Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 20, 2025 - The David Knight Show

03:03:14

Thr Episode #1972: Trump’s Nuclear Gambit, Fed’s Secret Plan, Fiery Chaos of Tesla Vandals

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	It's Thursday, the 20th day of March, year of our Lord 2025.
	As the clock strikes 13 on Airstrip 1, we discuss the issues on the David Knight Show.
	I'm Gardner Goldsmith filling in for David today, and I hope that you are enjoying a beautiful day or night, wherever you are.
	We'll be going from 9 a.m. Eastern Time until Noontime, joined by Jason Sorens, economist and writer, founder of the Free State Project, discussing tariffs today and his work with the American Institute for Economic Research.
	And we'll be joined by Eric Peters of Eric Peters Autos.
	What's going on with the Tesla buyers?
	That and a lot more.
	Join us on The David Knight Show.
	Music
	Well, it's quite a morning here, and I'm gratified to be here with you.
	I'm Gardner Goldsmith, filling in for David on the David Knight Show today, on DLive, on Rumble, on David's X, at Liberty Tarion, and of course, on Odyssey.
	Find us live there.
	Drop your chats inside.
	The Russian team here in our studio in deepest, darkest Siberia, Hampshire, will be able to put your comments up on the X platform.
	And thank you for spreading the word while we're live or watching after the fact or listening to the podcast.
	Great to be here.
	You might know my work from MRCTV and you might know my work from Liberty Conspiracy.
	We go live every Monday through Friday at 6 p.m. on Rumble and on MyX, which is...
	So join us over there and we will expand beyond what we get to talk about here.
	If we run out of time and more issues pop up, we'll see you tonight.
	Thanks for being there, everybody.
	And remember, while I'm here...
	Filling in for David, I want to thank David and his entire family for all of their great help and our guests coming up on the program for their agreement to join us on the program.
	And I want to thank you for being here.
	Really appreciate it.
	I hope your day has been absolutely beautiful as you start things off and we're going to make things even better.
	As I often say on my program, we're going to turn their political frowns upside down and have a great time.
	Let's see what's on tap for the David Knight Show.
	For 3-20-25.
	It's going to be a very, very busy day, and I want to get your opinions.
	What's on tap today, one and all?
	Well, today on the program, and by the way, we get to check our audio.
	Often on my program, I have that graphic as tonight and we play Genesis doing tonight, tonight, tonight.
	That's right.
	Getting into the groove for the day.
	You let me know if the audio is coming through loud and clear for you.
	And already the Russians are talking to me and my Russian propaganda brain chip receiver.
	And they're telling me that we have comments.
	Thank you, gentlemen.
	Vladimir just got off of his bear.
	Put your shirt on, Vladimir.
	You know how it is.
	You can't ride those bears without your shirt on.
	We've got this.
	Great seeing you, G. It's always a pleasure.
	From fellow conspirator, I can't believe, with the chimp in the astronaut suit.
	And he is saying, repost, repost, repost.
	DK all day.
	I like the way you rhyme it.
	And yes, sir!
	And hope Karen's doing better.
	Absolutely.
	We've got so much going on here.
	So many good people involved.
	We've got Karen Carpenter.
	Karen, another Karen.
	Five by five.
	Karen, you rock.
	You are our technical expert.
	One of the many.
	And Martin Thorne.
	Good morning, guard.
	Martin, thank you for following over at Twitter.
	And I just got the opportunity to do so.
	Looking forward to more communication.
	Great to have you along for the ride.
	And Inside Rumble, the whole team is Inside Rumble.
	I almost put a post out today.
	I thought it would be a poll.
	I thought it would be interesting to see what people thought about the possibility that Trump might designate the people who are trying to burn Tesla cars as domestic terror threats.
	Interesting.
	Interesting.
	You let me know what you think about that.
	I'll drop that in, not as a poll, but I'd love to get your opinions if you think it's appropriate or inappropriate for the federal government to be getting involved with that sort of vandalism and possible really dangerous criminal activity with those types of fires.
	We'll talk to Eric Peters about that.
	Birdhouse Blues is in the chat inside Rumble, as well as Risha M. The colors inside Rumble are jumping.
	So thank you, everybody.
	Skip bumps.
	Thank you and shield your eyes.
	And remember, everyone, if you appreciate what I'm putting forward on the program, which I hope to orient sort of like when Walter Williams fills in for Rush Limbaugh, that's the way I try to do Liberty Conspiracy each night.
	I try to take a scholarly approach to the stories by taking the news stories that are breaking and flashing and then breaking them apart so that we can derive from them some very, very evergreen intellectual ammunition, as I often call it.
	Some philosophical information, historical information, knowledge about economics that we wouldn't mind passing on to teenagers who might be learning about some of these principles.
	That's what really gratifies me.
	And if you're gratified as well by what I'm doing here in the program, and of course you're gratified by what David Knight does and the whole Knight family, please consider supporting the David Knight Show.
	It's up to you to consider the donations to David, but you know, that's the way that his show works.
	And it works because of your signals of appreciation.
	So please do so.
	We're going to be shooting for that over at Rumble today.
	They had some problems with Rumble's donations yesterday.
	You can also do it on Zelle.
	Go to thedavidknightshow.com and you can find out all of the areas where you can donate and his address is there.
	And of course, the store is there as well.
	What is on tap?
	Wow, boy, we've got a lot.
	Let me read through this for you if you're just listening in audio.
	First, we're going to open with the newsflash.
	Our newsflash is going to be Trump's mineral deal with Ukraine failing.
	So he proposes U.S. ownership of Ukrainian nuclear plants.
	Yes.
	Then we'll talk another brief conversation about Steve Bannon claiming that Trump will run for a third term.
	I know.
	It's not allowed under the rules of the Constitution.
	He was on with Chris Cuomo, and I have to hand it to Chris Cuomo again.
	He asked some appropriate questions.
	He was very level-headed, and he really seems to have changed a lot of his approach for his demeanor overall.
	In fact, I have to say that, full disclosure, my nephew is one of his producers, Cord, Cord Stanley.
	And if you watch Wings, there was a character named Cord who worked in that airport.
	That was named after my nephew, Cord, who worked in that airport.
	So Cord is one of his producers, and he says he's really nice.
	We'll talk about immigration and the border and the TSA crackdowns wildly expanding.
	We're talking apprehension of people, as we mentioned yesterday at Logan Airport.
	Now more people at Logan Airport.
	A lot of really, really sketchy activity on the part of the U.S. government, which has taken it unto itself and people haven't questioned it.
	The guardianship of the borders and the checking of your documents at the airports.
	They've got a lot of power and they shouldn't.
	We'll talk tariffs.
	Jerome Powell doesn't understand inflation, fiat currency problems, or the poison of tariffs.
	We'll discuss that with Jason Sorens of the American Institute for Economic Research, the man who created the idea of the Free State Project.
	He will be with us in the 10 o 'clock hour.
	So get ready to ask your questions or post your comments about the tariff threat from Donald Trump and what it actually might be.
	We'll discuss war with Fetterman visiting Netanyahu in Israel and receiving not a gold pager, but a silver pager while in Israel and while Israel partitions Gaza again and kills more people.
	Absolutely terrible.
	Terrible stuff.
	And I highly recommend, if you get the opportunity, please watch the antiwar.com news.
	Antiwar news on YouTube.
	Because Dave DeCamp read an email from one of the doctors that he received that described just one of the nights that they had trying to take care of the people who had been devastated by U.S. ordinance that was paid for by our taxes.
	Unbelievable.
	Then we're going to have, of course, we'll have our mind meld with Jason Sorens.
	And in the 11 o 'clock hour, we will talk with Eric Peters of Eric Peters Autos about the burning of the Teslas and another big story that I'm going to discuss right at the start of the show.
	So thank you, everyone, for being with us.
	Let's get started.
	Let's get it started.
	And I see that M.E. Moore has a comment.
	So fun to wake up to the voice of Gard.
	Thank you so much, Emmy.
	Wow, is that a boost.
	I appreciate that very much.
	Gee, that's wonderful.
	That's great.
	I think the cat might think the same thing.
	We'll see.
	If I'm saying the word fish, she seems to like it.
	Let's say the word funky right now and talk about bringing the flashlight.
	It's time for the News Flash, and it's brought to us, of course, by the P-Funk All-Stars and Queen.
	Flash, I'm the Savior of the
	Universe.
	Well, what can we discuss right off the bat real quick as big news flashes?
	In this start of the David Knight Show.
	Okay, we've got so much to discuss.
	First, let's start discussing Donald Trump proposing nuclear plant ownership.
	Yes, Donald Trump proposing nuclear plant ownership.
	I am quite amazed by this, but he is proposing instead of the mineral deal, he's going with...
	I want nuclear plants from Ukraine.
	I don't know what you think about that, but it just seems to me that that isn't in the Constitution for the United States to be owning nuclear plants.
	Maybe there's a different approach to the Constitution that I missed.
	Some portion of the Constitution that is not part of it.
	But you let me know what you think of that.
	I'm going through something here because I think you'll find it interesting.
	Oh, my goodness.
	Just unbelievable.
	Trump eyes Ukraine power plants.
	Here's U.S. news on this one.
	I had a couple options.
	I went with this instead.
	This I think you'll find quite amazing.
	All right.
	Here it is.
	U.S. could run Ukraine's nuclear plants.
	Yeah, if...
	Oh, sorry, we're getting a pop-up there.
	We don't need this, so I'll go back.
	Okay, so we'll just get this.
	Yes, U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright said the United States could step in to run Ukrainian nuclear plants if that was helpful to ensure a ceasefire and bring peace to the war between Ukraine and Russia.
	Yeah, honestly.
	Is that serious?
	Donald Trump suggested it during a phone call Wednesday that the U.S. could possibly run Ukraine's nuclear plants, according to a statement.
	I'm throwing it out there.
	I just want to let you know that if anyone would like to get involved with nuclear plant work...
	Oh, it looks like something's happened here.
	Hold on a second.
	Okay.
	Yes, we definitely have run into something.
	So hold on a second.
	We're going to go with this.
	with this.
	We're going to go with this.
	It's your move.
	And now, The David Knight Show.
	All right.
	That's a little better.
	Quick recovery.
	I like that.
	It's like the Bon Jovi recovery.
	Had to do some quick movements there.
	Thank you to the production team as the browser got hung up.
	Thank you also to David for creating that great music and putting that in there with the footage from the Patriot.
	Wonderful music from John Williams.
	So just to quickly offer this just briefly, we're going to go with the UPI one rather than having the website that hangs up the browser.
	Trump floats plan to protect Ukraine's besieged power plants through U.S. ownership.
	So we know that this ceasefire that they've got is an agreement for a ceasefire against energy provision.
	sectors of Ukraine and Russia.
	That has led to the European Union agreeing to buy $2 billion worth of liquefied natural gas from the Russians because they think maybe it might be safe to get it, and they need it because they've been blocking it for so much.
	The people who live in Europe are starving for energy, and they've been buying it with a 20% added cost from India, coming in directly from Russia into India.
	Now Donald Trump...
	Of course, because he swears an oath to the Constitution, floats a plan to protect Ukraine's besieged power plants through U.S. ownership.
	Yeah, yeah, that's right.
	President Trump said the United States could take over Ukraine's embattled electric power plants, at least one of which is controlled by Russian forces, saying American ownership would be the best protection for that infrastructure and support for Ukrainian energy infrastructure.
	Okay, thank you for repeating infrastructure a couple times there, Donald.
	You know what the infrastructure of the United States government is?
	The U.S. Constitution, Donald.
	I don't know if you're familiar with it.
	Trump made the offer in an hour-long call with President Vladimir Zelensky on Wednesday to brief him on discussions he had with Russian counterpart Putin, referring to both electrical supply and nuclear power plants in Ukraine as part of a discussion.
	on a partial ceasefire covering energy infrastructure that Ukraine and Russia agreed to.
	Trump said the United States could be very helpful in running those plants with its electricity and utility expertise.
	Here's an idea, Donald.
	If people want to provide electricity to people, then what they can do is start up private businesses.
	They can get liability.
	Coverage from insurance companies for whatever practice they're doing in case they damage or threaten to damage the property or lives of people around them.
	And then we get an idea of how safe or unsafe that energy source might be.
	You don't come up with canards of things like the climate apocalypse.
	And you also don't subsidize through government things like nuclear plants.
	Maybe private initiative.
	Actually reflects what people want.
	I don't necessarily want to be having to pay to guard nuclear plants in Ukraine or to run them.
	But I guess, as they always tell us, it must be for national security.
	Kind of like banning TikTok.
	Oh my goodness.
	Well, that is one that he's pushing.
	It might be something that they move towards.
	Maybe they think it's innocuous or something like that.
	But as we know, the Zaporizhia nuclear plant was hit numerous times, to use the passive voice.
	The Ukrainians hit the Zaporizhia nuclear plant numerous, numerous times.
	And that has settlements all around it.
	They also took out the dam for the reservoir.
	That's typically used for the main water resource for that nuclear plant.
	This is the Ukrainians.
	So maybe practically speaking, it might be better for Americans to run the nuclear plant.
	They show such terrible disrespect to the idea of nuclear power in Ukraine.
	Maybe when the war is all over, they'll change things.
	But there's something else I'd like to discuss, and that has to do with energy as well.
	And for that, I'd like to play you a little theme.
	From the movie Cat People, here is putting out fire with gasoline.
	We're talking pipelines.
	Ah!
	David Boy did produce some great music, and that Little Drummer Boy version that he did with Bing Crosby is really something.
	And I've got to say, evidently, a lot of the material that he put into that song he wrote just before appearing there.
	And Bing Crosby wasn't too pleased to have David Boy on the show, and it turned out that having David Boy there was the key.
	But let's discuss the latest about Greenpeace and...
	You got it.
	Pipeline protests.
	Remember back in 2019, as the Standing Rock Sioux and others went to North Dakota and actually near the Canadian border, they protested the Canadian government,
	United States government, trying to run the pipeline over Indian land.
	Well, a court has just spoken.
	A jury in North Dakota has found Greenpeace liable for $650 million in damages.
	And I gotta say, I think Emmy Moore's question, I'll read this out loud.
	Does that mean that we would have to have troops on the ground to protect those nuclear plants?
	I think you're probably right, M.E., absolutely.
	And I want to thank also Save the Truth for being there with that great picture of Julian Assange from X. Thank you.
	First time tuning in.
	Sounded great so far.
	And thank you for your support of a good man, Julian Assange.
	Well, let's get to this story for you just real quick in the newsflash.
	A jury in North Dakota found Greenpeace liable.
	For $650 million in damages for its role in the protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline.
	In 2019, Energy Transfer Partners sued the Environmental Rights Organization for orchestrating a large protest against the pipeline's construction, which cost the company hundreds of millions of dollars in property damage and lost revenue.
	But here's the thing.
	They didn't buy all that property.
	They got some of that property through eminent domain.
	Now, some people can say, well, eminent domain is provided for in the Constitution.
	Again, this is a twist on eminent domain, based on the Kelo decision from Connecticut, where the new London government wanted to take people's land, like Mrs. Kelo, and give it to Pfizer.
	So that they could build a manufacturing plant there because they said it was for the greater good, of course, consequentialism.
	Your individual rights don't matter.
	They can get crushed for the greater good of the group that the government will describe, and they will give the land to a big corporation because that will provide the city with more property tax revenue.
	So therefore, they say it's for the greater good because they'll be able to spend it for the government.
	Ideas that they say are for the greater good.
	It all washes.
	It all washes.
	It's wonderful.
	So in Kilo, they changed the already pernicious concept.
	That the government can take your property through eminent domain and keep it for a highway or something like that, that generally people often mistakenly think is acceptable.
	It's not acceptable.
	It's theft.
	And it doesn't matter what the government argument is, whether it's for a highway or anything else.
	If they are telling you they're going to take your land, it doesn't matter the rationale.
	They're engaging in theft.
	The outcome doesn't matter.
	However many people think the outcome is laudable.
	Again, doesn't matter.
	It's immoral to take somebody's stuff or harm them or tell them how to run their life.
	It's immoral.
	So they did that in Kelo, and thanks to David Souter, a George H.W. Bush appointee to the Supreme Court who lives in New Hampshire, or lived, David Souter was the swing vote.
	They decided, yes, it's perfectly fine for...
	The New London government to take that property.
	Some of this property for the Dakota Access Pipeline was taken by the government and given to this Energy Transfer Partners group in 2019.
	Some of that land, in fact, vast portions of North Dakota, South Dakota, Illinois, and Ohio are actually supposed to, and parts of Michigan, are actually supposed to be Indian land.
	And virtually every treaty that the United States government, and you can check out videos from Russell Means where he talks about this, read his book, Where Might White Man Fear to Tread.
	Russell Means described it.
	Virtually every treaty that the United States government has signed with the Indians, they have broken.
	And yes, this is, I think, an example of long-term, centuries-old wrongdoing.
	You can see the teepees that were put up in the protest area.
	And as they say here, as the energy company tried to build the massive pipeline, it was met with fierce resistance from the Standing Rock Sioux and other groups.
	Why?
	Why?
	Do they describe that?
	Not really.
	Now, they don't really go into detail here.
	It's not just sacred tribal grounds.
	We're talking sacred burial grounds.
	We're talking property that is supposed to belong to them under numerous treaties.
	They don't mention the treaties that were broken.
	They just say they claimed this.
	Now, I understand that a jury heard this.
	But the jury comes from that area, so who knows what the jury's stance might be.
	In 2016 and 2017, thousands of people gathered near the Standing Rock Sioux reservation to protest against the construction.
	The protesters set up camps and worked to halt the construction.
	While mostly peaceful, the protesters did commit several acts of vandalism, causing damage to the pipeline.
	In September 2016, the protesters were involved in a clash with security forces when they tried to stop construction on a sacred site.
	Well, how did they get the land?
	Whose land is it?
	Again, these are long-term problems in American history.
	And don't forget, anybody who wonders about this, if you remember hearing about the Indian boarding schools and how they said that they had found bones near an Indian boarding school in Canada and so on, that does not...
	The fact that that was a false story, that does not...
	Take away from the validity of the fact that thousands of Indian children were kidnapped from their tribes and their families and brought to these boarding schools in Northern America and Southern Canada.
	They were forbidden from speaking their own language.
	You can see a very good movie that Peter Coyote hosts.
	It's a documentary.
	And it is all about, I think it's called something like, We Cannot Speak the Names of Our Gods or something like that.
	Because they came out of those things completely disconnected from their own native cultures.
	And you can see these people crying about what was done to them as kids.
	I mean, they were tortured.
	It's terrible.
	Greenpeace senior legal analyst Deepa Padmanaba was asked if the nonprofit would appeal the verdict, and she stated, we know that this fight is not over.
	That's the really important message today, she added, and we're just walking out and we're going to get together and figure out what our next steps are.
	We'll discuss that with Eric Peters.
	Obviously, many Americans want energy, and the Trump administration seems to be much more inclined to help.
	Provide that energy or at least lift many of the restrictions that the Biden administration put on in its very first week, closing off oil exploration in Anwar, reversing agreements that many of the oil exploration and recovery companies had made with the federal government in places like Anwar.
	But the federal control over those places or any government involvement in anything like this...
	Already sullies it with unconstitutional claims of ownership of land in places like ANWR or water regions like the Gulf that's not in the Constitution.
	And if you get this sort of thing traveling through multiple states, someone might say, well, this is a federal purview.
	The feds ought to be involved with this somehow.
	This is supposed to be a private company trying to go through private land.
	If I wanted to build a private road, I shouldn't be able to turn to the government.
	And this is unfortunately the way that roads got corrupted.
	Originally, they were done privately.
	And then after a while, people who built roads started to realize that if they had friends in government, they wouldn't have to go privately to the people who own the land and say, I'd like to buy your land or make a swap.
	They could go to the government and get the government to take the land with eminent domain and then give them the work project to build the roads.
	If I wanted to build a road, I would have to privately go to every person and ask them and try to incentivize them.
	Can I rent a portion of your property?
	Can I buy a portion of your property?
	There's no excuse to say I know what the greater good is and therefore I don't have to engage in that sort of thing to start up my business.
	If I wanted any other resource for my business, say building wooden furniture.
	I couldn't just go to somebody who had a bunch of woods and say, I'm going to take your land through eminent domain.
	I couldn't get the government to take your land because I think it's for the greater good.
	I'm going to build furniture for schools or something.
	It would be my business.
	I'd have to engage in that sort of business activity.
	And if you didn't like it, you have a right to say no.
	Why do you not have a right to say no?
	Why do the Indians not have a right on their ancestral land that should be theirs?
	Why do they not have a right?
	To say, no, thank you.
	No, thank you.
	We'd rather do other things.
	I don't understand it.
	It doesn't make any sense to me.
	But, you know, the United States encroaches in many areas where they're not supposed to be encroaching.
	So let's talk a little bit now about one of the major areas.
	As I discussed on our billboard, this is a big one, and it is very worrisome.
	The federal government claim of control over immigration.
	As I stated yesterday in the program, the word does not appear in the U.S. Constitution.
	And already we're seeing many people's civil liberties being crushed.
	We're going to review a couple of those cases from yesterday, give you some updates on those, and look at even more egregious examples of wrongdoing by the government regarding people's privacy at airports and even jailing people for weeks and not allowing them to go home because they didn't have the right papers.
	Let's hear from Walla Voodoo and talk about immigration.
	I feel a hot word on my shoulder and the touch of the world and I leave it on when in bed I slumber.
	I hear the ribbons of the music.
	I buy the product and they never use it.
	I hear the talking of the DJ.
	Can I understand just what does he say?
	I'm on a Mexican radio.
	I'm on a Mexican radio
	Thank you, Walla Voodoo.
	And it's not just necessarily Mexican.
	Also, Save the Truth has a couple great comments here.
	Talking about Julian Assange, I assume.
	Thank you, Russians.
	Love that man.
	Truly gave up so much of his life to bring us...
	The truth, brother.
	Absolutely.
	And he mentions, yeah, what happened to the natives in Canada is beyond belief.
	Absolutely right.
	And it wasn't, you know, with the boarding schools, it was both the northern section of the United States.
	We're talking Michigan, Illinois, and southern Canada.
	And again, you know, what they did to the Native Indians in Canada and are still doing.
	I mean, you know, I think a perfect example of that, my friend, would be the trampling of that Native Canadian woman by Justin Trudeau's gangland thugs when the truckers were protesting.
	Remember how she was walking with a walker and they just ran right over her.
	Just incredible.
	Unbelievable.
	So let's discuss...
	This mixture of the deportation sentiment with the anti-Semitism sentiment and even now, the federal government is using just an expression of dislike for Donald Trump,
	get this, as dispositive for allowing you to be in the country.
	Seriously.
	So first, let's talk about this.
	This is a review of a story that actually comes from here in New Hampshire.
	And this is the new congresswoman, Jake Sullivan's wife, actually.
	She is discussing this one, and she's actually on the right track.
	I've got to hand it to her.
	This is Goodlander, and she's talking about the man we mentioned yesterday, Fabian Schmidt.
	A German national from Nashua, New Hampshire, which literally is where I'm going to be later today.
	A member of New Hampshire's congressional delegation is calling on immigration officials to share information about a German national from Nashua who was taken into custody by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement earlier this month.
	U.S. Representative Maggie Goodlander, Jake Sullivan's wife, I know.
	She is concerned about Fabian Schmidt, 34, a green card holder who was detained at Boston Logan Airport on March 7th after returning from Luxembourg.
	Remember, this is the man who said that they shot him with cold water.
	They kept him there without any contact to anyone, an attorney, his family, no one.
	Schmidt's family said he has been living in the United States since he was a teenager.
	They said he was violently interrogated when he was detained by the immigration people who aren't supposed to be there.
	But Tuesday night, Customs and Border Protection officials pushed back on those claims, saying it didn't happen.
	The agency said when an individual is found with drug-related charges and tries to reenter the country, officers will take proper action.
	Well, what does that mean?
	That was never part of the story.
	Well, here's the rest of it.
	California court records show several misdemeanor cases for Schmidt, including one in which he was charged with having a controlled substance in 2015.
	He was also charged with DUI in 2016.
	Was he convicted?
	Did he plead out?
	We don't know.
	Goodlander, who represents Nashua, and why is, again, why is that dispositive?
	That would mean a lot of Americans couldn't come back in.
	Goodlander, who represents Nashua, said Schmidt is entitled to an immigration hearing.
	Quote, I've been very disturbed by the reports that I've read about this case, she said.
	We have been in close communication with this family and we are trying to work to get as much information as we can and to support in every way and to offer support in every way that we can in this situation.
	It's unclear when or if a hearing will be held for Schmidt.
	They might deport this man.
	And the news station has tried to contact his lawyers, but they haven't heard back.
	That's WMUR, which is the only network news affiliate that we have.
	Unbelievable.
	Now, don't forget the Canadian woman who was held for two weeks, talking about Canada.
	Canadian detained by ICE for two weeks tells her story.
	So now we get to discuss this more on today's David Knight program.
	A Canadian woman's routine visa check turned into a two-week nightmare when Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers suddenly detained her.
	And I know this post, as I mentioned.
	I know exactly where this is.
	I passed through it numerous times when I worked in television in Vancouver.
	The ICE officer suddenly detained her without explanation, sending her through multiple detention facilities in shackles, despite having no criminal record and...
	As she writes in The Guardian, Jasmine Mooney, a businesswoman and actress from Vancouver, was detained at a San Diego border office while discussing her previously approved work visa.
	I was in an immigration office talking to an officer about my work visa.
	The next I was told to put my hands against the wall.
	What followed was a harrowing journey through America's immigration detention system.
	Mooney was held in freezing cells under constant fluorescent lights, given mylar foil for blankets, and transferred between facilities and chains.
	Despite having lawyers, media attention, and resources advocating for her release, she remained detained without clear answers about when she would be charged.
	Quote, 30 of us shared one room.
	Well, that's a great way to keep people healthy.
	We were given one styrofoam cup of water and one plastic spoon that we had to reuse for every meal.
	I eventually had to start trying to eat, and sure enough, I got sick.
	None of the uniforms fit, and everyone had men's shoes on.
	The towels they gave us to shower with.
	We're hand towels.
	They wouldn't give us more blankets.
	The fluorescent lights, shininess, 24-7.
	Everything felt like it was meant to break you.
	Nothing was explained to us.
	I wasn't given a phone call.
	We were locked in a room, no daylight, with no idea when we would get out.
	This is zero due process.
	And as I read from Jacob Hornberger, due process...
	Is supposed to be provided to anyone, anyone who is apprehended by any agency of any level of government in the United States.
	The experience opened our eyes to a larger systemic issue.
	The detention centers are run by private companies that profit from detaining immigrants.
	CoreCivic made over $560 million, I wonder who they know, from ICE contracts in one year.
	While GEO Group earned more than $763 million in 2024.
	Amazing.
	Mooney writes, ICE detention isn't just a bureaucratic nightmare, it's a business.
	These facilities are privately owned and run for profit.
	So in other words, we've got fascism again.
	Because they're really run by the feds and the profit goes to the private companies.
	Now there's more.
	There's more.
	Another woman hassled at Puerto Rico because, as they said in ICE, you fit the description.
	Here we go.
	San Juan, Puerto Rico.
	What was supposed to be a peaceful return home from a lover's getaway in Puerto Rico turned into a humiliating encounter with Immigration and Customs Enforcement for Ileana Pacheco.
	A U.S. citizen and registered nurse from New Jersey.
	In a viral Facebook post, Pacheco recounted being asked about her citizenship status by an ICE agent after passing a TSA checkpoint with her boyfriend inside the Louis Munoz Moran International Airport just after Valentine's Day.
	He asked to see my ID, which I was confused about because I had just had my photo scanned and ID verified.
	Pacheco wrote.
	He asked me, what's your status in the U.S.?
	I said, citizen, why?
	He said, I need to verify that.
	Give me your passport.
	And you can see here, I was detained by ICE at the airport in Puerto Rico.
	I thought it was a TSA agent asking me about my bag, given the fact that they were right by the TSA.
	He asked to see my ID, which I was confused, as she said, because I had just had my photo scanned and ID verified.
	He asked me, what's your status?
	He said, I need to verify that.
	Give me your passport.
	I'm looking at him like, WTF?
	What are you detaining me for?
	He said, you fit the description.
	I'm like...
	What description?
	I give him my passport and he said, always carry your passport.
	So I go to the other ICE agent next to him and ask, what description?
	He said, you fit the description of someone who is not documented.
	Papers?
	I'm like, so what about the people who look American?
	They don't get stopped, right?
	He said, no.
	If you look undocumented, you will be detained.
	So yeah.
	She says, criminal or not, they will detain any person of color.
	This was an awful experience.
	I'm still in disbelief.
	LOL.
	The Back Wall Street Times reached out to ICE's media office to ask if it was aware of this incident and whether the agency trains its agents to avoid racially profiling people.
	We must refer you to U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
	And don't forget, of course, that it shouldn't matter whether people are upset about the rationale that the government is using to stop people.
	It's that the government is stopping people.
	And it's about something else that often goes unseen.
	When we think about what is seen and what is not seen, whether we're thinking about it from the Bible or we're thinking about it from Frederick Bastier's great broken window parable, what is not seen is the force that is applied to you to pay for those agents' salaries and for that system,
	and what is not discussed, again, is the fact that none of it should exist in a constitutionally functioning United States.
	Because it is not a United States purview.
	Now, the only way that you could say that it could exist in Puerto Rico is if you say it's a territory, which technically is very fuzzy regarding Puerto Rico.
	So if you were to say it's a territory, then the feds can set up the rules inside the territory.
	But for the states, when they enter the union, first, they're not supposed to have to cede land.
	To the federal government, which David Knight described very well when he visited Bundy Ranch, that land was not supposed to be taken over by the Interior Department of the United States government.
	And even if states try to give the land to the federal government, there's nothing in the U.S. Constitution that allows the federal government to run the land.
	So national parks, national monuments, nothing.
	If the government aggressively tries to take it, or if it is...
	Blessed in a gift to the federal government, the federal government is only allowed in the Constitution to run three types of land.
	Territories, military garrisons, and a 10 square mile area for the Capitol to exist, which they chose to be D.C. That's it.
	Unless they amend their wonderful rule book, which is forced on you, by the way, I'll mention that again, there is no ethical claim that the Constitution has any authority over anyone who is a civilian.
	That is a completely erroneous statement.
	And it's logically provable.
	So the U.S. Constitution doesn't allow for all of that park stuff, for any of the ANWR stuff, any of the Gulf stuff.
	And then we bring it into the possibility that you could put some sort of guards in Puerto Rico.
	Well, I think the people in Puerto Rico, if they discovered...
	And there were a private company that were handling security for their airports.
	If they discovered that a private security company, which was not taking people's money, if you had private initiative with private tour groups and businesses that relied, and people whose businesses relied on tourism for a major portion of their money,
	they would treat people a heck of a lot better than ICE does.
	That's for darn sure.
	They wouldn't be patting people down contrary to the Fourth Amendment every minute of the day.
	They wouldn't be forcing people to answer questions contrary to the Fifth Amendment every day.
	They wouldn't do that.
	The existence of ICE is a giant insult to you and to anybody else who believes in the integrity of what they tell you they're going to swear to uphold, the U.S. Constitution.
	And that's just a basic standard.
	It stands in ultra-contradistinction to the United States Constitution.
	It's inarguable.
	Immigration Customs Enforcement, the Border Patrol, the people that they put in the TSA, all of them.
	None of them are sanctioned by the Constitution.
	And this is what you get.
	You get people held for weeks inside ICE detention facilities.
	You get people saying you fit the profile, some sort of racial statement.
	And you get a Georgetown figure.
	And don't forget the Brown University doctor.
	We'll talk about her.
	Here's the latest insult.
	New.
	DHS has confirmed the arrest of Badar Khansuri.
	An Indian student from Georgetown.
	You decide, America.
	Deport or keep.
	Now, actually, as Tom Holman writes, Mr. Borders are, it's not you decide, America.
	It's America should not be somehow measured through the government.
	And then everybody, regardless of whether they agree or disagree, will have their money taken to pay your salary, Tom.
	U.S. border czar should not be working for the federal government.
	If you wanted to get a job with Texas under a constitutional system, you could work for Texas because they put a Bureau of Immigration in their state constitution in 1869.
	There's no such thing in the federal constitution.
	And I would challenge Tom Holman.
	This is an open challenge to Tom Holman.
	I'll appear anywhere on stage with you, Tom Holman.
	You tell me where the word immigration appears in the U.S. Constitution.
	And if you can't, I will ask you to send $1,000 to a pro-immigration charity.
	How's that?
	How's that?
	I'll ask you to pay the legal fees of one of the people you're trying to deport.
	You, personally.
	How's that?
	That's just an open challenge to you, Tom Holman.
	We'll have a debate.
	And if I lose, I'll send $1,000 to the charity of your choice.
	How's that?
	Does that sound good?
	Maybe I'll get it from Rockfin.
	Here's more.
	He has been spreading anti-American propaganda.
	Well, of course, you must deport.
	And he has ties to a known senior advisor to Hamas.
	You mean the same way the United States has ties to the Hamas leadership in Qatar because they gave them millions of dollars?
	And they started to do that under George W. Bush, and Benjamin Netanyahu does too.
	Are you going to deport Benjamin Netanyahu?
	DHS will deport him the same way as Mahmoud Khalil.
	In other words, without any constitutional authority to do so.
	I see.
	Mahmoud Khalil, taken away without any due process.
	Well, as Marco Rubio says, he has a green card.
	Tell me where in the Constitution there's the power for the green card.
	Well, it's the Alien Enemies Act.
	The Alien Enemies Act only applies when the United States Congress has declared war, with a capital W. You're going to send these people to Guantanamo.
	I know why you're going to send many of them, not all of them, to Guantanamo.
	Because you think that you don't have to give them habeas corpus hearings at Guantanamo.
	Yeah, I wrote about that in 2007.
	Yeah, I wrote about it.
	Oh, and by the way, there's one more.
	A French student.
	U.S. deports French scientists after officials find texts critical of Donald Trump.
	A French scientist was denied entry to the U.S. after immigration officials found text messages that were critical of Donald Trump that they said could be considered to be terrorism.
	Is this a direct threat against an individual?
	No.
	The idea that government exists to protect you, they will define what your protection is.
	They'll define the word terrorist threat, and you could become one of those.
	The researcher, who has not been named, was on his way to a conference in Houston, Texas, when officers pulled him aside for a random check and searched his work computer and personal phone, the French newspaper Le Monde reported.
	A diplomatic source cited by AFP said that the messages related to the Trump administration's treatment of scientists and scientific research.
	Is there any threat that you're going to bring physical harm?
	What exactly is terrorism?
	During the search, officers rebuked him for messages, quote, which conveyed a hatred toward Trump and could be considered to be terrorism.
	The same source claimed that, oh, another source said that the officers
	the messages were hateful and,
	The FBI then opened an investigation into the researchers.
	Is that like the investigation of parents going to schools because they were concerned about LGBTQ?
	If you just switch out the names of the presidents and the rationales...
	Without any real direct charges of criminal threatening against a person, these are all just amorphous, nonsensical charges that they use to miss people and then intimidate other people.
	The incident occurred on March 9th.
	The researcher was sent back to Europe the following day after authorities confiscated his personal and professional equipment.
	The French government condemned U.S. authorities' decision to deport the researcher.
	And then, of course, we have...
	Brown University.
	The Brown University doctor, don't forget, who is supposed to be visiting with her patients, but she's not able to.
	Here's WCVB, that same television station we were describing, with the story about the French Brown University professor.
	Yeah, well, the administration is celebrating tonight because they say she admitted to openly supporting someone they describe as a brutal terrorist.
	But here today, people who know her say that she's just a doctor working to serve thousands of patients here in Rhode Island and in southeastern Massachusetts.
	Hands off our doctors now!
	Tonight, hundreds of protesters gathering on the steps of the Statehouse in Providence in support of Dr. Rasha Alawi and against her removal from the country.
	This was a racist political attack on her culture, nationality, and religion.
	Shame!
	The Brown University professor was detained by federal agents when arriving at Logan Airport Thursday after visiting her family in Lebanon.
	Customs and Border Protection questioned Allawi, who admitted she attended the funeral of Hassan Nasrullah.
	A Hezbollah leader the U.S. calls a brutal terrorist.
	Agents also found photos of Nasrullah on her phone.
	Tonight, the White House posting this photo on social media, accompanied with a statement from Homeland Security saying, quote, Glorf.
	Ah, we get a little commercial from Thrift Books.
	Hold on.
	It's always expanding and supporting terrorists who kill Americans is grounds for visa issuance to be denied.
	This is common sense security.
	Our client's in Lebanon and we're not going to stop fighting.
	We're going to try to get her back in the U.S. to see her patients where she should be treating her patients.
	Allawi is a kidney specialist at Brown Medicine.
	The director of the Organ Transplant Division at Brown attended the rally tonight.
	Rasha is the sweetest person.
	We have never had an issue with her in any way.
	She's an outstanding physician, outstanding person.
	She's a pleasure to work with, and we were horrified by this entire event.
	Well, now a federal judge in Boston ordered immigration officials not to move Alaoui, but Customs and Border Protection say they didn't get that order until she was already on the flight back to Lebanon.
	By the way, two of her attorneys today dismissed themselves.
	They were originally representing her.
	They withdrew from this case.
	We're live here in Providence, Rhode Island.
	I'm Peter Leopolis, WC.
	Unbelievable.
	Unbelievable.
	Again, that's Matt Taibbi's dad worked for WCBB.
	His father's name is Mike.
	And so those are some of the quick takes on some of the news.
	And I'll give you one final one when it comes to freedom of speech.
	Let's talk about the difference between how contemporary people view the First Amendment.
	Not talking about immigration.
	Of course, that woman, the professor from Brown, medical doctor, she has patients.
	They're waiting to see her.
	And all she did was attend a funeral.
	A funeral for a man who was assassinated by the Israelis, probably with firearms provided by the United States government.
	Nasrali.
	But let's discuss one final bit.
	Oh, and thank you so much, Save the Truth, says exactly, Gardner.
	I appreciate that.
	Absolutely.
	Thank you so much.
	Let's talk a little bit about freedom of speech, because I want to give you one thing.
	If these people are speaking, then they have a right to speak.
	They have a right to protest, regardless of whether they're Americans or they're foreigners.
	The First Amendment says Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.
	Congress.
	But I want to give you an example in scholarship of what's been lost in the United States, which I often bring up for my MRCTV articles.
	Just, as I say, I might not ever win anything inside a political, legislative arena.
	To change some policy.
	But I feel great satisfaction in thinking that I've been able to express a truth, offer some scholarship, some history, and some principles to people that they might find valuable too.
	And maybe they might want to talk to their kids about those things.
	I feel good speaking up for what I think I've derived to be.
	Pretty good information and truth.
	Fighting against the bad guys.
	You know?
	That's fine with me.
	That's cool.
	Let's talk about a very interesting and I think very important thing to remember when it comes to freedom of speech and the First Amendment.
	And for that, I want to turn to a little theme.
	We're going to go with a theme from Tears for Fears because this is about free speech.
	Here we go.
	Remember this song?
	I remember it.
	Shout, shout, let it all out.
	These are the things I can do without.
	Come on, I'm talking to you.
	Come on.
	Shout, shout, let it all out.
	These are the things I can do without.
	Come on, I'm talking to you.
	Come on.
	Involent times, you shouldn't have to sell your soul.
	Feel it.
	As I mentioned, beautiful footage shot for that video.
	Tears for Fears, they were never really my cup of tea when I was younger, but I got to see them open for Hall& Oates, and they were phenomenal.
	Absolutely great.
	So if you ever get a chance, hats off to the guys from Tears for Fears, still together, still friends.
	And really fantastic live.
	Wonderful with the crowd.
	And that song's a terrific one, especially if we're talking about the First Amendment, free speech.
	Of course, your rights precede the creation of the state.
	And philosophically, I want to mention, of course, that you have a right to speech.
	Words don't bring direct harm to someone else unless they are fraudulent, and then through common law torts from ancient British tradition or other European tradition, you should be able, if you feel that you've been harmed by someone lying about you, you should be able to bring a tortious claim against someone for defamation,
	slander, and go in front of a jury of your peers and have it heard out to get some sort of remuneration, to get it fixed by the person who might have wronged you.
	The United States government Is forbidden.
	Congress shall make no law, abridging the freedom of speech.
	And what's interesting here is there's a story that I want to offer to you that actually allows us to learn a little bit about the difference between what people perceive to be the First Amendment and what actually is in the First Amendment.
	Remember the story about this film, No Other Land, which won an Oscar.
	It's about...
	The Palestinian plight.
	And it got grave reviews.
	Well, there was an attempt to use the passive voice.
	The Miami Beach mayor, to use the active voice, attempted to ban the film from being screened in Florida, in that area.
	Well, now he has backed off.
	The attempt to retaliate against a cinema for screening a documentary on the Israeli-Palestine conflict drew national condemnation from civil rights groups and filmmakers.
	Okay, so Stephen Minor polled a proposed resolution that he introduced last week, and that was reported by the Miami Herald.
	Great stuff!
	From the Miami Herald.
	Fantastic to see that report.
	No other land can be shown.
	But I wanted to bring this up as a little leverage point to round off the hour and the David Knight Show.
	Because one of the things I always try to stress to students when I'm talking political economics or the U.S. Constitution, if I'm doing a section on that, is again, the wording of the First Amendment is that Congress shall make no law.
	It was understood in the United States that that was clearly only Congress.
	And states had speech codes right up until after the Civil War, during the Reconstruction period.
	Pennsylvania had religious schools that were funded by the state.
	New Hampshire, again, if you go to the second section of the New Hampshire Constitution, it still provides the state the power to give money to seminaries in addition to handing money to public schools or to scientific projects.
	Maine has a similar thing in its constitution.
	This has been around for a long time.
	Speech codes, local speech codes, they still have a vestigial reference to that in the FCC.
	When the FCC finds people, ostensibly they call them, what do they call them?
	You have broken local values or something like that.
	They still make a reference to something about local.
	But they're created by the FCC.
	And they're the rules created by the FCC.
	So the clear distinction that I want to bring up is actually where to check to find out whether this is statutorily, I should say, constitutionally acceptable.
	Sentimentally is one thing.
	The right to be able to show something to other people, government should not infringe on that in any way.
	I don't...
	Philosophically agree with even allowing the states to infringe on freedom of speech.
	But the founders...
	Left it to the states.
	So the key is you have to look at the state constitutions.
	Now, it just so happens that Florida does have a protection for free speech there.
	So this is one of the things, if you see any of these cases that are ever brought against state or local entities, the governmental entities for free speech cases, please keep in mind that it actually is not supposed to be leveraged off of the First Amendment.
	The focus there, for a little extra scholarship, a couple extra seconds, is to look at the state constitution and see what the state constitution says.
	That's a good reminder to remind oneself about the federalist concept, even though I don't like the idea of states maybe having speech codes.
	They call them community values or something like that in the FCC.
	Community standards, that's it.
	But the FCC makes them up for the communities.
	You know, it's totally Orwellian.
	So that's just...
	That's something to keep in mind.
	And if you ever hear, to close it off, if you ever hear people discuss something called the incorporation doctrine in legal jurisprudence, to be sort of redundant, constitutional jurisprudence, the incorporation doctrine is just a judicial tradition amongst judges.
	Where they claim that after the Civil War, the 14th Amendment forced the states to incorporate the Bill of Rights into their state constitutions.
	So I always bring up two points about that when I'm, you know, talking to students or anything like that, having conversations with them.
	First of all, that's not the case.
	It didn't necessarily do that.
	And second of all, even if that were the case, the states didn't adopt them and put them all in.
	If the states did, word for word, adopt the First Amendment of the Constitution, it still says Congress shall make no law.
	So there wouldn't be any change.
	They would just be acknowledging in a superfluous manner, yes, Congress shall make no law.
	So I figured I'd bring that up to you just in case.
	If this is a good leverage point, a little flashpoint with this story, no other land to remember that lesson, I'll feel like I've done something worthwhile.
	So, you know what?
	It's time for everybody.
	In just a second, we're going to be talking about tariffs, and we're going to be hearing from none other than Jason Sorens.
	Jason Sorens, great man on economics, and a man who understands the value of money and trade.
	Here's a little reference to that.
	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.
	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 to The David Knight Show.
	Well, great stuff.
	Let's get a little introduction to our topic by turning to the Chairman of the Fed, Mr. Powell.
	Because Mr. Powell was asked a question at a news conference that is pretty valuable.
	And he didn't exactly answer it the way that would have brought me great satisfaction.
	It's about the tariff influence on prices.
	But they use the word inflation, unfortunately.
	We know that inflation is actually the inflation of the money supply that leads to price increases.
	Let's hear about the price increases, but they use the term inflation.
	How much of the higher inflation forecast for this year is due to tariffs?
	And since the policy path remains the same, are you effectively reading this as a one-time price level shock?
	Okay, so how much of it is tariff?
	So let me say that it is going to be very difficult to have a precise assessment of how much of inflation is coming from tariffs and from other.
	And that's already the case.
	You may have seen that goods inflation moved up pretty significantly in the first two months of the year.
	Trying to track that back.
	To actual tariff increases, given what was tariff and what was not, very, very challenging.
	So some of it.
	The answer is clearly some of it.
	A good part of it is coming from tariffs.
	But we'll be working, and so will other forecasters, to try to find the best possible way to separate non-tariff inflation from tariff inflation.
	Okay.
	Well, all right.
	So it contributes because it's a tax.
	It is a tax that is steering behavior, and it is a tax that is taking away people's opportunity to get more for their efforts.
	That's not good.
	Let's turn now to a person who knows a great deal about that, and he is our guest on The David Knight Show.
	He is Jason Sorens.
	Jason Sorens, a friend of mine, a friend of New Hampshire, the man who came up with the idea of the Free State Project, and he has been doing great work with the American Institute for Economic Research, AIER, in Great Barrington,
	Massachusetts.
	Jason, welcome to The David Knight Show, and thank you for that couple-minute wait there as I sort of queued up this story.
	You've been doing a lot of work talking about tariffs.
	You've been appearing on television.
	I had the opportunity to play a video segment of you on my Liberty Conspiracy show, and this tariff issue is a big one.
	How would you frame it to people as you look at the immediate layout on some of the things you've been working on over at AIER to discuss tariffs?
	Yeah, so tariffs are taxes on trade.
	So they're taxes on things we buy.
	You can think of them as sort of like a sales tax, that it's a percentage of the value of a product that you're paying.
	But unlike sales taxes, it applies only to products that are produced outside the United States.
	And so they're tax on imports, essentially.
	Now, why is that important?
	Well, it distorts the economy more in a way that sales taxes don't do.
	I mean, sales taxes have their own distortions.
	But a tax on imports shifts consumption from foreign-made products to domestic-made products.
	You might think, well, doesn't that sound like a good thing?
	People are going to buy American.
	Isn't that the whole point?
	Well, the reason why that's a problem is
	What economists call opportunity cost.
	So what are you giving up when you buy the domestic-made product versus a foreign-made product?
	So you're going to buy the domestic-made product.
	It's more expensive, right?
	That's why you didn't buy it to begin with, right?
	You were buying the foreign-made product because it was more affordable and perhaps higher quality, right?
	So you're going to go for a more expensive, lower-quality product now that you're not buying the foreign product.
	What that means is that More Americans are now going to have to be employed in making that substitute for the foreign product.
	And fewer Americans are now going to be employed in making other things, like things that we might sell abroad.
	So one of the things about tariffs is that they not only cut down on imports, what we buy from abroad, they cut down on exports, what we sell to abroad.
	And so with the US exports, it tends to be things like...
	High-tech, right?
	A lot of software, AI, custom microchips.
	My wife works in high-tech lasers, right?
	So that's the thing that the U.S. exports.
	We have the world's biggest fiber-optic laser companies here.
	That's the kind of stuff that the U.S. is selling because the U.S. has the technology to produce those things at a high quality and at a low price compared to other countries.
	When we import, it's going to be stuff like t-shirts and, you know, yes, steel and things like that, like raw materials, where we don't necessarily have that comparative advantage.
	Other countries have that comparative advantage.
	So what we're going to do now with tariffs is we're going to shift production from high-tech stuff at the technological frontier that we have a comparative advantage in, and we're going to start now producing...
	You know, steel and t-shirts and stuff like that that we used to produce, you know, a hundred years ago when our economy was less productive.
	Exactly.
	And because we have been able to become more productive, we've been able to leverage that productivity gain into new types of technologies.
	And the savings that people have been able to derive has been held by them and then allowed to be invested in new things.
	And I'll bring up the great book by James Bovard, The Fair Trade Fraud.
	Where he goes through, you know, one of the seminal books discussing the added expenses that cause these opportunity costs.
	And really, it runs counter to one of the basic axioms of economics, division of labor.
	It's incredible to think that, you know, cave people divided their labor so that people who might be pregnant or smaller or weaker might stay home and make spears.
	The point of diminishing returns for making more spears while the other people are out on the hunt.
	So maybe they'll trade with people who have a comparative advantage because they're very good at fishing and they'll trade for fish.
	And so they all do what they're best at.
	And this, the tariff, punishes people for actually engaging in that sort of activity in a much broader economy that has been, through millennia, perfected and perfected through voluntary interaction.
	Yeah, that's right.
	When you think about where our standard of living comes from, our wealth, it comes from two things, production and exchange.
	So on the production side, we think of new ways to do things, more efficient ways to do things and make things.
	But exchange is critical to that because we can't all do everything.
	I can't grow all of my own food.
	I can't make my own automobiles, make my own jet airplanes.
	I'm calling you right now from New Orleans.
	I can't get there just by myself.
	I need exchange.
	The more we tax exchange, the more sand we throw in the gears of exchange, the poorer we'll be.
	It's fascinating, Jason, because You know, you and I have worked together, you know, with students and kids pick this up very quickly.
	You know, when they understand division of labor, when they understand marginal utility or diminishing marginal returns, trade, you know, you can bring up examples of different cultures having maybe better advantages physically or they have better natural resources for one thing than another thing.
	And often people get almost resentful, I think, when they hear this term.
	Trade deficit.
	And when I've written for the Mises Institute or for others, I try to explain that oftentimes when they discuss trade deficit, you're not really hearing the full story.
	One of the first people who explained that to me was David Henderson.
	And he gave me his copy of the Fortune Encyclopedia of Economics.
	And inside this, they talk about the balance of trade, which is actually inherent in the word trade.
	You don't have a deficit if you're engaging in a trade.
	Both parties or the multiple parties who are involved, they've all decided.
	And so when we look at this...
	We often hear about this term called the trade deficit, which tends, as I've explained to the audience on my show many times, tends to happen when you have a strong monetary unit in your nation state.
	And if, for example, a person is going to travel abroad and they happen to travel while their monetary unit is strong, that means they can trade it.
	For many more of the products from the foreign countries.
	So, of course, if the dollar is relatively stronger than the yen or the yuan or something else, the peso, our dollar will be able to buy more because it represents more productivity.
	But those dollars don't translate into some gestalt of a waxen figure that turns into something else.
	They remain dollars and they come back over here.
	In liquidity and investments.
	And so that's the other side of the ledger that people don't really discuss.
	And that's one of the things that David, thanks to David Henderson, another economist in that book, when I was maybe 19 or so, I learned that.
	And I said, wow, this is really interesting stuff.
	So it actually harms putting up the tariffs.
	It harms Americans in being able to buy things and get the best bang for their buck because now it's adding more expense.
	They have less money left over to actually allow for new businesses in America to start and new employees who could be employed.
	We're never going to see that now.
	And I think it gives people the wrong impression about what trade actually is when they discuss this trade deficit thing.
	Yeah, I mean, tariffs don't help.
	Trade deficits.
	This has been proven again and again that when you enact tariffs, it hits your exports just as much as it hits imports.
	So it doesn't reduce the trade deficit.
	And the trade deficit isn't bad in and of itself to begin with.
	As you point out, it's a reflection of the strength of the dollar.
	It's a reflection of people investing in the US. So the other way to think about a trade deficit is it's an investment surplus.
	Right. It's people lending money to Americans so that they can buy
	And you never hear about that surplus.
	That's a really key point.
	Yeah. And, you know, sometimes a trade deficit can be a symptom of something else going wrong.
	And I think in the U.S. case, our big budget deficits are a big part of that because a lot of that, you know, investment that's coming here is actually just foreigners lending the U.S. government money to spend.
	Yes. And so in a way that's, you know.
	It is kind of more money for us that the U.S. government is spending on us, but it's not sustainable, as we all know.
	And so if you really want to bring the trade deficit down, you need to bring the budget deficit down.
	You know, we need to start spending less.
	Jason, I'm curious to get your thoughts because I try to offer a soft, peaceful alternative for people to consider at least, which is if you want to try to help American business become more competitive, then remove the impediments on competitiveness.
	Remove the impediments on productivity.
	Get rid of the regulations.
	Stop assuming for businesses how they can do their business.
	I try to tell conservatives, I say, you know, you railed against, many of you did, railed against the idea of essential versus non-essential being applied to businesses by the offices of government, by the bureaucrats.
	But really, a tariff is actually a manifestation of the same mentality, isn't it?
	Yeah, I mean, we do see a lot of people now, unfortunately, trying to defend the tariffs on the grounds that, well, you know, I'm willing to pay more.
	For, you know, X good, you know, if my money's going to go to an American instead, or I'm willing to, you know, I'm willing to consume less and have a lower standard of living if that somehow helps America.
	And, you know, well, in a sense, I guess, it's good to be concerned about other people and want to...
	We want to help the competitiveness of the American economy, for example.
	You know, if we're all doing that, if we're all forced to consume less, I mean, the other word for that is just we're poor, right?
	If we're unable to maintain our standard of living, that's not helping us in any sense.
	That is us.
	We're choosing to hurt ourselves for maybe some spiritual benefit.
	I don't quite get it.
	So the arguments you hear out there right now to defend the tariffs just are not good arguments.
	And I got to say, over at the American Institute for Economic Research, I'm going to show this up on the screen, Jason, because I think it's so valuable.
	There are so many great articles.
	If anyone just goes into the search engine and looks for tariffs, every week you'll see another excellent article.
	Some by you, some by others.
	Five myths about tariffs.
	And these are the types of things that you can give to students.
	You can give to people in college and offer them the opportunity to read these things.
	And I think it's very valuable, especially, and if I might, I'd love to get your thoughts, especially when you hear people like this man.
	Let's talk about the man who is given credit for being the driver behind Donald Trump's mentality, Bob Leitzer.
	They say that he's the mastermind behind the Trump tariff approach.
	And it appeals to nativists.
	It appeals to people who might be, say, in unions.
	Who know that the union is also a burden on their business, but if they can eliminate the foreign competition, that's helpful.
	It appeals to politicians like Robert Portman, who used to be a senator from Ohio when Donald Trump was president previously, and they imposed the washing machine tariffs and the dishwasher tariffs, which were a disaster.
	Steel tariffs.
	If I might, Jason, I would love to get your thoughts on this comment.
	Because he buys into so many of the canards that I so hope to dispel in the way that I mentioned earlier Walter Williams would do when he used to fill in for Rush Limbaugh.
	To be able to offer these scholarly and I think takeaway items to remember these things when you hear this rhetoric.
	Can I play this for you a little bit?
	Yeah.
	Great.
	We have this giant transfer of wealth from the United States overseas, and that is in the form of trade deficits.
	And the way the system is supposed to work, no one should have large trade deficits for long periods of time.
	Things can happen.
	You can do it.
	You could have trade deficits with one country, surplus with another.
	Of a country having hundreds of billions of dollars of trade deficits every year is not how it's supposed to work.
	We now are to the point where our trade deficits, they calculate them at about...
	Seven or eight hundred billion dollars.
	If you did it the way you or I would do, in a sensible way, you'd probably be at a trillion or a trillion and a quarter dollars.
	So that's a transfer of wealth from Americans overseas in return for current consumption.
	And it has nothing to do with economics.
	It's entirely the result.
	Of industrial policy of other people and are being defenseless.
	Okay, so I'm going to pause it right there, Jason, because I think it would be unfair to play even more of that because there's so much that needs to be addressed there.
	So much mythology.
	And I would love to offer you the opportunity, before I even speak on any of this, as a person who deals with this on a daily basis, you taught economics.
	You've taught me a great deal about economics.
	What are your thoughts about what he has to say there?
	And if you'd like me to scroll back, feel free.
	Well, first of all, he makes the mistake of identifying national wealth with money.
	And economists do not think of money as wealth.
	Wealth is the goods and services that you can command.
	So at an individual level, having more money means you can command more goods and services.
	You can buy more stuff.
	But at the national level, our wealth...
	Is the stuff that we have, right?
	Our goods and services.
	So if we are getting goods and services, if we're getting nice cars and things like that from other countries, that is our wealth, right?
	So that's not a transfer of wealth.
	We're not losing wealth by getting this stuff.
	That is actually part of our wealth.
	And so if it were otherwise, if money were wealth at the national level, we could just...
	Arbitrarily print up a bunch of money and we'd be so much wealthier, right?
	Let's just print up another trillion dollars if that's our trade deficit and that's what wealth is.
	Let's print another trillion dollars.
	Well, what would that do?
	Obviously, it wouldn't increase our goods and services.
	It wouldn't increase our real wealth.
	It would just cause prices to go up.
	And I find it slightly offensive on an intellectual front.
	I think it's intellectually dishonest, just dishonest.
	But there are so many fallacies that are sort of packaged into this giant suitcase of protectionism, Jason, because when you hear him say, and Trump has done the same thing, and Caroline Levitt has done the same thing,
	claiming that we're getting ripped off.
	People from another country happen to sell something.
	For less.
	And I said to my audience at Liberty Conspiracy, it's like, yeah, you remember that time you went to buy something and it turned out to be 20% less than you thought you were going to spend?
	And you walked up, man, I hate getting ripped off like that.
	Remember that?
	And so they aggregate all these things and they say that somehow we're not getting anything from it.
	And that, I would love to go deeper into valuation, as you and I often discuss with students, is subjective.
	Every individual who made a decision to buy one of those foreign products or a company, a group of people who decided to buy that because they thought it would be better for their bottom line to produce something here or to sell to a consumer here, made that decision of their own accord.
	And so that man is already undercutting.
	The valuation right that individuals have to make for themselves.
	And I find that really offensive.
	And he uses this sort of nativistic us versus them rhetoric.
	And that's a problem for me.
	Yeah.
	I imagine that, you know, we could get just cars from heaven, right?
	Cars would just show up, pop up in the United States, right?
	Free.
	It's like manna from the Bible, right?
	Wouldn't that be great?
	We'd be much better off.
	We wouldn't even have to make these cars.
	We wouldn't have to spend any resources or labor trying to make them.
	We'd just have them.
	Okay, well, that'd be great.
	What if instead of getting them free and they just pop up, Japan and Germany just send us cars on boats for free?
	Right.
	That's just as good, right?
	They just show up.
	They're free.
	Okay, now what if they charge us a very low price?
	Well, that's not as good as free, but it's still very good to get those things at a low price.
	So, yeah, if our imports are cheap, if the stuff we're buying from abroad is cheap, that's good for us.
	Fantastic.
	I mean, it'd be better if it were free, but unfortunately, we have to work and produce and give them some stuff in exchange for the stuff we're buying from them.
	But, you know, that's how trade works.
	But, yeah, but cheap imports are great for our standard of living.
	And you remind me of the Candlemakers petition by Frédéric Bastier, where he, you know, for a while, he has, in his piece, and if viewers aren't familiar with it, he's just a great 19th century French economist.
	He wrote the Broken Window Fallacy and so on and so forth about opportunity costs that the government might impose on you, that sort of thing, and a lot of assumptions that people have.
	And he said, you know, the Candlemakers have this very important petition.
	Every day, they have to fight an unfair competitor.
	The candle makers, these people, your neighbors, trying to make a living putting candles out there in the market.
	And every day, they have this powerful, unfair competitor.
	Coming up in the morning at sunrise and disappearing later in the day at sunset.
	If we could get the government to just put a giant umbrella or parasol over all of Paris or all of France, the candle makers could make much more money.
	But obviously, that means they'd be working more.
	So, in other words, get rid of the blessing of sunlight, work harder, make more candles to get where you could have been.
	By not having to work that hard, by getting something that is a blessing, as you say.
	Coming from the sun.
	And it's a similar sort of thing if people are willing to offer you something for less.
	And I find it really troubling when they say, we have transferred about $20 trillion worth of our national wealth.
	Because again, there's a sort of anthropomorphizing of it there.
	And in addition to that, there's the collectivist mentality of we have transferred.
	Every one of those people made a separate decision about their own valuation.
	And it's not his place to say, I know better for you for your life.
	And that I think is an ethical problem that many of the people who promote these things kind of
	Yeah, I mean, very much these are individual level decisions.
	So we can't forget that when the government sets up trade barriers, it's interfering with the freedom of every individual to trade with other people, right?
	And to find the best deal.
	Yeah, if for whatever reason you want to buy domestic-made products and that's something that you believe in, you should be free to do that, obviously.
	That was always allowed, but now you're trying to forbid it for everyone else, and that's the thing I have a problem with.
	Yeah, go ahead.
	Well, I was just going to say, like, I don't know if we want to get into some of the maybe slightly more sophisticated rationales for the tariffs, but, you know, some of the people out there now realize that there's no economic case for them, but they might make sort of a national security
	case or kind of a political case for them.
	And, you know, that's that's a.
	That's something we can discuss, but I think when you look at it, even those rationales end up failing because people are searching around to find some reason To support a policy that obviously is economically harmful,
	but I think is politically appealing to certain interest groups, and that's why it exists.
	Absolutely.
	I couldn't agree more, Jason.
	Jason Sorens is our guest, the American Institute for Economic Research.
	Jason, I'll just put this on the screen.
	One of the recent pieces from The Daily Economy, a release from the organization.
	We've got tariff turmoil, the economic risks of a global trade war.
	And of course, that's always a possibility of reciprocal trade battles.
	Typically, you see that happen very often where...
	A politician, a nativist politician, oftentimes offering that rhetoric to the people who are local, saying, let's stop that product coming in from X, Y, or Z nation.
	And of course, the logic is then, well, why don't we protect the people in our own state or our own town?
	Make everybody do their own work here in this town.
	Everybody in town will have to work, and that'll be wonderful.
	No, that wouldn't be wonderful.
	What if you had to do it all yourself?
	Let's make work harder by tying everybody's right arm behind their arm.
	And then everybody will have more people working.
	So as Walter Williams said, the intention of a productive economy is not to get everybody laboring.
	It's to be able to get more with your labor and have more things that you value for your life that you think are helpful for your life.
	And one of the things that I find very problematic, and I'll go back to the video.
	Here, Jason, just to show people, from this AIER, dailyeconomy.org, you can find that at thedailyeconomy.org, and I'll shoot if you want to look for it.
	But one of the things he brings up, and something that I've been hearing myself, Jason, is, you know, I mentioned that when the dollar is relatively stronger compared to other currencies, you will see...
	Americans buying more of the foreign goods because their dollar is relatively stronger.
	And I've noticed that already the Trump administration and other people who are exporters and this man here in this bit with Tucker Carlson intimates that the Federal Reserve should enter into a phase of lower interest rates essentially to devalue the dollar.
	He wants the buying power of the dollar to go down.
	And I saw with Jerome Powell, as he was talking about the impact of tariffs, I saw a sentimental indication with the Federal Reserve Board holding rates steady that they might be ready to do that, which I think would give people the false impression of easy money then going out.
	It would inflate the money supply and would further complicate the problems of fiat currency inflation.
	Yeah, that's right.
	So the other word for the buying power of the dollar going down is inflation, right?
	It can no longer command as much in terms of other currencies, but also can no longer command as much in terms of goods and services, right?
	And I don't think the American people like that very much.
	I don't think that's the reason they voted for President Trump is so that their dollar would buy less.
	I think that's the opposite of the reason why they voted for President Trump.
	So, yeah, it's a little disturbing that they're thinking in this direction.
	But again, if they wanted to do something that would not hurt prices at all, would actually potentially bring prices down, would also bring the trade deficit down.
	It would be cut spending.
	You could cut federal spending and you'd achieve the same objective.
	And we wouldn't have to borrow all this money from foreign central banks, including the Central Bank of China, which is what we're doing right now.
	And so why not focus on that?
	That's a great point.
	That's a great point.
	You know, Jason...
	I know that you've made television appearances and discussed this previously, and I got to show that segment on Liberty Conspiracy last week.
	You've been telling people about some of the things that are going to be hit, and that's, again, one of the major pluses about James Bovard's fair trade fraud, which is now, what, 25 years old or something like that.
	It was Jim went and told people about some of the things they don't even know they're paying more for.
	And he noted that in study after study, it shows that...
	That in the aggregate, the particular business that is helped by this, you know, whatever tariff might be, is helped perhaps, but consumers are harmed generally eight times as much by seeing aggregate losses in their ability to be able to save their money.
	And so there are a number of things that Trump is hitting.
	Whether it be from Canada, China, or Mexico.
	And on April 2nd, we're going to be seeing even more.
	Would you like to mention any of those that come to mind that you might want to tell people about?
	Well, definitely.
	We saw steel tariffs in his first term, and there was a study of that.
	And what were the job gains versus job losses?
	And I might get the precise numbers slightly wrong, but the ratio is correct here.
	For about 8,000 jobs saved, about 170,000 jobs were lost.
	So, you know, when you think about it, there are a bunch of industries in the U.S. that use steel.
	Export industries, high-tech industries.
	You know, my wife's laser company uses a lot of steel, buys a lot of steel.
	Boeing uses steel to make jets.
	Tesla uses it to make cars.
	So steel tariffs are particularly stupid because not only do they
	Have the effect I talked about earlier, where they're drawing labor away from the more productive sectors of the economy to a less productive sector of the economy.
	But they're also raising the cost of inputs to American exporters.
	So even if you wanted to be a mercantilist, this is a really bad way to do it.
	So the steel tariffs were particularly done, and unfortunately we're seeing more of them.
	Lumber tariffs on Canada.
	Are bad for housing, the cost of housing.
	And this is something that Americans are also complaining about.
	And one of the top issues in our country today is how expensive housing has gotten, largely because of government.
	That's another topic for another day, perhaps.
	But lumber tariffs just drive up the cost of building.
	So these are things that are directly hurting Americans and the things that they're concerned about.
	Absolutely.
	Jason Sorens, thank you so much.
	You're great with the students.
	You're great at AIER, and I hope people will go over there.
	Why don't you mention how people can find your work, find you on X, that sort of thing, if they want to follow you on X, or find you over at AIER, Jason.
	Yeah, so AIER is at AIER.org, and I highly recommend our site, The Daily Economy, at thedailyeconomy.org.
	We have...
	Several new pieces every single day, thousands of visitors.
	It's a great site.
	We don't just talk about trade.
	We talk about the whole range of economic issues, a lot of up-to-date, current economic indicators that we're analyzing.
	We're analyzing the direction of the economy, so it's helpful to you if you're in business, I think, if you're an investor, but also if you're interested in economic policy and understanding what politicians are talking about is going to affect the economy.
	As for me, you can find me on X at Jason Sorens.
	So just my name.
	And yeah, I talk about economic issues there.
	And I definitely have a little bit of a New Hampshire flavor.
	You and I are both from New Hampshire.
	And then, you know, the freest state in the country.
	And so it's always interesting to keep tabs on the legislature and what's going on there.
	And I do a lot of kind of data visualizations as well to try to explain economic concepts and the effects of public policy.
	Fantastic. Jason, thank you for taking the time to be with me.
	Yeah, I'm giving a talk at Loyola University, so I get to meet Walter Block.
	Oh, well, we had some interesting conversations with Walter on a number of subjects, and there are a couple that are going to be fairly touchy recently, but he's always fun to listen to.
	It's always fun to listen to Walter Boyd.
	Oh, boy.
	Jason, thank you.
	I wish I were there to watch you both.
	That would be fantastic, but I admire you greatly.
	I will text you later on.
	Oh, you're wonderful.
	A great, great benefit to New Hampshire, to children in New Hampshire and all over, especially with your work with AIER.
	You're really offering some great scholarship there, and I admire it wonderfully, wonderfully.
	I'm so glad you're there.
	Thanks, Jason.
	Appreciate it.
	Well, we have a mutual admiration society, so thank you, Gardner, for all you do and for having me on.
	Thanks, Jason.
	We'll talk to you again soon.
	Take care.
	Talk to you later.
	All right.
	Bye-bye.
	Wow.
	Terrific to talk to Jason.
	Just great.
	Oh, boy.
	He was just, what an amazing person.
	You know, really understands economics.
	And if you ever get the chance to take a class with Jason Sorens or have him as an instructor for a seminar, you'll definitely be happy about that because his work is phenomenal and he makes things so understandable.
	It's wonderful.
	We'll take a break.
	Come back in just a second.
	Remember, folks, if you have the opportunity, we'll check in on some of the comments in a moment as well.
	You can donate to The David Knight Show if you think what you're seeing is valuable.
	If I'm providing a value that people can take away some good lessons and so on, please consider donating to The David Knight Show and the family.
	I'm Gardner Goldsmith filling in for David Knight on The David Knight Show.
	Show
	Common again.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	Again, thank you to Jason Sorens for a wonderful conversation.
	And if you get the opportunity, go to AIER.
	And please remember their Daily Economy.
	Wonderful articles there.
	They really help people get an understanding of economics.
	And there are so many wonderful writers that they offer.
	That every day you can go there many times a day and see terrific pieces of scholarship.
	I'm Gardner Goldsmith and this is The David Knight Show.
	And let's check in with some of the comments from all the folks out there I see over on X. Let's see.
	We've got...
	Oh, hey, thank you.
	Thank you so much, Russians.
	Tree1MS reposted the stream.
	Thank you.
	Thank you so much.
	I appreciate that.
	I hope I'm doing a good job filling in for David, and I want to thank everybody over at Rumble as well.
	If you want to donate at Rumble rather than Rockfin, that's probably the best idea of all those.
	Angry Tiger is there.
	Great conversations with Tiger and tweeting things.
	He did a great show on his channel last night on the economy.
	You can watch him.
	He's one of the Knights of the Storm.
	And check out Angered Tigers.
	Then go to the Knights of the Storm to find out all the schedules for what the Knights are doing.
	And that's not David Knight.
	That's the Knights of the Storm in that case.
	So I want to continue with a couple quick ones.
	First, let's get into the war situation.
	And then we're going to start talking about this anti-Tesla mentality, and Eric Peters is going to join us.
	But before we talk to Eric, I want to give you an update about what's been going on with the Houthis, and, as I mentioned, a very disturbing visit from Senator Fennerman with Benjamin Netanyahu.
	Unbelievable stuff.
	Let's talk war.
	Who?
	Yeah.
	What is it good for?
	Absolutely.
	Nothing.
	What?
	Who?
	Yeah.
	What is it good for?
	Absolutely.
	Nothing.
	Say it again, y 'all.
	What?
	Who?
	Look out.
	What is it good for?
	Absolutely.
	Nothing.
	Listen to me.
	War! War!
	I despise'Cause it means destruction of his life War means tears to thousands of mothers'lives When their sons go to fight and lose their
	lives I said, "War!
	Good!" Good God, y'all!
	What is good for?
	Absolutely nothing!
	It's here to get War!
	Thank you, Edwin Starr.
	What a remarkable voice that man had.
	Talk about soulful.
	Just quickly, I want to show you the latest and up-to-datest, as they might say, Coming from the Middle East in the Houthi situation.
	As you know, as we discussed yesterday, the Houthis, after the Israelis attacked...
	The Palestinians again and again and again and again, year after year after year after year.
	And then Hamas responded with their attack October 7th, 2023.
	And then Israel embarked on its more intense genocide campaign.
	Now they are back into partitioning Gaza and they're going to be sweeping people away again.
	They have shut down food, shut down water.
	The Houthis have said they were threatening.
	To shut down water passage through the Gulf.
	And so the United States responded over the weekend by killing almost 60 people.
	Donald Trump walked off a golf course and killed civilians.
	No declaration of war, nothing.
	And so this is the latest.
	USS Gettysburg launches missiles against Houthi forces.
	They call them Houthi forces.
	Really?
	I didn't see Houthi forces in those.
	Eight-year-old kids who had been blown to pieces, did you?
	Here's some of the footage as they launch their missiles.
	Pretty much the same thing over and over again.
	You get to pay for it.
	Now, I don't want to be too heavily moralistic about this.
	I could just mention the U.S. Constitution to them and say, hey, where are you getting the power to do this, to set boats and ships off the coast of other countries and then start launching missiles?
	Maybe there's a problem there.
	How about US government giving missiles to Saudi Arabia to fight a proxy war that killed over 100,000 people in Yemen up to about five years ago?
	How about that?
	Nobody talked about that.
	But it happened.
	And then we've got Fetterman being gifted a beeper.
	Let me show you this and you can hear it because I recorded it and upped the volume.
	But this comes from Election Wizard, and he writes, Benjamin Netanyahu gives Senator Fetterman a silver-plated beeper, similar to the gold-plated beeper that they gave to Donald Trump.
	People were like, is that a threat?
	So in other words, it's not really cool to give people something that's going to explode in their hands.
	How about that?
	Maybe that's an idea.
	Well, let's get right over to it, because here we go.
	This is the footage, and it's not pleasant.
	Thank you.
	That's great.
	It's great.
	It's going to be here in something.
	It's going to be here.
	Can I give a man who has everything?
	How about giving him a beeper?
	Oh. This is a silver-plated beeper.
	The real beeper is like one-tenth the weight.
	It's nothing.
	Really? Yeah, but it changes history.
	You know, when that story broke, I was like, oh, I love it.
	I love it.
	And now it's like, thank you for this.
	Yeah, no.
	All right.
	I was like, I love it.
	I love it.
	It's like, yeah, no, thank you for this.
	All right.
	It's just, I don't know.
	You know, I will remind people, please don't forget the two young ladies who stood outside the Capitol building.
	Who had relatives in Palestine months ago, over a year ago.
	They asked for a ceasefire.
	They asked for the United States to stop sending weapons to Israel.
	Fetterman walking out of the capital had one of those little mini Israeli flags, waved it at them.
	Didn't know them, didn't know anything about them, but will certainly pick their pockets to send weapons of destruction to kill their family members in Palestine.
	Contrary to the Constitution that that man swore an oath to uphold.
	So instead of doing what is constitutional, he goes and accepts a silver-plated beeper from a man who in many countries will be apprehended for genocide,
	standing next to his wife who is up on corruption charges.
	Maybe Fetterman?
	We'll take some time to reconsider, I would hope.
	That would be great.
	To round off some of this information on the warfare stuff, this is going to be brutal, but I mentioned this to you.
	I think it's important to offer this to you.
	This is Dave DeCamp of Antiwar.com.
	Antiwar is doing their fundraiser.
	Please remember, it's Antiwar News if you want to find them on YouTube.
	He had done an interview with a surgeon, Dr. Feroz Sidwa.
	And the interview was terrific.
	He doesn't do interviews often where someone comes on camera and chats.
	He's usually editing and writing and text.
	And then at the end of the day, literally, he does these half-hour videos where he records talking about what is on the website and that you can find it if you want to share links, that sort of thing.
	But he contacted Dr. Sidwa after they had had contact before.
	And here is what Dave has to say about the exchange, because Dr. Sidwa went back and he's a trauma surgeon and he's volunteering and he's American and he was volunteering in southern Gaza.
	So...
	Last year, he's in Gaza.
	I saw he did an interview on Sky News.
	He's in Khan Yunus at a hospital.
	So I emailed him.
	I didn't want to bother him, but he's been doing interviews.
	He did Sky News.
	I saw him on another interview with all the work he's doing.
	In Gaza, he's still doing interviews.
	But I emailed him just asking him if he could give me a statement, if he had the time.
	And he gave me a very long statement about his experience on Tuesday morning when Israel resumed its massive, massive bombing campaign on Gaza.
	And this is what he told me.
	So I'm going to read his whole statement here.
	And there is some medical jargon that I hope I don't butcher too much.
	So this is the statement from Dr. Sidwa, trauma surgeon from the U.S., from California.
	He said, I woke up with a start when the door to our bedroom living quarters
	was blown open and smashed into the closet behind it.
	So the bombing was very close to the hospital.
	I went down to the emergency department to help with the mass casualty event that we knew would follow.
	I should warn you, this gets really graphic.
	He describes the operations he did.
	This is what is happening in Gaza.
	Now I'm going to pause it there because his volume is a little bit low.
	And I'm going to go direct to the anti-war website so that I can give you some of this information.
	And I'm going to read this myself because my voice will be a little bit louder.
	So I went down to the emergency department to help with the mass casualty event that we knew would follow.
	The Palestinian surgeon...
	I went to the red triage area with Dr. Morgan McGonigal, an Irish trauma and vascular surgeon.
	The first patient I found was a three to four-year-old girl with agonal breathing and a weak pulse with multiple shrapnel wounds to the head and face.
	I told her father that she was going to die and there was nothing we could do about it.
	Next, Morgan was evaluating a six-year-old boy with shrapnel injuries to the chest, abdomen, and left leg.
	He went to surgery for an exploratory laparotomy, which thankfully revealed no significant abdominal bleeding.
	We found his popliteal artery transected, and thankfully, Dr. McGonigal was able to repair it primarily.
	I then moved on to an exploratory laparotomy on a 29-year-old woman.
	I later found out that she was the sister of one of the physicians whom I work with here.
	Her sacrum, the bone in your pelvis that connects the pelvis to the spine, had a tennis ball-sized hole in it.
	As did the skin and muscle of her lower back, from which she was bleeding tremendously.
	Her rectum was torn in half, and her, you know what, and bladder were both injured.
	We were able to get her out of the operating room and to the ICU successfully, but she died over the next 12 hours.
	Finally, there's more.
	I'll give you this.
	We then dealt with a six-year-old boy hit by two pieces of shrapnel in the right ventricle of his heart, leading to cardiac tamponade.
	His heart stopped on the way up to the operating room.
	Six-year-old boy.
	Dr. McGonagall opened his chest, repaired the heart, and was actually able to get his heart restarted.
	We then explored the child's abdomen, finding a massive right-sided liver injury.
	Three holes in his stomach, two in his colon, and five in his small intestine.
	He was certainly the most severely injured child I have ever encountered who was not already dead.
	We were able to get him out of the operating room and into the ICU, but he also died 12 hours later.
	I wonder if Nikki Haley signed any of that ordinance.
	You think the pieces of shrapnel still have the sharpie marks on them?
	Our names are on all those things.
	They're making us pay for those things.
	I don't want to pay for those things.
	I think that's enough to say.
	I shouldn't have to pay for those things.
	But under the auspices of national defense, they'll define for you what is your defense.
	So offense is your defense.
	Killing kids, it's your defense.
	It's for your defense.
	Because Israel's our greatest friend.
	Did you know Israel was your friend?
	Did you know that?
	They're our greatest friends.
	Everything's collectivist.
	Until people step away from the collectivist table, they will not be able to acknowledge true morality.
	That's just a fact.
	Collectivist politics destroys individual will and morality.
	There is no escaping that.
	Because collectivist politics is predicated on force and lies.
	And they'll use any rationale.
	They will lie to you in any possible way to continue and perpetuate and give the money to their friends.
	Whether it's in the military-industrial complex, or it's in the energy field, or it's in Israel with Benjamin Netanyahu and his silver beepers.
	And something that the Russians were telling me they wanted to put up earlier.
	Thank you, Russians.
	This comes from a while back when we were talking about the economy and the deficit.
	Save the Truth said, yeah, and another $18 billion to Israel is not helping.
	Absolutely right.
	And then we have this from Save the Truth.
	OMG, another beeper president.
	And this.
	Anyone else sick of waking up to find another 400 to 500 children were just bombed?
	Yeah.
	And, you know, it's tough because the onus shouldn't be on us to sound like we're down and dire and unhappy about something or, you know, whatever, to talk about this terrible information.
	Because this is happening regardless of whether we talk about it or not.
	And I think many people who have a moral backbone are trying to get out the word about these things.
	And we shouldn't have to look like nuisances in a realm.
	Where an utterly immoral graft game is going on that is leaving thousands of people killed every week.
	It's nuts.
	It's just crazy.
	And again, you don't have to be a moralist for this or anything.
	It's just bizarre.
	Let's head on over to Rumble.
	Be My Valentine says heartbreaking.
	Bride B. Mac, thank you all.
	Thank you all.
	It is an offense to the Lord.
	12 June, 1776.
	True morality stands alone.
	Yeah.
	Gonzo Johnny, 18 billion.
	Isn't that like new cars for all Americans?
	And North American House Hippo says, You know, when we talk about basic infrastructure, let's talk about our next topic.
	In fact, we're going to take the opportunity now.
	To bring in our next very, very valuable guest.
	And as you know, I spent some time in the script department of Star Trek Voyager.
	So as the team gets the production stuff ready here, I like to make reference to Star Trek.
	Let's talk about...
	Things like subsidies, taking your money, giving it out to people, the reactions people have had to that, whether it's military industrial contractors, or it's special favors to certain businesses to protect them against foreign competition, or it's special handouts to,
	say, EV makers or people who work on the battery technology, that sort of thing.
	All of it, steering away from your decision to run your own life.
	That's it.
	It's the immoral ineptitude of the state knowing better than you.
	Let's go to our mind melt and bring in our next guest on the David Knight Show, Eric Peters of Eric Peters Autos.
	I must try to mind meld with it.
	Demons!
	The tyranny ends.
	The tyranny ends.
	Our minds are merging, Doctor.
	Our minds are one.
	I feel what you feel.
	I know what you know.
	All right, and it's time, everybody.
	It's time to bring in Eric Peters of ericpetersautos.com.
	Head on over there, and you're going to see some amazing information.
	Let's welcome him to the stage.
	Eric, thank you for waiting, and welcome to The David Knight Show.
	How are you, my friend?
	Well, I'm good, Gar.
	Thank you for having me back on.
	I'm feeling a little anti-Semitic this morning.
	Hey, by the way, I came across something very interesting just by happenstance that bears on this a little bit.
	I know we want to get into Tesla, but I just wanted to mention this because it was one of those nuggets that you come across every once in a while.
	I was reading a biography of the Reich's Marshal, Hermann Goering, and in the beginning parts of the book, it talks about the events preceding the takeover of the government by the Nazis.
	And I was struck by something.
	Did you know that the Nazis, or at least the pre-Nazi government had what they called the Ministry of Defense?
	Now, that's the first time I noticed that term used.
	Of course,
	States had the war department.
	Right. Now, it juxtaposed, very interestingly, now we have a defense department that's very preoccupied with war.
	This etymological jujitsu that's practiced by these authoritarian collectivists, the way they manipulate language to shift the conversation by getting you to accept a premise,
	So, you know, objectively, what we're dealing with here is this aggressive warmongering, but somehow it's framed as defense.
	So it's very difficult to object to defense spending, right?
	Because if you object to defense spending, then clearly you're an irresponsible person who wants to put the safety of the country at risk.
	Absolutely.
	And, you know, it's amazing because...
	People have brought up that Orwellian change from War Department to Department of Defense.
	And you bring it up perfectly because ever since that time, the United States has actually never officially declared war.
	And they engage in worldwide hegemonic attacks under the auspices of defense.
	It's amazing.
	Great point, Eric.
	So true.
	But I wanted to also offer one more thing before we get into the car stuff.
	And I think you'll probably agree with me, but you tell me.
	I think that catcall of anti-Semitism is beginning to lose its power.
	I think it's going down the same road that racism went.
	You know, for the longest time, people were terrified.
	Terrified.
	You know, people, well-meaning people, to question these horrible policies that...
	That gave people advantages based on their race because they were afraid of being called a racist for objecting to that.
	It's not working very well anymore.
	People hear the term and they go, oh my God, not again.
	And I see that beginning to happen.
	My spider sense tells me that with this anti-Semitism stuff, you know, this implication that if you question what's going on in the Middle East or if you question specifically what Netanyahu or the government of Israel is doing.
	But somehow that means that you hate Jews and implicitly you want to launch a pogrom against people who happen to be Jewish.
	It's preposterous and it's tiresome and people, I think, are beginning to see through it.
	Absolutely.
	And the way you state these things is so...
	It's just, you frame it in such a way when you say preposterous.
	That just frames it perfectly, Eric.
	It's an insult, I think, to the intelligence of so many people to take these terms and then rephrase them.
	And as I mentioned, I didn't get to mention this to you, Eric.
	A couple weeks ago, I was approached by some people in Washington.
	I mentioned this on David's show yesterday.
	They asked me if I would like to do maybe one article a week or two articles a week.
	And it wouldn't be much, maybe like $50 more a week or something like that, to write on free speech things.
	And so it's actually inspired me because I said, sure, you know, that's fine.
	And they gave me some different links of subjects that they thought might be good as a little test.
	And I said, oh yeah.
	And they said, you know, J.D. Vance had spoken over in Europe about how they were losing their traditions of, you know, the vote and free speech and so on.
	So I brought up the fact that he was the prime sponsor of the 2023 Antisemitism Awareness Act, which redefines in a classic Newspeak way the meaning of antisemitism and says, if you're critical of a state called Israel.
	And I, you know, me, I'm an anarchist philosophically.
	I don't believe that any state is legitimate when it rules over other people.
	No one has a claim to rule over someone else.
	So it's like, you know, I teach political philosophy and I'm critical of all states.
	That means I'm anti-Semitic.
	Jerry Nadler, of all people, said people in my district are Hasidic Jews.
	And they don't like the Zionist state of Israel.
	They understand the difference between political Zionist statist Israel and religious Israel, as David Knight has brought up many times.
	Are we all anti-Semitic?
	And I mentioned on the show yesterday, you know, I went to Boston University.
	They thought my last name was...
	Jewish.
	It's not.
	It's, you know, it's an English name, Goldsmith.
	And so, but I would hear some of the people who were Jewish and they were Ashkenazi, Zionist Jewish people talking about the Palestinians like they were dogs and they should just be exterminated.
	They were like insects and should be swept away.
	And I was like, what?
	And that was 1986.
	It was nuts.
	Absolutely crazy stuff.
	And this is, it's an insult to the language.
	It's an insult to integrity.
	It's an absolute lie.
	And what's that great book, Do Not Live By Lies?
	Yeah, Solzhenitsyn.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Solzhenitsyn is one of his last speeches, and there's a man, I think, was his name, Kangor, or someone wrote a book based on that, and he used that as the title of the book.
	And he goes through a lot of the Soviet people who tried to hold on to their integrity.
	And this is the sort of thing they're doing to us now.
	It's insane.
	The left in particular likes to argue by questioning your motives, you know, rather than addressing the facts.
	Because, of course, they're...
	They have a great deal of difficulty dealing with the facts.
	So obviously you're a bad person for daring to bring up facts that are difficult to rebut.
	That's the nature of it.
	And the way to deal with that is just to not be cowed by it, to correct your own internal thermostat, or at least refer to it and think, I'm not anti-Jewish people.
	I'm just anti-mass murder.
	I'm anti this state, this other state.
	Having overweening control over this state that has the power to compel me to hand over money to finance the stuff that's going on in this other part of the world that entails the murder of other people who've done me no wrong.
	Yeah, perfectly stated.
	And the amazing thing is the government does us wrong, forcing us to pay for what they want, and then they add the insult that it's for our protection.
	Which, of course, to me, philosophically goes to the root of the canard of the statist argument entirely.
	It's just a big protection racket.
	But if I can, Eric, and folks...
	Feel free to drop your comments into X. They can go up on the screen.
	The Russians spreading the propaganda.
	We'll make sure they get that out there.
	I want people to, if you get the opportunity, go to ericpetersautos.com.
	Ericpetersautos.com.
	We'll talk about his X feed in a minute.
	Put your comments out there.
	And already we have people here.
	Save the truth.
	Said, Eric is right.
	That term has lost all meaning at this point.
	And then we've got this.
	Oh, hey, Prussian be okay.
	Prussian Black, thank you for being there.
	Great to talk to you again.
	Germany was on the defensive, though.
	In some cases, then we've got...
	Oh, yes.
	Thank you so much.
	Thank you.
	Let's head on over into Rumble.
	I should actually expand a little bit on what Prussian Black said.
	Gonzo Johnny is in there talking about 18 billion LOL.
	Isn't that like new cars for Americans?
	Oh yeah, I read that one.
	I'm going to go down a little further.
	Most American Jews are atheists.
	Yeah, that's what I found at Boston University.
	Paleo Armory wrote that.
	That's exactly it.
	And it was strange, Paleo, because I didn't want to sort of...
	Because I had just heard about...
	I didn't know much about religious differences or anything.
	You know, I had no idea.
	Like, I'll give you a quick example, Eric.
	The first girl I met at Boston University, her name was Jill Goldstein.
	And we were just put in the same group in our dormitory because we had the G, G-O-L-D in our names.
	And we got on really well.
	And so I took her for ice cream down on Newbury Street.
	And it was a beautiful, you know, early September day or late August day.
	It was wonderful.
	It was hot.
	It was great.
	And I walked back and went, wow, I met a girl like the first day of college.
	This is amazing.
	This is great.
	So I said goodnight to her.
	And she said, oh, by the way, are you Jewish?
	And I said, no.
	She goes, well, it was nice meeting you.
	And I was like...
	And I had no idea.
	And then a friend of mine, Adam, mentioned to me, he was next door, he was Jewish, Adam Dechter.
	Adam said, oh, you got to understand, guard, you know, within Jewish families, they want people to marry in with Jewish families.
	I had no idea about differences between Jewish people or Catholic people or Protestant people.
	Really, I knew that there were differences, but I never explored it because I wasn't really raised in any sort of a church or anything.
	And so when I went to BU and I got hit with that, I was...
	Blown away.
	And that's exactly it.
	They were really more atheistic and just sort of tied to the state of Israel, family, and a lot of the money interests that they had.
	It was very odd.
	It was really strange stuff at BU, that's for sure.
	What blows me away is that on the one hand, they've got this almost an extreme form of clannishness, which you just elaborated on, where within their clan, it's very important for a lot of them.
	That you be part of the tribe, so to speak.
	It's very important that Israel be kept homogenous from a certain point of view.
	But any other group that even dares to assert something similar for itself, naturally, that's racist and that's hateful.
	Yeah, yeah, exactly.
	And you can see that the way that they're using the term terrorist, terrorist threat now, the hatefulness, anything that they deem, I mean, it's perfectly Orwellian.
	It's exactly what Orwell said.
	And now you can read 1984, you realize it really was a satire of things that he already was seeing.
	That the government was doing within his British circles.
	And also based on what he had seen down in the Spanish Civil War and with Trotskyites.
	So it's very interesting to see this.
	And I'd love to turn now, Eric, to your website because...
	This might become a trickier issue for some people.
	I mentioned, and you heard me mention, some of these people who are being brought up either aligned with terrorists like Khalil Mahmoud Khalil or others like this woman from Brown University who just happened to attend a funeral in Lebanon and then they got her photographs and said,
	you've been at this funeral.
	We're going to take you aside.
	We're going to deport you.
	She's a doctor with patients at Brown University.
	It's insane.
	She's a phlebotomist or something like that.
	You know, it's like these people who have blood problems, they need this woman.
	It's not insane.
	It's authoritarian.
	And the fact that the regime has changed has changed absolutely nothing.
	And this brings us to segue back to this Tesla thing that we were talking about earlier, you and I, before we got on the air.
	The same people who are decrying what they characterize as the weaponization of the government are now weaponizing the government in this very same kind of a way.
	Trump has said that they want to use these domestic terrorism, federal charges against people who go after Tesla charging stations and Tesla dealers.
	Now, mind, I do not in any way endorse or support the destruction of anybody's property, but there are statutes on the books in every state against the destruction of property.
	Charge people who do these things with the
	crimes that they've committed and leave it at that.
	This idea of elevating it to the federal level and creating a whole nother tier of charges, because the state charges are already there.
	It's of a piece with these hate crime statutes where let's say, you know, a white guy gets into it with a black guy and it's no longer just a case of assault.
	It's a hate crime at the federal level.
	Right, exactly.
	Not the crime per se, but the supposed motives of the crime.
	It's a very, very worrisome thing.
	And now it's emanating from...
	Everything's topsy-turvy.
	Four years ago, these leftists were hysterical in their devotion to Elon Musk.
	Elon Musk was their god.
	Now Elon Musk is their enemy.
	And on the other side of that coin, the people who used to hate Elon Musk for being a rent-seeking technocrat now look at Elon Musk as their god.
	It's ramped up.
	That's exactly it.
	And you've gone exactly where I was hoping to go, Eric, with you as the guest, as we texted back and forth.
	But just the way you phrased it, it already presages and foreshadows where I wanted to go.
	Because when we talk about these things, we're seeing, I think, the utilization of the hatred of Donald Trump.
	And Elon Musk's adoption of Donald Trump and then Tesla out there, all of a sudden we've seen the leftists who used to adore him, as you said, now literally engaging in at least a whisper campaign from people like Jimmy Kimmel,
	winking and nodding like, oh, I'd hate to see more Teslas burn, you know, that sort of thing.
	That is now being utilized as fuel for the fire for conservatives to ramp up their...
	Anti-terrorism rhetoric the same way that the Biden administration went after conservatives.
	They're doing the same thing.
	So you have fuel for the fire coming from the people who don't like Trump and they don't like Tesla now because of Musk.
	You get the comedians who are out there who are already disliked by the conservative talk radio hosts and so on.
	Now they're noticing what...
	People like Jimmy Kimmel are saying, and they're saying, look, audience, look at these terrible people.
	We should get terrorism charges against the people committing these crimes, and maybe, just maybe, AOC and others who are promoting that people should do this, maybe they should be up on these crimes too, because rhetorically, they're ginning up terrorist activity.
	And you brought up, that was exactly the point I wanted to explore, which is...
	This amorphous definition of terrorism for whomever might be in charge to define and the state difference where if you've got somebody who's damaging something, states have statutes against those.
	And I thought I was going to bring it up and you brought it up perfectly because I think people are missing this now.
	They're missing that there are already statutes on the books for people who engage in this behavior.
	Well, we kind of live in this, if you want to call it, je accuse era, where, you know, the hysteria seems to just like the arrow points at this group today, then that group tomorrow, and then this one the next day.
	And there's nothing about it that is coherent.
	The only thing that it has in common is that it's hysterical.
	You know, it's no longer simply, okay, this guy, you know, he poured some gas on the Tesla supercharger, lit it on fire, arrest him, charge him with the property crime, punish him according to the law.
	Now it has to be framed as domestic extremism, terrorism.
	And the real danger, I think, in that is that it sets this precedent that pretty much anything that anybody might do could be framed in that manner, particularly if it's something that the regime that happens to wield the power of the federal government doesn't like.
	These people, they're Mr. Magoo in their myopia.
	They don't see that the precedents that are being set right now are the ones that are going to be exploited by whoever the next dear leader is.
	You know, Trump's going to be in there for three something years now.
	Right. And then after him comes who?
	You know, if it might not be somebody that the Red Hats like very much.
	You know, what happens if it winds up being Pete Buttigieg, let's say.
	Right. Exactly.
	It could be, you know, depending on how things go.
	And then they're going to wish perhaps that they had been a little bit calmer in their approach to these things and actually had.
	You know, it reminds me, and you mentioned it, I think, in your article about Marie Antoinette.
	It reminds me of the demonization of so many of the people in the French Revolution or almost every revolution that you see, whether it's the Soviets who took over and immediately Lenin was bathing in blood and then Stalin took over after that.
	And then people give all these excuses about that sort of stuff.
	Or it's the French Revolution and the Jacobins or whatever it might be.
	This demonization.
	of the enemy as a precursor, in many cases, to gin up the hatred.
	And we see this so much in the two minutes of hate inside Orwell's 1984 in Airstrip One, where...
	You know, they're out there and all of a sudden they, you know, they're at war with, we've always been at war with Oceania or, you know, East Asia or Eurasia or whatever.
	That sort of mentality is what we're seeing now with the two party blocks switching back and forth, whoever's in charge and the principles are lost.
	The principles of due process, the principles of, I thought you believed in the Constitution, the principles of, I have a right to my Fourth Amendment privacy.
	You're not supposed to invade my privacy, but you set people up between me and my airline where I want to fly.
	You make me have to turn out my pockets.
	I have to have a piece of paper in order to work.
	I mean, all these things are just incredible police state tactics, and people accept these things, especially when you get into this battle over the government.
	And now you've got people engaging in the burning of the Teslas, which itself is a criminal act.
	It's a terrible act.
	And I can understand why people might not have liked Tesla if they were getting federal grants.
	Of course, Elon Musk always mentions that, you know, we paid back all the federal loans that we got.
	Okay, cool.
	That's cool.
	And he said, you know, we paid them back in time.
	They shouldn't have been able to get them in the first place constitutionally.
	Eric, let's take a look at this piece.
	You've got this piece that you wrote about the climate emergency people.
	All of a sudden, they were all in favor of Teslas, but now they've changed because the man who was their climate hero is now attached to the frogman, Mr. Trump.
	So, as you say here...
	Tesla designed its devices to appeal to affluent leftists who like to pretend they believe the climate is changing, but who are not willing to drive or even be seen driving a minimalist vehicle designed with maximum efficiency in mind rather than how quickly it can get to 60 and all the attendant bragging that comes along for that ride as the main sell.
	Interestingly, even that isn't selling all of a sudden.
	Teslas are still as quick as ever and quicker to 60 than almost anything with an engine.
	But that no longer seems to matter to the leftists who bought Teslas and love to talk about how very quick they were.
	It no longer matters, of course, because Elon is no longer selling.
	It's Elon.
	Who's the problem?
	So let's talk about that.
	Final section on that, if you're interested, because there's another part of this that I'll jump to.
	And feel free if you want to go back, Eric.
	But as you mentioned, the left feels betrayed by Elon.
	Now, let me just ask you this.
	You have separate criminals.
	A person who favors the federal government, maybe the FBI getting involved, Eric would say.
	But if these people are coordinating, That term is very slippery.
	If they're coordinating, then it becomes a federal offense.
	If they're going over state borders, it becomes a federal offense.
	FBI should get involved.
	The FBI should crack down on this.
	Now, my view is that federal jurisdiction is supposed to be very, very rare.
	And when it comes to incidents or aggressive acts like this, it's supposed to be handled by the states.
	And if someone goes over state borders and commits a crime, then the feds are supposed to get involved only to make sure that extradition happens.
	But let me ask you, Eric, what if people are coordinating and we need to define that better because the feds won't.
	They'll do anything they want to make it amorphous.
	They can make it mean anything they want.
	What if they are directly contacting each other saying, you burn this place here.
	I'll help you do this.
	I'll send you this money.
	You go do this.
	I'll pay you to do this.
	And it's across state borders.
	Would then, you think, federal statute apply?
	And then, is it appropriate to call it terrorism?
	Because that's amorphous as well.
	Yeah, you raise a really interesting and difficult point.
	Now, fundamentally, I'm leery about giving the federal government any leeway at all.
	I think its powers, if we have to have any of them at all, should be very strictly limited.
	Perhaps you could make an argument that if there is some sort of outside organization, particularly if it's foreign, you know, I've read that Soros and his organization is pouring money into this thing.
	Yeah, me too.
	That's the case.
	And if it is somebody like Soros, then perhaps the federal government could be justified in going after Soros and his minions.
	But even in that case, this idea that it can be framed as domestic terrorism is very troubling to me.
	You know, we're dealing fundamentally here with property crimes.
	So let's leave it at that.
	And prosecute people in that manner.
	That's the way I personally think that that ought to be handled.
	Now, what I think is most interesting about this business with the firebombing of the Teslas is that clearly these people don't really care too much about the climate change thing, do they?
	I mean, we were preached to relentlessly by these Teslaratis about how they were saving the planet and keeping the climate from changing by driving these Teslas.
	And all of a sudden, they're willing to literally burn them up.
	Now, how many...
	How many genuinely harmful emissions are generated by torching one of these electric cars?
	They don't seem to care at all about that.
	It gives the lie to their nauseating virtue signaling, which is as tiresome as the anti-Semitic stuff.
	That's exactly right.
	You know, I hadn't really thought about that.
	That's a great point.
	All the carbon that's going up into the atmosphere.
	And, you know, I wrote an article and did a video for MRCTV about the climate hypocrites going to COP30.
	And they're digging.
	And David talked about this, I believe, on Thursday or Friday last week.
	I was going to talk about it.
	I kept getting put off by it.
	So I finally got to write and shoot a video for MRCTV on the Amazon forest, an eight-mile stretch.
	That they're, you know, cutting away.
	They're going to pave.
	They're going to have to perpetually take care of this thing just to give the cop 30 attendees an easier route to get to their hotel through Brazil.
	That's unbelievable.
	People even recognize it.
	You know, it's kind of like, you know, Leonardo DiCaprio lecturing people about their carbon footprint while he gets on his jet to go to Davos.
	Somebody asked him, like, hey, I heard you got a new role.
	Are you starring as Bigfoot, right?
	It stuns me because I don't get how anybody could have the, what's the word you could use for this?
	This obtuseness, this lack of introspection, this lack of, I mean, it's literally the pot calling the kettle black and they don't see it.
	How can you drive around in a half-million-dollar V12-powered exotic car, have a jet, live in a 10,000-square-foot mansion, have yacht parties, and be prattling on and on about the climate changing?
	That's so true.
	It's amazing.
	Again, it's sort of like when you hear, say, Donald Trump is saying that he wants to help the American worker.
	And he's going to apply a 25% tariff to make it harder to get your stuff.
	Or he says you're getting ripped off when you can buy something for less.
	It's that sort of idiocy.
	I'm glad you brought that up because it takes us back to this use of language to manipulate people.
	Right.
	You know, what is a tariff?
	It's a tax.
	Yeah.
	And people would understand what's going on if they use that word, tax.
	Right.
	Instead, they use this word, tariff, and somehow, I mean, it's magical almost.
	You know, people think that they're not going to pay the tax because they call it a tariff.
	Yeah, right.
	Yeah, yeah, exactly.
	This fist is not a fist.
	I mean, they did it before, you know, with Social Security.
	Oh, you're not being taxed for Social Security.
	It's a contribution.
	You know, you remind me of the series, the British science fiction series, one of my favorites, Red Dwarf, because they've got an android on there named Crichton, and the lead actor, the lead character is a guy named Dave Lister, and he's like the only human left alive, and he's stuck on this ship with a robot,
	a hologram, and the evolved cat.
	That was the descendant of a cat that he had smuggled aboard the ship like three million years before that.
	And he's the only human left alive that he knows of.
	He's out in deep space.
	He's got to deal with all these crazy characters.
	So he's trying to teach Crichton how to break his programming so he can become more human.
	He's trying to teach him how to lie.
	And he keeps holding up a banana.
	I know, he keeps holding up an orange.
	And he says, all right, Crichton, what's this?
	He goes, oh, it's an orange, sir.
	He goes, no, no, Crichton, Crichton, it's a banana.
	And he's like, but sir, it's an orange.
	I can see it very plainly.
	He goes, no, we're trying to break your programming, Crichton.
	We want you to, you gotta be able to lie sometimes.
	He goes, but sir, I'm programmed not to lie.
	I'm supposed to be honest, as clean as the new driven snow.
	And he says, Crichton, it's gonna come in handy sometimes.
	You gotta learn how to lie.
	So finally he breaks the programming and Crichton's all excited.
	He goes, it's a...
	It's a banana!
	And then he starts going crazy.
	He's like, it's the French fleet doing maneuvers off the coast of Spain!
	Yes!
	He goes, I can do it!
	I can lie!
	And all I could think of was all these politicians and how they broke in their programming, you know?
	As funny as it is, it's also tragic.
	The way that we find our way out of this is to be careful with words, use them judiciously.
	And with overt understanding of what the meaning is.
	Not let ourselves be manipulated by the use of language, by people who are malignant.
	I think it's almost a form of the red-pilling cliche.
	Once you get into the mental habit of examining the words that are being used, the thing begins to clear up.
	And it's a lot harder for them to bamboozle you when you insist on precision with regard to words and their meaning.
	And, you know, I admirably as well, you know, I mentioned this to Jason offline and to you as well here.
	I admire when people, you know, they have pierced that veil in whatever dimension it is and on whatever plane it is.
	And they continue to do their work knowing that maybe they can't change anything.
	But they do it with a positivity.
	They do it with a spirit that if I can, you know, give some truth to one person or two people.
	That's good for me.
	If I had a conversation with somebody at the corner store on the dusty floor and we came to an agreement on something, that's great for me.
	So I'm going to continue doing it.
	And I'd like to ask you, Eric, I know you have a number of articles at ericpetersautos.com and I hope people will go there, see your piece on the Teslas.
	And I really appreciate the fact that you also thought through some of these questions regarding the terrorism charges because it's all totally jingoistic.
	Patriotic, MAGA, go after these people, get them, get them, get them.
	Just like the people who might be asking for peace on college campuses, where, of course, the federal money should not be going in the first place.
	But it's the same sort of directed hatred against people like Jimmy Kimmel, who's doing something stupid, talking about, hey, maybe that would be a really bad thing if we saw more Teslas burn.
	Ginning it up to a point where you're making a federal offense out of all these things, when really that is really pushing it too far.
	I know you've got other articles over there that are really timely.
	I've got this one here from the 19th, the software-defined vehicle.
	I'd love to talk to you about this, but if you've got other ones you'd like to discuss, feel free, because this one's a terrific one, and I think it goes to the heart of a lot of people who are familiar with some of the problems with contemporary driving.
	Yeah, well, I think that's a good one to talk about because I think it's important that people become aware of what's going on.
	I have, over the years, likened new cars to cell phones, and the description has now become almost literally true in that these things are devices and they are controlled by software rather than by you, the owner, the driver.
	And it's become overtly explicit now with this push to push electric vehicles on everybody.
	They are fundamentally large cell phones.
	What do I mean by that?
	Well, you know, your cell phone, you nominally possess it.
	You bought it.
	You hold the thing.
	But the apps are not controlled by you.
	It's updated at will by whoever it is that, I guess, originated the device, whoever produced it.
	You can't elect to not have it updated.
	If it wants to control the way it operates, it will do so.
	And the same with regard to these software-defined cars.
	There's almost nothing mechanical in them any longer, even to the extent, for example, if you get into a modern car with an automatic transmission in it, you look down on the center console and you see that gear selector handle there, and you have the illusion that you're moving that selector from park to reverse to drive.
	You're not doing anything of the kind.
	You know, what's happening is that a computer is registering those movements and then sending a signal to make the transmission go into whatever gear you've selected.
	But implicit in that is that the computer could say, no, I don't want you to be able to move the thing out of park.
	I'm not going to let you do that.
	The same with the throttle, the same with the steering.
	And when you get to the Naples Ultra expression of this, the electric car, where everything is electric, the thing can just decide on its own to not move anymore.
	Or to move fast.
	Or to move slowly.
	And it will narc out everything that you do.
	They're already doing that.
	These cars all have telematics embedded in them, meaning that they both send and receive information.
	Data is streaming out of your car.
	And they market this as, oh, well, you know, we're trying to make sure that your vehicle runs optimally and, you know, we'll get all this important diagnostic information.
	Well, they're also collecting information about where you're going, where you're traveling, how fast you're driving, whether you're braking aggressively, and all of these other things.
	And, you know, they're in many cases beginning to share these things with third parties like the insurance mafia.
	So even though you've gotten no tickets and, you know, had no files, nothing, no claims filed or anything at all, you open the letter and find out that they jacked up your insurance by 20% because somehow they found out that you like to drive a little faster than the speed limit, you know, things of that nature.
	And I worry also, Eric, because, you know, based on the, and this actually runs parallel.
	Pun intended, in a way, to the government running on the roads and the government control over the infrastructure of telecommunications, the lines that run parallel to most roads.
	The fiber optic cables, the power lines, and so on, because the government claims the roads.
	And for a long time, starting with World War I, they gave that monopoly to AT&T that only got broken up with the end of the Carter administration as Reagan came in.
	And then they started things like 9X and Western Telephone and so on.
	Those ended up splitting up the baby bells and then reforming into things like Verizon.
	And part of the breakup of AT&T gave the AT&T...
	AT&T baby bells, the monopoly to control the fiber optic cables and phone lines that run parallel essentially to most roads, whether they're underground or above ground.
	Yeah.
	And it would be very, very easy to attach either with cell towers or anywhere along those lines, monitors along highways, along country roads, within cell towers, with satellites, any sort of monitor that they want.
	With a signal that can go to it that the government would definitely approve.
	And then the government, of course, would snoop.
	They would get that information because, of course, it would be for our safety.
	And the cars would have to comply eventually, not even allowing people to go over the speed limit, that sort of thing.
	And we've already seen tests of this sort of thing happening around the United States, right?
	It's a mechanism for centralized corporate government control.
	That's what it is.
	Just like these smartphones ultimately are about the same thing.
	They're tracking devices that are incidentally phones.
	You know, they are meant as a means of figuring out what you're doing, where you are.
	What sorts of things you're talking about?
	All of that stuff.
	And, you know, people are, they've been gulled into it because, oh, look how convenient it is, you know, and look how neat it is.
	I can take a picture of anything I want to at any time and I can send it to my friends.
	I can watch videos on this little gadget.
	And, you know, I get it.
	You know, people find that stuff clever and interesting and fun, but it blinds them to the pernicious side of the technology.
	And it's the same with regard to these cars.
	A car at one point was an autonomous thing.
	And again, look at the language.
	Autonomous means independent, doesn't it?
	Yet these things that are being pushed on us as autonomous cars are, in fact, the ones that are controlled by the centralized apparatus.
	Autonomous cars doesn't just autonomously drive.
	It drives in accordance with the grid programming and whatever information and data it's getting from the hive mind and the GPS.
	So it's the farthest possible thing from autonomous.
	So what they want ultimately is the end goal of all of this is twofold.
	They essentially want you to be a passenger in a Johnny Cab.
	Remember that from the Arnold movie?
	Arnold Schwarzenegger.
	What was that?
	The Philip K. Dick story based on Mars, right?
	What was that?
	Was it The Running Man?
	Was that the one?
	That was a Stephen King one.
	It was the Total Recall.
	Total Recall, exactly.
	That's the one.
	Yeah, either that or they want you to just use your smartphone to tap an app and you'll get what they call transportation as a service.
	They are doing everything that they can to winnow down and restrict and ultimately get rid of the autonomous vehicle, meaning your ability to own a car freely and to be the master of that car, to be the one that's in control of it.
	And to be able to drive it whenever you want to drive it, wherever you wish to drive it, and without anybody knowing where you're going or where you've been.
	They want to get rid of that.
	They have to get rid of that.
	You can't have a totalitarian, authoritarian society when people are free to drive.
	You have a photograph.
	You always pick great photos to be included in your pieces.
	Our guest is Eric Peters of ericpetersautos.com.
	And Eric will mention in just a second where people can find you on X and your videos on Rumble.
	But I love this picture with the handcuffs that says one size fits all.
	I don't know where you found that, but that's great.
	And I love it.
	You say at the end of this article, you say there is good news in that it is still feasible to avoid being driven by a software-defined device.
	And you do it by not buying one.
	The more who don't, and you and I spoke about this about a year ago.
	We said, you know, where do we think the market's going to go?
	It's a battle between collectivist, fascist, mercantilist.
	Forces with the United States government and international forces pushing all this climate, electric vehicle, control grid stuff, and people who want real autonomy with something they could put fluid fuel into and drive where they want to go.
	But again, that's still on a grid that governments claims the control over.
	So it's a tricky thing, but at least there's that close to autonomy.
	Not buying one.
	That's the way.
	Let the market reveal it.
	And now we're seeing this with electric vehicles.
	Even Tesla was dropping in sales, not just because of the Trump Association.
	This has been happening to a lot of electric vehicle makers like Volkswagen and so on, right?
	Oh, absolutely.
	This is an immense power that we wield as a society, and yet we often choose not to wield it, which is sad.
	Just by saying no, by not buying it, by not buying in, we can go back to the height of the pandemic, which we've talked about many times before.
	If enough people had just said, no, I don't buy this hysteria, and I'm not going to go along with it, and I'm not going to wear a mask.
	Even if it means I can't get into the store to get what I want right this second, I'll figure a way around it.
	I'm not going to buy it.
	I'm not going to play along with it.
	You know, if enough of us had done it at that time, that whole thing would have been over in two months.
	Exactly.
	Just like if you've gone back to when they first imposed the TSA in the name of defending the homeland.
	We live in a homeland now, not a country.
	If enough people have said, you know what, I'm going to forego that trip by air.
	I'm not going to fly.
	It's inconvenient.
	I'm going to have to drive nine or ten hours to get to see my family or whatever it is, but I'm not going to put up with it.
	If enough people had done that and held fast for six months, it would have bankrupted the airlines.
	The airlines would have squealed like a pig.
	They would have gone to the federal government and said, this can't stand.
	It has to end.
	And we would still be free to fly again without being treated like recently arrested felons being processed on the way to the clink.
	You know, it's interesting because...
	I often think about how I wish my dad were here to hear you talk, because he was such a fan of cars, you know, working on cars, and he was a pro-Liberty guy.
	I think I might have mentioned to you, he worked at a gas station as a teenager back when there was cocaine in the Coca-Cola, and he said, I used to drink eight of those a day.
	I'm like, you must have been very efficient at your job.
	He goes, ah, it went pretty fast.
	But, you know, it's the kind of thing, you know, you take the new cars, you do the test drivings, and people can find you.
	In fact, let's talk a little bit about how they can find you on X and get one more opportunity to talk about another piece that you've got.
	But over on X, if people want to find you, it is at apostate27832.
	Or just look up Eric the Apostate.
	Eric the Apostate.
	At apostate27832.
	And of course, it is Eric Peters Autos.
	And I hope people will check that out on my tabs.
	Where did it go?
	I'll find it.
	And see some of the articles that are so key because...
	I find what's really fascinating to me.
	There we go.
	What's really fascinating to me is I get to see your videos sometimes as you do your test driving.
	Tell us about this article here, A Handicapped Driver.
	That was great.
	Well, that was prompted by something that happened the other day that seems to happen practically every day I go out for a drive.
	I'm driving down the road that leads from my place here in Southwest Virginia to Roanoke to hit the gym.
	And the speed limit on that road is 55 miles an hour, and pretty much everybody is driving a little bit faster than that, around 60-something, because it's entirely reasonable to do that.
	Anyway, I round a curve, and up in front of me is a car that's going maybe 40 miles an hour, sometimes going down to about 35, and it has handicap tags on it.
	And it just popped into my little brain.
	That, you know, handicapped can be read in a couple of different ways.
	There are people who have difficulty walking, and that's what most people understand by the term handicapped.
	But it also means somebody who just can't drive.
	And you don't have to have a disability to not be able to drive.
	And I tried to make that funny point, but there's a serious point there, you know, in that it's not about people who, for whatever reason, are driving slowly.
	There are many reasons that a person might drive more slowly.
	Maybe they're not.
	They're not the most confident driver.
	Maybe their car has a mechanical problem, or maybe they're just wanting to see the sights.
	That's not the problem.
	The problem is when you're just oblivious and indifferent to other people.
	You're not looking in the rearview mirror and looking down at your speedometer and realizing, you know, I'm going 20 miles an hour below the speed limit, and there are these cars stacking up behind me.
	Maybe I could just be courteous and move off to the right a little bit and wave them by.
	Right.
	That's the thing that gets my back up.
	That obnoxious, passive-aggressive, king-of-the-road attitude where nobody else's concerns matter at all.
	The only thing that matters is this guy.
	I'm just going to drive along however I feel.
	It makes me want to reach for the bottle slowly, even if it's not quite noon yet.
	I remember that there was a comedian who said that he thought that everybody's...
	Everybody's license plate number should be a cell phone number and that if you get stuck behind them, you should be able to call them like, get off the road!
	Or that everybody should have some electric charge in their car so that if you get slow down, you can charge them up.
	But this is something that I often discuss with students when I talk about the tragedy of the commons because the government claim of ownership of the roads doesn't allow for differentiation between skill sets that really would allow people...
	People who are very good drivers with good peripheral vision and depth perception and good reflexes to be able to get on Audubon-style roads, who have cars that if they were privately owned, the owner of the Audubon-style road might have certain standards and say,
	okay, your car is good, go for it.
	Then people who go on that could be highly efficient, get to where they want to go very, very fast.
	Other people...
	Slow them down because we're all put into the same pool.
	It puts everybody from different skill sets and different abilities and different types of cars into the same pool.
	And we all have different reasons for being out there oftentimes.
	So this is one of the major problems.
	It's the existence of government that...
	It doesn't allow us to escape these problems and forces us to pay for it.
	So just like you have to pay for the road, the slow driver or the granny on the Sunday out there, she's paying for the road too.
	So how can your interest to get to where you want to go fast be balanced with her interest to go on a Sunday drive 10 miles an hour under the speed limit because she has bad depth perception, right?
	This ends up, I think, a more profound issue.
	It's just a matter of...
	Of civility.
	You know, we're living at a time when civility is very much on the wane.
	You notice it on the roads, you notice it in the supermarket.
	Have you ever been in a supermarket where, you know, you're trying to proceed down the aisle and there's somebody in front of you with a cart who just doesn't care that they're blocking the whole aisle and they just stand there.
	Yes, yes.
	And you stand there waiting for them.
	And then they look up at you and they don't understand.
	And you try to be kind of nice.
	I often have gotten an inside going frustrated and then I'm like, nah, it's not going to help me.
	I'll just be positive.
	I'll just think, well, maybe their mind is all sorted.
	Maybe they have a family member who's sick.
	But it happens a lot.
	These common courtesies, on a small scale level, they may not mean a lot, but they add up to a lot.
	When you have a society that either practices courtesy or doesn't.
	You end up with a society that just needles you constantly.
	Every time you go out somewhere, you have to deal with these people who just make no effort whatsoever to make life go a little bit easier for other people.
	You know, there's a couple perfect examples of that.
	When I go to the supermarket, on my way in, I always grab a couple carts and bring them inside.
	I always return my cart.
	Was it you or someone else was talking about the cart returners are the last vestige of traditional American humanity.
	And, you know, people grow up thinking, well, now there are people who work there.
	They have to go out to get the carts.
	Well, if more people return the carts, they wouldn't have to have as many people going out to get the carts and paying them.
	They can do other stuff inside, like supplying food for less money.
	Why add to their burden?
	But a perfect example of it, there was a store in New Hampshire called Bradley's in Nashua, New Hampshire, actually.
	And they were closing up.
	And my niece was a big fan of the Powerpuff Girls.
	And so I wanted to get her something.
	And this Bradley store, over the course of a couple weeks, had been closing down.
	They've been selling their stuff off.
	And they had been bringing their stock closer to the registers.
	And so they had all these, like, little barriers.
	The rest of it was just cleared out.
	But they had these barriers up so that you wouldn't go past.
	And they had the little toy section.
	And I found a...
	I was looking for a Powerpuff Girls board game.
	So I could be Mojo Jojo, you know?
	And there was a woman who bent down at the bottom shelf.
	She pulled out a board game.
	And she looked at it.
	Didn't put it back.
	Just left it on the floor.
	Yep.
	And I'm standing right next to her.
	And I was like, oh, don't forget.
	She's like, what?
	I was like, wasn't that on the shelf?
	Like, you just left it on the floor.
	She's like, that's not my problem.
	I was like, well, you're the one who left it on the floor.
	Then her boyfriend comes over.
	And they're both, you know, like, you know, angry stoners.
	Like, they should probably smoke more weed, you know?
	They come up to me.
	He goes, hey, you got a problem?
	And I was like, you know, do you have kids?
	He goes, yeah.
	And I was like, do you tell your kids to pick their stuff up?
	Or how about if they're at somebody else's house?
	Do you tell them, hey, it's okay to make a mess in somebody else's house?
	He's like, what?
	What's the problem?
	I was like, somebody else is going to have to do this now.
	That's an employee.
	He goes, that's their job.
	I'm like, why give them more work?
	What's wrong with you?
	I mean, it's so brutal and stupid.
	It's everywhere.
	I encounter this frequently at my gym.
	There are guys who will use dumbbells and then just dump them on the floor or leave plates racked on a bench.
	What?
	It's crazy.
	It's everywhere.
	It really makes me want to just go live in a cave somewhere.
	I don't understand it.
	I used to think of myself as kind of a coarse man, but I'm beginning to feel like an old country English gentleman because I don't know.
	I was raised differently.
	I've got many flaws.
	I'm not trying to portray myself as some kind of avatar of virtue, but I do pick up after myself, and I don't make a mess, and I treat other people's things with respect.
	Well, maybe we all exist in the avatar of virtue now.
	It's dead.
	Right.
	They've destroyed it.
	Eric, I want to thank you for being with us.
	And I know, you know, you got to monitor the show a little bit earlier, and I hope you don't mind that you were backstage like that, because it's so great to talk to you, man.
	Yeah, it was great to talk to Jason, wasn't it?
	He's always doing great work, yeah.
	And I know that...
	He's been helping me out, by the way, on X. You know, he and I have been sort of trying to help each other out, because, of course, we're not paying for our free speech, and so our free speech doesn't have very much reach.
	But there are ways to get around that.
	I won't go into them in case Elon is listening.
	Well, I hope...
	Let's see.
	How can we figure that out?
	Can you write an article about that and then we can share it on other social media sites?
	Or maybe we could, I don't know, do a special separate podcast?
	Yeah, well, really, it's not any big secret.
	If I, as an individual, post something...
	And it doesn't get propagated or whatever the term is.
	Other people who are aware that I post regularly can manually go look me up and look my feed up and then they can do me a solid by propagating something that I posted.
	I do that for Jason.
	He does it for me.
	Yeah, yeah.
	And that's excellent.
	That's excellent.
	So you're talking about Jason Barker or Jason Snorrens?
	Oh yeah, Jason Barker, right.
	Yeah, absolutely right.
	And it's just a natural, you know, you're using...
	One of the key tools of the original Twitter platform, anyway, retweeting.
	So reposting, 100%.
	And the more people do that, that's great.
	Do you know, I know Tiger, Angry Tiger and Jason both would tag people for certain things.
	And that makes us aware in our notifications.
	Yes, that too.
	Glad you brought that up.
	Yeah, that seems to work as well because then after they can go over and they can retweet your thing.
	It seems to, yeah.
	So it's the two-step process.
	They tag you, and then you go over to their feed, find the things that you want, and you can find multiple and get that out there.
	Yep, yep.
	Anyone's not as smart as he can.
	Well, yeah, as they say, he's had both ends burning, unfortunately, as Roxy Music would say.
	So, Eric, we're going to talk about again, Apostate 27832.
	That is it.
	It sounds like a zip code.
	Find him at Apostate 27832.
	It's Eric the Apostate and ericpetersautos.com.
	Eric, you are a gentleman, you are a scholar, and you're a race car driver.
	So that's even better.
	Thanks, Carter.
	Appreciate you having me on.
	You got it, man.
	Thank you so much.
	Eric Peters.
	Thanks, Eric.
	Eric Peters Autos, he is a great, great man.
	And please, head on over to the website.
	He knows what he's doing.
	He's on the ball.
	So...
	Let's take the opportunity once more to thank you in the audience and get your comments.
	The Knights of the Storm, Jason Barker is there.
	And he says, that's me.
	And yes, I have a show here.
	Yep, he's on Rumble.
	Check out Knights of the Storm.
	Check out Jason Barker in the foxhole.
	Gonzo Johnny is inside Rumble.
	Dougalug.
	Evidently, we got a short start, an abbreviated start with Rockfin earlier today.
	So most of the viewers have been over at Rumble and on X. And thank you for being almost a thousand folks on X right now.
	Keep spreading the word.
	And thank you.
	The Russians are telling me one of our...
	Hey, Mike!
	Oh, Mike, I love that picture.
	Anthony Fauci.
	You think they'll let him wear a mask if he goes to prison?
	I wonder.
	Great job filling in for David today.
	Thank you so much.
	And remember, you can contribute over at Rumble, I think.
	I know there was a problem yesterday, but if you do have any problems, go to the...
	DavidKnightShow.com.
	I always feel it's such an honor to fill in for David.
	And he's so kind to me.
	And, you know, he texts me and says hello and things like that.
	And he appreciates all of you so much.
	And it's a wonderful two-way street.
	So if you do want to contribute to David, that's really key.
	If you can't get through at Rumble, I know Jason Barker was on top of that yesterday.
	They were having a problem at Rumble.
	If you can't get through at Rumble to donate, please feel free to, you know, go on to TheZell or something like that.
	Go to TheDavidKnightShow.com.
	You'll see all the ways that you can donate to the show.
	Before I go, I want to leave you just briefly with a quick update on one final item.
	And again, I want to thank Jason Sorens for joining us as well.
	Just fantastic stuff from Jason Sorens.
	He's always on the ball.
	I want to talk to you a little bit about what's going on in Montreal and other places right now as far as that slaughter in the Middle East.
	There are a lot of people who are turning out.
	And they're starting to protest.
	They're protesting in Tel Aviv.
	They're protesting in a lot of different places.
	And I want to ask a question of you if you're in America.
	So here is what's been happening.
	This was in Quebec.
	Rebel News actually put this out, which is interesting, because I think the Rebel News people, they're very much pro-Zionist.
	And I think that they look at this as somehow bad.
	But RT put this out as well.
	And RT is much more in favor of the plight of the Palestinians, you know, trying to help them.
	Pro-Palestine protesters pray in Montreal Park where John A. MacDonald's statue bit the dust.
	The landmark of the principal author of the Quebec Resolutions stood in the park for over 120 years before it was forcibly toppled during protests described as anti-racism in 2021.
	So again, this brings in the idea of the tragedy of the commons.
	And when it's public land...
	Everyone argues over how it's going to be utilized.
	Not everybody can utilize it the way they want to.
	You've got to stretch a field.
	Is it going to be for football, soccer?
	What days?
	Baseball, basketball, flying kites.
	What is it going to be for?
	For homeless people?
	How do we manage?
	How do we manage when we're all part of the forced we?
	And so for me, philosophically, the less often that happens, the better.
	And when they forcibly apply themselves to tell you they're doing it for your protection.
	And then you start to see people responding this way, showing that they're supportive of the Palestinians and those poor people getting attacked with U.S. and British,
	mostly U.S., ordinance.
	Again, I don't want to leave things too heavy filling in for David today, but there's a lot of terrible things that are happening.
	I think we're going to see more protests happening outside of college campuses.
	And I'm wondering how the Trump administration and local authorities will respond to those things and how the people who spoke in favor of freedom of speech and against censorship during the COVID lockdowns,
	how they will either...
	Conform to their previous standards or stray from them.
	And this is a problem that I'm going to be watching very closely.
	Because already we've seen Tulsi Gabbard flip.
	She used to be outspoken about the United States-backed slaughter of the Houthis by Saudi Arabia.
	Over 100,000 people killed, mostly with U.S. weapons by the Saudis.
	Inside Yemen.
	And, you know, it seems like it's a perennial problem, this warfare thing.
	Ever since I was a kid and the hippies were protesting against Vietnam, I didn't understand it.
	And now I'm talking about this sort of stuff out there.
	And there's so many other things.
	The technocracy creeping in, as we got to discuss with Courtney Turner yesterday.
	Or the technocracy creeping in, as we talk about today with Eric Peters.
	But there are other, I think, much more...
	Satisfying explorations that we can take as well.
	And one of those, again, I wanted to acknowledge and thank Jason Sorens for joining us because I believe when one can get a really good understanding of never-changing principles of economics and the way Division of labor works and peaceful interaction among people works.
	You get to strip away all that government stuff.
	And you can see the government influences on these things.
	And they're great stopgaps.
	They're great barriers to stop the invasion of the rhetoric.
	To say, no, I'm going back to those principles.
	What is basic human interaction and what's peaceful?
	And that's a great example.
	If you can...
	Pierce the veil of the tariff rhetoric and understand it's just people trading with each other, going back to ancient Cro-Magnon days, division of labor, relative advantage, that sort of thing.
	Then you can start to see all these areas where government invades our choices.
	And when you then see government invading choices, you realize how immoral and unethical the government apparatus is.
	How it not only leads to pernicious consequences like Lower standards of living or standards of living that should rise faster, but they're not.
	But also to things like this, this assumption that they're going to be protecting you and yet they're going to be bombing people in foreign lands.
	Again, they are protesting in Tel Aviv.
	They want Netanyahu out.
	And as I mentioned yesterday, there are people who are folks who had been held by Hamas who are saying Israel undercut the peace process there.
	And I don't think you're going to hear the readings of doctors the way you heard readings of, for example, Farouz Sidwa on antiwar.com.
	But we have lots of options now, and we don't have to watch the pop media.
	We can watch good people like Dave, Dave DeCamp.
	We can watch good people like Eric Peters on his Rumble channel, Knights of the Storm, and David Knight.
	So thanks, everybody, for being here.
	And I really appreciate it.
	Like I said, we got that weird start.
	I think it was the browser glitch at the start of the program.
	But the production team has gotten on top of that.
	And so Rockfin was running for a little while.
	But again, look for the podcast.
	And you can sign up for that at most available podcasts.
	Go to thedavidknightshow.com for all the links.
	And I think that everybody who is here...
	I want to take my hat off to you.
	I don't have my Eric Peters hat with me, but I'll do it on Liberty Conspiracy tonight at 6 o 'clock.
	In the meantime, thank you, everyone.
	Have a terrific lunchtime.
	If it is that lunchtime, we'll see you again tomorrow.
	And Tony Arterburn was going to join us today.
	He texted me before the show, and he let me know he's just super, super busy.
	So, Tony, I want to say hello to you and recommend that anybody gets the opportunity.
	Go to Wise Wolf Gold and Silver Exchange.
	And it's also available at davidknight.gold.
	It's davidknight.gold.
	You can see the link at the David Knight Show.
	And I am going to leave you with, I believe, this one.
	The common man for David Knight.
	Again, great music and great sentiment.
	Thank you all.
	And I'll say it this way.
	Thank you all.
	Thanks, everybody.
	I'm Gardner Goldsmith signing off till tomorrow for the David Knight Show.
	God bless.
	Have a great rest of the day.
	��
	The Common Man.
	They created Common Core to dumb down our children.
	They created Common Past to track and control us.
	Their Commons Project to make sure the commoners own nothing and the communist future.
	They see the common man as simple, unsophisticated, ordinary.
	But each of us has worth and dignity created in the image of God.
	That is what we have in common.
	That is what they want to take away.
	Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation.
	They desire to know everything about us while they hide everything from us.
	It's time to turn that around and expose what they want to hide.
	Please share the information and links you'll find at TheDavidKnightShow.com Thank you for listening.
	Thank you for sharing.
	If you can't support us financially, please keep us in your prayers.

▲