Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 16, 2024 - The David Knight Show

03:01:04

The David Knight Show -10/16/2024

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I'm doing this. It's like watching the water boil.
	I'm going to click open, click here, and I'm going to get it to Franklin, Maryland.
	Music Using free speech to free minds.
	You're listening to The David Night Show.
	As the clock strikes thirteen, it's Wednesday the 16th of October, Year of Our Lord 2024.
	Yeah, I got the date right today.
	Well, today we're going to talk about what is happening.
	We're seeing a shift. It's absolutely amazing to see the BBC do an interview with somebody talking about how the vaccine has destroyed his life.
	That's encouraging. And I don't know if it's encouraging or not, but at least we're getting the truth out.
	Nurses are speaking out about what hospitals did to whistleblowers.
	And in the discussion of this, there are some new ways.
	That this was financially incentivized.
	I've always said it was financially incentivized medical malpractice and actually murder.
	And we have the former abortionist.
	Who speaks out. Truly amazing what he has to say.
	And we're going to have David Bonson, who is manager of a very large fund.
	His father was a very famous Christian intellectual apologist.
	I hate to use that term because he wasn't apologizing for Christianity.
	He was explaining it. But we're going to talk to him about interest rates, about the economy.
	And of course, we had what happened yesterday with the Bloomberg Club.
	Well, let's talk a little bit about where we are today.
	And I want to begin with climate issues.
	I'm sorry, with pandemic issues.
	And we're going to take a look at what is happening with...
	Actually, this thing is much better.
	I just got into the wrong area here.
	It works much better than the other one that I had.
	Mask mandates. Mask mandates are set to return to several California areas, and it's the only place in the nation where they're talking about putting in mask mandates.
	This is for the people who are logically challenged.
	And politically challenged as well.
	And these things should be challenged logically and politically because they can't hold water either way.
	You don't have the authority to demand that I wear something, okay?
	Let's just stop it right there, okay?
	And all of this stuff is predicated on the nonsense, well, your mask doesn't protect you, it protects other people.
	That's got to be destroyed.
	That was a harbinger, when that first came out, was harbinger of how they were going to try to jam through these vaccine things, because that's what they always said about all the vaccines.
	All of them. Look, if your MMR vaccine works, and you want to take it to protect yourself from a childhood disease, And if you want to risk lifetime adverse effects, well, go ahead.
	It's a free country, isn't it?
	Well, it used to be. Now it's not a free country, and you don't get to make that kind of decision.
	They will make it for you.
	These are the people who say, my body, my choice.
	No, no.
	It's all in the San Francisco Bay Area, several different counties.
	And what they're doing is they're running this through...
	And applying this to the medical professionals, this is a full-on brainwash.
	Full-on brainwash.
	You've got to make sure that this is a compliance issue.
	You're either going to wear these masks as a doctor or nurse, somebody working in the hospital, or you'll be fired.
	Because we want to make sure that we've got compliant, submissive idiots involved.
	Who will be the only people who are left in the hospitals for the rest of the people.
	That's what's going on here.
	Mask mandates will be turning to several counties in California and San Francisco Bay Area.
	The orders were handed down by individual counties.
	And apply with only one exception.
	They apply only to health care workers.
	A similar mandate was handed down in the Bay Area broadly last year, fall through spring.
	Health officials and counties who have issued upcoming mask mandates say that face coverings are designed to reduce the spread of COVID-19.
	Nothing ever changes with these people.
	We could say that perhaps they have been, they've got plastic brains.
	We used to talk about people who have the fluoride fog.
	Now we've got people who've got the plastic brains because they found these microplastics in significant numbers in nasal passages, the olfactory bulb, and the frontal lobe that you use for reasoning and logic.
	I wonder where that came from.
	How did that happen? It's so ridiculous.
	I said that from the very beginning.
	I said, I'm not wearing it.
	I said, first of all, it was in December of 2019 that we had gone down to the Caribbean, and I had, for the first time, gone scuba diving since I was in college.
	I used to, well, you didn't go scuba diving.
	We went snorkeling. Yeah, big difference.
	But just putting a mask on and going underwater, and it was just like, you know, coming in, like it didn't have anything at all because of my beard, mustache, and didn't have that when I was in college.
	So, it was fresh on my mind when they started talking about the mask.
	I was like, well, I know this is...
	Even before I started looking at the studies and everything, I was like, well, that ain't going to work.
	Are they going to force me to shave my face?
	That's even more intrusive.
	We'll see what happens.
	But I said, this is absolutely nonsense.
	It's not going to work. Alameda County, which is around the city of Oakland, An order last month that mandates staff at healthcare facilities to wear masks between November the 1st and March 31st.
	Well, there you go.
	Contra Costa County.
	Same type of thing.
	They begin September 26th.
	Napa County. An October 1st health order to mandate this.
	And then in Santa Clara County.
	That was the disputed area between that Tesla robot impersonator and the gullible guy in the audience.
	I bet that guy will probably wear a mask.
	Oh, he's talking to me!
	I'm talking to a robot here.
	Was it Santa Clara or Santa Clarita, right?
	Couldn't get that squared away.
	Well, this is Santa Clara County, which includes San Jose.
	It will require all people inside the health care facilities, including visitors and patients, to wear masks from November 1st to March 31st.
	But outside of that, they said, it appears at this point in time, no other counties anywhere else in the United States have issued similar mandates for health care facilities.
	However, they say if data provided by the CDC shows cases of COVID-19 rising again.
	Cases. We got cases here.
	Where's Fauci when they need him, right?
	He's cloned himself.
	There's a lot of him left behind.
	Other areas may reintroduce mask mandates.
	Last winter, New York City did it.
	As of October the 10th, the CDC is searching through our poop with a PCR everywhere.
	Wastewater tracking tools.
	Show that COVID-19 is currently low levels.
	Okay. So we're safe until they decide to arbitrarily raise it.
	Now, they said the CDC says that it is now the 10th leading cause of death in the United States.
	It made me so angry when I saw Mike Adams, the health ranger, you know, hyping this fear at the beginning.
	And look, CDC says it's the number one cause of death.
	More people are dying from COVID-19 than heart disease and cancer.
	That hasn't aged well, has it, Mike?
	Propagandist. Anyway, skipping the COVID booster could reduce your IQ, they say.
	Wait a minute. Is the vaccine the cause of low IQ, or is it the effect of low IQ? The cause or effect?
	I mean, it's always a classic thing.
	You observe a phenomenon such as low IQ, and you wonder if it is due to the vaccine.
	Is it due to the LA Times, which is pushing this out to people?
	Reading the LA Times, folks, will lower your IQ about 10 or 20 points.
	Seriously, if you take it seriously.
	The New England Journal of Medicine, there we go, a trusted source of information, has found that COVID itself reduces IQ. Suggests another reason to get the vaccine.
	It may protect your intellect.
	Well, there are neurological effects with the jab.
	The jab is the real bioweapon.
	It's interesting to see how this is done by both the left and the right.
	Just like we're talking about the weather, right?
	Whenever there's weather, the left says, climate change, man-made climate change.
	And then the right says, it's geoengineering.
	And look, some of it is.
	It's not man-made global warming with CO2, but some of it is geoengineering.
	Not all of it, of course. They don't want to overstate that, right?
	That damages the truth.
	Nevertheless, that's where we are on the weather.
	And then when it comes to heart attack, brain fog, neurological, any other side effect, they will always blame it on COVID-19, whereas the conservatives will blame it on the jab.
	And what the politicians will do is they'll blame it on gain of function.
	You see? That's how they stay in the middle.
	Well, you know, Dr.
	Fauci says, Rand Paul, Dr.
	Fauci, you did that gain of function there in China?
	Shame on you. And you're scaring people with this stuff?
	You're going to cause vaccine hesitancy.
	We don't want people to be hesitant to get vaccines because you and I both own stock in Gilead, don't we?
	Says Rand Paul, right?
	And these other companies.
	That's the game that they play.
	They focus on gain of function.
	That way they can say, well, it was a real pandemic and we had to do something about it, but it was unleashed on us by China.
	It's the China virus, as Trump would say, right?
	The Wu flu and all the rest of this stuff.
	No, it's your vaccine.
	It's your Pentagon, DARPA, warp speed, militarized, paid for by the Trump administration, delivered by the military, simulated by DARPA, And BARDA and all the rest of these people simulated for 20 years of germ games.
	That's what it is. It's the vaccine.
	But they cleverly straddle this fence and say, well, you know, it's the COVID-19 thing, but it was engineered to be that way.
	Yeah, that's what's so reprehensible about our crop of Republican politicians.
	This research suggests getting your booster may be one way to preserve the ability and promote brain health.
	Yeah, okay, that's the LA Times speaking.
	The article also ignores the fact COVID-19 vaccines and boosters don't prevent infection.
	And so you have people on social media, this guy, physicsgeek.com.
	Says, hey, don't be stupid.
	Get your COVID booster. Me.
	So the booster prevents the infection transmission, right?
	Um, no. Me.
	Well, I'll take my chances then.
	Right? And they admit that it doesn't help.
	Right? They admit that this isn't dangerous, and yet they will...
	It's amazing how the lies keep coming.
	We're getting more truth about this starting to emerge out of the UK, even as I pointed out, and I'll talk about this coming up, the BBC even acknowledging the injury that was done.
	According to a study released in May, current boosters are only 52% effective, and that's total nonsense.
	That is total nonsense.
	But they are backing off.
	That's a much higher figure than they had gone to before.
	I remember at the very beginning when it was introduced.
	Less than a week after the election, Pfizer comes out.
	Elections on Tuesday. Biden is anointed by the media as a winner on Saturday.
	Sunday, 60 Minutes runs its canned report.
	Saying, this is a big military operation.
	The military is right ready to do this as soon as we get the go-ahead campaign.
	And then Pfizer the next day, Monday, says, we've done it, and our results are in, and we're ready to go, and we're 90% effective.
	The next day, Russia says, ours is 92% effective, right?
	And then they wait another week, and Moderna comes out and says, ours is 94% effective.
	Pfizer the next day says, ours is 94.5% effective.
	Are they changing their studies or something in the middle of all this stuff?
	Are they just flat out lying to you?
	Yeah, that's what it is.
	Just like the polls that they have about Trump and Lala.
	It's amazing, this horse race nonsense that's going on with that.
	And it's amazing how you see that in our cult-like media, each of them are telling you that their candidate is certainly going to win.
	There's no doubt about it.
	They're pushing us towards the Civil War.
	But back to the pharmaceutical stuff.
	The authors also suggest, quote, young people whose more active social lives often drive the spread of COVID can safeguard not just their health, but also their intelligence and their future by getting vaccinated.
	What? Cynical lies.
	What cynical lies. You know, Paul Offit said, Who has been one of the big vaccine pushers and evangelists.
	I think he's made his career attacking anti-vaxxers before being anti-vaxxers cool.
	Before the Trump shots.
	That was his whole thing.
	He was everywhere attacking anybody who said anything negative about vaccines.
	And when this stuff began, he said, you're going to rush out this new novel approach vaccine?
	See, the...
	The COVID or the SARS or whatever you want to call it.
	That's not novel.
	It's the vaccine that's novel.
	That's not a bioweapon.
	It's the vaccine that's the bioweapon.
	He said this is a novel approach.
	It hasn't been tested. And he said this could really blow up in our face just like Rand Paul.
	This could create vaccine hesitancy.
	So guess what? He's an advisor to the FDA and Paul Offit says, well, maybe young people shouldn't get this latest one.
	See, he's still pulling back.
	He's hesitant about the Trump shot because he knows that it's destroying the credibility of his lies about vaccines in general.
	Meanwhile, Sweden, Norway, Finland have suspended or limited use of Moderna's COVID jab for people under, and young people under certain ages, children, while the UK has scaled back COVID-vax efforts for healthy children after a study showed an increased risk in hospital admission for myocarditis in adolescents aged 12 through 17.
	Well, it's so totally worth it.
	You know, you want to get that booster because...
	You don't want a cold.
	It'd be better to have myocarditis, which is most likely going to be permanent.
	You don't want to get measles either.
	It'd be much better to have autism after we've had vaccine after vaccine after vaccine after vaccine after vaccine.
	The LA Times article also falsely claims that more than 95% of a group that knows COVID better than most physicians get their shots.
	That claim is based on data from June 21st, before the boosters even existed.
	So, here's the thing, which you've really got to be careful about are low IQ doctors.
	If I see a doctor or even a pharmacist wearing a mask, Karen can tell you, I go the other way.
	It's like, okay, you got nothing to talk to with this person here.
	One doctor... It says, in a comment on the LA Times, this piece is extremely misleading, and as a physician, I am insulted that the LA Times didn't fact-check it better.
	And he finishes by saying, that's why more than 95% of a group that knows COVID better than most physicians get their shots.
	He quotes that from the article.
	He goes, well, as you can see, by clicking the source above...
	That statistic about 95% of physicians getting their shots is from June 2021, before the COVID booster even existed.
	It was authorized in September of 2021.
	95% of physicians do not currently get their booster shots, though the conclusion makes it sound like they do.
	This is overtly misleading.
	Should we say disinformation, misinformation?
	Let's just call it lies on the LA Times.
	They are not above being bought.
	If you go back and you look at the history of Gary Webb, for example, the guy who did the movie Kill the Messenger, but he did a very excellent, he's working, I think, for a small paper, Mercury News or something like that, elsewhere in California. He exposed the whole shameful crack cocaine epidemic that was created by the CIA so they could fund their secret wars.
	He exposed all that. He won journalistic awards, and they got a crew of hacks at the LA Times to attack him personally and destroy him over it.
	But everything that he said was true and has been borne out.
	But it's the LA Times that they went to.
	They paid them. The CIA paid them as attack dogs to attack him.
	Because, you know, hey, he's just an individual.
	He just works for, like, a small thing called the Mercury News.
	They're the LA Times, or the New York Times, or the Washington Post, or the BBC, or whatever, right?
	We've got to get over that.
	You need every article that you get, regardless of the source, regardless of who's telling you something.
	Fact check it, logic check it for number one.
	I mean, even before you have to go look at the facts and look for receipts and data, a lot of this stuff doesn't even pass the logic test, the sniff test.
	There are plenty of people out there, says another person, who were fully vaccinated with multiple boosters, still get COVID numerous times.
	It's even more of a stretch.
	To tie vaccination to higher IQ. Another one just said, this ad is brought to you by your friends at Pfizer.
	Another one, the vaccine does almost nothing to prevent COVID in children.
	The study shows the vaccine causes severe inflammation, myocarditis, pericarditis.
	These household words now, thanks to Donald Trump and the jab that he continues.
	If you push him on this stuff, He'll come back with his little canned speech about the 1918 flu and all the rest of this nonsense and how many millions of lives he has destroyed.
	No, I mean saved, right?
	I will not vote for a mass murder.
	I will not vote for a propagandist liar.
	I will not vote for a globalist puppet.
	I'm sick and tired, as I said yesterday, of all these Christian influencers, so-called leaders.
	We're trying to guilt trip you into voting for this evil that he represents.
	I'm not voting for him or Lala.
	You can do what you want. I'm just here to tell you what I see.
	Myocarditis, pericarditis.
	Unclear how long it lasts, but it may be permanent, said one person.
	Well, we know that the lies will be permanent, don't we?
	The Supreme Court is saying, well, you know, these lockdown measures, yeah, you can still do that to churches.
	And the logic is absolutely reprehensible.
	Well, they did, and it takes a very long time for lawsuits to go through the courts on it.
	And so what they did, time after time, and this is happening in this particular lawsuit, these are people who the government in Colorado said, you've got to shut down your church.
	And they said, well, we're not going to do it.
	And they sued. And before it goes through this turtle-like legal system, at that turtle's pace, They remove the measures.
	And so then the courts partner with him and say, well, it's now a moot point because you no longer have these things.
	And they said, well, it's going to happen in the future.
	Yeah, but it's not happening there.
	So you can't show that you've got any damage.
	So we're just going to ignore what was done.
	And this has now gone through the same approach has now gone all the way up to the Supreme Court.
	And the Supreme Court has now said, eh, yeah, we're not going to hear an appeal.
	We're going to let these lower court decisions stand, which means that the government can stand on your face and stomp on it with their boot.
	It's not simply the churches being shut down.
	They shouldn't have the authority to shut down businesses or anything.
	But in America, it is even more egregious Because the freedom of religion is explicitly protected.
	Freedom to have a business is not explicitly protected.
	It should be. And they should show that they've got the authority, that they've got the cause to do this stuff.
	But the churches are specifically protected.
	If you don't do that, you can't do the rest of it.
	This is what I came across the organization in Canada that was fighting for some of these pastors that had been imprisoned in Canada.
	And what they said when I interviewed them, they said, yeah, well, you know, we're against all of this stuff, but we're going for this because we have these clauses and, you know, our legal, they don't have a formal bill of rights, but they do have a charter of freedoms, I think it's called or something.
	And I said, this is specifically protected.
	And so that's where we began.
	But they can't even get that.
	Courts won't even listen to that.
	They play these legal games.
	Well, they remove the thing, so it's not a problem anymore.
	Well, you've got to stop them from doing it in the future.
	One judge who shut this down said, well, he said he had some concerns about these so-called public health quote-unquote laws.
	First of all, public health is not about health.
	Just like public education is not about education.
	They're both Marxist organizations pushing agendas.
	Secondly, these things were not laws.
	They were dictates by bureaucrats.
	And these judges are pretending that they're laws.
	The presence on the state's books of statutes that grant broad authority to the governor and state bureaucrats to order extraordinary limits on the freedoms of its citizens in an emergency is worth pondering, he said.
	But... Like the brain says to Pinky, you know.
	Are you pondering what I'm pondering?
	Well, I don't know, Brian. So he's not pondering it for very long.
	He's really thinking about how he can take over the world.
	Right? Just like the brain.
	He says that these statutes have been used in recent past to adopt public health orders that likely discriminated against religious activity is troubling.
	Right? But we'll forget about it.
	You can go ahead and just...
	They're removed now, so we're not going to talk about that.
	And so then it went to the Court of Appeals.
	The Tenth Circuit ruled against them.
	Said plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the injury required for constitutional standing because it's moot now.
	They've removed the oppression.
	But they're going to be free to reimpose that oppression.
	And finally, the Supreme Court said we're not going to hear an appeal.
	This is why I say, folks, when we talk about the repeal of Roe v.
	Wade with a Dobbs decision, don't give glory to conservative, quote-unquote, justices.
	Don't give glory to Trump.
	These people are wrong on almost every issue.
	How did they get it right, finally, on Roe v.
	Wade? And I say it was prayer and it was God that got this right.
	Give God the glory, not your savior, Donald Trump.
	Nurse testimonials.
	This is really key.
	This is an article from LifeSite News.
	Nurse testimonials reveal that hospitals not only used a deadly cocktail of protocols facilitating the death of patients, but punished whistleblowers.
	So an author and a researcher, COVID policymakers created one of the biggest terror campaigns in the history of mankind.
	Said Ken McCarthy. That's what it was, folks.
	It was terror. And I'm not exaggerating when I say that.
	That is a definition of terror.
	Terror is a campaign of fear and intimidation to achieve political goals.
	And that's what this all was.
	That's what it was for the Democrats.
	That's what it was for the Republicans. That's what it was for the elected officials. That's what it was for the permanently entrenched, unelected, unaccountable bureaucracy. This Ken McCarthy told how he began to speak with nurses about their experiences.
	He realized that COVID error, and they're still spelling that E-R-A, but it will be known as the COVID error, E-R-R-O-R. COVID error hospital abuses he knew were taking place in New York City.
	They were, in fact, taking place nationwide to do a top-down driven protocol from the NIH, which is under Trump.
	Which was under the CEO of Eli Lilly that Trump put in charge.
	These protocols, he said, were being filtered through chief financial officers, CFOs of hospitals, because they were being heavily financially incentivized.
	If you've listened to this program, you know that for four years I've called this financially incentivized medical malpractice.
	I've called it murder for hire.
	And that's exactly what it is.
	And I'm glad to see that he's using that as well.
	I would say it with doctors who would come on and kind of giggle.
	They would not say that, right?
	You say that, you get kicked off of all the big platforms.
	McCarthy went down the line naming several incentivized hospital COVID protocols that inflicted harm on these patients, beginning with the denial of anti-inflammatories like ibuprofen, as well as inhalable steroids.
	You see, they denied all treatment.
	Go away. Come back when you're really sick.
	Then we'll put you on a ventilator.
	Why would they do that? Because they were being financially incentivized to do that.
	You pointed a patient.
	You don't even have to give them a test.
	$13,000 if you say they got COVID. If you can get them on a ventilator, $39,000.
	And then, if you've identified them as a COVID patient, even if you don't get them on a ventilator, you still get a 20% bonus.
	I realized that when the American Hospital Association complained that CMS, the Medicaid people, didn't want to give them their 20% bonus because they hadn't done tests in the AHA. Said, but you told us at the beginning that you didn't have enough tests and that they didn't work.
	And you told us just to do a clinical diagnosis.
	In other words, I've got a hunch that person over there doesn't have a cold, doesn't have the flu.
	They've got COVID. $13,000.
	Bingo. The government wanted this pandemic.
	They paid the hospitals to harm people and kill people and then counted as COVID. It was such a cynical exercise.
	Just amazing to me that they did this.
	Think about these hospitals.
	So, that's the normal way that you would treat respiratory distress.
	You would give somebody ibuprofen, anti-inflammatory.
	You'd give them inhalable steroids.
	By the way, we're going to talk about inhalers.
	They now want to ban inhalers because of climate change.
	Yeah. My dad had asthma.
	I had a cousin who died from asthma because she couldn't get to her inhaler.
	And they have the nerve to tell, this is coming out of Europe.
	They have the nerve to tell people, you can't have an inhaler because it might affect the magic climate here.
	And these people are heartless murderers.
	They're morally capable of anything, folks.
	We have to understand that to protect ourselves.
	We have to tell each other that.
	You have to know who your enemy is.
	And these people are our enemy.
	Jesus said, the root of all evil is the love of money.
	And these evils that are perpetrated on us by the politicians and the pharmaceutical companies and these corporate hospitals who love money.
	And they're being heavily rewarded in this life.
	For a short period of time.
	But they will stand before God.
	He said, vengeance is mine.
	The next harmful practice hospitals use on COVID patients, quote-unquote, It's a strap-on BiPAP masks on patients, a form of non-invasive ventilation that, when administered improperly, causes many patients to have panic attacks.
	When you treat somebody with that, you have to warn them.
	It's like you're driving 80 miles an hour down the road, and then one of your passengers sticks their head out the window.
	We've all known what that's like, especially those of us who own a convertible.
	The wind is going down that fast.
	They don't prepare the patients.
	They didn't comfort the patients.
	They would just slap this thing on them and leave them alone.
	It would understandably trigger panic attacks, at which point they were offered tranquilizers.
	Well, have some more drugs.
	These tranquilizers relax their muscles, including their diaphragm, thereby weakening their breathing.
	Always making it worse with what they do.
	Isn't that amazing? On top of all this, the hospitals are financially rewarded for administering the failed drug remdesivir to COVID patients.
	And he goes to the whole thing about how it had been used for Ebola, how it was found to have the highest death rate of all the drugs being evaluated and so forth.
	And that was after Fauci had tried it for AIDS, then he did Ebola, they kept rejecting it, and then he muscled it through, called it the standard of care, even though it didn't meet any of the standards of a therapeutic.
	26% of those prescribed remdesivir are recorded as having died.
	Isn't that amazing? I mean, you've got people, even their own numbers for COVID, roughly equivalent numbers, To flu and pneumonia, which is about one-tenth of one percent.
	This is 250 times more likely to die from remdesivir than you are from a respiratory flu or pneumonia or something like that, or COVID. But hey, Rand Paul's got stock in it.
	He had his wife by it, so you don't know, okay?
	And Fauci, obviously, working for them.
	The death rate for COVID patients prescribed remdesivir dwarfs the fatality rate of COVID patients who were prescribed ivermectin.
	Their death rate was 7.2%.
	And I think that was, we'd have to ask, at what point did they get ivermectin?
	That's the key thing as well.
	The use of ventilators was also financially incentivized, and I've talked about that.
	$39,000. You know, the ventilator costs you $50,000, but if you point at somebody, say they got COVID, $13,000.
	$39,000, if you put them on the ventilator, you already got $52,000, and you're going to collect a 20% bonus on everything that you do, and you're going to charge them every day until they die.
	But this is something that I didn't know, and I haven't said before.
	The... As they were talking about it, they said, well, let's talk a little bit about the ventilators first.
	He said the nickname for it amongst hospital people is the garden hose.
	It's large. Then you have to give somebody a feeding tube.
	You can cause abrasions, you can cause bleeding, you can cause infections.
	I can relate to that.
	I was, as a toddler, I was watching like the science fiction thing and I thought, Oh, he takes this chemical thing and he turns into a monster.
	Let me see if that works for me.
	I was kind of like Calvin and Hobbes.
	That was a handful. So I get some chairs and I stack them up so I can climb up on the counter and then I stand on the counter and I open it up and I reach up and I get some aspirin and I'm like popping these things like candy.
	And my sister caught me doing it, my older sister.
	And they freaked out.
	They took me to the hospital, pumped me, pumped out my stomach.
	And I still remember how giant that tube was.
	That's what made me think of this thing.
	I thought I was going to die from that.
	That was a lesson I learned right there.
	It's like, okay, no more of that.
	They pumped my stomach out, and that hurt.
	That really hurt. You had this massive hose.
	I mean, when you're like...
	Three, four years old or something.
	I don't know how old I was. Maybe younger.
	I don't know. But maybe about three.
	But that made a lasting impression.
	So, yeah, you've got a feeding tube.
	You've got all the rest of this stuff.
	Antibated patients are typically given anywhere from 5 to 15 different drugs, including analgesics like fentanyl.
	For the severe pain of invasive intubation, they're given paralytic agents, you know, just to knock you out.
	That's the kind of stuff they do.
	You can't move. You're just in pain.
	They paralyze you with the drugs.
	Isn't that amazing? He explained that normally a respiratory therapist is supposed to watch over four or five intubated patients.
	But during COVID, there's typically only one for the entire ward of people.
	Now, here's the thing that really blew me away when I saw this.
	He says, now here's a really sinister thing.
	If you kept a patient on for 90 hours or longer, you got an extra bonus.
	Folks, they turned this into a financial game.
	Financial game for financial gain.
	You keep them on this for 90 hours, you get a bonus.
	He said, every respiratory therapist will tell you that as soon as you intubate somebody...
	Within 24 hours, you're testing to see, hey, has this person recovered?
	Because we've got to get them off of this.
	And yet, our government, our Trump administration, incentivized them to keep people on to 90 hours.
	90 hours.
	He said, so by what stretch of insanity did they incentivize hospitals to keep people on for 90 hours?
	I'd love to know.
	Who was in that room planning out these protocols?
	It was probably the people that Trump gave medals to on his last day for COVID, for the warp speed thing.
	You know, Peter Navarro was the guy who was responsible for arranging the manufacturing of all these things.
	He probably was not the one who came up with this protocol.
	That was probably some medical person who was deliberately trying to kill people so they could blame it on COVID. Again, they're financially incentivized to kill people, to identify cases and to kill people because the hospitals were going to sell the pandemic idea.
	You had to have dead bodies to sell it.
	Don't tell me that our government would never collapse buildings in New York City to sell a surveillance agenda.
	They hold our lives cheap.
	They have no compassion whatsoever for us.
	They're perfectly capable of doing this.
	And this is the other shoe to drop from 9-11.
	The author stressed that hospitals nowadays act as corporations and not as charitable institutions as they used to be.
	They used to be charitable institutions because they used to be done by churches.
	Look at how many of the existing hospitals still have, you know, Christian names to them.
	You know, associated with the Baptist Church or the Catholic Church or Good Samaritan Hospital or something.
	Those were created by Christian organizations.
	But now, they've been turned into corporate chains.
	And they have no more concern over your life than BlackRock does.
	He said, in order to hide these deadly protocols, hospitals punished whistleblowers, according to nurse testimony.
	A group that was literally affiliated with the UN. Team Halo.
	McCarthy noted was devoted to counteracting anti-vaxxers.
	It metamorphosized during the COVID outbreak into a group that went after whistleblower nurses.
	This is one of the reasons why I've been on their list for a long time.
	These people. And it's not just this organization.
	There's a lot of organizations that do that.
	That's why when I get...
	You said something about...
	The pharmaceutical companies.
	That's misinformation. If you criticize them, that's misinformation.
	You're gone from Vimeo or whatever, right?
	They gave out nurses' addresses and telephone numbers.
	They encouraged unhinged people to show up at their door and threaten them.
	Or maybe they sent this over to PayPal and said, take this guy off immediately, which is what happened in this program.
	Who knows? Who gave that order?
	Well, the guy couldn't figure it out.
	He says, just shut this account down immediately.
	One whistleblower nurse who lives in the boondocks of Nevada had people showing up at her door after she was doxxed.
	They also had people filing complaints against the nurses with the nursing boards.
	Many of them had their nursing licenses challenged.
	You know, just like Lala Harris says, social media needs to be shut down.
	Twitter needs to be shut down. Elon Musk has abused his privilege.
	He needs to lose it. Donald Trump has said ABC needs to be shut down, NBC, CBS, these all need to be shut down.
	They said nasty things about me, and they need to have their licenses revoked and sold to somebody else.
	These are the thugs that went out and terrorized these nuns, so not only did the nurses get abused on the job, they were all fired.
	You see, these corrupt institutions, these institutions have been corrupted.
	They've been taken over. The Marxists have marched through the institutions, a long march through the institution.
	The strategy of Antonio Gramsci, who was the founder of the Italian Communist Party, but he came up with that idea and said, instead of us having a revolution in the streets, let's just take over the institutions.
	That was his strategy.
	And Pete Buttigieg's dad spent his entire career at Notre Dame.
	His entire career was to worship and to write about Antonio Gramsci.
	So you think Pete Buttigieg knows that strategy?
	I call him Booty Marx as well.
	And then he sends Buttigieg to Harvard to have him study under Sokvan Berkovich, a guy who changed his first name to honor Sacco and Vanzetti, two Italian Marxist terrorists who were executed.
	And of course, Sokvan Berkovich, who was the mentor to Pete Buttigieg after his father.
	He sees every problem in America.
	He characterizes every problem in America as coming from Christianity and our worldview.
	So, they have driven people of conscience out of the military, out of the schools, out of medicine, out of hospital.
	Anybody that spoke up and wouldn't stop speaking up was fired.
	They were also tracked down afterwards and punished.
	They went through hell, he said.
	He's written a book about it.
	The book is called What the Nurses Saw.
	And that's available. Well, we're going to take a quick break here before we do.
	I want to get some of your comments here.
	I see these comments coming up on the side.
	Mr. Barbary Coast, do not comply.
	Absolutely. You know, when we stopped, when people just kind of...
	Quietly walked away from this sham masquerade and all the rest of this stuff.
	Somehow, COVID just disappeared.
	It was all based on compliance and fear.
	You know, people no longer feared it and no longer complied.
	It disappeared. Matthew Ronson.
	Masks were not designed to stop COVID-19.
	They speak as if the masks of the compliance ritual were designed specifically for this alleged virus that has never been isolated.
	That's right. Oh, a propeller hat will blow away those pesky viruses.
	Except COVID-19 is polite enough not to come within six feet of people, yet they allegedly catch it anyway.
	I speak about a propeller hat.
	That always makes me think of...
	Todd Friel, the guy who just before they're about to mandate it for everybody, he said, well, if the government tells me to wear pinwheels on my head, I have to wear pinwheels on my head because, you know, Romans 13.
	It's like, that again?
	I can't believe people can't figure that out. It's written plainly there. They've been so gaslit by Christian leaders like Todd Freel. I call him Pinwheel Freel.
	Johnny Goodspeed, gospel seed. Johnny gospel seed. The system is the Constitution. The illegal bureaucracies are what needs to be eliminated.
	This can be done from inside the system.
	That's what our system is created for.
	The Constitution is good. Yeah, it can be nullified, too, by the state and local place because all politics and all governance is ultimately local.
	And so, don't frag me, bro, says, our form of government is representative constitutional republic.
	The system we have today is so far removed from those principles, it isn't the same anymore.
	That's right. But they still...
	Appeal to it for their authority.
	They still go through the ritual of swearing to uphold the Constitution.
	And that's where we've got them.
	Because that's where you come back and you say, we swear to uphold the Constitution as a condition of your office, since you are thumbing your nose at the Constitution.
	You have rebelled against your legitimate authority to rule.
	And so we can always...
	It's wonderful because it gives us a clear conscience of To defy these orders.
	And it's everything that we need for that.
	Aram says, if IQ is supposedly a measurement of knowledge of information deemed to be true by people or groups who lie about everything, what is IQ worth?
	Or what is IQ? Yeah, exactly.
	And how is it determined? And you know, again, when you measure it, I've said this so many times, there's so many different types of IQ and intelligence, right?
	Some people can write or speak.
	Some people can do this or that.
	Some people are mechanical geniuses.
	I've noticed that the people that are really good at repairing stuff, they just kind of stand there and don't say anything.
	I can figure out these machines and do amazing things with them.
	And so there's all kinds of different types of intelligence.
	Those intelligence and IQ tests are absolutely useless.
	Absolutely useless. If you had a good IQ, you'd know that.
	Octo spook. I think IQ tests should be administered to all hired by election candidates at a minimum of 110 required.
	Well, that'd get rid of Lala Harris, wouldn't it?
	I mean, she's definitely below average.
	A Syrian girl. That's what they tried to do to me as late as this summer, July and August, when I had pneumonia.
	They didn't want to give me a Z-Pak.
	Just tried to send me home and go to the hospital if I got sicker.
	But I insisted I left the doctor's office with a Z-Pak.
	The prescription had to fight for it, though.
	Yeah. It's criminal.
	What the medical profession has become now.
	And it's criminal and it's mercantile, right?
	It's all about the money.
	RCF2020, thank you very much for the tip.
	That's very generous. I appreciate that.
	I remember reading an article a long time ago in Vaccine Impact.
	The ventilator protocol followed the Chinese protocol in order to contain the breadth of COVID patients so as not to infect staff.
	Yes, that was what they were telling the staff.
	That's one of the things they were telling them to go along.
	Because, you know, they're not sharing the money with them, right?
	So you've got to come up with some story.
	So you tell the, you know, the accountants and the people running these corporate hospitals know what's going on.
	But you tell the people that are there, you know, we're going to do this so that that doesn't spread to you, you know.
	Oh, well, I have to put them on the ventilator so I don't die.
	Yeah, so that's their only concern, isn't it?
	They're only concern we're take a quick break and we'll be right back Music playing
	You're listening to The Daily Watch.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	Hear, hear!
	...who thought he was science.
	This is by Jay Bhattacharya.
	It's from the Brownstone Institute.
	Jay was one of the signers of the Great Barrington Declaration.
	So-called, because it came from Great Barrington, Massachusetts.
	But he and the other people who were with him, primarily three people, it was a very useful declaration in terms of pushing back against the masks and about a lot of other superstitions that were being sold as COVID stuff.
	And so I appreciate that. But I think he's off the mark here.
	Anthony Fauci is the man who thought he was God, not science.
	And he ruled as if he was.
	And he was deferred to by Trump as if he were God.
	The other part about it is that I think that as an epidemiologist, Jay Bhattacharya is, I think, hopelessly locked into a paradigm that I disagree with.
	I don't agree with all this virology stuff and the virus stuff and everything.
	You need to prove it.
	It's not real science.
	If you can't isolate the virus, if you can't replicate this, and they haven't, and they don't.
	One person talked to over 250 institutions.
	Said, have you isolated this?
	No, no, we got our best guess model and we send that gene sequence around and that's what we're testing for.
	I talked to the Baileys and Sam and her husband, I forget his first name.
	I remember her name because, you know, Samantha, but she goes by Sam.
	and out of New Zealand. And they have an excellent book that you should read exposing how this is not based on observation and repeatable events, this whole idea of contagion. So the whole discipline of these guys, the epidemiologists, is a suspect in my opinion. But he says, as a young medical student I admired Tony Fauci. I bought and read Harrison's Principles of
	Internal Medicine, a vital textbook that Fauci co-edited.
	And in reading his new memoir, On Call, I remembered why I admired him.
	His concern about his patients' plights, especially HIV patients, comes through clearly.
	Jay still does not realize that HIV was a fraud perpetrated by Fauci, By abusing Carey Mullis' PCR test.
	And I've played those clips forever.
	I was playing these things for over four years.
	Where Carey Mullis says, look.
	He says, I'm not saying what's causing AIDS. But I'm saying that you can't prove that it's coming from a virus by using my PCR test.
	And he won't debate me.
	He runs from it. He says he's not a scientist.
	He's a bureaucrat. And he'll look straight into the camera and lie to your face.
	That was the guy who invented the PCR and won a Nobel Prize for it.
	Fauci used HIV. He used that to establish his reputation as power.
	He used it for the pharmaceutical company.
	He used it for his bureaucratic empire.
	He abused the PCR test.
	He used the PCR test to give his fraud the appearance of science.
	Hey, I'm measuring something here.
	That's why Cary Mullis was so angry about it.
	He says, it's impossible to read Fauci's memoir and not believe that he was genuinely moved by the plight of AIDS patients.
	Well, then you should read what some of the AIDS patients said about Fauci.
	They met with him. And I read that to people as well.
	I said, these AIDS patients, you know, one guy says, I've known Fauci from the beginning of this stuff.
	And he goes, he comes across as so caring and loving.
	And he said, he'll lie to your face.
	Just like Kerry Mullis. And he says, I've warned other AIDS patients.
	He says, you go there.
	He's going to tell you everything you want to hear.
	And he won't do anything.
	Because it wasn't about helping the AIDS patients.
	It was about establishing his bureaucracy, establishing the vaccine industry, helping pharmaceutical companies, and laying the groundwork for this PCR fraud.
	That's why I say, you know, I can't believe at this point in time That somebody, even an epidemiologist, can't believe it.
	But they're so entrenched in their professional paradigm, they won't question it.
	We always have to question.
	We always have to question.
	Science is never settled.
	Never. When an aide in 1985 offered to quit when he contracted AIDS, Fauci hugged him and said, I would never let you go.
	And yet, this is the Fauci who told everybody that it was a virus.
	This is the Fauci who, because he insisted it was a virus, everybody thought, well, okay, I don't want to be around people who've got AIDS. I'm worried that mosquitoes might be transferring this.
	And eventually they demonized people who said stuff like that.
	But that was a perfectly good extrapolation of their paradigm.
	If this is something called a virus and it's in the blood, well, then a mosquito ought to be able to transfer it that way and on and on.
	And so why did that guy say offer to leave?
	Well, you know, because, hey, I've got AIDS. I might give it to you.
	That's what we've been telling everybody, right?
	Actually, he didn't believe that. He hugged the guy and said, no, that's no problem.
	I don't believe it's contagious.
	He doesn't say that.
	He makes it sound like he loves the guy and he'll do anything.
	You know, we had Christians and pastors and all kinds of people who said, I don't care about the disease.
	I'm going to love people. Even if Fauci's telling me that we're all going to die.
	They were vilified for what Fauci is.
	Now, I mean, they honestly thought that they would die.
	Fauci didn't think he was going to catch anything from this guy who had AIDS. He knew it was a fraud.
	Fauci's statement panicked the American people about HIV, that it could be transmitted by being in proximity to other people.
	This is what Jay Bhattacharya is saying.
	And he calls him out on that.
	He said, Fauci told the press that AIDS might be spread by routine household contact.
	Fauci didn't believe that.
	He panicked the American people, had them physically shunning AIDS patients out of an unfounded fear of catching the disease.
	Gotta get cooties.
	And Fauci had people doing that later on.
	Don't touch the gas pump.
	You'll get the COVID cooties.
	So, Fauci was tremendously successful, says Jay Bhattacharya.
	He said, tremendously successful.
	In getting government spending on treating and trying to prevent the spread of AIDS, likely no other scientist in history moved more money and resources to accomplish a scientific and medical goal than Fauci.
	Because that's what it's about.
	There's no honor in that.
	He's just a grifting, grabbing bureaucrat who, of course, is going to try to get all the money that he can for his cause and to build his empire.
	I can't believe that he is congratulating him on this.
	The guy is a fraud, a con man, a thief, a liar, a killer.
	His treatment of off-science critics, however, he says is harsh.
	So, he did a great job with AIDS. Yeah, right.
	Did you notice? It wasn't for the patients that he was fighting.
	It was for his empire for pharmaceutical companies.
	And this is the point at which I start to lose and stop reading this article here.
	His treatment of scientific critics is harsh, crossing lines that federal science bureaucrats should not cross.
	In 1991...
	When University of California Berkeley professor and wunderkind cancer biologist Peter Duesberg put forward a false hypothesis that the virus HIV is not the cause of AIDS, Fauci did everything in his power to destroy him.
	Yeah, that's right, we saw that, and he came after everybody.
	And again, you know, Kerry Mullis inserted himself in this in kind of a neutral way.
	He said, well, we got the people over here who don't believe it.
	Fauci is proving it that it's caused by a virus because of my test, but my test can't be used to prove that.
	So you guys can talk amongst yourselves as to what the cause of AIDS is.
	I'm just telling you. That if it's HIV, it can't be proved by the way Fauci is doing it.
	And so Fauci came after Duisburg.
	He writes about debating Duisburg.
	Isn't it interesting that he wouldn't debate Carey Mullis, but he would debate this guy?
	Carey Mullis called him out publicly.
	He went to universities.
	He did interviews and anything.
	He was demanding that Fauci debate him.
	Fauci debated Duisburg instead.
	He wrote papers.
	He gave talks to counter his ideas.
	But Fauci did more. He isolated Duisburg, destroying his reputation in the press, making him a pariah in the scientific community.
	Now, here's what I had a problem with, with Jay Bhattacharya.
	He says, though Fauci was right and Duisburg was wrong about the scientific question.
	What? Well, you need to do a little bit more research about that.
	Do a little bit more research about that.
	Again, Fauci is not a scientist.
	He's a liar. Murderer.
	Vindictive bureaucrat.
	A political tyrant.
	Despite billions of dollars spent on the test, no one to date has produced an effective HIV vaccine.
	I wonder why that is.
	Hmm. I wonder why that is.
	Well, that takes us to this article.
	Monkeypox, Evidence of Pandemic Preparedness.
	And again, in this particular one, they talk about gain-of-function.
	And I think that is a big misdirection to focus on gain-of-function.
	I've always said, and I continue to say, gain-of-function should be shut down.
	It is dangerous.
	It is unwarranted.
	And they're trying to create biological weapons of war.
	But let's understand where we are.
	We had a biological warfare attack on us, and it wasn't COVID. It wasn't the Wu flu.
	It wasn't China. It wasn't Wuhan.
	It wasn't Fauci or any of these other people.
	It was the vaccine.
	That was a biological weapon.
	That was a biological warfare.
	And if we're going to forget that and try to jump over and say, well, we don't want to have anything else being done.
	We don't want to have monkeypox being engineered.
	And that's what this whole article is about.
	Well, here's monkeypox.
	It's not really very dangerous, but they're going to try to make it more dangerous, and they're going to try to make it more easily spread.
	That has been the goal of these Nazi scientists that they brought over in Operation Paperclip that became the foundation for our biological warfare organizations.
	That has been their goal from the very beginning.
	And the best way to do it is to scare everybody into accepting an injection.
	Of something that is, who knows what it is?
	Probably has nanotech, and a lot of evidence has got nanotech in it.
	The Biological Weapons Convention, which every major nation has signed, prohibits the development, production, acquisition, transfer, stockpiling, and use of biological and toxin weapons.
	This is why I say, folks, we look at some of these things.
	This could be the means of somebody wanting to pursue this.
	I don't do lawsuits.
	But if somebody wanted to pursue this, you ought to sue the U.S. government for violating the Biological Weapons Convention.
	You know, if Francis Boyle, bless his heart.
	Alex had me on with him at one point in time, and I was pushing back on this stuff then like I am now.
	And I appreciate what Francis Boyle had done.
	I appreciate his push against biological weapons, and I 100% agree with him.
	But he bought into all of this stuff during the COVID stuff, and I didn't, and I disagreed with him.
	And he would always come back, and after I would say something, he would begin by saying, with all due respect, Which means that he doesn't have any respect at all.
	For what I had to say.
	Because, you know, I didn't go to Harvard, so I guess I don't know what's going on.
	He did. It was like, I had friends when I worked at Texas Instruments who were from England.
	And they were not impressed with MIT. You know, Americans here, MIT, MIT, MIT, all the time, right?
	And... And I said something about, or somebody else said something about so-and-so, you know, and he's an MIT graduate.
	And this British guy, a friend of mine, says, say no more.
	Every idiot that I've met is from MIT. They're the worst engineers I've ever seen in my life.
	But anyway, so, you know, Harvard is the same type of thing.
	So, the Biological Weapons Convention has been violated by the warp speed injection, folks.
	That's what it is. Because the warp speed injection, they developed, they produced, they acquired, they transferred, they stockpiled, and they used it on us.
	And it is a weapon. And they need to be called out on that.
	They violated their own convention.
	And every government did it.
	Every government did it.
	Because they're all on board with this.
	They're all servants of this globalist governance that is out there.
	So he said, as a result, gain-of-function research, the process of taking viruses and other pathogens found in nature, making them more transmissible, dangerous in humans, must be justified by defining it as something other than what it really is.
	Namely, calling it the creation of countermeasures.
	We've got to create this thing so that we can come up with a countermeasure to it.
	That's the lies that they tell.
	So even if you agree with that paradigm, and again, you're going to, you know, are viruses found in nature?
	We never found the COVID-19 virus.
	You've never isolated.
	And when they sent that questionnaire out to 250 different organizations, they came back and some of them started, nobody had isolated it.
	Some of them said, well, we never do that.
	Well, then how do you know what you're talking about?
	If you haven't isolated it, you're not doing science.
	The grand deception, the big lie used to justify gain-of-function research goes something like this.
	We need to alter pathogens in the lab to anticipate the mutations that just might occur in nature and to promote the production of vaccines to protect humanity from these theoretical superbugs.
	Well, of course, within that paradigm, that's an obvious lie.
	We've got to create a weapon so we can create the countermeasure.
	Wait, what? Except, really what they're doing is they've got to tell you that they've created a weapon so they can sell you the countermeasure, which is really the weapon.
	This makes no sense, even within their paradigm.
	This is a redirection of what this stuff is.
	Well, I said earlier that I wanted to talk a little bit about how things are starting to shift.
	In a positive way.
	This is the BBC reporting about a man who has been severely injured.
	And they talk to doctors and the doctors say, yeah, it's from the vaccine.
	And they say he's left to rot after being injured by this COVID vaccine.
	This is coming from the Daily Skeptic in the UK. They said, you know, times are changing and narratives are shifting when the BBC runs a report on a man who's left to rot after his Pfizer COVID booster, quote, destroyed his life, unquote, and left him in permanent pain and increasing pain.
	It is getting worse all the time for him.
	December 15th, 2021, Larry Lowe's life changed.
	He was 54, rarely ill.
	He was fit.
	He was healthy. He was running 10 kilometers most days until he got the Pfizer COVID booster.
	Within days, he developed numbness on the right side of his face.
	He started experiencing pain.
	And again, it is amazing to see the BBC reporting this.
	He said, He said that the COVID vaccine was the main causative factor that
	had left him with painful trigeminal neuropathy.
	He also developed a small fiber sensory neuropathy, which the consultant said is also one of the post-vaccine-related neurological presentations, unquote.
	He said, I struggle when I think about what another 10 years is going to do to me.
	Because in the three years, roughly, that I've had this, this destroyed me and it is getting worse.
	He said he took the vaccine in good health and he feels he's been left to rot.
	I'm in so much pain, my life is barely worth living except for my family, he said.
	He said chronic pain was hard to explain because people think of a toothache or they think about breaking their leg.
	But he said once you break your leg, it starts to get better.
	My pain, he said, is getting worse every day.
	That's what they've left us with.
	I could not support somebody who had anything to do with that.
	And the presidential candidates all did.
	And most all of the people in Congress and the Senate did as well as state governors and many local officials and many local leaders.
	Oh
	You're listening to the David Knight show you Well, I talked earlier about the climate alarmists now wanting to shut down inhalers for people who have asthma, respiratory illnesses.
	Doctors will be trained to consider the climate impact of asthma inhalers.
	Under a new European-wide curriculum being developed, they'll infuse environmental considerations throughout the timetable, says the Telegraph.
	You know, when we look at this stuff, it's pretty simple, isn't it?
	They just want to kill you all.
	I mean, there's no way around it.
	Our experts have looked at what's called biodistribution of the materials of the injection.
	And in Canada, you were told, in the US we were told, Around Western Europe, they were told that the materials from the vaccine stay in the deltoid.
	In the injection site, that's not true.
	The Pfizer documents show that they biodistribute throughout the body.
	As Dr. Robert Chandler, one of our experts, says, like a shotgun blast to the body, accumulating in the liver, adrenals, spleen, lymphatic system, crossing the blood-brain barrier, and accumulating in the ovaries.
	The reason I mention that when it comes to pushing more and more and more injections, even at this late date, is that Our experts have seen no mechanism by which these materials leave the body.
	And there's a study that I found out of Hong Kong, done for the Chinese, showing that with the first injection, there's systemic damage in rats, but with the second injection, their hearts engorged, there's visible white patches on their hearts, and there's multi-organ system failure.
	And my husband, who's an intel guy, Found legally the document that the CDC had prepared in 2020, 2021, that shows six shots, that they always prepared six shots.
	This was before all the language about, oh, you need another one.
	It's waning in efficacy. So the bottom line is, the more shots you have, the more likely you are to be disabled or die or be sterilized.
	And they know that. And that's why they are doing six shots.
	And I remember talking about that.
	I said, look at how they're ordering this.
	They're ordering enough for six or seven shots for every person in the country.
	And other countries and things like that.
	It was always planned depopulation.
	That's why I say it's a MacGuffin, right?
	And yes, all of these MacGuffins, whether you're talking about the climate MacGuffin or you're talking about the COVID MacGuffin, it's all about channeling us into this population.
	Techno-feudalism, the system of austerity, poverty, where they control and watch everything that we do.
	But it ultimately comes towards depopulation, because these people are satanically driven.
	That's the power.
	That's the organizing force behind it, is Satan.
	Satan always wants to destroy mankind.
	Take a look at the overpopulation myth.
	Overpopulation, the making of a myth.
	The first civilization originated in England in 1798, when a vicar named Thomas Malthus, who fancied himself something of a mathematician, saw that food production increased incrementally, but people reproduced exponentially. He sat down and did some simple math, and summarily decided that the world would be out of food by 1890. He blamed reduced mortality rates, and recommended killing off the have-nots of society, lest the haves starve to death.
	Great vicar, huh? This pride was taken up by Paul Ehrlich of Stanford University in 1968, who claimed that reckless human reproduction had overwhelmed the earth.
	Massive famines would result, which would destroy, best case scenario, one-fifth of humanity by the end of the 70s.
	And the planet would follow.
	This fear produced large donations for the newly created UNFPA, which thrives on an imagined crisis that has been both imminent and rescheduled again and again over the past two centuries.
	The truth of the matter is that every family on this planet could have a house, with a yard, and all live together on a landmass the size of Texas.
	Which is really just a small corner of the planet.
	The population of Earth will peak in 30 years and then start to go back down.
	We're not overpopulated.
	Do the math. Yeah, I like that.
	A vicar did not do. Of course, a vicar didn't.
	They'll just kill people. And as Paul Ehrlich has said, you know, how do we kill people?
	Well, we could do it with a disease or something like that.
	But he says the best way to do it is with war.
	They're working on that right now.
	They're working on it.
	Well, again, doctors will be trained to consider the climate impact of asthma inhalers under a new European-wide curriculum being developed that will infuse environmental considerations throughout the timetable.
	Future doctors will be expected to take the climate impact of inhalers into account, medical school leaders have said.
	Sorry, can't have that.
	Harm the planet.
	I watched my dad struggle all of his life to breathe.
	And I watched him nearly suffocate.
	And then saw the relief that he got from the inhalers.
	And I had a cousin who died because she couldn't get to her inhaler quickly enough.
	These people are cold, callous murderers.
	It begins with abortion, and it goes through everything.
	It's a continuum.
	They hate people. They want to kill people.
	It's just amazing to me.
	And think about the minuscule amount of gas, if you're concerned about this.
	How in the world could that affect anything?
	It is beyond stupid.
	It is cynical.
	And it is vicious.
	Insiders stress that the curriculum is yet to be finalized, and advice surrounding inhalers is just one option that could be considered.
	You see, they've always said, in their neo-paganism, where they look at Gaia, the Gaia theory, put out by Lovelock when we were in the UK in 2000.
	It was all over the place.
	2001. Yeah, 2001.
	Spring. It was all over the place.
	I saw somebody left behind a science magazine on the train.
	I started reading it. And then we go to the Children's Museum to let the kids blow off some steam.
	Because we were taking them one museum after the other, they were starting to get pent up.
	So we go to the Science Museum on the third floor of the London Science Museum at that time.
	They had a big playroom area.
	And while the kids are all playing and all this stuff, there's this propaganda thing running on a big screen TV about Gaia theory.
	And how the Earth is this sentient living organism that just evolved and happened.
	And that humans are like a virus and have to be reduced or eliminated.
	That's what they're playing these kids.
	And so we now have the kids that were listening to that kind of stuff and being indoctrinated in that kind of stuff.
	And the government institutions we call schools, the seminaries of Satan, they were being indoctrinated in this stuff now for several decades.
	And now they're adults.
	And now they're setting policies as little bureaucrats.
	And so they have absolutely no problem with smothering people and refusing to give them any help at all.
	The initiative is being overseen by the European Network on Climate and Health Education.
	A group of 25 medical schools led by the University of Glasgow will bring climate lessons into the curriculum of more than 10,000 students.
	They will be taught green prescribing, in which doctors should encourage patients to take up activities such as community gardening.
	Yeah, that's what my cousin was doing when she died because she couldn't get an inhaler.
	Climate change doesn't necessarily create a new range of diseases that we haven't seen before, but it exacerbates the ones that do exist.
	Diabetes, for example, is not something that people link to climate change, but they will.
	But the symptoms and the complications become more frequent and worse for people in the world where the climate has changed.
	Prove it. I'm sick and tired of these lies.
	Just prove it. That's what I need to say to you.
	You got something to say about that?
	Just prove it. Now they're telling us that plants and forests absorbed almost no carbon last year.
	And it shocks the climate scientists.
	Well, you should be shocked because these climate scientists are just inveterate lies.
	I mean... What's the proof of this?
	Did we somehow have all the plants change last year?
	They have to have CO2. The mechanism of the plants did not all suddenly change.
	This is so absurd what they sell people.
	You know, I guess yesterday, Gregory Wright, I thought it was good to have him.
	I'm not convinced.
	That there is global warming.
	What he's doing is he's taking the position, okay, it's global warming, but the CO2 is not a problem.
	It's actually a good thing. And it's actually a good thing if we do have a little bit of warming.
	And he points out that over a longer period of time, you know, we're still very, very cold over a longer period of time by many forms of measurement.
	I don't take that approach.
	I think it's good to tell people that CO2 is good.
	And I know that he would laugh hysterically if he saw this headline.
	I wish I had seen this before the interview.
	Plants and forests have stopped absorbing carbon last year.
	No CO2. So now how are they growing now?
	They take in CO2, they give off oxygen.
	We've always known that. But now the science has evidently changed.
	How did this change? This is all part of a narrative, by the way, that Bill Gates started selling.
	You know, it used to be that you'd have to pay Bill Gates and people of his ilk a fee, an indulgence, in order to be able to conduct your life.
	And they would presumably do something like planting a tree somewhere to make up for your sins.
	Well, now we've got to move this out.
	You know, these people that he's paying, they're going to move this out and tell people, well, yeah, the plants are not absorbing any CO2. The Earth's natural defenses against carbon emissions could be breaking down.
	They say, it could be. Could be.
	Listen to how they come about with this.
	Our planet has historically been home to natural carbon sinks, forests, oceans, that naturally remove potentially atmosphere-damaging carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
	It's not atmosphere-damaging.
	Nonsense. Give me a break.
	0.04% of the atmosphere.
	It damages it? Come on.
	And so the Guardian is taking the lead in all this.
	Now, the Guardian has been bought and sold as propagandists for the left, especially the climate stuff.
	There's probably no publication on Earth that is a bigger liar about climate than the UK's Guardian.
	And so they go on.
	They keep pushing these lies that 2023 was the hottest year on record.
	It's not. That's another lie that's out there.
	And I saw an alarming collapse in the Earth's innate ability to swallow and to neutralize carbon using trees, soil, and plants together.
	And they absorbed next to no carbon, they said.
	Again, you got any proof of this?
	We'll show it. They don't. This is just their imagination.
	In 2023, because, you know, they've decided that 2023 is the warmest year on record.
	Well, there's a lot of problems with that.
	We've got a lot of different records that say that that's not true.
	But, you know, predicated on that lie, they come up with a whole other stack of lies in their house of cards.
	The Guardian notes...
	That a 2023 study on zooplankton, which found that fast-melting ocean glaciers could hinder the ocean's ability to capture and repurpose carbon.
	See, they've extrapolated this out, just like Malthus did.
	The Malthusian ideas, right?
	One of the things that he or somebody else said, they said, well, you know, you look at the cities.
	The cities at the time had all the transportation was horse-drawn.
	I said, we can't continue on with this.
	If we continue, the cities are growing at the rate that they're growing.
	You know, we're going to be up to our wastes and horse dung in no time.
	Well, we've solved that. And now they're freaking out about the emissions from the vehicles that solved that.
	Humankind's still overwhelming reliance on fossil fuels has put a huge amount of stress on natural carbon sinks.
	Again, they say this is all projection.
	It's imagination.
	This stressed planet has been silently helping us.
	You see the anthropomorphism, the imagining that the planet is Gaia?
	This is neo-paganism.
	It is pagan superstition.
	It is pagan ignorance.
	The earth can't evolve.
	The earth isn't doing anything.
	And yet you hear this seriously put out by actresses like Jennifer Lawrence.
	Oh, the earth is very angry with us.
	That's why we've got these storms.
	You hear this all the time.
	That is absolute nonsense.
	It's trying to project some kind of human intellect onto the Earth.
	So, Stressed Planet has been silently helping us and allowing us to shove our debt under the carpet, thanks to biodiversity.
	We have been lulled into a comfort zone, and we cannot really see the crisis.
	Well, that's true. There is a crisis, but not what they pretend it is.
	They're pretending that this is science.
	And I said, well, it's worth noting.
	Now, finally, we get to the truth of things and where this is all coming from.
	It's worth noting that carbon sinks are complex and notoriously hard to measure.
	Oh, so you haven't done any real science.
	It's a complicated thing, you know, Senator Paul.
	Gender is a complicated thing, and we'll just have to have a discussion about that.
	I just can't explain it to you about my gender.
	This is, what are the pronouns of Gaia?
	So, it is notoriously hard to measure.
	It's very complex. And models show variability in terms of timeline.
	So, they don't have data.
	They have created computer models of what they imagine things to be.
	Overall, the models agreed that both the land sink and the ocean sink are going to decrease in the future as a result of climate change.
	But there's a question of how quickly that will happen.
	Said a professor, a guy who professes to know something at Exeter University in England.
	He added that most models, quote, tend to show this happening rather slowly over the next hundred years or so.
	But he pointed out that most models don't incorporate seemingly consequential factors like worsening wildfires and deforestation.
	Okay, so it's complex.
	They can't model it.
	They can't measure it.
	So they model it.
	And because you've got some people who say, well, most of them think it's going to take a century to do this if it even happens.
	So The Guardian and this publication Futurism jump on it and say, well, that must be why we had a hot year last year.
	Must be why that's the hottest year at all.
	Because the plants just stopped absorbing CO2. You see how stupid these people are?
	The chicken littles.
	The climate is falling.
	The climate is falling. Climate scientists are worried about climate change not because of the things that are in the models, but the knowledge that the models are missing certain things.
	Yeah, that's what I'm worried about, too, because they're using these models that are missing a lot of stuff, like data.
	They're using these in a fear and intimidation campaign for political purposes.
	It is terrorism.
	It is bullying. And they're trying to bully us into their future and their depopulation.
	Garbage in, garbage out.
	Again, I went to the American Meteorological Association's meeting when they had it in Austin.
	Models, you want to talk about models?
	They had several hundred models there of the weather.
	And they were all telling you how they were trying to predict the weather a few days in advance.
	And how none of them could.
	So we've got a natural gas company now, the first one to be sued over climate change.
	And they said gas utilities continue to deceptively market methane gas as a climate solution.
	So they've been suing with lawfare, these big oil companies.
	But this is the first time, and this is coming from a county in Oregon.
	This county in Oregon has put a lawsuit in, and of course there's a group called Center for Climate Integrity.
	They troll and they collect donations and they file these frivolous lawsuits.
	And this county, in their lawsuit that they're doing with the Center for Climate Integrity, they've added a gas utility company there.
	And saying, you lied to us about climate change and all this kind of stuff.
	And I thought, well, you know, this is worth talking about.
	Because maybe this is what everybody ought to collectively do to these different organizations.
	You lied to us about climate change.
	We've had... 50 years of failed predictions.
	How hard would it be to prove that in court that these people are lying and that they're using it for their own purposes, they're using it to create policy, they're using it for crony capitalism and all the rest of this stuff?
	How hard would that be to prove?
	I think that we ought to take that approach.
	So, anyway, again, they finish by saying, well, it looks like this county has science on its side.
	Yeah, right. Right.
	Well, we're going to take a quick break and we come back.
	I want to talk a little bit about other life issues.
	We have an amazing story of a former abortionist answering questions now of people about what happens to the babies, what do they feel, and that type of thing.
	Somebody did 1,200 abortions.
	And then he had a life-changing experience and he stopped doing it.
	And we're going to tell you about that when we come back.
	We'll be right back.
	♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ so Congrats to David and Hunter for this video we hope you
	will like it.
	Movie is About to Start Video playing
	Music Playing
	you you I'll take a quick moment here to talk about a few things that I've gotten in terms of correspondence from listeners and to thank people on Zelle.
	I've gone way too long not thanking people on Zelle.
	But first of all, the emails that we have here.
	Sometimes, one person writes, sometimes the refresh button has to be pushed on the screen to see what the current like and dislike count is.
	And this came up because I had a friend who sent me a screenshot.
	He said, here I am halfway through the program and it only shows one like.
	And we've been asking people, please like the program because that does help us to get some visibility.
	And so I thought, well, are they messing with us?
	This person said, you need to try refreshing it and see if that changes anything.
	He says, I'm not saying they're not messing with you, but that may be what it is.
	I just wanted to correct that and put that out there so people could try that and see if that is working.
	Also, this was sent by Tony, not Tony Arterman, but another Tony.
	And he says it's a link to one article that has been banned by Reuters and several other articles that are being promoted by the mainstream media.
	So the article that's been banned is one that says that cancers from mRNA vaccines, this is a study.
	It was censored.
	Reuters is pushing a ban out there.
	And as I point out, Reuters has been brought to you now by Pfizer.
	They got a partnership with Pfizer.
	So they're going to ban this kind of information.
	Again, this is about cancer.
	It's not about the heart disease or the blood clots or the neurological issues and all the rest of the things that are being caused by this.
	But then he says, but then they push and promote studies like this, a study on the link between COVID-19 and the risk of cardiac events.
	See, it's not the vaccine, it's COVID-19, they say.
	Or COVID-19 may increase the risk of death years after infection.
	See, it's COVID-19.
	It's not the vaccine.
	Or severe COVID-19 infection increases heart attack and stroke risk as much as having a history of heart disease, says a study.
	See, this is why focusing on gain of function is such a misdirection.
	It really makes me angry to see the media and the Republicans who are doing that.
	They have offered every kind of misdirection to try to cover up The symptoms of these bioweapons, even to the extent of saying, well, you know, we're seeing elderly people dying in their garden, and it must be from heart attacks, and it must be because of something being released in the soil.
	They're not working really hard.
	I mean, it's not physical labor.
	It's causing them to have a heart attack. It must be something being released from the soil.
	Couldn't be the vaccine.
	Could never be anything like that, right?
	Well, I also have some letters here that we received earlier in the week I didn't talk about.
	This is from Georgia Mom.
	So she listens after work every evening and appreciates what we do.
	And says she's praying for Whistler's total healing and the healthy new baby coming into your life soon.
	Praying for Travis and his wife, that they have a healthy and safe delivery.
	Say no to the vaccines.
	Oh, believe me, they will be saying no to the vaccines.
	It's just, you know, the key thing, as I told Travis, never let that baby out of your sight.
	Because they'll stick them when you're not looking.
	And so thank you for that, and thank you for the prayers.
	And, you know, Whistler is doing better, but as soon as he starts to do better and he starts to do something, he gets injured again.
	So we're very concerned about that.
	You know, it's not in the constant pain that he was in, but now he does the slightest thing.
	And he gets very long-lasting pain.
	And he's worried about rupturing tendons because that's been a part of this.
	So, still need your prayer.
	Appreciate that. This is from someone who is in Ireland.
	He says, Great to know that Travis has Irish roots.
	Like so many people around the world, I'm Irish, but technically actually based in Northern Ireland, so unfortunately I'm affected by the communist labor government in the UK. Keir Starmer is truly a demon in the flesh, but the Republican Ireland, Northern Ireland, is just as... I'm sorry, not Northern Ireland, the Independent Ireland, Republic Ireland.
	It's just as bad. It's a New World Order poster child.
	Currently deep in the UN replacement migration program.
	This is from Derwin29.
	Thank you very much for that. And he has many nice and kind things to say.
	While we're talking about Travis...
	I just wanted to show you this, Tim.
	We are not there.
	They're in Texas now, but they just had a very nice baby shower that was thrown by her relatives.
	Here's a picture of Travis and his wife there.
	And they really went, um, uh, and did a lot of stuff with those decorations.
	They did a really nice job decorating it.
	Here's the cake.
	Uh, so just to give you an update as to what is happening with Travis and his wife and a baby night, as it says, okay, but they did a beautiful job with that.
	So there's Travis and they're in Texas.
	They're going to be in Texas for a while, actually.
	Uh, and I want to thank people who have donated to us.
	It's been a very long time.
	It's been far too long, actually.
	And I want to go back and, um, catch up a little bit with, um, people who donated at the end of the month.
	At the very end of the month, Marty did a matching funds, and it was such a blessing to us.
	It really made a big difference.
	And a lot of the people who donated were on Zelle, and I don't believe that I think them, but even if I did, I'll think them a second time.
	Austin M. Susan L. Jason M. Lois L. I'm sorry, Lois I. So it's a very small print here.
	Scott L. Deshaun G. Ronald H. David R. Darren M. Brian P. Juan R. These are all people who joined in the matching funds at the very end of the month that Marty did.
	And two of those people are new supporters, Jason M and Joseph R. So thank you very much.
	I appreciate that. And then, so far in the first two weeks of this month, we have Anzell, Ralph M., Michael L., William D., Maurice W., Mitchell M., Rigelio J.,
	Mary M., Kevin M., We're good to go.
	And just a couple more here.
	Let me flip the page.
	And I've got to hold this up because it is so small.
	Kenneth C., William R., Stephen M., Susan L., George W., Kimberly M., Raymond G., Manny D., and J.H., You hear a lot of those names repeated, and we see them repeated over and over again.
	We really do appreciate the people who are regular supporters.
	And again, we had several new supporters.
	George W. is a new supporter.
	Stephen M. said, haven't been able to donate for a while, but I appreciate that, Stephen.
	And... Also had John B. said, thank you for fighting for the vax injured.
	I'm sorry, that was Susan L. said that.
	Thank you, Susan. And also, Susan donated multiple times.
	I got your message, Susan, and we will be doing that.
	I appreciate that.
	And this is one person.
	This is John B. And I'm not really sure what you're asking.
	The messages that we get on Zelle, they only give you a few characters and they get truncated.
	I'm not sure if there was more to this, but said, how are people getting mail?
	And I'm not sure what you're asking.
	I don't know if you were.
	Our mailing address, if people want to send things via mail, the P.O. box is on thedavidnightshow.com.
	994. What is it?
	994 Kodak. It's P.O. Box 994 Kodak, Tennessee.
	And you can also find that there.
	But this is the David Knight Show.
	So, yeah, thank you for reminding me to say it.
	Go look for it, you know, but I should tell you where it is.
	And I want to also thank Mary Ellen Moore, freemindfilms.com.
	Folks, they've got a documentary that you really take a look at.
	Shadow Ring, and of course you can get links where you can see it.
	There's several different places where you can watch it online, and so they have a link to that.
	Shadow Ring is an excellent documentary, and we do appreciate her support.
	Let's see. We're going to take a quick break, and I'm going to move over to what I wanted to talk about in terms of a doctor who had committed abortions.
	Oh, we've got a couple of things on here.
	Live Free or Perish says, when my kid was born, they took him away in the hospital to give him a vitamin K shot without my permission.
	Later I found out that shot is very bad.
	Thank you. We'll make sure about that.
	We'll make sure that they do not do any of that stuff.
	Hal9000Watson says, GrandbabyKnight.
	Yeah, I got a mug that says Pappy.
	I guess I'm going to be a happy grandpappy.
	Let's hope so. I think we will be.
	AtomicDog. Will BabyKnight have a show on Rumble?
	Yeah, we could do it like the little baby from The Incredibles or something, right?
	Okay, we're gonna take a real quick break and we'll be right back music playing...
	In a
	of God.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	Babies feel pain during the brutal dismemberment abortions.
	This is also from LifeSite News.
	That was a question that was posed to Dr.
	Anthony Levatino, a former abortionist.
	In the first video of Live Action's face-to-face series, in the video, an abortion survivor, Claire Caldwell, says that she survived her birth mother's DNA, that is a dilation and evacuation, that's where they dismember them, they rip the baby to pieces.
	She survived that as a twin.
	I guess they didn't know that there were two babies.
	It killed her twin She said, I've always wondered what my twin experienced Well, here's that exchange I survived my birth mother's D&E abortion that aborted my twin next to me and I've always wondered what my twin actually experienced and what maybe I experienced in the womb next to my twin.
	I'm no expert on fetal pain.
	I've done amniocentesis, just amniocentesis for diagnostic procedures.
	You're putting a needle into the amniotic sac where the baby is and you can hit the baby with a needle.
	You can't see them. And you can feel them pull away.
	We're talking 16 and 17 weeks.
	So anyone who sits there and tells you that these fetuses can't feel pain, I don't believe that for a minute.
	So they would feel the pain of being dismembered until and unless that anesthesia kicked in.
	If they're even using the kind of anesthesia that would do that.
	Yeah. A DNA abortion is a brutal procedure in which the abortionist uses a SOFR clamp to tear the arms and legs off of the child.
	The child's head is too big to come out in one piece, so the skull is crushed before being removed from the womb.
	He said, You will know you have it right when you crush down on the clamp and you see a pure white gelatinous material issue from the cervix.
	That was the baby's brains.
	You can then extract the skull pieces He says, if you have a really bad day, like I often did, a little face may come out and stare back at you.
	Studies have shown that pre-born children old enough to undergo a second trimester DNA procedure are most certainly capable of feeling the process of being dismembered.
	Multiple studies and mounting evidence point to these children feeling pain as early as 8 to 12 weeks gestation.
	In 2012, Dr.
	Colleen Malloy, Assistant Professor of Pediatrics.
	And again, you know, this whole thing about, can they feel pain?
	I talked about how interesting it is that they play these games for organ transplants, right?
	Is that patient dead? Well, yeah, I don't see any brain activity with this thing.
	And of course, you know, the instruments that they're using to measure the brain activity, they show a flat line if your brain activity decreases by 50%.
	You don't have any organ damage if your brain activity, until your brain activity decreases below 20%.
	But they play these types of things.
	Do the patients feel any pain?
	Well, a lot of people are saying, well, yeah, I mean, we've given them stuff just like they give people with ventilators.
	We've given them paralytics so they can't move.
	But we can still see their heartbeat go up when we stick them.
	So we know they're feeling the pain, even though they can't move.
	That's what they do to adults.
	Because we've done this to kids now as part of our society.
	We have people, politicians, who celebrate this kind of stuff.
	So, this doctor at the Northwestern University School of Medicine testified at a hearing in the District of Columbia on the Unborn Child Protection Act stating that these pre-born children may even have a greater sense of pain than others.
	She said, I firmly believe, as the evidence shows, that fetal pain experience is no less than the neonatal, the newborn, or adult pain experience.
	It may even be greater than that which you or I would experience from dismemberment or from other physical injury.
	Well, that doctor had more to say, as a matter of fact.
	There was on LifeSite News an article that he had written before.
	He said, I aborted 1,200 babies.
	Then my six-year-old daughter was hit and killed.
	He said, how do you make up for 1,200 dead kids?
	He says, you can't.
	And he's right, you can't.
	There's nothing you can do to make up for that.
	But, as Christians, and I hope he has this assurance, Christ has taken those from us.
	He has removed our sins as far as the East is from the West, if we trust in him and what he did to take away our sins.
	He has removed that as far as the East is from the West.
	And if God has forgiven you, you should forgive yourself.
	And so I hope he has that assurance.
	But this is what he had to say.
	And this is an article that goes back six years.
	He said, I started doing abortions in 1977 in New York State during my OB residency.
	I graduated in 1980 and I went into private practice, first in Florida, later in New York.
	In five years, I performed 1,200 abortions, including 100 second trimester saline abortions and later D&E abortions up to 24 weeks.
	He said, let me tell you about saline abortions.
	They're horrible. Because you see one intact whole baby being born.
	And sometimes they were born alive.
	That was very, very frightening.
	I played for you the woman who was damaged but survived a saline abortion.
	And then adopted.
	And has had lifetime health issues from it.
	But she was adopted by a Christian family, and it truly was amazing because it burns them alive.
	And when a baby survives, what do they do?
	Well, you know, Trump has awkwardly, ignorantly said, well, they kill the baby.
	Well, no, they don't.
	In a sense, right?
	They play these games, and that's where he left himself open because of his lack of knowledge or care about what is even happening.
	He just describes it crudely as that.
	No, that was what Kermit Gosling was convicted of, of killing the babies that were born alive that he tried to abort.
	Now, what you're supposed to do, which is all different, isn't it?
	To set the baby off to the side and let it die on its own.
	That's the way they pretend. It's still murdering the babies.
	Semantics. He goes on, he says, with D&E abortions, we traded one kind of brutality for another.
	You tear the arms and the legs off of the babies and you put them in a stack on the table.
	Babies are never born alive after a D&E abortion.
	It's hard. If you have any heart at all, it affects you, he said.
	During this time, my wife and I found out that we probably would not be able to conceive a child on our own, so we began looking for a baby to adopt.
	How ironic. We ran up against one roadblock after another, trying to find a baby to adopt, and I was throwing them in the garbage at the rate of nine or ten a week.
	That's why you can't find babies to adopt.
	That he wanted to adopt, but he was killing babies at the same time.
	During this time, my wife and I found out that we probably, I'm sorry, finally we were able to adopt a baby girl.
	We named her Heather.
	A few years later, my wife gave birth to our son.
	My daughter Heather was hit by a car in front of our home when she was two months shy of her sixth birthday.
	She died in our arms in the ambulance on the way to the hospital.
	I did a few more late term abortions after that, but it was just too difficult to continue.
	When you lose your child, life is very different.
	Everything changes.
	All of a sudden, the idea of a person's life becomes very real.
	It's not an embryology course anymore.
	It's not just a couple of hundred dollars.
	It's the real thing. It's your child that you buried.
	The old discomforts came back.
	I couldn't even think about a DNA abortion anymore.
	No way. I stopped doing the second trimester abortions.
	Then I came to the realization that if I shouldn't be killing children in the second trimester, then I shouldn't be killing them earlier either.
	I became involved in the pro-life movement, and that has helped me to heal and to find forgiveness.
	How do you make up for the 1200 dead kids?
	You can't, he said. As an abortionist, I was at the epicenter of the earthquake, but since I stopped doing abortions and became involved with pro-life efforts, I can clearly see how abortion affects everyone concerned with a child who dies, and I regret performing them.
	Well, as we look at that, it is truly amazing as we move gradually away from the things that we realize are wrong, and that has been his experience.
	So, the...
	Sorry, hang on a second.
	Meanwhile, as all this is happening, I talk about what has now become the go-to procedure, and that is the abortion pill.
	And I talked about the fact that a study that was put out has now become very controversial.
	Because they have worked to censor it.
	You know, just like Pfizer gets the studies showing the damage done by their poison censored.
	So scientists who have been censored are now suing a journal for retracting their studies on the danger of the abortion pill.
	One study that was published in November 21 found that women who took...
	I'll call it Mephistopheles.
	It's Mephistone, I think, is what it is.
	Experienced a 4,000% increase in critical emergency room visits between 2002 and 2012.
	I've talked about this. They had four cohorts.
	They had women who were pregnant, women who were never pregnant, women who were pregnant and had an abortion that was the surgical abortion, ripping the baby apart.
	And then they had women who took the pill.
	And they said, what's happening with the emergency room visits?
	Well, with the serious critical visits...
	The people who had taken the pill, the women who had taken the pill, that was the worst.
	That went up by 4,000% between 2002 and 2015.
	The women who gave birth, who were pregnant and gave birth, they had a 21% increase But it was by far and away the least.
	Remember, it was 4,000% for the ones who had an abortion with a pill.
	For those who gave birth, it was only 21% increase.
	The women who never got pregnant was 101%.
	Five times that of the women who gave birth.
	Five times the increase in critical ER visits.
	And then women who had surgical abortions, 450%.
	But the women who had the pill abortion, 4,000%.
	And then there was another study that was published in May of 2022, including that women are more likely to be readmitted to the hospital after an ER visit if the physician failed to identify that she had had an abortion.
	And since they're doing these things with pills, they don't know.
	And so this story got retracted after one reader complained that the researchers were members of the Charlotte Lozier Institute, which is a pro-life organization.
	Well, can't we evaluate the truth or the falsity of these claims scientifically rather than punishing somebody guilt by association with a pro-life organization?
	What if the pro-life organization is telling you the truth?
	I think they are. Well, because they're pro-life, we're going to shut it down.
	Reuters and AP shut down the language even, right?
	They're going to say, you can't say somebody is pro-life in your articles.
	You have to call them anti-abortion rights.
	By retracting these three studies by the Charlotte Lozer Institute, scholars without any legitimate objection to any of the findings, they have put politics over publication ethics.
	They have blatantly disregarded the principles of open inquiry and commitment to science, they say.
	Well, it's very true.
	And, you know, when we look at What is happening in our society?
	There are, you know, as we talk about people who are looking at what their life is going to be like in the future.
	We had a very interesting exchange back and forth that I had not seen before.
	When Trump went on with Lex Friedman, he asked him about life and death.
	And I thought it was very interesting, his comment on this.
	Here's Donald Trump when he was asked point blank, what does he think about death, or does he think about it?
	Donald Trump was interviewed, and I want to show you what he said when he was asked about the issue of death, because it's actually a teaching lesson for us, I believe.
	One of the tragic things about life is that it ends.
	How often do you think about your death?
	Are you afraid of it? I have a friend who's very, very successful, and he's in his 80s, mid-80s, and he asked me the exact same question.
	I said, I turned it around, I said, well, what about you?
	He said, I think about it every minute of every day.
	And then a week later he called me to tell me something, and he starts off the conversation by going, tick-tock, tick-tock.
	This is a dark person, you know, in a sense, but it is what it is.
	I mean... It is what it is.
	That sounds very full of hope.
	It is what it is.
	In a way, it is what it is.
	Because the Bible tells us we're all going to die.
	Because we're all sinners.
	You know, if you're religious, you have, I think, a better feeling toward it.
	You know, you're supposed to go to heaven, ideally not hell.
	But you're supposed to go to heaven if you're good.
	Supposed to go to heaven if you're good.
	That's not what the Bible says. Supposed to go to heaven?
	I know I'm going to heaven.
	And not because I'm good.
	It's because Jesus saved me.
	That's why I'm going to heaven.
	And he said those who are not religious, you know, supposedly go to hell.
	Thank you.
	Um...
	Yes.
	Wait a minute. Anyone who doesn't trust Jesus for salvation is going to be separated from God in a place called hell for eternity.
	I think our country is missing a lot of religion.
	I think it really was a much better place with religion.
	It was almost a guide, you know, to a certain extent it was a guide.
	You want to be good to people.
	Without religion, there's no real, there are no guardrails.
	I'd love to see us get back to religion, more religion in this country.
	Okay, and I want you to analyze our statement.
	First of all, we need more religion.
	We don't. Everybody has a religion.
	See, people usually say that when they're talking about Christianity.
	Oh, Christians are religious.
	Everybody's religious because everyone has a worldview that determines who they are, where they believe they're going, what life is all about, how you understand the evidence of the present.
	Everyone has a religion. Atheists are very religious people.
	We don't need more religion.
	We need more godly people.
	That's what we need.
	And... We need more Christianity and when he says we need more of that because when you had religion you have guardrails.
	Actually in a sort of a way I think he's saying and understanding the Judeo-Christian ethic used to permeate the West and permeated America and it came from the Bible and even non-Christians respected the Bible and therefore there was right and wrong and we knew what was good and what was evil and we knew that evil had to be punished and Also, abortion was murder, and marriage was a man and a woman, and there were two genders, male and female.
	But that came out of a Christian basis.
	That came out of the Bible.
	That came out of Christianity.
	And what's happened is we've had generations indoctrinated against the Bible, and so now those guardrails are gone, and the secularist humanist guardrails are you can't allow the absolutes of Christianity.
	That's their guardrails, and anything goes except Christianity.
	And it's important to understand, government is not the answer.
	More religious people is not the answer.
	Legislation is not the answer.
	God's word and the saving gospel has always been the answer and that is the answer.
	And we as God's people need to be standing up and proclaiming that.
	That's right. He goes on to say, you know, well, you know, we're trying to, he says, we've got a lot of pro-life people trying to change things.
	He says, you've got to understand that if people don't understand, they'll stand before God.
	If they don't have an, I think it's funny to listen to his Australian accent, it sounds like he's saying God rails instead of guard rails.
	But they actually are God rails.
	And God tells us things to do that in the same way that we tell our little kids, you know, that really brightly, that pretty red surface is there.
	Well, that's actually a range.
	That's a stove burner.
	It looks really pretty, but don't touch it.
	Well, if we decide that we're going to touch it anyway, there is circumstances that happen with that.
	But God is telling us these things for our own good.
	And we need to understand that there is, we don't want to separate, as I said yesterday, mercy and truth.
	We don't want to be so, well, I don't want to hurt anybody's feelings so much that we don't tell them the truth.
	But we also understand that there's mercy in truth, isn't there, about this kind of stuff.
	So, a couple of comments here before we go to our guest.
	Have we made a connection?
	Okay. Live free or perish.
	That's why abortion clinics don't allow ultrasounds.
	It would show the babies do feel pain and are moving around.
	Lucifer sacrifice.
	Yeah, evil. And that's why they don't want you to see the 4D ultrasound.
	Karen was working with a pro-life organization back in the 80s.
	And I said, they need to take all of their money that they can get.
	And they need to fund research.
	It needs to be a big fundraising thing to improve the quality of ultrasound.
	Well, they didn't do that, but it still improved.
	So now you can see it.
	And as a matter of fact, there are much better pictures than we typically see of humans.
	I remember National Geographic decades ago doing ultrasound pictures of There's unborn animals, dogs, you know, all kinds of animals.
	You can see the hairs on there.
	They were, you know, perfectly little dogs, right?
	We can have empathy for animals, but we don't have that kind of empathy for human beings, and we could see that kind of detail.
	But of course, the 4D ultrasound also shows them moving, but it's still somewhat disjointed.
	They could still work on it and make it better.
	Johnny Gospel Seed says, we only have 1.62 babies per woman now in this country.
	If we didn't have all these abortions, we would have enough people, and we wouldn't need any immigration.
	Over 65 million since 1973.
	Sad. That is. And we had 65 million people die because we didn't have a single governor who had the backbone and the guts to stand up to the Supreme Court and its Roe v.
	Wade decision and say, that's your opinion, but you don't have any authority to make those kinds of decisions under the Tenth Amendment.
	And that's what Dobbs said.
	Eventually, the Supreme Court itself said that.
	That's what I was saying for the longest time.
	They've usurped authority in defining marriage and defining life that they never had.
	And of course, when the Dobbs decision came out, they said, well, they could do the same thing.
	Yeah, they could and they should.
	But it is, as I said yesterday, that comment by Bill Clinton where he's saying, well, you know, we've got to have immigration because we're not having enough babies.
	Well, maybe it's because you supported abortion.
	So we support abortion and then it's like a murder-suicide pact.
	Well, we're going to take a quick break, and when we come back...
	We're going to talk about finances, and we're going to talk about what's going to be happening.
	How did we get into this economic crisis that we're in?
	We're going to be talking to David Bonson, who runs a massive investment fund.
	So I want to get his take on what is going on with interest rates, what's going on with the economy, and maybe we'll talk about some other things as well.
	So we're going to take a quick break, and we will be right back.
	Thank you..
	♪♪
	.
	the
	defending the american dream You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	Welcome back. Joining us now is David Bonson.
	He's the owner of the Bonson Group.
	It manages $5.7 billion in client assets.
	And he's the author of many books.
	He's had one that came out earlier this year, which I'm interested in talking to him about.
	It's called Full-Time Work and the Meaning of Life.
	I think that's very important. That's something we all need to think about.
	I'm very interested to talk to David.
	I always was familiar, as I said at the beginning of the program, with his father, Greg Bonson, who was a Christian apologist.
	He was not apologizing for Christianity.
	He was explaining it.
	That's what apologist means.
	He made excellent intellectual arguments in support of the existence of God and of Christianity.
	It's great to have you on and to meet you.
	Thank you for joining us, David.
	Well, thanks so much for having me.
	Thank you. Let's talk a little bit first about the economy.
	And, you know, as somebody who manages a wealth fund, I'm sure you're watching very closely, as everybody does, what is happening with interest rates.
	We're seeing the stock market, of course, is soaring, but that's not too hard, I guess, if you inject money through that from the Federal Reserve.
	What is your take on what is going to be happening with interest rates?
	Well, interest rates are definitely going to be going lower, and the debate is only about the speed at which they lower them.
	Effectively, housing is the issue.
	They've frozen the housing market, first by creating a bubble in housing, by keeping rates way too low for way too long, and then by hiking them so violently and quickly, You really created a two-tier housing system where there are a significant amount of people paying something around 3% on their mortgage and they have no interest in losing that low-cost mortgage and then there's all the people who would organically
	naturally be wanting to buy a home right now Either a first-time home or even just moving to a new home, kind of upgrading whatever they may be doing as their life situation allows for.
	But they don't want to pay 7% for a mortgage.
	So the Fed's policies are driven by the fact that they know a lot of debt in our country is going to be resetting.
	The United States government, in all its infinite wisdom, has chosen not to lock the rates of most of its debt.
	It's only about 16% of our total debt that is in long-term maturities, where you recall the 20-year and 30-year yields, the interest rates a few years ago, were 2%.
	They are now paying 5% on six-month money, one-year money.
	So, All that money is going to come due, and that's really a big portion of why the Fed needs to be lowering rates, and they will do so.
	The stock market, David, I don't think is about the Fed putting money in per se.
	That always helps the valuation.
	If the Fed is injecting liquidity, it can kind of artificially help prime the pump a bit, but that gets old after a while, and they've been doing that for 15 years.
	Earnings are very high.
	I mean, corporate profits are very high, and the Fed can't really control that.
	And so I think stocks are largely about growing corporate profits combined with high valuation, and I would argue probably too high a valuation.
	Yeah, especially when we look at the places where there's been this kind of a feeding frenzy about artificial intelligence.
	I felt for the longest time that, you know, regardless of what happens with it, and you can say there's a lot of very useful things, it looks very much like a repeat of the dot-com bust to me.
	I don't know. What do you think about that?
	Yeah, I write about it a lot, so I tend to agree.
	Trust your intuition a little, because you're onto something there, my friend.
	The bones of the Internet were all that were making money in the 90s.
	The Cisco's and the people that made the networks, the servers, the routers, They were making all the money but nobody could really figure out how the internet companies were going to make money.
	And then about 95% of them went out of business and a few of them ended up making a huge amount of money.
	The Amazons and Googles and Ebays that survived.
	It's very similar to AI. No one has been able to explain who's going to actually make money from it, how they're going to use it.
	It's all the back end.
	The kitchen is making the money, but not the dining room.
	And that's your NVIDIA's and things like that.
	I believe it's very overhyped.
	And even if it isn't, it's so priced in.
	The assumptions, I think, are very similar to 1999-2000 tech boom, and I'm quite confident it's not going to end well.
	And, of course, there's another backroom involved in that that's kind of emerging, and that is supplying power for this massively power-hungry artificial intelligence.
	And I guess one of the things, as just an ordinary person, I'm looking at this and saying, well, they're going to make all these small nuclear reactors, and they're creating companies, as Sam Altman did, to cater to that need.
	But they're going to be consuming all that power, even as they shut down our grid.
	I mean, we really are seeing kind of a two-tier society here, I think, and especially we can see it when it comes to energy.
	But I guess a lot of people are just looking at it as an investment opportunity, and I guess it is an investment opportunity.
	But, you know, from...
	From somebody who's just standing on the sidelines, I'm wondering, you know, am I going to have utility bills that are going to be four to ten times higher than they are now?
	Is it going to be unreliable as well?
	While the artificial intelligence is, you know, powering itself with its own private nuclear reactors.
	What do you think about that? Well, I think that there's a couple different things going on at once, and it's complicated enough that I hesitate to bore our listeners with the details, but I will say this.
	People need to learn that electricity doesn't grow on trees, but it does come from the ground.
	Oil and gas and, of course, coal, power, electricity production.
	In the state of Virginia right now, 26.7% of its electricity is being used for data center.
	Now that's a high data center state and other states are not so high, but that's massive.
	People can say whatever they want.
	You're not going to get the electricity without natural gas.
	So we're going to either embrace what God has given us in the ground or we're not.
	But if people don't want utility bills to go higher, the solution is readily available in the beautiful Permian Basin, period.
	Well, I get to agree more. Let's talk about the politics, though, the interest rates.
	You know, this is a lot of people are saying, well, okay, the Federal Reserve is pumping this for the election to make the current administration look good.
	What is your take on that?
	Yeah, look, I'm a lifetime movement conservative.
	I've written multiple things, both academically and more targeted for laymen, about monetary policy and the Fed.
	I'm often very critical.
	But this is one thing where I just want to say to my conservative friends, the political conspiracy theory makes absolutely no sense.
	You can't help the incumbent ticket, which in this case is now Vice President Harris, a month before the election.
	If you wanted to help, you don't raise rates 5% in one year, which is what they did in the prior year.
	The economic narrative is very well baked in, and a half of a percent, a few weeks before absentee ballots, does and did absolutely nothing to help anybody.
	I have plenty of criticism I can give towards Chairman Powell, but he is not a political actor.
	There's no love lost between him and President Biden.
	I happen to know that firsthand.
	I think that whether they're making good decisions or bad decisions, they're not making political ones.
	So it's just one area where I defend them.
	And again, if somebody wanted to say, oh, the Fed is kind of hurt.
	The election outcome a bit, it would be the other way.
	I mean, you know, it's very hard for a president to get re-elected when they tighten monetary policy.
	That's really what they spent most of the Biden term doing.
	Yeah, yeah. And, of course, we had a lot of people, a lot of people that I talked to, really expected them to make a political move, so they expected them to lower interest rates significantly much, much earlier in the year.
	So it would have had an effect.
	And I guess that was what people were surprised about, and I guess we could speculate about what the intentions of the Fed are, if they're going to withhold that until the last minute and not really have an effect.
	But let me ask you about this, and that is the current Treasury Secretary predecessor to Powell, Janet Yellen, who was at the Fed for a long time.
	She has made, as one person pointed out recently, said you can look at the damage and the threat to the dollar's reserve status from breaks and other things like that.
	But the person who's done more to damage the reserve status of the dollar than anyone else is Janet Yellen because of these sanctions that they impose and other things like that.
	They basically used this power and wielded it in such a way as to effectively destroy it.
	A lot of people believe that's the situation.
	What's your take on that and on the reserve status of the dollar?
	What do you think? Yeah, the reserve status of the dollar, by the way, is the important part, not the trading status.
	So when people talk about BRICS countries utilizing something different, something like.0001% of oil went out of petrodollar transaction and into, let's say, Chinese yuan is the great example.
	But it's still then, reserve means it gets held in reserves, and nobody's going to be holding any other currency in reserves anytime soon.
	In terms of foreign exchange, the dollar is still what people want to hold in reserves.
	But transacting in another currency, I would encourage every country to do what they think is best for them, and that includes the United States.
	Very candidly, the United States has been doing what's best for it with its currency.
	That's what makes these other countries upset.
	Because what we're doing is often not best for them.
	So be it. That's the way it works.
	I don't believe in one world government.
	But I think you make a great point.
	I don't believe that what they did with the Russia sanctions...
	I don't think it is going to ruin the dollar's reserve status, but it marginally does cause other countries to wonder, could this happen to us?
	And hopefully those countries say, we don't plan to go invade a free country anytime soon.
	However... Once you see a country using and weaponizing its currency that way, it's not how it's supposed to be, and I do think it marginally impacted confidence abroad in dollar reserve, yes.
	Yeah, and I guess one of the things that we see now happening with the BRICS is they're starting to expand.
	It's been around for a while, but...
	Oh, yeah. You know, in response to this, as they're starting to expand it in terms of currency exchanges and stuff like that, they're bringing in, you know, most of the oil producers, you know, are coming into this now.
	Saudi Arabia didn't buy into it, but they got really close.
	And so, you know, what we have done with the petrodollar, the way we've weaponized that, I guess two could play at that game.
	You know, that's I might be turned around.
	But it almost makes you nostalgic for, you know, oil when you see what is being imposed on us with all of these green regulations that are there.
	Let's talk a little bit about your book, though.
	I would really like to get an idea...
	You know, work and the meaning of life.
	You know, how do we balance this thing?
	This has always been a real issue for us.
	You know, what is important for you to do with your life?
	As Christians, we always wonder, you know, well, now how should we live now that we're a Christian?
	What is your take on your book as full-time work and the meaning of life?
	Tell us a little bit about your perspective on that.
	Well, you mentioned my late father, Dr.
	Greg Bonson, who you pointed out was a Christian apologist, a philosopher.
	He raised me in the nurture and admonition of the Lord with a biblical worldview.
	He taught me to think and live like a Christian.
	He was my best friend, the smartest human being I've ever been around.
	And this book is essentially, it was dedicated to him.
	He was a very hard worker.
	But I've devoted my life to applying biblical worldview and principles in the domain of finance, economics.
	I'm very, very exhausted by Christians that don't know how to think like Christians economically.
	And I view all of that as very similar to what my dad did.
	It's just he was in the field of philosophy and theology and I'm trying to do it in the field of finance, investment, economics, entrepreneurialism.
	The idea of work as something we have to balance with the rest of our life is something I take exception to and have a whole chapter about it in the book.
	I don't ever hear people talk about marriage life balance or kid life balance.
	We accept that we're always spouses, we're always parents, and we're always vocationally committed to some sort of useful productive activity.
	And what I argue in the book is the reason why is because that's how God made us.
	That's what it means to be made in the image and likeness of God.
	That before sin entered the world, God made us to grow the earth, to care for the earth, to subdue it, to produce new goods and services.
	That's all I mean by work.
	We have our needs met by meeting the needs of others.
	I think this is a beautiful principle in terms of creational norms, but it's a beautiful way to think about our own purpose in life.
	Of course it doesn't mean that we work 24 hours a day any more than we're looking lovingly in our wives eyes 24 hours a day.
	There's a lot of priorities, but life doesn't work that way.
	We're just taking hats on and off at different times all at once.
	I am embodied as a being made in the image of God who is to love my wife, love my children, and love my career and devote myself to production of goods and services, to growing the earth, to fulfilling that created purpose.
	That's what the book's about.
	Oh, that's great. Yeah, we often forget that work itself was not a punishment in the fall.
	It was that work would become much harder.
	That's right. You know, just like childbirth is not a punishment that many in the feminist movement think that it is, but it's not.
	It's just that it's much harder now.
	And so that's a really good point.
	Years ago, I remember listening to an audiobook by Oz Guinness.
	It was called The Calling.
	And it came at a point where I was in a change in my career, and I thought it was very interesting, you know, talking about the importance of vocation, which really means a calling.
	You know, God is calling you to do something.
	And so the real key is for all of us to try to identify what skills God has given us, I think, and then to understand that we have been made for that particular type of thing.
	I mean, what is your take on that kind of approach?
	Well, I absolutely loved that book by Oz, and in fact, I talk about it in my own book.
	Tim Keller used the language, every good endeavor.
	I think that God made us to go create beauty, to go create efficiency, to extract from the raw materials of the earth.
	You know, you and I are using technological equipment right now to record All of it existed at the Garden of Eden if you just simply mean the physical compounds, the rubbers and plastics and things that were derived from the created materials.
	What happened, and this is what the calling I think becomes about, is human ingenuity, human acuity, human creativity.
	Back then they learned how to start a fire.
	They invented the wheel.
	You know, today they're inventing iPhones and other things.
	It's gotten more technologically advanced.
	But in our own calling, the beauty is that because God, this is what the left doesn't understand, the Marxist utopian vision that views, and it's really quite Russellian, that views mankind as all part of a collective.
	God doesn't. He views you differently, me differently, my wife differently, this person, that person, and in our individuality.
	Some people are poets, some people are plumbers, some people are builders, some people are educators, some people are financiers.
	That individuality is a beautiful thing in the marketplace, but it's beautiful because God made it that way out of creation, and the doctrine of, well, what do we put it this way?
	The concept of each of us having our own calling, There's nowhere that myself or Oz Guinness states that the entirety of our calling is related to our vocation.
	But nor can one ever say that it isn't a part of it.
	And that's the category error people make, is to say it's all or none.
	I would argue that no one's calling is divorced from their vocation, but their vocation is not the entirety of their calling.
	That's right. Yeah, and he made the point, I think he quoted Martin Luther, who said, you know, you don't have to be a member of the clergy in order to serve God.
	God has put you in the farmer who is doing his job and doing it to God's glory and living his life to God.
	He is glorifying God.
	That's where God has put him.
	And that was a real key insight, I think, for me at the time.
	And I think that's really kind of the way that we need to look at it.
	I don't know. And Martin Luther would use often an example of a cobbler with shoes, and I happen to know the shoes they were dealing with five, six hundred years ago were not quite as comfortable as our shoes today.
	So he had a high view of a cobbler when the feet weren't even all that comfortable.
	It's called dualism, the sacred-secular distinction, and Martin Luther tore it down.
	And much of Protestant theology has been focused on this.
	At the end of the day, the minister has a very important vocation, the cobbler, the educator, the radio host, the financier.
	There is not a Gnostic higher power for those who call themselves pastors versus those who are serving the kingdom of God In these other vocational fields.
	And so tearing down that sacred-secular distinction is one of the great legacies of people like Martin Luther.
	I agree. And it's so embedded in the foundation of Christianity.
	The idea that we have different gifts, that we have different functions and everything.
	You know, Paul talks about that in terms of the body.
	You know, how the body has different members that have different functions.
	We're talking about it in terms of building, you know, a living church out of stones and how there's all these different things that are out there.
	And some people are, you know, given one thing, or Jesus talks about the parable of the talents.
	You know, that's now become part of our vernacular, just like vocation has.
	But, you know, he was talking about a quantity of money, silver, that was given to these people.
	So, you know, we have different quantities, different qualities of things that are given to all of us.
	But, as you pointed out, the essence of all of this is that God deals with us not as some kind of a collective— Public education.
	It's like, that's part of the problem is this collective Marxist mentality towards some kind of a public thing, ignoring the individual.
	You know, public health that ignores the health of the individual.
	Public education that really doesn't care about the education of the individual.
	And so this collectivism that is there is really kind of antithetical to Christianity and towards the Christian understanding of what God has given us in the Bible, but his interaction with each of us as individuals, as you just pointed out.
	Yeah, there's really two grotesque mistakes that people can make, and it's why I believe economics.
	I talked about the need for a distinctly Christian understanding of economics, and you're getting to the heart of it.
	God made us as individuals and And as members of a community and a radical individualism that does not care about the individual responsibility to their neighbor or their family or their community is unchristian and a radical collectivism that views the dignity of the person only when attached to the state or by the way to the church.
	If someone has such a high view of church that they say the human is only important in the way that they're serving the church.
	That's not right either.
	But what Christianity does, and a biblical anthropology, a biblical understanding of the human person, sees just like Jesus was incarnate, fully God, fully man, the human person is both individual and social.
	Their dignity comes from their status of being an image-bearer of God, and they also function in a society.
	They function in families.
	And so, that one in the many dynamic of Christianity is unique in human history, and candidly, it's beautiful.
	Oh, yeah. It absolutely is.
	I remember interviewing G. Edward Griffin, and he said, you know, we get so focused on individual liberty that we atomize ourselves.
	And, of course, this is before they tried to atomize us with the 2020 lockdown and isolate each and every one of us real hardcore.
	But he said, we have to work collectively for individual liberty.
	And that's exactly what you're talking about, is that you cannot lose that sense of community.
	That's something that we were created for.
	That's something that really fulfills us, and we can't live that out individually.
	So when you talk about how Christians think of economics, I guess that is really what you're looking at.
	Are there other aspects of that that you would talk about?
	Well, certainly I believe that understanding economics being humans acting around scarcity, how we allocate scarce resources.
	And there's four or five words in there that seem really simple, but if we have a different understanding of what or who the human person is, How they are to act, what scarcity means and what our aim is to be, defining the goal of economics.
	So I think that the last hundred years, the central planner, the collectivist, what they refer to as the Keynesian school of economics, they believe mankind fundamentally exists to consume.
	And we need central planners that can kind of steward the affairs in a way, view economics as a math and science, that if you get the formula just right, everyone can consume to their heart's content.
	But I start with a very different viewpoint from the Bible, that mankind was not made to consume, but to produce.
	And in fact, we cannot consume until we first produce.
	And in fact, we generally can't consume until someone else produces because the vast majority of our consumption comes because of other people's productive activity in this interconnected economy.
	In fact, it happens so quickly, we just take it for granted all the time that we're sitting here using microphones and equipment and that other people built from their own technical expertise, not our own.
	The distinctly Christian understanding of economics does not only view the efficiency of allocation of resources as important, but the morality, the shalom that we're after for human beings to flourish.
	And I think a lot of Christians over-spiritualize it to say all that matters is the spiritual domain, and other materialists Make it only about the physical domain, but God makes it about both.
	God, Son, Incarnate.
	And economics has to address all of this.
	And so, allocation of scarcity is an important topic.
	I think public policy matters, but it isn't the definition of economics.
	The proper view of economics does not have this tax rate over that tax rate, but tax rates matter.
	But it gets first principles right.
	And those first principles have to view mankind as a being made in the image of God who has an eternal destiny, has been tainted by sin because of the doctrine of the fall, and now we have to look at the, there are imperfectible systems on this side of glory.
	And where freedom comes in, and freedom of exchange, and working with one another, optimizes the conditions for human flourishing.
	That's my aim in Christian economics.
	Oh, that's very interesting.
	Well said. And you talked about Keynesianism.
	Of course, now we've got something which is really a fitting for our society right now.
	A very, very dumbed-down version of Keynesianism called modern monetary theory.
	You must have something to say about MMT. I call it the magic money trick, as you know, deficits don't matter.
	And there's nothing at all in terms of, they don't even try to come up with some kind of a mathematical justification for it.
	They just kind of throw it out there.
	That's where we are, this idiocracy, I guess.
	Yeah, Keynes would have been appalled by MMT. And frankly, the most famous Keynesians today, Larry Summers, who I respect a great deal, even though I disagree with him a lot, and Paul Krugman, who I don't respect a great deal, but he's certainly a leading voice there vehemently against MMT as well.
	MMT is essentially just a delusion that we can allow unlimited amounts of liabilities to be printed without impact and that the government can reverse inflationary effects via taxation.
	It's not really taken seriously by credible economists.
	But fundamentally I would suggest that it doesn't come from a flawed economic theory.
	It comes from a flawed moral idea of the relationship between the citizen and the state.
	Why do we need unlimited MMT? We only need unlimited MMT because we apparently have such limited self-government as human beings that we need a king.
	We need to pay for a larger and larger messianic state.
	So, going back to 1 Samuel and all the way through human history, MMT is just a way to pay for statism.
	And statism is itself a sin that is caused by human beings not taking enough responsibility in their own lives.
	Yes, absolutely. Yeah, I think of the personification of MMT as the two that I call first Lala Harris and Alexandria Occasional Cortex.
	I look at the two of them as the personification of that kind of argument because it's simply about, you know, I'm in charge here and I'm going to give you a handout.
	And, of course, as I look at some of the things on the horizon, some of the things that the technocrats have pushed very hard, it seems to kind of fall in line with a lot of globalists talking about a universal basic income.
	To me, that is a universal global kind of Marxism.
	But we've got the technocrats like Elon Musk.
	Jumped in on that very hard when Andrew Yang made that the centerpiece of his campaign.
	He gave him millions of dollars for that.
	We had Bloomberg, when he was running for president, said, well, you know, we've had the agrarian society, the industrial society, and now the smart ones of us are trying to figure out how we're going to take everybody's jobs, and we've got to just figure out how we're going to pacify them so they don't come after us with guillotines.
	That's what he said. And so that's really what the UBI really is, is it's kind of a pacification.
	What do you think about this trend?
	And I thought we got a taste of it, and I thought we got kind of some conditioning to move the Overton window with the lockdowns and the stimulus checks and stuff like that.
	You know, what are your concerns about that?
	It is the antithesis, I think, of what Christians want to see in a society and in economics.
	Well, UBI is definitely the antithesis of what Christians want to see in the society, but I just think it's very important that we're clear as to why we're against it.
	And I fear that many of my conservative friends and Christian friends are going to oppose UBI on the basis that, oh, we can't afford it.
	And that's very well true, but that's not the fundamental reason I'm opposed to it.
	I'm opposed to it because it robs human beings of their God-given dignity.
	Yes. I don't necessarily see it as a globalist plot because this can be, UBI, unfortunately, can be done very domestically.
	Country by country can attempt to implement it.
	And in Musk's case, his fallacy is the sort of dystopian fears that various digital progress, AI and so forth, It's just simply going to make it impossible for a large segment of the population to work.
	And he's wrong about that.
	The digital revolution has been going on for 50 years, not for 50 weeks.
	And the industrial revolution for 130 years.
	And out of the digital revolution, we've created 51 net 51 million net new jobs.
	Obviously, a lot of people get displaced when their skills are no longer needed in a certain task.
	And on a micro level, I vehemently support retraining, labor dynamism, mobility, having to move around into new fields.
	People that used to sell typewriters for a living do not sell typewriters for a living anymore.
	And I don't say it lightly.
	I think it is difficult, but UBI trying to be a stopgap for that basically ignores that God made us all to be producers, to have dignity, to overcome challenges, to be creative.
	New lines of work, new positions get created out of constantly new and evolving technologies.
	This is by God's design.
	Virtue cannot be disintermediated away.
	There is a market for people of virtue, capability, competence, industry.
	I think that UBI is fundamentally not an economic error, though it's that too.
	It's fundamentally an anthropological error.
	It doesn't understand the human person.
	Yes, absolutely. And I think it seems to come from these people who seek to consolidate everything and to monopolize everything.
	There's that kind of backing behind it that concerns me.
	I understand we always have these different technologies that come in and impact things, and people use that to then work in a different way.
	It's just that at the core of this, what I'm seeing from this class of billionaires is, as Bloomberg mentioned, We're working very hard to make sure you don't have anything to do.
	And that really is something that's just going to destroy human nature.
	And it's against our nature, as we were just talking about, work and the meaning of life.
	It absolutely destroys that if we allow them to impose this on us.
	us and that's the thing it may not be organically there from the technologies but it can be something that if they combine that technology with politics it might be something they try to impose on us but you're absolutely right we got to attack it from the standpoint of this is really what being a human is about you giving us some meaningful work to do and the liberty to choose that and and whatever our vocation is and that's the thing is you can't change human nature
	And so when they go about trying to do something that is intended to alter human nature or even, and it may be, many of the advocates of UBI, I do not think are being sinister.
	Some are, but some are just very naive.
	They think they're helping people and they're not helping them because you can't alter the human nature that God made us to be productive.
	So if you take away someone's need to be productive and they become a ward of the state, you dull their senses and they become an opioid addict.
	They become an alcoholic.
	They become a melancholy.
	They become removed from society.
	They become antisocial.
	So you create a worse result.
	By taking people away from what God made them to do.
	If they could just alter human nature, they could say, we're taking away productive activity from you, and we're reprogramming your soul so that you don't need it.
	Well, that would be great.
	But unfortunately, only God can do that.
	And these people ain't God.
	That's right. Yeah, and those are the types of things that we see always as a part of rehabilitation.
	You know, giving somebody a meaningful line of work and that type of thing.
	So, yeah, that is what we have to push back against.
	And I think that is really what we have to offer as Christians, one of the many things we have to offer with that.
	Well, let's talk, while we're talking a little bit about politics and some of these other issues, I guess it came up yesterday, the Republicans are doing high fives after Trump's performance at the Chicago Economics Club.
	It was entertaining to watch him slap down this guy.
	But I don't know that there was really anything much of any substance.
	And I guess in the bigger scope of things, what do you think in terms of the – there hasn't been much in terms of policy at all.
	That has been put forth.
	We haven't had debates by the major candidates.
	They haven't debated each other.
	When they do, it typically devolves into kind of a personal back and forth, which I thought a lot of the economic issues were in that discussion yesterday.
	But where do you see things happening in terms of both Trump as well as a Democrat?
	Of course, Mimicking his policies, saying we need to have more tariffs at the border, that type of thing.
	You know, we've had a free trade structure to our economy since the early 1900s.
	Prior to that, it really was very protectionist.
	That seemed to be what the industrial societies were all doing.
	And we had kind of a free trade zone and taxes were collected at the border.
	Then we started doing internal taxes with internal revenue and The central banks were created about that time.
	What is your view of the bigger picture there?
	Regardless of, you know, whether or not any president could come in and unilaterally and immediately impose a 60% tariff, for example, that number's been thrown out there.
	What do you, how do you see that, you know, how the government should be organized in terms of its impact on the citizenry?
	You know, tariffs at the border, free trade inside, or should we continue to go down the same system that we have with basically free trade but internal taxes?
	Well, there's other options that could be on the table too, but they aren't.
	But the first thing I'll say about what you brought up at the very beginning, it has been the most substanceless campaign for president in human history.
	And that's true, that both candidates have deemed it in their political best interest to be very shallow on depth and policy and details.
	Both have a different agenda, running with a different strategy.
	But no, for those of us that are really kind of issue oriented, policy oriented, this has not been the campaign for you.
	And so that is what it is.
	My own view on the tariff side is I'm vehemently against the government needing to tell buyers and sellers the terms of such exchange, and that countries do not trade with countries.
	Companies trade with companies, and if in fact an American importer is being hurt By the terms of trade with a foreign exporter, the American importer doesn't need Donald Trump or Kamala Harris or anyone else to set a tariff to come level the playing field.
	They can simply say, I don't want to trade with you.
	That's what we've done forever, and that's what those of us who defend a market economy and freedom of exchange believe in.
	That's what all of us do domestically every day.
	I go to a store.
	I don't like what they're charging.
	I don't have to shop at that store.
	I can go somewhere else.
	There is national security issues that can come up, but that's not what we're talking about when we talk about protectionism.
	And one of the greatest evidences of the weakness of some of these arguments is that people change the argument in the middle of a sentence.
	That it can go from human rights to national security to protecting jobs in Ohio all in the same sentence.
	And it's got to be one or the other.
	What are we really talking about here?
	Ultimately, I believe that people have to understand when we talk about a 19th century economy, tariffs are certainly allowed in the Constitution.
	But if anyone believes that we're talking about tariffs instead of an income tax, instead of tariffs plus an income tax, I got a bridge to sell them.
	That's right. There's always been that case when they talk about a flat tax or a fair tax or whatever.
	It's like, okay, but let's see you stop the other one first before you replace that.
	Or as you point out, it's going to be both of them.
	It's going to be an addition. Yeah, it will be.
	That's right. And you could not, because of the size of government now, because of the annual expense, the amount of imports that we generate, you would have to have something like 300% tariffs on everything to generate that, and of course you wouldn't then generate it because nobody would be importing, and so you'd have no revenue to government at all.
	You know, President Trump, to his credit, does not really talk about tariffs.
	Sometimes he'll say, oh, they're going to generate this revenue.
	But then other times he says it's a negotiating tactic.
	I'm not really going to do it.
	And it can't be both at once.
	And so, yeah, it's probably the biggest area where I have disagreement with the president in terms of economics.
	But I also understand that he likes to negotiate, and so if that's part of the deal, that's a little different than actually implementing it.
	But fundamentally, I believe in buyers and sellers setting their own terms of exchange, and I do not believe a disinterested third party like the government has to do it.
	And if people understood the retaliatory nature of tariffs and the history of Smoot-Hawley and the Depression, it is not good.
	And so we will see where this goes from here.
	And every time they try to protect a particular industry or something with tariffs, what happens is whoever was using that raw material that's now only going to be sourced because of tariffs by some domestic supplier, now those people are going, wait a minute, we can't get enough of this and we can't afford it at that price.
	So it always has these unintended consequences, these secondary, tertiary issues like that.
	It's a really complicated thing.
	But I think it... Tell me what you think our fundamental problem is.
	I think we are so focused, my fundamental perspective is that we're so focused on government as a solution, it's inevitable that it's going to continue to grow.
	And it's inevitable that people are going to continue to be more divided and more partisan and more paranoid that this is the most important election in our life and it's the most important thing in my life and this is worth fighting for.
	I see it as a path to civil war as well as to financial bankruptcy because what do we do as Christians to try to get people away from this mindset that everything needs to be done by the government, especially the federal government?
	Well, I believe that there's no chance that we get out of this mindset that everything must be done by the government, let alone the federal government, until we increase our own personal responsibility.
	So, I do not support the growth of Leviathan.
	I do not support the expansion of the federal government.
	Where there is going to be governmental jurisdiction, I'm a real Tenth Amendment guy that generally believes in federalism coming out of a sort of doctrine of subsidiarity.
	Things are done best at a local level where there's most accountability and proximity and things like that.
	Yes. Not exactly rocket science, by the way.
	Stronger local communities and all of those types of things.
	They are basically the corollary to the size of government.
	So we want the Woodrow Wilson and FDR and LBJ expansion in the 20th century of government did not come by forcing it down our throat.
	It came from us willingly ceding greater responsibility for social safety net, for all these different programs to the government.
	So I am the one who disagrees vehemently with my conservative friends that the problem we have is a bunch of politicians that want to make government bigger.
	I believe our problem is a bunch of people that want the politicians to make government bigger.
	Yeah, I agree.
	It's very much, I think, really, as I look at this election, it really struck home.
	As we get close to the election, everybody who was kind of sitting on the sidelines, maybe, well, I don't like either candidate or this or that, now they're coalescing into these two different camps.
	And after they make that decision, they start really becoming cheerleaders for that.
	And I would like to see these people become cheerleaders for, as you point out, the family or for voluntary organizations or for taking direct action, as we saw in North Carolina with the destruction there from Hurricane Helene.
	We saw the people starting to come together and realize the power of the community, helping their neighbors and coming together.
	That's the sort of thing we've seen little bits and pieces of that, I think.
	schooling, and yet you'll still see people say, well, yeah, but I want to have this subsidy.
	I want them to pay for my books or my pencils or whatever.
	You do that, and you do that at your peril, because now you're starting to buy into a kind of dependency.
	We have to desire to have our own independence, and we have to desire to get the job done, and we have to also understand and look towards God.
	That's why I think it's really Christians that have the answer here, that they're not going to find anywhere else because we see the power of God in these things, and they see politicians as God in a sense.
	I've said it over and over again, I've said it again today, that I think that they want to give...
	I think that's what we have to offer people, is to say that with us and with our work,
	as you point out, our meaning, our purpose in life, And with God there and our families and our focus, that should be where we're directed, not misdirected to something that is thousands of miles away and a different worldview.
	I don't know. I think that we have a great deal to offer as Christians in that regard.
	Well, I completely agree.
	There's a lot of different applications of the same thing that you're saying in a lot of different areas.
	You know, one of the great examples is even just in this political season when people say, well, how many jobs did Biden create?
	How many jobs did Trump create?
	Who's going to manage the economy better?
	Why are you asking these people to manage the economy?
	Who creates jobs?
	Are buyers and sellers, producers and consumers, free exchange, people out of their own economic incentives?
	Now, presidents and policy and Congress can impact those things for sure.
	Tax rates, regulation, energy.
	But I'm not saying it's completely separate, but we give a sort of imperial view of the presidency when we talk that way, and I'm very uncomfortable with it.
	Yeah, they don't really create jobs, but they can inhibit jobs.
	Yeah, they can. And the other part of it is we saw with this latest jobs report.
	First, they told us they'd inflated at over 800,000 jobs.
	They'd lied to us about that.
	Then they come back with this one, and it turns out if you look closely, there's a record increase in government jobs.
	So they can create those kind of jobs, and they can fill up the labor statistics with those types of jobs.
	But yeah, you're right.
	It really is.
	I roll my eyes.
	Every time I hear a Republican say that, because they ought to understand at least that much about the market if they're Republican, I guess.
	I don't know. The problem is everybody does it now, and so then the next person's going to do it to counter what was done before.
	And if the economy's good during a Republican president, they're going to take credit.
	And if it's bad during someone else, they're going to want to go after it.
	So it's just become low-hanging fruit for political expediency, but it's all economically incoherent.
	That's right. Absolutely.
	You've got another book that you have written, Our Cultural Addiction to Blame and How You Can Cure It.
	Boy, do we not have a finger pointing everywhere about everything, as we just saw this last week, you know, Christopher Columbus.
	And I don't think it's really about criticizing Christopher Columbus's life.
	I think that's really about resetting the culture.
	But how do you see this addiction to blame and the cure for it?
	Yeah, so that was the subtitle of the book.
	The title was Crisis of Responsibility, Our Cultural Addiction to Blame and How You Can Cure It.
	That was my first book.
	And I'm thinking right now about an updated kind of follow-up.
	I'm talking with my publisher about my next book being a sort of extension of that.
	It's probably the most non-partisan passion that I have wherein I think most on the right today are finding a way that the government or the man or some foreign actor or somebody is doing something to make their life miserable.
	And most people on the left believe that Wall Street or business or polluters in the environment, they have a different boogeyman for who's trying to ruin the world.
	And I just think we've gotten really disconnected from an ethos of individual agency, individual responsibility.
	I believe there's a lot of bad people out there, but I don't believe there are any bad people out there that take away my agency, take away my responsibility and my ability to create a fulfilling life for myself, to impact my loved ones, my family, my friends.
	It's a mentality.
	There must be a mentality that even through affliction, even through difficult circumstances, we have it in our ability to overcome.
	It's a very Christian understanding of the human experience.
	And our responsibilities do not get left at the door when there's a bad trade deal or a bad immigration policy or bad tax policy or bad regulation.
	We're to continue fighting through it.
	Seek to change the things that are wrong, but never, under any circumstances, throw in the towel, give in to defeatism and fatalistically say, well, what was I supposed to do?
	Life is too hard.
	It's never too hard. Yes.
	Oh, I agree. Something that used to always be a hallmark of the left, right?
	Don't blame that mass murderer.
	He got spanked as a child, you know?
	That type of thing.
	But now that's been internalized, I think, a lot by the right.
	I'm reminded, as you're talking about that, of G.K. Chesterton, who famously said, what's wrong with the world?
	I am. And he took the responsibility for it.
	And he said, and that's a Christian thing, you know, to recognize your flaws and to work on them.
	Yeah, it's one of my favorite lines.
	I have a number of lines like that throughout the book, but that's the ethos that I'm going for, that looking in the mirror.
	And sometimes avoiding a victimhood mentality, even when you were a victim, even when there was injustice done to you.
	Just saying, I'm not going to let that injustice define me.
	And overcoming those difficult times, I think, is really where we derive a lot of the human flourishing that we're all after.
	I agree. And I said so many times, just people are looking for reparations and all that.
	That's the ultimate, you know, type of blame thing.
	Well, you know, something was done centuries ago, and, you know, because of your skin color or whatever, you need to make this right with me.
	I said, no, the Christian perspective in terms of reconciling things is to understand that the things that we have done wrong, we leave at the cross.
	And the things that were done wrong to us, we also live at the cross.
	And so I think we have so much that we can contribute to this to heal.
	That's why I wanted to get you on and talk about this, because you've got some excellent books.
	The Case for Dividend and Growth Investing in a Post-Crisis World.
	Now, that would be economics.
	And another one, There's No Free Lunch, 250 Economic Truths.
	But this newest book is especially, I think your first one and this newest one, Full-Time Work.
	I'm sorry, Full-Time Work and the Meaning of Life that was released earlier this year.
	I'm interested to hear that book now after we've had our discussion.
	And thank you for doing that.
	And again, I've always...
	Always enjoyed listening to your father and the debates that he had with people over the existence of God.
	It truly was amazing.
	and a great loss, I know, to you especially, but to everyone, I think, that he died at an early age.
	Again, our guest is David Bonson.
	He has the Bonson Group, it's wealth management, and he's got a lot of wealth that is there, $5.7 billion in client assets.
	But I think that the real wealth that we've got are the Christian values that you're putting out there to help people along to understand their purpose in life and how they can move forward.
	Thank you so much for what you do.
	Thank you so much for having me.
	Appreciate it. Well, folks, we're going to take a really quick break.
	Thank you, David. And we're going to take a really quick break, and we will be right back.
	Stay with us. You're
	listening to The David Knight Show.
	Well, one of the problems of our society is that we treat adults like children and children like adults.
	And I think one of the worst examples of this is someone in Australia saying that parents should ask babies for consent before changing their diaper.
	And if you don't, that is kind of sexual harassment or something, right?
	This is insane. Of course, you know, you can change their gender and pretend that they can give consent to it.
	And this is where this is all coming from.
	This is all coming from the idea of the fact that there are children's rights.
	That's the insidious lie that was sold primarily by the UN, but now it's been adopted everywhere.
	It's now been adopted in the United States, de facto.
	We never signed on to the UN Convention for the Rights of the Child.
	Glad we didn't.
	However, it has been adopted, like I said, de facto by the courts, by the attitudes in society.
	This is criticism.
	The person doing this was Deanne Carson, suggested that parents should seek consent from babies before changing their diapers.
	I am assuming that Deanne is a childless cat lady who has never had a child...
	I think that you can kind of tell that they don't consent to remaining in a dirty diaper by their screams.
	But she said on Australian news, ABC News there, she advocated what she termed a culture of consent within households, urging parents to verbally seek permission from newborns who cannot speak before initiating diaper changes while some have applied the efforts to promote bodily autonomy from an early age. Really? Maybe we should ask them if they want to be vaccinated.
	How about that? We'll have more to talk about tomorrow of this insanity because it fleshes out in several different directions from this seminal lunacy.
	And so we'll talk a little bit more about that tomorrow.
	But I just couldn't believe it when I saw that headline.
	But that's it for today's show.
	Thank you so much for joining us.
	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?

▲