All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 21, 2025 - The David Knight Show
03:03:04
The David Knight Show -11/21/2025
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
In a world of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
It's the David Knight Show.
And a beautiful Friday to everyone here at the David Knight Show audience.
Thank you for watching and thank you for joining me, Gardner Goldsmith, filling in for David and Travis today as they take some needed time off for the family.
Our condolences to Karen and the entire family for her loss of her brother.
And I really want to thank you for joining me on this 21st day of November, 2025.
It's great to be here.
Some of you might know my work at MRC TV, although I'm not there anymore.
And you might know my work from Liberty Conspiracy Live and my substack, Gardner Goldsmith Substack.
Every Monday through Friday, we broadcast Liberty Conspiracy Live at 6 p.m.
Sort of a wrap-up of the news, and we try to derive some long-standing lessons for Liberty out of those news stories and offer you the opportunity to play scholarship as well.
You can be the professor on the program.
So you can stream us over there at Rumble every Monday through Friday at 6.
You can go over to the channel and see the breakout videos.
And of course, you can follow me on X. That's at GuardGoldsmith.
Well, it's been a very, very busy, not even 24 hours since I was last streaming.
So we're going to touch base on some of the stories that I got to discuss with my audience on Liberty Conspiracy last night, because, of course, freedom is out of fashion, and introduce some new stories as well as open up the video chat to you.
And if you want to get your comments put on the screen, just go to my Gardner Goldsmith feed and you can do so.
Of course, you can always drop a line inside Rumble.
We love to see what people have to say inside Rumble, and it's always a great team over there.
We're streaming at Kik and D-Live and Odyssey as well.
And please visit the David Knight Show website to find out all the things that you can do to help the program.
It's always a big deal when I fill in for David to mention that while I stream for David, you can still contribute and support the show because that's how the show is supported through your purchases at the website and your donations and your subscriptions.
It's a wonderful thing to think about all of you who support the program and support such good people as the Knights.
So let's get started for today.
Don't forget, again, if you want your comments seen on the screen, just go to my At Guard Goldsmith X feed and here in Mother Russia, because of course we only spread the Russian propaganda on liberty conspiracy, you can talk to the Russians.
They'll get your comments right there on the screen.
And we'll try to do that as often as possible.
In fact, we're already seeing some great comments in there from everyone.
Thank you so much, everyone, for doing so.
And we're getting some great comments from Kik that I can also see.
So if you're over on Kik, you can drop your comments in there as well.
We've got a lot to cover from last night, as I mentioned, but some news stories.
Plus, Eric Peters will be joining us and Jason Barker from Knights of the Storm has the opportunity to join us most likely in the third hour.
So let's take a look at what we are interested in covering.
The Russians and I work very hard on our very long office table, putting together the production show notes and making sure that we've broken apart the stories properly to get that pro-liberty marrow out of the stories.
So let's find out what we'll be discussing on the program today on the David Knight Show for the 21st day of November, 2025.
First, as I often try to do on my program, I usually play Genesis with tonight, tonight, tonight and say, tonight, tonight, tonight, what are we going to be discussing?
Sometimes it comes in with the wrong music and suddenly we hear Humpty D in the digital underground or black flag or Rod Stewart.
It's very strange.
I don't understand it, but you have to trust Anthony Fauci.
He knows the musical science.
He's told me that every time one of those strange songs has come on, he's done a PCR test on the song.
He's found some notes that might have been used by Genesis.
He's amplified it 40 trillion times and the song is actually Genesis.
So let's find out what's on tap tonight or perhaps how about today on the David Knight Show.
This is the way we often do it on our show.
So there you go, Anthony Fauci.
He'll tell you that's Genesis.
That's a way that we check out our secondary sound system at the beginning of each program.
Well, what's on tap today, one and all, in the David Knight Show?
We're going to be starting with the big story, as we did last night.
The Huckabee Pollard Potluck Edition, it just gets worse for Mike Huckabee.
As yes, he met with one of the most infamous spies in the past 50 years in the United States and evidently didn't tell anyone.
Or perhaps a lot of people in the White House did know, but they're making it look like they didn't know.
You can figure out that skullduggery yourself and perhaps offer your comments and let us know what you think.
We'll discuss that and we'll discuss Mike Huckabee's absolutely rabid Christian Zionism that seems to be completely blind or supportive of genocide.
We'll also discuss on our second story, the Democrats, the Democrats who spoke up and stated essentially and actually a tepid version of what the military oath is, which is to comply with lawful, and the actual oath is constitutional, which is a very profound difference, orders, and to not comply with unlawful orders.
That is being flipped around by Donald Trump, who now claims that those congresspeople and senators who said that, one of them comes from New Hampshire, perhaps one comes from your state, and they're Democrats.
He says they should be hanged for sedition.
Yes, there's nothing like a balanced president, is there?
It's part of your balanced breakfast.
So it has gotten worse as Caroline Levitt, who comes from New Hampshire, which is where I'm located, spoke up about it and again, tried to completely flip the narrative.
This is beyond gaslighting.
It's just outright lying.
And talk radio hosts in Boston were saying the same thing that they should be hanged.
Yes.
And now, after this talk host in Boston said that those people should be hanged, he came on at six this morning and said, they're trying to start a civil war.
Look what these people are doing.
I was like, let me just figure this out.
They're calling for only complying to lawful commands.
And you yesterday said, yes, they should be hanged for sedition.
I don't know where the violence is coming from, but we'll figure that out.
We'll also discuss Trump's tariff terrorism, meeting the economic numbers.
Yesterday, the labor statistics numbers for September came out.
They're not good.
So get ready.
I hope your Thanksgiving plans are going to be looking good nonetheless.
And we'll discuss that.
And we'll also discuss how, yes, again, it is like Humpty Dumpty World.
They're just saying anything they want.
The Trump administration says, oh, no, the numbers are great.
It's like Raiders of the Lost Ark as Bellock stares into the light.
It's beautiful.
We'll also discuss our mind-meld subjects with Eric Peters.
Please head over to the EricPetersAutos.com website.
His newest one just released this morning will be on tap.
And it's a big one about the government giving us back some money.
And we'll talk about trucking lines further being hit by Trump and the ICE invasions.
And specifically, I went in and did some extra research on who are actually the riskiest drivers on the roads as the Trump administration tries to use the very tragic and very widespread and visible accidents that were caused by some migrant truckers recently to say the federal government has got to be involved and those foreigners can't drive trucks.
There are a lot of nuances for constitutionalists out there that they might want to remember.
So we'll get into it and we'll get into the statistics which show, yeah, you got it.
We discussed it on the program last night.
Native domestic drivers of trucks are actually much more dangerous proportionally, including, as I said, their proportion of the people that are on the roads because it's only a very small number of foreigners who are driving.
So thanks again for joining us, everybody.
We're going to have an awesome, awesome time today.
And again, I want to thank David and Travis for asking me to stop by.
I really appreciate it.
This is where we usually turn for the Liberty Conspiracy News notes.
So we're going to be referring to that.
If you want to go to my website, that's something that I put out every Monday through Friday for the paid subscribers.
And then on Sundays, we do something called the Sunday News Assembly, which is free for everybody.
And it usually has about 20 stories pertaining to freedom, a lot of historical context or economic information that I might have taught in a lecture hall.
And hopefully it gives people something that they can enjoy on their Sunday.
But right now, let's enjoy a little something else.
Let's enjoy some music, shall we?
For the subject of spycraft, we need a little visit from the most famous fictional spy of all time.
Wonderful stuff.
It's got a little bit of that swing in it.
So good.
And, you know, they have that new Ken Burns documentary on the Revolutionary War.
And all I can think of is the abysmal documentary that he did on rock and roll.
And he always, he sort of went with the pat line that rock and roll is a fusion of country and the blues, completely missing the drive of big band swing, the drums of Gene Krupa and Louis Belson.
You just sit there.
I watched the whole thing with my dad.
I said, do you think something was missing, Dad?
He goes, yeah, I think so.
It was just ridiculous.
He comes from New Hampshire as well.
Thankfully, he's not my neighbor.
I'm sure he's a very, very nice man.
All right, let's get rolling, everybody, on this story.
Mike Huckabee.
It just gets crazier.
Huckabee, as one of the headlines says, he's out of control.
So here's the story from Mediaite.
He's out of control.
MAGA demands answers after Trump Ambassador Mike Huckabee covertly meets with spy who told American secrets.
And last night when I opened up the Liberty Conspiracy Program, 6 p.m., streaming over at the Liberty Conspiracy Channel, Eastern U.S. time, or Moscow time, perhaps, as we spread, as you know, the Russian propaganda.
Well, I got to say, there is something about knowing that Mike Huckabee was always a hardcore Christian Zionist and then wondering about whether or not the supporters of Mike Huckabee are now torn because they're often very patriotic people at the same time.
So is there some cognitive dissonance for these people as they see a guy they like, Mike Huckabee, down there in a place they support Israel, now associating with a person who was convicted as one of the worst spies in American history?
I don't know.
These seem to be battling each other for supremacy, but I'm sure they'll find a way to smooth everything out, just like heavily pasteurized milk.
So let's get into this one because as they say on MediaIte, prominent supporters of President Donald Trump demanded answers on Thursday after it was revealed that U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee had held a secret meeting, or at least what they tell us was a secret meeting, in Jerusalem with Jonathan Pollard, a convicted spy who sold American secrets to Israel.
So I put together some notes about Jonathan Pollard in case maybe you weren't born at that time or anything like that.
So Pollard was convicted.
It was discovered in 85.
I think he was convicted in 86.
And not only did he provide all sorts of secrets, including nuclear secrets, to the Israeli government, he was born in Texas, raised by a Christian Zionist family.
But in addition to that, he got hundreds of thousands of dollars from them.
And the Israelis gave secrets to the Soviets in exchange for prisoners because of the information that Jonathan Pollard offered.
So it had tertiary effects for people who are very patriotic as well.
And of course, the Jonathan Pollard story is actually tied to a number of other people.
And one of them is a U.S. senator who, and I'll let you put your guesses in if you want to get your guess on the screen, is a U.S. senator currently in office now.
And this Mike Huckabee, Jonathan Pollard meeting is tied to this man who recently was embarrassed in an interview with Tucker Carlson and is a hardcore, big time, I'm for the state of Israel occupying that place and I'm overlooking genocide.
So let me know if you can, if you know who it is.
We discussed it last night.
But yes, yes, this person who went with Mike Huckabee to meet with Mr. Pollard has been long associated with this senator.
So reacting to news of the July rendezvous, which reportedly raised concerns at the CIA, former Fox News host Tucker Carlson said, this is shocking behavior from a United States ambassador.
Is Huckabee going to explain it?
Well, I've got some further information for you about the Pollard story.
So let me give you some of these details about Pollard, but I'll tell you who the assistant was first.
So as Chris Minahan writes, he is over at Information Liberation.
Ambassador Mike Huckabee, together with David Milstein, Mark Levin's stepson, held an off-the-record meeting at U.S. Embassy Jerusalem, which shouldn't even be there, with Israeli spy, U.S. trader Jonathan Pollard, the New York Times reports.
Pollard confirmed it was a friendly meeting and trashed Donald Trump as a madman.
So, well, you know, I mean, a stop clock is right twice a day, right?
Here, of course, is the headline from the New York Times, Jonathan Parlor looking also stylish.
And here's a bit of information about David Milstein.
Because yes, he was a former assistant for, you got it, Ted Cruz.
Milstein worked on the Vandenberg Coalition Advisory Board until April 2025, at which point he assumed his duties and you got to pay for it as senior advisor to U.S. Ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee.
Why should you be forced to pay for any of this?
You might have some other things on your mind, like trying to fight the inflation of the money supply and buy Thanksgiving dinner.
Milstein worked in the executive and legislative branches for seven and a half years, but he's not parasitic at all.
Remember that now.
As a political appointee in the Trump administration, David served as special assistant to the U.S. Ambassador to Israel, David Friedman.
David Friedman.
Yes, David Friedman, we'll hear a little bit about David Friedman in a moment.
He worked at the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem with David Friedman.
David provided research, expertise, and analysis, this is Milstein, on policy initiatives that supported and facilitated a stronger than ever U.S.-Israeli relationship, which of course helps cement the $3.8 billion that goes to Israel automatically in every budget and offers them more money in almost every National Defense Authorization Act.
In fact, David previously worked as a legislative aide for the oh so classy senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, otherwise known as the Israeli province of Texas, working in the U.S. Senate for five and a half years.
There you go.
You bought his lunch.
As part of Cruz's national security team, wink wink, David focused on economic and trade policy and policy initiatives regarding the U.S. and Israel relationship.
It's linking throughout the Middle East and international institutions such as the U.N. and the International Criminal Court, you know, the one that the United States flouts when they say Benjamin Detanyahu is a war criminal.
You see how it all fits together.
It's just they appoint these people so that everything will be completely insulated from American eyes.
That's the role of Milstein.
It has been for years.
And of course, to cobble together legislation to further pick your pockets and send it to another country.
I don't care what country it is.
It's not good to pick your pocket at the outset.
That's the illegal, immoral premise.
David made contributions to a number of provisions, especially, get this, as it relates to strengthening U.S.-Israeli defense cooperation.
Money, money, money.
And that became law through the National Defense Authorization Act each year.
Oh, yes.
That's awesome.
Let's get some further information about this and turn to some of the details that I've got on this particular topic, the incredible and heroic meeting that we got to have with Jonathan Pollard through our tax money.
So in the early 1980s, Pollard, who was born in Texas, as I said, was an intelligence analyst for the U.S. Navy's Anti-Terrorist Alert Center.
So you know he's got to care about American security, because of course terrorism is a word they use for anything.
He was recruited in 1984.
And over roughly 18 months, Pollard delivered an estimated 1,500 classified documents to Israel.
And on Redacted yesterday, Natalie Morris mentioned that the 8 by 11 pages were so voluminous they could fill a 6 by 10 room.
Satellite imagery he provided along with technical intelligence on Arab armies, Soviet weaponry supplied to Arab states, and Iraqi-Pakistani nuclear and chemical weapons programs.
He also gave signals intelligence manuals from the United States that the U.S. Navy and U.S. Marines need to keep secret.
He gave those to the Israelis, including radio signal notations manuals that detailed much of the U.S. global eavesdropping collections capabilities.
Guess what?
He then sold some of that, or the Israelis did, to the Russians, to the Soviets.
Yes, we all know the Trump administration is very trustable.
Yeah, Mike Huckabee has no problem with that, evidently, because he was a big anti-communist, Mike Huckabee.
So now he doesn't care.
Much of the material was reportedly far beyond what Israel even needed for its own defense and was allegedly traded by Israel to third countries, notably the Soviet Union, in exchange for Jewish prisoners who were sent back to Israel.
Pollard was paid up to $100,000 for the period.
In 86, Pollard reached a plea agreement.
He pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to deliver national defense information to a foreign government.
And they're supposed to be the allies.
Of course, there's no declaration of war.
So technically, that term ally and enemy shouldn't exist.
And despite the plea deal, Casper Weinberger, who was defense secretary at the time, submitted a damaging classified memo to the judge arguing that Pollard's leaks caused exceptionally grave damage to the U.S. Pollard was then sentenced in 1987, spring of 87, late winter, to life in prison with no possibility of parole.
And Ann Pollard, his wife, received five years because, you know, why not?
Share it in the family till death do us part, right?
Imprisoned?
Well, that started in 1987.
He served 30 years, mostly in maximum security federal prisons.
And he repeatedly appealed.
The appeals were finally denied until July 2015.
The U.S. Parole Commission granted him parole after he had served 30 years.
He was released November 20th, 2015.
He had to wear a lovely GPS ankle monitor.
They're very good for dancing.
He had a curfew, sort of like Epstein, you know, and had to do some computer monitoring.
And he had a prohibition of leaving the U.S. until December of 2020.
Actually, it started in 2019 during the Trump administration.
Attorney General, yes, William Barr.
And he has no association with the CIA.
Neither did his dad.
No deep state ties to the Mossad in any way whatsoever.
He and the Justice Department lifted the remaining parole restrictions, allowing Pollard to leave the United States.
And now he's a big hero.
He lives in Israel with, let's see, a lot of money.
Yes, he lives with a lot of money that he gets from people who are big fans of his over in Israel.
For a little more amplification on this, let's turn to a little more background from Judge Andrew Napolitano's program yesterday with the great Max Blumenthal of the Gray Zone, because Max covers additional amplification here.
Hey, everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Adjudging Freedom.
Today is Thursday, November 20th, 2025.
My dear friend, Max Blumenthal, joins us now.
Max, a pleasure.
Thank you very much for your time and for accommodating my schedule.
But let's start with this unrecognized and to me bizarre, you can probably shed some light on it, meeting back in July between Jonathan Pollard and Mike Huckabee.
Huckabee is, of course, the Zionist U.S. ambassador to Israel.
Pollard is the notorious theft of American national security secrets.
Is Pollard a hero to the Israelis?
Well, he is, and he's a settler who is sort of a local celebrity among the religious nationalist world.
I remember there's this bookstore I used to walk by in central Jerusalem where a lot of settlers would frequent when they came into Jerusalem to get to go shopping and so on, buy frozen yogurt.
And it had a giant picture of Jonathan Pollard over the front door because at that time he was considered cause celeb to the religious nationalist movement and kind of a political prisoner in Israel.
And that was the main bookstore where settlers could get messianic texts and so forth.
So he's a hero to a certain constituency in Israel.
And through the Adelson bribery network, Miriam and Sheldon Adelson, Donald Trump was basically paid to release him.
He was sentenced to life in prison.
Jonathan Pollard was sentenced to life in prison for some of the most damaging intelligence thefts in U.S. history.
He was a naval intelligence analyst.
He did this for ideological reasons because he believed he was an Israel firster.
And he handed over the methods that the NSA used to collect intelligence to the Mossad, as well as a list of thousands of intelligence contacts, collaborators, undercover spies, the knock list that U.S. intelligence used to Tel Aviv.
He did this in exchange for money, but for ideological reasons.
Ultimately, Donald Trump released him and Sheldon Adelson flew him back to Israel on his personal jet, where he is now sort of a hero.
And for some reason, Mike Huckabee last July, what I call the Israeli-U.S. reciprocal ambassador, decided to meet with Jonathan Pollard in his office.
And this came as news to me, but it also came as news to the White House and to the CIA.
None of them knew about this.
And this should be a fireable offense, considering what Pollard did to the United States.
I mean, this is Aldrich Ames-level spying.
This is treachery.
He is a traitor.
What was Huckabee doing with him?
No U.S. ambassador has previously met with him, but it does appear that Huckabee has ideological kinship with Jonathan Pollard.
Huckabee is a Pollardite.
And if Huckabee isn't fired for this, we have to ask in what world, in what political movement, in what White House does he not get fired?
It's one that believes in Miga, making Israel great again.
Well, it wasn't on his schedule, and the press knew nothing about it.
I didn't know about it until you told us a little while ago.
And then I looked it up and it just came out, I guess, in the past few days.
So Huckabee must have known he needed to keep this secret from the CIA, from other embassy employees, and from the White House.
I bet he didn't keep it secret from Benjamin Netanyahu.
Well, he didn't keep it secret from other figures in the Trump administration because they went, it looks like they went to the New York Times.
Three current senior officials confirmed this to the New York Times.
So it looks like this is an internal problem.
And it's something that I've been seeing from inside the Trump administration.
There are still forces in the Trump administration that are deeply uncomfortable with the personnel in control of the policy because they consider themselves to be Israel firsters, or as one Trump administration source called them to me, Mossad stenographers.
You know, Mike Huckabee, and I know him well, Max, because he was full-time at Fox for about two or three years during the much longer time that I was there.
But I didn't know now what I now know about him.
He is what Tucker Carlson is being excoriated for condemning, a Christian nationalist who puts Israel above the United States, an arch Zionist.
Now, I don't know how a human being nominated by the president, confirmed by the Senate, the official government representative of another country, can put that other country first and expect to get away with it.
Well, all the other previous U.S. ambassadors that I can think of were Israel firsters, even under Joe Biden, Tom Nides, for example.
I mean, after October 7th, he went and lobbied on behalf of the Jewish Federations for more money to support Israel during its genocide before that, you know, under Obama, Daniel Shapiro.
He stayed in Israel with his family when his term ended and went on to lobby for the NSO group, which produces Pegasus spyware.
And that is in a lot of phones, in addition to possibly explosives.
Who knows?
And that point that Max brings up with the judge, and just the judge has just been firing on even more cylinders than I always thought he had.
He's just amazing.
But the idea of Israel first versus America first, again, I do think this is going to bring up some cognitive dissonance.
And you let me know whether you think that the MAGA supporters who are also supporters of Christian Zionism will have any problem with this whatsoever, or if these two differing positions will cause them some stress.
But when it comes to the term America first, I do want to mention that that term is being used by various subgroups of political pushers in the United States to try to push for their agenda, to either try to get back to a sort of nativist, protectionist, tariff backing, pro so-called American economic policy, which is actually destructive to Americans,
or it's don't give money out to foreign countries and have the government go out and have bases all around the world.
It comes in various shades and colors.
But I do think that the term itself is a bit of a problem philosophically.
So if I were in the class with the students, I would say, is there perhaps a conflict with America first and the concept of individual rights?
And there might be a number of answers from the students that actually might go along with that prompt.
And I would invite disagreement as well.
But in my eyes, I need to bring that up because if the idea is America first, then that subsumes the very so-called reason that the United States Constitution was written.
Because as I said, that term is highly malleable.
It's one of the Plato terms of politics.
It can be turned into virtually anything.
It's one of those humpty-dumpty sort of carnival barker words to mean anything, a Barnum word, as Charlie Robinson would say.
But the problem is that philosophically, the establishment of America or any political institution requires that someone who doesn't want to be part of the political institution must pay for it.
Now, the founders, they made a grievous error and they tried to provide for some safeguards because as they said they were going to establish a government without your consent.
And this is one of the things that many patriotic people don't really discuss that often.
And it's very worthwhile to discuss it because it gets to the heart of the illegitimacy of any statist political institution.
They said essentially, we're going to get together in a room and not only assume for all the people out there that we are we the people of the United States of America, which is illogical and philosophically unsound and immoral, but they assumed everybody else was part of them.
So they grabbed everybody up with tentacles.
And again, this is not slamming the colonial and revolutionary Americans who fought for liberty from the British, but it didn't equate to true liberty.
It just meant a different government from the British government with perhaps more safeguards for certain of our rights.
But the only way that the state can exist is by commanding you to pay for it.
And not only is it commanding you to pay for it, these are people who never ever could have asked for your consent and just said, we're going to write up a document and we're going to create a machinery of governance or political threats against people to make them pay for this government, but we'll install some safeguards that we will claim are written into it, that if you want to change it, you have to amend it.
And everybody who enters this machine that we're setting up, this machinery of theft and coercion, will have to swear to abide by that.
That's what we get to.
Now, what's curious about that is it brings us to our next topic, which is these six Democrat congresspeople and senators who tried to remind people of their oath in the military and who are getting utterly slammed around the tennis ball court or the pickleball court for actually just stating the obvious.
And in fact, they understated the obvious in what has been a generations-long attempt to try to get people to think that the oath for the military is to abide by lawful orders, which it is not.
It's to abide by constitutional orders to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution.
And I'll give you an example of how bad this is.
When John McCain first ran for president, McCain said, Well, when I ran for president, I swore an oath to protect this nation.
And I could tell that he was not paraphrasing.
Like he had used that line many, many times.
And they often do this as a way to deceive people into thinking that just nationalism, just support of the military for whatever the statute allows them to do, whether it's an authorization to use military force, which is not a term in the Constitution, and Ron Paul called them out for that and offered them a declaration of war and showed that every one of those people very clearly and very seditiously plotted to make sure that they circumvented the Constitution.
They were all enemies of the domestic enemies of the United States Constitution in the Senate.
Very clearly, there's no denying it.
And every member of the military, if they accept an order after they read the Constitution and there's no declaration of war and they're put into some combat role or they're occupying another nation, they too are domestic enemies of the U.S. Constitution.
That also, regardless of how one feels sentimentally about whether or not these guys knew or didn't know, they are enemies of the Constitution.
There's no denying that fact.
They're breaking the Constitution.
They're taking your money and they're acting in a way contrary to what the Constitution says.
And it's easy to argue about what the Constitution says.
And also we can look at historical precedents like the authorization to use military force to invade Iraq and Afghanistan as examples of the people in DC very clearly knowing.
So let's now turn to what some of those senators had to say.
If we go into my news notes from yesterday's program, I want to show you this.
Trump attacks Democrat vet politicians who published a video advising soldiers to disobey unlawful commands.
And again, that's a tepid watering down of what the military oath actually is.
First, I said, let's look at Trump's reaction.
He's calling for their death as punishment for making the video.
And actually, of all people, Chuck Schumer, who has broken the Constitution many times, offered some very salient words about this.
So I will say what he said was right.
He's a towering hypocrite, but what he said was right.
And he has supported genocide.
So he doesn't have much of a moral light to stand on because he himself has broken the Constitution many times and supported mass death with your money.
But let me show you this.
Here's what it says.
This is quite interesting.
Gavin Newsom, of all people, called him out.
He said, the president of the United States of America just called for the death of Democratic, as he uses the term, lawmakers.
This man is sick in the head.
And he has here seditious behavior, punishable by death.
And Gavin Newsom also posted an earlier one.
He says, Trump just reposted this.
This came from someone with one of the Knights Templars, symbols, says it is a call to hang Democratic lawmakers who broke out against Trump.
Hang them.
George Washington would.
So if that doesn't give people some pause to ask if Donald Trump even thinks about things that he puts out there, I don't know.
But after he did that, it might be worthwhile to actually show what these people said, because everything they said not only was appropriate, it actually was inappropriate for a different reason because they didn't actually look at what the code says.
Six Democrat veteran lawmakers, writes Geopolitics Monitor, released a joint video opposing the Trump administration, urging U.S. military personnel to refuse unlawful orders without specifying.
Is this one of your congresspeople or senators?
Well, one of them, Goodlander, comes from New Hampshire.
Of course, she's married to Jake Sullivan, who didn't stand up against the genocide and unconstitutional actions of the Biden administration.
But here we go.
I'm Senator Alyssa Slockin.
Senator Mark Kelly.
Representative Chris DeLuzio.
Congresswoman Maggie Goodlander.
Representative Chrissy Houlihan.
Congressman Jason Crowe.
Yeah, I was a captain in the United States Navy.
Former CIA officer.
Former Navy.
Former paratrooper and Army Ranger.
Former intelligence officer.
Former Air Force.
We want to speak directly to members of the military and the intelligence community who take risks each day to keep Americans safe.
We know you are under enormous stress and pressure right now.
Americans trust their military.
But that trust is at risk.
This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens.
Like us, you all swore an oath.
To protect and defend this Constitution.
Right now, the threats to our Constitution aren't just coming from abroad, but from right here at home.
Our laws are clear.
You can refuse illegal orders.
You can refuse illegal orders.
You must refuse illegal orders.
No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution.
We know this is hard and that it's a difficult time to be a public servant.
But whether you're serving in the CIA, the Army, or Navy, the Air Force, your vigilance is critical.
And know that we have your back.
Because now, more than ever, the American people need you.
We need you to stand up for our laws, our Constitution, and who we are as Americans.
Go give up.
Don't give up.
Don't give up.
Don't give up the ship.
Okay.
Now, every one of those statements, as they purport to be very constitutional, probably, I don't want to be too assumptive, probably brings up an avalanche, a Niagara Falls of thoughts for you about all the things, all the ways that they've broken the Constitution.
Even as they discuss the United States government being used against American citizens, referring to ICE and trying to use the National Guard inside states, and that is a good point.
They don't go far enough to mention that the word immigration is not in the U.S. Constitution.
It's a state issue.
They don't go far enough to mention, oh, by the way, I supported this or that or the other agency, which also breaches the Constitution.
Let's look at some comments as we roll into this, because we've got a great one on kick from Pezo Vante 1776 says, where were these Democrats when Biden was forcing the poison jab, making felons out of gun owners and allowing invasion?
Well, here is the first two I agree with, the invasion part.
If there is an invasion, if they claim it's an invasion, that term is used for state actors, and you have to declare war against the invading state.
If they're not state actors under the Constitution, if anybody bothers to vote, then they're voting on the offices that are created by the Constitution.
So they hopefully will make themselves familiar with this.
If they're non-state combatants, then they issue letters of mark and reprisal, and the president can hire mercenaries to go against these people.
The word naturalization is in the Constitution, how you become a citizen, but immigration is not in the Constitution.
It was left up to the states.
When Texas entered the Union in 1869, they had a Bureau of Immigration in their state constitution.
The feds would never have allowed that if it were a federal purview.
It wasn't until 1875 with the Supreme Court decision that was as bad as Roe, where they actually just invented it out of whole cloth in a case called Qing Lung v. Freeman.
And literally, you can read the document of the Supreme Court decision.
They didn't even once refer to any line from the Constitution.
You just said, oh, it's a congressional purview.
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1798 both wrote that it was a state purview.
There are numerous examples of states coming up with their own legislation regarding the presence of foreigners.
Kentucky Resolution No. 4, that's a really good one to read from Jefferson if you want to see it, where he says, resolve that aliens on the soil of any of the signatory states are under their control, not the federal control.
And he mentions the Ninth and Tenth Amendments as well.
So it's very clear.
It's a very simple thing to sort of look at, but a lot of people don't want to because it makes them feel uncomfortable.
Because since 1875, there's been this mass buildup of tarnish of, well, it's got to be controlled by the federal government.
What you have there is a Soviet-style central command and control.
Whoever's in office is going to dictate the immigration policy.
And what we're seeing now is a reaction to the over-inflated number of people who were brought in unnaturally under the central control.
So the MAGA people now have central control, but it could fall into the other hands just as well, you know, just as easily.
So that's something to bring up.
And it's a very fruitful conversation if you can get into it.
I've had, I've mentioned before, I've had great conversations with Pat Buchanan and Tom Tan Credo and Jace Congressman from Arizona, J.D. Hayworth, I think his name was.
And they all agreed.
They said, you know, you're right.
Your historical argument.
And there's a logical argument to it as well.
You're correct.
But then they would just march on to say, we're being invaded.
And then you have to come up with that answer about invasion and say, look, if there is an invasion, then how is there a constitutional provision to protect against invasion?
You can't just allow the president with the Alien Enemies Act that's subservient to the Constitution.
You have to look at the Constitution and the Constitution.
And I'm an anarchist.
I don't believe in the validity, any moral argument for any state entity.
I would be satisfied if they could get closer to the Constitution.
But I do try to remind people in classrooms of, you know, let's look at what the rules are and have a conversation about that.
And it doesn't mean, like I often tell the audience at Liberty Conspiracy, I'm never going to win a political argument here, but just providing the information and trying to be truthful about it and asking other people to be as fair inside their own minds about it, I think is fruitful to do that.
So we've got that video from them.
Trump freaks out.
And then he's called out for it.
Because of course, people say, this seems a little unbalanced.
You're calling for these people who were just asking the soldiers to remind them of their oaths and they actually watered down the oath.
You're saying these people are seditious.
Well, Caroline Levitt doubled down on this and she completely flipped it.
Let me show you what Caroline Levitt had to say.
And this, this is, do they really think they can get away with this?
Ed Krassenstein writes, breaking White House press secretary Caroline Levitt completely gaslights Americans, claiming that Democrats have told our military, it's ours, it's yours, whether you want it or not, you got to pay for it.
They'll go anywhere in the world, whoever's in charge, defy lawful orders from President Trump.
Watch this full video.
If you still believe her, then you are completely brainwashed.
Do you believe what you hear with your own ears or what she tells you that you heard?
Cult much?
So here we go.
You have sitting members of the United States Congress who conspired together to orchestrate a video message to members of the United States military, to active duty service members, to members of the national security apparatus, encouraging them to defy the president's lawful orders.
You can refuse illegal orders.
You can refuse illegal orders.
You must refuse illegal orders.
No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution.
They are literally saying to 1.3 million active duty service members not to defy the chain of command, not to follow lawful orders.
You have.
It's amazing.
It's incredible.
Literally, people have screens, Caroline.
They've got them in the White House.
They can play it for you right now.
It's amazing.
It's flabbergasted to think they can continue to get away with that.
So I just want to stress that, in my opinion, the most important fact out of this whole baggage story that we can carry with us to gain some, you know, some valuable lessons out of this as they dispute this is the fact that both Trump's gang and the Democrats in the video use the term lawful when it's supposed to be constitutional.
Lawful pertains to statutes, and there are many statutes that Congress writes and many executive orders pushed by various presidents that operate under color of law, but are wildly unconstitutional.
Here's the meat of the military oath.
So here we go.
We go to Title 10, U.S. Code, subsection 502, enlisted oath.
Quote, I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
So that is the problem because this is verbal ledger domain.
This is the continuation of a canard that they have to follow lawful orders.
Because as I said, you can have lawful orders that are patently unconstitutional.
Let me show you a little bit from Ed Krassenstein as Chuck Schumer spoke about this.
And again, towering hypocrisy from Chuck Schumer as a person, but the lines are correct.
Here's what Schumer had to say.
Clear today, Donald Trump shared a post on Truth Social calling for Democratic members of Congress to be hanged.
He also posted a message that said, seditious behavior, punishable by death.
Let's be crystal clear.
The President of the United States is calling for the execution of elected officials.
Clear today, Donald Trump.
So let me just ask you, did Chuck Schumer oppose Barack Obama drone striking people on the advice of war criminal John Brennan?
Did he oppose rounding up journalists under the Espionage Act and trying to imprison them?
Did he truly speak up for the guys who were held in Guantanamo without habeas?
Or is this more of a political stunt?
Right?
So again, I think one can question his motives.
The statement itself is 100% correct.
And in fact, as I said, it doesn't go far enough.
We've got great statements over on Kik.
Pesavante 1776 asks, should Trump not be prosecuted for war crimes and COVID crimes and crimes against the Constitution and be subject to the punishment for such, which is death and defy tyrants.
Hello, says 1776 on Kick says everything.
Congress, the military, law enforcement, intel agencies, and all government departments carry out unconstitutional illegal laws and edicts.
Yeah, thank you so much, by the way, for being here as I fill in for David.
And remember, if you do want to donate on Rumble, if you want to help out over the David Knight website, I want to make sure that I do my due diligence for David and everyone who are taking the day off.
I'm Gardner Goldsmith.
If you're just joining us, I do Liberty Conspiracy Monday through Friday at 6 p.m.
I used to write for the MRC TV people.
And as the Israeli battles started to crop up with the occupying force really expanding its occupation and conducting genocide, they still allowed me to be critical of Israel, but I'm no longer with MRC TV.
And you probably saw they had the little star up on their website.
I just do want to mention that Mark Levin is very closely associated with MRC TV.
I have massive disagreements with Mark Levin.
I think he supports towering hypocrisy and immorality, and I've never met him.
Just as a little disclaimer there, I've written about Mark Levin and had many problems with him for a long time.
I want to show you Alyssa Slotkin's response to this as a way to round this off and give you some of her opportunity to talk to us from Michigan.
She's a former CIA officer.
In fact, she mentions it in this video.
And she has a response to all of this.
Let me show you what she has to say.
I'm Senator Alyssa Slotkin, Senator from Michigan, former CIA officer.
Earlier today, President Trump threatened myself and a number of other service and veteran lawmakers with arrest, trial, and death because he didn't agree with a video we put out this week.
This really isn't about those of us who made the video.
This is about who we are as Americans and how we're going to engage with people who we disagree with.
I would hope that people of all backgrounds, Democrat, Republican, Independent, would agree that threatening death for people you disagree with is beyond the pale of who we are as Americans.
I love this country.
It has given me everything, everything.
And I refuse to believe that this is the new normal.
I refuse to believe that we're going to use fear and intimidation against people we disagree with.
And I'm not going to be forced away from speaking up on behalf of my country.
I swore an oath to the Constitution many times, most recently less than a year ago as a senator, to the Constitution, not to any one man, not to any one president.
And I abide by that oath.
For me, I believe in the power of this country and that we are better than our current politics represent.
And I refuse to be intimidated out of defending the country I love.
Okay, so a lot of deceptions there.
And in fact, one of the big points that perhaps you bring up to people, I try to bring it up to people in classrooms, is the term lawmaker.
Regardless of whether one believes in a higher power, a Christian God, or a lawmaker from Logos, which I do, the term lawmaker runs completely contrary to natural law.
So some people who aren't even religious understand that they don't write the laws.
They write the statutes, the edicts of the state.
The etymology of this is a very profound difference.
It provides a very, very profound difference and a lesson if one breaks this down.
They're not lawmakers, they're statute writers.
And oftentimes, even she from the CIA, now in Congress, in the Senate, oftentimes they're writing statutes that run contrary to natural law.
And this is where I want to sort of round things off as we get ready to welcome Eric Peters of Eric Peters Autos.
And we start to look at a number of subjects that are over at the Eric Peters Autos website.
I hope you'll check that out.
I'm going to display one of my Eric Peters baseball caps in just a minute to promote his store, which is awesome.
But the idea of America First, I want to return to that to round this off.
Whether it's the Pollard story or it's this story about these people who were softening the actual oath for the military and then got, you know, roundly attacked for that by literally that radio host from Boston was doing the same thing day before yesterday, calling for their deaths, the punishment with death.
And then again, today, now he's saying that it's the people who don't like Donald Trump.
It's these Democrats who are trying to cause a civil war.
It's just, you can't make it up.
It's like they play a game of twister just to figure out where they're going to put their brains today.
Put right on red, put it over here.
Just they just twist themselves into any intellectual pretzel that they can.
But the idea of America First runs parallel and echoes the canard of the general welfare clause of the Constitution, which is often used by people like her and others to try to promote whatever thing they want to get passed in the United States.
And they'll say, and it's even in the preamble of the Constitution to promote the general welfare.
If we look at the preamble of the Constitution, this will show you where really breaking things down linguistically and logically tells us that it strays from real philosophical support of individual liberty.
It's supposed to provide some backstops, but as Lysander Spooner pointed out in the 19th century, they've long since broken those backstops.
They don't care about the Bill of Rights.
They don't care about the enumerated powers.
They'll come up with anything.
And one of their leverage points is the general welfare clause.
And it gets into this: I support the Constitution, sort of flowery rhetoric, general welfare, what's good for Americans, and America First.
However, the groups want to define it.
The problem here is that echoes the general welfare clause.
Same thing as so-called public health.
Welfare can only, and this is where economics comes into it: the Austrian School of Economics and subjective marginal utility theory, which I teach.
So welfare can only be defined by you.
Someone else assuming for you what your welfare is means you're that person's vassal.
You're his puppet.
You're his plaything.
You're his pet.
He has control over you.
Only you can define your welfare.
And in a market, that has to be reflected with free markets allowing you to buy what you want and assess things based on your needs, which can vary even during a day, week to week, your needs and your satisfaction.
As you discover your satisfaction, the price point changes based on what you're interested in buying.
Resources are then allocated to what people like most.
We become more productive.
All right.
But it's individual decisions as calculated through the marketplace, through the price system.
When people interfere with that through tariffs to steer things towards favorite people and even people who generally think that tariffs are a good idea, that, well, they're just not being controlled properly.
You are assuming for someone else what they should be able to buy because you think you know what the economy of the United States is best to be.
You are the one engaged in essential and non-essential thinking, just like the COVID lockdowns.
You're in the Supreme Soviet.
That's a very dangerous room to be in.
It also assumes that you know better than your neighbor, which can then be turned on you.
And this is where we reach the logical impasse of the general welfare clause.
If the state can define for other people what their welfare is, that immediately means that those individuals are at threat from the state.
It immediately assumes a damage to the individual, stealing from them their ability to define for themselves what is in their best interest in a peaceful way.
So it's an act of aggression.
It says, no, we are going to steal that from you, just like we steal money from you to fund the state.
So that assumption, the general welfare clause, runs with the America first term, which again, it's malleable.
But what you're doing is you're even undercutting the very logic of it.
It becomes a QED or an Oroboros or a Tesserach, you might say.
Because what you're looking at here is by the government taking away the opportunity for the individual to define his own welfare, you then eliminate the very concept of welfare that the general welfare clause assumes the government can come up with to use as its little protective shield or its mask.
Same thing with public health, as David has often mentioned.
There's only individual health, right?
And someone else claiming that they have the power to define for you what is your health is an immediate injury to you.
So the general welfare clause, assuming that even in the preamble of the Constitution, is a big mistake.
And it even opens with, we the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, ensure domestic tranquility and security and the general welfare.
So again, they're assuming we the people of the United States.
So they wrote that in 1787.
Were you there?
Now, we may have very, very positive sentimental thoughts about the Revolutionary War and the attempts that these people made to hash this out.
But the underlying assumption that precludes it is never addressed, which is they were assuming for other people their consent, which is immoral.
And there's no denying that.
Now, people can try to shade it to say, well, I think there is a necessity for a government.
So this is probably the best form you could get.
Again, historical examples show us that that is not the case.
So I often bring up Brihan Law from ancient Ireland or the Viking Age, Iceland people, who didn't have official states and taxes, who didn't have written constitutions even there.
They went tribally and clan-wise.
The ancient Hebrews who escaped from Egypt, if only Mike Huckabee could understand this, did it by tribes.
And they're not the Zionists who came down from Europe either.
And they did it with the family elder becoming the sort of head.
That's how kings and so on sort of develop.
But it's a very interesting point.
And Travis has brought this up.
If you want to do some very interesting reading, explore the readings of, let me see, Hans Hermann Hoppe.
There's a really good book by Hoppe.
It's H-O-P-P-E.
He's very closely associated with the Mises Institute called Democracy, the God That Failed.
And of course, we all know that democracy is just gang rule.
But more than just two sheeps, two wolves and a sheep voting over what's for lunch.
He goes into historical examples of even so-called constitutional republics, which is really just a step-back version of democracy with some supposed safeguards.
But people don't really question this idea of, oh, the founders could do this.
They had no moral prerogative to do that at all.
I mean, you can't deny it.
They didn't.
And Thomas Jefferson sort of referred to this when he said he kind of thought a revolution would be necessary every few years, right?
But again, that doesn't really get to the nub of it.
Let's get to the nub of a couple big issues that are over on some websites now.
Get some more of your opinions about this.
Take a break.
Hear some music from David Knight, some great stuff.
And remind you: if you want to donate to the show, please do so.
That would be a wonderful thing to see as we approach the end of the month.
If I can help out the Knight family coming in as LG Grande, as they would say, the big G in Spanish, some of my friends from high school.
I would love that.
That would be a fantastic thing.
So feel free if you want to donate.
We're going to check out some of the great stuff that David Knight has created on his program.
And let's go with one of my favorites from The Last of the Mohicans.
Making sense.
Common again.
You're listening to the David Knight Show.
Volodymyr Zelensky.
I'm so tired of wearing these same t-shirts everywhere for years.
You'd think with all the billions I've skimmed off America, I could dress better.
And I could, if only David Knight would send me one of his beautiful gray MacGuffin hoodies or a new black t-shirt with the MacGuffin logo in blue.
But he told me to get lost.
Maybe one of you American suckers can buy me some at the DavidKnightshow.com.
You should be able to buy me several hundred.
Those amazing sand-colored microphone hoodies are so beautiful.
I'd wear something other than green military cosplay to my various galas and social events.
If you want to save on shipping, just put it in the next package of bombs and missiles coming from the USA.
Oh, I love that so much.
It's just so terrific.
Just genius, genius stuff.
The music, the rush, it's just great.
Everything's fantastic in that video.
Well, everyone, let's discuss some big issues with a man who has often appeared on the David Knight show.
I'm Gardner Goldsmith filling in for David.
Welcome to our number two of the program.
Great comments from so many of the people.
And we'll check in on the Rumble chat and read some of your comments as well.
If I've missed anything, please just, you know, copy and paste or something like that if you do want it seen.
If I've missed it in the flow of information and this river is a stream of information that flies by us.
But let's welcome the man right now to the stage.
He is Eric Peters of Eric Peters Autos.
Eric, welcome and thank you for joining me as I get to fill in.
Great to see you.
Oh, likewise, Guard.
I really enjoyed that clip from David.
That was that put a smile on my face, which, of course, I think all of us can use these days.
That's for darn sure.
I often tell the people on Liberty Conspiracy, we're going to try to turn their political frowns upside down in Washington, D.C.
And it's interesting because, as you know, you and I try to remember the lessons that come out of these things, the evergreen stories that we can pass on to people.
And those are positives.
And you often do that.
You go into the articles on your website and you've got a real vast knowledge of libertarian philosophy and economics and understanding of the golden rule.
And I'm always amazed by the various topics you bring up, in addition to your really cool items about automobiles.
And you were years ahead of people warning people about the EVs.
And of course, that entire system is dropping in the economy big time.
So if I could, you had one and I texted you this morning over at Eric Peters Autos.
I'd like to show this on the screen, Eric, and get your opinion about this in just a minute as a little preview.
But I'd like to get your opinions about some of this Mike Huckabee and some of this information about the military oath as well before we go into that.
What do you think about some of the things we discussed over the past hour or so, ranging from the Huckabee issue with Pollard into this statement of Donald Trump to hang these people?
Well, I like, I really appreciated your distinction between lawful and constitutional to begin with.
I think that's one of these fine distinctions that is important to make.
We kind of live in this era of, I call it etymological jiu-jitsu, where our minds get manipulated by words and it happens unconsciously.
They will use terms to prevent people from identifying and thereby discussing the true issue.
It's a kind of way of like a railroad track.
If you can picture they shunt the conversation from going this way to over to this way.
And if you let them do that, you've already lost.
You know, the discussion is then on their terms and they get to define them.
So it's very important when these kinds of conversations come up to say, wait a minute, let's, I want to understand exactly what you're talking about and identify the point, the particular thing, and let's define that before we move forward.
So I want to thank you for doing that.
Now, as far as it's a bit, it's a form of the Hegelian dialectic.
They give you the options and they tell you it's a choice.
Now, as far as the other stuff, the thought that immediately popped to mind was, remember when Richard Nixon supposedly said, if the president does it, then it's not illegal.
I mean, essentially, that's the kind of thing that these people are now asserting.
And the difference is that, well, I don't know that it's a difference, actually, because when Nixon was drunk and on a tear, he came across like a maniac.
And Trump is coming across like a maniac at this point.
He comes across as a man who has lost control of himself.
He apparently has plenty of time to just post angry, all caps tweets all day.
I thought he's supposed to be president, and the presidency is apparently a challenging and difficult job that requires full time and attention, but it seems he's sitting there on his phone.
I mean, I'm assuming he's doing it as opposed to a staff of people.
And if it's a staff, it's even more embarrassing.
Right.
You know, it's illiterate.
It's ungrammatical.
It's garbled, utterly chaotic and embarrassing.
It's infantile to think that this guy who's the president, this 80-year-old man almost, is thundering around like some angry hippo, complaining, not in a, you know, in the in the way that an adult would look, I disagree with this policy because XYZ, he basically just engages in these ad hominem attacks.
A great example of that being the way he went after Thomas Massey again, because he got married apparently too soon.
You know, Massey's wife died about a year ago.
So now somehow, you know, Massey is a bad man because he got married again.
What's that got to do with anything?
Beyond the pale.
And, you know, I think nine times out of 10, when you're getting backed up by Laura Loomer, you're probably not in the right spot.
Sure.
Yeah.
Sure.
The thing that worries me the most about the most recent developments is the thing that's been troubling me about the way the ICE goons have been driving up on people who are priming shrubs in somebody's lawn and grabbing them and throwing them into the back of these.
They're using unmarked minivans now.
It's not even a police type vehicle.
It's just a random civilian looking vehicle.
And it's just a lot of people.
And by the way, and by the way, you probably saw just as many people predicted.
I mentioned it and other people probably thought of it too.
There are now civilian criminals who are posing as ICE agents because they can wear masks.
And they're going around trying to, they tried to kidnap one woman in Michigan about four or five days ago.
Yeah, I mean, this is goon squad tactics.
And unfortunately, there are a lot of people who are supporters of Trump who are countenancing it because they have bought into this thing about, oh, we have to get rid of all these illegals that are in the country.
But it's kind of fatuous, in my opinion, because you're never going to be able to round up how many is it, 10 million people, something like that, and throw them into the back of minivans and cart them over.
I mean, logistically, it's just, it's something that can't work.
Leaving aside whether it should work, it can't work.
It's not the way to do this.
You know, if you have a problem with the illegals, and specifically, if you have a problem with people coming over here to avail themselves of services that are paid for by tax dollars, Trump could simply issue an executive order saying that, you know, if you can't prove that you're in the country legally, then you're not entitled to receive any benefits whatsoever, either at the federal or the state level.
I think most people would support that.
I don't think that that's necessarily a bad thing.
In fact, I think it would sort of separate the wheat from the chaff.
I don't think any reasonable person objects to somebody coming here who wants to work.
I mean, I've got a buddy who's, you know, who's a who's a small businessman.
He has a roofing business and his crew, his guys, are Mexicans.
And I personally can attest those guys work hard.
Yeah.
I have no problem with those guys.
You know, the problem that I have, though, I've got the problem with anybody, whether they're legal or illegal, filching my hard-earned dollars to subsidize their sushi at the bouquet supermarket.
And I've seen that personally.
I've been standing in line and seen a guy younger than me standing there who clearly can work getting sushi and using his snap card.
That's irritating.
I get that.
And it would be a good way.
It would be a good way to introduce eliminating welfarism and addressing the problem of the assumption that welfarism through the state is somehow charitable when it's predicated on theft.
So you could start it and reduce that incentive by getting rid of all those welfare payments for the migrants.
That would be a great way to start.
Absolutely.
But instead, what they've done on the one hand is to generate understandable resentment and anger among a lot of Americans about this issue.
And then they present as the solution the goon squads.
And I see this as an attempt to normalize goon squattery.
And I think these people are whistling past the graveyard who support this stuff.
They don't seem to get that this is going to get turned around against them.
Did you know?
I've just caught this news item this morning.
I don't know whether you saw it, but I mean, I thought this was an onion piece at first when I read this, but I'll get you the name.
Trump has put forward somebody named Rabbi Yehuda Kaplan to be the special envoy to monitor and combat anti-Semitism in this country.
Yeah.
I heard about that.
So you and I, if we dare to mention something about like, you know, us being upset about what's being done to people in Palestine, maybe the minivan is going to roll up to our house and drag us out to disappear us someplace.
And if you don't think that that is a possibility, I really suggest that you think about it again.
Oh, absolutely.
If we look at this presidential memorandum, National Security Memorandum Number Seven that he issued very early on, Judge Napolitano just wrote part of, included that in part of a very good piece that's over at the Ron Paul Institute website.
Daniel McAdams and Ron Paul discussed it yesterday on the Liberty Report at noontime.
I always switch over there after David's show and watch them live.
And they said, well, we're going to have the Department of Justice investigate.
And they're talking about possible prosecution under what terms, I don't know, but possibly under the Espionage Act, I'm not sure.
People who are expressing anti-Christian, you've heard about this, I know, anti-capitalist, which is not real capitalism.
Their version of capitalism is mercantilism.
It's fascism.
It's not real free markets.
And just the term capitalism itself has been so sullied that it's not really worth using that anymore.
And any anti-Christian terminology they're using really mixes in Christian Zionism, because if you speak out about Israel, then clearly you're against the Bible as the Christian Zionists see it.
So they'll categorize that as anti-Christian.
And again, you know, it just goes to what Lewis Carroll said in Alice Through the Looking Glasses.
Humpty Dumpty was the politician.
She said, how do you have this power to make words mean anything you want them to mean?
And he said, no, you don't understand.
It's not where the, what, how do I have this?
You know, what magic power do I have?
It's who is in power.
That's the question.
Yep.
Yeah.
Absolutely.
And it's not a new thing either.
Many people listening might not be aware that this goes back a long time.
For example, during World War I, the federal government went after people who dared to question U.S. involvement in the war and who expressed even oblique sympathy for Germany.
It got really, really bad.
You know, people were dragged away for saying something that contradicted the narrative about the evil Hun.
And again, you're allowed to, supposedly, in a free country, have opinions.
Thoughts are not supposed to be criminal.
Actions are another matter.
But to be able to speak your mind is one of the most fundamental freedoms there is, even if other people don't like it, even if almost nobody likes it.
In fact, even if the majority of people hate it, and this is the problem is that a lot of people let their feelings override their judgment.
And because they don't like something and they find a particular person, and they always put this in an extreme way, the classic example being the neo-Nazis shouting racial rants, walking around with the swastikas.
Nobody likes that, obviously.
Point is if you don't allow those guys to speak and to have their views, however much you may not like them, you've accepted the principle that your speech can be restricted and you can be punished when the government doesn't like what you have to say.
And that's that's it echoes Immanuel Kant.
You know, he used the term universalizability, where he would explain to people, even if you don't believe in a God, if you just look at it logically and you want to be selfish about it, then just remember that if you're not willing to allow people to freely express their opinions, then your opinion can be stifled and the whole system just breaks down.
If people think that theft is acceptable to steal from other people, that means that other people can steal from them as well.
And it just becomes totally predatory and we're all jackals.
And that's all it is.
And, you know, you bring up an interesting historical point that pops to mind, Eric.
Our guest is Eric Peters, everyone, on the David Knight Show.
I'm Gardner Goldsmith filling in for David and Travis and Lance.
And the Alien and Sedition Act period, I referred to this a little bit earlier, was with Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1798.
And the Alien Enemies Act is one that sort of is this long ancient holdover that the MAGA people have used in reference to say, oh, yes, the president can claim there's an emergency and he can use the Alien Enemies Act.
Well, if we actually look at that act, that was one of the reasons why Jefferson and Madison wrote about that in the Kentucky Resolve for Jefferson and the Virginia Resolves for Madison in 1798.
They released them within a couple of days of each other to explain to people, look, first of all, the Sedition Act.
The Sedition Act was the other part of this, which was you can criticize Jefferson, the vice president, but you can't criticize the president, John Adams, or you'll be put in jail, which is essentially an echo of what we're seeing today or what you mentioned in World War I.
These things keep popping up with different eras, and it's the same kingly mindset.
And in fact, at least with a monarch, we would know the difference and we wouldn't be told that the government is us, right?
Sure.
It goes back a long way.
And, you know, Adams, to his great credit, recognized that he'd gone too far and that he let his emotions carry him away and that he was wrong about the Alien and Sedition Acts.
Unfortunately, the president now is not a reflective man.
He's not a thoughtful man.
You know, he's not the kind of man who will allow his temper to cool and recognize I made a mistake, let alone admit he made a mistake.
I can't think of a single instance when President Trump has acknowledged he made a mistake and apologized for it and said, look, I messed up and I'm not going to do it again.
That's one of the more troubling things about this guy.
There's a problem when you can't own up to errors that you make, which is the first step to not making the same thing, making the same mistake again.
I mean, he has yet to atone for his behavior during the last year of his presidency and the 2020, that whole year, for everything that he did with regard to warp speeding, the beautiful vaccines, which he still continues to insist publicly saved millions of lives.
And I should have, I really, I deeply regret, frankly, I'll say it publicly that I voted for the guy.
I did.
And, you know, I feel like an idiot.
You know, I feel like Charlie Brown.
I tried to kick the football again.
I did it for frankly cynical reasons because I thought that on balance, he's the lesser of two evils.
Well, when you vote for the lesser of two evils, you still end up with evil.
And sometimes you end up with a worse evil because you thought it was good.
Yeah.
And I think reaching that conclusion, and I reached that conclusion a while back, so I don't vote to put people into offices.
But, you know, I will express an opinion about whether, you know, for example, Thomas Massey is a heck of a lot better choice if you're going to try to put somebody in that office than his opponent or whatever.
But there's a very clean feeling.
There's a breath of fresh air feeling that comes in knowing, okay, I disconnected from all of that.
Pulling a Gary Newman, me, I disconnect from you, you know?
And also, there's a really important undercurrent there, which I know you're aware of, but I think it's worth us discussing, which is that you have not involved yourself in something that entails the abuse of other people.
You have your hands are clean.
I didn't vote in the recent governatorial election.
So, you know, I don't, I'm not voting for some person, even if I think that they are aligned with me in a general sense, who will then have essentially unlimited power to act and to do things to other people that I don't approve of.
I don't like things being done to me, especially by somebody else voting for some politician to do them to me.
So I'm withdrawing my consent from all of that.
I don't like coercion.
I don't like collectivism.
You know, I want to be free to make my own decisions in life and I respect the right of other people who have the exact same equal right that I have to be left alone if I'm not bothering hurting anybody, causing harm, and to keep what's mine that I work for, and so on.
And that's how we recover things.
We stop using force, which is what we're doing when we're voting.
No matter what you think, you're saying, I endow this figure, whoever you're voting for, with the proxy power to impose things on other people, and they will.
I don't like that.
I'm not looking to rule anybody.
I'm looking to rule myself, perhaps, but that's my own business.
Well, that's a great point.
You know, you remind me in some of the classes, Eric, I would have conversations with the students and I would show them examples because there were a lot of erroneous assumptions thrown out by these videos that PBS produced called Crash Course This, Crash Course That.
They would add Crash Course Science, Crash Course Economics, or Crash Course, Crash Course Philosophy.
And I would focus on the economics and the philosophy videos as examples and show them to the students and say, you know, where do you find some problems or different differences in your thoughts here?
And one of them was on that classic, and I think you and I might have discussed this previously on David's show, that classic jungle warlord scenario where a group of tourists is in the jungle.
And this goes towards the government problem where people, they give you this Hegelian dialectic or this assumption that you have to try to act in some way that actually is an immoral act, but you think it's the best of the possible choices.
So essentially what it is, is a group of tourists gets captured by a warlord.
There are 20 tourists, and the host of the show says, you know, don't you, so he says the warlord pulls one person out and puts a gun in his hand, makes him point it at somebody and says, you've got to kill this person or I'm going to kill all other 18 people.
And say, you know, what would you do?
And the assumption here is that you kill that person.
And if we even pull out the idea that the warlord could be lying to you, I ask the students, I say, what is the actual correct answer?
And so the correct answer is you let him kill you.
You don't become party to the evil because you still have some sort of control over yourself.
You still have agency over your own life.
And just because, and this is where we get the political sphere where people say, well, I don't like that choice, but I really got to do something because the other one's a lot worse.
No, you don't have to vote for evil.
You don't.
And you shouldn't.
And I think it's important to, you know, that's why I feel very, very refreshed to think I don't touch that world.
I don't participate.
Imagine if enough of us did that.
You know, people often talk about, gee, I wish we had a third party so I wouldn't have to vote for the Republican A or the Democrat B.
Well, rather than a third party, what if it were just none of the above?
Then I'd, you know, because then we'd have an opportunity to delegitimize the system.
You can imagine in an election when none of the above won, you know, that that would be quite telling.
Then it would be out in the open.
Then we would know, and people couldn't deny that we're run without our consent by force by a relative minority of people.
And that's that's important because it would make it much more difficult for them to govern us.
And isn't it an interesting?
Oh, sorry.
I was going to say.
It would be clear what it is.
I think, you know, a lot of people are passive or accepting of the system because, oh, it's a democracy.
We have our chance to vote.
It's legitimate.
You know, so it's okay to rob somebody, you know, via a letter in the mail, you know, that says you owe a certain amount of money as opposed to some thug showing up at your house and you know pointing a gun at your head.
Exactly.
It's great to have you here.
This is fantastic.
Oh, and let's check in and check in on some of the comments.
And then I'd like to hop over and ask you about one of the pieces at Eric Peters autos, giving us back some stolen money.
And there's another one that's right up at the front, but this is on the front page.
And so let's head over into Rumble, say hi to Bulldog is there.
Don't frag me, bro, is there.
Flower Sower is there.
And Flower Sower says, I held my nose and voted Trump the first time and voted the pro-life candidate the other time.
Stop voting in evil.
Well stated.
Let's see.
We've got, let's see.
Over here, we've got this.
Okay, yeah.
Okay.
Yeah.
Oh, over on kick.
Let me check some of the statements on kick.
Let's see this.
Oh, a Syrian girl is there.
She says, I vote for none of the above.
Way to go.
Oh, that's terrific.
And in a way, the decentralized nature of the Constitution is not exactly, but it was the founders' attempt to provide carve-outs and walls for none of the above.
On this subject, on this subject, on this subject, government's not supposed to be involved.
The Bill of Rights is there to be a de facto none of the above.
Nobody's going to be touching any of this stuff in your life, but they breach it.
And so that gets me back to Lysander Spooner, who said, you know, the Constitution either was built this way to allow this or it was incapable of stopping it.
Yeah, let's use that as a leap point to talk about this piece over at Eric Peters Auto's, giving us back some stolen money.
And this is just phenomenal.
Eric, tell us a little bit about this piece at Eric Peters Auto.
Yeah, am I the only one whose teeth ache when I hear about Trump trying to assuage our increasing impoverishment by promising at some indeterminate point to hand us another STEMI check?
In this particular case, it's supposed to be our refund, say it like Dr. Evil, for all of the tariffs that Trump has collected.
And people don't seem to connect the dots and understand that they've already paid an enormous amount in taxes because that's what tariffs are.
Tariffs, to get back to that whole thing we were talking about earlier, about the way they shift the conversation through etymology, a tariff is a tax.
The only difference is that it's applied to the manufacturer instead of you as an individual.
You as an individual pay for it, though, when you buy, if you can afford it, whatever the product is that the manufacturer is trying to sell cars, for example.
So, you know, Trump imposed all these tariffs on vehicles that are made outside the United States.
Well, what does that mean to you as a car buyer?
It means that the car now costs more.
And it's not just the car that was made in another country.
It's also the domestically manufactured vehicle because what happens every time that this stuff goes on is that the domestic manufacturers, they don't reduce their prices.
They just raise them to an equivalence.
And you've got a parody there.
So everybody's paying more.
And Trump, you know, this, we're supposed to go, oh, look, we're getting some money back.
And it's like, how illiterate and foolish do you have to be to accept that this is some kind of benefit to you?
It's again, it just, it makes my teeth hurt when this sort of thing goes on.
And before we hop into some of the meat of the text that you wrote over at Eric Peters Autos, Eric, I do want to mention, you know, that was manifest and we saw the different layers of it manifested in the auto industry in the 1970s when they imposed massive tariffs on foreign cars and the unions and other people within the auto industry saw that new leeway, that new space where they could sponge.
And they became even less efficient.
They became even more top-down with retirement schemes and even higher salaries.
And they couldn't compete against these foreign car makers.
This is a really good point to bring up in addition to the fact that as we often bring up in economics, or I'll mention James Bovart's book, The Fair Trade Fraud, the point of a productive economy or the point of a tool is to allow people to get work done more easily.
And if someone is standing there telling you, no, you can't buy that in the store.
I'm right here next to you.
I'm your buying buddy.
You're going to buy that instead.
then that is costing you more.
That means that you can't spend money in a way that you would prefer and save that money.
And you're going to have to work harder.
But in addition to that, someone else who could have received your patronage is no longer going to receive it.
That part of the economy is now squandered and stifled.
And that life-giving sustenance, that liquidity no longer goes to them.
And it's, it's.
Oh, I was going to mention there's an underlying thing that's important to bring up in this context.
And it is that Trump is very disingenuous about this particular subject in that the reason vehicles and other things are expensive to manufacture or expensive to sell in this country has to do with compliance costs.
Okay.
The reason that it is less expensive to manufacture a vehicle outside the United States is because compliance costs are lower, you know, in places like China, Vietnam, what have you.
So my point is that the core issue here is not the trade imbalance, it's the compliance cost.
If Trump really wants to make American industry competitive again, what he's got to do is figure out a way to reduce the costs imposed by the regulatory regime at the manufacturing level.
It's so god-awful expensive.
Talk to anybody who's in business to try to make anything in this country.
So that's the problem.
And he has to know that.
This guy supposedly graduated from the Wharton School of Business.
How can he not know that?
It's basic fundamental economics.
Exactly.
And I'll give you an example.
Last night on Liberty Conspiracy, I brought this story up, Eric.
This one coming from, let me see, Scripps News.
Holiday shoppers face higher costs amid tariffs, of course.
And there's much more, much more.
There's this one out of Alabama.
Let me see.
Yeah, here it is.
Alabama faces largest closure in years, resulting in 400-plus job losses.
And they're all over the place.
We've got Target with, of course, Target screwed itself up with its wokeism.
But let's see, there's another one.
Home Depot is running into problems, also partially because they're being boycotted because of their support for the ICE people to come in.
There's so many of these stories about the economy.
Here's this one.
Companies ate tariff costs, but your price hikes are coming next.
And again, it's central planning.
If people are unwilling to look at the economic drawbacks of it, at least they could look at the moral darkness of it to say, I know best.
I know what is the correct form of a U.S. economy.
It's just, it really, it blows my mind.
It's a breathtaking assumption.
Yep.
It's absolutely terrible.
And it's insidious because it enables the political class to hide what they're doing to us and to shift the blame and to make it seem like it's those awful foreigners who are flooding the country with their cheap goods and taking away our jobs.
It's just another example of this dialectic of us being pitted against one another rather than understanding who the real enemy is.
I think you lay it out well over on the site at Eric Peters Auto's, Eric.
Your writing is great.
Said, Trump is once again promising to give Americans back some of the stolen money from them by money stolen from them by the government by Trump himself in this case, because it was he who imposed massive taxes on Americans who were told they were merely tariffs and so wouldn't cost them any money.
And I'll mention if anybody's new, this is the largest tax increase in 70 years, this tariff amount.
These tariffs, which of course are taxes applied to the manufacturers of things that are then passed on to the buyers of things, have increased the cost of new vehicles by at least as much as the paltry $2,000 checks.
Trump says Americans may receive sometime, 2,000 checks that they might receive sometime next year.
By which time it is likely, so he hopes, everyone will have forgotten the promise and moved on to some other thing.
I was covering some stories yesterday, Eric, that discuss how some of the people tried to forward date their purchases in sort of predicting that Trump was going to come in with a lot of these tariffs.
And now they're running out of that stock.
So their next purchases are going to be even more expensive and we're going to get hit even harder.
And I'd like to ask you a little bit more because this has sucked already $300 billion out of the economy.
And people like Treasury Secretary Scott Besson are applauding it.
They think it's wonderful.
And, you know, regardless of Trump's claims that it's $21 trillion, we'll look at an example of their argument, which is, well, we're bringing in American, we're bringing jobs to Americans.
And they'll look at, as you and I have discussed, this Honda Electric plant that originally the plant was in Mexico.
Now they're going to have to come to the United States to manufacture in the United States at higher production, higher production costs.
And they are doing so and moving.
They're having to spend extra money that they should not have had to spend at all just to build a new plant.
So somebody's going to have to pay for that.
And it's going to be the consumer.
Of course.
You know, Trump, I think his dissonance, if it is dissonance, I might give him the benefit of the doubt here.
Is that for a certain small slice of the population, things are just going swimmingly.
You know, if you're of the Wall Street class, the corporate class, because they're once again squeezing every dime out of us that they can via the grift, via the federal government's machinations.
I mean, from that standpoint, oh, it's wonderful.
You know, I can buy another $100,000 EV to sit next to the one that I already have in my garage.
But for everybody else, it's obvious that things are off the rails.
And, you know, Trump the other day said, he actually said that inflation is under control.
And I mean, that shows that he's either delusional or something far worse.
You know, say something like that out loud.
I'd like to play something for you, Eric.
And this goes back a couple of days from my Liberty Conspiracy show because there's this guy, Hassett, who came on CNBC.
And Joe Kernan, one of the hosts over there, called him out on this claim that inflation was going down.
And he said, no, year to year, we're still 3% more expensive than last year.
And as you and I know, this is an additive functional equation.
You take the 3% that it measured last year was over and above that.
You take that amount, add the new amount to it, and then multiply that by 3%.
And you're getting what the new price is.
And, you know, I mean, it's your basic algebra, right?
So, what's interesting here is this CNBC host called him out on that.
And if I can, I'll bring your mic down for a minute and just play this for you and bring this up.
So here it is.
And this is a very interesting call out.
Here we go.
Now, inflation is still 3%.
It's still too high.
Now, oil prices, energy prices, there are certain things where they have come down.
But when you keep saying prices are falling, that's not true because inflation is still the 3% is on top of all the inflation we had during the Biden years.
So we got all that inflation plus an additional 3%.
And we should, I think you should ignore that.
A more precise way to say it, though, Joe, is that purchasing power has gone up.
So real wages, that's W divided by IP for our technical people of the audience, have gone up by about $1,200 this year.
And that's really where I wanted to go, Eric, because that is a lie.
And that brings me.
You know, what do you even say?
I posted an article the other day that kind of gets into this a little bit about Honda announcing that they're bringing back the Prelude.
You remember the Prelude?
Yes, yes.
That was the one I was going to go to next.
Absolutely.
Yeah, for 2026.
And it's going to start at $43,000.
The last time the Prelude was available, which was back in 2001, it was about $23,000.
Now, when you talk about inflation, are you making roughly twice as much money today as you were in 2001 to adjust for the near doubling in cost of a car like the Prelude, which isn't really that different from the original?
And in some ways, it's actually worse.
The point is this thing, which used to be an affordable car, no longer is.
You know, we are getting habituated in a kind of Patty Hearst way to ordinary vehicles.
I mean, it's a prelude.
What's so special about a prelude?
Costing, you know, not too far away from $50,000 when all is said and done.
It's an unbelievable.
And you make this point here.
You say Hondas and Toyotas were once the affordable and generally better alternatives to Fords and Chevies.
We talk about those tariffs from the 70s.
Whether they are better now is harder to say, but it's not difficult to say that none of them are affordable anymore.
Some of the near doubling of the 26 Preludes price is, of course, what is called inflation.
But this does not address affordability because most people's incomes have not inflated in tandem with the costs of things.
And that is something that brings up a point that I brought up on Liberty Conspiracy the other night.
It might have been Monday.
I went into what Austrian economists explain as the Cantillon effect.
And so when you have a central bank, whether it's a central bank that's licensed by the central political system and it's given a monopoly on the issuance of currency, which of course they use to buy the bonds, to pay off the debt because they can't tax enough, or it's the treasury of that political institution like ancient Rome, calling back their coins, shaving off bits, creating new money, and then claiming those coins were still worth as much.
It doesn't matter.
Any political connection to the monetary system, a fiat system forced on people will incentivize the government to play with the money, to give them more to pay off some of their special favors people.
If you have a competitive banking system, you can't do that because the bank would be recognized as ripping people off and nobody would accept the little slips.
But what's interesting is the Cantillon effect tells us about this pyramid, or in class, I would describe it to the students as a train, where the people who are closest to the engine are the very wealthy, politically connected corporate stock market types, banking types, and they'll get the money first.
And the Cantillon effect is basically a descriptor or a normative, nominal, normative term to apply to the people who get the money first can spend it on assets and invest it in things before the buying power has been diluted by seeing the money bid up all those prices over time as it goes through the various strata to the people at the end in the caboose.
And what's interesting is I added a little bit to this.
There's actually a separate video about this over at the Liberty Conspiracy Rumble channel.
Is what ends up happening, of course, as you know, with the boom bust cycle is once the people on the bottom end realize that their prices are going up, they pull back their expenditures.
But what's already happened is inventories have been increased on the expectations that there's going to be big sales because there are low interest rates.
They've hired new people because there are low interest rates.
A lot of natural resources have been turned into things that should not have been turned into things because they had expected big sales because there were low interest rates.
And so, what ends up happening is all that stuff has to be liquidated, turned into liquid or currency that can be spread around at much reduced prices.
They got to drop, just like the Wizard of Oz, you liquidated her.
And so, in the end, what ends up happening, the final point of it is these people who purchased assets and are connected to the government, government money system, they then not only have been insulated from losses, they can buy up those resources at discount prices.
And so, it becomes a new form of colonialism, just like the old enclosure movement with the Brits, where they were taking the land from the locals for the royally connected people.
We still have the royally connected people, but it's supposedly our government.
And it's really, it's quite an insult to human dignity.
It's serial victimization that's particularly devilish because the victims, for the most part, don't see that they've been victimized.
You know, they recognize that things cost more, you know, that they have less money available for things, but you know, they attribute it to this sort of numinous force called inflation.
You know, you're the word inflation, it's a natural force.
You know, things just cost more.
They don't understand that it's a machination, that it's an engineered thing, which, as you say, is designed to extract wealth from people farther down the train for the benefit of those at the head of the train.
And in the double way that you mentioned, you know, they initially have the sounder money, the stronger purchasing power, and then they are in a position to lap up all of these extraneous resources at bargain basement prices when the whole thing collapses.
And so now they're doubly enriched at the expense of everybody else.
It's really, it's really despicable.
Yeah.
And one of the most despicable characters involved with that is Scott Besson.
You know, he worked with Soros as they broke the Bank of England, sucked up tons of resources.
That was one of his claims to fame.
You know, I don't know if he still wants to claim fame on that now, but he's still spouting nonsense.
In fact, I've got a piece, I've got a piece over here.
Trump and Treasury Secretary Besant are talking nonsense on inflation.
This comes from MarketWatch, of all things.
And he's just utterly clueless.
You know, he's telling Maria Bartiromo that he expects the price of beef to go down.
And then he made the fatuous claim that the reason that the beef prices were going up was that beef stocks, beef herds, cattle in the United States were getting sick because migrants had smuggled cattle.
They had brought their cows with them over the border.
You can't make it up.
It's like, it's like Monty Python putting the cow in the trebuchet and the catapult in Holy Grail.
What are they throwing them over the walls?
This is absurd.
I'll take issue with one thing that you said, which is that he doesn't know.
He does know.
He's not a stupid man.
They all know.
I don't want to be crass, but they're farting in our faces.
They just think that we really are stupid cattle and we don't know any better.
And sometimes they just want to smear our faces in it, just to show who's in charge.
Yeah.
You know, to segue just a little bit, you know, this whole thing with the Epstein stuff.
Yeah.
I mean, you got Trump running for office and one of his big campaign promises was, we're going to get to the bottom of the Epstein thing.
You know, he gets elected and then all of a sudden it's not a thing.
Never mind, you know, Pam Bondi standing there with all the reams of documents and files.
Oh, no, no, there really wasn't any, I mean, the effrontery of it, the hoots that they do these things.
And it's just, it scales across the border.
They know every single thing that they're doing is nonsense, but they have to say something.
So they get out there and they say it.
And they expect us to go, oh, okay, sure.
That sounds good to me.
Yeah, that really hits the sentiment that I feel as well.
And I was speaking, I mentioned the other last night, actually, on the show, last night, Eric, I mentioned one of the members of the Free State Project.
I've been in touch with them.
They live real close by.
I was talking with his daughter, and she's about 14, I think.
And she is totally aware of what tariffs do.
She's aware of the breaches of the Constitution.
And, you know, she's 14.
And I do think that sometimes when you talk to younger people, they don't come in with all this effrontery.
They're much more open to saying, yeah, that person's lying.
You know, it's a child who called out that the emperor has no clothes, right?
I think that's, you know, that's a function of the fact that we live now in an era where the line has gotten cartoonishly buffoonish.
And it's so omnipresent.
It's so blatant.
You know, maybe one of the good side effects of the whole COVID thing, you know, this girl's 14, so she, you know, a large part of her early adult life was spent during that period.
You could just see how, you know, deliberate and malicious and egregious the lies were.
And it just kind of separated, it made the veil part for a lot of people.
And you begin to realize that, and I don't think I'm being a little bit hyperbolic here when I say we're ruled by monsters, really, really bad people.
You know, it's not a question of, oh, they're misinformed.
Oh, they meant well.
They're malicious.
They're monstrous.
They're evil people.
They don't care.
You know, their whole point and purpose is to exploit and control us.
And if you start with that as the fundamental premise, you begin to see things a lot more clearly.
Yeah.
And I think it allows us to see historical figures in a different light, too.
If you look at Abraham Lincoln or Alexander Hamilton or Henry Clay, the further off in history they are, oftentimes, the more polished the statists can make them.
And you also remind me on contemporary grounds.
I was sort of struck this morning when I was listening to that radio host suddenly claiming that it was the people who were calling out Donald Trump for lawlessness who were the ones who were calling for a civil war rather than Donald Trump engaging in aggressive threats against those people, telling them you should be hanged.
I mean, it's just beyond belief, but it really hit me.
And, you know, you might have thought of it many times yourself.
I've thought of it a few times about how they've leveraged that reaction of many normal people who didn't like and didn't appreciate the fact that they were breaching the Constitution with the lockdowns, all the lies and stupidity and canards of the claims they're making about the jabs and how obvious It all was that the emperor had no clothes for so many people.
And the stark difference between those people who were trying to get their voices heard and the people in the pop media who were suppressing them or the actors and actresses who were being hired in some cases, not all, to promote the canards.
And it really struck me how the MAGA leverage, the MAGA movement has leveraged that to get them to think that they're still on the right track when they're calling for the utter destruction of due process, half of the Bill of Rights, Christian Zionism, overlooking genocide, suppressing free speech on college campuses, all of these things that if they were to just put the word COVID or lockdown in there, they'd be on the opposite side.
Now, there is a silver lining to this dark cloud, and it is that there has been a cleaving of the MAGA movement.
Yeah.
There are people, and I'm among them, who are sympathetic to the idea of making America first again, putting Americans first more, you know, more finely.
That the government, if we've got to have a government, it ought at least to operate in the general interests of most Americans.
That would be a better thing than what we have got right now.
But the propagandizing and the dishonesty has gotten so extreme that even half of the people who supported Trump, I think, and it's probably more than half, can't swallow it anymore.
The movement has fractured.
You've got the clapping SEALs who are just as bad as the people on the left during COVID, who whatever Biden did, whatever the Gesundheits Fuhrer said we had to do, yep, we have to do it in lockstep.
And if anybody else disagrees, they're awful.
They want to kill Granny.
So now you've got people on the Trump side who are a lot like that in every way.
They have a mask on, you just can't see it.
It's fundamentally the same attitude.
But I think for the first time ever, there is a huge cohort of people in this population who've just had enough, whether it's from the Republicans or the Democrats, right or left, they've had enough.
And that's what it's going to take.
It's always sort of an awakened critical mass minority.
And if you go back to the revolutionary period, to the colonial period, it wasn't before the war was won that a great bulk of the American public, the colonial American public, wanted to separate from Great Britain.
In fact, probably the majority was still Tory at that time.
Yeah.
You know, the revolution only got to be popular.
Everybody was a revolutionary after the revolution was won.
But, you know, there was a committed cohort of people who said, no, we can't deal with this anymore.
There's no negotiating with the king and with parliament.
This isn't something where we can come to some kind of a reasonable, amicable understanding.
We have to separate.
That's the only solution.
And I think we've got a cohort like that right now that could form the nucleus of something perhaps better in the years ahead, in the years ahead.
I hope so.
And I hope even just intellectually, because I find it's a much more fruitful ground and much more comfortable for me to be able to.
I mean, nobody likes conflict and disagreement and dissent and so on.
And the more government does, the more we get conflict and disagreement and dissent.
And just that ought to be a lesson to people, you know.
But I think you put a fine point on it, Eric, in, you know, in mentioning that it should be Americans first.
You know, I brought up that term America first, which is easily used for political reasons.
But Americans first, maybe there isn't as much wiggle room because that sort of could be focused more on the individual.
I think it still possibly could be misused.
But hey, before we go, Eric, I want to check in on some more comments from people.
But I also want to ask you about your most recent piece that was published about the hybrids over at Eric Peters Autos.
And so let's get some comments from people inside Rumble.
We've got Bulldog is there and we've got, let's see, says back in the late 90s when, oh, yeah, okay.
Okay, I'm going to go down here.
Okay.
It says, if you speak truth to power, then you have entered the world of politics.
When you challenge, this is from Don't Frag Me, Bro.
When you challenge the priest class and bankers, you have entered the world of politics.
Yeah, and I think, well, there's a distinction, obviously, because the world of politics is always attacking us.
And so there is a degree of defense there.
The question is whether one is trying to participate by actually getting hands on levers or indirectly getting hands on levers of the institutions.
But that's a very interesting point.
And I'd love to ask you about this hybrid piece that you've got here, Eric, to close things off.
Tell us about this one, just out, literally just out this morning.
Yeah, it dovetails on the announcement by Toyota that the 2026 RAV4, which is the first and probably the most popular of these small crossovers that you see everywhere, is henceforth going to be hybrid only.
And it's of a trend.
You may have noticed how many vehicles now have hybrid powertrains.
Why is that?
Well, it's not because of market demand.
When hybrids were available, you know, for example, the Prius, which is sort of the archetype of hybrids, and it's been around for more than 20 years, it was available.
And there were some people who really liked the idea of an ultra-fuel efficient vehicle and they would buy a Prius.
But for many years, there was not many, there weren't many others on the market, which kind of demonstrates that there really wasn't that much more demand from the market for these things.
Now, all of a sudden, pretty much every vehicle that you can shake a stick at has a hybrid drivetrain.
And the only reason for that is because of government demands.
I make the distinction between buyer demand and government demands.
Hybrids, of course, are a kind of half-electric car.
The idea is to shut the gas engine off as often as possible to slightly increase the gas mileage and to reduce the emissions of that dread awful gas that feeds plants, you know, carbon dioxide.
So it's a regulatory compliance cost that's being sold to people as a gas savings.
But how are you saving money if you end up having to spend, as in this case, about $3,500 more for the vehicle at the time of purchase?
And then you're going to be paying more to own it because it's going to cost you more to insure because insurance is based on the replacement and repair costs of the more expensive vehicle.
It's probably going to cost you more down the road because it's a more complex system.
And the more complex the system is, statistically speaking, the greater the odds are that at some point something expensive is going to fail and you're going to end up having to pay for that probably.
So you're not saving any money.
What's happening, again, per our earlier discussion is that these costs are being hidden and offloaded onto us.
The manufacturers are faced with having to figure out how are we going to comply with federal gas mileage requirements and these CO2 emissions requirements.
Well, we'll hybridize everything.
We'll take away the choice.
We won't leave it up to people to decide whether, you know, Toyota has offered a hybrid version of the RAV4 and a number of its other models, but it's always been a relatively small portion of the people who buy the RAV who chose the hybrid.
So what does that tell you?
Now they're making it so that you have no choice.
If you want a RAV4, you have to buy a hybrid.
And they've done this with other models.
And I'm not picking on Toyota.
All the other manufacturers have done it as well.
Honda has done it with the Accord.
All the other manufacturers are diving into this because they have to.
I mean, they could fight, I think.
And I've counseled them off the record.
I've suggested to them, rather than spending all this money to figure out how to comply with the government, why don't you explain to people what's going on?
Why don't you line item in your window stickers, for example, that you see on the car?
Costs of compliance.
And then have each line item, direct injection, 10-speed transmission, hybrid drivetrain.
Let people see what they're paying for.
Make it plain.
Maybe buy some ads, you know, have some ads at the Super Bowl explaining to people, you know what?
The reason your car costs $50,000 now, and that's the average price people are paying for a new car, is because of the federal government and all these regulatory requirements that it imposes.
That's why you can't find a new car that costs $15,000, which there's no reason you ought not to be able to have.
Yeah, the sheer insult of that, you know, oftentimes I think people get normalcy biased.
They hear these terms, but just the effrontery of that to say, hey, you know, we're not going to participate in the market ourselves.
We're the politicians.
We're going to tell you.
We're not going to offer our own product and just peacefully compete.
We're going to tell you who invested all this into all these things.
And we're going to come up with all these insulting so-called rationales and justifications to say, oh, well, you know, we got to protect against the giant climate god.
You know, it's just so insulting and insufferable.
It's ridiculous.
And, you know, I'm looking at the RAV4.
I'm thinking about that cost.
I was like, you know, again, how about just something cheap?
Something cheap.
That's all I need.
And I got a question for you, Eric.
You know, as you've pointed out numerous times, the EVs are very, very bad in cold weather, as we know.
You know, they don't hold their charge.
Is there anything to be concerned when we talk about hybrids with that sort of thing as well?
Yeah, but less so because the hybrid system is essentially designed to be a part-time system.
The vehicle is generally speaking usually being propelled by the power of the gas engine, which operates as a generator as well.
And it feeds electricity to the battery as you drive.
And the way that the thing is set up, the battery never discharges beyond a certain point.
So that's good for the battery's long-term longevity in that it never is heavily discharged and then subjected to heavy charging.
It's maintained in a sort of homeostatic state for the majority of the time.
And of course, it's not responsible for predominantly responsible for propelling the vehicle.
It's sort of there as an adjunct.
It powers the accessories when the engine is not running.
And it sometimes, in some cases, provides a little more motive power when you get going.
So it will last longer than an EV battery would.
And because it's smaller, significantly smaller, it's not as expensive to replace.
It's about $1,500, give or take, $1,500 to $3,000, depending on the vehicle.
And that's not totally out of hand.
If you had to replace a transmission in a car, you might have to spend $2,000 or $3,000 to put a transmission in a typical car.
It's not a deal killer, in other words.
If you have a 12-year-old hybrid and the battery is starting to wane and it's starting to lose its charge capacity and the guy says, well, you're going to have to buy a new battery for it.
It's going to cost you $1,500 or $2,000.
It's still worth doing that because the vehicle at that point probably has some life left in it.
And its value as such is probably around $5,000 at that point.
Have an EV, a pure EV, after say 10 years that's already lost, depreciated massively, and you're facing having to put $15,000 or $20,000 into it for a battery.
No way.
It's untenable.
Leaving aside, most people simply can't do that.
I mean, you'd have to have another financing scheme to buy the battery, which is equivalent to buying another car.
It's not something most people are going to be able to write a check for or even put on their credit card because most people don't have $15,000 worth of credit available on their credit card.
Yeah, it's much less of a worry with a hybrid to answer your question.
Well, it's very interesting to think about these things.
Luckily, I think people have started to wake up a little too late for some of the large auto manufacturers, whether it be GM or Volkswagen, just billions just dumped right down the tubes.
But there is at least some hope that people are starting to wake up to these things.
I wish they would, as you have on the piece, Eric, look into this regulatory state and just even just the term regulation is an insult.
You know, it's just, it's just so frustrating.
It's like, no, this is a dick tock.
Mussolini would approve.
It's just, they need to address what I think is the Achilles heel of all of this, which is the premise that absent these regulations, we would have unsafe vehicles.
We would have dirty vehicles, you know, because they've been able to manipulate and play on people's reasonable worries about the commons, you know, about the idea of having vehicles that are spewing toxic stuff into the air and making us all sick, stuff like that.
There's an era, there's an aura of moral legitimacy to that, you know, even if it could be handled in tort court.
But setting that aside, the point is that neither emissions have not been an issue in any meaningful sense since the mid-late 1990s.
So, you know, 30 plus years now, it has been a non-issue.
We're talking about fractional reductions that are meaningless in the grand scheme of things.
And this just malicious lie about carbon dioxide, which has nothing to do with air pollution at all.
It doesn't, it doesn't smell, it doesn't, it doesn't make the skies cloudy, nothing.
You know, so the idea that that's there, they have to frame that as an emission, you know, implying that it's a pollutant.
It's dishonest.
And then the safety stuff.
I mean, if I want to drive a car without airbags, it doesn't mean it's not a safe car.
Maybe it's less crash worthy if I get into a crash, but that's a different matter.
And as you say, how dare they?
It's my choice.
Yes.
If I want to run the hypothetical risk of being potentially injured or more injured in a car without airbags, if I have an accident, if I run it into a tree, and I prefer to not have to spend thousands of dollars more for a car with the airbags, that's my choice.
I'm an adult human being who's able to make these decisions.
Just like I choose to go to the gym to work out to keep myself in shape.
It's my choice.
I don't have to do that.
I do it because it makes sense to me.
And we all should have the right to make the decisions that are sensible as we see it, in my opinion.
I know I'm a conversation.
I don't need Elizabeth Dole to be buying my car with me, you know, and putting it.
And there are a couple of things that brings to mind, whether it's through coercion or deception, the means by which politically interested people or power interested people get other people to do things.
And you brought to mind how Thomas Massey had explained that some of these people that Epstein brought in as 13, 14 year old kids, that they then were told that they could get out of it if they recruited other kids.
And Massey just said, just think of the evil of that, you know, and the weight that that puts on those kids.
And I thought, you know, in a way, these lies about things like carbon dioxide, which have been spread by even the Supreme Court, just ridiculous.
The EPA, all these lies, in a way, that's not coercive.
It's deceptive.
It is coercive in a way because we're forced to pay for all those political institutions.
So that's, you know, that's the coercion.
And then they use it to create new legislation that's coercive.
But the acidic, insidious, deceptive way is another means, maybe not through coercion, but through deception, to get younger people who the politicians often know very well that they're lying about carbon dioxide.
You know, they know that it is not a pollutant, and yet they spread the canard.
They know that it's not anthropogenically destroying the earth through climate change, but they spread the lie and they, through deception, get young people to perpetuate the lie.
And how evil is that?
You know, it's particularly evil because of obviously the naivete of the young.
And in the second place, the instinct that most young people have that wanes over time as you get old to do the right thing.
Kids are generally more interested in justice than older people who've tended to grow cynical.
That's why kids tend to be revolutionary more so than older people who get set in their ways.
They see something that is wrong to them and they want to correct that wrong.
So they have been manipulated into believing that the older generations are befouling the earth.
They're causing the climate to change and they're ruining their future.
And it's understandable.
You're a 15-year-old kid and you're looking down the road and thinking, I'm going to be around for the next 60, 70 years potentially.
And I'd like to live in a habitable world.
So I'm opposed to these polluters and these people who are out to despoil the earth.
It's horrific.
Yeah.
It's amazing.
Well, Eric, thank you so much for joining us on the David Knight show.
And I'll look forward to talking to you.
It's funny because if folks aren't aware, I had texted Eric to see if he wanted to join me on Liberty Conspiracy last night.
And then Travis contacted me to see if I could fill in for David and Travis.
And so I said, hey, Eric, how would you like to pop on on David's show tomorrow?
So thanks for accommodating the schedule very, very much.
And as Angelo Paul Tana would say, thank you, my good friend, for accommodating my schedule.
And thank you for coming on here.
It's just horrific.
And the website, of course, is awesome.
And before we go, I will display the mighty BA cap that you can get at the David Knight Show, the sheep, the ba cap, and I hope at the Eric Peters Auto's website.
So check it out, everybody, because you're going to love that website.
It's awesome.
Sign up for it and you'll really enjoy it.
Eric, thanks, man.
Great, great stuff.
And we didn't do the Vulcan mind melt, but we'll do it on Liberty Conservation.
You got it.
You got it, man.
Thanks.
Take care, man.
All right.
And we'll take a little break and hear some music from the great David Knight and Travis and the gang.
We'll be enjoying the rest of the afternoon.
And thank you so much for being here with me as we take the opportunity to look further at some of the major stories that are out there.
And one that Eric mentioned, let's talk about immigration coming up and truckers.
It's your move.
And now, the David Know.
Well, again, big thanks to Eric Peters for joining us.
Remember the Ba Cap.
Head on over there.
He's got so many great things in addition to the articles.
You'll love them.
And I really appreciate the comments from everyone as well.
We've got this from Pesanvante 1776, his great interview guard.
And we have this from Doug.
Thanks.
Welp, the hour of power is over.
Thank you so much.
You guys are just terrific.
I love it.
And so again, if you want to join me on Liberty Conspiracy, that's Monday through Friday at 6 p.m.
And you can hang out live there on Rumble or on my X feed.
And that's at Guard Goldsmith.
And if you are interested, you can also go to the Gardner Goldsmith Substack.
That's Gardner Goldsmith Substack.
And you can find the news notes there every Monday through Friday.
I produce those for the paid subscribers over there, as well as the Sunday News Assembly, which is available to anyone who wants to check it out on, of course, Fridays.
No, it's on Sundays.
Now, let's take the opportunity to check out the next big item.
And then about 10 minutes from now, Jason Barker will be joining us to chat with us about some major items coming up for Nights of the Storm.
But I want to discuss the immigration issue and truckers, because this is something that I think needs addressing.
You know, we discussed this a little bit about ICE invading states without any invitation.
That runs contrary to Article 4, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution.
Donald Trump, supposedly using the Alien Enemies Act, which is unconstitutional.
You either have a declaration of war against an invader, invading state, or you issue letters of mark and reprisal.
Very important to remember that the only way that the federal government can go into states is upon the invitation of the legislature of the state or the governor if the legislature is out of session.
It's in Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution.
Now, they might try to use an excuse that under the necessary and proper clause of the Constitution, the federal government can go into, say, protect federal courthouses.
But as I brought up with people, also in the Constitution, there's a conflict there because the Constitution only delineates three forms of land that the federal government can run.
A 10 square mile area for the capital of the nation state, Washington, D.C., territories before they become states, and military garrisons.
So although the Congress is licensed, according to the Constitution, to create a court system above the state Supreme Courts and subservient to the federal Supreme Court, they can't actually put it on any federal land other than those three types of land.
So the claim that they're going in to protect these federal courts, which would be the only closest valid one if they have not been invited in, is actually not that valid because those courts, if they wanted to be truly federal courts, would either have to be on military garrisons in Washington, D.C., or on a territory.
And that's just the way that it is.
You can't have it any other way.
Otherwise, they're going to have to rent land from the states and it would be state land.
I'm just saying that.
And again, that's irrefutable.
There's nothing you can do to argue against it except try to come up with different rationales to say, well, I don't mind it.
But hopefully, if you're voting and you're voting on offices created by the Constitution, you will mind it or one will mind it.
Maybe not you.
Maybe you understand it completely and you agree.
I don't know.
But hopefully it's a valid argument and it's a ripe area of exploration for you.
Because if you want to deal honestly with the Constitution, that's a very important point.
The other point that I bring up often, and I've got it in my book, Live for Your Die, which is right over here.
I've got many, many pages on it, is the research on the fact that immigration is a state issue.
That is irrefutable.
I will be able to win any argument, and so will you, but you might not win politically.
So, just to keep it in mind, it was part of federalism, as Jefferson and Madison brought up.
And so, all these invasions into the states in Illinois, where Pritzker correctly brings up, we don't want you here, where Gavin Newsom correctly brings up, we don't want you here, or Hochul correctly brings up, we don't want you here.
And a court just ruled that in New York, the state National Guard does not have to comply with the feds to police immigration.
And New York cops don't have to comply with the feds to police immigration.
And by the way, they're going to go into New York City probably in the next week.
They just announced that.
These are very important matters of federalism, and they're not being addressed.
One other thing that's not being addressed is the economic side of it.
So, let's give you one more court case, and then we're going to talk economics and this canard about the foreign truckers.
Yes, let's talk about that right now.
Yeah, you got it, my friends.
A little Perry Mason.
Haha.
Great books by Earl Stanley Garner.
If you get a chance, they're wonderful.
the short wonderful stories right which reminds me actually i should mention if you're interested you can join me over at the former star trek writing fellow channel on youtube because they're not censoring that and on rumble
That's my alternate channel to talk about books and television and film production because I worked at the script writing department of The Outer Limits and at Star Trek Voyager.
And I've also had novellas published and I've had a novel accepted, but they wanted me to change my name so that it wouldn't be associated with my political work.
So I denied the contract.
I said, no, thanks.
So that has yet to come out.
So I've got a lot of prose writing.
So that's former Star Trek Writing Fellow channel.
Would love for you to find that over at YouTube and love for you to find it at Rumble.
We would really enjoy having more people join us at the channel.
I talk lots of books.
We talked about Earl Stanley Gardner, talked about the creator of Fu Man Chu, talked about E.R. Edison, who really influenced Tolkien and C.S. Lewis.
Really interesting writers.
And I love talking about that.
And on Friday nights on Liberty Conspiracy, we always read a short story, or almost always read a short story for Fiction Friday.
On Wednesdays on Liberty Conspiracy Live on Rumble and on my ex, we do Wordsmith Wednesdays, where I try to highlight a particular author.
The most recent one we did was a friend of mine who's passed away named Brian Lumley, was a real big writer in H.P. Lovecraft, Cthulhu Circles, and did a whole series of books called the Necroscope series, a lot of vampire stories and stuff.
Great guy, British guy, very interesting guy.
So find the former Star Trek Writing Fellow channel over there.
It's my opportunity to sort of promote it to the audience, you folks here.
And we'd love to have you there.
And I also want to open it up to people to get their ideas when we go live on Liberty Conspiracy about stories that really were spooky for them or movies that they really love, that sort of thing.
So we'll do that tonight on Liberty Conspiracy.
You can join us tonight on Rumble.
I want to give you a couple items that are in the news on immigration that I think are pretty important.
First off, Alligator Alcatraz, the legal access to it.
That's been in the news big time.
So let me give you this one, okay?
These are some of my backnotes, and here it is.
Judge pushes for resolution in lawsuit over legal access to alligator Alcatraz.
One of the things that I mentioned to the Liberty Conspiracy audience is this top-down, money-funneling, fascist system for corporations and military industrial contractors, where even members of the EU, you can see that they're going to get their breadbuttered by either continuing the warfare in Ukraine because they have either stocks or friends in the military apparatchiks over in Europe, or they have connections to heavy industry and cleanup crews,
and they're going to have them get involved as well with the cleanup in Ukraine.
That also is manifest in the federalist system of the United States, where, for example, the FEMA folks are now trying to incentivize governors to build detention centers in states, giving them hundreds of millions of dollars to say, oh, and of course, the governors will say, We're going to employ all these state residents.
Isn't it wonderful?
Well, the money comes from debt servicing, of course, or not even servicing from debt.
And so, here's this story in Orlando, where they set the template with Alligator Alcatraz.
A federal judge in Florida is pushing for a resolution in a lawsuit over whether detainees, there shouldn't even be a term like that, in an immigration center in the Florida Everglades known as Alligator Alcatraz, are getting adequate access to attorneys.
U.S. District Judge Cherry Polster Chappell last Friday ordered a two-day conference to be held next month in her Fort Myers courtroom with attorneys present who have the authority to settle.
The judge asked for an update at a hearing next Monday.
Now, in the Constitution, it's up to Florida as to whether or not they're going to go after immigrants, okay?
But if they do, they have to afford them all of the protections under the Bill of Rights.
Those protections aren't just for Americans.
The First Amendment doesn't just apply to Americans, and neither do the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments.
The court will not entertain excuses regarding leaving early for flights or other meetings.
The judge wrote: The lawsuit filed by detainees against the feds and state government over legal access is one of three federal cases challenging practices in the immigration detention center that was built this summer as a remote airstrip in the Florida Everglades at a remote airstrip by the administration and Governor Ron DeSantis.
Of course, they have to ship in the water, it's incredibly expensive.
The third lawsuit claims immigration is a federal issue, and Florida agencies and private contractors hired by the state have no authority to operate the facility.
That's going to be a big one to watch because they'll probably double down on the 1875 Chi Lung decision.
That's a big mistake.
Okay.
Now, I want to mention the trucking story.
As we know, the Transportation Secretary, Sean Duffy, is speaking nonsense about a labor shortage that at salary levels that really are restrictive, Americans won't fill.
And that's in trucking.
Let me give you a little bit more information about this.
Duffy is saying truckers from saving truckers from illegals, he says.
There's so much hope now.
So, as I've done for years at MRC TV, for years, I have been covering the onerous regulations on truckers that increase the costs of the trucking lines.
They can't be as efficient.
They can't make as much.
Their profit margins decrease.
As those margins decrease, they have to shift and try to cut expenses.
One of the only ways that is left for them to cut expenses is to go black market drivers.
This is just something that we've seen coming for years.
Let me give you an example.
This is what Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy says.
He's helping the trucking sector.
He's helping them.
He's helping them recover from the damaging flood of illegal migrant drivers.
Well, guess what?
Yellow trucking went out of business last year because of the regulations, because of the lockdowns, and how they couldn't afford anything anymore because of all the expenses.
The tariffs have increased expenses.
You're not going to help the trucking lines by saying one way you've been able to decrease expenses by hiring cheaper labor is now closed off to you.
Just over the past few days, Mr. Duffy was able to get the California government to revoke the CDLs of 17,000 truckers who are not American truckers.
Part of the argument is that, well, they're much more dangerous.
They're very, very dangerous.
So I went through some of the information about the dangers of the truckers, and that's over at my substack.
So if you go to the Liberty Conspiracy News Notes for the 18th, I believe, I've got that information in there.
So let me go into this and see if I can find it.
I think it's in there.
Let me just make sure I've got it.
It might have been on Wednesday.
Yeah, it was probably on Wednesday.
So I'll find it again for you just to give you the information.
So, and there's a separate podcast all about this that runs through whether or not the domestic truckers or the foreign truckers are the most dangerous.
Let me see if I've got this for you here.
Yeah, it must be from another day.
I'll just give you the quick information on the side here because I've got it elsewhere.
So basically, there are 3 million truckers who are American truckers on the roads.
And there are 200,000 truckers who are foreign truckers.
Of the American truckers and the foreign truckers, there have been 2,510 accidents associated, not caused by, but involving truckers.
Of the 2,510 over the past year, 2,505 were caused by American truckers.
Five were caused by foreigners who hold licenses.
But since there are so many more American truckers, we have to look at proportionality.
What proportion of the truckers is represented by the numbers of people who have been involved with fatal accidents?
So let me see if I can find this over for you here.
Yeah, see if I can get it.
In fact, I've got it on my podcast, but I'll get that to you later.
It turns out that the percentage of truckers who are involved with associated with dangerous crashes is much smaller for the foreign truckers.
Let's see if I can go over here to get this for you.
All right.
And I'll show you an example of some of the problems that the truckers have run into that have cost these expenses to go up so much.
Here's a piece from MRC TV from 2019 showing truckers engaging in slow rollout protests.
And Trump was president, but they were upset that Donald Trump wasn't changing things quickly enough and they were going out of business.
Here's something that didn't get a lot of pop media coverage.
Last week, truckers nationwide engaged in a protest of onerous federal mandates that have been hobbling them for years.
Hi, folks.
I'm Gardner Goldsmith for MRC TV.
And yes, on Friday, April 12th, long-haul truckers nationwide engaged in what they called a slow-roll protest of federal regulations, something that really only got brief or slightly curious mentions and a handful of media markets.
A lot of big rigs in New York City today blocking traffic, all part of a planned one-day protest.
A number of large trucks were parked in front of our ABC building on the Upper West Side.
This was just a few hours ago.
Other truckers conducted slow roll protests on highways all across the country.
They are upset over what they call excessive regulations controlling their hours.
They want rules relaxed on electronic logging devices and more truck parking along expressways.
They hope industry leaders will get their message.
But this is actually much bigger than those reports indicate because the trucking industry is being crushed by heavy federal regulations that have really been piled on since the start of the Obama administration.
See, the feds impose their mandates primarily through three agencies.
That would be the EPA, the Department of Transportation, and a very little-known monster called the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, all of which are excused by misreading the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution, which, as James Madison said, was not meant to let the feds regulate anything that crosses state borders.
So the Obama administration hit American businesses with over 4,000 mandates, and many of those were applied to truckers.
For example, Obama imposed new fuel efficiency mandates on truckers, forcing them to change their loads, the physical makeup of their trucks, or buy new trucks altogether.
And if they didn't comply to the fuel mandates, they were fined.
The Obama administration imposed restricted hours of service mandates, cutting by 12 hours the time that truckers could work over a seven-day period and compelling them to stop for a half hour every eight hours.
The Obama gang wanted to impose actual speed limits on truckers, but they had to settle with something that is called the electronic logging device or ELD, an intrusive monitor that actually monitors trip times, allows police to offload the data and essentially works as a de facto speed monitor anyway.
Obama wanted to force all truckers to undergo tests for sleep apnea, but ended up settling with a consolation prize to prohibit what are called glider kit trucks, where old engines are used in new frames and chassis.
So, so yes, and there's a lot more there.
You know, I've been writing about this for years, and it's very, very obvious.
Now, some people will look at those examples of the accidents and they'll say, but these foreigners, they're getting into these terrible accidents, and we just can't have that.
So, let's look at the statistics.
If we go to my Liberty Conspiracy news notes at the Gardner-Goldsmith Substack, this is from the news notes from, let's see, the 19th.
So, if you want a reference to it, if you're one of the paid subscribers, you'll find it.
But I'll just give you this information.
In fact, I'll show it to you on the screen right now from the 19th.
The statistics are very, very clear.
As I mentioned, based on the numbers, if you actually break it down proportionally, the foreign drivers are actually safer than the American drivers.
So, I'll put this up on the screen for you so we can read it together and you can check it out.
If we go down here, you'll see here.
I said, so we talked about Sean Duffy upset about this.
I said, by the way, thus far in 2025, non-domiciled CDL holders comprise less than 0.2% of all CDL holders involved with, not necessarily causing fatal crashes in the U.S.
So far, domiciled CDL holders have been involved in 2,505 fatal crashes of the total 2,510 for the year.
According to the federal NHTSB, only five crashes are cited as involving non-domiciled CDL holders.
To measure that with more precision, as percentages of the domiciled and non-domiciled who are on the roads, non-domiciled who have been involved in fatal crashes this year represent five of the 200,000 recorded with CDLs.
That's their population, the non-domiciled.
Five of the 200,000.
That is 0.0025% involved with fatal crashes.
Domiciled, who have been involved in fatal crashes, comes to 2,505 of the 3 million license holders, or approximately 0.759%.
So when you hear the canard that foreigners on trucking routes are causing a spike in fatal crashes, please consider this.
Also, please consider that the normative aggregate CDL-related crashes leading to death has actually been going down from 8.3% in 2023 to 2024.
And the numbers indicate that 2025 will see even fewer CDL-related road deaths.
Now, again, that could have been borne upon by fewer truckers out on the roads, fewer packages being sent around.
There's something that I would have to investigate there as well.
And on Liberty Conspiracy, somebody brought up a point: yeah, but they can't read.
They can't read the language.
Well, first of all, most people are using direction things on their trucks.
But let's say there's an emergency and they can't read a sign, hypothetically, if we go into some speculation, very quick speculation.
There are a lot of American truckers who can't read either, most likely.
Just look at the number of illiterate people who are graduated from schools.
So that's something that really becomes sort of a fungible point.
But the facts remain.
The statistics are clear, regardless.
Somehow they're doing a better job than the American truckers are, as far as safety goes.
And you're not going to hear that from Sean Duffy.
He says the exact opposite, just like they said about these politicians talking about the military oath.
Talking about the military oath, let's get a little opportunity to talk about a guy who is a great host.
He is with us right now.
He is Jason Barker of Nights of the Storm, and he's popping in to be a guest right now to give us a little information about what might be coming up on Nights of the Storm tomorrow at 2 in the afternoon on Rumble.
Jason, welcome to the David Knight Show.
Thanks for coming in.
I know it's a little bit after what we had discussed, but I appreciate you being there, man.
It's great to see you and that legendary beard, brother.
Well, thanks, Guard, for having me on.
It's an honor again to be on with you and on the David Knight show.
Um, yeah, we got some exciting stuff coming up on Nights of the Storm tomorrow at 2 p.m. Eastern.
We're having what's her name?
Holy crap, I had it written down here.
Uh, it's Michelle Spencer.
She has another name, so I had to figure out if that's a maiden name or what.
But yeah, Michelle Spencer is a pivotal figure right now.
She is a whistleblower, medical whistleblower.
So, this is kind of a good follow-up to having Zoe on.
We had two episodes with Zoe, right?
Who's also a whistleblower?
Yeah, but Michelle's coming on to talk about the skyrocketing, um, what is it, uh, miscarriages and stillborns and death, you know, inside and outside the womb.
Like the numbers will blow you away.
And she's actually being protected right now, so she hasn't lost her job.
She still works where she works because of the whistleblower status.
But there's a humongous lawsuit going on that nobody's talking about.
She's been on a few podcasts, and the story will break your heart.
I probably won't say much because it's kind of near and dear to my heart when it comes to children like this.
So I think Karen's going to lead that one up.
But she's actually being backed by Children's Health Defense.
And I think we couldn't talk about it before because Zoe, I think, may or may not be an expert witness in this case to back up some of these facts, these numbers and statistics that they're hiding now.
So that's who we have coming on.
And then in a couple of weeks after that, we have Scott Helmer coming on.
I don't know if you know who Scott Helmer is.
Yeah, I'm going to be wanting to get him on Liberty because I love Scott.
He's great.
Oh, yeah.
Let him email.
Yeah, we're going to be getting him over.
I love him.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Let me know.
His booking agent, me and her, have been going back and forth.
She's a really nice lady.
But his story is a phenomenal story about standing up for the right thing throughout COVID.
He's a live performer, opens up for some really big bands.
He refused to do the mask mandate.
He refused to do the COVID jab and lost about, I want to say it was like $35,000 in that year that the supposed pandemic was going on.
But he stood his ground and he was scrubbed from every platform.
And I think at one point, he may have been back.
I'm going to have to clarify that with him because I seen, I read an article on it somewhere, but because of the AI music stuff, that he went ahead and voluntarily pulled his stuff back down to stand up against it.
Yeah, I believe he was part of that group that is pulling his music down.
And I love his music, first of all.
And sometimes he's in the chat in David's chat, which is just terrific, you know.
And yes, I've been in touch with his person who helps out on media as well.
And just wonderful people.
And you think about, I don't know if you're familiar with the Reverend Horton Heat.
He's a rockabilly performer, just awesome, great, great.
He was in an episode of Homicide Life on the Streets, actually, in a motel.
They never actually, he just basically sat between two areas where the story was happening on the show, and they would move the camera past.
He was in his little motel room.
But he would, he said, look, I'm going to play.
He said, my band is reliant on live play to make our living.
So you can try to stop us.
You can try to arrest us.
We're going to do it.
And just like Scott, you know, I mean, just amazing courage on the part of these people, whether it's them or it's, you know, Van Morrison or Eric Clapton or others speaking up, you know, this whole concept of truth to power.
The more people who do that, how much more comfortable do you feel living in a world like that?
You know, that's wonderful.
That's great.
So I'll look forward to that.
And, you know, Jason, I was, I was curious to ask you because we first heard about you after you were so integral in getting the exemption for military members to not have to take the jab.
And, you know, it was, it was, that was, I was, I was curious because I've never really asked you about what went through your mind as you were approaching retirement time.
And you, you know, how stressful was that for you to say, they want me to do this.
And before you really figured out a way to do it, you know, what was going through your mind of I'm either going to have to stop or I'm going to have to take this thing.
And it's, you know, supported by abortion.
It could hurt me.
You know, how was that?
How did that play on you emotionally, especially looking at your finances, knowing I can't leave now?
I'm this close to retirement.
What could you describe any of that to us?
Well, for me personally, I wouldn't care much, but I have a family.
And that was the hard part.
And I'm telling you right now, I was talking to some people offline about this, about specifically about Scott.
And that's why I'm excited to have him on because he took that stance as well.
So we have a lot in common there.
But, you know, people said it's not as easy said as done.
You know, people are wrapped up in these, you know, you had Eric on talking about these car loans, trying to get car payments, your mortgage payments, houses are stupid expensive now, health care.
You can't just lose your job because your family relies on you for that job.
So it really was a family decision.
And I probably would not have been able to hold out if my wife did not stick with me and say, you know, whatever you want to do, let's do it.
We'll figure it out.
And that's a real hard step to make, especially as the provider, the only provider of the family.
At the time, I had, well, we had our second grandchild coming that lived with us, and one of my daughters living with us.
So we're talking about a whole household here that relied strictly on my income.
And, you know, the retirement thing that actually worked out pretty good.
God, God will see you through.
If you see it through, he will see you through.
I promise that.
I promise that.
Because right now, the army hates me because they're paying me more than I used to make to sit at the home and watch my grandson.
And that's because of what they did.
So anyway, yeah, it wasn't so much hard on me as it was hard on for me.
It was a simple decision, you know.
But when you have family, I do understand how people say, well, some people just didn't have a choice.
Yeah, you had a choice, but it came with consequences, and those consequences could be dire.
I'm always amazed by the dynamism and the elasticity of people to be able to move and do something different and take on another job and acclimate themselves to doing something new.
And for example, when my father left Washington when he was working with Charlotte down in the education department, and he said, you know, we're just waiting.
And they left at the same time.
They're like, we're not going to get rid of the education department.
And so Charlotte is a beat, my dad, you know, they're both, they talked and he said, I'm going to leave.
You know, he was so close to getting his retirement, but he left.
And he ended up working on cars for a while.
And, you know, he had a family.
I was still in high school, you know, and it is amazing because, as you say, God provides.
And one of the things that I think Jason God provides us is an ability to recognize that we've done the right thing.
And that provides incredible satisfaction.
And I think it's fuel to allow us to take some chances, try a different job, you know, deliver milk or, you know, get into landscaping or, you know, do something, anything, any job that is productive.
And I don't know what it is about contemporary society, but I think for quite a while, maybe from the 50s, 60s, and 70s through the 90s, people just thought that there was just a track.
You had to go to college, get a job.
And what am I going to do?
I got to keep this job.
And it really ties them into the corporate system.
That's a real shame, I think.
Yeah.
And going back to the trusting in God thing, I think it's important that God gives us the wisdom and discernment to have a plan as well.
And my plan, so we were a little fortunate because my dad had passed away.
Not saying that that's fortunate.
That was horrible, but he had passed away and left us a little bit of something like some stocks that got divided up between the family.
And so we had a little bit of wiggle room to last us a couple of months should they decide to deny my exemption and boot me out with no retirement.
So my plan at the time was to go back to Illinois because when I entered the military, I was working in a car factory making bumpers for cars, which is why I love Eric because I'm in the car thing and I'm wearing his hat, by the way.
EPR.
Yeah.
Yes, man.
But, you know, I think it's important that we do try to have a plan, but don't try to force the plan.
Just have a plan.
And that was our plan was that I would go back to Illinois, which I do not want to live there.
I did want to talk guns today, but we probably won't get to it.
But Illinois is not very friendly on guns, as you know.
So I didn't want to go there.
But for the sake of the family, I would go back there because our policy was that if you left that job to go into the military, you're promised your job back.
And that's one of those jobs that, you know, for the first year or two, you're kind of in the layoff cycle.
They paid really well.
The work wasn't too terribly hard.
But you would be in the layoff cycle for the first couple of years, like when they had to scale down or whatever.
But then after two or three years, you were no longer in the layoff cycle.
Well, when you come back from the military, you bypass that layoff cycle, right?
And I only worked there for like eight months.
So that's a pretty big jump.
I can go right back into my old job at the same pay, low cost of living area there.
I was down South Illinois, not up by Chicago, where it's crazy.
And, you know, you can get you a nice 10 acre plot of land and a double white home on there, something pretty cheap.
Yeah.
Maybe not today, but back then you could.
But that was, you know, I think that I made my plans and I said, you know what?
I feel like I have a good enough plan.
So let's just roll with this.
Let's stand our ground.
The family supported me.
They said, okay, we like your plan.
We'll do what we got to do.
And God just gave us something better on the back end.
And that's what I'm seeing with a lot of my friends that actually did the same as me.
You know, they PCS'd on different locations and stuff, but we still keep in contact.
And a lot of them, we were talking the whole time.
And that was a huge, it really bolstered me to stand my ground because other people were doing it as well.
So you either stand together or you hang separate, right?
Or you hang together, you hang separate.
I don't know how the saying goes, but that communication with people who were of a similar mindset.
And these people were also 16, 17, 18 years in.
And said, no, I'm not doing that.
And it also was important to me to stand that ground because I really cared about my soldiers.
My soldiers are like family.
And I tried to show them that you can stand up.
You talked about the Constitution, constitutionality, lawful orders, unlawful orders.
I looked at it as an unlawful order.
Yes.
And outside of the oath that we take, and I'm pretty sure that the last time I read the oath, the word lawful was in front of presidential order.
I'm pretty sure.
I tried to find that document before I came on.
I couldn't find it.
It's packed in a box somewhere.
But I'm pretty sure that we were required to obey the lawful orders of the president of the United States and officers appointed over us.
So I'd have to confirm that.
But the thing is, there's other regulations that talk about lawful versus unlawful orders from the president and your commanders.
And that's what I based my whole thing on was that.
And then I wrote it up differently.
But I didn't expect to talk about this thing.
No, I didn't expect to ask about it, but I was just struck by it just popped into my mind what you must have gone through.
And, you know, I remember at the time hearing about what you were doing and it hit me then, you know, just the stress of it must have just been unbelievable.
And yet you pulled through, you know, and it was just, and you helped so many people with what you did that, you know, it stands as a moment in American history that, you know, few people can say that they were able to pull through for that many people and really save them,
you know, from such dire consequences, whether it's professional or it's medical, ethical as well, you know, with, as you say, breach of the oath, the use of fetal cells, you know, just terrible things all involved with that.
And just the massive deception of it, you know, being lying to us and we knew it because we have scientific documentation that shows that what they were saying was not true.
And that's deception right there.
It's not informed consent.
And, you know, it's not that I did anything.
I had my sphere of influence was so tiny.
I had some other leaders I knew that were out in other bases and they were trying to help their soldiers.
I had my 12 soldiers or so I was trying to help at the time before they moved me where I had no soldiers.
David Knight was the one who got that out there.
So praise God for David Knight getting that out there.
And if people were helped, it's not because of me.
It's because David put it out there.
And I do pray for him and his family because I know Karen lost her brother, her twin brother, and they're taking a little time off.
There's a lot to deal with.
So prayers for them.
And yeah.
You know, sometimes I'm reminded, Jason, of just the strength of David in his show and how God brought him through to InfoWars, then saw the dissension between him and Alex, who obviously was putting forward things that were totally unbelievable.
And David had noticed these things and was just going to keep trying to get the truth out as long as possible until he was fired.
And, you know, that sort of integrity in one's life is remarkable.
And it's something that any family can see.
But the family members of the Knight family are just wonderful people.
They also recognize the goodness in David.
And also, just on a personal note, as you and I know, seeing David recovering from the strokes the way he has, you know, full boar going at it, doing an awesome job.
And now the way that they've been able to juggle things during that time period when Travis took over and Lance was on the production side of things.
Now it's an even stronger program and it's so dynamic that they've been able to add new things.
It really is terrific.
And I'm just so pleased that I've met you and Tiger and Karen and Tony and Don Jeffries and Billy Ray Valentine and Eric Peters and so many wonderful folks, Even folks just within the chat who communicate with me, Skunk Hollow, and so many other folks who are so kind, Harry and I handy and wonderful people.
And it's a great thing.
It feels like family, but at the same time, sometimes I almost forget of the strength of David's voice to be able to communicate to people.
And I love the fact that he has a good, good audience and they've been finding him.
And we have a good viewership going today over at X on David's X. We're not streaming on my X over at Gardner Guard Goldsmith right now, but I want to remind people that one of these offshoots is Nights of the Storm.
And your website has a lot of these folks who are associated with us over there.
Why don't you tell people what's over at Nights of the Storm?
Oh, yeah, Nights of the Storm.
You know, the landing page just kind of talks about us a little bit.
And we were born out of David Knight chat.
And by the way, I want to give a hat tip to all the folks over in chat today.
Chat was pretty amazing.
We were talking tariffs and constitutionality, a lot of really good conversation.
It's like a second show that you're watching.
So we're watching you, Guard, and we're watching the chat.
And sometimes we'll get some trolls in there that'll kind of disrupt, but it was really good today.
And I was like, this is great.
And that's how we were born, Nights of the Storm.
We were in the chat talking about things and we're like, let's expand on this beyond the show.
We'll do our own show.
And that's how we were born.
And we have a lot of great guests on.
Some of them are David Knight listeners.
Some are organic to us now.
And we reach out.
Recently, we've been booked out about a month out.
So we're really, since I have a little more time now, I'm actually trying to be more productive on the scheduling and production side.
And then we have Ashley and Karen, amazing co-hosts.
I think it's a hostile takeover, Guard.
I think it's a hostile takeover.
Well, you can see I was calling up the, I'm getting the Rumble channel going over there, Nights of the Storm.
Yeah, they're awesome.
And you all have such very strong backgrounds in various things that it's just, and the research is just great.
So I know you wanted to talk a little bit about guns.
Let's go a couple more minutes before I wrap up the show.
Talk about guns and things like that that you wanted to bring up because you and I have been communicating a little bit about this on text.
Yeah.
So one of the things I've been looking at, and I actually went to my gun shop recently, gun shop slash shooting range recently, we talked about the Glock debacle.
I don't know if you heard about the Glock debacle in California.
No.
So short of it is that California did some legislation that banned the sale of new Glocks of all but like three of their models because you can put the switch on it, you know, to make it fully auto.
Yeah.
And the concerning part about this is that right after that, so this goes in effect July 1st of 2026.
They can no longer sell any Glocks of certain models.
And there's some far, far-reaching implications to this because I got to talking to my gun guy here.
I was actually picking up a lower.
Matter of fact, I'll do a little show and tell here.
This is the 3D 3D gun printed.
That's 3D printed.
It's 3D printed in multiple pieces, about 15 pieces that are now glued together.
But I did it as an article series I did for Substack to show the fallacy of you could just buy a $50 3D printer and crank out guns all day.
It's completely bogus, but they're basing a lot of legislation on this false narrative.
So I printed that.
I tested it.
Actually, Surge the Purge went out with me and we got a video on his channel shooting it.
All right.
But it fell over and broke.
So I ripped the guts out of it and I built an actual, you know, weapon with it, a metal one.
And then I just glued this together as a training tool for my grandson so he can run around and pretend to shoot squirrels and deer.
And we teach him, don't point it at people.
Anyway, the point is, getting back to the Glock thing.
So the Glock switch thing was passed in California.
It's going to take effect in July of next year.
And Glock folded.
And they said, you know what?
We're going to discontinue all of these models, all but three.
Now, Glock has, hold on, I got it here on the, I forget how many models.
It was like, oh, geez, crazy amounts of models that they are discontinuing 54 variants in total.
So I heard something about that.
I didn't know what the cause was.
Well, the cause was because of California.
So they're like, okay, we're going to discontinue these models that are easily modified for this Glock switch to make it fully auto.
This is completely different than what Magpool did.
So Magpool, if you don't know, is a company who makes aftermarket parts and magazines and stuff like that for AR-15s and other types of platforms.
But I think I was in Colorado at the time, but they were a Colorado-based company.
And Colorado had slipped in some legislation by a very ignorant lady that had slid in.
It was a high-capacity magazine ban.
So they said, okay, after this certain date, this is probably back around 2014, 2015, something like that, somewhere in that era.
They said magazines made after this date are no longer going to be for sale in Colorado if they're over like 10 rounds or something.
And so they pressured Magpool to re-dye their systems to stamp a manufacturer date on their magazines so that they could prove whether or not it was made before, because you're still allowed to keep the old ones.
It was a grandfathered situation.
Magpul said no.
They picked up and they moved.
That's what Glock should have done.
Said, go stuff yourself because we're talking about freedom here.
You had Eric on freedom of transportation.
This is freedom to keep them bare arms.
And there is no restrictions on it.
Anyway, so, but no, Glock folded.
The real concern that I had with it as I'm researching, because California could do what they want, whatever.
If you don't like it, move out of California.
The problem is I got to digging into it a little bit deeper.
So they tried to save face.
Glock tried to save face by saying, well, we're looking into a new generation model and we don't need to produce all these other guns anymore.
We're going to move into a new generation model, which people have already figured out how to install these switches on already.
But they said we will still continue to sell the parts.
And I have another show and tell.
This is a Glock slide that I purchased.
So you can't buy the Glock frame in California.
Well, it won't be produced anymore, but you could still buy the parts.
And I got to looking into other things.
So I ordered a PSA Palmetto State Armory dagger, which is a Glock clone.
I started questioning.
I said, I wonder if it's just Glock or is it the other models that are Glock clones?
Because you could easily just buy an aftermarket frame that's not on the banned list and then order these Glock parts to throw on it.
And you could essentially have a Glock that you could essentially put a switch on if you wanted to.
Sure.
And illegally in California.
Well, and I got to look in, and sure enough, it is not just Glock.
I got into a Reddit post here and Models that will be banned as part of this Glock ban also include several models of shadow systems, FMK firearms, Smith and Wesson, and a company called Deraya.
I don't know who that is.
But and I was like, why would they ban certain ones and not other ones?
Well, this is why.
If you take a look at the Glock frame, what they're actually banning is this, there's a little bar in here.
Yeah.
It's part of the trigger mechanism.
So anything that has that kind of a bar system for trigger will be banned.
And maybe after the fact, so you could legally purchase one, they could add it to the list and you become a felon.
And I got to look and I said, oh, I think my Springfield XD9 has the same system.
It's not on the list.
Guess what?
Has the same system.
So you can expect to see a lot of firearms.
This is just one of those things where they're going to creep in.
They're going to say, well, we're just banning these guns, the frames only, not the parts, but the frames.
We're banning these only, but then they slip in more and more and more.
The utter contempt, utter, utter, utter contempt and lack of respect for their neighbor.
And, you know, we're talking, of course, the Second Amendment, very clear, and no ex post facto law.
And then the immorality of saying, no, you can't possess this thing.
You're the dangerous one for possessing something.
Is possession harming anyone?
No.
Who's making the threat?
The government.
They're the ones with the guns pointed at people, not only to take their money, but to take that money, put it into a policing system to further point government guns at people who want to own a gun peacefully.
It's incredible, the doubling and tripling of aggression that the state does, and people will accept it.
They'll justify it.
It's just ridiculous.
Listen, we're just up against the clock.
I got one.
Can I throw one more thing in there, guard?
Sure.
I'll send people over.
Go to the Knights of the Storm over on Rumble and look at my repost.
So Toby Leary, which I know you know, guard Toby Leary just did, I think yesterday, he did a show.
A guy's been in jail for 608, I think 610 days now.
Not jail, but house arrest.
Yes.
This is terrible.
The Air Force guy.
Yeah.
And the reason I wanted to bring this up is because talking about the Glock stuff and how you can still buy the parts, they got him.
It was a targeted for disarmament because of something he bought on eBay.
So he was just traveling through Massachusetts.
No, I think in this case, he actually bought a part on eBay.
And then they came.
I had to watch it a second time to get the story down.
But if you buy something that is one of these parts that the gun is now banned, but you can buy the parts, guess what?
You're inviting them into your home to come check.
And that's where I'm worried about this going.
And I had more to talk about 3D printing guns and all this other stuff.
I always overprepare.
But no, this is going in a very dangerous direction because they're sliding in.
Oh, it's just this model of Glock.
These couple models of Glock.
Next thing you know, it covers a myriad of clones of guns that operate in the same function.
If you order a replacement part, all of a sudden now they're coming up to your home to see if you're building a new one, which is prohibited.
You can still own an old one and repair it, but now you're opening the door.
This is getting really, really dangerous.
And we start talking about AI and tying into your financials and looking where you're shopping.
You know, I worry about that too.
I order stuff online.
They can tell that I'm buying parts.
So they, even if they don't know the serial number of the gun or they don't know this or that or the other, they know I'm building a gun.
Yeah.
So what if it's a prohibited gun or becomes prohibited tomorrow?
And I don't even know.
Now I'm a felon.
Amazing.
You know, and just the fact that they're breaching the Fourth Amendment, looking into the shops or online purchases.
There's so much dark activity on the parts of these people.
And they seem to think they're doing the right thing.
It's just, all right, better run.
Thank you so much, Jason.
Knights of the Storm, you are the man.
You've got the best team out there.
Thanks, Jason.
I would be giving you the Vulcan Mind Meld, but we'll do that on Liberty Conspiracy sometime next week.
All right, brother.
And we'll watch for you tomorrow.
Thanks, Jason.
Talk to you soon.
Jason Barker, Knights of the Storm, two o'clock tomorrow.
Watch for them on Rumble and check out the page, of course, over there on Rumble Land.
And of course, you can check out Liberty Conspiracy Live over at the Liberty Conspiracy channel tonight.
And you can, of course, participate.
And one of the things that we're going to discuss tonight that I think is going to be fairly important is going to be the latest on the Ukraine so-called peace plan.
And we'll give you that information tonight.
I'll just let you know that it's a 28-point plan.
And one of the key points, in fact, I'll read to you from my notes here.
It has not been rejected, but it has not been accepted by Zelensky.
The plan requires Ukraine to cede Donetsk, Luhansk, and Crimea to Russia to freeze front lines in other areas and adopt permanent neutrality without NATO.
And they're supposed to limit their military to 600,000 troops when they could get that many sometime after the slaughter that the U.S. has helped push and hold elections within 100 days.
That's a big one for Zelensky.
In return, Russia pledges non-aggression, sanctions will ease, and $200 billion in aid from those frozen assets that the Europeans are already saying they're going to steal.
So this is going to be probably a big moneymaker for the United States corporate interests to go in there and do the cleanup along with friends of the EU.
But it remains to be seen whether or not Zelensky accepts it.
So we'll discuss that tonight.
If you'll join us, you'd be so kind.
We'll have Fiction Friday.
We'll read a great short story as well over at Liberty Conspiracy Live.
And remember, it's because freedom is out of fashion nowadays.
You can follow me, Guard Goldsmith, at Guard Goldsmith.
And you can go to the Gardner Goldsmith substack.
Please sign up there if you want to support what I'm doing.
That's a really beneficial thing.
And please remember, you can still donate today to the David Knight Show.
Want to thank you so much if you have done so.
Head on into Rumble.
Please feel free to do so.
And of course, go to thedavidknightshow.com and you will see ways that you can contribute.
I want to thank Dougalug and HARPS coming in.
He says, thanks, Guard.
Thank you so much.
Thank you.
Yes, indeed.
Yeah.
And we've got a lot to discuss about the Ukraine information tonight and the corrupt U.S. government involvement with the overthrow there.
But I want to thank everybody over in Rumble as well.
David will be back Monday with Travis.
I hope everybody's getting all geared up for a fantastic week as we approach you know what.
Yes, it's going to be a wonderful Thanksgiving, even though, of course, it's going to be a little bit more expensive.
So I'm going to give you a little farewell for the David Knight Show.
Let's go off with a piece of music for the David Knight Show once more.
And let's talk about, let's go with a little something from the Peanuts Christmas.
How's that?
Have a great afternoon.
God bless everyone.
▲
Export Selection