Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Jan. 15, 2025 - The David Knight Show

03:01:17

Wed Episode #1,932: Trump’s New Taxing Bureaucracy & Davos — Cheered? CNN Can’t Sell Climate Change But CA Bans Classic Cars

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	In
	a world of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
	it's the david knight show as the clock strikes 13 it's wednesday the 15th of january year of our lord 2025 well we've got a new tax agency that's going to be introduced next year
	But don't worry, they're not going to be taxing you.
	They'll be taxing somebody else.
	Haven't we heard that before from Democrats?
	You know, like Donald Trump?
	No, just like you can't tax a corporation, it's always going to go through to the consumers.
	We're going to see that as well.
	But right after he's sworn in, Donald Trump is going to be giving a presentation at Davos.
	Remember when that happened five years ago?
	Ten days later, HHS and the pharmaceutical executive that he put in there declared an emergency.
	Nobody had died.
	Declared a pandemic emergency.
	We'll also talk about the Hicks-Huth hearings.
	D.C. has turned into a fortress.
	And what about the pardons?
	It's not just the J6 people that we're concerned about.
	It is also people like Ross Albright.
	We'll be right back.
	It truly was amazing to see the MAGA media cheering the fact that there's a new tax agency declared by Donald Trump.
	I mean, you know, it's WND, it's Breitbart, it's...
	Gateway pundit, all the usual suspects.
	Yes, please tax us.
	It's good if it's a tax coming from Donald Trump.
	Is it going to get rid of the IRS? He made one hint, but not in this latest announcement, that, you know, maybe we might do that, we should do that instead of the other stuff.
	He didn't even say that.
	He said, you know, this country was built.
	On external taxes, not on internal taxes.
	But now he's going to create an external revenue service.
	The ERS, instead of the IRS, except they're going to still have the IRS. And this has always been the issue when we talk about changing the tax code.
	We've had a lot of people suggesting, we've got people, congressmen, still putting it up.
	Let's have a national consumption tax.
	Let's have a fair tax.
	All these different things that have been put up there.
	And always the concern from everybody is, well, we're going to get that new tax, but it's not going to replace the income tax.
	It'll be an addition to it.
	And so these MAGA cons, they're cons, not conservatives, are now cheering this.
	Because, hey, it's Donald doing the external revenue service.
	He said, we're going to start making those who, quote, make money off of us, unquote, pay into the revenue stream for the nation.
	This is the way it's cheered by WND, for example.
	For far too long, we have relied on taxing our great people using the IRS. And so now, just as Democrats have always said, every time they come up with a tax increase, how do they sell it?
	Well, it's not going to be a tax on you.
	It's going to be a tax on those other people.
	We're going to make it on the rich.
	We're going to soak the rich.
	And that's how the income tax began, of course.
	It was only like a 1% tax on the 1% or the 1% of the 1%.
	And we saw what happened with that.
	Look, taxes, this is going to be like a corporate tax.
	You can't tax a corporation.
	They have to pass the fees on it or they go bankrupt.
	You're operating a business and you've got a profit margin that's there.
	Now, some of these companies are profitable enough.
	That they could absorb it, but they're also greedy enough that they won't.
	But for most people who are operating in a competitive environment, like a mom and pop, and the actual free market, not in the stock market, to be able to sell a stock, I mean, just like Moderna operated very profitably for 10 years, never had a product.
	They had a lot of happy stories.
	They pumped and dumped the stock over and over and over again until Trump gave them a product.
	And protected them from liability.
	But in the real world, in the real marketplace, you've got a profit margin maybe 25-30% or something if you're doing well.
	You can't absorb some new costs, whether it is going to be a mandated increase in wages or it's going to be tariffs or something.
	You have to pass that on.
	If it's a corporate tax, you've got to pass that on or you'll go out of business.
	And so these tariffs, make no mistake about it, are going to be passed on.
	This is going to be a tax on these great people in America.
	There's not going to be a tax on the corporations.
	There's not going to be a tax on the countries that are abroad.
	And it's only Democrats like Donald Trump that will sell that lie to you.
	Oh, it's not going to be on you.
	It's going to be on them.
	Remember that it was Mike Johnson, GOP speaker.
	Who went along with, even more so than Kevin McCarthy, he went along with Biden's desire to increase the IRS's budget by a factor of seven.
	Seven times more money.
	And they're going to be hiring 80,000 IRS agents.
	And they're going to be using that additional money.
	For artificial intelligence.
	So they're going to have an army of IRS agents, and they're going to have artificial intelligence, and there's no talk about even getting rid of that, let alone the income tax as he creates an external revenue service.
	Well, you want to talk about a betrayal, and you want to talk about gullible people and a dishonest media that doesn't care about anything except being a Trump toady.
	They toady up to Trump with everything.
	They're sycophants and it's disgusting to see what they will do to sell out our country for their unperceived benefit in terms of attaching themselves to Donald Trump.
	So what he had to say was he said, this is what he tweeted out or put it on his social media thing.
	External Revenue Service, all uppercase, to collect our terrorist duties and all revenue that comes from foreign sources.
	It's not going to be coming from foreign sources.
	It's going to be there in the price of the products that you buy.
	He says, they will start paying, finally, their fair share.
	Look, we're going to raise the taxes on those foreigners.
	And we're going to do it.
	This is going to be a fair system, right?
	Isn't this what you've always heard of the Democrats?
	Other people are going to pay the taxes, and it's going to be done in the name of fairness.
	And it seems like it's always you that winds up paying.
	And it will be you that winds up paying.
	The problem with our imbalance with China, folks, is not the tax system.
	It's the fact that they are being given a monopoly on manufacturing in the Paris Climate Accord that Trump refuses to even talk about and pretends that we are in.
	He's as guilty of this as Obama and John Kerry.
	They pretended that we're in it.
	And he continues to pretend that we are in it.
	And if you don't stop that, we will never have any manufacturing in America.
	We can have much higher taxes, which is what he's going to bring.
	The Hill reported that Trump had pledged during the 2024 campaign to create taxes of 10-20% on foreign goods with rates of up to 60% for Chinese goods.
	And you'll pay that.
	You will pay that.
	If we raise taxes on Canada's oil that comes in, make it a 25% rate that he's talking about.
	You'll see the price of fuel go up by 25% as well.
	In a statement, he specifically mentioned tariffs on goods from Canada and Mexico.
	Those tariffs could appear beginning Monday when he takes office.
	He'll be in right away by taxing those great Americans that put him in office.
	Collecting tariffs now is a responsibility of Customs and Border Protection Within the Homeland Security Department.
	In his first term in office, Trump imposed tariffs on foreign steel and aluminum, including Canada and Mexico, and compelled both countries to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement with terms meant to boost U.S. manufacturing.
	How's that worked out?
	I guess it didn't work out too well, because now he's going to escalate it, right?
	He admits that it failed.
	His taxes are an admission that it failed.
	But look, he didn't get a better deal with the NAFTA when he put in USMCA. Back in the day, the New American pointed that out, but now they've got to cheer Trump.
	They pointed out it's the same mechanism and in many ways it's worse.
	He got some much-touted concessions on a couple of different things.
	Like milk coming from the U.S. going into Canada.
	But it was essentially the same thing.
	It's window dressing.
	That's what Trump is.
	Everything he does is window dressing garbage.
	According to the Gateway Pundit, Trump has discussed replacing the revenue from the income taxes paid by Americans, but it was unclear from the announcement directly if it would affect the IRS, which does that collection.
	No, it's not.
	No, it's not.
	And he never promised, as I pointed out before, this is a lie that's being sold to you by the Trump supporters, the Trump media, the MAGA media.
	And they're saying, oh, look, yeah, we'll have, and I would be in favor of that.
	It would be a difficult transition.
	I think that's a better system of taxation.
	I think any system of taxation would be better than the IRS. But why do we have the income tax in the first place?
	Nobody will talk about that.
	When Trump wants to suspend the debt ceiling for another two years and furiously demands it like a temper tantrum toddler, what does that tell you about his concern about the deficit?
	When Bernie Sanders freaks out only when we have tax cuts.
	He says, they're looting the treasury, right?
	The Democrats care about the deficit only when you're...
	Cutting taxes.
	Trump only cares about the deficit when you're cutting taxes.
	Otherwise, they don't care.
	Why do we have the income tax?
	And I'll tell you again.
	It's because they want to make sure that we own nothing.
	And that'll make them happy.
	It's just a punitive way of sawing the rungs off of the ladder of success for everybody.
	They want to do everything that they can to keep you from accumulating capital savings.
	They have rewarded debt.
	They'll used to give you a tax cut if you go into debt.
	If you go into debt to buy a home, go into other debt, they reward that behavior.
	They punish you if you save.
	And then they've allowed the banks to become...
	And the credit card companies to become loan sharks.
	Charging what would have been criminal before Jimmy Carter.
	And it's still criminal.
	Morally criminal.
	Although not legally criminal.
	The kind of confiscatory rates that they charge.
	25, 30, sometimes 40% or more.
	And what do they pay you in return?
	A fraction of 1%.
	This is how they wind up owning everything and you wind up owning nothing.
	Talked about it during the 1960s.
	When they came out, they said, well, look, the mortgage rates are up to about 5-something percent.
	And that's similar to the way that it was in the mid-1960s.
	And I thought, well, what did they pay people on savings accounts at the banks in the 1960s?
	And even though they were charging people like 5.5%, they paid 4% if you put your money in the savings account.
	Not today.
	And so when you look at how we are being absolutely used by these people, and look at what the MAGA media is selling you.
	This is from the Daily Mail.
	Trump announces a powerful new government department that will rake in billions.
	Of course, they're going to rake in billions from the consumers.
	This is not a tax that Germany is going to pay.
	It's not a tax that China is going to pay.
	No.
	It'll be paid by the people who buy the goods that come into this country with these taxes embedded into the cost.
	You'll see the prices going up at Walmart and all the rest of the places.
	A powerful new government department that is going to rake in billions from consumers.
	That's his first priority for you.
	And then we take a look at Pete Hegseth.
	And, by the way, Gard Goldsmith, Liberty Conspiracy, he's got a comment about it.
	I thought Gard would want to comment about this.
	First comment there.
	Liberty Conspiracy evenings on Twitter and on Rockfin.
	Gard says, even if he weren't taking someone's money through the agency he wants to create, the act of warping the public perception of tariffs is abhorrent.
	Yeah, it is.
	It's just.
	They can't see attacks from Trump and not doing away with the other stuff.
	If he wants to put that out and he wants to brag about the new agency, why isn't there any support from anybody for just cutting back the IRS to where it was a couple of years ago?
	And of course, as all this is happening, when you look at what...
	Cheerleaders and sycophants these people are.
	Mike Johnson, Governor Lee here in Tennessee, Governor Abbott in Texas, and many others have said, well, we're not going to fly the flag at half-mast.
	We're going to put it up at the top.
	Now, some of them say, well, then we're going to put it back at half-mast because it has always been a part of the flag code that when a current or former president dies, They fly the flag at half-mass for 30 days.
	Now, the way it was put out by the MAGA media, and actually, I didn't realize it until I looked it up yesterday.
	For the longest time, I thought, 30 days?
	That seems like a very long time.
	And they said, look at this.
	Biden and the Democrats are doing this to make sure the flags are at half-mass when Trump gets on it.
	No, they weren't.
	That's just the regular code.
	But that was the way that it was presented, and I actually fell for it by the media.
	I thought, yeah, that sounds like something Biden would do.
	This particular case is not.
	He's just going along with what has always been done with the death of a former president.
	30 days, they lower it down.
	But these people are so anxious to curry favor with Donald Trump that they're going to ignore the flag code.
	Not that I care about the flag code one way or the other.
	I don't care whether the flag is full staff or not.
	But the point I'm making is that Mike Johnson and these other governors are such sycophants.
	And toadies of Trump that they're going to do all this stuff just to curry favor with them.
	And they don't care what happens to us in terms of our economy, the deficit, but we can't, no, we can't cut taxes on Americans.
	And I guarantee you they're not going to cut the income tax.
	Not going to get rid of that.
	That'll be two taxes.
	And even if they were to temporarily cut it for a short period of time, you know how that works, right?
	That's how the income tax began.
	It was really on income, and the way income was defined did not include wages.
	Wages were not brought in until World War II. And they were supposed to cease with the secession of fighting World War II, but they kept them.
	And so it has grown in terms of its extent to everyone.
	And that's the way all these things are going to go.
	So let's talk about Pete Hegseth, the pick for Secretary of Defense.
	He had his hearing yesterday.
	And the thing that I thought was interesting about it, of course, you know, there's a back and forth about he was hectored by several of the female senators.
	And he said, well, you know, I wish that you had come to me, said Pocahontas.
	You know, this is one thing on which we agree that, you know, you say that generals should not be going into the military-industrial complex and making money right away.
	They should wait for 10 years and all the rest of this stuff.
	And then they attacked him on...
	His position that women should not be in combat, as a matter of fact, I think it was the first troll.
	I didn't watch the whole thing.
	But there was a guy who had a screaming hissy fit calling Hegseth a misogynist.
	And I told Karen, I said, how does that work?
	If you don't want women in combat, you hate women?
	If you really loved them, you'd put them on the front lines.
	Is that right?
	Is that the way that that works?
	I mean, you talk about the twisted, upside-down attitudes of people.
	And so, there was all this stuff.
	And then they were coming after his character, calling him a womanizer.
	He's on his third wife, and he's had lots of affairs and things like that.
	And of course, his mother had called him out on that in the past.
	A very strange defense that was brought up by a senator.
	But of course, that is true.
	He began...
	Because it was allegations of binge drinking and infidelity.
	He began by saying, proclaiming all glory to Jesus during the Senate confirmation hearing.
	He said, all glory, regardless of the outcome, belongs to our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
	His grace and mercy abounds each day.
	May his will be done.
	Well, that's good, and I hope that he has...
	Changed his life.
	He says that he and his wife, his third wife, began with prayer every morning.
	Well, that's good, but if you're going to make a public declaration of your faith in Christ, I think it needs to be accompanied by a public declaration of your repentance and your admission of what you have done wrong.
	Maybe he's made that.
	I didn't notice that.
	I haven't followed it that closely.
	Because if you don't, it leaves open questions of whether or not this is being done just to inoculate himself from these allegations that are there.
	But more on that in a minute.
	J.D. Vance said, I find this grandstanding from Senate Democrats over the Hegseth confirmation perplexing.
	We haven't won a war in three decades, and we have a major recruitment challenge.
	Hegseth is assuredly not more of the same, and that's a good thing.
	Well, he is more of the same when it comes to Israel first, and so that is part of it.
	But those kinds of decisions aren't really going to be the type of thing that the Secretary of Defense has a decision on.
	That's going to be something coming from the government, from the president.
	There were about 200 former Navy SEALs who marched in Washington, D.C. to support Hegseth's confirmation.
	And I think a lot of this, many of the people that were there also had worked with Hegseth and the Army National Guard.
	The problem with recruitment and many other things is what has happened in the army, frequently called wokeism, but folks, it's just Marxist struggle sessions permeating the military and not focusing on merit, but focusing on these issues.
	And so that would be the most beneficial aspect of Hegseth because whatever else is going on, and really, As one senator points out, the ship has sailed a long time ago on whether or not we're going to have people of moral character ruling us in Washington.
	And so then it becomes about these other policies.
	Now, he's opposed women in combat, but he caved on that.
	Joni Ernst, Republican, said, well, I talked to him about that, and he's changed his mind on that.
	So now he's going to cave on that.
	So how much of this other stuff is he going to cave?
	That's the question.
	And so Pocahontas had her back and forth with him.
	She said, you've criticized military generals for getting into the defense industry.
	You said it ought to be a 10-year waiting period.
	Well, let me ask you, would you personally take a 10-year waiting period after you leave your job?
	And, you know, they go back and forth, and she presses him on the issue.
	He defers, saying, well...
	That'll depend on what the policy is.
	You know, the president will make that policy or somebody else will make that policy.
	I've never thought about that before.
	I never thought what I was going to do after this is over.
	It's not a concern.
	And she said, but you don't want the generals to do it, but it'd be okay for you as Secretary of Defense to do that.
	And he came back and said, I'm not a general, Senator.
	And a couple of people laughed and...
	Everybody in the MAGA media thinks that was just a wonderful gotcha moment.
	I don't see that as a gotcha moment.
	I see that as, I'm not in favor of this revolving door, whether you're talking about the pharmaceutical industry and the FDA people that leave, you know, Trump's FDA appointments left.
	One of them went to Pfizer, one of them went to Moderna right after this scam.
	And of course, after...
	Lots of money was given to Trump for his inauguration parties in 2017 by pharmaceutical companies.
	He put the CEO of Eli Lilly in as head of HHS and served there for four years.
	So there's this revolving door with Big Pharma.
	There's this revolving door of the military-industrial complex.
	And I think that's a legitimate question.
	And I don't think that it was a gotcha moment for him.
	I think it was a gotcha moment for her.
	I don't generally agree with Pocahontas, but I think she made her point, although they're not going to do anything about it.
	They could pass a law to stop this revolving door, and it ought to be done in all these different industries, not just the military-industrial complex.
	It ought to definitely be done with pharmaceutical companies.
	In terms of the moral issues, Mark Lane Mullen, a Republican senator from Oklahoma, It came up with an interesting, strange, and perhaps ineffective defense in this headline here that Breitbart pulled out.
	Senator Mark Wayne Mullen says, well, how many of you senators have shown up drunk to vote at night?
	See, the allegations were that Hegseth had shown up drunk to work at Fox News.
	Now, these were anonymous allegations.
	And they were vigorously opposed by the people who had worked with Hegseth at Fox News.
	And now this guy says, well, so what if he gives it credibility?
	He doesn't deny it.
	He instead says, well, yeah, we all do that, right?
	So, you know, what's the big deal?
	He says, let me read you what the qualifications of the Secretary of Defense.
	Because I googled it, and I googled it, and I went through a lot of different sites, and really it's hard to see, but in general, the U.S. Secretary of Defense position is filled by a civilian.
	That's it, he said.
	And that prompted laughter in the room.
	You don't have to be qualified at all, except as a civilian.
	And so he says, if you served in the U.S. Army forces, And have been in the service?
	Well, you have to be retired for at least seven years.
	Congress can weigh in on that.
	And then there's questions that the senator from Massachusetts brought up about serving on a board inside the military industry.
	He's referring to Elizabeth Warren, Pocahontas.
	And he says, and yet our own secretary that you all voted for, Secretary Austin, we had to vote on a waiver because he stepped off the board of Raytheon.
	But I guess that's okay, because that's a Democrat Secretary of State.
	Bingo!
	Now, here's the problem with these types of arguments.
	We see this all the time.
	Well, so what?
	Look at what Hunter Biden did.
	And so it's this ratcheting down.
	We're not going to say that we need to stop this revolving door.
	He's just going to point out, and I've criticized this many times.
	The fact that Lloyd Austin, or I guess as they refer to him, Lord Austin, came straight from the military industrial complex.
	And, you know, they had to waive the rules to get him in for that.
	So, he said, you forgot about that.
	And then he gets on the drunkenness stuff here.
	How many senators have showed up drunk?
	To vote at night.
	Remember when that happened in the Texas legislature?
	I forget the guy's name.
	But he was an opponent of the Attorney General.
	They tried to get him impeached, I think.
	So he was a left-leaning Republican.
	Didn't like Ken Paxton.
	But he was obviously drunk and he was...
	The Speaker of the House, and he was trying to run the meeting with a gavel, and he was drunk.
	Anyway, he says, have many of you guys asked them to step down and to resign for their job if they showed up drunk in the Senate?
	Don't tell me you haven't seen it, because I know you have.
	And then how many of the Senators do you know that got a divorce for cheating on their wives?
	Did you ask them to step down?
	It could have kept going, you know.
	What about your Democrat president, who allegedly, according to the diary of his daughter, sexually molested her?
	This is Rome on the Potomac, folks.
	Let he who is without sin cast the first stone at Caligula, is the ethics that they have here.
	And I'm really sick and tired of that, frankly.
	This is always the defense.
	Of a failure.
	But he then continues to go on.
	And I agree with what he had to say next.
	He said, we've all made mistakes, and I've made mistakes.
	And thanking Hegsus' wife for loving him through those mistakes, because that's the only reason I'm here, and not in prison, is because my wife loved me too.
	Let's just understand that having a repeated affair and leaving your wife is not a...
	It made me a moral mistake, but it wasn't a, I didn't mean to do that.
	I'm sorry, honey.
	I didn't know what I was doing.
	It is a mistake, but not in the way that he's meaning it.
	It's not like, oops, I spilled that coffee on me.
	No, it's not that kind of mistake at all.
	But he says, I have changed.
	I'm not perfect.
	But I found somebody that I thought was perfect.
	He says, just like our Lord and Savior forgave me, my wife has had to forgive me more than once too, and I'm sure you've had to forgive him.
	You've had to have him forgive you too.
	It's not actually written that way, but yeah, that's what he meant.
	So again, you know, let him who's without sin cast the first stone.
	We don't know what's in his life.
	Like I said, it would be good, I think, for people to talk about.
	Their failings.
	And the same criticism that had of R.F.K. Jr. in a purely secular issue, character issue, when he had in the past called for people who disagreed with him on the climate religion.
	He wanted them jailed.
	You know, three hots and a cot.
	He said, no, no, no.
	I meant that of the corporations.
	The corporations should be given three hot meals and a cot to sleep on in jail.
	How does that work?
	Again, just come back and say you were wrong.
	And that's the key thing.
	When people won't admit they're wrong, it sounds like they're still going down the same path.
	And it's not enough to say, well, hey, you all lied about everything.
	You know?
	We shouldn't have to do that.
	So, again, you know, they're going to fly the flags at half-staff.
	They are turning the place in to stay away from Washington.
	Especially if you're a conservative.
	As we saw on January the 6th, I can't understand why anybody would want to go to that armed camp.
	But again, we've got in Alabama, we've got Governor Kay Ivey, we've got Governor Bill Lee, we've got Governor Abbott, and they're all saying that they're going to raise the flag, and this is a big thing for them.
	It is interesting to me how this has become such a big deal, but I talked about, you know, people died over this kind of stuff as to who flew a flag or didn't fly a flag in Panama.
	Yeah, that was part of the, you know, that kicked off what eventually happened within about a decade in terms of Carter turning over the Panama Canal to them because of the outrage of that.
	And so for these people, it's a big deal.
	These are their things that they do.
	In terms of pardons, as I said before, everybody's concerned about them going shaky on the J6ers.
	Played that for you yesterday.
	And Reason Magazine says, here's a reminder that Donald Trump promised to free Ross Ulbrich on day one.
	Day one.
	Yeah, day one is now five days away.
	Will he follow through on the promise that he made?
	At the Libertarian National Convention and then remade again at the Crypto Convention.
	He says it's probably not smart to hold politicians accountable to their campaign promises, said Nick Gillespie, recent.
	But Trump is no typical politician.
	At least one of his campaign promises was both uniquely specific and uncontroversial enough to expect or demand that he would really follow through.
	You know, Ross Ulbrich has been in prison since October 2013. I talked to his mother several times when I was in Infowars.
	I haven't been able to get in touch with her since I've had this show.
	But I told her that.
	I said, I really hope to celebrate and have you on again when Ross is freed.
	And that may happen.
	I certainly hope that it does happen.
	What was done to him was an amazing miscarriage of justice.
	And it wasn't like what happened to Trump.
	They weaponized nonsense charges against Trump, but Trump did not go to jail.
	Ross has been in jail since 2013, and they gave him three consecutive life sentences to make sure that he never got out of jail.
	What was his crime?
	He ran a website, and he took crypto, and they wanted to make an example out of him.
	And that's one of the reasons why Trump mentioned this at the crypto convention.
	This is in the early days of Bitcoin.
	And so he had Silk Road, and people could go there, and they could buy and sell on the Internet things that governments had prohibited, whether it's drugs or other things like that.
	And they could pay in crypto.
	The FBI, as part of their investigation, took over his site.
	And while he was being tried, You had two FBI agents who had taken out, I think it was $800,000.
	It's been a while since I talked about it.
	They scammed $800,000 out of the website.
	And these two FBI agents were being prosecuted in a court case.
	But the judge in Ross Ulbrich's case would not allow that to be told to the jurors.
	Because if they had the capability and the keys to embezzle the money and to do anything that they wanted, The stuff that they were accusing Ross Ulbrich of doing was all stuff that they could have done.
	And so what the government did in Ross Ulbrich's case was to lie and to get them to think that he was the sole person that had control of it.
	And it wasn't just the FBI people either.
	There were other people that were involved in it, but they created this lie that he was the sole person in charge.
	Now, why would they give him three consecutive life sentences?
	Well, the media...
	He was cooperating with the government in terms of selling a lie about Ross Ulbricht that he had put out a contract for murder on somebody.
	And you had a district attorney or a state attorney journal, I don't know, I don't remember now.
	He talked to the press and they gave great credibility to this.
	Said, well, yeah, this is, we're going to come after him when the feds get finished.
	He never filed any charges.
	He never indicted Ross for this.
	Let alone, Ross was not found guilty by a jury.
	He was never even indicted.
	Never had a trial.
	Wasn't found guilty.
	Never even indicted.
	And yet, in the sentencing, the sentencing judge who sentenced him to prison for running the website referenced that and said, you did murder for hire.
	No, he'd not even been indicted for that.
	The media had found him guilty of that without any basis.
	And so the sentencing judge who ran this kangaroo court not allowing exculpatory evidence, evidence that would have shown that Ross was not guilty beyond a shadow of an out, that same judge then used these media allegations.
	To give him three consecutive life sentences.
	I mean, such an incredible miscarriage of justice.
	And his mother has been there as his champion running organizations.
	And Alex Winter, the co-star with Keanu Reeves and Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, he did a documentary about how they had railroaded Ross Ulbrich.
	So we'll see.
	Is there any concern about that with Trump?
	I'll tell you somebody who's not going to be going to jail.
	Elon Musk.
	The SEC has sued Elon Musk.
	They didn't bring criminal charges.
	They brought a lawsuit.
	Claiming disclosure failures with Twitter stock.
	Now, again, I don't care whether he disclosed it or not.
	I mean, these are arbitrary rules.
	Eric Peters is going to be joining us in the third hour.
	And he actually has an article about that.
	Why are some of these just arbitrary crimes out there?
	It's not like killing somebody, but it's like, well, you didn't file your paperwork properly and in the right form and in the right time.
	So we're going to send you to jail, that type of thing.
	Or we're going to hit you with a big lawsuit or something.
	So the SEC has sued Elon Musk, claiming that he failed to disclose in a timely manner his purchase of...
	He bought 5% of Twitter stock in early 2022. But don't worry, there's no need to be concerned for Elon Musk.
	He's got some friends in high places.
	Because he didn't just buy Twitter stock and not disclose it.
	He bought a president and didn't disclose it.
	Although we can all see that he owns the president.
	The SEC sued Elon Musk.
	Said he had acquired beneficial ownership of Twitter in early 2022, allowing him to purchase sales at a lower price and did not file the paperwork in time.
	We're going to take a break.
	break we'll be right back You might want to hear it in your pod.
	You know nothing.
	And be happy.
	Ain't got no cash, ain't got no car, but 24 booster shots in your arm.
	Oh, nothing.
	Be happy.
	You can't even buy shit in the store because of your low social credit score.
	Oh, nothing.
	happy you'll own nothing you'll own nothing And be happy.
	Be happy and eat the bugs.
	They're doing what?
	In the place they named after me?
	Good thing I have the David Knight Show to keep me informed on the plots of these traitors.
	Making sense.
	Common again.
	This is The David Knight Show.
	Speaking of traders, Trump is going to address the World Economic Forum and Davos.
	He's not going to go there.
	He's going to do it virtually.
	Because the World Economic Forum, Davos, is going to be starting on Trump's day one.
	Next Monday is going to be a busy day.
	Of course, we won't know exactly what Trump is going to do by the time this show airs.
	But the World Economic Forum is going to be kicking off on Monday through Thursday or Friday.
	I guess it's Friday.
	Monday through Friday.
	From the 20th to the 24th.
	So President Trump will remotely address them.
	And when I saw this, I said, well, it's really important for him to be there, isn't it?
	And you remember the last time that he addressed the World Economic Forum?
	He went in 2018, but then he went again in 2020. And he addressed them on January the 21st, 2020. Ten days later, January the 31st, you had Alex Azar, the big pharma CEO that he put in charge of HHS, declared a pandemic emergency.
	From a health standpoint, nobody had died yet.
	We didn't even have any identified patients in the United States, and yet he declares this emergency.
	And then on March the 13th, Trump declares a state of emergency so that he can send out the money, the money that was then used to bribe hospitals and doctors to identify people as having COVID, to put them on ventilators and kill them while they were preparing the vaccine to kill them.
	So Trump has attended the forum in person twice before, in 2018 and 2020. He joins an exclusive short list of leaders who have been granted permission to address the conference virtually.
	So important to have him there.
	And as I've said before, when you see people like the governor of Virginia, Youngkin, a Republican, go to Davos.
	Or Kemp, the governor of Georgia, a Republican, go there.
	Oh, they're rhinos.
	Oh, they've sold out to the globalists.
	And not when Trump goes.
	Not when Trump goes.
	He makes a speech talking about how wonderful America is and all this kind of stuff.
	And then he meets behind closed doors with these people.
	So the Davos event kicks off the same day as his inauguration.
	Scheduling conflict.
	So they made an exception because it's so important to have him there.
	And Trump will speak to them virtually on Thursday.
	January the 23rd.
	This is told by Borga Brenda.
	This is a guy.
	And Brenda is his last name, I guess.
	He is president of the World Economic Forum.
	I had to look this up.
	It's like, wait a minute.
	You know, Klaus said he's going to step down.
	Has this guy replaced him?
	No.
	Klaus is still chairman of the board or whatever it is.
	This guy, Borgabrenda, has been there for quite some time, actually.
	He was an official elected politician in Norway as part of the Conservative Party.
	Imagine that.
	Conservative Party.
	He was also environmental minister there and he has worked With the UN on Sustainable Development.
	I think we need to just abbreviate that as susdevil.
	You spell the devil with an I. It is very sus, what they're doing with sustainable development.
	Very suspect.
	Suspect development, we could call it.
	So, when I put that up yesterday on X, people were saying, yeah.
	Where do you think you got the idea for Freedom Cities?
	And pointed out, which I should have pointed out, that Ivanka was made a young leader of the World Economic Forum, a young global leader.
	In 2015, she joined the club, along with people like Tulsi Gabbard and Dan Crenshaw and Alex Soros, son of George.
	And many others.
	Zuckerberg at Facebook.
	All these other people.
	And, you know, and one person said, oh, Trump just loves that snake poem, doesn't he?
	Isn't it talking about him?
	But before I play you the snake poem, you know, when I hear Trump do this corny, infantile poem, it made me think of Ernie Kovacs and his Percy Dove tonsils.
	We'll get to Trump, but first, this is your excellent poetry right here.
	He's got glasses too.
	This is entitled Mona Lisa.
	Mona Lisa, you always smile, like Heather, up on the heath.
	How come you never laugh out loud?
	Could be you have bad teeth.
	The snake is this bad.
	The moon is full of craters.
	It has some mountains, too.
	But because there are no people, no one goes to the zoo.
	There we go.
	Yes.
	He could have been president today.
	Somebody like that.
	Because here's what...
	Trump does with the snake.
	And you watch, he puts his glasses on, too.
	Unfortunately, it doesn't.
	Glasses are not as funny as Ernie Kovacs.
	So I read this the other day, and I said, wow.
	What an insight.
	Amazing.
	That's really incredible.
	That's an amazing story.
	It's an amazing point.
	On her way to work one morning, down the path along the lake, a tender-hearted woman saw a poor half-frozen snake.
	Interesting.
	Interesting, isn't it?
	It's already very interesting, isn't it?
	All frosted with the dew.
	Oh well, she cried.
	I'll take you in.
	And I'll take care of you.
	Take me in, oh tender woman.
	Take me in, for heaven's sake.
	Take me in, oh tender woman.
	Sighed the vicious snake.
	She wrapped him up cozy in a curvature of silk and then laid him by the fireside with some honey and some milk.
	Now she hurried home from work, and that night, as soon as she arrived, she found that pretty snake she'd taken and revived.
	Wow.
	Take me in, O-Tender.
	tender woman.
	Take me in for heaven's sake.
	Take me in, oh tender woman.
	Sigh the vicious snake.
	Now she clutched him to her bosom.
	You're so beautiful, she cried.
	But if I hadn't brought you in by now, you might have died.
	She stroked his pretty skin, and then she kissed and held him tight.
	But instead of saying thank you, that snake gave her a vicious bite.
	Take me in, oh tender woman.
	Take me in, for heaven's sake.
	Take me in, oh tender woman.
	Sighed the vicious snake.
	I saved you, cried the woman.
	And you've bit me.
	Heaven's why.
	You know your bite is poisonous.
	And now I'm going to die.
	We should set this to music.
	Oh, shut up, silly woman.
	Said the reptile with a grin.
	You knew damn well I was a snake.
	Before you took me in.
	Does that make sense to anybody?
	Yeah, it makes sense.
	I think you're the snake!
	I heard a story here.
	I won't mention any names.
	But there was a guy at Infowars that said, listen to this.
	And I heard that and I went hysterical laughing.
	I said, Alex isn't going to like you making fun of Trump.
	And exposing him for what he is.
	Oh no, this is serious.
	And he was.
	They made that into a thing and played it, you know, like it was some great insight or something.
	It's an idiocracy.
	It is absolutely an idiocracy.
	That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
	But look, they brought him in, and he is a snake.
	Now he wants you to think that that's people that we have brought in from other countries.
	Refugees.
	And there's snakes who are going to bite us.
	Well, that's going to be true in some cases, isn't it?
	But I think it also is something of a self-confession.
	Have you ever noticed that when people are up to evil, they have a compulsion to confess that to you?
	And it really is a satanic thing, right?
	You know, you have to willingly go along with it.
	You've got to have your consent to go along with it.
	I think that's really what's behind that.
	Since E1M, thank you very much, he says, tried to get non-vaxxer 420 on for an interview.
	No one archives the wireless body area network like him.
	It may be the most important topic for us to understand, and in my opinion, the real bioweapon.
	Okay, so is that his Twitter handle that is there or something?
	But I agree.
	I mean, I've talked about it from time to time.
	Probably should talk about it more.
	The deleterious effects of electromagnetic radiation that is everywhere.
	As a matter of fact, that is a plausible thing.
	Jane Ruby had put up, well, now we know why they were so manic about getting rid of lead paint.
	Because, you know, it blocks a lot of the stuff that they want to do.
	And that's true where it's surveillance that they use.
	You know, without having lead paint, they can look through the walls and they can monitor people.
	In a number of ways, and with Wi-Fi.
	And so, you know, I never really bought the story that the lead was such a huge health threat.
	They said, yeah, in some poor areas, they got lead paint, and it, you know, chips off, and kids can eat it or something.
	It's like, okay, but you're putting fluoride in the water, okay?
	And that affects IQ the same way.
	And I'm reminded of when Karen and I went to the UK and we spent our time going through museums and they had a class there.
	And they were talking to them about Elizabethan life and they'd get a couple of students up and they had a costume that Velcroed in the back so they could just put their arms through and immediately they're dressed up like a man and a woman of that time and then they started talking about various things.
	They said, now the rich people would eat off of silver plates.
	Poor people eating off of lead plates.
	And they said, how do you think eating lead would make you feel?
	And he raises his hand and he says, heavy!
	And the kids next time are like, what are you talking about?
	And looking at it, we thought that he was serious about that.
	He was joking, being sarcastic.
	But anyway.
	But the point is, is that eating your food off of lead plates, It's going to be much more of a deleterious effect.
	And I don't think everybody in the Middle Ages was retarded, do you?
	And I don't think everybody was eating lead paint.
	I never saw kids eating lead paint.
	It's got to be pretty rare.
	That, to me, is a more plausible issue.
	But we know that electroceuticals was one of the key things that Fauci and company and Monsef Slaoui and Francis Collins were going around talking about.
	Yeah, the next big thing is going to be electroceuticals.
	As a matter of fact, I've had a listener who sent me something similar to that.
	I haven't tried it yet.
	I've got to confess, I haven't had the time to do it, but I'm hoping to do that soon.
	I don't give it a try because it is a real thing.
	And it could be bad.
	It can also be used as treatment as well.
	Thank you for the tips.
	I was thinking about going to the inauguration to see if I can get the crowd to chant J6 pardons.
	Don't do that.
	First of all, it isn't going to have any effect on Trump.
	If he can't be shamed into doing pardons for J6ers by what Joe Biden has done, and if he can't be shamed by what has happened to these people for four years if he doesn't care, he's not going to be shamed into it by anybody chanting.
	To remind him of the J6 pardon, but if you're going to protest the government, don't do it in Washington, D.C. That place is criminal.
	And we can see this from all the J6 trials.
	Nobody was given a fair trial.
	Nobody got 100% conviction.
	They convicted people for exercising one of the aspects of the First Amendment.
	As a matter of fact, that came up yesterday, too.
	David Sachs, that Trump has put in a position in his cabinet, they're now deleted, but people went back through the archives and found that he was saying, First Amendment doesn't apply on January 6th, even to peaceful protesters.
	It's like, have you ever read the First Amendment?
	Because the language is exactly what they were doing.
	But, yeah, in that District of Criminals, you know, the people that are going to be hearing you are going to be the insiders one way or the other.
	That kind of reminded me of John Lennon when he gave the concert and the Queen was there.
	And he said, for all of you up in the seats, everybody else, clap along.
	And those of you in the expensive seats can just rattle your jewelry and pearls, right?
	So you're not going to rattle these people.
	They're fully on board.
	Stay away from Washington, folks.
	I'm telling you again.
	I said it on January 5th, and for a month earlier than that, it got me fired.
	Stay away from Washington, D.C. It's not a nice place to visit.
	It's a horrible place to visit and a miserable place to live, as they say about Greenland, right?
	Audi, Modern Retro Radio.
	Well, thank you very much.
	That is very generous.
	Thank you so much.
	ModernRetroRadio.com.
	I appreciate that.
	It says, Trump hasn't even gotten the keys to the White House, and it's already obvious that he's still a Trojan horse.
	MAGA voters should be feeling quite played at this point.
	Yeah, you know, they've been a little bit silent, the ordinary people, in terms of some of these other things, like the H-1B visa and other issues like that.
	We'll see what happens, but when it comes to pardons, Hunter being pardoned for any crimes that he may have ever committed over, like, what, a 10-year, 15-year period, whatever it was, a very long period of time.
	That's never been done before.
	Gerald Ford preemptively pardoned Nixon for what he did as president, but pardon each and every crime, whether it's drug crimes or embezzlement or financial crimes or selling influence, any of this other kind of stuff.
	I mean, just a blanket pardon like that.
	And then he pardoned another 1,500 people, about the same number that the Biden Department of Justice has locked up for the J6 stuff.
	And then he even pardons people who are all but three prisoners on death row for capital crimes that they did.
	Now, how in the world, as I said, can Trump then say, I can't give a preemptive pardon, which he could have done four years ago?
	How can he say, I can't do a mass pardon of 1,500 people?
	And how can J.D. Vance say, we're not going to pardon the violent people?
	I think Biden just showed you you could.
	and if anybody has a problem with it you can just point to Joe Biden.
	And shame on them.
	And shame on them if they don't pardon the pro-lifers who have been put in jail simply for exercising their First Amendment rights to protest and given horrific sentences, many of them life sentences, because several of them were elderly and in poor health.
	And the years of prison that they have been sentenced to, it's going to be a life sentence.
	How in the world?
	Could Trump countenance that and not give them a pardon?
	So, Audi says, what happened to the J6ers should be a wake-up call to all of us, that police will follow any order, no matter how unlawful, badged oath-breakers.
	Well, we're going to talk about that coming up, because I mentioned...
	I mentioned gun control laws and the Nazi party in Germany and everything, and I had a listener who said, well, that's not actually true, and so we're going to talk about that, and we're going to talk about the militia, because I think it is true, and I'll tell you the arguments from both sides.
	It's been hotly contested by people who are for the Second Amendment and people who are for gun control, and so we're going to talk about both sides of that.
	The arguments for and against that connection to gun control.
	And we're also going to talk about the importance of the militia, especially in America.
	Is it something that has gone and we don't need to worry about that?
	I don't think so.
	We're going to take a quick break.
	We'll be right back.
	Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen.
	Your annual Global Risk Report makes for a stunning and sobering read.
	For the global business community, the top concern for the next two years is not conflict or climate.
	It is disinformation and misinformation, followed closely by polarization within our societies.
	In a world of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
	You are listening to The David Knight Show.
	Well, speaking of Nazis, Ursula Fond of lying, Klaus Schwab, and all these people, from Bilderberg to Davos, this global governance being done.
	Through, you know, conquer the world through economics.
	I mean, that's what the World Economic Forum was about.
	You know, Germany had tried to conquer the world multiple times with conventional warfare.
	And then I think they realized that the Bilderberg people, you know, doing the first meeting of the Bilderberg group 10 years to the day, that the Nazis had had their last victory and doing it at the spot.
	We're going to create not just a common market in Europe.
	We're going to create a common currency, the euro.
	And so they understood that the basis of real power is not so much military.
	Military is downstream from the economics.
	And so that's really what the globalists are working on.
	So that's what they're working on with the global taxes.
	And with all the rest of this stuff.
	Got to have a global crisis so we can address that global problem, but we're going to need to be able to fund some global organization through global taxes and on and on.
	But let's talk about the Nazis and gun control.
	I mentioned it, and I have a listener, Joshua, who said, I heard you point to Hitler and Nazis multiple times as an example of government-enforced gun control.
	I, too, used to use that as an example until I dug a little deeper into the matter.
	If you can find Six Minutes, and he gives me a YouTube video, he says this video does a great summation of much of the information that I had previously found.
	Well, let me summarize it for you, because this has been something that it's not just that one video.
	This has been a back and forth between the left and the right.
	Many people on the right have pointed to this, and the left has pushed back on it.
	So let me give you the left's take on this first.
	This is from so-called PolitiFact.
	And unfortunately, Politifact is factually challenged as usual.
	They said, no, gun control regulation in Nazi Germany did not help to advance the Holocaust.
	Well, that's not the argument I was making.
	But let's talk about the nuances of this back and forth.
	So they began, they said, on March the 13th, 2018, gun control activists laid 7,000 pairs of shoes on the lawn outside the Capitol and D.C. To represent the victims of gun violence since Sandy Hook.
	Soon after, gun-supporting social media users created an image meme to compare it to Nazi Germany.
	The viral image shows the shoes on the Capitol lawn alongside the words, shoes left by supporters of gun control, 2018. And below that...
	The post was flagged on Facebook.
	Even though both of those pictures were genuine, Facebook did not like the conclusions that were drawn to that.
	And so, as Plitifact says, well, let's make something clear.
	The message...
	That was put there, that was censored by Facebook.
	Was it gun control measures helped to cause the deaths of Holocaust victims?
	They said, that's wrong.
	Let me make something clear.
	The Nazis did deny guns specifically to Jews.
	But this is a trivial factor, they said.
	Is it?
	The notion that it would have made any difference, they said, is unreasonable.
	So they said, so how is this false?
	They said, first, strict German gun regulation was in place before Hitler rose to power.
	He later oversaw gun laws that loosened many firearm restrictions.
	This statement by PolitiFact is not factual.
	And just as the climate religion likes to cherry-pick starting dates, they've done the same thing.
	We'll talk about what really happened.
	The Weimar Republic that preceded Hitler's passed very stringent gun laws that essentially banned all gun ownership in an attempt to both stabilize the country and to comply with the Treaty of Versailles of 1919 that came about at the end of World War I. By the time the Nazi Party came around in the early 1930s,
	a 1928 gun registration law had replaced the total ban and instead created a permit system to own and sell firearms and ammunition.
	Dagmar Ellerbrock, an expert on German gun policies at the Dresden Technical University in Germany, said that the order was followed, quote, quite rarely, so that largely only newly bought weapons became registered.
	At that time, most men, many women, still owned weapons that they acquired before or during the First World War.
	And so they make our point for us here when they say the Nazis used the records to confiscate guns from their enemies.
	And that's what we've always said about gun registration.
	It's a precursor to gun confiscation.
	Gun confiscation from people who are defined to be enemies of the state.
	I don't care if they're Jewish or not.
	Enemies of the state.
	People we don't like, right?
	Now today, the enemies of the state are not Jews.
	They're white males.
	And so you see a lot of stuff that is being put out with that.
	Many Jewish people and others, they said, still managed to stash away weapons in the late 1930s.
	That's the way it always works with any prohibition, isn't it?
	And yet they paid a very stiff price if they were found out.
	And PolitiFact doesn't mention that either.
	In 1938, the Nazis adopted the German Weapons Act, they said, which actually deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns as well as ammunition.
	The Nazis actually liberalized gun ownership.
	I'll tell you why that's not true in a moment.
	Under this law, gun restrictions applied only to handguns.
	Permits were extended from one year to three years, and the legal age of purchase was lowered from 20 to 18. Many more categories of people, including holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and members of the Nazi party, were no longer subject to ownership restrictions.
	Regulations were introduced, however, to impose limits on Jews.
	And on November 11, 1938, the regulations against Jews' possession of weapons was issued.
	That's the title of the law.
	Under it, Jews living under the Third Reich were forbidden to own or possess any form of weapons, including knives, firearms, and ammunition.
	And so then...
	To seal the deal.
	Well, okay, so we're talking Jews versus Nazis here.
	So let's bring in the Anti-Defamation League, which is a hardcore Marxist organization, if ever there was one.
	And they are adamantly against the First Amendment and the Second Amendment, the ADL. And so the ADL explains that, you know, the small number of personal firearms in the hands of people would have made no difference whatsoever to stopping the Nazis.
	And this is an argument that has been given to me, you know, when I was running for Congress in 1996, it's been 29 years, and by the way, Virginia Fox is in the news in a big way on Twitter, because Virginia Fox, who is one of the biggest AIPAC receivers of money, she got $100,000.
	You know, AIPAC spent $300,000.
	To get Thomas Massey out of Congress.
	They failed in that, but they were able to, because of their connections with Speaker Johnson and so forth, they were able to get Thomas Massey removed from the Rules Committee and Virginia Fox to be put in.
	I said, you know, it's kind of interesting because when I ran for Congress 29 years ago, Virginia Fox is the one that I ran against.
	And she has taken the lead.
	In terms of referring to anti-Semitism on college campuses as reasons to limit the First Amendment.
	She's despicable.
	I wouldn't have been doing that if I was in Congress.
	But anyway, she's now on the Rules Committee.
	And thanks to AIPAC and their influence, and thanks to her calling for suspension of the First Amendment, that AIPAC and the ADL, the Anti-Defamation League, absolutely hate the First Amendment.
	And so they want to tell you that this would never have worked.
	And when I was running for Congress against Virginia Fox...
	I would have reporters always say, well, you want to get rid of the ATF? I said, yeah, ATF, IRS, a lot of these other organizations.
	I would always talk about getting rid of them.
	And they said, well, you can't.
	Personal firearms aren't going to be effective against a big military like we've got here in the United States.
	Same argument that we would later hear.
	That was in 1996. And just, you know, in the last four or five years, we've heard that argument made by Joe Biden when he was running, back in 2020. And prior to that, we heard it from Beto O'Rourke in Texas.
	And prior to that, we heard it from Eric Swalwell.
	And said, yeah, we got guns, and we got planes, and we got nuclear weapons, so much for your pistols and things like that.
	It's like, well, have you ever heard of a place called Afghanistan?
	Or Iraq?
	Do you know anything about asymmetric warfare?
	Do you realize why we haven't won a war since the end of World War II? J.D. Vance says, yeah, it'll help recruitment to have somebody like Pete Hegseth in there.
	But, you know, the reason that they lost these wars...
	Or because they decided they were going to do nation building and occupation and all the rest of the stuff and they got caught in asymmetric warfare.
	They can go in and they can reduce a third world country's military to rubble in no time at all.
	But then it's going to be the people who now have nothing left.
	And nothing left to lose.
	And they're going to grab anything.
	They're going to make things.
	They're going to make weapons.
	They'll make improvised explosive devices.
	They'll grab firearms from dead soldiers and they will use them.
	And they will win.
	And so when we look at the Second Amendment and this argument that I made, and of course I also would mention the Warsaw Ghetto, and I mentioned that as well.
	And they pour cold water on that.
	They say, well, you know, 7,000 Jews died.
	50,000 were sent to the concentration camps afterwards.
	But, you know, they tied down a couple of panzer divisions for 28 days.
	And they don't mention here that the only way that they were able to drive the people out was to set the city on fire.
	On April the 19th, the same date that the ATF would then burn the Branch Davidians down on the ATF and the FBI, killing men, women, and children.
	And so they understand how important asymmetric warfare is, and they understand how difficult it is to conquer an armed people.
	And that isn't just because it's urban warfare like it was in the Warsaw Ghetto.
	You know, the Branch Davidians were out, you know, In the middle of nowhere.
	And they had wooden buildings and all this other kind of stuff.
	They didn't have a complex maze of urban buildings to hide in and fight from.
	So then you get to the second thing.
	And the ADL just says, you can't talk about the Holocaust.
	Well, yes, we can.
	And people should be able to debate it.
	You know, Noam Chomsky, who I absolutely disagree with on everything, except what he said about that.
	He said, look, I'm Jewish.
	I believe that the Holocaust happened, but I don't think you ought to punish people.
	This is what he said years ago.
	I don't know if he still has this position now that censorship has become so popular.
	But it used to be that was the only thing that people would get behind to censor.
	Now they get behind censoring people for every kind of agenda that's there.
	But he says, no, you can't leave that off limits.
	If you're going to have free speech, everything is up for grabs, and everybody needs to be able to say and debate whatever they want.
	And so, but don't compare anything to that, says the ADL. And that's just, it's stupid.
	It's offensive.
	It's propaganda.
	It's censorship.
	I don't support that at all.
	Well, let's look at the other side of this.
	And this is written, this is an op-ed piece.
	It was written by Stephen Halbrook.
	And he also wrote a book about 2018. Here's his understanding of how the Nazis used gun control.
	And you'll notice that the timeline is very different from what Politefact put out.
	He says, in 1931, Weimar authorities discovered plans for Nazi takeover in which Jews would be denied food and persons refusing to surrender their guns within 24 hours would be executed.
	They were written by Werner Best, a future Gestapo official.
	In reaction to such threats, the government authorized the registration of all firearms and confiscations thereof if required for public safety.
	The interior minister warned that the records must not fall into the hands of any extremist group.
	Well, you know, let me just interject here.
	When they first started doing things like EasyPass, you know, now we've got that all the time, and everything that we do now, all of our movement, With our cars and even with our person, our records are created and sometimes looked at in real time.
	And yet, when this all began back in the early 90s, the people in the Netherlands were very adamantly opposed to any tracking.
	This is before there were iPhones and that kind of stuff.
	And the government came along and said, we're going to have on our toll boosts, we're going to put something like EasyPass, which is what they're using.
	For the congestion pricing in New York.
	And they use it for tolls as well.
	So they're going to have something like EasyPass, this thing that you buy, and it monitors when you go past these checkpoints, and it applies the toll to you, or the congestion fee in the case of New York.
	And they got a lot of resistance.
	And the reason people resisted it was because they said, well, remember what happened when records were kept and when the Nazis took over Holland, right?
	And they said they were very careful and liked to keep records about everybody.
	And there was a lot of stuff that seemed to be innocuous.
	But they would keep records about all kinds of stuff.
	You know, just like the Census Bureau is always asking you intrusive questions that are none of their business.
	Well, they were doing that in Holland before the Nazis came in.
	And they had this stuff on 3x5 cards because people didn't have computers then.
	And the Nazis came in very quickly.
	And when they realized that they'd lost, people ran down to try to destroy those records, and they were stacked so tightly in these doors they couldn't get them to burn.
	It's like trying to light a log with a match.
	And the Nazis got those files.
	And then they cross-referenced all this stuff as to the people that they didn't like.
	And it wasn't just Jews, it was all kinds of people.
	They didn't like their political attitudes or whatever, right?
	Or political parties that they belonged to.
	And so the Nazis used that stuff to go round up people.
	And they said, if you're going to start keeping track of us and the way that we drive, you can infer all kinds of things from that.
	And of course, that is the issue of a lot of this stuff.
	Michael Hayden.
	We're not listening to people's messages and we're not reading their texts.
	We're just using their metadata.
	And William Benny, who I talked to at the time, said, yeah, that's the most important thing, isn't it?
	That's far more important than what somebody is saying.
	You can feed that metadata in the computer even before we had artificial intelligence and you could infer everything that you wanted to infer about somebody's political or religious issues.
	Anything like that that you want to screen for, you can figure that out.
	You can figure out the people that they come in contact with and start investigating them.
	And so it's that kind of metadata, that kind of analysis that is used by tyrants.
	And so that was, you know, it's always going to be that way.
	They always, we just, Mrs. Robinson, we just need to know a little bit about you for our files.
	Not a problem.
	We're no threat to you at all.
	Okay, so that was the Weimar Republican.
	Then in 1933, Hitler seizes power, uses the records to identify, disarm, and attack political opponents and Jews.
	Constitutional rights were suspended.
	Mass searches for and seizures of guns and dissident publications ensued.
	Why?
	Because they had gun registration.
	Police revoked gun licenses of Social Democrats and of others who were not, quote, politically reliable.
	During the years of repression that followed, society was cleansed, as they called it, by the National Socialist regime.
	I think that's what we should call them.
	We should always make sure that we call them, instead of Nazis, just call them National Socialists.
	Because the left loves that term, Socialists.
	That sounds great.
	Yeah.
	Undesirables were placed in camps where labor made them free.
	Remember the slogan, Arbeit Mach Frey?
	And normal rights of citizenship were taken from Jews.
	The Gestapo banned independent gun clubs and arrested their leaders.
	Gestapo counsel Werner Best issued a directive to the police forbidding issuance of firearm permits to Jews.
	Then in 1938, Hitler signed a new Gun Control Act.
	Now that many enemies of the state had been removed from society, some restrictions could be slightly liberalized.
	And this is where PolitiFact starts its history, really.
	They say, well, gun registration began in the Weimar Republic, but, you know, they don't talk about the crackdown until they talk about the fact that in 1938, Hitler signs a new Gun Control Act.
	Because it was safer to do that now that they disarmed or imprisoned their enemies.
	So, they slightly liberalized some of these restrictions, especially for National Socialist members.
	But Jews are still prohibited from working in firearms industry and.22 caliber hollow point ammunition was banned for anybody.
	German Jews were ordered to surrender all their weapons and the police had records of all who had registered them and even those who gave up their weapons and voluntarily were turned over to the Gestapo.
	This took place in the weeks before what became known as the Night of Broken Glass or Kristallnacht in November 1938. SS Chief Heinrich Himmler decreed that 20 years be served in a concentration camp by any Jew that possessed a firearm.
	Rusty revolvers and bayonets from the First World War were confiscated from Jewish veterans who had served with distinction.
	20,000 Jewish men were thrown into concentration camps and had to pay ransom to get released.
	When France fell to Nazi invasion in 1940, the New York Times reported that the French were deprived rights such as free speech and firearm possession, just as the Germans had.
	Frenchmen who failed to surrender their firearms within 24 hours were subject to the death penalty.
	As a matter of fact, there was, not in this article, but it was a comment that was left in reviewing this guy's book.
	And they said there's an account.
	It's called Tomorrow Will Be Better.
	And it was written by some Czechs who were under – it was an account of life of people in the Czech Republic now, a family that was there under Nazi occupation.
	And they said all non-German houses were searched for firearms.
	And if they found any firearms, they took the head of household out.
	And executed them with a firing squad right then.
	Did similar things in other occupied countries, as they talk about with France.
	So in 1941, just before Pearl Harbor, Congress reaffirmed Second Amendment rights and prohibited gun registration.
	They doubled down on it.
	In 1968, however, bills to register guns were debated.
	And as part of that debate, opponents recalled the Nazi experience and supporters.
	Denying that the Nazis ever used registration records to confiscate guns.
	But Holbrook has brought out the evidence in 2018, so they've got to go grab the ADL, which hates our Constitution in this country.
	Some well-meaning people today advocate severe restrictions, he says.
	Such proponents are no sense Nazis any more than were the Weimar officials.
	He says still, though, as history teaches, The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
	He says in his book, his book actually was Gun Control on the Third Reich, Disarming the Jews and the, quote, enemies of the state.
	In it, he talks about one individual who was a, that Hitler arrested, I'm trying to find the guy's name, here we go, Alfred Flatow.
	A German Jew who won first place in gymnastics in the 1896 Olympics.
	So he was elderly at that point in time.
	But he was one of the people that was found with a gun.
	And it eventually cost him his life as he was arrested and imprisoned because of that gun registration.
	And in the prelude to his book, Stephen Halbrick says, The perennial gun control debate in America for the past half century.
	Did not begin here in the United States.
	Many of the same arguments for and against the freedom to own firearms were made in the 1920s and the chaos of Germany's Weimar Republic, which opted for gun registration and for prohibition.
	Those measures restricted law-abiding persons who complied with the law but had absolutely no effect on the ongoing political violence between the communists and the emerging Nazis.
	So, you know, that's the problem solution.
	And it didn't have any difference, made no difference whatsoever.
	Another book that I would recommend to you is one by Roger McGrath.
	It's called Gunfighters, Highwaymen, and Vigilantes.
	Very interesting book about, you know, the Wild West.
	You know, whenever they want to complain about something, well, we can't have any freedom here, it'd be like the Wild West.
	It's like, the West keeps looking better and better to me as we...
	It was wild and free, but it wasn't as wild as it's pointed out in the movies, and that was the point of Roger McGrath's book, Gunfighters, Highwaymen, and Vigilantes.
	In it, he said that what Hollywood does with people shooting down the streets all the time, he says, yes, that did happen, but it didn't involve the townspeople, and it was the presence of firearms that deterred that type of thing.
	So you did have some gunfighters, and you did have vigilantes, but you also had organized posses.
	That was the power of the community, organized under the sheriff.
	And he said the idea that everybody was shooting everybody else, that's simply an invention of Hollywood.
	Violence was very rare.
	It certainly did not have a lone shooter going in and shooting up a bunch of children in a school.
	First of all, they didn't have institutionalized schools.
	People were either homeschooled.
	Self-educated, or it was a one-room little schoolhouse that was tightly controlled by the parents of the community.
	Nothing at all like what we've got today.
	But you would never have a situation like that.
	Why?
	Because people were armed.
	You might kill one person, maybe two, before other people took you down.
	So it wasn't as wild and violent as our society.
	But while we're on the subject of firearms here, This is written by Ben Crenshaw, an American reformer, on the need for citizen militias.
	So the confluence of events over the past decades has American citizens asking, what can I do to defend myself and my family and to preserve my community against the official government policies, the corrosive trends, the hostile persons who would like to destroy them?
	And again, this is the question that people would push to us when I was running for...
	I said, you understand the purpose of the Second Amendment is the same purpose as mutual assured destruction of nuclear weapons.
	It's not something that we want to see happen and we want to do whatever we can to keep that from happening.
	But it is also there as a deterrent.
	It is there as a deterrent.
	Because most people are not foolish enough to think that an armed population would That's what the reporters want you to think.
	That's what the ADL wants you to think.
	These worries, he said, are compounded by American political class and bureaucratic policies explicitly hostile to the American people who resist globalization, who resist the dilution of their historic rights and liberties.
	What can one do when one's own government, instituted for the very purpose of providing security and protection, turns against and assaults you?
	With prejudicial accusations, censorship, re-education, eventually replacement, the first recourse must always be peaceful protest.
	Now, this is where I disagree with this person.
	He says, and the fact that we just had the re-election of Donald Trump shows that's still possible in America.
	It wasn't an election.
	It was a selection.
	And you're going to find out.
	Yet again, if you didn't learn from 2020. Anyway, the rest of it I agree with.
	Yet, he says, as a last recourse, self-defense can never be eliminated or neglected, and to this end, Americans should consider the role and the value of the citizen militias in this country as an expression of the once highly venerated but now strangely foreign American tradition of local self-reliance and self-government within our Federalist polity.
	He talks about de Tocqueville and many other issues and how, you know, he talked about the voluntary organization.
	Local militias were part of it.
	He said these things were essential expressions, said de Tocqueville, of the life and the mainspring of American liberty, namely township independence.
	He said the political existence of a majority of the nations of Europe commenced in the superior ranks of society.
	It was gradually and imperfectly communicated to the different methods of the social body.
	But in America, on the other hand, it may be said that the township was organized before the county, and the county before the state, and the state before the union.
	In other words, it wasn't a top-down, elitist-imposed order, which is what we're now looking at with Davos and global governance and the UN and the rest of this stuff.
	It wasn't top-down imposition.
	It grew up organically.
	America has had citizen militias since the colonial period.
	All the colonies except for Pennsylvania, due to the pacifist Quaker assembly, all of them, other than Pennsylvania, had citizen militias.
	Every able-bodied male between the ages of 16 and 60 was enrolled, and citizens had to furnish their own arms and their own ammunition, as well as a symbol for regularly scheduled training.
	That's really what is meant by the archaic language of a well-regulated militia.
	Training, training on a regular basis.
	Alongside legal militia existed private voluntary militias, such as the ancient and honorable Artillery Company of Boston.
	By the way, they didn't just have guns.
	They had cannons.
	They came for the cannons at Concord and Lexington.
	And Santa Ana came for the cannons at Gilead.
	The colonial militias in America had roots in English common law.
	At the same time, they developed independently to the unique experience of the new world colonial life.
	One such unique aspect can be seen in the Massachusetts Bay Colony.
	Puritans believed that the defense of one's life, family, and neighbors, and inheritance was a form of religious piety.
	In other words, a religious work that you would do.
	The 1643 militia law stated that as piety, Service in the militia became interwoven into the covenant community, exemplified by the selection of officers by their own infantrymen.
	Freemen were people who were both church members and citizens with political rights.
	We're volunteers in the militia.
	And remember, when we look at it, they like to talk about that in Colonial Williamsburg.
	Okay, so we're going to talk about who could vote in Colonial Williamsburg, say the leftists who run that place now.
	Okay.
	And so they start going through stuff.
	You know, raise your hand if – or everybody raise your hand.
	And then you lower it if you're not a man or head of household.
	You know, it could be a woman who's head of household.
	And if you're not a member of the church and you're not this and you're not that, you know, and everything, then they just, you know, have a few people who are allowed to vote.
	One of them was me.
	This is a good system.
	But anyway.
	In turn, they would select their leadership.
	As John Winthrop detailed in his History in 1632, every company of trained men might choose their own captains and officers.
	Each colony had a unique story of its own militia, yet there were also many different commonalities.
	John Adams, in a famous 1783 letter, argued that one could not understand the American Revolution and what led up to it without carefully studying four American institutions.
	The towns or districts, the church congregations, the schools, and the militia.
	The militia, he said, comprehends the whole people by virtue of laws of the country.
	Every male inhabitant between 16 and 60 years of age enrolled in a company and a regiment of militia completely organized with all of its officers.
	You know, when we were in the UK, there was a demonstration.
	We took the boys at Warwick Castle, and they were talking about the yeomanry, right?
	And how it was required that they attend and regularly practice every Sunday afternoon.
	And they said, you know, they had the longbows, and they said, you could go back and you could look at the skeletons of these people, and you would see that their left arm, holding that longbow out, had really dense bones compared to their right arm, even.
	Because they were just constantly firing that longbow.
	But that was kind of a top-down organization.
	It was very different from what was done in America.
	This period saw the highest per capita gun ownership in American history, the colonial period.
	Americans, it turns out, have always been armed and dangerous.
	It was not due to a fetish with violence or gun culture, but precisely because the demands that communal life made upon the individual and the family.
	And so, to cut it short here, because we've been on for a while with this.
	What about today?
	He says, The centralized control.
	This is why, you know, for the longest time, the John Birch Society, and it became kind of a joke because they pushed it so hard.
	They saw the problem a long way off when they said, support your local sheriff.
	I mean, everybody was making jokes about that.
	They even made a joke movie about that.
	That's a very important principle.
	The local control of law enforcement and electing those officials.
	It's not a perfect system.
	But one that is guaranteed to fail is one where everything is under centralized control, and it's militarized.
	Our militarized police and surveillance state has become a standing army.
	And so all these debates that they had about standing armies, and he talks about this, so I skipped over Alexander Hamilton, all in favor of it.
	Of course, you know, Alexander Hamilton, the ultimate status.
	He wanted a central bank, he wanted a standing army, and all the rest of this stuff.
	But just in conclusion, what he writes, he says, to speak of citizen militias today is often viewed with suspicion, as if it were a precursor for revolutionary extremism, or if it were a call for subversion and treason.
	And of course, they really weaponized this after the January 6th setup that Trump created.
	And so...
	He said, talk of extremist groups of domestic terrorism has skyrocketed.
	While current state law prohibits private militia, states could reform their laws to allow counties, communities to more robustly defend themselves.
	And this is one of the things that I said about January 6th.
	I said, first of all, this is a trap.
	This is a trap for the people who go there.
	There's going to be agent provocateurs and you'll be entrapped.
	But I said even worse than that.
	When they create what they want to create.
	You know, and again, it was Trump, Alex, Jones, who pushed people there.
	I said they're going to use that to demonize conservatives.
	And that's what we're seeing here.
	You know, you're an extremist.
	You're a domestic terrorist.
	You know, don't use the term militia and all the rest of the stuff.
	It's got to be purged.
	Anybody says militia, oh, well, you're a threat to the system.
	That is so un-American, so antithetical to our history and to reality.
	You know, the threat to us, the terrorism to us, is the monopolization and the centralization of force, not the democratization of it through a militia.
	He says the same people who claim to love democracy so much are the most suspicious of its constitutive parts.
	In other words, they love democracy, don't they?
	But they hate what actually makes it up.
	Because they don't love democracy.
	They want to dictate to people what you can say, what you can do, what you can eat, where you can go, when you can go.
	Despite modernization and rapid global technological changes, the localist impulse continues throughout much of the country.
	Volunteer police and firefighting units are found sprinkled throughout rural communities, and even professional police, sheriff, and fire departments are drawn from citizens determined to serve their communities and sometimes making the ultimate sacrifice.
	In an age where anarchy and tyranny simultaneously threaten economic and financial destabilizations, uncontrolled immigration, the dissolution of traditional ways of life, and digital mobility, he says all of this is leading to a breakdown of civil order and harmony. he says all of this is leading to a breakdown While all that is happening, you're seeing a revival of local citizen militias, he said, might not be far off.
	Working in tandem with county police or sheriff's departments, as well as with the State National Guard, a thick network of militias could provide besieged communities with the security and self-reliance they need against harassment, terrorist attacks, gang violence, sex, drug trafficking, and the generally unwarranted invasion of illegal immigrants.
	And it can also be used to nullify the threat and the terrorism of the federal government.
	Don't forget that.
	We're going to take a quick break.
	break.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	Making sense.
	Common again.
	you're listening to the David Knight Show welcome back um Matthew Ronson says, Fox is for pre-crime enforcement.
	Doesn't surprise me at all.
	There's nothing conservative about Fox.
	They are statist through and through.
	The people there, while they're there.
	They're not going to push back against the government's official story or against anything that the pharmaceutical companies do because they're owned by both of those.
	Just like, look at Tucker Carlson.
	Now he's like, oh, I didn't know any of this stuff.
	But he still says he still is afraid to talk about 9-11 or other things like that.
	It's just a limited hangout.
	Radice Bro says, if you think you're going to do stuff to our government with guns, you're crazy, because they will unleash the weapons that they didn't use in Afghanistan.
	There you go.
	GDP, I still think, I don't know if that's sarcasm or not, I would say, though, that they are still deterred by the understanding of what asymmetric warfare is.
	GDP3330. American people have 25% of all the guns in existence.
	Good.
	Go ahead and try taking our guns.
	Won't end very well.
	Don't frag me, bro, says we will all have to make a choice.
	Risk dying on your feet or living on your knees.
	Sucking the government teat.
	12 June 1776. Who cares about your guns?
	They took all three branches of your government while you were holding guns.
	I think that even more important than guns is the First Amendment.
	And that's one of the things that concerns me because it is so heavily under threat.
	And Audi, Modern Retro Radio, says there's nothing positive about gun control.
	The ultimate goal is mass confiscation.
	David is 100% spot on.
	Well, thank you.
	Don't frag me, bro.
	Says the defeatist attitude is BS. If you actually read the military's own manuals, you might learn what asymmetrical warfare is and what it means to be a guerrilla fighter.
	And I've got to say, you know, when it was when Jade Helm was happening and when we had situations where the Obama administration was very, very eager, To put MRAPs, you know, mine-resistant armored personnel carriers in all these small rural areas.
	And by the way, these are white elephants that had to be maintained by the local people, by local law enforcement, by local taxpayers.
	After a while, they started saying, you can take it back.
	I don't want it.
	You know, the whole thing behind a white elephant was if they wanted to, you know, elephants were sacred in India.
	If they gave you an elephant, you had to...
	Feed it and keep it going, or you were in big trouble.
	And so all of that stuff was happening.
	They began with the Jade Helm thing, and as I started doing research on it, and if you recall, I went to a Fort AP Hill, I don't know what they changed the name of it to now, with Joe Biggs, and they had a secure area inside the base, and Joe Biggs got us inside the base with his credentials.
	And then we were able to talk to the guard and got her confused as to whether or not we had permission to go into the area where they were training for asymmetric warfare.
	And we spent about an hour live broadcasting it there.
	That got Alex Jones very upset.
	He made sure that we got arrested to protect himself.
	But we were live broadcasting in a model city there.
	And this was not the type of urban warfare that they were always trained for in the past.
	We have bombed out buildings.
	And, you know, you're going door to door, you know, from the two sides.
	I don't know what they call it, but you see it in the movies all the time.
	No, this is fully intact.
	And this particular one at AP Hill was an urban area, but then they had other military bases where they had these.
	And, I mean, it was in a secure area.
	Barbed wire fence and all this other kind of stuff all around it.
	They had one room there that was like what Joe Biggs said he saw them using to interrogate and to torture prisoners in Afghanistan.
	And, you know, it was pretty amazing.
	And we broadcast that live.
	And then all that stuff disappeared, interestingly enough.
	Anyway, from Infowars.
	But it was in my doing research leading up to that.
	That I saw one, you know, military presentation after the other.
	And these were things that had been there for a couple of years, five years, six years, some of them.
	And had, you know, 100, 200 people had watched it.
	And it was as dry as it could be.
	But the bottom line was exactly what you're saying.
	You know, they knew that how dangerous asymmetric warfare was.
	And they admit it.
	That's why they had not won any wars since World War II. So, GDP 330 says, if you really think that the leaders do not fear an armed populace, you haven't been paying attention to history.
	There's a reason that speech and guns are first and second amendments.
	Nibiru 2029 says, National Guard would be considered the modern-day militia by constitutional standards unfortunately usurped by feral fascists in government.
	Well, I had this argument with a kid who worked for us.
	He was an excellent student, got excellent grades.
	He was salutary.
	He wasn't valedictorian, but he's salutary.
	And he had been told by his teachers that the National Guard was the militia.
	I said, no, it's 16 to 60. And it is everybody that was in it.
	And the National Guard was created long after that.
	And as a matter of fact, The Constitutional, and I didn't get into it that much, was very much against anything that looked like a standing army.
	M Sellers said, went to the dentist yesterday.
	They wanted to scan my driver's license before they saw me.
	For insurance and fraud purposes, they said.
	They keep it in the file to have your face.
	Well, you know, if you're a dentist, you want somebody's face.
	Everybody's got to get in on the surveillance state here.
	That's why, you know, some are not allowed to, you know, the FBI and the CIA and the military industrial complex and the intelligence community, they're not allowed to spy on members of Congress.
	And now that that has been put in, Tulsi Gabbard is okay with the FISA 702 stuff now that they've exempted themselves.
	Honor Seeker says, David, what do you know?
	We just got them installed in our trucks at work.
	We protested, and they said to put tape on the in-cab camera.
	Well, there you go.
	It was just out.
	I don't know.
	I don't know.
	But, of course, the insurance companies are constantly going to be surveilling you.
	As a matter of fact, we've got an article here.
	Let me just jump to that.
	And this is in Texas.
	The state of Texas has just sued insurance companies for spying people.
	It sued Allstate for secretly tracking drivers through their apps and then using it to raise rates.
	Now, I've talked about this in the past.
	And the fact that the car companies, all of them, not just Tesla, but all of them, are grabbing information about you and they're selling it.
	And who is going to be the eager customer?
	It's going to be the insurance companies.
	And if the insurance companies can buy that data, and if they can say, well, I think that you stopped too quickly.
	I think that you accelerated too quickly.
	I think you went around that corner too quickly or whatever.
	Or here you are, we found that you sped, you know, in these various places.
	They use that to raise people's rates.
	And some of the stories I've talked about, people said, all of a sudden my insurance got canceled or I had my insurance rate triple.
	It's like, what's going on?
	It didn't have an accident?
	It didn't have any tickets or any of this kind of stuff?
	And then they find out that they're being spied on by GM or by Ford or whatever, by Tesla.
	And they're sending this information to the insurance companies.
	So the state of Texas has sued Allstate and its subsidiary.
	Accusing them of illegally tracking drivers through their cell phone apps without their consent, and then using the data to charge more for car insurance.
	And of course, all that kind of stuff is always available to them.
	I did some work for the North Carolina Department of Transportation, part of their cameras that they had.
	And those were not about surveillance, and they didn't keep anything in terms of a record.
	And they did that purposely because they didn't want to have to participate in some lawsuit or something, you know, somebody to say, hey, there was an accident or whatever.
	And they had the cameras were set up along the interstate corridors.
	And what they did in Raleigh, they had some guys who were in trucks, they'd have two or three of them at a time, that would be active and just kind of driving around.
	And so they had all these different, a wall of cameras, and you could see the traffic was flowing.
	All of a sudden, if you saw the traffic wasn't flowing, you could grab one of those cameras, and these are the same cameras that were pioneered in the casinos, because you can zoom them in so far.
	It's amazing how much they can zoom in.
	You stop and think about that.
	You know, you turn the camera around, see what?
	Nobody, traffic isn't moving in this one direction.
	Oh, there's a traffic jam.
	You can zoom that thing in.
	I don't know what the magnification on the thing was, but it was amazing.
	And we stop and think that they're using that in a casino.
	You know, they can get your fingerprints off of the cards, I guess.
	They would then call these different drivers and tell them, you know, hey, there's something here.
	If somebody's broken down or there's an accident, they get people off the road.
	Because as the traffic would back up, of course, you would have secondary and tertiary accidents of people rear-ending because they didn't expect it there.
	And so that was a good thing that they did.
	And they didn't use it for surveillance or identification purposes, and they didn't record it.
	But at the same time, and now we all see it.
	With our maps, I mean, you pull up any of these map apps on your phone, and it shows you the traffic pattern.
	How does it do that?
	Well, this all began with a company called Enrix back in the mid-2000s, and you could go to their website.
	At first, it was a subscription service.
	It was sold to government agencies, but then it became generally available, and now it's on everybody's phone.
	And how did they get that information?
	They got it from looking at people's phones.
	And so this has been going on for quite some time.
	But now they can do it with the specificity of a particular individual and how they're driving.
	And it's very concerning, frankly.
	All this technology, all the surveillance state is being weaponized against us.
	By the way, when we look at the electric cars, it's not working out too well for them.
	They're bankrupting in Germany.
	Volkswagen, which has...
	It's going to have to have its first layoffs in Germany ever in the company's 80-some-odd-year-old history.
	And they're talking about how, in the UK, though, the Labor Party is adamant that they're going to ban the purchase of all internal combustion engines.
	That's gasoline and diesel.
	I don't know how they're going to get anything done.
	I mean, if you get rid of diesel trucks, you can't replace them with battery-operated stuff.
	They're just going to completely shut that country down into serfdom, and they're going very rapidly.
	The conservatives had set up 2035 as the date to ban all internal combustion engines, and labor ran on the campaign of stopping it by 2030. 2030, where did that come from?
	You know, the fourth turning, sustainable cities, UN agenda, 2030. Isn't it amazing?
	It's almost like there's a plan.
	It's almost like there's a conspiracy, isn't there?
	And people voted for that.
	That was a plank of the Labor Party in this last election, and people voted for that.
	But look, the difference between the Labor communists and the conservative con men was a difference of five years.
	Always said that the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats, both of them are driving us off the cliff like Thelma and Louise.
	The difference is one of them has gone faster than the other.
	And so in the UK, the difference was five years.
	But they're both going to do the same thing.
	One of them is going to do it more gradually and hope that you don't notice.
	Now, they're concerned because they have penalties on car companies and anybody associated with that.
	Of course, they've already killed all manufacturing of cars in the UK, really.
	And so they've got to sell a certain percentage of their cars as electric, and of course by 2030 it's going to have to be 100%.
	And if they don't sell enough electric cars compared to internal combustion engines, they get hit with a penalty.
	The problem is that people don't want those things.
	And even if you have in the UK a situation like the Reform Party coming in and saying, okay, we're going to not only...
	Just stretch this out, banning of cars.
	But we're not going to play this net zero game and we're not going to ban any cars.
	And that's not going to fly because what is happening is the car companies have to plan out several years in advance for any kind of car that they're going to create.
	And if they're concerned that...
	Because of politics, a particular type of car is going to be banned.
	Guess what?
	They're not going to invest in making any of those cars or plans for any of those cars.
	So even if you had a political party that came in and said, well, we're not going to do the ban, it's still not going to be there.
	And so in Germany, the 2024 registrations of new electric cars plummet by 27.5%.
	28%.
	And gas cars are dominating there.
	And so, you know, what are you going to do?
	Well, they can still stop all cars.
	And that has always been their objective, isn't it?
	And we'll talk more about this when Eric Peters joins us, but they're also looking to restrict travel in California for classic cars.
	Classic cars.
	Classic cars from 1978 or earlier.
	Well, I get rid of my first two cars.
	You won't be able to drive them, and they will allow people to create these zero-emission zones.
	This is the same stuff that Sadiq Khan did in London, and now it's being done all over the U.K. It is a global agenda.
	And it's the same news, whether you're talking about the U.K. or the U.S. or California or Canada or whatever.
	It's the same stuff, just like it was with the COVID MacGuffin.
	CNN freaked out when they were talking about the LA fires.
	Listen to this report at CNN. They just can't believe that people don't think that the California fires are...
	I don't think Americans are making this connection.
	And the way we can see this right here and now, take a look at the monthly change in Google searches.
	Look at the searches for wildfire.
	Up 2,400 percent.
	My goodness gracious.
	This is the most amount of people searching for wildfires ever.
	Ever.
	It's going back since Google Trends began back in 2004. But look at climate change.
	Look at the change.
	It doesn't go hand in hand with wildfires.
	It's actually down.
	It's down nine percent.
	And I also looked in California.
	There has been no increase in the number of searches for climate change.
	So the bottom line is this.
	Americans are definitely interested in learning about these wildfires.
	They're interested in following the news about the wildfires, but they are not making that connection with climate change.
	That's the bottom line here.
	That's a really key metric you're looking at there.
	The connection.
	Overall, Americans being worried about climate change.
	What have we seen over time?
	Yeah.
	You know, we have seen a lot of extreme weather events over the last few decades.
	Right.
	Hurricanes, heat waves, wildfires.
	You always had that.
	Americans worry about climate change with climate change, worry a lot.
	a lot you go back to they're not as stupid as you are it was 35 now it was a little bit higher in 2007 a little bit higher in 2022 but look at this in 2023 the last time we have dated 39 that is not statistically significantly different from this 35 back in 1900 yeah we're not buying what you're Despite all these extreme weather events, Americans are really no more worried about climate change than they were, what is that, now nearly 35 years ago?
	I mean, there's just no real trend line here, Mr. Brown.
	What's going on?
	So the question is why?
	Why?
	Why are they not really worried a lot about climate change?
	Because they can see through your BS. Because they feel like there's not a whole heck of a lot they can do.
	That's not it.
	Humans contribute a great deal.
	Wow.
	Again, there's no real...
	Yeah, okay.
	You got the idea.
	Okay, so, hey, how do you geniuses there at CNN? How do you explain this?
	Oh, sorry.
	Every conversation we're having about evacuations, that depopulation conversation is continuously coming up.
	That depopulation conversation is continuously coming up.
	Yeah, yeah.
	We understand what your agenda is.
	And people have also seen this.
	That's the wrong thing.
	I thought I hit the wrong one.
	But I wanted to show you the picture that I had of maybe...
	Nope, that's the same thing.
	Okay, got the same video in there twice.
	The thing I showed you yesterday of three fires starting simultaneously.
	How did that happen with climate change?
	Please explain that to me.
	No, look at what climate change people are concerned about.
	Geoengineering.
	Specifically, solar geoengineering.
	Also, aerosol injection or chemtrails and all the rest of this stuff.
	There's no doubt that they're modifying the weather.
	There's no doubt they're doing geoengineering.
	As I pointed out over a decade ago, they have annual conferences on it.
	And I remember one year I pulled up one of the papers and the person said, okay, so the question about all this stuff is who gets to set the thermostat?
	Some people want it warmer, some people want it cooler, just like the thermostat in your house between you and your wife, right?
	But who gets to make that decision?
	That's what we've got to figure out for.
	And that's why we need to have global governance of the climate.
	And so this is a story from Freethought Project, Derek Brose.
	Actually, The Last American Vagabond was where it originally appeared.
	And he points out that the Scientific Advisory Board has called on the European Union to halt solar geoengineering technologies, while at the same time calling for a global governance system to tackle the issue.
	Now, I would put scientific in air quotes.
	There's nothing scientific about this.
	A group of so-called scientists and policymakers, it's all political.
	It's all policy.
	It's all fantasy.
	I've recommended that the European Union support a Europe-wide moratorium on using controversial geoengineering techniques known as solar geoengineering.
	And so they are calling for rigorous, ethical, and explicit solutions about these uncertainties.
	And we need to look at the risks and the potential opportunities.
	And as we know with the COVID MacGuffin and the vaccines, They're not going to look at the safety or the ethical issues of this, just like they don't look at that with vaccines and drugs.
	They don't care.
	It may be a fight over who gets to set the thermostat, but in this, they talk about things that can go wrong, and I thought it was interesting.
	There was a guy named Artie Gupta, a professor of global environmental governance.
	That's actually a discipline?
	Global environmental?
	Governance, and of course, the global governance will be environmental.
	These people get their way.
	If we keep going down this net zero thing, if we keep the Paris Climate Accord.
	That's why I say, Donald Trump is for that, because he's not going to oppose it.
	And because he's pretending, like Obama and Biden did, and John Kerry, that we actually are in a treaty that was never ratified.
	And that's one of the good things about Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell is that they're on board that game as well.
	It's part of the Uni Party, right?
	That's why it's phony if Mitch McConnell and, look, all of the Republicans in the Senate.
	It's the Senate that has the responsibility to ratify this stuff, ratify treaties.
	Not a single one.
	Not Rand Paul.
	Not Mike Lee.
	None of these guys.
	None of them.
	It's not just Mitch McConnell.
	None of them called for a vote on this treaty after John Kerry and Obama said we self-ratified it.
	They said, this stuff, these solar geoengineering projects, could have negative impacts on ecosystems.
	It could change rainfall patterns.
	It could hamper food production.
	Any large-scale intervention.
	And our common planetary environment would have systemic consequences.
	But just like the Manhattan Project, you know, when they said, you know, we're not really sure what's going to happen with this bomb when we set it off.
	The chain reaction could set off a chain reaction that completely destroyed the planet.
	Yeah, that's a possibility.
	Let's do it anyway.
	Seriously.
	It's just like artificial intelligence.
	You go to Garris.
	Asking all these different meetings of scientists.
	If you knew with artificial intelligence that you were creating something that was eventually going to become a godlike intelligence, and I don't think this is going to happen, but he posits this and says, just like the people of the Manhattan Project, if you've got something here that's going to kill all of humanity, would you continue doing it anyway?
	Well, yeah, of course.
	That's what the majority of them would say.
	They said, while the group called for ensuring global system respects fundamental rights and values, it's highly likely that such a system would lead to further silencing the voices of smaller nations and opponents of geoengineering.
	And of course, that's one of the reasons why we have the Senate as part of our, that was to give a voice to the small states.
	Because the states in America were like a small nation.
	They had their own powers and their own governance there.
	So they said they want to promote discussions on a framework for global governance.
	And that's what Derek Brose is saying.
	He's been saying for many years that the promotion of this geoengineering technology, and this is where we are right now.
	They denied it for the longest time.
	Now they're going to say, well, it's a great thing, but we're going to have to make sure that it is fair.
	In order to do that, we're going to have to have global governance to decide who gets to set the thermostat.
	That's basically what we're talking about.
	Derek Brose says, since 2017, I've been warning that promotion of this technology known as geoengineering would be a gateway to global governance schemes.
	The pronouncements delivered last week by the U.S. government and the European Union represent one more step in that direction.
	And, of course, that is what is happening with this.
	Jason Barker, Knights of the Storm.
	On Twitter and on Rockfan.
	He says, when my wife signed up for the internet here, they misspelled her name horribly.
	Now she gets credit card offers in that misspelled name.
	We know they sold our information because of that.
	Yeah, they're constantly watching what everybody is doing and selling you out.
	Selling you out not just to corporations, but selling you out to governments who seek to punish you.
	And it's just a matter of time.
	Before they start taking even broader actions and just messing with people's insurance rates by their surveillance of how we drive.
	So do we have Eric?
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	So we have Eric Peters who's going to be joining us here.
	We're going to take a quick break and we will be right back.
	Hang on a second.
	Here we are.
	Unlike most revolutions where the people rise against a real economic oppression.
	In our case here in Boston, we are fighting for purely an abstract principle.
	It is, however, not nearly so abstract as the young gentleman supposes.
	The issue involved here is one of monopoly.
	Today, the British government will monopolize the sale of tea in our country.
	Tomorrow it will be something else.
	Alright, let's let's go.
	Let's go.
	Welcome back, and it's always a pleasure to have Eric Peters join us.
	EricPetersAutos.com And he's got a lot of articles about automobiles and about liberty and mobility because you can't have one without the other.
	You can't have liberty without mobility.
	Kind of like an open-air prison if we don't have that mobility that's there.
	So Eric has a lot of reviews of practical cars.
	He doesn't do reviews of these hypercars that are show cars or something that only one or two billionaires in the world can afford.
	But he's got some great practical reviews.
	We don't usually talk about that when he comes on, but he's got great car reviews if you're in the market.
	But he also talks about what is happening with Liberty, and he's got some great articles about that.
	Thank you for joining us, Eric.
	Oh, thank you for having me, David.
	By the way, I was listening to the tail end of your last segment.
	You were talking about Elon Musk, and one of the things that I just find endlessly fascinating about this guy is the dichotomy of so many things.
	He'll talk about the existential threat that's presented by AI, and yet this guy is the biggest pusher of AI and robotics.
	It's the most dissonant thing imaginable.
	He joins Trump.
	And ostensibly, he's going to cut regulations, but this is the biggest grifter ever who has benefited from all of these regulations.
	Where does it end?
	He talks about free speech, he charges you for speech, and then he suppresses speech.
	I got kicked off with X for making a somewhat uncouth comment about that creep Keir Starmer in the UK. And, you know, he made an outright obscene comment about anybody who dares to question his promotion of the H-1B visa thing.
	But that's okay because it's God Elon who does it.
	That's right.
	Did he actually kick you off?
	I know you've been shadowbanned.
	I got noticed saying that my account had been frozen due to abusive or hateful comments.
	Something along those lines.
	And I could potentially get back if I were to bend the knee and go through something called an ASCIIOS challenge.
	I don't know what that is.
	It's probably some kind of struggle session, which I'm not going to do.
	And of course, delete the comments.
	So what I did, I cleverly went to another browser and created a new account.
	So if anybody wants to find me on Twitter, my new handle is EricTheApostate.
	It's a roof on being excommunicated.
	I've been thinking that I need to create a new Twitter account.
	I've been so heavily shadow banned that the number of followers that I have has been frozen since about 2018 when they got kicked off of every other platform.
	Facebook kicked me off, Instagram, and all those things.
	I just consider that to be a liberating thing.
	I don't have to worry about it anymore.
	I don't have to worry about YouTube either.
	I felt really good after it happened.
	I had a kind of deja vu moment.
	You'll remember when I got kicked out of that coffee shop during the pandemic because I wouldn't wear the mask.
	At first, I was kind of disappointed and angry and sad, but afterward, I thought to myself, you know, I feel really good because I stood my ground on it.
	I didn't give in to these people.
	I wrote an article a couple of weeks ago, and this happened about X, about how...
	We kind of unconsciously self-censor ourselves.
	Because we all know we've got that anvil hanging over our head.
	You know, if we use the wrong word, if we touch on the wrong topic, that we're going to get banned.
	So, you know, it's really insidious and really clever.
	It's not the overt suppression of your post has been removed.
	It's, I better be careful about what I say.
	So I think it's a really salutary thing to just disconnect ourselves from these tech overlords and their centralized control mechanisms.
	And talk amongst ourselves with each other like real human beings are supposed to.
	I agree.
	I made that point yesterday, talking about Mel Gibson.
	He went on with Joe Rogan, and he said, so here's the good news.
	I've got, I think it was three friends who had stage 4 cancer, metastasized other places, because, you know, they...
	They didn't give them long to live.
	But he goes, now all of them are okay.
	And they didn't use the standard stuff.
	And so Joe Rogan says, oh yeah, so what'd they do?
	And he goes, no, you know, the stuff that's out there.
	Joe Rogan threw a few things out there, but Mel Gibson was afraid to mention it.
	And I said that.
	I said, here we have a situation where you got friends who took some stuff that saved their lives.
	And you're unwilling to tell people about that?
	And this is the thing that has driven me insane from 2020, when people that I know, that I work for, like Alex Jones, would not tell people...
	You know, what was going to happen with these vaccines?
	And they would pretend that it was a bad vaccine from Bill Gates and we're being saved by Donald Trump.
	And, hey, it's just sugar water and don't worry about it.
	And it's only just got some adjuvants in there.
	You've been telling people for decades they're giving kids autism.
	Don't worry about it.
	Just take it.
	You know, that kind of stuff.
	They knew better.
	And so did Mel.
	And that's the thing.
	It's a self-censorship.
	And it's so bad that we will let our friends die.
	Before we will say something to oppose this stuff and educate them.
	The magnitude of it is truly halting when you really stop to think about it.
	A guy like Mel Gibson, who is a multi-millionaire, he's famous.
	What's he afraid of?
	What is the threat that they can wield against him?
	A relative small fry like you and I might suffer actual consequences for a wrong thing.
	Say something, we might get demonetized or deplatformed.
	He's largely immune and even he is afraid.
	Yeah.
	And, you know, it's not his first rodeo either.
	You know, he said things that they either misconstrued or that he was anti-Semitic or whatever, and they came after him.
	They said, oh, just because you're doing something about the crucifixion of Christ, oh, you're now anti-Semitic or whatever.
	There's other things that he's said and done.
	Some of them he said he was drunk with or whatever, but he's been under the microscope before, and it worked.
	You know, they've got him intimidated, even though, as you point out, you know, he's a multimillionaire.
	He's got his own film production companies, and he can do whatever he wants.
	He's still afraid.
	And, you know, that's what Solzhenitsyn was talking about.
	He said, don't live by lies like that.
	You know, don't say that two plus two equals five, as George Orwell was saying.
	And that's the worst thing that we do is the self-censorship, because that's when they really got us.
	Sure, and also that when we accept their verbiage, you know, we were going to talk about this congestion pricing thing that they're doing in New York City.
	And the way they phrase it is interesting to me.
	They call it congestion relief.
	And it's of a piece with asking that you pay your fair share of taxes or that you contribute to Social Security.
	You know, they use these really subtle techniques to orient the way you think by the words that they use and you accept.
	And we shouldn't do that.
	This isn't about easing congestion.
	It's about making driving more arduous and expensive.
	That's like calling a heart attack a congestive failure.
	Yeah, right.
	Exactly.
	So I think etymologically, it's really important to examine the words that they use before you even have a discussion.
	Let's agree on what we're actually talking about so as to not let them win the debate before it even happens.
	Yeah, I've started calling them the flatulent Earth Society.
	By the way, did you see the fart coin thing?
	Yes, yes, we were talking about that coming up.
	But, you know, let's talk about the congestion relief zones first.
	Because, again, you know, we see this stuff begins in Europe or the UK. And then it comes to California or to New York.
	And we're seeing various aspects of this coming to both California and New York.
	This congestion relief zone.
	You've got an article about it.
	I've talked about it.
	How expensive it is to get in.
	It's going to be $9 to get in by car.
	In evenings, you can pay $2.25.
	But you go through and you calculate out the annual expenses for people that do it every day.
	For commuters, it's going to add like $2,160.
	That's a lot of money for most people.
	It is, and it's also incredibly obnoxious in that these roads were paid for by motor fuels, excise taxes that everybody pays for, right?
	And essentially what's happening is that they're giving preferential treatment to people who are affluent enough.
	To be able to pay that $9 fee.
	So it's another example of the way in which the American people are being proletarianized or Sovietized.
	Average people who have to work in the city but can't afford to live in the city are no longer going to be able to afford to drive into the city.
	So they're going to be herded into buses, trains, and other forms of government-controlled transportation.
	So that little sliver of freedom that they enjoyed, of being able to go to work on their own schedule, in their own car, safe in their own car, listening to whatever program they want to listen to without having some babbling schizophrenic sitting in the seat next to them.
	And if they want to stop on the way home and grab some groceries or whatever they need to do.
	It's a small, but it's a really important thing that people have taken for granted.
	And it's being taken away by these elite overlords who, by the way, they will never suffer the consequences of the impositions that they dump into our laps.
	And that's part of what goes on.
	You know, the arrogance, the effrontery of it.
	Everything that they do, they're insulated from because they're rich and they're powerful and they can do these things with impunity to us.
	And because they're sociopathic people, in my opinion, they do it because they don't care.
	They have contempt for the average people of this country.
	That's right.
	And it's not just about the elitists who can afford to have their cars and they can pay anything, you know, just to keep the rabble off of the road so they don't get the roads clogged with the hoi polloi out there.
	But it's also, they're taking all this money that they're going to be making, you know, about $2,200 a year from the average Joe, and they're not going to be using it to fix the roads, not even to fix the potholes.
	And, of course, as I've said many times, one of the things that Elon Musk got right...
	Was when he started talking about, hey, we're going to have to, our cities are going vertical and they're too congested.
	So what we need to do, and we sold his boring company idea.
	So we need to, you know, go.
	Three-dimensional on the roads.
	We can't expand them in two dimensions, so we're going to have to go.
	Now, most of the time you've seen in all of the old science fiction movies, everybody understood that.
	And so they'd show these congested cities with the skyscrapers and all the rest of this stuff.
	And they would have roads that are stacked.
	You know, you'd see that in the early 20th century, you know, movies of the future, you know, where they depicted a futuristic city.
	You'd have multiple layers of roads.
	And then they start just having flying cars that are flying.
	But it has to go vertical.
	But they're not willing to do that.
	They're not even willing to maintain the potholes.
	They're going to take all the money from this stuff, and they're going to pour it into public transportation because the goal has always been about controlling your movement and making you dependent upon them.
	And that's what it's always about.
	But you're talking about people not being able to come into the city.
	That was what started all this yellow vest protests in Paris because they were pricing people and keeping them from coming into the city.
	And the mayor of Paris is a full-on Marxist, and she was the one who pioneered all this 15-minute city.
	She may not have been the one to come up with the idea, but she was the first one to implement it, this 15-minute city idea.
	They don't want anybody having any mobility except them.
	I think there's going to be some pushback here, too, because I think awareness is dawning that it's not about good motives that are misplaced.
	In other words, these planners, these people who are pushing all this stuff.
	They're genuinely trying to deal with what they consider to be a legitimate problem.
	It's not that at all.
	Awareness is percolating upward that there's a maliciousness to this, that they're systematically just trying to put the thumb on average people in this country.
	And as that realization begins to spread, I think you're going to see more and more pushback, and not just with regard to congestion pricing, but with regard to so many other things.
	Insurance is another example.
	You know, people are just waiting for the next tsunami of increases in your homeowner's bill as the insurance mafia transfers the costs of what happened in California onto your policy and my policy.
	They're going to do that, too.
	And the car insurance, because of all these electric cars and the expense that they've added to the cost of coverage, again, it's the same kind of a thing.
	People are going to arrive at a point where the choice is, well, I can pay for this or I can eat.
	Or, you know, I could keep a roof over my family's head, and the choice is pretty obvious.
	And if we get mass disobedience, which I think would be great, mass disobedience is really healthy in a free society.
	That's how we fix this problem.
	You and I have talked over the years about how, if only, in the first few months of the pandemic, 20% of the people had just refused to put on that mask, just wouldn't do it.
	Take me to jail if you're going to do that.
	Fine.
	If enough of us had done that then, that whole thing would have been over within a few months afterward.
	Absolutely.
	And that's how it ended.
	It ended because people just said, you know, I'm tired of wearing this thing anymore.
	I'm just not going to do it.
	But unfortunately, we just walked away from this situation.
	And we didn't say, all right, now fix it so this never happens again.
	And I want the people who push this on us to be in jail.
	Instead, what we did was we voted for Trump again.
	We're going to have the greatest gulf.
	We're going to have the best gulf in the whole world, the Gulf of America.
	By the way, you may have thought about this too.
	There's a really sinister aspect to all this.
	Initially, at least for...
	Blush, inexplicable jabber about the Gulf of America and the American Canal and making Canada the 51st state.
	Doesn't that sound a lot to you like the North American free trade zone that they were pushing back in the Clinton era?
	And this is how they're going to do it.
	Because it's Red Hat MAGA guy that's doing it.
	So it's okay.
	That's right.
	Just like gun control by executive order is okay if it's done by Trump.
	Fortunately, I can do whatever I want to against the Second Amendment.
	You know, that was in 2019. Yeah, a lot of people pointed to a map from 1968 showing that that's exactly what they wanted.
	You know, the U.S. and Mexico, all the way up to Greenland, all of it.
	I think that the Greenland thing, and I said my take on this is, I know it's not about national security, because they had at one point in time, they've got a military base there.
	And right after World War II, they had 10,000 soldiers there.
	Now they've got 400. And it's because it's not necessary anymore.
	They're not going to be able to do anything from a surveillance standpoint that you can't do with a satellite.
	And they're not going to be able to stop any hypersonic missiles that come flying over Greenland for the U.S. either.
	So, you know, it has absolutely no...
	No utilitarian purposes at all for that.
	There is, however, a lot of mineral wealth there.
	Tremendous amount.
	But he's going to wind up.
	This is why I think it's going to happen.
	I said it on the show.
	I think he's going to wind up paying a fortune and a half to buy Greenland.
	He's going to pay off the people that live there.
	He'll pay off Denmark and all the rest of the stuff.
	And then they'll socialize those costs, and then they will privatize the profits with his friends like Elon Musk.
	They'll be able to go in and exploit all this stuff, make a ton of money, because the U.S. taxpayers bought that playground for them.
	I think that's what's going to happen.
	Yeah, you know, I hear all this cheering on the Red Hat side about how Elon Musk is going to make government more efficient.
	Well, that's the last thing we want.
	You know, the Soviet Gulag system was extraordinarily efficient.
	I'm rereading Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago.
	It's one of my favorite go-to books.
	Read that book every couple of years.
	And he describes in minute and great detail about how efficient the secret police apparatus was back then, about how they were able to round people up and then transport them and put them in these camps and dispose of them, ultimately.
	That was very efficient.
	We don't want efficient government.
	That's right.
	Hitler made the trains run on time.
	That's what everybody likes to say, right?
	Well, it's like, where are the trains going?
	That's what I want to know.
	Right.
	That's crazy.
	Yeah, you know, the first time I had you on, we were talking about Elon Musk.
	I remember we were talking about him.
	You had an article, The King of Crony Capitalism.
	And we talked about how he got his money and how here he is.
	He's going to be the guy that brings us government efficiency.
	Look, we've had one of these things, commissions after the other, going back to Ronald Reagan, and none of their recommendations are ever put into use because...
	You have to do, in order to save money, you've got to drastically cut back the welfare state and the militarized state as well.
	So the warfare welfare state's got to be cut back, and they don't have the will to do that.
	None of them want to do it.
	Even these Republicans, 18 or 19 of them, said, we're not going to cut back on any of these green projects because some of them are in my district, and I want that money from that so-called Inflation Reduction Act thing that was put in by Biden.
	But like I said today, earlier, all the MAGA media is cheering Trump because he's now going to do an external revenue service instead of internal revenue.
	And I said, you realize, of course, that the IRS and the income tax are going to remain, and we're all going to be paying the tariffs because you don't tax a corporation.
	All those costs are going to be passed on to us.
	But they're cheering it, and Trump is selling it like Democrats always sell their tax increases, saying somebody else is going to pay this tax, not you.
	It's crazy.
	Just call it a different name.
	So somehow a tariff, not a tax, because it has a different name to it.
	This idea that, for example, they're going to apply a tariff to vehicles that are manufactured in Mexico.
	Ford and General Motors have big truck manufacturing operations across the border in Mexico.
	So what's going to happen?
	They're going to impose a tariff on those vehicles that's simply going to result in those vehicles becoming even more expensive than they already are.
	And by the way, with regard to Musk, it astonishes me that people...
	Yeah, the carbon tax, he's always supported that, and of course the people around him are supporting what is essentially going to be all the functions of CBDC,
	but they won't call it CBDC. And the reason they won't call it CBDC... It's because they're watching to see what each and every person does, just like they watched you, just like they watched me, and they know that everybody's onto their game if they call it a CBDC. Nobody wants that.
	So they'll do the same function with their friends like Lucky Lutnik and all the rest of them.
	them, they will run their tokenization games and all the rest of the stuff, and they'll say that it's not a digital currency that violates your privacy, but that's exactly what it will be, a digital currency that violates your privacy and allows them to confiscate things very easily from you.
	And so they'll just do it in a different way.
	And that's why you have this back and forth, left, right march is so that people let their guard down.
	And that's what Trump is.
	He's the big pacifier in the mouths of all conservatives.
	Absolutely.
	And another thing related to this that really concerns me is he ran on and largely was elected on the promise that he was going to deal with the tsunami of migrants and refugees, the illegal aliens that have entered the country over the past four years.
	Well, how exactly is he going to do that?
	You know, the only way that I can see is by in order to identify who these people are and to know where they are is to identify you and me and everybody else.
	I foresee that there's going to be some kind of very aggressive national ID thing imposed on the country.
	And we're probably going to have an expansion of the already in existence internal checkpoints that you have within 100 miles of the border.
	Whereas an American citizen, you have to submit to an interrogation and an inspection by some border Gestapo guard.
	They're probably going to do that at the state level.
	So now if you move from one state to another state, you're going to have to go through some kind of a checkpoint.
	Because how else are they going to do this?
	We have to have anybody give me an answer.
	And they'll control, you know, they'll use interstate system to control you going across the state borders and everything.
	Because, you know, they've already used it for the 55 mile an hour speed limit type of thing.
	But they're all talking now about mandatory E-Verify.
	And I see, again, all of these so-called conservative MAGA media.
	I call them just MAGA media.
	But they're out there cheering it just like they're cheering.
	They are literally cheering, Eric.
	The external revenue service.
	It's like, what is the matter with these people?
	What is conservative about any of this stuff?
	They used to always be about anti-tax increase and everything.
	They used to always...
	Now, because it's Trump, they're like under a spell.
	You know, there's two types of Never Trumpers, as I pointed out.
	There's the people who are delusional about him, and that would be the MAGA people.
	And then there's the people who are deranged about him, you know, who absolutely hate him personally.
	But the MAGA people are deluded about him.
	And they will never blame Trump for anything.
	It's another form of Never Trump.
	You know, the other people want to blame him for everything.
	They will blame him for nothing.
	It all revolves around him.
	It really is amazing, isn't it?
	Well, it's psychologically interesting, isn't it?
	It's sort of a hysterical, a psychologically hysterical frame of mind that, you know, on the one hand, people would say that it afflicts the left.
	You know, the left will endorse anything that the left's leadership does because it's the left's leadership.
	Well, the other side is exactly the same way.
	So, you know, we've got these two sides, and you and I... Same people are caught in the middle between this.
	You know, these rabid ideologues who are not able to examine a question objectively and look at the facts and let's decide whether is this true or false?
	Does it make sense or not?
	Is it in accord with a baseline principle of some kind?
	No, it's just our guy who says it.
	So even if what he says is completely at odds with what he's supposed to be about, it's okay because it's that guy who says it.
	That's right.
	Yeah, clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right.
	Here I am stuck in the middle with you, Eric.
	Yeah, right.
	Right.
	Oh, by the way, you know, I don't know whether you had a chance to look at it.
	How prophetic that was, wasn't it?
	Completely.
	I posted an article on some breaking news that happened just overnight about a memo that was disclosed about the future of Chrysler, you know, which is in a disastrous state right now.
	And more than likely that brand is about to have its plug pulled.
	And the reason why, really, again, brings us back to Elon Musk.
	Stellantis, the parent company of Chrysler and Dodge and Jeep and Ram, for many years was paying exorbitant amounts of money to Elon Musk to pay off carbon credits, to get carbon credits so that they could be allowed to continue to produce the vehicles that defined those brands, that were big, V8-powered American cars that people like.
	The problem was those things got progressively more expensive as a result of those carbon tax costs being transferred onto the sticker price of the vehicles.
	So, ship-skate Carlos Tavares, who used to be the CEO of Stellantis until about a month ago, decided the thing to do so we can stop paying these carbon taxes is to stop selling those vehicles altogether.
	Instead, we're going to start selling electric cars exclusively.
	And that's gone over like the proverbial lead balloon.
	The management is realizing what a disaster it's been.
	And they had plans to turn Chrysler into a purveyor of electric luxury vehicles.
	Well, they decided we're not going down that road because we can't offload these things.
	So they're just going to offload Chrysler.
	Chrysler's done.
	It's gone.
	You can thank Elon Musk for it.
	And like a parasitical wasp, you know, he flies away with his abdomen full of the nutriment that he got from...
	Oh, yeah.
	Well, you know, and that's the thing about his Doge thing.
	The only thing that I've seen anybody mention concrete is, well, he's going to stop these subsidies to his competitors, right?
	He's already maxed out on all of that stuff, so now I've got to stop the other people who are trying to get into the same business that made me wealthy as a king of chronic capitalism.
	I've got to stop them from getting the subsidies that worked for me, and that's the only thing I've seen anybody talk about.
	I said, well, that's pretty certain that's going to happen.
	Of course, it's just to benefit him, but they're not going to make a A scratch on the rest of the deficit.
	And you know, the other thing that sticks in my craw that you should start pointing out to people as well is the fact that all of these Democrats and Republicans who do not care a whit about the deficit or the debt Why do they keep fighting to put more taxes on us, right?
	It is absolutely not about balancing a budget.
	They don't even remotely care about that.
	Why does Trump talk about we're going to have fiscal responsibility with Doge while he throws a temper tantrum over the fact that he couldn't get rid of the debt ceiling growing for two years, right?
	And then all the Democrats, they bought into this stuff.
	It says the magic money tree, the modern monetary theory, MMT. They say, hey, deficits don't matter, except when it comes to your tax cut.
	And then they all become budget hawks over the tax cuts.
	And they love to rub our faces in it.
	You know, one of the things that really gets my goat is how to put this.
	One Zelensky is worth millions of Americans.
	Think about all the money that has been transferred over to that corrupt regime in Ukraine.
	And by the way, it annoys me to hear him referred to with the honorific of President Zelensky.
	He's not a president.
	He's an unelected dictator who suspended elections.
	And he's on the receiving end of great hordes and tranches of grift.
	And meanwhile, these poor people, you know, in my area, I'm not far from Asheville, North Carolina.
	You know, and these poor people literally lost everything.
	What do they get?
	They get a 700...
	$50 loan.
	Not even, you know, here's $750 to help you buy some food.
	It's a loan secured by the deed to their property.
	That's what they get.
	But Zelensky gets another $800 million today and another $500 million next week.
	And that's what they're doing in California as well.
	They're still giving out billions of dollars to Zelensky for the war.
	And another $750 to the people there.
	Now, most of them don't need it.
	In the Palisades area, they're multimillion-dollar homes and that type of stuff.
	But there's a lot of other people who weren't multimillionaires, and they do need that kind of thing.
	I've got a comment here from Marky Mark in New Jersey.
	He says the congestion pricing is, of course, above and beyond the road tolls, the bridge tolls, and the parking.
	And while we're talking about parking, I'm glad that he brought this up because I was going to talk about what we're seeing in the UK now.
	They pioneered this...
	You know, congestion pricing stuff there in London.
	They pioneered the ultra-low emission zones or no emission zones, which now California is going to copy and say, no, you can't have any classic cars in these certain areas.
	Anything that is 1978 or earlier, we're not going to allow it to be there because we're going to start creating net zero low emission or no emission zones.
	But another aspect of this, again, beyond even the 15-minute cities, is Charging you for parking based on the emissions of your car.
	Think about that.
	Your car is not emitting anything while it's parked.
	But they're going to have a fee structure that gets really expensive for, of course, they charge people for parking even with electric cars.
	But it gets really expensive if you have a gasoline car, and really, really expensive if you've got a diesel car.
	And it was only about a year or two ago that I first saw that, and at that point in time, they were only putting a surcharge on for diesel.
	Now they're putting a surcharge on for diesel and for petrol, as they call it, gasoline car.
	And of course, it's much higher for the, they bumped it up another notch for the diesel stuff.
	But that's coming here as well.
	Emissioned.
	Emissions-based parking fees based on what they claim your car is emitting in terms of CO2. You know, the punitive aspect of that is despicable, but circling back to the article that I wrote about what's going on with Chrysler, It makes me so sad to think that these companies didn't have the backbone to try, at least, to explain the facts about these so-called emissions to people via a media and PR blitz.
	They had the resources, and they could have just put it on the table and pointed out, you know, we're not talking about throwing oil down storm grains.
	We're not talking about old junkers with blue smoke pouring out the tailpipe.
	We're literally talking about...
	Zero, zero point something's difference in some gas.
	It has no meaningful impact on anything.
	And for the sake of this, you are being serfed, you are being impoverished, you are being Sovietized.
	It is outrageous, and it is something that could be explained if only somebody would do it.
	I mean, I do my best to try to explain it, but, you know, I don't have the wherewithal and the means to get a huge mass audience, such as a major corporation could, by buying, say, a Super Bowl ad and explaining this stuff to people.
	That's right.
	Well, you know, and, of course, the outlet for you to be able to do that is social media.
	That's why they look so carefully at anybody who is opposing the agenda that's there.
	And it's not just about adjusting and micromanaging what people are going to buy.
	As you and I have been saying all along, the ultimate goal is to get rid of the electric cars as well.
	And they're making that very clear when they talk about the various pricing schemes that they got there.
	You're not going to be allowed to have an electric car either.
	That's just a transition to full prohibition of privately owned cars and the freedom to move around.
	I think the most effective way to challenge all of this, and this is a general thing, it's not just with the EVs, is to challenge the premise.
	You hear people accuse someone of, say, anti-Semitism, meaning or implying that somehow you're opposed to Jewish people or you don't like Jewish people, when in fact what you're saying is, I don't like mass murder.
	I don't like the policies of the government of Israel.
	It's got nothing to do with whether somebody's Jewish or not.
	Just the same as...
	I don't hate black people when I question affirmative action or racial set-aside policies.
	So don't wear the label.
	Question it.
	And the same with regard to emissions.
	No, my car's not polluting anything.
	My car is as clean as you can possibly imagine.
	Heck, you could close the garage door and idle one of these things and it would take forever to asphyxiate you.
	That's how clean they are.
	And it just needs to be challenged.
	Because they're counting on your guilt mechanism.
	They're counting on you feeling bad.
	Oh, I'm driving a car that's causing environmental damage.
	It's causing the climate to change.
	And I want to be a good person.
	Just like they did with the whole masking thing.
	You know, I don't want grandma to die.
	You know, I don't want to hurt somebody else's feelings.
	I don't want to make them scared.
	Well, the time has come to stop playing by their rules.
	That's right.
	And it is a behavioral science approach.
	They even call it that.
	Nudging people.
	You know, and they've got the same organization.
	We've already got...
	People who are poor and elderly on pensions, they can't afford to run their air conditioners right now in Australia, where it's hot.
	They're shutting that down because of that.
	And in the UK, they can't afford to run the heat because they can't afford to pay for it.
	Oh, and that's going to happen here.
	You know, you and I were talking a little off the air.
	Right now, where I live in southwest Virginia, it's in the low teens, and it's going to get colder than that in the next couple of days.
	It's going to get down to two or three degrees.
	There are people who can't afford the utility bill.
	And what's going to happen when they start rationing electricity?
	Which they will do.
	That's what the smart meters are for.
	That's what the smart appliances are for.
	You know, to prevent you from having too big a carbon footprint.
	People are literally going to freeze to death.
	And they're going to suffocate to death in the heat, too.
	And they don't care.
	In fact, I think that's what they want.
	Yeah, if you look at the electricity rates in the UK, as they're shutting down all their coal power plants, which, just like a car, can be made very clean, but that's not going to be allowed one way or the other.
	Not even with scrubbers, you're not going to have it.
	Well, their power rates there are four to five times what they are in the United States.
	And so, yeah, take your electricity bill.
	Is it $150?
	Let's say that it's $200 or something each month.
	You want to see that jump up to $1,000 each month?
	Can you afford that?
	That's what they're going to do to people.
	And they're already working on it.
	Up in New York on Long Island, they've got this massive windmill farm that's there.
	I've talked about this many times.
	And it's being run by a country, I think it was some oil companies out of Finland, I believe.
	And ironically are setting up this windmill grift.
	And I call it a grift because right now the wholesale price was in the low 30s per megawatt hour that they're selling on wholesale.
	They look at it megawatts instead of kilowatts like they do with us.
	But it's like the number is in the low 30s, but it's going to be in the high 50s is going to be just their profit.
	Whereas the entire cost right now, the entire cost is in the low 30s, just their profits will be in the high 50s.
	And why is that?
	Well, because it's got to be a windmill.
	And there's another aspect to this that not many people are aware of.
	It's extraordinarily subtle and extraordinarily vicious.
	The regs are such now, with regard to HVAC equipment, things like heat pumps and so on, that they are increasingly enormously expensive to replace, and you effectively are forced to replace them because...
	They will change the rigs with regard to what the allowable refrigerants are.
	So if you had a unit that was otherwise repairable, you have to throw it away because it's no longer compliant.
	So your choice is to do without or spend potentially $6,000, $10,000 or more on a new environmentally compliant heat pump.
	In the past, these things would last 25 or even 30 years, and they were repairable.
	Now they last 7 or 8 years, and you throw them away.
	And the basis of all this stuff is the Paris Climate Accord, which Trump is pretending that we're in, in the same way that it was a pretense for Kerry and Obama to say that we were in it.
	It's not going to change.
	And he's not going to be able to do anything with all these tariffs and controls and everything.
	He's not going to be able to bring back manufacturing.
	If the Chinese can get their electricity at one-tenth the cost of us, there's no way that you can compete with them.
	And it's even going to be more obvious because, you know, they've...
	Gotten to where they are right now because they exploited their slave labor that's there.
	But now it's going to be about energy as they start to automate things more and more.
	Your slaves, your robots, you know, the Czech word for slave was robot.
	Your robots are going to be running off of that electricity, and they'll be able to get their stuff at an order of magnitude cheaper than you can.
	So there's not going to be any way that you can do it.
	You can just make things more expensive for the people who live in America if you put these tariffs on.
	If he were serious with regard to cars, one thing he could do right off the bat would be to get the federal government out of the business of imposing what they call safety requirements on new vehicles, which have nothing to do with whether a vehicle is safe to drive.
	It just has to do with whether they're compliant with whatever the latest regulations are having to do with all sorts of arcane things, such as the position of a headlight or a turn signal and how big it is and things of that nature.
	And let manufacturers build vehicles with or without some of the things that are now mandated by government so as to lower the cost of those vehicles.
	Imagine if a vehicle manufacturer were allowed legally to...
	To design a vehicle that didn't have airbags.
	You know, it's not just the airbags.
	I harp on this a lot because I think it's important.
	The airbags are expensive, but the hidden cost is that the vehicle has to be designed around the airbags.
	The whole structure of it, the dash, everything.
	The doors, the seats, everything.
	This adds thousands and thousands of dollars to the price of a car.
	And that's fine if you're in a position to pay for that and if you want that.
	But if we live in a free country, why shouldn't I be free to buy a vehicle that doesn't have those things, that's more affordable, that meets my needs and serves my budget?
	How is it my so-called safety is any of the government's business?
	Oh, I agree.
	I agree.
	People make that kind of decision all the time.
	We used to be able to drive Pintos, as I said.
	Karen had one of those when we first met.
	Let's get to the point where I'm kind of a fanatic runner.
	Most people aren't as crazy as I am and won't go out and run on a day like today.
	Because it's 13 degrees out, and it's windy, and that's pretty harsh.
	But I'm, you know, I have no problem doing it.
	I'm healthy enough to do it, so I go out and do it.
	But it's going to get to the point probably where the government's going to outlaw that for my safety.
	Because, you know, oh, it's too cold for me, or for anybody, or whatever the generic standard is.
	That's what they always do.
	It's never individualized because we as individuals are not to be permitted to make our own risk-reward calculations.
	It's always got to be done by some expert technocrat within a bureaucracy someplace.
	And inevitably, that means it's one size fits all.
	And it's just insufferable to constantly feel like you're having a rope tied around you and being parented and pushed around by people who have no moral business doing it at all.
	Yeah, they're going to eventually use that argument.
	They'll outlaw motorcycles and everything.
	That'll be coming after they get rid of the cars, just to lock everybody down.
	High Boost has got a question for you, Eric.
	He says, what is the government and big tech's carbon footprint to keep the data centers running to spy on us and record every keystroke?
	That is a big elephant in the room, isn't it?
	Along with their wars.
	How much energy would it be?
	I mean, I don't really understand.
	I understand it, which is part of my problem with it, but you hear that the Bitcoin and these cryptocurrencies, somehow they mine data.
	That's somehow how the value is created.
	I don't have any idea.
	But my understanding is that that entails the use of tremendous computing power that soaks up a whole lot of electricity, which means a pretty big carbon footprint.
	But that's okay, because again, it's always okay if it serves the agenda.
	If it's something they want, then they turn a blind eye to it, for now, until they change their mind, and then it becomes another matter.
	It's just the rank hypocrisy of it.
	Sometimes it makes you just want to pull your hair and rend your fabric of your clothes, doesn't it?
	Take me back to 1985 when the world was still somewhat sane.
	Well, if you go back and look at CBDC, one of the things that blew up about that, you know, had Biden in 2022, I think it was, the spring of 2022, he gave all of the Alphabet agencies, which are all under the president, you know, the deep state is completely under the president.
	He gave them all six months to come back and talk about what they were going to do to...
	And so that was a big deal three years ago.
	But now...
	They don't talk about that anymore.
	They don't talk about the mining of Bitcoin.
	Because now they want the data centers that are going to use to spy on us and to data mine our lives and to collate everything.
	They want those.
	And so now they've shut up.
	about the crypto energy usage because now they're just concerned about how do we feed these AI centers that are going to give us all the information that we want about everybody.
	They've been collecting this massive amounts of information.
	They need something that's going to data mine that and collate that and feed it to the government in a summary about us.
	And so it's like pedal to the metal, how we're going to get energy for all these centers, these AI centers that are out there.
	And they don't care anymore about the amount of energy that they're going to use.
	And they're going to set up their own private grid, whether it's nuclear or even if they have to set up plants, power plants that use gas one way or the other by hook or by crook, they're going to have their AI centers that are going to be surveilling us.
	Sure, because it's the ultimate control mechanism.
	isn't it, at the end of the day?
	It's not just that they can know about every transaction that you make.
	They can prevent you from making transactions.
	This is the means by which they could implement the social credit score.
	You know, if you are somebody who is disobedient, if you are somebody who holds contrarian views and had the effrontery to actually express those views...
	Well, no gas for you today, or no electricity for you.
	You might have X number of dollars in your Bitcoin account or whatever they're going to call it, but what good are they if you can't use them?
	At least during the pandemic, one of the saving graces of that time was that you could still use cash.
	So face-to-face, in my rural community, I'm friends with the guy who owns the local country store down the road.
	He knows me, I know him, and we could transact business anonymously using cash.
	And he didn't make me wear a mask, because he knows he was opposed to it, and he was able to sell his produce, and I was able to buy it.
	In this dystopian CBDC regime, he wouldn't be able to do that.
	The pressure that would be exerted upon him, in the sense that it comes down to, can I make a livelihood?
	I know you're my friend and everything, and I'd like to help you, but if I do this, then I'm not going to be able to take care of my family.
	It's horrific.
	It's exactly the sort of thing, except in a technocratic way, that they did in the Soviet Union and they did in Maoist China and Cambodia and every other place that they've instituted this type of authoritarianism.
	But they've learned and gotten more clever.
	It's no longer sort of the brute bayonet in your back.
	It's these remote, centralized, technocratic control mechanisms that they're using this time.
	And they're going to do it in a very subtle way, and in a public-private partnership with Trump, because people kind of caught on to what they wanted to do.
	It's another reason that they're coming after the cars.
	I mean, you know, when you look at their COVID lockdown, and it was a global lockdown, and Trump was one of the key leaders in all of this.
	All of it at the very beginning.
	I talked earlier in the program about the fact that Davos is kicking off right as he's becoming president.
	So he's got to appear at Davos.
	This time it'll be virtually he'll give a speech that's there.
	But, you know, remember back in 2020, he went there in January the 21st.
	He gave a speech.
	And then within 10 days.
	His pharmaceutical executive that he put in charge of HHS locked us down with that stuff.
	And nobody had died.
	There wasn't any pandemic.
	But they agreed that they were going to create a pandemic.
	And so when we look at this moving forward, they've got their agendas, and they're going to push these things through one way or the other.
	I've got a question for you here from Brian and Deb McCartney.
	Can you ask Eric if he has heard of propane being added to the new refrigerants?
	Have you heard anything about that?
	I have.
	It's one of the new refrigerants that are being looked at, which is kind of alarming because it's highly combustible.
	You get a leak in the line and you've got a leak of that highly flammable gas under pressure inside your house, potentially near electricity, and kaboom!
	Yeah, wow.
	And they're getting desperate because there are only so many refrigerants that are at all effective.
	You know, they're getting rid of the ones that actually work, and they're trying things that, in a sane world, they would never use because they're dangerous.
	That's right.
	Well, it's all about them getting somewhere.
	They've got a new design that they want to sell people, and so let's ban all the other ones, so now everybody's got to buy our new design.
	You know, that's part of the crony capitalism that's there.
	But, you know, the refrigerants that they're banning were the ones that they were mandating just a few years ago.
	Right?
	And so now the worm turns.
	But it's all about planned, not even just a planned obsolescence, but it's about a planned prohibition that they put in.
	It's another form of obsolescence.
	Don't Frag Me Bro says, Carbon tax is a pretext for taxing the air you breathe.
	An unremovable face mask linked to rationed oxygen.
	Low score.
	No more O2 for you.
	I agree with that.
	You know, I wanted to mention a thing that's relevant to this discussion, too.
	It used to be the case that you could go and buy, as a regular guy like you and me, over the counter, you could buy refrigerant, whether for a vehicle or whether for a home HVAC system.
	So if you had some technical know-how, you could repair your system yourself.
	You can't anymore.
	You have to have an official government license in order to buy these refrigerants now.
	And you have to have special equipment.
	I mean, I'm lucky because I've got two friends who are professionals.
	may have talked to you about how the heater core blew up in my truck.
	So part of the repair procedure is I have to evacuate the AC system because you have to remove some lines to be able to get the duct work out.
	Luckily, I've got a buddy who's got the very expensive equipment that can be used to draw the refrigerant out.
	If I just opened up the lines myself, not only would I have committed an environmental crime of some kind, but then I would have lost a very expensive refrigerant that I then would have to go to a certified HVAC or AC technician to get put back into my truck.
	The more I look at Terry Gilliam's Brazil, you familiar with that movie?
	Yes.
	Okay, so at the center of that, right, was Robert De Niro's character who was going around and doing unauthorized air conditioning repairs.
	Remember that?
	That was the whole thing.
	It was like Tuttle or Buttle or something at the very beginning.
	This fly drops into the typewriter and puts out the wrong name.
	And so then you've got another subplot where they invade the home with a SWAT team and all the rest of this militarized police stuff, which was pretty much unheard of in 1984. You know, Daryl Gates hadn't even really started his stuff in L.A. that everybody patterned it after.
	So, you know, he kind of predicted that with an over-the-top SWAT team raid.
	Here we are.
	We're 2025. It's not so funny anymore.
	Exactly.
	It was done as a comedy, as a dark comedy, and yet it's all coming true.
	It's just like 1984 or something, except this was done as a comedy.
	So now we're going to have to have underground air conditioning repairmen.
	That's what it's going to come down to.
	By the way, I wanted to talk about this if it's okay.
	You know, a couple weeks ago when that guy drove the Cybertruck up to Trump's hotel in Vegas and blew it up, supposedly, the most interesting aspect of that story to me was that within hours...
	All over the media, they had a complete record of his peregrinations because the vehicle was constantly tracking where the guy went.
	So they knew he went here, he stopped there, he came here, he did this, he did that.
	And it's not just Tesla.
	I love to whack the Tesla and Elon Musk pinata, but it's not just him.
	It's all the manufacturers.
	Your vehicle is...
	A spy mobile.
	It is watching you.
	It is keeping track of everything that you do.
	And all of that data is being sent to what I call the hive mind.
	And it can and will be used against you at some point.
	And this has been going on for 30 years.
	And it's gotten to the point now where, I mean, it is surreal.
	You have cameras now in the new cars that I test drive that are facing you.
	That's right.
	And watching you.
	And the microphones are listening to you.
	And, you know, they're just waiting to turn that switch a little bit more where the insurance company is going to have real-time monitoring capability of your vehicle, you know, and every single time that you drive a little faster than the speed limit or you swerve.
	Because a kid ran on the road or, you know, some other thing along that lines.
	They're going to use that to jack up your insurance rates, and you'll have absolutely no choice because they've already made it mandatory.
	They'll say that you can't drive unless you pay up the money.
	And that's one of the questions that I had about that Cybertruck thing.
	You know, Elon Musk was saying, yeah, all of our telemetry was 100% and everything.
	We tracked everything they did.
	Well, you don't have any footage of him shooting himself in the head to prove it when people question that.
	I mean, you know, they've got a camera there, as many people talk about.
	Well, did he put a body in there and then remotely take it over there and shoot off the fireworks in the trunk?
	And so they could disprove all of that.
	By putting out the footage, but they don't do that.
	And, of course, they do say that, well, we've got a camera there that's looking at people's eyes to make sure they're actually paying attention, that they're not asleep, and to make sure, warn them if they're not moving enough or if they don't have their hands on the steering wheel or this or that.
	So they're watching you in the cab with that stuff, but they haven't released any of that footage yet?
	That's one of the things that stinks about this whole narrative.
	And another thing, too, whenever I discuss this issue, it's interesting, isn't it, that you buy the vehicle and it's ostensibly in your name.
	You're the one who's making the payments.
	The title has your name on it.
	And yet somehow the car is under the control of some other party.
	And you don't even know who it is.
	It's just a strange disconnect.
	And I think most people don't even realize it, though they're beginning to.
	And I think they're beginning to have a big problem with it, because why shouldn't they?
	I don't necessarily have a problem with this stuff if it were opt-in.
	If you were given the choice, hey, you know, we have the capability to mine your data.
	I'm sure they call it something more appealing.
	But we'll give you a coupon for a free stake or whatever once a month somewhere.
	You'll get something in return for it.
	But if you don't want it, you don't have to have it.
	You can say no.
	You can't say no.
	You know, you buy the vehicle and that's part of the package.
	And so you never really own the vehicle.
	Just like in this country, you never own your house because you constantly have to pay rent to the government in order to avoid being kicked out of what you like to think is your house.
	Oh, yeah.
	Well, no, they're not going to give you a free stake every week, every month or whatever.
	They're not going to give you anything.
	They want to own everything and you will own nothing.
	I mean, these people who run this stuff and do it, they are, if nothing else, they're incredibly greedy about all of this.
	Marky Marks.
	Mark says early refrigerants were ammonia and methane, which were eliminated for obvious reasons.
	Freon was invented to have a safe refrigerant.
	Now we've got to ban that.
	We've got to ban the second generation or whatever it was of that as well.
	They claim Freon is toxic, but the molecules are actually heavier than air, so they don't waft up into the sky.
	They settle down on the ground.
	All of that was a gigantic hoax.
	They managed to terrorize people about the ozone hole.
	They always come up with one, as you call it, MacGuffin or Boogeyman after another.
	There's a big hole in that whole narrative about the Freon hole.
	Not only is it not going to float up, but I remember when the thing came out, they said, oh, look, There's a hole in the stratosphere, wherever, that's over the poles or something.
	And they said, well, we've never seen this before.
	It's like, have you ever looked before?
	Well, no, we've never looked before, but it must be ominous because it's there, you know?
	It's like, you don't know if it wasn't always there.
	So cheap, inexpensive refrigerants, they've been pushed off the market in favor of expensive and potentially dangerous refrigerants, which will in their turn be pushed off the market for even more expensive and even more dangerous refrigerants.
	So, of course, the people at the apex of the pyramid, they'll be able to deal with it because they've got the resources and the money to be able to deal with it.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	Well, you have an article about Trump, a convicted felon, you point out.
	And you talk about how they throw their arbitrary laws at us.
	And, of course, he was railroaded.
	But at least the bright side of this, I think, is we finally got a politician with some convictions.
	My hope here in the article, I wrote about something that happened to me when I was a 19 or 20 year old kid.
	I got in trouble for growing pot plants back in the day.
	And I thought about this and thought, you know, while not carrying water from the orange man, I do have sympathy for the way, you know, at least just on the face of it, he was pursued inspecting.
	Dr. Javert-like over these alleged crimes that had no victim whatsoever, that were mostly technical foul kinds of things.
	And my hope was that he might have a moment of humanity in him and recognize that this sort of thing is wrong.
	doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong and persecuting people for such things and putting them in jail and ruining their lives over literally nothing you know you can't produce a victim which in a better time you know you had to produce a victim harm somebody got hurt somebody you know was defrauded something happened that was bad instead it's the state's authority was affronted in some manner and that becomes the basis for putting people in prison it's it's evil no yeah I think about what happened to me as a kid I
	I potentially could have gone to prison for growing pot plants in my state where it's now legal to grow pot plants.
	Totally arbitrary.
	Yeah, that's right.
	Like H.L. Meekin said, a year ago if I had a gold piece in one pocket and a hip flask in the other, the gold was legal and the alcohol was illegal.
	Now, here we are a year later after FDR gets in, and now the gold is illegal and the alcohol is legal.
	It's just arbitrary stuff that's there.
	And, of course, you would think that Trump would have some sympathy for people who are railroaded and had weaponized persecution against them, but there's still some question as to whether or not he's going to pardon all of the J6ers.
	And J.D. Vance actually brought this up over the weekend.
	Well, I don't know if they're violent.
	I don't know about that.
	You just had Biden pardon people on death row.
	I mean, it's amazing.
	There is absolutely no...
	It's all about him.
	And he never thinks about anybody else.
	He demands 100% loyalty to him, and he has absolutely no loyalty to his supporters.
	And J6 is...
	They maybe broke some glass or walked in a place where they ought not to have.
	And these people, some of them have been in prison now for four years.
	For what amounts to it, The worst, disorderly conduct maybe, some relatively trivial thing.
	Nobody was physically harmed that I'm aware of at that event.
	And as you say, for me it will be a big acid test if he does not issue a blanket pardon, and not only a blanket pardon, frankly, in a lot of the cases, restitution for what was done to those people.
	Just as recently as, what, a couple of months ago, I saw a video of, they actually sent the Hut, Hut, Hut crew, you know, the body-armored thugs descended on some guy's house.
	Because he had been there, I guess.
	You know, he hadn't done anything.
	They're still arresting people.
	They got 200 more people on the list, you know, that they wanted to get that they haven't gotten.
	And they were arresting people, you know, in the last month or so.
	They're going and getting more people.
	It's absolutely insane.
	And, of course, you know, he could always preemptively pardon people.
	That Biden has done that, preemptive pardon for Hunter, now that he has pardoned 1,500 people, now that he has pardoned people who committed murder and terror events and all that stuff.
	How in the world does Trump not do that?
	And yet it's Trump.
	Right.
	I can imagine that he won't do it.
	If it serves Trump's interests, he may do it.
	I think that's what it comes down to.
	That's right.
	Only if it is in his interest.
	Because it was not in his interest to preemptively pardon people, even though we had historical precedents, many of them.
	You know, just look at Gerald Ford and Nixon, you know, recently with that.
	But, you know, there were precedents for doing that.
	But his lawyer.
	Who I think was looking after Trump's interests decided that they would throw these people under the bus.
	So we'll see what happens with it.
	But it's not a...
	When you look at...
	The things that he suffered.
	He's had to pay some fines, and I know that's something that cuts him deeply to have to give part with some money.
	He's not been in jail at all.
	Eric, it's always great talking to you.
	Thank you so much for joining us, and stay warm.
	We're trying to fight that thing.
	I'll do my best, David, except when I go out there for a run in a little bit.
	Yeah, well, that's good.
	I'm glad you can do that.
	EricPetersAutos.com.
	EricPetersAutos.com.
	Excellent articles about mobility.
	About liberty and also some car reviews that are practical.
	Thank you, Eric.
	Appreciate it.
	Thank you.
	They see the common man as simple, unsophisticated, ordinary.
	But each of us has worth and dignity created in the image of God.
	That is what we have in common.
	That is what they want to take away.
	Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation.
	They desire to know everything about us while they hide everything from us.
	It's time to turn that around and expose what they want to hide.
	Please share the information and links you'll find at TheDavidKnightShow.com.
	Thank you for listening.
	Thank you for sharing.
	If you can't support us financially, please keep us in your prayers.

▲