The David Knight Show - The David Knight Show - 11/7/2025

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 7, 2025 - The David Knight Show

02:59:32

The David Knight Show - 11/7/2025

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	In a world of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
	It's the David Knight Show.
	As the clock strikes 13, it's Friday the 7th of November, year of our Lord 2025.
	Well, today, we're going to begin with the story that was at the top of the Drudge Report, which is a New York Times story, setting up what they call a split screen on wealth in America.
	They said, at the same time we've elected the first open Marxist mayor of New York, we now have Elon Musk, who has just gotten his company to agree to give him a trillion-dollar compensation package.
	We're going to talk about that because this is about the clash of economics and politics.
	And we're going to move on to civilizational competition as well.
	Very interesting take on all this from a Russian philosopher who is aligned in his thinking with Alexander Dugan.
	And whether or not you agree with these guys, we should at least understand what they think because of the competition.
	And you might find some interesting insights in it.
	We'll be right back.
	Well, the New York Times sets up this trillion-dollar pay package for Elon Musk as a dichotomy.
	You've got socialism and redistribution of the wealth for the little guy represented by Mom Danny, says the New York Times.
	And then the out-of-control capitalism of Elon Musk.
	Let me just say, Elon Musk is not a capitalist.
	Elon Musk is the king of crony capitalism.
	Not the same thing.
	This is a, I guess we could call this, maybe under Trump, what we do is we call it ballroom capitalism.
	This is where the elites go and they pay for their ticket to the ballroom, pay to build the ballroom for themselves.
	They're not building anything for us.
	Nothing that they're doing in Washington is being built for us.
	That is the perfect symbol.
	That's your symbol right there, New York Times, the ballroom.
	It's where the elites go to curry favor with the ego and the power trip of the politicians and give them some money for that.
	And then they get massive return on investment.
	They get a thousand times whatever they gave.
	That's ballroom capitalism.
	That's what made Elon Musk so wealthy.
	Elon Musk became the world's wealthiest man because he was pushing this agenda they wanted to use for global governance.
	He pushed the green agenda, and he is still doing it.
	And it's, you know, when he did the electric cars, he was the first one to get there to grab all the subsidies, and he added the self-driving car.
	That's the issue that I had with that.
	Besides the government's deliberately restricting our liberty to choose the type of car that we want to drive and destroying our liberty to choose to drive a cheaper car, they mandate everything to make it expensive.
	And now they even mandate the way it's going to be propelled.
	And they virtue signal while they do that.
	And then he gets rich catering to that.
	It is an agenda for control.
	The very first self-driving competitor, the very first competition of DARPA was a self-driving competition.
	This is a government agenda for control.
	And he's gotten wealthy by focusing on that.
	And when you look at the amount of money that he's going to be making, it's a tremendous concentration of wealth.
	You have the median American income is around $50,000, maybe $54,000, $55,000, something like that.
	And as a matter of fact, what he pays his employees median is $57,000.
	Well, a trillion dollars, making a trillion dollars, that is 20 million times what an American earns in a year.
	Think about that.
	20 million Americans.
	That's their entire salary for a year, going to one guy.
	And 20 million times what he pays his average employees as well.
	So he is the king of crony capitalism.
	He is an example of the concentration of power, but so is Mamdani.
	These guys are not polar opposites.
	You know, we always have the, they always set us up with this false dichotomy, this Hegelian dialectic.
	Well, you know, it's either left or right.
	And you either have this type of thing with Musk, which is not capitalism.
	It's certainly not free markets.
	This is government corruption.
	And then you have Mom Danny who says, well, I want to help the little guy.
	I want to provide all this stuff for him.
	And Elon Musk comes back and he says, well, that's the way you do it, is with technology.
	You want to provide health care to people?
	So do we.
	So, you know, we'll hook you up to our computer.
	We'll hook your brain up to our computer and we'll do all kinds of things.
	And we'll have AI provide health care for you.
	And the robots will provide health care for you.
	They work with each other.
	And of course, when he puts everybody out of a job, he's going to be there just like Mom Danny.
	He wants you to have universal basic welfare.
	They'll provide housing for you.
	It'll be some little garage thing like out of, what's that?
	I always forget the name of that.
	Sorry, Steven Spielberg did a movie of it.
	Ready Player One?
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	So it'll be your little garage of Ready Player One and you'll have your treadmill that makes you feel like you're walking somewhere with your virtual headset, all the rest of the stuff.
	They work together.
	They're not polar opposites.
	They have the same end goal.
	And the same end goal is to control you and to pacify you.
	So Musk is not the opposite of Marxist Mandani.
	They both have the same ultimate goal.
	And so they say, well, you know, in Austin, Texas, the shareholders just bought into a winner-takes-all version of capitalism.
	Again, give him a trillion dollars if it meets management goals.
	And then he says, halfway across the country, home to Wall Street.
	Mom Danny's victory served as a reminder of the frustrations many Americans have with an economic system that has left them struggling to afford basics like food, housing, and health care.
	Well, I'm not an anarchist, but government has become too big, too concentrated, and uncontrolled.
	And I'm not a socialist, but Welp has become too big, too concentrated, and out of control.
	And it's not because of this dichotomy.
	I mean, even libertarian publications like Reason, I've said so many times, they look at it, they say, well, government can do nothing right, and corporations can do nothing wrong.
	And the Democrats are just the opposite.
	Corporations can never do anything right, and government can never do anything wrong.
	What they both don't talk about is the fact that they have merged.
	We have that fascist merger of big government, big corporations, and big billionaires.
	And we're going to get a technocracy good and hard because we don't understand that.
	Progressives like Mr. Mom Danny, a Democratic socialist, who are calling for something more akin to the social welfare systems of Western Europe.
	Yeah, well, we're talking about universal basic income.
	You know, those STEMI checks that Trump started conditioning us with?
	And the fact that prior to that, Musk gave a million dollars to Andrew Yang, who's going to focus his campaign for presidency around the idea of universal basic income.
	That's universal basic welfare, folks.
	This is welfare for everybody.
	Control for everybody.
	So again, the Marxist versus what George Gilder calls the neo-Marxist.
	It's a false dichotomy.
	These people are just coming at it from a different angle, coming at it with a different way to market this.
	They say Musk, similar to an earlier pay plan that he had, a 12-step package, this will be, to vastly expand, first of all, the stock market's valuation from its current $1.5 trillion to $8.5 trillion, while hitting a variety of other goals, including selling a million robots with human-like qualities, 10 million paid subscriptions to the self-driving software.
	And again, when you look at self-driving software, robots to replace people at work, it's all about, it's all a system of pacification and control.
	That's why I say Musk is not the antithesis of Mom Danny, as the New York Times would like you to think.
	They're on the same page.
	They have different tactics.
	Some investors, including the board that oversees Florida's public pension fund, hailed the trillion-dollar pay plan as a way to motivate Mr. Musk.
	Yeah, he needs to be motivated.
	He's got so much money.
	How are we going to motivate him?
	Well, let's go for a trillion dollars.
	How in the world could he ever spend that?
	Again, that's 20 million times what the median American makes in a year.
	Those who claim the plan is too large ignore the scale of ambition that has historically defined Tesla's trajectory, said the Florida State Board of Administration in a filing describing why it voted for Musk's pay plan.
	A company that went from near bankruptcy to global leadership in EVs and clean energy.
	There you go right there.
	Crony capitalism.
	They're nearly bankrupt until they decided we can tap into this UN agenda and the government will pay us handsomely to try to make this thing look real.
	And what does it involve?
	It involves taking away your ability to, your liberty to drive yourself and to own a car that you choose to have.
	And with energy, you know, clean energy, well, you can have clean energy.
	It's not the sources that we had were clean.
	The problem was for them that it was abundant, affordable, and reliable.
	And they don't want us to have any of that.
	They want it to be unreliable, unaffordable.
	And you're going to wind up, he's got a big investment in that.
	These battery energy storage sites, these massive lithium battery sites to back up the grid.
	What a Rube Goldberg of a design, if ever there was one.
	And it really, think about the fire hazard that that presents to people.
	He's already had one of these catch fire.
	One of the first ones he put out in Australia.
	caught fire.
	Fortunately for the people in Australia, it was not, it was out in the desert, away from population areas, away from trees and that type of thing.
	But here they want to put them in neighborhoods.
	They want to put them in heavily forested areas.
	And we know what's going to happen with that.
	But they don't care.
	Will our lives be better when he makes a trillion dollars when he does these new inventions?
	Will they be better when electricity is unreliable, unaffordable, and an imminent fire hazard?
	When we can't drive cars?
	When we don't have jobs because of his robots, will that make life better?
	So the concentration of power and wealth into this technocracy of surveillance is something that the neo-Marxists as well as the Marxists want.
	It allows them to have totalitarian authoritarian government.
	The plan is structured in such a way that if Mr. Musk makes money, the company's investors do.
	A point that fund manager Kathy Wood made on social media.
	I don't understand why investors are voting against Elon's pay package when they and their clients would benefit enormously if he and his incredible team meet such high goals.
	And again, it's the same kind of partnership with government that has made him the king of crony capitalism.
	And so you had pension funds in New York and California and the Pope pushing back on this and saying, well, we're just against this because we don't want this kind of concentration of wealth.
	I don't know what we do about it, quite frankly.
	Because, you know, when you look at France has got not just a minimum wage, they've got a maximum wage law.
	And it's not all that high, I don't think.
	And I mean, it's not for billionaires or trillionaires or anything like that.
	And, you know, that's what would happen if you put on a compensation package limit.
	If you say you can't make a trillion dollars or a billion dollars, whatever.
	Start out at a really high number.
	And before you know it, it's going to be down really low.
	And I don't want to give that kind of power to government either.
	I don't know what we do with this, quite frankly.
	I do have an idea, and I'll tell you about it in a moment.
	But he says, his humanoid robot, Optimus, is the singular solution for addressing poverty.
	In other words, there's no other solution.
	No, he's got another solution.
	That's universal basic income.
	And so the robot will do all the work.
	The robot will be your caretaker, your companion, and so forth, and pacify you.
	And they will put the money out there.
	And again, as I pointed out, you had all these mayors in New York like Bloomberg, excuse me, working with Sadiq Khan to set up this green agenda,
	the C40, so that you can't, you have cars are banned, meat is banned, milk is banned, travel is mostly banned, one trip every three years, less than a thousand miles, and three items of clothing that you can have every year.
	I mean, that kind of austerity imposed on people for control, and they measure everything that you buy and do.
	And that came to us from Bloomberg.
	De Blasio was an open Marxist.
	He honeymooned in Cuba with Castro.
	I mean, this is not something that is new in terms of Mamdani for New York.
	They've been going down this path for a very long time.
	And there's a lot of people who believe that he's going to take it to the extreme to show that it doesn't work.
	I think we can already see that it doesn't work in New York.
	And I think that they may be setting up expectations.
	There will be some limits as to what he can actually put in.
	And when everything doesn't collapse in New York as badly and as quickly as a lot of people who are Republicans and conservatives are predicting will happen, then people are going to say, see, you said it was going to be hard.
	Well, they're here.
	And so I think that they're setting up expectations that are going to fail.
	And it's going to help to make him look good.
	So Musk says, yeah, the only solution for addressing poverty is a humanoid robot.
	He may be confusing his wealth with everybody else's wealth.
	He said, people talk about eliminating poverty and giving everybody amazing health care.
	Well, there's actually only one way to do that, with the Optimus robot.
	And get your brain chip as well while you're at it.
	And he will have complete control over you.
	And he'll sell that to the government.
	Just as he sold us to the government throughout all this stuff.
	Other opponents said the plan's terms allowed the Tesla Board of Directors so much leeway that they could award Musk the shares even if he doesn't achieve the product goals.
	And it's kind of interesting, you know, he's in Texas now, headquartered there, because like most people do, most people, for whatever reason, they incorporate in Delaware.
	And there was a Delaware judge there that shut down the compensation package as being excessive.
	And again, I don't think the government should be telling people how much money they have to make.
	I don't believe the government should be telling corporations how much money they have to pay.
	I think they'll leave that as a decision for the people who are paying and the people who are working.
	But that was a $128 billion compensation package.
	One-eighth of what this is.
	The judge says, no, you can't have it.
	So Musk said, all right, I'm moving the company to Texas from Delaware.
	And he's not going to have a problem with that.
	So again, you know, are we going to have a maximum wage law?
	I don't support that either.
	I just, you know, the people who founded this country, who put this together, John Adams, said, of course, you're familiar with this, our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.
	It is wholly unacceptable for the government of any other.
	You know, you can't have the liberty that comes with a Constitutional Republic, the rule of law, and a Bill of Rights and things like that.
	You can't have that if you have clumps of idolatrous people like MAGA, like Antifa, these people who want to give absolute power and authority to institutions or to people, who worship people, who worship institutions.
	You can't do that with this Constitution.
	It doesn't work.
	That's why we are failing, because we are no longer a moral and religious people.
	We have cut God out.
	And so the practical aspects of that, the fruit of that, we are reaping what we have sown.
	But more than that, God has a hand in this.
	He is still active in the affairs of men, as Benjamin Franklin said.
	And his judgment, his hand of judgment is on this country.
	And you can see it.
	That's what I see.
	When I see Musk and Mom Danny, I don't see a Hegelian dialectic between socialism and capitalism.
	I see the hand of God in judgment because our country no longer is structured to where it can have liberty and freedom.
	That's something that only belongs to a moral and virtuous people, people who follow Christ.
	If you don't do that, you're not going to have those blessings.
	So people like Bannon, those people who are cheering the Vinny Nam murder on the high seas that Trump is engaged in, They want empire.
	They want a Caesar.
	They have sold themselves this idea that the American Empire is going to last forever.
	They sold themselves on the idea that their Caesar is going to live forever.
	Trump.
	Yeah, we're going to have all these different terms.
	We're going to have him in a third term, fourth term.
	He's showing signs of his age.
	And they are ignoring the failing health of both empire and emperor.
	That's the reality of where we are today.
	And it's a sad situation.
	The good news is, is that, yes, there are certain aspects of life here that are collective.
	You know, when Israel was captive in Babylon, God's advice to them was, he said, I know the plans I have for you to prosper, not to harm.
	He said, seek the welfare of the place that you're in.
	So we try to seek the welfare as best we can of this place that we're temporarily in.
	But it's not ultimately what we're looking for.
	And so we do benefit or suffer based on what happens to this country that we're in.
	But we have a direct relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ if you're a Christian.
	And that makes all the difference in the world.
	But I want to talk about this perspective of this is Konstantin von Hofmeister.
	He's German, and he calls this philosophy of civilizations multipolarity.
	And he's kind of an intellectual disciple of Alexander Dugan.
	And it's important to get these perspectives, whether or not we agree with them, whether or not they're right.
	Because this is the perspective of Putin and the Russian government as well.
	And this was an essay that was featured in RT.
	It says, the current age of turmoil defines civilization's role in the new world.
	The Ukrainian front extends the great decolonization wave of the 20th and 21st century.
	And he says, in the twilight of the unipolar age, the illustration of Western permanence begins to fracture.
	The world that once moved to the beat of Washington's decrees now quivers under the emergence of new centers of gravity.
	The decisive variables remain Western.
	The electoral appetites, the donor webs, the ideological blindness, the dread of forfeiting planetary control.
	But he said, the transoceanic fraternity of power, stretching from Anglo-America to Brussels, crowns its dominance with a halo of virtue.
	Alexander Dugan always talks about the Anglo-American Atlanticism, he calls it, seeing the American Empire as a continuation of the British Empire, the torch being handed over, and how they're both sea powers, in contrast to Russia being a land power.
	The peril remains constant.
	Each side holds apocalyptic force.
	The issue lies in channeling power towards equilibrium rather than to ruin.
	Western Europe's tragedy flows from its obedience.
	It is now a vassal state of America.
	It is bleeding industry, bleeding sovereignty, and bleeding posterity, while claiming strength through sacrifice.
	A wiser Europe would seek reconciliation with Russia, restoring dignity and production instead of performing martyrdom for American strategy.
	Western Europe's impotence reveals itself most clearly in Germany.
	Once the beating heart of continental industry, it now functions as a workshop under foreign supervision.
	Its factories falter, its trains stall, its engineers immigrate, and its leaders confuse submission with virtue.
	The moralism of its elites replaced strategy.
	Before 2022, Germany drew most of its gas from Russia.
	It was cheap, it was steady, and it was continental.
	Today, a civilization once famed for precision runs on gas drawn from Norwegian depths and American tanks, symbols of a continent that traded energy sovereignty for ideological purity.
	Europe watches its engine fade, its self-respect drain away, and its destiny outsourced to powers that view the continent as both buffet and buffer.
	That's pretty interesting.
	In other words, feeding off of Europe, even as we use them as a buffer between the struggle between America and Russia.
	That's what he says.
	The danger grows sharper through weapons that erase time.
	Long-range tomahawk systems compress reaction windows to seconds, birthing a use-it-or-lose-it tension, where one error may unleash the abyss.
	Economically, seizing Russia's reserves would bury the myth of a rules-based order, a fiction that's been crafted by the West to mask privilege as principle.
	Such robbery would expose the global financial system as an imperial tool rather than a neutral platform.
	Well, I think that has already happened.
	People already understand why there's the big flight away from the dollar towards gold and other things like that, because people have seen that it is a tool of imperialism with the sanctions and the confiscations that have happened.
	That is what is fueling, you know, we talk about multipolarity.
	The BRICS is the financial aspect of that.
	Context concerns the authorship of modernity.
	Whether the future belongs to self-determining cultures or to an Atlanticist imperium that masks dominance as democracy.
	So he says, the collapse of 1991 from the Russian perspective marked the Versailles of the East.
	And of course, the Treaty of Versailles was a thing that took the punitive measure, took everything from the Germans after World War I and laid the foundation for Hitler's rise to power.
	So this is the Russian perspective.
	Again, don't ignore it.
	Don't be ignorant of it whether or not you agree with it.
	This is where they're coming from.
	So he said, what happened in 1991 was a Versailles for the East.
	It imposed a peace of humiliation and fragmentation when empire gave way to dependency.
	And that wound became the seed of restoration.
	The Ukrainian front thus extends the great decolonization wave of the 20 and 21st century.
	Eurasia liberating itself from the ideological and financial hegemony of the West, as Africa and Asia once freed themselves from colonial rule, reclaiming the right to define its own history, geography, and destiny.
	And then he portrays the communist imperialism in a mask of virtue.
	Listen to this.
	Said, Russia's story becomes the anti-imperialist mirror to Western propaganda.
	The former empire, born of revolution, once carried the liberation to the third world, going to Havana, Hanoi, Addis Ataba, and so forth.
	That is not what the Russians were doing, of course.
	They had their own little imperial game that they were playing.
	And they were not freedom lovers, liberators.
	They didn't liberate their own people.
	They murdered them in numbers that we've never seen before.
	So again, I said, you don't have to agree with this.
	This is a false dichotomy that he's putting out there.
	But from their perspective, a part of it is true.
	Part of it, there is an American empire that is not going to be satisfied unless it has everything.
	They'll tell you the truth about their enemies, because why wouldn't they?
	Yeah, that's right.
	Yeah, just like the government is not satisfied unless it has total totalitarian control.
	Musk is not satisfied unless he's got not just a little bit more like John D. Rockefeller, but a lot more.
	It's never enough.
	It's not enough to be the world's richest man, the richest man in history.
	He's got to get a trillion-dollar compensation package.
	The West, which once preached freedom, now administers obedience.
	True.
	Russia, once the axis of revolt, now stands as the still point in a turning world.
	And so that is the, he's trying to claim that virtue there.
	But understand how the globalist agenda is coming after everybody.
	I mean, these fault lines of East versus West, land versus sea, Atlanticists versus communists, these are false dichotomies that are always put out there.
	When you look at what is really happening, the agenda for climate change is still going on, and they're about to have their 30th meeting about this, COP30, but it is really starting to scrape the bottom of the barrel.
	Nevertheless, there are places where it is still alive and kicking, like the UK, for example.
	The UK, with all of their financial problems at home and all of their deindustrialization where they can't make anything anymore, they are squandering what little wealth they have remaining in terms of contributing to the Green Climate Fund of the UK.
	The Green Climate Fund is a global fund.
	It got $2.6 billion of UK taxpayer money.
	What did they do with it?
	They destroyed Ugandan villages in order to fight climate change.
	This is the imperialism of global governance.
	And it's disguised as green virtue.
	So this aid project was supposed to help Ugandan farmers deal with the impact of climate change.
	They were dealing with it just fine.
	But the reality saw their crops and their homes destroyed in an inhuman project that left them on the brink of starvation.
	Local government officials were guarded by armed security forces who raised the crops, trees, and homes as they claimed to be rewilding wetland in a project run by the Green Climate Fund.
	So the same type of thing that they're doing in the UK.
	They're literally going in the UK and destroying, raising their infrastructure, digging up gas lines, all the rest of stuff so people can no longer have gas seat.
	You're going to have to have electrical, everything.
	Electrical cooking, electrical heating, the rest of it.
	I think this really shows that there is no level that you can reach where they'll say, okay, now you're green.
	You can have a little village in Uganda with, I can't imagine these were big, quote-unquote, carbon footprints.
	It's going to be a few farmers subsisting barely off of it, but they'll still come in and raise it to the ground if they can profit off of that at all.
	That's right.
	They're probably engaged in very labor-intensive, simple farming that's been done for millennia and has not destroyed the earth.
	So they'll focus on them.
	This is not saying, well, you guys are using a lot of chemicals and you're using big, expensive equipment and tractors and things.
	No, they're not using any of that.
	And the UK government is not content to sacrifice its own people.
	It goes abroad looking for people to sacrifice.
	Meanwhile, Bill Gates is not the only one who's ditching the climate initiative.
	Governments are still going at it full speed, as we see.
	But Bill Gates and 893 companies have ditched it.
	And they're calling for, quote, a return to economic rationality.
	Nearly 900 companies, including dozens of large international corporations, have quietly withdrawn from the science-based targeted initiative.
	The move is being touted as an overdue return to economic common sense.
	Yet it makes sense, however, for Musk to continue doing what he's doing.
	That's how he became the world's wealthiest man.
	And he's now got a scheme which is frightening in its extent and its stupidity.
	He wants to put a massive amount, thousands of satellites.
	First, he's got thousands of satellites for his communication network.
	Now he wants thousands of satellites more for solar power and to block out the sun.
	So he's going to block out the sun to cool the planet.
	And then they will get the solar energy converted to electricity and dole it out to us via microwaves and lasers.
	Block out the sun, quote unquote, to cool the planet while also presumably making it much harder to farm.
	That's right.
	That's right.
	I mean, what could go wrong with this?
	What could go right with it, actually, if we should look at it?
	But understand the perspective here.
	This is a guy, the world's first trillionaire, who wants to own the sun and dole it out to us for a fee.
	That's what putting these satellites up there are about.
	And of course, he's involved in politics not as a distraction from Tesla, but as a way to make all this stuff possible.
	And so Gates, however, is going to move to the health MacGuffin because he's all about population control.
	Population control has two aspects to it now.
	Depopulation and surveillance.
	And so he's all about the global ID as well as the vaccines.
	He says, I'm moving from this doomsday scenario to focus on improving human welfare and fighting poverty.
	There's your ID, your government ID, and preventing disease.
	So that's your vaccinate everybody, right?
	That's where he's headed.
	Meanwhile, this is an op-ed piece on Daily Skeptic.
	Person says, I don't want 600 illegal migrants moving into my town.
	I said, there's a military, former military camp there that they're talking about using to house 600 migrants.
	Well, that's really fitting.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Yeah, it's an invading army.
	It's an invasion.
	Camps in Crowborough and Inverness were identified for initial placements.
	Those who haven't heard of Crowborough in East Sussex, where I live, will be rather more familiar with A.A. Milney's Winnie the Pooh stories, which are based in and around the Ashdown Forest, a large area of tranquil open heathland.
	The 100-acre wood, right?
	Crowborough is a good idea.
	Yeah, deep in the 600 migrant forest where Winnie the Pooh used to live.
	Crowborough itself is a mild, mellow Sussex town lying to the south of better-known Tunbridge Wells and largely comprises attractive housing for families whose children attend seven primary schools and one large secondary school.
	Shockwaves therefore reverberated around the town last week when word spread via social media rather than any official statement that Crowborough Army training camp had been requisitioned by the Home Office to house 600 illegal migrants.
	So again, the government doesn't even inform them.
	It spreads around word of mouth.
	Residents feel impotent in the face of decisions made by official bodies with Crowborough's situation being a microcosm of the situation in our country.
	Even as the 600 migrants are transported to the camp from Manston arrival and processing center, given fair weather, another 600 plus will arrive across the channel.
	Where will they go?
	As the Home Office scours the country for other facilities to requisition, hotels will still be filled, HMOs will still be acquired, and communities like this Sussex country town will be browbeaten by officialdom into accepting even more.
	From being a facility to prepare troops to defend our country, Crowborough Camp will become a center for a large number of foreign individuals of unknown provenance and intention.
	Such is the irony of the situation.
	Well, I always say it's not so much irony as it is betrayal and hypocrisy.
	The government knows fully well what it's doing.
	That's why it didn't make any official announcement.
	And as you pointed out, Lance, that is suiting because this is an invading army.
	Unlike when Rome fell, you now have the government inviting the barbarians in because the government is the fifth column.
	The government is the major traitor in every one of our countries.
	And if you don't believe that, look at 2020.
	Look at every single government did what that traitor Donald Trump did.
	Benedict Donald.
	These people are the fifth column.
	They seek to destroy us.
	It's entirely self-evident that as long as our borders are uncontrolled, the influx will continue unabated.
	More and more of our country towns will be placed in a comparable situation.
	So the green agenda, the open borders, the concentration of power in government, the concentration of wealth, and the crony capitalist billionaires.
	Stanford is under investigation for a secret scheme to help foreign governments censor Americans.
	We'll get in line, right?
	Everyone hates the First Amendment.
	Every country is looking for ways that they can destroy freedom of speech and freedom of thought, freedom of religion.
	And this is what we see in America as well, with both conservatives and liberals.
	And this organization that's heavily funded.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	I was working in the news late one night, when my eyes beheld an eerie sight.
	For the monsters had rehearsed, to my surprise, the tactics to inject what they'd devised.
	And what's the jab?
	The monster is the jab.
	The monster jab.
	The spike's a graveyard stab.
	I caught on in a flash.
	It is the jab.
	The monster is the jab.
	From the DARPA labs in the Castle East to the FBA, where Pharma Vampires feast.
	The ghouls rehearsed before 9-1-1 had to poison us, which is what they've done.
	The monster is the jab.
	The spikes are graveyard stab.
	Monster Spike.
	They'll put you on a slab.
	It is the jab.
	The monster is the jab.
	Big Pharma was having fun.
	The party had just begun.
	The guests included Fauci, Donald, then Biden.
	The scene was a lockdown, all were fearing the news.
	Supply chains were broken.
	We were singing the blues.
	The coffins they told us were about to arrive.
	You can see it all on channel five.
	The monster is the jab.
	The monster jab.
	The spike's a graveyard stab.
	It'll put you on a slab.
	It is the jab.
	The monster is the jab.
	From the oval office, his voice did ring.
	Hospital cash registers went a ching.
	When people caught on to keep on the lid, they said, whatever happened to the Wuhan lab.
	It is the jab.
	The monster is the jab.
	The monster jab.
	The spike's a graveyard stab.
	They'll put you on a slab.
	It is the jab.
	The monster is the jab.
	Now everything's cool.
	Live leaks part of the plan.
	Their alibi echoes throughout the land.
	For you, the living, they will try it again.
	When they get to your door, tell Big Pharma, no more.
	The monster is the jab.
	The spike's a graveyard stab.
	Monster Spike.
	It'll put you on a slab.
	It is the jab.
	The Monkster is a dad.
	Mashed!
	Is he here?
	Monster magic ball!
	So I think we're back now.
	That was kind of strange.
	We had all the lights went off, and yet it appeared because of UPS, we had continued the stream in some sense, but we still had to reboot some other computers in order to get this going again.
	So I apologize for the interruption.
	I don't know what that was about.
	I guess we just had a temporary power glitch that lasted for about 30 seconds here.
	Let's see.
	So we were talking about Jim Jordan, and he's going to ride to the rescue the grandmaster of circus performing in grandstanding, Jim Jordan.
	Yet another hearing.
	And of course, what they're doing is they're focusing on this Stanford Cyber Policy Center.
	And they said, you were censoring people at the behest of foreign governments.
	What foreign government would that be?
	Well, yeah, the EU, Australia, and others want to censor our free speech.
	They want to control the internet.
	And so they don't want to have a free internet in the US either.
	But it seems to me like they were publicly talking about how one particular foreign government, Israel, wanted to shut down anybody who criticized it.
	First, they play the race card and say, if you criticize this foreign government, you're racist, you're anti-Semitic.
	But then they got Trump to punish universities where they had people protesting and punish the people who were doing it.
	And you had people like Randy Fine and DeSantis ramping up hate speech laws to censor speech.
	And so it seems to me like what is missing out of this is the elephant in the room coming after our speech is the government of Israel, that foreign government that has bought our government and controls it completely.
	We have been sold out to foreign interests.
	And of course, you can add to that Ukraine and Argentina as well.
	These people get massive amounts of taxpayer money.
	They channel a good deal of it back to our politicians.
	They're allowed to do whatever they wish.
	And they direct and order people as to what to do.
	As a matter of fact, it just came out last couple of days.
	They were bragging about how Miriam Adelson's husband, I forgot what his first name was now.
	Anyway, Adelson, the casino owner.
	He would come in.
	What's it?
	Sheldon?
	Sheldon, thank you.
	He'd come in and bring these politicians together and say, now this is what needs to be done.
	They're openly talking about this.
	You know, you used to be, if you said that, you were accused of being anti-Semitic, saying Jews run the world.
	Well, Jews don't run the world necessarily.
	It's Israel that does.
	And you've got a disproportionate number of Jews for whatever reason that run the media, Hollywood, and other things.
	They brag about it, but then if you say what they say, then you are a racist, of course, right?
	And so, according to Jordan, the roundtable's keynote speaker was Julie Inman, the Australian e-safety commissioner who has explicitly argued that governments have the authority to demand and enforce global takedowns of content.
	The European Union, the UK, Australia, Brazil, by hosting this event designed to encourage and facilitate censorship, compliance with regulators from Australia, Brazil, the EU, and the UK, Stanford is working with foreign censorship officials to vitiate the First Amendment.
	Yeah, just ignore the in-your-face actions from APAC and Israel demanding the things that have already been put into law by the GOP in some places.
	So everybody hates the First Amendment.
	The left hates it, the right hates it.
	And they've all got their different reasons for it.
	The question is, whenever you look at somebody who wants to censor, it's always the people who are doing something wrong that they don't want you talking about.
	In 2023, the Cyber Policy Center was caught covering up and lying about the work of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security under the Biden administration.
	So now, make it partisan.
	This is what is so pathetic about the Republicans.
	They won't just stand there for free speech.
	Instead, what they'll do is a dog and pony show, saying, look, the EU wants to take our speech.
	And of course, yeah, Ursula, fond of lying, wants to shut down free speech.
	It's all about controlling speech on the internet for her.
	And it is for the Israelis as well.
	They have basically identified themselves as what they are when they do that.
	So it's a Stanford Internet Observatory that is collaborating on shutting down free speech.
	And of course, it's not just them.
	They've been one of the key ones to do it.
	There's also another one that operates out of Indiana, University, I think maybe Indiana University, University of Indiana.
	It's where they had the Masters and Johnson people, whatever, The sex studies that were done was found.
	The Kinsey Institute was out of there.
	It's an Indiana university in conservative Indiana.
	And so they brought a guy over from Italy to work in the Kinsey Institute, and then they put him in charge of censoring people.
	And that all came to light when they censored 800 different organizations off of social media just before the midterms in 2018 and right after they had censored us at InfoWars in the beginning of August of 2018.
	And it was Indiana that was heavily involved in that, deplatforming.
	And so foreign governments are really pushing hard on this, as are the American governments.
	And they are just going to hold these dog and pony shows, but they're not going to do anything for free speech.
	As a matter of fact, you know, Hollywood didn't have free speech initially, as I pointed out, a very early movie back in the regime of Woodrow Wilson when he was trying to get us into war along with Britain.
	You had a guy who had worked with D.W. Griffin on Birth of a Nation, and he did a movie then about the Revolutionary War, The Spirit of 76.
	And the Woodrow Wilson administration wanted it censored.
	He put out an uncensored version.
	They put him in jail, gave him a massive fine of $10,000.
	And this was before the Federal Reserve destroyed like 99% of the dollar's value.
	So that was a massive fine.
	And they didn't enact free speech protections for Hollywood until 1952.
	So Hollywood has their free speech.
	I think this is a good example of why you don't need to fear free speech.
	Hollywood has the worst weekend box office of the year.
	They're making movies that they want to make.
	Their movies are hateful, they're perverted, whatever.
	But the marketplace is speaking, and Hollywood is disappearing.
	And so I think we do not need to worry about bad speech.
	We need to have alternatives to it.
	It's not going to be too much longer before these AI tools make it accessible to the average person to make movies along the quality, well, production quality that they can do.
	I think the average person can already do a better quality movie than the average Hollywood movie.
	Yeah, yeah.
	The issue was the production values and the look of the film.
	And that's the leveling of the playing field that AI brings.
	And, you know, the storyline is just not there.
	Storyline is not anything that anybody wants to see, as a matter of fact.
	We're going to take a quick break, folks, and we will be right back.
	When we come back, I want to talk about the arguments before the Supreme Court about Trump's tariffs.
	It didn't go too well.
	And there was a very interesting discussion about the concentration of power.
	We'll be right back.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	If you like the Eagles on a Dark Desert Highway, the cars, and Healy Lewis in the news, this ain't the holler on the road to be.
	You'll love the Classic Hits channel at APS Radio.
	Download our app or listen now at APSRadio.com.
	Well, before I get into the SCOTUS arguments about the tariffs and Trump's tariff tantrums, and I'm going to do that before I get into economics, but I just want to go back and pick up these comments here.
	By the way, for those of you who are wondering where Travis is today, he and his wife are on their way back to Texas, where they're going to be for a week or so.
	Just had the first birthday of his son, as you guys saw yesterday.
	And they want to take him back to Texas for a brief visit.
	He'll be joining us from Texas once he gets there.
	But he's on his way back, so I took the show today.
	And I just want to thank, this is from our producer, Lance, who says, right over to Gifted a Sub on Rumble yesterday.
	Thank you very much.
	I appreciate your support.
	I really do appreciate your support and really do need it.
	Thank you.
	KWD 68 says, state-supported and partnered corporations, Hitler would be proud.
	Exactly.
	Yeah, he said that's the problem that Stalin has done.
	The communists, they want to take over everything and run everything, and they don't know how to run it.
	So he said, I'll run it until I get what I want, and then I'll take it from them eventually.
	It works until you run out of other people's money, socialism.
	Let's forget that Hitler was a socialist.
	That's right.
	And this is the type of government that these people want to implement.
	Yeah, it's just, you know, the order in which they take everything from you.
	You wind up in the same place.
	They come back.
	They come at you with different tactics and different philosophies, different lies that they tell you.
	But the Nazis and the fascists are not opposites of the communists.
	Antifa doesn't understand what they're doing.
	And people who support that are supporting a totalitarian government.
	Both of them are totalitarian governments.
	They just take you there in a different way with different lies.
	Hitler wanted a national socialist government, which meant the entire world under the flag of Germany and a Nazi regime.
	These anti-thought people want a globalist socialist government, which is the exact same thing, only except under a UN or some other such flag.
	That's right.
	And that's the reason why you have the people on the left, whenever they see somebody who's patriotic, oh, you're a fascist, right?
	Because Hitler was nationalistic and Stalin was internationalistic in his, you know, he wanted a global empire in essence.
	You know, their anthem or their theme song wasn't the Empire Strikes Back, but it was the international.
	That's what they sang.
	And I'll never forget taking Karen to see Reds, which was Warren Beattie and Diane Keaton, who just recently passed away.
	And it's one of the most disgusting movies I've ever seen.
	It was the first movie I got up and walked out of.
	Just couldn't believe that they were making a hero out of these communists.
	But of course, it was Hollywood.
	So yeah, believe it.
	Wally Walrus, the cars drive themselves and we're getting priced out of driving with insurance rates that are going through the roof.
	Absolutely right.
	I wonder what kind of insurance break the self-driving car companies get.
	They don't have such a good driving record, actually.
	As I said before, when I look at them, I think of my friend that I carpooled with for a very short period of time because I didn't want to stay in the car with her.
	She had missed a couple of different semesters from a massive car accident that she'd had.
	And she was absolutely the worst driver I've ever been in a car with and the slowest driver.
	So I always think about her when I watch these self-driving cars trying to navigate a four-way stop or something like that.
	I was carpooling with her from Tampa to St. Petersburg.
	And I said, well, I think I'm going to just drive myself.
	And I got an apartment, stayed in St. Pete.
	I didn't like the commute anyway.
	Wally Walrus says, so I get to stay home and get high on drugs and get a check.
	That's what UBI is, correct?
	Yep, that's right.
	Just like the STEMICHEC.
	Everybody got a little taste of that, and they saw how well that worked.
	It was a successful test.
	And they're going to do it again.
	And if you want to see what that looks like, just look at the Indian reservations or any projects.
	Yes.
	And I pointed that out.
	You know, we look at, we think, well, you know, would this happen here?
	The Indian reservations, that's exactly what they did.
	They took away their ability to be independent, right?
	They weren't necessarily out there farming in the way that we farmed, but they were nomadic and they were hunters and gatherers and that type of thing.
	Took that away from them, put them on a reservation, locked them in, and fed them.
	And look at how destructive that was of their happiness and that type of thing.
	And then we did it again.
	We did it with the Japanese internment camps.
	And so, you know, when you have this history, we've got a long history of things like that in the U.S. Don't tell me it's not going to happen here.
	And when I look at these freedom cities, that's what I see, an Indian reservation.
	And it's going to be done again.
	They're going to try to do it anyway.
	Defy Tyrant, 1776.
	My state of Virginia is now 100% communist.
	It is.
	And again, just wait till you see what happens next year with the, is it next year?
	No.
	It'll be, is it next year?
	Yeah, I think it is next year, the midterms.
	Wait till you see what happens.
	It's going to be a huge route.
	Trump is energizing the left in a way that has never been done before.
	And these people are fooling themselves into thinking that the No Kings rally was a Astroturf rally by Soros.
	It was not.
	They don't realize just how angry Trump has made them.
	They hate him personally, but they also hate his policies.
	And he is stoking this in-your-face attitude with ICE and the rest of them.
	And so get prepared for a big blowback.
	And he's going to deliver us into the hands of the communists.
	That's what he's going to do.
	KWD 68.
	I forgot what part of South America there was a conference center built for climate meetings.
	They cut hundreds of acres of rainforests.
	Yes, we're going to be talking about that coming up.
	And hundreds of acres of it was like 100 miles, actually, I think, of trees that they cut down for a road to go to this climate conference, COP30.
	That's your environmentalism for you.
	But of course, they had already made the leap to say that trees are now a problem because although the trees take out the carbon dioxide, they say, well, they become a source of carbon.
	And then when they decay, they become, you know, first they're a carbon sink, and then when they die and they're cut down, they release all that stuff.
	It's like, well, you know, we're not even going to be able to make a house out of it.
	So are they going to apologize for all their tree planting initiatives, or were those all nonsense anyway?
	It was all nonsense anyway.
	That was the indulgence.
	You had to pay an indulgence to the globalist governments in order to engage in any activity and they plant a tree for you.
	Who needs the environmental scam when you've got a far more profitable medical scam?
	That's right.
	It gives them all the different things that they want to do, and people will fall for that, unlike the climate stuff.
	People see the stupidity of the climate.
	But when you get sick or there's a threat that you might get sick, people will fall for it, as we saw during 2020.
	It worked like a charm.
	Ugandan's homemade wooden hoe was responsible for the deforestation.
	He must be shown the way.
	Carbon zero, yeah.
	Why do a bunch of nihilists care if the climate changes?
	Well, they don't.
	It's always been an excuse for depopulation.
	Yeah, but it is also these people that want depopulation that are pushing it.
	It kind of shows like if you really think this is going to cause mass extinction, shouldn't you be supporting that since that's your stated goal?
	Yeah, but they don't want us to know that's what the real goal is.
	Brian Deb McCartney, is this live today?
	I thought it was replay.
	No, it is live.
	I'm here.
	See?
	If I pinch myself, I feel it.
	Let's talk a little bit about the tariff tantrums that are in front of the Supreme Court now.
	They heard arguments on Wednesday, and the Supreme Court justices were very, very skeptical of the arguments that were being presented by the Trump lawyer.
	Both conservative and liberal justices sharply questioned Solicitor General D. John Sauer.
	They soured on Sauer.
	Lower federal courts ruled that Trump lacked the legal authority that decided under the International Emergencies Economic Powers Act, HAIPA, to impose these so-called reciprocal tariffs on imports from many U.S. trading partners and fentanyl tariffs on products from Canada, China, and Mexico.
	It's so patently absurd.
	And I was entertained to see the transcripts.
	They had audio of some of the questioning there.
	We're not going to play it for you, but the justices were referring to it, that act.
	They referred to it the same way I did.
	IIPA, which I think is really funny.
	But anyway, Sauer defended the tariff policy.
	He said it was grounded in the power to regulate foreign commerce.
	He said, these are regulatory tariffs.
	They are not revenue-raising tariffs.
	Well, the justices weren't buying that obvious lie.
	I mean, you just had a press conference where Caroline Levitt was saying, well, you know, we've raised $600 billion and we're going to apply that to the deficit.
	Isn't that great?
	It's like, well, those are taxes.
	Somebody's paying them.
	And a lot of that is being paid by American companies and consumers.
	And so while they're bragging about that, by the way, as I pointed out, in 1942, under FDR, okay, the socialist Democrat FDR, who completely restructured the government, they did a $20 billion tax increase, which was equivalent, I don't remember what the original one was, was it $10 billion or $20 billion?
	Anyway, it was equivalent to $200 billion in today's dollars.
	That's the important thing.
	And so this is three times bigger than the previous biggest tax increase.
	This is what electing a New York City Democrat like Donald Trump, friend of the Clintons, and who has as his Treasury Secretary a guy who always worked for Soros.
	This is what he's bringing to us, the biggest tax increase we've ever seen.
	And massive regulations.
	And not only that, but regulations that change constantly from day to day so that people can't do business.
	That's the worst aspect of all of this stuff.
	Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of the liberal members, said, you say tariffs are not taxes, but that's exactly what they are.
	She said they're generating money from American citizens, generating revenue.
	Neil Gorsuch said that Trump unilaterally imposed the tariffs by citing purported international emergencies of trade imbalances and the flow of fentanyl into the United States without Congress authorizing them.
	He was worried about the concentration of power in the executive branch.
	He said, what happens when the president simply vetoes legislation to take these powers back?
	So he says, so Congress has given these powers over to the president.
	And then for them to take these powers back, they have to pass some new laws saying, well, we're going to go back to the way the Constitution was.
	And so he says, so what happens when the president simply vetoes this legislation to take these powers back?
	So Congress, as a practical matter, can't get this power back once it's handed it over to the president.
	It's a one-way ratchet towards a gradual but continual accretion of power into the executive branch and away from the people's elected representatives.
	Other conservatives, Roberts, Coney Barrett, Kavanaugh, Alito, also pressed sour.
	The tariffs, if allowed to stand, would result in $3 trillion in extra revenue for the U.S. by 2035.
	So already we have seen a tax increase that is three times the biggest one we've had prior, which is 1942 under FDR.
	But if this continues to stand, it is going to be another five times bigger than that.
	It's going to be 15 times bigger than the highest ever tax increase that FDR put in.
	Think about that.
	The lawyer for the plaintiffs, Neil Katyal, opened his argument by saying, tariffs are taxes.
	Our founders gave taxing power to Congress alone.
	We don't think IEPA allows this junking of the worldwide tariff architecture, he said.
	When Roberts asked him if tariffs implicated the power of the president to conduct foreign policy, he said, well, we agree that tariffs have foreign policy implications.
	But he also pointed out that despite the arguments that the reciprocal tariffs are being used to address trade deficits, Trump imposed a tariff of 39% on imports from Switzerland, an ally of the U.S., even though the U.S. runs a trade surplus with that nation.
	So what he's saying is, If you're saying that this is an emergency because we have a fiscal trade deficit, then why would you impose tariffs on somebody with whom we have a trade surplus?
	Nowhere in the questioning could I see that anybody brought up his latest tariff tantrum of the Canadian, the Ontario's ad talking about free trade.
	When that happened, he said, I'm shutting down the trade negotiations and I'm raising your tariffs just because of that commercial, which turned out to be true.
	It was a reputational emergency for him.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, so if it's about his reputation, he will do a refutation of the Constitution.
	But that should have been front and center, I think, in terms of the arguments.
	Yes, this is a good argument to say that, okay, if you're going to argue that this is an economic emergency, then why would you harm a country that is buying more from us than we buy from them?
	If that's the important thing.
	He said, no other president has done something like that.
	The Supreme Court, which heard more than two and a half hours of arguments, will not issue a decision on the case as of yet.
	And it's not clear when they will release their ruling.
	And typically what they do is, you know, they look at this and they've got their questions that they ask, and then they go back and think about the answers to that.
	And so there's a good deal of time that passes.
	So it's going to be more uncertainty for the businesses involved, more chaos, more bankruptcy.
	Trump is knowingly violating over and over again.
	We see Trump violates the law.
	He dares anybody to stop him.
	He knows he's violating the law.
	And he does it anyway.
	He dares people to stop him.
	So Besant was there at the hearing, the Treasury Secretary, the Soros soy boy.
	And he said that he thought that it was a winning argument for his side.
	He is the only person who has said that.
	I mean, Alan Dershowitz even came out with a point-by-point saying this is what they should have said.
	They should have sold it this way.
	Obviously, you're not going to do that if you think the guy did a good job.
	Alan Dershowitz is now fully on the MA, actually, MIGA, make Israel great again.
	That's why he's supporting Trump.
	But again, he's fully on Trump's side, and he's concerned about how this went.
	But Besant is not, he says.
	He said, we had strong, persuasive arguments on the necessity of using IEPA tariff authority to confront the emergencies that Trump has declared.
	This is all utter nonsense.
	And he's the only one who's saying anything like that.
	And it truly is amazing how these people will lie.
	One of the plaintiffs challenging the tariffs said, for nearly 40 years, my family has built this business from the ground up.
	Today, reckless tariffs threaten everything that we've achieved.
	And it's not just the recklessness of it, it's the arbitrary, capricious aspects of it and how it is changing on a whim.
	It depends on what mood Trump is in.
	If some government official in China or Canada says or does something he doesn't like, boom, 100% tariffs.
	Just like that.
	This is not in response to an emergency.
	This is his personal attitude.
	And this is why the president should not have this kind of power.
	So he said, let's be clear, these tariffs are not paid by foreign governments or companies, said Victor Owen Schwartz, who's company VOS Selections, is one of the plaintiffs.
	He says they import wine and spirits.
	said, it's American businesses like mine and American consumers that are footing the bill for billions of dollars collected monthly by our government.
	Unlike past tariffs set by Congress that we could plan around, these new tariffs are arbitrary, he said.
	That's right.
	And they're unpredictable.
	That's right.
	They're arbitrary, capricious, whimsical.
	Whatever the czar's mood is that particular day, that's what happens.
	Czar Trump.
	They're unpredictable and they're bad for business.
	And that's true whether you're talking about the agricultural sector or whether you're talking about somebody who's an importer of wine and other spirits.
	Chief Justice Roberts says that the tariffs are taxes on Americans.
	And of course, we all know that.
	It's the most ridiculous thing to think that, and Republicans have always understood when they opposed corporate taxes, they were always demagogued by the Democrats saying, well, you just don't want taxes on your businesses that you love so much.
	But the economic reality is that businesses will have to pass those taxes on one way or the other eventually, or they will go out of business.
	And that's why you have a lag on the time that you see between the tariffs being imposed and the price increases.
	They fight it as long as they can, but ultimately they have to capitulate.
	Nobody wants to be the first one to do it.
	But one by one, they start to do it, and they all will have to do it, or they will go out of business because they have to maintain a profit margin where they go out of business.
	So you can't tax a corporation.
	It will be passed on to the consumers.
	Yes, of course, there are dealings with foreign powers, said Roberts, but the vehicle is imposition of taxes on Americans.
	And that has always been a core power of Congress.
	So to have the president's foreign affairs power trump that basic power for Congress, it seems to me to at least neutralize between the two powers, the executive branch and the legislative power, said Roberts.
	And so he pushes back and he says, well, it's actually a mix, said the lawyer for Trump.
	Roberts interjected, but who pays the tariff?
	If a tariff is imposed on automobiles, who pays them?
	He says, in response, he says, well, it gets allocated.
	The empirical estimates range from like 30% to 80% of how much is going to be borne by the market.
	In other words, by Americans paying higher prices.
	And Roberts sits back.
	Well, it's been suggested that tariffs are responsible for a significant reduction in our deficit.
	I would say that that's raising revenue domestically.
	Again, that's what Caroline Lovett was just saying a day or so before that.
	Sonia Sotomayor then jumped in and said, so why not just do what the statute permits?
	You could bar importation of products altogether.
	That'd be the most effective way to do it.
	You follow the statute.
	The statute says the president can do that.
	What it doesn't say is that the president can raise revenue.
	Gorsuch again is concerned because the power is moving from Congress to the executive and they're not going to get it back, he said.
	So things are not looking great for Trump in the Supreme Court tariff arguments, says Zero Hedge.
	After the first hour of argument, the Trump administration's justifying of tariffs looked to be in serious trouble.
	Specifically, his claim that a 1977 economic emergency law grants the president unilateral power to impose tariffs at will.
	They're saying this is a major doctrines question.
	And when you have a major policy issue, it needs to be decided by the Congress, not by a bureaucracy, not by the president.
	The bureaucracies are under the president.
	So not by the executive branch, but by Congress when it is a major question.
	They also point out that it did not specifically mention tariffs in that.
	So Brownstone says when politicians talk tough on trade, They usually promise to protect American jobs, but sometimes those gestures do just the opposite.
	The Trump administration has proposed 100% tariff on large cigars imported from Nicaragua as a case in point.
	According to my latest research, the tariff would shrink U.S. gross domestic product by $1.25 billion.
	It would reduce total output by $2 billion, and it would eliminate nearly 18,000 jobs and cost state and local governments $95 million in tax revenue.
	Because we're not making cigars.
	Here's a good example.
	You're going to put these blanket tariffs on.
	You're not protecting a domestic industry.
	What you're doing is you're just blocking something we don't make here and aren't going to be making here.
	And you're costing the jobs of people who are the importers and resellers of these things that are made where they can make this.
	There's a ton of regulations about growing tobacco, so there's probably a reason, the reason that it's not made here is most likely that they can't keep up with all the regulations compared to their competitors in less regulated countries.
	That's right.
	I mean, I grew up in Tampa, and I remember when I was in elementary school, we would carry all our pencils around, everything, and everybody have their own cigar box, and they were easy to get because we had a cigar wrapping industry that was there from Cubans who would come in, kind of a hand rolling of the cigars and that type of thing.
	But that died out.
	And nobody's doing that anymore.
	So it was kind of interesting.
	There's no domestic industry to protect anymore.
	The U.S. produces almost no large cigars rolled by hand from long tobacco leaves and sold through tobacconists, cigar lounges, and small brick-and-mortar shops.
	Roughly 60% of all the 430 million cigars imported each year come from Nicaragua.
	Doubling land import costs would devastate the 3,500 retailers and 50,000 workers whose livelihoods depend on that trade.
	Worse, this tariff reverses one of the administration's genuine policy successes, its early effort to limit the FDA's overreach into small batch cigars and other low-risk nicotine products.
	So what they're saying is that, you know, these cigars as obnoxious as they are to smell.
	I mean, I always liked the smell of the cigar box, but I could not breathe when somebody was smoking a cigar.
	I had an uncle who smoked a cigar, and when I get in the car with him, I thought I was going to die.
	He would roll the windows up, put on the air conditioning, and start smoking a cigar.
	It was unbelievable.
	But anyway, to each his own.
	If you like cigars, fine, I'm not going to try to kick them out of your mouth.
	But Trump is trying to do that, and he's going to put a lot of businesses out of business.
	And this is just one example of the boneheaded economics of an idiot who bankrupted six casinos, a half dozen casinos.
	I don't know if it's five or six.
	This is why of all of these, don't we?
	We wind up having central planning.
	The central planning is usually done by the dumbest among us.
	And that would be the Don who is doing this and Peter Navarro.
	They target imported goods with no domestic substitute, guaranteeing a higher cost for U.S. consumers.
	They stretch statutory intent, turning laws that were written for health or trade enforcement into blunt political instruments.
	They contradict stated priorities of deregulation, of supporting small businesses.
	And so this is a horrible policy.
	And we certainly hope that it's going to be shut down by the Supreme Court.
	Has to be shut down.
	Doug LeLug, thank you very much for the tip.
	I appreciate that.
	He says, getting an early start on filling up the tank.
	Thank you.
	I appreciate that.
	Happy Friday.
	Yes, it'll be good to have a break.
	This has been a difficult week.
	Nothing serious, but just not feeling good this week.
	Sconcalo Rose Garden, thank you very much.
	He says, No way I can tip again.
	Do you know what he's talking about, Lance?
	I'm not sure.
	That was on Rumble.
	I'm not sure what's going on with that, but we're going to take a quick break.
	Thank you so much for the support, and we will be right back.
	Making Sense Common Again.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	Tell Alexa to add the APS Radio skill and have access to the best channels anywhere from country to blues, classic hits to news.
	APS Radio curates incredibly diverse playlists for you to enjoy.
	Get details at APSradio.com.
	And we want to thank APS Radio for carrying the program.
	And it's a great place to get music as well.
	And again, APS and Charlie, thank you so much for your support.
	I also want to tell you about Homestead Products.shop and the new product that they've got there, Organic Popcorn.
	I love the products that they have there.
	They're very useful products that are very natural.
	Whether you're talking about the organic popcorn or the tumbleweed fire starters or the freeze-dried eggs that are organic and clean.
	They've got great products and they really hit the staples that are there.
	Travis loves the hot sauce that they have.
	I don't typically use hot sauce because it's one of the best he's had.
	He talks, he raves about that all the time.
	And again, check out some of their products.
	It's great to be able to start fires in a clean way, especially if you're going to be barbecuing rather than using all this lighter fluid and all the rest of the stuff.
	But even if you're building a fire this coming time of year in your home, you want to have something that is going to be clean and natural to start those fires.
	And the Tumbleweed stuff really does it.
	So Homesteadproducts.shop.
	You'll see the organic popcorn.
	Well, the corn is one of the things that they have put GMO against more than pretty much anything.
	So it's great to be able to get that organic.
	Homesteadproducts.shop.
	Well, we talked about the big short and how the guy who bet everything on the collapse of the real estate market, he said the securitization thing is a pump and dump.
	It's a house of cards.
	There's no economic reality to it.
	He's now saying the same thing about AI and the stocks around AI, NVIDIA, and others.
	And he's put in a massive short against NVIDIA and mostly against Palantir.
	And I certainly hope that that is the case of Palantir.
	The problem is that Palantir is mostly funded by governments.
	And I think they're going to be immune to any kind of really market realities.
	But we'll see.
	Anyway, he's now put a massive hedge bet, short selling of these stocks, betting on the casino of Wall Street that they're going to go down.
	He's pretty much bet the farm on it.
	Deutsche Bank has started shorting AI stocks as well.
	And if you go back and you look at the movie, The Big Short, Deutsche Bank, it was Ryan Gosling who played a character, the Deutsche Bank guy or whatever.
	He was a real reprehensible character.
	And at the very end of it, as they're summing your thing up, he goes, all right, so hate me.
	I was right all along.
	And I made money from it.
	He's got a check in his hand for like $75 million or something like that.
	They made off of it.
	And they're at it again.
	Deutsche Bank saw it coming.
	And rather than warning other people when that came along, they profited from it themselves.
	And so that's kind of what's going on now.
	But as people are watching it, they see that for those who've been in the market for more than a few years, the memory of Deutsche Bank's sales and trading desks quietly pitching these CDS instruments to hedge the possibility of a housing slowdown mortgage will still be fresh.
	They saw it coming.
	They moved it to exploit other people to profit at other people's expense.
	They knew this thing was going down.
	Well, they're kind of moving in the same direction right now.
	Gold kind of weathered the whole idea that the Bank of England decided to pause any rate cuts.
	Whenever the banks cut rates, it's always good for gold because they know that those rate cuts are going to result in inflation.
	So when a bank does not cut rates, usually it goes the other way.
	But in this particular case, it didn't.
	The gold market is not seeing a major reaction to the Bank of England's monetary policy decision, leaving interest rates unchanged.
	They said the risk from greater inflation persistence has become less pronounced, they said.
	And the risk to medium-term inflation from weaker demand is more apparent, such that overall the risks are now more balanced, said the monetary policy statement.
	Well, again, you know, they always speak like soothsayers or something kind of like QAnon.
	Well, you know, they speak in reals like Nostradamus.
	And so everybody is watching them.
	But at a commodity strategist for a financial institution, ING expects record gold prices in the first quarter of 2026.
	Iwa Mente, commodities strategist at ING, said in her monthly gold update, she remains positive on gold.
	She still expects the prices to average around 4,000 in the fourth quarter, with average prices rising to 4,100. in the first quarter of 2026.
	She said, even after the recent weakness, gold prices are still up by more than 50% year to date.
	And again, all of the things that caused gold to go up by 50% last year, all of those issues are still there.
	The issues with the dollar, the issues with deficits and with debt and with inflation, all of that is there and arguably worse.
	And so that is the hedge that it is there for.
	Trump flatly denies when a Fox anchor confronts him with MAGA voters' pained plea.
	He says, no, no, no, the prices are way down.
	So Brett Baer was interviewing Trump, and there was a loyal supporter that called in with a question like you do here.
	He read out a message from a North Carolina retiree who had voted for Trump.
	She said three times previously.
	She warned that she did not see the best economy now and begged him, please do something, President Trump.
	I want the Republicans to keep control of Congress in 2026, but something has to be done fast, she said.
	And I don't see the best economy now.
	She said, Wall Street numbers do not reflect Main Street money.
	Please do something, President Trump.
	Well, Regina Foley, I would say, Regina, did you not see that in 2020?
	Did you not see that Trump was for the big guys on Wall Street and he was destroying the businesses left and right on Main Street and the farms at the same time?
	Yeah, that is not his concern.
	His concern is for the club that you're not a member of.
	Trump rejected what she had to say.
	He said, I think of groceries, it's an old-fashioned word, but it's a beautiful word.
	Grocery is a beautiful word, isn't it?
	Not if you have to pay for it, Trump.
	He says, I think the prices are coming down, but they're down already.
	And I think the biggest problem is Republicans don't talk about it.
	They don't talk about the word affordability.
	And Democrats lie about it.
	Well, the issue is, is that his concern is not Main Street, but Wall Street.
	And his concern is America last, not first.
	Before America is concerned, Trump is concerned with Israel, with Ukraine, with Argentina, with whoever.
	He is a globalist in his orientation.
	And I believe he is a globalist through and through.
	Roughly seven out of ten adults say they were spending more on groceries than this time last year.
	And 59% say they're paying more for utilities.
	Only 6% say that utilities are cheaper.
	59% of U.S. adults say they blame Trump a great deal or a good amount for the current rate of inflation.
	Well, they should blame him for the current rate of inflation.
	It was Thomas Metzy.
	I don't know if we still got the clip in here.
	Yeah, he said what Trump did in 2020 laid the foundation for what we're seeing now.
	You know, these are seeds that he planted that are now coming to fruition.
	But the policies and things that he did, the rule by executive fiat, and the new slope of increasing government debt was continued by Biden.
	Yeah, I'm getting chill bumps because I remember that.
	I was pointing out that the supply chain for some foods is three years long and that what we were doing during COVID, in terms of planting an apple tree, it's going to take three or four years for that, sometimes five or six years for that apple tree to bear fruit.
	And if during COVID you're paying people to stay home and not plant apple trees, you're affecting the price of apples five years from now.
	The same thing when you slaughter the dairy herd because they didn't have the facility, the school was closed and they couldn't redirect that milk because it was in cartons for schoolchildren, not for moms at the supermarket.
	So they destroyed dairy cattle, which were going to take two or three years to build back up.
	And so you had a lot of weird things going on during COVID, and we're still seeing the tale of that, no pun intended, right now.
	Yeah, exactly.
	And again, you know, Marjorie Taylor Greene talks about this, and she's saying, you know, why is it Republicans are not really paying any attention to what's really going on in the economy, to people's concerns about this?
	Everybody sees it.
	Republicans see it.
	Democrats especially see it.
	They're hypersensitive to it because they're looking really hard for any flaws with Republicans.
	But even the people who are not looking for flaws from Trump, people who voted for him three times see the problem.
	And Trump continues to lie about it.
	The job market is.
	The job market is still extremely difficult.
	Wages have not gone up.
	Health insurance premiums are going to go up.
	Car insurance goes up every year.
	People's homeowners insurance goes up.
	Rent is going up.
	People, young people have no hope of buying a home.
	And then when they try to buy a home, they end up, like I said, they end up competing with like Blackstone or somebody else.
	The average homebuyer now is 38 years old.
	It just came out.
	Right.
	The average homebuyer, 38.
	On the flip side, baby boomers can't sell their homes.
	They pay massive capital gains taxes.
	They don't know like, well, what do I move to?
	How do I downsize?
	I can't replace what I have.
	So there are problems on both ends.
	Some of my own personal family members, some of my own personal friends, they're getting by month to month, charging up their credit cards.
	Yeah, and you know, she mentioned the capital gains tax that people pay when they sell their homes.
	That's such a fraud.
	Basically, what you're being charged for is a tax on government-created inflation, right?
	Your home is not worth more after you've lived in it 30 years than it was when you paid for it.
	But yeah, if they come back and they say, oh, it's worth 10 times the amount.
	Well, that's because of inflation and regulation prices that they have built into it.
	So then they tax you on the taxes and on the inflation that have come in.
	Well, Trump is one who is lying about this.
	And he put out a big lie about how Walmart has lowered its Thanksgiving meal prices.
	It was instantly owned by people on social media because they just went back and looked at what Walmart itself had said about what they were putting out.
	It was not an apples to apples comparison.
	No pun intended, right?
	The president's claim about falling food prices didn't match the numbers or what Americans see at the supermarket.
	Do you think that Donald Trump has ever shopped at a supermarket?
	I don't think so.
	I mean, people were amazed when George Bush went to a supermarket and he was amazed at the barcode reader that was being used to check out the prices of things.
	And everybody, at that point in time, it was already old hat.
	And people said, how out of touch is this guy?
	Well, you know, how out of touch is Donald Trump?
	Think he has ever, ever in his life, shopped at a grocery store totally foreign to him.
	Walmart just announced that prices for thanksgiving dinner is now down 25 percent since under sleepy crooked joe biden in 2024.
	Trump put that out on social media.
	Affordability all uppercase a republican stronghold, he said.
	Hopefully america republicans will use this irrefutable fact.
	Well, it's not a fact and it's easily refuted.
	Uh, he was slammed with a community note showing how walmart's 2025 meal package has less items, fewer items, and it has more genetic generic products.
	You know their um value, whatever it is that they great value, great value yeah, great value, as their brand, and so their brand is cheaper.
	They replaced a lot of the name brand items with great value brand, most of them, as a matter of fact, and it's quite a few items less than last year.
	Consumer price index figures that were released in october indicated average grocery prices had risen three percent.
	Since the same time last year meat poultry, fish and eggs have jumped overall 5.2 percent.
	And so, regarding the um uh, the bogus information that trump is peddling the specifics of it last year the item, the shopping cart they had had 21 items.
	This year, 15 items.
	Okay, so it's down about a quarter the number of items and they're saying well, he says it's down by 25 percent.
	Well, they're getting 15 items instead of 21 they got last year and again they substituted their own great value stuff for the national brands: uh, they're at a lower price.
	So he didn't.
	He didn't reply to that.
	Instead, what he did was he doubled down.
	The next day he posted again a second time on thursday morning, the same claim again: 2025 thanksgiving dinner under trump is 25 percent lower than 2024 thanksgiving dinner under biden, according to walmart.
	What an amazingly stupid, stupid liar trump is.
	It's just amazing and and that's what he's like the clintons in that regard, bill clinton, hillary clinton, i mean, you can show the smoking gun in their hand and you can show the picture of what's really going and they will still lie to your face.
	It's absolutely insane.
	What really shows is that walmart thought they could get more from their customers for a thanksgiving meal last year.
	Yeah, that's right.
	Yeah, last year it bought more.
	So it should be a red flag to the gop irate republicans reportedly ready to break with trump to end the shutdown.
	So you know, you've got a lot of people like that voter who's concerned because hey, the economy is not good.
	Now we've got people being fired, massive layoffs.
	It's difficult to get a job because we still have this um massive, you know, foreigners saturating, saturating the the job market,.
	but the economy is not good either.
	And everything that he's done with all this tariff stuff has really put the kibosh on the economy.
	It's been a huge drag on the economy.
	So consumers are not happy about it.
	And they've got a lot of Republican politicians who are not happy about that either.
	One GOP senator, Mike Rounds of South Dakota, laughed out loud when asked about the anti-filibuster push, Politico reported.
	He said, welcome to the dawn of Trump's lame duck era.
	Trump wants to terminate the filibuster in order to get the immediate problem solved.
	And there's other issues with this that he's not going to give up on.
	Instead, what he wants to do is to set a very bad precedent for future government so he can get immediate relief.
	This is so typical of Trump.
	Tuesday's electoral blowout was, in the words of a retiring congressman, a red flag to the GOP.
	He has zero ability to work across the aisle, said Representative Don Bacon of Nebraska, who is not seeking re-election, so he's now free to tell people the truth.
	He needs to face reality and he needs to learn how to talk to Democrats that he can reason with.
	Many Republicans expressed frustration that Trump's demand to end the filibuster would backfire once Democrats regain the majority.
	This is the case, folks, with all of his dictates.
	Everything that he is doing, all the changes that he's made, are going to be empowering the Democrats when they return to power.
	And believe me, with the policies that he's doing, there's going to be a tremendous return to power of Democrats.
	I don't want to see that.
	I don't like their policies.
	And I don't want to give them all kinds of new powers, which is what Trump did.
	I mean, just look at what he did with the gun control by executive order.
	That's just one of the things.
	Now he wants to get rid of the filibuster and so forth and so on.
	And all this stuff is going to backfire tremendously on us.
	Last night's results looked like a recipe for them to lose the House and the Senate next fall, said a Democrat, Chris Murphy, senator.
	And they're going to find it, they're going to hand us a 50-vote majority gift-wrapped when we show up on day one, he said.
	Republicans are getting ready to defy the president if he won't allow compromise to get a government funding bill passed.
	They know that he doesn't drive up turnout when he's not on the ballot, and he won't be, despite his musings about running for an unconstitutional third term.
	Many are privately signaling that they're preparing to break with Trump if he doesn't allow Republicans to negotiate on an extension of Obamacare insurance subsidies that Democrats are demanding, said Politico.
	Others blame the president and his top budget aide, Russ Vought, for favoring hardball moves, such as canceling blue state transportation projects and firing federal employees that only serve to cause Democrats to dig in further.
	This is what he does everywhere.
	He does this with the Democrats.
	He does it with foreign countries.
	He's poisoning everything because everything is about confrontation.
	It's about professional wrestling, really.
	It's amazing to me just how much passion there was for reform around 2016 onward.
	And Trump just completely co-opted all of that and turned it all to his own self-serving goals.
	That's right.
	If these MAGA movement people were actually caring about the Constitution and improving America, they could have done so much good.
	Well, yeah, because we're at the end of the fourth turning, everybody sees the problems with these institutions that have become aged and corrupt.
	They have had mission creep and all the rest of the stuff.
	Reform is very badly needed.
	But what Trump did was he turned everything to his own purpose, and he's making everything even worse than it was.
	So they said many Republicans are privately signaling that they're prepared to break with him.
	One irate senior House Republican granted anonymity to speak blamed Trump and Vought for spurring the shutdown with their unprecedented move to unilaterally rescind congressional funding over the summer through a so-called pocket rescission.
	That decision is why we're in this mess, said the Republican.
	So what he's saying is he played hardball and created this breach, you know, just like we've never had issues with Canada before.
	He creates these conflicts out of nowhere.
	That's why we're here at this particular point.
	And we're going to take a look at some of the aspects of that coming up when we get back.
	But when you look at gold, again, it is a difficult situation that we're in right now.
	And gold, if you can get into it, if you can start to, you know, don't store your money in a checking account necessarily.
	Put it into gold because that's where you're going to see the value retained.
	And, you know, not in a savings account at a bank account.
	You're going to need to have cash for paying bills and things like that.
	But don't just leave all your money parked into the bank or into bonds, which are going down significantly.
	Understand the overall situation that's there and make sure that you hedge your bets at least a little bit.
	One of the ways that you can do that, of course, is with Tony Ardeman Weiswolf Gold.
	And you can get there through DavidKnight.gold.
	You can gradually accumulate, determine a budget that you want to save.
	And when you save, put your money into something that's going to retain its value rather than the dollar, which is constantly going down.
	Gold is not going up in value.
	What you're seeing is the dollar going down in value.
	If you go to Kitco and look at the news there about gold, you can look at the price of gold and they'll show you a chart that instantly click up a chart for a period of time and you can look at gold in U.S. dollars, how it has fared.
	And they've got about a dozen different currencies there that you can look at it.
	You can look at it in the dollar.
	You can look at the Euro.
	You can look at it in the yen and the yuan from China and so forth.
	And it's kind of interesting because they don't all move in the same way.
	And it really underscores the situation that it's the dollar that is going down, not gold that is going up.
	And so don't store your stuff necessarily in U.S. dollars.
	Put it in something else that diversifies it out.
	So when we look at this shutdown, U.S. flight cancellations are accelerating as airlines are complying with the government's shutdown order.
	You know, isn't it interesting?
	I'm looking at this, I'm thinking, you know, the only real effect that we've had, first of all, there are people who work for the government, they're not getting paid.
	There are people on welfare, they're not getting paid.
	But other than that, is there anything that the government does that we really need?
	I understand that people are getting paid or they're getting welfare, Welfare, whatever, they're not getting their check.
	But for the rest of us who are not on welfare, who don't work for the government, what effect is the government shutdown having for us?
	Nothing.
	Do you need anything that the government provides if you don't work for the government?
	No, you don't.
	The only thing you need is the being able to fly and that infrastructure, which doesn't need to be run by the government.
	It was Gard who pointed that out a couple of days ago, but now Reason has got an entire article talking about why we need to separate out the flight attendants, air traffic control and flight attendants, air traffic controllers need to be separated out and run as a separate entity because keeping them in as 100% government employees means that every time there's a shutdown and there's a lot of shutdowns, every time that happens, it creates chaos.
	And this is really bad.
	We're seeing U.S. flight cancellations accelerating.
	And it's Canada that has already privatized that.
	Canada, of all places.
	That's right.
	U.S. Airlines began canceling hundreds of flights Thursday due to the FAA's order to reduce traffic at the country's busiest airport starting Friday today because of government shutdown.
	More than 760 planned flights today on Friday were cut from airline schedules.
	The 40 airports selected by the FAA span more than two dozen states and include hubs such as Atlanta, Dallas, Denver, LA, Charlotte, according to the agency's orders, which was published Thursday evening.
	In some metropolitan areas, including New York, Houston, Chicago, and Washington, multiple airports will be impacted.
	The FAA said the order that the reductions will start on Friday at 4%, and by the time we get to November the 14th, they'll ramp up to 10%.
	So it's in a week, right?
	Today's the 7th, so in another week, they're going to get it up to 10% of the flights.
	They're going to be in effect between 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. local time, and it will impact all commercial airlines.
	The decision to reduce service at high-volume markets is meant to maintain travel safety as air traffic controllers exhibit signs of strain.
	Hours before the reductions went into place, airlines were scrambling to figure out which flights they were going to cut.
	Again, chaos.
	The Trump policies of chaos.
	If your flight is canceled and you no longer want to take the trip, or if you found another way to get to your destination, the airline is legally required to refund your money, even if you bought a non-refundable ticket.
	Just a consumer tip to all of you out there.
	America's longest government shutdown shows why we must free air traffic control from politics, says Reason.
	And again, as I point out, Guard made the same libertarian statement as well.
	This is something that doesn't need to be run by the government.
	It's like a public utility, essentially.
	And it should not be subject to these government shutdowns.
	And it's interesting that, you know, as you point out, Lance, we had a listener who pointed out that Canada moved to separate the air traffic controllers from the government a while back, and they have their own separate thing.
	The first people to do it was New Zealand.
	And what happened to cause that?
	You know, New Zealand was one of the most socialist countries.
	And then they hit the wall.
	They got to a situation where they couldn't pay the salaries and the expenses of their ambassadors abroad.
	And they're having to use their personal credit cards to try to get things done.
	And it got so bad that, you know, New Zealand is a small country.
	And so, you know, just like you look at the ship of state, right?
	The bigger it is, the harder it is to turn this thing around because of momentum.
	And so, you know, we're kind of like the Titanic.
	But they had a smaller ship of state.
	And so they will turn that thing around real quick.
	It's one of the reasons why we went to New Zealand to see if it had really changed because they were doing all kinds of market changes in New Zealand.
	So they had people, government officials, ambassadors, and so forth in other countries that couldn't pay their salaries.
	You know, we have a situation now in Germany where, and it's German papers who are reporting this.
	I'm surprised it hasn't really been picked up by American papers, but it's a German paper that's reporting the fact that the U.S. government is telling U.S. soldiers stationed in Germany to get on the German welfare payment.
	How's that?
	And I guess why not?
	Food from the food kitchens.
	That's right.
	Food from the food kitchens.
	Yeah.
	And why not?
	Because, I mean, you've got an invading army of people from the third world.
	You know, we're not invading them in the same way.
	But, you know, now we can't afford this empire.
	It can no longer afford to pay its soldiers for food that they've shipped over there.
	Said, go to the food kitchens in Germany to eat because we can't afford to feed you.
	We've got an army that we can't feed.
	You talk about a declining empire stretched too thin.
	Boy, doesn't that say it all?
	How incompetent and aloof this government is.
	And what is Trump's first priority?
	It's his palace that he's building, his ballroom.
	This is one of the effects of ballroom capitalism.
	Can't even be concerned about this.
	Can't even make this the top priority.
	He's just too distracted with doing gold upfits of things in the White House.
	And so as Reason says, as of today, we're living through the longest federal government shutdown in U.S. history, surpassing the 35-day shutdown in 2019 during the first Trump administration.
	Since 1980, there have been 11 such shutdowns, most of which have left air traffic controllers to work without pay for duration.
	And again, it was that one that lasted for 35 days back in 2019.
	The reason that ended was because of the air traffic controllers.
	In other words, is there anything that government does that we actually need on a day-to-day basis?
	Absolutely not.
	And we've got the big U.S. military, which doesn't keep us safe.
	It endangers us because of the military adventurism.
	And we can't even afford to give food to our soldiers in Germany, telling them to go to food markets or whatever, the charity places.
	Air traffic control is too important to be vulnerable to politics around the world.
	Governments have acknowledged this and depoliticized.
	New Zealand did it in 1987.
	They removed it from the transport ministry and they permitted the aviation user fees that had been paid to the government instead to be paid to a new institution, the Airways New Zealand.
	And they run the air traffic controllers.
	It worked so well that within a decade, a dozen more governments had followed suit, realizing that air traffic control is essentially a public utility analogous to electricity.
	The most powerful opponents to reforming the current air traffic control system, of course, are members of Congress because they want to have that control.
	But also, the business jet community.
	The people who have the private luxury jets, they don't want to have the air traffic controllers separate out into their own entity here that's privatized.
	Congress likes to micromanage the FAA.
	Every five years or so, when it's time to reauthorize the FAA, Congress imposes a whole raft of demands and policy changes.
	There have been two attempts to make an air traffic control system independent of the government.
	The first one was during the Clinton administration.
	They did a major study that envisioned a self-funded air traffic services corporation with aviation user fees and bonding authority.
	It received one hearing in Congress and then it died.
	And again, you know, this would have been probably the early 90s, maybe mid-90s, after New Zealand did it in 1987.
	A lot of different countries were looking at it.
	So they took a look at it and it died.
	The second attempt took place during the first Trump administration.
	It was championed by Republican Representative Bill Schuster, who chaired the House Transportation Infrastructure Committee.
	It was modeled after New Canada, the privately run non-profit corporation that owns and operates Canada's civil air navigation system.
	So the first Trump administration said, hey, Canada has privatized this.
	Let's do it like they did.
	It's working out well for them.
	It had the support of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association.
	It was also supported by the business roundtable, nearly all major airlines, and it got editorial endorsements from nearly all the top 10 newspaper editorial boards, except for the New York Times.
	Two versions were approved by the committee, but they never reached a vote on the House floor.
	And so I would say that's not sure if that was when the Republicans had the majority or when Pelosi did.
	The campaign against the bill was led and funded by the National Business Aviation Association, a lobbying group for private jets.
	They portrayed the proposed non-profit stakeholder governed corporation as a takeover of air traffic control by the big airlines that would shortchange private planes in rural states.
	Their underlying interest was to preserve its fuel tax as opposed to the weight-distance user fees that business jets all over the world pay, except in the United States.
	So they have a preferential tax thing here that they want to keep.
	There is every reason to expect that in future years there'll be more federal government shutdowns.
	It's one of the only things that Congress does anymore.
	That's right.
	The New York Times has now changed its position.
	They released a video editorial August the 10th criticizing the business jet lobby for opposing air traffic control reform.
	During his first term, Trump endorsed Schuster's bill, even held a White House event to promote it.
	Depoliticizing the U.S. air traffic control system would be the most effective way to insulate it from inevitable future government shutdowns.
	See, it needs reform, just like Lance was saying.
	We need to have reform.
	But Trump is so focused on confrontation, on chaos, and on making himself more powerful, he can't even do the things that he was doing in the first term.
	Air traffic controllers warn of a tipping point.
	They said, what you're seeing is a lot of people truly having to call in sick so they can go earn money elsewhere.
	I think you're also seeing people just calling in sick because they're sick and tired of like, well, I'm going to spend the holiday weekend with my kids for once.
	They said morale was already low before the government shutdown due to a long-standing staffing shortage across the system.
	Mandatory overtime, stagnating wages were other factors dampening morale, which has gotten even worse now that controllers are not being paid at all.
	One controller said they haven't taken a second job yet, but they know a colleague who's already moonlighting in private security.
	He said, you know, I'm going to join that guy here next week if things don't pan out, said the controller, just so that I can pay my mortgage.
	Some air traffic controllers say they haven't been able to get a loan, or they have been able to get loans from their credit union to cover their expenses for a few paychecks, while others have been forced to take on part-time jobs.
	I work with people who are working a second job at night and are just calling in sick in the morning when they can't go to the job that does not pay them because they're too tired from working the job that does pay them.
	So it was more than a month in the last government shutdown in 2018 and 19 when a small number of air traffic controllers and a few key facilities called in sick.
	That caused major disruptions at airports up and down the East Coast, arguably helped to bring the shutdown to an end later that day.
	So why isn't it happening now?
	Well, they said the FAA has gotten better at managing staffing shortages these days.
	Several controllers said, one controller said more of their colleagues have called out sick during this shutdown than they did during the previous one.
	Well, the impacts on travel have been mostly isolated so far.
	But it's going to continue to build.
	It does degrade that margin of safety if a bunch of people are sick or not at work and I'm having to do their jobs along with my own.
	So another controller who handles traffic around a major airport.
	So we'll have to see what happens with this.
	Wagchaw said Brazilian nuts for a bag went from about $5 to $9.50 overnight.
	Wow.
	There you go.
	But we have to have that because Trump doesn't like the person who's the president in Brazil.
	So he's going to double the cost of your Brazil nuts.
	You're not going to get your Brazil nuts here in America.
	You're going to have to get them from Brazil.
	But you're not going to be able to get them because he doesn't like the Brazilian president.
	He loves, however, the Argentinian president.
	So still no help for American farmers while we work together, put together a package of $40 billion bailout for Argentina.
	I am sick and tired of Trump.
	I don't understand why people can't see it.
	He disgusts me.
	He is absolutely disgusting.
	We're going to take a quick break, folks, and we will be right back.
	You might want to hear it in your pot.
	You'll owe nothing and be happy.
	Ain't got no cash, ain't got no car.
	But 24 booster shots in your arm.
	Oh, nothing.
	Be happy.
	You can't even buy shit in the store because of your low social credit score.
	Oh, nothing.
	Be happy, you will own nothing.
	And be happy.
	Be happy at Easter Bugs.
	Hear news now at APSradionews.com or get the APS Radio app and never miss another story.
	And again, folks, a reminder that if you would like to support the program or if you'd like to find out where you can, other places where you can find the program, go to davidknight.news and you'll see the links to ways that you can support us and all the different places where you can find it.
	And by the way, you can now on Substack, you can get the audio podcast without any commercials.
	I mean, we put them out on Spreaker, and I'm not happy with the number of commercials that Spreaker has put on there, but it's too difficult now for us to try to get them off.
	So it's kind of an all-or-nothing thing.
	So if you'd like to get it without the commercial interruptions, you can do that on Subscribestar if you're a Subscribestar subscriber.
	For a while, we've been putting up a link to a commercial-free audio broadcast for them, as well as articles that are there.
	Or you can sign up on Substack as a paid supporter.
	You can subscribe there, and that helps the program to continue.
	Let's take a quick look at what's going on with climate because, again, this whole thing about this COP30, you're going to hear a lot about this in the next week or so.
	The problem is that the places that have really been enthusiastic about this, whether you're talking about the UK or you're talking about New York, they're basically hitting the wall on this, and people are seeing that it is untenable.
	Even the government officials in New York are seeing this.
	What's upwiththat.com?
	They said, hell is Don Froze over.
	New York Governor Kathy Hochul, a leading contender for greenest governor in America, wants to redo their infamous Climate Act because New Yorkers can't afford it.
	A sure sign that the rapidly rising cost of energy has become a big election issue.
	New York State is between a rock and a green hard place.
	Change the law or do the impossible.
	That's their choice.
	What set all this off is a court ruling that the Climate Act is in fact a law, not a political promise that can be ignored when convenient.
	The law calls for an impossible 40% cut in New York's CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels by 2030.
	The 2019 law, which remains one of the most ambitious in the country, gave the State Department of Environmental Conservation until January 2024 to issue regulations to ensure that they meet these targets that were set in law.
	These are not promises made by politicians, but they were targets that they passed into law.
	This department never issued any regulations, so a bunch of big green groups sued.
	The department explained in court that issuing the regulations was, quote, infeasible because it would require imposing extraordinary and damaging costs on New Yorkers.
	Well, that's what the Green New Deal and Zero Net Zero is all about, imposing extraordinary damaging costs on everybody.
	The judge ruled, however, that the law is the law.
	And he gave New York State two choices.
	Either change the law or issue the regulations.
	This reminds me of the statement that Ulysses Grant had.
	He said, the best way to get rid of a bad law is to rigorously enforce it.
	But now the question is, can they get rid of the law?
	The deadline is February the 6th, 2026, which gives the legislature just a couple of months to change the law since it only starts in early January.
	Changing a law this big, that fast, will be very hard.
	If the law is not changed, then the final regulations are due on that date, so they must be working on them now.
	However, Hochl says that they will appeal this decision, which might or might not drag things out for a couple more months.
	The confusion is huge.
	So everywhere we go, these idiotic agendas that are put on by whether it's a Democrat or Republican are, you know, you can't comply with these things.
	They're impossible to comply with it.
	And they're constantly changing it.
	And so, just like he's got with the tariffs, it's the problems and the confusion as to what is finally going to be the regulation.
	They can't even make up their mind because they become so detached from any reality.
	Europe's last-minute climate scramble, Brussels, is now watering down its 2040 target, just in time for the COP30, the 30th anniversary of this climate conference.
	The deal was struck just before the COP30 summit in Brazil.
	It calls for a 90% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2040 compared to 1990 levels.
	But that number, as bold as it sounds, hides a series of escape hatches.
	These escape hatches could be achieved by purchasing foreign carbon credits, the indulgences, right?
	Paying other countries to cut emissions on behalf of Europe.
	This means that European industries will only need to achieve an actual 85% domestic reduction, basically deindustrialization.
	But it's also going to raise their costs significantly as well.
	A lot of car companies had to pay Elon Musk because he had an electric car that he was selling and they didn't.
	In a particularly revealing twist, the EU also agreed to consider using another 5% worth of international credits in the future, which would effectively soften the target even more.
	For all practical purposes, the so-called 90% headline figure is now nothing more than political theater designed to placate activists and bureaucrats alike.
	That's what all this stuff is.
	It's all political theater.
	It's all continual climate nonsense.
	And, you know, when we look at what is happening with the COP30, a story about the rainforest, 100,000 rainforest trees likely to be cut down died in vain as COP30 faces brutal net zero reality.
	They've already cut them down.
	So what they're saying is these 100,000 rainforest trees for this massive highway that they're building was done in vain because this conference is just hollowed out.
	This is from Chris Morrison of the Daily Skeptic.
	He said, your correspondent is a kind chap who doesn't intrude on private grief.
	For that reason, I will not be attending the upcoming COP30 conference in the Brazilian city of Belim.
	With the net zero fantasy falling to pieces, the faces of those attending will be long as the local eight-mile highway that cleared 100,000 mature rainforest trees to help speed the 70,000 climate cultists on their way.
	I was wrong before I said 100-mile road.
	It's only 8 miles.
	They had to cut down 100,000 trees.
	This is the rainforest after all.
	So massive destruction there.
	The UN chief Antonio Boyling Guterres told The Guardian, quote, we don't want to see the Amazon as a savanna.
	And yet what are they doing?
	They're cutting down the trees just for this one conference.
	We don't want to see it as a savanna.
	We want to be able to drive through it on our new roads and see the sights.
	As always, as always, when the bloviating Guterres and the COP Brigade rolls into town, you couldn't make this stuff up, although they frequently do.
	It seems some of the overpriced hotel accommodations might fall short of the usual standards of comfort expected by the annual saviors of the planet.
	It is reported that thousands of rooms and love motels have been turned into diplomatic suites by replacing the heart-shaped beds, the dance poles, and the leopard print decor.
	It seems hourly rates are not on offer, and the prices are as high as $1,000 a night, with ceiling mirrors presumably thrown in at no extra charge.
	Probably it would have been cheaper if they charged him by the hour.
	The COP meeting, someone always ends up getting screwed, he said.
	Alas, again, the money spigot has been turned off.
	In the U.S., until last year, the biggest supporter of all things net zero and the climate stopping Paris Agreement, the Donald, has been kicking ten bells out of the whole boondoggle.
	And I would say this is Trump is not as good on climate as I had wished he had been.
	He pretended that we were in the Paris Climate Accord, and he kept us in it the entire term, his last one.
	But he did have some good things during his first term.
	He's still pretending that we're in it and still says, well, okay, well, now that we got out of it, we got back into it, now I can get out of it within a year.
	It's not a binding agreement.
	It's amazing to me to see somebody like Trump, who has such utter contempt for the rule of law, for the Bill of Rights, for the Constitution, be such a fastidious follower of the unratified climate treaty.
	It was self-ratified by Obama and by John Kerry, which is nothing.
	That's not the way that it works.
	It's just another example of how Trump doesn't know, doesn't care about the Constitution.
	But he has done some good things in terms of pushing back against the net zero nonsense.
	Again, they don't need it.
	You know, that's where Bill Gates says.
	They don't need but one MacGuffin.
	And the health MacGuffin is where both Trump and Gates are together like Siamese twins, joined at the hip.
	So where possible, green energy projects have been canceled, federal funding of climate alarmism wiped out.
	Foreign aid to boost said alarmism overseas has been removed, while climate scientists have been told to stop peddling nonsense and resume a scientific process.
	The UN already knows what Trump thinks of the net zero project.
	It's a scam, a conjob.
	That's what he told them at the General Assembly.
	They laughed at him during his first term, but they're not laughing now.
	Five heads of state, all, only five heads of state, are expected to show up this year, although the UK, secure in its role as the sacrificial canary in the net zero mine, is being represented by Prime Minister Keir Starmer and the Prince of Wales.
	Not much point asking Starmer for more money.
	He's flat broke.
	While the Windsor's have been having a few extra calls on their finances as of late, while money will be in generally short supply, the tipping will be plentiful.
	Tips such as, by the way, the Gulf Stream is collapsing, the Arctic ice is vanishing, and the coral reefs are disappearing, none of which are true.
	However many times we hear them, they remain firm favorites of the people selling the alarmism.
	Something mere evidence and observation have little chance of ever removing from the public stages and prints.
	COP 30 is supposed to be significant since it is 10 years since the Paris Climate Agreement, and it was supposed to save the world by a program of global decarbonization, deindustrialization, actually, folks.
	But this year, barely a third of the countries have submitted supposedly binding plans to decarbonize.
	And they're all looking for loopholes about how they can still virtue signal that they are part of it to the bureaucrats and to the alarmists that are out there, but to get away from it because of the reality of how absurd it is.
	Voters don't care about decarbonization schemes when they are asked to spend money.
	They will not pay to avoid imaginary climate scenarios based on junk climate models, which is why Gates is leaving.
	You know, he was able to get away with junk medical models and junk pandemic scare tactics.
	He was able to get away with that and still is.
	People bought into that fully.
	They're just not buying the climate stuff.
	So it always works when you do it with medicine.
	You can take money from everybody.
	You can completely fleece them.
	And they will do it out of fear of dying.
	And hospitals have known this a long time.
	Bill Gates knows it as well.
	He's not talking about climate change.
	And as they point out in this article, even as you have this big hurricane that we just hit, he was silent on that.
	Typically, and there are a lot of people who jumped on board that.
	Typically, whenever there's any weather, they always say, see, that's climate change.
	They don't even understand the difference between climate and weather.
	On Tuesday is the strongest Atlantic storm in 90 years, slammed the western coast of Jamaica with 185 mile an hour winds.
	Gates was downplaying climate change.
	Now, this is from The Guardian, and they are very upset about this because they believe that there is a connection.
	They said there's a straight line between climate disasters and the higher temperatures and acceleration of both poverty and disease.
	And he is ignoring this.
	So he said he can't talk about human welfare and ignore what's going on with climate change because they completely believe both of these MacGuffins at The Guardian.
	The state does its best to sell hurricanes as I'm sorry, it was Slate.
	It was Slate.
	It was not The Guardian.
	They're trying to sell hurricanes as climate change.
	I mean, they do that all the time in Florida.
	And look at, we just talked about how Michael Mann had such a horrific record of predicting how severe the hurricane season was going to be every year.
	And again, there hasn't been a severe hurricane season this year.
	There has been a severe hurricane.
	That's not the same thing.
	The inherent tension that Gate posits between the quality of life and lowering emissions is simply false.
	And it is a favored talking point of climate denialists.
	This is Slate coming after Gates because he's pulling back from this MacGuffin.
	Gates understands that his health mandates are not liberty when he talks about the quality of life.
	Of course it's not connected to that.
	Just look at the quality of life improvements in that Ugandan village where they tore everything down.
	Now they can build a beautiful new thing, just like Gaza.
	They're getting this same opportunity.
	That's right.
	Swamp creatures, I guess you could say, did that.
	Put it back into a swamp.
	Well, you know, a lot of this stuff was done because of the idea that we had too many people.
	People were killing the planet.
	That was what they sold us.
	That's what Paul Ehrlich sold us.
	Paul Ehrlich is now 93.
	I wonder if he's going to survive the shock.
	As Popular Mechanics points out, they have severely miscalculated how many humans are on Earth.
	And so this is another one of their dire predictions that has been shown to be false.
	They've been wrong about everything.
	This is supposed to be one of the foundational aspects of the whole climate movement.
	The whole Gaia movement that we're a virus and we need to be minimized or eliminated.
	Well, the problem is that they haven't really been counting the people in rural areas.
	And all this came up, as Popular Mechanics is pointing out, you know, this is one of the other dire predictions that has failed, because these people who say that this is the, quote-unquote, the science, they can't even count.
	They got false data, false premises, and therefore they come to false conclusions.
	And so the reality is, is that they said when they started looking at rural dam projects, across 35 countries, they said, you know, I think we haven't been counting the population correctly.
	Guess what?
	They've been estimating it.
	Just like they estimate the temperature readings.
	We've talked about this over and over again.
	It's become a big issue in the UK, but we do it here in the U.S. as well.
	They will have weather stations, so-called weather stations, but those are actually interpolation points.
	They'll take a reading over here, another reading over here, and then they'll get something in between, and they'll just interpolate between those two, average it out or something.
	Or maybe they go up a little bit on it.
	And the actual readings that they're taking are being messed with because they're comparing them to older readings when it was not a heat island.
	Now, in many cases, they have moved these temperatures, these thermometers that they've got in a particular city.
	They've moved it to airport tarmacs.
	And of course it's going to be hotter there.
	Or they moved it to other places.
	When I talk about a heat island, and I've mentioned this before, even in North Carolina, which is not a real urban, heavy urban area.
	But we could go into Raleigh and we could watch the temperature from Raleigh to where we were.
	It didn't matter what time of year.
	It would always be about four degrees cooler where we live because it was in a heavily forested area versus being in an area that was concrete and streets and things like that in Raleigh, even though it wasn't a big urban city.
	But that's what they're doing.
	They're moving these to different places.
	They've shut down temperature stations and they're using their digital thermometers, their interpolation, to invent this stuff.
	And they've done the same thing with populations.
	How did they find their mistake?
	Well, they said when they go in and they build a dam, they have to count the people very exactly because they're going to have to give people some compensation.
	And so they went through in 35 countries and they looked at the data where they were building a dam and moving people out of their homes.
	And they said, well, we had estimated that the population of this area was this, but actually find now that the population is that.
	And so they said, if we look at this, we think that we have underrepresented rural area populations by a significant margin.
	They said the populations have been underestimated by between 53% and 84% over the period that was studied.
	So all the dire predictions from Paul Ehrlich, yet another one of these things where if he was true and population, large population was a problem, we'd all be dead by now, and it hasn't been because they got that all wrong.
	When dams are built, large areas are flooded, people need to be relocated.
	The relocated population is usually counted very precisely because the dam companies pay compensation to those affected.
	Unlike global population databases, such local impact statements provide comprehensive, on-the-ground population counts.
	They're not skewed by administrative boundaries.
	We then combine these with spatial information from satellite imagery.
	And so again, just like the temperature readings, they estimated it and they got it really wrong.
	Many countries don't have the resources for precise data collection, and they have difficulty traveling to far-flung rural areas.
	So it only exacerbates census counting discrepancies.
	So if we really undercounted by that massive amount, it is a massive news story, and it goes against all the years of thousands of other data sets.
	A few million or even billion would upend our understanding of human occupation on the planet, they said.
	Scientists will need a bit more evidence before they rethink decades of data research.
	So it doesn't matter.
	If they estimate things and they get their projections wrong and their data is all wrong, it doesn't matter.
	They got false data, they got false premises, and they don't care that their conclusions are false.
	They say, well, we're still not really, we don't care if there's another billion people on Earth.
	We're still not going to change our data research.
	So I would just say if they need to get a bit more evidence before they look at this stuff.
	So this is the first time that they've really had any hard evidence.
	The rest of the stuff has been estimated.
	And now they reject it.
	Because if you were doing real science, the first thing you would have done would be to get the evidence first.
	But they're not doing that.
	Which brings them with the solution first.
	That's right.
	That's right.
	And then they backfill with a bunch of excuses, which brings us back kind of where we started, Elon Musk.
	And Elon Musk is proposing satellites that would adjust the sunlight to prevent global warming.
	Well, these people freak out about the fact that he's going to get a trillion dollars, and I think it is absurd that he's getting that kind of compensation.
	I don't really know what we'd do about that without having some unintended consequences.
	Nevertheless, this is a guy who it's not enough for him to be the king of crony capitalism and to get paid by taxpayers for the things that he does, excessive amounts.
	He now wants to essentially own the sun and dole it out to us on an allowance and take a cut from sunlight coming to us.
	That's how you get even richer.
	Some comments have pointed out.
	I don't know if he really can do that, make a actual effect, but this is what he's trying to accomplish.
	And if he can sell, or if he can sell the premise to the politicians, or better yet, if he can buy the politicians, then they can fund this even if it doesn't make any sense.
	I mean, his whole thing has been, his whole business plan has been off of self-driving, which doesn't work quite well, and off of the EVs, which are still not working very well.
	So it doesn't have to really be a solution.
	It just has to be something that he can get funding from the government for.
	And he is even crazier now than Bill Gates is on the climate stuff.
	So he's doubling down on the same kind of greenwash stuff that made him rich in the first place.
	He is trying to be the architect of the humanity for humanity in space.
	But I think the way to look at this is that he wants to own the sun.
	He wants to block it, and then he will let it through, and he'll give us the energy from the sun as much as he decides that the governments decide that we should have it.
	Maybe we should call him the sun king of crony capitalism.
	Louis XVII thing.
	This week, Musk floated an audacious vision, a vast swarm of orbiting satellites, not merely to beam internet or data, but to harvest social energy, I would say to block it, and to regulate how much sunlight reaches Earth.
	On Monday, he wrote on X, he said, a large solar-paneled AI satellite constellation would be able to prevent global warming by making tiny adjustments in how much solar energy reached the Earth.
	Who are you to decide what the thermostat should be on Earth, right?
	You know, this is what we're talking about.
	For the longest time, they said they're not doing geoengineering, but for decades, they've been having these geoengineering conferences.
	And I remember about 10 years ago, there was a paper, and the guy said, well, the big issue is who gets to set the thermostat, just like in your home, right?
	Women always want it warmer than men do.
	And so who gets to set the thermostat?
	Because there's going to be some countries that want it warmer, others who want it cooler.
	Who gets to set it?
	Well, I guess we've settled that.
	Now it'll be set by the technocrats like Elon Musk, and we will pay them handsomely to do it.
	The arrogant idiots who want to geoengineer God's craftsmanship here.
	He already commands more than 8,000 satellites in orbit.
	He stands at the intersection of private ambition and state power.
	Yeah, the king of crony capitalism.
	And those 8,000 satellites that he's got up there now for his internet that's available to the public, he's got permission to put up like 20,000 satellites.
	And then there's a separate network that they're working with him on at the Pentagon of satellite networks.
	So the Pentagon wants to have its own satellite internet system so that when they shut ours down, they'll still be going.
	Many observers who are weary of climate doomsday narratives and wary of billionaire saviors have urged Musk to refrain from playing God.
	Two vast engineering ambitions.
	One focused on solar panel power and the other on climate control.
	The first part would be Musk's plan involving satellites that would collect solar energy in space.
	He thinks that he could harvest 100 gigawatts per year.
	To put that in perspective, one gigawatt equals the output of a large nuclear power plant.
	So by putting these things in space where it's not diminished by the atmosphere or clouds, he would be able to get 100, it would be like having 100 nuclear power plants in terms of energy it would collect.
	And that's not going to be making its way to Earth to help the trees and the crops grow.
	He'll be intercepting that.
	Space-based solar power isn't new, but it has never advanced beyond early experiments.
	The challenge is transmitting that energy back to Earth.
	It'll likely involve converting solar power into microwave or laser beams and then directing them to ground-based receivers.
	In theory, it could supply clean electricity to power grids or floating data centers.
	Well, here's the other reality of this, is that once he converts it to, I don't know about the microwave, but I do know that the laser is going to be blocked by clouds, by dust in the atmosphere, anything like that.
	That's going to be diminished.
	So he's going to have some transmission losses there with the laser transmission.
	I would think if he can actually do this, it would also be a weapon for the government.
	Oh, yeah.
	Oh, yeah.
	Yeah, so they can cut off the sunlight so that you don't have any energy.
	They cut off the energy from the sun, then send it to their own places and dole it out to you on an allowance.
	Because, you know, you can't have access to what God has put out there.
	I remember when I was in college, they had a demonstration of transmission using laser.
	were transmitting an audio thing.
	So basically he had playing an audio source on one side of the room and then he had a receiver.
	He was converting it to laser and modulating the laser and getting it on the other side, demodulating it and running it through speakers.
	And he demonstrated that that was what was happening by holding up something that blocked the laser completely and you could hear it cut off the audio that was playing.
	Then he took an eraser back when we had chalkboards, right?
	And he hits the erasers together and you see the dust coming down.
	And as you saw the dust coming down and the red laser hitting that dust, you could hear the noise coming through the transmission.
	So that's the kind of thing that they'd be faced with when they transmit it back.
	But still, just because it doesn't work doesn't mean that they won't fund it and he won't make a lot of money from it.
	A second part of Musk's vision goes further.
	Instead of just harvesting sunlight, these satellites could control how much sunlight reaches Earth.
	This, by the way, folks, is a tacit admission that climate is determined by the sun.
	It is not determined by human activity.
	And I've pointed this out so many times.
	I said, just think about seasons, you know.
	What is the season?
	Well, it's just a slight variation in terms of solar energy that we get because of the angle of the Earth that, you know, we tilt away from the Earth or we tilt forward to it.
	That gives us our summer and our winters.
	And so I've made that argument in the past.
	I had some person when I talked about that said, that is the biggest refutation of all this human stuff I've ever seen, right?
	And somebody said, that is the dumbest argument.
	I said, well, if you don't understand that sunlight is the driver of climate, you are the dumbest person out there.
	And there's a lot of people who are that stupid because they only believe what the media tells them.
	The swarm would make tiny adjustments to solar energy, cooling or warming the planet as needed.
	The method would rely on reflective or shading mechanisms, surfaces that are capable of angling themselves to deflect a small fraction of the sun's rays.
	Yet the scale of Musk's proposal goes far beyond an engineering challenge.
	It reflects a civilizational leap, a vision of humanity that is extending its control beyond the planet, says the new American.
	The idea for all its ambition is not new, though.
	It echoes concepts imagined more than half a century ago.
	The ambition echoes the ideas from the 1960s physics, especially the Dyson sphere, a vast cloud of satellites orbiting a star to capture its energy.
	First proposed by physicist Freeman Dyson, it was a thought experiment about how advanced civilizations might power themselves.
	And Musk even referenced the same idea when he urged followers to, quote, think in terms of Kardashev II.
	Well, the Kardashev scale, proposed in 1964 by Soviet astronomer Nikolai Kardashev, measures civilizations by how much energy they can access.
	Type 1 would be harnessing all energy available on its planet.
	Type 2 would be to capture the full output of its star.
	Type 3 would draw power from an entire galaxy.
	By those standards, humanity is still far below type 1.
	Musk's remarks suggest that he sees our destiny as cosmic.
	And again, this is his vision of where he wants to take civilization is truly satanic.
	There are risks in risk.
	There's also a lot of marketing hype here.
	Type 2 Dyson sphere to capture the entire output of a star would be a complete shell around a star that captures literally everything it's outputting.
	This is, you know, putting a few satellites in space with solar panels is not a type 2 civilization.
	Yeah, that would actually be kind of, I think that would be taking us back to type 1 because what you're doing is you're harnessing the energy that really is available on this planet, the solar energy that is available naturally.
	These risks are existential.
	A miscalibrated shading system could disrupt rainfall, collapse ecosystems, trigger abrupt warming known as termination shock.
	A single error could push food systems past their limits and make regions unlivable.
	Even the architects of such projects seem to be aware of that danger.
	The growing fascination among elites, however, with bunkers and remote compounds and self-sufficient hideouts reveal an unspoken admission that their own interventions could go catastrophically wrong.
	If the effort failed or if it caused new crises, the likely response from those in charge would not be to stop or to restrain, but it would be to double down and to consolidate.
	They would claim that failure proves the need for stronger oversight.
	This is what we always see from the government.
	New American is right.
	Every time they have a monumental failure, it's always because we didn't do enough of what the failure was based on.
	The line between state and corporate power has already blurred, forming a technocratic block that uses climate policy, among other common threats, as a moral cover for planetary management.
	The rhetoric is humanitarian, but the design is unmistakably managerial and technocratic.
	And this is why I say when we look at how much money is being concentrated in the hands of a few people and the governments, how much power is there, there has to be some constraint of this somehow, some way.
	The real constraint is because we are no longer a moral and religious people, but we have governments and technocrats who think of themselves as God.
	Grieving families used a chatbot, here's a good usage of AI, to fight a $195,000 hospital bill.
	They cut it down to $33,000.
	The AI identified all the different tactics of fraud that hospitals use, not all of them, but many of them.
	Duplicative billing, where the hospital charged for both master procedures as well as individual components.
	It also uncovered improper medical coding and regulatory violations that invalidated major portions of the charges.
	So this is a family that got a $195,000 bill because they had a relative who had a heart attack and was in intensive care for four hours.
	Four hours.
	$195,000.
	And the guy died.
	So for that wonderful care they gave $195,000.
	The initial bill was described as incredibly opaque with massive unexplained line items like $70,000 cardiology.
	That's what it said.
	So they started using this AI to do a forensic audit.
	And that's the key issue.
	That's what I've been saying.
	Whether it does people use it to do AI commercials or whatever.
	The real concern is how AI can be used to audit people.
	We saw this with Trump going after his personal enemies, for example.
	He wanted to go after Letitia James, and he also wanted to go after Lisa Cook, who was one of the people on the Fed Board of Governors who did not want to lower interest rates like Trump did.
	And so he had Pulte, who is at his Federal Housing Administration, I think it is, or HUD or something like that.
	I guess he's with HUD.
	And he had him go back and do a forensic audit using AI of these individuals.
	I said, very Stalin-esque, you know, bring me the man, I'll find the crime.
	And he wanted to get some dirt on these people, so they went back and looked at all their real estate transactions going back for decades to find places where they had made gotten loans saying that they were personal residences when in reality they were rental property.
	And in the case of Letitia James, it's going to be a little bit gray area because she didn't actually collect any rental money.
	She had a relative who's been staying in that house.
	Nevertheless, the issue was that AI can go through and do these forensic audits.
	That's what Doge was doing.
	And I said when Doge was going through it, I said, just remember, you like it when it's doing audits and finding government waste.
	Wait until every one of us gets an IRS audit every year from artificial intelligence.
	And of course, because it's going to be AI, they're going to say, well, that was all objective and you can't object to it.
	And so if it flags you for something, good luck trying to get that overturned.
	That's what AI does really well.
	And it's going to be weaponized against us.
	So in this particular case, a forensic audit of the complex medical codes, the analysis revealed several serious and costly billing errors that the average person would almost certainly miss.
	The most significant findings were duplicate billing.
	The AI identified that the hospital had billed for both a master procedure and then again for every individual itemized component of that same procedure.
	This is not permitted under Medicare standards because it's basically fraudulent, right?
	You're billing them twice.
	The chatbot also uncovered improper use of medical codes, specifically the miscalculation of services using inpatient codes instead of emergency codes.
	It flagged potential regulatory violations concerning how ventilator services are billed on the same day as an emergency admission.
	These fundamental errors invalidated huge portions of the charges.
	Armed with this specific evidence-based analysis, the family moved from a position of weakness to one of strength.
	The AI helped to compose letters that cited the specific billing violations and raised the prospect of legal action, negative publicity, and even appearances before legislative committees.
	So the hospital dropped the original bill from $195,000 to $33,000 before the resolution of the hospital had even suggested that the grieving family should appeal to charity to help pay the exorbitant fraudulent bill.
	The other infuriating thing about this story is that they're still going to have to pay that $33,000.
	After the hospital tried to steal $150,000 from them, they will face no consequences for that $150,000 of fraud that they tried to take.
	They will instead just get the payment.
	Okay, well, fine.
	You can pay the reduced amount.
	That's right.
	And again, the guy's insurance had just lapsed prior to that.
	And so, you know, that's on them.
	And that's the other thing.
	The $33,000, I think if you've got somebody four hours of care and the patient dies, I think $33,000 is just unjust.
	There's got to be, everybody's got to look at that and say, how do they get away with that?
	I mean, that's insane.
	Yeah, and wait a minute.
	And he points out in this article that another mother used AI, Alicia Biddle, used Grok to challenge a $14,000 hospital bill for her infant son's care, calling the inflated charges theft.
	So again, that is one advantage for AI, but it's also something that's going to be used against each and every one of us when government audits us.
	I like how they have to specify, she called these inflated charges, quote, theft, you know, seeing as how they tried to steal from her.
	They have to specify in this article that it's illegal for hospitals to bill you twice for the same thing because ordinary things that would obviously be illegal in any other circumstances are legal for hospitals.
	So of course they have to specify that.
	That's right.
	And they're completely detached from having to produce any results, right?
	It doesn't matter if the patient died or not.
	Well, Jersey Boys, 89, thank you for the tip.
	It says, hello, David.
	What's your opinion on Greg Reese's American System of Economics book called Miracle of Water?
	Will Gerald Sunte be on?
	Well, let's see.
	Greg Reese, I don't really know Greg Reese.
	I mean, I've seen some good reports from Greg, and I've seen some bad reports from Greg.
	So it's mixed.
	But American System of Economics, I'm assuming that you're talking about what we have.
	What we've devolved into, as we've been saying throughout the program, is a kind of crony capitalism corruption that is there.
	We don't have free markets anymore.
	And when we talk about capitalism, I think people are thinking of our current system of corruption, this mixture of government and markets.
	I support free markets, and I prefer the American system that we had before, the one we had before FDR, the one we had before Lincoln.
	But again, we're a long ways from that.
	That does work.
	That does create prosperity.
	But what we've seen in these previous fourth turnings has been an increasing micromanagement and accumulation of power by the government.
	And that doesn't work.
	It's just totalitarianism light.
	But the totalitarianism is getting heavier and heavier all the time.
	A book called The Miracle of Water, I don't know about that.
	I'm assuming that this is what you're talking about is looking at the crystalline structure of water and frequencies and things like that.
	I've not delved into that.
	And Gerald Sunte will not be on today.
	Next week will be when he's on.
	He missed last week because he had a medical issue, but he'll hopefully be on next week.
	2030 EV agenda will ban non-plug-in hybrid cars like the Toyota Prius.
	Yeah, we're seeing that already in Sadiq Khan's London.
	First they started to give preferential treatment to hybrid cars.
	They would give them breaks in terms of fees that were charged.
	Then that went away.
	Then they started charging them and then they, you know, billing them, I should say, not just charging your hybrid, but billing them.
	And now they're flat out banning them.
	And, you know, when you look at one of the few electric cars that was a good idea, what was it called?
	The Bolt?
	Was it the Chevy Bolt?
	Was that it?
	Bolt, I believe.
	Volt.
	Yeah, with a V.
	I think there was also a Bolt, but that was different.
	Yeah.
	Well, their idea, and of course, Maza's had the same idea.
	Mazda was thinking, you know, we could use the small rotary motor, which would be small, just use it as a generator.
	So make the car electric drive all the time, but we'd have a battery.
	And then as the battery starts to drain down, you've got a generator that could kick on and charge the battery.
	So it would not be, it wouldn't have a transmission that was driving the wheels.
	It would just have a generator that is sending electricity to the battery and to the wheels.
	And that was the idea behind the Chevy Volt.
	But again, they discontinued it because it was not a zero-emission car.
	You've got to have absolute zero.
	And that's the inflexible insanity of this whole climate thing.
	That was actually a good design.
	And I thought it was a good design.
	Eric Peters thought it was a good design.
	He said, finally, you know, a good use of all this stuff.
	And yet they banned it because of their agenda.
	Real OctoSpook says, free the cows, let them fart.
	Fart freely and proudly.
	I think that Benjamin Franklin would agree with that as well.
	High Boost says Walmart receives 25% of its revenue from SNAP.
	That's right.
	Well, I guess that's why they had the 25% discount on the saying, yeah, come back to us because we're still the best priced.
	So I don't know.
	Government only produces regulation.
	You're right.
	Georgia Boy 1142.
	That's exactly right.
	That's why we're not missing them.
	And if they hadn't regulated to death the TSA, not the TSA, the air traffic controllers.
	Yeah, get rid of the TSA.
	Why is the TSA still there?
	Those guys love their jobs so much that they're working without pay.
	Let them go away.
	We certainly don't need them.
	There hasn't been a threat to airports or airplanes for over a decade because if there had been, we would have seen one terrorist event after the other.
	And because they are very poor at their job in terms of finding things, we've had people who get through the TSA and get their destination and then realize, uh-oh, I flew through this with a gun.
	How did that happen?
	Well, it's because they do a horrible job.
	And if people are really trying to do terrorism, they would attack the airports at the places where the TSA creates the big pile up of people.
	It's just that simple.
	That's what terrorists in third world countries do when they have airport-like securities to make sure that somebody doesn't smuggle a bomb into a church building.
	What they do is they blow up the area where they're doing the bomb scanning and kill a large number of people.
	Right overture says, when government is everywhere and in everything, the slightest disruption impacts everyone.
	That's right.
	Niburu 2029, Muskrat's satellites are falling back to earth every day.
	Yeah.
	And of course, it's not an issue when he shoots rockets up, right?
	Emissions don't count when they come from him.
	Cows farting, that's going to kill us all.
	But these guys shooting up rockets that are going to be more than you could ever, more of these magic gases than you could ever produce in your entire lifetime.
	That's not a problem.
	That's another one of the indicators that these people are lying to us.
	Real OctoSpo.
	The other thing is that his satellites are falling to Earth.
	His cyber trucks are falling apart.
	I don't think he'll actually be able to steal the sunlight as much as he may try.
	I think it'll just be a ton of government money.
	I am still worried on the off chance that he could be able to do that.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Well, it'd be a negative effect, whatever he does, I think.
	And it's a foolish idea.
	And he's not the only one who has worked on geoengineering.
	There's a lot of people working on that.
	Gates has done it as well.
	The real OctoSpook says, how is Musk going to beam that power to Earth?
	Dangerous microwaves and lasers heating steam generation plants.
	Yeah, well, you know, put them out in the ocean or something like that, I guess.
	I don't know.
	I mean, it seems to me like a very lossy form of transmission that's there.
	And that's the other thing that I was saying is that if this could be done, then those same lasers or microwaves could be used as a weapon themselves for people, aside from the weapon of stealing the sunlight.
	That's right.
	Yeah.
	Block the sunlight and then use it to kill people.
	There you go.
	Neburo 2029.
	Muskrat is to tech what Gates is to modern medicine.
	I would agree with that.
	Let's take a quick break, and we will be right back, folks.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	Elvis.
	Ladies and gentlemen, the Beatles, and the sweet sounds of Motown.
	Find them on the Oldies channel at APSRadio.com.
	Remember last year when Coca-Cola did the AI ad, and a lot of people said, that looks really cheesy.
	And, you know, here's this.
	Coca-Cola is drowning in money, right?
	And they're going to go cheap on an AI ad.
	Well, they have doubled down, doing it again this year.
	They're very proud of it.
	Here's what it looks like.
	That speech appealed to some.
	Oh, wait a second.
	That isn't it.
	But I think you missed an opportunity.
	Do you have the Coke ad that you can play?
	Yeah, sorry, I'll get that.
	It's not behind the right button there.
	So Santa Claus decorations, polar bears.
	But the one thing that they don't have, which is really kind of interesting, and most people are not talking about it.
	One thing that is missing out of all this, of course, people are saying, you know, it looks okay, but I mean, how is this supposed to get me to want to have a Coke, right?
	Got all these animals that are doing human-like things, waving to the big trucks, bringing in all the Coca-Cola.
	It's all about Coca-Cola, isn't it?
	I mean, it doesn't even really seem like Christmas.
	Putting lights on things, and they got things that are red and white.
	But, you know, Coca-Cola is ready to fight.
	Because, you know, when you look at this, this just doesn't have any kind of wonder or awe or anything.
	It's got Santa Claus right there, right?
	And they're all happy because Santa Claus got there with the Coca-Cola.
	Well, said the ad showed significant improvement since last year.
	It still has some of the usual AI issues like non-spinning wheels, although I did see a close-up of the wheel that was spinning.
	There was one shot where there was a non-spinning wheel.
	Oh, okay.
	So last year people criticized the craftsmanship, but this year the craftsmanship is 10 times better, said Pratik Thakar, Coca-Cola's head of generative AI.
	He says, don't believe the haters.
	This is great.
	He praised the fact that they had five AI specialists parsed through 70,000 video clips in just 30 days to create the ad.
	Production used programs like OpenAI's Sora, Google's VAO3, and Luma AI.
	I would have thought that they would have gotten something better using those, don't you think?
	Again, I wonder if these are five people who just kept doing prompt after prompt after prompt until they could get something that they thought was okay.
	70,000 of these little clips and then piece them together.
	They poured praise.
	They did a documentary the making of, where they patted themselves on the back for writing prompts and these AI programs.
	They said, post-production is a new pre-production.
	Advanced reasoning models let artists plan and solve them early and making scenes feel real before production locks in.
	Combining human creativity with AI to turbocharge expression and imagination, giving creatives more freedom, speed, and control than ever before.
	Look, I would agree with that.
	The problem is, is that this is showing that the people who put this thing together didn't have much imagination.
	I mean, you know, so you got anthropomorphized squirrels and beavers or whatever waving to red trucks going by.
	Who cares?
	I mean, you know, yeah, you can get AI to do that for you, but it's still kind of stupid.
	But the real issue, as this article on The Blaze points out, lost in all the criticism of the shift to non-human artists is the continued refusal of Coca-Cola to even mention the word Christmas.
	Nowhere in there does anybody say Christmas.
	Nobody has Christmas thing.
	That's how much this is, they're pushing back against all that.
	Even can't even get Santa Claus to say Merry Christmas.
	Isn't that amazing?
	The word Christmas is never displayed, never uttered in any of this.
	It is a forbidden word.
	Yeah, the background music there going, holidays are coming, holidays are coming.
	What holidays?
	Exactly.
	That's right.
	And then, you know, while we're talking about AI commercials, the Cuomo ad, he got a lot of flack for that.
	And look at this Cuomo ad.
	He has himself doing one manual labor job like washing windows on a skyscraper one after the other and trying to make the case that he knows how to run the city.
	He's going to have a lot more police.
	I'm Andrew Cuomo and I could pretend to do a lot of jobs.
	But I know what I know and I know what I don't know.
	And I do know how to make government work.
	I'll hire 5,000 new cops to partner with local community groups and keep our families safe.
	And we'll get the homeless off the streets and into the help they desperately need.
	There are a lot of jobs to do.
	Get on in the old people's homes.
	But I'm ready to be your mayor on day one.
	He doesn't have much of a record to run on, does he?
	I mean, we're going to get the homeless off the street.
	We're going to put them in some homes where you can kill them and you could use the 5,000 new cops.
	That's the only concrete thing he's got.
	Just more police, right?
	It's no wonder he lost the election.
	You got to have somebody with some idea.
	You can't just beat somebody without having any alternative.
	You know, Greg Abbott said he's going to put a tariff on all New Yorkers who are fleeing Mom Danny to Texas again.
	It was just a joke, a stupid joke.
	I mean, these people, it's like the content for the Coke Ad.
	You've got to have a good idea.
	You've got to have a good joke before you put it out there.
	It's not enough to carry it through that.
	So anyway, parents are fleeing various places out of the schools because of Mondemi.
	This one guy who is a consultant helping people to get into elite private high schools and middle schools in other states.
	He says, within the first 30 minutes of the announcement of Ma'am Donnie's victory, I got three messages from families looking to move to help their kids.
	Well, you know, it's been pretty bad for a very long time.
	Did they just now notice?
	Let's talk a little bit about what's going on in terms of war.
	And as I said at the very beginning, you know, when we look at these abuses, we look at the concentration of power in Washington, we look at the concentration of power into these technocrats.
	What is the answer to that?
	Well, as John Adams said, we need to have a moral and religious society.
	And what would that look like?
	Well, it certainly wouldn't look like the people who are pushing us into war.
	I love the graphic on this.
	Pull this up, Lance.
	Dick Cheney, the blood demons, and their evangelical priests, investigating the demonology of violence.
	And it's got pictures of laughing, John Bolton, Dick Cheney, Netanyahu, and Ben Shapiro there.
	This is by J.D. Hall.
	He says, Dick Cheney is dead, and history will take a long time catching up to the scale of his evil.
	He was the architect of deceit, the engineer of empire, the cold mathematician of a war that burned millions of souls to ash.
	He lied to the world and to his own nation, staring straight into the cameras while inventing weapons that did not exist and threats that were never real.
	Even Cheney could not have accomplished his work alone, however.
	He needed priests to bless his bombs, pastors to silence dissent, theologians to perfume the stench of murder.
	And he found them in the pulpits of evangelical America.
	On October the 3rd, 2005, 2002, five men wrote a letter that would become a moral disaster for the church.
	Richard Land of the Southern Baptists, Chuck Coulson of Prison Fellowship, Bill Bright of Campus Crusade, D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge, and Carl Herbster of the American Association of Christian Schools.
	They invoked Augustine and Aquinas to tell President George W. Bush that invading Iraq met the standards of a just war.
	A theological falsehood so brazen, even pagans should have blushed.
	And so, on that note, we'll have to end the program.
	But that is the key issue.
	Our society is headed to war, foreign and domestic, civil war, class war, because we won't fight the spiritual war.
	Thank you for joining us.
	Have a good weekend.
	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 the DavidNightShow.com.
	Thank you for listening.
	Thank you for sharing.
	If you can't support us financially, please keep us in your prayers.

▲