Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 13, 2025 - The David Knight Show

03:00:54

The David Knight Show -3/13/2025

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	The End
	In a world of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
	It's the David Knight Show.
	As the clock strikes 13, it's Thursday the 13th of March.
	Year of our Lord 2025.
	Today we're going to talk about more, about the tariffs.
	And the most important thing about this, I think, besides the intended volatility, is is the ridiculous lying of the press secretary.
	Love it.
	She got caught on a couple of whoppers.
	One about the tariffs, another one about the Epstein files.
	We're going to take a look at those.
	But there's something very serious that has been introduced.
	I've been saying for a long time that what they're going to do is a public-private partnership for what's equivalently a CBDC. Yes, it won't be the central bank.
	It'll be a digital currency.
	And now we can see that bill introduced.
	Boy, things are moving pretty quickly, aren't they?
	And they call it the Genius Act.
	Isn't it interesting how they always call things exactly the opposite?
	This is for the people who are not quite geniuses to see this coming through the back door.
	So we're going to talk about the very important implications of that as well as what's going on with this continuing resolution and the debt.
	People's comments on Thomas Massey.
	We'll be right back.
	I want to begin with, you know, looking at the media and looking at how things are being looking at the media and looking at how things are being spun and how perhaps some of the most dishonest media now has become the Trump sucker
	There's an interesting take on a poll that was done about the handling of the economy.
	So they asked people, how do you feel about the economy under Trump and that type of thing?
	The poll was done by CNN. So I know a lot of people are going to say, well, you don't listen to that at all.
	Well, it's a CNN poll, but it was reported one way by the Hill, and it was reported a completely different way by Breitbart.
	The headline's completely contradictory.
	Listen to this.
	This is the Hill's headline.
	56% disapprove of Trump's handling of the economy.
	On the other hand, Breitbart says CNN poll shows a surge in presidential approval of the economy under Trump.
	So how do we reconcile these two things?
	Well, we understand that at the core, there's some...
	It's going to be spun by these people.
	And their credibility is really just in the gutter.
	It really is.
	So what's the fact of this?
	CNN did a poll, found 56% of respondents disapprove of Trump's handling of the economy.
	By the way, where in the Constitution does it say that the president is supposed to handle the economy?
	Get your hands off of it.
	Just, like, get your hands off of those young girls that you were hanging around with with Epstein.
	It's just as, well, it's not just as disgusting, but it is disqualifying.
	Anyway, so 44% said that they approve.
	1% don't know, which is really pretty unusual because you usually don't only get 1% of the people who don't know about anything that you're asking about.
	It's usually much higher than that.
	Okay, so that's the facts.
	The Hill reported the, you know, and again, The Hill is very dishonest when it comes to things like vaccines and a whole bunch of other things.
	And you should never, never take headlines at face value.
	You should never take reporting at face value.
	You should never say, well, I trust Breitbart, or I trust The Hill, or I trust CNN, or I trust Fox, or whatever.
	Never.
	Or trust David Knight.
	Look at...
	What is being said?
	Look at the data that is there.
	Now, in this particular case, they reported accurately what the CNN poll said.
	Now, Breitbart tells you something completely different.
	Did they criticize the poll or the methodology of the poll?
	No, they didn't.
	Instead, they looked at this same CNN poll, they looked at these same numbers, and they came up with a completely different take on it, a headline.
	So, even though they don't dispute the poll, they don't dispute the numbers, and the numbers say 56% disapprove of Trump's handling of the economy, what Breitbart does is they look at this and they say, well, that's a big improvement over Biden.
	Over Biden.
	Biden left office, and this is Breitbart, Biden left office in January with only 33% of Americans saying that they approved of his handling of the economy.
	Trump now scores 44% approval rating.
	That's higher than Biden scored in any of the CNN polls since December of 2021. There you go.
	The glass is half full.
	And they'll always cheer Trump.
	So, okay, so it has gone up from 33%, the final poll that they had of Biden, to 44%.
	Here's the reality.
	Has anything really even changed?
	This is just people's perception of the economy.
	Has anything really changed yet?
	No, there's been a lot of PR, there's been a lot of announcements, and there are a lot of lawsuits about all the things that are being done with Doge and with the Trump administration.
	So we don't really know where this is going to land.
	Is Trump going to win the lawsuits?
	Is he going to fight against the judicial supremacy, saying that he can't operate as an executive?
	And clearly, in some of these things, he has overstepped his authority.
	But there's a lot of these things that he's being sued for that are under the authority of the executive branch.
	He could do an Andrew Jackson.
	I see no indication of that.
	As a matter of fact, we're going to talk about where he's winning, where he's losing.
	But the reality is that whatever has been announced by Doge or any of these other things is always subject to review at this point in time.
	And it's going to take a very long time for this to play out in the courts.
	Even where there have been decisions at lower courts, these are going to be appealed further up the chain.
	That's going to take a very long time.
	So we don't really know about any of that stuff.
	Tariffs?
	Tariffs are going back and forth if you think they're good or think they're bad.
	How do you like the fact that they're on again, off again, on again, off again?
	That is rocking the markets.
	But the bottom line is, regardless of the reality of the situation, this is people's perception.
	And still, 44% approve of Trump.
	That's a victory, they said, because 33%.
	Now, they also say that at this point in his presidency, Biden had a 49% approval rating.
	So when Biden was only, what is it?
	Six weeks or so?
	Maybe seven?
	Seven weeks into his presidency, Biden's approval rating was 49%.
	Trump's is 44%.
	Again, polls, just like the political opinion polls, they don't really matter.
	And they'll continue to go one way or the other.
	The point I had about all this is not whether or not this is all working, whether or not everything is great and wonderful, always up and to the right.
	No, it is simply about the way that this one piece of information, this opinion poll, is spun in such a completely different way.
	And so keep that in mind when we get into the continuing resolution when we talk about Thomas Massey as well.
	AP reporter sparred with the White House over tariffs.
	And so this is Caroline Levitt, Levitt, I guess.
	Levitt or Levitt.
	Well, I did love it when she gave the answer about tariffs.
	It was completely dishonest.
	And she was called on it by an AP reporter.
	So they're putting in a lot of Trump sucker proxy media into the White House press corps now that won't challenge them.
	She's very smart and articulate, but now we learn that she's not very honest when they do all of this.
	And so he called her out on tariffs, and she starts putting out this thing.
	Oh, it's going to be paid by foreigners who are bad people.
	They're bad people.
	You know, the Democrat line.
	We're going to raise your taxes, but don't worry.
	These other people are going to pay those taxes, not you.
	And they're bad people.
	They're not paying their fair share.
	This is the standard line of Democrats I've heard my entire life, and Trump is a New York City Democrat.
	And now Caroline Lovett is selling that same thing.
	And the AP guy is not having it.
	Now, he would probably not challenge a Democrat who is saying this.
	But let's listen to the exchange.
	If we could just step back for a second.
	When President Trump last addressed the BRT when he was on the campaign trail, his big push was on tax cuts.
	He's going there today as he's proposing tax hikes in the form of tariffs.
	And I'm curious for why he's prioritizing that over the tax cuts.
	He's actually not implementing tax hikes.
	Tariffs are a tax hike on foreign countries that have been ripping us off.
	Tariffs are a tax cut for the American people.
	And the president is a non-advocate of tax cuts.
	As you know, he campaigned on taxes on tips.
	No taxes on overtime.
	That's all the income tax.
	So it's not going away.
	And he expects Congress to pass them later this year.
	I'm sorry, have you ever paid a tariff?
	Because I have.
	They don't get charged on foreign companies.
	They get charged on the importers.
	And ultimately, when we have fair and balanced trade, which the American people have not seen in decades, as I said at the beginning, Revenues will stay here.
	Wages will go up.
	And our country will be made wealthy again.
	And I think it's insulting that you're trying to test my knowledge of economics.
	You failed.
	The decisions that this president has made.
	I now regret giving a question to the Associated Press.
	Mary.
	I bet she does.
	I bet she does.
	He nailed her.
	It's not about testing your knowledge, lady.
	It's about testing your honesty.
	Everybody knows that the taxes are going to be paid finally by the consumer.
	And she engages in sheer Democrat demagoguery over these things.
	And the examples that she said, well, you know, we're going to cut taxes here, we're going to cut taxes here.
	I hope MAGA listened to that.
	They probably are cheering her, though.
	Because what she did was she listed income tax things.
	Telling you that the income tax is not going to go away.
	It's not going to be replaced by tariffs that are going to be paid by foreign countries.
	And the bottom line...
	About all this stuff.
	He said, this is going to be paid by foreign countries who aren't doing their fair share, blah, blah, blah.
	We've never had a protectionist policy, or a tariff policy, I should say, that was just there to punish other countries, have we?
	Doesn't make any sense.
	The ones that Trump was talking about, as I pointed out, under McKinley, it was there to protect specific industries.
	So it was targeted to specific industries, not to specific countries.
	And under Jefferson, it was about raising revenue.
	Because he'd reduce the size of governments to the point that he could fund it off of tariffs.
	He could have funded it off of anything because it was that small.
	And so it's not about revenue.
	It's not about funding the government and replacing the income tax.
	It's not about that at all.
	This government is so large and they're spending so much money that Trump has to add an external revenue service to the internal revenue service, keeping the internal revenue service.
	And rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic was what she was talking about.
	So I thought that, you know, it is insulting that you're trying to test my knowledge of economics.
	Well, you failed on that, and you failed on your honesty and integrity as well.
	I should never have given a question to the Associated Press.
	That's right, lady, because they will hold you to the fire as the opposition.
	Not that I agree with the associate press.
	I mean, how many times do I call them associated propaganda?
	But on this issue, see, again, on this issue, he's right, she's wrong.
	You take these things issue by issue, and, you know, I'm sick and tired of the tribal thinking that is there on everything, on everything, on Massey, you name it.
	Well, he's bad because he's against Trump.
	Oh, he's bad because he's in Congress or whatever.
	Take it issue by issue, folks.
	Come on.
	The Associated Press, of all things, the Associated Propagandists, the people who have been out there, saying, you know, we're going to set the terms that can be used.
	You can't say somebody's an illegal immigrant.
	You can't call yourself pro-life.
	We're not going to allow that.
	Those people can, when it comes to...
	I've said it about RT. RT will tell you the truth about America.
	They'll lie about Russia.
	Associated Press will lie about America and Russia.
	Usually they'll lie about both of them.
	But in this particular case, when they're talking about terrorists, he's exactly right.
	And he's telling the truth because they're lying about this.
	So Trump has backed off of his threat to Canada.
	This is an RT headline.
	You know, this back and forth and back and forth between Canada.
	And so who won?
	Again, this is like the CNN poll.
	He puts the tariffs out there.
	He backs off many times, and they're on again, they're off again.
	And he comes back with the tariffs on metals, on steel and aluminum, manufacturing metals.
	And so Doug Ford in Ontario says, oh, I'm going to put a tariff on electricity that we sell into the United States.
	And so then Trump comes back and says, yeah, well, then I'm going to raise it from 25% to 50%.
	How about that?
	And then Doug Ford backs off.
	And then Trump backs off.
	So, who won that exchange?
	I don't think anybody's winning with these tariffs, quite frankly.
	But, you know, if you want to keep score on a professional wrestling basis, that would have to go to Trump over Doug Ford.
	But nevertheless, the way it's reported in RT, it says Trump backs off on the threat to Canada.
	U.S. President had previously announced plans to hit Canadian steel and aluminum exports with a 50% tax.
	Earlier in the day, Trump had vowed to raise tariffs on Canadian metal exports to 50%, calling it a retaliation for Ontario's Doug Ford's decision to impose a 25% tariff on electricity exports to Michigan, New York, and Minnesota.
	Ford's move, in turn, was a response to Trump's initial 25% duty on Canadian steel and aluminum.
	This is why trade wars are stupid.
	Stupid.
	Deregulate.
	Cut taxes.
	Don't add more taxes and start picking fights with other countries.
	Now, this particular case, he is talking about an industry, steel and aluminum.
	But it gets even more interesting when he tries to protect steel and aluminum from the UK. The UK. That is working real hard and is nearly extinguished.
	I thought that they had finished closing the last steel plant.
	There's one that's hanging on by its fingernails.
	It probably won't make it through the year.
	And so Trump picks that, picks a fight with the UK over that.
	The UK doesn't, the UK's on Trump's side.
	They don't want any steel or aluminum made in their country.
	The UK government, the UK people, Keir Starmer and those people, they want to de-industrialize the UK. And they're doing a pretty bang-up job of it, actually.
	Later, he specified that U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnik, quote, did a beautiful job, unquote, by persuading Ford to suspend the electricity tariffs during a phone call, which then led for a commitment to resume trade talks.
	Ford and Lutnik described their discussion as productive, emphasized the importance of the U.S.-Canada economic ties.
	They also announced plans to meet in Washington on Thursday, today, to negotiate a renewed trade deal between the U.S. and Canada.
	Trade deals with Trump are like U.S. government treaties with the Indians, constantly subject to arbitrary renegotiation without any negotiation at all, right?
	As Russell Means said in his book, where white men fear to tread.
	He said, hey, white man, as you know, the federal government has broken every treaty that it made with the Indians.
	The Constitution is your treaty.
	And the federal government has broken every aspect of that with you.
	What are you going to do about it?
	And now you see Trump breaking the trade treaties that he made with Canada and Mexico.
	Yeah, it's the Constitution and all these treaties.
	They don't abide by anything that they do.
	Meanwhile, White House press spokesperson.
	Kush Desai said in a statement that the initially announced 25% tariff on steel and aluminum, with no exceptions, no exemptions, would take effect on March the 12th, yesterday.
	So, one of the biggest victims of Trump's metals tariffs is the Ford F-150.
	The new costly steel and aluminum tariffs threaten to boost car prices and to dent the automaker's profits.
	Trump would never be on board with the globalist agenda to get rid of cars, would he?
	You don't think so?
	I mean, Elon Musk wants all private cars to go away.
	He said that.
	In just a couple of years, Elon Musk wants everybody, if they don't ride government-provided transportation, then they will ride in his...
	His little cybercabs or whatever those things are that he calls it.
	They don't have a steering wheel.
	They don't have a brake.
	They don't have a gas pedal.
	They got two doors you set in the thing and it drives you.
	And you have no control over it.
	And so that's what he wants.
	He's got to get rid of the private cars.
	Musk, who runs Trump, wants that.
	The globalists want that.
	Now Trump tells you that he's trying to save our industries here.
	If you get rid of private cars, what's that going to do to the aluminum and steel industry?
	Bottom line.
	The F-150, the top-selling vehicle in the U.S., the automaker's main profit engine, is one of the industry's biggest users of aluminum.
	A blanket 25% tariff on steel imports has boosted the levy on aluminum made outside the U.S. So, you know, what's going to happen?
	Are they going to...
	What's Ford going to do?
	Are they going to quit making the F-150?
	Or are they going to charge more for it?
	If they charge more for it, love it, who is actually paying the tariff?
	The Ford F-150 people, obviously.
	And so on CNBC, Jim Cramer says they're crushing us.
	He says that Trump is manufacturing a recession.
	We're seeing a lot of people on the left saying that.
	Saying that he's decided to manufacture a recession because he wants to twist the arm of the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates.
	And we're going to talk about that, why that is really essential for them.
	If they have to renegotiate these interest rates at a very high level, that is really going to, they're going to lock those things in.
	And then the Trump administration and subsequent administrations are going to have to pay back this debt that they've accumulated.
	That's $37 trillion worth of.
	Debt is going to have to be paid back at a higher interest rate, so he wants those interest rates dropped before they have to be renegotiated.
	This is a very big deal to him, and he's willing to sacrifice everything, including the stock market, in order to do that.
	The Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped over 1,000 points Monday and closed at minus 890 points amid fears fueled by Trump's repeated refusal.
	To rule out the possibility of an impending recession over the weekend, the plunge followed similar drops last week amid scattered implementations of Trump's trade policies.
	I should say, you know, back and forth, back and forth.
	And so Jim Cramer says, well, we've got a recession.
	And if we have a recession, he said, banks are going to be the worst stocks.
	You know, Gerald Slenty has talked for the longest time about the commercial real estate issue.
	Really began with the Trump lockdowns of 2020 and how that hasn't bounced back and how all the commercial real estate people have loans that are going to be renegotiated.
	Most of them are like five-year loans.
	We're now five years out.
	It's not just Trump's, you know, the federal government's loans that are a large amount of them that are going to be renegotiated, but it's a large amount of the commercial real estate loans that are going to be renegotiated.
	And if these commercial real estate people go down and there's no buyers for their For their properties that are empty.
	Well, that falls on the banks.
	So, even Jim Cramer can be right once in a while like a broken clock.
	If we have a recession, banks are going to be the worst stocks to hold.
	Absolutely.
	But I would listen more to Gerald Salenti at Trends Journal than I would Jim Cramer.
	By the way, you can get 10% off the code NIGHT if you go to TrendsJournal.com.
	It's not just Kramer, though, who is always wrong on everything.
	He's kind of like the anti-Nancy Pelosi.
	You want to look at Pelosi and what she's buying and follow her.
	You want to look at what Jim Kramer is trashing and buy that.
	Or what he's promoting and don't buy that.
	Or sell it short if you know how to do that, if you want to gamble.
	Wall Street is left dazed and confused as Trump jolts the market again.
	This story.
	From Yahoo Finance.
	Actually, it's Bloomberg.
	It was just after 10 a.m., a half hour after the opening bell, and the Standard& Poor's 500 Index had started to steady from the fear-induced sellout swept across Wall Street on Monday.
	Then Trump took to Truth Social, and he fired off another broadside in his trade spat with Canada.
	Again, this is not really about a particular industry.
	Although, what he's going to do is wreak havoc.
	On the automobile industry, which is what I think that the globalist masters and Elon Musk really want.
	But he hit another broadside against Canada, jolting traders and sending stocks lurching downward yet again.
	No one is blinking on the trade war yet, and that's troubling to our clients.
	The market thought that Trump was bluffing.
	You know, I never did.
	I remember I talked to...
	I've talked to several people, interviewed several people who said that they thought that Trump was bluffing.
	He's just using this as a negotiating tool.
	He said, no, I think he's serious.
	And I say that because I think that his motives are malicious.
	You look at the damage that he did to us.
	Trump, although I'm not impressed with his intelligence, could not possibly be that stupid to not understand the consequences of what he was doing.
	He's a businessman.
	He knew what he was doing in 2020. It was malicious destruction.
	Sustained malicious destruction that he paid people to do.
	So what President Trump is doing is insane, exasperated CNBC host says.
	This is Steve Leisman.
	He said on Tuesday, he said Trump announced that he would hike tariffs on Canadian aluminum steel while once again claiming the U.S. northern neighbor will become the 51st state.
	Reality TV. Professional wrestling nonsense.
	Trump has authored a series of 180s that began in February when he announced 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico.
	And this whipsaw action is back and forth.
	It's too much for Leisman.
	This is a media-ite, anti-Trump organization, but we can evaluate the information.
	We've seen the whipsaw vacillation, the volatility, the confusion, the chaos that Trump is creating.
	Again, is he that stupid?
	Or is it intentional?
	He says, Liesman says, I'm going to say this at the risk of losing my job.
	But what President Trump is doing is insane.
	He's absolutely insane.
	It is about the eighth reason that we've had for tariffs.
	And now he is saying that he's putting 50% tariffs on Canada unless they agree to become the 51st state.
	This is insane.
	There's no other way of describing it.
	And again, this is the...
	The bullying, professional wrestling approach to government.
	And so, just hours after he said he was going to take it up to 50%, and after Doug Ford backs off, just hours after, he takes it off again.
	And see, this is a good reason why the founders of this country said that tariffs and things like that would be set by the Congress, not by the President.
	See, he rules like a little dictator, like a king.
	He's putting these tariffs on, he's taking these tariffs off.
	Everybody's like, what's he doing right now?
	Well, I don't know.
	He's going back and forth, back and forth, back and forth.
	There was wisdom in what they did in the Constitution to say these things are going to be set by Congress.
	And Congress doesn't want to do that.
	And the President doesn't want to do that.
	He wants to do it himself.
	And if you've got one person doing it, it can change multiple times a day.
	Wouldn't it be interesting if we ever tried the Constitution?
	Wow.
	Think about that.
	So, the UK will not respond to the U.S. steel tariffs, says a British official.
	As I said before, this is the dumbest of all things.
	Because, of course, Britain doesn't want steel manufactured there.
	The UK wants to shut it all down, while the European Union is planning to hit back against the 25% tariffs on the imports of metals.
	The UK official, who asked not to be identified, said that Britain would continue to engage with the US in an attempt to secure an exemption, but they don't really care.
	You know, the bottom line, I was surprised that there was any steel that was being sold from the UK. The UK's steel exports to the US are worth about 400 million pounds, virtually nothing.
	We're talking about an entire industry coming into the United States.
	According to the industry body, the UK Steel, which says that with the introduction of the U.S. tariffs, quote, it would be a devastating blow to our industry.
	This is a way for him to kill off steel, kill off car companies, independent car companies, and the rest of the stuff.
	Look, they've already, as I pointed out last year, you know, they closed down what I thought was the last steel plant in the U.K., Port Talbot.
	Turns out there's actually one more at Scunthorpe.
	And it looks like that's going to close this year.
	Within the last two years, between 2024 and 2025, they're going to finish closing all of the steel plants in the UK because the Labor Party wants to de-industrialize the UK. They say it's for climate.
	No, it has nothing to do with it.
	Their contribution to the climate at this point is so...
	Ridiculously small.
	It's ridiculous to see this happen.
	It's the other agenda.
	We all know what it is.
	But the interesting thing is, in just the last five years or so, the accelerated closure of steel plants in the UK. Even the, there was an Indian company, Tata, Chinese company, was there as well.
	They had set up steel plants in the UK. And they had to close their steel plants.
	Because you're only allowed to use energy in India and China.
	You can't have an Indian or Chinese company build a steel plant in the UK. That's not allowed.
	Because, you know, global warming.
	So go build your dirty power plant to run your steel plant with no emission controls at all.
	You can do that in India.
	You can do that in China.
	But the Indian and Chinese corporations can't do that in the UK. This is the incredible stupidity of all this stuff.
	Canada and the EU swiftly retaliate against Trump's steel and aluminum tariffs.
	Canada, the largest supplier of steel and aluminum to the U.S., will place a 25% reciprocal tariffs on steel products as well.
	It will raise the taxes on a host of items, tools, computers, servers, display monitors, sports equipment, cast iron products.
	And then in the EU, the European Union will raise tariffs on American beef, poultry, bourbon, motorcycles.
	Peanut butter and jeans.
	There you go.
	It's great, isn't it?
	Are we winning yet?
	You can count me in the 56% of the people who said they're not happy with what Trump is doing with the economy.
	The new tariffs will cost companies billions of dollars.
	Companies will either take the losses and earn fewer profits, or, more likely, if they want to stay in business, they will pass the costs along to consumers in the form of higher prices.
	You can't tax a corporation.
	Conservatives used to always understand that.
	They used to always say, whenever you put a tax on a corporation, they'll pass it on.
	We can't tax countries either.
	And that's the utter folly and insanity of what...
	These Trump tariffs are about.
	They don't even make sense in the historical perspective of we're going to protect an industry or we're going to fund a smaller government just using tariffs.
	He's not getting rid of the income tax.
	He needs a whole new line of taxes out there, preferably.
	And the reason he's doing it with Canada and Mexico is because the tariffs with Canada and Mexico We deeply regret this measure.
	Tariffs are taxes.
	They are bad for business and even worse for consumers, said.
	Ursula fond of lying.
	She's telling the truth.
	See, it's like the old thing, you know, Satan lies to you about God.
	But when he talks to God about you, he tells the truth.
	Okay?
	That's what's going on with these people.
	You know, when Ursula fond of lying talks about Trump, she'll tell you the truth sometimes here.
	Sometimes.
	And she is telling the truth right there, even though she is fond of lying.
	We're going to take a quick break.
	Before we do, I'll read some of your comments here.
	Seminar caller, former Rush Limbaugh listener, I guess.
	David, did you hear that Lutnik is saying that Trump wants to eliminate income tax for anyone making less than $150,000?
	Yeah, right.
	He's not going to do that.
	Look, This is, again, what is this?
	This is Democrat talk.
	Don't worry about the tariffs.
	They're going to be paid by other people, and they're bad people, and you want to soak them.
	Oh, we're not going to tax the middle class.
	Remember when Obama said, oh, yeah, we're not going to tax, not going to raise taxes on, and Biden as well, we're not going to raise taxes on anybody who makes less than a certain amount.
	I think it was even $150,000, and they wound up doing it anyway.
	They got a lot of different ways to skin the cat and to grab the tax, don't they?
	I don't believe any of that stuff.
	And as conservatives have always said, when we talk about changing the form of taxation, we're going to wind up getting two forms of taxation because they're not going to take off the income tax.
	Secondly, if you say we're going to soak the rich, Haven't conservatives always understood?
	But of course, these are all, you know, Lutnik and Trump, these are all people from New York.
	They're all New York Democrat liberals.
	But everybody else in the country always knew that if you took all the money from all the income taxes from the uber-rich, that they wouldn't have sufficient tax base to pay for anything.
	They've got to get it from poor people.
	It's not going to work otherwise.
	And of course, Whenever they raise the taxes, guess what?
	These people, like Lutnik, like Musk, like Scott Besant, like Trump, they always find a way not to pay taxes.
	They hire the best lawyers, they use all the loopholes, and if they can't find a loophole that they need, they pay a politician to create one.
	M. Sellers, everyone I know is complaining about the economy, and we're winning.
	Yeah, we're absolutely winning here.
	North American House Hippo.
	Neocon Media isn't complaining about the economy.
	In fact, they've been completely ignoring the ongoing stock market collapse, three weeks and counting.
	Exactly.
	That's what I'm saying.
	It's just astounding to me how they cover for Trump.
	That's why I call them Trump sucker proxies.
	Atomic Dog, income tax is not going away.
	Nope.
	Tariffs will be used to, and she even said that.
	The example, she goes, well, he's going to cut taxes here and here.
	Those are little deck chair rearrangements of the income tax.
	Which is going to be permanent.
	Trump says, I'm going to make that corporate tax rate permanent.
	Oh, and then the conservative media comes out and says, he's going to get rid of the income tax.
	They just flat out lie to you.
	Tariffs will be used to augment the government's income.
	That's the dirty lie.
	They won't cut the budget, so they need more money.
	It's obvious to me.
	That's right.
	And it's obvious because Trump said, got really angry with Mike Johnson and the Republicans because They did not get rid of the debt ceiling for two years.
	That's what he wanted.
	I said, so he's not planning on doing anything about spending.
	He's not planning on doing anything about the deficit because he wants the debt ceiling to go away for two years.
	While Niagara, Doug Ford went from conservative to outright communist during COVID when he saw how much money he was going to make.
	He still hasn't hired back medical staff that refused the jab.
	That's interesting.
	That's interesting.
	Dougalug.
	Last night, Trump said he was going to just reciprocate taxes, charge a country whatever it charges us.
	He gave the impression that was how he was going to do it after all.
	Yeah, this is about country versus country.
	It's all about chaos.
	There's no other purpose for this except to create chaos, division, professional wrestling stuff.
	That's all it is.
	And I think it is absolutely reprehensible.
	Not as reprehensible as killing people with a jab and then the idiots who vote for him and cheer for him and ignore that.
	But it is absolutely reprehensible.
	We're going to take a quick break, and we will be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	you you All right, and we're back.
	And so I had a lot of people who sent me information about Doug Massey and what they didn't like about him.
	And look, he is a congressman.
	And that's what a lot of people don't like about him.
	This was sent to me by Harry Hound.
	He said, this guy, Seven Seas, he says, Club for Growth gave Thomas Massey $192,000.
	And I don't, this is part of what's wrong with Congress, right?
	You shouldn't be getting $190,000 from anybody.
	$190,000 total.
	We'll never have representative government until government becomes representative because in order for that to happen, you would have to go back to the original plan of the Constitution where they were going to cap the number of people represented by anybody.
	And so it was...
	And I had somebody write me about this last time I talked about it.
	It was, I think, 30,000 in the Constitution or 50,000, but bottom line is they, I think it was 30,000, they broke it right away and went to 50,000.
	And then that happened for a while, and then they just decided, okay, we're going to cap, instead of capping the number of people that are represented, we're going to cap the number of congressmen.
	And that's why we are where we are now.
	I think it's like 750,000 maybe people on average represented by congressmen.
	They're not doing a very good job of representing, are they?
	And there's too much money, too much concentration of power, too much money concentrated in.
	So that's the first thing.
	The other thing is the Club for Growth, and he points out people who have given Club for Growth a lot of money, Peter Thiel, Robert Mercer, Paul Singer, not people who are on our side, obviously.
	But again, there are different groups.
	Put a stake in there, said he's not going to support AIPAC, and I think that is a legitimate position of his.
	It really doesn't make any sense, as one person said, well, this is all just fake stuff.
	One person in their comments on Twitter said, well, I really hate the state, and a constructive government isn't even a thought, but it seems to me...
	To be counterintuitive, to be outspoken against Zionism and AIPAC influence, to fool people, and then think about that he is against it when he isn't really against it.
	There are real divisions.
	That's why I say, you know, you take these things issue by issue.
	We have a situation with AP versus Levitt.
	Most people are going to say, well, I'm on AP's side, or I'm on Levitt's side.
	Well, I'm on the side of what's true.
	And that can sometimes change.
	You know, so in that weird situation, AP was telling the truth for once.
	I'll have to write that date down as a reminder to me that that kind of thing can actually happen, even from the Associated Press.
	So, Seven Seas said, and I agree with some of the things that he has to say, not all of them.
	He says, seeing as I don't think anyone in government is trustworthy, it feels like character building for Massey.
	Elections are straight.
	I agree with that.
	I agree with that.
	And he says, thanks, Dominion and Smartmatic.
	That's pretty foolish, stupid.
	Because, quite frankly, the corruption in elections has been far longer than that.
	This is somebody who just started paying attention in 2020, if you want to look at it that way.
	I said in 2016, I said the next election is going to be a hacking fest.
	We had a long history of Smartmatic and electronic voting machines, and it doesn't even start with the voting machines.
	That's the corruption that's at the tail end.
	They've got corruption that is added at every stage, and the key stage where it happens is, and here's the amazing thing.
	You've got these partisan people who jump on one side or the other, and yet, and we can see that's a big problem, isn't it?
	And I tell you that the biggest problem our whole system of government has is that we've allowed them to establish a two-party duopoly and maintain that.
	And unless we have a new political party, unless we have a ballot that is open enough to that kind of stuff, we'll never have any change.
	And it doesn't matter who's running or how much money is put in or who's making the contributions.
	That's the fundamental flaw.
	And I can tell you that from having...
	You know, been involved with third-party politics.
	If you're going to pick who is on the ballot and keep everybody else off, you've already pretty much chosen the election, haven't you?
	And these two parties have established all this.
	That's where all this two-party nonsense starts, with a ballot.
	And then, of course, they also pick who's going to be in the debates and who's not going to be in the debates.
	So it begins long before you get to the corrupt electronic voting machines of Smartmatic and Dominion and that type of thing.
	So he says, I think his role is much like Ron Paul's, a non-consequential voice vote to make people believe that there are good ones out there.
	I'm not that cynical.
	I'm pretty cynical, but I'm not that cynical, quite frankly.
	I think it is important for us not to see that there's good ones out there, but it's important for us to see the example that even if you are the only person in the room doing the right thing, you do the right thing.
	Remember the picture of the one guy?
	They have a sea of people at a Nazi rally, and everybody's got their right arm up raised in a Nazi salute, and his is down, and you see him circled in a red thing?
	You want to be that person.
	You want to be the person who's going to follow what you think is right or wrong.
	And so I think that's very important when we see Ron Paul or Thomas Massey doing that.
	I think that's very important.
	We have to model that for people.
	You can say, well, that's just psychological, behavioral stuff.
	No, it isn't.
	No, it isn't.
	That's the last thing these people want to model to you.
	They want you in groupthink.
	They want you in the two political parties.
	They want you to go along with everything else.
	And so that's why I cheer Thomas Massey and Ron Paul.
	Not because they're right on everything.
	Not because they have focused.
	Look, one of the big things that I've got against Thomas Massey is he's pretty much remained silent on all the vaccine stuff, hasn't he?
	He fought the COVID lockdown and the PPP stuff, but he's remained silent about the other stuff.
	So, like I said, I agree with him on things that he does.
	And the thing that I like the most about him and about Ron Paul, There's a fact that they're going to take that road and they're not going to turn.
	You need to be that person.
	You need to think about what you believe about something and you need to stick to that.
	You need to have the integrity to do that.
	I despise people that flip-flop back and forth all the time like Trump is doing with tariffs.
	It's absurd.
	And then, this I absolutely disagree with.
	He says his recent bill to end the Fed is going to clear the way for CBDC and will most likely be something like Tether.
	He's absolutely wrong about that.
	So now we're supposed to keep the Federal Reserve, according to this guy, seven C's?
	Does he see what the Federal Reserve is about?
	Does he understand the history of it?
	Does he understand how it manipulates the economy?
	You know, so to say that we're going to audit the Fed or end the Fed, that's controlled opposition?
	Come on, give me a break.
	This guy is too black-pilled to see what's going on.
	He absolutely is.
	For me to call somebody black-pilled, I mean, that's cynical.
	But look, and I'm going to talk about this coming up.
	This bill, this genius act that has been introduced, and I'm going to spend some time on this, and we'll talk to Tony about it as well.
	This genius act that is out there keeps the Federal Reserve.
	It keeps their hand in the pie, right?
	It gives them a role.
	It keeps the banks and it gives them a role.
	But what it does is it brings in all the functions of CBDC through the back door so that Trump and his corrupt cronies and Wall Street and Silicon Valley can make the money.
	That's what it does.
	And that's what I said it was going to be all along.
	They're going to give everybody a piece of the pie.
	Think about the scene from The Godfather where you've got the Miami Mafia figure, you know, and they're cutting his birthday cake.
	And he's handing out a piece to this group.
	And then you get this piece and all this other kind of stuff.
	And he's also somebody, just like all of these people in Washington, thinks he's going to live forever, you know.
	He's in horrible health.
	He's very old.
	And yet he's going to continue down that path until he dies.
	And thinks that he's going to take on the younger guys and end them.
	No, look, this end the Fed is a good thing.
	And you ought to support it instead of sitting back and saying, well, this is just really cynical.
	And when I say support it, you ought to send some letters.
	It makes a difference to some of these people.
	It really does.
	I've said it over and over again.
	In a fully Democrat state that was completely owned by the Teachers Union, a letter-writing campaign from homeschoolers in North Carolina shut down this act to ban homeschooling.
	They do pay attention because most people don't write them.
	They get a massive groundswell.
	Then, because of the fact that people don't write them, they think, wow, this must really be big.
	It's a great way of looking much bigger than you really are.
	So, and then he says when he endorsed Trump for president, look, he's just trying to appease the MAGA cult about that.
	He's not perfect, like I said.
	He's not doing anything to oppose the vaccines.
	But, you know, if he's going to oppose the Federal Reserve, I can get behind that.
	If he's going to stand on what he wants to do, I can applaud that.
	So, there were a couple people there that said, oh yeah, if we get rid of the Fed.
	That's going to lead straight to a digital currency.
	And it's like, no, no, absolutely not.
	They'll do it one way or the other.
	This is also another letter.
	This is from Mike.
	He says, after listening to yesterday's show on Wednesday, I was curious about how extensively Antonio Gramsci would appear in a search of Cornell University's website.
	You're correct, he said.
	This Marxist is worshipped in the Ivy League.
	As the search results clearly show.
	Here's a link to the sickening results he gave them to me.
	But this is, you know, absolutely he's worshipped by these people.
	And we should pay attention to who Antonio Gramsci is because it's his strategy.
	Everybody's saying, how did all of corporate America and the universities and all our institutions, how did they get taken over by Marxists?
	And the answer is, by design.
	To march through the institutions.
	That was his slogan.
	He said we're going to take over the society not by a grassroots rebellion, not by fighting in the street like Lenin did in the Russian Revolution.
	We're going to take it over from the top down.
	And we're going to march through all the institutions, through education, through entertainment, through corporations, and especially through government.
	And that's exactly what has happened.
	You need to understand what Gramsci was about.
	That'll open up a lot of understanding of where we really are.
	This was sent to me, and I talked about this already.
	Peer-reviewed study links bird flu strain to USDA gain-of-function experiment in Georgia.
	And as I pointed out, this is all a bunch of bunk.
	This is all reprehensibly being pushed out there by Peter McCullough, who has become Alex Jones 2.0.
	He's doing exactly what Alex Jones did five years ago, 2020. He's pushing fear and all the rest of this stuff.
	And I said that.
	I was surprised.
	And Dr. Jane Ruby contacted me.
	She said, be careful about Robert Malone.
	Because I said, look at this.
	Robert Malone even said it's total BS. And it is.
	What Peter McCullough is.
	And he said, the only difference between Scott Gottlieb, who pushed all this stuff for Pfizer and then went to Pfizer, and Robert Malone is that...
	And Peter McCullough's company is smaller.
	And it's exactly right.
	That's the only difference between Scott Gottlieb and Alex Jones or Mike Adams is that they got a smaller company, but they were still pushing the stuff for their own benefit and lying to people, grifting people.
	And so I talked about that and I said, well, that's great.
	I'm really surprised that Robert Malone would do that.
	And I'm really surprised that Zero Hedge would do that.
	And I was because I consider Robert Malone to be a limited hangout.
	And I know that Zero Hedge has been paid.
	You know, I see these ads about the bird flu pandemic is coming.
	It's all over the place.
	And I've featured those.
	I've talked about that.
	And he's paying for those ads at Zero Hedge.
	And so I was surprised that Zero Hedge put up the tweet from Robert Malone.
	But Dr. Jane Ruby said, be careful, because he sued me and the Breggins, you know, sued them, sued us all for $25 million.
	Robert Malone did.
	I didn't know that.
	She said it took two years and $100,000 in legal fees for us to get the case dismissed.
	It was a frivolous lawsuit.
	And she said he's also told people about the jab, but at the same time, just like Alex, He gets behind and pushes it in other places.
	She said there was a public event where he got a bunch of kids on the grass and he's telling them how wonderful vaccines are and all the rest of the stuff.
	Same kind of stuff that Alex was doing.
	Oh yeah, for Trump, it's great.
	Trump's going to protect you from the bad Gates vaccine.
	This is just like sugar water.
	Eh, you can take a little bit of adjuvants there.
	You know, the mercury and the aluminum, those are fine.
	When he'd been telling people for 20 years that that's what's giving people autism.
	So, this stuff about McCullough and this peer-reviewed stuff, let's understand, first of all, peer-reviewed doesn't mean it's true.
	Okay?
	It says some other people looked at it.
	But, you know, sometimes things are dismissed without even being looked at or peer-reviewed.
	But sometimes a peer-reviewed study is wrong.
	It doesn't mean that just because other people looked at it that it's right.
	Peter McCullough ran this thing and got some people, some peers, to review it.
	And of course, now it is conventional wisdom that all pandemics come from a laboratory.
	And that's what he's trying to say.
	It came from a laboratory experiment in Georgia done by USDA. Gain-of-function nonsense.
	And it is nonsense.
	I don't buy into any of this stuff.
	And the story that he said was, he said, well, it doesn't do any good if you got more biosecurity at the chicken farms.
	Because it's the mallard ducks, and the mallard ducks are going to keep bringing it to them.
	And it's like, okay, well, explain to us, genius, why the mallard ducks aren't dropping dead everywhere, okay?
	That's the canary in the coal mine that didn't die, is the mallards everywhere.
	So, Peter McCullough is selling you the daffy duck explanation of what's going on.
	And the daffy duck explanation is for people that are daffy.
	And it's for people who are trying to duck what the truth is about this stuff.
	And the people who are trying to push the fear about lab stuff to cover for what was done five years ago.
	Well, it was real.
	We did the best we could.
	Yes, everything we did made it worse.
	But hey, it was a real thing.
	No, it wasn't.
	And then to say, and we're going to have another one.
	And so you buy my product now.
	I'm disgusted with this stuff.
	Tony Baloney sends this to me.
	He says, this is something, I thought this was a funny article, out of Scotland, out of Glasgow.
	The people are baffled by new street names, including Vaccine Drive and Laboratory Place.
	Would you want to live there?
	He says, even weirder, he says, Vaccine Drive is located at the corner of Cardiac Arrest Street and Turbo Cancer Boulevard.
	I'm sure that...
	The traffic reports say that all arteries are clogged.
	Residents quickly picked up on the medical theme with Virology Grove and Radiography Road also making an appearance.
	The estate was constructed on the grounds of a former hospital in Glasgow, Scotland, which treated patients with infectious diseases like scarlet fever, tuberculosis, smallpox.
	It closed in 1998 after lying dormant for over two decades.
	The site was transformed into low-density housing.
	And they've got a picture in the article of Vaccine Drive.
	Locals shared their views on the quirky street names on What's the Jam.
	One resident remarked, I know it's the former site of a hospital, but these names are ridiculous.
	I'm all for acknowledging the history of a site, but they could have been more creative with the names.
	One person said, I hope some mad conspiracy theorist leaves that vaccine drive.
	You mean like Fauci?
	Yeah, he was the mad scientist.
	And he wasn't a conspiracy theorist.
	He was a conspiracy orchestrator.
	One person said, is there a colonoscopy avenue?
	Yeah, so they can do whatever they want, I guess, in these particular places.
	But we're going to take a quick break before we do.
	Yonah Anawodi says human beings worldwide are all being brutally impoverished to enrich the hoarding few.
	We're witnessing the single greatest ongoing transfer of wealth in human recorded history.
	And I'm going to talk when we come back about this genius act and the deception inherent in it.
	Marky Mark, New Jersey.
	Thank you.
	He says, wouldn't a constitutional amendment be needed to cap the House at 435 members?
	It seems so to me since that's stipulated in the Constitution.
	Well, no, actually, I don't remember if they, I don't think that they changed the Constitution.
	They passed a law.
	I think the Constitution still says that there was a cap of $30,000.
	But either way, I mean, you know, yeah, it's not going to happen.
	They would never dilute their power because that would dilute the money that they are able to squeeze out of people.
	So they don't want that.
	You know, the argument I used to hear before we had computers and all the rest of this stuff was, well, we could never fit everybody into one building.
	But I, you know, this was the early days.
	I said, no, you'll be able to do that over the Internet.
	This is back in the late 80s, early 90s when I was talking about it.
	I said, no, you can do that.
	You just have people stay at home.
	And they do it electronically.
	Imagine if you had, I forget what the number was, this is some 8,000 something people.
	If you capped it at like 30,000 to 50,000 people, you would have like 8,000 congressmen instead of 435. It actually would be representative.
	And you would have the people of necessity.
	Be living in the district that they represent.
	It would be far more representative.
	You'd have the power would be decentralized.
	Their power would be diluted.
	And these are all the reasons why they will not do it.
	Whatever it would take, they will not do it.
	We're going to take a quick break and we'll be right back.
	PIANO PLAYS
	PIANO PLAYS PIANO PLAYS Defending the American Dream.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	Let's talk about this Genius Stablecoin bill.
	The Genius Stablecoin bill officially titled the, and this is their acronym, I just love this, Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins.
	Genius.
	Well, you know, when you look at these acronyms, typically, like the Patriot Act, they are the exact opposite of what they spell out.
	I have a better title for this.
	I think we should call it, if we're going to be honest, we should call it the Lucky Lutnik Get Richer Quicker and the Backdoor Private CBDC. But then that gets a lot of letters.
	That's like L-L-G-R-Q-B-P-C-B-D-C. So I think we just call it Lucky Lutnik Plus.
	Maybe take a tip from the alphabet mafia people.
	Anyway, this is bipartisan, and they've had a lot of these types of bills that they have tried to put out there to push forward this exact thing.
	This particular one has two Republicans and two Democrats.
	The Republicans are Bill Haggerty in Tennessee and Tim Scott in South Carolina.
	Oh, and also Cynthia Loomis, who's always been about crypto stuff.
	On the Democrat side, they've got Kirsten Gillibrand out of New York.
	In the past, they have had others that have been put forward that were also bipartisan.
	They said the bill aims to establish a comprehensive federal regulatory framework for payment stablecoins.
	These are cryptocurrencies that are designed to maintain a stable value by being pegged to an asset like the U.S. dollar.
	You see the flaw here, right?
	The U.S. dollar stable.
	And what they're trying to do is they're trying to prop up the dollar.
	Again, spinning it around, it's always the same problem.
	It's always the same problem that you got with a fiat currency, where, you know, when they did Bretton Woods, they're going to pin it to gold.
	And in no time at all, they realize, hey, they're printing more paper than they've got gold in Fort Knox to back it up with.
	So I created a crisis of confidence after, you know, about 25 years, I guess.
	And so then they create the petrodollar.
	And so they're always going to come up with something.
	So they're going to tie it now, instead of tying it to energy, to oil, they're going to tie it to a stablecoin, to a blockchain.
	Three-card Monty game.
	So, again, you're going to tie it to the dollar, which in and of itself is just worth what I say it is.
	How is that stable?
	But here's where they're going to use it.
	So the key provisions of this act...
	First of all, they define what a payment stablecoin is.
	The bill defines payment stablecoins as digital assets used for payments or settlements.
	In other words, they're going to kind of give this legal tender ability, right?
	Then, permitted issuers.
	Only specific entities can issue these stablecoins in the U.S., including...
	Subsidiaries of insured depository institutions, in other words, banks or credit unions.
	They put them here first.
	But folks, as we see the functions of CBDC, as we were talking about this from the very beginning with CBDC, this is going to put banks out of business.
	Small banks will go out of business.
	They won't be needed.
	And so they put them there so they've got to think that they've got a place at the table.
	It's not about that.
	This is about a monopoly, about an oligarchy, really.
	And that comes in in the second line.
	They've got three different issuers here.
	The first one is going to be banks or credit unions.
	The second one would be federal qualified non-bank payment stablecoin issuers approved by the Office of Comptroller of the Currency.
	Let's see, that would be somebody that's under the Commerce Department, under Lucky Lutnik.
	And Lucky Lutnik is the king of stablecoins.
	He is heavily involved in Tether.
	And then the third one is state-qualified payment stablecoin issuers, subject to state regulations that align with federal standards.
	So they say, you know, well, you can, just like you can incorporate in Delaware or whatever, because some of the things that they do are supposedly better than if you incorporate it in some other states.
	Of course, it kind of bit Elon Musk, didn't it, when that Delaware judge jumped in and said, I'm sorry, you're paying yourself too much.
	Who are you to decide that?
	Anyway, in the same way, you'd have these things be able to go into different states.
	Regulatory oversight.
	So there'd be federal versus state balance.
	Issuers with market capitalization over $10 billion would be subject to federal oversight.
	Smaller, which means that they don't get any oversight at all.
	If they're really big, they get overseen by the federal government.
	You know, like the FDA oversees the big pharma companies and the USDA oversees the big egg companies and all that.
	So, in other words, they can escape regulations completely if they're really big.
	If you're smaller, you can opt for state regulation if the state framework is essentially the same as the federal standards.
	And then it gives a role to the Federal Reserve.
	Remember what I said earlier?
	These private cryptocurrencies that they're going to come out with have all the functionality that we hate about CBDC. But hey, it's private so that Trump and his friends can get really, really rich.
	And they're going to give the banks a little role, they say.
	And they're going to give the Federal Reserve a role.
	The Federal Reserve's role is limited direct oversight.
	But it can intervene during emergencies.
	Well, emergency is a natural state of government now, isn't it?
	I mean, we just go from one emergency to the other.
	We have multiple emergencies going on all the time.
	It doesn't take much to get them involved.
	And if they can step in with an emergency.
	So, the reserve requirements.
	Stablecoins must be backed.
	One-to-one by high-quality liquid assets such as U.S. currency.
	This is a way to bolster confidence in the dollar.
	You're going to tie this cryptocurrency that is going to then add all the features of being able to see what people are doing and being able to freeze assets very easily.
	That's very important for them, okay, to stop you from, to confiscate your money just like that.
	And so to be able to do it on a permission basis, just like CBDC, and yet to bolster the dollar.
	Now, why are they worried about bolstering the dollar if they're going to get rid of the Federal Reserve?
	They're not.
	They're not going to get rid of the Federal Reserve.
	So stablecoins must be backed by the U.S. dollar or by short-term treasury bills.
	Or you could throw in the repo stuff.
	Right?
	As well.
	We had that repo market, if you remember, 2019, fall of 2019. The Fed was dumping in, before all the quantitative easing stuff really exploded, they were dumping unbelievable amounts of money and chunks.
	You know, first they throw in an amount that is equivalent to the entire gross domestic product for a year of Puerto Rico.
	Then they throw in the entire gross domestic product of Switzerland, you know, at one point in time, which is the 20...
	20th largest economy in the world.
	They're just dumping this stuff in left and right.
	And I remember talking to Tony Arterman about it and Gerald Salenti, and we're like, what in the world are they up to here with this stuff?
	Anyway, and then prohibition.
	They specifically prohibit algorithmic stablecoins.
	Remember that.
	And so, again, this is, they've already put in some legislation.
	We're only six or seven weeks into the Trump administration.
	I said this was going to happen.
	I said, you know, they're going to prohibit CBDC because everybody's wise to that.
	Okay, we won't call it CBDC, but we'll bring all the functionality in.
	We'll do it in a public-private partnership, and I and my friends are going to make a killing off of this stuff.
	And that's what this is.
	This is what this legislation is about.
	From, again, to show you who is owned.
	Tim Scott, Bill Haggerty, Cynthia Loomis, Kirsten Gillibrand.
	Consumer protections.
	Well, stablecoin holders will get first priority in bankruptcy claims against the issuer.
	Wait a minute.
	Why would they go bankrupt if they're holding, if they've got this stuff and they're tying it one-to-one to the dollar?
	And then, of course, they'll have all their anti-money laundering stuff, their know-your-customer rules and everything, complete visibility for everything, and the ability to shut things down.
	So, the purpose of this, as I pointed out, the Genius Act builds on earlier proposals like the Loomis-Gillibrand Payment Stable Coin Act of April of 2024. Loomis and Gillibrand have already introduced one last year.
	About a year ago, April 2024. Patrick McHenry did one of those earlier.
	Remember that guy?
	The bow tie wearing, gavel slamming friend of Kevin McCarthy?
	Sounds like Patrick Henry, doesn't he?
	No, he's not.
	This is Patrick McHenry from North Carolina.
	He retired, but he was very, very angry.
	Because his pal, McCarthy, was being kicked out.
	So he had the gavel, and remember how hard he slammed that?
	He became a meme out of doing that.
	His motto, I guess, unlike Patrick Henry, Patrick McHenry, is give me McCarthy or give me death.
	He's very angry about that.
	So he's introduced one of these things, just to show you where he's coming from.
	And of course, he was also...
	A pal, a protege supported by Karl Rove.
	So he's from that group of the Bushes and all of those people, right?
	So Patrick Van Henry had had a Clarity for Payment Stablecoins Act in 2023. So these things have been coming fast and furious, right?
	Had one every year, at least.
	And there was a bipartisan push, of course, to regulate these stablecoins.
	They want to enhance.
	They said, this is why we need to have stablecoins.
	We need to enhance transaction.
	We need to strengthen the dollar's dominance.
	And that's what they think this is going to do with them.
	But it's going to be a private version of a CBDC while they pretend that they're on our side and they're going to get rid of the central bank digital currencies.
	They do their public-private version.
	The Senate Banking Committee is scheduled to review and vote on this today.
	Today.
	March the 13th.
	If approved, it'll advance to the full Senate.
	A companion bill has been introduced in the House by two Republicans.
	Republicans are really pushing this.
	Because it's Trump who's really pushing this.
	And his robber barons in his cabinet.
	So for crypto, the bill could legitimize stablecoins.
	And again, this is where Lucky Lutnik has been very, very profitable in his connections to Tether.
	It could boost adoption, but strict rules might exclude some non-compliant issuers like Tether.
	They could easily change that.
	The Genius Act represents a significant step toward integrating stablecoins into the U.S. financial system.
	And the EU is also working on something similar.
	Now, the EU, they're not so worried about public opinion.
	They don't care.
	And they continue on by saying, well, we're going to do CBDCs or whatever.
	A stablecoin framework in the EU that they call MICA, and we'll talk about that as well.
	But this article from Cointelegraph says the genius stablecoin bill is a CBDC Trojan horse.
	This is quoting a decentralized finance, they call it DeFi, an executive in that market, who is a big supporter of crypto.
	But doesn't like this genius stablecoin bill that has been introduced.
	Centralized stablecoin features the hallmark of the central bank digital currency, all of them, including the ability of the issuer to freeze tokens.
	You have full surveillance.
	These people have complete control over your money instantaneously.
	You want to talk about debanking on steroids?
	The recent genius stablecoin bill is merely a thinly-veiled attempt to usher in central bank digital currency controls through privatized means.
	So these people can make money off of it.
	That, folks, is the difference between Biden and Trump, for the most part.
	Biden does his graft corruption and stuff the old-fashioned way.
	He launders it through Ukraine, right?
	And selling influence and things like that.
	What Trump is doing is, Trump is bringing in all of these big tech executives, the very wealthy companies and everything.
	They're all going to get a piece of the pie, and they're all going to probably do something for him as well.
	So this is according to Gene Rossis, co-founder of the Smartdex Decentralized Trading Platform.
	Somebody works in this space.
	They don't like what this looks like.
	In a statement shared with Cointelegraph, Ross has said that the U.S. government will punish stablecoin issuers that do not comply with the new regulatory framework, similar to the EU's markets and cryptoassets regulations.
	So, interestingly enough, you've got these Republicans who are putting out legislation to create a stablecoin framework that is exactly like what they're doing in the EU. Huh.
	Looks like global governance again, doesn't it?
	It's just a coincidence, isn't it?
	It's not a global conspiracy.
	It's being pushed on us by Republicans like Trump pushed the global lockdown and all the same rules all happening at the same time.
	That was all just a coincidence.
	And now the fact that both the EU and the U.S. are pushing out their versions of stablecoins, they're not trying to set up some kind of a global digital currency, are they?
	And global digital ID? Because that's where this always evolves to.
	You know, when Mark Zuckerberg put out his white paper, he said, I'll create a global digital currency.
	And we'll call it Libra.
	And in the middle of that was one sentence where he was making his pitch to the different countries to let him do it.
	He said, it will become a de facto global ID. Digital ID. So let me do it.
	Well, they decided not to, but they're going to do it on their own.
	And they're going to do it with people that you trust.
	Well, not you, but the vast amount of Americans.
	Because, you know, Trump is anti-globalist, right?
	That's why he doesn't do what they want with the pandemic.
	That's why he doesn't do what they want with the digital currency and all the rest of the stuff.
	So this person who works...
	And DeFi says the government realizes that if they control stablecoins, they will control financial transactions, and there will be no financial transactional privacy anywhere.
	Working with centralized stablecoin issuers means that they can freeze funds anytime they want, essentially what a CBDC would allow them.
	So why bother creating a CBDC, especially when it's got a bad image now?
	Because we were telling people how bad it was.
	And so the response is that the Republicans are going everywhere and saying, no CBD, even Trump, no CBDC anywhere, right?
	And then at the same time, they're creating the functionality of the CBDC while everybody cheers them for stopping the CBDC. The result is the same.
	With a fake veneer.
	Pay attention, folks, to the function, not to the labels.
	Pay attention to what they do, even to what they say, you know, but pay attention especially to what they do, not to the political party that they're in even.
	You know, it always goes back, like I started the program.
	Pay attention.
	Oh, if it's the CNN, I'm not going to pay attention to it.
	But it's Breitbart.
	I trust Breitbart because they like Trump.
	No, they're all capable and all lie to you.
	Just look at the underlying data and think about it.
	You know, it's just like Peter McCullough, you know.
	Oh yeah, the mallard ducks, they're the ones that are killing all the chickens.
	It's like, give me a break.
	Decentralized alternatives to centralized stablecoins, such as algorithmic stablecoins.
	Would prove to be a valuable bulwark against the creeping government control over crypto, said Rossis, except that those are specifically prohibited.
	They understand what they're doing.
	They know exactly what they're doing.
	And then you have Emmer, who was the house whip.
	I remember when all this stuff started three years ago and I was talking about it and I said, it's really kind of strange that Tom Emmer, the house whip, Is so hardcore set against CBDC. So that's a good thing.
	I'm glad, but, you know, why is it that he's doing this?
	Then I realized, okay, well, he's being paid.
	By the crypto industry.
	And at that point in time, under Biden, Biden was trying to kill all the private cryptos, and he wanted the only crypto to be out there to be controlled by the Federal Reserve and the U.S. government.
	So he's going to kill all of his competition with regulations and fear-mongering about energy use and all the rest of this stuff.
	And so Tom Emmer had been paid off by all these different crypto bros.
	And so he's pushing back against CBDC. And the Republicans are pushing back against all this.
	Now, Tom Emmer is backing the stablecoin stuff as he's rejecting the CBDC. Now we see why he was opposing CBDC. Because he wanted his private crypto backers to be the ones running that function for the government.
	When you look at this stuff, like I said, yeah, you don't trust these people.
	Cheer on and support Tom Emmer when he's opposing the CBDC. Now you need to oppose Tom Emmer and these people who are pushing the private stablecoin version that's going to replace the CBDC. The Genius Act, introduced by Tennessee Senator Bill Haggerty, proposed a comprehensive framework for over-collateralized stablecoins such as tethers.
	And what they mean by that is that they have more dollars than they would need to have a buffer against volatility.
	Maybe they don't want to have a buffer against volatility.
	Maybe they want volatility.
	The bill was revamped to include stricter anti-money laundering things, the know your customer stuff, all the rest of that.
	These additional provisions will presumably give U.S.-based stablecoin issuers a hedge over their offshore counterparts.
	Because it not only is going to have all this know your customer and report on everybody, but it's also going to have provisions there about having to have liquidity.
	Well, that's a good thing.
	But then also sanctions checks that will be built into it.
	The government can sanction anybody or anything about that.
	So, do you think?
	People in other countries are going to want to put their money into some digital currency that can just have instantaneous sanctions.
	Some digital currency that's going to know everything about you.
	I don't think that people who have a lot of money or any knowledge about this stuff are going to want to have anything to do with it, but we'll see what happens.
	If it's coming from Trump and the Republicans, it's got to be good, right?
	That's what most people will think.
	During the recent White House crypto summit, It was on Friday.
	U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Besant said the U.S. would use stablecoin to ensure U.S. dollar hegemony in payments.
	This is the way they're going to, the failing dollar, they're going to try to prop it up and revive it because it's all a confidence game.
	It's all a con game.
	And so now what they're going to do is they're going to con you by calling it a stablecoin when it is tied to a fiat currency.
	That simply is about, you know, trust us with the U.S. government.
	Centralized stablecoin issuers rely on U.S. bank deposits and short-term cash equivalents, such as treasury bills, to back their digital fiat tokens, which drives up demand for the U.S. dollar and for the U.S. debt instruments, the bonds.
	Stablecoin issuers collectively hold over $120 billion in U.S. debt, making them the 18th largest buyer of the U.S. government debt in the world.
	See how these things, it's like a snake swallowing its tail there.
	We have to find some way to offload this debt.
	Well, let's create this thing called stablecoins, and then it'll have to buy the debt.
	And then, you know, even though we've got $37 trillion in debt, we can create some crypto reserve thing.
	And the people who are pushing that, Michael Saylor, who has the largest crypto company out there in terms of what they own, I think it's something like $21 billion, but he's the largest single institution in terms of owning crypto.
	And he's the big pusher, saying the U.S. government's got to buy more, buy more.
	Remember the other day I said he wanted to see The U.S. government owning 25% of the Bitcoins when it hits a fixed number by 2035. And he was talking about, and then it's going to make us like $30 to $80 trillion.
	But don't sell it.
	Don't sell it.
	Everything this guy is doing underscores what Catherine Austin Fitz was saying about this all being a pump and dump, about it being a Ponzi scheme, where the last people to hold the crypto is going to be the federal government and don't sell it.
	Let us sell our stuff first.
	We'll sell our stuff and we'll make a lot of money.
	You keep holding it and you be the floor, you be the foundation to prop this Ponzi scheme up.
	That's what he's trying to do.
	And as this person is pointing out, look, this is the government picking winners and losers.
	The government shouldn't be doing that.
	For example, which cryptocurrencies are we going to hold?
	Well, we already saw Trump talking about those.
	You know, Ripple and some of the other ones, okay, those are tightly held, you know, owned by just a few people.
	And he pumped that up.
	Now, they didn't put it in the Bitcoin Reserve yet, but because he didn't exclude it, because he had talked about it once, now you've got all these people out there.
	Well, I think he's going to, just like they do with the income tax.
	I think he's actually going to put it in at some point in time.
	Well, I think he's actually going to get rid of the income tax.
	We'll just fund everything.
	We'll have foreign countries.
	We'll pay for...
	Everything in our country using tariffs.
	That kind of hopium that is out there.
	So, again, as he points out, the government is picking the winners and losers.
	Think about this.
	If they go out and they buy any of these things, or even for the stablecoin stuff, who are they going to be buying this stuff through?
	Which exchanges are they going to get?
	Well, the U.S. Consumer Price Index has come in lower than expected.
	So the question is, are rate cuts coming?
	And we'll talk about that with Tony when he joins us, what he thinks is going to happen.
	I think it's kind of interesting that if it's inflation, everybody knows that gold benefits from inflation, right?
	Compared to the U.S. dollar.
	Inflation means the U.S. dollar's value is sinking.
	And so gold is going to go up in value.
	The other part of this is that if they cut the rates, Then does that mean that, you know, they say, well, inflation is down a little bit.
	Inflation, listen, the Consumer Price Index came in lower than expected at 3.1% instead of 3.2%.
	These government metrics out there, do you believe any of them?
	Yeah, we've got COVID cases here.
	We've got jobs created.
	Listen to the Labor Department.
	Listen to the people calculating the consumer price inflation, the consumer price index.
	I don't trust any of these numbers coming out of government.
	They're all a lie.
	It's just another government metric that is manipulated, twisted, and tortured to give them the results that they want.
	They come in at 3.1 and say, well, we were expecting it to be 3.2, so that means we've got inflation licked.
	Seriously?
	See, one of the reasons why, when they've lowered the interest rates, one of the reasons why home mortgage rates have stayed the same or gone up, even when they lowered the interest rates, is because the people who are out there in an actual marketplace, where they're making decisions that are going to affect their lives, what they buy, they don't believe that inflation is down.
	Regardless of what the CPI says, they're not buying that.
	And they don't believe that the interest rate is down even if the Federal Reserve is lowering the interest rates.
	And so even though the Federal Reserve is lowering the short-term interest rates, they are bidding up the interest rates.
	I said, I'm not going to buy that unless you give me a higher interest rate.
	And so they're the ones who are bidding this up for the long-term mortgage things and stuff like that because they don't believe these government numbers.
	And so, when you look at, if they cut the rates because they claim that inflation has been licked, when it really hasn't, well, that's also going to help gold.
	Because everybody's going to look at it and say, well, if they cut the rates, that's going to be inflationary.
	I don't believe there are inflation numbers to start with, and if they cut the rates based on these phony numbers, well, that's even more inflationary.
	So, I think it'll be interesting to see what happens with gold.
	But again, the real issue, Trump doesn't care about home mortgage rates.
	And Trump doesn't care about the stock market.
	What Trump cares about is the fact that he's got to roll over a lot of these treasury bills this year.
	And that the debt is at $37 trillion.
	And so that's what he is trying to do.
	He's more than willing to put people through pain.
	To get what he wants, just like Biden was willing to put people through sanctions, and he was willing because he wanted to have a world where no fuel was burnt.
	He was more than willing to put us through all kinds of prohibitions and deprivations and the rest of this stuff.
	Eric, thank you very much for the tip.
	I appreciate that.
	And I see that Tony is not going to be coming on today.
	Oh, okay.
	Last minute.
	Okay.
	Well, that's fine.
	We've got plenty of stuff to talk about.
	I'll continue on then with the money stuff, and I'll talk a little bit about that.
	Angry Tiger says, I don't know why they call them stable coins.
	A stable coin is always attached to a fiat currency.
	Fiat currency is not stable.
	That's right.
	Yeah, it's proof of stake.
	How about that?
	Trust us.
	We're the government.
	That's what it's always about.
	It absolutely is a lie.
	So, yeah, when we look at this, that's where this is all headed.
	And then tokenization.
	This is an article on Zero Hedge.
	The new frontier for capital markets.
	Be very careful of this.
	There is tremendous value in the world of crypto, they said.
	Digital tokenization of assets made possible by the crypto blockchain construct can boost efficiency in the capital markets, thus greasing the wheels that drive the economy.
	Think about that.
	Oh, there's so much value in the world of crypto.
	These people are going to get really rich off of it because they're going to play the rest of us as fools.
	Crypto doesn't mean real things.
	Crypto is kind of a handle that they point to real things with, if you think about it that way, right?
	From a programming standpoint.
	Think about handles and pointers.
	Crypto is just a pointer to real things.
	Now, what they're saying is that it's going to make everything more valuable because we'll be able to buy and trade on things that don't exist.
	We'll be able to buy and trade on little tiny fractions of things.
	Well, if you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.
	It's opium.
	It's all based on opium.
	When you look at this, digital asset tokenization.
	They said it's different.
	It could drastically redesign financial markets for the benefits of the capital markets and the economy, and then they don't just stop there.
	They want tokenization of everything in the real world.
	And if you don't remember what happened with the securitized mortgages, then you might just fall for this sham.
	And it is a sham.
	Oh, it's blockchain.
	Oh, well, that sounds sophisticated.
	And, oh yeah, it is so wonderful.
	Everybody needs to have this.
	Tokenization is just the act of digitizing the ownership of a real asset.
	Why does it need to be digitized?
	It needs to be digitized for the same reason they needed to securitize mortgages so they could run a scam on you.
	It needs to be digitized and securitized for the same reason you got paper gold and paper silver so they can run a scam on you.
	Get the real stuff.
	Get the real gold.
	Get the real silver.
	Get the real real estate.
	Don't buy their securitized, tokenized representations of this stuff.
	These people are hucksters.
	So, they give some examples of how this is really going to work.
	And think about this.
	One of the ones that they give is movie property rights.
	In other words, they're going to sell you tokens, fractional ownership of something that doesn't exist yet.
	Okay?
	A movie.
	I remember when we had the video stores, Disney created this thing called Touchdown Pictures.
	And, I mean, they were pretty successful.
	It had things like...
	Let's see.
	What was the name of that?
	Ruthless People, right?
	They had some successful things.
	They wanted to get away from their wholesome Disney kid image, right?
	So they would do some things like Ruthless People that might have been rated R for situations or language or something like that.
	So they wanted to do, you know, non-kid films.
	And so they created Touchstone Pictures and things like that.
	And they had their silver screen partnership.
	Because I used to read Variety and I would, you know, part of the music, part of the video business.
	And so they had silver screen partners and then they created silver screen partners too.
	And everybody started to complain in the trade press about how Disney was ripping off people in their silver screen partnerships.
	So even though they had very successful movies like Ruthless People and stuff like that, The films always managed to lose money.
	And the partnership always managed to lose money.
	And they never paid anybody anything.
	They were able to do that for a couple of different rounds before people caught on and quit investing in that stuff.
	Just like what happened with the securitized mortgages about 15 years later.
	We saw that same scammer.
	And this is one of these things.
	So now it'll all be different.
	If we make them into tokens, it'll all be different.
	No, it's still going to be a scam.
	You're still buying something that doesn't exist from people who don't intend to pay you.
	They intend to keep all of this stuff.
	But not just the movie business.
	Drug development.
	Oh, we could, you know, fund drug development using crypto stuff.
	Again, something that doesn't exist.
	How about the future earnings of an athlete?
	The future earnings of an athlete that doesn't exist.
	You've got a 16-year-old high school athlete with exceptional baseball skills, but little money.
	They could tokenize their future baseball income.
	In other words, they could become indentured servants to sharks like Lucky Lutnik, is what you're talking about.
	I mean, that's how a lot of people came to the U.S. In the early days, you had people who became indentured servants and said, here, pay for my ticket.
	To America.
	And then they wound up being enslaved to these people for quite some time.
	So yeah, we could enslave.
	People could get enslaved.
	You could confiscate their future earnings.
	How about hotel rooms?
	Oh yeah, we could build hotels and we could tokenize the future revenue of those hotels.
	Treasure exploration.
	Shipwrecks and treasure stuff.
	Fund it with tokens.
	You see the mindset of these people?
	They're always selling things that don't exist.
	Hopium and all the rest of this stuff.
	And they're buying and selling things that don't exist.
	Carbon offset values.
	Shipwreck, treasure, all this stuff.
	We're going to make so much money off of these tokenized things.
	It's going to open many new doors for those who are looking for capital funding.
	It's just a disaster waiting to happen for ordinary people.
	Is a strategic reserve bad for America and for crypto?
	Well, this is an article from Zero Hedge.
	America does not need such a reserve.
	No.
	As Catherine Austin Fitz said, yeah, I get the idea that we have a petroleum strategic reserve.
	It's a real thing.
	We need to do something with it.
	We might have our supply cut.
	Same thing with gold.
	But why Bitcoin?
	Why do we need to have a reserve for that?
	Just like, why do you need to have an ETF? Why do you need to have a fractionalized version of something that is easily fractionalized?
	Why do you need all these ETFs for Bitcoin that the banks are putting out there?
	I mean, this whole thing reeks.
	Setting up a Bitcoin reserve undermines the federal government's neutrality and picking winners and losers that sends the wrong signal about the stability of the dollar.
	The nascent crypto industry will only be harmed by such entanglement.
	Look, Trump's scams with the Trump coin and the Melania coin, that already was a black eye to the crypto industry, showing how corrupt it is, a way for people to pay off Trump, and a pump-and-dump scheme.
	And all of this stuff is just like the Trump and Melania coins.
	That's what I believe his crypto stuff is.
	He said, to be clear, the president was right in establishing a pro-crypto agenda, but there's a clear distinction between setting up rules of engagement that are anti-crypto, like Biden did, versus picking winners and losers.
	So the fact that he elevated these coins, like ADA and SOL and the Ripple coin and everything, that are tightly held by a few individuals, even though he didn't put them in there, he put that out there.
	And they did not rule that out.
	So it's going to be used by people to continue to pump those things up.
	As he points out, if you're going to have a Bitcoin reserve, who is it that gets to deal with all of that stuff?
	Who's going to be...
	Are they going to buy the Bitcoins from Tony?
	No.
	They're going to buy it from their friends, and their friends are going to do things for them in return.
	Growing fears of corporate defaults hit U.S. credit markets.
	That's right, and it's not just the retailers and the airline companies that they talk about a little bit in this Bloomberg story.
	But again, it's also commercial real estate, the banks, a lot of different things.
	So, in derivative markets, the cost of protecting corporate credit against default rose to some of the highest levels in nearly seven months.
	Those values will start to fall apart when the blunt mallet of the federal government starts swinging around.
	Politics is inherently unstable, and especially right now.
	Trump's initial social media announcement on a strategic reserve teased a desire to include a certain smaller number of coins.
	These things, if they're not included, there's a promise that they will be soon.
	And that's what people are going to be selling.
	They're going to be selling that hopium to people.
	So, again, this person who pushes back against the Bitcoin reserve.
	It says, how in the world are we setting up and funding a reserve when we're $37 trillion in debt?
	It's the same fundamental thing like, you know, a stablecoin, a stablecoin that's tied to a fiat currency.
	That doesn't make any sense.
	A reserve when we don't have a reserve, but we've got an astronomical, unbelievable amount of money in debt?
	$37 trillion?
	Can't get your head around that.
	And we're going to start setting up a reserve?
	None of this stuff makes any sense.
	It is all an unbelievable scam.
	Ray Dalio, who is a billionaire hedge fund manager of Bridgewater, he's a Bridgewater founder, he says that the mounting U.S. debt problems could lead to shocking developments.
	He said, do you think things are changing fast now with politics?
	Wait till you see what's going to happen in the financial world.
	He said, the first thing is a debt issue.
	We have a very severe supply-demand problem.
	The U.S. has to sell a quantity of debt that the world is not going to want to buy.
	That's the bottom line.
	That's why Trump is so focused on this crypto stuff and stablecoin, things like that.
	He said this is imminent.
	It's of paramount importance.
	The U.S. deficit needs to go from a projected level of 7.2% of GDP down to 3% of GDP. And he said, you're going to see shocking developments in terms of how that debt is going to be dealt with.
	He said the issue could result in a restructuring of the debt, could result in the U.S. applying pressure on other countries to buy the debt, or even cutting off payments to some creditor countries.
	Maybe that's why Trump is pushing people around.
	Oh, yeah?
	Oh, yeah?
	You want to push back with me on this terrorist?
	Well, I'll show you what's going to happen.
	I'm not even going to pay you the interest on the debt that I said I was going to pay you on.
	Right?
	He may be laying the groundwork for that.
	Just as we're seeing, he said, political and geopolitical shifts that seem unimaginable to most people, if you just look at history, you'll see these things repeating over and over and over again.
	We will be surprised by some of the developments that will seem equally shocking as those developments that we have seen.
	Trump's trade policies, which appear to be designed to rebalance the economic order in America's favor, including tariffs, Against Canada, Mexico, and China.
	But they're actually causing fighting between countries, he said.
	And he said, think about the example of 1930s Germany.
	He said there was a write-down of debt at that time, alongside a hike in tariffs in order to boost revenue, and a build-up of its domestic base.
	He said be very nationalistic, be very protectionistic, be very militaristic.
	That's one way that these things operate.
	He says tariffs are going to cause fighting between countries.
	Adding that he wasn't necessarily talking about a military confrontation.
	He said, but think about the U.S., Canada, Mexico, China, and all those types of fighting.
	There will be fighting, and that will have consequences.
	And I think that's the main thing to pay attention to.
	I agree.
	This is not to protect an industry, these tariffs.
	This is to target particular countries.
	And the end result of this may be that he doesn't want to pay the debt that China or others own.
	So what do we do about it as individuals?
	Well, again, there's gold.
	If they're not going to go on a gold standard, you can go on a gold standard, right?
	And so even in some of the states, we now have legal tender bills that are being put out by gold.
	That would require people to accept gold as payment, but certainly on a voluntary basis.
	I think if the dollar has a lot of problems, people would be more than willing to do that.
	It's interesting when you look at this article from Kitco.
	They're talking about how gold has traditionally been seen as a hedge against inflation.
	We all know that.
	But they said gold has also had a really strong inverse relationship with the dollar.
	And yet last year, the dollar was strong and gold was strong.
	They said, what's going on with that?
	In 2024, both the U.S. dollar and gold have both risen together.
	An unusual alignment that defies historical norms.
	Usually, they're fighting each other, but this time they're both going up.
	Gold also has a strong inverse relationship with U.S. Treasury bond yields.
	In other words, when the bond yields go one direction, gold goes the other direction, or vice versa, right?
	Yet, in 2024, gold and bond yields have been moving in parallel.
	Suggesting that traditional relationships are being disregarded.
	He said, gold has decoupled from almost every expected norm.
	Gold's relationship with silver is also bucking the historical trend.
	Historically, silver tends to outperform gold during bullish periods in the precious metal sector.
	However, the gold-to-silver ratio has surged, indicating that silver is underperforming and being largely bypassed in this rally.
	It is the dog that did not bark.
	It says gold demand from Asia has remained surprisingly strong despite the all-time high prices.
	Asian buyers, he said, are traditionally highly sensitive to price changes, especially on jewelry items that have very thin margins.
	And there is little scope to absolute price increases, he said.
	But this time...
	They've remained active participants, even as gold prices have reached all-time highs in domestic terms.
	So, it's not going contrary to the dollar.
	It's not going contrary to bonds.
	They're both going up.
	And even when you look at Asian markets and the jewelry stuff like that, he says, so one theory suggests that gold is simply no longer correlated with other aspects the way that we thought after centuries of reliable and predictable behavior.
	He said another theory is that we're witnessing a paradigm shift in the gold market, which is being driven by Western economic considerations.
	He said the third theory is that there's a large opaque player behind this, a mystery buyer that's behind this surge in demand, someone whose purchases are very high conviction and large enough to distort the market.
	I don't think that that's the case.
	To me, that seems kind of like the dark matter theory of the universe.
	They say, well, it all started with the Big Bang from one central point.
	We don't know why.
	When all matter in the universe was concentrated into a tiny ball somehow, then it just exploded.
	Well, if that were the case, then the matter ought to be uniformly distributed throughout the universe.
	But it isn't.
	So what do they say?
	Oh, I guess our theory is wrong about the Big Bang.
	No, they say our theory about the Big Bang cannot be wrong.
	We're going to hang on to that even though we don't have any physical evidence.
	And what we'll do is we'll manufacture some kind of an intellectual construct that would explain why we don't see it.
	So we'll manufacture dark matter.
	So when they look at the, when they look at, actually do observation, they don't see what they should see if their theory is correct.
	So what they do is they add another theory, which they also don't.
	Can't observe.
	They can't observe the dark matter.
	They can't prove that it exists.
	So this is the situation that they're talking about with some third party out there that just keeps buying no matter what.
	No, I think it really is.
	I don't even think it's any one of these three theories.
	My theory would be that people are looking at this at the tail end of a fourth turning and they understand that everything is getting really crazy.
	And they also understand that in these fourth turnings you have And I think a lot of people in decision-making circles understand this.
	I mean, they all use the terms that have come up by Strauss and Hound, by millennials and other things like that.
	And I think they certainly understand the cycles about every 70 to 80 years, where all the institutions change and so forth.
	And we're all linked together now globally on the same cycle.
	And so these things are always accompanied by financial unrest, always accompanied by changes, radical changes in institutions, and usually accompanied by war.
	And Trump is pushing us down that path.
	Just look what he's doing.
	You know, he's shoving everybody.
	And he's putting a chip on his shoulder and saying, knock it off.
	I dare you to knock it off.
	That's what he's doing to everybody.
	I mean, he's not trying to protect an industry.
	He's not trying to protect anything.
	He's trying to be an agent of chaos.
	And so I think people are looking at all this chaos.
	And that's what's driving people to something that is physical, that they can hold as gold.
	And something that is private.
	Something that is out of this system, this panopticon that they're trying to set up to follow everything that we do.
	I think that is really the case.
	So Tony is not with us today.
	But, you know, we just had.
	We just recently had, Wednesday afternoon, gold went up to $29.40.
	I think it was this Wednesday.
	I think this is a recent article that I pulled up.
	It just came up.
	It went up to $29.40.
	It was only $15 from the all-time high before it pulled back a little bit.
	Again, I don't think it's done, as Tony would say.
	I think it's got a story to go still.
	I think it's still going to be doing that.
	And I think that there's going to be a lot of chaos.
	Like Ray Dalio said, do you think you're seeing a lot of chaos and change in politics and stuff?
	Well, you just wait to see what happens in financial markets, what's going to really happen with that.
	So get something that is real, that is physical, that's private, that's outside the system, and you can get gold at davidknight.gold.
	It'll take you to Tony Arterman at Wise Wolf Gold.
	You can get it small or large amounts.
	You can get gold and silver.
	You can even get Bitcoin if you want.
	He'll help you to walk through that if you want to get that.
	You can also exchange your Bitcoin into gold or silver with him without a fee, which is really nice.
	It's an innovative thing that he's done.
	As well as you can gradually accumulate gold or silver through Wolfpack.
	Those are always good things to do.
	High Verbal says Larry Finkelstein, Larry Fink, Trump's investment advisor, said tariffs will indeed worsen inflation and increase the pain.
	Yeah, well, there you go.
	See, he knows what he's doing.
	He absolutely knows what he's doing.
	And, you know, Larry Fink's his investment advisor.
	Larry Fink's his pal.
	Larry Fink is America, you know?
	That's really what America is.
	It's the big corporations in Trump's mind.
	He wants to make the big corporations great again.
	When he says make America great again, he's talking about BlackRock.
	That's why he puts pressure on the Panamanian government to let BlackRock buy those ports down there.
	North American House Hippo.
	It's a link.
	Hudson Bay Company sacks bankruptcy due to Trump tariffs.
	Hudson Bay Company cites Trump's tariffs and bankruptcy filing.
	The department store company that also runs Saks Fifth Avenue.
	Where is Melania going to shop?
	I mean, these are...
	These are beyond first world problems.
	You know, this is the elite problems.
	Where is she going to shop now?
	She can't go to Saks Fifth Avenue.
	I guess you'll have to ask Zelensky's wife because she goes on these shopping trips in Paris where she spends $50,000 an hour.
	And she's got all of these villas all over the world.
	That are nested in one shell corporation after the other.
	Like I've said many times, it's like a Russian Madriasky doll.
	Denver Attaway, the Commodities Future Trading Commission was part of the commoditizing of everything.
	Fun fact, Mike Gill, the director of the CFTC under Obama and Trump, was gunned down in Washington, D.C. in a carjacking.
	Oh, that's interesting.
	Now, that could have something to do with it.
	I see that people sent me all this stuff with Alex saying that he's been warned by people that, oh, there's a hit out for everybody at Infowars.
	It's like, somebody was saying yesterday, how is he going to monetize the death of Jamie White?
	Well, there you go.
	He got his moment in the spotlight because of Jamie being shot at the parking lot of...
	His apartment, his car had been broken into multiple times.
	It's not a good area of a bad town, Austin.
	That's where he has everybody working.
	So now he's going to turn it into a massive conspiracy.
	I've been told by people that are high up in the intelligence agency, the number of times that I heard him say that, and the number of lies that he put out saying that it was told to him by some high-ranking intelligence official, he was a spokesperson for them.
	To pull the rug over your eyes, just like the sting started with that report from Steve Pachenik.
	Oh yeah, I've got it on good authority.
	I've got all these people who are in military intelligence and all these people who used to be in the CIA and everything.
	Well, guess what?
	The guy who's telling you that's working for the CIA as well, Alex Jones.
	We'll be right back.
	Stay with us.
	Stay with us.
	Stay with us.
	Stay with us.
	Stay with us.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	Well, Caroline Lovett had an interesting day.
	I mean, besides having to lie about tariffs and saying that they're not a tax and that nobody's going to pay them.
	And I'm so angry that I even took a question from the Associated Press because they make me look stupid like that.
	Now, she also had some questions, and this is from the Daily Caller.
	Somebody that you would think would be, you know, friendly to them, but they asked.
	About the Epstein files.
	And this is what she had to say.
	When are we going to see these Epstein files?
	A week ago, Attorney General Bondi said a truckload of Epstein files had been delivered to her office from the SDNY. When can we expect those files to be released to the public?
	I would defer you to the Department of Justice.
	I don't have a timeline here.
	Do you have any update on the JFK files?
	I don't.
	At this moment, again, I would defer you to our DNI director, Tulsi Gabbard, and also the Department of Justice.
	I know that they are working on that diligently, as the president requested them to do.
	Oh, okay.
	So now we brought in Tulsi Gabbard, okay?
	We've got to have Tulsi Gabbard, who is going to cover...
	For Donald Trump and Epstein.
	Along with Pam Bondi, along with Caroline Levitt.
	Isn't it interesting, all these women who are covering for these pedophiles and predators, right?
	Sex predators.
	There is the pictures of Trump and Epstein having a great time.
	You know, they were best friends for over a decade.
	Yeah, and then Lucky Lutnik had the house right next door to Jeffrey Epstein's...
	Black male nest that was there.
	Yeah, so I just can't understand why we don't have the Trump-Epstein files.
	I mean, the Epstein files.
	It's a real puzzle, you know?
	When are we going to see those things?
	When are we going to find out the truth about all these pedophiles and rapists who hung around with Jeffrey Epstein?
	And, of course, some of the prostitutes that married some of these guys.
	When are we going to find out about these pedophiles and their predilection for very young girls?
	I can't understand why Trump's administration is not showing us all the...
	And for those of you who are listening on the podcast, I'm just showing one picture after the other of Donald Trump with Jeffrey Epstein and with young girls and all the rest of this stuff.
	I can't understand why we're not getting down to the bottom of all this stuff.
	Yeah, Lovett's doing a great job of passing this stuff around, isn't she?
	And then, of course, it's not just the women in the Trump administration.
	Tulsi Gabbard, Pam Bondi, Caroline Lovett covering for this guy.
	You've also got people like DC Drano and Libs of TikTok who are influencers.
	They're there to influence you, to tell you that we really are going to get all this information.
	It really is going to come out.
	Just wait for it.
	Well, let's talk about another conspiracy.
	This is the Egg Prices Conspiracy.
	TheBigNewsletter.com.
	And they have a little bit different take.
	There's some more aspects of this, which I believe are true.
	There's a lot of different things that are going on with this egg situation.
	There is a lot that is happening with the big egg companies.
	I mean, at one level...
	This thing is being used to push this idea of bird flu, to push vaccines for animals, to let the USDA approve mRNA vaccines, to put it into our food by injecting it into the animals, all of that type of thing.
	That is one aspect of it, and that is clearly there.
	But there's other things that are happening as well.
	As we pointed out in the past, these big egg companies, and there's like a half dozen of them, they've already been found guilty of conspiring to do price fixing.
	They just got a slap on the wrist.
	It was only just under $18 million.
	They had to pay General Foods and other large corporations that were dependent on eggs as an ingredient.
	But this looks at it from a little bit different standpoint, and it looks at the fact that, and we had kind of touched on it, the fact that these big egg companies are making record profits now.
	The big egg companies that have been found guilty of conspiring together to fix the price of eggs.
	And they're looking at some of these past situations where they either had real diseases that were going through or they claimed they had real diseases that were going through.
	And how in the past they always recovered very quickly.
	They increased the size of their chicken holdings very, very quickly.
	They got the flocks back up very fast.
	But said, well...
	Even going back to 1994, this person says, the United Egg Producers economist Donald Bell in 1994 said, if you have more hens, that's going to be less income.
	And this is one of the things that always happens with consolidation in an industry.
	Once it becomes monopolized, or at least you've got some kind of a controlling oligarchy that's there.
	They start to try to reduce the supply of whatever it is to drive the price up, to artificially drive it up, and that's what these people are doing.
	The industry has gotten more consolidated ever since 1994, ever since their economists explained to them, you've got too many chickens, you've got too many eggs.
	If you want the price of eggs to go up, if you want your profits to go up, then you restrict that.
	And of course, the USDA is working with them, the USDA is working with them, working with big pharma.
	All of them.
	The avian flu is just the latest excuse for them to hike prices.
	So the Department of Justice Antitrust Division is now investigating the egg markets.
	You know, Pam Bondi really does have more important things to do than to release the Epstein files because we already know who these perps are.
	And we already know why she's not releasing it.
	But they like to do...
	They like to do that because it is reality TV. But for most Americans, eggs have been cheap, but not so much lately.
	Something doesn't add up about this avian flu, the sole and natural cause of high egg prices story.
	Well, I mean, it does when you're killing tens of millions of chickens every month.
	It does add up, doesn't it?
	They said, despite the act of God that is going on, and they put that in quotes, This is not an act of God.
	This is an act of the USDA and the government that thinks that it's God.
	They said 115 million hens is a lot of birds to call.
	They weren't all lost at once, though.
	So they're saying that even though this is something that's a massive hit, This has been spread out over a period of time.
	And over that period of time, in the past, if they would have done a massive, and they have had situations where they did massive cullings, they would start to recuperate, recoup their losses, recoup their hens.
	But they're not doing it this time.
	And they said, and in addition to that, demand for eggs has actually declined.
	Which I thought was surprising.
	Americans went from consuming around 206 shell eggs each in 2021 to consuming less than 190 in 2024, a 7.5% nosedive.
	As many countries have also closed their markets to American eggs since 2021 because the USDA has been running this fake bird flu scam.
	That's one of the consequences of it.
	Egg exports have fallen off a cliff.
	So the egg shortage, he says, is somewhat exaggerated considering that the demand has gone down.
	Nevertheless, egg prices and egg company profits have gone through the roof.
	So even though consumers are buying less shell eggs and even though the exports have crashed because everybody's buying into this bird flu thing, still their profits have soared.
	Listen to this.
	Cal Maine Foods, the biggest one.
	And the only one that publishes its financial data because it is a publicly traded company.
	The other big ones are not publicly traded, so we don't have any insight into that.
	But CalMain, the big one, publishes it.
	They have been making more money than ever.
	Its annual gross profits in the past three years have floated between three and six times what it used to earn.
	300 to 600% profits.
	Increases in profits.
	Breaking a billion dollars for the first time in the company's history.
	All of this extra profit is coming from higher selling prices, which have been earning CalMain unprecedented 70-145% margins over farm production costs per dozen.
	I mean, what other...
	Companies have profit margins like that.
	I mean, most companies are operating on profit margins 25% or something like that if it's a really competitive market.
	This is not a competitive market because they're making 70% to 145% margins over this stuff.
	We can be pretty confident.
	That other large egg producers are also raking in profits, even though they don't have to report them because it's not publicly traded.
	Historically, egg producers have responded to flu epidemics or other disease epidemics and the temporary rise in egg prices that accompany them by quickly rebuilding and expanding their flocks.
	but large-scale epidemics that hit egg farms in 2015 and 1983 to 84.
	The egg industry responded to both of these destructive events by sprinting to rebuild and to expand the egg-laying hen flock, something which checked price increases and ultimately made sure the prices went back to pre-epidemic levels within a reasonable time.
	For example, immediately after the height of the so-called avian flu epidemic, In 2015, egg producers started adding millions more pullets to their operations each month, ultimately raising 15.3 million more pullets on their farms in 2015 than they did in 2014,
	and increasing that figure by another 8 million in 2016. Now, when we've talked about this in the past, we looked at this and we said, well, the egg companies are typically replacing their chickens on an annual basis anyway.
	To keep their productivity up because new chickens or young chickens are more productive than the older chickens.
	So, you know, if we can get a little bit more out of it, we just kill them off and we start with new chickens.
	And that as part of this flu epidemic, that allows them to replace their flock, as they normally would do anyway, at the expense of the USDA. That comes in and kills their chickens.
	That's what this person is not looking at.
	But now they're not, 10 years later, they're not doing that again.
	They figured out there's an even better way.
	As a result, the average wholesale price of eggs landed at $1.65 a dozen that year, only 40% higher than it did the year before.
	10 years ago, we were paying $1.65 per dozen.
	Ah, those were the days, weren't they?
	The salad days.
	Historically, egg producers have responded to avian flu epidemics and the temporary rise in egg prices that accompanied them by quickly rebuilding and expanding their flocks of egg-laying hens.
	They should have said they recouped their losses.
	But anyway, the large-scale avian flu epidemics hit egg farms in 2015, and they did that then.
	but this time around it's not happening despite high profits the egg industry has somehow maintained a stubborn deficit in egg production capacity hatcheries that supply hens to egg producers have throttled the pipeline of hens instead of expanding it
	meanwhile hatcheries have been hatching significantly fewer parent chicks to replace the aging ones 12 fewer so in each of the last three years compared to 2021 because again why three years Because that's when the USDA claims that the bird flu thing happened.
	And that's when they started going around killing chickens.
	So in each of the last three years, the number of eggs that they've placed in incubators and the number of chicks that they've hatched has either declined or stayed basically steady with the 2021 levels in every year since.
	So they decided that they're not going to recoup their losses.
	They're going to just keep the same number as they start to, you know, they're going to...
	Keep rebuilding it at the same pace as they are starting to kill them off.
	So they're actually reducing it.
	So they've added 5 to 20 million fewer pullets to their farms in every one of the last three years than they did in 2021. The only thing the egg industry seems to have expanded is their windfall profits.
	So CalMain isn't just the largest egg producer and distributor.
	It has a range, of course, of tools at its disposal to discipline smaller rivals in the industry.
	A special arrangement within the chicken industry.
	They apparently have kind of an inside track on genetics.
	They have been able to expand.
	It's faster and cheaper than any other egg producers.
	And if a producer gets out of line and responds to high prices with flock expansions or with discounting practices that CalMain doesn't approve of, CalMain can flood the market with eggs and depress the prices for everybody.
	One of the things that they can do to keep control.
	As a publicly traded company with a low cost of capital from Wall Street, this is what we competed against when we had a video store.
	We had a little mom-and-pop video store.
	We had like six stores, and we were competing against Blockbuster, and we were competing against Viacom, which owned Paramount and CBS and all these other big holding companies.
	And so Blockbuster could, and of course, Hollywood Video.
	They could get money on Wall Street.
	And they operated at a loss against us for like 20 years before they went out of business.
	And we weren't in there the entire 20 years.
	We sold in 2000. But they would operate at a loss.
	They would build large stores right in front.
	Of an existing mom and pop store.
	They did it to us.
	They did it to a lot of other people to drive them out of business.
	And they typically did.
	We were able to survive because we stopped going after new releases and we went after catalog titles.
	And we had a massive catalog titles of older films because the new ones were garbage anyway.
	But, you know, that was how we competed against them because they were doing pay-per-view rentals and stuff like that where they didn't even own the videos.
	They would just lease them, and they got massive numbers of those.
	But I wasn't going to get stuck in that trap because...
	You know, these are the people who are running the whole pay-per-view thing, and you're never going to beat them at their own game.
	It's kind of like trying to compete with the umpire and his team, you know?
	So we didn't get into that.
	We went into catalog titles and rare titles.
	But they had the ability to be able to raise capital on Wall Street.
	It was unlimited.
	It was like trying to compete against, you know, the American government that can just print money out of thin air.
	That's what these publicly traded companies can do.
	And so they're saying that's what CalMain does.
	They can live with low egg prices for a long time.
	You know, they could go in, and again, you know, the profit margins are not that big, so they could put a store right in front of a mom and pop, and it didn't even have to be a good store.
	If somebody's got a low profit margin, they're going to cut it in half, even if you were the same.
	But if they're a bigger store, and if they've got better placement, then it's going to basically make that store that was there.
	Not profitable.
	And they can wait it out because they never had to make a profit.
	Like I said, they went for like 25 years without making a profit after they were bought by Viacom and started trading on Wall Street.
	They never had to make a profit again until they shut the thing down.
	So they can operate at a loss while their competitors go out of business.
	The power wielded by these dominant firms, CalMain, EW Group, Hendrix, It's not theoretical.
	Just last year, a federal jury found that shortly after Cal Maine rose to dominance in the late 1990s, its executives took over leadership of a long-standing industry association called United Egg Producers and turned it into a cartel, the equivalent of what the presiding judge analogized to a mob boss for the industry.
	And again, going back to the business that we were in, that was a part of it as well.
	You had the movie studios, which had hated the fact that somebody was renting their stuff, ignoring the fact that they had record profits and successes during the 80s and 90s.
	They didn't like the structure of that.
	They fought the video stores, took it to the Supreme Court.
	They lost at the Supreme Court.
	So we had a period there of, you know, all right, let's just regroup and think about how we're going to do it.
	Then they came back with the pay-per-view stuff.
	And Blockbuster could operate at a loss.
	And Hollywood Video and big ones like that, because they were tied in with the Hollywood Studios.
	And they were using them as a cat's paw to put everybody out of business.
	That's what these guys are doing, creating a cartel to change the industry.
	Well, we're going to take a quick break, and when we come back, we're going to talk about what is going on at USAID. Shred and burn all documents, says the head of USAID. Wait a minute, I thought this was supposedly, we're helping poor people around the world.
	Why do we have documents that have to be shredded and burned, if that's what's happening?
	Coalamo says, Knight, from what I hear, Trump will create the crypto coin and push all the nation's debt into it, which will crash Bitcoin or stable crypto used.
	But, if so, what company will buy the debt?
	Well, again, you know, when we've talked about this, both Scott, Besant and Lucky Lutnik with Trump were talking about how Besant especially said, America's got humongous assets and we're going to put those assets to work.
	What does he mean by that?
	When we're $37 trillion in debt, what assets?
	I think it's publicly owned land.
	Especially because Doug Burgum, who also seems to be in on all these scams.
	Doug Burgum was the governor of North Dakota, but he was also a multi-billionaire.
	And he wanted to participate in these carbon scams.
	Carbon sequestration, carbon pipelines.
	He and Kristi Noem and the guy who was running the pipelines all went to Mar-a-Lago.
	They're all conspiring together about what they're going to do to make money before the election.
	And Doug Burgum said during his confirmation that the value of publicly owned lands in the U.S. is $200 trillion.
	So don't worry about this $37 trillion worth of debt.
	Yeah, we can sell all that stuff off.
	So yeah, I think they do want to crash everything.
	These guys saying that Trump wants to crash the economy so he can lower interest rates.
	That's just the tip of the iceberg.
	He wants to crash everything so his pals can buy everything up at bankruptcy prices.
	Go back and look at 2007-2008 when they securitized the mortgages and basically tokenized them.
	They created that scam, they crashed the market, and they were able to go in with their cash and buy up assets very cheaply.
	We already know that BlackRock is going in and driving up the price of assets, but that's not the way they really like to operate.
	RFK Jr. talked about that.
	Larry Fink would much rather have the real estate market crash so he could go in and buy it up when it's cheap and then write it back up again.
	And that's what all this stuff is about.
	It's a pump and it's a dump.
	Jason Barker, Knights of the Storm.
	Good to see you, Jason.
	And Foxhole Report.
	Says, I got my David Knight coin yesterday in the mail.
	It's gorgeous.
	Thank you, Karen.
	And thank you, Jason.
	Jason sent us a very nice note, and he was really surprised at how nice it looked.
	And it is an amazing coin.
	I want to thank Ryan for the love of the road, for putting this together and sending it to us.
	He did the design.
	He got it all done and sent it to us just as a gift, and it was a really, really nice gift.
	I really appreciate that to help us.
	We were talking about people who do matching funds and stuff.
	This is a huge gift, and it's a very nice memento, actually.
	And it's hard if you don't see these coins in person, but this one, it's painted.
	Number, all these different things.
	So it is a very nice coin.
	And Jason was the one who designed our first David Knight coin, which we sold out of.
	And he's putting it together in order to do it again.
	I like that design as well.
	So that's going to be coming back, and I appreciate that, Jason.
	Thank you for doing that.
	But both these guys designed a coin, put this whole thing through, because we're just...
	We're so busy just getting the news out.
	They don't do much in terms of promoting the show one way or the other, the content or promoting it for financial stuff.
	So I really do appreciate that, both of you.
	Guard Goldsmith, Liberty Conspiracy.
	Thank you, Guard, for what you do to support this program.
	And I'm going to be taking some days off next week.
	Travis is coming back with his wife and the new baby.
	And they've been gone for like six months.
	And the baby is, what, five?
	Months?
	Four.
	Four months.
	Okay.
	Seems like he's five months.
	He's huge.
	And he's laughing and grabbing at stuff and all this other kind of stuff.
	It's like, wow, this kid's grown up and we haven't even seen him yet.
	So they're coming next week, and I want to have a little bit of time with them.
	We all do.
	And so we're going to take some days off.
	I'll be here on Monday.
	But the rest of the week, we're going to take off.
	Guard's going to do some of the days.
	We're going to have some repeats and things like that.
	But anyway, Guard Goldsmith says, today is the fifth anniversary of Trump's emergency announcement, the madness.
	Thank you for reminding me.
	How can I forget that Friday the 13th?
	And here we are on Thursday the 13th.
	March the 13th.
	Beware the Ides of March.
	And that's what Trump did.
	Thank you for reminding me, Guard.
	I can't believe that I missed that.
	I've been talking about that for the longest time.
	We always talk about Friday the 13th, that fateful Friday the 13th when he did it.
	He did it after my show ended on Friday.
	And I started watching all this stuff unfolding.
	You know, he announced this emergency.
	And how many people had died at that point in time?
	Nobody.
	It wasn't an emergency when it was done at the end of January with Alex Azar.
	But he's releasing the money.
	Don't forget, I'm releasing the money.
	That's really important.
	It's a big deal.
	Yeah, it was a big deal.
	Over the weekend, you had the governors in New York and California talking about how they're going to lock everything down.
	We'd had a billionaire come by Infowars and go on air saying that he had just visited with Greg Abbott and the state capitol, the governor there, demanding that he shut everything down.
	I said, that's crazy.
	That's not going to work.
	Oh, but, you know, he was on, and that's what they started pushing.
	They started pushing the shutdown.
	And so I came on after he did the shutdown on Friday.
	The 13th.
	I opened up the show on Monday morning, and I said, keep calm and carry on, and freedom is in peril, defend it with all your might.
	The two slogans that went up as the British were facing the Germans in France, facing a German invasion.
	Keep calm and carry on.
	Liberty is in peril, defend it with all your might.
	I said, that's really where we are today.
	And I said, this is not a real threat.
	That was a real threat.
	An imminent threat of invasion.
	You know, just before the Battle of Britain and all the rest of this stuff.
	That was a real threat.
	This is not a real threat.
	And everybody's going to cave down and hunker down.
	And it's ridiculous.
	So thank you for reminding me, Garin.
	It's very important.
	Cecilia14, Owen said yesterday they need more security, so send money.
	If anybody's got security, it's Alex Jones, let me tell you that.
	And he made sure that there wasn't any security there in the morning when I would get there.
	I wanted to save money.
	I would go in at 4 o'clock in the morning, and there was no security at that point in time.
	They wouldn't come in until much later.
	Alex wasn't going to spend any money to protect me.
	If threatened Alex Jones can't afford more security, yeah.
	He's got personal bodyguards all the time, but he's not going to put security there in the wee hours of the morning.
	Not going to do it.
	We're going to take a quick break and we'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	We just recently got a lot of crypto donations.
	Didn't you get $8 million in just one transaction?
	Oh, that was $9 million.
	I was like, what?
	When we saw that, we just about fell out of the chair.
	It's like, because he's going around all the time running money bombs.
	It's not enough money.
	You've got to give us more money.
	We're going to go out of business here if you don't give us more money.
	He got $9 million in just one transaction.
	And nobody asked where that came from.
	Who is it that's giving you $9 million?
	Is that coming from USAID? CIA? Who is it coming from?
	And so we're at the USAID. The staff is ordered to destroy evidence.
	On Tuesday, and the email has gone out and been made public, a senior USAID official on Tuesday ordered the agency's remaining staff to report to their now former headquarters in Washington, D.C. for a, quote, all day, that's the way they put it, all day group effort to destroy documents.
	We're going to have a bonfire.
	We're going to burn all this stuff.
	You know, burn after reading type of things.
	So, isn't that amazing?
	Isn't that?
	And I've always, you know, we've always known that USAID was CIA. Obama's parents were founding members of the CIA. They were in the OSS. And his mother worked for USAID, which is, you know, a front for the CIA and everything.
	So, if this is a charity organization, and I see this on some of the Christian sites, I say, well, you've got all these.
	Missionary sites and everything saying, I don't know what we're going to do.
	We're just not going to be able to help people if we lose this USAID funding.
	It's like, well, first of all, if you're a Christian organization, God is the one who provides for your work.
	And if God doesn't provide for it, maybe you shouldn't be doing that.
	Maybe you're not in his will.
	But, oh, we've got to have that money.
	And so they're pushing back on it.
	But if it really is a charitable organization like they claim that it is, why are they having to burn all these documents?
	I mean, they're burning all these documents because it's corrupt.
	There's a lot of corruption in it, I'm sure.
	And I think there's a lot of intelligence stuff in it as well.
	Why would a charitable organization have all these national security issues in it?
	And they were always there.
	The materials marked for destruction include, quote, classified safes and personnel documents.
	They had safes that had classified information.
	It's amazing to me how the conservative MAGA media doesn't really focus so much on the CIA aspect of the USAID. I think that is huge.
	So it's a charity that has safes full of classified documents.
	That's it.
	Yeah.
	And here's the quote from the, and they've got a picture of the actual email document that's sent around.
	Quote, shred as many documents first and reserve the burn bags for when the shredder becomes unavailable or needs a break, says the email.
	Because they've got a lot of stuff.
	Instructing staff to label the burn bags with secret labels.
	And USAID slash B slash IO, which stands for Bureau or Independent Office.
	And do that in a dark Sharpie.
	So cover this stuff up.
	You know, label it as secret.
	Top secret.
	Can't look at that.
	Don't look at that.
	I've said this for the longest time.
	A lot of the stuff that is, the attitude of this national security stuff, keep it secret.
	Don't tell anybody.
	I've seen that when I went around to report.
	At even the lowest levels with government officials.
	And so I can't talk to you about that.
	Let's classify the secrets.
	Like, what are you talking about?
	You know, you're just at an airport or something like this.
	There's nothing top secret about any of that stuff.
	And these are just general questions.
	I'm not specifically asking you for anything.
	Oh, no.
	Everything is classified.
	Yeah.
	Job protection.
	Job protection.
	Protection of corruption.
	You know, when anybody says, you can't see my data, you can't see my files, all the rest, you know that something is up.
	People think Michael Mann, Michael Manure.
	So Mike Benz says, so the current acting executive secretary of USAID, who ordered the mass shredding and the burning of paper files at USAID today, worked in the Obama OPM. OPM. The OPM. Office of Personnel Management.
	For Obama USAID, then was personally named USAID Executive Secretary by Joe Biden in his first week in office.
	Let me guess how many of these documents pertain to Ukraine and all the slush funds that were running through there.
	The email did not provide any reasoning for the document destruction.
	So we can all guess, I think.
	According to a former USAID staffer, I've never seen something like this en masse.
	Everyone with a safe is supposed to keep it up to date and destroy documents when they no longer need to be stored.
	Sometimes security will check your safe and tell you if you have to clean out old material, but never had anybody go through and just get rid of everything.
	Well, I do find that very interesting.
	This, I think, is also interesting.
	This is an article on Daily Skeptic.
	This is a guy out of the UK, James Alexander.
	And he said, here's a biblical analysis of AI. And I really do think that it is satanic in its many different attributes.
	And he kind of talks about how the different aspects of it are satanic, how they are anti-Christian, anti-Christ.
	He said, our contemporaries...
	Though unaware of what they call the dangers of AI, do not seem to have considered that they're engaging in and with something that is demonic.
	He said, so Guardian was laughing about the Trump agenda, saying it's an AI America first.
	AI America.
	He says, H.G. Wells wrote a novel entitled Men Like Gods.
	Of course, he also did Things to Come, which has become like the technocracy fan fiction fantasy world that people like Elon Musk and his grandfather Joshua Haldeman all bought into, the people who did Technocracy, Inc.
	H.G. Wells was just showing in a movie form what kind of society they wanted, and it is a fascist.
	It has been obvious, he says to every philosopher since the ancient times, that there is an analogy between God's creation of the world and man's creation of artifacts.
	But it wasn't until the thrashing and the threshing steam engines of the late 18th and early 19th century that man began to consider that he himself was a god.
	It's that technology that's there.
	And he talks about how he went to an industrial museum in Sheffield, England.
	He said, Press this button so the kids could watch the machines operate.
	Suddenly, he says, you have this vast armament of pistons and pipes begin grinding and rotating.
	So it's amazing to watch this.
	But he says, now what do we have?
	We've got these black boxes, really.
	It's this mysterious thing, this black box.
	You can't see any, no moving parts to see.
	Nothing that you can see inside.
	And so he said, You've got a Nintendo game console, for example.
	Simply a black miniature monolith to the kids.
	They don't see any moving parts like they would with a steam engine.
	Steampunk stuff, right?
	It's wholly inexplicable.
	It's concealing through the absolute infinitesimal minitude of its components.
	It is a mystery.
	It is all face and no organs.
	And are we now to have a technology that is all mind?
	And no organs.
	AI shall be heated with the great stoves of the nuclear power reactors that we are now suddenly willing to build.
	We wouldn't do it before.
	Now we've got to do it for AI. Everything for AI. So what is it, he says?
	Let's think about six different aspects of AI. He says, first of all, like the serpent, it's subtle.
	Subtle, the serpent talks to the woman.
	And subtlety, the secret advice, the confounding of God's will, the knowledge of their nakedness, their hiding from God.
	It all sounds like AI, because knowledge is power.
	AI talks to us.
	It tells us things that are not true, but things that are subversive of the truth as well.
	Another aspect, the Tower of Babel, he says, for example.
	When you think about what AI can do, it eliminates that barrier.
	That has been there for a very long time.
	The barrier of language.
	You know, I was just seeing just a new AI that came out the other day.
	They're talking about it.
	And it can clone somebody's voice with just two seconds of a sample.
	That in and of itself is not anything new.
	That's been around for a while.
	But it can also then, in the demo that I saw...
	It clones somebody's voice, and you hear the original recording.
	It's maybe two seconds, seven seconds, eight seconds, or something like that.
	And then they have some text.
	They had it read it, and it reads it, and it gets the inflections right and things like that.
	And then they have some Chinese text.
	They say, okay, now read it in Chinese.
	And it's the same voice, reading it in Chinese.
	And, of course, it can do this in any language.
	And they have...
	Virtually every language on earth, they can do that.
	So, it's essentially reversing what God did at the Tower of Babel.
	And then the golden calf.
	Remember when the people of Israel, when Moses is getting the Ten Commandments, said, make us a god.
	There's an element of that as well.
	People who are very excited when they talk to Elon Musk and he feeds them the stuff about how we're not only summoning the demon, but it's a god.
	Remember when he had the conversation with Jordan Peterson?
	He goes, yeah, we're making our gods.
	And Jordan Peterson, yeah, yeah, exactly right.
	Yeah, yeah, we're making them, yeah.
	Well, how'd that turn out?
	We're going to melt the gold down and make the people drink it.
	We're going to melt the silicon down and make the people drink it.
	That might not go over as well.
	Anyway, just like the calf, AI is an alternative to God built by a hasty, faithless people as a work of human manufacture, but trying to create something that is higher than ourselves.
	That's the key thing.
	Higher than ourselves.
	So that we can worship it.
	Then Leviathan.
	He says, you know, we see Leviathan in Job.
	Job 38, God says to Job, who is it that darkens counsel without knowledge?
	So the entire terrifying sequence is a mockery of what man claims to know, but that God has created.
	And so he talks about, he says, we consider Leviathan.
	He says, his heart's made of stone.
	On the earth there is none like, there is not his like, who is made without fear.
	King over all the children of pride.
	And, you know, he says famously Thomas Hobbes, when he talked about the state, he used the idea of Leviathan to represent what the state was when he talked about the power of an abusive state in 1651. But I tell you, AI is definitely going to be Leviathan.
	It's going to expand the power and the reach of the state in an amazing way.
	He says, but here we may consider it to be AI, indeed the coming king of pride.
	One which speaks of its own account and an entity that is only to be named by God and not by man.
	And he says Satan.
	We see elements of Satan here and the temptation of Christ where he says, fall down and worship me in order to have power over all the world.
	Well, again, it is our will to have power and it is something that we'll ask that we worship it.
	They're already talking about that.
	I mean, you've got AI that's doing legislation.
	You've got AI that's now starting to adjudicate in courts.
	I mean, they're going to have it rule over us.
	And then finally, Antichrist, in the sense that it is opposed to Christ and elevated itself up as God.
	And so, whether it is Antichrist, whether it is the spirit of Antichrist, it is that spirit of opposition.
	And you know, when you stop and think about it, You know, we'll have miracles there.
	You know, Elon Musk and these other people are talking about, well, we put a brain-computer interface in, and we can make people who can't walk.
	We can make the lame walk.
	We can make the blind see.
	Yeah, that'll get it worshipped, won't it?
	He says, dare to argue that AI is not just some composite serpent babble.
	Calf, Leviathan, Satan, Antichrist.
	It tells lies.
	It promises truths that will destroy us.
	It enables us to reach the heavens.
	It appears to function as a god.
	It is the king of the children of pride.
	We have created it, but it is beyond our understanding.
	We must sacrifice to it.
	It tempts us with power and dominion.
	And it not only denies Jesus, but it stands for him.
	Speaking of the peace and safety that only it can give.
	And it speaks all languages.
	Yes, again, and it will create a softness, a dependency, just like the universal basic income and other elements like that, which basically allows us to be tamed into being slaves.
	That's the key thing.
	So as we look at what is happening with the law stuff, we're going to take a look when we come back at Trump.
	Saying that, you know, well, he can't blacklist a Clinton-affiliated law firm, says a judge.
	How is he stacking up in all of these cases?
	Because there are a massive amount of lawsuits that are being filed in response to his executive orders, in response to what Elon Musk is doing with Doge.
	Yes, he is the one who's actually running Doge.
	We're going to take a quick break, and we'll be right back.
	Good evening.
	Tonight's tale is a story of paranoia and a most unexpected perpetrator, the common cow.
	Or, more specifically, what comes out the other end.
	Yes, the air is thick with intrigue, as it seems that in our modern age of propaganda, even a humble bovine's backside can be branded a national security threat.
	The menace is invisible, silent.
	Yet deadly.
	Carefully contrive to panic the masses into accepting the government stepping in, jackboots and all, with their solutions.
	Because who better to stop a gaseous threat than a bunch of political windbags?
	But one must wonder, is this truly about saving the planet, or are we simply being led to pasture?
	Is it merely a MacGuffin?
	The David Knight Show serves as a breath of fresh air for those who still believe that truth can stand up to scrutiny.
	And he's found that the government narrative smells suspiciously like a load of bull.
	So if you want to help others catch wind of the BS being shoveled out of Washington, please consider supporting the show.
	And now back to our regularly scheduled program.
	Yeah.
	Oh, I cut that off too soon.
	This is David Knight's show, by the way.
	That's what he's about to say.
	Trump can't blacklist Clinton-affiliated law firms as a judge.
	It's amazing to see what they're doing here.
	I mean, you would think, I would look at it as saying, well, that's under the prerogative of the executive, and I believe that it is.
	Yeah, this is Perkins Coy.
	This is the law firm that represented Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign, and they're the ones who kind of put together this Russiagate nonsense as well.
	And it's kind of interesting to see, that happened yesterday, on Wednesday.
	The judge partially blocked Trump's executive order that barred the executive branch from working with Perkins Coy.
	Can't the executive say we're not going to?
	It seems to me like if you're going to have somebody who has security clearance, that anybody ought to be able to blackball that and stop it if anybody's concerned about their security clearance.
	And of course, this is an organization that was involved in massive fraud and lies against Trump.
	And it seems to me like that would be something that the executive could do.
	Wouldn't you think?
	Except this is a judge who says no.
	Whatever the judges say, we've got to do what they say, right?
	And you've got other judges saying, well, if there was money allocated for this program, then he has to spend it.
	And, of course, that is not true either.
	As I pointed out, that's a big part of the power that is wielded by the presidency over everybody, just as, you know, on March 13th, 2020, he releases the money so that he can bribe.
	He asked governors to do stuff, and he kept giving them the money, no matter what they did.
	Everybody, oh, it's just the bad Democrat governors.
	Well, he kept giving them money, massive amounts of money.
	And that money flowed to the governors.
	It didn't flow to the state.
	You look at the bad governor, Republican governor in Idaho, Brad Little.
	And he had a Republican legislature tried to stop him, but he basically shut them down.
	He had more money.
	Then the legislature had to spend.
	It was given to him as discretionary funds.
	We talk about the power that Trump gave these governors, Republican and Democrat.
	It was so intoxicating.
	Of course, they did whatever he wanted.
	They didn't want to have that removed.
	But we have seen that Trump and Obama and Biden and every president has always used, especially recently, like I talk about with the training bathroom stuff, they use the power of the purse to get people to do what they want.
	And so if there's money that is allocated for the schools, and if Trump, Obama, or Biden withholds that money because the school's not doing what they want, then he's not spending all the money that has been allocated by Congress.
	How do these judges, how can they say that he must spend all the money, that he can't stop it?
	That's been their primary way of control.
	Because the Tenth Amendment says they don't have the power to issue orders about this stuff, and the Congress doesn't either.
	So what he does is he incentivizes it.
	He gives them money for that, or he takes the money away.
	And so there's absolutely no way that a judge who is honest and consistent can say the president can't do that.
	All the presidents, both parties have been doing that on a lot of different issues.
	Perkins Coy worked on Hillary Clinton's 2006 campaign.
	Trump's order justifies the actions against the firm by pointing to its role in hiring the people who helped to develop the controversial dossier with Trump's purported ties to Russia.
	All of it was a lie.
	It was a fraud.
	But now this judge says you can't withhold their clearance.
	Isn't that amazing?
	And when I look at the headlines from the left, they were saying, this is horrible.
	Oh, this is a chill that the president could actually stop using that law firm and could punish them for what they did fraudulently and criminally.
	Anyway, so he's had a lot of, besides this, there have been a massive tsunami of lawsuits.
	Plaintiffs, including Democrat attorneys general, Federal workers, labor unions, nonprofits, and other groups have brought dozens of lawsuits challenging the Trump administration's activities in the past few weeks.
	Most of the lawsuits are still playing out in court, though a number of temporary rulings have been issued that either block policies while litigation moves forward, or maybe they allow various orders to stay in place until there is a more lasting ruling.
	Permanent rulings have only been issued so far in just two cases, even though there's dozens of these things out there, and both of those were for two specific federal workers' firings.
	So most of the big, broad actions that are out there are still being litigated.
	And even if there is a decision, all the litigation is subject to appeal and to change.
	Like I said, all the rest of this stuff is really not...
	So they have in this long article, and I'm not going to go down all the different ones, where has Trump won, where has Trump lost, what is still out there.
	It is all still up in the air.
	As Benjamin Weingarten says, though, the Trump administration has issued a new memorandum aimed at combating those who seek universal injunctions against it to halt its policies.
	Now, you know, Mike Lee has introduced a bill that says, and I agree with it, that one district judge, and again, there's 677 district judges, federal district judges, there's 94 districts, 677 judges.
	One of them, one of them, can block and affect change for the entire country?
	And so Mike Lee is saying, no, no, we need to make clear what their jurisdiction is, number one.
	But that's going to take a long time to get that through, even if it passes, and it may not pass.
	And so what the Trump administration has done to try to clear this legal logjam of lawsuits is to say, well, we're going to declare that per the federal rules of civil procedure, those who are bringing the cases up need to put up bonds, injunction bonds.
	In other words, you're going to have to put up kind of a deposit for this kind of stuff.
	And they're hoping that that's going to stop it.
	It is the policy of the United States to demand that parties seeking injunctions against the federal government must cover the costs and the damages incurred if the government is ultimately found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.
	So in other words, if you're going to get an injunction and say that we can't save the money over here, and that's an invalid injunction, you lose in court, and they say, no, you really did have the authority.
	To, you know, cut $100 million.
	Well, if, you know, what we're talking about here is cuts of $100 million, the way I interpret this is that they would have to put up a deposit so that they could pay the government back if they cost the government $100 million for not being allowed to shut down.
	That's kind of a clever way.
	Of course, it's clever, but it avoids a real issue that needs to be discussed openly about judicial supremacy.
	And I think that people need to have an open discussion, which they're not going to do, of course.
	They have an open discussion about not just where the jurisdiction of a particular district judge ends, but where the jurisdiction of the judiciary itself begins and ends.
	And so that still remains to be seen.
	We're going to take a quick break, and we'll be right back.
	Penny saved is a penny earned.
	Though, that's gotten tougher since they've stopped making them.
	Maybe it's time to start saving a different type of coin, such as the new David Knight Show supporter commemorative coin.
	Saving these coins earns support for independent media, featuring striking bas-relief with bold raised details and premium painted accents.
	sense.
	It's not just a trinket, but a statement, a declaration, a way to show you refuse to be controlled by the establishment.
	It's a limited run of just 100 coins.
	So much like the penny, when they're gone, they're gone.
	They silence independent voices.
	They censor the truth.
	But you can stand with real journalism and own a piece of the resistance.
	These coins saved is The David Knight Show sustained.
	Available now at thedavidknightshow.com. .
	You're listening.
	I cut that one off, too.
	And that was me talking on the coin.
	How could I do that?
	Anyway, Dave Weldon, as I talked about, Dave Weldon, who is a former congressman and physician, has been nominated for the position of CDC. And the reason I bring this up again is because today is the day that we find out if he's going to make a Faustian bargain with the devil, also known as Senator Cassidy, who is the Republican chair.
	of this committee that is going to be analyzing him.
	And so that's going to be happening today.
	He's expected to face questions from the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which is chaired by Cassidy, the guy who got RFK Jr. to bow before him.
	But that'll be today.
	Weldon served 14 years in the House until 2019. Largely staying out of the public spotlight during this time, however, he attracted the attention of anti-vaccine groups due to his criticism of the CDC and questions about vaccine safety.
	So, from his history, he looks good.
	But we'll have to see what happens.
	We'll have to see what happens, first of all, today, what he pledges to do, and we'll have to see what happens if he makes it.
	He'll have to get past Cassidy.
	He'll probably have to prostrate himself before this guy.
	So anyway, Walden has promoted, says NBC, the false claim linking vaccines to autism.
	Yeah, he was featured in the documentary Vaxxed, as I said yesterday.
	A matter that the CDC will re-examine under Kennedy, despite decades of research failing to find evidence of a link, said NBC. Well, what does cause autism?
	Why has it exploded?
	Does NBC care?
	No.
	And these guys really get angry if you say we're going to look.
	They don't want anything to stop it.
	Why is that?
	He introduced a bill in 2007 to transfer responsibility for vaccine safety from the public health agency to an independent agency within HHS. The idea is not entirely opposed by some vaccine experts.
	But would significantly reduce the CDC's role.
	The bill, however, never made it past committee.
	So the question is, will he make it past committee?
	According to an account in the 2004 book, Evidence of Harm.
	Oh, okay.
	Wow.
	Deb G. Kennedy says, David, the White House just withdrew him as a nominee.
	Well, I guess he wasn't ready to sign the deal with the devil.
	That tells you a lot about the Trump administration, doesn't it?
	And I'll just finish with this paragraph here.
	Weldon actively intervened to help anti-vaccine researchers Dr. Mark Gere and his son David access the Vaccine Safety Data Link.
	Oh, they're upset about that.
	That is a CDC database containing patient health records.
	Now, here's what NBC says about that.
	This raw data is available to researchers, but it isn't public.
	Why is that?
	Well, because of concerns over privacy.
	Well, you don't have to release people's names.
	You're looking at massive numbers.
	Well, Sally's got psoriasis or whatever.
	You're looking at how many cases of psoriasis are out there.
	They're not going to dox people for diseases on social media.
	But they said, no, this has to be kept away from the public.
	Because of concerns over privacy, because of manpower, oh, you don't have enough people to, well, that's not a problem with this.
	It shouldn't be a problem because he was just giving people who had the manpower access to the data to take a look at it.
	Why are you trying to hide data from us?
	Well, here's the reason.
	And because they're worried about misrepresentation of data.
	Well, that's what open debate and science is supposed to be about, isn't it?
	So I think that's very interesting, that Dave Weldon, they withdrew his nomination at the last minute.
	Wow.
	Wow.
	It was to happen today.
	And I guess they got with him, you know, because they have the people that are there with the Trump administration, and you had Dr. Wakefield push for Dave Weldon to be in the first Trump administration, and he wasn't.
	They refused to have him then.
	And so I guess as they were wargaming this, Maybe he said, I'm not going to bow to this stuff.
	So the CDC has now, you know, they've got a lot of stuff with vaccines.
	They have a lot of influence over vaccine recommendations, says NBC, through its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.
	And this is a panel that is made up of experts.
	Experts who have conflicts of interest.
	This is pediatricians, epidemiologists, and public health experts.
	And you know these people are loaded with conflicts of interest.
	And that's one good thing that RFK Jr. has done, is he said, we're going to list the interests of people who are on that committee to see if they've got conflict of interest.
	And so, since Kennedy has been there, they have shut down two major Vaccine Advisory Committee meetings.
	I'm glad he did that.
	Again, I don't trust Kennedy.
	But this is good.
	And, you know, we could always hope that there would have been something else there.
	But anyway, so they shut down two of these, the two committee meetings that were scheduled.
	They shut them down.
	And then they put up information about, and this is the way NBC puts it, what it describes as conflicts of interest.
	What it describes.
	Conflict of interest is pretty clear, isn't it?
	You own stock in these companies that you are setting in judgment of.
	You're going to make money if you green light this stuff.
	So they said they're worried about the implications of having a CDC director who may not fully support vaccines and thinks that there's a link between vaccines and autism.
	And evidently, The Trump administration is as well, because they just pulled his nomination, as a listener said.
	The science is very clear, and has been for decades, on vaccines and autism.
	To look into that again is a big waste of resources.
	But you don't have, if you've looked at it and you've investigated it and your science is clear, your science hasn't produced any answers.
	And you don't care?
	You don't care about the explosion of autism?
	Just like Senator Cassidy.
	That's why I compare him to the devil.
	He doesn't care about this.
	You're not going to do any more research into this, are you?
	What are you afraid of, Cassidy?
	What are these other people afraid of?
	They're afraid because they know.
	They know there is a link between the vaccines and autism.
	Not necessarily between one particular vaccine, but to the groups.
	I mean, it wasn't that long ago we had, remember we had that child custody case where there was, Three children, and the mom and dad had agreed when they moved to another state, I think it was Texas or something, we're not going to vaccinate the kids, and both of them were in agreement.
	And then there was a divorce, and the judge found out that they were not vaccinated.
	Actually, her lawyer knew that the judge was a big vaccine advocate, and said, you know, these kids haven't been vaccinated.
	And the judge was, what?
	That's child abuse to not vaccinate your children.
	And he goes, I'll tell you what, whichever one of you parents will have the kids vaccinated, you walk out of here today with custody of them.
	And so the lawyer says, she will.
	She got custody of them.
	She takes them to the pediatrician.
	The pediatrician with the three kids, the girl already had some known allergies.
	And so the pediatrician...
	Did not give all of the, like, 20 shots or whatever to catch up to her.
	Okay?
	So we're going to space yours out.
	But for the two boys, she gave them all the 18 vaccines or whatever that they were supposed to get caught up.
	All at once.
	Both of them went straight into intensive care.
	One of them got out after about four or five days.
	The other one was in for an extended period of time.
	And the one that was in for an extended period of time now has such severe autism.
	That he can't do anything.
	He's basically turned into a lifetime of dependency because of that.
	So, Cassidy, you want to take a look at that?
	Explain that to us?
	Tell us why we shouldn't look at that?
	He doesn't care.
	What a heartless, cold, sold-to-the-devil person, people like Cassidy and Peter Hotetz and all the rest of these creeps that are out there.
	They don't care what is happening to people.
	And they are adamant that you must not look at any of this stuff.
	And so I guess Dave Walden was going to do it.
	So the Trump administration got rid of him.
	One of the things, and this is from Exposé News, we don't have much time, so I'm not going to get into the continuing resolution stuff today.
	But I did want to talk about this.
	Proteins in vaccines are causing food allergies.
	And we've seen, besides an explosion in autism, we've seen an explosion in food allergies.
	And I've had a couple of situations.
	Not situation.
	I had several different articles in the last few months, just before Christmas and just after Christmas, there have been at least three big product recalls from FDA. And the headline will say, potentially fatal ingredients not listed in this package.
	I was like, what?
	You look at it, and in all these different cases, it was because something in the package had been exposed to milk, and they did not list milk as...
	A normal ingredient.
	It was not a normal ingredient.
	It just had exposure to it.
	And we have known somebody who was the age of our children who had a very severe allergy to milk.
	And they're saying these milk allergies, these peanut allergies, and they're all serious.
	They could kill somebody.
	But they can also, she could also smell something that had milk in it a mile away.
	But, you know, they're recalling these products because there's been some exposure to milk or something in it.
	So why is that there?
	And that is kind of a new thing that we have seen pulling up.
	But this is something that's been known for quite some time.
	This article at Expose says that there was an electronics engineer in Silicon Valley.
	He was motivated to research the relationship between vaccine safety and food allergies after his son developed a life-threatening food allergy and asthma as well.
	And so what he was able to find out with his research is that food proteins that contaminate vaccines can trigger immune sensitization and can drive this epidemic of allergies that we're seeing here.
	And there's also things like, of course, polyethylene glycol, PEG, which was listed in the ingredients, a major component of these.
	MRNA vaccines, and when that was listed there, Children's Health Defense contacted the FDA and said, you're going to put people in anaphylactic shock if you inject them with PEGs.
	And they said, well, we don't care.
	Why don't you call Pfizer?
	That's not my job, right?
	No, that is your job.
	And, of course, Pfizer didn't care either.
	So they did it, and they had a lot of people who got that.
	But the interesting thing about this is that it tends to come not with a first shot, but with a second shot and subsequent.
	That's why the number of shots is very important here.
	But this is something that has been known for a very long time.
	Going back to 1913, Charles Richet, a French physiologist who won the Nobel Prize in medicine in 1913, coined the term anaphylaxis to describe this phenomenon.
	Which he discovered in the early 1900s that injecting a small amount of toxins, such as bacteria or virus, can make people and animals vulnerable to those toxins rather than immune to them.
	You understand?
	It works exactly the opposite of what they're saying.
	Rather than becoming immune to what you get injected with, you become more vulnerable to it.
	You get injected with something that's not even harmful, like a food protein, and you develop an allergy to it.
	It sets off your immune system.
	It can kill you.
	And so he said the components in a vaccine can prime the body for an allergic reaction.
	We know we were never designed to have things injected into us.
	That's why we have skin.
	God gave us skin to keep that from happening.
	Any bacteria or bad things like that, there's a lot of different layers of things that mitigate that.
	You inject something directly into somebody.
	That is very, very important.
	So as he looked at all of this, Charles Ruscha and other people who looked at it.
	Ruscha was also a committed eugenicist.
	And he developed methods of poisoning people by sensitizing them to common substances in their environment.
	So when she realized this, this researcher said, well, maybe vaccines are the most ingenious way of poisoning people.
	I think they are.
	In 2022, they said we published an article detailing testimony in a grand jury of proceedings about this very thing.
	The doctor that was talking about it at that time said, well, what is going to happen is the spike protein is the thing that's going to set off everybody's immune system, and that is exactly what happened.
	But it is now also, and we can see that very easily, but you look at peanut allergies, milk allergies, other things like that.
	These are things that the Silicon Valley electrical engineer, looking at what happened to his child, found.
	In 1911, they discovered that eating a protein before it is injected can give some protection against it.
	That's why it is so dangerous to inject babies who have never experienced this stuff.
	The first time they experience it is via injection.
	They develop an allergy to it.
	We're up against some really insidious evil, aren't we?
	Thank you for joining us.
	Hello, it's me, Volodymyr Zelensky.
	I'm so tired of wearing these same t-shirts everywhere for years.
	You'd think with all the billions I've skimmed off America, I could dress better.
	And I could, if only David Knight would send me one of his beautiful grey MacGuffin hoodies or a new black t-shirt with the MacGuffin logo in blue.
	But...
	He told me to get lost.
	Maybe one of you American suckers can buy me some at thedavidknightshow.com.
	You should be able to buy me several hundred.
	Those amazing sand-colored microphone hoodies are so beautiful.
	I'd wear something other than green military cosplay to my various galas and social events.

▲