Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 6, 2024 - The David Knight Show

03:02:59

The David Knight Show - 08/06/2024

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	you
	using free speech to free minds minds.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	As the clock strikes 13, it's Tuesday, the 6th of August, Year of Our Lord 2024.
	Well, today we're going to take a look at the day after the financial panic.
	And the real issue is, as some of the exchanges are recovering, Japan has recovered a great deal.
	Bitcoin has recovered half of what fell down yesterday.
	But the question is, is the Fed going to cut rates because of this?
	We'll take a look at that. We'll also take a look at the...
	A monopoly trial and the verdict against Giggle.
	You know, the search engine that is designed to hide things.
	The search engine that is a joke, Giggle.
	Must have been a tough day yesterday at their headquarters.
	Had to stock drop as well as a court ruling that dropped on them.
	I guess they had to keep Sundar Pikachu away from the windows.
	But we're also going to take a look at Trump and the raging on Saturday.
	Still angry about the election, we're going to have in the third hour someone who wrote a book on the 2020 election because he was involved in the recount auditing.
	We'll be right back.
	We also had the Bank of Japan raising interest rates as they were going into a recession.
	And so when we look at the net result of all of that, We had, as well as algorithmic training, or trading, once everything got kicked off into the AI bubble and other things like that.
	People have been signaling for quite some time they're ready to hop off of the AI bubble train.
	You had Warren Buffett get out of a lot of tech stocks, and so the big ones that they call the Magnificent Seven crashed significantly.
	So yesterday it was a slaughter in the markets, but by the end of the day, things started to go up.
	Japan's stock exchange saw the biggest rout since 1987, and a Black Monday then.
	But so far today, it had gone up by 10%.
	It's not enough to recover what they had lost, I don't believe, since they had wiped out.
	They'd hit all-time record highs, but they had wiped out all the gains for the year.
	So I think a 10% increase still does not get them back to where they were.
	And it was spread around the world.
	And in a lot of different things.
	We had gold go down 1.5%.
	Apple went down 3%.
	NVIDIA went down 5%.
	Bitcoin crashed nearly 20%.
	19.5%.
	It has now recovered half of that.
	By the end of the day, it recovered half of that drop.
	But it was still down 10% at the end of the day.
	And... So people are asking, what is going to happen with interest rates?
	Because that's the key thing.
	You know, stocks are, all these different things are always going up and down.
	And some of them are more of a rollercoaster ride than others.
	That's one of the reasons why I said I don't have the stomach anymore for riding rollercoasters.
	And I learned my lesson in the dot-com crash.
	So I was not buying into any of the AI stuff at all that AI bubble but Yeah, it is a bit of a roller coaster, but you've got people now pushing very hard For the Federal Reserve to do a rate cut and not even to wait until September But to do an emergency rate cut and it was reported to be considering that on CNBC Jeremy Siegel who is a professor at the Wharton School of Business and University of Pennsylvania
	Said I'm calling for a 75 basis point emergency cut in the Fed funds rate with another 75 basis point cut indicated for next month at the September meeting And he said, that's a minimum.
	Well, that's what he would like to see.
	He thinks that we're headed into recession, thinks we are in recession.
	But who knows what the Federal Reserve is going to do.
	They're not accountable to anybody.
	You can't even audit them.
	People who were buying treasuries, Federal Reserve bonds, started betting that there would be an emergency rate cut.
	So bond traders were piling in, says Bloomberg, on bets that the U.S. economy is on the verge of deteriorating so quickly that the Federal Reserve We'll need to start easing monetary policy aggressively, potentially before their next scheduled meeting, in order to head off a recession.
	Just the opposite of what the Bank of Japan did.
	Considering the fact that all this stuff kicked off when the Bank of Japan ignored the economic conditions.
	Goldman Sachs says they see not a 75-point basis cut, but a 50-point basis cut.
	They've raised the risk of U.S. recession to 25%.
	Many people would say that we're already in that, quite frankly.
	And, of course, the real issue is the hidden aspects of where this economy really is.
	They misreport the jobs numbers.
	They misreport the inflation numbers.
	Everything is rigged.
	They're constantly rigging the metrics.
	And they have for the longest time, especially in the labor market.
	When you look at the labor market, they always release figures and then revise the previous quarter's figures to make the current moment look better.
	They're always doing that.
	They'll put out what it is right now.
	And then three months from now, they'll go back and say, no, it was worse three months ago.
	They'll worsen the numbers for today three months from now.
	They always do that. And one of the things that they do with these numbers is they have a new accounting rules for how you report property loans that are underwater, especially commercial real estate.
	When inflation starts really taking off, they change the way they calculate inflation, of course.
	And you can go to ShadowStats and you can see what the inflation would be under the original calculations.
	And so they play a lot of games with what they count and what they don't count.
	Well, because the commercial real estate is such a big issue, and Gerald Sunti has been talking about this since the lockdown, this is going to be the consequence of the lockdown that Trump did.
	No doubt about it.
	And then it's going to have consequences for the banks as well.
	And so the banks are trying to protect their appearance and how they look on the balance sheets by sweeping these bad property loans under the rug.
	This is from Bloomberg.
	They say, new accounting rules should give investors an early warning, but surprises are cropping up and there could be more to come.
	The old system was called the incurred loss model.
	To book a loss, a lender had to conclude that it was probable that one had already happened.
	The term probable was not defined numerically.
	But the bar was widely interpreted to be very high, perhaps a 70% or greater likelihood.
	That's all probable.
	Bankers used to explain conveniently that they would have booked more loan losses if only the rules would have let them.
	Under the new system in place at most large companies since 2020, the lenders from day one are supposed to continually estimate their credit losses over the life of a given instrument, whether it is a loan or a bond.
	The threshold for recording losses is It's supposed to be much lower when they are expected, rather than waiting until losses probably happen.
	This was supposed to lead to more aggressive and more timely loss recognition.
	But the office loan market, that's the commercial real estate market, is testing investors' faith in the new expected loss model.
	As with other commercial properties, loan payments on office buildings often are interest-only until maturity.
	And this is exactly what This is compounding all of the low occupancy rates there.
	The fact that these are interest only, and they just keep rolling this thing over.
	Well, now they're going to have to roll it over into a very high interest rate.
	Maybe they just walk away from the thing.
	And then they leave the bank holding the bad note.
	And as Gerald Slinty has said, it's going to cause a lot of banks to go under.
	When rates were ultra low, many lenders and borrowers went into these loans assuming they would be refinanced rather than paid off.
	That would mean no defaults as long as they could keep rolling over the loans.
	But the pandemic sent office values in many big cities tumbling as more people worked from home.
	Now for many borrowers, refinancing isn't an option.
	That makes defaults inevitable.
	Until then, though, the owners still may be current on their payments, and hope springs eternal.
	Until it doesn't.
	uh...
	So, again, Gerald Sinty has been talking about this for four years.
	It's amazing, really, that it's gone on this long.
	As he talks about it, he said, look, you can easily project trends.
	And he does that in Trends Journal, by the way.
	You can save 10% off if you use the code KNIGHT. Gerald Sinty, a long-time friend of this broadcast, really nails it on the trends.
	Like he said, I don't predict anything, because you can't predict the timing when this is going to happen.
	This has been baked in for four years.
	And if you go back and you look at, what was that movie about the 2007-2008 crash?
	Margin Call? Was that it?
	The Big Short? Big Short.
	Yeah, Big Short. If you look at the Big Short, I mean, everybody's saying, you know, looking at the financials, and nothing makes sense.
	It's like, how can they keep this thing going on and on and on?
	And they did. Kept it going for a very long time.
	It got a lot bigger. So you can never predict the exact timing, but you can see where the trends are going to be.
	And, you know, it's important to see that.
	Again, trendsjournal.com, and you can get 10% off of that with the code NIGHT. And so we're going to leave it at that point with the economic news.
	We'll see what happens with the interest rates.
	The interest rates, the high interest rates have locked up the housing market for a lot of people as well.
	And there'd be a big political advantage for...
	The Biden administration, which includes Lala, if they were to do that.
	So there's a political pressure.
	But again, as we've seen over and over again, these central banks don't really care about the economy.
	They don't care about the politics.
	You know, the economy is down here.
	Number two maybe is political nest feathering.
	But the number one issue is to maintain their power, to maintain their currency.
	And that's what they're going to really focus on.
	We're going to take a quick break, and when we come back, we're going to take a look at Google and what is happening at Google in terms of this monopoly decision.
	I'm sorry, I called them Google.
	It's Giggle, we'll be right back.
	Giggle, we'll be right back.
	Comment again. You're listening to the David Knight Show.
	Well, a judge has ruled against Giggle, the giant search engine.
	And I call it that because any search engine that is designed to hide things is a joke.
	It is a sick joke.
	Giggle. Giggle unders under Pikachu.
	They offer fake news.
	They offer fake searches.
	It's a manipulation of people.
	And it is political. And I find it interesting that it is Garland and his Department of Justice and the Biden administration really pushing hard on this.
	And, you know, a lot of people in the Republican Party, of course, believe that no business can ever do wrong.
	And so they side with a giggle.
	But I think that all the issues aside from the monopoly and antitrust stuff, when you are acting, when you're lying to people as a search engine, When you are manipulating politics and all the rest of this stuff, I mean, whatever they can get with these people.
	I don't think that anything is really going to happen to them, though.
	Again, as I said before, it's kind of like locking up Dennis Hastert for taking money out of his account and trying to avoid the reporting limits when he takes the money out.
	Not when he puts it in, but when he takes it out.
	It's like, that shouldn't even be a crime.
	And the judge, when he sentenced him, even referenced the fact that he was a pedophile.
	That he was taking the money out because he was paying off a student, former student, that he had molested.
	And he didn't want to have that detected.
	So they don't send him to jail for being a pedophile.
	They send him to jail for something that's not a crime.
	And I've said that about Trump as well.
	All this political persecution by the Biden administration.
	When the reality is, is that...
	He poisoned and smothered people, smothered them with his ventilators, poisoned them with his jabs, bragged about it all, and shut down the Constitution, shut down our liberties, shut down Main Street businesses and all the rest of the stuff, and put us into debt.
	No, that's not a crime, and it's not a crime.
	Why? Because the Democrats did it as well, and because other Republicans were in on it as well.
	It was a bipartisan crime.
	And so he doesn't pay any penalties for that.
	But again, when you look at Google, you know, the monopoly of the antitrust issues, they have a de facto monopoly, that's for sure.
	They're saying it's because they're so good.
	Really, are you kidding me?
	That's worth a giggle, isn't it?
	After having carefully considered and weighed the witness testimony and the evidence, the court reaches the following conclusion.
	Giggle is a monopolist, and it has acted as one in order to maintain its monopoly.
	We all know that it is predatory, dishonest, that it controls the internet.
	It's a propaganda machine.
	Those should be crimes, but they're not.
	And here's how you know that nothing is going to happen.
	Okay, Giggle is still...
	Shifting the information away from Trump and over to Lala.
	You can't even find the Trump website when you search for it.
	So, you know, they're not concerned about this.
	they're going to appeal it and you know they'll probably be able to avoid this or they'll get a slap on the wrist as we've seen over and over again with the banks that are too big to fail. You know we've had multiple criminal convictions against JP Morgan and against HS HSBC and and others.
	And whatever happens, nothing.
	And, you know, Obama's Department of Justice Attorney General said, well, they're too big to jail.
	I can't do that. We'll give them a couple billion dollar fine.
	Who cares? You know, everybody will look at that.
	Wow, billions. They made $280 billion in revenue last year.
	What are you going to do to find them and make them really hurt?
	You can make them pay off the debt.
	They could pay it off in a few years.
	They're about the only entity that could.
	They and a few other of the magnificent seven could pay off the debt in a couple of years.
	But they would just move somewhere else.
	They're going to find a way to get around this.
	They're going to find some politicians or judges that they can work with.
	They'll get a slap on the wrist, just like Jeffrey Epstein was convicted of being a pedophile.
	They gave him a jail term that was kind of like Otis from the Andy Griffith show.
	He's out all day, and then he lets himself in at night and sleeps it off in the jail cell.
	So nothing is really going to change with this, folks.
	I mean, we look at the whole history of antitrust stuff.
	Does it ever work? It never worked with Standard Oil.
	That was when they first went after this stuff, trying to do it with the Rockefellers.
	All they did was they just split it up, but they still had interlocking directories and all the rest of this stuff.
	They found ways to get around it.
	Interesting, the judge's name is Meta, not like the company that owns Facebook and all the rest of it, spelled with an H in the middle of it.
	The Department of Justice accused Giggle of illegally monopolizing the online search market.
	Not about being predatory, dishonest, and controlling the internet with propaganda.
	That wasn't an issue.
	Giggle's fate will be determined in the next phase of the proceedings, which could result in anything from a mandate to stop certain business practices to a breakup of Giggle's search business.
	Giggle plans to appeal the ruling.
	The decision recognizes that Giggle offers the best search engine, said their lawyer, but it concludes that we shouldn't be allowed to make it easily available.
	Do you think that's the best search engine if it lies to you?
	There are certain topics, of course, that are off-limits.
	And the people who talk about those certain topics that are off-limits, they themselves get banned.
	Yeah, the best search engine.
	Give me a break. DuckDuckGo, whose CEO testified against Giggle in the trial, applauded the decision because they're competitors.
	They said the prospect of losing tens of billions of dollars, in the case of Apple, for example, guaranteed revenue from Giggle, which presently comes at little to no cost to Apple, It disincentivizes Apple from launching its own search engine when otherwise it has built the capacity to do so,
	they said. You see, when you look at their penetration in the marketplace, Giggle's monopoly in general search increased from about 80% in 2009 to 90% by 2020.
	If you look at what it is on smartphones, it is 95% of the market.
	And part of that is because Apple gets a big fat check of like $20 billion a year just for making Google the default browser on their phones.
	Bing, by comparison, has less than 6% of the market share.
	There is no price that Microsoft could ever offer Apple to preload Bing, said the judge.
	So, yeah, that's the way this thing is working.
	There are Fortune 500 companies, he said, and they have nowhere else to turn other than Giggle.
	And most people don't believe that searches are a joke.
	One of the most significant revelations from the case is the size of Giggle's payments to Apple to secure the default search engine spot on iPhones.
	Again, $20 billion for that default position.
	And also, the $20 billion that they just got is because they share 36% of search engine ad revenue from Safari with Apple.
	So, they made them an offer they couldn't refuse.
	And the $20 billion that Apple gets is a small amount of their $280 billion in revenue.
	But it helps them to get 95% of the market in the smart phones.
	But again, when I say that it's a search engine designed to hide things, it's a search engine that lies to you.
	Just one example of many, many, many that I've seen in my personal life.
	I mean, this is a personal thing between me and Giggle.
	Because they personally look to ban me on everything that they own, which is a lot of stuff.
	Just like I've been banned on PayPal, on Venmo.
	This is a future for all of us.
	All of us.
	You toe the line or they ban you.
	Right now, it's just a few people that they're doing this stuff to, quietly.
	But if you, again, if you look for David Knight Journalists on Giggle, you will find that the first pick is some guy, the first thing that comes up is a social media account that has 900 followers on Twitter.
	Give me a break.
	The journalism professor.
	And it gets worse.
	And it gets to the point where giggles YouTube purges me when I have a Christmas music channel, even.
	So it's not just about money.
	It's about hiding information.
	And then it's about banning the people that give you that information that they're trying to hide.
	And so, this still will be overturned.
	There'll be a workaround.
	There'll be a slap on the wrist.
	It's not going to be any big deal.
	And this is why you know this.
	You know this because Giggle is still working with and for the Democrats, who are supposedly coming after them.
	It's just all for show.
	This whole trial is just another one of these examples like a Jim Jordan show trial.
	Oh, look at this kind of stuff.
	And every time I see Jim Jordan, oh, we're going to have an inquiry into this.
	My mind automatically goes back to those old movies with Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland.
	Let's put on a show! And all the kids get together and they put on a show.
	And the movie's about them putting on a show.
	And that's what Congress is about.
	It's let's put on a show.
	They just don't have any...
	They don't sing and dance.
	But it's the same kind of song and dance with every one of these things.
	4.3 million Americans' personal information was exposed in a hack linked to Microsoft.
	Giant hacks coming up every week that you hear about.
	There's a lot that you don't hear about.
	Hackers accessed the information through an unnamed third-party vendor that had access to HealthEquity's Microsoft SharePoint data, which allows companies to create and store important files and customers' full-profile information.
	Somebody needs to tell Lala that their cloud was stolen.
	They just lassoed it and took it away.
	The cloud was stolen.
	But we don't know where it is.
	It's... It's gone somewhere else.
	And so when you look at the purpose of Google to cover up things, they're going to get much, much more sophisticated about all this stuff, of course.
	That is the primary purpose of artificial intelligence.
	Propaganda, surveillance, and tracking.
	All of this stuff.
	And so... A good example of this is what is happening with the Paris Olympics, and this is an article by the BBC bragging about the fact that they're using artificial intelligence to surveil people who say mean things about Olympic athletes.
	And, of course, we all know what happens in sporting contests.
	People are constantly saying, you know, they get so involved in it, sports fans, because that's short for sports fanatic.
	And they get so involved in, we know somebody like that in our family, don't we?
	Not our immediate family, but our extended family.
	I had a family member that basically disowned my sons because they didn't know who the New York Yankees were or care.
	No, I made a joke about the New York Yankees and she didn't send me a Christmas present after that.
	Ever, ever. She was so angry about that.
	We just never were into sports.
	We went to Orlando and there used to be We're good to go.
	There were NASCAR actual cars that were up in the ceiling and everything, you know, kind of tilted so you could see them.
	But they had a great gift shop there at the beginning, and they had all kinds of NASCAR things that you could get.
	And then when you go into the restaurant, they had loops that were playing all the time of car races and car crashes, and they had, again, all of the original cars all over the place.
	You could see them really well, but you couldn't get to them because they were elevated.
	And so we decided to take the kids to it as they're on International Drive in Orlando where they had a lot of interesting places and stuff.
	And we walk in and we didn't know it, but what was the guy's name?
	I don't follow anything even.
	Thank you.
	He had just died in a crash.
	And we walk in as a family and they thought we were coming in to get some memorabilia for him.
	And it was a live TV broadcast.
	And the guy comes over with a microphone to the kids and he says, so are you here because of Dale Earnhardt?
	And they said, who's he?
	I was briefly the most hated child in the South.
	Yeah, that was so funny.
	And I knew the name.
	I didn't know what had happened.
	But they didn't know the name at all.
	But you better not say anything about the New York Yankees around this particular relative.
	You're on our blacklist forever.
	So when we look at this, we know that people get really involved in sports, obviously.
	They say very passionate, hateful things sometimes.
	And so this has to be policed now.
	Can't have this kind of cyberbullying.
	It's just another excuse for censorship.
	And they're bragging about it.
	They're going to protect these poor, tender athletes who have never had a situation where people are cheering for the other side and saying horrible stuff about them.
	An AI algorithm is wading through the oceans of content social media users are posting about the Olympics with a singular mission.
	Neutralizing online abuse.
	And this is especially going to be about the troll tranny issue.
	You can bet it will be.
	Whether it's trannies or whether it is an intersex thing, the bottom line is these guys are genetically men.
	And that means they have a competitive advantage in terms of hormones.
	Think of it as a doping scandal, right?
	Think of it as taking testosterone injections or whatever.
	But the 2024 Summer Olympics will generate more than half a billion social media posts.
	That doesn't even include the comments.
	Assuming that an average post is 10 words, to be conservative, that's a body of text around 638 times longer than the King James Bible.
	And it would take close to 16 years for somebody to read through this if you gave each post just one second of your time.
	If you're just flipping through these things, you could do that for 16 years.
	You know, we can really waste our life on social media, can't we?
	Usually you'd look at this and you'd say, how many hours are people sitting there watching TV? And of course that still happens, but now we've also added the time waster of social media.
	And we can flip our life away with this stuff.
	But again, it would take 16 years for them to go through this.
	So enter artificial intelligence, because that's its superpower.
	The International Olympics Committee is exploring a new solution for a problem that is not really a problem.
	Next time you post about the Olympics in the coming weeks, an AI-powered system will review your words to keep athletes safe from cyberbullying.
	If they want to protect these athletes, that'll get them out of the Sane River, but they don't really care about the athletes because they're going to let them swim in a sewer, a literal sewer.
	They don't care about these athletes.
	They're just using this as an excuse to try out their new surveillance state.
	Because, again, everywhere in Paris, they wrote new laws.
	So they could put up more and more surveillance and take away more and more privacy.
	If you want safety, you're never going to have liberty.
	Right? Those who will give up essential liberty for the promise of safety.
	We'll not get either one of those.
	They don't deserve either one of those either.
	You know, moderation of content is no virtue, especially when you've got to protect somebody from cyberbullying.
	Come on. We don't like it when anonymous people say hateful things about you, but if you're going to be in public, that's part of it.
	You know, and just, you know, you can push back on it if you want to.
	But you don't need to be protected by the government.
	And at the foundation of all this is the lie that speech is violence.
	Speech is not violence.
	Conservatives are capable of playing that game too, as we just saw.
	Interpersonal violence is something that can be perpetuated in physical form, but it can also be perpetuated online.
	No. No.
	Speech is not violence.
	And so what they're saying is that this is beyond going through and looking for certain keywords.
	They'd be obnoxious.
	They're using artificial intelligence, they said, in order to look at your intent.
	Isn't that nice?
	Isn't that great? So it's not looking for phrases like curses or racial slurs.
	Language is often more subtle than that.
	So when you're dealing with an ocean of content, you need a tool that can sort through meaning.
	And that's where AI comes in.
	They have a tool called Threat Matrix.
	And what it does is it extracts the attitudes from the text.
	So it's going to look at what you write and it's going to determine your attitude and flag that for you.
	They said it would take an army of human beings to do the same kind of work.
	Isn't that interesting? Because, you know, this is coming from the army.
	Yeah, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, right?
	They're the ones who are pushing all this artificial intelligence stuff.
	The Army. The military.
	The military is pushing this censorship agenda.
	Nothing to worry about. Nothing could possibly go wrong with any of this stuff, right?
	Well, they said, it is critical to nip this in the bud right now, they said.
	I say this calls for action, and now, nip it in the bud!
	When are they going to call one of these AI things Barney?
	Because that's like a Barney 5 cop.
	They actually said that. We've got to nip it!
	Nip it in the bud, right at the beginning.
	During the games, Threat Matrix will scan social media posts in over 35 languages.
	In partnership with Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and the...
	Savior of Free Speech X. It will then categorize different types of abuse and flag the post to a team of human reviewers and SWAT teams.
	I'm sorry, I didn't mention the SWAT teams.
	That comes later. Professional athletes are highly exposed to cyberbullying.
	The poor things. And that's the toughest thing they've got to deal with, right?
	Well, if that's the toughest thing they've got to deal with, it's not too bad.
	But AI has other uses, of course.
	Besides determining your attitude and sending the police after you for your attitude, it can also be used to up the speed cameras and the surveillance inside of your car.
	This is something that was reported on and had rolled out already in the UK. Quite a few jurisdictions in the UK already have this.
	And so now they're on their way to the United States to make even more money.
	These new AI cameras are set to be rolled out across the U.S. to catch motorists using mobile phones at the wheel, or failing to wear seatbelts, or driving over the posted speed limit.
	Stories from WinePressNews.com.
	The new AI technology is enabling police not only to catch speeding drivers, but also to clamp down on motorists distracted by their phones, even if they have them on their lap while at the wheel.
	At least a quarter of the 44 police forces in England, Wales, and Scotland are already deploying cameras that can catch motorists who are using mobile phones at the wheel.
	If caught, drivers holding a handheld device behind the wheel can face six penalty points and a $250 fine, increasing to $1,300 and a driving ban if taken to court.
	I don't know. Is that saying that you can't appeal it?
	They'll have extra punishment?
	I'm not sure. So what it does is it captures images of the vehicles as they pass.
	One is taken from a shallow angle to see if you got the phone up to your ear.
	The other one is looking down to see if you got a phone in your lap.
	That's evidently a crime now, too.
	Or to see if your seatbelt is not buckled.
	Wow. And so then what the AI does, it makes these determinations.
	And it can send a violation package, that's what they call it, a violation package to the police.
	And that package might be speeding, talking on the phone, and not wearing a seatbelt.
	And of course you didn't hit anything, but that doesn't matter.
	You're a violator.
	So, you know, here's what I think about this stuff.
	We've had toll roads, I have the license plate readers and stuff like that, And in Texas for the toll roads.
	Nobody in my family uses toll roads.
	We oppose them in principle.
	And you would think that one thing that would be pretty easy for these things to determine would be the numbers on your license plate, wouldn't you?
	And yet we have been sent so many of these bogus things and they've continued to send them.
	About once every six months we get something, a new one.
	From Texas, even though we don't go there.
	We don't live there. We don't travel there.
	But we keep getting these things.
	And you can either pay them a couple of dollars, or you can spend 30 minutes to an hour to get them to take this off.
	Say, show me the picture.
	Because they're supposed to take a picture of the car, the tag, and the person behind the wheel.
	And then when they look at it, and you finally get somebody on the phone.
	They'll say, oh, never mind.
	Never mind. But, you know, this is...
	So now they're going to do this with a lot of different things.
	And who's going to pay for all this stuff?
	Well, you know, this is very profitable for local jurisdictions to have it.
	But even more so, they're going to boost it with the so-called infrastructure bill.
	$15.6 billion.
	That's running through Buttigieg's office, the Federal Department of Transportation.
	So, Booty is going to be boosting this stuff for everybody.
	And he's going to be bribing them to put in this surveillance system because, you know, they'll be able to use it for so many more things.
	It's just going to be a multi-use thing.
	Just update the software.
	And so, speeding increases both the frequency and the severity of crashes, they said.
	Well, I'm living proof that's not true.
	Eight states specifically forbid the use of speed cameras, while another 24 have no specific legislation to support their use.
	As a matter of fact, if you challenge this in court, whether it is a speed camera or whether it's a red light camera, some kind of automated violation generator, I should say revenue generator, if that's done, then what you do is you take them to court and you say, I have the right to confront my accuser in court.
	Where's the representative from this company?
	Not the cop. The cop's not accusing me.
	I need somebody from this faceless box that is accusing me.
	That company that says I need to be able to interrogate them.
	They won't show up.
	So that's a very effective strategy, by the way.
	Tennessee has banned these speed cameras.
	Unless it is in a marked school zone, where they say it's a school zone and we've got speed cameras, or if it's on an S-curve, and that was going back to 2015.
	But there's going to be $15 billion of federal fiat currency, just printed out of nowhere, handed out to people, to incentivize them to buy these AI cameras for surveillance.
	And so it is truly amazing how artificial intelligence is going to be used in that regard.
	And then, of course, in the music industry, people are very concerned what is happening in music.
	Everything is becoming so computerized, and they can generate generic music.
	So far, all of it that I've heard is pretty generic.
	And it's a problem for the people who are selling story blocks.
	They sell video that you can use, or they sell license-free music that you can use in the background for a video or something like that.
	So it's a problem for them. I don't really see it.
	Although, I take that back.
	If you listen to the Top 40 today...
	If you listen to what is really popular, maybe AI can do that easily enough.
	But what they're talking about is using licensing people's voices.
	Isn't that interesting? I guess it was back in 2013 or so, there was a movie that came out called The Congress.
	It had Robin Wright in it.
	And I did a long report about it at the time.
	And it was about, the first part of it was very interesting, because it posed exactly this type of situation.
	But then it kind of devolved into this animated, weird thing that was unwatchable.
	But the first part of it posed an interesting question.
	And they actually referred, used her real name, Robin Wright, and she needed some money for this stuff.
	I think her kid was sick or something like that.
	And so they offered her a deal.
	Said, you won't ever have to work again.
	What we'll do is we'll pay you up front and we're going to completely digitize you.
	Your body, your voice, your mannerisms, your movements and everything.
	So we can use you forever as you are now.
	And we'll just pay that to you.
	But you'll be prohibited from acting again.
	And so it was really kind of about that.
	And so we're starting to see that now.
	With this... What they're saying is, imagine a famous actor that you could use her voice on something like a Siri or something like a chat GBT. You know, they just stole Scarlett Johansson's voice for the chat 4.0.
	They said, no, we didn't.
	We got somebody that sounded like her.
	A lot like her.
	They had approached her first.
	She said, no thanks.
	So then they did something that sounded almost exactly like her.
	And then they removed it when she threatened to sue them.
	But that's what they would like to have.
	They would like to have a chat box that carries on a conversation with you and the voice of a famous actor or something like that.
	So now they're working on licensing that, and the agents don't like that, of course, because it cuts them out, agents and lawyers.
	But the Screen Actors Guild likes it.
	And we've already seen this with the music business, to some degree.
	I mean, we just had Randy Travis, who, when my daughter came from Texas, we went to a restaurant, and she saw Randy Travis there.
	She got up to go to the bathroom, and she came back and said, Randy Travis is here.
	And he was there in a wheelchair.
	He'd had a stroke a few years ago.
	He can't sing. And yet the people around him used artificial intelligence to put out a new song.
	Maybe it's a new album. I saw something about it.
	But they put it together.
	So already this is showing up, and it's going to be more than just a speed bump.
	I think it's going to be a big crisis for the acting and the movie industry.
	But we're seeing yet again, I'm not going to go into detail about it, The limiting factor of artificial intelligence is the human factor.
	And the fact that it has to mimic us.
	And they say that as artificial intelligence puts information out on the internet that's not from humans, they call that synthetic data.
	They know that it's not quite right.
	And if it starts feeding on synthetic data, and we've had now several different studies that have pointed this out, as I said, it's very much like mad cow disease, where you feed cows to other cows, or Yakov-Kreutzfeld disease.
	If you cannibalize humans, those humans, the cannibal humans, eventually get Yakov-Kreutzfeld disease, which is a human version of mad cow disease.
	And the same thing is likely to happen, or actually been shown, to be happening with artificial intelligence.
	The capability of doing that.
	They've done some studies on it.
	And so this is an article from MSN. They said, in late July, a paper from the journal Nature titled, AI Models Will Collapse When Trained on Recursively Generated Data.
	In other words, trained on its own garbage.
	But it was much earlier than that.
	It was probably about six months ago that I reported somebody else, and I forget who did the original research.
	But then they said, a week later, Rice and Stanford Universities published a paper titled, Self-Consuming Generative Models Go Mad.
	They mean by that, Model Autophagy Disorder.
	Autophagy means it's consuming itself.
	And it's like mad cow disease.
	And so they talk about two studies done a week apart, but there was one that was done several months ago.
	So now there's at least three of these studies, all of them saying the same thing.
	That may be something that saves us from this horrific thing.
	And then we have Gun Owners of America filing suit about a Florida ban on open carry.
	And I thought this was really amazing.
	In Florida, what they did was they came up with a constitutional carry bill.
	But it didn't allow for open carry.
	What it said was you can carry concealed without getting a privilege license, essentially, from them.
	But it did not include open carry, which is really, really strange.
	46 out of 50 states allow open carry.
	Gun owners of America is filing a suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
	So this is blatant infringement.
	On April 3rd, 2023, DeSantis signed legislation making Florida the 26th constitutional state in the Union to allow so-called constitutional carry.
	However, unlike many other states where constitutional carry means that you can carry open or concealed for self-defense without a permit, in Florida, constitutional carry only applies to carrying concealed.
	Governors of America will argue that Florida's ban on open carry for self-defense is Cannot survive the Bruin test from the Supreme Court, which says that we're going to look at tradition.
	Tradition. Now, just look at what the Constitution says.
	It's ridiculous.
	But anyway, it is, if they look at it from the tradition standpoint, it fails.
	Especially because, why did we start to get concealed carry permits in the first place?
	Everybody could carry it open.
	But the idea was that if you've got a Derringer up your sleeve, or you're concealing your gun, that maybe you're up to no good.
	You know, having your gun there, people know this person's armed, and they treat them with respect, of course.
	You know, as Robert Heinlein said in his science fiction novel, an armed society is a polite society.
	He wasn't the first one to say that.
	That was the observation of a British...
	Colonel, who came to America during the Civil War, Arthur Fremantle, wrote a book, Three Months in the Southern States, and he said, I'm amazed that everybody in the South is carrying a firearm.
	And he said, and everybody is so polite.
	There's a reason for that.
	If you think somebody is carrying a firearm, you get a little bit more polite.
	And so Robert Heinlein just condensed that for us.
	So, on May 20, 2021, South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster signed legislation making South Carolina the 46th open carry state in the nation.
	And so, 46 states allow open carry.
	And yet, Florida, even though they signed in the constitutional carry law last year, did not include open carry, which is really strange.
	And about half the states have constitutional carrying.
	Everywhere else, it includes open carry.
	And here's the issue.
	Okay, so you don't have to have a permit to carry concealed.
	Well, let's say you got a jacket on, and, you know, somebody sees the gun.
	Oh, no, you know, that's a crime.
	That's a crime. It's crazy.
	It entraps people.
	And speaking of entrapment, the World Economic Forum has an article saying what I've been saying for a very long time.
	Essentially, we have to enact this global agenda locally.
	Their headline, Why Local Action is Crucial to Addressing Global Climate Change.
	They have a global agenda and they have to enact it locally.
	And so, you know, they have a whole article about this from the World Economic Forum.
	Climate change is a global issue, but communities and collectives, collectives, what is a collective?
	Are making, working locally, they're addressing these specific circumstances.
	So, they're going to work locally to get the changes that they're achieving for a scalable blueprint for the planet.
	The Climate Reality Project, June 2024.
	What a joke!
	There's nothing at all real about any of this imaginary climate stuff.
	They are training a cohort of 1,000 climate leaders, approximately 10% of which are global shapers.
	I tell you, every one of their labels just is cringe, isn't it?
	They've shown that there is a global network of inspired activists who want to take regionally relevant action locally.
	And it's not really about that.
	It's about lining the pockets of corrupt politicians locally.
	They even have a part of this, they have a thing called Green Areas Intercity Agreement.
	Well, they put that together so they could call the organization GAIA. GAIA. The Greek pagan goddess that supposedly represents Mother Earth.
	Mother Earth, where humans are considered to be a virus.
	We're a virus that's going to kill Mother Earth, you know.
	Mother Earth is a sentient being, and these people literally believe it.
	This is why Jennifer Lawrence and others say, Mother Earth is angry!
	Look, we've got storms out here, and all the rest of this stuff.
	Not because we're eating margarine, but it's because we're driving SUVs now.
	One of the key messages...
	Davos 2024 was not to underestimate the power of partnerships locally.
	And we make that mistake when we focus everything on federal elections.
	And so when we come back, I'm going to talk about what's going on with federal elections, just to help you to realize that you need to focus on things locally.
	We'll be right back.
	♪♪
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	I'm rock fan Dustin Helm. Thank you very much for the tip.
	I appreciate that. And also on Rockfin, Dusty Milton says, if they don't have a clear picture of the driver, what's to stop them from charging the car with the offense and confiscating it?
	Well, nothing, of course.
	I think Dusty knows that all about civil asset forfeiture.
	You know, they've been charging inanimate objects with crimes for the longest time.
	And nothing, they don't even charge the owner, let alone find him guilty.
	And so, yeah, there's absolutely nothing that would stop them from doing that.
	Except if people have had enough of this nonsense.
	At some point, we're going to have to do something about it.
	Because politicians aren't going to do anything about it.
	Trump may have just lost Georgia on Saturday, many people were saying.
	I was going to cover this yesterday, but I didn't have the time to get to it.
	He repeatedly attacked Governor Kemp in Georgia.
	And that has evidently left GOP leaders in the important battleground state of Georgia absolutely furious.
	A pair of reports from the Atlanta Urinal and Constipation and Politico quote a number of prominent Republicans, some on the record even, Some of them on background, anonymous, but, you know, many of them put their names out there.
	They're so angry. They said equal parts angry and confused by Trump's attacks on Saturday in Georgia.
	Bobby Sapporo, the former campaign manager, said, I'm sitting here scratching my head.
	Attacking the popular governor of a pivotal swing state makes zero sense.
	If we want to actually unite...
	Ask for the support of the guy who beat your endorsed primary opponent by 52 points and handily defeated Stacey Abrams.
	That's right.
	In 2018, Trump had endorsed Kemp, and he won barely.
	And then there was the dispute about the election in 2020.
	And so in 2022, Trump endorsed a different candidate.
	And the endorsed candidate of Trump was trounced by 52 points by Kemp.
	And then Kemp went on to beat this national avatar, Stacey Abrams, in the general election.
	So, what's the takeaway from all this stuff?
	As Ty Cobb, his former lawyer, said, Trump is motivated.
	He's a deeply wounded narcissist who's motivated by revenge.
	And incapable of acting except in his own perceived self-interest or out of revenge.
	Somehow he thinks this is in his own interest, but I think more likely in this particular case, he's focused on revenge.
	We've seen this from the head of the conservative Freedom Caucus in Congress, who endorsed DeSantis, and then Trump came after him and got him thrown out, even after DeSantis.
	When DeSantis dropped out of the race, he endorsed Trump.
	But Trump wasn't going to have any unity.
	He wasn't going to consolidate things.
	No, this is personal. You endorsed that other guy, DeSantis, and so now I'm going to throw you out of Congress.
	During the rally, Trump told his supporters, Kemp is a bad guy.
	He's a bad man. I'm going to wish him into the cornfield.
	Sounds like Billy Mummy in the Twilight Zone.
	Eight-year-old. He's a bad guy.
	He's a disloyal guy.
	And he's a very average governor.
	And he said, Georgia has gone to hell.
	The former president's feud with Kemp has been simmering since the 2020 election.
	He blamed the governor for his loss.
	His attacks on Kemp, whose approval rating clocked in at 63% in a recent poll, making him one of the most popular governors in the country, did not set well with Republicans in Georgia.
	I think the more important point is that you're trying to unify your party, and then you personally attack the most popular politician in the state who has said that he is supporting you.
	Oh, no, it's too late to support me now.
	I'm not going to take your support.
	It's amazing. And not only that, but when Kemp responded on social media, what Kemp said was he said, Trump should focus...
	His efforts on fighting crime, not fighting unity, and the Republican Party.
	Trump also criticized Kemp's wife, Marty, and alleged that both of them were once grateful for his endorsement when Kemp won the 2018 governor's race.
	But now they're both a couple of ingrates.
	They're bad.
	They're disloyal.
	Because see, the only thing that matters, issues don't matter.
	It doesn't matter at all to Trump.
	Nothing. You know, he endorses Carrie Lake and all these people who, you know, they don't care about issues either.
	It's about personality.
	And it's about loyalty to him.
	So he doesn't care about issues.
	He cares about loyalty. He doesn't care about the Constitution.
	He cares about loyalty.
	Trump railed on Kemp for defying his demands to help overturn the 2020 loss in the state.
	And, of course, as I reported, the morning of January the 6th, I said, okay, like I've been saying, they're not going to do anything to fix the situation in Georgia.
	They're going to have vote-by-mail and all the rest of this stuff.
	Trump is saying the election system can't be trusted, and yet they didn't do any reforms at all.
	No Republicans were interested in doing any reforms in Georgia.
	So on that Tuesday, January the 5th, before Wednesday, January the 6th, They lost both Senate seats in a runoff election, and the Republicans lost the Senate to the Democrats.
	And then I said, and don't show up today because it's a trap.
	There's going to be agent provocateurs there.
	They're going to entrap the people who show up, and they're going to use it to entrap and to vilify all conservatives as well.
	Kemp told Trump, he said, leave my family out of it.
	And he urged him to stop, quote, engaging in petty personal insults, attacking fellow Republicans, and dwelling on the past.
	And so, you know, when you look at this, it's kind of interesting, I thought, that in a very combative way, I can understand why Trump would refuse to go on ABC, because he's going to be interviewed by this highly, highly partisan and dishonest George Stephanopoulos.
	And you can see how partisan and dishonest he is in this interview that he had with J.D. Vance.
	And what I think is interesting, the most interesting thing about it, however, is that J.D. Vance says in here, the remedy to what happened on 2020 was the same thing that I said on December 14th, 2020, when the Electoral College votes were reported in.
	I said it's over. And I said, here's why.
	And here's what could have happened.
	And now it is over.
	And all this stuff about January the 6th is just a stop the steal grift to make money for Alex.
	And of course he fired me.
	That's fine. But here's what J.D. Vance said.
	So you're not troubled by the sexual assault and defamation.
	Let me ask you about January 6th.
	You've been mentioned as a possible vice president for Donald Trump.
	Had you been vice president on January 6th, would you have certified the election results?
	Oh, George, this is such a ridiculous question, in part because the law has changed here.
	We, of course, had a...
	Well, I didn't ask you about going forward.
	I asked you what you would have done.
	I asked you what you would have done.
	George, here's what I think happened in 2020, and I know you guys are obsessed with talking about this.
	I have to make a point here.
	You constantly say to people like me, why do you talk about January the 6th?
	Why do you talk about the election of 2020?
	And then you ask about us multiple times during a six-minute interview.
	But look, you ask the question...
	And I'll answer it. Do I think there were problems in 2020?
	Yes, I do. Do I think it was a problem that big technology companies working with the intelligence services censored the presidential campaign of Donald Trump?
	Yes. Do I think it's a problem that Pennsylvania changed its balloting rules in the middle of the election season in a way that even some courts in Pennsylvania have said was illegal?
	Yes, I think these were problems, George, and I think there is a political solution to those problems.
	Litigating which slate of electors was legitimate, I think is fundamentally a political solution to the problems that existed in 2020.
	It's a reasonable debate to have.
	And I find it weird, George, that people like you, obsessed with what I call what happened in 2020, you're so incurious about what actually happened in 2020, which is why so many people mistrust our elections in this country.
	We've got to do better, George.
	I'm not the least bit incurious.
	In fact, you laid out a litany there, but you didn't answer the question I asked.
	Would you have certified the election results had you been vice president?
	If I had been vice president, I would have told the states like Pennsylvania, Georgia, and so many others that we needed to have multiple slates of electors, and I think the U.S. Congress should have fought over it from there.
	That is the legitimate way to deal with an election that a lot of folks, including me, think had a lot of problems in 2020.
	I think that's what we should have done.
	So it's very clear. You would have done what Donald Trump asked you to do there, not what Mike Pence did.
	You said that that's... That's not true.
	Because Pence said the same thing.
	Pence said the same thing.
	Massey said the same thing.
	Massey and Pence said they didn't give us anything to work with, and that's what he's talking about.
	He said we should have had different slates of electors.
	How do you get that? Well, as I talked about on the 14th of December 2020, I said, you've got four states, razor-thin margin of error.
	Instead of playing all these games with Rudy Giuliani and, you know, pretending that you're doing a legal test of this stuff, and all of the judges were running from this stuff left and right, the key thing was to take the case to these four states that had a razor-thin margin for Biden, but had Republican legislatures, and two of them had Republican governors.
	And to say to them, okay, here's our evidence.
	And if you believe our evidence, then you, the legislature, the Republican-controlled legislature, need to say, we recognize, officially recognize, the Republican slate of electors.
	And if they had done that, Then there would have been a slate of electors that would be sent by the Board of Elections in those states, and then a second official, quote-unquote, official set of electors sent by the legislature in the state.
	And then at that point, people like Pence and people like Thomas Massey, people like J.D. Vance could have said, okay, which one of these are legitimate?
	As he said, you would have litigated different sets of electors.
	But Trump didn't do that.
	And there were people who were saying, you needed to do that.
	But nobody in the Trump organization did that.
	There wasn't anything else that could be done.
	There was only one official slate of electors.
	You could have said, well, who gets to choose this?
	Is this something that the executive branch in the state gets to do?
	Or does the legislative branch get to do this?
	Because it says in the Constitution that the electors will be selected by the legislatures.
	Because in those days, the electors were selected as individuals, not by a political party.
	And so you could have legislated that.
	Anyway, I think it's interesting that after four years, I hear J.D. Vance saying the same thing that Thomas Massey said, the same thing that I said in the middle of December about this.
	And by the way, next hour, we are going to have...
	A man who spent a great deal of time as a technology entrepreneur and looking and exposing fraud.
	He saved Texas a billion dollars in welfare and food stamp fraud and inefficiencies.
	And so when all this stuff happened, the Trump campaign came to him and said, we'd like for you to take a look at this stuff.
	And he did, and he's written a book about what he saw, and more importantly, about what needs to be done to reform the system.
	It's not simply about getting revenge.
	That's the problem with the MAGA movement.
	They're not about reforming anything.
	They're not about any issues, not even the election issues.
	Instead, what they want to do is they want to get revenge.
	So... Kemp has proven to be a rare Republican nationally who could hold his ground against Trump without sacrificing his power, his popularity, and ultimately he has expanded it, as I said before.
	He narrowly won in 2018 when he was endorsed by Trump, but after four years, his popularity increased, just like DeSantis' popularity increased.
	And so in 2022 he trounced by 52 points the person that was endorsed by Trump and then he beat Stacey Abrams by seven and a half percentage points as This article from Fox said a veritable blowout To beat by seven half points in a battleground state Kemp will chair the Republican Governors Association for the 2026 election cycle when he leaves office
	He's widely known to be National Republicans' top choice to take on the Democrat Senator John Ossoff in the midterm cycle.
	Eric Erickson said Trump can't help himself.
	That's right. He can't help himself.
	It's just like the way he's got so much pride in And narcissism that he keeps patting himself on the back for his poison.
	Keeps patting himself on the back for his lockdowns.
	Keeps patting himself on the back for smothering people.
	Not just poisoning them.
	Smothering them to death.
	With the ventilators.
	Trump is really trying to build unity in Georgia by attacking Republican governor, a sitting Republican governor, whose ground game he will need to win.
	And if he loses, if Trump loses, it'll be because of this stuff, not because it's a stolen election.
	But understand that if he loses, there are so many MAGA people who are absolutely certain that he is so far ahead that it's not possible for him to lose.
	If he loses, it's a corrupt election, and we need to fight this, maybe physically.
	There'll be people who will be identified by the FBI, and then they will be escorted and helped by the FBI to do something about it.
	And it will redound on everyone.
	Everyone. So, Kemp says, leave my family out of it.
	And quite frankly, I would say the same thing about my family.
	I want my family left out of this civil war.
	I don't want to have anything to do with any of these candidates from either of these parties.
	They're not worth anything.
	They're not worth going to the poll to vote for, let alone having a civil war.
	So, Kemp said, you need to focus.
	I'm being Lala Harris and the Democrats.
	Not on my family, he said.
	And Lindsey Graham got into this, trying to make peace.
	He told Trump to focus instead on winning the battleground state rather than settling scores.
	Do you want to win or do you want to get revenge?
	Right? He's stupid.
	Trump is stupid.
	He's stupid in a different way than Lala Harris is, but he is just as stupid.
	This is as dumb, if not dumber, than the stuff about the cloud that we're all laughing at Lala Harris about.
	Mr. President, said Lindsey Graham, this is your election to lose.
	It's important you win to reset a broken border and get the world in good order.
	Let's win this election.
	How about that? Let's win an election that we can't afford to lose.
	You want to stop with a revenge tour?
	No. He will never stop.
	In fact, he's being mocked by Rod Stewart because he talked about Lala Harris turning black from being Indian.
	And so Rod Stewart mocked him and put up pictures of how his complexion has changed over the years.
	He said he's turning orange. Well, I think that orange is the new black, maybe.
	Certainly when it comes to politics.
	But again, she's a chameleon.
	That's the point. You know, the DEI aspect of it was her own DEI, doing it with herself.
	Which ethnic group do I want to belong to for the best bang for the buck?
	And then that brings us to Kyle Rittenhouse.
	Who said, well, I'm going to focus on the Second Amendment, and I'm not going to reward somebody who attacked the Second Amendment.
	Well, that only lasted for 14 hours over the weekend.
	About 14 hours after Rittenhouse shared his video explaining that he would not vote for Donald Trump because of Donald Trump trashing the Second Amendment, he said, I'm going to write in Ron Paul.
	And he said, you must stand by your principles.
	And he said he spoke with members of the Trump team.
	However, 14 hours later, he said, now I'm 100% behind Trump.
	Will he be forgiven?
	No, because the people who support Trump are just as vengeful and near-minded and disregarding of principles as Trump himself.
	A pathetic response from these anonymous people, especially Cat Turd, who got a lot of publicity out of this.
	Aptly named, by the way, I should say.
	And he bragged about it.
	This is a guy that's got a couple million followers.
	I don't know how many followers Kyle Rittenhouse has.
	But he bragged about the fact that he had blocked Kyle.
	And Reason.com says, nobody owes Trump their vote.
	Not even Kyle Rittenhouse.
	And I think the best comment I saw from people that were discussing this on social media, one person said, wait a minute, wait a minute.
	Did we support Kyle Rittenhouse because he supported Trump?
	Or did we support Kyle Rittenhouse to support the Second Amendment?
	Well, we know what Cat Turd and the Maga Tards, or I should say the Maga Turds.
	They're not Maga Tards, they're Maga Turds.
	We know what they were supporting.
	They're simply about the man.
	They don't care about anything, including the Second Amendment.
	One of the primary reactions to Rittenhouse's choice for president is that he's guilty of betrayal, says Reason.
	Well, Reason doesn't ask...
	Cat Turd, they quote Cat Turd, who said, I can stomach a lot of things, but backstabbing millions who supported you at your lowest point...
	Then turning on Trump right after he got shot?
	I can't stomach it. I won't put up with it.
	Forgotten forever.
	And he blocked him.
	Oh, imagine that.
	Imagine if you were bullied, cyberbullying by cat turd.
	Who could stand that?
	Well, evidently, Kyle couldn't stand it.
	But, yeah, what about all those people who showed up on January the 6th for Trump?
	At his lowest point.
	And then he just abandoned them.
	He didn't pardon them.
	He could have pardoned them. Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon before he was charged.
	Andrew Johnson, who became president after Lincoln was shot.
	That whole insurrection act that was there that nobody was ever charged with.
	The reason nobody was ever charged with it was because Andrew Johnson preemptively pardoned all of the Confederate soldiers that it was targeting.
	Trump didn't do anything like that.
	And you want to talk about betrayal?
	Did Trump betray the Second Amendment?
	Did he betray Main Street America with lockdowns and other things?
	Did he, mail voting, did he betray the election?
	Did he poison and smother people?
	Yeah. Rittenhouse is supposedly, according to people like Cat Turd, says Reason, Rittenhouse is allegedly in debt to Trump and his followers for supporting his claims of innocence.
	He was acquitted in 2021 of all charges, including first-degree reckless homicide, two counts of first-degree recklessly endangering safety, first-degree intentional homicide, and attempted first-degree intentional homicide.
	And Reason said that acquittal was the right decision.
	Because that's what the evidence supported.
	And the jury made the right decision.
	The right to self-defense is not selectively available to people with certain views.
	And your Second Amendment rights don't belong to you any more than your First Amendment rights because you are a Democrat or because you're a Republican.
	See, this is the problem with both the Democrats and the MAGA turds at this point.
	They think that you ought to be censored if you don't agree with them.
	And if you support the Second Amendment but not their candidate, oh, well, then we're going to throw you to the wolves and let you be persecuted politically, even though you're not guilty.
	Kyle Rittenhouse was not guilty.
	That's the bottom line.
	And all these people out there who are, you know, tearing their clothes over the fact that he said he's not going to support Trump.
	Disgust me. These people are disgusting.
	And, of course, Cat Turd was the leader of the club in all this mob.
	So why did Trump fail to gain Rittenhouse's support?
	Says Reason. Well, if you cannot be completely uncompromisable on the Second Amendment, I will not vote for you, he said.
	And Reason Magazine says, well, there's Trump's record including a bump stock ban, which Reason's Jacob Selim noted turned peaceful gun owners into felons by fiat and his support for red flag laws.
	But that reason doesn't even get to the worst of it.
	See, Gun Owners of America and some other gun rights groups understood, unlike the NRA and perhaps unlike Reason, they understood that the real issue with the bump stock was the precedent that it set.
	The precedent for gun control by executive order.
	It's bad enough that Congress will presume to write laws that conflict with the Second Amendment.
	But it's even worse when an executive is going to do it by fiat order.
	And Trump also did it with a pistol brace and then stopped it when the NRA opposed that in December of 2020.
	And then immediately, Biden jumped in on that.
	The president was immediately noticed, as dumb as she is, Lala Harris.
	Right after Trump said that, I said, when he said, I can do the bump stock ban myself.
	And I said, you watch, the Democrats are going to pull this up.
	And immediately, immediately, Lala Harris, who was running for president at that time, said, yeah, I'll give Congress 100 days to enact my gun control measures.
	And if they don't do it, I'll do it by executive order.
	She immediately understood the precedent and wanted to jump on it.
	And so, the issues don't matter.
	Not even the Second Amendment to these MAGA turds.
	Predictable responses.
	You're helping the other guy.
	And as Reason says, that vastly overstates the power of a vote.
	And that vastly overstates the power of the vote, I would say, even if the elections were honest.
	And these people don't believe the elections are honest.
	And they don't want to do anything to fix them.
	They just want revenge. Even if it were true.
	The Rittenhouse's vote would have some sort of earth-shattering effect on the election.
	A vote is earned.
	It is an expression of support.
	No one is entitled to your vote.
	They're not entitled to it simply because they're a member of a particular political party.
	They're not entitled to it for supposedly being less bad than the other side.
	And they're certainly not entitled to it just because they said supportive things about you in a time of need.
	Simply because they supported an innocent person who was being politically persecuted.
	See, I think a lot of people supported Kyle Rittenhouse, and they knew that this was a precedent that was being set.
	If you're going to have people politically persecuted like this, that's going to set a very important precedent.
	And he needed to be supported for their own purpose.
	See, liberty and justice is something, things that you can't have unless you support them for other people as well.
	Here's the bottom line.
	If Trump is unwilling...
	To defend his record against other Republicans even in debates.
	And he was. He did not want to talk about his record.
	And he made sure that he didn't have to.
	And the Democrats were more than happy to put him forward rather than somebody like DeSantis who would have been far more challenging.
	They put him forward because they made a martyr out of him.
	And all of these MAGA turds Fell for that hook, line, and sinker.
	And now they see him as a martyr.
	Six out of ten Republicans see the Biden administration's hand in the Trump shooting.
	Now the purpose of this, fine, investigate it.
	But what is happening with this is that it's building up this civil war over a martyr Messiah They're demanding that their guy win. Oh you tried to kill our guy. We're gonna I am not certain what happened with that But the last thing that we want to have regardless of what happened with that shooting and regardless of what happens with the election Last thing we want to have is a civil war over these guys like I said about January the 6th
	I said these people were not willing to go to Washington and protest When they were locked down when they were humiliated with masks on their face when they were told you can't get six within six feet of other people when they were told that they needed to Hang in there because you're gonna take an experimental jab.
	They didn't push back against all that stuff When their businesses were taken, when their jobs were taken, when they were humiliated publicly with a piece of cloth on your face, they couldn't stand up for that, but they're going to stand up for the guy who presided over all of that, who paid for all of that?
	And see, that's what disgusts me about, particularly about January the 6th.
	All these people who are quiet about that.
	Oh, now we've got to support Trump.
	He's our only hope. Well, he wasn't any hope in 2020.
	And now they want to do it again.
	In MAGA we trust.
	Trump was chosen by God, say, worshippers of the MAGA church.
	You know, this guy's name is Moon.
	I thought, wow, he's just like the Moonies.
	Actually, he's a son. Of the so-called Reverend Sun Young Moon.
	He now lives in America, in Tennessee as a matter of fact.
	And when Trump went to the Coliseum in Charlotte, North Carolina, this guy Sean Moon, who has what he calls the Rod of Iron Ministries, his sect of people show up with AR-15 rifles by their side for worship.
	What does that teach them?
	Maybe they should pull out the Psalms where some people trust in chariots and horses.
	Or some people trust in AR-15s.
	Or some people trust in politicians.
	Now my trust is in the Lord God Almighty.
	In the Lord Jesus Christ.
	You trust in these other things.
	That is not Christian at all.
	Moments before Trump took the stage, he got up in Charlotte and he said, we believe that God has chosen Trump and preserved his life during this terrible assassination attempt that the whole world saw.
	He also said, Trump stands for Christian principles.
	Please name one.
	This guy is covetous.
	You can go down to the Ten Commandments, right?
	Covetous, adulterous, liar, murderer, with the jabs, with the ventilators, with the drugs, with the withholding of drugs, all the rest of this stuff.
	Now, we could go down every one of the Ten Commandments.
	How about honoring God?
	Does He do that? No.
	As Michael Brown says, vote for Him if you must, or if you wish.
	But never say that Trump has Christian values.
	And Moon calls the Biden government, quote, a satanic cult of power.
	Well, I agree with him.
	The problem is, it's not limited to the Biden administration.
	The satanic cult of power.
	Biden isn't running anything, obviously.
	Pelosi wants to put him on Mount Rushmore.
	I was joking with Karen this morning.
	I said, yeah, right. I could just imagine how they would portray him.
	You know, he would be, you know, he'd have his mouth open, breathing through his mouth, with an astonished look on his face, looking up to the left.
	You know, put him down at the bottom.
	And so you do the same thing with, bookend him with Hillary Clinton.
	You know, that look of astonishment she had when they dropped the balloons at the convention.
	That's a look that he has all the time.
	It would work out pretty good when they have the fireworks.
	They'd be making the same face that everybody else does when we all look up at the fireworks.
	Anyway, a satanic cult of power.
	That's what Washington is.
	And the presidents are just puppets.
	They're just a front.
	They're just a facade. Washington is a satanic cult of power.
	It was a satanic cult of power when Trump was there.
	It'll be a satanic cult of power if Trump gets back in there.
	So, he is absolutely clueless as to what is really going on.
	And it is very important And they interview.
	This is the Sun out of the UK. They talked to a lot of people.
	They said, well, I really think Trump's going to win.
	I think he's protected. There was divine intervention when that bullet missed.
	There's a reason for why that happened.
	Another person said, this is a once-in-a-lifetime thing.
	I don't know if I'll ever get this opportunity again.
	I like Trump because he's not going to let anyone F over our country.
	What was this person in 2020?
	The only thing that President Trump wants to do is to save us.
	Is that right? And one guy is going around all these different events selling honey instead of being shaped in, you know, there it is.
	Thank you, Travis. Instead of it looking like, you know, the bear, this is Orange Man.
	They've got a plastic bottle that looks like Trump and it's got honey inside of it.
	And he's traveling around.
	Other people are traveling around selling grifting trinkets off of this stuff.
	The only difference between them and people like Glenn Beck and Mark Levin and Alex Jones is the amount of money that they make.
	And so Michael Brown wrote this op-ed piece, and he says, If you will, vote Trump.
	But know that the GOP is not God's party.
	And he has to start with a disclaimer so the cult will listen to him.
	He says, I am a two-time Trump voter.
	I'll vote for him again.
	But he said, but I want you to listen.
	He said, I'm urging each of you Christian conservatives who vote for Trump and the GOP to do with your eyes wide open, recognizing that the GOP is not the G-O-D. He didn't say that.
	He said it's not God's party.
	But we didn't make a big distinction.
	And too many Christians...
	I think the GOP is G-O-D, if not specifically Trump.
	Trump is not the Jesus-centered leader of the Christian right, he said.
	Far from it. He said, for instance, featured speaker at the RNC was gay billionaire Peter Thiel, a personal friend of Trump, who said, every American has a unique identity.
	I'm proud to be gay, I'm proud to be Republican, but most of all, I'm proud to be an American.
	He said, I don't pretend to agree with every plank on our party's platform, but fake culture wars only distract us from our economic decline.
	And nobody in this race is being honest about it except Trump.
	So here's a billionaire.
	What matters to him? The rich young ruler.
	Money. Money.
	And so all this stuff about culture war is just a distraction from him being able to make money.
	And there's a lot of people in the Republican Party that speak to that.
	They're primarily about money.
	But understand that our liberty and our prosperity is a blessing from God.
	It's downstream from that.
	The founders of this country understood and acknowledged that, regardless of what their personal beliefs were.
	I'm not holding them up as religious leaders any more than I would any other politician.
	But they acknowledged God and the fact that these were spiritual blessings.
	When did you ever hear that from a politician today?
	And the culture war is downstream from the spiritual war.
	The culture war, what is happening in our culture, as well as our prosperity, is all downstream from our relationship with God.
	And so Michael Brown says, Republicans like Thiel don't need to worry about differing with a party platform.
	All affirmation of God-ordained marriage has been removed from the GOP platform, along with all opposition to same-sex mirage.
	That's why the headline to an op-ed piece on Newsweek said, quote, Trump's new GOP platform is a massive win for LGBT Americans.
	He says, in that op-ed piece, he says, while Trump made history as the first president to take office accepting gay marriage, the Republican platform he formerly ran on in 2016 explicitly endorsed traditional marriage and traditional family based on marriage between one man and one woman.
	But see, the thing is, Trump was never a part of that.
	Trump always pushed LGBT issues.
	He pushed trans people for his beauty contest.
	He said, I think it'd be great. Let's have some trainees in here.
	And so what has changed is the fact that it has now become his party.
	He completely owns it.
	Lock, stock, and barrel. He put his daughter in charge of it.
	And so when you look at what the platform says, understand it is...
	It encapsulates what his views have always been.
	In the new 2024 platform, says the Newsweek op-ed, Republicans just released, this language is nowhere to be found.
	The document says nothing about gay marriage at all.
	There's no endorsement of traditional marriage, no call to overturn the Supreme Court's decision or anything else.
	Because the Constitution doesn't matter to them either.
	You know, that's a separate issue.
	You know, there's the moral issue.
	And the Christian issue, but then there's also the constitutional issue.
	Does the Supreme Court have the authority to define, when life begins, to define what marriage is?
	And of course, the answer is no.
	And neither does the Congress, unless you amend the Constitution.
	I think it's important that we respect the Constitution, because if we don't, we wind up with things like the drug war.
	And things that come out of that Pandora's box, like civil asset forfeiture.
	And all the SWAT teams and the militarization of the police and the corruption of the courts and all the rest of the stuff that has come out of that Pandora's box of prohibition because we didn't respect the Constitution like they did when they prohibited alcohol.
	And so, as a headline to an op-ed piece of the National Review stated, the GOP platform is a major loss for the pro-life movement.
	For decades, a Republican platform has invoked the unborn child's fundamental right to life.
	Which cannot be infringed.
	It is called for a constitutional amendment and legislation to make clear that the 14th Amendment's protections apply to children before birth, but no longer.
	The Trump GOP has gutted its language regarding abortion.
	Because understand, all issues are unimportant.
	All that matters is loyalty to Trump.
	Kemp needs to learn that lesson.
	And, you know, congressmen that he pushes out, Republican congressmen who are conservative, they need to learn that lesson.
	The only thing that matters in Trump's GOP is personal loyalty to him.
	So, again, only the chosen one.
	So, despite Trump's frequent professions of faith, most recently he did it at Turning Point USA Believers Summit.
	I love you Christians.
	I'm a Christian. And Michael Brown says, and despite him saying the quote-unquote sinner's prayer privately with different Christian leaders, he says, I've heard this from them anecdotally.
	He said there is no real evidence that Trump understands what it means to be a Christian.
	As for Trump being a changed man after coming within an inch of his life, he's jokingly stated that the change lasted for a few hours at most.
	But, you know, when he says, Whatever he does with these pastors privately.
	Publicly, he's said over and over again.
	I've played it for you. He says he needs no forgiveness.
	And I've used that as an example not to attack or to condemn or to judge Trump, but to show the attitude that many people have.
	Not just Trump. Many people don't think that they need God's forgiveness.
	They think that they can earn their salvation.
	I can just do good things and I'll wipe it out.
	I'll balance out the bad stuff that I've done.
	The problem with Trump, and what he really needs prayer for, is these very preachers who surround him.
	Like Paula White, who sells him a prosperity gospel, which is the only gospel he's interested in.
	He got that from Norman Vincent Peale, and he's found Paula White, who will give him the same stuff.
	So, what does he mean when he says, I'm a Christian?
	I don't know. What does Flynn mean?
	When he pretends that he's a Christian and he leads people in prayers to pagan ascended masters.
	Plagiarizes them verbatim.
	Or when he celebrates Pride Month and this seal.
	The second annual Pride thing in 2014.
	That's Michael Flynn giving him an award.
	I've not heard him weigh in on that subject.
	And when we talk about Trump...
	Having a profession of faith, all he says is, I'm a Christian.
	At the Turning Point USA Believers Summit, we had recently just had some very good friends of ours.
	They've been friends for a very, very long time.
	They came to see my daughter when she came with her baby.
	And she said something about this Charlie Kirk thing.
	I said, do you realize who Charlie Kirk is?
	And she did not want to hear it at all.
	They didn't want to hear, they didn't want to see this video I'm going to play for you.
	This is what happens when we get tied in to a particular person.
	She's not tied into Trump.
	She's tied into Charlie Kirk.
	And she thinks he's a great Christian leader.
	Well, you know, we talk about being a Christian leader.
	You know, before Charlie Kirk was pushing the idea of being a Christian, he was not fighting a spiritual war.
	He was fighting, five years ago, a cultural war.
	And so, as a cultural war, he thought it was going to help him win to virtue signal about being on the side of LGBTs.
	And the black guy that he had there is still on the Charlie Kirk's website, Turning Point USA, as one of their speakers.
	He said, I'm more hated because I'm a Republican than because I am a black homosexual, he said.
	Well, the people who are doing that, that's not Christian value to hate him.
	We don't hate people.
	We warn people about the sin that God hates.
	But to use this as a virtue signal, Charlie Kirk was not mistaken.
	He was grifting.
	What he was doing was he was putting this out so he could enlarge the tent and bring more people on board who were going to make it not about issues, If he wants to come in, he wants to be a co-belligerent on a particular issue, for example. You don't have to share my beliefs.
	I don't have to agree with your lifestyle.
	But if you're going to make it about celebrating your lifestyle, celebrating the fact that he's gay, which is what Charlie Kirk was doing, then we're talking about something completely different.
	They're coming together over some issues like, let's say, fighting abortion or something like that.
	Here's the challenge that was made to Charlie Kirk.
	About his so-called culture war.
	E. Michael Jones' groundbreaking work, we now understand that sexual liberation is political control.
	It's a form of political control.
	And you have multiple times advocated on behalf of accepting homosexuality, accepting homosexual acts as normative in the conservative movement.
	How does anal sex help us win the culture war?
	I'm going to let the gay man answer that.
	Wait a minute. Wait a minute. So can I ask you a question?
	Can you have the balls to ask the gay man on the stage that question and don't defer to him?
	So ask me that question.
	I want to answer you that question.
	You already asked the question, so I'm going to answer that question.
	I'm going to ask you that question.
	This is America.
	This is the greatest freaking nation in the world.
	We realize that America is great because we have Western values.
	We realize that...
	No, no, no. Let me finish, dude.
	We realize that gays and lesbians are able to contribute to American society in the same way that everybody else is.
	And let me tell you.
	And let me tell you.
	When you continue doing that, okay, you realize that we are here.
	We are able to do everything.
	And let me tell you something as well.
	I served in the military, right?
	I served five years. I did in Iraq.
	What's up? How does homosexual sex help us win the culture war?
	Who said homosexual sex helps you win the culture war?
	Well, it's a BS question.
	Why make it about that? It's a question that is...
	Why are you making it about that, then?
	It's not a good fake question.
	I'm going to be honest.
	Honestly, I don't care what two consenting adults do.
	So, that's...
	And your hyper-focus on it is kind of weird.
	Thanks for the answer. You seem to be really interested in gay sex.
	I'm pretty sure if you're into that, you can go find somebody else.
	So that's how they respond to it.
	They accuse him of being into gay sex.
	Again, it's directed to Mr.
	Kirk because he was raised as a conservative.
	As the guy before has said, you've advocated for homosexuality, said that there's a place for the gay agenda within the conservative movement.
	My question is, and you're also comfortable with transgenders and cross-dressers, I understand.
	So my question is, is there any point where conservatives should take a moral stance on Christian morality, or should we abandon it altogether?
	So in other words, what is TPUSA's, what is your brand of conservatism doing to actually conserve Christian morality?
	If we're ceding to the left on transgender, gay rights, gay marriage, we don't want that in conservatism.
	So you don't want him in the conservative movement?
	I just want to be very clear.
	So you don't want me in the movement?
	Hold on a sec. I want to be very clear.
	Hold on a sec.
	You're bringing some very charged language.
	I'm going to try to calm down the temperature in the room so I can try to rationally understand an irrational position.
	Let me finish.
	Let me finish. Let me finish.
	What is the culture war that this conservative is trying to conserve?
	The Bible is the greatest book ever to exist in the history of the world.
	And I believe Rob Smith has decency and dignity as an individual in the United States of America.
	Hold on a second. We're not a theocracy.
	We never have been.
	I believe that. But now he's holding religious revivals.
	Because I'm in it. He's addressing me.
	The thing that I don't understand, well, I'm addressing you.
	How about that? You don't even have the courage to address the gay man on stage.
	So, the problem that I have with, as somebody that is a gay Christian, and this is the problem that I have, because my relationship with God and coming back into the church over the past year and a half is one of the greatest gifts that has been given to me in terms of being in this movement.
	So... So my question, and my question to everybody who tries to say that, oh, you shouldn't be, you know, Christian because you're gay, why are you trying to turn people away from God?
	So if you love God, in Christianity it's all right, because I do love God.
	So they're not trying to turn him away.
	They're trying to turn him toward God.
	Jesus said, why do you call me Lord, Lord, and you don't do what I say?
	So the Bible is not the greatest book ever.
	The Bible is God's Word.
	And if you want to know what defines a Christian, if you want to know what a disciple is, then maybe you should read God's Word, not a great book.
	And he says it's not a theocracy.
	And yet, what is he trying to do now?
	You know, he is presenting himself five years later.
	He is now presenting himself, and he still has the same speaker there.
	He still has the same values.
	But he's presenting himself in believers' summits.
	Folks, Charlie Kirk is just another one of these grifters.
	And he will use God or Trump or anything to make money.
	In the same way that Alex Jones will use Blair White, a tranny.
	Same way that he was all about Milo Yiannopoulos when he was a gay conservative.
	And now that he's not gay, that he's just conservative.
	He's not really interested in him anymore.
	It's a grift.
	It's an act.
	And people need to understand what is going on with it.
	On Rumble, am I too okay?
	Thank you for the tip. He says, hit that thumbs up.
	Yes, I would appreciate that.
	Thank you. And on Rumble, M. Seller says, last week, our MAGA neighbor gave us a Trump coin.
	Said a friend of his gave it to him and said to pass it along.
	You'll know who to give it to.
	God will show you.
	So he chose us.
	This is a cult.
	It is. It is a cult.
	This is, again, these people, they will back off when you start to say, but what does God actually say?
	Oh, well, you want to make it a theocracy.
	And yet, they're the ones who are pulling in religion, a false religion, a false religion, in order to make money with their MAGA cult.
	That's what must be opposed.
	It costs us friends, it costs us viewers, but so be it.
	We have to oppose that.
	We're going to take a quick break and we will be right back.
	Thanks for joining us.
	On Rockfan, a Syrian girl said, I would appreciate your prayers.
	I've been struggling with pneumonia.
	I'm very sorry to hear that.
	We'll keep you in our prayers.
	We just pray that God will bless you.
	God is the one who heals.
	We treat. We have doctors who treat.
	We treat ourselves. We try to do what we can, but we understand ultimately that it is God who gives us our health, who sustains us in our life, and I just pray that God would bless you as you honor Him and look to Him for help.
	England. Let's talk about this.
	I didn't talk about this yesterday.
	Of course, a lot of things happening over the weekend.
	We have a lot of people saying it is on the border, on the verge of civil war.
	And we know how this has been gradually and deliberately brought to the people in the UK with open borders.
	They're doing it to all of the countries with open borders.
	And now the new labor leader, Starmer, It's about swift action against anti-immigration extremists.
	Very much a double standard, and people in the UK are calling it two-tier policing.
	Here we call it a double standard.
	What predicated this is the slaying of three young girls and the stabbing of eight others, including children.
	The teacher that was there was extremely, was seriously injured.
	And it was done by a 17-year-old.
	And part of what the mainstream media is focusing on, they're using this as an opportunity to ramp up the police state.
	To ramp up censorship and other things like that because there was a misreport and I wanted to cover this because I had read the original misreport as well.
	A lot of people covered it.
	It was from a news organization called Channel 3 Now, which I thought was a UK channel.
	But it turns out that it is one of these kind of quasi-Russian things like before it's news.
	They just came up with a new name for it, and they came up with an invented name, a Muslim name, and said that the 17-year-old who did this had just recently come over on a boat.
	It turns out that he was a second-generation immigrant, 17 years old.
	His parents came from Rwanda.
	He was born in the UK. But as I've said before, we see this many, many, many times.
	Where you have somebody come in from a Muslim country, and the second generation, not the first generation, but the second generation is usually the one that does these types of attacks.
	They grow up, and they are isolated, and they are resentful.
	We're even taught by the government schools to hate the people, the native people in their country.
	The Brits are bad, the Americans are bad, and that type of thing.
	Everybody is taught that. But they also are ostracized.
	They're struggling. Their parents are poor.
	Maybe they don't speak English very well.
	They don't have a lot to help them get started.
	And it makes them very bitter.
	That is escalated by the schools.
	And it is frequently the case...
	That it's the second generation that will do these violent attacks.
	Downing Street spokesman said the Prime Minister set out that the police have our full support to take action against extremists.
	The Prime Minister ended by saying that the right to freedom of expression and the violent disorder we have seen are two very different things.
	There is no excuse for violence of any kind.
	And reiterated that the government backs the police to take all necessary action to keep our streets safe.
	And, of course, many people feel that way about it.
	But what they're doing is they're using this as an opportunity to ramp up the police state, to ramp up surveillance, to ramp up censorship, to ramp up the ideas of hate speech, and to also make it all about this false report.
	Essentially, that report is a distinction without a difference, really, if you look at it.
	So... You've had Farage, his deputy, said many millions of concerned British citizens are furious at lawless Britain.
	It's not just this particular incident.
	It's not just the mobs that have come out to attack these hotels where they're housing massive numbers of migrants.
	They said children are being slaughtered.
	Machete mobs are abounding.
	Soldiers are being stabbed.
	Police are violently attacked at the airport.
	And instead of doing anything about the crime, instead of empathy, Keir Starmer labeled people as far right and out of touch if they have a problem with this.
	And so, former Labor MP, current government advisor on political violence, John Woodcock, who argued that the government should consider a coronavirus-style lockdown in order to stamp out the uprising if it continues to persist.
	You see, that's the purpose of the open borders.
	The purpose of the open borders.
	The purpose of George Soros putting in district attorneys who will let criminals out right away.
	As we see, you know, while shoplifting, you can't arrest them for shoplifting.
	We just let them go. As long as they don't take more than $900 and something per visit, they can pilfer the stores endlessly.
	And they can create organized mobs to do that as well.
	And we can bring in people in massive numbers who have absolutely no prospects, no means of support, bring them in as dependents upon the state government.
	They live in poverty and dependency, they get angry, and the second generation gets violent.
	So we have balaclava-clad mob storms a migrant hotel, about 700 anti-immigration protesters.
	Draped in St.
	George's flags. That's a flag of England as opposed to the UK flag.
	Attacked the hotel in Rotherham, South Yorkshire about 2 o'clock on the weekend.
	And so obviously something needs to be done about the violence.
	But the violence is there because nothing is being done about these other issues.
	As JFK said, if you make peaceful change impossible, you make violent change inevitable.
	They understand that.
	That's what they want, you see.
	We are now in this fourth turning.
	They know precisely the rhythm and the pattern of social change.
	And they're doing everything they can to enforce this.
	So we have civil wars. So we have a world war.
	So we have a Great Depression.
	They want to be able to reset the table.
	And this is all part of it.
	And so part of this is the red herring of talking about Channel 3 now in order to vert attention away from the fundamental issue that the government doesn't want to do anything about, and that is the borders.
	So, again, this guy never existed.
	It was a made-up thing, but that doesn't change the fundamentals behind all of this and the fact that the government is going to do nothing to correct anything.
	They want to sow chaos and confusion and destabilize, and it's the government who wants to do that, not just a Russian paper.
	Dr. Roger Watson writes in the Daily Skeptic, he said, Civil disorder has come to my hometown.
	He said, When I returned from Hong Kong on Saturday, there was a larger-than-normal police presence at the Hull railway station.
	One of the local Islamic centers near the city center was surrounded by local Muslim men, presumably in anticipation of trouble.
	He says, But why Hull and why the Royal Hotel?
	He said it was once described as a first-class hotel by Travel Weekly, but it's changed hands several times in recent decades.
	Each time they find themselves under management progressively less prestigious owners, he said.
	The most recent owners, therefore, must have been delighted to have been approached by a housing and social care provider which is under contract to the Home Office to provide accommodation for asylum seekers.
	Initially, only a few were housed there.
	He says, but the number has increased to the point where the hotel is no longer accessible to the public.
	The attractive Art Deco entrance from the station has been locked for months.
	The issue has united local MPs, one of them conservative, another one labor.
	But both of them have raised concerns in Parliament.
	And these problems will not be fixed.
	He said in the past decade, the face of all has changed noticeably.
	Two main shopping streets with small businesses are now almost completely in the hands of Muslim shopkeepers and restaurant owners.
	The streets are now ostensibly Muslim areas with large groups of young men hanging around at the entrances to businesses.
	There is little, if any, trouble, but some locals feel increasingly uneasy and are vocal about their concerns.
	Their country has been taken away and given over to other people.
	And let me just say this.
	As I said before, prosperity is a blessing from God.
	And over and over again, in the Bible, we see God saying to people of Israel, people that He said, here, I'm going to create you as a special nation.
	And yet He says, because of your disobedience, I'm going to hand you over.
	I'm going to hand your country, and I'm going to hand you over to other people.
	This type of thing that is happening to us in the West is a curse from God.
	You know, there's not any intermediate place there, right?
	You're either blessed or you're cursed.
	There's no third option.
	And that's really what the spiritual war and the cultural war that is downstream from that is really about.
	So he says the immigrants to Hull are largely former asylum seekers.
	That have been granted a place to live in the UK, but placing hundreds of young, mainly Muslim, mainly men in the heart of the city has tested the city's resolve.
	People in the city center feel particularly galled at the fact that while those in the more middle class parts of Hull will wax lyrical about the need to house asylum seekers, their enthusiasm wanes at the thought of having them in their backyard.
	Well, we know about that.
	He says, How this is being played out.
	Oh, Travis just tells me Lala has chosen Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as her VP running mate.
	Well, that's weird. So, he was the guy who was really pushing that stuff with the weird thing about J.D. Vance.
	I saw on the Hill, kind of a mainstream political publication, they had an interview with some guy named Charlemagne the God.
	I don't know what he's the god of.
	He's some rapper.
	I don't care what actors and singers and rappers think about politics.
	Actually, I'm pretty sure Charlemagne has never been a rapper, just a rap critic.
	Oh, okay. Is that what he is? He's a rap critic?
	Pretty sure. Okay, so he talks about people who talk.
	Anyway, he said, well, don't talk about Lala being DEI. He says the only DEI is the fact that she's got to find a straight white dude for her vice president.
	And I said, well, see, there you go.
	That's a minority position in the Democrat Party.
	If you can find any straight white dudes, they have to be elevated because they are a minority.
	Well, our guest is ready, and I don't want to keep him waiting too long, but I do want to play a little bit of this, because when they're going around attacking free speech, this is what it looks like.
	An elderly person who is confronted at his house by these police.
	Am I going to be locked up for the night?
	Do I need to bring my medications, he says?
	No. What do you mean I can't have any alcohol?
	Okay, well, I'll tell you.
	Okay, the time 23, 1440, I'm arresting you on suspicion of improper use of the electronic communications network.
	What? 127 communications network, okay?
	So you do not have to say this.
	It may harm your defense if you don't mention one question, something which you later are in court.
	Anything you do say may be given evidence.
	Do you understand that?
	So I'm actually being arrested.
	You're going to be arrested, okay.
	Right. This is in relation to some comments that you've made on a Facebook page.
	Yeah, the speech police. Facebook crime, is it?
	Facebook crime.
	We need to ask you some questions about that.
	Right. Yeah, and it goes on.
	It is absolutely deplorable.
	We have Facebook police.
	We have hate speech, as I said before.
	Extremism in defense of free speech is no vice, and moderation of content is no virtue.
	And it is deplorable that this would be used.
	This is an old guy. If he was out there getting violent and beating people, fighting the police or something, that's a different situation.
	But he's being arrested because of speech.
	And that's precisely why they have engineered this situation.
	We're going to take a quick break.
	We're going to get our guest on, and we're going to talk about the election.
	The name of the book that he has written is Ken Block.
	The book that he has written is Disproven.
	My unbiased search for voter fraud for the Trump campaign, the data that shows why he lost, and how we can improve our elections.
	Imagine that. Taking a look at how we can reform things.
	Who would have thought that anybody would do something like that?
	We're going to take a quick break and we will be right back.
	♪♪
	the
	Defending the American Dream.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	All right, welcome back, and our guest is Ken Block, and the book is Disproven, My Unbiased Search for Voter Fraud in the Trump Campaign, the data that shows why he lost, and how we can improve our elections.
	And we're going to spend a lot of time on election reform, not so much about litigating 2020.
	He's got a lot to say.
	How did he get involved in this?
	Well, he is president of a software systems company, Simpatico.
	Software engineer and entrepreneur specializes in database technologies and groundbreaking projects such as the country's first statewide debit card benefit system.
	And in Texas, he saved them a billion dollars off of the fraud and waste and their SNAP programs.
	But he said he wasn't really interested in getting involved in politics and But, you know, sometimes we find that politics is interested in us.
	In the past decade, he's analyzed voter data from more than 40 states.
	The few that he has yet to analyze do not provide their data to the public.
	He has served as an expert in legal challenges that involve voting data, voter fraud, and election integrity.
	So we'll talk to him about all these things and about what he has learned as he investigates this.
	What can we do to make sure that we have honest elections that are not going to be contested?
	Thank you for joining us, sir.
	Thanks for having me. Thank you.
	You know, he is, and I said this about him, I said it's unfortunate that he is so focused on revenge that he can't be focused on even winning, let alone on reform. And so I want to talk about that. But before we get into what we can do for reform, tell us a little bit about your take on what happened in Georgia, where you investigated.
	Yeah, it's the idea that in states that are whisker close, and we have a bunch of them, We have Arizona, Pennsylvania, Georgia.
	Michigan is not really whisker-close, but close enough.
	Nevada, the idea that if the election goes one way as opposed to another, that the only explanation for it must have been fraud is not an accurate way to depict what happened in these elections.
	And in Georgia in 2020, there's a ready explanation for what happened.
	And Georgia is maybe in a lot of ways the closest state that we have in terms of being evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans.
	The results of the 2020 election have been gone up and down and backwards and forwards and sideways, and there really hasn't surfaced any credible claim of voter fraud that could be proven.
	And in my work for the Trump campaign, I was hired very specifically to do data analytics that would stand up in a court of law.
	My job was to find enough voter fraud to matter in one of the swing states, document it, and have it be so rock solid that when it got taken to court, the other side's experts wouldn't be able to tear it apart.
	That's sort of the gold standard when you're dealing with legal challenges to elections.
	You have to have a foundation of fact in which to be successful in court.
	And the simple fact of the matter is, whether it was Georgia or any of the other swing states, while we found some voter fraud, we didn't find nearly enough to cover the margin of victory.
	And the margin of victory in Georgia was roughly 12,000 votes.
	It was roughly 11,000 votes in Arizona, roughly 90,000 votes in Pennsylvania.
	And in none of those states did we find enough voter fraud to cover what those margins were.
	And that's just a plain statement of fact.
	There were so many election challenges that failed in the court system because the nature of their proof...
	Was it acceptable proof in courts of law?
	Was there ever any talk about them taking their findings?
	I know that you were there to prepare the findings that they would use to argue the case.
	But did they ever talk about taking the case instead of to a court, to the legislature?
	Because I know four of these razor-thin margin victories for Biden for these states had Republican legislatures.
	Were they ever talking about presenting a case to the legislature to get them to acknowledge the A Republican slate of electors officially.
	And then you would have had, as Thomas Massey talked about, as Pence talked about, as J.D. Vance recently talked about, to have then a court case as to who gets to decide who the electors are.
	Is it going to be the governor and the executive branch or is it going to be the legislative branch?
	Was there ever any talk about taking the case to the legislatures?
	So I wasn't part of any strategy meetings inside the campaign.
	My job was incredibly focused, and I had 30 days to do what amounted to about a year's worth of work.
	So I was highly occupied and segmented away from everything else that was swirling around the campaign at the time.
	What I would say in general is that legislatures...
	Probably are not the best body to try to ascertain a very technical determination, which was did fraud occur and how did it occur?
	You know, many members of legislators don't have that in their background.
	So it would be my preference that if it's going to be contested, that it gets contested in a venue where they can handle highly technical situations.
	Presentations and digest the facts and our court system does that all the time.
	Legislatures typically don't.
	So that's just from a process perspective.
	That's kind of where I'm at. In Georgia, there are three different data points that really help document what really happened in Georgia.
	And I know that in a lot of conservative circles, Secretary Raffensperger is not well-liked.
	But the data that he brought forward and can document, has documented, and it's hard proof, He showed that about 30,000 GOP presidential primary voters in Georgia in 2020 took a pass on the general election.
	Those are lost...
	Presidential votes for President Trump.
	And he lost by fewer than 12,000 votes.
	Now those 30,000 votes were probably moderate Republicans, call them rhinos, whatever you want to call them, who probably voted against Trump in the primary and then decided they couldn't bear to vote in the general election.
	And there was another 30,000 votes that Raffensperger brought forward and has the proof for that showed that...
	The presidential selection was left blank, but all the down-ticket Republicans received votes.
	And again, that's a sort of symbolic protest votes by very likely middle-of-the-road Republicans who liked to down-ticket GOPs but didn't like what was at the top of the ticket.
	And that's hard evidence to overcome, and there's really no credible evidence Fraud that you can look at that comes close to having the solidity of the numbers that Raffensperger brought forward, that matches with what my nationwide findings are, and those are basically that Trump lost about 2.5% support across the board everywhere.
	In 2020 relative to 2016.
	And those are the rhinos.
	I'm pretty sure those are the rhinos who took a hike and left.
	It's not a lot of voters, but in a whisker close election, it was enough.
	Most probably people who were not too happy with what had happened the first part of 2020.
	Let me ask you, you know, with the lockdowns and things like that, that kind of soured a lot of us on what was going on, but Let me ask you about the vote-by-mail thing, because that was a function of the lockdown as well, and we'd never done that before.
	How did you audit or how did you view the vote-by-mail stuff?
	So we looked at the mail ballots not so much from the process of mail ballots.
	Were there changes to rules made to allow mail ballots to be changed how mail ballots were used?
	My role in looking at them was, were dead votes cast by mail?
	Did people who voted by mail vote twice in two different places?
	The nature of what I was looking at was those sorts of things.
	It was really a remarkable period of time in a lot of different ways.
	Honestly, I think maybe had we not had COVID, I actually believe there's a better than even money chance that President Trump would still be President Trump right now.
	I think COVID cost him dearly in this election.
	Did mail ballot use tip the balance?
	I don't think so, because I think anybody who was motivated to vote would have figured out how to vote one way or the other.
	The presumption is were mail ballots used in some nefarious way?
	Where's massive mail ballot fraud happening?
	And I didn't see evidence of that.
	I mean, to commit mail ballot fraud, you're either going to steal someone's identity and vote as somebody else, or you're going to steal a deceased person's identity and do that.
	And we found... A couple of dozen dead votes in most of the swing states.
	We found a couple of hundred duplicate votes across the swing states.
	And the campaign spared no expense on this.
	We exhaustively looked at every single mail ballot to ensure that the person in whose name that mail ballot was cast was among the living.
	So what do they do to cast a bell?
	Do they have to request it and is it mailed to them at an address or something?
	Do they just pick it up and then mail it in themselves?
	So, what's really frustrating is it's different from state to state to state.
	We're going to get into that down the line.
	In many states, you have to fill out a mail ballot application, mail it in, they verify your signature, and then when the time is right, they'll mail you a ballot that you then return.
	That's like the absentee ballot process that we've had for a very long time, right?
	Right. A few states, and this happened before COVID, States like California and Oregon and Colorado, interestingly, have moved to entirely conducting their elections by mail.
	They send out mail ballots to everybody, and if you don't want to vote by mail, you have to take extraordinary actions to opt out of voting by mail and instead to vote in a different way.
	So we had a mix of those different things.
	Many states made voting by mail easier in 2020.
	The hardest state in the country to vote by mail is, I believe it's Louisiana.
	That has very strict usage in terms of who can use it and under what circumstances.
	So it's all over the map.
	I didn't see any partisan slant to the mail ballot fraud that we did find.
	It was pretty evenly divided by Democrats, Republicans, Independents.
	And that's been the case of all the voter fraud I've documented over the years.
	I have yet to find a form of voter fraud where, when it happens, it's just sort of a bipartisan activity.
	How would you audit the situation to find out if somebody was voting for a dead person?
	And I ask because a friend of my brother-in-law's in 2012, in North Carolina they have, at least at that time, they had the longest voting period of any state.
	And there was no picture ID. So you could just walk in and give them, you could vote early, and when you went to vote, you just give them a name and address, and there was no validation of that with even a driver's license.
	And so on election day, this friend of my brother-in-law's goes in and to register, he gives him his name and address, and he said, you've already voted.
	And so is this other person at your address.
	And he said, well, that's my mom. She's been dead for several years.
	So how do you audit that to know if that is happening, you know, in Georgia, for example?
	Well, so in 2020, the Trump campaign had us process every single mail ballot voter in the swing stage.
	There was about 31 million of them.
	Wow. We process them through a data vendor who matches up We're good to go.
	a couple of dozen in each swing state.
	Not nearly enough to matter.
	I did predict, because I had done an analysis in Pennsylvania about a month before the election, I found a couple of recently registered dead voters and I predicted that those would become mail ballot fraud and they did.
	Yeah. Yeah. Did your research.
	You presented your findings to the Trump campaign and who had hired you to their attorneys.
	And you also reported to Mark Meadows all of your results.
	Is that correct? Yeah, so I didn't speak directly to Mark Meadows.
	The lawyer who hired me and who basically was my point person throughout this whole thing, Alex Cannon, he...
	The basic premise of what I did were two different things.
	I looked for duplicate votes.
	I looked for dead voters.
	And then the campaign used my company to help vet every claim of voter fraud that came their way.
	There were a lot of them from outside of the campaign.
	He asked us to vet them, determine whether they were true or not, before they would consider taking those claims into court.
	So, they were operating in a very careful, methodical way.
	They asked us to review about 20 different claims of fraud.
	Some of them came in through folks like Sidney Powell and John Eastman.
	Others came through academics and just Random people out there who did their own research and every one of the 20 different claims that we looked at, we were able to show why it was wrong.
	When we wrapped things up towards the end of November, Cannon took the summation of everything that we had done and went to Mark Meadows and told Meadows that When it came to voter fraud, we looked pretty exhaustively at it.
	All the claims we looked at were false, and we couldn't find enough voter fraud to have changed the outcome in any election.
	And when was that presented?
	What was the date roughly that you presented that stuff?
	Well, so I... I didn't do a presentation to anybody.
	Every one of the claims I looked at had its own email and documentation and all that landed on Cannon's desk.
	Cannon took that all together and went and talked to Meadows, I believe, right at the end of November and gave him the summation of everything.
	Okay, all right, and so it was December the 14th that the The electoral colleges, you know the people that were selected the elector the slate of electors from each party that had won Submitted their votes on December 14th the January the 6th was a formal Acceptance of all that stuff, but everybody presented that stuff on December 14th, so they knew The end of November they knew a couple of weeks before the Electoral College voted
	And then again about another about I guess six weeks or so before The January the sixth thing they had those results in what did you think about the stop the steal stuff you?
	You mentioned that you debunked fraud claims on those advancing the Stop the Steal initiative.
	Tell us a little bit about that.
	Yeah, I mean, so...
	As I looked at everything, I wasn't aware, usually, of where the claims came from.
	I was able to piece a lot of it together afterwards.
	So, you know, from the Sidney Powell, John Eastman perspective, I didn't know that the claims that I found were false, that they brought forward, came from them until about a year ago, really.
	So, it's...
	The whole problem with Stop the Steal and with a lot of...
	So many people believe firmly that the election was stolen, but that belief is based upon a set of facts that's at best really, really squishy.
	What I mean by that is the facts on which...
	The claims are being made that everybody's grabbing onto and says it was stolen, can't possibly ever stand up in court, usually for a really basic reason, because that reason is, it's more, usually it's hearsay evidence.
	And what I mean by that, hearsay is often defined as he said, she said type stuff.
	Right. And our courts don't allow that kind of evidence on which to convict somebody, because Someone can easily be lying about that, right?
	The court systems want to see fact-based evidence that can be double and triple checked, you know, hard facts.
	And most of the evidence that people are being presented as evidence that the election was stolen...
	It's squishy evidence.
	It's not the kind of evidence that you could take to court and win.
	And that, to me, is really something that I have a problem with because, you know, I'm a data guy.
	I take data to court and my data survives legal scrutiny, right?
	So if you can't find data that survives legal scrutiny, I think it's sketchy.
	To start bringing forward data that can't, and then using that information to really get people amped up about what happened in our election.
	I do not believe that the election was stolen.
	I believe that the election in 2020 was lost.
	I was very skeptical of it from the very beginning, actually.
	When I worked at Infowars, I had a show there, and two days after the election, Steve Pachenik came on and said that it was a sting, that they had blockchain watermark ballots that had somehow come out of the federal government at some central location.
	But the key thing that was obviously disprovable was he said two days after the election, so we got 20,000 National Guard that are out there arresting these people who rigged the election.
	Now that obviously was...
	I wasn't going to go down that path.
	So we had all kinds of stuff, but it was so many people, even weeks after that, when there was absolutely no evidence of any National Guard troops or any arrests or whatever, they were still pushing that.
	So I can imagine that somebody's saying, yeah, we got pictures of, or I know personally about somebody's stuff in a ballot box.
	That's going to be much more believable than the other stuff that people were fighting about and willing to go to the mat to say, yes, there is some secret war that is going on, maybe in Germany, maybe some places in the United States where people are actually fighting and going to war over this.
	It really was a strange situation.
	One more thing I'd like to talk about before we start talking about how to reform this stuff.
	And that is the exit polls, which have kind of come in to play again with this Venezuelan election.
	The State Department has always used Edison Research, which is the exit polling organization here in the United States.
	And they use them in other countries as well.
	And they say that if the difference between Edison Research's exit polls and the official results are more than five points away from each other, that it looks like it's a rigged election.
	Now, it's just one particular company, and of course that company can be rigged as well.
	We don't know about their integrity, but it is the company that is used for the exit polls by all of the media organizations in the United States.
	They typically don't give us, I've never seen them give us a total, and say, well here's what they say the total is.
	And compare that to what the reported votes were.
	They'll give you demographic cross-tabulations, you know, how many men or how many women or this or that voted for this candidate.
	But was there ever any talk about looking at the exit polls?
	Anything about that? So...
	I didn't know it at the time, but I learned of this about a year and a half ago.
	The Trump campaign commissioned their top pollster to conduct exit polls in the 2020 election in the swing states.
	And just to be fully transparent, I'm a two-time candidate for governor here in Rhode Island, and in my run in 2014 as a Republican, Fabrizio was my pollster as well.
	So I'd just like to put that out there because I'm talking about him, and I just didn't want to do that without disclosing that.
	Fabrizio conducted a 30,000 interview exit poll across all the swing states, and he created an internal campaign document that leaked.
	And that document made its way to Politico.com so anyone can find it there.
	But what he determined was that one out of six voters that they spoke with were disaffected Republicans who chose to vote against Trump in that 2020 race.
	Another one out of six voters were brand new voters motivated to vote against Trump because of COVID-19.
	So that's a full third of the voters that they had identified were strongly against Trump for different sets of reasons.
	So... Exit polls are typically, take it to the bank type things, right?
	They're usually considered to be pretty accurate, and I've not ever heard of somebody manipulating the results of an exit poll.
	I don't know much...
	Hardly anything at all about what's going on down in Venezuela right now, other than it's a mess.
	It's another one of these things, right?
	And so that kind of gets us a lead-in to some of the things that we do about how to fix this, based on your insights.
	But I think that's very important.
	I think it's very interesting that the Trump campaign did its own exit polls.
	And they didn't present that data, so presumably that data was not favorable to them.
	Didn't you, am I mistaken, did you debate Lindell on this, Mike Lindell?
	I did. He and I appeared on a YouTube channel about a month ago with a host named David Pakman.
	And yeah, we had about a 45-minute conversation about voter fraud and what is there, what's not there.
	And even we got into a little bit the things that we need to do to fix things.
	And I know that he held a press conference at one point in time, and Steve Bannon was there and a whole bunch of people, and Steve Bannon was just fed up.
	He said, well, we were told that he had receipts, and he goes, he doesn't have any receipts.
	He was really upset about it.
	Does he have any receipts yet?
	No. It's evidence-free, right?
	That's very interesting.
	It really is sad to see.
	But let's talk about what we can do to fix the election system based on what you have seen and your opinions about it.
	Yeah, so I think this is the most important thing to talk about.
	I mean, 2020 is long gone and it's in the rear mirror.
	There's nothing that we can do at this point to alter the course of what's going to happen in 2024.
	It's going to be very, very similar, I believe, to what we experienced in 2020.
	It may be almost virtually identical.
	I wouldn't be surprised if the outcome is exactly the same because the basic same setup is there that we had four years ago.
	The way we conduct our elections in this country is the way we've done it for hundreds of years, and it no longer makes any sense, and it causes us some real problems.
	And the biggest set of problems that we have is that different states and many times different counties in the same state conduct the same election differently.
	They have different rules.
	They have different regulations.
	They have different hardware.
	And I'll give you just a simple example of how these differences can actually affect the outcome of a specific vote.
	What do you think happens if you vote early but then die before Election Day?
	Does your vote count or does your vote not count?
	I would think that it would count.
	Depends on where you live.
	There you go. It depends, yeah.
	Yeah. So in Michigan, it does not count.
	And in 2020, the state of Michigan invalidated about 3,500 votes by voters who voted early and then passed away before Election Day.
	In Pennsylvania, if you vote early and then pass away before the election, your vote does count.
	So some of the votes that people identified as deceased votes...
	Actually counted, because in Pennsylvania, that's not an illegal situation.
	As long as you cast the vote while you're alive, if you happen to then pass away before Election Day in Pennsylvania, the vote still counts.
	So it becomes, you can see how just that one scenario...
	It causes a voter that we imagine is in this situation to have a very different experience as a dead voter in Michigan as it does as opposed to Pennsylvania.
	Let me ask you this question before we move on, because when you get these ballots in, what kind of records do you have to look at?
	An early vote-by-mail ballot to know that this person voted that ballot and voted it at that date, if they're going to count it, if the person is now dead, but to know that the person made this vote before they died.
	How do you audit that?
	What kind of information do they have in terms of auditability?
	Do they know the postmark date and the person's name on the ballot?
	So they have postmark dates, they have names and addresses on the ballot application, which also goes on to the envelope that your mail ballot gets put into as you mail it back in.
	The trick is getting that information and being able to determine with certainty whether or not that voter is dead or alive, and most people who do these analyses don't We aren't able to arrive at an answer that is rock solid for sure.
	Yeah. It's a big problem in Pennsylvania, you know, where it's okay if they did it and then died.
	How do you determine that?
	That's tough, right?
	Right. Well, I pointed out to the state of Pennsylvania through lawyers I was doing some work for in October of 2020, two registered voters who were dead, clearly deceased, identified them, and because they had registered In the last month, Back in September of 2020, I said these will become very likely fraudulent votes.
	The state didn't do anything about those voters.
	They did, in fact, vote by mail as deceased voters, and it was only after the election that the people behind those votes were contacted, arrested, and they pled guilty to election crimes for casting fraudulent votes.
	It's really hard.
	In fact, It's so hard to identify whether or not someone is living or dead.
	I think that the only reasonable thing to do is to probably allow the votes, as long as you're alive when you cast the vote, I think that the votes should count.
	Because it's just so hard for states to determine otherwise inside a crazy window of time where they're trying to do a lot of other things.
	And again, we only were able to do what we did in terms of identifying deceased registered voters because the Trump campaign basically provided an unlimited pile of money that we were able to spend to do so accurately.
	I guess that's really the issue, you know, in terms of how do you validate that.
	And I guess the key issue is that people have to have trust in the election.
	And so it seems to me like there needs to be different ways that they can have either transparency and have the ballots retained.
	I know that in Texas, it was kind of a standard procedure, even though it was in the Constitution that a facsimile image of the ballot had to be retained.
	You had the guy who was in charge of the Board of Elections would send out a statement to all of the counties saying, you don't have to retain it.
	And they would not retain it in a lot of these counties.
	And so it made the auditing process really difficult.
	But I think maybe, you know, a lot of people who are looking at, let's just go simple.
	Let's go to hand-counted ballots.
	We know that people can always stuff stuff.
	But if you've got hand-counted ballots and you've got observers from both sides, it seems to me like you need to have something like that where people can have some confidence that the fraud has been kept to a minimum, that there's been eyes on this, that they have done it.
	What do you think about that? What are your recommendations in terms of paper ballots?
	I know that's a big paper chase, but what would you say about that?
	Well, I think for sure when you vote, The vote should be on a paper ballot so that you have a physical representation of what happened, so that you can go back and analyze it.
	Any machine that allows you to vote electronically without paper ballot backup, I think, is a terrible idea, and we shouldn't be there for sure.
	Let's use Maricopa County, Arizona as...
	Sort of a proving ground for whether or not it's reasonable to count by hand all the ballots.
	So Maricopa has roughly one and a half million voters that vote in its elections.
	On your typical Maricopa County ballot, there's anywhere between 20 and 30 different races on that ballot.
	It just depends on the year and where you are in the cycle of different things.
	Which means that in your typical election year in Maricopa, if you're going to count by hand, you have to tally up 20 to 30 million different distinct votes.
	Across all the different races that are there, that is a phenomenally large amount of votes, and no human counting effort will ever be anywhere near as accurate as a machine count can be.
	The problem and the worry about the machines is that they can be hacked, That they can be programmed maliciously before the election, that kind of thing.
	And I look at what the casino industry does, and in my background I've done a lot of work in the gaming industry over the years.
	Many, many, many casino management systems have defensive software built into every one of those slot machines so that they know if the software deviates from what it should be.
	And I won't get into the technical details of it, but it's something that you can absolutely do.
	And it's something that you can absolutely bring forward into the election machine software.
	We have the ability to know with confidence what software is running on those machines.
	We should be using it.
	And as I said to Mike Lindell is one of the big, big pushers of we need to be counting by hand.
	We need to be counting by hand.
	And what I'll say is, first of all, there's just no way that you can count 30 million votes accurately by hand.
	First of all, it would take forever to do that, right?
	You would need an army of people conducting the count.
	And then, you know, human beings make mistakes in that whole thing.
	It is too big a job, I think, to do it manually.
	And as I said to Mike, I said, Mike, the problem is you're...
	Talking about squishy reasons to count the mallets by hand, but you actually haven't pointed out something that is an actual risk that's happened that justifies making such a big change.
	So should we harden our machines?
	100%. And we should have federal guidelines that all the machines have to adhere to so that we can have some confidence that they have not been hacked and that the software that they're running has been vetted and is working the way it needs to and all that kind of thing.
	That's technology that's already in place.
	I just don't see how...
	I mean, if you or I were to sit down and start tallying votes on a ballot, Maybe we could tally, if we were working really fast, 500 votes an hour?
	Right? Maybe? I mean, you know, and now think about getting to 30 million votes, 500 votes an hour at a time.
	It tells you how big the number is.
	The number is probably 60,000 hours of work to get that done in Maricopa.
	And I don't think going back to the Stone Age for how we count votes is going to be a workable answer for us in this modern age.
	Yeah, it's again, you know, when we look at the electronic stuff and I always talk about and I've shown several times the An example, going back to the late 1990s, early 2000s, we have local college professors bring some kids in.
	They say, well, let's take over this machine here.
	And they put a virus on there that tilts everything according to their predetermined ratios, and then erases itself.
	And so, you know, the vulnerability there, I guess, is whether or not it's connected to the Internet.
	And whether or not somebody can reprogram it by putting a thumb drive on there and installing some software.
	How do you guard against that type of thing, that kind of custody of the machine, for example?
	So, you know, in the same way that slot machines have tremendous physical security around them in terms of surveillance, both electronic and people watching, it's the same thing with voting machines.
	The sensitive areas of the voting machine should be on the back of the machine where nobody is allowed.
	Right? So, I mean, if you're putting a USB key in the front of the machine and someone can close the, you know, they can close the curtains and plug something in, I mean, that's a violated rule 101 of physical security.
	You know, it's...
	There are...
	For those who understand machine security and how to make sure that the software that should be in there is in there, that's all a solvable problem.
	It really is.
	And as part of your auditing, did you have videotapes of the physical security situation?
	No, no. We were strictly focused on the data.
	Okay. They wanted me on the hard data that they were hoping was going to be able to go to court.
	I didn't get involved in any one specific local issue.
	And for sure, I didn't get into any hearsay claims of any kind.
	There wasn't the time to get into that.
	Look, there are...
	A lot of people talk about election integrity, and I am a huge proponent of election integrity and making sure that the data for our elections is as clean as it can be.
	And one of the problems with having the states do their own voter registration, maintaining their voter rolls differently from each other, is you end up with some states that do a really good job at it, and you have some states that do an absolutely terrible job at it.
	And the terrible side of things I'm going to offer up two states New Jersey and New York In New Jersey, in 2020, there were roughly 25,000 voters registered who had a year of birth of 1800.
	Which, if you do the math, you realize that there's just no way that any human being in 2020 had a birth date of 1800.
	And of those 25,000 registered voters with a birth date of 1800, 8,000 cast votes in 2020.
	Now, Some of your listeners are going to be like, holy moly, that's voter fraud.
	It's probably not.
	What happens in a lot of different computer systems, and this is happening in New Jersey's system, if they don't have a date of birth for a voter, they stick 1,800 in there as a placeholder if they didn't have anything else.
	So 8,000 voters in New Jersey cast votes in 2020 that state election officials don't know when those voters were born.
	Now that's a problem all by itself.
	It's one that election officials in New Jersey still haven't fixed.
	They have really, really dirty data.
	You see all kinds of different ways that dirty data can impact Registered voters and ultimately can even impact whether people should be voting or not, right?
	I think in New Jersey you might find maybe some of those 8,000 voters shouldn't have been voting for some reason, but the state can't identify who those voters are.
	you have to know someone's date of birth to be able to identify them using data.
	And New Jersey can't do that.
	New York has a very similar problem and some worse ones, and I don't wanna get too far into it, but there are millions of votes that happened in New York State in 2020 by voters that they cannot identify because those voters don't have a social security number or driver's license on file with election.
	That's an extraordinary thing, and it's a huge problem for New York election officials because they can't possibly maintain the data in their system without having that information.
	That's just two examples.
	When you move from one state to another, some states are able to track down the movement and cancel the registration for when somebody moves from state to state.
	A lot of other states cannot, and so we end up with people with duplicate registrations.
	We end up sometimes with people with four or five duplicated registrations.
	There's all a manner of stuff like that that's happening.
	And for me, as a technology professional, I can't stand the fact that our elections depend on data that at times can be extraordinarily dirty.
	And we have the technology and the means to fix this.
	And I think it's criminal.
	That we don't.
	And of course, we've got a lot of jurisdictions where they want to give the vote to even non-citizens.
	So, I mean, it's like there's just this whole spectrum of what is out there.
	So, in your opinion, what's the best way to fix this?
	I mean, do you have to have some kind of a national standard and some kind of inspectors?
	I mean, I think one of the reasons we have the kind of system that we've got is because there was an aversion to centralizing things.
	Because if you centralize things, now you've got one point that you can corrupt or you can infiltrate, and now you've got the entire system.
	So there's a danger in centralization as well.
	How would this work out?
	So... Leaving any ideology out of my answer, as a technologist, the only sane way to conduct our federal elections is with a federal voter registration database.
	If we got rid of the 50 different implementations of the voter registration that we have right now, in fact, it's way more than 50, most large states...
	Make the responsibility of elections at the county level.
	And so, in many ways, we have as many as 4,000 or 5,000 different election systems that all do things a bit differently from each other.
	Technologically speaking, the right answer, and we would eliminate most of the voter integrity issues that we suffer from if we had a federalized voter registry.
	I understand With states' rights and a whole bunch of either ideological arguments or even the security argument of, well, if you have just one, what happens?
	I don't believe that the voting should happen on a federal level with just one system, but I do believe that the voter registration should be done that way.
	So if somebody hacks a voter registration system, and by the way, I think we're good to go.
	Because they just don't have the technological expertise that you need as you would as you move your way up the chain to state-level technologists and ultimately federal-level technologists.
	Yeah, and of course, we've also seen the CIA and the NSA and the FBI and the military hacked as well.
	So from the top to the bottom, it's vulnerable.
	So, you know, it's a real quandary.
	So, you know, voter registration in a lot of ways is less...
	The danger of a hack there is lower than the danger of a hack to an actual election system that conducts the process of our election.
	So I believe it would be wrong to have federalized voting.
	I only talk about the voter registration with an eye towards the cleanest data that we can have.
	We live in a society and an age where there probably isn't a computer system anywhere that's hardened well enough To prevent someone who's really determined to get at it to get at it, you have to watch it really carefully and you have to have the surveillance systems in place to know when it's happening and to stop it before it goes.
	You can put that sort of stuff in front of a system like if we were to do a federalized voter registration system.
	I think that that system should also have biometrics on it.
	You know, we use social security numbers As the most sensitive identifier we have, right?
	If you're working at a job, you have to supply your social security number.
	It's how you file your taxes, all this stuff.
	You have to give a social security number to any banks that you want to open up bank accounts with.
	And the problem is hackers have every one of our social security numbers.
	All of them, right?
	They've been hacked so many times, it's no longer secure.
	I think we should replace social security numbers with a new identifier.
	We're the only... First world country that doesn't have a national identifier.
	Well, what happens if you do a biometric and somebody steals your database now they've stolen your face?
	What do you do? I mean, if they steal your passcode or something, you get a new one to go get plastic surgery or to vote again.
	What do you do with that?
	To me, that's a big issue.
	And, of course, you know, when we look at creating...
	A lot of us have very strong concerns about creating a centralized state where we have to have some kind of a centralized ID that kind of flows into a CBDC type of scenario and other concerns about a global ID. And so that gets a lot...
	A lot of people take the safety off their gun when you start talking about that type of thing.
	No, I get it. I get it.
	But if your concern is election integrity, the biggest threat to integrity is the way we currently conduct the election.
	I mean, that's just a simple statement of fact.
	Well, let me ask you this, you know, as unwieldy as it is, you know, when they ran elections in Iraq, what they did was they did it on one day.
	And, you know, they couldn't tell if these people are legitimate or if they'd walked across the border, but they could keep them from voting multiple times.
	And so you would go in and you'd vote on paper and then you would get this indelible stain on your thumb that's going to be there for the rest of the day.
	So you couldn't vote again.
	If we if we go ultra crude like that, I know it's a big hassle to to count this stuff, but I mean, if people really wanted a system, they would invest the time in terms of maybe volunteering or something like that.
	I know that's idealistic, but I mean, why not go ultra low tech one day and the purple thump?
	I mean, how many elections that way do you hear stories about a whole bunch of ballots being stuffed anyway, right?
	Even people have ink-stained hands that doesn't handle the physical security of the actual ballot box sitting there.
	You know, look, I live in a state where it wasn't all that long ago where some elected officials were arrested driving around with a bunch of absentee ballots in the trunks of their cars.
	Yeah. And we saw that going back to the 1960s, the reports of people driving around with voting machines in the back of their car and that type of thing.
	You're always going to have that. I guess the thing, for me personally, and I've talked about this, I said, what scares me about the computerized voting is that if you're able to hack the actual voting system, different from the ID stuff, but if you're able to hack the actual voting system, that gives you access from a remote area to I mean,
	if you get in there, the payoff is so incredibly large that it really is a big honeypot for people in terms of the allure, I think.
	No differently than casino systems, right?
	And in a lot of ways, you know, rigging a casino machine to walk out the door with a million dollars in cash, in a lot of ways, is probably a bigger prize than most other things.
	And the industry has dealt with that threat.
	We can deal with the threat of the hacking and the cyber attacks on election systems.
	We really can. It really comes down to a question of will and money, but I don't know how we don't insist that That the same protections that go into slot machines aren't already in most of the machines that conduct our elections.
	I know some of the machines that conduct our elections do have this in there.
	They all should have it, and if we have that, I think we can all rest a bit easier about it.
	Well, that is a good analogy.
	I guess we'll end on that. I think there's many analogies that can be drawn between the electoral system and a casino.
	The house always wins, I think, in both cases.
	But that is very interesting, and I'm sure I haven't had a chance to read your book.
	I didn't get a copy of it yet because I wanted to get you on quickly.
	But I'm sure it is very interesting.
	I think people will be interested to see what you found in 2020 that people are still talking about.
	And more importantly, what does that portend for the election that's coming up now in, I guess, maybe about 90 days or something like that?
	And what can we do?
	Certainly, there's not going to be anything that we can do to fix it between now and then, but it gives us some idea of what we can still expect.
	But then we really do need to take, I think, one thing everybody agrees, that we need to do something to make the electoral system more trustworthy, that people have confidence that their vote is counted and counted accurately.
	I think that is of paramount importance.
	I'm glad to see that you wrote a book about your experience with that.
	And again, the book is Disproven.
	My unbiased search for voter fraud for the Trump campaign and the data that shows why he lost and how we can improve our elections.
	And by the way, you can find this at KenBlock.com.
	There's a link there to buy the book and you can get information about it there.
	Anything else you'd like to tell us about the book before we run out of time?
	Yeah, I mean, look, the back of the book is the most important part of the book.
	Fixing our elections is patriotic.
	It's mission critical.
	It's the most important thing.
	Mike Lindell and I disagreed about the outcome of the elections, but we were in sync on the need to make changes to make things happen better.
	I've spoken to Republican secretaries of state.
	I've spoken to Democratic secretaries of state.
	There is a lot of over agreement, overlapping agreement on some of the things that we should be doing to make our elections better.
	And we need to move beyond where we're at in terms of our discussions of elections and looking backwards and dealing with whatever happens here in November.
	To move forward, we need to have an adult conversation about making our elections better and getting to it and taking this moment in time to really improve things.
	Yeah, I agree. And it's not just that we would like to get the right answers, but I mean, in this time of polarization, if we don't have trustworthy elections, I'm very concerned that there be civil war over it or something like that.
	a lot of talk about that on both sides.
	And so it's having something that you trust, that you can audit, that is really key.
	So again, you've got the second half of your book is about your recommendations for how to do that from somebody who is an expert on auditing it.
	And you've seen the tricks that can be pulled.
	And so that is, no system is going to be perfect.
	Any system can be infiltrated and has its own flaws.
	And so the question is, what do we do to try to minimize that and mitigate those risks?
	So thank you so much for the work that you do.
	And again, you can find this at KenBlock.com, and the book is Disproven.
	Thank you so much, sir. Appreciate it.
	Thanks, Dan. Thank you. Okay, before we run out of time, I just want to thank some of the people on here.
	Rockfin, George, McDonough, thank you very much for the tip.
	I appreciate that. It says, morning, Mr.
	Knight. Thanks, as always, for your take on the events.
	Well, thank you very much. And on Rockfin, rational lampooner.
	Thank you for the tip. Democrats are the only ones worse than chumps and GOPers these days.
	Godspeed to the real news of David Knight.
	Well, that's very kind.
	Thank you so much. And, you know, before we run out of time, as I was talking about the U.K., Saying that the real issue is what are they going to do to shut down speech?
	Are they going to use this violence as an excuse to ramp up the police and surveillance state?
	And that is exactly what is happening.
	I showed you before the interview going by and the police arresting this guy because of what he posted on Facebook.
	Do we really want to live in a society like that?
	Of course we don't.
	Free speech is, you know, you have the free press, and we don't want people being arrested for what they write about or what their opinions are.
	But when we talk about free speech, that really is social media.
	That's where the people have their voice.
	And if we're going to pretend that there is something called hate crimes, then that is the end of free speech.
	We can have one or the other, but we cannot have both.
	A scientist who called a neighbor a Spanish whore...
	She was cautioned by police for hate crime and struck off of a list that's also out of the UK. She was someone who worked for a biomedical organization, and she was taken off, what do they mean by struck off, they took her off of that list, essentially fired her, lost her job for that.
	And, you know, this is the type of thing, it was a drunken row between these two people, and she threw that out, and she said, I didn't know, realize...
	That it was illegal to call someone a Spanish whore.
	Nobody expects a Spanish Inquisition, I guess.
	But that's what we're going to wind up with.
	I guess that's a note we can end on today.
	Thank you so much for listening.
	Have a good day. Let me tell you.
	The David Knight Show.
	You can listen to with your ears.
	You can even watch it by using your eyes.
	In fact, if you can hear me, that means you're listening to The David Knight Show right now.
	Yeah, good job.
	And you want to know something else?
	You can find all the links to everywhere to watch or listen to the show at TheDavidKnightShow.com.

▲