In a world of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
It's the David Knight Show.
As the clock strikes 13, it's Monday, the 8th of December, year of our Lord, 2025.
Well, today we see that the EU descends further into darkness as we see more censorship, more desire for war, more barbarians being brought inside their gate as it's being done across Europe.
And of course, the EU is a part of this.
The UK is a part of this as well, I should say.
But we'll take a look at a new book about C.S. Lewis and Tolkien, their friendship, their working relationship, their times that were parallel to ours.
You know, morality and heroes, the types of things that are missing from Pete's Pentagon.
And yet the amazing cheerleading of these anti-Christian, anti-Western value conservatives who are out there cheering this.
What are they trying to conserve?
They're going to destroy, have destroyed, foundations of our society.
Me too is this idea that because somebody else did it, because somebody else is a hypocrite, now you can commit those same crimes.
We're going to take that on.
Stay with us.
we'll be right back we also have another layer of the pharmaceutical onion poison that's been pulled back There's many, many, many more.
We're still just on the surface, but something to celebrate.
And we'll talk about that coming up.
And there's more chatter from Trump about not being happy with NATO.
Don't believe for a minute that he's going to get out of it.
He's criticizing Europe, but NATO is America.
These guys are trying to be the tail that wags the dog, however.
But we'll get into that as well.
But let's begin with the censorship.
The French government has a plan.
They've all got a plan.
To censor people that they don't like.
They're going to label news outlets.
And this is backfiring on him in terms of popularity in the country.
But does it matter at this point?
I mean, who likes Macron?
Who likes Starmer?
Who likes Trump?
Well, there's some people in the U.S. that do like Trump, and they're making all kinds of apologies for him.
But these other guys have less of a tribal following.
Macron announced a new media labeling system a few weeks ago.
These assurances that he's told people that we're only going to label it.
It's not going to be any sort of state-backed labeling.
Well, you've got a lot of news organizations pointing out that that is not true.
And by the way, this is what Candace Owens should be focusing on.
Rather than trying to invite attention, which is really what she's doing, she's getting attention now.
She's getting a lawsuit now over ridiculous claims, just like Alex Jones.
But you live by the lie, you die by the lie.
Anyway.
Candace Owens has gone completely insane.
Yeah, yeah.
Nevertheless, she knows that that gets her attention.
She loves the attention.
That's the addiction to it.
And of course, the money that comes with it.
There was an article over the weekend.
I won't go into any detail about it, but I was absolutely astounded at the astronomical sums of money that she was making on doing ad reads, you know, and tens of thousands of dollars for each ad that she reads.
And it's not that much different for Alex.
By the way, he laid into me one day because I just mentioned something about somebody's business.
And they had done something in the news.
I don't even remember who it was or what it was specifically about, but I just remembered who it was and I gave them credit.
And he says, you know, that's like $10,000 you just gave that person.
That's what I charge for that kind of stuff.
And I was like, I had no idea you're getting that kind of confiscatory pay.
It's like, maybe you should pass some of that on, you know.
But anyway, it's amazing what they get.
And they were saying that for conservatives, they find that they have a more loyal following and they will buy the products.
They're more likely to buy the products than they are for the left-wing podcasters.
So they're getting paid quite a bit more than the left-wing podcasters, besides the fact they have a larger audience.
I mean, most of the left-wing podcasters, viewer base, are broke liberal socialist college students.
There's not much money in marketing to that crowd.
They're just going to steal it from the store.
But if you want to get into an ad hominem attack with Emmanuel Macron over his wife, just point out the fact that she's a known pedophile.
I mean, she pursued him as a student when he was underage.
Anybody that did what she did, if you do that in the U.S., you go to jail.
She has gone to the equivalent of their White House for doing that.
Anyway, back to the issue at hand.
This is what they should be focusing on because this is what is happening globally.
Why?
Because the first casualty of war is the free press.
And they are at war with us in many, many different areas.
These assurances have only stoked fears of an authoritarian creep into the media sphere.
And the authoritarian creep is named Emmanuel Macron.
It's like the Nixon, the committee to re-elect the president was called creep.
Fittingly so.
So in November, he had told a press organization that a labeling process carried out by professionals was in the works to highlight the media outlets who respect certain ethical standards.
And thus also those that it deemed to lack ethical standards.
So one journal that was owned by a conservative organization said this is just a project for information control.
That's the same type of excuse that we have seen in the U.S. as well.
The difference is now that when this all began, going back to 2018, when you look at it, it was being done covertly.
They were not doing it out in the open.
It was kind of a secret Cold War where they were attacking people that they did not agree.
And that continued for the most part throughout the COVID stuff.
Now they're coming out and doing it openly.
That's what's changing.
The tyrants have been emboldened by the fact they've gotten away with this stuff.
And so now they're doing it openly.
And the DSA has had their first massive fine applied to Elon Musk personally as well as to Twitter.
And he had some choice words for them, which we will get into.
And he was absolutely right.
Look, I don't think that he is an altruistic billionaire by any means.
I think he bought Twitter because this is a guy who is the king of crony capitalism.
He has made his money through government, through government connections, through political means.
And for the same reason that Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post for a pittance, tens of, I think it's $250 million or something he paid for, which is nothing compared to Twitter.
But it also doesn't have the kind of impact that Twitter does.
But these guys get those papers because of those reasons.
Jeff Bezos wanted to own the Washington Post because it's in Washington, D.C., and it has a lot of influence in terms of politics.
And Musk is playing the same game, but in a different way.
He is moving to the rank and file people out there in terms of trying to get political advantage.
And so I understand what his motives are.
Nevertheless, his political motives might align him, might align him with the right thing.
In this particular case, it does.
You know, if he wants to be a populist technocrat, I guess.
I know that's a contradiction in terms.
But he wants to appeal to the popular sentiments so he can get through his technocracy, he may wind up being on the right side of some issues.
And he's on the right side of this issue.
But getting back to France, this journal said this was a project for information control.
Another conservative spoke out there and said, the role of the state is not to certify the truth with an obscure label.
It is to guarantee freedom of the press and freedom of expression.
And so we had the same thing where they went to some pet project areas and said, well, you're going to tell us what is true and what is not true for social media and for other things.
We'll use you to vet information.
If you say that somebody is false, we'll take them down.
If you go back and look at the Coalition for Content Provenance and Authentication, the CCPA, I'd say the Chinese Communist Party of America is, well, we could also call it.
That was a thing that's put together with Microsoft.
It's a key partner, working with the government so you could get hardware and software.
They get the apps that you use to create information, whether it is a document, a meme, a video or audio.
They're going to then work with their trusted advisors in the media, and they will decide whether you are somebody that they want to be allowed to speak.
And if they put you on the blacklist, then they can stop your stuff before you can ever create it or upload it.
They can mark you.
That's what the provenance means.
So they would authenticate who you are, and then they would say, well, because that is coming from this person we don't like, then it's not going to be posted.
So they stop you even before it gets uploaded.
And all of those are still in the works here in America as well.
So another, they're saying that they've got to stop disinformation and that they're fighting disinformation.
And they will decide what disinformation is, of course.
So they've now launched in retaliation.
They've launched a petition entitled Media, Yes to Freedom, No to Labeling.
It's garnered 40,000 signatures.
I don't see that as a good thing.
You know, the old expression, can 50,000 Frenchmen be wrong?
Yes.
They can also be apathetic when they are being marched into the gulag, which I think is what's happening here across Europe.
It's not just the EU, it's individual countries.
And it's the UK, which is not in the EU.
So Musk has struck back at the EU tyrants after this something like $140 million fine, but that's just the beginning.
They'll keep adding to it.
And they're going to add other companies to it as well.
X is the first, but they will come after all the other social media companies to get them to toe the line.
He calls them the Fourth Reich.
And he's not wrong.
He's not taking the outrageous fine lying down.
He says that they have Nazi characteristics oppressing their own citizens' best interests.
The tyrannical unelected bureaucracy oppressing the people of Europe are in the second picture.
He puts up a picture of this is Europe, this is EU.
In other words, it's non-existent.
Musk also reshared a post about an Irish teacher, Enoch Burke, who was jailed for refusing to use transgender pronouns and later replied to another user, so many politicians in Europe are traitors to their own people.
All true.
All true.
Musk highlighted the fact that Meta was a verification program similar to X's, yet the EU has onerously fined the more censorship-prone Meta.
They haven't, I should say.
He said, I didn't do the Twitter purchase because I thought it was a great way to make money.
I knew there'd be a zillion slings and arrows coming my direction.
It really felt like there was a civilizational danger that unless one of the major online platforms broke ranks, and then because they're all just behaving in lockstep with a legacy media, he said literally there was no place to actually get the truth.
It was almost impossible.
So everything was just getting censored.
The power of censorship apparatus was incredible.
And again, I don't think that he did this for altruism.
I think he did it for political advantage, but the political advantage would be to do the thing that everybody wants.
Everybody wants free speech.
We're not on board with these leaders, not in the EU, not in the UK, not in France, not in the U.S. either.
He confirmed that another user's report that X terminated the EU Commission's advertising account.
So basically, he shut them down.
He shut down the EU Commission's one account.
Oh, fine.
You don't get to play.
He says, for years, many in the free speech community, most vehemently, Jonathan Turley says, Zero Head, you've warned about the threat of EU to free speech, particularly with the enactment of the infamous Digital Services Act, DSA.
We've talked about it repeatedly here.
The EU has virtually declared war on free speech.
Let's understand.
They want a war against us.
They also want a war against Russia.
And you can't have that kind of free speech that's out there.
That's why they're going full-on open tyranny.
Everything in Europe seems to be spiraling down and down, getting worse and worse at a more rapid rate.
So there is going to be more and more that they have to crack down on, more people that they have to censor.
There's going to be more people getting thrown in jail or talked to by the police because they posted a photo on LinkedIn that somebody didn't like.
That's right.
And this has typically been coming with the DEI values that they've been using that as justification.
However, look at what is happening in the U.S., and it's also happening in the UK, that they are increasingly doing this on behest of Israel and in support of Israel.
Just like that video we showed last week.
Saw a thing about how Cloudflare is going to be outsourcing their decisions about legality of what's posted to something based in Germany that applies German free speech laws to websites.
Yeah, and that's the danger.
That's the danger.
And there's, and we're going to talk about a possible remedy that would guess what?
Be even state-based, not federal-based, because the federal government doesn't like free speech either.
Many states don't.
So the war has just begun openly with this DSA fine.
And the fine is, I'm still looking for it here.
I had highlighted earlier.
I think it's $140 million, but we'll get to it.
$140 million.
Back in January 2023, EU Commissioner Vice President openly warned Musk that his quote, freedom of speech, absolutism, guess what?
There's no other way to have freedom of speech unless you have absolutism.
If you don't allow absolute values for freedom of speech, it is a fundamental value.
And you're not talking about free speech anymore if you put conditions on it.
So that would not fly, saying the time of the Wild West is over.
I grew up liking the Wild West.
And I like freedom.
Threatening sanctions if Twitter didn't comply with the DSA rules.
She conflated illegal content with anything that the elites deemed to be offensive, which set the stage for what is happening now.
And then, of course, I've shown many times when EU Commissioner Theory Breton, I call him conspiracy theory, fired off a letter to X, and of course he went to Austin, and I said, we'll see what happens with Musk, because Musk kind of bowed and scraped him when he said, well, we've got the DSA thing that's out there.
You're going to comply with that.
Oh, yes, yes, yes, I will.
Well, I'm glad that he's not doing it.
I just don't know if he will keep doing it.
Will he stick to his guns here?
So Theory Bretton fired off a letter demanding that X address back in October of 2023, illegal content and disinformation relating to the Gaza conflict.
There again, on the side of the Israelis.
Musk fired back demanding a specific list of violations so the public could judge for themselves.
Bretton's vague accusations, citing repurposed images and unverified claims, highlighted the EU's preference for opacity over accountability.
List the violations you allude to on X so the public can see them, said Musk.
The EU's response was not forthcoming, but they continued to threaten.
Further, Musk brings receipts showing the EU sent him a formal letter demanding that he censor Donald Trump during the 2024 U.S. presidential election.
And he's posted the letter on X so that everybody can see it.
So this fine does not exist in a vacuum.
It's part of a chilling pattern of overreach.
And it's going to threaten privacy and free speech across the continent and the world.
And let me just say this, folks.
If they're going around locking up thousands of people in the UK and in Germany and in France for things that they said on social media, how much longer do you think it'll be before they start doing civil lawsuit action against people in the U.S. for what they say?
And I'm not just saying that, you know, making defamatory statements about Macron's wife.
Saying because they don't like what you're saying about climate or what they don't like what you're saying about the Covid situation or about their particular war that they want to push.
These are all things that are coming.
By the way, I mentioned the Climate Macuffin we have on Third HOUR.
Today we have Alex Newman's going to be joining us on the NEW American UH.
We talk to Alex frequently about homeschooling.
He's at the forefront of advocating for homeschooling and freedom in education, but he also does follow the Climate Macuffin.
He goes to these cop meetings that happen everywhere and he just got back from the one that was just held there.
So we're going to get his update and get the temperature as to how these people are dealing with their setbacks in this area, because they have had some setbacks.
That's good news.
We'll be talking to him in the third hour.
Take the proposed chat control law, which would mandate back doors into encrypted messages on apps like Whatsapp and signal.
Sold as a child protection measure, it would scan billions of private conversations, exposing them to hacking, to fraud and to government spying.
At the heart of it all is the EU'S obsession with controlling the flow of information.
Remember, if we go back to a january 2024.
Speech of um.
We have um, the um.
Uh, it was um.
I'm trying to find it here.
Um which video the?
Uh.
The BOND Villm film.
Uh, here we go Davos.
This is uh, uh.
Ursula Von Der Leyen or, as I call her, Ursula, fond of lying excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, makes for a stunning and sobering read for the global business community.
The top concern for the next two years is not conflict or climate.
it is disinformation and misinformation followed closely by polarization within our societies of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act You are listening to the David Night Show.
yeah it is a revolutionary act the eu the uk and these government censors are revolting why aren't we
the latest eu assault on x has infuriated of course jd vance uh you're coming after my friends here um but the eu claims to champion democracy while it is building an orwellian apparatus that monitors scans and punishes speech it's not about safety it's about power it always is about power it's It's never about safety.
They always come for your liberty, promising you safety, but it's always about enslaving you.
The EU should be supporting free speech, not attacking American companies over garbage, he said.
Well, he said that earlier in February, he kicked off by going to the Munich Security Conference and tearing into them about censorship.
We'll see what happens with this.
No voter on this continent, he said, went to the ballot box to open the floodgates to millions of unvetted immigrants.
And he declared labeling Europeans as more interchangeable cogs in a global economy.
The German defense minister, Boris Pistorius, his name rhymes, called Vance's opinions unacceptable.
But he proved Vance's point about normalizing authoritarianism.
Yeah, it was $140 million.
Here it is.
$140 million hit on X is not just a fine.
It's a declaration of war against free speech globally.
Jonathan Turley said, this is the first time under the DSA that the EU officials acknowledged that it will lay the foundation for additional penalties to come to force companies to comply with EU quote-unquote values on free speech.
They don't have values on free speech.
They have values, they value censorship and control.
X has 60 days to develop solutions to address the issues, 90 days to implement the changes, or it may face additional fines.
And you know, when I look at what's been proposed by one person up in New Hampshire, he calls it the Granite Act, but he actually came together, put together an acronym to oppose censorship in it, to use, to come up with the name Granite.
But I'm sure you could probably get AI to do that stuff for you pretty easily.
Now, people probably were really straining to do that earlier.
Yeah, AI is great for that sort of thing.
It can coin many a backronym.
Yeah.
So the EU imposes crazy fine not just on X, he said, but also on me personally, which is even more insane.
Therefore, it would seem appropriate to apply our response not just to the EU, but to the individuals who took this action against me.
So I look at this and I think about the fact that whether or not you agree with his compensation, I mean, you don't have to buy his products if you think he's overpaid, but there was a judge in Delaware where TESL was incorporated that says you can't pay him that much.
It's like, what gives you the legal authority to decide that?
And anyway, because of that, they relocated the company to Texas and incorporated in Texas.
And wouldn't it be interesting if Texas were to do this for Elon Musk, basically what's being proposed by this libertarian in New Hampshire and the Granite Act, to say, well, what's your collection mechanism?
You're going to have to have our banking system is going to have to be used to try to grab this money from them.
And we're not going to recognize this without a trial in court.
Good luck with that.
Under the DSA, the EU can impose fines of up to 6% of an online platform's annual global revenue if they fail to censor for them.
This is just the first salvo in a war that some have warned is coming.
And we cannot be passive at this moment.
Americans who will find themselves subject to European censors.
And I say that they will probably do this directly eventually.
I wouldn't be surprised if the EU and the UK are going around and arresting people in the middle of the night because they posted something they find offensive.
What do you think they might do to me in terms of lawfare?
I can imagine I would see that coming, you know.
And how do you fight that kind of lawfare against a country that is coming at you?
So Musk has called for the abolition of the EU, which we can all sympathize with.
He argued the EU bureaucracy is slowly smothering Europe to death.
It has.
And it is a smothering effect.
All government regulation and all governments do this.
I mean, you look at what our government has done in terms of smothering home ownership or car ownership or any of the rest of these things.
How's it done?
It's done by continually piling on more and more regulations.
And they're very much like a boa constrictor.
They just keep tightening it until they smother you to death.
It's not slow anymore either.
No.
Things have sped up to a remarkable rate.
Every single day there's something new.
Yeah, all of the governments have turned into Burmese pythons.
They're not just boa constrictors.
We had, when I worked at Bush Gardens, we alternated with a belly dancer band.
And the girl that was one of the girls that went out with them had a boa constrictor that she kept.
She was very small.
The boa constrictor was very, very large.
And she called him Fang.
And so it was like the belly dancers and some costume characters and the woman with a giant boa constrictor wrapped around her would go out and alternate with us.
It tells you something about what they thought about us, right?
Anyway.
Yeah, you're right next to the snake act.
So she would bring him back in and she would drape him over the costume racks that were there in the break room.
And one day, Abdul, the costume character, came crashing in and scared the snake.
And he went, he jumped off and she said, it's okay.
He's just molting.
Well, I don't know what the excuse is for the federal government.
I guess these bureaucrats are just molting or whatever it is.
Is that what they call it molting when they shed their skin?
I think it is.
Some snakes, it's called in blue because they get this film over their eyes, makes them kind of milky blue.
Well, it wasn't that wasn't the term that she used.
Yeah, but anyway, he was a little bit, he was a little bit touchy.
And after that, she brought in some smaller snakes.
Evidently, she had a whole menagerie of them at home.
Yeah, that's part of the reason they get cranky is because the film over their eyes makes it so they can't see very well.
And so they just get very nervous and skittish because they don't know what's going on.
Yeah, what is this gigantic costume character with a big head coming in?
Anyway, Musk previously described the EU as a giant cathedral to bureaucracy.
Yeah.
Rubio criticized ruling as an attack on all American tech platforms, the American people, by foreign governments.
JD Vance said the EU had targeted X for not engaging in censorship.
Question is, what, if anything, are they going to do about it?
Polish foreign minister Sikorsky reacted to Musk's tirade by saying, go to Mars.
There's no censorship of Nazi salutes there.
Well, there's also no war there as yet because you don't have people like this Polish foreign minister pushing for war in Europe.
Have to say it.
If Musk were to become a goose-stepping fascist and fly off to Mars, they would be upset and demand that we go there and kick him off the planet, because we can't have a goose-stepping fascist planet that's.
There is no place that they would tolerate this ideology.
I'm not saying it's a good ideology, but this is a false narrative they're spinning.
Well, why don't you just leave?
There's no place they could go, where you would not track these people down and enforce your own ideology on top of them.
You're like, no, you can't think that.
You can't say that.
What was that sci-fi movie of Nazis?
And on the moon or something?
Uh, there's one called Iron Sky, if memory serves.
Where moon Space Nazis?
Yeah well, you don't have to go to Mars.
We have free speech right here in America, where his company is based.
Yeah, that's right, based based on what?
So just how dystopian could Starmer's Britain become?
And again, it's not just the EU.
The Uk is out of the EU, but they're still doing this.
And each and every one of these countries folks, if they were to get rid of the European Union, each and every one of these political leaders, like the leaders of France and Poland and Germany and so forth.
They would all be doing the same thing.
They're all fully on board with all of this stuff.
Uh, this is a dark time that we're going into.
I mean, this is not just the rise of Nazis in Germany.
This is the rise of that kind of authoritarianism across the board and all the countries that used to be western civilization.
They have now thoroughly rejected the values of western civilization.
That's what this article is about from naked capitalism, they said.
We first asked this question, just how dystopian could Starmer's Britain become?
We asked that about a year ago.
At that point in time, with the government just four months in office, all we could offer as an answer was, well, how long is a piece of string?
Now, 13 months later, it's clear that the said string is very long indeed, and getting longer by the day.
On his election, july 2024, Starmer promised his government would tread, they say, does that mean stomp more lightly on the lives of voters?
One of the growing multitude of pledges that Starmer has broken during his 17 months in office.
In this particular case, it took just two months for Starmer to change course, telling delegates at the 2024 Labor Party conference that the state would, in fact, take greater control over people's lives.
Plans were unveiled to, among other things, launch non-mandatory digital identity, which will become mandatory, of course, to expand the use of live facial recognition technology.
By the way, you know, we talk about mandatory digital id, mandatory id stuff remember real id?
Was said oh, it'll never be mandatory.
And yet they haven't made it mandatory.
What they have done is they've said, we'll give you a 45 fine, if you don't have it.
That's the way it works here.
Uh, so facial recognition technology?
Resurrect an old toy policy to grand inspectors of the Department OF WORK AND Pensions, increased power to snoop On claimants' bank accounts and to intensify the British state's crackdown on lawful speech, especially.
That was just for starters.
For the main course, the government is now setting its sights on trial by jury.
Think about this, folks.
This is one of the seminal foundation blocks, really, of Western civilization and our individual liberties, is trial by jury.
So much so Gilbert Sullivan even did a little opera about it, trial by jury.
But it is a legal protection that's existed in England for almost a thousand years.
And it's spread to other countries.
And now they're unrolling all of this stuff.
And the way it works in the UK is very similar to the way that it works here.
They say in theory that you have it, but in practice you don't.
Now here it's done by intimidation, by multiplying charges and threatening people, basically blackmailing them into a plea bargain.
And so you have very few cases that go to jury trial here.
Same thing is true in the UK.
But now they want to formalize that.
They've announced plans to limit people's right to trial by jury in England and Wales.
A new tier of SWIFT courts, they call it, will be created to replace jury trials for most offenses that carry a likely jail sentence of less than three years, as well as complex fraud and financial cases.
Well, here we have death by a thousand cuts.
You know, you have your traffic court, your tax court.
Don't forget the FISA court, where they can put you on a no-fly list without you even knowing that you've been charged.
That is more like a star chamber.
And when it comes to traffic court, at least I don't know how it is in Tennessee, but in Texas, they had in their right to trial by jury.
And you can use that if you're in Texas.
That is a tremendous lever against the prosecutor to do a plea bargain with you because they want to avoid jury trials by all means.
They really do hate jury trials.
So only the most serious offenses, murder, manslaughter, and rape, would continue to be heard by a jury of one's peers, unless the people want a plea bargain out of it there, I guess, like they have there.
Despite the fact that English common law draws on the ancient right of trial by jury rooted in the Magna Carta, they said we must, you had one of the guys there saying, we must never forget that Magna Carta employs us not to deny or to delay justice.
So we can't delay justice, so what we'll do is we'll delay the jury trial aspect of Magna Carta.
There you go.
See, we're complying with Magna Carta, he says now.
Bearing the Orwellian title, Swift and Fair Plan to Get Justice for Victims.
Well, you know, that's another thing.
You don't really get any justice for victims here in the U.S. There is no victim, or in the British system either, there's no victim compensation for these criminal cases.
They may find them, even the state may find them, may send them to jail, but you don't get compensation.
That's why we look at the law of Moses.
It was so much better.
It was God's law anyway.
And there would be compensation that would be given to the people who had been injured.
The origins go back to Magna Carta in 1215, which promised that no one would lose their liberty or property without lawful judgment of his peers and the law of the land.
The purpose of this, and the reason I talk about peers, it was the peers who put this on the king, forced him to sign it, because that was a pushback against an authoritarian, totalitarian king, a monarch, which is what all these people aspire to be.
Getting rid of it.
They call this and said the name of the thing should not be Swift Justice.
It ought to be Evil King John's Revenge or whatever.
So, yeah.
John's revenge.
He's back.
And this time he's not leaving.
That's right.
It's truly amazing when you look at a little bit off topic.
When you look at Richard and John, neither of them were good guys.
Richard was a warmongering, brutal, just thug, and John was a more limp-wristed, closer-to-home thug.
Richard wanted to go to the Holy Land and do war there.
John just wanted to simply tax the people and, you know, slept with a bunch of their wives, and the nobility hated him because he kept doing that and taxing them.
They were both just terrible, terrible rulers.
Yeah, and they've had several of those, as a matter of fact.
We just recently watched Anonymous, which is about the I think the very credible theory.
Most people who are Shakespeare experts don't believe that it was actually the guy from Stratford on Avon.
They made a difference to who they think it is.
But for most people, they believed it was Edward De Vere, the Duke of Oxford.
And anyway, they did a movie that pretty much towed to the line of research.
One of the best books on that was by Joe Sobran.
And it was, let's see, what was it called?
Was it Alias?
Alias Shakespeare, that was it, yeah.
And he's another guy that was purged by the Israeli lobby and unjustly so purged by William F. Buckley, who was there at National Review.
Joe Sobran's an excellent writer, and he had an excellent book about that.
For a second, I thought you meant they had purged William Shakespeare.
I was like, what does the Israeli lobby have against Shakespeare?
Probably Shylock, yeah, that's why they got against him, I guess.
Anyway, it's an excellent movie, Anonymous.
And I'd never seen it before.
Yeah, that one is really good.
Anyway, getting back to this, what made me think about it, we're talking about bad kings.
And the theory is that Edward De Vere, who was, you know, William Shakespeare, the guy in Stratford-on-Avon, never had a background where he would write from the perspective of people who were in the king's court.
And didn't have the educational background, but he certainly didn't have the social background.
Obviously, the person who wrote these things had a great deal of experience in court intrigue and other things like that.
And all these different life experiences that were in Edward De Vere's life, you'll see elements of them in the plays that he wrote.
And they explain very clearly why he would not want to own to it, why he could not own to it.
But at one point in time, he started to organize a coup against the King James forces.
And one of the things that he did was the movie Richard III, the movie The Play, I always think in terms of movies.
Richard III, of course, humpbacked.
And everybody agreed he was an evil figure.
The reason he made him a humpback was because he wanted to villainize this one guy who was on the other side of this political intrigue.
And everybody knew that it was targeted towards him.
But anyway, so we have a lot of twisted humpbacks now.
Yes?
Yeah, that guy was a humpback.
And also, De Vere's had a history of being connected to plays.
He was the director of the noble play.
Yeah, the Lord Chamberlain's Players, yeah, which performed for Elizabeth and others.
Yeah, I mean, it's a very fascinating thing.
And when you look at the movie, if you watch the movie, it stuck pretty closely to the theories about Edward De Vere.
Fascinating idea.
Where are the people like that that we need now?
The judge and the legal philosopher Lord Devlin described trial by jury as a lamp that shows that freedom lives.
I guess that lamp is being snuffed out now.
Smothered.
In practical terms, jury trials already form only a small part of the system, accounting for only 2% in the UK of all criminal cases.
Most criminal cases are resolved in the magistrate's court, in which there are three magistrates who determine guilt as well as the sentence.
So it's a bit different from here, where they blackmail you into a plea bargain.
And again, even if they don't do that, part of the problem with the jury system here in the U.S. is just like gerrymandering, where they pick the voters, they pick the jurors and they can manipulate it that way.
I guess we call that jurymandering.
If you get picked for jury duty and you mention jury nullification, guess who's not going to be on the jury?
If you are slightly conservative at all, if you hint at that, they will throw you out.
Even if you bring it up explicitly in the jury deliberations, sometimes you get thrown out and replaced with an alternate that's there.
In other words, this will probably have a limited impact on the court backlog.
So what they're saying is we've got to move this stuff through quickly because we've got a huge backlog on criminal cases, and they do.
They have 78,000 crown court cases.
I have an idea on how they could reduce the number of criminal cases that they're dealing with.
I think maybe if you get reportations.
I think that's the only criminals that you're bringing into the country.
Well, they have 78,000 cases that have backlogged there.
But since only 2% of them go to jury trial, that is not a response.
There's something else involved in this, for sure.
The main cause of the backlog is years of budget reductions, court closures, maintenance backlogs, and limits on the number of days that courts are permitted to sit.
For centuries, court juries have served as a Democrat check on government power.
Exactly why they made King John sign the Magna Carta requesting the rights that trial by jury is a check on the king's total power.
The renowned English jurist, justice, and Tory politician William Blackstone, which everybody refers to, wrote the following about trial by jury in the commentaries and laws of England.
He said, trial by jury ever has been, and I trust ever will be, looked upon as the glory of the English law, so that the liberties of England cannot but subsist so long as this palladium remains sacred and inviolate, not only from all open attacks, which none will so heartily make, but also from secret machinations, which may sap and undermine it by introducing new and arbitrary methods of trial, which is what they're doing.
Again, the people who run our countries, whether you're talking about the U.S. or the UK or the EU, they're all death by a thousand cuts.
I mean, they're infringing on these basic foundations of Western civilization.
And in many cases, they've gotten so bold as to just wipe them out with the full stroke.
It's truly amazing how, realistically, for about the past 200 years, we lived in something of a golden age for liberty.
We don't think about it, but for most of history, it has been sort of subsistence living, where people really don't even have the liberty to think about liberty.
They're mostly focused on their daily survival needs.
They're focused on making sure that they've stored up enough food for the winter, that their house is going to be able to survive.
And then for about 200 years, the West has been able to sit around and think, like, what is entitled to a man?
What should we focus on?
What should he be, you know, like I said, entitled to?
What can the government not do to him?
Most other countries never cared about that.
We're never interested in discussing that or giving the individual citizens anything.
And we've had for 200 years, basically, in Europe and America this golden age, and we're just throwing it away.
And so many people just do not care.
It's the new Dark Ages is coming in.
Of course, the Dark Ages were there after the Roman system, which did have rules that were followed.
I mean, they were son of a gun, but in terms of attacking other people.
But once you got into the Roman system, you had rules that were followed.
And that all just kind of went away into the Dark Ages.
So we're headed into another Dark Ages for sure.
Starmer himself had said in 1992, the right to trial by jury is an important factor in the delicate balance between the power of the state and the power of the individual.
That's not hypocrisy, folks.
That is true.
And he knows that's true.
And that's why he's doing this, because he wants to empower himself and to take power away from you.
It is a zero-sum game.
I can play that video if you want.
Yeah, sure.
Go ahead and play it.
Thank you.
The entire house is concerned about victims, including attacks on women and girls.
But the entire house is also concerned about the men and women who will undoubtedly suffer miscarriages of justice if the right to trial by jury is curtailed.
And I would quote from a lawyer: The right to trial by jury is an important factor in the delicate balance between the power of the state and the freedom of the individual.
The further it is restricted, the greater the imbalance.
That lawyer is our current prime minister.
He wrote that in 1992.
It was as true then as it is true today.
How can the Chancellor stand up and propose a limitation of the right to trial by jury when he knows perfectly well the category of defendant who will suffer the ill effects of that?
Yeah, it is.
And, you know, when I look at what is being done in Venezuela, again, I see this in the context of the destruction of the moral foundation and the rule of law in America.
And I'll show you exactly why that is happening.
And what concerns me is the number of people who are cheering for that, that are the influencers, the propagandists for the GOP and for Trump and others.
It's absolutely thoroughly disgusting to see what's happening with that.
Again, these principles of what a just war is, those were jettisoned.
The idea of following the Constitution, that was jettisoned with the drug war, the just war theory and not attacking civilians.
We got rid of that during World War II.
So this is a logical conclusion of where we are with this.
Steve James, writing about this, said one of the real targets of the proposed legislation is something called jury equity or jury nullification.
That's right.
That's what really gets them upset.
This refers to the right of a jury to determine whether a crime has been committed at all, regardless of the opinion of the trial judge.
Well, no, that's not actually true.
It is, you can acknowledge the fact that it is in violation of the law.
The nullification is really to judge the law and not just the facts of the case.
That's the whole point of it.
So, you know, we look at the seminal case in that, and I've talked about many times, The ordeal of Edwin Bushnell, who was the foreman of a jury, that was setting in judgment of William Penn, who deliberately and openly violated the laws in the UK saying that you will only go to the official Church of England.
They were Quakers, so they continued to meet in their Quaker church.
They locked the doors of the Quaker church.
They said, well, that's fine.
We'll just meet on the steps.
So then they arrested him for that.
When he was brought up for charges, the jury decided that they didn't like the law saying that you had no right of conscience.
And so they found him not guilty.
The judge was furious and threw the foreman and the number two person on the jury into jail themselves.
And they were there for a month or so.
And finally, their lawyer came back and said, where does it say in the law that you can't nullify these laws with a jury, that the jury has to follow the law?
And that was habeas corpus.
And so the judge didn't have any law.
That was just his own personal peeve.
And so that case established the idea of habeas corpus as well as jury nullification.
He says, jury equity was famously exercised in 1985 by the jury in the case against civil servant who leaked details of the then Tory government's misinformation over the circumstances surrounding the 1982 sinking of the Argentine cruiser General Belgrano by the Royal Navy with a loss of 272 lives.
I remember that very well.
But you heard about that all the time.
The General Belgrano was a ship that Argentina had in the Falkland Wars, and it was ancient.
I mean, it was World War II or older.
And they took it out with a couple of missiles.
You know, that was like their entire navy was this one ship.
It also now just sounds like a Taco Bell menu item, honestly.
That's right.
The General Belgrano.
Now a Taco Bell.
Go get yourself one.
I'll have that.
It's an on-sale, yeah.
So this guy was acquitted after a two-week trial, despite admitting that he had leaked the documents in question and the trial judge's insistence that he had no defense in law.
The person who leaked it claimed, and the jury agreed, that releasing the documents which exposed government lies over the circumstances of the sinking was in the public interest.
Ah, how history repeats itself, right?
In rhymes, I should say.
We have another scandal about the sinking of ships.
And it's not just a second strike.
It was reprehensible from the very first missile.
Not just that they circled back and killed the survivors who were shipwrecked.
The principle has become an irritant to governments ever since, particularly following a series of cases in which members of climate and anti-genocide protest organizations such as Extinction Rebellion and Palestine Action have been acquitted despite instructions from the bench.
But it's not just that.
You may or may not agree with these particular issues, but it's how they ended alcohol prohibition for the most part.
Juries started nullifying it by refusing to send people to jail for drinking whiskey or selling it or whatever.
Which is why they don't want people finding out about this to undermine their drug war nonsense prohibition.
And it's why they don't want to call the drug war prohibition, because they don't want to point out the similarities.
Hey, wait a minute.
We tried this once before.
It's all the people tearfully and reluctantly sending peaceful people to prison because they had a little bit of marijuana or something.
Yeah, we've seen that over and over again.
You know, that mandatory minimum stuff came up in the Reagan administration.
It was pushed by Joe Biden.
And interestingly enough, when we get to this stuff about what's going on with the ships and everything, you've got the apologists for this reprehensible policy saying, well, Joe Biden said that we needed to attack the cartels of the military.
So there you go.
You know, Joe Biden hated the Constitution.
Joe Biden was authoritarian, one of the most authoritarian senators we've ever had.
I said that about him when he was running for president.
I said, watch out.
This guy is unbelievably evil.
I said it when he ran the first time as well.
Not only was he plagiarist and couldn't think, I mean, he wasn't such a bright bulb even before he had old age dementia, but he was guilty of plagiarism and he was also one of the most authoritarian people out there.
And so they're now using now the conservatives who were haranguing Biden for the mandates about the Trump shots.
Oh, look at how authoritarian he is.
Now they're going back and saying, well, look, he said that we needed to execute people if they were drug dealers.
And so we should be doing it because the other side's already embraced this.
I am so disgusted with this whole idea that because the other tribe engaged in criminal activity, because the other tribe are hypocrites, therefore, that gives you a free pass to be hypocrites yourself and to engage in criminal action yourself.
But that's what we're seeing from all these influencers who are trying to tell you that there's a coup against Pete Hegseth.
If only there were.
I wish there were a coup against him.
We need to get people like him out of the Pentagon.
Oathbreaker.
That's what he is.
Anyway, one of the things that it's going to apply to is financial crime and fraud cases.
Those that involve hidden dishonesty or complexity outside the understanding of the general public will also be exempt from trial by jury if the proposed bill is enacted.
Deeply troubling because this is not getting much attention at all in the media.
They're just focusing on violent crime.
So the next time you've got a Sam Bankman Freed type that they want to let go, they don't have to do any sort of legal nonsense to pretend that they're actually giving him a trial.
I cannot believe anyone, anyone ever trusted Sam Bankman Freed with their money.
You could have pointed him out to me in a crowd and be like, no, absolutely not.
Never.
Or you can say the same about any of the 2008 people or many others that are government-connected criminals.
Yeah.
No, I'm saying like you should viscerally, physically be able to look at Sam Bankman-Fried and go, no, this man is untrustworthy.
Like there should be something in you that rises up and goes, no, he looks like he's going to eat my money.
Just consume it like a little rat.
Well, as I said, the present system is an open invitation to fraudsters.
And they said that they point out that it's going to become even worse with this.
The person writing this says, this is, after all, the UK that we're talking about, the country that arguably perfected the art of financial crime.
Well, I don't know if that's true or not.
I think maybe we had a lot of contributions in that as well.
Kirst Armour said one person has to be the most unlikable prime minister in my lifetime.
And he's got some stiff competition.
He's a compulsive liar.
He's drunk on power.
And he's a sanctimonious hypocrite.
I got to say, I could say that about pretty much most of the presidents in my lifetime.
The difference is how open they are about it.
And I think Trump has been the most open about being a compulsive liar, drunk on power, and a sanctimonious hypocrite.
But they are laying the foundations of authoritarian states everywhere.
And freedom of speech is one of the key things.
That is the thing that is primarily under attack in the UK, in France, Germany, the EU in general.
Here's one example.
The former UK Ambassador Craig Murray put up a blog and he said, the terrifying case of Natalie Strecker.
She was charged with eliciting support for Hamas and Hezbollah.
Why?
Because eight tweets, cherry-picked by the police and prosecutors from around 51,000 tweets.
And they found eight out of 51,000 that she complained about what was happening in Gaza.
So that makes her a terrorist.
Does that sound like the labels being thrown around these narco-terrorists?
So we can do whatever we want to, right?
I mean, in the UK, they're only locking people up.
We fire missiles at people if we call them a terrorist now.
So Judge John Saunders interrupted the prosecution and her trial to ask whether they were saying that he would be guilty of support for terrorism if in a lecture he told an international law class that Palestinians have the right to armed resistance according to international law.
And so the prosecution said, yes, it would be an offense for you to tell law students that.
You can't quote the law to them.
You know, we've seen this type of thing before.
New Jersey weed man who decided, you know, he was a very heavy marijuana user.
As a matter of fact, when I interviewed him, he started, he lit up a joint while I was interviewing him.
But he said, based on the quantity of marijuana that they had, they automatically started referring to him as a dealer.
And he goes, I'm not a dealer.
I use it all.
But he had enough brain cells left that he realized that there were enough people out there who didn't like the marijuana law, that if he made the argument about jury nullification, that he'd be likely to get off.
So as his first trial, he, and it's actually in the state constitution of New Jersey that you have a right to judge not only the facts of the case, but also to judge whether or not you agree with the law and whether or not you agree with the penalties that are going to be applied.
For instance, you know, if Joe Biden and Richard Nixon have decided that they're going to send you, you know, to jail for 10 years for mandatory minimum for possession of pot or something like that, a lot of people might think that that is excessive, so they might just nullify that.
And so he put that up and started to talk about it.
The judge said, take that down or I'm going to come after you for contempt of court and you're going to go straight to jail.
And so he took it down, but it was too late.
They'd already seen it.
And so he had seven of the 12 jurors voted to acquit him.
And so then they decided they would come after him a second time.
When they came after him, the prosecutors came after him a second time because they can do it three times.
When they came after him a second time, the judge allowed him to keep it up because it is, after all, a part of the state constitution.
And that's what they're saying here.
You can't tell, you, judge, could not tell your law students about the international law that says that Palestinians have a right to armed resistance.
And we would send you to jail.
And so that judge left it there.
He got acquitted 12 to nothing, which meant that they could not come after him anymore for that.
But yeah, they're not.
I saw a great defense line from the, well, offense line, I guess, from the prosecution.
Yes, Judge, you also would be going to prison under this if you convict this guy.
That's right.
Well, he did get off.
I think that might have been it.
At least they told the truth because it was pretty obvious that they would have come after him.
I didn't get this story to you last night, but I saw something that I thought is very relevant to this.
Yeah, let me pull it up.
It's a wrong one.
Yeah, this.
A Swiss man was jailed after saying that men and women have different skeletons.
This apparently is transphobic.
It was a comment on social media, and he apparently got 10 days in jail for it.
That is a proven fact.
As a matter of fact, maybe it was in relation to that, but I was looking at, scrolling through Twitter pretty quickly.
I'm like, what is this?
Somebody's taking a metal ball and passing it through a skeleton's pelvic area.
And I paused to look at that and say, what is this about?
And what they were saying was, this is a ball that is like the size of a baby's typical head.
And see, it passes easily through a woman's pelvic area, but it will not pass through a man's pelvic area.
The bones are closer together in a man's pelvic area.
So that's, you know, that's basically what he's saying, and it is true.
But the truth is no defense.
Neither is the law, right?
Yeah, he was convicted of hate speech, fine, sentenced to 10 days.
And here's his post right here.
He said in a Facebook post, if you excavate LGBTQ, lesbian, gay, bisexual, blah, blah, blah, people after 200 years, you will only find men and women among the skeletons.
Everything else is a mental illness that was fostered by the curriculum.
Very true.
Very true.
It is amazing the amount of time and effort we have to spend sitting around and telling these mentally ill people, no, you're not a man.
No, you're not a woman.
Well, I mean, if you do expend that time and effort in the wrong country, you get 10 days in jail and a fine.
Yeah, that's right.
Well, this article here talking about Kier Starmer.
Facial recognition in every city town and village, every village.
Every village like the prisoner's village.
That's exactly what these people are looking at.
Starmer's government is planning to unleash live facial recognition cameras across UK's urban landscape, completing a project that was begun some years ago under the Tories.
I mean, they've already got cameras everywhere.
Now what they're going to be able to do is wed that to artificial intelligence.
And next thing you know, they'll be wedding that to their robot armies of cops who are going to come and arrest you based on how it has flagged you for a particular thing.
Well, I said earlier, this is from Preston Byrne, and you'll find it on Zero Hedge, the Granite Act.
How Congress could strike back against foreign censors.
Please find below the draft text of the Granite Act, a bill I've offered to New Hampshire legislators for consideration for enactment in that state.
It could serve as a template for the U.S. fight back against global censorship if adapted for federal use.
The gist is simple.
The only real defense a foreign censor has from injunctive relief in a U.S. court, as we saw with Ofcom's recent fine letter to 4chan and the strategy employed by Trump Media and Technology Group's attorneys in their case against Alexander de Mauray in the Middle District of Florida.
The only strategy they have is sovereign immunity.
Foreign countries can bully American citizens and companies because they know that U.S. law potentially protects them from consequences for doing so.
And so, you know, basically, I think what he is, the gist of what he's doing, if I could condense it, is to say that it's illegal to do a, they call it a slap lawsuit, you know, kind of something that is quite obviously just being done out of intimidation.
And that is recognized as a, I forget what the acronym for the slap thing is, but there are pushbacks against that, laws prohibiting that.
There should be laws prohibiting this.
And he said we should take the immunity away from them.
A move would have teeth because these foreign countries' economies would break down if they didn't have access to the U.S. banking system.
The Granite Act would make foreign censorship inbound to the U.S. a very simple cost-benefit exercise for these countries.
You can try to censor an American citizen or a corporation, but if you do, they can sue you.
And you, Mr. Foreign Censor, are not judgment-proof because your country needs access to its financial system to survive.
Well, the other thing you could do is you could come at it from the lawfare perspective.
And this could all be done.
I don't think it has to be done at the federal level.
I mean, you could do this at the state level.
And he said, I felt it seems like some sort of anti-slap thing.
I mean, I suppose Granite Act is essentially an anti-slap, but there's already a law for that.
That's true, but you know, it's this is what he's focusing on: is to say that if somebody comes after you like that, a foreign entity, then you can sue them, and they don't have immunity for that.
So you could theoretically get compensation out of their online stuff.
But again, I think it's only just a matter of time before they start coming after U.S. individuals whose opinions and whose speech on social media they don't like.
When you look at how nitpicking and trivial they are to their own citizens, you can imagine that if it is something of consequence that you are talking about, you know, their war policy, their pandemic policy, vaccine policy, whatever it is, their climate policy, whatever it is that they're pushing, if they think it is consequential, even their transgender policy, because remember, they're doing that.
They're the ones who are pushing that.
But they would come against anyone who is making comments or writing articles or doing podcasts in America that conflict with their interests.
I think it's just a matter of time before that happens.
They and their speech are identified and monitored and eventually will be controlled.
It's a trap.
The rope-a-dope.
President Avante says, X control will come because Musk cannot be trusted not to sell out freedom of speech for money.
That's it.
It's all about what's in it for him.
And I don't believe that he is altruistic fighting for principles.
He's fighting for Elon Musk.
Yeah.
You know, his interests may converge with us for a while, but just be careful, right?
It's just like Stalin and Hitler converged.
Their interests converged for a moment until Hitler attacked Stalin.
We had Henry Kissinger that said, we don't have allies, we just have permanent interests.
That's right.
It's the same thing with principles, they just have interests.
Yeah, we don't have permanent allies, we have permanent interests.
That's right.
Mrs. Machiavellian.
We have three little birds says, free speech allows complaints about government actors and corporate stooges.
Steve Swan, Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson are covering crazy things in order to delegitimize true patriotic.
I agree.
I agree with you, Steve.
I think so.
That's one of the ways that you do it.
It's one of the things that one guy introduced, Alex Jones, that he makes the truth unbelievable.
I thought that's the best introduction to Alex Jones I've ever seen.
Just turn the frogs a gate, for example, right?
The truth is in there, but the way that he phrases it makes it subject to ridicule and unbelievable.
Everything Candace Owens has done this year has been ludicrous.
She goes in on the Bridget Macron is actually a man based on this research from these French people that doesn't really hold up too much scrutiny.
But yeah, otherwise everything is fine, right?
There's really nothing going on in America that we should be concerned about.
Let's be concerned about Emmanuel Macron's wife and whether she's really a woman.
Now it's just, she's on there talking about how, what is it?
A bunch of world leaders got in an Egyptian troop transport, flew to the town where Charlie Kirk was assassinated, stayed for like a week and left the morning before Charlie Kirk was assassinated, despite the fact they were there to watch him get assassinated because she couldn't figure out the time zones and thought that the plane was there after the assassination, but really it had left like four hours beforehand.
She has gone completely insane.
The French are apparently sending assassins after her, but she was at Dollywood over a weekend or two ago over Thanksgiving.
Was she?
Yeah.
She was out in Dollywood having a great time.
I guess the French assassins aren't too good at their job.
I don't know.
You know, if she's doing it for the money, she's doing it the right way, I guess.
You look at the astronomical amounts of money that she's making, and that explains it all from one aspect of that.
But yeah, they are being used to delegitimize.
Certainly, that's the way everybody else is using them.
They might be out there doing it simply because they're con men and grifters and they want to make a lot of money.
Or they could be in on the con, but that's the way everybody else is using it.
That's absolutely right.
But yeah.
Candace Owens gone completely insane.
Nibiru 2029.
Larry Fink, we will be forcing behavior.
Wackjaw, the World Health Organization, is proposing a Gates-funded global digital ID framework that would link newborns vaccinations records to lifelong tracking through interoperable registries, socioeconomic data, and AI.
You know, that's the thing.
The World Health Organization, the World Economic Forum, the Chinese, all these different guys, all of them have plans to censor us.
All of them have plans for digital IDs.
All of them have plans for travel control.
And that's really what's going on with the TSA and this real ID stuff as well.
But everybody's got a plan.
They've all got the same plan.
They all call it something different.
And the amazing thing is how they are all on the same page, and the timing is all the same.
But don't call it a conspiracy.
So bogus says, no free man shall be seized or imprisoned or stripped of his rights or possessions or outlawed or exiled or deprived of his standing in any way.
Nor will we proceed with force against him or send others to do so except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.
The Magna Carta 1215.
Yep.
Words that we could have lived by, but they don't want to live by them anymore.
Guard Goldsmith, and of course, Guard Goldsmith hosts Liberty Conspiracy Monday through Friday at 6 p.m.
You can also find him on Substack as well and Twitter.
Go check out Guard Goldsmith.
He says, back and the cat is happy.
You know JD Vance's stance on EU free speech smacks of hypocrisy.
He says, Shakespeare never taught his daughter to read, never owned a library, little indication he was into reading, writing, but his name was on the productions as putting on the plays.
Interesting.
Yeah.
And actually, one of the things they point out was that his name was actually Shakespeare without the E, without a shake.
But yeah, it's amazing when you look at how Edward de Vere, how his events line up.
Even the people, his family was the first peerage in the UK.
So, I mean, they were involved in the court intrigues and stuff from the very beginning.
And a lot of the kings that come across as villains were their political rivals as well.
So it just keeps going on and on and on when you look at all the different aspects of it.
Pezo Novante, 1776.
Those gray-wigged magistrates need to be dragged out of those courtrooms, immediately arrested, charged, and jailed.
Alien poop evolution.
Small towns have a jury trial once every five years.
Yeah, you were going to engage in a jury trial in bee caves in Texas.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Got a speeding ticket.
They don't like that.
No.
They don't like it.
They'll do anything to that.
That's when they'll start negotiating with you.
Oh, don't make me deal with the bureaucracy.
That's supposed to be for you.
And I can say it now because I'm not in Texas, but I really, you know, I couldn't really take off of work to go fight this thing because they also play the game that, you know, you can't be sure that you're going to actually, you go there and you camp out all day and maybe we'll get to your case.
Maybe we won't.
You know, that's their side of the thing.
So it's kind of a negotiating tactic, really.
Yeah.
That, or they change the date of your trial last minute and send you a parcel that shows up like a day earlier.
Yeah.
They're continually playing all kinds of games.
That's right.
The whole thing is a game.
Guard Goldsmith says nobody expects the EU Inquisition, the U.S. Inquisition, the U.K. Inquisition, they want to stop those jury trials to make sure that they have three primary weapons.
They'll make it four.
We have the Germans as well.
Nobody's allowed that come.
The real octo spook.
American courts are trail by pocketbooks or richest wins.
That's right.
That's part of the reason that we, when the whole Alfred Hitchcock thing happened, just like, well, there's not really anything we can do about this.
The Alfred Hitchcock estate has millions upon millions of dollars.
That's just not a fight you can win.
They'll simply bleed you dry.
You'll never see trial.
You'll bankrupt yourself and won't accomplish anything.
That's right.
Be my Valentine.
Fines make money from plea deals too expensive to run jury trials.
Cletus 555.
I never had to mention jury nullification.
I just told the court that I didn't think that anyone should be arrested for having marijuana and they let me go and have never called me back since.
Held on, guys.
He believes in freedom.
Get him out of here.
He's got to go.
Guard Goldsmith, by the way, the state senator Keith Amon here in New Hampshire proposed the Granite Act as a free state project member.
Good guy.
Well, good for him.
Good for him.
If Guard likes him and thinks he's good on Liberty, you can believe he is good on Liberty.
That's right.
The real octo spook.
I am sure when judges and attorneys wake up, AI will decide the verdicts.
Yeah.
Well, you know, what you were saying, getting back to the Granite Act, Guard, and that kind of stuff, we really do, to our own detriment, not realize how much can be done at the state level.
So many of these things can be, we could even fight against this kind of international tyranny at the state level.
That's where the rubber meets the road, and we ignore that to our peril.
Zachov Aksaz, that's anatomy and physiology.
Every nursing student knows some basics on skeletal differences.
There's so many obvious differences, and the fact that we pretend there aren't.
So for the benefit of a small, small minority of mentally ill and sick individuals is, I mean.
That's right.
Well, we're going to take a quick break, and I'm going to play you Christmas Carol here.
We'll give you the Jimmy Stewart ad.
And I've got a clip here of Jimmy Stewart talking about talking about that wonderful life I'm going to play for you after that.
Stay with us.
back
you're listening to the david knight show I wish I had the Christmas Night album.
You can get the Christmas Night album at the DavidNight Show.com for just $13.99.
It was right in the second floor there, see?
What'd you wish, George?
Well, not just one wish, a whole hat full.
First, I'm going to the DavidNightshow.com and purchase the Christmas Night album.
Then I'm going to listen to Christmas classics like, Are you going to throw a rock?
I want the Christmas Night album, too.
Hey, that's pretty good.
Buffalo gals, can't you come out too?
Can't you come out tonight?
Come on, Tom.
David's Christmas Night album includes 21 instrumental Christmas melodies like God Rest You, Merry Gentleman, Silent Night, and is all new.
I'll be home for Christmas.
What do you want?
You want the moon?
Just say the word and I'll throw a lasso around it, pull it down.
I'll take it.
In what?
And then I'll buy you your own download of David Knight's Christmas Night album.
What about me getting back into movies?
Because you started with a bang, didn't you?
With a marvelous movie made by Frank Capra.
It's a wonderful life.
I have a doubt of that.
I mean, did you want to get back into the movies?
Oh, I certainly did.
Yeah.
But I.
It was sort of a.
Again, this is after he took a leave because he fought in World War II.
My career because I didn't exactly know whether the type of thing that I'd done before, whether that would be accepted.
And it turned out that it wasn't very accepted.
It's a Wonderful Life didn't do very well, didn't it?
And the next picture didn't do very well.
And it was sort of falling back on that sort of thing that I'd gotten into, the romantic comedy, and people didn't want that.
But before you go on, then, Jimmy, come have a look at the scene then from Wonderful Life.
Yeah, I didn't realize you felt that it wasn't a commercial success because it's an isolated movie, isn't it?
But it's amazing.
It's my favorite picture, and Frank Kapler's favorite picture.
Oh, God, Father in heaven.
I'm not a praying man, but if you're up there and you can hear me, show me the way.
I'm at the end of my rope.
By the way, oh God, my challenge.
Want someone to take you home?
Why are you doing so much, my friend?
Please go home, Mr. Bailey.
This is Christmas Eve.
Bailey?
Which Bailey?
It's Mr. George Bear.
You said, Jimmy, that that was your favorite movie of all.
Hmm.
Of all the movies you made, that's still remembering.
Why is that?
I don't know.
A lot of reasons.
I just noticed that scene there.
That scene, I remember when I first read the first draft of the script, and that scene, the little prayer, affected me.
And when I read it, of course.
When I did it in the movie, it did.
And it did the same to me right now.
And this is a theory that I've always had: that creating moments in movies, this I think is the important thing.
Nobody knows exactly how it happens.
But what you should do is to prepare yourself as best you can to make these moments happen.
Because in a movie, it's really not so much the performance.
It's really not.
There are moments, there are moments, just like there, I think.
Yeah, and in that moment, he was not supposed, that was not in there that he would be crying like that.
Yeah, it's genuine.
Yeah, actually, according to the code, you know, they had their own code, the Hayes Code, they put in.
And it was put in primarily to pull back some of the abuses that were there in Hollywood from the very beginning, from the very beginning.
This stuff didn't come in with the sexual revolution in the 60s.
Hollywood was as corrupt as it could be from the very beginning.
And so, you know, they had a lot of nudity and sex in the early silent film days.
And so they were going to shut the whole thing down.
And so Hollywood kind of did its own policing thing.
A similar thing happened with comic books.
They came up with the comic book code and everything.
So they had different codes that were there.
And in this particular case, what was relevant about it was that they had said that it wasn't just about sexual things or nudity.
It was also that you will not have any characters praying.
And that was still in effect.
And so what they did was they kind of skirted that and did an in-run with the way they wrote that into the end of the script so that it was kind of on the side.
But anyway, let's talk about how we have lost our foundation here.
Really quickly, though, also, just Jimmy Stewart did some fantastic movies.
If you're looking for a great Western, Winchester 73 is an excellent, excellent movie.
It's an excellent film and always worth a watch or a rewatch.
We watched that many, many times too, haven't we?
I've seen Winchester 73.
I don't know how many times.
We had it on VHS, and that was one of those ones where, you know, put it on and just watch it every so often.
I really like Liberty Valence man who shot Liberty Valence with him and John Wayne.
Until one day it kind of dawned on me, wait a minute, what they're saying is that, you know, the Liberty is an evil thing.
You know, we don't want the Wild West.
And it's like, no, I want the Wild West.
Like I said earlier, I think the Wild West is good.
You can handle people like Liberty Valence, but, you know, their whole thing was we got to smother everybody with laws.
It was kind of a backdoor slap at that.
But anyway, that's just my opinion.
Poor Pete.
The war on Pete Hegseth.
And this is something that was done by a guy who operates under an alias.
He writes on American Greatness.
And Zero Hedge thought it was so good that they published it as well.
And I got to say, I think it was one of the most disgusting things.
The only thing that I've seen more disgusting take than this is the article I'm going to cover after this.
So get ready, folks.
This is about to be a segment.
Poor Pete, pity him, right?
I've had enough.
I can no longer sit still while the deep state does its very best to smear murdering Pete Hegseth and have him removed from his post via lies, rumors, propaganda.
Talk to me about lies.
This guy has changed his story more times than Hillary Clinton changed their story about Bengaza.
So, you know, they can't tell the truth.
Take a look.
And yet you've got Zero Hedge, you've got Breitbart, you got Infowars, you got American Greatness.
They're all out there.
It's a coup.
It's a coup.
And it's got to be the Soros people as well.
Same narrative all the time, right?
Yeah, if our side doesn't win, it's a coup by the deep state.
I'm so sick and tired of this trope.
It's disgusting.
It's a rerun over and over again.
I've seen this movie before.
In this particular case, it does not apply.
He is not a victim.
He is a liar.
He's a criminal.
Hey, wait, I've seen this one.
It's a classic.
Yeah, he's guilty of premeditated murder.
They're trying to get him off.
They said, clearly, this is an orchestrated, carefully constructed character assassination campaign against Hegset.
Well, before he can assassinate his character, he's got to have some.
And this guy is as bad as Megan Kelly, who's out there saying, I want them to suffer.
You know, make them bleed.
Punish them.
Yeah, she's saying that, but he's the one actually killing them.
That's right.
We now know, of course, that it was all a lie, and they're not talking about what Hegseth had said.
The Democrats and National Media want you to believe that two fishermen survived a first strike on their drug-laden speedboat and were then floating in the water helplessly like Rose and Jack at the end of Titanic.
Well, actually, they were.
And if they violated your illegal war on drugs, there is no death penalty for it.
So when you look at this, we're just talking about getting rid of the foundations of Western society, free speech, trial by jury, the Magna Carta, all these things being purged.
These people in America, this American greatness and zero hedge these people, they are pushing this something that is far more dangerous.
Now that is getting rid of the idea of a just war.
They have nothing but contempt for that and for the rules of war.
And let me tell you, you know, it may sound like an oxymoron, but if ever there was a place where you need to have rules to try to mitigate the slaughter, that's in war.
And we abandon all that to our demise, really.
Newsflash, they admitted all this stuff, folks.
After boasting about striking the ship, and that's the key thing.
And reason got it right about this.
They said the danger of all this talk about the second strike is that we don't realize that as it was originally presented and as Pete Hegseth boasted about it, it was still a war crime.
It was still murder.
There was no conflict.
There was no threat.
There was no legal justification under U.S. or international law to execute people on the mere suspicion of drugs.
There's no law, international or domestic, that allows you to execute them, even if you gave them due process.
It's not a capital offense.
I don't know what's the matter with people like this cheering this.
But the damage is done, and too many Americans are still clinging to the lies from the Washington Post.
Hagseth, Levitt, Trump, all of them have changed their tune.
All of them have changed their tune.
They've all walked back their statements, which means that they were all lying.
And it's just become the lies have become untenable.
That's why they changed their story, just like Hillary Clinton on Benghazi.
What a ridiculous article to say that, oh yeah, they're saying two fishermen survived, as though being a drug runner makes you more likely to survive getting your boat blown up.
Yeah, a drug runner, I could believe he could survive that attack, but a fisherman?
Well, they're saying it because they say, well, these people are not innocent.
The reality is, is that, as Rand Paul said from the very beginning, when the Coast Guard interdicts people and searches their boats, as they continue to do in spite of the fact that in this particular area, because it's not about the drugs at all, it's about bullying, corrupt capitalism, the kind of stuff that was called out by Smedley Butler.
War is a racket.
It really is.
And, you know, we still use that word.
RICO, the racketeering and influence and corrupt organizations.
It's organized crime.
And the entire drug war is organized crime run by organized criminals that we call the federal government.
And this only exacerbates all this.
So this one is from the Daily Signal.
I believe it's the Heritage Foundation.
Daily Wire, I think, is Ben Shapiro saying, Daily Signals, Heritage Foundation.
These are people who are cheering Hagseth.
Matter of fact, three cheers for the Pentagon's two-step boat attack, they said.
All week long, I've tried to cry for the narco-terrorists.
See, this is the childish labels that they throw on people, just like the leftists do.
Oh, we'll call them narco-terrorists.
Now I've got to, because I label you a narco-terrorist, now I have a right to jail you, to gas you at a protest or whatever.
I'm going to label your organization a terrorist organization.
That's why people showed up on the No King's Day and said, I am anti-Faw.
So if you're going to just arbitrarily label them as this, we don't like that principle.
But they use that label, and now they can kill you if they wish.
It says, however, I tried to cry for them, but my eyes have stayed totally dry.
Yeah, well, maybe you ought to weep for the loss of due process, the loss of the Constitution, the loss of the rule of law, and the loss of morality in our society because people like you at the Daily Signal have pushed this.
The only thing wrong with Venezuelan two-step is that Secretary of War Pete Hegset did not hold a press conference and take full credit for this operation.
Hey, Newsflash, it's not the Secretary of War.
That's going to cost $2 billion if they do it, but they haven't done it yet.
He calls himself that.
It's just an affectation.
He's like a little, I think Kelly got it right.
He's like a little boy playing war.
Probably he goes into his office.
He's got little toy soldiers all set up around the place there.
Yeah, not only did he not take credit for it, he's repeatedly lied about it and changed his story.
That's right.
Yeah, he lied about it because it's worse than a war crime.
It is cold-blooded murder.
And what we found in this statement, we found that it was premeditated murder.
They talked about it for 41 minutes to decide what they're going to do.
And then what they did was still murder.
So this premeditated murder.
Planned and malice aforethought.
So this op-ed piece says, the bad ombres in those narcotics stuffed boats are not Venezuelan sailors.
They are private sector criminals, namely drug cartel thugs, for which I would add no death penalty law, and there is no declaration of war to identify them as combatants.
There was no conflict.
There was no combat.
And so from the very beginning, this is equivalent to killing civilians.
You know, we just had a video that I haven't shown it on the show, but it was taken by somebody from a distance as Israeli soldiers were arresting someone in Gaza.
The person's got their hand up and Israeli soldiers just executed them.
That's what this is about.
And it's no wonder that we support Israel in that war because we do the same thing.
I do have that video.
I don't know if you want to play it or not.
It's long.
We've got a guess that's coming up.
I want to get through this.
Trendiarugua and their lawless associates did not sign the Geneva Convention.
And as non-state actors, they're not entitled to its protections.
It bothers me a great deal that a think tank, the Heritage Foundation, the biggest of the conservative think tanks, would put out something like this.
I just have to say, it's just, I didn't sign the Constitution.
I didn't sign the Bill of Rights.
Does that mean that I'm not entitled to that protection of my individual freedoms and liberties?
That's a good point.
Yeah, the Magna Carta isn't there to legislate the victims.
Like, it's there to restrict the people that are committing the war crimes.
That's right.
It is not, you know, we've said over and over again, the Bill of Rights does not give us rights.
The Bill of Rights recognizes our God-given rights, and it prohibits the government from infringing on those.
The same thing is true of the Geneva Convention.
The Geneva Convention recognizes the morality of what was informed by Christian thought, and that is the just war theory.
That you don't attack people who are non-combatants.
That means civilians, and that means even soldiers who are now out of combat, sailors who are shipwrecked.
This is the exact case that they use.
So it does not, you don't get your human rights because you sign a Geneva Convention.
Again, I find it very troubling that the Heritage Foundation would publish something like this.
But the Heritage Foundation never really got the gist of what was happening with social media censorship either.
And by the way, neither did Cato Institute.
The biggest conservative, the biggest libertarian think tanks did not support free speech against censorship when it was being done surreptitiously.
They came back and said, well, this is being done by the social media companies and their private entities, so they can do whatever they want to take somebody's free speech.
No, they can't.
No, they can't.
And I don't care if the Supreme Court says it or not.
Those were not rights that were given to me by the government.
They're rights that were given to me by God, and the corporations cannot take those rights ever.
We can never give them that kind of power.
Just like we can't give it to the government either.
If the U.S. Armed Forces no longer may kill narco-terrorists who survive single-tap strikes, then these individuals suddenly have grown a right to life that must be respected.
Think about this.
Conservative think tank talking about how somebody has grown a right to life.
Is it any wonder that we struggled for so long to stop abortion, that the right to life people couldn't get the kind of traction that they needed from the Heritage Foundation?
Welcome to post-Christian conservatism, where you supposedly grow rights to life.
No.
It is not something, these rights, as I said even about the Bill of Rights, these rights are not granted by the government.
They're not granted by the document.
They're not granted only to citizens.
We have these rights because we're human.
And that means that people who are citizens of other countries also have human rights.
And we're not allowed to kill them wantonly if it's not in self-defense.
This is clearly not in defense.
It's an unjust war.
It was an unjust strike.
And the first strike was unjust.
Yeah, it's clear.
The second one just drives it home.
Kind of what he's saying, that if you're okay with the first strike, then surely you should be okay with the second one.
He's pointing out that it's ridiculous to think that someone could suddenly grow a right to life.
The only thing is he's saying that they never had a right to life by what he's that's right.
Yeah, welcome to post-Christian conservatism, quote-unquote.
The neocons and the never Christ.
That's what these people are.
They want war, and they pretend that they're conservative, but they don't want to conserve anything, especially Western civilization.
He says, so imagine that Navy SEALs, this is the most absurd straw man argument I've ever heard.
The most absurd.
Listen to this, how he justifies this.
Imagine the Navy SEALs aboard the USS Gerald Ford swoop in to save these survivors.
Surprise, an enraged narco-terrorist opens fire on the incoming gringos.
Three seals tumble into the Caribbean dead.
What would those bashing hegseth say then?
Well, I would say to you, that's the most absurd argument I've ever seen in my life.
Look at this scenario I made up.
Look at what could happen.
Look at this thing that I'm imagining.
Yeah.
They were not model citizens.
There you go.
So you don't like them and they're criminals, so just execute them.
Where do we draw the line?
When do we stop executing people that are not model citizens, according to the Daily Signal?
I wish this person had put their name there.
I would like to make them a celebrity.
This is just crazy.
According to a source familiar with the incident, the two survivors climbed back onto the boat after the initial strike.
Well, what else do you think they're going to do?
They're trying to survive in the ocean.
They were also waving for help, by the way.
That has also come out.
They said, well, they believed that they were potentially in communication with others and that they might then salvage the drugs.
So they determined that they were still in the fight with the valid targets.
Understand that the way they have defined conflict, right?
They have defined conflict to mean these people were possession of illegal drugs.
Therefore, they were a threat.
Therefore, there was combat.
Therefore, it was conflict.
None of that is true.
It has never been true.
And we better hope that it never becomes true.
When are they going to start executing people on the streets like Duterte did in the Philippines?
There is a simple solution to all this.
Those who prefer not to get obliterated in narcotics boats or wind up clutching wreckage after being shot need to not do any drugs, right?
Isn't that amazing?
And then here is Steve Watson.
And you said you wanted his name.
This was written by Deroy Murdoch.
Really?
Wow.
Wow.
Okay.
I missed that.
Thank you.
How pathetic that is.
Manhattan-based Fox News contributor.
Well, there you go.
Yeah, D-Roy.
You are a pathetic excuse for a human being.
Just disgusting to see this.
And here's another one.
Steve Watson, Paul Watson's brother, Modernity News.
Watch this.
Here's Biden calling for a strike force to crush drug dealers in 1989.
Okay, well, then if Biden did it, I guess we can do it too.
Joe Biden, known purveyor of good policy.
Yeah.
Steve Watson, repeat after me, okay?
Hypocrisy and crimes of the other tribe do not mean that your tribe can do the same type of thing.
It was deplorable when Biden said it.
Biden, if you knew anything about history in America, Steve, you would know that Biden has been one of the key instigators of this criminal, illegal war on drugs and the authoritarian over-the-top tactics, things like mandatory minimums and things like that, as well as the civil asset forfeiture.
This is all coming from Joe Biden.
Joe Biden, as I've said over and over again, when Clarence Thomas was having the hearings, the Democrats got very angry with him because they wanted him to focus exclusively on this he said, she said thing about Anita Hill.
And instead, he focused on attacking Clarence Thomas because Clarence Thomas supported natural rights and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
And Biden hated the thing.
He doesn't even remember what it's called, Declaration of Independence and the rest of that stuff.
He hates the founding principles of this country.
The Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution.
He despises it.
He is one of the worst authoritarian gangsters out there.
And of course, that's why he was picked.
And that's why Trump was picked.
Because they're both alike in that regard.
So a clip.
Steve Watson found a clip where Joe Biden is demanding the same aggressive action decades ago, proving that their opposition is pure partisan sabotage as cartel poison floods America unchecked.
Steve, they would be so proud of you with our first czar in America, William Bennett, and the Reagan administration.
They'd be so proud of you towing the line for this.
You know, we've got to do whatever it takes for the war on drugs.
It was the guy that Steve Pachinik was working with, Tom Clancy, who came up with Clear and Present Danger.
They were selling that idea to people a long time ago.
Yeah, let's just use the CIA and the military to kill all these cartel people.
That's the way.
Let's turn the war on drugs into a real war.
You know, it wasn't long ago that conservatives dinged Biden for his anti-human rights, his anti-Bill of Rights mandates.
Well, okay, this is poison, and we all know it was poison that Trump put out, and Trump says he's the father of it, but it was Biden who mandated it.
In violation of the Bill of Rights and violation of our human rights, he mandated it.
Now these same conservatives are out there saying, well, Biden did it, so now we can do it, right?
This is the way it's going to operate.
No, hypocrisy and crimes of the other tribe.
Do not excuse the hypocrisy and the crimes of your tribe.
So in addition to calling for more prisons and more cops, Biden says the Democrats want the creation of a strike force to do all this stuff.
And again, the explosion of prisons that we had because of mandatory minimums and things like that.
Did that stop drugs?
No.
You have people who die of overdoses in these corrupt federal prisons as well.
And what is it going to, I've said this all along.
What does it say?
If you can't even stop drugs, if people can get enough drugs to overdose on them in prison, what kind of a society are we going to have if you're going to try to stop this spiritual problem by force, by police?
We'll all be living in a prison.
Now that's where they're taking us.
They're using this as an excuse to put us all in a prison.
And so the clip from February 7th, 1989, Senate hearings on crime and drugs shows Biden pushing for swift, severe punishment of dealers and international operations to dismantle cartels before they infiltrate the U.S.
This is like arguing that, well, you know, Hitler said that we should do such and such, so let's do it.
You know, he's bought into this.
So it gives us the permission to do that.
I look at Biden as somebody who is as authoritarian as Hitler.
He would do all of these things to us if he could.
This echoes Trump's designation of cartels as foreign terrorist organizations, a move that Biden never pursued despite his tough talk.
Yeah, it took the left-right thing.
They always pull this stuff with a Republican.
You know, it was Biden who was pushing all this stuff behind the scenes really hard and in the Senate when Reagan was president.
And of course, you know, they need to put in Donald Trump because the conservatives will applaud this stuff.
Because the conservatives, just like the liberals, want government to do whatever they think is important.
Conservatives don't like drugs.
You shouldn't like drugs.
But because they don't like drugs, they will allow the government to do whatever the government tells them will stop drugs, no matter how disconnected that is from reality, no matter how much it destroys our society, no matter how much it erodes the foundation or destroys the foundation of our country.
So he says, one person says, well, that's the Biden I remember.
He was pro-America back when Dems could be patriots.
Now you have to piss all over everything.
That's R.B. of Jonesboro.
Actually, I think he's living in Jonestown, the cult.
Isn't that amazing?
So now they're cheering Biden because he was about killing people without due process.
Just like he was about locking you down and taking away your job if you didn't get the vaccine.
They hated him for that, but now they like him because he doesn't respect any principles of liberty or law.
And this is Steve Watson putting this in here.
Look at this.
People are making the point for him.
He goes and collects tweets about it.
It's amazing.
Trump is everything the Democrats ever wanted in a single package, and yet they hate him.
I agree.
I agree.
I've said this for the longest time.
He is a New York City Democrat.
He is a casino-owning organized crime thug.
And that's the way he runs the country as well.
He is a New York City Democrat.
Why do they hate him so much?
Well, Stephen Miller said, this is the first time I can ever think where a major political party has sided with narco-trafficking, murdering terrorist scum.
Well, Stephen, you need to get a little bit better educated.
Both parties have sided with the CIA, which is all of the above.
Narco-trafficking, murdering terrorist scum.
That is the job description there at the CIA.
And if you think that the major parties haven't sided with this, they've both done it.
They've both done it.
He added, a Democrat says, oh, there's no such thing as a narco-terrorist.
They're just narco-persons.
ISIS and these narco-terrorists in our hemisphere use the same tactics.
We're going to go off running around the Middle East.
Oh, he says, sorry.
Miller says, we, that means the Trump administration, we're not going to go off running around the Middle East trying to build democracies in caves and deserts and in distant lands that have never known democracy.
Oh, you're not?
You just had the thug that was put in by the CIA in Syria, an ISIS thug.
He wants to equivocate these people that he labels as narco-terrorists.
He wants to equivocate them with ISIS.
And yet it was actual ISIS-A-Qaeda terrorist that the U.S. government, both parties supported in Syria.
Both parties armed.
Biden gave him escorts to beat Assad out of Syria.
The A-10 warthogs that were there.
Have these people forgotten that they just put ISIS in charge of Syria?
Has Stephen Miller forgotten that Trump honored him in the Oval Office?
Seriously?
We're supposed to believe that these people have got such short memories.
They want to ding Biden for dementia.
Maybe they've got dementia.
Or maybe they're just Machiavellian liars.
People like Steve Watson as well as Joe Biden and Stephen Miller.
I'm going to want to get answers on what the Pete Hegseth order was, said Democrat Senator Warner.
And again, this is hypocrisy, but it is true.
He said, we haven't seen the whole unedited video.
If there's nothing inappropriate here, you could have cleared this up without the Admiral coming in.
Just show us the video.
And again, that tells you everything.
The fact that they don't want to show the video.
And it was a very awkward moment when a Fox reporter pressed Warpeep on all of this.
You know, where's the video?
Are you going to release this video?
Oh, it's national security issue.
No, it's a job security issue for you, pal.
And yet when the truth comes out, oh, a Soros is doing a coup against Hegseth.
Give me a break.
Also, it's just so blatantly obvious.
What on earth could be related to national security in footage of a drug boat being blown up?
Let's assume, even if it is a drug boat, it's not fishermen.
They are actually smuggling drugs.
What is going to be on that footage that is going to be detrimental to the United States government?
He was pushing out that footage and boasting about it, the initial strike, which I say is the initial crime.
That was as criminal as going back and hitting the people who were shipwrecked.
Although that is a little bit more clear to most people, I think we need to not focus on that.
That's a point that Reason had made.
Anyway, going back to Watson, he says, fresh reporting dismantles the media smears.
He said, the New York Times revealed that Hegseth authorized the strike to kill people on the boat and destroy the vessel and eliminate its drug cargo.
Which, by the way, Watson, is murder to start with.
There was no war.
There was no conflict, there was no threat.
This is no different than if you have an army go into Gaza and start lining people up against the wall that are civilians and executing them and saying, Well, you know, they are Palestinians, so it's just a matter of time before they join forces with Hamas.
I'm going to kill them first, which is what that Jewish woman said.
We got to stop mowing the lawn and just kill them all, right?
In addition, ABC's Martha Radditz gave key updates and said the survivors climbed back on the boat.
Well, to him, that's admission that they're still dangerous, not that they're trying to survive in the water.
They tried climbing up several times, as they point out, and they kept falling off of the boat.
They couldn't get on the boat.
Well, I think you're trying to right that boat so that you can bring drugs in the country.
So, therefore, you are still in conflict with us.
Because, again, remember, the possession of the drugs is taken the same as if they were shooting at the U.S. Navy.
It's not.
It's not conflict.
It's not a threat.
And it wasn't coming to the U.S. either.
What?
But imagine this scenario to paraphrase the other guy.
The Navy shows up and these people give them drugs and then they take it and die.
There you go.
Yeah.
Hey, man, I got some good stuff here.
Take this.
What if they got all of our Navy SEALs addicted to cocaine?
They had enough fentanyl on that boat to kill an entire battleship.
You know, just wait.
They're going to use that lance.
That's a good point.
They've actually used that kind of logic, quote-unquote, logic.
So they believe they were potentially in communication with others and they might salvage some of the drugs.
Well, again, there's no true conflict in this, but that's the fundamental lie behind all this: is that having the drugs makes them enemy combatants.
Andy War says, U.S. military blows up another boat in Latin America amid scrutiny of the bombing campaign.
It happened at exactly the same time.
And he's going in there on Thursday, and he's answering questions about their premeditated cold-blooded murder of people who are not a threat to them.
And again, how many times do we have to go through this?
You can't shoot somebody in the back, even if they come into your home, if they're running away.
If they're not a threat to you, you can't shoot them in the back.
Police are supposed to abide by those same rules.
They get away with it too frequently.
But the military is definitely not allowed to do that because they have so much more force.
They have to be held to a higher standard.
The government has to be held to a higher standard than the homeowner.
Southcom claimed the strike killed four more quote-unquote narco-terrorists, a term used to justify, attempt to justify, the extrajudicial executions at sea.
They've got all kinds of catchphrases.
A lethal kinetic strike, illicit narcotics, all the rest of this stuff.
What I saw in that room is one of the most troubling scenes I've ever seen in my life in public service, said Democrat Jim Himes.
You have two individuals in clear distress without any means of locomotion and a destroyed vessel who were killed by the United States.
Well, again, I would say to him, since we're talking about somebody attaining the right to life, perhaps Jim Hines, who is a Democrat in Connecticut, I imagine he has supported over and over again abortion, right?
And that kind of hypocrisy does not mean that it's still not a crime for Pete Hegseth to murder people in the water.
But again, when you're talking about abortion, you're talking about if you go back and you look at that video of Called the procedure, based on the first-hand person account of a guy who was called in to do ultrasound, didn't realize it was for an abortion.
He talked about what he saw, and they animated that.
This is the same thing in principle, folks.
Same thing in principle.
Conservatives are cheering this.
I'm disgusted.
I'm not a conservative.
Not a conservative.
I reject that label.
Not a conservative, not a Republican.
They aren't trying to conserve anything of any value.
So, again, we're going to grow into human rights and grow into a right to life.
The bombing campaign says anti-war is clearly illegal under U.S. and international law.
But more importantly, it is immoral under a law that is higher than human law.
A law that is higher than the law of the land, higher than the Constitution.
God's law.
And Pete Hegsteth continually takes God's name in vain when he wears his tattoo sleeves about all this Christian symbols.
To him, it's just gang symbols.
It really is.
I mean, all the stuff that's there.
You know, it's just, oh, there's this cross that represents that, and there's this and that.
It's just a bunch of gang signals, symbols that are out there.
The threat that supposedly justified killing two boat attack survivors was entirely speculative, says Reason.
And again, you know, imagine if some Navy SEALs had gone to rescue them and somehow these guys who are struggling to survive in the water, imagine if they then pull out their machine guns that they've kept concealed and start shooting at the seals.
Can you imagine if they did that?
No, we want to drown.
We don't want to be rescued and taken off.
So Reason says the confluence of these two developments, that is the fact that he was testifying and at the same time they were doing yet another one of these strikes, highlights the risk that the debate about Bradley's second strike will obscure the broader issue of whether Trump's reality-defying assertion of a quote armed conflict unquote with drug smugglers, which supposedly turns criminal suspects into combatants, is enough to transform murder into self-defense.
While the renewed congressional interest in the legal and moral justifications for Trump's bloodthirsty drug strategy is welcome, the inquiry should not be limited to the question of whether one particular attack violated the law of war.
They've all violated it.
And I said that from the very first day.
They have committed 22 unwarranted attacks.
They have killed 87 people.
Don't forget that.
87 murders by War Pete and Trump.
And they're owning it now.
Bradley's defense nevertheless illustrates the outrageous implications of conflating drug smuggling with violent aggression.
We cannot allow them to do this because folks, if we do this, there's absolutely nothing to stop Trump from going into the cities and start executing people like Duterte.
And remember, Trump praised Duterte in the Philippines for doing this very same thing.
So if they're going to say that if they believe that you're doing drugs, we can just shoot you on the street.
We have people getting shot on the street because of the or of the illegal prohibition that's being done.
It's a UN agenda.
So never forget that.
We have our guests ready before we get to the guests.
So I'd like to run through these comments really quickly.
We have Niburu 2029.
Behind all censorship stands criminal money attempting to hide its criminalities.
Be my Valentine.
It's a wonderful life festival this weekend in Seneca Falls, New York.
Zuzu child actress from the movie will be there.
She has a great Christian testimony.
She's probably the last one alive.
Probably because she was probably the youngest person.
Yeah, she was even the youngest of the kids.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Wow.
Pizzonovante.
Yeah.
Seneca Falls, New York, if you're in the area.
Pizzanovante.
I was.
I'm not.
Pezonovante, 1776.
U.S. bombs and creates enemies and displaced migrants.
And after the radicalization from bombing over there, the U.S. opens the door here to the displaced Muslim masses.
And that's what's going to happen in Venezuela.
After their dirty war, after they lose because it's asymmetric warfare, they're going to lose it just like they lost in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Lies about weapons of mass destruction, lies about fentanyl being weapons of mass destruction.
The bottom line is after a lot of blood and money is spent in Venezuela for corporations to get the oil, then what's going to happen is you're going to have massive refugees brought in.
And we're going to see this whole movie done over and over again.
Roy MH says they aren't model citizens, our politicians, that is.
So thinking emoji.
Defy tyrant 1776.
Drug dealer kills two, gets life in prison.
White House drug dealer kills millions, gets a second term.
That's right.
Well, play by different rules.
Yeah, if they're going to kill millions of people and call it salvation with a jab, I guess you shouldn't be surprised that they're doing this, right?
Yeah.
Minuteman Militia, these idiots actually believe those folks are trying to grab drugs from the destroyed boat.
Well, I mean, if you've only got a few minutes left to live and you're surrounded by a bunch of cocaine, you might as well have a good time, I guess.
That's right.
Well, our guest coming up is Alex Newman of The New American.
He's been on the show many times.
He does a lot of great research, and we appreciate him being on.
Get ready.
We're going to take a quick break, and then we'll be back with Alex Newman.
Yes, we'll be right back.
And now,
The David Knight Show.
Tell Alexa to add the APS radio skill and have access to the best channels anywhere.
From country to blues, classic hits to news.
APS Radio curates incredibly diverse playlists for you to enjoy.
Get details at APSradio.com.
Well, welcome back.
And our guest is Alex Newman, senior editor of The New American, award-winning international journalist, educator, author, speaker, nationally syndicated radio host, and consultant.
He's an award-winning international journalist, educator, and consultant.
So we've had him on many times talking mainly about education, but we always get him on.
Every year he goes to wherever they have these cop things.
We're now up to number 30.
And this time, we covered the road that they were building for the elites to go down and cutting down massive numbers of trees.
What was it, 100,000, Alex?
What did they cut down with those trees?
Yeah, that's the number I heard as well.
Yep.
But now, you know, they have these people are constantly flipping their story.
It used to be that trees were our salvation, and you would pay an indulgence to pollute so they could plant a tree somewhere.
But now Bill Gates wants all the trees cut down, not used for anything, but buried in the ground because they're going to release all that carbon that they have absorbed.
This is the most insane thing I've ever seen.
But there's a lot of insanity with that.
Did you get to go down that road?
Well, we wasn't ready yet, so nobody was able to go down it except the machinery that was building it.
But it was quite the story.
They literally cut down an enormous swath of the rainforest, protected virgin rainforest.
It was supposed to be untouchable.
And they decided that, hey, we've got a climate summit coming in.
The city's not very nice.
The traffic's horrendous.
So why don't we build these people some nice new roads so they don't have to mingle with the riffraff and wait in the traffic like the rest of the suckers.
And unfortunately, for the suckers, they actually didn't finish the road in time for the climate summit, which is very typical of the socialist powers and authorities in Brazil.
That's our salvation.
These people can't build anything, not even a road in time.
So they did all this for the vet, and then they missed the time window there.
They were very embarrassed about it, David.
They actually put out military and police to try to guard this so people couldn't get to it.
We rented a car and we snuck through the rainforest in the middle of the night very, very late so that we would be able to get through there.
We actually had to go all the way out past where there's cell service, past where there was even a GPS reception, which I don't even know how that works.
But we did finally find it, and we found one of the local residents that lived in the jungle, and he was very upset.
He said, we don't need this stupid road.
What we need is water and electricity, please.
Yeah, we need water and electricity, but they're building AI data centers.
That's what we get over here.
Because now they don't care about energy usage or heat generated as long as it's for AI because that's going to give them their control over us.
But tell us what else you saw there.
I mean, a lot of people are saying after Bill Gates moved back, they're saying, well, you know, this is it.
These people have basically played out all their lies and they're on the run.
Do you see that?
Or does it look like these people are going to still keep coming?
I think they're going to keep coming.
What do you think?
No question about it, David.
I was going to say, all of this reporting, we even saw some of it in the fake media.
Oh, the climate thing was a failure.
Nothing to see here.
Go back to your regularly scheduled football games.
There's nothing to worry about.
Bill Gates says it's over.
And I think Bill Gates just made a strategic decision.
Like you said, he needs AI data centers to enslave humanity more than he needs the climate hoax at this particular moment.
But the idea that they're going to give up the climate hoax is utterly ludicrous.
They actually did get an agreement this year.
The Trump administration boycotted it.
The State Department told us it was because the conference was designed to bankrupt the United States and we weren't going to participate.
But there was a lot in the final agreement, David.
One of the things that got in there was the carbon budget for humanity.
It turns out there is a carbon budget that we can be allowed to emit.
And this is crazy, David.
They got this in the final tax agreed to by every government in the world.
We've already gone through four-fifths of it.
And most of that has come from the United States and Europe and the West.
And so what's left, the one-fifth of the carbon budget that we still have left, needs to be allocated to the mass murdering dictatorship in communist China and the Indian government and the Brazilians and the South Africans and so on.
The biggest polluters on earth.
That's right.
Prepare to have your CO2 emissions rationed slaves because that's coming down the pike.
They got the infrastructure in there to eventually create the enforcement mechanism.
They went into this with the Marxist would-be dictator of Brazil, Lula, saying that he wanted to create an enforcement body.
He was calling it the Global Environmental Council.
They didn't get that, but they got all of the metrics and tools and monitoring frameworks that they'll need to be able to get that going forward.
So that was big progress.
And there was also a lot of side agreements, David.
A whole bunch of U.S. allies got together and signed a declaration on information integrity, basically promising to work together to censor us.
More than half of the governments agreed to create a fossil fuel phase-out roadmap.
So they'll be having the first meeting for that in Columbia in April.
And then for me, one of the biggest takeaways, David, it always is, and nobody ever pays attention to this, is the religious angle.
You know, this conference to me was the place where it was most clear.
And I've been going to these for 15 years.
We're watching here an attempt to repaganize the world.
Basically, the paradigm, David, is Christianity is to blame for the environmental and ecological catastrophe because Christianity holds that man is made in the image of God, that the planet is here for our benefit, that we are calling Genesis to take dominion of the planet and its animals and things like this for our benefit and for the glory of God.
That's the reason why Mother Earth is suffering so much.
And so they paraded, I mean, literally an endless parade of Native American pagans, you know, a lot of them from the rainforest.
That's why they held it in the rainforest, who came to enlighten all the delegates about how Mother Earth is angry at us for our CO2 emissions.
And we need to go back to appeasing the forest spirits and the river spirits and the rock spirits.
And we do that by basically repaganizing the world and cleansing it of Christian civilization.
So this was a very, very, very significant motif throughout this conference.
And I think it's one of the big takeaways.
You know, it's been that way for a while.
And we've had, again, they're making it, you know, keep propagating this, but we've had bits and pieces of this.
Remember, Jennifer Lawrence, the actress, was very serious about Mother Earth being upset with us.
So, you know, we had some natural disasters or something like that.
They take that very seriously.
The Gaia theory that was done by James Lovelock, I remember we were in the UK in 2001, and it was everywhere.
It was, you know, science magazines that we saw left behind on the train from people.
It was all over that.
And I took the kids to a children's museum, and they had this loop playing that was saying that, you know, Gaia, Mother Earth, is this sentient being and that humans are like a virus.
And so therefore, we need to be exterminated, right?
And so that type of thing has been going for quite some time now.
Interestingly enough, Lovelock, who came up with that analogy based on pagan religion, Gaia, Mother Earth, he has now moved back away from that.
He's now recanted that.
But these people are doubling down and going on with it.
And it is a religion, and they pursue it religiously.
That is the worldview in which they frame everything.
I think, Alex, I think what is going on, the way my take on all this, I want to see what you think about this.
I think one of the reasons that they're pulling back on this is because they've got to get the infrastructure in with AI, and they've got to get the infrastructure in with digital money.
Not CBDC, but they'll be doing it through stablecoins that will give them the same kind of control and being able to observe everything that we do and control and prevent us from making certain transactions.
I think they've got to get that infrastructure in.
And so they're going to wait and do that, and then they will roll in the come back to the population control stuff.
And it is population control in every aspect of it.
Making sure they don't have as many people, but then the people that are there, they want to control every aspect of our life.
What do you think about that?
Did you see stuff there about C40, for example?
You know, the thing that was put together by Sadiq Khan and Bloomberg.
When I saw all the angst about Mom Danny and everything, I thought, well, we've already had a Muslim mayor and a communist in London and New York putting out this prescription for how they're going to ration our lives to us, the C40 initiative.
So I didn't really see that anything was different about that.
But what do you think?
What do you think in terms of why they have stepped back away from this climate MacGuffin?
And I think they're going to step back into it once they get these tools in place.
Yeah, my take, David, is that they realize that the bitter claimers in America are not going for it.
You know, they've done the polling.
I've seen the polling results.
They know the majority of Americans don't even believe that human activity is responsible for climate change.
And then when you drill down even further, even the people who do believe, even the Kool-Aid drinkers, don't care enough to actually do anything.
There was an interesting poll by A.P. Nork Center for Public Affairs.
Less than one-third of Americans were willing to pay one single solitary U.S. dollar on their monthly electric bill to fight climate change.
That's how little Americans care, even the ones who are dumb enough to fall for this.
So their strategy was really clear to me, David.
They're working through a variety of institutions, but education is one of the critical ones.
UNESCO had a big, big, big event there.
They called it Greening Education.
They partnered with the Marxist-Brazilian government and the OECD, and they talked about how we are going to brainwash the children in every single country to believe this.
And it's not going to be optional, right?
You're going to include it in your nationally determined contributions, your NDCs that you've got to update every five years under Paris.
They're going to be including what they call climate literacy on the international standardized assessments, the PISA, as it's called, PISA.
And so basically, if your government isn't brainwashing the little ones to believe that we're all doomed from climate change and that they need to become climate activists, you're going to look stupid, right, when you come out on these international assessments.
So they were saying this openly, the top officials at UNESCO, the UN Education Agency.
So I think that's their plan.
You're right.
The data centers and the AI is a critical component of this.
They can't restructure the whole economy around carbon credits and your carbon footprint until they've got the computing power and the data to go with the computing power that makes this all trackable.
And then you've got to combine it with the social credit scores.
So you're right.
The AI and the data centers are a precursor to the ultimate flip.
But they are 100% committed to this.
I think the only reason it wasn't covered in the American media is because they now know the more we talk about this, the more angry Americans get, the more likely they are to call their congressmen and demand an end to all this foolishness.
So I think that's where they're going.
But, you know, to go back to the religion thing for a moment, the first time I saw the paganism, I was just a young whippersnapper journalist fresh out of journalism school.
It was in Cancun.
The head of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, Castiana Figueres, opened up with a prayer to Eksgel, whom she described as the goddess of tapestries and creativity.
I'm dead serious.
She opens up and says, we need to pray to Ieksjel that she'll give us the wisdom and creativity to create a creative tapestry of climate solutions for this crisis, whatever.
So I whip out my laptop and look up this Ieksgel, and she's the goddess of cannibalism and war and human sacrifice.
Oh, there you go.
It was a not just basket weaving, right?
No, it was a political prayer.
We've got to get rid of the disease on this planet, which is humanity.
And so, you know, they've been set back by the fact that nobody believes them, but they're going to go for our kids.
They're going to go for our churches.
And they will be back with a vengeance as soon as enough of the older population dies off and they've got enough of the younger dupes ready to move into positions of power.
I agree.
You're talking about the OECD.
It's almost like inserting education in the E of education, inserting that into OCD, obsessive-compulsive disorder.
That's what they've done with the kids.
And they can get a sizable percentage of kids.
If you start them from an early age, you can brainwash them into this stuff.
That's why they had that Gaia video running in the Children's Museum.
But, you know, when you talk about the religious side of it, I remember Pope Francis when he was first getting in this.
One of the first things he did was a climate encyclical, and then he got people upset with him because he had that Pacamama thing from Amazon.
I remember some people then threw it into the river there near the Vatican.
But so was Papi Pacamama, was that featured in this particular one in Brazil?
I didn't see Pacamama, but I did watch the papacy very closely because, you know, Francis has now gone on to eternity.
I don't know what that looks like for him.
The new guy, I was like, well, let's see.
Is he going to continue the environmental crusade, the environmental holy war?
And sure enough, he doubled down on it.
I mean, before the conference, I'm sure you saw the video of him blessing this big block of ice.
It might have been the weirdest ceremony I ever saw, except for the Pacamama thing.
But then he releases this.
He's got the biggest delegation ever at a climate summit.
All these cardinals and bishops and the secretary of state gave the big opening speech on his behalf.
And he produced a video.
And I mean, people should watch it.
It was only like two and a half minutes.
He's like, to the religious people gathered in the Amazon to save the climate.
Keep it up.
But we can't just have hope.
Now we've got to have action.
And really, really blatant collaboration with paganism.
And you also had the Muslims there, which was really interesting, too.
You had one Muslim leader lecturing everybody about how Muhammad was really a great environmentalist because this one time he said we shouldn't drink all our water, we should conserve resources.
And clearly, he was a climate activist.
I even had a word for it.
I forget what the word was in Arabic, but they're bringing all the religions of the world, and I say religions of the world in the evangelical, biblical sense.
All the religions of the world are uniting behind this climate foolishness.
And you had organizations purporting to represent over a hundred Christian denominations there, a lot of them led, of course, by the Vatican.
But this is dead serious, and Americans aren't seeing it.
Yeah, they talk about climate justice and things like that.
And yeah, it is amazing.
And so that's all alive and well still with the religious people.
And it's becoming, as you point out, kind of a world religion where they can pull them all in.
I wonder if it ever occurred to anybody that maybe what Muhammad was saying about conserving water was because they're in the middle of the desert.
Right.
Yeah, yeah.
Absolutely.
So what is the status with the Paris Climate Accord?
I've talked about this over and over again.
I was so disappointed because in many regards, even the first Trump administration, there was some very positive stuff in terms of pushing back against some radical environmentalism.
And of course, we've seen some good moves in this one as well for whatever reason.
But one thing that they did not do was to just say that the climate accord was null and void.
And it was null and void because you remember, it was John Kerry who said, yeah, Obama and I just self-ratified it ourselves.
And so I say the Republicans are just as guilty of this as the Democrats are because I remember had I can't remember his name now.
He had somebody that I'd worked with before in terms of climate stuff.
And he said, what needs to happen is the Republican Senate needs to come in and say, we're going to have a vote on this presumed treaty.
We're going to put it up for a vote.
There's no way that it was going to get the 60% votes that it needed.
So they needed to do that so they could shut it down, but they never did.
And the fact that there was never a single Republican that pointed that out, that said this is a bogus treaty, bogus treaty.
It is null and void.
It has no effect.
And then throughout the entire Trump administration, they pretended that they couldn't get out of it because I think it was deliberately put in saying if you want to get out, you've got to wait four years, knowing that that's the term of the American president.
So this time they say, well, okay, he got out and then Biden puts us back in immediately, again, violating the idea of treaties.
And then when Trump gets in, now he's going to get out.
But since it's the second time he's getting out, now, according to the treaty, he only has to wait one year.
But we're waiting that year to get out.
Have you seen that has the Trump administration ignored these principles?
Have they done anything to violate the climate agreement?
Or are they still complying with it for this year?
Yeah, so this is a really important subject, David.
And I'm going to try to break it down as simply as possible.
They make it needlessly complicated so that normal people and even people who follow these things closely can't understand it.
So there's an underlying treaty.
This was approved back in 1992.
It came out of the Earth Summit that was held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.
George H.W. Bush signed it on behalf of America.
And that's where, you know, we've got the Earth Charter.
That's where we got the Agenda 21.
But we got this 1992 treaty that was called the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which is very confusing because that's also the name of the bureaucracy that's in charge of implementing the treaty.
So every year, these climate summits are hosted by the UNFCCC.
It's headquartered in Bonn, Germany.
And that treaty was, at least according to the congressional record, ratified by the U.S. Senate.
I've heard some legitimate questions about whether the ratification was legitimate.
But in 1992, the U.S. Senate officially ratified this monstrous treaty that George H.W. Bush, Mr. New World Order, signed.
And so each year, they hold these annual climate summits.
This was the 30th one, as you pointed out, the COP 30.
And each year they come up with a new agreement.
And each year, they like to pretend like they're just going to tack that onto the back of the 1992 treaty.
And so we don't need the Senate to look at this again.
It's just part of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, right?
Because this is the mechanism that they set up.
And so every year comes and they try to take at least one giant leap forward on the climate scam, whether it's set up a carbon market, set up a loss and damage fund, have the United States plead guilty for causing the climate crisis.
So each year they take a big new jump into usurping more power, et cetera.
Now, the Paris Agreement was one of these supplemental agreements.
They did not treat it like a treaty.
They treated it as just an addendum to the 1992 treaty.
So here's where we're at now.
And I've talked to a lot of people in the Trump administration about this, including at state, including at EPA, to try to get a handle on what's going on.
And I'm told by multiple people who are very well informed, people who were very much involved in getting us out of the Paris Agreement the first time, that there are now discussions about the possibility of withdrawing from the UNFCCC.
That would be, as far as I'm concerned, checkmate for the climate cult, at least as far as the United States is concerned.
But here's the kicker.
We're not out of the UNFCCC.
So we're down in Brazil at this UN climate summit, and you've got some of the top globalist puppets at this summit, like Cristiano Figueres, who I mentioned earlier, former executive secretary of the UNF Triple C. Say, it's great that Trump didn't come.
You know, his administration would have just been a big obstacle.
It would have been a big roadblock.
We might not have even been able to pass these agreements by consensus, which is what they do.
And so, frankly, it's fantastic that Trump is not here.
You had Jean Su, a very prominent legal mind on this.
Right now, she's with the Center for Biological Diversity, but she'll almost certainly work for the next Democrat regime when they get the White House again, says, hey, this is fantastic that the Trump administration didn't send anybody.
We're going to pass a super ambitious agreement, and then the U.S. is still in the UNFCCC.
So as soon as Trump is gone and we get the next president in, this will all be binding on the United States, and we'll enforce it all on the United States.
So that's essentially the situation right now.
Trump has his executive order on day one.
This was January 20th, 2025, putting America first in international environmental agreements, did get us out of Paris.
It did get us out of all of these subsequent agreements that have been tacked onto the back of the 1992 treaty.
But as of right now, it's only a temporary measure.
As soon as we get a Democrat or a Rhino-Republican back in the White House, all they got to do is whip out their pen, say we're back into all of it.
And that's what they're planning, by the way.
That's what Gavin Newsom talked about.
You know, Gavin Newsome and his hair showed up in the Amazon and said that, hey, don't worry, we're still in.
You know, Trump is an invasive species.
He's not a permanent fixture of American politics.
As soon as he's gone, we'll be right back in.
And by the way, in the meantime, me and most of the American population and most of the American economy are still part of this, right?
California is going to keep implementing Paris and all the other ones.
They have this coalition.
It's called We're Still In.
It's mayors, governors, CEOs.
And technically, they're correct.
If you look at their jurisdictions, like the state of California, you add them all together.
They do have most of the American population, most American GDP, and they're pretending like we're still in all of these subsequent agreements that were added onto the back of the UNF Triple C.
So I know that's super confusing.
That's where we're at.
I just want to add one thing, David.
I am not a lawyer, but I play one on TV.
No.
But I have read the Constitution.
And I think anybody is capable of reading the Constitution with a third-grade level of education and intelligence.
You should be able to understand this.
The Constitution does allow the President to sign and the Senate to approve of treaties, which are binding on the United States of America.
But there's a big catch that nobody ever talks about.
And most of the lawyers haven't even read the Constitution, so they probably don't even know this.
But if you go to Article 6, where it says that the statutes passed by Congress and the treaties are part of the supreme law of the land, along with the Constitution, it says that they need to be made in pursuance thereof.
So statutes and treaties that are made in pursuance thereof, in other words, that are made constitutionally.
Show me where the Constitution grants the federal government the power to regulate my CO2 emissions.
Show them where it grants me the power to shut down my power plant or create new emissions standards for my cars, right?
They don't have that power.
If they want that power, they need to go to Article 5.
There's two different options there for passing a constitutional amendment.
And this has been, by the way, very clear, very ironclad from the beginning of our Republic.
Thomas Jefferson explained if the treaty power is boundless.
In other words, if they can just grab new powers by signing a treaty, there's no point in having a Constitution.
And we have even in 1957, the Supreme Court ruled in Reed v. Coburt, the federal government cannot grant itself new powers just by approving an international treaty.
So as far as I'm concerned, the UNF Triple C is totally illegitimate.
The federal government never had those powers, and we need to treat it that way.
It's a usurpation.
It's null and void, as even Alexander Hamilton said in the Federalist Papers.
This is a fraud.
We have no obligation to obey this thing.
I absolutely agree with you.
And I would say that what they're trying to do with this is kind of akin to what they did with the authorization for the use of military force.
So we've done this one thing.
Now we can have wars without having a declaration or discussion or vote on it or whatever.
So now we got into this treaty once back in 1992.
And now we can amend it and extend it.
And we can do all these different things that are in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
And we never have to go back and re-litigate this or re-approve any of these treaties.
I reject that just like I reject the authorization for the use of military force.
But the point that you made is that these treaties cannot amend or suspend the U.S. Constitution.
That is the controlling document.
The problem is that we've let them get away with this in so many different areas.
You know, just like we were talking about the war on drugs and the way this has extended, honestly, I think, Alex, they called it a war on drugs instead of prohibition because they don't want people to think, well, wait a minute, we had prohibition.
There was a constitutional amendment required for that with the 18th Amendment.
So they play these games where they just assume these powers, and then it's up to you to stop it and to somehow stop it using other levers of government as they continue to say that they have those powers when they don't really have them.
That's the whole fraud behind this.
But it really is.
I agree with you 100%.
Yep.
It really is about power.
It really is about depopulation.
I mean, I remember when this whole thing started, I was in high school when they had the first Earth Day.
And I remember it was all about depopulation.
And my friends who bought into all this stuff, they were just constantly wringing their hands.
There's too many people.
And Paul Ehrlich is out there.
How do we get rid of people?
Well, wars are good, but disease is even better, you know.
And so we need to have all these different ways that we can kill people.
But the governments look at it, and although they like to kill people, they like to control the people who are still alive as well.
And so I think it really checks all the boxes for the people in power.
It gets them exactly what they want.
And of course, it's checked the boxes where a lot of people have made a lot of money off of this stuff.
What does it look like they're lining up to do now with this?
What kind of financial schemes are they rolling out?
On the climate change front, well, a lot of the governments of the world are moving ahead on this without us for now, right?
And the assumption is, as I just explained, they're saying this openly, the assumption is that they'll just impose this on the United States later.
So they've got several really significant financial arrangements.
And they got a lot of these into the COP30.
$1.3 trillion a year is the number that they put in the final agreement, agreed to by consensus.
By the way, the United States wasn't there to object.
So implicitly, since we're still part of the UNFCCC, we agreed to, right?
This is something nobody wants to talk about, but it's true.
$1.3 trillion in wealth redistribution per year by the year 2035.
So we're talking 10 years from now.
They're going to be extracting $1.3 trillion from whatever's left of the American middle class.
If we still have one, whatever's left of the middle class in Europe.
That's in addition to a tripling of climate adaptation finance, which is basically bribing third world kleptocracies to pretend like they're adapting to climate change by putting money in their Swiss bank accounts and buying nicer limousines and building themselves nicer mansions and things like this.
That's the way it works.
Yeah, that's it.
That's exactly right.
And so Joe Biden agreed to a loss and damage fund, him and John Kerry, where we're going to be paying climate reparations, again, apart from all these other things.
And a huge development that almost nobody in the American media talked about.
They're now integrating carbon markets.
So the European Union and the Marxist-Brazilian government came up with this big special event.
They got a new agreement.
I forget the whole title of it.
It was like Open Carbon Market Transparent Reform Mechanism, something, where they are bringing together the European Union carbon market, the Brazilian carbon market, the Chikom carbon market.
They're all going to start using the same standards so that they can all be integrated so that a carbon credit in the European Union is the same as a carbon credit in Brazil, is the same as a carbon credit eventually in the United States of America when they think they can pass this abomination on us.
And for all the people who think this isn't a threat for the next three and a half years while we have Trump in office, I would just remind everybody that there's a lot of people in the administration who have publicly expressed support for these things in the past.
Howard Luttnick, the commerce secretary, has actually been deeply involved in creating the infrastructure for the carbon markets.
Elon Musk has been blabbering about carbon markets for years.
And it'd be a big boon to Tesla, but he has suggested that carbon markets, carbon taxes are a really efficient way of reducing our carbon emissions.
You've got a lot of people in the administration, and I'm sure Scott Besent is among them, who think these kinds of ideas are good and proper.
So will they?
I mean, those connections to George Soros, yeah, absolutely.
Of course.
Yeah, and the CFR, the Council on Foreign Relations.
I mean, the guy is, I think, through and through suspect.
But we need to realize that this is not a threat that's over.
And I think that's one of the dangerous narratives that has gone through the alternative media in recent years: is like, oh, we won!
All right, you know, let's go back to focusing on more important things.
The climate change hoax is still the pretext, not a pretext, the pretext for completely restructuring the global economy, completely undermining national sovereignty and transferring power and authority to the UN, and bringing all the religions of the world together so that we can save Mother Earth.
And nothing has changed about that.
They've just stopped talking about it in the fake media in America.
That's right.
And when you look at Lutnik, you know, the fact that he wants this common, you know, I think about it.
How do we get the EU?
Well, it all began with a common market, right?
It begins with economic unification.
And then before you know it, you've got a common currency.
What's that common currency going to be?
It's going to be some stable coins that are being done by Lutnik so they can monitor everybody's use and stop you from being able to spend if you don't do it the right way.
So it's basically the way that they're going to bring in the CBDC.
When you look at people getting very upset about this, it's primarily the power bills.
And they're going to continue escalating these power bills by leaps and bounds for the purpose of artificial intelligence.
And so they're going to have that fight.
They're going to build that up as a necessity.
And once they get that in, they're going to use that to impose all of these carbon markets and carbon credits and everything for individuals.
And that's really where this is all headed.
It is the perfect, I talk about it as being the MacGuffin.
Hitchcock always had, he said, it doesn't really matter what it is that they're chasing.
It could be the Maltese Falcon or whatever.
They've got a different agenda.
That's what we're using as our plot device for the movie.
And so they got these different plot devices, and they just keep moving them around, but they always seem to go in the same direction.
You know, we had the COVID MacGuffin.
It was all about getting some kind of a vaccine ID so they could track you and that type of thing.
So we've got to have the infrastructure to be able to track people's movements.
We've got to have the digital biometric infrastructure so we can see what they've done and keep records on people.
So they always have this, it always comes back to the same solution for all these different MacGuffins.
And they just have a different panic mode that they're trying to put people into.
Truly is amazing.
Yep, absolutely.
And, you know, fear is, of course, one of the tools.
Be afraid of climate change.
Be afraid of a COVID.
Be afraid of whatever the pretext is.
Be afraid of drugs.
Be afraid of some people group in another part of the world that still lives in caves.
Whatever it takes to make you very scared so that you'll give up more of your money, more of your freedom.
And so this is the oldest trick in the book, right?
I mean, you can go back 200 years.
Look at Frederic Bastiat, the great French philosopher, lawmaker, said that these totalitarians are constantly concocting the poison and the antidote in the same laboratory.
Climate change is the ultimate example of that.
Create a fake crisis over here and then create fake solutions to the fake crisis over here.
And presto, you take away people's money and freedom.
So how about that?
Frederick Bastiat knew about the Dark Winter and Operation Warspeed long before it ever happened, right?
That's right.
He knew the pattern of politicians well enough to be able to identify it, right?
And unfortunately, today people don't know this because they've been brainwashing a government school.
You know, they really don't know much of anything.
They haven't been trained in logic.
They haven't been trained in history.
They haven't been trained in analysis and reasoning.
And so, you know, someone on TV says, climate change is going to get you.
And a big percentage of the population says, oh, no, what do we need to do, Master, to save me from this boogeyman?
And here we are.
Yeah, and that gets us really, I think, to the real anecdote of this, and that is education, which you focus on quite a bit.
You've written a book, The Indoctrinating Our Children to Death.
And of course, you also have a blog, The Newman Report.
Is that on Substack?
The Newman Report is on Freedom Project.
Our Substack people can find it at Liberty Sentinel.
And we'd love to have people sign up.
Two times a week, we send out the most important stuff that we're working on.
That's great.
Yeah.
Yeah, what do you see happening in terms of education?
Where are the threats that you see developing, or do you see any good news in education?
Well, there's good news and there's bad news.
As you mentioned, you were kind enough to have me on to talk about indoctrinating our children to death about a year ago.
This is, I think, more relevant today than ever.
And amazingly, it's been endorsed by a lot of great American patriots, including you.
And so a lot of the things that we warned about that were going to come in this book are now materializing.
So we've got another book coming out in January.
I wrote it with Robert Bortons.
He is the CEO of Classical Conversations.
It's the biggest homeschooling organization in the world.
Over 135,000 students, over a million graduates so far.
And the book is called Woken Weaponize, How Karl Marx Won the Battle for American Education and How We Can Take It Back.
And it does focus some on the history.
You know, we go back to the first guys that seriously proposed that the government ought to be educating our children, and they were occultists.
They were totalitarians.
They were commies.
They were weirdos.
They were talking to spirit friends.
And, you know, we've got smoking gun evidence of all that.
Well, it's still going on today.
Oh, absolutely it is.
And I mean, they don't even hide it anymore, right?
Shirley McCoon, who George H.W. Bush put in the Department of Education to start nationalizing education.
She's running around telling people she's talking to spirit ascended masters who are giving her this secret wisdom into the new age and the fifth dimension.
Total bonkers, but that's what they're up to.
Well, you got General Flynn, who is leading people in prayers to Ascended Masters and the Seven Rays or something like that.
He was plagiarizing Elizabeth Claire Prophet.
He's doing this reawaken America thing.
So, yeah, there's a lot of discernment that needs to be had out there and a lot of education.
And that's what I like about your book, Indoctrinating Our Children to Death.
You go into the history of this so we can see the trend lines and where these people are coming from and what they said they wanted to do.
Very important.
Yeah.
So you've got a new book coming out in January.
That's great.
Yes, we do.
And the big threat right now, you know, the good news is millions of families are continuing to flee from this corrupt, decaying government indoctrination system, masquerading as a school system.
The bad news is the UN knows this.
The globalists know this, and they've got a plan.
And we've got the reports where they outline their plans.
We're going to give you free money.
And all you've got to do is surrender your freedom and take our tests and teach our curriculum.
The UN actually just released a report, David, about three weeks ago, maybe a month ago now, where they said homeschooling must, if it's going to be allowed, it must be under the control of government.
They have to be taught UN-approved values.
They have to use UN-approved education content.
It was literally prepared under a North Korean communist, and it says so in the acknowledgments.
So they are absolutely coming for our children.
And if we don't take this threat seriously, I think all the other fights we're engaged in, we might as well just raise the white flag because we're going to lose over the long term.
We've got to deal with the education issue.
I agree.
It really is about the hearts and minds.
That was what they kept saying during Vietnam War.
It's about the hearts and minds.
Well, that's what the education system is really about, hearts and minds of your children.
They're coming after them.
And it is a war to take that.
That's why, you know, when you look at, and again, they'll do it with money.
They always do it with money.
And that's why I was absolutely flabbergasted when people didn't get that about the lockdowns and about the COVID pandemic and everything.
Everybody would say, it's not Trump.
It's the bad Democratic governors.
And I said, he's paying people to do this.
He's subsidizing the hospitals and he's giving everybody else money for this.
That's the way they always get around the 10th Amendment or any legal requirements.
They give you money and then you do whatever they want.
Once they give you that money, then you get accustomed to it.
And they own the printing press.
They've got infinite money.
And they know that as long as they can print some new money, you'll dance to their tune.
I mean, it's the greatest scam ever concocted in the history of man.
Well, I tell you, you know, Alex, I've said many times it's going to be really, really difficult for us here in America once we lose that magic money tree that they can just print it all out of nothing, right?
But that's the only way that you're going to break the power of the federal government is if you break the printing presses.
And so it's going to be a good news, bad news thing.
It's kind of like the silver lining of the school lockdowns.
I still think it's funny to go back and look at people talking about the pandemic and the ill effects of that.
And look at it, kept the schools, it's kept schools closed for a long time.
And it's like, yeah, to me, that was one of the big advantages, the only advantage of it, the only silver lining that in the fact that people could finally see what was happening in their child's classroom.
I can't tell you the number of times I've talked to people and they'd say, yeah, I understand it's going on over there in that other state, or maybe even here in this state, or maybe even in my particular school, but not in my kids' classroom.
Well, this time they could actually see what was happening in the classroom.
And I think that was the big impetus.
So the co-author there is someone who's running Classical Conversations.
That's an excellent program.
We didn't do that when we schooled our kids, but it really is an excellent, rigorous curriculum there.
Yes, it is.
Yeah, we've actually got our own kids enrolled in there.
That's how I originally connected with them.
It's such a good program, watching the kids coming out of this.
They're so far ahead of the poor victims of the government schools.
It makes you want to cry.
But, you know, if you're a parent and you're looking for a good program to get your children a real education, that's the one.
Check it out, Classical Conversations.
I agree.
Yeah, I think it's got a lot of great content in it.
Well, it's always great having you on.
And again, people can find you at Liberty Sentinel.
Is that correct?
LibertySentinel.org.
And then thenewAmerican.com is where most of our climate coverage is going to be.
So for the folks out there who haven't signed up for the magazine, I encourage them to do that.
At least the free daily headlines, thenewamerican.com, and then my website, yeah, libertysentinel.org.
Okay.
And I just remembered the name of that guy, Steve Malloy.
Steve Malloy was one of the junkscience.com.
I worked with Steve prior to InfoWars, and he's a really good guy.
And he's really had his finger to the pulse of what's going on with the environmental stuff, just as you have.
Thank you so much for joining us.
And it's always a pleasure talking to you, Alex.
And let us know when you got that new book on.
I'd like to talk to you about that when it's ready.
Absolutely.
Thank you so much.
It's an honor and a pleasure to be here.
Thank you, David.
God bless you, and Merry Christmas.
Thank you.
Merry Christmas to you as well.
We'll be right back, folks.
with us.
You're listening to The David Knight Show.
Hear news now at APSradionews.com or get the APS Radio app and never miss another story.
Well, I want to thank, don't frag me, bro.
That is very kind.
I appreciate that.
It's very generous.
So three cheers for DK's perseverance, faith, and conviction to overcome the health challenges.
Well, thank you.
And thank you for your prayers to do that.
A great example.
He said, Merry Christmas, Happy New Year to the Knight family, to more good years spreading the truth.
Thank you so much.
And speaking of prayer, I want to pass this on from Ryan for Love of the Road.
He's someone who has been a big supporter of this program.
And we really do appreciate the things that Ryan has done.
And he's in need of your prayers right now.
His family is.
Let me just read you what he sent us.
He said, my dad is currently in the hospital waiting to undergo open heart surgery.
This week he's been complaining about a toothache.
Turns out it was a blockage in his arteries.
They said he's got triple vessel disease.
Thank God he didn't end up having a stroke.
Apparently it was a mini heart attack or whatever it was that you had after yours, the heart attack that's not as life-threatening.
So they were going to do a heart stent, but some of the blockages are just too much.
My mom's doing better after her surgery, and she's with him now.
They're doing a bunch of tests and might need to move him to Detroit.
So I always appreciate your prayers.
And so please keep Ryan and his family in your prayers, prayers for his parents, circumstances, and also prayers for Ryan and his family as they deal with these issues because it's always a strain on the rest of the family when these things are happening.
And I want to pass on another situation.
He hasn't, well, he has, in a way, asked for, his producer has asked for prayer support.
This is Clyde Lewis.
I've been on Clyde Lewis's program about once a month or so before the stroke.
It's always a difficult thing for me to do his program because it's extremely late at night for us.
He comes on nighttime on the West Coast, so I'm up to like 1 o'clock in the morning, and I would wind up getting like two or three hours worth of sleep, and I was dead for most of the rest of the week.
It was difficult to do.
So Travis contacted him and said that I'm up and I can try to do that again.
And then his producer said, well, Clyde is in the hospital right now.
And there is a GoFundMe that's been organized for him.
And he's looking for, he's got a goal of $7,000.
And they're about 65% of the way through.
So if you need a reminder of just how independent from corporate media Clyde Lewis really is, Ground Zero has been off the air for several days because its host is in the middle of a serious medical crisis.
As a result, he's asking fans to help him.
Again, he not only has bills and living expenses, but that is his entire source of income.
He doesn't have a contract with a radio network.
It's just what comes in at the moment in the same way that we are.
I was really blessed to have Travis and Lance step in and do the broadcast when I was gone.
But his broadcast has been shut down.
That means that his advertising revenue has gone to zero as well.
His producer, Ron Patton, said that Clyde recently encountered a medical emergency due to kidney failure.
He's been in the hospital for about a week on dialysis along with getting physical therapy.
The good news is that his health is gradually improving, and there's hope that he'll get back on air with the show soon.
Thank you very much for your support through prayers and good thoughts.
As Clyde does have medical insurance, there are miscellaneous bills associated with his medical issue.
Our primary income source is subscriptions, but unfortunately, that has stagnated due to his illness.
Furthermore, our advertising revenue is on hold until he's back on broadcasting, and we don't receive any money from our radio syndication.
We also pay for studio rental and have a staff.
So can you please help us with donations?
That's what they're asking for.
I would just recommend him for prayers.
I don't know Clyde that well, but whenever we go through things and our circumstances, we always pray for God to help us in our circumstances and to relieve us of these things.
Sometimes we go through them just because it is a growing experience that God wants us to go through.
So we'll never know really in this life exactly what is behind these things.
So sometimes in his kindness, God says no.
And I'm not saying that's the situation here, but I'm saying please pray for him and please pray that God will bless him in these circumstances and that God will bless us to make him closer to him going through this type of thing.
And that'd be my prayer for anybody who's going through something like that.
Real quickly, let's take a quick look at some news that we skipped over.
We were just talking about Graben Newsom or the nuisance guy as we talk about him.
I thought it was pretty amazing to hear him say that basically the Democrats need to be more culturally normal.
I mean, you know, we could talk about why Kamala lost, which is separate.
I mean, it's part derivative of the larger narrative, but issues around inflation scars.
We don't talk enough about interest rates.
We didn't talk about incumbency issues related, you just had B.B. On related to Israeli politics, immigration, the border in particular.
You could talk about all those things, not just 107 days, not just talk about Biden's.
Yeah, you're not with the people on any issue, Newsom.
I think there's a broader narrative that we have to address.
That is, we have to be more culturally normal.
We have to be a little less judgmental.
We have to be a party that understands the importance and power of the border substantively and politically.
This is the guy talking about the border and talking about culturally normal.
Remember, Gavin Newsom, as mayor of San Francisco, was doing homosexual marriage when it was illegal everywhere.
Arnold Schwarzenegger was governor at the time, and he called him out on it.
And they said, well, if you want to do that, we've got to change the law, right?
Got a constitutional amendment or something.
And for the state of California.
And they did try to do that in California.
And it was so out of the cultural norm that it lost even in California, homosexual marriage lost.
And this is even with Tim Cook contributing millions of his own money and pledging matching amounts from Apple for homosexual marriage.
It's still lost with all that.
And he has the audacity to talk about culturally normal.
It was imposed by the Supreme Court in defiance of state laws, in defiance of state constitutions, and they had no authority to make that determination.
And the 10th Amendment was precisely to stop that type of thing.
So, yeah, it's pretty amazing to me that he was talking about being culturally normal.
And of course, he can say anything he wants when he's running, and you know what he's going to do once he gets in based on his past behavior.
Well, Biden was also giving illegal aliens FHA-backed mortgages.
We just find this out from the current administration's HUD.
Illegal aliens got federally backed mortgages during the Biden-Harris regime years.
Scott Turner, who is now Trump's HUD Secretary, characterized this as a significant policy failure, evidence of what he called misplaced priorities that favored illegals over American homebuyers.
There were over 12 million illegal aliens that came over the border, straining our housing supply and making the costs go up.
And the government was helping them to get loans, something that it wasn't doing to all Americans even.
So we worked with NOAA at DHS to make sure that only American citizens are living in HUD-funded housing.
Well, again, the government doesn't really have the authority on the Constitution to give loans to people and subsidize loans for people.
But if they're going to do something like that, it is truly outrageous that they would do it to illegal aliens.
But of course, we know why that happens.
Even though this is bad for citizens, even though citizens are paying taxes on the debt that they are incurring, subsidizing housing for people coming from other countries and raising the price of housing, it's really good for the banks.
And that's one of the reasons why it's happening here.
Taxpayers subsidizing government-insured home loans for illegals.
Just what the banks ordered.
Biden's policy amounted to a generational betrayal of citizens and prospective homebuyers, pushed aside over the last four years amid the worst housing availability in a generation and driven by an out-of-control climate crisis spending and an invasion of illegals that strained an already tight housing market.
Well, that's true.
A major climate crisis study has been retracted over inaccuracies, but the doom narrative, they say, collapses, but it is going to continue as well.
It doesn't matter, really.
They have propagandized kids from elementary school on, and they will impose it by force once they get the proper infrastructure in.
But this is a widely hyped climate doom study that was published in Nature in April of 2024, amplified by corporate media outlets like CNN and Bloomberg.
It's been embarrassingly retracted.
As a matter of fact, the people who put it up said that it was so bad they were not going to try to make a correction to it.
They were just going to retract it in total.
The economic commitment of climate change is the title of it.
The economists discovered that flawed data from Uzbekistan had been used to skew the results.
Again, when we look at this, think about this, how they can skew the results based on this obscure country, Uzbekistan, which doesn't have a really large population either.
And I'm sure the people that put this together didn't notice that Uzbekistan's data was so heavily skewed that it skewed the entire thing and then choose to use that as a key part of their study.
I'm sure that was just a coincidence.
That's right.
Yeah, as a matter of fact, it tripled the effect by the data that they used from Uzbekistan.
Kind of reminds me, you know, Lance, of when they talk about the general population.
They said, well, you know, the population is like this, and if it gets to this number, we're all going to die.
Well, it turns out that they have severely underestimated the population.
The population is already past the point of no survival, according to them.
And they underestimated it.
These are not, they're not going out and doing a global survey.
But when they did actually go out and do a detailed survey, when they looked at areas where the government was going to come in and build a dam, for example, and they looked at when they did that, they were going to be very specific because they're going to be handing out people money as they relocate them.
And so they compared that to the way that they had estimated these other things because the government would typically, as George Bush would say, misunderestimated the number of people that they're going to have to pay off.
And so when they looked at that misunderestimation, they said if we extrapolate this out, which again, when we do this with the vaccine, they have a fit, but that's really the way that it works.
So for 20 months, the study was touted by Bloomberg CNN Forums and countless mainstream outlets.
They helped to manufacture a wildly misleading narrative of an impending climate catastrophe.
How many times have we seen the world is ending and never happens?
A headline like this.
Climate change to cause $38 trillion a year in damages by 2049.
I think they got that wrong.
I think they meant climate change policies are going to cause $38 trillion a year in damage by 2049.
No, what they really mean is climate change is going to cause this much profits for us by 2049.
Yeah, they're going to talk about reparations, but it's really a massive wealth transfer, not to third world countries, but to them.
And that's really what's going to happen.
So there's an element of truth in that, just as there always is.
But they think that they're winning now because Bill Gates and Al Gore have pulled back against some of this stuff.
But that is not really the case.
I think they're just regrouping and they're waiting until they bring in their heavy artillery.
You know, we have these people calling for ceasefire.
The Russians are saying, oh, they're just calling for a ceasefire in Ukraine because they want to regroup and build some more weapons.
That's really what I think is happening here.
I don't think that they're trying to move on from this.
And so Trump has filed for divorce from NATO over Ukraine.
I don't think that's going to happen either.
As a matter of fact, I haven't seen this reported except with RT, and even they are skeptical.
In the subtitle, they say, well, it remains to be seen if Washington is serious about this.
But it is a document that was produced out of the White House.
It is the 2025 National Security Strategy of the U.S., the document that was released on December the 4th, which is pretty amazing because the stuff that it is saying is true, and it would be good if it were true.
It's basically talking about pulling back Europe from war and distancing ourselves from Europe as they go into this suicidal circling of the drain that they're involved in, downgrading China from a pacing threat to a competitor and economic issues.
But I don't think any of this stuff is really going to happen with the Trump administration.
I think it's very much like the document that they had about insurance.
Remember, when Trump ran the first time, the two big issues were the border and Obamacare.
And then Obamacare really just kind of ceased to be an issue after that.
The border was still there and the wall that they didn't build and so forth.
But when you look at Obamacare, they had a great, detailed, structured plan.
Basically, it involved market choices.
It involved through tax code structure and savings accounts and things like that, giving people the economic power to make these decisions, giving them the information to make these decisions, eliminating some of the anti-competitive rules that have been put in at state and federal level so there's competition, but also giving people information about health providers and insurance companies that have been hidden from people.
All those types of things were there.
They were all necessary.
They would have reduced costs.
It would have made us more intelligent consumers and given people the economic power to do that.
And that was all just deep six memory hold right after the election.
This, I don't understand what the purpose of this is, unless when I saw that it was, this is an article that's published by RT, perhaps this is aimed at Russia and at Europe.
And perhaps this is kind of a carrot and a stick approach to these two organizations.
I don't think that's really going to happen.
The document is unapologetically partisan, crediting Trump personally for brokering peace and eight conflicts, but it organizes U.S. strategy around three pillars: homeland defense, the Western Hemisphere, and economic renewal.
Secondary forces, focuses rather, include selective partnership in Asia, Europe, Middle East, and Africa.
But it is basically the way they summarize it is that it moves from global cop to regional hegemon and an ideological retreat where democracy promotion is explicitly abandoned.
Quote, we seek peaceful commercial relations without imposing democratic change.
As Russia says, tell that to the Venezuelans.
So basically, they're paraphrasing George Washington in his farewell address.
And I don't believe that this is the policy of the Trump administration at all.
I wish it were.
I wish they were trying to get a divorce from NATO, but I think NATO's got something on them, just like Melania does.
Have a good day.
Thank you for joining us.
The Common Man.
They created common core to dumb down our children.
They created common past to track and control us.
Their commons project to make sure the commoners own nothing and the communist future.
They see the common man as simple, unsophisticated, ordinary.
But each of us has worth and dignity, created in the image of God.
That is what we have in common.
That is what they want to take away.
Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation.
They desire to know everything about us while they hide everything from us.
It's time to turn that around and expose what they want to hide.
Please share the information and links you'll find at the DavidNightshow.com.
Thank you for listening.
Thank you for sharing.
If you can't support us financially, please keep us in your prayers.