Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Jan. 28, 2025 - The David Knight Show

03:01:29

The David Knight Show -1/29/2025

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	As the clock strikes 13, it's Wednesday the 29th of January.
	Year of Our Lord 2025. Well, today we're going to begin by talking about...
	They said the quiet part out loud.
	They said we're going to crash...
	Human wages.
	That's the purpose of AI. That's the purpose of big tech.
	But don't worry because there's going to be a utopia that follows, right?
	That's coming actually from Marc Andreessen.
	And we're going to take a look at what's going on with the persecution of David Daleiden and the Center for Medical Progress.
	The people who exposed the trafficking and body parts by Planned Parenthood.
	They've now been...
	They've worked out a deal.
	They're going to let them go in California.
	I guess maybe that's part of the fall from power of Lala Harris and Javier Becerra.
	But now we've got a new issue.
	Baby hatcheries.
	And what difference does Paris make?
	Are we in it?
	Are we out of it?
	How's it going to change things?
	Remember the movie, Is Paris Burning?
	Well, Paris is not burning, but lithium fires are everywhere.
	And in the third hour, we're going to have our guest, David Bonson of the Bonson Group.
	Financial advisor is going to be talking to us about the tax changes that are coming and all the implications of what Trump is doing.
	Tariffs, taxes, you name it.
	Well, let's begin with the collapsing human wages.
	And that is one of the most amazing confessions that we've seen here.
	Has somewhat recovered today.
	A little bit of recovery.
	They're saying, well, a record move in all this stuff.
	After we saw a record fall, you've now got a record recovery from NVIDIA. They've recovered.
	They fell 17%, and now they're back up by 5%.
	So they lost $589 billion, and then they regained $200 billion.
	Is the glass half empty or half full?
	It's like 44% full right now.
	So I guess you can be optimistic about it or pessimistic about it.
	But there has been a little bit of a recovery.
	The question is, as we're talking about that and laughing, even a dead cat bounces.
	The real issue with all this stuff is not even the performance of Deep Seek.
	And of course, they doubled down on it.
	Put out not just a chat program, but now one of the graphics programs to compete with OpenAI and others.
	Looks competitive.
	But the big issue was that Wall Street and all these people, except for government, realized that they had paid way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way too much for all of this stuff.
	It's ridiculous the way this thing, the price had been inflated.
	So, we'll have to see what the long term is going to be on this in terms of the stock market.
	Will it crash the stock market?
	I don't know.
	But the intention of these people is to crash your wages.
	That's putting it a different way.
	I mean, they've always talked about how the purpose of AI is to take your job.
	AI and robotics.
	As I've mentioned so many times, Travis Kalalnik, the CEO at the time of Uber, said the reason that car and that taxi drive is expensive...
	It's because that other dude in the car, we're going to get rid of him.
	And they want to get rid of everybody, frankly.
	They don't want any of us to have jobs.
	They want to sideline everyone and control everyone.
	It's just amazing to me the mindset of this and how people are not really focused on it.
	And so you've got Marc Andreessen, who has made some interesting and candid confessions.
	Talking about how the Biden administration told him, don't get into AI. We're not going to allow you to do that.
	You can't close that off.
	That's a field of science.
	It's like, oh, we've done that before with many different fields of science and physics.
	He says, well, that's kind of interesting.
	Not good, but interesting.
	And then he was laughing about Larry Fink and all of his ESG nonsense.
	And then he says this.
	Mark Andreessen.
	Founder of a massive venture capital firm, and of course he made all of his money initially in Netscape.
	Remember that?
	The first internet browser?
	He gave his, what he calls, techno-optimist vision of the future.
	And he is one of the technocrats.
	In a recent tweet, he casually proclaimed that AI must, quote, crash everyone's wages before it can deliver us an economic utopia.
	One that will definitely happen and certainly not create a permanent underclass of have-nots, says Futurism.
	Here is the exact quote of what he wrote on X or Twitter.
	He said, A world in which human wages crash from AI, logically necessary, is a world in which productivity growth goes through the roof and prices for goods and services crash to near zero.
	These guys will still get their money though, right?
	So in other words, everything, all the wages for us go to zero.
	Net zero.
	So we've got now net zero energy, net zero emissions, net zero food, net zero wages.
	You'll own nothing and you'll be happy, right?
	These people, however, will have all of those things.
	They'll have their own private jets and their own private power grid.
	Power plants, whether they're nuclear reactors or natural gas or coal, they'll have their own power.
	That'll be separate from that old grid, you know, that old infrastructure that Trump talked about.
	He said, that old infrastructure.
	It's really old, that electric grid.
	It's vulnerable to a lot of different things.
	You don't want that.
	You want to have your own power grid that's right there next to your manufacturing plant or your...
	AI nonsense, that's what you want.
	And we don't want the people to have power.
	That's the implication of this.
	Andreessen continues, he says, consumer cornucopia.
	Everything you need and want for pennies.
	Well, but they own it all, and they'll collect all the pennies.
	So, Futurism says, so fret not, lowly laborer.
	You may be destined for a financial ruin, but paradise is right around the corner.
	Pinky promise.
	Let's say Andreessen's tweet is a revealing example of the ruthless economic logic that underlies tech moguls' utopic visions.
	Let's just call it the technocracy, their vision of the future, in which progress is a foregone conclusion, rendering everyone's economic suffering and interim merely a means to an end.
	Like an overzealous fitness instructor, they always choose to emphasize the need for pain to achieve anything.
	Well, he may call himself an unapologetic capitalist, but look, he's what George Gilder called a neo-Marxist.
	He believes that their technology and their brains are going to create a world of infinite physical We've never had Karl Marx or Lenin make such extraordinarily absurd claims that they're going to take everything
	from you.
	But of course, that is necessary.
	In order for them to give you everything in the world that they promise, they always first have to take...
	Everything from you, as Gerald Ford pointed out.
	Marc Andreessen is the author of a book, The Techno-Optimist Manifesto.
	No, it's a neo-Marxist manifesto.
	That's what technocracy is.
	Amongst other things, it has Marxist influences.
	It has, certainly, totalitarian and tyrannical influences, where everything operates for their benefit.
	Right?
	The way Aristotle defined a technocracy.
	And of course, he said a tyranny has the worst aspects of an oligarchy and a democracy.
	An oligarchy, they do everything so they can enrich themselves.
	And a democracy, or as we're looking at now, this kind of merger between the oligarchs and the populist mob.
	Isn't that interesting how...
	History doesn't repeat, but it certainly does rhyme.
	You had the tyrants in Marxism, the people like Lenin and Stalin and other people.
	Then they had the people who were their supporters on the street.
	The French Revolution, Robespierre, the rest of the people.
	The mob who didn't have anything and was going to have even less after these people got in place.
	And now what do you have?
	You've got the populist mob out there, including conservatives who ought to know better.
	And they're not cheering the rule of law.
	They're not cheering tradition, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution.
	They're not cheering any of that stuff.
	No, they're just cheering their oligarch leaders.
	Hey, these billionaires can save us.
	And don't worry.
	They're altruistic billionaires.
	They're benevolent billionaires.
	Now, these are billionaires who are fighting tooth and nail to become trillionaires.
	And they do that by taking every last thing away from us.
	But it's that connection between the mobocracy, the mob at the bottom, now a bunch of populists as well as leftists, that mob at the bottom allied with the oligarchs at the top.
	And what we get out of this is technocratic tyranny.
	That's been the plan for a long time.
	Now you go back and look at the big new Brzezinski.
	Advisor who actually ran the Jimmy Carter White House, I believe, created the Trilateral Commission, and he wrote a book between two ages talking about the coming technocratic age.
	He did that 50-plus years ago.
	And so we're going to know everything that everybody does before they do it, and we're going to control everything that everybody does.
	I mean, it's one of the first layouts of this technocratic nightmare.
	Somehow, none of these AI evangelists' optimistic visions include immediately improving people's lives in a meaningful way, or any foreground measures to mitigate tech's massively disruptive potential to the job market, except perhaps with broad gestures to universal basic income.
	An idea that Andreessen, ever the unapologetic capitalist, Happens to hate, he said.
	Well, there's a difference between him and Elon Musk.
	Elon Musk embraces universal basic income.
	As a matter of fact, he had this to say about it.
	What to do about mass unemployment.
	This is going to be a massive social challenge.
	And I think, ultimately, we will have to have some kind of universal basic income.
	I don't think we're going to have a choice.
	Universal basic income.
	Universal basic income.
	I think it's going to be necessary.
	So it means that unemployed people will be paid across the globe?
	Yeah.
	Because there is no job?
	A machine, a robot is taking over?
	There will be fewer and fewer jobs that a robot cannot do better.
	Okay.
	That's right.
	Fewer and fewer jobs.
	Well, not a robot can do it better or not.
	So, he says, Andreessen says that universal basic income would turn us into zoo animals.
	He's right about that, actually.
	He's right about that.
	That's the intention Yuval Harari stated it.
	You know, hey, just stay in your cubicle, you know, like Ready Player One.
	Play your video games.
	Watch your pornography.
	We'll send you some money every once in a while.
	And a little bit of food.
	But we'll tell you what you can eat.
	And yet Elon Musk has been one of the key supporters, as I pointed out many times, along with Bloomberg.
	Elon Musk giving over a million dollars to this unknown guy, Andrew Yang, to push universal basic income back in 2020.
	Going back to futurism, it says, above all, many of these ultra-rich tech types like Andreessen can't help but publicly fantasize about punishing the poor.
	Larry Ellison, for example, co-founder of the software outfit Oracle.
	Drooled about how AI would supercharge the surveillance state, ensuring that, quote, citizens will be on their best behavior.
	And these people are coming from a leftist perspective.
	Why isn't it that we don't have more people on the conservative side worried about this?
	Well, it's because Trump is joining these people.
	So now they're good.
	All these people that conservatives used to dislike?
	Well, it's people like Elon Musk.
	Who pushed the climate change stuff as much as Bill Gates, but now he's good.
	He's a good guy.
	When asked in an interview about AI killing creative jobs, OpenAI's former chief technology officer suggested that those jobs, quote, shouldn't have been there in the first place.
	Andreessen seems to justify his disdain toward workers by claiming that many of them are America-hating communists.
	Well, if he's going to crash human wages, what is he, really?
	You know, I'm anti-communist.
	I hate the leftists.
	I'm an ultra-capitalist.
	I don't want to take everything that you've got.
	He's a technocrat.
	They're infiltrating companies.
	He said they're destroying companies from the inside out.
	That's why he talks about ESG. But can't we see where this is as well?
	Folks, we're going to have to figure out.
	You know, the public needs to educate itself.
	On the different aspects of fascism, it isn't some kind of a hand salute, okay?
	It's about the merger of government and business.
	We need to educate ourselves on fascism, on communism, on free markets.
	I like to call it free markets instead of capitalism.
	Because when I think of capitalism, I think of crony capitalism now.
	Because that has been the dominant form of capitalism most of my life, but especially now.
	The public-private...
	Partnerships.
	That PPP down your back and tell you it's raining.
	We need to figure out what's going on.
	People need to educate themselves very quickly about technocracy and how it has pulled elements of communism, fascism.
	But it's a totalitarian system.
	About a hundred years ago, it was really coalescing.
	With such seething contempt...
	Toward their employees, they said it makes sense while the richest people in the world are suddenly throwing ungodly amounts of money at technology to automate the jobs of the rank and file.
	Well, Trump says AI is so important he's going to build new power plants attached to the data centers.
	That's what he was doing with Davos Forum last week.
	I played that for you.
	And then he jumps in and cheers Stargate.
	And these people...
	All wind up with egg on their face talking about how, oh, this is going to be big.
	It's so huge.
	It's going to be half a trillion dollars.
	So look at us.
	Look at how powerful we are.
	Look at how smart we are because we've got all that money.
	And then you find out, then they get deep-seeked.
	So it's been an interesting couple of days when we look at this.
	But after deep-seek, Trump responds.
	Because it made them look pretty stupid, as I said.
	You know, Elon Musk is like, I don't know, you don't have enough money, I've got the money to do this, and it can only be done with astronomical amounts of money, right?
	Well, not true now.
	Not true.
	So, Trump says, oh yeah, you know, being able to do this at a low cost, that's a really positive development.
	Instead of spending billions and billions, you'll spend less, and you'll come up with hopefully the same solution, and that's my concern.
	See, we can look at this, and the key issue coming out of all this is that the stock market, who knows what's going to happen with the stock market?
	Will it be the pin that bursts the bubble?
	Will the market recover?
	What's going to happen with that?
	That has financial issues for the entire economy, even if you're not in the stock market.
	But further on, when we look at it, what is the solution?
	Hopefully we'll have the same solution.
	What Trump is talking about is a very dystopian solution.
	Very dystopian.
	And we need to understand how they're going to weaponize this.
	Look, they're getting biometric data, DNA collection, all this kind of stuff at the border.
	This is where they're going to roll it out.
	They're going to roll out the digital ID, the biometric IDs, and all the rest of this stuff.
	And it's not going to be about a digital ID. They're already talking about the fact that the smart cities won't need a digital ID. It'll all be biometric.
	They'll look at your face.
	They'll even look at, they'll even identify you by the way that you walk.
	They call that, you know, a gate.
	G-A-I-T. They can identify you by so many different aspects.
	And that's the real goal.
	But we've got to do it because we can't control the border, right?
	Look at what Biden did.
	He just opened up the border.
	So we've got to be able to do this.
	We can't shut the border in a reasonable way.
	No, we have to have a full-on surveillance state in order to protect you.
	From illegal immigration, the problem solution, the good cop, bad cop solution that is out there.
	And there's a lot of stuff that Trump is talking about, as a matter of fact.
	Well, we'll get to that in a moment.
	So again, at a fraction of the cost, they did it.
	Instead of $600 billion, they say they paid $6 million.
	Well, I don't know if that's true or not, but we've heard for a while that China had $8 billion total in all of this stuff.
	Looks like that might be true.
	This staggering sum of half a trillion, emblematic of the outrageous amounts of capital and processing power that the industry talking heads have been insisting is necessary to develop large language models for AI. The price tag now looks like a ridiculous monument to the arrogance of the tech industry and also to financial decadence that comes from government contracts.
	The government has thrown so much money behind all this stuff.
	Money is no object when it's the American government because they just print more of it.
	They don't care about deficits or any of the rest of this stuff.
	So when big tech aligned itself with Washington and started collecting these big paychecks and this unlimited amounts of money to do anything, they got fat and lazy, quite frankly.
	So how is OpenAI going to respond to this?
	Well, they immediately launched.
	ChatGPTGov, a government version of the chatbot, specifically built for U.S. government agencies who don't care about price and performance, right?
	You do it for the government.
	You charge them ridiculous, you know, so like the $600 toilet seats or whatever.
	Now we've got a ChatGBT, a $600 billion toilet seat.
	So they are now becoming a government contractor and becoming more and more enmeshed in Washington.
	And, of course, that has been their real business model all along.
	Sam Altman going in and talking to Congress and saying, you know, AI is just so important and so dangerous.
	Nobody should be allowed to do it.
	You need to restrict this to just two or three groups.
	That's one of the reasons why when Andreessen goes and meets with the Biden cartel, They tell him, you're not going to be allowed to do this.
	Are you giving this to OpenAI and a couple of other people?
	You're not in that club.
	And so this is just a consolidation of that.
	In December, OpenAI reversed course on its long-standing prohibition of its tools being used for military purposes.
	You know, like autonomous killer robots and autonomous killer drones.
	And they partnered with a drone maker, Endrill, on defensive systems for the U.S. military.
	And Andrew Hill is very interested in weaponized drones for our border.
	Our border.
	No one gets in.
	No one gets out.
	So part of the sales strategy, convincing the government that it needs to use the latest large language models to stay ahead of its rivals, namely China.
	Well, this was sent to me by Doggy Stylus, and it's by a guy on Twitter.
	It goes by 7Cs.
	The number 7 and the S-E-E-S, as in you see something.
	And in this, he's talking about Trump's designs on using artificial intelligence for Medicare.
	They're going to use it for everything.
	They're going to use it for the IRS. They're going to use it for Medicare.
	You know, you're going to have the same solutions, but hey, we can get there cheaper.
	So that's a good thing because what they really care about is technocratic tyranny.
	Here's his take on what he sees with the use of artificial intelligence and Medicare.
	HR 193.
	So this bill is called to direct the secretary of health and human services to issue guidance on payment under the Medicare program for certain items involving artificial intelligence.
	So essentially what we're seeing here They plan on releasing biotechnical medical devices for the sick and the elderly that will be approved under Medicare so that when we do start forcing these AI,
	biotech, technocratic prison accessories onto these sick and dying people, it's not only going to be funded by taxpayer dollars, but they're going to be targeting the The elderly and the sick, the ones that qualify for Medicare.
	And what's going to happen is they're going to begin to emotionally manipulate people.
	They're going to proposition how these certain AI devices are going to change the life of someone that you love and restore senses or will leave pain or prolong life.
	And essentially what they are trying to do is get you and the rest of us taxpayers to subsidize turning our parents and grandparents into data variables because these are going to be the first people that they're going to be testing these technologies on much like with the mRNA vaccines there's no telling what's going to happen and the fact that they are choosing some of the most vulnerable
	groups in the country To be the test bed for these things is extremely concerning.
	Yeah, extremely concerning.
	Well, they've done it before, as you point out, with the jab, with Trump's jab, right?
	So now Trump with AI and Medicare.
	We're going to track everything that you're doing.
	We're going to use you as guinea pigs again.
	And they'll be able to do it more cost-effectively.
	But, you know, these people just really love us.
	They're there to heal us.
	And I often think about the brain-computer interface that Elon Musk is talking about and how he tells everybody, you know, it's going to let the blind see and the lame walk and all the rest of this.
	Does that sound familiar to you?
	Was there somebody else that did that?
	In a different way, you know.
	And so this Antichrist...
	Baphomet billionaire with his upside-down cross on his suit that was his Twitter picture for the longest time.
	He talked to Alex Jones about it.
	I didn't realize this.
	I just saw this.
	He talked to Alex Jones about the brain-computer interface.
	Alex got an interview with him back in 2023. I didn't even know that.
	And, you know, so it's very important to suck up to people like a Baphomet billionaire.
	Because you never know.
	You know, they might throw you some favors or some money.
	I know you've talked about incredible jets you want to invent and some other things.
	Is there any other big invention you've got on the drawing board in the back of your mind that you haven't announced to the world that you want to tell people about today?
	Ha ha!
	No.
	This would not be the forum for announcing any new products or technologies.
	So, I mean, we do have the Neuralink chip, which I know some people might be concerned about, but that's really something that will take a very long time to be in any kind of widespread use.
	We've got the first use, the first patient will get a Neuralink chip.
	This is a quadriplegic, and it will enable them to control their computer and their phone.
	And my uncle was in a motorcycle accident, and he was having seizures, about to die, couldn't even walk.
	He got, it's not one of your brain chips, but a brain chip.
	And actually, he can walk and talk and he's happy now, so that's not bad.
	Yeah, that's not bad.
	What's bad is, you know, when you've got it hooked into a computer, which can do all kinds of things to you, right?
	And so, you know, he just, he sells it, because it's like a brain-computer interface is like sugar water, isn't it?
	It's like the sugar water vaccine that Trump is putting together.
	Junior Barner says, don't worry, it's 40 chests.
	Trump and Elon will save us.
	Yes, they are going to be.
	Trump has come back from the dead, says the World Economic Forum.
	First man to do that.
	He's risen from the dead.
	And he's beating us.
	And Elon Musk is going to save us.
	He's going to make us walk and see and all these other things.
	I hope you see the contours of this now.
	Sprumford says people need to work.
	You're absolutely right.
	You know, we go back and we look at this.
	Oh, it goes back to Genesis, doesn't it?
	You know, God made man to work in the garden.
	It was after the rebellion to God that God cursed the land and made it difficult to work.
	But we find fulfillment in work.
	It's just that, you know, when we...
	They try to use the computers.
	They don't always work.
	Many other things.
	The ground is cursed and the rest of this stuff.
	And so we need to work, but it's a love-hate relationship, isn't it?
	Because it's been cursed.
	And these people are telling us the same lies that Satan told Adam and Eve to get them to rebel against God.
	You'll live forever, and you'll be like gods.
	They think they're going to be like that.
	But their real plan, now that they tell us, is to put us on universal basic welfare and to have human wages crash.
	That's their real plan.
	They're the ones who plan to be like God.
	They're the ones who plan to live forever.
	And so, don't frag me, bro, says, if you think tyranny's only coming from the left, you won't see it coming from the right.
	That's right.
	A lot of these people don't even feel it when the knife goes in their back.
	Because it's just 4DHS. He's doing an operation.
	Don't worry.
	He's doing a brain-computer interface.
	It's all good.
	It's not a bad thing.
	It's not a bad thing.
	And the vaccine is sugar water.
	You can take that, right?
	Mercury, aluminum, that's not a problem.
	Not a problem at all.
	Capitalism we have today is definitely not the original laissez-faire.
	Free market capitalism, we're told.
	Like I said, that's why I don't like to use the word capitalism.
	It's a tainted word now, the way that the Marxists have used it.
	But I think it also conveys the rich concentration of stuff.
	But today we see it in...
	The private-public partnership, the crony capitalism that's there.
	But as always, I think men use to show the extremely wealthy people like J.P. Morgan and things like that.
	They've become the face and the definition of capitalism.
	And just like the left, we need to move to other words.
	They stole the word liberal.
	It used to mean that people were about liberty.
	They stole that.
	And then when that was thoroughly discredited, they moved over to other things like progressive.
	So, we need to be at least as smart as they are.
	Matthew Ronson, they already need their own power plants for their massive personal information data centers.
	That's right.
	And it's information about you, personally, that is there.
	Retech Weird says, according to George Webb, DeepSeek used hacked NSA, data scraped the data, and took the lead.
	Well, you know, I don't know if that's true or not.
	Anybody can be hacked.
	The NSA can be hacked.
	The CIA's been hacked.
	The federal government's been hacked.
	The Department of Defense has been hacked.
	We've got the biggest banks have been hacked.
	Anybody can be hacked.
	And you can be hacked from the inside as well, right?
	Backdoors that are there.
	And they insist on backdoors and everything.
	But look, everybody can scrape.
	That's why I say, you know, when they get freaked out about TikTok, well, the data that's there can be scraped off by anybody.
	It's easier if you own the system, right?
	And, of course, you can, with the algorithm, you can push things at people.
	And that allows you to then test their response and things like that.
	So it's an advantage to own it, but it isn't necessary to own it to scrape data off of it.
	And they're doing it all the time.
	Everybody's doing it all the time.
	I mean, your employers are scraping data off of it.
	The government is scraping data off of it to get you in trouble, to come after you, to attack you.
	Wes Robertson, technocratic dialectical materialism amalgamated with economic fascism is what I'm describing.
	That's a good description of it.
	Technocrats, dialectical materialism amalgamated with economic fascism.
	The merger of government and these companies.
	That's a good way.
	To describe it.
	David Strauss, public-private partnership equals fascism.
	It's the government and industry uniting against the people.
	Jason Barker, good to see you.
	Knights of the Storm, Foxhole Report said, with a brain chip, is a person controlling their phone, or is it the other way around?
	Well, I think it's eventually the other way around.
	And, you know, the question is, with social media, are you controlling social media, or is social media controlling you?
	It was necessary from another number of standpoints, and we'll talk about Trump, not Trump, but Musk.
	It's so hard to tell them apart anymore, right?
	Brothers from another mother.
	Elon Musk's mother is a piece of work, isn't she?
	Satanism written all over her.
	But just like her son.
	But, you know, we'll talk about his designs for Twitter.
	But I think it was necessary for him to, first of all, look at all he gets for Twitter.
	All these people say, oh, he's sick.
	He paid like 40 plus billion dollars for our free speech, say the conservatives.
	No, he got it so that he could control you, conservatives.
	He bought it.
	He switched his allegiances there because he saw that that was where the trend was going.
	It's the same type of stuff that Rupert Murdoch did when he looked at media.
	He's not a conservative.
	He's not for any of these values.
	And, of course, you can see that in Fox News and Sky News and these other things.
	But Rupert Murdoch looked at media, and he said it's overwhelmingly one-sided to the left.
	So I'm going to do something nobody else is doing.
	I'm going to do conservative media.
	And then when he looked at talk radio, the same Rupert Murdoch said, well, talk radio is overwhelmingly conservative.
	So I'm going to create a talk radio network that's leftist and go against the grain.
	And so that's really what Elon Musk was doing.
	He looks at it and he can scope out what's going on.
	He can see that the left has lost its mind.
	And is, you know, circling the drain.
	And so he jumps in with conservatives so that he can, first of all, control them to make them think that he is their savior, but so that he can observe them better and manipulate them better with his Twitter.
	But it's also got financial aspects to it as well.
	So we have an AI CEO at the World Economic Forum last week.
	One of the panels was called Empowering People.
	With digital public infrastructure.
	They're not ever about empowering you.
	They're about enslaving you.
	This was a CEO for a company called Avathon.
	Provided a vision of a gloomy future of optimized and omnipresent surveillance.
	Yeah, he's an optimized optimist.
	So he said he believes in the next five to ten years.
	Well, you know, five years to get us to 2030, which is when they wanted to have their fourth turning in place and their 2030 agenda for smart cities and sustainable development goals and all the rest of this stuff.
	Within five to ten years, there'll be no need for digital ID since they'll have facial recognition, and they'll have other things that'll be built into the smart cities.
	The panel was dedicated to the digital public infrastructure, a buzzword that has become very popular.
	With the World Economic Forum, the UN, the EU, and Bill Gates.
	And he said the financial and identity portions of digital ID will converge to produce the results that he predicted.
	He says the population will be under constant surveillance and identified at all times.
	That's the purpose of the smart cities.
	Another panelist, Hoda Al-Khazami.
	She works at New York University and Abu Dhabi.
	She spoke about the connection between this digital public infrastructure and smart cities.
	She said governments want to make sure that they provide seamless services to the rise of smart cities.
	This is very much like the Ukraine.
	2030 video.
	Wow, this is going to be great.
	By 2030, you know, we're going to have won the war in Ukraine.
	And you'll be able to do everything.
	So they list down all these different things that you have to do, which all interfaced with government.
	It's like, you know, my utopia wouldn't be not having to interface with government.
	Not having to ask them for permission to do this, and permission to do that.
	And to interface with them in order to get them to give me a check so that I can survive.
	That's not what I'm looking for, but that's what that video was about.
	And so when she talks about seamless services, that was what Ukraine 2030 was talking about.
	Of course, where's that coming from?
	The same globalists that are running NATO and the United States and the UN and all the rest of this stuff.
	So when they talk about services, again, I always go back to the Twilight Zone episode to serve mankind.
	Yeah, the aliens came and the guy found out that it was actually a cookbook.
	How they could eat us.
	The best way to serve pork or the best way to serve mankind.
	Al-Khazami also praised the public-private partnership.
	There it is.
	You know, you'll see that all the time.
	Public-private partnership.
	And you'll see stakeholder.
	Stakeholder.
	While acknowledging the potential for abuse, she said, you don't want to subject the citizens to mass analytics if they don't want to have this mass analytics infrastructure.
	But then she quickly contradicted herself by saying that there are cases where this should be done, such as to, quote, analyze population data for health pandemic outbreaks.
	There we go.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, they can lock you down good and hard because you're not going to have a car this time, you know, next time, right?
	They're hoping.
	That was the thing that allowed us to mitigate this so much, you know, people, the mobility that people had.
	Again, as I said before, DeepSeek has now, after their chat program, they've now released an image generator that they said beats DALE and stable diffusion on their benchmarks.
	This is generating a still image.
	They'll probably, I would predict, here's a prediction, in a few days or maybe weeks or whatever, they'll probably release some kind of video creation software.
	They call their program Janus Pro 7b, alluding to its beefy 7 billion parameters in the new configuration.
	The AI model was made available on GitHub and on Hugging Face to download on Monday, along with a slimmer 1 billion parameter version that you could run on your local computer, many people.
	So they challenge, again, OpenAI's DAL E3. Stable Diffusion XL. What they say in this tech article, they say, notably, MidJourney was left out of the analysis.
	What do you think, Whistler, you think that MidJourney is the better of the three?
	That they didn't have that out?
	Yeah, he says, I don't know.
	Consumer Financial Protection Board Director from the Biden administration says that the banks were resisting rules.
	Against debanking people over political or religious views.
	In other words, what she's saying is that her name is Rohit Chopra.
	What she's saying is that the banks wanted to do it even more than the Biden administration.
	Which we know they were working together in a public-private partnership.
	She was the head of this monstrous thing that was created by Elizabeth Warren.
	And so she went on CNBC. And she said, when CFPB put into place a policy view that banks should not be debanking based on certain characteristics, they sued us for that, she said.
	And she said she referred to certain characteristics, quote-unquote, pertaining to political or religious views.
	You see, geospatial intelligence, since it was created in the late 90s as the Internet, was being put together.
	Finally, they had the hardware to realize the vision that had been there from the psychologist, the DARPA psychologist in the 1960s, J.C.R. Licklider.
	So when it became practical to implement this nightmare scenario, they created geospatial intelligence.
	And just one simple example of it was what Bank of America did to get people in trouble on January the 6th.
	Giving all this information to the FBI about all the people who were in a particular area.
	And part of what geospatial intelligence does, what it was created for, it has been the fastest growing branch of the intelligence community.
	It's where James Clapper rose.
	And prior to 2020, they're having huge conventions every year, 4,000 or 5,000 people a year attending, professionals.
	You know, they wanted to identify people by their political or religious views.
	So when a co-host on MSNBC said that the banks are denying that they engage in debanking, Chopra said, so why have they been so resistant then to some of the rules that make that absolutely clear?
	I would certainly hope that they're not using any of those criteria at all, but it is important that the regulators make sure of that.
	And so, you know, this is done to essentially cheer Trump.
	Because, you know, we have to, we're not going to make common cause with anybody who is in the Biden administration, even if they want to push back on the surveillance police state.
	No, no, no, no.
	We've got to still keep this partisan.
	Well, she's absolutely right about that, for whatever purpose she is telling the truth there.
	They always have to question people's motives.
	In the sense that when you had the first press conference from the new press secretary for Trump, I think she's like 27 years old or something, but she was really sharp and articulate.
	But one of the things that she said as an announcement, Donald Trump told us that he was going to tell us what was behind the New Jersey drones that were happening.
	Maybe they should start a sports team, the New Jersey Drones.
	And all the guys in the stand just go, mmm.
	That could be their cheer, right?
	Anyway, he was going to tell us what was going on with the New Jersey Drones.
	And he said, it's all the government.
	I thought, well, I said that from the very beginning because if it wasn't the government, they'd be doing something about it.
	But, you know, I told my family, I said, well, that's what I always thought.
	Now that Trump is saying it, I have to question whether I was right or not.
	That's how cynical I am about politics.
	And skeptical I am about that whole idea of these Chinese gravitic engines.
	It's starting to sound plausible now after Trump says it was just the government.
	I don't know.
	I think it's still the government.
	North American House Hippo.
	I wish AJ would get an interview with Musk while Musk is high.
	AJ could do for Musk what he did for Charlie Sheen.
	Yeah.
	That was an interesting...
	AJ used to not be partisan, right?
	He'd have Democrats come on all the time, Republicans would come on, conservatives would come on all the time.
	It wasn't until Trump came along that he revealed himself.
	To be a tool of the CIA. Anyway, Atomic Dog.
	Elon is not my savior, neither is Trump.
	Not even David Knight.
	Good.
	Jesus is my savior.
	He is the good guy.
	I agree.
	Absolutely.
	Yeah, don't follow anybody.
	Don't follow me.
	I can be wrong about stuff.
	I won't deliberately lie to you, but I can be wrong about things.
	But don't trust anyone, as I've said before.
	Be cynical about politics and politicians.
	And even commentators be skeptical about science because science is never settled.
	As soon as somebody tells you that science is settled, it's like, okay, okay, I know where you're coming from now.
	You're trying to just assert authority over me.
	And if you've got somebody who's in the media that says, I'm totally unbiased, well, that's just like a scientist saying that science is settled.
	If you're telling somebody that you're unbiased, you're either not aware of your own biases or you're lying or both.
	And so everybody's got their bias.
	Just listen to people on the different sides or whatever and understand that they've got a bias in the way they look at stuff.
	Like I just said, my bias is to not believe the government.
	And so when Trump says the thing that I always thought was the case, it's like, well, I don't know.
	Maybe I was wrong about that.
	North American house hippo.
	MAGA is going to love it.
	When we, by Canada, 13 new states, 26 new senators, mostly Democrat.
	Oh yeah, Canada's to the left of the United States.
	I'm not talking about geography here.
	And here's the good part.
	40 million new Democrats.
	I can't believe Musk hasn't thought of moving back to Canada, replacing Poliev as conservative leader and becoming prime minister.
	It'll make the sale a lot smoother.
	You know, they're talking about having Mark Carney, the central banker for both Canada and the UK. If ever there was a globalist, that's Mark Carney.
	Carney the con man.
	They're talking about having him run up against Polyev.
	And by the way, very disturbing to see Polyev saying, I'm not getting out of the Paris Climate Accord.
	Really?
	Really?
	The Conservative Party of Canada under Polyev?
	Is going to continue in that?
	In the same way that the Conservative Party in the UK did?
	Really?
	Well, that's very interesting.
	Because I don't think it's because Paliyev doesn't know that there's no global warming.
	I mean, he's a smart guy.
	He's a real smart guy.
	So that's, to me, that is one of the most damning things I've ever seen any politician say.
	LifeSite News was talking about that.
	They said, you know, he doesn't want to get out of the Paris Climate Accord.
	They're looking at it as something that promotes abortion.
	It's not primarily about that.
	But, look, the whole climate agenda is about destroying families.
	It's about reducing population or eradicating population.
	Everything about the environmentalist movement.
	It all had its roots in the depopulation movement and Paul Ehrlich and other people like that, the population bombers I've talked about for the longest time.
	So, of course, Any climate change is going to be about don't eat anything, don't have any kids, and all the rest of this stuff.
	Of course it's going to be about that, but when you look at that, to me, that's Poliev saying he's not going to get out of the Paris Climate Accord.
	That would be like somebody, a scientist, telling you that science is settled, or a commentator telling you that he doesn't have any bias.
	North American House Depot goes on to say, Yeah, to make the sale a lot smoother if he did it.
	Yeah, they could run Musk against Mark Carney.
	And then either way, the technocrats win.
	That's the kind of thing we usually see, right?
	Either way, you lose.
	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.
	Donald J. Trump has effectively given 120 Mexicans asylum.
	Well, we'll see what happens with that.
	Says, there's a brand new AI video generator that I saw last night that's much better than anything that we've seen before.
	It's called Q-E-W-N. How do we pronounce it?
	Queen?
	So, I don't know, but it almost looks like some kind of a new gender from LGBT. He says, and it's free right now.
	Seems to be very censored, though.
	It refused to generate anything with the name George Washington in it.
	Oh, there you go.
	Is George Washington bad?
	When he first put that up, he had a typo.
	It's Q-Q-W-E-N. Is that it?
	Q-W-E-N. There we go.
	Okay.
	Not Q-E-W-N, but Q-W-E-N. Cohen.
	Cohen.
	Is that coming out of China?
	Yeah, you don't know.
	Okay.
	When he first put it up, he says it refused to generate anything with the name Georgette Washington in it.
	Is that what you're trying to do?
	A tranny version of George Washington?
	You know, hanging out with Bruce Jinder?
	No, he wasn't trying to do that.
	Well, as we look at the markets getting roiled, we got gold doing its job, as one person said.
	Prices are down, and it is still beating the S&P 500. That's good news.
	But when we look at the tax plan, we'll be talking more about this when we get David Bonson on.
	I thought it was kind of interesting, this article from Mike Shedlock said, wave goodbye to Biden's minimum global effective tax rate of 15%.
	And he said, flashback to June 5th, 2021, just six months after he got in.
	Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen said the G7 put out the statement, G7 finance ministers have made a significant unprecedented commitment today that provides tremendous momentum towards achieving a robust global minimum tax at a rate of at least 15% for corporations.
	And so he says this is a victory because, you know, Trump is going to put it at the minimum that he's allowed by the globalists.
	It's like, really?
	Yeah, because he's a big Trump cheerleader.
	Trump is doing many good things by executive order.
	Here's another one.
	Here's the thing.
	We don't want to be ruled by executive orders, first of all.
	You ought to do one executive order as president, if you respected the Constitution, that'd be to get rid of all the previous ones.
	But he's not doing that either.
	Not getting rid of the pandemic declaration that Biden extended to December 31st, 2029. Why isn't he talking about that?
	Why isn't he getting rid of that?
	Well, because he plans on using it.
	They're passing the baton back and forth to each other.
	But he says this is a part of what was cooked up by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the OECD. And it had two pillars in this deal.
	He said the first pillar was to impose a surtax on the world's largest corporations aimed primarily at American tech and pharma firms.
	Well, we wouldn't want to do anything that's going to be aimed at big tech or big pharma, would we?
	Yeah, Trump will protect them.
	And pillar two was to create a minimum global effective tax rate of 15%.
	And governments, such as France or Germany, could impose top-up taxes on U.S. companies whose tax bill at home was too low.
	So, if Trump were to go below 15%, Then Germany and France could add their surcharge on any products that came.
	You subsidize this with too low a tax rates.
	And the whole purpose of this G7 thing was to lock in taxes at a minimum amount.
	No maximum amount, but a minimum amount that's there.
	And Trump is abiding by that.
	He's not going to go below 15%.
	And so they said the...
	He's got ways to retaliate in this executive order of his, to retaliate against governments that impose taxes that violate existing tax treaties.
	So, the purpose of this, he's obeying their minimum of 15%, because Trump always does what the globalists tell him to do.
	Look, just look at that!
	Where did this 15% number come from?
	It came from the World Economic Forum and the...
	OECD and all the rest of these agencies there, they all agreed on it.
	It's a global steal.
	We're not going to go below 15%, so he abided by that.
	But if they put some surcharges on big tech and big pharma, oh, he's put some stuff in there to fight back against that, because we don't want to hurt big tech and big pharma, and Trump definitely does not want to hurt big tech and big pharma.
	The provision allows the U.S. to double the tax bills of foreign companies or individuals whose governments single out American companies for heavier taxation.
	So, if you tax Pfizer, because you don't think that their taxes are high enough, if you put a surcharge on it in France or Germany, or maybe you just put a penalty on them, you know, because of what they did to people with the Trump shot.
	He's going to retaliate.
	He's going to double the taxes of those companies that are headquartered in France or Germany or wherever they do something like that.
	Isn't that special?
	I tell you, Trump is on our side, isn't he?
	He's still fighting for big tech and big pharma.
	Because those are the people who pay him.
	Banks are big casinos, says Lynette Zhang.
	And of course, that is true.
	And she says, when the system implodes, It'll take everything with it.
	Gerald Swinty has been saying this for a long time, and as he's pointed out, he says commercial real estate, right?
	Longest time.
	Going back to the lockdown.
	And it's going to get even worse.
	And a lot of these, you know, variable rate mortgages are going to be rolling over here in 2025, after the damage that was done in 2020. And if commercial real estate goes, It'll take down the big banks, as he pointed out.
	And she's saying, hey, the big banks are big casinos, and if this system implodes, it'll take everything with it, she says.
	And that may be what we are looking at.
	But again, gold is doing good in terms of comparing it to what is happening in the stock market.
	Gold price is trading at session highs as U.S. durable goods drop 2.2%.
	By the way, before we move on from Gerald Slinty, just remember if you want to get Trends Journal, go to TrendsJournal.com, use the code NIGHT, and that'll help you save 10% off the price, and that'll get it down to where, as Gerald always points out, an entire week of Trends Journal is less than one day of the Wall Street Journal.
	He loves to hold up a picture of the Wall Street Journal that is like USA Today now.
	It doesn't really have any real information in it.
	Gerald's weekly publication, 300 pages, does.
	Gold and silver rally on safe haven demand.
	We start to see when the banks collapse and pull everything down, when the big AI bubble, if it does not reinflate, came back, reinflated half of what disappeared yesterday, a little bit less than half.
	But depending on what happens with it, it made a $260 billion rebound for NVIDIA after they lost $589 billion.
	But it's still down 56%.
	Only recovered 44% of its value.
	But if that is something that goes on and takes the stock market down, the beginning of a stock market deflation, people are looking at gold as a safe haven.
	Always is.
	Forbes, by the way, talking about DeepSeek.
	And talking about how that new video program refused to do anything with the name George Washington in it, Forbes found that DeepSeek refused to answer questions on several controversial topics linked to the Chinese government, such as, what happened at Tiananmen Square in 1989?
	Or, what are the biggest criticisms of Xi Jinping?
	Or, you know...
	Explain why people think that he's Winnie the Pooh.
	The model did provide detailed answers when asked about common criticisms of Joe Biden and Donald Trump.
	So is that really any different than what we've had here?
	You know, we've had OpenAI and other ones that everybody showed.
	It would not say anything bad about Biden, but it would say bad stuff about Trump.
	I mean, it's just whoever's putting the biases in there.
	You know, if you're going to go get information, Scott Besson has been confirmed as Treasury Secretary, and now he is pushing...
	For gradual, universal tariffs, up to 20%.
	They got Senate confirmation, 68 to 29. So overwhelming.
	It wasn't close at all like it was with Hegseth, 50-50, and then J.D. Vance had to cast the tie-breaking vote.
	No, they like this guy, Scott Besant.
	And it may be because he knows how to do this stuff.
	He says, we're going to start out, we're going to do it gradually.
	First, we're going to put 2.5% tariffs on.
	And he says they'll start at 2.5% and rise gradually.
	The 2.5% levy would move higher by the same amount each month, giving businesses time to adjust.
	I don't think that's what that's about.
	I think that's ultimately so the consumers don't blame the inevitable higher prices on the tariffs, which is what's going to happen.
	He's going to do it like Fauci said.
	We do it from the inside.
	We do it with chaos and disruption, and we do it iteratively.
	So he's going to do it iteratively.
	Going to boil the frogs a little bit at a time, 2.5% each month.
	And we've seen that in the past, the way the Federal Reserve would operate.
	We're going to raise interest rates by 50 basis points, or the way that Powell was doing it, he was raising them by 75 basis points.
	Three quarters of percent interest.
	Each quarter, each month, you know, he'd do it or whatever.
	It was like a stair step that you could see what they were doing.
	So, he reversed himself, by the way.
	He has a hedge fund letter, Scott Besant, and he wrote in his hedge fund letter, it's called Key Square, that's the name of his hedge fund letter.
	Exactly one year ago, he wrote in Key Square to investors, That he found it, quote, unlikely that across the board tariffs, as currently reported by the media, would be enacted, he said.
	But now he's the one who's doing it.
	Two and a half percent a month increase.
	Until they get up to, you know, 20, 25 percent.
	And so as we look at the money side of things, X and Visa have now announced that they've got a deal.
	This is the beginning of using X as the everything platform and about getting it back to processing money.
	And as I said before, you know, Elon Musk bought X because all the other social media was controlling people.
	It was on the left side.
	He's controlling everything for the left.
	So he decides that he's going to come out and make it a haven for conservatives.
	Because he sees conservatism in the rise and populism in the rise.
	So he's going to do that, portray himself as a hero of free speech.
	But it was always about this financial situation, about creating what China did with WeChat.
	He had a falling out with those at PayPal.
	He partnered with Peter Thiel.
	He had already set up X.com before he merged that with Peter Thiel and they created PayPal.
	And he wanted them at that time to create something like WeChat that the Chinese communists have.
	And they didn't want to go that way.
	And so they sold the thing off and, you know, they take their money and they go in their different directions and become venture capitalists.
	For the most part, Elon Musk starts funding companies more than he does venture capitalism.
	But most of the people made a lot of money out of PayPal.
	They call them the PayPal mafia.
	And they call Peter Thiel because he made the most out of it.
	And they all went into venture capital type of stuff.
	So they call him the PayPal godfather and the rest of them PayPal mafia.
	Elon Musk, though, started making his own companies with that.
	And so now he's going to be teaming up with Visa.
	There's going to be a lot more announcements of partnerships that are going to be coming up in the next couple of months as they move into making it a financial entity.
	And Musk has talked about this before as well.
	How do you see Twitter if we say five years down the road?
	What's your vision for this platform?
	What should it do?
	Well, I think it'd be...
	I'd like to have this sort of long-term vision of something called X.com from way back in the day, which is kind of like an everything app.
	Where it's just maximally useful, it does, you know, payments, it does, so it provides financial services, provides information flow, really anything digital.
	And it also provides secure communications.
	So, you know, I think it would be as useful as possible, as entertaining as possible.
	And also to be a source of truth.
	If you want to find out what's going on and what's really going on, then you should be able to go on X, the X app, and find out.
	So it's sort of a source of truth and a maximally useful, I guess app is about the wrong word, but system.
	And Twitter is essentially an accelerant to that sort of maximally useful everything app.
	I think trying to have as many organizations and people and institutions verified as being legitimately those people and organizations is important.
	And to have the organizational affiliation clearly identified so that if you want to find out if somebody is actually If an account is actually, say, from a member of parliament or a journalist, or if a Twitter handle actually belongs to, say, Disney Corporation or something like that, you can go on Twitter and it's sort of an identity layer of the internet.
	So we know who these people are really working for, don't we?
	Visa, and of course MasterCard is there with digital ID and biometric surveillance and all the rest of the stuff for the transactions.
	Do we need to have a definition for who they really represent, or do we already know?
	So Visa becomes the first partner for the platform's XMoney account.
	It's a service, that's what they're going to call it, XMoney.
	They will support an in-platform digital wallet.
	And peer-to-peer payments connected to users' debit cards.
	According to Visa, these services will be powered by Visa Direct and will be available to X-Money account users in the U.S. Before officially closing the deal to purchase Twitter for $44 billion back in 2022, Musk expressed interest in creating his own version of WeChat, as I pointed out, and that goes back to his partnership.
	And this is why he bought it.
	And it was not about free speech, but it was about looking at your speech.
	X's ambitions, and here's the key, and this is why the politics.
	So why he bought X was to go back and do X.com, which is a WeChat thing like he'd planned to do back in the 90s.
	And why did he get into politics?
	Well, because X's ambitions could thrust the company into the crosshairs of powerful tech giants who were trying to fend off A perceived competitive threat.
	And how do they do that?
	They do that through U.S. regulations.
	U.S. regulators have alleged that Apple, for example, has been illegally using the market power to stifle so-called super apps for making their way onto the iPhone since 2007. So he could get an antitrust lawsuit.
	Or he could get others to pull back in resistance to that.
	So it's very important to have a president.
	In your pocket, isn't it?
	When these types of things happen.
	If what he wants to do is a foul of the law, well, you just get the president to change the law.
	You know, you can do all kinds of things.
	Now, by executive order, Visa will enable ex-users to move funds between traditional bank accounts and their digital wallet and to make instant peer-to-peer payments like you can with Zelle or Venmo.
	Well, again.
	Venmo has been banned for me, and PayPal has been banned for me, but we're still on Zelle, by the way.
	And while we're talking about Zelle, let me, real quickly, the last week, the people who have supported us, let me thank them, because they're the reason that we're able to do this show.
	Kelly K., Jason M., Mark Y., Susan L., Brian P., David R., Peter H., Julie W., Scott L., John B., Gregory N., Michael P., Jeffrey B., and Joseph R. So thank you, all of you.
	You are the reason that we are able and the people who support us.
	By the way, people who support us with tips on this show.
	Somebody asked me a day or two ago, did things get sorted out with Rumble?
	We believe so.
	We believe so.
	They got several months behind.
	And releasing stuff.
	But now we have gotten a couple of those months paid.
	And we've got somebody else on the inside that we can talk to.
	So that seems to be solved as well.
	So we thank all of you for your support.
	And especially through Zelle.
	I don't know.
	I don't think we're going to be getting into the X account.
	I would imagine that I probably...
	Wouldn't last too long in there.
	In 2021, while Jack Dorsey was at the helm of Twitter, the company launched a Bitcoin tipping feature that allowed users to add to their crypto wallet addresses and to receive payments in Bitcoin.
	But getting that required, as they point out in this article here on CNBC, it required navigating a far more complex regulatory landscape if you want to set up a money service business like he's doing.
	That's one of the reasons why he got rich.
	He knows how to navigate politics.
	And he's especially navigated it now.
	And so now he's going to make his move with Donald Trump in place into this money service business.
	For over a year, Musk has been applying for these types of licenses for X. X Payments LLC is licensed in 41 states, registered with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.
	I love how that sounds, the FinCEN.
	Don't you create a financial sin, they'll come after you.
	The XMoney service is expected to launch in the first quarter of this year.
	And they expect a lot more deals with a lot more financial partners to be announced very shortly.
	As all this is happening, and as we see the big financial institutions jump into Bitcoin, Trezor, with the people who have a wallet, I guess they're one of the biggest ones, I guess, that are out there.
	They have a device that helps you to take custody of Bitcoin yourself.
	And they're jumping in and reminding people that you don't have to and should not, probably, hold your money on an institution.
	But they're also referring to Bitcoin ETFs.
	You know, Bitcoin ETFs have the same problem as gold and silver ETFs.
	Tony and I have talked for the longest time about paper gold, paper silver, and how I first woke up to that.
	I was naive about that for a while and thought, well, okay.
	The promise is that they've got gold and silver on account.
	I didn't realize that it was in Shanghai.
	But yeah, the Shanghai Gold Exchange.
	Until I started investigating.
	The reason I started investigating it was because gold and silver were making moves going up and down.
	And it wasn't reflected in the price of these ETFs.
	And it's like, how is that the case?
	I looked at it and I thought, well, they've got, you know, the explanation is they've got the gold and the silver right there.
	And you're buying, what was it, something like 10%.
	The price was supposed to be like 10% of the spot market of gold.
	But it didn't track, not even with lag.
	So it's like, what's going on?
	And when I started looking at that, I realized that it was manipulated, and Tony and I have talked about that many, many times for a long time.
	So Trezor is saying the same thing about Bitcoin ETFs.
	Trezor says they still have a cautionary reminder that owning shares of MicroStrategy or Bitcoin ETFs is not the same as actually holding Bitcoin in self-custody.
	They said if these institutions encounter problems, Investors relying on them may face losses without the protection of self-custody.
	And so he said, by holding their own keys, Bitcoiners protect themselves from these vulnerabilities while still reaping the benefits of Bitcoin's growing adoption and long-term value.
	Just make sure you don't lose that password there, because if you do, there's no backup for any of that stuff.
	But this is the thing that I thought was most interesting about this.
	They said, at the end of 2024, the end of last year, a report came out that shows that while institutions and governments have been buying Bitcoin, all of their collective holdings, if we know for sure, but all of their announced collective holdings only account for 2.2% of Bitcoin's total supply.
	So there could be some stuff there that...
	Governments have been known from time to time to lie to us.
	So there could be some stuff that they're holding out on us.
	But isn't that interesting?
	There's about 98% individuals holding it.
	And holding it on their own.
	And so Trezor came out with a wallet.
	It's imprinted the wallet that you can buy from them.
	They got a special Freedom Edition and a slogan on it.
	Independence isn't given.
	It's taken.
	Yeah, let's paraphrase something we've heard for the longest time.
	Freedom isn't given, it's taken.
	Liberty is not given, it's taken.
	All of those things are true.
	So they're going to put that on a total of 2,100 devices beginning at the end of the month.
	Which brings us to Roger Ver, the guy who was looking for liberty and freedom, and now he's been taken.
	He's been taken by the Spanish police, and he has begun a campaign to try to get a pardon.
	He's got some people who are on his side.
	Some people, surprisingly, in the crypto community are not on his side.
	Perhaps they are not happy with his success in it.
	We'll look at what they have to say here and look at a little clip from him as well.
	He says he's making the case to Donald Trump that he is a victim of lawfare, just like Trump, of political persecution.
	He can certainly make the case for that.
	And they say, though, that he is a tax evader and he renounced his U.S. citizenship.
	Well, he said, I renounced my U.S. citizenship because of the lawfare.
	But, hey, you know what, as far as tax evader, are we really going to punish that stuff anymore?
	Look at Hunter.
	Hunter Biden.
	So he's launched a social media campaign.
	He says that if they convict him of all the charges that they've trumped up on him, that that would be 109 years in jail.
	So this article from Coin Telegraph says crypto proponents appear divided over whether Vare deserves a pardon.
	No one deserves to spend a life in prison for tax evasion, said one user.
	But Rogers definitely earned it.
	Has he?
	Musk then came out and said, came against him and said he's unworthy of pardon.
	Musk said this on Twitter and got heavily ratioed.
	He said, Roger Ver gave up his U.S. citizenship.
	No pardon for Ver.
	Hmm.
	Well, he's put out a lot of different videos talking about his innocence, talking about why he gave up his citizenship.
	Again, they called him Bitcoin Jesus.
	I thought, what in the world is that about?
	He's somebody who's coming from the libertarian side of things, just like Ian Freeman and Ross Ulbrich, really, was coming at it from a libertarian side.
	They were idealistic about getting away from the fiat currencies and things like that, getting independent of it.
	And so they said they were calling him Bitcoin Jesus because he was such an evangelist for Bitcoin.
	But what they mean is, by Bitcoin Jesus, they mean that he was an evangelist.
	He was, you know, selling people on it.
	Jesus, strictly speaking, I guess, was not an evangelist.
	People were telling the good news about what Jesus had done later on that they were the evangelists.
	But he said, I was born an American, I am an American, and I will die as an American.
	At issue was the fact that he gave up his citizenship in 2014. And when you do that, the American government has an exit tax on you.
	An exit tax on you.
	And they say that he didn't accurately value the Bitcoin stuff.
	So that is something that would be determined in court.
	According to the Treasury Department and the complaint they filed on him in 2024, he allegedly undervalued his assets so as to incur a lesser tax penalty.
	And again, with something as volatile as Bitcoin, at what point do you pick the value?
	To me, that seems like a wide-open opportunity for them to use lawfare against somebody.
	I don't see them talking about that aspect of it here.
	They should do a video about that.
	And I guess if time goes on, that'll be a key issue.
	At what point in time do you value the Bitcoin stuff?
	Because it's fluctuating all over the place.
	Anyway, he's been accused of attempting to commit tax and mail fraud like Hunter Biden.
	The Treasury also claims that firms that he owned and operated within the United States, even after leaving, did not pay proper tax.
	So he put out a second video after Elon Musk attacked him.
	He said the cause is not a matter of tax fraud, but of political and ideological persecution.
	Here's what he had to say.
	My name is Roger Veer.
	I was the first person in the entire world to start investing in the Bitcoin ecosystem.
	I was born an American, I am an American, and I will die as an American.
	And it's those American ideals that made me so excited about Bitcoin.
	But as I'm filming this, this might be my very final moments of freedom.
	By later tonight in Spain, I could very well be in a Spanish prison on my way back to the United States to face life in prison up to 109 years.
	Not because I've done anything wrong, but because of my activism within cryptocurrency.
	But there are some people who hate America.
	They've used lawfare against people that are spreading American ideals.
	And if there's anybody that knows what it's like to be the victim of lawfare for spreading American ideals, it's Donald Trump.
	They're doing the exact same thing to me that they've done to you.
	I love America.
	I never would have left if it wasn't for these people that hate America using lawfare to drive me away from America to make it so I didn't even feel safe in the land that I love.
	My life was saved.
	For a reason.
	That's why I need your help.
	Because I was lucky enough to have been born in the greatest country on Earth, but by the time I die, I want it to be even greater.
	I gave up my citizenship because I knew some U.S. government agencies would keep targeting me for my political views and past activism.
	Indeed they have.
	It was one of the hardest and saddest decisions I have ever made because America is my home.
	Please help me be allowed to participate in the amazing things that are happening in America.
	I want to help with it.
	I want to invest my money in America.
	Please, Donald Trump.
	I need your help to end this lawfare and allow me to come home so that I can help you make America great again.
	Please help.
	There we go.
	Okay, so he's been a Bitcoin evangelist.
	He could be a Trump evangelist, given the opportunity, is what he's saying here.
	Making his pitch for that.
	Look, I'm all for pardons for people.
	If I was president, I'd be pardoning people left and right.
	Every day I'd pardon somebody.
	And I would still have a long list of people by the time four years is up, I'm sure.
	And when you look at persecution, was there persecution?
	Absolutely.
	I mean, look, it was a sea change between going out of their way to shut down banks that were the on-and-off ramps, like, what was it, Silicon Valley Bank, I think it was.
	They were perfectly solvent, but they forced them into closure.
	And you look at the rabid people, like Elizabeth Warren and all these other people that were in the Biden administration.
	It absolutely was.
	Political persecution against Bitcoin and crypto in general.
	And, you know, so Trump could see that.
	He's now a Bitcoin advocate.
	And, of course, anti-income tax.
	Well, no, he's not there yet.
	I was pronouncing his name there.
	It's Veer is the way he pronounces it.
	Anyway, he says the lawfare is blamed for his current charges against him.
	And he points out that the ATF came after him.
	And this is the strange thing.
	They said that he sold fireworks without a license.
	I don't know.
	I mean, back in Texas, we used to buy fireworks on 4th of July and New Year's and stuff like that.
	I never checked the license of any of these people.
	You know, I guess maybe.
	But he said the ATF was after him because he had opposed what happened at Waco.
	And he got on their enemies list.
	And so he makes a pretty good case for that as well.
	And we know that they will do that type of thing as well.
	Fear over further persecution from government officials, he said, led him to renounce his citizenship and seek to move abroad.
	He spent the following later years as an outspoken crypto advocate.
	He said, I knew it when I began promoting Bitcoin.
	This is something so powerful to the existing power structures that they'll do whatever they can to stop it or shut it down.
	I couldn't be quiet any longer.
	I had to speak out.
	And so he said that was what is the basis of this current charge.
	And of course, that was a big part.
	Of why they came after Ross Ulbrich.
	And Ian Freeman as well.
	That guard Goldsmith knows up in New Hampshire.
	He's been given eight years.
	This is all really about persecuting crypto.
	So there's a good case for him to make that.
	But, you know, Musk pushing back on him for his own purposes.
	Why?
	What's his own purposes?
	Right now, Musk wants to...
	He's pushing for these financial services like I just reported.
	And he doesn't want to get any of these government bureaucracies angry at him.
	Just like when Theory Breton, the guy who's going to be running the censorship stuff for Europe, when he came to Austin, right after Trump, I think it's actually as he's about to buy Twitter, and I've played that many times, where he's real cringy, bowing to...
	Literally bowing to Theory Breton.
	Saying, yes, yes, I will do whatever you say.
	And so, just understand that when Musk is opposing a pardon for Richard Veer, that he is essentially bowing to these regulatory agencies in the U.S. He'll bow and scrape to anybody to get what he wants.
	That's how he became the world's richest man, is through bowing and scraping to every bureaucracy, every government on Earth.
	He does it in China as well.
	Veer's supporters drew comparisons between him and Ross Ulbrich, saying that if Trump is serious about doing justice to the victims of government overreach, he would pardon Veer.
	Ulbrich also had support, however, from the outside of the relatively small crypto community.
	His case was part of a U.S. wildly unpopular drug policy.
	Decriminalization efforts are becoming more common.
	They said, well, look, Ross Ulbrich's issue, from the standpoint of Trump, You know, somebody asked him why he did it, and he had this meandering answer about it.
	It's very simple.
	Look, they didn't get due process.
	They didn't get a fair trial.
	The case of Ross Ulbrich, they hid exculpatory evidence, evidence that would have shown that beyond a shadow of a doubt, he's not guilty.
	He's not guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt because you had FBI agents who were undergoing trial at that time for embezzling money from Silk Road.
	They controlled it as well.
	And the judge shut that down, as I've seen that over and over again, as I pointed out, with the Bundy trials and other things.
	But it was also the punishment that he was given, as we have seen with J6 as well.
	They were denied due process.
	They were denied a fair trial.
	And like Ross Ulbrich and others, Ian Freeman and what they're talking about doing, Roger Veer, that is cruel and unusual punishment, just like it was with the J6ers.
	Trump doesn't have to defend his pardons for anything.
	All he has to do is say, A, they didn't get a fair trial, just as I've experienced.
	Due process was denied to them.
	Exculpatory evidence was hidden.
	And the punishment that they were given violates the Eighth Amendment.
	That's all you need to say.
	And that's why I think you ought to be pardoned.
	But people are saying, well, you know, it's looking unlikely that that'll go through.
	You know, he's a salesman.
	And so now he's got an ad campaign where he's, you know, pardon me and I'll be a great salesman for you.
	So we'll see.
	Maybe that's his, he's smart.
	That's his best chance is to promise to be a salesman for Donald Trump.
	Everybody's not.
	If they come after me with some charges, I'm not going to make that argument.
	I could never do that.
	Milutin Milankovic.
	Thank you very much.
	Gifted another two subscriptions to The David Knight Show.
	Well, thank you.
	I appreciate that.
	Shay Bishop.
	Are they going to hold accountable the warmongers who claimed the drones were sent by Iran and tell them they got from the very credible sources like Mossad?
	Reminds me of the Syria nerve gas intel that was all wrong.
	Yeah, they ran that thing year after year.
	And, of course, Ivanka was pressuring.
	Trump to do something about it.
	He did send some missiles in at her urging and everything.
	And, of course, the evidence showed that, you know, when they looked at the actual cancers, they could tell that it was a lie.
	You had people who were there and saw as the White Hats were announcing that it was nerve gas.
	They said it wasn't nerve gas.
	Even that hit in the last one.
	That was, I forget which one that was.
	I don't know if that was Aleppo.
	I always want to say Aleppo because of Gary Johnson.
	They ask him, well, what about Aleppo?
	Aleppo?
	What is an Aleppo?
	Andy, bird flu panic is contagious and gaining momentum on LifeLog, Facebook.
	Wow.
	Maybe it's the AI users creating the illusion of panic.
	Could be.
	Could be.
	Could be the bots.
	But that's a really worrisome thing.
	It is so absurd.
	Even within their own paradigm, they'd be pushing this.
	And again, you've got these articles saying, well, can Trump stop the food inflation after a week?
	It's like, yeah, you could, actually.
	Well, this is not, the defenders are saying, this is not something that the president can do anything about.
	Yes, he can.
	He can stop his government goons from mass culling of livestock over nothing.
	It doesn't even make sense, even if you believe.
	The virus paradigm and the pandemic paradigm, their actions still don't make sense.
	Why can't people see this as an attack on the food supply?
	Octo spook.
	Why aren't the bird flock just quarantined until they're test-free of the disease?
	Exactly.
	Should run its course in a week.
	If you've got a case fatality rate, let's say it's really bad.
	Let's say that it's 50%.
	Then, according to their paradigm, right?
	Still, half the birds would be fine.
	And the ones who survived...
	It would be well on their way to creating a resistant group of birds to whatever this thing is, according to their theory.
	That's the way it works.
	So why wouldn't they do that?
	No, it's either going to kill all of them.
	So, yeah, the point has to be to reduce the food supply, he says.
	That's exactly right.
	Trucker Chris for the win.
	Deep Seek has slowed down a lot in the last 24 hours.
	Is this being attacked?
	Yes.
	And Whistler says that and...
	They increased demand.
	Well, they announced that they were under cyber attack.
	And they said that we're not going to have any new users.
	And so I think it still is they're under cyber attack.
	Just look at the Wayback Machine, right?
	The Wayback Machine went through this for months.
	Well, this is an internet archive.
	It helps to keep them from memory-holing information.
	And they don't like that.
	They want to be able to memory hole information.
	So they came after them with lawsuits and lawfare, and then they came after them with denial of service attacks and all kinds of stuff.
	That's the way these creeps in government operate.
	And it is the government.
	It's our government that's doing it.
	S-Flow 0818. I don't remember voting for Elon.
	I don't remember voting for Trump either.
	Or Biden.
	Octo spook.
	Elon.
	Is attaching more strings slowly, but surely I got a ban and was notified I could remove it with a premium account.
	Oh, a price on free speech.
	Free speech ain't free.
	You gotta pay for it.
	And let's see.
	We'll cover that when we get back.
	Whistler is sending me, giving me a message.
	But we're going to take a quick break and we will be right back.
	Thank you.
	Night show.
	That's right, boys and girls.
	There's a post-election sale on silver and gold.
	Trump euphoria has caused a dip in silver and gold.
	It's time to buy some medals with fiat dollars before they come to their sense.
	Go to davidknight.go to get in touch with the wise wolf himself, Tony Arterburn.
	He knows where to look to find silver and gold.
	Wahoo!
	Yark!
	Yeah, and you know where to go to find silver and gold, and you know where to go to find Tony Ardaman, and that is davidknight.gold.
	And as we were saying before, gold is a safe haven.
	In these times of turbulence.
	It's another one of these things.
	I look at Roger Ver's case.
	I just wonder what's going to happen with crypto.
	It seems to me like, well, if you sell it, you've got a fixed price at that point in time with your transaction thing.
	But I don't know.
	I think that the IRS is going to be kept, and I think they're going to be playing games with all kinds of stuff.
	But davidnight.gold will get you gold and silver.
	And that gets you out of the system to that extent as well.
	And you can accumulate that gradually.
	That's something that Tony does that nobody else does.
	Wolfpack.
	Of course, he can buy large or small quantities directly, just like anybody else.
	But you can also cost average it and have a monthly savings program where you can pop in at any tier level.
	And there's no obligation to that.
	You can get in, get out whenever you want to, whenever it suits you.
	But that's a way to gradually accumulate the safe haven.
	As everybody's talking about it, when you look at all the different risks that are coming up this year, the stock market, what happens if that crashes, the fact that these people want to make sure that we don't have any wages, make sure that you've got some savings programs that are outside of their system and outside of the digital world.
	Again, davidknight.gold will take you to Tony Arterman at Wise Wolf.
	Whistler was writing this message.
	He said, and this new system that just came out, Every day there's another one, it seems like, you know, leapfrogging the other ones.
	And it's Q-W-E-N. I guess we maybe call it Quinn.
	Maybe that's going to be the way they pronounce it.
	Also has a chat model that they claim is better than Deep Seek.
	Too early to tell if that's true or not yet, but their video model is the best that's available right now.
	Well, that's interesting.
	Let's talk a little bit about this pro-life.
	David Daleiden, I've talked about that for many years.
	It's going on about 10 years that he's been fighting these people.
	And who has he been fighting?
	He's been fighting Lala Harris and Javier Becerra, who were the California attorney generals.
	She was the one who was there when he exposed the crimes, and they were crimes of Planned Parenthood.
	Not only is it...
	A moral and ethical crime, what they were doing.
	But it was literally prohibited to do what they're doing.
	They were doing partial birth abortions, which were banned.
	And they were doing murder for hire.
	And so she trumped up some charges against them and ran them through.
	And then when she became senator, Javier Becerra took over.
	And then she became vice president.
	He became head of HHS. And this has gone on for a decade.
	And so fortunately, This has now come to an end.
	And California has dropped all charges against David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt, who worked with him at the Center for Medical Progress, and the Planned Parenthood undercover video cases.
	And he was doing legitimate investigation.
	Congress had already said, we think that they're doing murder for hire.
	We think that they're selling these baby parts.
	And one of the things that I've pointed out when I've covered David Daleiden, Over the years, is that by putting these charges against them, as part of discovery that you always have in any trial, they were able to find out that some of the big customers of this murder-for-hire scheme from Planned Parenthood was none other than Francis Collins, NIH, and of course Fauci.
	and they were using this at the university of pittsburgh to create humanized mice and things like that so our own government and of course why would we be surprised it'd be francis collins and anthony fauci during this california has agreed
	now this just happened to drop all charges against david delight and sandra merritt following years nearly a decade of legal battles over the release of undercover videos showing abortion providers discussing the procurement and the selling of aborted baby body parts.
	The Center for Medical Progress, a group that he created for the investigation, reached a plea deal with the California Attorney General's office.
	They said the deal is that the two activists will make a no-contest plea, and in response to that, they will receive no jail time, no fines, no admission of wrongdoing, and no probation.
	And so my question is, why now?
	After a decade of this, from Lala and Becerra, And, of course, you know, again, Javier Becerra was Biden's guy there.
	He struggled with the name a bit.
	Secretary of Health and Education, I nominate Javier Baqueria.
	You know, Javier Becerra, excuse me.
	Yeah, Baqueria.
	Yeah, Javier Baqueria.
	He doesn't even know the guy's name.
	He's there because he was pushing back on the people, exposing what Planned Parenthood was doing.
	But why is it happening now?
	Why'd they suddenly cave?
	Well, I think it's pretty clear the abortionists are losing public opinion.
	I think they understand that.
	They took a shellacking because Lala Harris, the California AG who went after him, she made her entire campaign about killing babies.
	And she got shellacked.
	So the handwriting is on the wall.
	Trump was wrong.
	It's not a losing proposition.
	They're losing.
	They're losing.
	And that's why they're pulling back now.
	Was it Generation Z or something like that?
	Overwhelmingly support restrictions on abortion.
	So they want to make this whole thing go away.
	And if they were to pursue this, if they were to win in this trial against them, it's going to make them look worse.
	The truth is coming out with discovery.
	So for all these reasons, they want to make this go away.
	Daleiden was quoted in the announcement as saying that the settlement was a, quote, huge victory for my investigative reporting and for the public's right to know the truth about Planned Parenthood's sale of aborted baby body parts.
	Now we must all get to work to protect families and infants from the criminal abortion industrial complex.
	He said, taking the San Francisco case off the board allows me to focus fully on CMP's mission to report on the injustice of taxpayer-funded experiments on aborted babies and to continue to expand our groundbreaking investigative reporting.
	Matt Staver, chairman of the Liberty Council, who helped to represent them, released a statement on Monday after celebrating the negotiated agreement.
	It said Sandra Merritt, who he represented, did nothing wrong.
	She did the right thing by exposing the depravity of the abortion industry.
	This plea agreement...
	Ends an unjust criminal case by dropping these baseless criminal charges without any prison time, fines, or other penalties.
	Murdering human babies, he said.
	To harvest their body parts for profit is evil.
	And there is no excuse for the political persecution of Sandra.
	You know, by Lala and Javier Becerra.
	In 2015, they released a series of undercover videos, remember those?
	Where they're talking about, one of them, they said, yeah, I'd like to get a Lamborghini or something like that.
	They're haggling over the price.
	You'd already established, by haggling over the price, they establish what they are.
	Kind of a twist on the old saying about prostitution, right?
	Gleiden and Merritt had secretly recorded conversations, took place in 2014 and 15. Some of the stuff that they did happened at a conference that was hosted by the National Abortion Federation, and so the NAF sued them in response.
	How dare you show that we are murdering people, right?
	In one of the undercover videos filmed at Planned Parenthood Workshop in Michigan in 2014, an abortion provider argued against helping young victims of rape and sexual assault.
	She asserted that because clinic workers are not state employees, they should not be required to report suspected cases of child abuse to authorities.
	You see, if somebody who is a minor comes in and is pregnant, they would do the abortions and not tell anybody.
	But that is legally...
	Child abuse.
	It is legally rape.
	It is statutory rape.
	There's no way, as law has been for a very long time, there's no way that a minor can consent to that.
	So why can a minor consent to mutilation and sterilization?
	And Planned Parenthood has got its hands in that grisly business as well.
	What an evil group.
	That's why I say, you know, when the Babylon Bee did the...
	The mocking obituary of the death of Cecile Richards, referring to her over and over again and all people involved in it as clumps of cells that were non—she was no longer viable and so forth.
	They absolutely deserve that.
	It's actually heinous what they are doing, and still doing, and still getting federal funds under the pretense that, well, that money's not going to abortion.
	If you're giving it to the people who are committing abortion, it's going to be mixed in there with all the rest of this stuff.
	The money is fungible.
	The videos garnered widespread condemnation led to a renewed push to have the federal government defund Planned Parenthood.
	It led to years of litigation against them.
	They faced several charges, including illegal recordings of private events and falsification of ID as part of their cover.
	In October 2022, the Ninth Circuit Court...
	Released a unanimous decision against them that required them to pay a $2.5 million judgment to Planned Parenthood.
	They did that unanimously.
	This should be protected journalism.
	And the people who should be going to jail are not the people.
	This is like John Kiriakou exposing what Gina Haspel covered up.
	And the fact that she took lies about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq based on torture.
	It's always the people who expose what's going on, the evil that's going on.
	They're the ones who pay the price and the criminals get away with it.
	What's that tell you about our government?
	What's it tell you about Trump when he put Gina Haspel in charge of all that?
	And what's it tell you about Biden and putting Lala Harris and Javier Becerra, both of them, in those positions?
	So the circuit judge who wrote the decision of the unanimous Ninth Circuit decision Rejected the arguments of the pro-life activists that their actions were protected by the First Amendment and journalistic practices.
	He said, invoking journalism in the First Amendment does not shield individuals from liability for violations of law that are applicable to all members of society.
	Well, what about murdering children?
	Does that make any difference there?
	They came after them for infiltration damages and security damages.
	They didn't do anything physical to any of these facilities.
	They just reported people who were talking about murdering babies for money.
	In May of 2020, Daleiden filed a complaint against Lala Harris and others, alleging that Lala wrongfully investigated them while she was Attorney General of California.
	The lawsuit said Daleiden became the first journalist ever.
	To be criminally prosecuted under California's recording law because his investigation revealed and published shocking content that California's Attorney General, Lala, and the private party co-conspirators, Planned Parenthood, wanted to cover up.
	She hates babies.
	She hates free speech.
	She hates the free press.
	We see that in everything that she does.
	So, again, I don't know what happens to this $2.4 million judgment.
	That was done by the Ninth Circuit Court.
	I don't know if they're still on the hook for that or not, but at least these other things are not a part of that.
	Let me play for you, just as a reminder, a little bit of the video about what they put out, Center for Medical Progress, what they saw with these people with Planned Parenthood who were going to do murder for hire.
	It says the footage you're about to see was taken, undercover footage.
	I've had parts of these days, looking for specific notes, maybe notes.
	I was like, wow, I didn't even know.
	Good for them.
	Yesterday was the first time she said people wanted longs.
	And then, like I said, always as many attack livers as people just long.
	Yeah, livers.
	People want lower extremities, too.
	Yeah, a dime it doesn't.
	Wow.
	Buying or selling human body parts is a federal felony, and they cite the code.
	The commercial trafficking of body parts from an aborted baby is punishable by up to 10 years in prison and or a fine of up to $500,000.
	But hey, you know, Fauci's been pardoned.
	And then he shows the actual order form where you go in and you can get all those different parts.
	You want hearts?
	You want lungs?
	You want liver?
	You want some legs?
	We can get legs.
	I don't know what they want legs for.
	Maybe it's for the muscle, they said.
	So, again, they will call this fetal tissue procurement, but we know exactly what it is.
	It's murder for hire.
	Murder for hire.
	Yeah, you know, the thing that's really heinous about that is that she's sitting there, you know, eating while she's doing it.
	She's eating and talking about cutting out and selling babies' hearts, lungs, liver.
	Cutting off their legs.
	I don't know why they want legs.
	She pulls off a leg of something she's eating there.
	And it's our government.
	That is involved in that.
	So that was back in 2015. They've been fighting it ever since then, as I said.
	Part of what they're doing is violating the prohibition against partial birth abortion.
	But as we pointed out many times, you're not going to get organs harvested unless you take them from a living person.
	And that's true of babies, and it's also true of adults.
	This is something that has been shown with Planned Parenthood.
	It's been shown with China.
	It's been shown with so many of these things.
	They will, you know, execute people by removing their organs.
	If you die or if they kill the baby, there's things that happen in the body in response to that that are going to contaminate and harm the organ that they're trying to sell.
	He said, Lala Harris, as California Attorney General raided my home, seized this footage to try to block it from release for eight years on orders from Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation.
	It's time for justice under the law for big abortion.
	I absolutely agree.
	Well, you know, we've had some people have asked us about Travis and when he's coming back.
	And so I'll just show you a little picture that he sent to us of him and the baby because you know the way that we fight this stuff?
	You know, we fight these lies.
	We fight them with truth.
	The truth about what a baby is.
	And we fight the hate and the greed of these people.
	We fight it with love.
	Here's Travis.
	Say hi, pappy.
	Hi, grandma.
	Say I love you.
	So close.
	So close, yep.
	Yeah, they are close to coming back, but they're not here yet.
	I've got Alex coming up here.
	But there's Travis, both of them asleep.
	And you see how small the baby is.
	Hopefully they're going to be back before too much longer.
	We've got a date that they've given us.
	And then they're there because she has a good...
	Obstetrician and pediatrician that she trusts, and that's really serious right now.
	They can create all kinds of problems.
	Trump has signed an executive order banning all federal funding for child sex change medicines and surgeries.
	Yeah, how about criminalizing it instead of just defunding it?
	Well, again, that would likely be a state issue, but...
	How about defunding the schools that push it?
	Because we've now seen that the kids who say that they're in the wrong body has gone up by 50-fold in just the last couple of years.
	And they've been working on this for a long time.
	They can gaslight children so easily if you turn your kids over to these institutions.
	And so he should at least, if he's not going to, shut down the Department of Education.
	They should make talking to kids about this a serious offense.
	As serious as putting men in women's sports.
	It's a lot more serious than to gaslight these kids and tell them they're in the wrong body.
	That's a lot more serious, telling them they're in the wrong body and trying to put them in another body than to put men in women's sports.
	And they will defund them for that.
	So why not defund them for...
	They're gaslighting of minors.
	Trump said this dangerous trend will be a stain on our nation's history, and it must end.
	Well, it's all about the children.
	It's really not about the nation's reputation.
	But yes, God will judge this nation.
	He says it's a policy of the United States that it will not fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support the so-called So again, if you're going to say that the U.S. will not promote, assist any of this, then I hope that it implies that they will cut federal funds from these schools that are doing this, which is pretty much all of them.
	The order went on to say these vulnerable use medical bills May rise throughout their lifetimes as they're often trapped with lifelong medical complications, a losing war with their own buddies, and tragically, sterilization.
	And again, we've seen this over and over again.
	And then we get something that is equally sinister.
	The Holy Grail of fertility research, they said.
	This is the headline.
	Will allow for a baby to be made by just one person.
	Hey, it takes two, baby.
	Remember that song?
	No, it takes one to make a baby if these people get their way with what they're doing with this science, so-called.
	Breakthrough and fertility research may be able to start the trend of single-parent conception.
	You know, once we decide that we're not going to follow God's plan, it's interesting how it naturally leads to big consequences.
	And let me tell you where this is going to lead.
	It's going to lead to the hatcheries of the brave new world.
	That's where it's going to lead.
	I know a lot of people are going to say, well, you know, we've got people who, you know, they don't have a spouse.
	They would like to just help a child or whatever.
	And, you know, I would be sympathetic to that for adoption.
	You know, when we adopted our daughter, there was a single mother who was there.
	And, you know, from just a, it's not the ideal situation.
	But she was going to adopt a special needs child.
	She had the financial resources to help her.
	And, you know, that child was going to be better off than in a Chinese orphanage.
	And she had a cleft palate and some other issues that she was going to take care of her with it.
	But you're talking about creating a child with a single parent.
	And single parenting is hard.
	It really is.
	It's hard to do it well.
	Just because of time issues and because you've got to support the family.
	And single parents know this.
	They know how difficult that is.
	We deal with whatever God gives us, but that is not what we should be aspiring to.
	And that's what these people are aspiring to.
	But further on from this, if they're going to generate babies from stem cells, This is all moving down the path.
	This is not about helping LGBT or whatever.
	This is ultimately, that's just the bridge to get us to the point where we have hatcheries.
	Just like Brave New World.
	And that also entails eugenics.
	And it entails government control of the population completely.
	All of that stuff is going to come out of this and it may have its root.
	And try, well, we're just going to try to help LGBT people.
	But that's where it's going to go.
	Using lab-grown sperm and eggs.
	They call that in vitro, that means in the glass.
	Gametes, okay, or IVG instead of IVF. Instead of in vitro fertilization, instead of fertilization in the glass.
	And, of course, people have opposed that because of the selective abortions that frequently happen with that.
	So this is the next one.
	This is what comes next.
	After IVF, you get IVG. In vitro gametes.
	If I'm pronouncing that right, gametes, I don't know.
	Lab-grown eggs and sperm from skin or stem cells.
	And they're facing a bucket load of ethical dilemmas.
	And we don't even know, because we know so little about DNA and about the rest of the stuff.
	We don't even know.
	If that's going to have adverse effects, you know, just like cloning.
	And now we've got scientists using genetic engineering to create mice with two male parents.
	Like I said, this is a LGBT ideal, and once they go down this direction, they're going into a brave new world, which is exactly what the technocrats want.
	And in that brave new world, it's going to be eugenics, and it's going to be total control of the population.
	Scientists in China have manipulated embryonic stem cells to create laboratory mice with two male parents that managed to live to adulthood.
	If further refined, the research could prove valuable, they said.
	Valuable for what?
	Meanwhile, while they're trying to erase mother and father, and of course they began erasing mother and father legally many years ago.
	Let's erase the term.
	Let's erase it from the...
	Birth certificates and legal documents, and now we've got Pennsylvania Democrats proposing to erase sex from birth certificates.
	Because, you know, you start with the language, you start with the legal stuff, and once you erase sex from birth certificates, they said, well, if we're not going to be allowed to have multiple choice genders, let's just take it off altogether.
	Because we will do anything other than focus on the reality.
	Of male and female.
	Two Pennsylvania Democrats want to erase biological sex from the birth certificates.
	They've introduced a bill to do so.
	And they said that it'll enable people to more easily shift their gender identity.
	Again, when we look at all this training stuff, it's pedophilia.
	It is child molestation.
	It's molestation to mutilate a child, isn't it?
	It's something they're going to have to deal with the rest of their life.
	But it is also a bridge to transhumanism.
	It is pedophilia now, but it's a bridge to transhumanism later.
	Well, one more thing here, which is a movie that came out that I missed, but perhaps we'll be able to find it again.
	It was in theaters for the last three days, from the 26th to the 28th, the days of the 29th.
	It's a movie.
	About the horrors faced by Armenians.
	Armenians, I should say.
	People in Armenia who have been under attack from Muslims in that area probably for about 100 years.
	I think it was the early part of the 20th century where they had the genocide that was there.
	And, of course, that was a term that was coined because of the attacks on the Armenians.
	Actress Elizabeth Tabish, who plays a character in The Chosen, is now in a new film that sheds light on an Armenian family's struggle for freedom.
	The movie is called Between Borders.
	It was in theaters the last three days, but it's out now.
	But I'm sure it'll be back around.
	A compelling look at a family's battle.
	Fighting discrimination in the Soviet Union as they struggled first in their homeland of Azerbaijan, and then later in Russia.
	And so you have this back and forth with the disputed area of Nagorno-Karabakh, but it's the Muslims there in Azerbaijan that have been attacking Armenians for a century.
	This is the synopsis of the movie.
	After finding their eternal hope through a church planted by American missionaries, The hostility of everyday life pushes them to seek refuge in the United States, and so it's told in retrospect.
	As they're trying to make their case for refugee status, there are flashbacks that take them back to what they've experienced.
	She said, I've been wanting to help tell a story about this for a really long time.
	I'm part Armenian myself, and when I read the script, when I read the script, I saw so much of my family members in it, it seemed like a very timely piece and also important.
	Despite being set decades ago, it comes at a time when tensions are still incredibly high between Armenia and Azerbaijan, particularly in the disputed area of Nagorno-Karabakh, a small landlocked region between the two countries that was home to 120,000 ethnic and Christian Armenians.
	Before a 2023 incursion.
	But this is, like I said, been going on for a very long time.
	For a century.
	They said, in this particular story, their neighbors were killed.
	They were forced to flee.
	They fled to Russia.
	They were allowed to stay there by the government, but even within that, they're faced with a lot of bullying and threats and sort of this constant promise of danger to their family.
	And again, this takes place back in the 1980s.
	Then the family met missionaries from America who started a church, something they had never heard of in their communist upbringing.
	They were raised in a communist society, so religion was a very foreign concept to them, and they kind of opened their hearts to it, learned about it, and it transformed them.
	So then they went to America to share their story.
	They eventually applied for citizenship, and as I said, the film documents the court hearings.
	With flashbacks of life before coming to the United States.
	It was in this area that a Jewish historian, Raphael Lemkin, coined the term genocide.
	And he said he wanted to create a term that was not claimed by any group.
	We see it happening over and over again.
	We see it happening in Gaza as well.
	Marky Mark, thank you very much for the tip.
	He says, a vast majority of prison inmates are children.
	God's plan for a family and two parents is the ideal we should strive for.
	We understand that's not always going to happen, and God can step in there and He can make things work if people look to Him.
	But again, to create babies from a single person, to create babies From this in vitro, not just even fertilization, but just growing the entire baby in a glass.
	They're headed towards a brave new world.
	And so, Angry Tiger says, yeah, we need to fight evil with love.
	Love is the most powerful thing in the universe, and God gave that to us.
	I absolutely agree.
	Well, we're going to take a break.
	Our guest is ready.
	And we're going to be right back with David Bonson.
	We've talked to David before.
	I'm very...
	Interested to see his take on the sweeping changes that have been proposed for taxes, as well as to see what he thinks about the current economic situation and where we're headed.
	So we're going to take a quick break, and we will be right back.
	Here's a little song I wrote.
	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 s***.
	In the store, because of your low social credit score, own nothing.
	Be happy.
	You'll own nothing.
	Woo-hoo!
	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 traders.
	Making sense.
	Common again.
	This is the David Knight Show.
	Well, again, joining us now is David Bonson.
	He's founder of the Bonson Group.
	They have over $6 billion of assets under management.
	He is one of America's top-ranked financial advisors, according to Barron's, Forbes, and Financial Times.
	And I want to get David on to talk about what he sees on the horizon because we're looking at massive sea changes, especially financially.
	So welcome, David.
	A pleasure to have you back on again.
	Well, it's wonderful to be back with you.
	Thank you so much.
	Thank you.
	Let's start with, well, I don't know where you want to start.
	We can start with Doge.
	And of course, I've seen this and you've seen it as well.
	We've had commission after commission talking about how they're going to eliminate waste.
	What do you think is going to happen with Doge?
	Well, so there's kind of a glass half full and half empty deal.
	I mean, you're right.
	We've seen a lot of attempts at things before, not necessarily a lot come out of it.
	You know, I think back to Reagan's commission on Social Security in the early 80s, and a lot of really good things came out of that.
	But it was empowered.
	It was authorized.
	There were hard recommendations made that were implemented.
	And it saved, you know, 40 years of the system and so forth.
	The question I have about Doge is not the concept of looking for greater government efficiency.
	I mean, everybody has to know that there is a need for streamlining things in government, saving money, limiting fraud, waste and corruption.
	The question will just simply be, when it isn't created by Congress, when it doesn't have a budget, when the people aren't really appointed, are they going to just be a PR outfit that makes announcements of things, or is it going to get some teeth to it whereby the things they uncover...
	Incentivize Congress to take action or incentivize federal agencies to take action.
	So I'm modestly optimistic that some good things will come, but I have to say it's one of those things where it's not the long game.
	They need to have some hard-hitting good things happen in the first six months because it's going to start to lose a lot of its teeth after that.
	Oh, yeah, I agree.
	You know, when we look at this, there's so much that is under the label of entitlement programs.
	They've created legislation to say, well, if you meet these different aspects, well, you get the money, that type of thing.
	And so we look at that as generally the welfare state.
	If you look at the welfare state, you look at the warfare state, there's not a whole lot of money that's left out of that.
	I know that they're doing some things in terms of trying to get people out.
	Making requirements that you've got to actually come to work.
	I think the best one they've done is he just put out a statement.
	Saying that we'll buy you out.
	If you agree to leave, what is it, by February the 1st or something like that, we'll pay you until September.
	And then we're done.
	You know, trying to get people to voluntarily leave.
	So that would be good.
	But still, even if you eliminate so many of these people, that's not going to get us $2 trillion worth of stuff.
	I just don't see the dollars there that they could get that.
	And I don't see the will in Congress to change anything about the welfare of the warfare state either.
	Well, and I've got to be very candid.
	It's also, the president himself said he didn't want to touch entitlements.
	And so, that's almost 70% of federal spending is transfer programs, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, and food stamps.
	And so, if those things are all off-limits, for at least modifications and improvements and fine-tuning...
	Now, by the way, they're not going to be off-limits forever.
	If something can't continue, it won't.
	And that can't continue.
	But there's something in our budget that's codified into law that distinguishes between mandatory spending and discretionary spending.
	And mandatory spending is up to 70% of federal outlays.
	So if you say, we want to go find some things to cut, you're now looking within a universe of 30%.
	And that assumes people think we should be spending less on national defense, not more.
	That assumes people believe that there's a whole lot of discretionary things that can be cut.
	Entitlements are the largest element.
	That's what has to be addressed.
	That's not going to come out of Doge.
	But to the point you made, I would agree.
	If all they did was say, you can't work for the federal government, collect a massive pension, health benefits, and a salary if you're not going to come to work, well, that's a pretty good place to start.
	Yeah.
	I've said many times, many of these government agencies, I'd be willing to pay them to stay home and do absolutely nothing if I'd get them off of our back because regulation is strangling our economy as well.
	But have you seen, if they're going to do anything, you know, I know that he said Social Security and entitlement programs are off the...
	Off of the not touchable.
	What about welfare for foreign citizens?
	I've talked for the longest time.
	One of the simplest things that they could do, and it would help efficiency as well, is to stop paying people who come here illegally, letting them collect from the welfare state.
	Is there anything at all that you've seen about that?
	Well, the bulk of the money that does go into people here illegally in our country is coming from states, not the federal government.
	So there's a limited thing that the feds can do there.
	And then the dollars themselves, again, just as a matter of principle, I fully agree they should address it.
	As a matter of dollars and percentages, it isn't a huge amount.
	When you're talking about federal welfare benefits, there's a lot of other elements that do go in, and even their efforts at deporting those who have committed crimes and other things like that.
	That has hidden implications.
	There's hidden costs from the illegal immigration that they can help sort through.
	But again, when somebody like Elon Musk says, we're going to try to save $2 trillion a year, you can't quantify that.
	There isn't $2 trillion to save.
	He's walked that back to say, okay, well, maybe a trillion.
	He's already thrown half of that out, but I still don't see a trillion there.
	No, there's not.
	But, you know, that's the thing is, in his business career, he's mostly under-promised and over-delivered, and that would have been my preference here.
	Because if they cut $300 billion of inefficiencies, I would consider that a big victory.
	And I know as a percentage of a $5.9 trillion federal budget, $300 billion doesn't seem like a lot, but it is a significant amount.
	And symbolically, it shows that there are things that we can get done if we have the will to do it.
	So we're going to see how this plays out.
	I will tell you that they have taken office space in D.C. now that we're on the other side of the inauguration, and they do not need Senate approval, congressional approval, and they can be classified as federal workers.
	With some access, unpaid, but only up to six months.
	So that's why I throw the six-month window.
	Because some of the heavyweights that Musk has brought in from his Rolodex, these are high-gravitas people, but they have six months to get some things done.
	Yeah, it'd be interesting.
	And, you know, as you point out, just showing that we can do something, that's maybe one of the best things that has come out of the Trump thing so far.
	You know, I don't like government by executive order.
	I think that's a very dangerous precedent.
	But still, just after we've looked at, I would kind of compare Biden to Jimmy Carter.
	Both of them were seen as totally ineffective and impotent in what they're doing.
	But, you know, there is a question as to what the right thing to do is.
	It should always be on the books.
	And so let's talk a little bit about the tax reform stuff.
	And let's talk a little bit about, because he's focused heavily on tariffs, and we have the newly confirmed Treasury Secretary saying, well, we're going to do the tariffs gradually.
	We'll do it 2.5% a month until we get up to whatever our final target is, even supporting going up to 20% across the board.
	This is something, a complete reversal of Bessent from his previous statements as a hedge fund manager.
	So what do you think about the tariffs?
	How is that going to affect?
	Our society, inflation, other things like that, is it a good idea in your view or not?
	Well, there's two different things we're talking about.
	One is actually doing tariffs, and one is threatening to do tariffs to get other things done.
	And Besant has been extremely clear that he is playing along with the president's strategy of using tariffs as a negotiating tactic.
	The president signed 45 executive orders his first week in office.
	He repealed another 70 Biden-era orders.
	He took something in the range of 130 actions last week, and not a single one of them were about tariffs.
	We haven't put a dollar of tariffs on.
	And I don't know that they're going to.
	Right now, the notion of saying, you either take the migrants into Colombia or we're going to put tariffs, and then the Colombian president saying an hour later we're going to take the migrants in.
	You know, even in the period of time between the election and the inauguration, the president never talked about tariffs with Mexico or Canada around protectionism.
	He didn't talk about, oh, we need to do it to make trade more fair.
	He talked about it because he wants their support at the border.
	He wants their support stopping illegal immigration, stopping fentanyl, stopping criminals.
	It's national security oriented.
	And then clearly...
	With China, it's a separate subject from the rest.
	So my long answer, which a lot of people these days might disagree with me on, but I'm in the traditional market conservative view that tariffs are a cost that enter into trade and transactions, that I prefer free actors be able to negotiate.
	An unfair trade deal should never happen in a free society because if I believe a deal is unfair, I won't do it.
	But what I don't need is Washington, D.C. deciding what's fair and unfair.
	So I'm against the use of tariffs, at least without acknowledging that they're a cost.
	However, using tariffs as a negotiating tactic to get other policy objectives done, I think, is very different.
	And so far, I want to give the president space to go about doing that and see how it plays out.
	You know, walking softly and carrying a big stick.
	You've got Trump who's talking loudly and carrying a big tariff to get what he wants, right?
	So I understand that.
	And other things, too.
	With China, I think it will not merely be tariffs.
	That'll be a big issue.
	But what is really interesting that I've studied immensely versus when he came in in 2017 and the trade deals that he worked on throughout 2018. China's economy is significantly worse than it was then.
	And one of the policy objectives he wants now, out of a U.S.-China relationship, is China's assistance in bringing an end to the Russian war against Ukraine.
	That wasn't on the table then.
	So can he use the threat of tariffs?
	Before, they talked about the trade deficit.
	I disagree with the president on that issue.
	But they would talk about intellectual property theft.
	They'd talk about the currency.
	That's where Scott Besson comes in, who's written on this immensely.
	Can they get a better agreement around the dollar-wan exchange rate?
	China's help with Russia.
	And broader U.S.-China relations, basically them agreeing to buy more agricultural and energy commodities from us.
	If he gets a big deal like that, I think the President's going to have a big victory lap to take.
	You mentioned China and how their economy is worse.
	I've seen some, and it's hard to gauge that, and it's not something that I look at carefully, but I have seen several videos put out by influencers, social influencers there.
	Showing how empty the trains are, how empty Beijing's streets and shopping malls and businesses are.
	Tell us a little bit about what's going on in China in terms of their economy as you see it.
	Well, there's no question they're in a deflationary period brought about by an overinvestment in their real estate property sector.
	The United States knows all about this very well.
	We did the same thing.
	Japan knows about it all very well.
	They did it in spades back in the 1980s.
	China though has been a much more responsible actor in how they've dealt with it on the monetary side.
	We brought our interest rates to zero and then did quantitative easing for years and years.
	It's the exact same thing Japan did.
	Japan actually brought their rates negative.
	China hasn't done that because their big need is global respect with trading partners.
	So they have to respect their bond market and they have to respect their currency or they lose everything they've been working for for 25 years.
	But they're still going to do all the fiscal stimulus, the Keynesian things that the US would do and that Japan has done.
	But what you can't do is deny that it's happening.
	And their data is very clear.
	That it is hurting young adult employment significantly.
	And the construction sector, which is a massive part of their economy, far bigger than it is for us in the United States, is hurting immensely.
	So China has not really ever diversified.
	As they've grown into an economic powerhouse, they have never diversified into being an economy that has strong domestic activity.
	They still largely require exporting goods to Europe and other Asian countries in the United States.
	And so therefore the president has a lot more leverage in the way he deals with them now.
	Yeah, it is truly amazing to see not just the pictures of how empty Beijing is, but also to see the pictures of these massive developments where they put up huge mansions that are totally empty and overgrown.
	I mean, you talk about, you know, Patempkin Village.
	They've built it over and over again in many different places.
	Malinvestment because of central planning.
	Before we get away from the tax stuff...
	You said you think that the tariffs are mainly used as a negotiating tactic.
	And what about the income tax?
	Because as Trump has been, what he said about tariffs domestically is to imply that, well, maybe somewhere down the road we're going to get rid of the income tax.
	I don't see that happening at all.
	Do you?
	No.
	Exactly.
	I mean, he's talking about making the tax cuts permanent.
	He's talking about what he's going to do with the corporations.
	I just don't see that on the horizon.
	He hasn't specifically said it.
	He just kind of muses, you know, it'd be kind of nice if we had a system that was all tariffs and no income taxes, but nothing has been done along those lines, has it?
	There's a figure of speech a lot of people use who have tried over the years to better understand President Trump because he's obviously a very unique political actor in American history.
	And they talk about taking him seriously, but not literally.
	One thing I've learned, both in the time I've spent with him and in the time I've spent with his policy advisors, some of which are some of my best friends, is when he's serious about something, you know it.
	And when he's not serious about something, you know it.
	And so a comment here and a tweet there is very different than repeating something on the campaign trail 650 times.
	I don't think President Trump has any opinions about the income tax versus a fair tax.
	I think he has strong opinions about this no tax on tips thing that he led with on the campaign.
	So I do believe that they will be making a big mistake to not view the tax.
	Promises made as a very imminent need in the 2025 agenda.
	The belief that let's go get some immigration victories and some border victories and maybe some trade victories first and we'll get to taxes later.
	I understand wanting to get victories first, but you can't put the tax thing off to the end of the year and lose your leverage.
	Because you not only may end up wanting some Democrat votes here, but there's different competing interests within the Republican caucus too.
	You need every Republican vote.
	That's the problem when you only have four-vote lead in the House.
	And Republicans in New York and California have a different agenda out of the tax bill than some in certain red states or Midwestern states.
	And so they need the time to negotiate this deal and do it right.
	And I really hope they prioritize it from now through April so that we can get a tax deal done by July.
	Because if you get to near the end of the year, it is not going to be as good of a deal.
	I'm positive about that.
	And so what is really...
	A part of this.
	He's mentioned many times reducing the corporate tax level to 15% from 21%.
	He's talked about locking in the 2017 tax cut, but then taking off the cap on state and local taxes of $10,000.
	Is there anything else that is, and not taxing tips, and I think he also had thrown out not taxing.
	Because they can't get 60 votes in the Senate, so they have to do it through the budget reconciliation process, the so-called Byrd rule.
	Then they only need 50 votes, but then that means you have to set a budget and the reconciliation of what you do with the tax bill has to match to that budget.
	So let's say you tell your budget you're going to have a trillion and a half dollar deficit, which is what we already have anyways, then it can't move the deficit.
	Now, if you say we're going to have a $3 trillion deficit, you can do a lot, but nobody's going to vote for agreeing to a $3 trillion deficit.
	So they're going to have to set a deficit level, which is going to be messy, but then they have to go about doing what they're going to do tax-wise within that reconciliation window.
	And there's no possible way they can get rid of the SALT deduction because that would be over a trillion dollars right there.
	Now, I think they're going to increase the cap.
	They're talking about $20,000 and adding an inflation kicker to it year by year.
	Some are pushing for $30,000.
	So that's a very big, backdoor, middle-class tax cut.
	It's not going to help people like me.
	My state and local taxes in New York and California are way more than $10,000, so it doesn't matter much.
	But for middle class folks that got the lower tax rates from 2017 and now get some of that deduction back, that's a big deal.
	No tax on tips has to happen.
	It's the one of his campaign promises that he needs to be able to see through because of how important it was rhetorically on the campaign trail.
	The one thing he's not talking about a lot that a lot of us are pushing for behind the scenes is 100% business expensing.
	He wants economic growth.
	He wants productivity.
	And when businesses know they can deduct what they're going to go do with capital goods investment right away, R&D, these types of things, it's very stimulative to the economy, and it's not stimulative with government spending.
	It's stimulative with the private sector investing into growth opportunity.
	So I think that there's a few things like that that'll be there.
	And then, as you say, you have to make the 2017 tax cuts permanent.
	The good news is, by the way, that's going to happen.
	Even if they can't get anything else done, they would just vote to extend that for a year because nobody wants it on their record that they let these tax increases come.
	They need to do more than just that.
	So you said that, you know, they're not going to get anything done unless they make it part of the budget reconciliation.
	So what kind of a, you know, where we could get it to, you know, just a simple majority of over 50, and they've got 53 people with the Republicans.
	So what kind of a time frame does that put us into?
	It depends if they end up deciding to do one reconciliation bill, which is the idea of Speaker Johnson and what President Trump has said lately he's kind of prone to.
	Or if they need two different bills to get it done, which some other Republicans have advocated.
	It doesn't reveal a rift between Republicans.
	It's just a difference in strategy.
	Stephen Miller, who is a senior advisor about policy president, he wants two bills because his priority is immigration and the border, and he knows that they're going to have the votes for that.
	People are deathly afraid of voting against the president on immigration and border.
	So he wants to go get one bill done first, get the victory, and then tackle the tax stuff later.
	But the problem with that, where I disagree with Mr. Miller, is once you've gotten the first one done, You lose a lot of political leverage with some of your needed votes for the second one.
	So what Speaker Johnson's point is, is by attaching them all together, more people are going to need to vote for it.
	And yet it's a little messier.
	It takes more time.
	There's more horse trading and negotiating.
	So you can imagine.
	I don't say this, by the way, as derogatory about President Trump.
	It's just descriptive.
	I can be the same way sometimes in my own business.
	He doesn't really like all these details.
	He wants other people just to go figure it out, you know, get it done.
	But unfortunately, this is one of those things in government where how the sausage is made kind of matters.
	Yeah, it could be the sinking of the Bismarck right there, right?
	One of the things that you didn't mention, you mentioned tax on tips, and of course that was something that he really hammered over and over again.
	He's mentioned it a few times, but not like he has removing the tax on tips.
	Social Security, overtime taxes, is that something that is still in view, or is that something that may make it or not?
	What do you think?
	The overtime issue I hear is still in view.
	I happen to be totally against it.
	I think it's a very bad precedent.
	And it's going to open itself up to a lot of manipulation and a lot of cheating and people moving how they classify salary versus hourly and trying to game the system.
	So I never really like things in the tax code that incentivize people to alter behavior.
	The Social Security thing has no chance of happening.
	No chance.
	Not with reconciliation.
	It's just a multi-trillion dollar expense and they're not going to have room for it in reconciliation.
	I don't think the President's brought that up in months, by the way.
	I think even he knows that one's a goner.
	Yeah.
	Eliminating the income tax on the Social Security benefits that you get.
	I do support it, by the way.
	Yeah, I know.
	I do support it.
	Yeah, it is.
	Double tax.
	That money was already taxed.
	It is.
	It is.
	And when we talk about corporate taxes, just like tariffs, all the corporate taxes are something that I would imagine you would agree with.
	Consumers are eventually going to have to pay for that.
	The corporations aren't going to absorb that, right?
	Right.
	The only thing I'd clarify is he didn't say he wanted to bring the 21% rate down to 15 broad-based across all companies, which I would support.
	He said, I want to bring it from 21. So remember, it was at 35. And he brought it to 21. To me, it's maybe the best thing he did in his first term.
	One of the biggest.
	The economic growth.
	Joe Biden lived off of some of the economic growth that Trump created from doing that.
	It incentivized tons of American global companies to bring certain things back on shore.
	And most importantly, to bring...
	$1.6 trillion came back on shore after they repatriated after that passed.
	However, 21 to 15 I think is still a great move, but he's saying he wants to do it if they're doing all their manufacturing in the United States.
	And I know people have strong opinions about this issue, but I just disagree with one tax rate for one company and another tax rate for another.
	The unattended consequences that come from this.
	Hurt American either consumers or producers.
	So if people want more manufacturing in the United States, then have a lower tax rate for everyone.
	Have less regulation.
	You mentioned deregulation earlier.
	Get rid of all this DEI stuff.
	There's a lot you can do to make people want to manufacture in the United States.
	But there are some things where it may be cheaper elsewhere.
	And when you penalize a business for that, it ends up then coming on to consumers and having a trickle-down effect.
	Let's talk a little bit about something that's been one of my pet peeves, and that is the Paris Climate Accord.
	And as I've had Steve Malloy on in the past, who follows that very closely, and he worked with a lot of people in the first Trump administration, as he pointed out, and he was calling for it at the very end.
	You remember that Trump said, I'm going to get out of it, but I've got to wait four years according to the terms of the Paris Climate Accord.
	And so he got out of it, like, right after the election.
	But Steve Malloy came on, we were talking about it, he says, he's got to contact Mitch McConnell as...
	You know, head of the Senate there.
	He needs to call a vote on this.
	This is a treaty.
	And the Senate has to ratify a treaty.
	And we were never, in my opinion and in his opinion, and I'd like to know what your opinion is, we were never legitimately in the Paris Climate Accord.
	We had John Kerry say, I self-ratified it.
	And Obama, why are we pretending that we're in it?
	Now, he said he's going to get out of it again.
	But he said, well, now this time, instead of waiting for four years, I've got to wait for one year.
	Why do we have to wait to get out of something that we were never in?
	What is your take on that and on the impact of all these mandates and the subsidies and the fees that we have to pay?
	There's an economic aspect to this as well.
	We're not paying any fees.
	We're not paying them.
	Now, so there's a technicality that you're highlighting, and you're exactly right.
	There's no reason to have to wait a year, but we're talking about officially waiting a year.
	We're unofficially.
	We're not doing any of it anyways.
	But this is the problem you highlighted earlier in our conversation about executive orders.
	We went into the Paris Accord on an executive order from Obama.
	We came out of it on an executive order from Trump.
	We went back in it on an executive order from Biden.
	And we're now leaving it again on a second executive order from Trump.
	Somebody needs to start doing the law.
	Yeah.
	Ratifying treaties.
	Four presidents in a row, you know, four presidential administrations in a row, are using executive orders, and it's giving Congress a pass from doing its job.
	Either ratify a treaty or don't.
	And it's amazing to me that we don't have any Republicans.
	I mean, I understand Mitch McConnell would be on board with all this stuff, but where is it?
	There's, you know, where the rest of the Republicans...
	Everybody's afraid to stand...
	The problem is that President Trump wants to lead with executive orders and people are afraid to stand up to him about that.
	And especially when a lot of his executive orders are popular.
	You know, my view is I get that sometimes we're going to do the right thing in the wrong way, but we kind of need to stand up for doing it the right way and Congress doesn't want to do its job.
	Yeah, they should have stood up to it when it was done by Obama.
	You know, at least even if you're not in the majority, you can say...
	Excuse me, don't we have a constitution anymore and do something about that?
	Our version of standing up to things these days, this is a comment I have about society at large, not just Republicans in the Senate or House, is we say, well, the way we're going to stand up to bad things the other side does is we're going to do the same bad things.
	Yes, yes.
	That's not the way you do it.
	That's a race to the bottom.
	It absolutely is.
	Well, while we're talking about energy issues, We had Trump give a speech to Davos remotely, and in it he was talking about how bad our infrastructure is and the grid.
	You know, it's really old, he said, and it's very vulnerable.
	So now the move is going to be to...
	We have a private energy system for these people that are very wealthy, for the AI centers, as well as perhaps, as he's talking about, manufacturing plants.
	Everybody have their own power center, and I guess that leaves the rest of us out.
	What is your take on that?
	And while we're on the energy issue, the people that are friends of Trump that have been around him have been very heavily into...
	Carbon taxes as well as carbon sequestration and the carbon pipeline, CO2 pipeline going across the country.
	Is that something that's going to be pushed in with the people that are around him, like Doug Burgum and Elon Musk, who pushed for, respectively, sequestration and carbon taxes, the two of them?
	What do you think is going to happen with this burden on the economy, the green nonsense?
	I think that where the president's stated opinions and policies have been very solid, and I do not believe that these carbon tax things are even remotely on the table.
	Musk has said quite a bit about it in the past.
	He's said less about it more recently.
	You know, we need to remember, Musk built Tesla off of...
	You know, publicizing the threat of carbon and traditional car engines.
	And I think that Musk has moved a lot in his own Overton window of politics and policy.
	Burgum's version of carbon sequestration is very different than what we hear about a carbon tax.
	He's a much more nuanced and intelligent actor here.
	And then our new energy secretary is brilliant.
	And I think that what President Trump said at Davos was spot on.
	The orders he assigned are right.
	The one thing I would say is a lot of people saying, oh, finally, we're going to start drilling for oil again because Biden stopped us from doing that.
	And that's not really true.
	Biden hurt us a lot for long-term capacity.
	But the day Biden left office, we were producing more oil than we've ever produced in our country's history.
	But we weren't producing as much as we could.
	And he killed pipelines that make it impossible for us to move oil and gas around.
	But the worst thing he did, President Trump already undid, was say, I'm going to put a moratorium on approving any new terminals that can be built to export liquefied natural gas.
	This to me is an area of growth for the US economy and of geopolitical supremacy.
	That we can take bad Middle Eastern actors out and Russia out when Europe and other parts of Asia don't need to buy their natural gas from them.
	And why Biden did it is beyond me.
	But we have a huge ability to extract more natural gas and natural gas liquids from our own wells in the U.S. from fracking and then ship it to other customers around the world.
	And Trump is going to be, I think, setting us up to do that for 5, 10, 15 years.
	So a lot of people are focused on right now.
	We're producing a million and a half barrels a day.
	If you started doing more drilling on federal land, if you got rid of some of the regulation, you're going to make it more profitable.
	But I don't think you're going to go to 1.8 million, you know, at $70 oil.
	The supply demand numbers aren't there.
	So we need market solutions, right?
	We're not OPEC. Saudi has the same people setting policy as are the ones producing the oil because it's a state-run business.
	We have private actors in the Permian Basin.
	All we need to do is what Trump is going to do.
	Get the government out of the way.
	I agree.
	And when you're talking about efficiency, constitutional issues, other things like that, and especially with the environment, is there...
	Any talk that you have seen?
	I haven't seen him mention it.
	He's talked about getting rid of the Department of Education.
	I don't know if he's going to do that or not.
	We've heard that from every Republican president since Reagan when it was created when he was running for president, but he never got rid of it in eight years, and nobody's ever done that.
	But is there any talk about even restraining, if certainly I would idealistically like to see EPA and Department of Energy gone, but is there any talk of even clipping their wings on some of the things that these agencies have done to ban cars, to ban appliances, but is there any talk of even clipping their wings on some of Is there any talk at all about reining in those massive bureaucracies?
	There's three words I'll share with you.
	Personnel is policy.
	And he has appointed the personnel that are very much in agreement with you and me on this stuff.
	So if Lee Zeldin gets in at EPA and some of the other agencies and bureaus that are under the executive branch, not legislative, I think that the Department of Energy is not going to be going away, but he has the right people there with Bergman Interior and Chris at Energy.
	And again, I don't like him creating this National Energy Council because then one day it's going to be run by others and they won't be as good a people, but at least the people running it so far are good guys.
	But absolutely.
	And it's, by the way, one of the things I'd love to do, I agree by the Department of Education could go tomorrow and I don't think it would matter.
	Some of them need to be downticked over time.
	And putting people to run agencies that they don't believe should exist, It's a great way to do it to allow them the time to, from the inside, what did you say, clip the wings.
	I'm pretty optimistic some of that will happen, but they're not going to wholesale get rid of these things.
	It's going to take longer than that.
	When you take 40 years to build a bureaucracy, it's hard to kill it in 40 days.
	Yeah, yeah.
	And, you know, we go back to legislative initiatives.
	That gave the EPA the ability to regulate emissions and gave the Department of Energy the ability to regulate efficiencies.
	And so those are now being weaponized.
	That was done by Congress.
	And I guess, you know, just like we were talking about the Paris Climate Accord, there's no...
	Interest in Congress when you talk about the House or the Senate in terms of doing anything.
	I mean, they just shove everything off to these bureaucracies, let them do it, and they don't ever really rein in these bureaucracies.
	The National Energy Council that you mentioned there, that Burgum has been put in place of, in charge of, what is the stated purpose of that?
	And what do you think is going to happen with it?
	Well, I suspect that it was done basically to coordinate efforts, that he couldn't put the same person at three different places, and he had someone he wanted for EPA, he had someone he wanted for Energy, he had someone he wanted for Interior, and it was a way to bring a lot of the best talent into one body together to coordinate and collaborate.
	So I have a lot of confidence in some of these folks that are on that commission.
	I'd like to see them do it, get things done for 6 to 12 months, and then kill the commission.
	It doesn't happen very much in federal government.
	No, no, yeah.
	As Reagan said, it's the closest thing to eternal life that we have on this earth.
	It's a federal bureaucracy.
	So talk a little bit about the stock market that we've seen in the last couple of days.
	You know, what's going on with that?
	The market's kind of fed off of just a few tech companies and especially off of AI and NVIDIA. They got back just under half of what they lost on Monday.
	They got back about half of it yesterday.
	What do you think is going to happen with that?
	Has AI been exposed as a massively inefficient and expensive thing that maybe doesn't have a lot of payoff?
	Is that going to affect the stock market in general?
	What do you think happens moving on?
	Well, I don't know that the exact things that happened this week necessarily reveal it, although I think that they add to the case that it's at least a fear, a risk, a vulnerability.
	I do think that there's no question right now that...
	The cost of doing AI is massively more than people can rationalize, and the benefits we get from AI don't seem to be in line with what the cost is yet.
	We are not going to have China as a customer here, and we are going to have China as a competitor.
	So that's all there.
	If NVIDIA had no bad news at all, and I assure you it had some real bad news, if it hadn't, It was still a massively overpriced stock, trading at a ridiculously high multiple for future earnings.
	So it was subject to a correction anyways.
	But would I say that we know the outcome, who the winners and losers are going to be with specific companies or specific countries?
	No, I think it's all too early.
	But to me, the idea that there will end up being a lot of...
	Investors hurt badly by the hype and the bubble of the moment is inevitable.
	Yeah, what do you think is going to happen in terms of the crypto market and Bitcoin?
	I mean, there was some talk at one point in time about a Bitcoin reserve.
	How do you see that fitting into all this interplay with the dollar, gold, Bitcoin, all that?
	What is your view of this?
	Well, I hate even talking about it because it is something that always makes people mad.
	And you have to wonder, why does it make someone mad if they have so much confidence in their opinion?
	Why would they care what somebody else says?
	I've found that there's a direct relationship.
	Between how much conviction one has in their own opinions and how angry they get when somebody disagrees.
	The idea of a Bitcoin reserve is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard expressed in American public life.
	A country running $36 trillion of national debt, adding to it another $1-2 trillion a year, and people saying we need crypto because the dollar in government spending is irresponsible, and then we're going to fund a Bitcoin reserve.
	With deficit spending.
	It's insane.
	Bitcoin has gone down 70% three different times since it existed.
	Now, it's up huge, but it went up 56% in the first month and a half after Trump was elected, and we think that's a good thing?
	That speaks to a stable, responsible medium of exchange?
	I'm sorry.
	If people want to buy it, if they want to speculate on it, I'm all for it.
	Trump deregulating a lot of the heavy rules that the prior SEC had around it, that's all fine too.
	If people are willing to take the losses, let them take the gains.
	I don't think it needs a bunch of regulation.
	It's not systemic in our banking system.
	But do I think it's about to disintermediate the dollar?
	No, I do not.
	Never.
	Yeah, and I agree.
	What do you think about the people around Trump, though?
	He's now got a lot of people.
	As he made his turn, he was against cryptocurrency.
	I thought it was a bad idea.
	Now he's all for it.
	He's been involved in meme coins, and of course we've got Lutnik, who is there as Commerce Secretary, has been heavily involved with...
	Tether, so-called stablecoin.
	And, you know, he's been involved with a lot of the meme coin stuff as well.
	And so there's a lot of people, as you pointed out before, personnel is policy.
	Where do you think these people are trying to push this?
	I mean, we're going to wind up with some kind of a hybrid, you know, Tether or stablecoin thing.
	Are we going to wind up getting the functionality of CBDC through a backdoor?
	Where do you think this is headed?
	Well, no, I... I don't think we're going to a central bank digital currency through this.
	And I do agree with you that there's a lot of people that are influenced in President Trump's ear about this, but that's never been different.
	He's always had different advisors barking things in his ear with their own agenda.
	Sometimes it's just ideological.
	You know, when guys like Kudlow and Steve Moore and Steve Forbes and Art Laffer, who are all my good friends, when they're in his ear, it's because they believe in supply side.
	Some of these Silicon Valley guys may have a different agenda, and President Trump, I think he likes the attention, and I think he likes very rich and powerful people that need him and want him, whether it's Wall Street or Silicon Valley.
	But he'll make his own decision in the end.
	This meme coin thing, you can probably tell I mostly agree with a lot of President Trump's policies.
	I don't agree with all of them.
	But this meme coin thing, I can't possibly justify.
	If a Democrat did it, we would be beside ourselves.
	It is rank, rift, the optics are horrible, and I just cannot even comprehend why it would happen, other than because he can.
	Yeah, well, you know, it might have the, I don't know if Lutnik was involved in this.
	He's done a lot of those placements and things like that.
	You know, even the people who are Bitcoin and crypto advocates said this is going to give crypto a bad name.
	People who support Trump says it's obvious grift, as you point out.
	It's such a strange thing to see that happening there.
	But I guess my concern was there's ways, and of course everybody's on.
	To CBDC. And the Five Eyes, the five intelligence agencies of the US, UK, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, they've all said, we're not going to do CBDC. I think they have read public opinion on this and understand that's going to be a hard sell, that they're not going to get through.
	So they're all saying they're not going to do that.
	My concern is, is it going to happen in a de facto way?
	Is it going to happen by gradual consolidation of, you know...
	The combination of getting people accustomed to crypto and other things and the stablecoins and gradually kind of bring in the functionality of it, the surveillance, the invasion of privacy, and the control that can happen with that.
	Because we've got a lot of stuff about debanking that has happened.
	They're focusing on it and they're talking about it, but this is something that I've struggled with.
	I got debanked by PayPal and Vimo about four years ago.
	And at the time, it was a real rough thing, but I've worked around it now.
	But, you know, at first they denied that there's any debanking going on.
	And now even a Biden administration official came out and said, yeah, the banks really wanted this even more than we did.
	And we're pushing back against the regulations that we're putting out there.
	So I know that he took on Bank of America executive and criticized him for debanking conservatives.
	But when we look at the bigger picture of the CBDC, if we get people accustomed to this, if we have that kind of visibility and loss of privacy, and we have things like debanking brought in with that, I mean, we wind up with the functionality of CBDC even if we don't have it.
	Where do you see this happening?
	I mean, do you think we're going to move towards prohibiting some of these activities?
	What do you think will happen with that?
	Yeah, I'll go quickly just because unfortunately I'm out of time here, but it's a topic that's near and dear to my heart.
	First of all, you do not have to worry about people getting used to it because anyone who tries it hates it.
	They bragged and bragged and bragged.
	Oh, look, we're going to be doing this.
	Was it in Chile or Peru or some of these South American countries?
	And they're putting crypto ATM machines everywhere.
	And then they said, please stop.
	We don't like it.
	The Miami mayor wanted it to be this Bitcoin capital.
	And it was a big flop.
	They're not going to get the American public.
	Desensitized to digital currency.
	There is too much grift, too much corruption, too much technological error.
	It just simply isn't what it has been advertised to be.
	And then to your point of trying to blend a desensitization around the technology of blockchain with government control over it, there are so many people that would be fighting against it.
	I have a lot of confidence that those people will prevail.
	The Federal Reserve has a very difficult time blocking and tackling.
	Adding a digital currency, adding a Silicon Valley component to their portfolio.
	You know, they were talking a few years ago, the central bank needs to factor in climate change.
	He said, we can't even do interest rates.
	You want me to guess the weather?
	That's what it is.
	It is a guess about the weather, and they've been guessing wrong for decades, haven't they?
	They will not be able to pull this off.
	And I will just quickly say we're making great progress in the private sector with the things like debanking.
	JP Morgan had a couple incidents that did happen.
	They were real.
	They were not coming from up top.
	They were middle managers that were being woke and being discriminatory, and then they lied about it.
	And I spoke at the shareholder meeting.
	We met with upper management for two years.
	The same things you dealt with at PayPal.
	They had bought a payment processor called WayMe that they had these provisions in.
	They took them all away.
	And basically went out on a limb over and over saying, never ever going to happen under our watch.
	If we hear of any debanking going on because of one's politics or religion, it'll be the end of their time at JP Morgan.
	That's the largest bank in the world.
	There's still rogue things that can happen at some of the big banks.
	By the way, I run a private wealth management firm.
	And if someone comes into my office and says, I work for a pornography company and I want you to be my financial advisor, I want the freedom to say no.
	Yeah.
	So, we want to maintain First Amendment rights, but we also need these banks to be honest about what they're doing and not doing, and we've made a lot of progress in the last few years, so I want listeners to be encouraged about that.
	Sure, yeah, and of course, you know, we've seen in the past when they were saying, well, it's the social media companies, that's their prerogative, they can kill whoever they want.
	We find out that it was actually...
	Collusion going on with the government.
	They were just being a beard for them.
	So that's the other real issue.
	It's not necessarily a clear cut with that.
	And you've got to go real shortly, but I want to talk about, just mention briefly your latest book, and that is Full-Time Work and the Meaning of Life.
	We're talking a lot about universal basic income.
	We just had Andreessen say, yeah, the whole purpose of this AI is to crush human wages.
	Talk a little bit about that.
	Well, I think that people need to understand that work is something that was instituted by God because it's what he made us to do.
	To be productive, to be creative, to be innovative.
	Human self-worth, human ingenuity, human dignity is all connected to the fact that we're able to think and build and do.
	And this movement to say mankind's going to do less.
	is just awful.
	So I have no concerns in the world that those who have a kind of Transhumanist vision for society are going to prevail.
	They're not going to prevail.
	There are unique things to the human person that cannot be disintermediated.
	And yet, at the same time, those who believe a 32-hour work week, universal basic income, are good for humanity, they have to be resisted every step of the way.
	Mankind is unhappy when they are not working.
	And some people don't know it, but it's still true.
	I agree.
	I agree.
	And the subtitle, the description of your book is Exploring the Intersection of Work, of Purpose, and of Conservative Values.
	The title is Full Time, that is Work and Meaning of Life.
	Full Time, and the subtitle is Work and the Meaning of Life.
	Thank you so much for joining us, sir.
	And it's always a pleasure to talk to you.
	It's been very interesting talking to you.
	And again, people can find you, the Bonson Group.
	Do you have a website?
	I don't see that on here.
	Yeah, so TheBonsonGroup.com.
	Another easy way would just be DividendCafe.com.
	That will get you to the same place.
	That's where all my investment writings are.
	And it's right there at our Bonson Group website.
	So DividendCafe.com.
	Thank you very much.
	It's always a pleasure to have you on.
	Thank you.
	Have a good day.
	And folks, stay tuned.
	We're going to be right back.
	We've got a few more minutes here of the show.
	show.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	Liberty.
	It's your move. .
	And now, The David Knight Show.
	Alright, welcome back.
	And I wish I had seen these questions from Angry Tiger before.
	He has a couple of good questions there about the impact of these policies on inflation.
	So I'd ask your guest this.
	I wish I had seen that.
	I should have asked him these questions.
	Are the Trump policies going to help with inflation?
	Under these inflationary circumstances, is anybody going to be able to afford anything manufactured in the United States?
	That's a real good question.
	And of course, in terms of that, his position is that he doesn't think that the tariffs are necessarily going to be instituted.
	I think he would not like to see additional taxes, but he's thinking that it's simply a negotiating tactic.
	We'll see.
	We'll see.
	Don'tFragMeBro says, government efficiency is an oxymoron.
	Absolutely is.
	And believe me that Musk is interested in doing anything with this other than getting rid of the subsidies that he's already maxed out.
	Getting rid of the subsidies for his competitors, I think, is all that's going to come out of this.
	The Syrian girl.
	Those Chinese videos are fake, even if China is hurting economically.
	Given the number of Chinese people, there would at least have been a person here and a small group there in the train stations.
	Train stations would never have been totally empty.
	And that was one of the things that we looked at.
	But, you know, I don't know how they get those pictures.
	I mean, maybe they're...
	AI or something, except they walked around and they talked to people who were at some of the food courts and things like that.
	They showed the prices.
	They're dropping and still the empty restaurant.
	You know, the train station type of stuff, maybe that could have been AI, but it looked to me to be real.
	And I was absolutely taken aback because when we were there, that was the thing that was most amazing.
	It was a massive number of people everywhere, anywhere.
	You know, you go into a Walmart there and it was just, you could barely move.
	And you come back here.
	And it's like a ghost town.
	Wes Robertson, China destroyed its economy with COVID just like the U.S. government did, just like the entire world governments did.
	Yes, and they did it worse and longer than anybody else.
	Remember how they shut down Shanghai for the longest time.
	They're, you know, net zero nonsense.
	And again, you have to ask yourself, why?
	Except if you look at what happened with Ukraine and the halamadour from Stalin, he took the area that had been the breadbasket for their country as well as for Europe, and he starved the people to death.
	What was the purpose of that?
	What was the purpose of Mao's killing so many people?
	It's a cultural revolution.
	All that was to establish their power.
	And I think that was what was going on with China.
	They don't care about the economics as much as they care about their power.
	Matthew Ronson, the government only cares about saving money when it's going to its citizens.
	Money is never an issue for the next perpetual war.
	You'll never hear somebody like Bernie Sanders.
	Bernie Sanders is out there cheerleading now for Denmark and their high taxes.
	I'll tell you, when I was in Copenhagen, I had a couple of people who would say, shh, come over here, come over here.
	They were afraid that they were being monitored by the government at that time.
	That was 2014. And they were talking about how they wanted to tell me how oppressive government regulations of taxes, especially there, were.
	And so, anyway, they only cry about it, like Bernie Sanders, when it's a tax cut.
	And Don't Frang Me Bro says, government will never save anyone from government.
	Shadowboxer.
	Fink at BlackRock is on record saying that countries that reduce populations become more profitable.
	Yeah, and that's been grabbed by some of the people to cheerlead the fears about the border.
	And again, the border is chaos.
	The border should never have been left that way.
	But we look at how they're going to use that problem to impose the so-called solutions that they want.
	are something that are very, very dangerous to our liberty, to our Constitution, and to drive us towards this technocratic police surveillance state.
	There's many things that could be done about the border without creating that kind of chaos.
	Many things that could be done, but they're going to create the problem because they want to push us towards their fake solution.
	So we're going to take a break.
	We're going to take a break for about 24 hours, 23 hours.
	We'll see you then.
	Thank you for listening.
	The Common Man music They created Common Core to dumb down our children.
	They created Common Past to track and control us.
	Their Commons Project to make sure the commoners own nothing.
	And the communist future.
	They see the common man as simple.
	Unsophisticated.
	Ordinary.
	But each of us has worth and dignity created in the image of God.
	That is what we have in common.
	That is what they want to take away.
	Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation.
	They desire to know everything about us while they hide everything from us.
	It's time to turn that around and expose what they want to hide.
	Please share the information and links you'll find at thedavidknightshow.com.
	Thank you for sharing.

▲