Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 17, 2025 - The David Knight Show

03:01:10

Thu Episode #1991: Trump’s Tyrannical Revival of 1798 Act: Innocent Man (says White House) Doomed

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	As the clock strikes 13, it's Thursday.
	And what is the day today?
	The 17th of April, year of our Lord, 2025.
	So I can look it up.
	And we're going to talk today.
	About what is really happening, the issues behind all this, this goes back to the Aliens and Sedition Acts, really.
	We're starting to see that reincarnated in the Trump presidency, this dispute about how people are being deported, whether they're getting due process or not.
	That's the alien part of it.
	The deportation and the censorship of people who are even here legally being arrested and deported without due process, that's part of the sedition.
	Yeah, Trump calls it treason, but it really is what was called sedition.
	And so we're going to take a look at the historical background of this, and we're going to, look, there's things on both sides.
	And somebody yesterday said, oh, so we're going to talk about the rights of illegal aliens.
	I'll do a hard pass.
	Well, why don't you take a listen to what I'm going to say, because people are getting things right and wrong on both sides of this issue, and the devil is in the details, if you care to listen.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	As I said yesterday, that was the only comment I got on Twitter.
	I have such great engagement on Twitter.
	It's amazing.
	And that's the comment.
	Oh, so today the topic is rights for illegals.
	Pass. And I said, no, that's not the topic.
	I said, the topic is the rule of law and due process.
	Or are we going to be ruled by fake emergencies?
	And look, this is not like the fake emergency of COVID.
	There's real issues with border.
	And I've called it an invasion before they started calling it an invasion.
	And many of the things that are being done are things that I said should have been done.
	But there's differences in the way, when we look at what this judge is doing.
	This judge...
	He's been involved on both sides of this issue.
	He's been a FISA court judge appointed by Roberts.
	But before that, he was put in by George W. Bush.
	Then he was put into the current position by Obama.
	This guy is a typical uniparty guy.
	This judge that is challenging Trump.
	And he clearly is an activist judge.
	And this is when I've talked about judicial supremacy.
	What I mean by that...
	Are the judges that decide that they're going to set policy?
	That they're going to push aside what a president does?
	And then we're also seeing in this back and forth, we're seeing a reincarnation of the DACA dispute from Trump's first term.
	And in that one, as I pointed out, this was an executive order.
	DACA was an executive order.
	They could never get it passed through Congress.
	So the Obama administration decided that they just weren't going to enforce immigration law.
	They called it deferred action.
	Well, it was an executive order by the previous president, and Trump says, well, I'm going to get rid of it.
	And the courts said, no, you can't.
	And so he played that game.
	And he went to them to see if they would allow him to do it.
	And they said, no, you can't do it.
	So he complied with that and didn't do it.
	I said, that was stupid.
	It was cowardice.
	He should have asserted his position there.
	Well, now he's doing that.
	And some of these things, it remains to be seen what he's going to do in the reincarnation of this, because there was a similar thing from Biden for people from Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Haiti.
	He gave them citizenship, and it was by executive order.
	Not citizenship, but he gave them legal residence here.
	And Trump said, well, I'm going to revoke that.
	Now a judge is saying you can't do that, so we'll see what happens with that.
	But on the flip side, what is concerning, and concerning to all of us, is whether or not we're going to have due process.
	It's a very different thing to set policy than it is to go to a specific case.
	And not just about deportation.
	Look, the deportation, the immigration courts are a mess.
	They are a slow-moving, backlogged, log-jammed mess.
	And something needs to be done to clear that out.
	Because of the massive numbers of people that have come in, millions of them.
	But when you start talking about sending somebody to this supermax prison, now you're starting to talk about something that is very serious, life-threatening.
	This is like, you know, people are tortured there, they're deprived of medical care, intentionally brutal to break these gangs.
	And I don't oppose that prison system just like I don't oppose the death penalty.
	If the person is legitimately a member of MS-13 or the Venezuelan gangs.
	But when you have a death penalty, what you don't want to have is lynch mobs, right?
	You want to make sure that you've got to deprocess.
	And when the punishment is that severe, we're not just talking about merely deportation.
	We're talking about sending people to this prison.
	And when it is something that is that severe...
	Then the courts need to take up those individual cases.
	And if they don't, then we are at risk.
	When I said yesterday, as I said, you know, the real issue, when I replied to her, I said the real issue is the rule of law and of due process.
	And if we throw those out, then it is the government that is illegal.
	It is the government that is illegitimate.
	And that is a threat to all of us.
	Look, I'm not here to opine about every single thing that Trump does.
	I'm here, you know, we have fun with some of the stupid stuff that he does.
	Target-rich environment.
	I mean, I could just do a show about that, and that would be fun.
	But my purpose on this show is to warn you about things that may be coming.
	Now, that's perceived by many to be negative.
	But I also want to give you, you know, I don't have any hope in politics, frankly, so yeah, I guess I am pretty negative about all of it.
	My hope is in Christ and the High King of Heaven, not in the President of the United States.
	And so, I see this as temporary.
	And we've got some amazing news in the Christian front about the kidnapped missionary, and what subsequently happened with that.
	Nevertheless, When we talk about it, my purpose is to warn people about what is coming so you can make preparation.
	So you can be forewarned.
	I just feel like if I see it and I don't say anything about it, and it's a biblical principle, if you don't warn people when you see something happening, their blood is on your hands.
	I don't want that.
	So I'm sorry if it's negative.
	I'm sorry if it doesn't fit nicely into the cheerleading of the MAGA club or the cheerleading of the Democrat club.
	But I just call it the way that I see it.
	And we've got to say that, you know, if you skip a trial, that it's going to determine guilt.
	And if you pronounce somebody as guilty, as we saw with that little display that Trump arranged with the El Salvador president.
	Oh, well, he's a terrorist.
	No, you haven't determined that.
	If he is illegal, that's one thing.
	Deport him.
	But if you're going to call him a terrorist and put him in that prison that they set up, and if you look in that prison, they're proud of the fact they've got guards all over the place, and they've got guards on the outside standing there with, you know, fully automatic weapons six feet apart, and they've got the prison there, it says, you know, Corrections Institute for Terrorism,
	you know, and all the rest of this, that's on the wall there.
	They, you know, they're proud of that.
	And they need to do something about MS-13 and about this trendy gang.
	Trendy Aragua, whatever it is.
	I don't care.
	It's a Venezuelan thing.
	Something needs to be done about that.
	And we're going to take a look at the issues that are here.
	Because there's some very important constitutional issues and issues that are going to have a bearing on us.
	Because if a president can ignore what the courts are really about are solving disputes, right?
	And the primary thing about the federal courts...
	Never intended to sit there as the final arbiter of whether some policy is constitutional or not.
	That's not what it was for.
	They gave themselves that power with Marbury v.
	Madison, and Jefferson says, well, that's the end of the Constitution.
	And it is, if we go with that.
	But we've had other presidents who didn't go with that.
	We had Andrew Jackson, and I've talked about that many times.
	But if you're going to have...
	What the courts are there for are to adjudicate disputes between individuals, between individuals and companies, between states, okay, and especially the federal courts, between things that are not within a complete state jurisdiction.
	But they have grown out of that role, and they need to be put back in there.
	But when you start talking about a situation where an individual It was going to be determined as a terrorist and given that kind of punishment.
	The courts need to be involved in that.
	Not involved in the big scheme of things about whether an entire class of people can be deported.
	That's not their business.
	And so, you know, to shut down DACA or to say that you can't shut down DACA because they like that policy?
	I mean, how can you make a legitimate argument?
	That an executive order from the prior president, from Obama, cannot be countermanded with an executive order from Trump.
	That's nonsense.
	And the same thing is now coming up again.
	Oh, we got an executive order from Biden about immigration, and you can't get rid of it.
	That's nonsense.
	That's judicial activism.
	Those are judges who are writing law.
	Those are judges who are creating policy.
	They're not looking at an individual case and making sure that there is due process.
	And so I want to take a look at this, but before I do, I just want to play this.
	This is the response of Caroline Leavitt, the press secretary for Trump.
	And she starts to talk about this, and listen to how she pivots this classic case of red herring, just like Hillary Clinton did, when people found her violations of national security and Russiagate and all the rest of this stuff.
	She invented Russiagate.
	She said, oh, well, don't look at...
	What I was doing.
	Who gave you that information?
	Ah, that was Russia.
	Look at who gave it.
	Don't look at what I was doing.
	And that's a classic red herring, and it's what Caroline Levitt did with this particular case.
	Democrat and media outrage over the deportation of Abrego Garcia, an MS-13 El Salvadorian illegal alien criminal who was hiding in Maryland has been nothing short of despicable.
	Based on the sensationalism of many of the people in this room, you would think we deported a candidate for father of the year.
	That's because, unfortunately, many in this country care more about this quote-unquote Maryland father, illegal alien MS-13 gang member, than a Maryland mother, an American citizen, who was brutally murdered at the hands of a different illegal alien.
	Of course, I am referring to Rachel Morin.
	And if you didn't see yesterday, a Maryland jury found illegal alien Victor Antonio Martinez Hernandez guilty of murdering Rachel Morin in August of 2023.
	She was a 37-year-old mother of five who was jogging in an otherwise safe community northeast of Baltimore when this monster ambushed, strangled, and beat her to death before stuffing her brutalized body in a tunnel drain.
	That's a different case.
	The Morin family finally got justice yesterday, but they will never get Rachel back.
	Our hearts go out to Rachel's family, her five children, and her mother, Patty, who has suffered the unimaginable loss of her daughter.
	You know what this reminds me of?
	Do you remember when the ATF attacked Waco?
	Came in with guns blazing.
	They had the media there.
	The code word was showtime for them to initiate the raid.
	They come in with guns blazing and they caught it all on camera.
	And when they were criticized for doing that, shooting first, And, you know, setting that whole conflict up, they said, well, we'd heard that there were young children who were being married with the consent of their parents at an age that we don't allow that,
	and that's, you know, child abuse is there.
	Child abuse is not what the ATF is about.
	That was an obvious misdirection.
	And then these people subsequently burned those children to death.
	But that was not their brief.
	That was not what they were about.
	And this is another issue of that.
	Look, I understand, and everybody understands, that there are a lot of criminal illegal aliens.
	The determination is whether or not this guy is MS-13.
	He may be, but it's up to them to prove it.
	And we have to stand for due process.
	Even when...
	It's pretty clear that somebody actually killed someone.
	They still need to have a trial.
	We don't want to have lynch mobs.
	We want to see this done in an orderly fashion under the rule of law.
	And they skipped all of that with this guy.
	And then Trump doubled down in his administration, including her, saying, yeah, we might do that with U.S. citizens as well.
	You might get sent to a foreign prison, a Gitmo, or this Venezuelan.
	No, El Salvador in prison.
	They might do that to you.
	They're talking about that.
	When they enact the other side of the Alien and Sedition Act.
	Yeah, we're going to deport these people because we don't like what they're saying about Israel.
	So, you might get that as well.
	In both of these cases, both the alien aspect and the sedition aspect, the Trump administration said, yeah, we might do that with American citizens as well.
	Don't put it past them.
	He's used lies and phony emergencies, just taking the most recent one, obviously, being the lies about the fentanyl emergency with Canada.
	What a bunch of nonsense.
	And uncontrolled migrants and all the rest of this.
	Look, you can make that case for Mexico, but he wanted to create an environment, a narrative, where he could declare an emergency.
	And arbitrarily set the tariffs on his own.
	I don't like judicial tyranny, and I don't like presidential tyranny either.
	Do you?
	Are you going to excuse that?
	Because, well, it's bad when the Democrat judges do it, but when Trump does it as president, it's great.
	No, it's not!
	I don't want to live in a country where we've got some, you know, whether it's the bureaucracy or the judiciary or the Congress or the president acting as dictators.
	I don't want to have that.
	And so, When you look at the solutions for these emergencies, five years ago, what was it?
	It was a fake emergency with COVID.
	And the solutions were the problems.
	It didn't solve anything.
	And just like with this so-called fentanyl emergency from Canada, when we look at the drug war, drugs are a real problem.
	And guess what?
	All the stuff that we've done with the drug war for the last 50 years hasn't solved it, has it?
	It's worse now, isn't it?
	So they're not doing the right thing, obviously, right?
	And what they've done is they've made it worse.
	And then they've given us a whole slew of other problems.
	We've got corruption of the courts, corruption of law enforcement.
	We have denial and subversion of the Constitution and on and on with this stuff.
	These gangs that we're talking about are a creation of the drug war.
	Just like Al Capone was a creation of alcohol prohibition.
	These MS-13 and the Trendy Gang, they're all creations of this drug war.
	Now they branched out into other areas as well.
	But that's what created them.
	And so we need to take a look at their quote-unquote solutions, even if it is a real problem.
	Again, Trump's solutions to the fake COVID pandemic were horrible.
	But sometimes this is a real problem.
	And drugs are a real problem.
	And guess what?
	Prohibition of drugs and trying to use law enforcement to fix a spiritual problem isn't the answer.
	But so beware of emergencies the presidents are going to use to operate as dictators.
	And of course Biden did the same thing.
	It was bad when Biden did it, but it's good when Trump does it.
	We're starting to see that with taxes now.
	But I tell you, the rich Republicans, like Sean Hannity, really got their hackles up when Trump started talking about soak the rich taxes.
	That doesn't sound Republican at all.
	That's right, because the guy you've been supporting is a New York City Democrat.
	He lied to everybody when he said, we're going to raise taxes, tariffs, but you're not going to pay them.
	Other people are going to pay him, and it's only fair they pay him.
	That's the rhetoric we've always seen from the Democrats.
	The other rhetoric we've always seen from the Democrats is that taxes, tariffs, taxes, whatever, it doesn't matter, the same thing.
	The taxes are good.
	Taxes are an investment and so forth, right?
	We're seeing that from Republicans now.
	Some idiot put out that piece on Chronicles, and he says, Tariffs are necessary to a free country.
	That's what America was founded on.
	It's like, no, America was founded on people fighting against the tariff on tea.
	That's what started the whole thing.
	They're rewriting history.
	They've forgotten their economics.
	They don't understand what liberty is about.
	They think taxes and regulations are good.
	They don't understand what made America great.
	It wasn't tariffs in the 1800s.
	It was liberty and limited government.
	And they don't care about that stuff.
	They just want to sell Trump.
	And I'm sick of having lies being told to me by these people to sell Trump.
	These Trump sucker proxies.
	This is a recap.
	What Trump is doing is a recap of what John Adams did with the Alien and Seditions Act.
	Now, just to review what happened with that, he was going to deport people.
	But, you know, it was an executive order that he put in, basically.
	And I think it was an executive order.
	But, no, it's actually an act.
	But anyway, he was pushing it, even if Congress did it.
	But it was opposed by Jefferson and Madison.
	It was only nine years after the Bill of Rights had been put in.
	I think it was the Bill of Rights.
	Oh, I'm getting foggy today.
	1789. Was that the Constitution or the Bill of Rights anyway?
	I think it was the Bill of Rights.
	But Madison opposed it.
	Jefferson opposed it.
	Secretly at first.
	They did the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, which said the Alien and Sedition Acts are wrong.
	They are dangerous.
	Expansion of executive power by Adams.
	And they are restricting freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
	And they must be nullified.
	Nullified, they said, by the states.
	That was the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions.
	We're going to nullify that.
	And so, they were successful in doing that.
	Eventually, it became known that they were the authors of that.
	Okay, the Bill of Rights of 1791.
	It was only seven years old.
	It was the Constitution that was 1789.
	Thank you, Travis.
	Proposed in 1789.
	Ratified in 1791.
	Oh, okay.
	Ratified in 1791.
	Proposed in 1789.
	Okay. Well, anyway, a little bit foggy this morning.
	I don't even know what day it is.
	What is the date today?
	Don't expect me to tell you when the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are ratified.
	I got it in the ballpark there, okay?
	I might be able to pass a citizenship test.
	Who knows?
	So, just cut me some slack.
	I went to a government school.
	I had to learn this stuff on my own if I learned it at all.
	So, it was known, eventually, that Jefferson and Madison wrote it, and it helped both of them to become president, eventually.
	And so what they were doing was sedition if you criticized the government.
	Does that sound familiar?
	Of course, history doesn't exactly repeat.
	It rhymes, though.
	So now it is treason, not sedition, if you criticize not the U.S. government, but a foreign government, Israel.
	I've got a real problem with that.
	A real problem with that.
	And he has folded that in along with the alien thing.
	Oh, that makes you an enemy.
	You're a terrorist, right?
	So now you need to be deported as well.
	So the Alien and Sedition Acts, being reincarnated by Trump, you see this happening on these universities.
	And look, if somebody is here, even on a visa studying and something, if they are engaged in violence or whatever, charge them with a crime.
	You can then deport them or whatever.
	It's like when we talk about with impeachment, for example, right?
	The first thing you do is you impeach somebody and then kick them out, and then you can come after them for the crime.
	It's a little bit different with the other stuff.
	Show that the person has committed a crime first, and that if they have, then deport them.
	That's fine.
	But give them due process.
	And that's not what is happening.
	We've got people who have not been violent.
	Who are being arrested by groups of men wearing masks, abducting these people on the sidewalk, taking them away.
	Their lawyers don't know where they went.
	Their family doesn't know where they went.
	Secretly being kidnapped.
	And we've had this happen not once, but twice.
	And the other, I'm going to talk about that one coming up here in a moment as well.
	This is a real issue.
	These alien and sedition acts of Donald Trump are a real issue.
	Now, there's also a real problem, and the courts are part of that problem with the border, and so there needs to be some changes there, and he needs to oppose the courts that are going to set immigration policy and fix the courts that are not functional and so forth.
	But to just throw away due process and the rule of law is not the answer, you understand.
	Right? Don't get caught up in this binary thinking of, well, I'm either with Trump or I'm against Trump.
	I'm with the Republicans or I'm with the Democrats.
	No, no, no.
	No. No.
	It isn't this or that.
	Don't let them put you in a box with that kind of binary choice.
	You have to look at what is actually happening and say, this is the real problem, but that's not a real solution.
	That's a solution that's going to pour gasoline on a fire.
	This is the argument I've had for the longest time about the drug war.
	I don't like drugs.
	I hate drugs.
	I don't use drugs.
	I've watched people's lives be destroyed.
	I know people who have had children.
	I know two people who've had children who've died from fentanyl.
	That's a real problem.
	But to use that as an excuse so that you can arbitrarily set tariffs and then not really do anything about that problem, which, by the way, Our pharmaceutical companies were heavily involved in that, just like they were the opioid epidemic.
	But to ignore the real problem, to not come up with a solution, but to cynically use that to do other things is what I'm opposed to here.
	I hope you can see that.
	Well, in this issue, we've got a lot of different things that are happening here.
	We've got judicial activism on the one hand, right, to oppose that.
	But on the other hand, we've got the due process being opposed, the rule of law.
	We have the abuse of emergency declarations to act like a dictator.
	And we have personal vendettas where you accuse your opponents of sedition.
	Or, we don't use that word anymore, Trump uses the word treason.
	And unlike what CBS did, that's treason.
	We need to pull their license, we need to do this, we need to do that.
	And so...
	What he's referencing at the core of all this is literally a part of the Alien and Sedition Act, the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.
	So I wrote that down so I'd remember the date.
	So the president has broad authority to relocate or to deport non-citizens from a country considered an enemy during times of declared war.
	Declared war.
	Well, that doesn't fit.
	Or, when a foreign nation or government perpetrates, attempts, or threatens invasion or predatory incursion.
	Now, this is what the people on the left, the Democrats, are saying.
	Well, neither one of these cases are met.
	I think the second one is.
	When you look at this, remember that obnoxious guy, the social influencer from Venezuela, who was all about squatting in houses?
	And I'm going to tell you how to do it.
	It's like, you know, you see that guy?
	And it turns out he was with the Venezuelan intelligence agencies.
	I think it was deliberately weaponized.
	And, of course, we have had in the past, you know, Cuba and the Marial Boatlift and other things.
	Castro had dumped out his prisons and sent the people to Florida.
	That's a hostile act, right?
	But it's gone beyond that now.
	And so I think that that really does qualify.
	Now, what they're saying is, not that there isn't an invasion, not that there isn't predatory incursion, but that it's not being done by a sovereign nation.
	Well, I don't really care.
	We have the term narco-state, which is a lot of these Latin American countries that have such shaky governments and shaky societies that these Cartels that have been created by our drug war are on a par with the government.
	It's like a government within a government.
	So you can say that they're non-government organizations, NGOs or something like that, but they have the kind of military strength that is on par with their own government, and they have hooks into that government as well.
	They have their own people on the inside.
	They're executing and assassinating politicians who oppose them and so forth.
	They are like a government, and they do control territory of those places.
	So I think that certainly he could invoke the Alien Enemies Act.
	Because it's part of the Alien and Sedition Act.
	But we understand also the history of how it's been used in World War II, for example, as well as in World War I. You had Germans, Italians, and Japanese arrested and put into internment camps.
	They did not prove for the Japanese that they had any connection to the Japanese government.
	As a matter of fact, you had Japanese people in California whose family had been there for generations.
	They were...
	You know, completely Californian.
	They were arrested and put into internment camps.
	Later it was admitted during the Reagan administration.
	They gave compensation to the people for what had been done to them when they were children or to their families and things like that.
	And that's where this starts to go.
	That's where it can go off the rails.
	You can fall off on the other side.
	And that's why we have to always look at these things.
	You know, there's certain principles, but then when you put it into practice, you've got to be careful.
	Not to go sideways on this.
	Not to go too far to the extreme on this.
	And they did on that.
	So Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act, a part of the Alien and Seditions Act.
	He invoked that on March the 15th.
	And he did it to target members of the Trendy Gang, the Trendy Aragua, the Venezuelan gang.
	They designated them as a foreign terrorist organization.
	That was done on February 20th, and then not quite a month later, they enact this Alien Enemies Act.
	And so they described it as infiltrating migrant flows, engaging in drug trafficking, and conducting irregular warfare.
	I think that's all true.
	And it constituted an invasion or predatory incursion against the U.S. The proclamation authorized the apprehension, detention, and deportation of Venezuelan citizens aged 14 and older who are determined to be TDA members and are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents,
	labeling them as alien enemies.
	I agree with all that so far.
	But the question has to be, you need to do this determination of whether or not they are a terrorist before you send them to this maximum prison.
	Or they may likely die, but certainly it's horrific conditions, horrific punishment.
	You need to do that determination on a one-by-one basis.
	And so I would support that in principle, but with a due process.
	And so then on March the 15th, the Trump administration deported about 200 Venezuelans, with at least 137 of them removed under the Alien Enemies Act II El Salvador, where they went into that maximum security prison.
	Where the U.S. government is paying the president of El Salvador to take these.
	The maximum security prison, it's an agreement with the U.S. Now, here is where the rub happens.
	The deportees were not given a chance to challenge the removal.
	Some lawyers argued that there was no evidence linking them to the group, the TDA, we'll call it.
	With identifications sometimes based on vague criteria like tattoos.
	Now I remember when we talk about MS-13, which was there before the TDA, the trendies.
	MS-13 actually grew out of the drug war.
	El Salvadoran gangs that were in prison for drug violations in the United States.
	And they organized, actually organized, in prison in the United States and then took that back to El Salvador.
	And it was a huge issue in El Salvador.
	And so I understand this president creating that prison there.
	I talk many times about the father from El Salvador who fled El Salvador because it was this narco state.
	Violence everywhere.
	He had to get out of there.
	So they came here illegally.
	He brought his entire family to escape that.
	And had his kids in school on Long Island.
	And his daughter was murdered by these young high school students.
	That's why they took it down to 14 years old.
	They use them very, very young.
	These young high school students who were here illegally under DACA.
	So the government knows that they're there.
	They know that they're illegal, but they're not going to deport them because of Obama's executive order for DACA.
	And they have MS-13 tattoos all over them.
	And I said it's literally written, I've said it many times, they literally wrote it on their face.
	And they would not remove them because of Obama's DACA.
	And they killed this father from El Salvador, killed his daughter.
	And he said, I came here to escape that.
	And then I get here and there and there.
	And I've said that about the borders.
	I said, that's why we have to have borders.
	Because they won't just kill other El Salvadorans who have come here.
	They'll kill us as well.
	And they have been involved in that.
	And that's what Levitt was using as a red herring in this particular case.
	But if they've got the tattoos, quite frankly, I think that is evidence enough.
	That is an open declaration written on their face.
	And so, I guess we could say prima facie evidence.
	You got MS-13 carved under your face.
	So, then the judge, this guy, Boesberg, he decided that he jumped into this to block it and to set policy.
	And they were already flying people to El Salvador.
	And so he demanded that they turn the planes around, that they bring them back and all the rest of this kind of stuff.
	And the Trump administration said, nope, we're doing it.
	That set off this, that's the beginning of this.
	And so he put up a temporary restraining order, the TRO.
	And Trump ignored it.
	The Trump administration ignored it.
	They took it to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court threw out that temporary restraining order.
	And they said the...
	The executive branch is within its rights to do this, provided, though, that you do have some, there were some caveats there for due process.
	So, the same day, within hours of Trump putting these people on the, making this declaration, as soon as he made the declaration, this judge, Boesberg, puts out a temporary restraining order saying, I'm not going to let you do that.
	Who elected you to set policy like this?
	And Trump did it anyway.
	And then they appealed it.
	And the Supreme Court took off that temporary restraining order.
	And now what he wants to do is find the Trump administration in contempt of court, violating the temporary restraining order that was removed by the Supreme Court.
	So yeah, this guy is not a hero at all.
	And he is a political apparatchik, an example of one of the worst cases of judicial supremacy.
	So, the Supreme Court, 5-4, removed his temporary restraining orders, TRO, allowing the Trump administration to do the deportations.
	However, the court mandated that detainees must receive notice of their removal and have a reasonable opportunity to challenge their detention via habeas corpus petitions in a federal court where they're held.
	And so, for many of them, that would be in Texas.
	The ruling did not address the constitutionality of the Alien Enemies Act, which has been there since 1798, or whether the TDA's actions legally qualify as an invasion.
	So it left those two issues open to be decided by lower courts, and that's a big issue because they're all going to be deciding it in different ways.
	And so, but Bozberg is coming after the Trump administration now because of this TRO that was removed by the Supreme Court.
	So, you know, to me, when they started doing, I've been talking about just removing these people for the longest time.
	And look, I said at the beginning of the Trump administration in 2017.
	I said he said he's going to end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
	Fine, do it.
	It's a two-for-one.
	Bring those people home.
	You can put them on the border, and you can use that to stop this mess.
	Immigration is coming in because everything stopped when Trump got elected.
	And then they started to get the idea that he was a paper tiger on the border, and he was.
	And so then it resumed with a vengeance.
	That's when we started having the caravans organized by sources, NGOs, and things like that.
	And I said, so you put the military there, and they can intimidate them from coming in.
	But now what Trump wants to do is he wants to turn over that area permanently to the military.
	He wants to make it all a military zone.
	And other people like Lucky Palmer, with his company Andruil, wants to set up high-tech border walls, essentially.
	Drones and other things like that will make crossing the border impossible.
	And I don't like the militarization of our border.
	Yeah, to put them there to stop an invasion is one thing.
	But to turn us into a police state that we can't get out of is another thing.
	And they're doing that at the airports as well, with real ID, with biometric ID.
	And it is all in lockstep.
	Just like we saw five years ago with COVID, all of this digital ID biometric stuff that is being done by the Trump administration is in lockstep, timing-wise and policy-wise, it is in lockstep with the UN agenda for all of this,
	for digital IDs and for controlling movement.
	And so, getting back to this, Trump initially downplayed his role.
	Stating on March the 21st that he didn't sign the proclamation, though it was in the Federal Register with a signature, then they clarified that and said, no, I was referring to the original 1798 Act.
	He's old, but he's not that old.
	The administration and Pam Bondi, the Attorney General, argued that the Alien Enemies Act grants the President near-unfettered authority to address national security threats like TDA.
	Framing the gang's presence as an invasion.
	And I believe that that is true.
	That's the one thing that is left up in the air by the Supreme Court.
	Is it an invasion?
	I think it is.
	Clearly is.
	They criticize Bosberg as an activist judge.
	Clearly he is.
	The administration also signaled plans to expand the acts used to target other gangs, such as MS-13 from El Salvador.
	You had a lot of civil liberties groups that pushed back against this, like the ACLU, Democracy Forward, the Brennan Center.
	They argued that Trump's use of the act is illegal because the U.S. is not at war with Venezuela, and TDA is not a foreign government.
	I think those arguments are wrong.
	I think they're part of a narco state.
	They're the narco part of the narco state.
	Their own separate government.
	And in the case of the TDA, the fact that you've got people like that, Influencer, the swatter, who works for the Venezuelan government as part of their intelligence agency.
	Yeah, yeah, that's pretty clear, I think.
	Then there's the due process violations and their opposition to that.
	And I agree with them on that issue.
	They said initial deportations lacked judicial review.
	Some deportees allegedly misidentified as gang members.
	Requirements for habeas corpus challenges aims to address this, but concerns remain about the practicality of legal recourse in the immigration detention setting.
	So that's a big issue, because again, if we allow them to get rid of due process and the rule of law, then we are all at risk.
	This thing's going to metastasize.
	Folks, when you give power to one branch of government, It keeps going.
	I've said this over and over again.
	Look at the bump stocks, for example, right?
	When Trump comes in and he sets a precedent, I can do gun control in the executive branch.
	I can do it as president, or I can let the ATF do whatever they want, and what's happened with that?
	It was bad enough when Congress was violating it, but they had to have a vote with a lot of people.
	In principle, it's the same thing.
	Neither the Congress nor the president can violate it.
	But when Congress is the means of violating it, they have to build a consensus, and it's harder for them to do that.
	It's a lot more dangerous when the president does it as a dictator.
	And so we need to have the rule of law.
	We need to have due process here.
	And then, as I pointed out, many people are concerned about historical precedent that we've seen with detention centers and the Japanese and that type of thing.
	So then there's the issue of Boesburg versus the president.
	And I think that it is pretty clear that he's an activist judge, that he is overstepping his authority there.
	And yet, we say that with the caveat that there needs to be due process on individual cases.
	The judiciary should not be setting policies on broad issues across the board, which they're doing, and still doing again, as I said.
	We've got a DACA 2.0 conflict coming up again.
	A lot of people were very upset about the fact that Trump had mentioned that Bosberg should be impeached.
	I absolutely agree that he should.
	He's an activist judge.
	He's exceeded his authority.
	And he ought to be impeached.
	Roberts, Chief Justice Roberts, was very upset about that and called Trump out on that.
	But I think that this judge should be impeached.
	He is an activist judge.
	And then you have the political...
	You have Ilhan Omar, who introduced the Neighbors Not Enemies Act to repeal the Alien Enemies Act.
	Neighbors Not Enemies.
	Well, it's interesting because she's both an alien and an enemy.
	She's trying to protect herself here.
	She is...
	Here illegally, her father worked for a Marxist administration in Somalia.
	And according to the law, if you work for a Marxist organization, you are banned from coming to America and getting citizenship.
	So all of her family is here in violation of immigration law.
	And Marxists really are our enemy.
	And she is Exhibit A in all of that.
	Again, legal scholars note that existing immigration law already allows deportation of criminals.
	And so they said this is a symbolic escalation to bypass the due process.
	Well, again, there are problems with the immigration courts.
	They're overwhelmed.
	They don't have enough resources.
	They need to streamline that.
	Add more resources to that to get that cleared up.
	But you need to make those determinations on an individual basis.
	And rather than giving people a card and say, come back in 10 years.
	I mean, that is the absurdity that has created this.
	And so, we all know that there's a real problem here at the core of it.
	And the immigration courts are a big part of it.
	But rather than fix them...
	We're just going to ignore due process altogether and habeas corpus.
	Is that a good idea?
	Or does that set a dangerous precedent?
	You've got a problem over here.
	I'm not going to deal with a problem.
	We're just going to pretend that I can do anything that I want and operate as a dictator.
	I don't think that's the appropriate response to that real problem.
	So supporters are framing it as a national security necessity.
	Critics are warning of the slippery slope.
	They're both right and they're both wrong.
	It really is a necessity.
	And it really is a violation of our Constitution and due process.
	And so how do we reconcile this thing?
	Well, it's not for us to decide.
	We're not elected officials.
	We can talk about it.
	Mainly, what I'm concerned about is this attitude that is repeating itself.
	Whether you're talking about free speech issues or...
	Border and immigration issues.
	Or whether you're talking about economic issues with the terrorists.
	This is a pattern of behavior from Trump that is extremely dangerous.
	I'm just going to declare an emergency and make myself a dictator.
	His answer to every problem is to essentially declare martial law with himself as the dictator.
	Do you see the pattern here?
	That's what I'm opposed to.
	That's why I picked this thing up.
	And that's the real issue here.
	And that, folks, is a bigger issue than the border.
	It really is.
	It's a bigger issue than the economy.
	It's a bigger issue than all of these problems.
	That is the biggest issue.
	We do not want to live under a dictatorship.
	And this guy's instinct is to rule, to create an emergency, to create martial law, and to rule as a dictator every time he comes up to a problem.
	That's what he wants to do.
	And that's what makes Trump so dangerous.
	Precedent Trump.
	Setting that precedent of martial law with every single issue.
	So, let's bring it home.
	And let's look at, you're going to allow this with this one guy?
	Now, as we do this, I've seen some reports saying, well, they said, now they're saying, we never heard this before, now they're saying this Garcia guy, They said, well, he was portrayed as the ideal father and blah, blah, blah.
	Well, you know, nobody's innocent, right?
	They found out that four years ago his wife had took out a restraining order on him or something, evidence of domestic conflict or violence, or maybe just she overreacted because she's lived with him since then.
	She took that out.
	Maybe they have an argument.
	We don't know the details of that.
	But they throw that out there to slander him.
	That's the same kind of stuff that Levitt was doing.
	When she starts talking about this woman who was murdered by an illegal.
	That has nothing to do with this case.
	Yeah, borders are open and it's a problem, but that's not what this case is about.
	You talk about the details of this case.
	No, you don't want to talk about that.
	You want to talk about some other case rather than making an explanation.
	The White House has admitted that they made a mistake sending him out.
	That's the key issue, folks.
	You see?
	It's not that there's a dispute between Bozberg...
	And the administration over whether or not this guy is a terrorist, the White House admitted that they made a mistake.
	They admitted that he is not a terrorist.
	And to avoid having to talk about that, Levitt, who, you know, when I see somebody stand up and lie for the president over and over again, and then she arranges a photo op where she stands to a people before she's going to go out on them.
	And answer questions.
	She has a prayer meeting.
	They all get together and they pray about it before she goes out there.
	Well, you might want to pray that God would keep you from telling a lie, that he would hold you to the truth, that you would honor him in that way and not lie for your job, not lie for the president.
	And what she was doing there was really just shameful.
	They admitted that they made a mistake.
	And then they pretend that there's nothing that they can do to correct that mistake.
	You see, that's what we're talking about.
	That kind of cynicism.
	As well as the bigger principles of every problem is going to be solved by declaring martial law and making me the dictator.
	I was not talking about rights for illegal aliens.
	I was talking about the fact that the White House admitted that they were wrong.
	You see?
	It's not about rights for them.
	It's about the White House being wrong and then saying we're not going to correct it.
	I don't care.
	You know, he's in this prison where he'll probably die and we sent him there wrongfully, but I don't care.
	We're going to leave it that way.
	And Trump's first term, he made a mistake and he corrected it when that happened.
	Not this time.
	And he's got Caroline Levitt who wants to parade her Christianity in front of you.
	Covering it up and lying for that.
	They made a mistake.
	They admitted they made a mistake.
	They said they got the wrong man.
	He's not a terrorist.
	But they're not going to do anything to correct that.
	Are you not ashamed if you're defending this because you like Trump and Republicans and because you're worried about the border?
	Are you not ashamed to embrace that?
	Have you no shame if you embrace that?
	Seriously. I am so disgusted with people on the right who throw everything away that they've always believed and who are just as deranged and dangerous as these radical leftists that we've seen all this time.
	They've shown themselves equally capable of that.
	So, the sedition part of this and also the alien part of this.
	Ice kidnaps a permanent resident in the U.S. for 10 years on his way to an interview to become a U.S. citizen, writes Brian Shulhavi.
	No warrant, no criminal record, no charges, and nobody knows where he is.
	Do you have a problem with that?
	I have a big problem with that.
	What's going to stop the Democrats from doing that to you?
	We've already seen the weaponization of Biden when it came to January the 6th.
	Do you really want to have that happening to you?
	Just get disappeared off the streets?
	That's the hallmark of a dictatorship.
	They did that in Argentina.
	Political opponents would just disappear.
	They were putting them on flights and flying them out over the Atlantic Ocean and pushing them out of the plane.
	They had a massive pushback against that.
	The mothers of the men who that had been done to, having, you know, Calling out that Argentinian dictatorship.
	It's a shame, then.
	So, a legal permanent resident holding a green card.
	He should have had the gold card, you know?
	That's just the gold card privileges.
	If you pay him $5 million, you can do whatever you want, right?
	Now, he had a green card, so he's here legally.
	He had been in the U.S. legally for 10 years.
	He was attending an immigration interview to become a U.S. citizen in Vermont.
	Something, writes Brian Shalhavi, that he would not be able to do if he were here illegally and if he had not already resided in the U.S. for many years with no criminal record in order to be able to earn this interview to become an American citizen.
	Like previous students before him, he was approached by masked men who reportedly had no warrant.
	They handcuffed and took him away, and at the time of this writing, nobody knows where he is, not even his lawyers, whom he apparently has not been allowed to call.
	When I see this type of thing, it reminds me of the Savak.
	That was the secret police, the Shah of Iran, the guy when we had the CIA coup and threw out the guy that was elected because they didn't like him, didn't like his politics, didn't like him nationalizing the oil fields.
	They put in the Shah of Iran, and then the CIA trained their secret police, the Savak, to arrest their political enemies, take them away, torture them, whatever.
	Is that what we want to become?
	Because, folks, that was our government that put in the Shah of Iran.
	It was our government that trained the Savak.
	It was our government that suggested that.
	That kind of...
	Criminal totalitarianism is right there below the surface, and it is active in America now, and has been for decades.
	Do you want that to bubble up and become the open tyranny?
	Go ahead and cheer for Trump doing this kind of stuff, and that's what you're going to wind up with.
	You're going to wind up with public savak.
	Go public with it.
	CIA is a criminal organization.
	It's criminal.
	It's satanic.
	It's one of the darkest things that's ever existed.
	And that entire, not just the CIA, but that entire intelligence community is just aching to go public with this kind of stuff like they did in Iran.
	And if you excuse this kind of stuff, that's exactly what you're going to wind up with in this country.
	So this guy's name is Madawi.
	Madawi, I guess.
	He was leader of a pro-Palestinian group at Columbia University.
	There you go.
	There's the sedition.
	Against our government, well, the government that owns our government, right?
	The Netanyahu government.
	The Trump administration is seeking, the New York Times says, the Trump administration is seeking to deport a Columbia student because his activities could potentially undermine the Middle East peace process.
	Is that grounds for sending somebody out that you've granted legal process to?
	You know, he's exercising his...
	Free speech.
	You don't have to agree with them or not.
	You better understand that if you don't protect the rights of people you don't agree with, you're going to wind up with no rights either.
	That's the way this thing works.
	So, according to a memo from Secretary of State Marco Rubio that was reviewed by the New York Times, he said, well, this guy could potentially undermine our Middle East peace process.
	I think they misspelled it.
	I think it's supposed to be P-I-E-C-E, right?
	They want a peace.
	A piece of land.
	They don't want peace as an absence of war.
	And so that constitutes, in this Trump administration, sedition.
	Sedition against Netanyahu.
	The memo asserted without elaboration that protests of the type that Mr. Madawi...
	Had led, could undermine the Middle East process by reinforcing anti-Semitic sentiment.
	Well, you know what's going to reinforce anti-Semitic sentiment is disappearing people off the streets because they criticize the government of Israel.
	It is also said, without elaborating, that Mr. Madawi had, quote, engaged in threatening rhetoric and intimidation of pro-Israeli bystanders.
	Oh, wow, yeah.
	We criticize the UK because, you know, they're out there saying we're going to have a banter ban.
	That's what they call it.
	You know, you've got to be careful about what people say in a pub.
	And if you've got a group of people together and they're talking about something and perhaps you might have some wait staff that are there, they might be offended by what they hear.
	We can't allow that to happen.
	Well, if you're going to not be able to offend people, even accidentally like that.
	And that gets even more absurd because it doesn't have to be something that's direct.
	It could be somebody who heard something that was said about some other person.
	So the person, you know, maybe some ethnic group that they're criticizing or making a joke about.
	Well, I heard you say that about that ethnic group, and we got a waiter or waitress over here that is part of that ethnic group, so I'm going to report you to the government.
	Do you really want that here?
	Do you really want to have a situation where...
	We've got to protect the abortuaries.
	We don't want anybody to be offended by somebody who's just standing there saying, I'm here to talk if you want to talk.
	I'm free to talk.
	No, can't have that.
	And we can't have somebody who has threatening rhetoric.
	Well, we have the right to redress our grievances with the government.
	You know, that was what January the 6th was about, wasn't it?
	And yet now, Trump is going to arrest people.
	That have rhetoric that he doesn't like.
	A lawyer for Madawi asked to comment on the assertions in the memo, said that they were, quote, baseless claims made with no evidence.
	If there's a crime, charge him.
	Right? Did he hurt feelings?
	Who cares?
	Is he going to say things that are going to make Marco Rubio's job difficult?
	I really couldn't care less.
	So, Haaretz in Israel said, despite leading Colombia's Gaza Solidarity encampment, this guy, Madawi, spent months fostering ties with Israeli and Jewish students, even holding meetings with university administrators to promote dialogue.
	See, there's a lot of Jews who don't support what Netanyahu is doing in Gaza.
	And there's a lot of Jews that don't support Zionism, period.
	And a lot of them have taken out ads saying, not in our name what is being done in Gaza.
	And so what he was doing was he was trying to talk to them.
	Rani Ziv, an Israeli student who met with Madawi, says the Trump administration will come for everyone.
	And look, you know, when I would see this kind of stuff, and like I said, it was happening on the campus when I was in school, different groups, different countries, but it's like, you know, take your grievances somewhere else.
	You know, you've got a problem.
	You know, these two people, two groups of people, Palestinians and Jews, are fighting each other.
	You know, take it back to the Middle East and fight each other over there instead of on our campuses.
	But they have a right to speak out.
	Even though I'm not, I don't want to get involved in this stuff.
	Trump has.
	Stated that he wants to be able to deport U.S. citizens that his administration declares are criminals.
	Now, Brian Shalhavi says, I actually expected some kind of retraction or clarification from the administration since Trump has a habit of going off script and saying embarrassing things that later need to be clarified.
	Surely the thought of deporting U.S. citizens to one of the most...
	Barbaric and famous prisons in the world in El Salvador would be one of those cases, I thought, to send an American citizen there, right?
	He says, but no, the White House doubled down and said this is actually true.
	Headline, Trump looking into, quote-unquote, the legality of deporting U.S. citizens to foreign prisons, says the White House.
	It's another question.
	That the president has raised, said Press Secretary Caroline Lovett, when a reporter asked if Trump currently has the power to send Americans to foreign prisons or would need to change the law.
	Well, it's another question that the president has raised, she said, and it's a legal question that the president is looking into.
	He's looking into sending U.S. citizens into foreign prisons like this.
	That doesn't concern you?
	You don't want any rights for people who are here legally or for people who are here illegally.
	You don't want to have any determinations to certainly deport people who are here illegally.
	But to send them into that prison, you need to make a determination whether or not they're terrorists or not.
	And now we're at the next situation.
	He doesn't like what you have to say.
	He's going to deport you, and he's going to send you to one of these, perhaps, one of these supermax prisons.
	There are no laws that would give ICE agents the ability to start pulling U.S. citizens off the streets, says Brian Chahavi, then immediately fly them into a prison in El Salvador with no due process of law.
	So the only way this could happen is the same way they're doing it right now, with students, by issuing an executive order.
	And declaring some kind of an emergency to give Trump martial law powers.
	Which is what he did in 2020 with COVID.
	And it's what he's doing right now with his tariffs.
	And it's what he's doing right now with his anti-Semitism task force.
	And we're only just a couple of months in this administration already.
	How many different emergencies and martial law actions do we have?
	And so Brian Shlavi at healthimpact.com says, will the Zionists prevail in taking over the U.S. and eliminating free speech?
	Because that appears to be where their goal is.
	He said, what we're now observing in real time here in the U.S. is Trump's Zionist administration trying to abolish the Constitution of the U.S. and turning the country into a Zionist Jewish monarchy instead.
	And I've got to say here that, you know, when you look at what the technocrats want and you look at what the Zionists want, they want...
	An authoritarian, totalitarian society without any basic human liberties.
	They want it for different reasons, but there's a great deal of overlap in their goals of where they want to go, and also in their techniques.
	And there's a great deal of overlap between the Zionists and the people who are running these technocrat companies as well.
	But they're both taking us...
	End of this totalitarian thing.
	That's why it's even more dangerous the fact that Trump is making himself a king and a dictator in every one of the big issues by declaring an emergency.
	The DOJ and the attorneys of the Maryland man who was mistakenly sent to El Salvador and the Trump administration admitted that it was a mistake.
	They admitted it.
	So they are now looking at this contempt of court thing.
	Now, this is, again, I hate to see this judge doing this over the temporary restraining order stuff and the flights of people because now it's too easy to make this into a partisan left-right thing.
	And clearly this judge is in the wrong on those issues.
	They're not making it about the fact that the Trump administration mistakenly sent this guy.
	Admittedly, Made a mistake, sent him there, and refused to correct that mistake.
	And so Brian Shulhavi points out that in the first Trump administration, they made a mistake like that, and they did correct it.
	In August of 2018, during Trump's first term, an Iraqi immigrant went missing.
	His name was Subaihani.
	Subaihani, I guess.
	He'd been living in the U.S. for nearly 25 years.
	Subaihani was among hundreds of Iraqis who had been protected from deportation under federal court order.
	His lawyers thought he was still in custody when he had been swept up in an ICE raid.
	A search of the federal ICE database, however, turned up nothing, and as they investigated, they realized that he had been deported.
	And then the government said that it had made a mistake.
	And so, Mr. Subihani had been deported to Iraq in violation of a court order, but the Trump administration's response to the two cases could not be more different.
	In that particular case, they brought him back.
	But now, even though they said they made the error, they're not going to bring this guy back.
	They don't really care what the law is.
	They don't care if they got it wrong.
	So, as Brian says, I've received a lot of emails from people demanding I stop criticizing Trump or complaining.
	That I now cover politics too much.
	He said, the good news about the new covenant that we live under as Christians is that any believer in Jesus Christ is filled with the Holy Spirit and can now testify to the truth.
	He said he took an opportunity at the beginning of the Trump administration to just stop everything he was doing and fast and pray and think about his direction for 10 days.
	And he said what was really pressed upon him was the fact of John the Baptist, who had opposed the crimes of Herod, sins of Herod, and was executed for exposing him.
	He says, whatever the consequences, he says, if Zionism spreads unchecked, he goes, we might have the same type of situation.
	I fear that what we saw during COVID and Trump 1.0, We'll pale in comparison to what might be about to happen in Trump 2.0.
	Here we are, just a couple months in, and look at the number of emergencies and martial law aspects that Trump has pulled in.
	I'm going to act as a dictator to set the tariff rates, and he's changing them day by day.
	And folks, James Carville said, they don't care about Monica Lewinsky, it's the economy, stupid.
	Well, let me tell you, the economy, it's about...
	The uncertainty, stupid.
	It's about the constant vacillation and Trump changing his mind one day after the other.
	That's why the founders set it up for the Congress to set tax rates so that you don't have some dictator in the White House changing it every 12 hours.
	It's not even pragmatic.
	It's not even practical what he's doing.
	It's not a solution to some real problems.
	He identifies a real problem, he declares an emergency, and then he acts like a dictator under his martial law.
	Well, before I take a break, on Rumble, North American House Hippo, thank you for the tip.
	He says, earlier this year, somebody commented that Trump would be Santa Claus to MAGA early on, with pardons and border executive orders, etc., before he betrays them.
	Now, like Futurama's evil robot Santa, Trump is getting ready to shove coal so far up our stockings that we'll be coughing up diamonds.
	I never thought.
	I thought it would end this way.
	Gunned down by Santa Claus.
	Honestly, I never saw it coming.
	Well, you know, that's the problem.
	You allow people to rule and do the kinds of things that he did in 2020.
	The scams that he started over COVID and the scams that he did over the election and stopped the steal and all the rest of this stuff and the people who pushed that and made money off of it, you let that happen, it's going to come back again.
	On Rumble, Radisborough, has anyone talked about how Republicans control three branches of government again, but it's all executive orders and nonsense, isn't it?
	Yeah, that's right.
	That's right.
	Well, what they would say is that they can't get anything done because they don't have more than 60 senators.
	Let me tell you, they're going to get fewer.
	This next time, if they let this kind of chaos reign.
	But they said, well, you know, there's a lot of things that we can't do with just a simple majority vote in the Senate.
	And that's going to be their excuse.
	On Kik, General McGuffin gifted five subscriptions on Kik.
	Thank you very much.
	And Travis reminded me to, if you go to Kik and you want to find the show, type in David Knight Show, but no spaces.
	No spaces.
	Otherwise, you won't find it.
	On Rumble, DG8, thank you for the tip.
	He said, David, the Trump cult applauds Trump's tyranny.
	Remember that power goes to the left when they take power.
	Like Trump getting Operation Warp Speed approved without proper testing for Biden to mandate, and now it's just crickets.
	Well, that's absolutely true.
	We're going to take a quick break.
	We're going to relax a little bit.
	Here's the Smokies music.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	All right, welcome back.
	And I've been talking for an hour and ten minutes here without a break.
	And so I do need to take care of some business for the show.
	We're at the midpoint in the month, and I haven't talked about donations or anything like that.
	I've got to do that.
	And I want to thank the people who have donated.
	A lot of the same names.
	We have one new donor, Terrence B., but I want to thank all the people who are regularly supporting us on Zelle.
	Thomas H., Susan L., multiple times, Lyndon H., Sean S., Salty D., Adam D., Kimberly M., Gretchen C., Susan again, Terrence B., Linda M.,
	Raymond G., Ryan F., Lois That's an L. Susan L. and Benjamin R. Thank you all so much.
	I really do appreciate that.
	And let me also, while I've got it here, it's short.
	We had three people contributed on Cash App.
	By the way, you can find if you like to use Cash App, there's no fees on Zelle.
	So 100% of it goes to us.
	There are some fees on the other platforms, varying amounts of fees.
	But I want to thank the donors on Cash App.
	John W., and we had two new ones, Bryce T., and Lionel C. Thank you very much.
	Where we are right now, we're just a little bit past three-eighths on the gas gauge.
	I think they've updated the graphic on that.
	But, you know, we're just a little bit past the halfway mark, and we're at three-eighths.
	So just wanted to let you know that.
	Oh, and Karen just gave this to me.
	These are checks for the second week of April.
	Mark C. Thank you very much.
	Aaron W., David and Susie S., Timothy W., Marilyn B., Kimberly S., James F., Eric K., Michael E., Ronald C., Austin M., Josh B., and Ryan F. Thank you all.
	Those are the people, the few people who keep this broadcast going.
	So I really do thank them for that.
	Let's talk just briefly.
	About the judge and his background.
	I alluded to it, but I don't want to spend a whole lot more time on this one issue.
	But I think it's important, you know, when you look at what is going on at the southwest border, and this is something that also happened in 2017.
	Immigration basically just stopped as Trump took office, wanting to see what would happen.
	And so I think that a lot of this really tough talk is also to...
	Show people that he's serious about it this time, unlike the first time.
	But again, if we're going to have every problem solved by declaring an emergency and running martial law, that is unbelievably dangerous.
	Unbelievably dangerous.
	They got a loaded gun to our head, collectively, by doing that.
	But when we took it, take a look at what is happening at the border.
	The conservatives are very excited about the fact that, or I should say the Trump supporters, that southwest border apprehensions last month were lower than the first two days of March of 2024.
	So, for the entire month, they had fewer apprehensions, which is a part of, you know, that doesn't tell you how many people crossed the border, that tells you how many people they caught.
	But that's kind of an indication of traffic, I guess.
	But they had less apprehensions for the entire month than they did the first two days of March in 2024.
	So, that's good.
	But I just want to caution you into not accepting that the end justifies the means.
	That is never true.
	That's true for the Marxists, or the authoritarians.
	Whatever it takes, right?
	The end, if the end is good, I can use whatever means I want.
	No, that is not the kind of society that we want, and that certainly isn't the kind of government that we want.
	So Boesberg has threatened to hold Trump officials in contempt of court for not flying the gang members back to the U.S. This broke yesterday.
	He's now found probable cause.
	This guy's really feeling his oats, and he really does need to be impeached.
	He really does.
	He issued the temporary restraining orders I pointed out.
	They took it to the Supreme Court.
	The Supreme Court removed that temporary restraining order.
	Now he wants to come after the Trump administration for ignoring his temporary restraining order that was removed by the Supreme Court.
	That is now going to be what the fight is over.
	Instead of, are we going to have a determination as to whether or not somebody is a terrorist or not?
	Deporting them is one thing, but declaring them a terrorist and essentially giving them a death penalty is another thing, and that needs to have, that must have due process.
	So, willful disregard of his prior order that was thrown out by the Supreme Court.
	And so, yesterday, Boesburg gave the government a deadline, April 23rd, either to comply with his initial order and thereby purge the contempt or alternatively identify members of the administration who should be subject to individual sanctions for their role.
	Now, the founders said they thought that the judiciary was the least dangerous of the three branches.
	And again, that's the way they regarded government.
	They regarded it as a danger, as a threat.
	And they said it's the least dangerous because they don't have any means to enforce what they want to do.
	Well, he doesn't have any means to enforce this either.
	He said that the Trump administration, quote, defied my order deliberately and gleefully.
	Of course, he doesn't call it my order.
	He calls it the court's order.
	But he is the court, right?
	And he says, the Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders, especially by officials of a coordinate branch who have sworn an oath to uphold it.
	Well, again, we have checks and balances.
	So yes, the Constitution does support that.
	The Constitution does support nullification of one branch's actions by another branch.
	That's exactly what it supports.
	That's what it was there for.
	Again, the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions.
	We're calling on the states to nullify the federal government.
	And so the states can nullify the federal government.
	The citizens can nullify the federal government or the state government with jury nullification.
	That's the power of the citizenry, which all the judges will lie to you about that.
	But yeah, the citizens have a veto there with a jury.
	If they think that the law is bad or that the punishment is excessive, we've always talked about that with fully informed juries, right?
	And that's what I'm saying about this.
	This punishment is excessive.
	Yeah, this guy, if he's here illegally, absolutely deport him.
	However, that punishment is excessive.
	And so, people can nullify it.
	States can nullify it.
	Kentucky and Virginia resolutions.
	And then the different branches of the federal government are there to nullify each other as well.
	You see, the founders saw government as dangerous, and they wanted to make sure that different groups of checks and balances are all about nullification.
	This is the judge, Bosberg, who says the Constitution doesn't tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders.
	That right there shows that he's not qualified to be a judge.
	He can't properly judge what the Constitution says.
	He needs to be thrown out.
	He needs to be impeached, along with a lot of others.
	is the chief judge of the federal trial-level court in D.C. He outlined the next steps in the contempt proceedings since it is not proven yet beyond a reasonable doubt that the administration committed criminal contempt of his temporary restraining order that was removed by the Supreme Court.
	Boesburg said that he wants sworn statements first from people who can attest to the officials making the decisions not to turn the planes around as they carried migrants to El Salvador.
	So, again, he's living in a fantasy world.
	A little bit about his background.
	As I said before, he's nominated by George W. Bush, initially into the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, then Obama put him into a federal judgeship after he'd been in that other position for nine years.
	He was confirmed by the U.S. Senate in a unanimous vote.
	This is the uni party here, putting somebody like him in.
	Chief Justice John Roberts likes him.
	One of the reasons why John Roberts would push back against suggestions by Trump that Boesburg ought to be impeached is because Roberts liked him enough to put him in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which is one person without a jury.
	They didn't even have a grand jury situation.
	He is the court, right?
	Just that one person is the court.
	And so it was Roberts.
	Who put Boesburg on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
	In 2020, he was appointed to the U.S. Alien Terrorist Removal Court.
	And he was designated as Chief Judge.
	Perhaps that's why we haven't had any terrorist aliens removed.
	Because he's there.
	He's there.
	So, his background, he comes from a family of bureaucrats.
	Born in California.
	Moved to Arizona?
	King Tut.
	No, his family came from California, moved to D.C. His dad worked for Lyndon Johnson in the War on Poverty, the Office of Economic Opportunity.
	With a background like that, how could this guy go wrong?
	Oh, he also attended Yale.
	Okay, so there's all of that together, right?
	That explains a lot.
	Now, the DACA 2.0 that I was talking about earlier.
	Again, The Obama administration, they wanted to have dreamers.
	And they had this dreamer legislation over and over again that kept being shut down by Congress.
	They couldn't get a pass through.
	So Obama did it by executive order.
	Trump becomes president.
	He's going to remove the Obama executive order.
	The courts say, no, you can't do that.
	Now we've got this happening again.
	And so what is Trump going to do this time?
	A judge has blocked Trump.
	From revoking the legal status for 530,000-plus migrants who flew into the U.S. via a Biden program that was by Biden's executive order.
	And so Trump says we don't like that.
	He gave legal status to Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans, the CHNV mass humanitarian parole program that was created by a Biden executive order in 2023.
	This is just like...
	The DACA thing.
	It says DACA 2.0.
	And so now you've got a federal judge, Judge Indira Palwani, an Obama appointee, said that each migrant needs to have an individualized case-by-case review.
	Again, if they're here illegally, they can be deported, and he can just remove that.
	But the issue is...
	You know, are they going to be declared terrorists or are they going to be declared illegal immigrants?
	There's a big difference between those two things.
	And I think that we need to, that's not just a nuance.
	It's not quibbling over details.
	That is a huge difference.
	You know, that's like giving somebody, you know, a prison sentence of a couple years or sentencing them to death.
	And so you need to make that determination.
	So that would determine whether or not this needs to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, I think, in my opinion.
	Termination of parole processes for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans is hereby stayed.
	In other words, we're not going to let him get rid of Biden's DACA 2.0.
	Biden created this program in 2023 with an executive order.
	He said, I've got the ability to parole people.
	So you bring them in, and that's a crime.
	They've now committed a crime because they came into this country illegally.
	But I'll parole them and forgive them.
	Now, this is the kind of stuff, and we ought to, that is contemptible.
	But we don't want to embrace equally contemptible things on the other side of rule by martial law.
	So, again, as we look at judicial tyranny on another issue, we've got a judge ruling against the Trump administration after he couldn't find evidence of fraud in a clean energy program.
	Did you look hard enough?
	I don't think so.
	This judge is Tanya Chutkin, the judge who presided over the lawfare against Trump over the fake election charges and things like that.
	And she, on Tuesday, ruled in favor of eight non-profits that sued the Trump administration saying, give me the money.
	Show me the money, Jerry.
	EPA unlawfully terminated their gravy train.
	Okay, so they're suing over this.
	Chutkin said, Well, Lee Zeldin,
	who is the new EPA administrator, said, That the Biden administration unlawfully awarded $20 billion to Progressive Ventures.
	In a video that he did, he said what they're doing in terms of these are last-minute things that the Biden administration did, right?
	In other words, this is not something that goes back years.
	It's just like, we got this money.
	Let's give it to people before Trump gets in office.
	And he compared it to somebody throwing gold bars off of the Titanic.
	And he said, well, we found the gold bars, we retrieved them, and we're not going to give that money to these different groups.
	And so, again, what you're looking at are the arbitrary executive actions by the previous president and the judge saying you can't ignore that.
	So, again, this criminal...
	Contempt thing, that is what's in the news.
	Breaking yesterday, everybody is talking about that.
	Finding the only remedy for purging a contempt order is by complying with a temporary restraining order that is no longer in effect.
	He says, I'm going to come after you for contempt somehow.
	You know, Bozberg and some army are going to come after you.
	The administration, he doesn't even know who to come after.
	He's telling them, tell me who I can come after.
	Give me some names.
	And so he's going to make allegations of them.
	And the only way that they can do that, avoid that contempt charge, is if they comply with his temporary restraining order, which has been thrown out by the Supreme Court.
	Yeah, it's a mess.
	It really is a mess.
	So we're going to take a quick break and we come back.
	I want to talk a little bit.
	Well, actually, we've got Tony is going to be joining us in just a little bit.
	So I'm going to go a little bit longer because you don't have Tony yet, right?
	We're about four minutes out.
	Let me talk a little bit about what's happening with the news and we'll take a break and get Tony on here.
	We have in the UK, as we talk about alien and sedition acts, and you might get deported, disappeared off the street.
	If you say the wrong things about some of Trump's political friends like Netanyahu.
	Well, what does this look like in the UK?
	We have a minister there in the UK, government minister Lillian Greenwood, has said she defended labor's banter ban.
	She said, you know, people are entitled to private conversations as long as they don't offend other people.
	If you remember about 10 years ago, and I played this several times, and I'm going to play it for you again today, but Mr. Bean, what was his name?
	Was that his last name?
	Anyway, Mr. Bean, you know the comedian.
	Rowan Atkinson.
	What's that?
	Rowan? Rowan.
	Yeah, Rowan, yeah.
	He addressed this.
	This is something that's been percolating around the UK for quite some time, at least a decade.
	And he said, please feel free to insult me.
	And they beat it back 10 years ago.
	But it's back.
	I mean, these people are relentless.
	They want to take your free speech, and they will use any kind of excuse to take it back.
	And so they're back with a vengeance.
	Lillian Greenwood is a transport minister.
	And she said it was an exaggeration to say that rules and the employment rights bill could threaten pubs with closure.
	She said this is about getting the balance right between free speech and workers' rights.
	There isn't any balance on free speech.
	There aren't any restraints on free speech.
	It's either free or it isn't.
	And if you're going to put rules on it, then it's no longer free speech.
	It's like we're talking about free trade, right?
	If you've got a free trade agreement that's thousands of pages long, that's not free trade.
	If you've got a free speech agreement that has all kinds of restrictions and exceptions and caveats in it, that's not free speech either.
	Freedom to speak is the freedom to offend.
	Somebody is always going to be offended by something that you say.
	When I spoke against Hillary's takeover of health care, I offended everybody there.
	I mean, it wasn't intentional, like it would be today, but I got up and I said, you know, we've got some real problems with the medical thing, but we also shouldn't have the government practicing charity in these particular...
	When I mentioned charity, Oh, these people think they're entitled to everything.
	It's not charity.
	They're entitled to what you have, what you work for, right?
	When I said charity, boy, a crowd of Democrats was booing me.
	And so, you know, I offended them.
	I guess I should have been locked up.
	Would be today, I guess.
	The Equality's watchdog has told the government that measures and labor's workers' rights overhaul could disproportionately curtail freedom of expression.
	A conservative peer who is also tied to Free Speech Union, which is part of the Daily Skeptic in the UK, has tabled several amendments that would stop pub and university bosses having to ensure that their staff were not subject to harassment by overhearing opinions that they didn't agree with.
	It could be about anything, right?
	It could be that you think men are men and women are women.
	Which, by the way, they just had a court decision there affirming that, which is something we always knew, but at least that removes some of the legal threats.
	So Young is the founder of the Free Speech Union.
	He said that the way the law was written would mean that an employee could take offense on behalf of another member of staff, even if he or she did not hear the comments made.
	His amendment to the bill would exempt opinions on political, moral, religious, or social matters, From the law, as long as the opinion was not indecent or grossly offensive.
	Oh, well, then, okay, not even this guy gets it.
	So you can say whatever you want about all these controversial things like politics, morality, religion, everything, as long as you don't offend anybody.
	This is the free speech conservative position in the UK.
	They're done, folks.
	Stick a fork in it.
	They've completely lost the plot.
	Because you can always say that something is grossly offensive.
	Anyway, the other minister, Greenwood, said, well, you can say anything that you want in a private conversation as long as it's not overheard by somebody who takes offense at it.
	Well, that's not freedom at all.
	That is not freedom at all.
	Well, Tony is ready to join us.
	Without any further ado, we're going to take a quick break, and we'll be right back with Tony Arterman of Wise Wolf Gold, also David Knight Gold.
	That'll take you to Wise Wolf.
	We'll be right back.
	Got a lot to talk about.
	With what has happened with gold and the economy this last week.
	You know, there are some weeks where nothing happens, and then there are other weeks where decades happen.
	This is one of those, the latter category.
	We'll be right back.
	be right back.
	All right, joining us now is Tony Arban of Wise Wolf Gold, and we've got so much to talk about.
	And again, he set up davidnight.gold.
	That'll take you to Tony's Wise Wolf and let him know that you came through us.
	And as we look at gold going up record prices, as Tony's always said, you know, when it starts shooting up, that's when everybody gets interested in buying it.
	And so it's kind of a feedback loop, but there's some other fundamental things that are driving it as well.
	Thank you for joining us, Tony.
	It certainly has been an amazing week, hasn't it?
	Well, we keep saying that.
	Yeah, I know.
	Every week.
	Every time I come out.
	It's another record high, David, and the monetary system is melting down.
	What's going to happen next week?
	Stay tuned, folks.
	The gold-silver ratio now is 102 ounces of silver to make one ounce of gold.
	Isn't that absolutely insane?
	That is.
	History has us at 10 to 20, at most 10 to 20. 102 ounces of silver to make one ounce of gold.
	That changed around 1933, but it's never been like this on a consistent basis.
	102 ounces of silver to make one ounce of gold.
	That's a price disparity in and of itself, but as I was telling you off-air, there's something really wrong with the price of gold itself based off of the dollar.
	In 1971, it was $35 an ounce, so it's almost 100 times.
	It's almost 100 times what it was on August 15, 1971.
	And gold really hasn't gone up in value.
	And, of course, it increases about 2% or 3% a year in supply.
	So it's kept up with inflation and other things.
	But that's the price of gold versus the purchasing power of the dollar, and almost 100 times, David, absolutely amazing.
	That truly is amazing, yeah.
	And, of course, we had a lot of things happening with pronouncements by Powell, things happening with the stock market, stuff happening with tariffs.
	This war between China and the U.S., a trade war, is driving people away from the dollar, away from treasury bills, and even more so into gold, as you and I have been talking about for the last couple of years.
	China's central bank and others saw this coming, especially saw it with the tariffs, and they started moving away from the dollar and towards gold.
	They're seeing the resetting of the financial system, and now, I don't know, I don't see anything fundamentally changing with this.
	I think this is going to get really crazy, and I think this is part of the financial meltdown.
	I think Trump wants that.
	I do too.
	What else would explain this sort of chaos?
	Markets love certainty.
	You're not making it advantageous for companies to move here, build here, invest here.
	We haven't restructured.
	We're not working on our internal tax system.
	We're working on an external tax system at the same time.
	So we haven't lowered taxes.
	We're actually raising taxes.
	You know how I feel about tariffs.
	I like tariffs.
	I think that there's...
	They're sound.
	I think they can create an environment of freedom and liberty.
	The problem is if you add them on top of the income tax, you just get a new tax.
	So it doesn't make any sense on its face, and I think that's why this has nothing to do with economic nationalism.
	It has everything to do with the controlled demolition of the American economy, the American dollar.
	It's the rhetoric back and forth between Trump and Powell.
	Put out on his Truth Social that he's looking forward to Powell's termination.
	Termination can't come fast enough, is what he said, based off Powell's remarks on tariffs and everything else.
	And he says he's always late.
	He wants Powell to act.
	And this is part of the weaker dollar strategy.
	If you really listen to what Trump says, he's trying to get the Fed to inject massive amounts of liquidity into the markets, QE. And, of course, Powell, as we've covered for the last couple of years, has raised interest rates faster than any
	other Fed chairman in history trying to curtail inflation.
	So that it goes against the policy.
	I mean, if you want to call the Fed hawkish, it reverses all of the Fed's policy over the past two or three years.
	And that would be absolutely devastating.
	A final blow for the dollar, if you will.
	And it might...
	I think we would see, you know, stock prices would soar.
	There'd be a temporary high.
	But ultimately, that sort of injection right now, when we're at 125% of debt to GDP, David, that would be the final blow.
	I mean, I think after that, we'd be looking at the fallout from that because you could no longer really do anything by injecting liquidity.
	That's like the last run.
	It's just based off.
	Mathematics. And I think that's what Trump wants.
	I think he wants a giant liquidity injection.
	And then you can hang a question mark over that.
	He likes injections.
	He likes injections.
	COVID injections.
	Maybe even heroin injections.
	Because that's what this is like.
	This is like a junkie looking for a fix.
	And he can't get high anymore.
	And he's going to have to use more and more.
	And eventually he's going to OD.
	And we're going to have an economic overdose of quantitative easing.
	It's going to kill the economy, kill the government.
	This is the guy who bankrupted casinos.
	Now, one of the things that he really, I guess, really got him angry was what Powell said in his remarks yesterday.
	To the Economic Club of Chicago, I'll just read these to you here.
	We may find ourselves in a challenging scenario in which our dual mandate goals are in tension.
	If that were to occur, we would consider how far the economy is from each of these goals and the potentially different time horizons of which those respective gaps would be anticipated to close.
	But then what really got in his ire, I think, he said, terrorists are likely to move us further away from our goals, probably for the balance of this year.
	And he said, for the time being, we're well positioned to just wait for greater clarity before considering an adjustment to our policy stance.
	So what he's saying is, like all the businesses out there and CEOs and everybody's like, well, we don't know what Trump's going to do in another 12 hours, so let's just wait and see, right?
	It's this uncertainty.
	That's the other thing that has jumped into this, Tony, besides...
	You know, the inflation and the spending and adding taxes and everything.
	It's the uncertainty about everything.
	And that's freezing everybody.
	And even now, Powell echoes it and says, well, we're going to just wait and see what he's going to do.
	Wait and see what the stuff shakes out before we make any policy commitments.
	And everybody is doing that with their businesses across the board, across the world.
	Well, absolutely.
	I mean, the uncertainty is what is causing all of the market chaos and the whipsawing and the back and forth.
	I noticed something.
	There's a metric.
	You know, the Chinese used to be the largest holder of U.S. Treasuries.
	Now they're the greatest seller.
	This is the upside down, and the changes that are on the horizon are absolutely massive.
	You look at de-dollarization continuing the trend.
	If he gets his wish, I think that's what I think we're trying to suss out here, is what is the goal?
	Because, you know, Powell, he's not wrong.
	About the tariffs, because we're placing tariffs on top of a system that wasn't designed for economic nationalism.
	It doesn't look like policy.
	Policy would be a reformation of our current economic system, how we tax.
	What incentives we give to corporations and to individuals and to investors to build things here.
	We didn't do that.
	We just put a relic on top of a system.
	From a bygone era, we put a relic on there on top of a new system that is designed for cheap liquidity.
	It's designed for debt.
	It's designed for fiat currency.
	It's designed for, again, currency creation in order to survive.
	You know, the stock market in 1971, go back to Nixon's era and go off the gold standard, this is a completely different economy, different everything.
	You know, it used to, and you know this, I mean, the stock market was based off of earnings and, you know, profit and loss statements, you know, the Warren Buffett's era.
	It's no longer that way.
	It's about ESG.
	It's about your ties to central banking and venture capital, which all that just circles around itself.
	This has nothing to do with old metrics and building things and manufacturing and all that stuff.
	So yeah, putting the tariffs on there like that, it doesn't make any sense.
	And it will be inflationary.
	But again, because we didn't cause...
	There's no carrot.
	It's just stick.
	And that's the tell.
	This is not about that.
	It's about forcing Powell or forcing a new chairman of the Fed, which is...
	I'm surprised he even stayed on.
	I was always surprised he stayed on.
	I thought, this is probably a good exit stage right there, Jerome.
	You should probably exit because this is going to be a bumpy ride.
	He didn't do that, so that's on him.
	But something is going to happen.
	I can't imagine they've gone all this way to become fiscally responsible.
	I had a high school student, a daughter, a lady that works for me in Branson.
	She texted me earlier this week and said, can you tell me how the U.S. could balance the budget?
	And so I sent her back an audio message and I said, well, they'd have to pass a balanced budget amendment.
	They'd have to cut spending.
	They'd have to spend less than they took in.
	This would have to be a complete reformation of the financial system.
	And I said, we'd have to re-peg the currency to something stable so we wouldn't constantly lose purchasing power.
	There's a few steps, you know.
	I would have sent her back a three-word reply.
	I'd say, follow the Constitution.
	Well, that's right.
	That would be the big cuts to the welfare-warfare state.
	That would eliminate, for real, all this stuff that Doge is playing around with on the fringes.
	It's just completely gone.
	That's what it's going to require.
	Absolutely. And I said, we'd have to end, I called it the welfare-warfare state.
	So it's like three things to me.
	If I follow the Constitution, that's even...
	Of course, that's what David Knight would say.
	I had to make it convoluted, but that's what I looked at.
	I said, but we don't talk about that anymore.
	That is not on the table.
	I think that that is the tell.
	If you want to read the room, this is not the spirit of the age, the zeitgeist, if you will.
	They're not throwing that out, saying we need to become fiscally responsible.
	Nobody talks about that.
	This is all about strategy and who gets left holding what.
	Yeah, this is the Machiavellian monetary theories.
	Oh, I like that.
	Another MMT, right?
	How can I use this politically for something?
	You know, it was interesting, you mentioned it's all stick and no carrot.
	And that was the same thing that a commentator on RT, on Russia Today, said as well.
	In terms of talking about the two big issues here, how is the EU going to respond to Trump's tariffs and things like that?
	How is China going to respond?
	They said, well, you know, for the EU, because of, you know, the dominance of the U.S. in so many different ways with them, they will probably grudgingly go along, but it's all stick and no carrot.
	They don't get anything out of it.
	He hasn't given them anything to go that way, but he's got a big enough stick that he could beat them with that maybe they'll go that way.
	You know, and so for China, you know, he's talking about it, and this is a key thing when we start talking about devaluation and things like that.
	China devaluated their yuan.
	And so what's Trump going to do?
	Is he going to respond to that?
	Is he going to devaluate the dollar?
	You know, that's part of what they've always done with the China price is currency manipulation.
	And so, you know, how does he respond to that?
	You know, everybody says, well, Trump's holding all the cards because we buy more from them than they buy from us.
	Well, not at all.
	I mean, besides the rare earth minerals that they've just stopped, that they've got like 90% of the processing on globally.
	So they just stopped that.
	They can devalue their currency.
	They have also...
	Matched him on tariff rates.
	So as he goes up, they go up and they keep going up.
	But he doesn't have any cards to play when it comes to devaluation.
	Because that's going to work against dollars, certainly work for the advantage of gold.
	And when it comes to minerals and other things like that, it seems to me like he doesn't have the cards.
	He's got the big stick with Europe, but he doesn't seem to have the cards in the trade war with China.
	And I think that that's going to continue to go on.
	And I think it's this instability that is there, this uncertainty that he's created, that is driving gold the most, don't you?
	Well, that's what the Chinese are buying gold.
	They're dumping treasuries to buy it.
	The world's buying gold.
	And I think this has been happening, really accelerated rates since 2022.
	When you look at when we put the sanctions on Russia, and then the ruble fell and then bounced back, and then they stopped using dollars and did direct trade deals with places like India and China for petroleum, for gold, and vice versa.
	think what we're on the cusp of is a...
	A world that's moving away from the dollar.
	I've said for a while, I think gold is already the world's reserve currency.
	It's just not in name.
	That's what BRICS is working on and cross-border payment systems.
	You know, if this was 20 years ago, you could probably take on the Chinese, no problem.
	But we've given them so much.
	We gave them the infrastructure.
	We gave them the trade.
	We gave them the technology.
	Cheap energy.
	We gave them cheap energy.
	We gave them cheap energy.
	Yeah, you think you're going to manufacture?
	Sorry. Opened everything for them.
	You know, we built them up so we could do something like this because we can blame the other.
	I think this is another part of the Great Reset or the technocracy, all the things.
	They've been building up China since the trilateralists formed in 1973 with Zygmunt Brzezinski.
	It's moving.
	The technology eastward and building up their infrastructure.
	Of course, we opened China in 72. Everything following the timeline, David, last trade surplus the United States ran was 1974.
	This all makes sense if you look at it in reverse.
	And now we get here.
	It's hard to see exactly what the next move is, but it's not good.
	I think it's just using this as a buffer, using them as the other, setting up the boogeyman, because the damage that we've done...
	To ourselves, with our own policies, with globalization and with the empire, the American empire, it's been absolutely disastrous.
	And this can't last forever.
	That's what we're up against.
	The timeline, the window for us fixing our currency and our system is rapidly closing.
	And it's not going to be sunshine and rainbows on the other side.
	I hate doing this because it sounds so pessimistic.
	I know.
	But you just, I mean, look, the dollar was $35 an ounce for gold in 1971, and now it's almost 100 times.
	Almost. I mean, right there.
	I didn't think, this is something I've been studying for years and years, and I gotta say this all the time, but it's moving faster than I thought it would.
	I mean, we're really in a different timeline now.
	Yeah, Peter Schiffen said, this is what I've been talking about.
	The longest time is here is here.
	And all of the gold bugs have all been saying that.
	But that's the case.
	As you pointed out, that ratio to silver, everything has flowed into gold.
	It's not into Bitcoin.
	It's not into silver.
	It's not any of these other alternatives to these fiat currencies.
	It's all going into gold right now.
	And so it's acting like a big hose that's there.
	And that's one of the other things.
	Bitcoin, as one person said, we're poised for a 2023-style rebound.
	As Goldman says, the dollar is overvalued.
	Now, that's coming from Coindesk, and they're going to look at it.
	Oh, well, the dollar is overvalued, so we can have a rebound with Bitcoin.
	Well, not necessarily.
	It's just like the silver thing.
	Is it going to be gold that everybody's going to run into?
	And that's what we've been seeing, is that that's where the foreign banks are going, the central banks are going, and a lot of individuals are going into gold because they see that as the...
	An island of stability and this chaotic situation that Trump has manufactured.
	What do you think about Bitcoin?
	I mean, is that going to regain this or is it going to kind of hang around and wait for the economy to settle down on the stock market and all this other uncertainty about tariffs?
	Well, I think Bitcoin is actually held up okay.
	It hasn't done.
	I mean, this has always been the question.
	Is Bitcoin digital gold?
	In times of uncertainty, in times of fear, in times of chaos, can Bitcoin hold its own?
	It certainly has done okay.
	Give it a C-.
	It's not a failure, but it did have a lot of price drop since Inauguration Day, which was...
	I think 108,000, David.
	I think it was trading the other day at about 86,000.
	So, not terrible.
	I mean, it's not like a lot of these stocks, I mean, or some of these mean coins, other things that are digital assets, like Trumpcoin or whatever, that just plummets.
	So, it's held up okay.
	I think Bitcoin and the infrastructure, and I have a Bitcoin company, I think long term, it goes, I think, hand in hand.
	With gold in some way.
	And because it's a digital, it says something that gold can't do.
	But gold does something that Bitcoin can't do.
	A lot of these people that are Bitcoin maximalists, I scratch my head.
	I don't really understand why they think that Bitcoin will demonetize gold or demonetize silver or everything goes to zero again.
	It seems kind of cultish.
	I mean, I like some of those guys.
	They're very smart people.
	But at the end of the day, I don't agree with that.
	I think it's just another asset alongside of precious metals that has a long-term viability.
	I don't like any other cryptos.
	I don't sell any other crypto.
	I think Bitcoin is an island unto itself.
	So I'll leave that and put a pin in it.
	I don't know.
	I'll hang a question mark over it.
	I think that I definitely see a rally for Bitcoin sometime in the next 24 months.
	But right now, nobody's doing anything.
	When there, I think what might happen, I think you and I can probably, what was that, what was the Johnny Carson bit, you know, where he puts the letter and opens it up, he already knows.
	The great Karnak, yeah.
	The Karnak, yeah.
	Karnak was magnificent, I think, yeah.
	Yeah, it's like, what is quantitative easing?
	That's what we're going to get.
	And when that happens, it always happens.
	Following that, when they get some new Fed policy and there's, you know, trillions dumped in or something, there will be this boon.
	It'll be like, you know, everything is happy and everybody's doing great.
	And then Bitcoin will rise.
	There will be a sell-off in gold at some point.
	It's a little bit of sell-off.
	It'll pull back.
	Maybe not that far, but there'll be some...
	I think that's what happens a lot when...
	In these times, when there is an opportunity to buy something, people will liquidate their gold holdings, which puts pressure on the price.
	And so that'll come out, and I think Bitcoin will go back over $100,000.
	We're not that far away from it.
	It'll top another $100,000.
	But in this current environment, a lot of these new technologies can't grow, whether it's AI, whether it's crypto.
	It's just stagnant.
	It doesn't know what to do, because the global order is being reset.
	That's right.
	The entire global economy is being reset.
	So for the foreseeable future, it's commodities.
	And I think maybe in the totality of this decade and to this century, it's going to be commodities, rare earth minerals, who controls things like crude oil and gold and silver and other things.
	I think real estate, timber, I think those will be, that's true wealth.
	And all the other stuff is speculative.
	I've got a question from somebody.
	When you mention commodities, I've got a question from somebody here.
	James Faithways says, can you ask Tony what he thinks of buying a little copper?
	I understand the premium is high and that it's not really considered to be a precious metal, but I can't seem to get a straightforward answer on it, he says.
	So what do you think about that?
	I think it's a great idea.
	If you can get copper, it's only good.
	Look, copper against...
	Any currency, that's what you have to remember, that if you're using fiat currency, whatever currency it is worldwide, whether it's the Chinese yuan, whether it's Japanese yen, whether it's the euro, whether it's the pound sterling, if you're buying a commodity that is limited,
	it's finite, in this market, you're doing good.
	You're going to replace something.
	I mean, copper, I wouldn't necessarily, I mean...
	In history, the copper has been money because it's been the penny and other type of coins.
	We stopped making copper pennies in 1982, but any penny prior to that is copper.
	If you go look at it, the next time you see a copper penny, you should save that.
	It's worth more than the cent.
	Put that away.
	Yeah, copper is a – sometimes we put copper bullion rounds for gifts and things like that into Wolfpack and to some of the direct purchases that we get at Wisewolf because it's just an extra little thing.
	But, yeah, I mean, I actually have copper bars I bought from a customer years and years ago, but they had, like –
	Mm-hmm.
	Mm-hmm.
	Trump is stacking taxes.
	You might want to stack metal.
	We're not putting taxes on top of taxes.
	That's what I was, you know.
	Start stacking it.
	Yeah, that's it.
	Yeah, you know, when you look at this, and we were talking about crypto before, I think the play that's going to happen is going to be stablecoins.
	Because that's something that they're going to use, and we're seeing this more and more, people talking about it.
	This article, headline from Zero Hedge.
	Stablecoins supply to surge to $2 trillion in order to support the U.S. dollar's hegemony.
	And I think that's exactly what the play is when you look at Lutnik and his connection with Tether and how much he is in the treasury bonds and things like that.
	As countries are getting more and more reluctant to buy the treasury bonds, they can get a stablecoin to suck it up.
	And it's a dual win for them because they can start to move us over to a digital currency.
	They can use that then to control us economically, to deny us being able to use it, to track what we're spending.
	But then it also soaks up their treasury bonds and their debt as other people start to get reluctant to it.
	What do you think is going to happen with that?
	Is that the path that you see moving forward?
	Well, unfortunately, I think that's the trend.
	It has to come in that form.
	Based off of the rhetoric of being anti-CBDC, I always thought there was something underlying that.
	I think this is the...
	What did Zygmunt Brzezinski say?
	We need an in-run around sovereignty with the technocracy.
	We need an in-run around it.
	They're going to do an in-run around your perceived notion of CBDC with stablecoin.
	That's right.
	It's really not that hard to suss out when you give it five minutes of thought because This era of history, this timeline, the resetting of the global financial order, the generational wealth that will be created,
	if you will, when they change the monetary system.
	I think a lot of this is on the table.
	I think they're looking at who will control the keys to some of these technologies, blockchain, whatever it is.
	It won't be Bitcoin.
	It won't be Bitcoin.
	I know too much about Bitcoin and the decentralized network.
	It won't be Bitcoin.
	I don't see it being that.
	I think you're right.
	I think the thing to watch is the stablecoin and those who control that and then pairing that with things like the dollar.
	But it's worldwide.
	The Bank of International Settlements has been working on the clearinghouse aspect of this, the IMF with their Unicoin.
	It's all about centralization and the technology of blockchain, using these stablecoins to get back somehow to what's the original goal.
	I don't think we've ever, perhaps we've never left the paradigm of the old new world order.
	I mean, maybe we never really left that, and this is all a distraction to give us the illusion.
	That there's, you know, a populist uprising.
	But perhaps this has all just been a, you know, and it looks more and more like that.
	It's like a funhouse mirror version for people like me that are nationalists and believe and think like the way that the country was built.
	And then you see, you finally get the tariffs.
	And then they're this.
	Oh, yeah.
	And you just go, wait, that's not what I was, that's not what I meant.
	And, you know, or you get this, this is a very strange time.
	So I think, you know, when you really just go back, well, perhaps this is just, it's all a pageant.
	The world's a stage, as Shakespeare said.
	Yeah, and Trump is an earthquake.
	He's juggling the tariffs, you know?
	And are we not amused at seeing him change them every couple of hours?
	You know, it's insane what is happening with it.
	But, yeah, it's stacking the taxes, and it is also the uncertainty and the capricious and arbitrary nature and how it's constantly changing.
	That's what's really wrecking everything.
	You know, you and I have both agreed that we like...
	Tariffs better than we do in income tax.
	I like any kind of tax better than I like that.
	I don't like taxes.
	I don't think taxes are an engine of growth.
	But now you've got people out there who are cheering it.
	Oh, we've got to have tariffs.
	You know, it's what made America great.
	No, it isn't.
	You know, it was the absence of taxes and a small government that made America great, and they forget that.
	But, you know, when we talk about this stablecoin thing, it's interesting to see.
	There's a couple of articles there on Zero Hedge.
	The first one I just told you the headline for about stablecoin.
	Turning into $2 trillion and soaking up the debts and, you know, becoming, soaking up the, supporting the U.S. dollars hegemony and that type of thing.
	But then also, the fact that the debanking issue with crypto has not been solved yet by the Trump administration.
	You know, that was going to be, that was the attack that was coming on all the crypto community under Biden.
	That's still an issue.
	And that's going to be an issue.
	If we got stablecoins, because they're going to be able to effectively debank individuals and stop you from buying certain things.
	It might be a geofence around a particular area.
	You can't take your coin out of your 15-minute city or whatever.
	Maybe it's going to be a geofence around a particular item.
	You can't buy this kind of gun or guns at all, that type of stuff.
	So there's all these different ways that they can use it to control us, and I think that's where that's going to go.
	You know, with everything that's happening, as I said earlier, Peter Schiff said, this is what I've been talking about for years.
	This is the dollar bubble just burst, was his statement about it.
	And he's not the only one saying that.
	I mean, he's a gold bug.
	He's always been saying that.
	But now there's articles on places like MarketWatch.
	I think that's where they're going to pivot.
	because then that's how they're going to try to preserve their Machiavellian power and then usher in the new technocracy as well, the surveillance state, I think.
	I think that's where they're going to pivot.
	Well, and I think the...
	They'll say the advantage that they have there, what makes it different this time, is that they have the ability to expand and contract the money supply at will.
	They can do it in real time.
	And they can use this technology.
	We can always account for every single cent.
	That's the way they'll sell it.
	And this is the way we can do it to be stable.
	It's a stable coin.
	Something like that.
	But really it's about...
	You know, we've said it, Catherine Austin Fitz has said it, surveillance disguises money.
	They haven't given up their goals for these control grids and things that they want to do with the financial system.
	But at the same time, a lot of things are out of their control.
	I mean, you look at the history of the dollar and where we were in price structuring against gold and everything that's kept gold suppressed.
	I think all of those things, I think the wheels have come off.
	The black swan event was the tariffs in a lot of these countries.
	I mean, look at Germany.
	Germany is absolutely worried about its gold holdings in the U.S. That's a country.
	It's not a corporation.
	I mean, it's a whole country that's like, hey, is this available?
	Can we get that?
	They want an audit, all that stuff that's going on.
	They're not alone.
	And a lot of these vaults got cleaned out.
	The London bullion market, that got cleaned out.
	A lot of their holdings were repatriated.
	Nobody knew exactly.
	So when those contracts, you know, the stuff that they've papered over for years, David, like hiding deep in those vaults, all these papers, you have to account for it at some point.
	I think that it's anybody's guess at this point.
	And where we end up on price, where we end up at anything, especially when the ultimate goal here of the Trump administration is not economic nationalism, it's quantitative easing.
	And so we just, look, it's not about strengthening the dollar.
	It's not about having a state.
	It's about short-term boons in the stock market.
	And I think that ultimately that's fake.
	If you're buying gold and silver right now, I think you're doing yourself a favor by holding on.
	You're preserving your wealth as the currencies of the earth continue to go to zero.
	All fiat currencies, folks, go to zero.
	Currency backed by nothing that stays around, that's hung around.
	The average lifespan is 26 years.
	I don't have to be some sort of seer or I don't have to be Nostradamus.
	You don't have to be the smartest man in the room.
	You just need a library card and you can figure this out.
	It's going to zero or it's going to a place where you don't recognize it.
	It's like we talk about every week.
	I mean, you go look at the price of silver in 1980.
	It was $52.50 an ounce.
	Well, that doesn't even make any sense today.
	I mean, right now, I look at the spot price.
	You're at $32.17 an ounce, and it's 2025, and we debased the dollar trillions and trillions of times over.
	I mean, so what does that mean?
	Well, I just think all of this is...
	The metrics, you're judging it the wrong way.
	There's something else underlying this, and I think the wheels are going to come off, and I think we'll see a true price valuation sooner than later.
	I agree.
	Yeah, I think, you know, the fact that gold is taken off from silver and from Bitcoin is a function of what a lot of foreign governments are doing.
	You know, they see gold as that currency.
	I don't think you can put a price on privacy when you're talking about these digital currencies.
	So regardless, it's great if it goes up and I'm holding it or whatever, but You know, to me, it's really about the privacy because I think that the stablecoin thing is what they're pivoting towards.
	And that's going to be, you know, really, you know, they tied the petrodollar in there to energy.
	And, of course, that's something technocracy wanted to do.
	And they tied it to something that was real.
	But this time, as you point out with ESG and all the rest of the stuff, their objectives are really about total control.
	And so they've got to have some kind of a digital currency.
	And the stablecoin would be a way they can get that digital currency and still maintain their hegemony.
	You know, when we look at what is happening, I'm looking at all these different headlines.
	Gold jumps $100.
	Gold up 25% for the month or whatever.
	How high did it get?
	Was it $3,370 something, wasn't it?
	Yes. It's almost $3,400 an ounce.
	That's amazing.
	Yeah, and the calls now are $4,000.
	Wow. I think there's analysts and major banks that are saying $4,000.
	Because when you have de-dollarization worldwide, what is the price of gold?
	Yeah. What is the price?
	I don't think we've...
	This isn't the price discovery.
	I don't think it's true.
	And much of what has happened over the years with...
	Stuart Angler, who wrote the book, Rigged, I've had on my show, he spent his last 30 years looking at gold price suppression and how they've done it.
	I don't think they can do it anymore, David.
	Perhaps they don't want to.
	Perhaps this is part of that because it doesn't seem like anybody's putting an effort in.
	I mean, the Fed is watching gold, believe me.
	The Federal Reserve is watching gold right now very, very closely looking at this, wondering what their next move is going to be.
	The world is watching it.
	That's why I think, you know, I said this back in December, I think gold is the world's reserve currency.
	The dollar's been supplanted.
	You go back to Basel III in Switzerland, the Bank of International Settlements, in 2021, that's when they removed gold from a Tier 3 asset to a Tier 1 asset.
	And then central banks started, you know, supplanting their holdings, and they...
	It surpassed the euro.
	So it was way down on the list, and now it surpassed the euro as number two holdings of central banks around the world.
	The number one is the dollar.
	But I think that's only for transactional at this point.
	It's not about stability.
	I think the world is moving to gold.
	Faster than I thought possible, but it's certainly happening right before your eyes.
	Well, everybody was concerned about it and became more concerned because of Biden using it, weaponizing it back in 2022, and then Trump has just doubled and tripled down on it.
	It truly is amazing.
	I've got a question from a high boost for you.
	He says, can you ask Tony, wouldn't it just be wise for businesses to wait four years and let the next selected president fix all of Trump's mistakes?
	Is he just the Hegelian dialectic that's there?
	I think we pay way too much attention to the so-called policies of either party or whatever's going on.
	You have to start thinking in terms of your own autonomy and sovereignty and what's the best move.
	Think outside of politics, whether what administration is going to do X, Y, or Z. You know, David and I talked about this before the selection, and we said, I think we called it.
	You know, what's going to happen?
	We talked on Halloween.
	Like, what's going to happen on the election, you know, if it goes Harris or it goes Trump?
	And I think we called it, and now it's resetting itself.
	It didn't even matter.
	You know, because we throw the tariffs in and that, I think, you know, the price of gold would probably be similar if there was a Harris presidency right now because they'd be going after crypto or something like that or they'd take us to be deeper into the war with Russia and Ukraine or something like that.
	There'd be some policy difference, but the goals are always the same.
	Yes. You know, we're not fixing our fiscal house.
	We're not reigning in the empire.
	There's nothing new here.
	It's just the fundamentals are all there.
	So I think...
	It doesn't matter what administration, you need to bank on yourself, understand the difference between currency and money, but there's always underlying opportunity in this, too.
	I don't want to sound like an alarmist, but I don't think it's going to get better from the top down.
	If you've got a 401k or IRA, folks, and there's a temporary lull, you really need to consider putting that, and this is not financial advice.
	Bracket that.
	I don't know where the prices of metals are going, but I feel like I know where the prices of some of these stocks are going and these pools of so-called value.
	I don't think we're going to hold up well in an uncertain world or any other thing.
	Especially, I looked at something the other day and I brought it up on the show.
	$1.2 trillion of Holdings of the mortgage-backed securities, that acidic thing that had the China syndrome where it melted into the markets and caused the 2008 debacle,
	$1.2 trillion of those holdings are held by foreign governments, and the largest foreign government holder is China.
	So China can literally just, you know...
	You're not going to win this.
	If you're going after China with a stick, they've got too much leverage, and they think long-term.
	We think presidency to presidency.
	They think 100 years in the future in infrastructure.
	They'll lose for a long time just to win.
	So you're not going to beat them that way.
	If you really wanted to go after China, you'd create an atmosphere of liberty.
	You'd create an atmosphere of free market.
	You would incentivize.
	You would take off the regulations.
	You would give people certainty and incentive, and that's just the same way you balance the budget, you know, follow the Constitution.
	That's good.
	Yeah, you have stability and freedom and liberty, and stability and liberty would win every time.
	But instead, they want to become like China.
	Right? And because we've always seen this from all these presidents.
	Remember George W. Bush?
	I wish I could be like the Chinese government, just tell everybody what to do.
	Or you see Trudeau saying this.
	I love the fact that they can just tell people what to do.
	I wish I could do that.
	They all want that.
	And that's what we're seeing from Trump.
	You know, everything is an emergency, and the solution to every emergency is to let him make all the orders, you know, and dictate the solutions.
	And so, you know, he wants to...
	He wants to be like Mao or Xi or whatever.
	And so it's crazy, but that's where they're headed.
	And so the best thing that we can do, I think, is to try to get out of that system, try to maintain privacy as much as we can, try to prep for what is coming.
	And, you know, a lot of people are looking at this and the instinct of a lot of people, especially who've been in the stock market, as they see the stock market failing, they decide they're going to get into these gold and silver ETFs.
	And that is not, I wonder how they have been going because I first caught on to that.
	I did that myself for a while.
	And then I saw that when gold started to move, they weren't moving.
	And I thought, what's up with that?
	Why isn't that going, why isn't that going up?
	Why is it flatlining?
	And then I realized as I looked into it, it's like, no, they're not.
	This is not actually, you know, an ounce of gold there that they're splitting in 10 different ways, you know, selling you a share of it.
	No, it's just another derivative like the real estate market derivatives, you know, and you don't really own anything in that.
	So it's really key for people to have it on their own.
	That's when it's private.
	That's when they can't take it away from you.
	And when you actually physically have it, you know, that's the key thing, I think.
	Wasn't it Jefferson that said that paper was poverty?
	Something like that.
	Paper is poverty.
	We got to the essence, didn't we, of all these different things.
	It's so funny.
	Yesterday, here in Denison, Texas, I went by and talked to my accountants, my bookkeepers.
	And I'd just done a trade.
	I'd consolidated a lot of stuff I got to take to the trading floor.
	And I held up a bag.
	I said, this is $50,000.
	And it was, you know, gold one-ounce eagles.
	I go, this is $50,000.
	They just looked at it and held it.
	They're like, that's not a lot.
	They thought it was going to be like a suitcase or something.
	I'm like, no, that's $50,000.
	It's just a Ziploc bag full of gold coins.
	I'm like, no, that's what happened.
	And I go, basically, if you go back to, this would be about $500.
	You know, in 1971.
	That's amazing.
	Well, so tell us what's going on at Wise Wolf.
	I imagine you're really pretty heavy there.
	People are looking at this, and you've got headlines saying gold is going to go hyperbolic, and this may be the start of it.
	So there's kind of a market mania that's happening.
	I don't know.
	I don't know what happens next.
	I think there's strain on these institutions with this price going the way it is.
	I mean, honestly, I like a stable price.
	I like just kind of clear, cut and dry, in and out.
	I think there's going to be a lot of urban gold mining going on.
	What I mean by that, people are going to go through garage sales, start going through their attics, start looking just like they did in the 70s with silver.
	You're going to have rappers pulling out their teeth and selling them?
	Yes. I've bought lots of teeth over the years.
	I've bought crazy things.
	You couldn't believe.
	Between San Antonio and here and Branson, I've bought some crazy things.
	But I think I'm going to see lots of urban gold mining.
	I think the price continues, especially in this environment.
	It's hard to say, David, what happens to supply.
	I think silver is an outlier right now.
	Price reflection, I don't think we have true valuation or even close to it now.
	If you're stacking silver, I think you're doing yourself a favor at some level because it's just super cheap based off of everything that I know.
	I think silver is just a great thing to have.
	If you have those...
	Those IRAs and 401ks, you really ought to let us take a look at putting you in some bullion, get you out of this rollercoaster ride.
	I don't know where we're headed, but it might be advantageous for you to take a look at just converting that into something physical outside of the financial system that's stored in a third party.
	These vaults, they're not a bank.
	Mm-hmm.
	And I don't trust these CEOs.
	I don't trust anybody who's wanting Jerome Powell to cut rates.
	And that's what they're all looking for.
	So I'm just, I'm working on, continuing to work on supply and infrastructure and Wise Wolf's going to stay lean.
	We have the Wise Wolf Bitcoin.
	We're up and running.
	So if you've got, you want to buy some Bitcoin or, you know, sell some Bitcoin, we buy a sale and we have...
	The ability for you to use it as cash for purchases.
	So if you've got some Bitcoin, you want to turn it into some precious metals, give us a call.
	That would be great.
	Yeah. Well, it's always great talking to you, Tony.
	I really do appreciate your support of the program and the things that you've got there at Wise Wolf.
	For the longest time, like you said, we appreciate having stability.
	You know, for the longest time we went through this period where you could gradually accumulate stuff and you set up Wise Wolf Pack to let people do that on a gradual basis.
	And we're seeing that, you know, the dollar's losing a few percentage points of value every year and it accumulates over the long term.
	And so that was kind of the long-term stable thing.
	But now we're getting into craziness.
	I guess a lot of people are saying this is great because Trump is scaring everybody.
	He's making them very much afraid of him because he's acting like a crazy man.
	But then you can only do that for so long.
	And then it's going to really backfire on you.
	And so it's going to be a rough ride, I think.
	And so it's good to try to get out of the system as much as you can.
	Try to get something of value that you can physically hang on to yourself.
	I think that's an important part of prepping.
	And you've got a lot of programs there to help people do that.
	It's been great to deal with you over the years and really do appreciate your support of this program.
	And you've got a program that's coming up right after this program?
	Is that correct?
	Yeah, God willing, if there's no work going on in my house.
	Hardburn Radio Transmission, 11 a.m. Central Time.
	We'll kind of dive more into these headlines and stuff that you and I have gone over.
	That's great.
	That's great.
	And where are you right now?
	Where are you broadcasting?
	Twitter? Right now I'm in Denison, Texas.
	I'm on...
	We're broadcasting over the X at Tony Arterburn and Rumble on the America Unplugged channel.
	We're working on some new channels as well, so I'm looking at some new streaming stuff.
	I need to talk to you and Travis also.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Yeah, Kik looks like it's got a lot of nice features for streaming as well.
	It's really kind of set up for streaming, I think, from what Travis was saying.
	I haven't looked at it.
	Travis has been the one who's taking care of that.
	All right, so coming up on Rumble and on X right after this program, you can find more from...
	Tony, and again, davidknight.gold will take you to Tony Arderman's Wise Wolf Gold, a way to get to an island of stability in this storm, and that is physical metals that you hold yourself.
	Thank you so much, Tony.
	Appreciate it.
	Thank you, Dan.
	All right, we're going to be right back, folks.
	Stay with us.
	Stay with us.
	Here's a little song I wrote.
	You might want to hear it in your pod.
	You know nothing.
	And be happy.
	Ain't got no cash.
	Ain't got no car.
	But 24 booster shots in your arm.
	Oh, nothing.
	Be happy.
	You can't even buy s***.
	Get in the store because of your low social credit score.
	Own nothing.
	Be happy.
	You'll own nothing.
	And be happy.
	Be happy and eat the bugs.
	They're doing what?
	In the place they named after me?
	Good thing I have the David Knight Show to keep me informed on the plots of these traitors.
	Making sense common again.
	This is the David Knight Show.
	Yeah, and we were talking before Tony came on about the free speech and how dead it is and has been for quite some time in the UK.
	Yeah, you can say anything you want as long as it doesn't offend somebody.
	even say the conservatives who put themselves out as supporters of free speech but it's about to get worse you know we look at what is happening with technology and it's like they have seized every one
	And of course,
	for the longest time, The fastest growing part of the intelligence community here in the United States, geospatial intelligence, and that's where the Palantir people and everything hang out.
	They had this thing called anticipatory intelligence.
	The military used it abroad.
	You've got police departments that are using it here, trying to predict people.
	You profile them with your geospatial intelligence.
	You profile them politically, religiously, their contacts, and all the rest of the stuff, and you keep...
	Looking at it to predict what they're going to do, they call that anticipatory intelligence.
	And so that AI is about to meet the other AI.
	We get AI squared, I guess.
	Anticipatory intelligence meets artificial intelligence, which really is artificial anticipation.
	And it's a dangerous thing, because these people are going to act on it as if it were true.
	The UK Ministry of Justice.
	Just call it the Ministry of Orwell.
	Has a new tool.
	They originally named it the Homicide Prediction Project.
	They're now calling it Sharing Data to Improve Risk Assessment.
	It raises concerns about bias and the ethical implications of using such predictive models on vast data sets, including those already facing structural discrimination in the UK, such as those within the white British ethnic group, particularly white men.
	They've had a lot being talked about, the two-tier system that they've set up there, even saying we're going to ease off on the penalties for everybody, all these different ethnic groups, except for white men.
	So in other words, what they're saying is they're going to go up on the penalties for white men if we take everybody else down, but you leave them up there.
	And as we see this paranoia, this authoritarianism throughout...
	You've seen people sued by the German politicians and the Green Party especially.
	Just two Green Party politicians alone, each of them had about 800 complaints against people for things that people make criticisms of, criticize their masters, their betters, their rulers on social media.
	And they've had 800 complaints, people getting arrested, people having police show up in groups at their house because of what they said.
	Now we've got a man who was fined $5,000 after he hugged the German Chancellor.
	I looked at this and I thought, who would hug the German Chancellor?
	My first impression was, this guy must be high.
	And it turns out, yes, he was.
	That's why he hugged Olaf Scholz, which no German in their right mind would either vote for this guy or hug him either.
	He was fined $5,000.
	He made himself a part of the motorcade.
	He said it happened accidentally.
	They said he did that on purpose.
	He got in.
	He had a dark Audi.
	He joined the motorcade as Schultz was returning to Berlin after the 25th anniversary of the European Central Bank.
	There you go.
	That's just all the pieces that are there.
	The 25th anniversary of the European Central Bank.
	Once the convoy arrived at the airport, the driver exited his car, shook Schultz's hand, And hugged him on the tarmac and then was detained, perhaps tackled by police.
	He insisted he'd join the convoy by mistake, explained that he was high on cocaine.
	That's his alibi.
	And he said he had been partying for two days.
	He just wanted to hug a chancellor, I guess.
	The court found him guilty of driving under the influence of drugs and of trespassing.
	And Schultz said, well, people are saying hello and greeting me.
	It's never something that particularly affects me.
	He said, that's very normal.
	I didn't find this situation to be dramatic, but the police did.
	And when we talk about preparation, this is a great story that was sent to me by Ryan for The Love of the Road.
	Yesterday I talked about the elephants circling the wagons, essentially, circling themselves around the young.
	Everything is vibrating.
	Something's wrong.
	They get into a defensive circle around their children.
	I said, you know, we should learn from that.
	You know, we can feel the tremors.
	We know that something is wrong.
	We don't know exactly what.
	We're not really sure what we're going to do.
	I don't know.
	The elephants are just, you know, they're on the lookout as to what's going on.
	You know, is T-Rex coming in?
	What is it?
	Well, this story here in Tennessee, they had to circle the homestead here with levees to protect it from floods.
	And there's an amazing picture about this.
	A Tennessee family built a levy to protect their home from floodwaters.
	Aerial video shows a home in Ridgely, Tennessee, surrounded by floodwaters on Tuesday, April the 8th.
	But the property was untouched thanks to homemade levies.
	Now, this is something that has been a problem throughout Tennessee, a problem through East Tennessee.
	This is over in the western part of Tennessee.
	That's one of the reasons why we have the TVA.
	You know, it's one of the first big federal projects that they had was the TVA because it was regular flooding.
	And so what they did was they created massive, created a dam and massive artificial lakes and things like that to control the flooding around here.
	But these people, they didn't have anything there like that, so they took it upon themselves.
	And they built their own levee to protect themselves.
	As a lot of people looked at this picture and said, well, country folks can survive.
	Another one said, well, it ain't their first rodeo, y'all.
	That's right, because these floods happen.
	They said, it's a great reminder that with the determination and the hard work, we can overcome even the toughest challenges.
	It's also a testament to the importance of being prepared and taking proactive steps.
	That's why it's important to prepare in a lot of different ways.
	We're talking about preparing financially, having Precious metals that you control that are in your possession that are private and so on and so on.
	But also, Jack Lawson books.
	It's a great way for you to start to prepare in a lot of different ways.
	And so, if you go there, he's got a lot of ways for you to prepare to make sure that you have water.
	These people are trying to keep the water out.
	You want to make sure that you've got water in order to survive.
	He's got a free chapter there.
	For his Civil Defense Manual, two-volume books, he's got a free chapter there telling you how you can maintain water and many other things.
	It's an excellent guide, especially in these types of situations.
	Jack Lawson Books is excellent.
	So again, when you look at this picture, I don't know if you could pull it up, Travis.
	It's the one about the Tennessee family building a levee.
	When you look at this picture, We have a...
	A lot of people who are looking at Doge and cheering it, and I'm just kind of astounded when I look at this, because they don't know or don't care where Elon Musk is coming from.
	How did he get to be the world's richest man?
	And what are his plans for the future?
	They're absolutely, totally disconnected and clueless about it.
	They're so caught up in the Hegelian two-party system, they don't even know.
	And so we see articles like this, cutting the plastic.
	Doge has deactivated an astronomical number of credit cards.
	Well, what they need to do is they need to deactivate the astronomical credit card that the Congress has.
	And this is the kind of sound and fury coming out of Doge that signifies nothing, folks.
	A lot of these things that they're doing are being revoked by the judiciary, but they're not really going to make much difference anyway.
	And we're talking about some of the cuts coming up in the health issue, but it doesn't really make any difference.
	And nevertheless, you still have people like this.
	These Tesla dealerships and things like that are under attack.
	And yeah, we don't want to see that happen.
	We don't want to see arson, and we don't want to see that of any sort.
	But that's not why these people with trucks...
	are getting there, and they've got American flags all over the car, and they're pulling up to blockade and to protect the Tesla dealership.
	And when I saw this, it was on a site that is all about pushing climate stuff.
	I said, look at these people.
	They're out there with their gas-guzzling SUVs and pickup trucks, and they're using their gas-guzzling SUVs and pickup trucks to protect...
	Elon Musk.
	The left is just as deranged about this stuff as the right is.
	And so, you know, they think that the enemy are the trucks and the pickups and everything.
	And they're going to cheer Elon Musk as long as he's making a lot of money by selling us these green lies.
	He is a greenwashed billionaire if there ever was one.
	He is the epitome of wasteful money.
	That's how he got to be the world's richest man.
	He was the king of crony capitalism.
	And they can't see where this is going.
	And these conservatives can't see where he's going with his technocracy and his universal basic income.
	They can't see where he came from.
	I wonder what they're going to do when, let's see, we're only five days away from Earth Day when he's going to announce a, what was it, $100 million, I think it was, to whoever could suck the most CO2.
	Out of the atmosphere.
	We don't want CO2 taken out of the atmosphere.
	It's not a problem.
	Plants need it.
	And these people are cheering this guy.
	So caught up in this phony stuff.
	It was only a couple of years ago that they were adamantly opposed to everything this man stood for.
	And now they can't cheer him enough.
	Why? Because of Trump.
	And when he looks at all this Doge stuff, he's not going to look at the Pentagon.
	He's a major military industrial contractor himself.
	He's not going to look at waste at the Pentagon.
	They're not going to pull any of that stuff out.
	And believe me, there's plenty of waste that is there.
	And as all this stuff is happening, and they're putting in this surveillance and control grid, they're going to anticipate what we're going to do.
	Maybe charge us for murder before we do anything at all.
	Who knows?
	They're going to prevent murder in the UK, so that means are they going to arrest people that they think you're going to wind up committing murder?
	And now we've got the UN preparing aviation biometric overhaul, and the US is already on board.
	And it is a bipartisan thing.
	Biden was on board with it.
	Trump is on board with it.
	This is coming from the New American, as I point out, as the Trump administration begins enforcement of the Real ID Act.
	Isn't that interesting?
	Do these people have a problem with it?
	Would they have a problem if it was Joe Biden doing the Real ID Act?
	I think they would.
	But as long as it's coming from Trump and Elon Musk, it's okay.
	So, it's going to happen next month.
	Requiring Americans to carry enhanced identification or to board domestic flights, the UN is preparing to execute an equally radical and arguably complementary transformation of global air travel.
	They even have a name for this UN.
	It's a UN agency.
	They created an entire agency to enact this agenda.
	They call it the International Civil Aviation Organization.
	This UN agency is leading what is already dubbed to be the biggest air travel shakeup in 50 years.
	Scrapping boarding passes, eliminating check-in, and shifting to fully digital biometric systems.
	The United States is expected to align with and to implement the forthcoming standards along with other participating nations.
	In other words, this is a UN agenda, and just like we saw with COVID, Trump's going to march in lockstep with it.
	But hey, that can't be.
	It's just 4-D chess, right?
	Yeah, you're the pawns.
	If you think that.
	He's going to follow through on this as their Manchurian candidate.
	While you think that he's pushing back against globalism and all the rest of this stuff, he's fully on board.
	But you won't be getting on board the planes.
	Not unless you buy into their biometric system.
	The key elements of the UN-led framework are already being rolled out across major U.S. airports and border control systems.
	It began under Biden.
	Whether it's voluntary, oh, look at the TSA, they can do a face scan, all the rest of the stuff.
	And insinuating it in.
	Some people thought they had to do it.
	And they do the same thing with real ID.
	They got me, by the way, when I went to get my license.
	When we moved here to Tennessee, they said, we need this and this and this.
	Okay, here's the documentation.
	I'm sure there's a lot more documentation.
	They ask for more documentation all the time.
	And they didn't say anything about real ID.
	And at the end of it, she says, oh, now you've got your real ID, and this is really going to be useful.
	I said, I didn't want a real ID.
	Well, look, it's got a little gold star.
	It's like, yeah, yeah, for the concentration camp, is it?
	Well, the Times in the UK are saying that this UN agency is introducing a global framework that will remove the need for both check-in calendars and for traditional boarding passes.
	Neither printed nor digital.
	Instead, travelers will receive a digital travel credentials, also known as a journey pass.
	Does that sound familiar?
	Remember during all the lockdown stuff in 2020?
	You had the World Economic Forum saying, we need to have a common pass.
	Remember that?
	I even have it in that commercial I put up about the common man.
	So they wouldn't have a common pass and a common database that, of course, they or some of their friends would run.
	And you, you know, if you did everything they told you to do, took all the shots they told you to do, well, then you were in the common database and you get your common pass to do what you want to do.
	Otherwise, no.
	So now they're going to call it a journey pass, but it's the same thing.
	It'll be stored on a smartphone.
	It'll include passport data, flight details, biometric identifiers.
	And extras such as car rentals or seat upgrades.
	So make sure you've got your Big Brother device with you at all times.
	And if you don't have that, you know, we can still do the facial recognition.
	Like I said, with Minority Report, they want to take every dystopian sci-fi film.
	And they want to enact it.
	So here we have Total Recall.
	Schwarzenegger going there.
	They're doing the x-ray thing.
	They're going to do the face scan.
	They're going to identify him with all this stuff.
	A passenger's face becomes the boarding pass.
	Once scanned, the system verifies your identity, confirms travel status, and grants access at each stage of the journey.
	Airports will use facial recognition at designated checkpoints, and the UN expects this overhaul to be in place within two to three years.
	Oh, you know, in time for the 2030 control grid.
	Yeah, that's exactly it.
	So how do we escape this thing, right?
	Well, you know, we just crashed through it.
	There's no problem with any of that.
	Well, again, I don't think I'm going to be traveling anywhere ever again.
	This week...
	The ICAO, that's what they call their UN agency, their facilitation conference took place, or is actually going on this week, in Doha.
	And the theme is facilitating the future of air transport, collaboration, efficiency, and inclusivity.
	They're not facilitating anything for us.
	And they're not including us in all of this.
	And we're not collaborating with them.
	We are not considered to be stakeholders, are we?
	The agenda item number two is travel document integrity and border control.
	They want to have standardization of travel documents, again, like the Common Pass from the World Economic Forum.
	New methods for identity checks at border control points.
	They're going to have deployment of new technology across global air travel, interoperability of digital identity systems, AI-based identity verification and passenger flow management.
	And coordination of a public key directory.
	Something that they call the Traveler Identification Program.
	And they got an acronym for it.
	TRIP. TRIP.
	And when we look at the Republicans, are they pushing back against this?
	No. As a matter of fact, they're giving us more and more justifications beyond just traveling, why you need to have an identity.
	A digital identity.
	Oh, we've got to have it to protect the kids from pornography on the internet.
	Oh, we've got to have it to protect us from, you know.
	Make sure that we've got jobs.
	We need to have mandatory E-Verify before you can get a job.
	So we've got all these justifications, even coming from the Republicans, in order for you to have an identity card.
	And it's just this seamless transfer from Biden to Trump.
	Both of them marching in lockstep with the U.N. agenda, just like they did with COVID.
	U.S. deployment of facial recognition technology has already expanded its own biometric infrastructure through the Biometric Entry Exit Program.
	So we've got to make sure that we don't have any illegal aliens coming in or any gang members or anything.
	So, yeah, we're all going to have to be scanned.
	The TSA began doing this last year, voluntarily supported, you know.
	Purportedly through Atlanta, Denver, Los Angeles, many other places, 80 airports.
	They're bringing this in.
	So we're going to take a quick break.
	When we come back, we're going to talk about a positive thing here.
	That is a limited extent, but at least it is a positive move.
	We'll be right back.
	Stay with us.
	with us.
	Well, we have some House Republicans who are talking about taking guns away from the bureaucracy, but only one bureaucracy, only the IRS.
	That's the only one they think needs to be taken.
	So this kind of smacks of theatrics, but it would be a place to start, wouldn't it?
	House Republicans have begun pushing for a plan that would take guns and ammunition away from agents of the IRS.
	Let's do it for the Department of Education and for the rest of them.
	Every one of these bureaucracies has their own little army that's out there.
	And it would be safer, perhaps, to have one law enforcement agency where maybe there's better training that we would hope better control.
	That's probably a pipe dream.
	But I think it only gets riskier when all these different bureaucracies have their own armed agents.
	A congressman has said that the only thing the IRS agents should be armed.
	But of course, as I mentioned the other day, they've armed SWAT teams for the Department of Education.
	I mean, it seems like if you have something like that, you could turn it into local law enforcement or something like that.
	You don't need to have your own SWAT team with the Department of Education.
	The plan is called from these Republicans, Why Does the IRS Need Guns Act?
	It would prohibit the commissioner of the IRS from using funds to buy, receive, or store.
	Firearms and ammunition.
	It would require the Bureau to transfer the arms it already has to the Administrator of General Services.
	They would go on auctions or sales to licensed dealers.
	So it's kind of reverse of the gun buyback.
	It'd be the gun take away from the guns from the bureaucrats and sell them to the public.
	U.S. Representative Barry Moore from Alabama, a Republican, said the IRS has consistently been weaponized against American citizens.
	Targeted religious organizations, journalists, gun owners, and everyday Americans.
	Arming these agents does not make the American public safer.
	My legislation, the Why Does the IRS Need Guns Act, would disarm these agents, auction off their guns to the federal firearms license owners, and sell their ammunition to the public.
	The only thing IRS agents should be armed with is a calculator.
	Here's the problem.
	You know, if they've got a calculator...
	And the income tax, they don't need a gun to take everything that you've got, right?
	They can steal everything you've got with a pen or with a keyboard stroke.
	That's the real issue.
	And they can focus on these visceral issues like this.
	Oh, yeah, I don't want all these bureaucrats armed with this stuff.
	They're armed with all kinds of authority, and they're armed with all kinds of regulations, not just the IRS, but all of these agencies are armed with this stuff to destroy your life, just like I was talking about yesterday.
	The guy in Hawaii.
	That was a local bureaucracy.
	Playing games with him.
	Bought a house that was 37 years old.
	They said, well, you know, we just set up a new computer system so we got rid of all these things and it's not grandfathered in.
	You didn't have the final inspection 37 years ago.
	Nobody did that.
	So even though this is the second time it's changed hands and he had a renovation thing, they said, no, now you're going to tear your house down.
	They didn't need a gun to do that, right?
	And they could always get on the phone and call up the police and drag him out of the house and knock it down themselves.
	It's the regulations.
	And when the Congress involves itself in these kinds of theatrics, yes, it is a problem to have this multiplication of agencies that are all armed and SWAT teams and all the rest of stuff.
	But the real issue...
	Is the multiplication of all these different agencies and the multiplication of all these different regulations.
	That's a much bigger issue than the guns.
	And so this is grandstanding, really, and not really talking about the problem.
	The Trump administration is also talking about massive budget cuts being proposed for federal health agencies.
	And this is the same kind of stuff.
	The preliminary memo sent from the White House budget officials to the Department of HHS Health and Human Services previews the administration's plans to slash discretionary federal health spending and to rework health agencies.
	And the image of what RFK Jr. wants to do with his Make America Healthy Again.
	The document dated April 10th could still be finalized with changes, but if enacted as it is, It would cut total federal health spending by tens of billions a year.
	You could cut tens of billions a year by cutting Harvard out.
	Harvard's like $9 billion.
	And start going through these other Ivy League schools and the rest of it.
	This is not a whole lot of money.
	But consolidate dozens of health programs and departments into the administration for a healthy America.
	We're going to fix everything, right?
	So what is RFK Jr.'s first instinct?
	It's to create a new department.
	A new bureaucracy.
	And so we're going to move some things into that.
	We're going to put my name on it, essentially.
	Let me name the baby.
	And we're going to shuffle the chairs around.
	And they really are rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic when they do this kind of stuff.
	Congress is out there.
	They're not going to pull back the scope and the range of these...
	Bureaucracies and regulations of the IRS or any of the rest of them.
	Instead, they're going to focus on, well, the IRS has got guns.
	We need to take those away.
	These people are doing the same kind of misdirection.
	Steep cuts to the CDC.
	Their budget reduced by more than 40%.
	I'm sorry, but the CDC's glass is more than half full.
	That means that this criminal unconstitutional agency that did everything it could to destroy our country and...
	Accrued to itself all kinds of unconstitutional powers under Trump, continued under Trump at least once, and then multiple continuances under Biden to insert themselves into foreclosures and evictions of people who are having financial difficulties because of the Trump-imposed lockdowns.
	That agency is going to be allowed to keep 60%.
	There's no authorization for that at all.
	They should kill that agency.
	Some of the agency's work would be moved to the new AHA centers.
	But they're going to have programs on gun violence and others would be eliminated entirely.
	You need to eliminate the CDC entirely.
	Again, going to be a lot of deck chairs rearranged.
	The Department of Education, we're not going to call it that anymore.
	But all the money that creates all the strings to control everybody, We'll continue to happen.
	It'll just be moved to different agencies so that you don't see it.
	And that's what the Trump administration is truly about.
	It's about making sure that you, well, we're not going to call it CBDC.
	No, instead it'll be a stable coin that will be coming after you on the other side.
	And as we look at this, and we look at the wars that are being done, and we look at this, you know, the Houthis in Yemen, And now they have taken down their 19th Reaper, 19th Reaper, while the U.S. continues to attack the civilian population there,
	killing over 120 Yemenis.
	So they just did another strike, wounding 29 others, including five children.
	Did that on Sunday night.
	And so they're killing children, and the Houthis are fighting back and shooting down these Reaper drones, 19 of them.
	They're $30 million apiece.
	So, you know, like I said, we're not going to look at any money that's being wasted by the Pentagon.
	We're not going to look at any of these wars that cost blood and money.
	We're just going to continue to do the same thing and kick the can down the road.
	$570 million worth of drones.
	And isn't it amazing?
	That now the asymmetric warfare has gone to this level.
	We decided that we're going to be able to do whatever we want to.
	It didn't work too well in Iraq and Afghanistan.
	A long protracted war.
	They came up with improvised stuff.
	And asymmetric warfare has not worked out well for us.
	But those are very primitive.
	Now we've got asymmetric warfare that is coming after these sophisticated drones, these expensive drones.
	The Houthis have claimed 19 of them.
	They targeted the drone, they said, with locally manufactured missile.
	We don't know if that's true or if it's coming from Iran.
	The Pentagon will say that it came from Iran, so they've got an excuse to attack Iran.
	Among its arsenal of surface-to-air missiles, which have been used frequently, and again, we now have asymmetric air warfare.
	And this is the fourth Reaper drone.
	That has been shot down within two weeks.
	So there you go.
	About two of them a week.
	That's about 60 million a week that's being thrown away.
	You really think that Doge is going to make any difference in any of this stuff?
	I don't think so at all.
	We're going to take a quick break and when we come back, I'm going to tell you the story of what happened to that pastor that was kidnapped in South Africa as he was preaching.
	We'll be right back.
	be right back.
	Making sense.
	Common again.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	Well, welcome back.
	Let's talk a little bit.
	I gave you the story of the pastor that was abducted right in front of his congregation.
	He had, previous to that, he'd had an interesting experience where he'd been set up to have his pockets picked.
	He chased the guy but couldn't catch him, but eventually he got into the general neighborhood that the guy fled from, and people that were there caught him, brought him back, and they went to kill him.
	He had already had a chance to talk to the family, his extended family that he was staying with.
	The guy gave back his wallet.
	He talked to him about issues and gave him the gospel and everything.
	Then he comes out and these people want to kill him.
	They want to set him on fire.
	And so he does the whole thing again and he talks to them about that.
	He gave them an opportunity to talk to them.
	And so that had already happened and he already talked about that.
	He's out of Tennessee, out of Maryville, Tennessee, which is in this general area.
	It's around the...
	The area around the Smoky Mountain National Park.
	But then he was kidnapped as he was giving a sermon.
	They took him into his own truck and drove away.
	And now he has been rescued.
	And it really was kind of miraculous what happened with him.
	Again, these guys have kidnapped him in his own truck.
	Evidently, they noticed that that was the situation.
	The truck was confronted with armed officers.
	The guys in the truck started shooting back at them.
	And the officers killed all three of the people inside the truck.
	But this pastor was unharmed.
	The officers returned fire fatally wounding three suspects.
	Sullivan was found inside the same vehicle, miraculously unharmed.
	He was immediately assessed by medical personnel.
	He's currently in excellent condition.
	And so the people in South Africa and the people back in Tennessee who were praying for him were...
	Praising God for answering their prayers.
	His home church is, like I said, in Maryville, Tennessee.
	And so it's good to see that happen.
	Meanwhile, Cuba banned Christians from celebrating Palm Sunday tradition.
	This is not an Easter parade where they all compete on a fashion show.
	This is a religious ceremony that they had there.
	And the Marxists are doing what the Marxists always do.
	Which is to censor any expression of Christianity.
	They do it here in the U.S. and they do it especially in Cuba.
	But I thought it was especially interesting to see this Associated Press story trying to spin Mayan child sacrifice as non-violent.
	Yeah, they do that.
	They've had a lot of practice at that in terms of defending abortion, haven't they?
	And they said, well, these people are just really trying to connect with celestial bodies.
	I guess my celestial body, my choice, right?
	Archaeologists in Guatemala uncovered an ancient Mayan altar that was clearly used for child sacrifice, yet the Associated Press managed to find someone to claim that the practice was, quote, not violent, but it was just their way of connecting with celestial bodies,
	right? So I guess you're not profile, you are anti-child sacrifice rights.
	You can spell that as R-I-T-E-S.
	This AP story published last week recounts the discovery of an altar in a national park that's about 325 miles north of Guatemala City.
	The enormous city-state of Tikal, whose towering temples still stand in the jungle, battled for centuries.
	With this dynasty for dominance of the Mayan world.
	It's interesting what God has done to societies and governments and civilizations that engage in child sacrifice.
	Really ought to give us a pause in the West.
	We may be at the beginning of that as well.
	That Mayan world extended north into Mexico and to a city that was one of the largest in the world at its peak between 100 B.C. and A.D. 750.
	So this is a significant archaeological find.
	They said it was believed they found this altar.
	They showed the altar.
	They talked about it.
	They said the remains of three children not older than four years were found on three sides of the altar.
	Well, that's only three children.
	You know, when you go back and you look at, especially in Carthage and also in Canaan, Philistines and others would do massive child sacrifice to Moloch.
	You had a lot of the Israelite kings would also, as they fell into that pagan religion, they would also sacrifice their own children.
	And God judged that.
	You go back and you look at the Tophets in Carthage and stuff like that, it was amazing.
	The thousands of children's skeletons that were there.
	But, you know, here it was three of them.
	Had A.P. left it at that, readers might have come away with the impression that the Mayan religion was evil, perhaps even demonic.
	However, given the anti-Western, anti-Christian mindset of the present day, the New American says the left and its allies didn't want to leave that kind of impression.
	So A.P. sought out an archaeologist.
	She was not involved with the project.
	But they go to her for her commentary.
	She said the discovery confirms, quote, that there has been an interconnection between both cultures and what their relationships with their gods and their celestial bodies was like.
	She said, we see the issue of sacrifice exists in both cultures.
	It was a practice.
	It's not that they were violent.
	It was their way of connecting with the celestial bodies.
	There you go.
	One person says, okay, so now we're being told.
	They were mostly peaceful sacrifices.
	Mostly peaceful child sacrifices coming from the left.
	And one guy really got to the heart of it.
	A Red State contributor said, what you need to understand about that type of misrepresentation is that it is vital to upholding left-wing dogma on colonization and the supposed evils of capitalism.
	And, of course, Christianity, right?
	They were morally superior to the Spanish invaders despite sacrificing their children to false gods, perpetuating the most brutal form of slavery in history, and murdering each other with reckless abandon.
	Because if the left loses that framing, their entire worldview, which centers on Western culture as being the only ones capable of evil, collapses.
	Yeah, it is the nature of humanity that we're talking about here.
	Any culture is capable of doing that.
	That's one of the things about the American Revolution.
	They understood the fallen nature of man.
	That's why they created the checks and balances, nullification methods that are there.
	But it is also, we have to understand that God will judge societies that do this type of thing.
	So the same way that the left considers abortion to be the height of self-actualization, To the point that some progressives actually celebrate that fact.
	That they have sacrificed their unborn children to their modern day gods.
	And along that same line, I just don't have time to give you the headline here.
	The number of U.S. adults who don't want children has doubled over the past 20 years.
	Not unable to have kids, but don't want kids.
	You need to talk to them, Travis.
	It's gone up 29.4%.
	People who say they don't ever want to have kids.
	They really don't understand what they're missing.
	It's some of the saddest things in our country that we not only understand the blessings of children, we misunderstand that, we miss that blessing, and we don't understand the evil of sacrificing them.
	Have a good 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.

▲