid demand, it's just common sense.
	If you don't agree with that, give us a definition of what isolation means.
	You know, if you're going to isolate it, that means that it's there by itself.
	And you've never done that with anything.
	Show us which part of the cell culture that the isolation was performed in.
	I can guarantee you that they will not answer that question.
	They have no solid scientific evidence.
	They have an uncontrolled irrational study from 1984 that doesn't even begin, doesn't even attempt to actually isolate anything, which is the whole point of their paper.
	Which is to show us that they have isolated a virus, that they exist.
	And so then we get to Dr.
	Peter McCullough, who argues for viruses.
	And he says in his podcast, he's uncomfortable with the challenge to the consensus that viruses exist.
	He said, all these viruses have been cultured and they have been isolated.
	And so Dr. Mark Bailey says, well, I have great respect for Dr.
	McCullough. I support his fantastic work of warning people not to go along with the nonsense and not to take these toxic shots.
	But when Peter says things like isolation, does he understand what he means?
	Because he's not talking about physical isolation here.
	We know that they're not doing that.
	And we know that they tried, particularly around the 1970s.
	They were really trying hard to purify particles, and guess what?
	They didn't. And then enter Fauci.
	So they try in the 1970s to isolate this stuff.
	Fauci comes in, and in the mid-1980s, he becomes the head of the NIAID. And then after that, after they've tried and failed in the 70s, To isolate any viruses, then he comes up with a PCR. That's how we do it.
	That's how we convince people that it's science.
	We use it to say that we found a virus when they didn't isolate HIV. Found a virus and it's what causes AIDS and we're going to create a vaccine for it.
	So again, Bailey says when Peter McCullough talks about isolation, we have to remind everybody that this is the virologist's definition of isolation, which in fact doesn't really have a definition.
	Some of the textbooks of virology don't even give a specific meaning for the word isolation.
	So they pretty much use it however they want.
	What he says is that the standard culturing, he's just talking about cell breakdown experiments, where a biological sample is added to traditionally something like monkey kidney cells, which have a propensity to breakdown because they have chromosomal abnormalities, and claiming that that is an isolation technique to watch this breakdown.
	McCullough continued in his podcast to point out that Sinopharm, the company that makes the Chinese COVID vaccine, he said they actually culture the virus in large quantities, then they kill the virus, and they give it as a vaccine.
	In other words, what he's saying is their COVID vaccine is not an mRNA thing.
	They're culturing the disease, killing it, and putting it out there.
	In response, Bailey referenced his paper explaining in February 2020, the Chinese study, which described how their scientists took a lung sample from one 41-year-old man with pneumonia and then just looked for every single RNA sequence they could find in that fluid.
	Then they created a silico model, that is, a computer model.
	And they compared it to others in the genetic database.
	And on that basis, they declared that there was a novel coronavirus when there's nowhere in that paper that shows anything that replicates, that shows anything that is infectious.
	And there's certainly no evidence of these genetic sequences they've published came from inside any particle that they claim to have identified.
	By the way, does the Chinese vaccine work?
	If the Chinese vaccine worked, why did they pursue for such a long period of time the lockdowns for zero COVID? The people who are howling in Shanghai and other places because they were isolated in lockdown.
	If you've got a working vaccine, if you understand all this stuff, oh, you isolated it, you killed it, you're going to give it to people, none of that worked?
	Please explain that then.
	Now, see what was happening in Shanghai, they had to give these uppity and affluent people a lesson as to who's really in control.
	So this is the kind of pseudoscience we're talking about when they're making declarations of isolation.
	They've done nothing of the sort, and we can only encourage Peter to read the work that all of us have done.
	Electron microscopy, I guess is how you pronounce it.
	It's the only way that I can do it.
	Imaged particles have never been shown to be replication-competent or disease-causing in nature, and thus cannot be said to be viruses.
	McCullough continued in his podcast, he proposed the COVID-19 virus is scientifically visible on an electron microscope.
	So when we watch it, he said, the virus invades a human cell, and then it multiplies inside the cell, and the cell bursts, and the viral particles mushroom out.
	Yet after making similar arguments on his Substack page in November of 2022, Dr.
	Sam Bailey provided a refutation just four days later, claiming that the methods...
	A section of the study that McCullough was citing reveals that the authors simply asserted that they started with viral strains and some obtained specimens, and after adding them to monkey kidney cells and observing their breakdown four to five days later, they declared various particles to be virions.
	Furthermore, he said there was no control experiment, of course.
	They have fallen for one of virology's oldest tricks, what we call the point-and-declare scam.
	Wow. Sounds very much like the PCR stuff.
	Sounds very much like, oh, just do a clinical diagnosis and we'll send you, we'll give you a 20% bonus on everything you do to these people.
	Point and declare.
	Point and declare pandemic.
	None of these imaged particles have ever been shown to be replication competent or disease causing in nature.
	None of them have been characterized to see what, if any, genetic material they contain.
	There are no particles that have ever been shown to be replication-competent and pathogenic.
	And so, it's not just...
	There's several people starting to do this now.
	And we look at Dr. Michael Yadin, somebody who, like, and I will say, you know, Peter McCullough has put his career on the line to oppose these vaccines, and I'm glad that he did.
	But, you know, there's a lot of stuff that I disagreed with him about in terms of politics and other issues.
	And Dr. Michael Yadin has also said, you know, I don't think that there's viruses either.
	Dr. Michael Yadin was a vice president at Pfizer, the first whistleblower, and he has been right about everything.
	He preceded everybody else.
	Lots of papers asserting the same unproven thing, said Yadin.
	Simply do not bolster an unproven claim.
	That's nothing but groupthink.
	McCullough said on his podcast, he said, for those who are kind of denying the presence of the virus, I think we're approaching 300,000 peer-reviewed papers on the topic.
	I mean, this is a mountain of evidence to dismiss out of hand.
	Well, I would just say, you've got to look at the scientific method.
	Consensus is not science.
	As a matter of fact, Francis Bacon called consensus, he called it academia.
	Yeah, they had a lot of people with titles.
	They had a lot of people at universities that were very well-respected, even worshipped, that would say these things, but that doesn't make it true.
	Francis Bacon said, show me.
	Reproduce it. Let me see it.
	You know, let's set up an experiment here.
	And so, LifeSite News, which is where you find this article, asked Dr.
	Michael Yadin for a comment. He said, my initial concerns are mainly with the attempt to pretend a lot of papers asserting the same unproven thing bolsters the unproven claim.
	It doesn't. Back in the day when people thought the Earth was stationary and that the Sun orbited the Earth, had there been peer-reviewed papers, all the reviewers would pass papers on Earth-centric systems.
	Numbers don't make it correct.
	Merely that once groupthink sets in, almost everyone will interpret evidence in that light.
	And this continues until unequivocal evidence emerges to counter the errors of thinking.
	Same thing as with climate science.
	You want to grant, you repeat the lies of climate science.
	No matter how many times they are disproven, shown to be lies, shown to be false predictions...
	No matter how many times their models are discredited, they keep going.
	Because it works.
	Because of the group thing.
	So again, Michael Yadin...
	And see, the other part of the problem that I have with McCullough is he's now joined on the bandwagon of pushing this fear of gain of function.
	They did it to us once.
	There was real virus.
	It's really core to how he makes his living now.
	And he doesn't need to sell that in order to make a living.
	It's simply enough to know that some of these products, like ivermectin, help people to get over the respiratory illness.
	But he's going to buy into this because he wants to go on the alarmist shows and tell you they're going to make some kind of bird flu that's going to kill people.
	And he's no better than Robert Redfield when he does that.
	Robert Redfield, who's like, well, it's inevitable.
	This thing is going to naturally evolve.
	Bird flu is going to naturally evolve to humans, and it's going to kill 25 to 50% of us who get it.
	And he doesn't know any of that.
	He's just making this stuff up.
	Robert Redfield, who was the CDC director for Trump.
	That's an absolute lie. We know why Redfield is doing it.
	It's because he's getting big checks cut for him from testing companies, from vaccine companies and other things like that.
	So he's pushing this fear.
	He may have some other irons in the fire.
	Who knows? You know, Peter McCullough says that they're going to create, that they created this thing and released it to everybody and they're going to do it again.
	He's simply pushing fear for money, in my opinion.
	He needs to honestly look at this stuff.
	Michael Yadin earned a PhD in respiratory pharmacology.
	He spent over 30 years working for the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world.
	He rose to the most senior research position at Pfizer, becoming vice president and chief scientist for allergy and respiratory.
	He resigned in 2011 and founded his own biotech company, which was later sold to Novartis in 2017.
	And Dr.
	Michael Yadin doesn't believe that there's viruses out there.
	He's like, show me.
	Show me the evidence that there are viruses out there.
	And it is simply fraud for the stakeholders.
	Dr. Kevin Corbett Out of the UK. British researcher said even many of his fellow medical freedom advocates have backed away from these challenges to virology because they don't understand it, because they're frightened of the arguments, because of their investments in the industry.
	They're intertwined within the biotech industry whether they like it or not.
	And there's a lot that is at stake here.
	That's why Klaus Schwab calls them stakeholders.
	And they don't want to lose that.
	He went on to cite a peer-reviewed 1993 paper in the highly credentialed Nature Biotechnology Journal, which he said indicated, quote, there is no proven HIV isolate.
	What Kerry Mullis, other scientists at the time, were saying.
	And thus, its testing mechanism was fraudulent for demonstrating an HIV infection.
	The PCR test was fraudulent, which is what?
	Kerry Mullis was saying, he said, you can't prove that that's what's causing AIDS. He said, you can't prove that that isn't just debris there.
	So, Michael Yadin, in 2022, said that he had conversations with people like this, and he said it distressed him for quite some time.
	And then he eventually realized that he could no longer maintain his understanding of respiratory viruses.
	This is a guy, that's his whole field.
	He said it collapsed the possibility that respiratory viruses as described exist at all.
	They don't, said Michael Yadin.
	Though scientists who are open to the argument have seen the logic in the paper, he said it's been completely ignored by so-called scientists, especially in the field of HIV. Especially in the field now of COVID-19.
	Especially in the field of bird flu.
	All these different things, right?
	But especially ignored in the field of HIV simply because the industry won't accept it and the industry is what dictates this, not the science.
	The science is being led by the industries, said Corbett.
	By the money. Impacts to this thesis, incredible, would mean collapse of half of the medical pharmaceutical system and a collapse of the childhood vaccination schedules.
	That's why it's important to talk about this.
	And let me just close before we take a break here.
	Listeria-poisoned food kills two people in the United States.
	Now, this is bacteria.
	We've seen this before.
	This can happen around milk products and stuff.
	It happened at an ice cream factory with Blue Bell in Texas.
	It's just, you know, not missing some cleaning and stuff like that.
	You start to get this bacteria going.
	You can see it. And they had people get sick, some people who died with that.
	You had criminal charges brought against the ice cream company.
	They fixed that big fine, criminal charges.
	And so this is what bacteria, which can be isolated, which can be observed.
	And you've got at least two people have died.
	Over two dozen have been hospitalized in the U.S. amid an outbreak of listeria food poisoning or listeriosis.
	So two people, one in Illinois, one in New Jersey died from the disease, said the CDC. And so when you look at this question, and 28 people, very sick, hospitalized from listeriosis.
	So why is the CDC so fascinated and so focused on bird flu?
	Well, you know, we might have 25 to 50% of people dying.
	We've got to look for it everywhere. We've got to look for it in dairy workers.
	It's bird flu. We've got to look for it in milk and all this other kind of stuff.
	We've got to kill millions of chickens and everything.
	Why the fascination with bird flu?
	Nobody's died. We've had two people die in the U.S. 28 others have been hospitalized.
	This listeriosis has been reported in 12 states.
	And yet they don't pay any attention to that.
	There's no press coverage of that, is there?
	It's just bird flu. At the same time in Canada, they've had two people die of a listeriosis outbreak.
	Authorities there have linked the illnesses with milk?
	No. With plant-based milk substitutes.
	You see, these people who are trying to scare you to death about raw milk, the people who are trying to scare you to death about bird flu, They don't care when people are actually dying.
	They're selling you a narrative.
	They're not protecting your health.
	They're not protecting your food.
	The FDA is there to protect the drug companies, not the food supply.
	And they're not even there when they want to scare you to death about raw milk.
	These two people who died in Canada died from listeria that they got from plant-based milk.
	Silk and the great value brands.
	That'd be Walmart's stuff.
	This is soy milk, I think.
	So it's a plant-based milk.
	But they want to shut down all the raw milk factories.
	The incubation period for listeriosis ranges from a few days to 12 weeks after eating contaminated food.
	The disease is especially dangerous to high-risk groups such as pregnant women and people with weakened immune systems such as cancer patients, elderly people, and infants.
	They can't point to anybody being harmed by raw milk.
	But their soy milk substitutes, because they're done in a factory, they're able to do that.
	They want to shut down local farms.
	But the problems that we have with listeria that are much bigger than bird flu, which has not affected anybody, but those are coming out of the industrialization process.
	Because that is a very dirty process.
	Rockfin, Psalm 144.
	Thank you for the tip. Hi, David.
	I'm off work today, so I'm out here hoeing around in the garden.
	Glad to get to listen live and thought I'd buy you a coffee.
	Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
	Thanks for the great work. Jesus is proud of you.
	I hope so. On Rockfin, a Syrian girl.
	Thank you for the tip. Great expose on the virus scam, David.
	I hope you keep hammering on this.
	People need to wake up. I am.
	Because I was skeptical about this as well.
	You know, just like Dr. Michael Yating.
	You can imagine. Here's a guy.
	His entire field is based on this stuff.
	That turned his world upside down.
	But he had the integrity.
	He had the integrity to continue on with it and to tell people the truth regardless of the consequences.
	I really do like Michael Yadin.
	I haven't reached out to him yet to try to interview him, but I hope to interview him someday.
	We'll have to do that. I really would like to interview him.
	Rockfin, Diana Phillip, thank you for the tip.
	I love that you're covering the virus topic, David.
	Thank you. Well, something needs to be done.
	Because, folks, this is such a mountain of lies.
	And it's beyond the PCR, but I think the key thing is that we understand the cynical, evil way that Fauci used the PCR to give a scientific facade to something different.
	That was completely made up and had absolutely no science to it because, hey, we got a way to measure it.
	Come on, it's real science. No, it's not.
	We're gonna take a quick break and we'll be right back Music playing
	in a world of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	I got an update from Scott Shara.
	Do you remember Scott? His daughter, Grace, and he's got a website, Our Amazing Grace.
	And they lost their daughter, Grace, who had Down syndrome.
	They put a do not resuscitate order on her, essentially killed her.
	And he fought, not just for the malpractice, but because they actually murdered her.
	And he actually got the judge to say, yeah, we will consider whether or not she was murdered.
	We're not just going to make this a malpractice case.
	And so he's working very hard on this.
	He put out an update. He said, we just had a hearing.
	Purpose was twofold.
	Number one, to rule on a temporary gag order.
	He said, we disagreed with this temporary measure because we believe it was an abuse and was also being used as a potential tactic to prevent the eventual trial from being public.
	That's the key reason why he's doing this.
	He wants people to understand that this medical protocol that was imposed upon us...
	Because of power-greedy politicians and money-hungry hospitals and the bureaucrats and between all of them, that this thing was actually the basis of people dying in 2020.
	He said, we believe that this situation violates our First Amendment rights, and our attorneys call the stunt a hostage-taking tactic to obtain undeserved relief.
	And so they had the hearing there.
	He said, interestingly, one of the defense attorneys attempted to dismiss his client in a last-minute motion.
	We haven't even taken the doctor's deposition at this point, and the judge denied that request.
	I see these games as a complete waste of time and money in an effort to wear us down.
	And he says, this is why your prayers are most important.
	And so they don't understand that we have God as our source of strength.
	And so do pray for Scott Sharon and his family.
	They're not doing this because they're bitter and they want revenge.
	They want to stop the murder.
	I've talked to him several times.
	We've interviewed him several times on the show.
	That is, their motivation is to stop the killing.
	And we know that God wants that stopped, and so we can ask with confidence and pray for them that this evil would be exposed, that God would use their work and their time and their effort to expose this.
	He said regarding the gag order during and after hearing the arguments, the judge talked openly about the idea of releasing the transcripts, but not the video.
	He didn't issue a decision, but instead he required both sides to write a two page brief that would answer the question of whether separating out the video depositions from a release of the deposition transcripts was a violation of the First Amendment.
	The briefs are due at noon on this Wednesday.
	My impression is that the judge wants to follow the law.
	He said finally the judge scheduled a follow up hearing for next Monday to rule on the gag order and to set a new scheduling order, assuming that the parties can agree.
	can agree.
	Regarding the trial date, he said, we can't wait a year and no later than May or June.
	Of course, a public trial will be the most important opportunity to wake people up as to what is happening in hospitals today.
	He said, a reminder that this anti-Christ legal system is not where justice is found.
	Assuming that we win, writing a check for Grace's death is not justice.
	Medical malpractice is the number one cause of death in America.
	Doctors and nurses have immunity from liability by following standards of care.
	Remember that? Fauci put out the remdesivir, which nurses now call run, death is near.
	Yeah, I'm declaring it the standard of care.
	He did that unilaterally. You'd had multiple studies.
	He tried to sell that poison as a remedy for AIDS. He tried to sell that poison as a remedy for Ebola.
	And then, when people tested it, and you had China did a test on it, and they put it up on the World Health Organization's website, they got it down, and it was taken down that same day.
	And it showed that, A, it didn't do anything, and B, it was very dangerous and killed a lot of people.
	A week later, Fauci put up his own study that had not been reviewed.
	And he said he violated what the standard is for having a therapeutic.
	A therapeutic is supposed to make something better, right?
	It's supposed to cure it.
	But it didn't have any of that.
	There was no difference in the cure rate between the control group and the group that got run.
	Death is near. But in spite of that, he declared it to be the standard of care.
	He said, yeah, it doesn't make people better necessarily, but if they'd survived, I say that they got better 35% faster.
	How do you even quantize that?
	Come on. Come on.
	It's ridiculous. He just, at that point, he had so much power, he could do anything that he wanted to by fiat.
	It's just amazing. So yeah, the standard of care.
	Run. Death is near.
	It is, the standard of care is designed to hasten our deaths, which is murder.
	He said, you would expect any law designed to protect the public would result in minimum loss of license to practice.
	The medical industrial complex, in bed with our legislators and legal system, does not allow for that consequence.
	In Wisconsin, the medical malpractice statutory limit is $750,000.
	No matter what they do, no matter where they kill your loved one, The most you can get is $750,000.
	Assuming a victory, the payment doesn't even come from the doctor.
	The statutes further require that he or she has to have medical malpractice insurance, so the guilty parties literally have no consequences for their actions, and you're not allowed to know, you see.
	That was one of the things we go back to when Trump was running in the 2016 election.
	As I said many times, he had a great paper About what needed to be done to the healthcare system.
	It's not going to be perfect, but it had a lot of very badly needed reforms.
	And it was put out there because the two issues at the time were the border, he's going to build the wall, and Obamacare, you know, and all that kind of stuff.
	So one of the things that they had there was transparency, so that you would know what the record was for physicians and for hospitals.
	Well, as soon as Trump got elected, that got...
	Went down the memory hole. They deleted that page immediately.
	And so they don't want you to know about people who are constantly having malpractice things.
	They keep that hidden so that you as a customer don't know about their record and you can't find out.
	You're not allowed to know how much they charge versus what some other people charge for the same thing.
	You're not allowed to know whether or not they are good at what they do versus other people.
	Not allowed to know any of that stuff.
	Even if you had the money because of tax rebates or because of medical savings accounts or whatever, things like that, even if you had, even if they gave you a voucher, you wouldn't know how to spend it because you wouldn't have any idea as to which doctors and hospitals are good and which ones are bad.
	They keep that hidden. This reality goes against God's law, the fact that there's no consequences for their actions, which is one of the many reasons our country is getting what it deserves, he said.
	Well, I absolutely agree about that.
	Anyway, I pray for Scott Shara and his family.
	You can find them at OurAmazingGrace.com.
	Daisy Luther, I'll just finish up briefly with this, and we'll take a quick break.
	Daisy Luther, the organic prepper, The more we learn about the made-up rules enforced during the COVID pandemic, the more outrageous the entire thing becomes.
	Fauci had the utter audacity to sit in Congress and admit that they had no data.
	So they just creatively improvised things like social distancing measures.
	They fooled a lot of people once.
	So shame on them, but it looks like they're going to try to fool us again with the bird flu.
	And if we fall on it, then shame on us.
	If we don't take some lessons from this, writes Daisy Luther at the Organic Prepper, then we don't deserve to call ourselves preppers.
	It looks like we're about to be tested on what we have learned.
	Boy, that is absolutely true.
	We're going to take a quick break.
	And when we come back, we're going to be joined by Dr.
	Jane Ruby. So stay with us.
	We'll be right back. We're good to go.
	.
	♪♪
	so
	defending the american dream You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	All right, joining us now is Dr.
	Jane Ruby. I've had a lot of people who've contacted me and said, you guys are on the same page, you need to get her on and talk.
	And I'm always happy to get people who, you know, when we're looking either at politics or at the pandemic, because the pandemic was politics, you know, I was happy to have them on.
	And Dr. Jane Ruby has a lot of medical experience as well as political experience.
	She is a licensed nurse practitioner.
	She actually ran clinical sites for quite some time and then took a sabbatical and went to Washington and worked there.
	So she knows both the politics and the medical stuff.
	So it's great to have her on. Thank you for joining us.
	It's good to talk to you. You too, David.
	I have to say, you are definitely one of my go-to people every day.
	Oh, thank you. It's not just the echo chamber.
	You bring such a great new perspective to this, so I'm really thrilled to be with you today.
	Oh, thank you. Tell people what you think about the last four years.
	Is that broad enough? Yeah.
	I mean, I'm looking at this, and yesterday I said, I saw this article, well, what would you have done in Germany in the 1930s?
	I said, you don't even have to think about that.
	What did you do in America or in the UK or Canada in the last four years?
	You know, what have you done in the 2020s?
	Because that's really the point of testing.
	You know, to see if you really get this.
	And what did you do? Did you go along with it, even if you understood it?
	Or did they completely fool you?
	Or did they get you to comply with it, even though you knew it was wrong?
	You know, take a look at that. So what do you think about these last four years and what we just saw at the Republican convention, where they just kind of seem to ignore what happened in 2020, except for the election, of course.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	I mean, there was a huge, huge elephant in that auditorium at the RNC. And I just can't believe the American people, I shouldn't even preface it by saying I can't believe, because after what I saw in 2020, and the caving to all of this, the masks, those shots, the whole bit, by so many Americans really stunned me.
	And it shouldn't surprise me anymore that they're allowing themselves to be, you know, memory-hold.
	And so many people are just going forward.
	Here's the thing, David, when I say to people, you know, this is crazy, I point out things about Trump, he's hiring all the wrong people again, you know, we saw it in D.C. in the first term.
	You know, people say to me, well, what are you going to do, Dr.
	Jane? You know, go vote for Biden?
	They're missing the whole point.
	They're missing the whole point because you don't have elections.
	And actually, there's a third choice between Trump, Biden, and the third choice is, how about holding Trump accountable?
	How about making him a better candidate, right?
	I'm sure you agree with that.
	Yeah, of course. Oh, nobody wants to criticize him.
	You see what happens.
	I mean, even the guy in Virginia who was head of the Freedom Caucus, simply for endorsing DeSantis, he was excommunicated from the Republican Party.
	Right. So much for, you know, freedom of thought and freedom of speech.
	But to get back to your original question, I mean, you actually touched on, I was fascinated again by your first segment, you touched on two of my favorite topics.
	If you don't mind, I'll go into those a little bit, maybe from additional angles.
	You know, the PCR test, many people have forgotten.
	First of all, let me take a broader stand.
	There is no validated test on the planet to diagnose any flu or differentiate one flu from another.
	So people go, yes, but, and I say, whoa, whoa, whoa.
	Bring yourself back to the beginning.
	Let me repeat what I just said and try to grasp what I just said.
	I try to educate people to validate an instrument.
	If I hold up my pen and I say, this is going to make your eggs tomorrow morning, David, I have to test it for validity.
	Does it make eggs, right?
	I know I'm being a little silly, but we get the point across.
	But the second part of validity studies is reliability.
	Okay, let's say this pen magically gets up tomorrow morning and makes David Knight's eggs.
	But does it do it every morning or the majority of mornings?
	That's your reliability. There's none of that testing on this in addition to the inventor, Kerry Mullis, as we all know by now, who said it's not diagnostic.
	And you did a great job of explaining why you can get down to those molecular levels and you're really not seeing anything, which is what he was trying to say.
	But The CDC itself, in a sleight of hand, kind of, in 2021, July, recalled the PCR. And people just, you know, people call me to this day, you know, hey, I got sick over the weekend, and I got a COVID test, and it was positive.
	Oh my God. David, my head wants to explode.
	Yeah, I know. I know.
	It's crazy. It's just like, it's as ridiculous as a mask once you understand what it's about.
	Exactly. I tried to tell people early on, the only time I did work in a hospital, I did take care of patients independently, I have assisted in surgeries, my specialty was cardiology, I assisted in bypass grafts.
	The only time we wore a mask were two times in a hospital.
	If you're in the OR, so in case you have a reflexive sneeze, you don't spit into somebody's open gut.
	Or if they were on medications to suppress their immune capabilities because they got an organ transplant.
	Those are the only two times we ever wore a mask because we knew that it had no other purpose.
	So... Anyway, so the PCR, and it's the gift that keeps giving, because like you said, without the PCR, you don't have cases.
	You can't gin up H5N1. You can't gin up COVID 2.3 or whatever it's going to be.
	And so that's my little spiel on the PCR. And, you know, let me just add to, you know, Fauci, you know, coming from that field, he knew that he had a problem in terms of show me this or show me that doing the real science.
	And it was the perfect answer for that.
	You know, using it to push HIV, which is where the big fight was between him and Wallace.
	But it gave this veneer that you could actually observe and do real science with it.
	And that's the fundamental lie that he was able to exploit from AIDS to COVID. He built his career and he built all of these deceptions on the PCR test.
	It truly is amazing. Yes, he did.
	And a lot of innocent animals and millions of innocent people died, especially in third world countries, but all over, including in the United States.
	And just to wrap up on the RNC, the absurdity was that there was no touching on the COVID-19 shots as biological weapons, which has been proven over and over again by countless analysts and scientists.
	The role of the DOD. I put out a tweet a while ago, David, and I said, think about this.
	Why don't you ask Trump?
	When they gin up H5N1 and they throw it in your face and you create your new panel, what are you going to do differently?
	Because if he says nothing, you know you've got your deep state guy.
	He's just picking all the wrong people.
	I know we'll get into that in a minute, but I want to touch on my second favorite topic that you covered, if I could, earlier.
	And that was McCullough. I've been on to Peter McCullough for over two years.
	My dubious distinction is they can come after me, David.
	They can call me names.
	They can call me fake. They can disparage my credentials, but they've never proven me wrong.
	And I called him out two, two and a half years ago because I was in a private Telegram chat, C19 expert group, that he created himself.
	And in that chat, David, one day to my astounding, he posted a communication to us with some data on Novavax when Novavax first came out, right?
	It's also a biological weapon.
	It gets to the mRNA in your body, but through a different mechanism, different story.
	And I questioned in front of everyone, well, how, why are you promoting?
	It's not a vaccine, and it's another weapon.
	And boom, I was blocked from that group shortly after that.
	You have to understand, we were doing each other's podcasts.
	We were friendly.
	We were colleagues.
	So it really was a huge red flag for me.
	There are three problems I have with him.
	First of all, he's taken, if you look at Chuck Grassley's Sunshine Act, the website is openpayments.cms.gov, the government's repository for money.
	Every time I took a physician out in my pharmaceutical role, I was in the industry for 20 years, as you probably know, we had to file some paperwork with the CMS. If I took out Dr.
	Jim Smith and it was a $200 bill, I had to file that.
	So they keep those accumulated.
	He has taken, since 2015, $5.5 million.
	And that's in addition to research grants.
	Now, by comparison, the late Dr.
	Zelenko, Just as a comparator, in that same five year period, took about $600 from pharma over seven or eight years.
	That's like a sandwich a year.
	Right? So, that's number one.
	And, you know, they expect something for that money, as you know, David.
	So, what has he done?
	He's pushed a very dangerous, supposed antiviral called Paxilvid.
	Paxilvid is two antivirals, Nirmatrelvir and Ritnevir.
	Ritnevir has a black box warning and has had it for years by the FDA, its highest...
	Oh, yeah.
	Just keep taking it until you fall over.
	Just keep taking it. Keep filling that scrap.
	You'll be fine. Wow.
	And that's against the law, by the way.
	That's off-label promotion by a commercial agent of a company.
	In contrast to how I knew there was a problem in 2020, I'm a prescriber as a nurse practitioner, so I understood the lie right away when they said, well, I got sick myself and I said to my doctor in March of 2020, okay, just phone in the hydroxychloroquine.
	We weren't aware of ivermectin at the time and its effectiveness.
	And he said to me, I can't do that.
	I'll lose my license.
	What? There's no law that prohibits a prescriber from prescribing off-label.
	The illegality comes in, of course, when a company, whether you're on the medical side or the commercial side, promoting something other than that for which the drug was approved.
	Companies can't do that.
	Right? So he pushes Paxil.
	He's got a protocol, David, for COVID. Right?
	Like you said in your first segment, he loves that narrative, that vaccine virus narrative.
	So he promotes, and then the natokinase story.
	It's associated with fibrin.
	Is like you said, a facsimile of a segment or a sequence.
	It has nothing to do.
	And where's your instrument?
	I said to him, where's the instrument?
	Remember good science? You measure before, then you give your onion powder, then you measure after, right?
	Mm-hmm. Where's your instrument that you're using, Peter, to measure your pre- and post-spike proteins?
	And I'll land my plane here.
	If they've never proven that this virus exists, and I'm all about that, I have not seen it proven to me in its whole and pure form from an ill individual, then how do you believe in the spike protein?
	How do you believe in a portion of something for which the whole has never been demonstrated?
	Oh, yeah. Yeah. It absolutely is amazing.
	You know, when I looked at the way they were describing the mRNA at the very beginning, and it's like, oh, okay, so it's going to go in here, and it's going to start replicating itself.
	And I thought, where's the off switch?
	It sounds an awful lot like cancer, you know?
	And what is this thing that it's making in your body?
	But that was their whole narrative, you know?
	That was the way Moderna described it.
	It's like, yeah, we're going to, we can do this really fast, President Trump, because we'll turn people's bodies into manufacturing facilities.
	It's like, Okay, it'll stop right there.
	That's enough for me.
	And here's the most egregious thing.
	His latest stunt, promoting another RNA, synthetic lab in silico created, God knows what it is, to go in after the previous one.
	And people are saying to me, what is that that is the other mRNA that he's promoting?
	It's called SIRNA and it stands for, sit down everybody, small interfering.
	Isn't that convenient? And it's so genius that the first one was not genius.
	And this one, though, David, is able to go target what the first one did and then reverse the damage.
	That's a fairy tale.
	There's no science behind that.
	And where are the double-blind placebo-controlled trials before and after for this SIRNA? He is so in the thick of Pharma's grip, it's not even funny.
	Wow. Well, I had a big problem with him and anybody who is promoting this lab leak theory, you know, or deliberately leaking it out, scaring people to gain a function stuff.
	Because as far as I'm concerned, that is a red herring to keep people away from looking at the effects of the vaccine.
	What do you think about that? I think it's 100% true.
	There are actually two biological weapons.
	One is used intermittently, and that was what was created, I believe, from the paperwork and the documentation at Fort Detrick by the DOD. And they use it to drop, I don't know, in an aerosol way or something, to show pockets of illness.
	And they create these cases and everything.
	But the major biological weapon...
	If you look at the work of Catherine Watt, Sasha Latapova, and by the way, Dr.
	Mike Eden is a mentor of mine as well.
	He's the head of their investigative group called Team Enigma.
	Pfizer even admitted it in the motion to dismiss argument in the Brooke Jackson whistleblower case.
	Hey, we weren't making a pharmaceutical product.
	We were making a military prototype.
	There's no lab leak. You're...
	Federal government, your DOD, which is a RICO operation, just laundering and laundering and laundering money, is actually produced these shots and the material.
	And here's the scary part, David.
	We have more than just h5n1 you had Albert Borla a year and a half ago I tried to warn the public admitting in a Davos interview that the fall of 2023 would have seasonal flu shots made entirely of this mRNA poison and God knows what else it's in in injection form Botox ladies fillers Childhood schedule it they don't even hide it. It's in the childhood schedule multiple multiple times So this is a very frightening time for people not to be
	paying attention. It surely is You know, and when you look at it, everything is going into drugs to control people.
	All the stuff about Ozempic and everything and Wegevee and, you know, well, you can't control our hunger, so let's come up with an injection.
	Well, what's in that? It's absolutely amazing to see how trusting people are.
	They trust the government. They trust the press.
	They trust the science, which is what you're supposed to do, right?
	Just trust the science. And let me bring it back to President Trump and J.D. Vance really quickly.
	The guy is entrenched in numerous companies, by the way, with his buddy, Vivek, Vivek and his brother Shankar, Ramaswamy's, Mommy Ramaswamy, provided them with all these opportunities.
	And you have, they're all in together and they're making millions right now in companies that are going to generate more MRNA. David, where are we going?
	Oh, yeah. Oh, it really concerns me when you look at Peter Thiel.
	Peter Thiel and Elon Musk are really excellent at manipulating the conservatives.
	You know, you had Thiel come out and say, yeah, I don't like those people at Davos.
	And yet, he's a permanent fixture at Bilderberg.
	You know, he and Alex Karp and these other people like that.
	They're always there.
	And when you look at what they want to do, In terms of technocracy, I think one of the key things is people just don't understand what the technocracy is.
	They want to try to pigeonhole people into some political categories that they already know about.
	Oh, well, they're conservative, or they're socialist, or they're Marxist, or this or that, or populist.
	But the technocracy thing is a completely different deal.
	And what confuses them, I think, is that it's got a little bit of this and it's got a little bit of that, but it's got its own thing.
	And these people seek to rule the world through their technological prowess and their inventions and that type of thing.
	And it is a very dangerous thing.
	I would say satanic move to think that they're going to become like God.
	They're going to live forever.
	They're going to transfer themselves into machines.
	I mean, that's where they ultimately go.
	Peter Thiel is right there with Singularity.
	It is absolutely amazing to see J.D. Vance is now this acolyte of this guy who really put him into politics, put him into venture capital and all this other kind of stuff.
	And Peter Thiel is the guy who created the Singularity Foundation.
	It's just amazing.
	Unbelievable. It is amazing that people, even though we've tried to make the connections for them, that the American people, it is true. Trump was truly right in 2015 or 2016 when he said, I could step out in Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and they'd still love me and they'd defend me.
	And you know what? He's been proven right over and over and me and you know what he's been proven right over and over and over again they just can't get off the sycophant to look and I've said what is he going to do differently if he won't address the issue now of of the way warp speed went by the way I don't know if people know this David but warp speed is in full operation it has offices and resources and budgets and it's humming along where do you think it's going yeah all this scary you know all this stuff that they put it in place
	and it is just, it continues.
	If you don't root it out, it's like this weed, and it's putting down deeper and deeper roots, and it's going to just sprout up in a big way.
	And that's the way all of these bureaucratic programs are.
	Once you put something in, it's going back to Reagan when he got in.
	The Department of Education was created during the election year of 1980.
	Well, I'm going to get rid of that.
	He didn't get rid of it. And by the time he left, it was gigantic.
	And so we're going to see that with these guys that just handed off to each other in kind of a professional wrestling tag team match, isn't it?
	Yeah. When you think about it, I mean, we currently have, I have military intelligence friends that are on our side that have said to me for a year now, Jane, there are people inside the West Wing, the executive office building, which is on the White House grounds and in the White House, that literally have offices that are from the CCP. The domestic enemies are just as dangerous, the Peter Thiel's in my estimation.
	Yeah. And one other thought I had about Elon Musk, I don't know if you've thought about this, but the fact that Starlink is so available and cheap and everybody wants it in their house, and I'm thinking to myself, guys, Starlink, Neuralink, maybe if you put this thing in your house, maybe it does something through wife.
	Why would you want to take the...
	It's funny, when I saw that and saw the links and everything, it made me think, I haven't talked about it, but it is like a predictive program.
	What was it called, Travis?
	Was it the Kingsman or something?
	Where at one point, they flipped the switch on the satellite thing and everybody flips out and goes nuts and starts killing each other, you know?
	And of course, they began all of this stuff.
	When they're in a church, so that the hero has to fight off and kill these people in church.
	You know, they just instantly, the switch is flipped and they start attacking him.
	Yeah, it's funny how they come up with this crazy stuff, but I tell people all the time, I said, the big mistake that we make is that we...
	I guess we'd say if we were George W. Bush, we'd say we misunderstand the technology these people have and how evil they are.
	You know, they are morally capable of anything, and they're pretty close to technologically capable of anything.
	And so that's really what we're up against, I think.
	Yeah, I totally agree with you.
	It's difficult to strike a balance between thinking, look, the military had the internet years before we even knew it existed.
	So there's kind of a fear factor of, oh my gosh, what do they have now that we don't even know about?
	But I want to balance that with maybe they have less than we think they do, and maybe they confabulate it with the fear factor.
	We've seen so much, but it just concerns me.
	And going into this election, I don't believe, I've said many times in my social media, we don't have elections anymore.
	And here's one of the key features.
	You know, Trump got taken out by three things, right?
	Technically. Internet-connected voting machines, two weeks of early voting, and those 2,000-meal drop boxes.
	Right. He never said a word about them, right?
	In this election cycle, the three things that took him out, and those three things are still in place in most counties.
	We have 20,000 drop boxes in Palm Beach County alone, sitting in front of DMVs and other public buildings.
	I'm looking at these things going, why is this still here?
	Mm-hmm. Oh, yeah.
	All the stuff is still there.
	And what do you think?
	I mean, I'm looking at this, and the passions are being escalated on both sides now, especially after there was, you know, the shooting of the Trump rally.
	I don't know what to call it, but after there was a shooting of the Trump rally, everybody is like, okay, that's it.
	And they are just...
	Ready to have a war if they lose.
	And that's why I've been describing Trump as kind of the Mason-Dixon line for a new civil war.
	Both sides want to fight over him if he doesn't win.
	I'm concerned about it.
	What do you think about that? I mean, you know, they could easily manipulate us into a civil war just by manipulating the election, which is a very concerning thing because we know how they manipulate the election.
	And a civil war, you know, massive civil unrest gives them exactly the excuse they need for a more blatant, I say more blatant, martial law and lockdown.
	Hey, they're not going to get us to do it for a virus again.
	They know we're not going to go for it.
	Even people that are not completely aware, but...
	So they have to go about it in a different way.
	We have no excuse, or we have no other option.
	You're rioting in the streets.
	We have to protect people. You know, again, it's always under protecting people.
	But, you know, David, I've got to bring up that ear bandage.
	Can I just say a word about it?
	Yeah, I've got my doubts as well.
	What do you think about the ear bandage?
	First of all, if your ear got grazed, there's two stories.
	It got grazed, and then there was so much blood that it was all over.
	But if it got grazed, what do you need that giant patch for?
	You need the patch because there's nothing wrong with your ear.
	Exactly. But you got people out there in the audience, they're wearing the patch and on it it says fight, fight, fight.
	They wrote that, they put a piece of paper on their ear and it says fight, fight, fight.
	I look at it, there was somebody who did a test of it.
	And these guys were, you know, all about Trump and Trump.
	They were not trying to debunk Trump at all.
	But what they had was a head that had this gel-like material that was like human flesh.
	They would use it for ballistics and stuff like that.
	And a skeleton that you could see inside the head.
	And they put a red MAGA cap on it.
	And so they've got this.
	And they get a little bit closer range so they can actually make this shot better.
	And they get a shot in the ear, and they come back and go, wow, I was surprised, because they had a very, very fast camera that was on it, so you could see this bullet in slow motion going through it.
	And it opened up a big hole, and I'm surprised at the damage that it did.
	And it's like, yeah, and I'm looking at these pictures, and I see red, but I don't see any hole or anything torn or anything missing, the bullet hitting his ear.
	Yeah. It really, you know, like I said, I don't know what to call this thing.
	We've got a lot of different theories out there about a lot of different things, but I got my doubts about all of it.
	I'm just concerned about how it's going to be used.
	And how it's being used is to really, again, ramp up everybody around Trump, for and against and things like that.
	And so this whole election, when we talk about election corruption, I used to be involved in third-party politics, and so I know about the ballot.
	When everybody was talking about it, I said, well, look, you know, he put the vote-by-mail stuff in, and, you know, we knew about the vulnerabilities with machines and the Internet.
	We could have done something about it.
	We didn't and then we add this new thing about that, but I said all the election corruption Begins with the ballot and now look at what is happening with a ballot all these people who voted in the primaries And of course they did anything they could to shut down the primaries now They're just gonna overturn all that and they're gonna do their own thing in a couple of weeks Just hand select candidates because it is a selection is not an election not at all and I mean
	If anybody thinks there are real elections since what you witnessed in 2020 You you just aren't paying attention And I knew something was very wrong.
	I'd been very devoted to Trump as a candidate, as a president, prior.
	And I knew something was wrong on the 5 o'clock on January 6th, and I'll tell you why.
	He came out, I call it the ISIS speech.
	You know, when they got caught by ISIS and they threw an American in like a jumpsuit and the person would stand there and say, I'm Jim Smith and I hate America and I'm, you know, they were under duress.
	He just looked, he had that black coat on, he was in front of the Rose Garden and he said, look, we know it was stolen, but you got to go home now.
	And I'm thinking, got to go home now?
	Our country was just stolen in a coup.
	Why would we go home?
	I'm not saying violence, I'm saying whatever, but have a different solution.
	And if you thought, if you believed you won, David, if you believed you won, From the people, we the people, in the United States, the presidency, would you have ever walked out of that building?
	I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
	And I'll tell you the other thing that made me suspicious about this event with the ear shooting is, look, he's been attacked before, and you've seen him taken off stage.
	They immediately surround.
	He didn't come back on after that one time where they took him off the back of the stage.
	He didn't come back and, yeah, rah, rah.
	No, they whiffed him away, and that was the end of it.
	This one, so strange.
	You're going to raise your arm Reagan-style and expose your trunk and your underarm where they can get into your heart with a shot?
	I don't think so.
	They knew he wasn't in danger, David.
	So I just wanted to mention that to him.
	Yeah, it was kind of funny watching Bill Maher saying, you know, wow, look at that.
	He's the luckiest guy in the world!
	And he was serious about it.
	He wasn't really being cynical about it.
	But he says, you know, he gets up there and he does this, you know, fight, fight, fight.
	And he goes, that's amazing.
	He goes, take one.
	We got it. You know? And I said, yeah, that's my thought.
	Exactly. And it's almost like they rehearsed it.
	Take one, we're done.
	It was amazing.
	To your point, I absolutely agree.
	I'm concerned about how it's being used and going to be used going forward.
	They've got them locked up, those sycophants.
	Yeah, it is strange.
	And they cannot... It's the, you know, when all this stuff started back in 2020, I said, you know, the entire country has become OCD. They've scared everybody to death.
	Nobody wanted to touch, you know, the pump and the gas, you know, put the gas in their car.
	You know, everybody's afraid to even do that.
	I said the entire nation has become psychotic with this OCD stuff.
	And we have this situation with the people who are so focused on Trump And they cannot make these connections.
	You know, they absolutely hate the vaccine, but they can't and won't connect it to him.
	It's an amazing double-think, isn't it?
	It is an incredible double-think.
	The excuses that people come out actually show the pathology of their inability to make the connections.
	Like, for example, when people say, oh, he was not telling you to take the shots when he told you to take the shots.
	He was...
	He was telling you to think, look between the lines and don't take the shots.
	Go take ivermectin.
	Well, that's like four leaps.
	I don't even know how you get there.
	But it is such an incessant, just burning desire to cover for this man.
	Even when he starts to talk about making Larry Fink, the CEO of BlackRock, his treasury secretary?
	Well, you know, he was going to be Hillary's treasury secretary.
	Yeah. You know, when she was so far out in front in 2016, they said, you know, they were talking about how they're going to fill out her cabinet.
	And it was going to be Larry Fink was going to be Treasury Secretary, just like for Trump.
	That's why I say there's no difference between these people.
	You're going to get the same government because the government is going to be the personnel are going to be the policy.
	When you put these people in, you're going to get the policy of BlackRock and Larry Fink, whether it's Trump up front or whether it's Hillary.
	It just makes it easier for them to control people.
	I've told these people that when we talk about the ivermectin thing, well, you know, he tried to tell us about ivermectin.
	I said, well, why didn't he manufacture it?
	Look at all the trouble they went to to manufacture the ventilators, and they were killing people.
	He could have ivermectin was cheap to make, and it's not patented anymore.
	He could have, first of all, could have used his power to say, nobody's going to stop you from getting a prescription filled from a doctor.
	Didn't do that. But if he wants to take this proactive approach and make remedies from the federal government, I don't know where you find that in the Constitution, but if he wants to do that, then do it with ivermectin.
	But he didn't. He didn't do it with HCQ either.
	Very disappointing. In terms of surrounding himself with the wrong people, we saw this in 2017.
	It was such a disappointment after his inauguration.
	I wrote an article.
	I remember the website, greatagain.gov, where everybody was so thrilled he was in.
	They said, President Trump wants to use all of the loyalists to come in.
	And a lot of these people got appointments in the administration.
	And then they started contacting me because I had a little podcast in D.C., And they said, Dr.
	Jane, the holdovers are the Obama managers.
	They're still here, and they're writing us up and firing us.
	So I wrote an article. And then they said, oh, we lost the database.
	Remember that? The Sean Spicer database?
	I mean, I wrote a second article saying, hey, loyalists, you're fired.
	Because really, anybody who was loyal to him, when I was in the Office of Presidential Correspondence in his administration, I would say, oh my gosh, isn't this great President Trump?
	We got somebody in the way.
	And a lot of them were from the Bush era and the Obama era.
	And they just looked at me.
	These were Republicans and whatever.
	And they looked at me and they said, yeah, yeah, that's great.
	And they walked down the hall.
	I worked in the EEOB. And I thought, why aren't they happy like me?
	Yeah. Yeah, because they realize that we've got taxation without representation, regulation without representation.
	That's what's happening in Washington with the bureaucracy that's permanently there.
	Yeah, you know, when you look at all this stuff and people, you know, he's trying to warn us, he's trying to get us the good stuff.
	I mean, that was the issues that I had in Infowars, why things blew up there, you know.
	I was going to tell people that Trump's got another shot, you know, and it's the good shot and all this other kind of stuff.
	It's crazy. And then when you look at January the 6th, You know, it was December the 14th.
	They'd already had the electoral college votes sent in.
	And at that point, you know, they could have done something, as I've said many times to the audience, they could have done something at the state legislatures, but they didn't.
	And so at that point, it really was too late.
	But the whole thing, the whole genesis of this was just based on such incredible lies, you know, just a couple of days after the election.
	And even Steve Bannon talking about it to that group of people with the Chinese billionaire Guo, telling them, yeah, on October 31st, he said, yeah, when it happens, we're just going to tell everybody we won.
	And so that's the kind of thing that I'm concerned about, is that this election is going to be used to push us into more open conflict, because they know the season that we're in, and most people don't.
	Everybody talks about millennial this and boomer that and all the rest of stuff But the people came up with the term millennial and Gen Z and Gen X and everything They they had a very good theory about every 80 years everything turns around and we're in the center of that right, and we're only got about another four or five years for this stuff to be finished and They're they're looking at all the institutions being changed And I think that's why we're seeing so much chaos and why everything is being thrown out there
	They they understand as Fauci did when he said in October 2019. How are we gonna get everybody take a vaccine?
	He was asked at Milken Institute and he said we do it from the inside We do it with chaos and we do it iteratively every that's everything that they're doing right now They're deliberately creating chaos from the inside and they're continually escalating that chaos Thank you very much.
	You know, you've often talked about the lockstep nature of this and that it goes across everything.
	One of the things I've been most outspoken about, and I've been unequivocal about it, is the Congress.
	And when I say all 535, I don't care who has an affection for Thomas Massey.
	I've already tussled with him because he's still in the position.
	Anybody who stays there, it's like the nurses who stayed in the hospitals and the doctors.
	You are enabling this big, gigantic system to continue to kill people, whether you're doing it yourself, physically or not.
	You are enabling the system.
	And even though a few of them rah-rah, and I've gotten into private email tussles with Senator Ron Johnson, happy to show those because they're actually public information, in my opinion.
	It was an official email by a government official, where he feigned indignation and I said, you're only using this for your next re-election campaign.
	You may talk and have all these hearings, like Marjorie Trader Greene and some of these other people, who likes to stand in her bikini, but you're not going to do anything.
	You could have hauled this company, Pfizer, Moderna, all these companies in.
	You could tie them up in discovery.
	There's a lot you can do, even as one senator or representative.
	David, I tell people, don't even look to Congress.
	I've told Brad Miller, the Military Accountability Project, friends of mine, I love my military.
	It's one of the reasons I came out in this whole thing four years ago.
	I've said, stop getting gaslighted by Congress because they're going to take you to a few parties on the Hill.
	I've been there, done that. Selfies with famous people.
	And you're going to go home and they're not going to do a damn thing about the military that are still under mandates in many areas of the military.
	And you know all that. But this is a big concern.
	Yeah, we saw that with Trey Gowdy.
	We have ample evidence about what happened with Benghazi.
	They do nothing about it. But he gets grandstands with all this stuff.
	And then he gets a talk show gig at Fox News.
	And Jim Jordan, another one of these.
	Oh, let's hold a hearing about that.
	And they'll never do anything.
	As you point out, they could tie them up in a lot of different ways.
	They could cut the money to these people, but they don't.
	That's their key weapon.
	And they keep funding everything, including, you know, foreign wars and all the rest of the stuff that they complain about.
	All they do is have these hearings.
	The argument that you made in terms of enabling them is one that I've actually made about schools, for example.
	It's like, yeah, we've got good teachers, and unfortunately, many times what happens is when you have a good teacher in school, that gets people to let their guard down.
	It's like, well, you know, yeah, and maybe they are really an excellent teacher, but they can't really change that institution.
	Instead, what it does is it builds people's confidence in something that is really going to rip their kids apart.
	And so I understand what your argument is there about even...
	No excuse. Yeah, yeah.
	No excuse. You stay in Congress, you're enabling it. Every Congress before them.
	The disillusionment has been so real, David. You know, Reagan was a beloved, we'll just take him as an example, such a beloved president, but like you say, he bloated up, you know, government just like the rest of them.
	He gave us pharma immunity. He gave us, he put that burden of compensation on the back of the American people. Despicable, because he caved to the pharma.
	You know, Trump, I mean, it just goes on and on and on.
	It's every president.
	It's every Congress.
	But we're living with this Congress right now.
	And I just can't stand people just not realizing.
	I mean, you know, it's Trey Gowdy.
	I used to say, all hearings, no action, right?
	Like Texas. Yeah.
	All hat, no cattle.
	You look rich, but you're not really doing anything.
	You don't have any cattle. And this is going to go on and on.
	And, you know, David, I take the slings and arrows every day.
	You're this, you're fake, you're that, okay?
	And then eventually, when they see that Congress has allowed this, and they've been, you know...
	By the way, they should be incensed that Congress exempted themselves from these shots.
	Hello! And there are 3,000 staffers.
	And 800,000 Chinese exchange students.
	How interesting. Well, I didn't know that.
	I didn't know about the Chinese exchange students.
	Yep. There you go.
	Wow. Crazy.
	Yeah, that's a smoking gun right there.
	So what do you tell people? We don't want to leave people hopeless with all this stuff, so what do you tell people to focus on?
	I tell people, well, I'll let you tell people what you focus on.
	No, I mean, like I said, you're my go-to person, and everything I share with the public is literally a composite of people like you, good patriots, good Americans, and people who are intelligent enough to figure this out.
	And you're right, I don't want to leave people with doom and gloom.
	I passion up the negative, the scary stuff, because people...
	They need to really stop going to Johnny's soccer game and not giving this more thought.
	But here's what I tell people, okay, then this.
	None of us is going to change anything at the federal level.
	It's such a behemoth. It's such a dangerous monster.
	We are being run by foreign and domestic enemies.
	There's every bit of evidence to show this.
	It's all out there if you just take the time to do it.
	So what does that mean?
	We all need to stay healthy, mentally, physically, keep our families going, because we need to survive in order to thrive on the other side of this.
	I am hopeful, David.
	Hope is not a plan.
	I'm very much focused on what I'm doing in my spheres.
	I have military intelligence.
	I have political intelligence.
	I have all kinds of resources that I put together every day.
	And what we're all doing and talking about is, yes, I'm still going to help educate the public and do my thing a little bit, but I'm going to focus more on the solutions.
	And for me, the solutions start local.
	I've said to people, it's very basic.
	And I don't like when people throw out meat and say, oh, it's local.
	Start there. So let me give a couple of pieces of that.
	Look around you now.
	I know it sounds silly. Who's got an American flag on their home or apartment in your neighborhood?
	Who is of like mind that you already know in your family?
	You have people who hate you now because of this and people who are of like mind.
	Your neighbors, your family, your community, get your barriers set up.
	Not necessarily a fence.
	But, hey, look, if stuff goes south, look, I'm a nurse practitioner, you're a carpenter, you're an elect, okay, we're going to support each other and create an infrastructure parallel so that we can stay off of their grid as much as possible.
	Off the grid is independent.
	That's right. And you can protect yourselves.
	Maybe we won't see it in our lifetime.
	I don't think I'll see it.
	I'm way too old.
	Mm-hmm. But I do believe that it'll take a generation or two, and people will look back and say, boy, they were right.
	They understood what we're doing.
	I'm glad we followed their lead.
	Because you need to survive this oncoming thing that's happening in our government, in our country, in order to get to the other side.
	That's right. So, yes, you need to ask yourselves and your family, if we couldn't get to an on-grid store, For 12 months.
	Let's go the worst possible that you could think of.
	What would we eat?
	Where would we get the intermittent power?
	Electricity? What do we have to protect our resources that we were smart enough?
	Right? So you better have some firearms.
	You better have some perimeter. And those kinds of things.
	That gives people working things to do that will come back to serve them.
	And then just don't send any money.
	Please don't send money to the RNC or to anybody in Congress.
	Yeah. Please don't.
	For years, when they would send me a fundraising thing because of my registration or whatever, I would take all the paperwork and I would wrap it up in their postage-paid return envelope and send it back to them without putting anything on it so they didn't know where it was coming from.
	It's like, you pay for the postage to send this thing back.
	I love that! But, yeah, I absolutely agree with that.
	You know, we've got to do this locally.
	It begins with us and we need to have, you know, we need to have alliances with people.
	We need to learn that real prepping is really about skills.
	It's not just about accumulating stuff.
	And so, and that's what I want people, that's why I say, you know, when we look at the elections, you know, it is a big distraction.
	It is a big reality TV show.
	And I think it's there to distract us.
	And to move us away from the things that we could do that would really make a difference.
	And that is all local.
	All the things that are going to make a difference.
	And we still have an opportunity to do some things individually as well as even in some areas you might have some ability to do things with local government.
	Because we saw a big difference in what was happening in 2020 with those lockdowns.
	It was a big difference from place to place.
	I traveled across the country, and so that really hammered home the point to me that, you know, we need to focus a little bit more on the local area.
	There can be a lot of corruption anywhere that you go.
	I mean, we're dealing with people.
	There can be corruption, but there's also more of an opportunity to do something at the local level.
	Even Elon Musk tried to explain that to people, that Soros was smart because he was leveraging his money on local district attorneys.
	Oh. And that is a very cynical thing that he's doing, but it is a good strategy because all politics is local.
	But your life is really local.
	And if you don't have this kind of relationship with other people, and I would also say relationship with God, because when I look at...
	At Hope, I'm looking at that as a confident expectation.
	That's my grounding.
	That's what I know that I can trust on, and that anybody's going to take that away from me, no matter what happens, life or death.
	And so you've got to have a foundation, you've got to have relationships, and you've got to start building from the ground up instead of from the top down.
	That's the thing that's so annoying to me, is to see that conservatives have bought into this idea of top-down solutions from government.
	They want the government, they want the president to do everything.
	It's just amazing. The savior complex.
	And I do want to spend a few minutes talking about the Lord and your spirituality and how important that is right now.
	Because for those people, David, who did unfortunately make the wrong choice under duress, but is clearly the wrong choice and took the shots, that's not a judgment.
	I tell them, you must acknowledge that you made the wrong or a very bad choice, because otherwise you will fall for it again.
	If you don't believe you have the power to really choose.
	And then you can start to forgive yourself.
	I made a mistake. That was wrong.
	I knew I was trying to do something good and protect my family.
	But then you can then start to heal spiritually and ask God for comfort and support and miracles of healing and for forgiveness.
	For forgiveness for not recognizing the delusion that He had sent so many of us.
	That's what our relationship with Christ is all about.
	It's about a new beginning. And that new beginning starts with not trying to just put it away and ignore that it ever happened, as they did at the RNC about 2020.
	It's about confronting that and acknowledging, as you point out, mistakes so you don't make them again.
	But it's also that is absolutely necessary that we come to grips with the uncomfortable realities that we have in life, and that includes our own uncomfortable realities.
	So that is absolutely important, and that is what is missing from so many different things.
	People will just run from these problems, and you've got to confront them.
	And he's waiting, I think, for more people to realize what this is about and to come to him.
	Ultimately, he wins and he knows what's going to happen and why we're all here.
	I think, you know, one time I heard, I was backstage and I watched Dr.
	Zelenko go out. I was speaking after him.
	And he went out on stage and after the crowd calmed down, he said something really shocking.
	He said, we are living in the greatest time in history.
	And I thought, oh my God, Dr.
	Z, how could you say that? You know, people are dying, the shots, the whole bit.
	And there was a pause.
	And then he said, because we are, the enemy has revealed himself, and we are about to see the light overcome the darkness.
	Now, unfortunately, about a month later, he passed away from his cancer, which I have theories about.
	That's another topic. But I realized we're all here at this time, you know, in God's time for this purpose.
	So everybody should try to find that purpose and look around you and see who you and what you can protect to help as many people of God's children to get to the other side.
	That's my whole feeling about it.
	Yeah, it is an interesting time that we're living in.
	That's the old Chinese curse, you know, may you live in interesting times.
	But that means that there are opportunities for us in this type of situation.
	It is a time of testing.
	We always have tests that are being given to us.
	us. We don't know what the purpose of it is, but really the purpose of the test is really to find out what you know about yourself. It's to teach you about yourself. You know, God knows everything about us. He doesn't, we need to know about ourselves. And that's really what kind of comes out of these tests. So it is, it is a very difficult time.
	It's an important time for people who are going to just do their best. Anybody can be mistaken.
	But we just have to do our best to tell people what is true.
	If we see something that is out there, we need to warn them about it.
	That's what I appreciate you doing that and telling people, honestly, regardless of how it's going to be received, you know, the truth is the truth, and we have to tell people about that.
	Yeah, and I just want to say one last thing.
	In terms of warning, big, big, big warning, everybody, please.
	This mRNA, you've got Vance invested with Ramaswamy, Vivek, and Teal, and all the hundreds and thousands of people investing billions into mRNA.
	It's not going anywhere.
	So get off of the pharmaceutical grid.
	Get off of the notion, the old-fashioned.
	It's coming at us in a lot of different ways.
	And so we've got to be aware so we know what to protect ourselves from.
	And that's a whole other topic, I know.
	And of course, Ramaswamy was there in the Ohio with DeWine, one of the worst of the governors, and he was there trying to put in surveillance and tracking and things like that.
	So that's a whole other aspect of it that dovetails with all of this pandemic thing, is the surveillance and tracking.
	And that all goes back to Peter Thiel and Palantir and all the rest of the stuff.
	It's about surveillance, tracking, anticipating what people are going to do, manipulating them, punishing them in advance because they, you know, kind of this pre-crime thing, they called it anticipatory intelligence.
	It's been around for a while, but they're making it real.
	And the people who have made it real and made a fortune off of it are the ones who are supporting J.D. Vance.
	It's very concerning. I'm very concerned.
	And Donald Trump. Don't leave him out because he's bringing them all together like he brought them all together in 2020, operational warp speed, consolidating all the alphabet agencies that created this nightmare.
	That's right. Yeah. Yeah.
	Second term is going to be pretty amazing.
	Tell people where they can find you, Dr.
	Ruby. Well, I have my own show and coffee chats, which are not as benign as they sound.
	They get a little deep into information.
	On my Rumble channel, it's rumble.com forward slash drjaineruby.
	And I'm pretty active over on Twitter and Telegram, just trying to get the word out, get conversations going and things like that.
	So, really, thank you so much, David.
	It's been an honor. You are one of my absolute favorites and go-tos, and it's been great being with you.
	Thank you very much. It's an honor to have you on, and great information, and thanks for sticking your neck out there, even if you're going to get people throwing stuff at you.
	So, thank you for what you do.
	And we're going to take a quick break, folks, and we'll be right back.
	Thank you.
	Analyzing the globalist's next move.
	And now, The David Nutt Show.
	you Let's talk a little bit about what we can put our trust in.
	I don't want to leave people blackpilled and cynical and without hope.
	I saw this article and I thought it was really a wonderful article.
	It's about a search and rescue team.
	And they were looking for a man and they'd been looking for him for about two weeks.
	And there was no sign of it.
	And so they believed that they were just doing a body recovery.
	But they actually found the man alive after 14 days.
	12 days without any food or water.
	12 days without food or water.
	The person who was on the rescue team, Scott Hearn.
	I'm sorry, the person that they were looking for was Scott Hearn.
	It came one day after a person was on the search and rescue team, Eric Walterman.
	He described himself as, quote, not a very religious person, but he said he woke up and he felt compelled to pray.
	He felt compelled to pray that day.
	A guy that doesn't normally pray.
	For this 48-year-old man that had been gone for 14 days and missing food and water for 12.
	He said, I'm not a very religious person, but yesterday morning I woke up and I said a prayer for Scott Hearn and his family.
	He said in a statement that was shared by the search and rescue team.
	He said, to be honest, praying isn't something I do too often.
	We were working on this operation since Tuesday, and most of the team went into the day pretty much with a thought this was going to be a recovery mission.
	Just recover a body.
	So I said a prayer, knowing that the family would probably be getting some very sad news that day.
	As the searcher recalled, he said Saturday was going to be the teen's very last day for looking for him, regardless of what they found or didn't find.
	The area that they searched was the roughest terrain in a very dangerous part of the Daniel Boone National Forest.
	During the last-ditch search effort, the team found footprints in the mud they had not seen before.
	So we stopped to regroup, and one of the people on the team heard a very faint noise.
	He said, We paused and we shouted, Who is that?
	Thinking it was another search team, I then heard, Help!
	And we took off in that direction.
	We got closer. We asked what his name was.
	He said, Scott Hearn, the guy they've been looking for.
	I've never moved faster uphill in my entire life, he said.
	Walterman hurried ahead with the search rescue team.
	As soon as he reached Hearn, he remembered, he said, My name is Eric.
	I'm with Wolf County Search and Rescue.
	You're safe. We're going to get you out of here.
	He just looked at me and said, Thank you so much.
	Will you give me a hug?
	He said, I got teary-eyed and I gave him a big hug.
	He said it was perhaps the best hug of both of our lives.
	So the team has described this rescue as truly a miracle.
	They said we were persistent in our search, but he said the hope was failing.
	And so, you know, when you look at this, There are times in our life where we may be moved to pray for somebody, but I think it's important for people to understand that, and if you try it, I think you will be amazed at the results.
	I just got to say, prayer has changed our life.
	It's changed many people's lives that I know.
	And at the same time, we see that belief in creationism is at an all-time low.
	And what we're not talking about is creationism.
	What we're talking about is just belief in the Bible, is what you're talking about here.
	A percentage of Americans who believe that God created humans in their present form in the past 10,000 years is the lowest that it has been since they've been looking at the polling results from Gallup.
	They've been doing that for 40 years.
	They've never gone this low.
	While the share of those who do not believe God had any role in human evolution is the highest that they've recorded in the Gallup poll.
	Again, they've been doing it since 1982, so they've been doing it for 42 years.
	The largest segment of Americans, 37%, remained creationists, despite the all-time recorded low.
	The scientific theory of evolution has evolved.
	And it really has evolved.
	They've changed it quite a few times.
	But it has evolved and is getting larger and larger.
	You know, I knew of Francis Collins long before he was at the NIH. I knew of him before he was really involved in the Human Genome Project.
	I knew him from a thing that he set up called BioLogos.
	The purpose of that was to Put the Bible subordinate to whatever the scientist's understanding of the world was at that point in time.
	To make it subordinate to the idea of molecules to man evolution.
	Which is different from the kind of natural selection that Charles Darwin was observing.
	Yes, you're going to have an amazing amount of variation as possible.
	You can do that with selective breeding or it can be done accidentally.
	It can be done because of environmental effects and things like that.
	There's a tremendous amount of variation in the DNA. And I thought it was interesting, and I don't know which one he got involved in first, whether it was BioLogos or whether it was the Human Genome Project, but you know, Francis Collins ran the Human Genome Project.
	They had... This massive effort of scientists and computing assets that went over many, many years to try to sequence DNA. And of course, they never really finished with it.
	They always wound up with things.
	Oh, well, that's junk DNA. And it's like, no, there's no junk DNA in there.
	That's part of the problem with their presupposition that there's no intelligent design.
	And that was the thing that I always found puzzling about Francis Collins.
	He was an opponent.
	Now, how, as an opponent of intelligent design, do you really approach DNA? DNA is one of the best examples of intelligent design.
	And maybe that's why they come up with junk DNA, because that is their presupposition in it.
	But I always thought that, you know, when you look at that, of course, the people who discovered it, they had a presupposition that there cannot possibly be a god.
	So they said, well, we think, you know, it obviously is intelligent design, said Crick and Watson.
	But we're going to attribute it to space aliens and call it panspermia.
	And so he goes one step further.
	He says, no, there's no such thing as intelligent design.
	And you don't even have to look at the DNA to see that.
	I mean, when you look at various aspects of an animal, for example, like a giraffe, right?
	It has specific designs for the giraffe that if it didn't have those things, it would not be able to function, right?
	It's got a very... Long neck, its head is really high up.
	It's got a huge heart that is really pumping to get that blood up that neck to the head and everything.
	And yet there is, in their brain, there's an ability to absorb that surge of blood when they move their head down to drink or move their head down to ground level.
	And you'll find that kind of stuff, many examples of that in every single animal.
	It's one of the things that I really enjoyed homeschooling the kids with, because that was never taught to me in school.
	The uniqueness of each and every animal.
	You see what they tried to do is they dumbed it down to trying to come up with a, take it down to the skeletal level.
	And classify everything by vertebrates and non-vertebrates and then say, well, this is related to that because they look similar.
	Well, maybe they look similar because there's a similar designer.
	But they would completely miss all of these unique features of the woodpecker or the giraffe or the bombardier beetle or something like that.
	That had to be very specially designed.
	They couldn't possibly evolve.
	You remove one aspect of it and the entire organism fails.
	It's one of the things I'm looking forward to with a little kid, Travis.
	He's doing that kind of stuff with me.
	I get a chance to review that again because that was a lot of fun.
	But you know, when you look at this, it's Francis Collins, before he ever got into...
	Before we ever got into lying to people.
	And again, pushing through these radical and dangerous experiments that he and Fauci were doing.
	He and another guy are out there trying to rehabilitate people's faith and science and religion now.
	Well, I think he's kind of the poster child for why people are skeptical and have abandoned these institutions.
	If we look at Trump, for example, his disassociation with abortion issues, this article from LifeSite News is very concerned at what they saw with the RNC in the same way that we see gun owners are very concerned about what happened with the RNC, this new platform that was stripped down at the insistence of Trump.
	But as I said, why would these people think that they would not discard their organization, whether you're pro-life or you're pro-second amendment or the rest of these things?
	Why would you think that he would not discard you since he, as I said the other day, discarded the Constitution like he did his trophy wives?
	He'll do the same thing to you.
	He'll do the same thing to the pro-life movement.
	He's capable of doing that to babies if they get in the way of his political ambition.
	The 2024 Republican platform was released with nearly all previous pro-life commitments purged.
	The only remaining commitment, opposition to late-term abortion, was in the same sentence as support for birth control and IVF.
	Reports indicate that on abortion and on the sanctity of marriage, Trump was personally involved in drafting the changes.
	The convention speeches in Milwaukee, which contained not a single mention of abortion, were confirmation of the GOP's pivot away from the pro-life movement.
	How could you possibly think that That somebody who did what Trump did in 2020 was pro-life.
	When you look at what happened to the hospitals, when you look at what happened with the vaccine and all the rest of this.
	And so when he talks about this, as I said, the idea that he said it'll never be a federal issue again because we were able to get rid of Roe v.
	Wade and it's now in the States.
	And, you know, that is one of the problems.
	that the pro-life movement has with it. And I think though that they don't understand or respect first of all the Constitution. If you think that that is wrong, morally wrong, well then you have to still change the Constitution. That is the appropriate way to change it.
	See, there was never any authority on the Constitution for anybody to regulate abortion, to define when life begins, to define what marriage is, and all those things will be brought back in.
	Right now, with the removal of Roe v.
	Wade, and the left understood it immediately because they knew that they were usurping power that they didn't have when they defined when life began, when they defined what marriage is.
	And so immediately they say, whoa, well, that puts in jeopardy the idea that the Supreme Court can dictate marriage to the states.
	And so these people who are pro-life, who are Christians, need to understand that.
	They need to understand that, first of all, they have to change the Constitution.
	Secondly, they need to understand that if they do federalize it, it's going to result in an absolutely unrestricted abortion.
	And that's going to happen pretty quickly if they do it.
	If they're in charge, and they put it in, and put it in with some restrictions...
	Then what is going to happen is as our society is drifting, they're going to put it in as unrestricted abortion.
	There's not going to be anything. And this is a bad strategy because it is trying, again, to pursue a solution from the top down.
	To try to get this imposed upon other people from a centralized standpoint.
	This is one of the reasons why conservatives have over and over again created institutions that have been weaponized against them.
	They talk about Project 2025.
	They said it's notable for how seldom Project 2025 mentions abortion, despite the involvement of a number of pro-life leaders.
	It merely states that abortion and euthanasia are not health care.
	And it advocates that the Health and Human Services Department must ensure that in all its programs and activities, they root them in deep respect for innocent human life from day one until natural death, unquote.
	But see here again. HHS shouldn't even exist.
	You know, it wasn't created until 1953.
	Where did the authority for that come from?
	Is there any authority in the Constitution to have a federal HHS? No.
	Like essentially everything that they do.
	The only specific pro-life policy advocated by Project 2025 is a proposal that the FDA reinstate a previous ban on mailing abortion pills and requiring that the abortion pill be overseen by doctors in person rather than by telemedicine.
	Again, no authority for the FDA to exist.
	Well, what would we do if we didn't have the FDA? What would we do if we didn't have the HHS? We would regulate it at a more local level.
	And at a local level, you could do something about that.
	In the same way that you don't have to have the FDA telling us or inspecting our food.
	We can do that and we can do it better at the local level.
	Finally, and I'll end up with this here, it's very similar to what we began with.
	The prayer from the search and rescue team guy.
	He said he really wasn't a praying man, but he just woke up.
	He felt compelled to pray about it.
	We can all kind of wonder, you know, why does it work that way?
	But nevertheless, just accept that it does.
	This is a guy who was traveling with his father out in West Texas.
	His father had grown up on farms, been a long line of farmers, but his father had left that line of work and become a statistician.
	He said, we're just driving out in West Texas where you just see for miles and miles and miles, there's nothing in the way, no trees, nothing is flat.
	We were driving, we were talking.
	He said it's always great to do that with his dad because he's one of these guys, he who knows a great deal about pretty much everything.
	Tremendously a wide array of subjects.
	And so he said his dad is pointing out some of the tracts of land that he's looking at.
	And he said, that farm over there, that's a dry land farm.
	And then he explained what a dry land farm was.
	He said, it's exactly the way that it sounds.
	He said, it's land that is intentionally not irrigated.
	This is the purest kind of farming where you plow the fields, you plant the crops, and you wait for the rain.
	While it takes a big risk because you're truly operating in the realm of faith, dry land farming can also be very lucrative, he said, because it's so expensive to irrigate.
	He said a farmer really only needs the dry land to produce a good crop once every ten years in order to get by.
	And he said, well, I looked at that.
	He said, I thought, you know, there's a real relatable point here to spiritual discipline.
	He said, you know, as well as I do, that some mornings, maybe many mornings, your time with the Lord just feels dry.
	So dry that you wonder if the rain is ever going to come again.
	So dry that you wonder if the time you put into prayer and studying and memorizing is even worth it.
	He said, you can choose the road of faith.
	That eventually your feelings are going to catch up to what you know is true.
	And you can continue to break up the hard ground of your heart and to sow the seed of the word inside those cracked and parched places.
	Because you know that even in this dry land, the rain will eventually fall.
	And you'll be ready when it does.
	One of my favorite passages is Isaiah 55, where it talks about the rain and the snow.
	And, you know, when I looked at that, I thought about that for quite a while, and it seems to me like, you know, sometimes we have snow, and it doesn't immediately water the ground, does it?
	It kind of sits there for a very long time, then eventually it'll seep into the ground.
	And I think that is an amazing picture of what our life is like.
	You know, his thoughts are not our thoughts.
	His ways are not our ways, are they?
	We'll be right back. You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	On RockFan, Greg Talent.
	Thank you very much for this tip.
	I appreciate that.
	Thank you. Let's take a look at some news.
	And we've had an interesting update.
	You know, so many times we have seen these radical environmentalists gluing themselves to the floor to an automobile showroom or something like that, throwing paint on cars.
	Very famous paintings and museums and things like that.
	In the UK, some of these protesters in a group called Just Stop Oil blocked the M25 motorway.
	Very busy, what we would call an interstate here.
	Blocked that motorway and did it several days in a row.
	They allegedly caused more than 50,000 hours of vehicle delay, affecting more than 700,000 vehicles.
	They left the M25 compromised for more than 120 hours.
	They had 45 people who climbed up onto the gantry's It led to an economic cost of about 765,000 pounds.
	The cost to the Metropolitan Police was more than 1.1 million pounds.
	We had a police officer who suffered a concussion and was bruised after being knocked off his motorbike in traffic during one of these protests.
	And they did it four successive days back in November of 2022.
	Well, they just had a trial for them.
	They jailed them, and they tried them, and they have now been found guilty and given five years' imprisonment.
	For the guy who was a leader, four other defendants have been given four years in prison.
	And so some of the people who responded to that, one supporter, said, we've got a world here that is burning and it's flooding.
	It's not a deluge. It's a delusion that you're suffering from here.
	He said, it's terrifying.
	This is happening in the UK. We've got to do everything we can to push back for our right to peaceful protest.
	Ah, well, okay.
	So, if you interfere with emergency vehicles, if you tie people up and you steal a day from them, you know, I mean, they were essentially imprisoning these people on the interstate, a traffic jam of their own making.
	And you multiply that out by the number of people, I wonder if that was equivalent to the five years that he's going to lose out of his life, you know?
	He did that for a lot of people.
	So the problem is that when we talk about protests, and I'm all about peaceful protests, and I'm all about extreme support of free speech, but when you start to physically interfere with people, when you start to do vandalism and destroy property and other things like that, that's no longer a peaceful protest.
	That's no longer a debate.
	That's an attack. This guy says, well, today it's about the climate.
	Tomorrow it could be about something else.
	This is a terrifying, terrifying result today.
	I've been in those delays caused by Just Stop Oil protesters.
	I've suffered those inconveniences.
	Well, what gives you the right to do that to other people?
	He said, not to the same degree that I've missed a funeral or missed a hospital appointment or anything of that level or, you know, a pregnant woman trying to get to the hospital.
	And these clowns of...
	Deliberately done this to make a point?
	See, the problem is that they're not even making a point with anybody.
	It's actually backfiring on them in a number of ways.
	Their cause is not popular after that.
	He says, I can just say at this point, we need to look at the bigger picture on a global scale.
	We need to think about the entire species.
	Turn on your social media this evening and read all about it.
	Look at the flooding. Look at the fires.
	Look at the people's homes and livelihoods being destroyed.
	That's coming here, he said.
	Well, if it is a global problem, Then why isn't it already there?
	Right? He says global warming is already kicking in in other places.
	Well, why hasn't it kicked in there?
	We see that the guy that was so obnoxious on social media, who was...
	Let's see if we can pull up the picture there, Travis.
	Illegal alien TikToker.
	Everybody will remember this guy's picture.
	You know, talking about how you just come in and you get the money and all the rest of the stuff.
	Millions of Americans disgusted with this illegal alien using TikTok to tell people to invade.
	There he is right there.
	That guy. You remember him, right?
	It turns out that he actually worked for Venezuela's military intelligence.
	Oh, wait. Is it really an invasion?
	Yeah. Remember the illegal who encouraged squatting in U.S. homes?
	Well, he is a, maybe former, sergeant in Venezuela's military intelligence unit.
	That was put out by N. Wokeness.
	Since his arrest, U.S. intelligence officers have found that he was a sergeant in Venezuela's military intelligence unit before he invaded the U.S. southern border.
	Illegally entering the U.S. through Eagle Pass, Texas.
	Released into the country with no prior vetting.
	And, of course, Venezuela is not going to help us to understand who the criminals are.
	Many of these countries are hostile to us and want to send their criminals to the United States.
	Remember, Cuba did that under Castro.
	It released the prisons and sent them into America.
	But it is really kind of a form of asymmetric warfare.
	And this kind of asymmetric warfare, flooding the nation with military-aged men, this guy, an intelligence agent for the Venezuelan communists who really hate this country, it's not just them either.
	It's also a war being conducted against us by the Biden people.
	And I say the Biden people because all the people around him that are going to be there with Lala, who, again, was given the point on doing something to stop all of this.
	There's an interesting article on Daily Skeptic, The War on the Family Home.
	And this is what the environmentalist, the Labour Party in the UK is doing there.
	A great novelist, says David McGrogan, who wrote this, he said a great novelist can, in a short passage, say more than a thousand scholars or non-fiction writers can in a lifetime.
	And in this, he talks about Dostoevsky's brothers Karamazov.
	And in that, there is a section about the Grand Inquisitor.
	In this story within a story, Jesus is imagined to have returned to 16th century Spain and is put on trial by the Inquisition.
	The accusation is that in rejecting the offer from Satan when tempted in the desert to be made ruler of the world, Jesus condemned mankind to freedom and thereby to suffering.
	And it would have been better if he would have accepted Satan's offer and taken the opportunity to simply make everybody good, safe, and content.
	The head of the Inquisition, the Grand Inquisitor, then paints a picture of what the appropriate relationship should be with the people and the church.
	He said, all will they bring to us, and we shall resolve it, and they will attend our decision with joy, because it will deliver them from great anxiety and fearsome torments of free and individual decision.
	And I looked at that and I thought...
	Wow, isn't that what everybody who's cheering on this political process in this election really is looking for?
	Now, they really want somebody who is, you can take all your problems to them, and they'll resolve it all.
	They will attend our decision with joy.
	They will deliver us from anxiety and fear of having to make the choices ourselves and having to think for ourselves.
	And so he says, there are then, as Dostoevsky is telling us, people in the world who think the real problem with Jesus was that he wanted people to be free.
	Just think of the good I could do.
	These people say to themselves, if only I were in charge of every decision that anybody could ever conceivably make, I would make everything perfect.
	The implication is that freedom is necessarily undesirable, that people should be made to do what is good for them.
	And that free choice can only either get in the way of that objective or align with it.
	And if they align with it, well, then you don't have the freedom.
	Now, he says all this to get into economics and the Labor Party.
	But I think right there at that point, we get the essence of what is wrong with this whole political pageant that we are all caught up in.
	But when he gets into the economics, he talks about John Maynard Keynes, 1920s economist, wrote the essay, The End of Laissez-Faire.
	He did not like free markets.
	He did not like free choices.
	He's an economist that's going to dictate what is good for us and do it from a centralized position of power.
	He made his contempt for freedom very clear.
	He says, nor is it true that self-interest generally is enlightened.
	More often, individuals acting separately to promote their own ends are too ignorant or too weak to attain even these.
	Didn't we hear that during the lockdown?
	Didn't we see that kind of idea weaponized against us?
	Even by church leaders who are spiritual leaders that a lot of people look up to.
	Oh, you know, you need to do this for your neighbor.
	Don't be stingy.
	You know, you need to take the shot for everybody and all the rest of the stuff.
	That's the whole idea behind all the public health stuff.
	That's the whole idea behind everything that the government dictates to us.
	Keynes wrote at a time when the Labor Party was in its infancy.
	But it is this mentality, the grand inquisitorial mentality, that's come to permeate the way the Labor Party thinks about wealth, as we see with now that they're in power again.
	An individual, John McTernan, who said, a lot of wealth in the UK is in the form of housing wealth.
	It seems right that you should actually extract some revenue from that.
	See, they're preparing the way everywhere for a wealth tax, coming in a lot of different ways.
	The reality is that the largest amount of wealth outside of pensions held in the country, they're actually held in the form of housing.
	He said, now you can think what you like about housing, and housing is definitely a social need.
	No, it's an individual need.
	Social need. Everything that they see, they've got such a collective mindset.
	That's the lens in which they see everything.
	So even your house is a social need.
	Housing, though, is a capital asset that's been accumulating, particularly accumulating in the period of quantitative easing.
	It was a windfall to most homeowners, says this guy with the Labor Party that's now newly in power.
	The fact that the houses that they lived in have gone up in value, some of them even faster than their income went up.
	Oh, so let's take that away.
	Because you can't have anything.
	He said, I was able to figure out that two trillion pounds in value increased to them, accumulated to housing in Britain during the pandemic, when we were literally doing nothing but staying at home.
	Now that's a windfall, and windfalls should get a windfall tax.
	Let's confiscate these people's homes, or at least the value in them.
	This guy says there's times when one feels as though public discourse has become too uncivil, that it would be nice if everybody remembered that, generally speaking, even one's political opponents are approaching the matter of public policy in good faith.
	But then there's other times.
	When one is driven to agree that the real issue we face is that we're governed by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to govern us.
	It's one of those occasions.
	It certainly is, isn't it?
	Because now we see that milk is being called racist.
	Maybe that's because it's white.
	But yeah, that's the latest attack on it.
	In Singapore... We have approval of 16 different insect species for human consumption.
	And the goal is to be met by 2030.
	And so, if you want to really be mutual to other people, as they told the prisoner in the village, you know, be mutual to others.
	Well, you need to eat some bugs.
	Singaporeans and visitors may soon be chowing down on several species of crickets, grasshoppers, muleworms, beetles, moths, and honeybees.
	We'll talk about bees here in a second.
	The bugs may also be used to feed food-producing animals.
	You know, when we were in China, it seemed like they were pretty much eating everything already anyway.
	We laughed about it.
	They had all these signs up of things they had.
	Fish lips. Fish lips.
	And other strange things.
	The whole eating dog thing isn't just a racist joke.
	It's real. It's real.
	Yeah, it was real. They had all these dogs exactly the same breed and exactly the same size and age, too, running around.
	And they told us, yeah, well, that all goes away in the fall.
	So my favorite was the partridge that they had.
	And you could get that with congee.
	And I said, oh. And a partridge and some congee.
	That's the 12 meals of China.
	Even when we're trying to find something that we kind of knew what it was, we went to Kentucky Fried Chicken, we thought, KFC. And I think that stands for Kentucky Fried Creatures.
	I don't know what the creature was that we were eating.
	When we got it, we got a very small drumstick, smaller than you typically see with a chicken, and it was white meat.
	So, I don't know what that was coming from.
	Anyway, they're just showing that Singapore is a little bit more open than we thought they were going to be to eating edible insects.
	Some chefs in Singapore are already putting insects on the menu, including the House of Seafood, where they offer 30 dishes that feature insects, such as sushi topped with silkworms and salted egg crabs with superworms.
	And the guy who runs the restaurant said, many of our customers, especially young people who are under 30 years old, are very daring.
	That's called being gullible.
	Gullible and inedible, I think.
	Tucker loves mugs.
	He had a guy on who was eating all kinds of, oh, this is great.
	Yeah, he was selling that whole narrative for you.
	Not as much as Klaus, where you will own nothing and you will be happy.
	Before we end the program, though, I just want to say, you know, when we're looking at what these people, the Keynesian economics, you know, and the debt that we have been smothered with, that is something that you have it in the power, your own power, to do a little bit of something about that, to prepare about that. One of the things you can do is you can start accumulating gold and silver to some degree as wealth insurance.
	A great place to do that is with Tony Arterman at Wise Wolf.
	He has set up davidknight.gold to take you to Wise Wolf.
	And there you can sign up for Wolfpack.
	You can begin accumulating gold and whatever monthly budget amount you want to do from 50 bucks up.
	And You also get the benefits of group discounts by being a part of Wolfpack.
	But, of course, you can also buy gold and silver in any quantity with Tony, and he can help you with your IRA as well.
	And as I point out, yesterday we've got a new sponsor here, Patriot B Best.
	And that is another way that you can start to prepare.
	We need to start taking control of our own food, of our own food chain.
	And unless we are able to grow a lot of our own food, and guess what?
	We're going to need to have bees in order to do that.
	You want to have a garden, you're going to have to have some bees, whether they come there naturally or whether you help that along a little bit.
	If you go to patriotbeebest.com, you will find information about bees.
	As a matter of fact, the good people at Patriot Bee Best have done extensive research and study about the importance of our bee populations in maintaining the natural food supply.
	Patriot Bee is a digital bee sanctuary for education, engagement, and real change.
	These people know bees, and Patriot Bee Best is laser-focused on restoration and preservation of the American bee population.
	You can learn about how the honeybee benefits all of us, and you don't even have to eat them like in China.
	You can't. It would be better if you don't, actually, because they're going to provide food for you.
	You can learn about how they benefit all of us.
	You can discover bee-friendly initiatives and other helpful resources at the Worker Bee subscription level.
	Each issue of Buzz offers educational information, advocacy opportunities, bee-friendly products, bee rescue activities and more.
	In addition, Queen Bee subscribers will get access to bonus content on patriotic topics related to restoring and reinforcing American values.
	So join to learn about restoring the health of the American bee population.
	Check them out at PatriotBeeBest.com.
	You can subscribe.
	You can see all the cool bee-related products they have to offer.
	It is the destination for all things about the American beach.
	Check out the links there. They've got a video.
	Why is our American Bee population under attack?
	And we do appreciate them as a sponsor of the program.
	Again, PatriotBeeBest.com where you'll find all that information.
	Well, we're just about out of time.
	But as I said, you know, the racist milk and all the rest of the things, we clearly understand Where they're headed.
	They've told us that they don't want us to have any food.
	They've told us that they want us to eat the bugs and own nothing.
	And now they're trying to make that come true.
	They want to take the equity in our homes.
	They want to take the food from our farms.
	They want to shut down the farms and take the farms.
	And that's why it's very important for us to start to learn.
	Preparing is really about relationships.
	And having those relationships, as we were saying earlier with Dr.
	Ruby, having those relationships in your community and having the skills that you can barter with somebody else with.
	Those are the things.
	Focus on local.
	Don't get so caught up in this election.
	Yeah, you're going to hear nothing for the next few weeks.
	You're going to be hearing everything now about Lala Harris and the Democrats as they come up with their selection.
	As somebody pointed out, the Democrat Party that was always all about democracy has now just flushed all the votes that people made, and they're going to tell you who you can vote for.
	It's never been more obvious, is it?
	Well, have a good day.
	Thank you for joining us.
	Let me tell you.
	The David Knight Show.
	You can listen to with your ears.
	You can even watch it by using your eyes.
	In fact, if you can hear me, that means you're listening to The David Knight Show right now.
	Yeah, good job.
	And you want to know something else?
	You can find all the links to everywhere to watch or listen to the show at TheDavidKnightShow.com.

▲