All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 6, 2026 - The David Knight Show
02:05:34
Fri Episode #2196: Future Regimes Will Inherit Total Control Thanks To Trump

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 00:02:10:03 — Market Turmoil and the Trap of the “Great Taking” Financial instability is tied to UCC changes designed to strip assets during the next engineered crisis. –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 00:06:25:12 — UAE Crypto Deal Signals Foreign Monetization of the Presidency A secret UAE investment in Trump’s crypto venture raises emoluments concerns tied to access and policy favors. –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 00:12:49:21 — Legal Experts Warn Trump Crypto Deal Looks Like a Bribe Constitutional scholars describe the arrangement as a five-alarm warning that public office is being monetized. –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 00:13:31:12 — Rand Paul Pushes Back on Nationalized Elections Constitutional limits are invoked to reject federalized elections and ICE presence at polling places. –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 00:21:24:12 — National ID and Surveillance Hidden Inside Election “Reform” Federal voter ID proposals are warned to be a backdoor to biometric national identification. –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 00:24:37:05 — Trump’s Tariffs Exposed as the Largest Tax Increase Since FDR Tariffs are shown to raise consumer prices and fuel inflation while masquerading as protectionism. –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 00:35:40:23 — DOJ Moves to Punish Speech of a Sitting Senator An alarmed federal judge confronts efforts to criminalize criticism of the military. –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 01:13:31:12 — Government AI as a Tool for Surveillance and Propaganda AI deployment in government is warned as a mechanism for auditing, monitoring, and behavioral control. –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 01:17:25:22 — Federal Militarization and Surveillance Rapidly Accelerate DHS surveillance spending and ICE operations converge toward a domestic military apparatus. –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 01:42:05:20 — Autonomous Weapons Reintroduced as an Existential Threat The focus shifts to killer robots, linking today’s AI surge to long-standing military plans for autonomy. –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 01:50:21:16 — Killer Robots Eliminate Accountability for Mass Death Autonomous weapons enable plausible deniability after large-scale civilian killings. –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 02:00:04:12 — Autonomous AI Creates Permanent Infrastructure for Tyranny Surveillance drones and killer robots are framed as legacy systems future regimes will inherit and weaponize. –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Money should have intrinsic value AND transactional privacy: Go to https://davidknight.gold/ for great deals on physical gold/silver For 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to https://trendsjournal.com/ and enter the code KNIGHT Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.com If you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-show Or you can send a donation through Mail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764 Zelle: @DavidKnightShow@protonmail.com Cash App at: $davidknightshow BTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7

|

Time Text
Markets In Turmoil 00:02:21
In a world of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
It's the David Knight Show.
As the clock strikes 13, it's Friday the 6th of February.
Year of our Lord, 2026.
Well, today we're going to have our Ask Me Anything questions.
We're going to talk about that.
And I thought it was kind of interesting.
We could hit a couple where we asked Grock.
He said, Grock, if you could ask me a question, what would it be?
And I thought it had some very provocative questions.
So we're going to talk about that as well.
We're going to begin with the news and what is happening financially.
We're also going to have an interview from 13 years ago where I talked to Dr. Noel Sharkey.
He is a computer science, robotics, and artificial intelligence expert from the UK.
And he's pretty well known on TV there because of robot wars and other things that he was a consultant to and I think was on screen with it.
But we're going to talk to him about efforts to try to stop autonomous killing robots because they're on their way.
And that's what War Pete wants.
More lethality, regardless of who's in control.
We'll be right back.
stay with us.
We're going to do some news here before we get into what is happening with the Ask Me Anything questions
and our interview with Dr. Noel Sharkey.
We've had the markets really in turmoil yesterday on Thursday, kind of along the lines of what I was saying.
You know, we're seeing Bitcoin going down way below 70,000, and we're seeing the tech markets, stock market is shaky as well.
It's very concerning when you look at the traps that have been laid for everybody in the state by state in the UCC code, as I pointed out yesterday, the great taking that is right there waiting for them to take everything from us.
Markets In Turmoil 00:15:26
Meanwhile, we have, as I pointed out last week, was last Friday was a premiere of the Melania film.
And my comment yesterday was, I thought it was kind of interesting.
All of these, you know, big name Christian people, of course, say big name, I mean, Robert Jeffries in Dallas has got a huge megachurch, but he's always done whatever needs to be done to get a seat at the table with Trump.
But I also saw people that I knew going to see Melania, and it's like, how in the world could you go to see that if you know anything at all about what's going on with the Epstein files?
And how could you miss that?
How could you miss her involvement with all of that stuff, as well as Donald Trump stuff?
You know, it's kind of interesting.
There was a movie theater in Portland, and they put up, the guy said, well, we decided we would carry the film.
That was last week.
We decided we'd carry the film because when you look at what was available out there in terms of films that we could put in the theater, it was an absolute desert, he said.
So we decided we'd put it up.
And so to tease the movie in Portland, where they know people are not going to care much about Melania, they put up on the billboard, they said, does Melania wear Prada?
Find out on Friday.
Of course, you know, referring to the movie title, The Devil Wears Prada.
And so they got the film pulled by Amazon because of that.
But look, we all know what was really going on with that film.
We know it was a naked grift that was going on from Jeff Bezos to the Trumps.
She got $28 million for that.
As I pointed out last week, you look at the box office numbers there.
Oh, amazing box office numbers.
They spent $35 million promoting it.
They spent $40 million making it.
Of that $40 million, 28 of it went to Melania.
Don't tell me this isn't some pay-to-play garbage that's happening with the Trumps.
That happens with them all the time.
And when you look at the kind of budgets you typically see, the documentary, even if you take out her $28 million cut, you're still talking about a $12 million budget for a documentary.
The kind of thing that we used to shoot all the time.
Just three guys with cameras.
And anyway, it was really absurd how they threw money at this thing.
And of course, the success of it has nothing to do with whether or not it's a good film or not.
People are going to go to see it because they like Trump.
And that's the bottom line.
People are not going to go see it because they don't like Trump.
And so it's not really about the film itself.
Although you had Matt Labosche say, is this the worst film of all time?
And he says, well, I can't say that it is because I haven't seen every single film.
But he goes, I've seen a lot of awful films.
And he names a bunch of them.
And he said, and of all the films that I personally have seen in my life, this is absolutely the worst.
So the UAE Royal Investment and Trump crypto firm preceded major U.S. AI chip access.
Another pay-to-play.
This is just the same type of thing that Bezos did.
Right.
So just days before Trump's inauguration, a secret foreign investment quietly reshaped the ownership of his family's new cryptocurrency venture.
The buyer was tied to one of the most powerful figures in the UAE.
Within months, that same figure's country secured sweeping access to advanced American artificial intelligence chips.
And of course, this guy is known as the spy chic because he is involved with technology and espionage and that type of thing.
So, I mean, nothing to see here, right?
The arrangement detailed in Wall Street Journal investigation is fueling renewed accusations that Trump is monetizing the presidency.
Folks, there's no question about that.
It really is nakedly exploited, as they put in here.
He has, never have we seen a person, a president, who has so nakedly exploited his position on such a scale.
And again, the family fortune has ballooned by $4 billion in 2025.
That number excludes profits from the family's pre-existing businesses, as a matter of fact.
People want to investigate Ilhan Omar or AOC.
Yeah, absolutely you should investigate them.
What about Trump?
How could you not look at this and say something is wrong?
I mean, we talk about Obama, how this guy who had never really had a job, he was a community organizer.
Then he became a politician.
He had various political offices and everything.
None of them paid that well.
How does he wind up being a multi-millionaire?
How does Trump, somebody whose net worth was probably about $3 or $4 billion, not according to Trump, but according to the people who actually investigate these things, how could he double his net worth in just one year, the first year in office of the second term?
Four days before Trump's inauguration last year, lieutenants to Abu Dhabi's royal secretly signed a deal with the Trump family to purchase a 49% stake in the fledgling cryptocurrency venture for half a billion dollars.
The deal involved World Liberty Financial, the president's own crypto venture.
It was co-founded with his three sons and with Steve and Zach Witcoff.
So according to the Wall Street Journal, the previously unreported deal was signed by Eric, one of the president's sons, under the agreement the buyers would pay half upfront, steering $187 million to Trump family entities.
Now, what did they get for it?
Well, at least $31 million was slated to flow to entities affiliated with the family of Steve Witcoff, who weeks earlier had been named U.S. envoy to the Middle East.
Another $31 million, and again, does that ring any bells?
I mean, here's a guy who's going to be the envoy to these people, and they're buying influence with him, giving him $31 million before he takes the office.
Another $31 million went to an entity tied to co-founders Zach Folkman and Chase Harrow.
Sheikh Tanoon backed the investment.
The Wall Street Journal describes him as the spy sheik, they said that's his nickname, brother to the UAE's president, the government's national security advisor, as well as the leader of the oil-rich country's largest wealth fund.
He oversees more than $1.3 trillion empire funded by his personal fortune and by state money, which again, you know, they just mix those two together, just like China, just like the Trump regime.
So it spans from fish farms to AI to surveillance, making him one of the most powerful single investors in the world.
The deal marks something unprecedented in American politics, a foreign government official taking a major ownership stake in an incoming president's company.
At the center of the controversy is not just a business deal, but access to technology that Washington treats as strategically sensitive.
The previous administration was unwilling to share it with the UAE.
As a matter of fact, Tanoon's efforts to get AI hardware had been largely stymied over fears that he was going to pass it along to China.
And his company, the AI firm G42, had stoked alarm among intelligence officials and lawmakers over its close ties to Huawei and other Chinese firms.
Remember, in Trump's first term, they wanted to roll out 5G and other things and 6G, perhaps.
They wanted to make sure that Huawei was not going to be involved in any of that.
And they said, well, if they are so paranoid about the Chinese having the ability to surveil us, what do you think that tells you about the U.S. government?
Don't you think that they also are aware of the technology to surveil people with the networks that they're rolling out?
Of course they are.
They just want to be the ones who are doing the surveillance.
But Huawei was what they were focused on to stop.
And so here you have a guy who is one handshake away from Huawei.
Trump's election opened the door for him, writes the Wall Street Journal.
After the election, Tanoon met multiple times with Trump, Steve Witkoff, and other U.S. officials.
During a March White House visit, the Sheikh told officials that he was eager to work with the U.S. on AI and on other issues.
G42 celebrated the shift, saying it accelerated projects, including Stargate UAE.
Isn't it interesting?
This guy, he doesn't just do the same types of things as Trump.
You know, we're going to merge our corporate and government fortunes together, and I'm going to profit off of this.
They also both had this Stargate thing.
Remember, that was the thing that Trump did, I think it was his first day back in the Oval Office.
Oracle, Cisco, NVIDIA, and the SoftBank Group.
And Trump was talking about AI plus mRNA technology.
And so, again, America's got a Stargate project.
They're talking about a $500 billion AI infrastructure project.
UAE is going to do the same thing, and we're going to give them the chips, which they will then turn over to China, most likely.
What wasn't publicly known was that Tanoon's emissaries had signed the deal to purchase 49% of world liberty that January.
So, yeah, no, don't need to look at this.
I'm sure there's nothing there, don't you think?
Well, this is a report from New American.
They said they concluded that the World Liberty Financial operates in a legally permissible but ethically questionable space.
This sure looks like a violation of the Foreign Emoluments Clause.
And more to the point, it looks like a bribe, said Washington University law professor.
The transaction, she said, should be a five-alarm fire about the federal government being for sale.
Well, that pretty much is everything about the Trump administration.
Meanwhile, we had Rand Paul come out and push back against Trump.
He's done this now on both the Venezuela extrajudicial killings that are going on there, as well as the out-of-control ICE, as well as now this statement from Trump that he's going to nationalize the elections.
Rand Paul said, that's not what the Constitution says.
And so you had Caroline Lovitt come out, and she was asked about this canceling elections.
Here's what she had to say.
...asked you about the president's interview with Reuters.
You said that he was joking about canceling the elections, but Americans for generations have fought and died for democracy, for this democracy.
Are you saying that the president finds the idea of canceling elections funny?
Andrew, were you in the room?
No, you weren't.
I was in the room.
I heard the conversation.
And only someone like you would take that so seriously and pose it at a question that way.
Are you as tired as I am of these snarky women who work for Trump?
And I'm talking about Pam Bondi as well.
When she goes to be interviewed, not interviewed, but question by the Senate, she goes in with a paper of talking points.
So she just rolls in.
Rather than respond to any of the questions as we saw Pam Bondi do, Pam Bondi looks up and I'll say, who's this guy?
Oh, yeah, here he is.
Okay, here's my smear against you.
I've got personal ad hominem attack against you.
And I'm not going to answer your question.
I'm going to answer your question, quote unquote, with an attack on you personally.
That's exactly the same play as Caroline Levitt.
Are they being coached by the crook at the top?
This is the Trump regime's tactic.
We don't respond to questions.
We attack you personally if you ask us a question.
And so why is he joking about not having an election?
Why would that even be funny?
It's not funny.
It's especially not funny when you've got somebody who runs roughshod over the Constitution and the rule of law, who has no respect for that whatsoever.
And then we've got that crook, Bannon, who is pardoned by the other crook, Trump, who's out there saying, oh, no, we really are going to run him for a third time.
We're going to manipulate the Constitution.
There's things we can do.
And on and on.
I'm so sick and tired of these people who faunt this stuff.
And that's why when Ram Paul says, well, you know, we got something called a constitution, and he says that's not what the Constitution says about elections.
He said the U.S. Supreme Court limits states in some ways, such as barring them from setting different rules for some issues, including things like term limits.
But he said the Constitution gives states the powers to determine the time, the place, and the manner of elections.
The Supreme Court, he said, did rule that, for example, Washington state can't set term limits on federal officials if Georgia doesn't.
It has to be a uniform election law.
But as far as the time, place, and manner of elections, that under the Constitution is a state activity.
So I'm not for nationalizing it, he said.
And again, when we look at how does Trump want to nationalize it, well, he wants to, and again, Bannon was all excited about having ICE show up at the polls.
You don't need to have ICE at the polls.
If you want to do ID, you can do ID.
You don't have to have these intimidating thugs and their camouflage and their body armor and their fully automatic weapons pointed at you.
What's that about?
Give me a beauty.
That would be the best thing they could do to energize the base for the opposition.
That would ensure a major blue wave if people have to walk past armed masked stormtroopers guarding the thing.
That might be the thing that'd get me to vote for change.
Paul added the Democrats tried to implement sweeping national election reforms when Biden was in office, but the Republicans blocked it in the Senate when he did that.
He said, I was against Nancy Pelosi's bill, which would have nationalized it, but I would also be against any bill coming from this administration that would nationalize the election.
See how that works?
If you're doing something because of principle, because of the Constitution, because of the rule of law, or because of ethics or morality or something, it doesn't matter who is in office.
You oppose it both times.
And if you are going to act differently based on who is in office, that's how we get people like Mike Johnson that are there.
So again, you know, Trump has frequently and absurdly claimed that he lost Minnesota because the Somalis showed up and voted.
Folks, not even Ronald Reagan could carry Minnesota.
He won 49 states, including places like Hawaii and California and New York when he ran.
But even Ronald Reagan couldn't win Minnesota.
He didn't lose it by much.
He only lost it by 2,000 or 3,000 votes, I think.
But even Ronald Reagan couldn't carry it.
There's absolutely no way that Trump would have won in Minnesota.
But what is his response?
Tariffs and Inflation Impact 00:15:10
Oh, okay.
Well, we got all these Somalis who were brought in.
Yeah, they were brought in.
They didn't cross the border.
They were brought in.
It's part of the refugee program.
We had a $6 billion budget for that last year and the previous years.
Trump and the Republicans want to increase it to five by another $5 billion.
So he's almost going to double it.
It's an 80% increase.
Why would you do that if you say the Somalis are the problem?
Well, because the real problem is Trump who is trying to create conflict unnecessarily.
That's what this is all truly about.
And I'm very suspicious, really, about national involvement in IDs for elections.
Again, that is a state issue.
We've had national involvement for ID in terms of stopping it, prohibiting it, saying, well, you can look for picture ID, just like you would have to do if you even cashed a check at the grocery store.
You can require picture ID, but if you're one of these southern states, because we've had these Jim Crow laws in the past, we're not going to allow you to do that.
We're going to say that somehow that is racist to do it.
Patently absurd.
And it is federal involvement in the time, the place, and the manner of the election.
And the federal government should get out of that and butt out of that.
But the issue is, and I've talked about this many times.
You look at North Carolina, for example.
In the 2012 election, I was already in Texas.
My brother-in-law was back in North Carolina.
He had a friend.
When you went in to vote, you would just give them a name and address, and they had these big computer printouts.
And they would go through and find your name and your address.
And that was all that's required.
You just need to go in with a name and address.
And they didn't know who you were.
And they kept saying, well, we're not having any voter fraud because of that.
It's like, oh, really?
You're not?
And so he had a friend who said, I went to vote, gave him my name and my address.
They looked it up and I said, you've already voted.
He says, no, I haven't.
That was on Election Day.
He said, no, I haven't.
I said, yeah, you have.
And this other person here at your name, address, same last name, same address, has already voted as well.
He says, that's my mother.
She's been dead for a while.
And so while all that is happening, the Democrats in North Carolina would say, well, there's no cheating going on with this.
I said, he's got to go public with this story.
And he said, no, he doesn't want to get involved with it.
But North Carolina had one of the longest and still does, I think, perhaps the longest voting period.
It was one of the longest.
And so you could just go anywhere you wanted and just give them a name and address and you could vote.
And then mark it down as that's done.
So yeah, we do need to have some ID.
My concern, however, is when the federal government gets involved in it, what does the federal government want to do when it's got ID, right?
It's always looking for some excuse to have a national ID, a biometric ID.
Look at what TSA is doing.
And look at even some of the other Republican areas.
You know, where you've got Republican states like in Florida, they said, we're going to have mandatory e-verify.
Well, I've got to get the federal government to say that I can have a job.
I've got to be vetted by the federal government.
How easy is it going to be for them to say, well, we don't like his politics.
He can't have a job.
Or we're going to get rid of anonymity on the internet because we've got kids who are going to porn sites.
Well, there's always different ways, different things that we could do to solve these different problems.
But their solution is always a federal national ID, a biometric ID, you name it, things like that.
So I'm suspicious about what the Trump regime, which is head over heels in love with surveillance and artificial intelligence, I'm very concerned about anything that they would do with the election.
Just get the government, the federal government out of the local elections.
They, under the Constitution, don't have the right to say anything about the manner, the place, or the time of the elections.
So let the states have photo ID in order to vote, and they can handle it themselves.
Rand said the Republicans should say, we want to take over.
I'm sorry, this is Trump saying it.
The Republicans should say, we want to take over.
We should take over the voting, the voting in at least as many as 15 places.
Republicans ought to nationalize the voting, said Trump.
Well, those statements received pushback from a lot of high-profile Republicans, not just Rand Paul.
Also, the Senate Majority Leader John Thune pushed back.
He told reporters that voters should be required to show ID to prove their citizens, but he does not support the federal government seizing the power to run elections.
He says, I'm supportive of only citizens voting and showing ID at polling places, but I'm not in favor of federalizing elections.
So no, that's a constitutional issue.
I'm a big believer in decentralized and distributed power, said the senator.
I think it's harder to hack 50 election systems than it is to hack one.
In my view, at least, that's always a system that has worked pretty well.
Perhaps that's one of the reasons why Trump wants to nationalize it.
If you've got one central location, it makes it a lot easier to rig the election.
That's a pragmatic reason why we should not be doing it.
But of course, Trump and the people around him, I've never seen such open, naked corruption in terms of self-enrichment by a politician, not just the president, by any politician.
And I've never seen such open, naked contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law as the Trump regime has.
Well, the whole thing of here is a legitimate problem and here's the government solution of, oh, let's add in the ID.
It's exactly what we see with the Somalis and with the fake pandemic and everything else, as you just mentioned.
That's right.
Yeah.
So the Supreme Court is still thinking about Trump's tariff usurpation.
And, you know, he likes to brag about how he's lowered taxes.
But as I've pointed out, the increase in taxes that he, the figures that he's come up with, even, even if you go lower figures than he's come up with, is still a bigger tax increase than happened under FDR.
So he has added these new taxes and he hasn't done anything to eliminate the income tax.
And these small changes that he's made in the income tax code are wiped out by the tax increases that he's had with tariffs.
As I pointed out, if you adjust it for inflation, even adjusted for inflation, I know we're talking about dollars that are not the same as they were in 1933.
But even when you adjust it for the devaluation of the dollar, it's three times as much as what FDR added in terms of taxes.
But he likes to present himself as a tax cutter, just like he attacks country after country and tries to present himself as the peace president.
So according to Trump, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Fry endorsed a very serious violation of law last week when Fry said Minneapolis does not and will not enforce federal immigration law.
But it is Trump whose understanding of the law is seriously impaired, says Reason, because of the non-commandeering act, not act, but the principle that has been established.
You know, it's really the nullification principle that has been there all along.
There was a Supreme Court case, remember, the one that we talked to, Sheriff Mac was involved in it, based on the Brady Bill.
And that established with the Supreme Court back in 1997, the non-commandeering principle that you cannot force local and state law enforcement, you can't, not just law enforcement, but you can't force them to enforce federal law in any way, shape, or form.
And so guess who wrote that decision?
The conservative legal hero, Antonin Scalia.
So there you go.
I'm going to argue with Scalia.
Of course, every time I think about Scalia, I think about the pillow over the head thing at the Cebolo Creek Ranch.
I was thinking about that when I saw the Zarro ranch.
That was one thing that I have seen that I cannot unsee, what was going on at that ranch, how strange everything.
And I'd say I didn't see anything happen.
It's just the really, really bizarre aspect of that ranch was unbelievable and very occultic.
Anyway, the continuing silence from the Supreme Court on these tariffs has led to worrying speculation among some of the president's critics that the longer it takes for the court's tariff decision to come out, the better it is for the White House.
I said this from the very beginning.
When Trump was saying, well, it's going to be a real mess if you try to undo what we've done.
So you just better leave it alone, right?
That's not an argument.
That's not a legal argument.
He doesn't have a real emergency.
And even if he had a real emergency, the way that he's done this is still not called for in the law.
This is just a repudiation, a prevarication, a usurpation.
And so now he's trying to say that you need to leave this in because it's going to be too difficult to undo it.
And as they point out in this thing, what should have happened, since it's being discussed, they should have said, well, we're going to put a moratorium on the collection of tariffs.
But instead, they allowed the government to continue to collect the tariffs.
And when you look at the questioning, it was pretty clear that the justices understood that this is a tax, that tariffs are always taxes.
And yet the fact that they couldn't come to an immediate decision is very troubling because it says that I think, in my opinion, some pressure is being put on.
If you remember, Roberts, everybody believed that the Obamacare stuff was going to be shut down by the Supreme Court.
And the argument that they wanted to put forward was not that this was some new usurped federal power, but that this was, in fact, a tax or something.
So he bought into that argument and then he wrote the opinion to shut down Obamacare.
And then he wrote the opinion to allow it.
So he kind of did a complete 180.
The same guy wrote both the dissenting opinion and the concurring opinion in the case, which tells me that somebody got to him at the very last minute.
Anyway, Trump claims that his tariffs have brought America back.
Here are three things that he got wrong.
This is from Reason as well.
Number one, the trade deficit.
I guess we'd call this three blind lies.
Three blind lies.
So the number one lie is the trade deficit.
He claims that it has slashed our monthly trade deficit by 77%.
But the Census Bureau reported last week that the trade deficit actually increased, not decreased, by nearly 37% in November.
Through the first 11 months of 2025, the trade deficit was 4% higher than it had been in 2024, the opposite of what Trump is claiming.
But of course, part of this is because the tariffs actually did not get started when Trump announced them.
There was a delay in them.
And then even as there was a delay, he kept adjusting the rates down and that type of thing.
So as they point out, the other lie is who pays the tariffs.
Lie number two.
Trump wrote in his op-ed piece on the Wall Street Journal that foreign producers and middlemen are paying at least 80% of the tariff costs.
In fact, the paper that he cited concludes that, quote, tariffs led to both rapid and gradual retail price increases.
The study that whoever wrote this for Trump, the study that they referenced by the Harvard Business School, found that the, quote, prices began rising within days of the March announcements and continued to increase steadily over subsequent months.
They also said imported goods rose roughly twice as much as domestic goods relative to pre-tariff trends.
Do you get that?
So we've had inflation of domestically produced things.
And we've had, even with that inflation, we've had imported goods go up by twice that amount.
And as we talked about this before, when people say, oh, look, we haven't seen a huge difference in this kind of stuff yet.
In the past, when tariffs have been applied, they have been slow to be passed on because the first instinct of the businesses is going to be to try to not raise prices.
That's a competitive advantage, of course, to try to compete on price.
But then after a while, what they realize is that they can't compete on price.
They can't swallow.
If they get hit with a tariff, it's 10 or 20% or something.
They have to pass that on eventually because they don't operate.
Most businesses don't operate on a profit margin that's going to allow them to absorb those types of costs.
They have to be passed on to the consumer.
That's why the minimum wage increases that are mandated by Democrats are inflationary.
They have to be passed on in prices.
And that's why corporate income tax.
We've always understood, I thought, as conservatives, that you don't tax corporations.
When you tax corporations, they pass that on.
It always works that way.
And so prices for imported goods are up 9.7% from their pre-tariff trends, while domestic prices are up 4.5%.
Those increases have added an estimated 1% point to inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index.
And it always lags.
It's going to get worse.
So the next time Trump is complaining that the Federal Reserve won't lower interest rates, remember that the main reason the central bank is keeping interest rates higher is that inflation is still over 2%.
But it would be significantly lower if not for Trump's tariffs.
And then the third lie, economic collapse.
He said in his op-ed piece, when I imposed historic tariffs on nearly all foreign countries last April, the critics said my policies would cause a global economic meltdown.
He said that meltdown didn't occur.
So that must prove that the president was right and his opponents wrong.
Well, this is not a gotcha moment that the president seems to believe it is.
Reason says Trump repeatedly backed down and eased tariff threats in the face of negative shocks from both the stock market and the bond market.
The Liberation Day tariffs announced on April the 2nd were postponed a week later after a huge stock market sell-off, and those were later imposed at a lower rate.
A threatened 130% tariff on Chinese goods never materialized.
No wonder Taco, Trump Always Chickens Out, entered the political and financial lexicon last year.
Kelly Defends Speech Rights 00:08:06
Yale's Yale Budget Labs data shows that Trump raised the average U.S. tariff rate from less than 3% to more than 25%.
But those rates declined in the second half of the year and settled at around 17%.
That's still very high, but not as high as it could have been.
So it makes sense that the consequences were less severe and delayed, of course, as well.
So if the bar for success is, I didn't crash the global economy, then congratulations, I guess, he says.
There's not really, it's not something to brag about, and it certainly doesn't excuse Trump from the economic damage that his lower, less extreme tariffs have done.
And again, the levels of the tariffs are not nearly as damaging, no matter what they are, as is on again, off-again, constantly changing, chaotic environment that keeps people who are in business from being able to know what their costs are going to be from one day to the next.
Tariffs are effectively a wealth transfer mechanism.
It takes money from consumers and businesses, and it gives it to preferred businesses, right, to help protect them.
No wonder he loves tariffs, because that really is kind of his business model, right?
I'm going to reward my friends, crony capitalism, and of course, punish his enemies that he hates.
So yeah, in Trump's case, the sectors of the economy that are supposed to be benefiting from the tariffs, manufacturing and other forms of industrial production, are not even realizing those benefits because higher prices on raw materials make it more difficult to manufacture things.
For example, American businesses are now paying much higher prices for aluminum than manufacturers elsewhere in the world.
That's a good way to discourage manufacturing in America, not to promote it.
Trump is clearly unwilling and unable to understand these trade-offs.
It's hopeless to believe that he'll ever change his mind.
It's really up to others to stop him.
Not going to be anybody in his immediate circle that's going to stop him for anything, is it?
And of course, then we have the, in terms of Trump's contempt for the rule of law and the Constitution, when the Trump administration went to the federal district court judge Richard Leon, They expressed shock.
The judge expressed shock on Tuesday that the Trump so-called Justice Department was asking him to break new First Amendment ground.
We're going to punish Mark Kelly because of what he said.
And what did he say that was so offensive?
That's the amazing thing about this.
Just go back to the very beginning.
And it was a comment that Lance had.
He said, why don't they just say, we're not giving any illegal orders?
Instead, they said, how dare you say to people to not follow illegal orders?
We're going to come after you for saying that.
Why didn't they want to just defend it by saying, well, our orders are not illegal?
And shame on Mark Kelly and the other senator who has retired CIA, who, when they were asked by people, what laws, what illegal orders has Trump given, they couldn't think of any.
Are you kidding me?
You know, what we saw happening in Venezuela, you can't think of anything that violated the law.
I can't think of anything that complied with the law and any of that.
Why are we there?
What are we doing?
Why are we shooting people in the first place without knowing what they've got on their boat?
Why are we circling back and murdering people in the water who have been shipwrecked?
Everything about that operation was criminal and illegal.
But Mark Kelly and this other person can't think about it.
But then the real farce about all this stuff is that Trump and Warpete couldn't just say, well, I didn't, we didn't do anything illegal.
If they'd taken that approach, Mark Kelly and these other people would have backed down because they backed down when they were challenged by news anchors to name something.
Meanwhile, the judge says, you're asking me to do something that the Supreme Court has never done.
Isn't that a bit of a stretch?
The Trump administration tried during the hearing to argue that the diminished speech rights that apply to active duty military meant to preserve obedience and discipline should apply to Kelly, who is now retired.
That's never been done before, said the judge.
Leon seemed particularly perturbed about Kelly's situation, specifically that under the Trump regime's new proposed rule, retired members of the military serving in Congress could be punished for criticizing the Pentagon.
In what world does that make any sense, right?
If you are not in uniform anymore, how does that mean that you can't exercise your free speech rights to criticize the president?
I mean, we saw the contempt for the Constitution the Biden administration had coming after J6 people because you have a specific, specifically enumerated right in the First Amendment to redress your grievances against the government, right?
So they came after people and punished them for that.
Here we have Trump doing that, doing it to a senator even, who is not in the military, trying to punish him for this.
So in other words, they're saying that if you were ever a part of the military, you have permanently given up your free speech rights.
That's right.
That's right.
That's like saying that if somebody's ever been convicted of a felony, they can never own a gun before again, right?
Even if it's some kind of a minor nonviolent felony, because we've got felonies all over the place.
It's like Harvey Silverglate's book, Three Felonies a Day.
There's felonies you don't even know about.
You join military to protect other people's rights.
You give up your own, but you can protect others, presumably.
Or, you know, in Washington state, you get convicted of a felony because you've got an illegal 3D printer.
So now you can never own a fire gun.
Not just you can't print a so-called ghost gun, you can never own a firearm because that's a felony.
Well, he says, how is a member of the Armed Services Committee supposed to do his or her job?
The judge asks the lawyers of the Trump regime.
In other words, if a congressman or a senator is on the armed service, how can they be punished for criticizing what the Pentagon is doing if you're going to do this type of thing to Mark Kelly?
It's absolutely insane.
So he said, and after the trial, Mark Kelly was there.
He said, Hag Seth censured me, and he's now trying to demote me for things that I said and for doing my job as a U.S. senator.
He said, this isn't happening in isolation.
Since taking office, this regime, he used the word administration, I use the word regime, has repeatedly gone after the First Amendment rights of many Americans, not just him.
And so that's where we stand with the law.
We're going to take a quick break, and we're going to come back with your ask-me-anything questions.
So stay with us.
We will be right back.
David Knight Show.
Hear news now at APSRadionews.com or get the APS Radio app and never miss another story.
Okay, and here are the Ask Me Anything questions received.
First Nations Usufruct Rights 00:05:29
This one is from Will.
I won't say last names.
Will L.
He said, I hope this day finds you well.
Can you cover the situation in Western Canada where the government is removing land owners to return land to the First Nations?
Quote unquote.
It's relevant with the Billy Ellish nonsense that's happening.
Of course, that's a singer at the Grammys, and she was saying that we're living on stolen land.
So he had people show up in front of her multi-million dollar mansion and say, you stole that, so I want it back or whatever.
Okay.
Let's understand the principle that's involved here.
And the founding fathers understood this.
It's just plain common sense, really.
Thomas Jefferson is famous for the quote, the earth belongs in usufruct to the living, right?
And what do you mean by that?
Okay.
It is basically, when you look at that term, we don't use that anymore.
Perhaps it's used in legal circles.
I don't know.
But the sense of that word, usufruct, is actually his quote was, that's a construct of his quote to Madison in a letter.
What he said was the dead have neither, let's see, I wrote this down.
I have trouble reading this.
They have neither power nor rights over these things, right?
And in essence, what you're talking about is something that is basically usufruct.
It is enjoying the fruits and benefits of a property without actually owning it.
So far as it's compatible with it not being destroyed or injured.
And so when we look at this, what does that mean?
Well, you know, you can't take it with you, right?
And so if you want to go back and say we're going to eradicate all the property records of things that people have done to transfer this down through, you know, periods of time people have gone out and they've used their money to buy this property and everything.
But we're going to ignore all that and we're going to go back and look at who originally owned this and give it to their descendants rather than all the different things that have happened.
Yeah.
And even the term First Nations itself is propaganda.
They love to set these terms to control the dialogue.
No, they weren't the first nations.
It's as though before the white man came, they just lived in perfect peace and harmony.
No, they took it from the people that had it before them, who took it from the people that had it before them.
It was a lot of war amongst the tribes before the white people got there.
And we got there in the middle of it.
We have recordings of their own.
They had slavery.
They had conquests.
They had all of these different things that happened.
What they didn't have was registries of deeds, which we have.
We have an orderly way to transfer this stuff, and they want to just bring chaos to us.
And of course, the questioner put First Nations and quotes.
And so we understand that's their term and we know what's meant by it.
But again, just understand that we're all here as caretakers of the land.
How do we get this?
And why is it that people want to throw all these boundaries off and just create chaos?
Well, they've got their own agenda and it doesn't have anything to do with justice or social justice or anything else.
Justice is to allow the people who have worked for these things and have legally transferred this.
We have a system for ownership.
And this is just trying to turn the apple cart over and pursue a position of theft.
But again, the dead have neither power nor rights to the land.
The earth belongs and Yusuf to the living.
In other words, we're here as caretakers temporarily, and we will pass on.
And then there has to be an orderly way for that to pass on.
And we need to leave that alone.
Well, another question here from Charlie says, so you need to do some good news segments every show.
Two hours of straight bad news is too depressing.
Find something positive, please.
Well, when I talk about the news, quite frankly, the news, the news that we have here at this point in time is all really bad, quite frankly.
I mean, I could tell you a story about somebody who, a police officer who gives a pair of shoes to somebody who needs them that's homeless.
And there have been stories like that.
That's happened several times.
But it really, my purpose in this show is to try to warn you about things that are coming down the pike, like this great taking, you know, where they have gone through and surreptitiously changed the UCC code so that you don't really own any stocks or securities or bonds.
And it is now you just have an entitlement to it that can easily be wiped out if there's a major financial crash, which we have already seen one in our lifetime, in our recent lifetime in 2008.
You have something like that happen again.
And they've already set everything up to take everything away from you.
So my purpose in this show is to warn people about things like that, to warn people about things like the lockdown and the so-called pandemic and the vaccine and things like that.
So I know that's bad news, but there is some good news.
And that's why when I do talk about Christian aspects, I talk about the Lord Jesus Christ.
There is good news that we are just here for a short period of time.
We're not going to take any of this stuff with us.
And there is something better that is coming that is far better that's coming.
Alex's Gold Markup 00:02:29
And it is a free gift of grace.
This is something that Jesus paid it all.
And you need to understand that.
Look into that because you're not going to live forever.
You've got these people like Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump who think they are, but they're not.
And I think this is also from Charlie.
He said, I'd like to see a real DK coin in silver.
Alex Jones sells a tenth of a gram of 0.999 gold for $100 and says you're not paying $2,000 an ounce, like you're getting a better deal.
He says today's value of a tenth of a gram is something like $16.
So it is a 500% markup.
Well, so a couple of things here.
I'm not interested in getting into gold and silver right now because as I pointed out, in terms of selling it, having an inventory that I've got to turn over and so forth, I'm interested in getting gold and accumulating it as an individual because I think that that is one of the few things that we can do to prepare financially.
However, I don't want to get into doing what Tony does because this is a, it's a crazy market right now.
If you look at how volatile it was, we were just talking about that yesterday.
Yes, Lance.
Well, in a sense, you can get a David Knight Show silver coin.
It just won't say the David Knight Show.
You get your silver through the Wise Wolf program.
Wise Wolf Program, yeah.
Still getting David Knight Show silver in a sense.
And it's at a great price, not the absurd markup.
That's right.
Yeah, I looked at that.
I thought, okay, so what are we doing?
Well, you know, first of all, you change from ounces to gram, right?
Typically, the gold and silver is priced in ounces.
So one tenth of a gram, if you say we got $5,000 gold, he's right.
That'd be about $17.
And they're charging $100 for it.
So that sounds about the right markup for InfoWars.
I got to say, the silver that I liked from InfoWars was the stuff that you could swallow or brush your teeth with.
That was the best silver that they had.
So, and in defense of InfoWars, I will say that because the market is so incredibly volatile, I mean, if you're going to put something up on the website and just have it stocked as far as inventory and you're going to sell it out to people, you better put it in something crazy like a 500% markup or you're going to lose a lot of money on it.
So again, this kind of volatility, it's not something I would want to be a retailer in, as I said to Tony yesterday.
Joe Biden's Mysterious Neck Marks 00:04:30
I don't know how he does it.
I mean, he's operating literally, folks, in a hyperinflation environment.
It's bad enough that it's going up very rapidly, but then you got these places where it retrenches.
And we just saw over the last weekend how it dropped significantly.
So it's really difficult to do things in a volatility market like that.
So anyway, this is from Rick D.
He said, what are your thoughts on the Epstein document that claims Joe Biden died in 2019 and was replaced by an actor in a mask?
I've noticed that Biden's earlobes change from time to time.
His height also changes.
There's a photo of Biden at Colin Powell's funeral, and there seems to be a square tab on his ear.
And he sent some photos of that.
And yeah, there was a guy who did a AI synopsis.
You've seen the AI things.
I think I showed you one where you got a guy doing selfies and he runs up to a movie set and you've got some actors there like maybe Harrison Ford on the set of Indiana Jones.
So he runs up and he does a selfie next to Harrison Ford.
And then he runs over to another area and there's another classic movie that's over there and he does another one and keeps doing that over and over again, different places.
Well, somebody did that with Jeffrey Epstein.
And one of the scenes that they had, they had a group of politicians and one of them was Joe Biden.
And then they had a Joe Biden that was absurdly tall, like eight feet tall, right behind them.
And that's what they were trying to refer to.
I've seen some pictures of Joe Biden and some things that look like masks on his neck and everything.
Look, I can't say one way or the other.
I have no way to know whether that is true.
I just, I know, however, that that is not anything that I would put past them.
They would certainly be capable of doing that.
They might actually be technically capable, but certainly they would be morally capable of pulling off a hoax like that.
I don't believe that Trump was shot in the ear because of the rapid healing that he had and the no-scar that.
So there's a lot of things like that that I am suspicious of, but I'm not going to major on that because I can't prove it one way or the other.
I just have my suspicions.
That's what I think.
And so it might very well be that they replaced Joe Biden.
But unfortunately, I think as bad as the Biden presidency was, as authoritarian and totalitarian as his policies were, and I've said this a long time, when he was running for office, I said, Joe Biden is absolutely one of the most totalitarian senators I've ever seen in my life.
He was always involved with war on drugs, and he pushed that along against the Constitution for the longest time.
Yes, Lance.
I would just be careful about these really salacious things because at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter if he was an actor in a mask or just a senile old man who was reading whatever he was told to read.
I don't think anyone really thinks that Biden was the mastermind behind the Biden presidency.
So, at the end of the day, it's kind of...
But Biden himself, you know, when he was sharp and articulate and when he was talking on his own as a younger senator, had nothing but contempt for even the concept of individual liberty.
And that was apparent from the confirmation hearings for Clarence Thomas.
He absolutely despised Clarence Thomas because Clarence Thomas had written about natural rights.
That's the basis of the Declaration of Independence, you know, the thing that he was talking about.
And the people around Biden, the Biden regime, were equally totalitarian and authoritarian.
So if Biden was alive or dead, whether he was signing the stuff or was auto-pinned, that was the group that was around him.
And again, do you really think that most of this stuff that's happening is Trump?
He's the front face of this, and he's the person that they use to create chaos and conflict.
But I'm not going to make a, I'm not going to plant a flag in this and say, well, he was absolutely dead.
Because look, if you jump into things like this, as Lance was saying, get into something that's really salacious like that and major in that, first of all, you're missing some of the more subtle, dangerous things like I was talking about.
Good example of the UCC stuff and how they've manipulated that.
So you're going to miss that if you're focusing on these salacious things.
And if you get it wrong, that discredits everything that you said, basically.
So you have to be careful not to go places where it's not verified.
Easter Eggs and Manipulations 00:02:25
And there's a lot of stuff that's out there that is like that.
And I do have that Epstein AI video that you mentioned, if you want me to play it.
No, that's okay.
Well, yeah, go ahead and play it.
I guess we can.
Go ahead and play it.
It is really creepy video here.
There's a lot of Easter eggs that they've thrown out here.
By the way, that reminds me of Cebola Creek Ranch.
That's what made me think of it.
All of those masks on the wall of faces that people that he partied with, I mean, there were crazy masks on the wall of Cibola.
And of course, the Pizza Party.
Here we are.
I see love that money just had by one look from you.
I drifted away afraid.
I don't know who that guy is.
There's Bill Gates, and he's got a sore on his lip.
I wonder what that refers to.
Anything you want.
There's Prince Andrew and Kevin Spacey and all these guys in a hot tub together.
There's the Pope, John Paul, and of course that refers to something that came out as well.
And the Dalai Lama.
That's right.
There's going to be an excellent Well, she's in the recording studio where they're editing the videos that they have taken of people.
And here's his cryogenica experiments there, I guess.
Yeah.
What's he up to here?
There's Jerome Powell and Bernanke, the Federal Reserve people, his Wall Street connections.
His Bitcoin manufacturing facility right there.
His involvement with terrorist organizations through the intelligence agencies.
There's the giant Biden saying right in front of him as a normal-sized Biden.
And then here's all the clowns and Kash Patel to all the influencers like Libs of TikTok and DC Draino and all the rest of them with their Epstein documents.
Weber Manipulation Confirmed 00:08:37
Remember that?
That was about a year ago.
And there's Trump being carried in on a, what do you call that thing where they got four guys carrying it and there's a seated chair there, sedan?
Is that what that's called?
There's Netanyahu flipping the switch.
He's got the owl up there, the occultic stuff.
I guess he's going in the tunnels with him.
I don't know what the significance of him pointing to his wristwatch is there.
But here he is.
He's back at the temple.
Yeah, crazy stuff.
No name, ask me, so see if you can interview Bradley Dean and or Tim Brown from Sons of Liberty.
And I've been interviewed several times by Bradley Dean.
I've had him on as well.
And he's doing a podcast now, I think.
He used to be on Genesis Radio.
And that folded, so now he's doing a podcast.
Jay Fletcher says, Espin was deeply involved in the quote-unquote science community, CERN, prestigious medical schools, astrophysicists, computer scientists, stem cell research.
The list is long.
He seems to have a steering hand on modern science.
What was he or they up to?
Well, I talked about that yesterday.
The fact is that he's heavily involved in a lot of these different things because they have been able to use science to control, manipulate, and of course make a lot of money with things, but it's control and manipulation.
When you see what he was doing with the emails in terms of gates and how they were going to profit from the pandemic, how they were going to be able to use, we've got to restructure these things so that we can make money off of your charitable organizations and actually take money out of that for profit.
But it's also the transhumanist aspect of it and the genetics aspect of this.
And that is really truly an evil.
And let me just interject here because I stopped yesterday before I got completely finished with what was truly happening with the transhumanism aspect of it.
Going back to J.D. Hall and what he had to say, I thought it was very interesting because I've talked about how transhumanism is a religion.
It's the religion that was there right there in Genesis when Eve has the forbidden fruit and disobeys God.
I'm going to live forever and I'm going to become like God.
And that really is the basis of transhumanism.
But I never thought about the fact that they have an eschatology, the end time study.
And their eschatology is called the singularity, which I thought was kind of funny.
And he says, and then, of course, they also have a salvation narrative, defeating death through technology.
It has a priesthood, the Silicon Valley Futurist and the Tech Billionaires.
It has rituals, biohacking and genetic modification.
And I would say abortion as well.
It also has sacred texts from Kurzweil and Yule Harari and Elon Musk.
So yeah, it is something of a religion, isn't it?
The Epstein files prove that it merges seamlessly with ancient pagan worship.
The same people funding AI research were funding temple construction.
The same network pursuing genetic superiority through breeding programs was engaging in ritualistic abuse documented by victims and investigators.
This isn't a coincidence.
This is convergence.
And all false religion ultimately serves the same principalities, whether you call them Ishtar, Malik, or progress and evolution.
And just remember, you know, when we've got Donald Trump and his mania about building monuments to himself, this 250-foot monument, this art that he's got, arch that he wants to put up.
It'd be the largest arch of anybody that's out there.
And he wants to make it 250 feet because that'll be taller than any of the other ones.
And he says it's going to be because we've got our 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.
It's like, he probably ought to put up a fallen arch, I think, because that's what has happened.
This nation has fallen from the principles that were there.
Stable nuclei says...
Before we move on, there's a whole lot of bioengineering stuff in the Epstein files.
Most of it's very dark.
But there is one that's kind of funny.
He was involved in a project to create pigs with different non-cloven hooves in order to make, quote, from Epstein, kosher bacon.
Yeah, because it's defined as something with a cloven hoof you can't eat.
So let's make pigs that don't have cloven hooves and then we can enjoy bacon.
I guess he doesn't want to get involved with the imitation bacon that's out of soy, right?
Don't leave that to the soyum, the goyum.
But so evidently he did have some religious beliefs there, right?
He's got to have it kosher bacon because they're going to have pigs that don't have cloven hooves.
Yep.
Email from 2015 as reported by AF Post.
So this is Stable Nuclei.
He asked me, do you wear pants before 12 p.m.
He says, I do not, to answer my own question.
Take it easy and God bless.
Well, I do wear pants and this is not Anchorman here.
I guess everybody, because of Anchorman, everybody's wondering.
So what's the guy that's sitting at the desk?
What is he really wearing?
Well, hate to disappoint you, but I do wear pants before 12 p.m.
I guess I could aspire to being retired someday and maybe not wearing pants before 12 p.m.
But as it is right now, I do put them on one leg at a time, actually.
Could you give your opinion on weather manipulation?
For instance, Maryland had snow, ice, and freezing temperatures, single digits at night, while Alaska and Greenland had temperatures in the mid to upper 30s.
Well, I've said before, I don't spend a lot of time on it, but I said before that I think that there's a tremendous amount of manipulation of the weather that is happening.
And it is, you know, I believe that the chemtrail thing is real.
I've seen convincing evidence of that myself.
And of course, they had geoengineering conferences on a regular basis decades ago.
And they said, yeah, we can do all this stuff.
We just have to decide who gets to set the thermostat.
You know, who some people want it colder, some people want it warmer.
And as he's pointing out, we got these temperature inversions.
It's hard to say.
I just got to say that when we look at the schemes that they want to do now in terms of doubling down and making them really, really obvious and putting a bunch of stuff in the stratosphere and blocking out the sun, how dangerous is that?
It's almost like these people are trying to terraform the planet so that we can't grow food, isn't it?
Trying to shut off sunlight, trying to kill CO2 that plants need.
Everything that they're doing mitigates against that.
But of course, when they do the geoengineering, then they can claim that it was man-made, which it was, not made by us, but they use that as a pretense to ban the things that we have.
And another thing to sort of tie in with what we were talking about with Biden and the really salacious stuff.
When you're talking about weber manipulation, you should focus on the conferences, the points where they talk about what they are capable of rather than looking at a specific freak weather event, because there have been freak weather events for long before there was weber manipulation.
That's right.
Yeah, and I mentioned it frequently, that AMA conference that I went to in Austin, where everybody's struggling to predict the weather, and all of them are talking about, well, this is, we looked at these factors and measured these things and then gave these kind of weights to these different things and it didn't quite work out.
And so in that environment, you had this Soros-funded group that was trying to tell the weathermen, you know, you can really get people, you have the influence to tell people that climate change is real.
Most of you don't believe that climate change is real, but you need to reconsider this because it is real.
And man-made climate change, you need to start talking about global warming.
And I thought it was kind of interesting because they admitted that the vast majority of meteorologists didn't believe in the climate change stuff because they know how variable the weather is.
And so they were trying to convince them, and they did convince some of them, unfortunately.
Freezing Property Taxes 00:05:25
John Hunter says, Rick Jackson just announced that he's running for governor in Georgia.
While he's not perfect in any way, I do think he's the best candidate in the race.
What are your thoughts on his candidacy?
And he gave me his website.
He said, I work for one of the companies that he founded, and I want to hear an outside opinion.
Well, just briefly, I don't want to get into too much detail about it because I'm not involved in that election, but I did go to the website and take a look at it.
He's an interesting guy.
He's a businessman.
And his personal story is very impressive.
It's a success story.
By the way, you know, when people run, first thing they do is, you know, he's got one tab here that's about him, his personal story and what he's doing and how he got there.
And then he's got another tab that's got some policies that he thinks are important.
And I got to say, you know, when we had the situation where they had a tremendous amount of out-of-state money that came in to support this guy who was running against Frank Nicely, and because Frank Nicely had worked very hard to try to stop out-of-state money from coming in Tennessee.
So because that lost in the legislature, he got hammered by that in the next election.
And the guy that they put up, I have never, ever seen anybody running for political office that doesn't tell you anything about their background.
I thought that was the most suspicious thing I'd ever seen in my life because he didn't tell you what he did for a living now or ever.
And so the guy was a completely, you knew less about him than you know about ICE agents.
And so when you look at Rick's story, it is a very impressive one.
He said he grew up in foster care, five different foster homes, 13 schools.
He lived in the projects in Atlanta, never knew his father, raised by a mother who was struggling with alcoholism.
And this guy became very, very wealthy.
He's got companies that generate over $3 billion in revenue.
And so he is, he said he worked his way out of this when he couldn't afford to stay in college.
He took a straight commission sales job, later bought the company that he worked for.
So again, hats off to him.
That is an amazing success story.
When I look at what he's chosen to talk about that he did, he talks about helping Brian Kemp in Georgia with the COVID situation.
And evidently, his businesses have something to do with medicine in some way, shape, or form, which to me, that would be a bit of a red flag anymore after this point, especially if somebody brings it up in the context of COVID.
But anyway, he also worked to help foster youth, people, youth who are in foster homes and that type of thing because of his background.
But he does have some good things.
They're kind of standard Republican stuff.
Promising to cut taxes, lower costs, secure the state, and make government work for the people, that type of thing.
It's kind of boilerplate Republican rhetoric that's there.
But he does talk about freezing property taxes.
That is something that is important.
I don't know specifically what his plans are.
I mean, you know, we have, what was the guy's name in Indiana?
I ran for governor as a libertarian.
He had a very specific way to limit property taxes.
I thought Donald Rainwater, that was his name.
And his idea was, okay, let's just fix it at something like 7%.
And you pay it once, just like you do when you buy a car or something.
You pay it once.
And so you could either take that 7% and pay it all up front and fold it into your 30-year mortgage, or you could pay it over seven years, 1% a year for seven years, and then you're done.
You pay it at the closing and you're done.
Or you pay it over a seven-year period and you're done.
And I think that's really wise.
I think it is criminal that we can't own property.
And we can't own property as long as we are under the idea of property taxes.
So at least he's looking at that.
He's saying to freeze it, not to end it.
It's also talking about cutting the state income tax, again, cutting it rather than eliminating it.
But if you look further into his policies, he's saying that he wants to cut it in half in four years and eliminate it by eight years.
So again, I don't have any problem with most of the stuff that he's got here.
But I do have concerns when he talks about making government and education more efficient.
I just, you know, when you start talking about education, he's even a role of the government.
You'd lose me at that point, personally, as you all know, if you heard me speak.
He says, use technology and AI to eliminate wasteful spending and improve services.
You know, I could get behind a candidate who would say, let's eliminate AI from government.
Let's prohibit government from using AI because it's going to be used to surveil us.
It's going to be used to propagandize us.
It's going to be used to audit us and everything that we do.
And so I'd like to see a probation of AI completely from government.
It reminds me of that old, I think it was from IBM back in like the 80s or 90s.
They had a message like a computer can never be held responsible for its decisions.
So therefore, a computer can never make a management decision.
That should apply double to government.
Absolutely.
I agree.
Absolutely.
That should be the case.
So again, you know, that's my take on it.
Grokking Moral Outrage 00:03:49
I'm sorry if other people are not interested in that.
But I was kind of interested to see what a politician would do.
He goes on to say, the other thing I'd like to add is that I have it on good authority.
His Christian faith is genuine.
Well, I hope it is.
Certainly he's had an excellent brought himself up from rags to riches.
And good for him.
But I don't know about his politics that are there.
Stephen says, David, as you watch.
Before we move on to the next question, I wanted to say we aren't looking at the chat for tips and comments today since we're just focusing on the AMA, but come Monday we'll be back to reading out your comments and tips.
Yes, yes.
This is from Stephen.
He said, did you watch Matt Trojel's sermon titled A Nation in Turmoil?
He totally praises and supports ICE actions and called Alex Predi an evil criminal.
Says, I always appreciated Matt's hardline stance against tyrannical government and tyrannical law enforcement.
I especially admired his doctrine of the lesser magistrates.
But it seems that he has done a 180 on the issue of ICE and their thuggish tactics on the streets of America.
I'd like to get your thoughts on this.
Well, I did not see the sermon, so I'll just go with your take on it because I've seen a lot of people who have, they want to support law enforcement and order.
And this looks very leftist and radical anarchist on first inspection.
I'll just say that when I've talked to Matt in the past, and again, Matt and I are 100% on the same page when it comes to what's really important, and that is our relationship with Christ.
And I really respect what he does with that.
He's a pastor.
He's very busy with that.
He's very busy with pro-life organization, the mission that he has there.
And so I can just assume that based on the conversation I had with him, when all this stuff was kicking off at the very beginning in Venezuela, I said, do you want to talk about that?
Because I thought that was just a moral outrage.
And I still do think it's a moral outrage from the very beginning, from, I think it was in September or something.
And Matt came on.
He goes, well, I don't really know about that.
And I haven't followed that at all.
And so I understand that Matt doesn't get into current events in the level of detail that we typically look at this.
That's not his main area of involvement.
Like I said, he's more involved as a pastor, as somebody who's trying to operate on a pro-life mission and things like that.
So I certainly understand that.
And there's been a tremendous amount of stuff on the internet, on social media that you see from people who are cheering this that really surprised me about that.
And so I imagine that if Matt is just kind of glancing at this, maybe that's what he's picking up on.
And maybe he's gotten a skewed picture of that.
But as you know, I don't appreciate what ICE has done at all.
I think it is tyrannical, and I think it is very evil.
And we could have a difference of opinion on it.
I just, based on what I know about Matt, I just think that probably it's just a current event that he was listening to people that maybe he trusted.
And these people are pushing Trump in terms of all this stuff.
Well, those are the Ask Me Anything questions that we got.
And we also thought it'd be kind of interesting to ask Grok something about me.
Do you have any questions for me, Grok?
Because I had looked at Grok.
You know, it has a summary for different profiles.
And I thought when it summarized what I had, what I was about and things that I'd said on Twitter and on X, I thought it was actually pretty perceptive.
You know, when you think about Grok, I thought it was kind of aptly named by Elon Musk because it comes from the novel, the Robert Heinlein novel, Strangers in a Strange Land.
Grok's Insights: Critical Thinking Needed 00:05:12
And the essence of Grok, what it really means in terms of definition, is to acquire an intuitive understanding to know without having to think.
That is kind of the way that AI operates.
It kind of has this intuitive thing by looking at statistical stuff and it doesn't think, but it seems to know certain things.
It seems to know certain things about me as well.
So here's, I think you'll find this interesting because if you've listened to the program, you kind of know where I am.
It's interesting to see the questions that this AI would ask me.
So, number one, you've been consistent for years in warning about technocracy, transhumanism, and centralized control via institutions like the NIH, CDC, and emerging AI surveillance systems.
So, what do you see as the biggest, single biggest tipping point moment right now in 2026 where these agendas could accelerate irreversibly?
And how should everyday people respond practically?
Well, I would say that that's one of the reasons why I've covered these issues with what is happening here domestically.
I think that is the biggest issue.
And I know that a lot of people disagree with me on the ICE issue, but I think the federalization, the militarization of the police is something that has been happening for a very long time and that it is being accelerated.
And we're seeing a convergence of a lot of these different things, these technologies.
When you look at the amount of money that DHS is spending, I think what they spend on surveillance, so something, I forget exactly which aspect of it.
I think it was on surveillance equipment, but it was more than they had spent combined in the last decade on this stuff.
And so this is rapidly accelerating under Trump.
And I think they know that, and they're trying to create, not only in the U.S., but in every Western country, they're trying to create with this massive migration.
They're using that as a tool of chaos and conflict and division.
And that's exactly the way they're playing that here.
So I think that that is really the aspect that we see here.
So I'd say, how do people respond to this practically?
Well, you need to prepare for chaos domestically, for war domestically, because we have all these countries are trying to get involved in foreign wars as well.
Foreign wars may come to our shore.
We, I don't think, are insulated against that anymore because of our complicated infrastructure.
So again, I would suggest that you go to jacklawsonbooks.com, take a look at the books that he's got there in terms of preparing.
He's got tremendously valuable, detailed advice about things that you can do as an individual to prepare.
I think you need to keep your ear to the ground and see what is happening with all this stuff.
And of course, financially, gold and silver are part of that as well.
Number two, he says, after your departure from InfoWars, you built an independent platform emphasizing critical thinking, historical parallels, and spiritual insight.
What were the key lessons or frustrations from that era that shaped how you run the David Knight show today, especially regarding media independence, audience trust, and avoiding echo chambers?
Well, again, there's not, you know, that's kind of a perceptive thing there.
But I think the key thing is not to be trusting of any individual source, but again, going back to critical thinking and to evaluate these things on a one-by-one basis, not just to take it as a, well, this is something that the Wall Street Journal said, or this is something that the New York Times said, or this is something that Fox News said.
And I trust those people.
Don't trust anybody.
Don't trust me.
I could get things wrong.
So do your own investigation.
I'll tell you why I think what I think, and you can do your own thinking about that.
Here's another one.
On COVID vaccine skepticism, what you call the medical martial law, you've highlighted things like potential DNA impacts, immune disruption, and elite agendas.
Looking back with several years of hindsight, what stands out as the most vindicated claim you made early on?
And what, if anything, would you revise or emphasize differently now?
Well, I think what I think I got the most wrong was the lab leak stuff in December.
I was the first one at Infowars to talk about that because it seemed fishy from the start.
And I said, well, you look at this supposed wet market where they had the bat soup and later on it became pangolin soup and all this other kind of nonsense.
I said, I don't believe that.
I said, it is interesting that the only biosafety level four lab that they have is right there near that wet market in Wuhan.
So I said it might be some kind of a leak of gain of function research.
Well, in the years since that, I've become not only anti-vaccine, but anti-virology.
And I'm skeptical of all these contagion narratives that are out there, number one.
Number two, it took me about a month before we started seeing the response of the governments.
Dark Winter Vindicated 00:03:44
And when I saw the response of the governments was to lock everybody down and to keep us isolated until they got a vaccine ready for us, it's like, okay, this is dark winter that is out there.
So I would say that that was vindicated early on.
And so the lab leak aspect of it, I think, was wrong.
I still think it's wrong.
And I think that the people who are pushing that are doing it as an alibi for what they did.
Well, it was real.
It wasn't real.
And we did the best we could to protect people.
We'll do better next time.
Oh, you bet they will do more the next time.
They won't do better.
But the next time they have a phony pandemic, they will double down on that as well.
So it says, your show frequently ties current events to spiritual and biblical principles, resisting tyranny as moral imperative, elite protection networks as modern principalities and powers.
How do you balance the conspiracy research side with encouraging faith and hope?
Especially when the audience can get overwhelmed or cynical, as one of the people who left us a question here said.
Can you do some good news every day?
And I also start looking for other more positive stories to.
Yeah, yeah.
Well, you know, again, let me just say this, you know, as somebody who goes through the news, that's what I see.
And I go through and I talk to you about what I think is important.
And in terms of being overwhelmed or cynical or black pilled or all the rest of this stuff, let me just say, here's the reality, folks.
Each of us is walking right now to the valley of the shadow of death.
We're going to walk through the valley of death at some point in time.
And so you can, it doesn't help to whistle through the graveyard.
You're going to be in the graveyard soon enough.
Tomorrow is not promised to any of us.
And so does that sound black, does that sound black pilled or whatever?
It is.
But here's the good news.
Christ died on the cross for you.
He paid the price for the sin that each of us has committed.
And you can leave that all behind.
You can separate that as far as the East is from the West.
And so that's the good news.
That's how we get through this.
That's how we get through life.
Look, life, this is a fallen world.
It is very dark.
It is very evil.
And take a look at the people who are above us, the leaders.
Of course, it's dark and evil.
And so that is the good news.
And all the rest of the stuff can is a lot of the stuff that we look at as good and happy news.
A lot of that is just trivial.
And it's to help you feel a little bit warmer about what is going on.
But if you take an honest look at what is happening, I think you got to admit, you're not getting out of here alive and you're not taking anything with you.
So why are these people killing each other over artificial boundaries and other things like that, trying to steal stuff from people?
Don't get caught up in that.
Instead, get caught up in your relationship with God, the creator of the universe.
Find the love that he has there.
That is what's going to sustain you.
You're not going to be sustained by the things that you can grab, or being the strongest guy on the block, the Stephen Miller approach.
That's not, there's no salvation.
There's no joy in that either.
So, one more question from Gronk.
You've interviewed a wide range of guests over the years, from economists like Gerald Celinti to liberty advocates.
Who would be your dream guest right now?
Someone who's been silent, controversial, or hard to reach?
And what one question would you lead with?
What do you think, Lance?
You got an idea?
Anyway, We Could Always Dream 00:04:21
If we could interview anybody that we would want to, I think I would get Donald Trump here next to me and I would ask him some questions.
Yeah, I was going to say either Trump or Massey, either the head of the resistance or I might be able to get Massey, but I don't know.
I know I couldn't get Trump.
If I did, I'd probably get SWAT team the next day.
I thought that Massey is perfect.
Just the best we've got.
Yeah.
But, you know, Donald Trump, you know, what would I ask him?
Well, I think a good question for Donald Trump is: what does the Constitution mean to you, right?
What does the Bill of Rights mean to you?
We got a 250th anniversary of the Bill of Rights.
What does it mean to you?
But then I would follow up, just kind of do a, what is it, Colombo thing.
Oh, one last thing.
Who told you to lock down the world in 2020?
And would you do it again?
Did you think that it was effective?
And why did you believe them when they told me?
I know he was told by, he said he was told by Fauci and by Deborah Berkset, two very smart people.
They bragged about the fact that they followed this bogus simulation from the Imperial College of London.
But I would ask him, why did you believe that?
It's so ridiculous.
At the point that you did it, there was no evidence of a pandemic.
But anyway, I guess we could always dream about that.
We're going to take a quick break, folks, and we will be right back.
Stay with us.
FREE Minds.
It's the David Knight Show, Elvis.
Ladies and gentlemen, the Beatles, and the sweet sounds of Motown.
Find them on the Oldies channel at APSradio.com.
And I've got an AMA question from Lance.
He asks, what are the best places to donate to the David Knight Show?
Because I don't do any plugs here, I guess.
But yeah, you can go to DavidKnight.news and that will tell you where you can find the show, both video and audio rebroadcasts as well as live shows.
And it'll also have links there as to where you can support us.
Cash App Zell is probably the best one because there are no fees at all with Zelle.
Everything else has fees.
But right now, Zelle does not have that.
Subscribestar is good because that is something that you can set up as kind of like a monthly recurring fee.
Frontal Lobotomies Lawsuit Victory 00:07:16
That's like a budgeted thing.
And then you don't have to think about it each time until your credit card changes.
And then I've had a lot of people say, you know, they stopped taking out my credit card because it changed.
I didn't realize that.
But anyway, if you go to davidknight.news, you can find the places where the program is broadcast as well as places where you can support us.
And we really do appreciate that.
We are 100% user supported.
So let's get a little bit of time here before we get into the Noel Sharkey interview.
And it's a really interesting interview.
And I appreciate Ryan finding that and cutting it out and sending it to us.
It was back in 2013.
We did that interview.
And I think you're going to find it pretty amazing.
So unfortunately, he lays out the issue that's there.
And we don't have any happy news on the killer robot front.
It's only bad news.
Sorry, folks.
Bad news about that.
We got swarms.
For the last 13 years since I talked to Noel Sharkey, they have been going like bats out of hell in terms of trying to weaponize this technology, and they're getting it to a pretty frightening level here.
But let's talk a little bit about some other issues here.
This is a D-transitioner was awarded millions of dollars in the first malpractice case of this gender mutilation that we're talking about.
I call it minor mutilation, although it's pretty major mutilation, isn't it?
It's the sterilization and mutilization of children.
How evil is that?
I mean, that's why when you look at things like the Jeffrey Epstein stuff, is it any surprise that the elites were focused on this type of thing?
Look at how they hate humanity, how they want to kill people, how they want to harm children.
And that tells you that this is a satanic agenda behind all this right there.
An unforgivable evil, which is what this is characterized.
At only 16 years old, a young girl underwent quote-unquote top surgery, a double mastectomy, I guess, a transgender affirming procedure in which her perfectly healthy breasts were removed.
Now at 22 years old, no longer identifying in contrast to her real biology, she's become the first detransitioner to successfully win a malpractice lawsuit against those who abused her.
And that really is what happened, folks.
So it's a $2 million judgment.
A jury in New York held both her psychologist as well as the plastic surgeon liable for this, for the so-called medical care that they gave.
And again, I think we're going to look back on this in a few years, and we're going to look back on it like people look back on the frontal lobotomies that they were doing to people back when was that, I guess, the 50s.
It was one of the daughters of the Kennedy clan that they did a frontal lobotomy to.
So I said, you got some psychological issues here.
We're just going to cut out a part of your brain.
And I think that's going to be the way that people are going to eventually see the truth of this.
Since the entire case is sealed, including all the trial transcripts, the product of my furious note-taking during the proceedings may be the only way for the public to learn the final finer details of the lawsuit, said Benjamin Ryan.
He was the only reporter to attend the entire trial.
And since they kept it closed to the public, it's just his notes that he took.
The attorneys representing the representing the person who was damaged said that Einhorn, the psychologist, drove the train in terms of counseling of the then teenager, accusing him of putting the idea in Fox's head that she needed to address her apparent gender dysphoria by permanently changing her body through a double mastectomy.
Her mother said during the trial that she was opposed to the surgery, but ultimately gave in, fearing her daughter would commit suicide without the irreversible procedure, a frequent refrain of those who advocate for transgender procedures.
I think it was a scare tactic.
I don't believe it was malice.
I think he believed what he was saying, but he was very, very wrong.
Well, I just got to say, you know, when you look at this, I don't know how it, you know, it would be hard to say that it wasn't malice, but nevertheless, it was definitely wrong.
And Robbie Starbuck, director of the War on Children, said, what was done to these kids is a crime against humanity, an unforgivable evil that must be extinguished from the earth.
Never again.
The damage these kids carry is heartbreaking.
That's absolutely true.
That's why I said I think it'll be recognized as the equivalent of frontal lobotomies later on.
Like so many others, she discovered transgenderism as a struggling teenager online.
I was 15 when that started.
Medicalization began at 16.
They started giving her hormone treatments and other things like that.
And just look at the fact that Planned Parenthood that has a business model that is based on ripping babies apart limb by limb.
Of course, they have made this a profit center for them as well.
So if they can't kill you as a baby, maybe they can rip you apart as a teenager or a child.
British freelance columnist Sonia Sodha called the verdict, quote, very significant, noting more cases are coming.
They're likely to fundamentally change the U.S. medical profession's approach to surgically altering the healthy bodies of children who are questioning their gender.
And again, why are they making an exception for something that is this serious, this irrevocable, and allowing children to make that decision?
And even in some jurisdictions, coming after parents who try to stand in the way of what the school is doing.
And it all goes back to this pedophile agenda.
When you look at the number of people, and I've seen this for the longest time, it's not just Jeffrey Epstein and the people around him in a scandal.
The longest serving Speaker of the House for the Republicans, and perhaps maybe for the Democrats as well, was Dennis Haster, a guy who was a wrestling coach pedophile.
And he was handpicked by the Republicans to be a congressman and then put in the position of being the Speaker of the House, the leader of the Republicans.
They want corrupt people like that.
And so this is how we get to this point.
We are filled at the top with people who have secret private lives that are exactly the opposite of what they present to the public.
Still, I guess you could say this is a sort of good news story in that they won the lawsuit and this could cause some major changes.
That's right.
So that's a good news story.
There you go.
We got it.
Very same show.
That's right.
Jesus Is God Debate 00:07:00
Oh, a man has painted over heretical messages on a massive billboard in L.A.
And so people, this one group, which is, they say that they are Christian and yet they deny Christian theology.
They say they're taking out billboards saying Jesus is not God and trying to make that argument from the Bible, which you can't do, actually.
You can't say that you believe the Bible and you don't believe that Jesus is God.
Those are mutually contradictory there.
They also believe in the flat earth thing.
They disavow the Trinity.
They push the view that the earth is flat and so forth.
And so one guy who disagrees with that decided that he was going to paint the billboard.
You have the picture of that, Lance.
basically what he did is he just painted the entire billboard black and people took pictures of him painting it black and it went viral now i think it's um they painted over the knot So it was Jesus is not God.
He changed it to Jesus is God.
Yeah, so the Bible says Jesus is God.
He just painted over the knot.
Well, that's not the picture that they put up on this article in the article.
They just had a complete black thing there.
Well, that changes everything.
They didn't have that video embedded in the article.
Instead, they put up a picture that is not at all what was there.
They just had a picture of a blacked out billboard.
I looked at that and I thought, that's nothing but censorship.
That doesn't answer anything, does it?
That's a very different thing.
I don't know why they did that.
Why didn't they just take a screenshot of what was really happening there?
The guy standing up and painting over it in front of the lights is its own message.
If it were just censorship, that would be a different thing.
I think the best thing he could have done hypothetically would be, say, getting his own billboard saying, no, it really does say this.
But I'm not prepared to say that this is definitely wrong what he did.
Yes, it's different.
It's not just censoring.
When I saw that, what that reminded me of was when Karen was at the abortion clinic and they were talking about black genocide and you had Antifa show up.
It's the first time I ever saw Antifa.
They showed up with just black squares and put them over her sign.
And then she'd take her sign down low.
He'd go down low.
She'd go up high.
So they're going up and down, up and down.
He just wanted to censor what they had to say.
Censorship is not an answer.
Silence is not an answer.
You need to give people the full truth.
But I think that it's important for us to understand that we don't need to run from people who have heresies.
And if you've got doubt, you need to dig into it because the truth is there and it can stand the scrutiny.
Again, the statement, I think it was attributed to Augustine said the truth, the Bible is like a lion.
It doesn't need to be protected.
It needs to be let loose and protect itself.
And so I think that's the key thing.
I'm for free speech.
I'm for debating these different issues.
And I think rather than just making the comment, taking out the knot, I think you need to tell people why you believe that Jesus is God and give the references for it.
Unfortunately, that is not what this person did.
But again, I understand his motivations there.
I just think that it's important for us as Christians not to recoil in fear and in censorship.
You know, we can handle this.
We can handle the evolution stuff.
We should, each of us, have handled it on our own.
Because when somebody brings up a question like this, you need to settle it in your own mind.
And if you've settled it in your own mind, then you can tell other people the reason that you have hope.
Anyway, again, it is over and over again.
We see the people putting different ideas that, again, putting out the idea that Jesus is not God.
That's an old heresy that's been around.
It's called Arianism a long time ago.
It was a couple hundred years after the New Testament was written that somebody suggested that and it was pushed back and pushed against.
We celebrate her courage.
This is the LDS, the Mormons, who are praising Eve's choice to eat the forbidden fruit.
That has also gone viral.
This is a post from an X account, and it is LDS Dems.
And so it's Democrats and LDL.
And so LDS, I should say.
It's gone viral with 2 million views as of the writing.
Now, you could dismiss this and say, well, this person doesn't represent Mormon theology.
But actually, Mormon theology has said this thing.
If you go back and you look at the guys who become, who were recent presidents and prophets of the LDS church, it was Dallin H. Oakes who said it was Eve who first transgressed the limits of Eden in order to initiate the conditions of mortality.
Her act, whatever its nature, was formerly a transgression, but eternally a glorious necessity to open the doorway toward eternal life.
Well, that is kind of not the eternal life aspect of it.
This is something that many atheists and other people have said, well, this is actually a good thing, you know, because we got the ability to think and to become more like God.
No, actually, it was cosmic rebellion.
That's why when you look at it, it's just only one thing, right?
Just had you had one command and you violated that, right?
That's the bottom line.
And so that was rebellion to God.
And that's why it was such a serious consequence.
That's what God was telling us.
And it's a ridiculous thing to say it opened the door to eternal life.
They already had that.
It was through this that death entered the world.
So in a sense, they're right.
They did open the door to it and then left out.
They walked out of it.
That's right.
They walked out of eternal life.
That's a good point, Lance.
Also, former LDS president Russell Nelson, who passed away in 2025, like Oakes, made his statement during the October 1993 journal conference: We and all mankind are forever blessed because of Eve's great courage and wisdom.
By partaking of the fruit first, she did what needed to be done.
No, what she did was she rebelled against God.
And through that, sin entered the world.
The entire world was cursed.
And so, when you look at the evil that is happening in this world and the nature of sin, that's one of the differences between Christianity and evolution, why you can't reconcile those.
Like Francis Collins, who was a part of the Human Genome Project before he got to the NIH, he tried to reconcile these things, but you can't because the evolutionist looks at death as an engine of creation.
We look at it as a curse.
It is not our natural state and is not something that should be glorified and regarded as something that takes us to a higher state.
Addressing AI Accountability 00:15:03
Let me just give a little bit of an introduction here to Noel Sharkey because we're going to run this interview we had with him 13 years ago.
It's kind of interesting.
This came up because I was talking about War Pete and his fight with the CEO of Anthropic because the CEO of Anthropic said, I don't think we should be doing autonomous killing machines.
And I don't like the way AI is being used for the tyranny that we see being done by ICE.
And so I said, yeah, I talked to Noel Sharkey several times about a decade or so ago.
And unfortunately, this Anthropic CEO is the only one who's pushing back against this stuff.
You've got Google, which used to have as their slogan, don't be evil.
Now they want to be evil.
And they'll do anything for money, right?
Same thing with Elon Musk, the same thing with Zuckerberg, and the same thing with Sam Altman at OpenAI.
And so Noel Sharkey, as an introduction here, is an expert in robotics and AI and has been for quite some time.
He was known to the public because of his appearances on the BBC's Robot Wars.
And of course, we got an American version of that.
I believe Thomas Massey competed in Robot Wars at one point in time because he was an engineer.
If I don't have that wrong, I think he did.
And also a program that's called Techno Games.
So Noel Sharkey was known to people in the UK through those BBC programs.
He's a chair of computer science at Sheffield University.
He held teaching positions at Yale University in Computer Science and at Stanford in Psychology.
He has a PhD in psychology as well.
I guess that comes in handy when you're talking about AI.
That's ultimately where this is headed.
He also chairs, and this is why I was talking to him, the International Committee for Robot Arms Control.
And he is a co-founder and co-director of Foundations for Responsible Robots.
And so he knows what he's talking about.
And this is somebody who I guess he's not really too happy about what's happening either.
So it's not necessarily happy news, but it's news that we all need to hear.
So here's this interview from 2013, 12 years ago.
Turn off this broadcast now.
You are committing thought crime.
Now we're joined right now with Dr. Noel Sharkey.
We were concerned that we might not be able to get him.
He is traveling the globe trying to wake people up to the dangers and the abuses of robotics technology.
He's actually a professor of artificial intelligence and robotics.
And he has now, after he had kind of an epiphany, we're going to let him tell you about it.
I won't try to describe it.
His core research interest is now in the ethical applications of robotics and artificial intelligence.
Dr. Sharkey, can you hear me?
I can hear you very clearly, David.
Hello.
Great, great.
So you found Wi-Fi in that monastery?
Yes, I did.
That's great.
That's great.
Tell us a little bit about your epiphany.
When you went from, you were working in robotics, you were very much interested in the technology of it.
But like so many of us who work in engineering or technology, you didn't realize exactly some of the dark ways it was being used.
No, I didn't.
I had my head in a bag kind of thing just getting on with my research.
And I was at a press conference in London about a government report on talking about robots, worrying about housing benefits for robots of the future.
It was kind of a nutty report, and it was the first report our government had put out about robotics.
And at the press conference, some journalists said to me, well, can you tell us a little bit about military robots?
And of course, I knew nothing about it, apart from a little bit about bomb disposal, because I'm from Northern Ireland and we know about bomb disposal.
So I thought I'd go off for the evening and just have a quick look at the internet, you know, an hour or so, sort of answer questions.
Seven months later, I finished that little look at the internet, having read, you know, through all the U.S. plans from 2001 right up to the present at the time, which was five years, six years of plans for all the U.S. forces, the roadmaps.
And they were all talking about the application of autonomous robots and for killing people.
And I just thought, this is ridiculous the way they were talking about it.
It was like science fiction.
They didn't seem to have an idea about the limitations.
And so I wrote an article for the Guardian newspaper in the UK then, 2007.
And it started there.
And it's been a whirlwind since.
I find it very alarming because I look at every week we see some kind of new robotic technology.
They're spinning it in the media as saying that these are the Pentagon's rescue robots.
I don't think that DARPA is really funding rescue operations.
I don't think the Pentagon's really funding that.
If anybody thinks that after looking at the way they're using drones to assassinate people all over the world, they need to have their head examined.
That's some of the most obvious propaganda I've ever seen.
The media should be ashamed of itself for putting out these killer robots, these potential, these robotic projects that are being put out by the Defense Advanced Research Projects, DARPA.
DARPA has a research budget that is higher than they've got for the entire budget of North Korea.
supposed to be concerned about North Korea, yet North Korea's entire economy is about the same size as the DARPA research budget.
And DARPA is constantly, this seems to be their primary focus.
Well, DARPA aren't accountable.
So their thing, and it's a good research agenda, their agenda is you just keep funding everything that's even slightly crazy.
And as long as one of them comes up and comes up Trump's, then you're okay.
But I was laughing there because one of the reports I read from DARPA about these humanoid robots that are going to carry wrenches and they talk about them going ahead of the forces.
Well, why would you have a pile of humanoid robots going ahead of the forces with wrenches?
Unto people's water pipes.
Fix the broken tanks.
Yeah, here's the headline.
This six-foot, 330-pound robot may one day save your life.
That's talking about the Atlas robot.
And the troubling thing is, is that when the Atlas robot came out, I looked at it.
I thought it was very frightening the way that this thing is able to move around.
And the fact that it has these two long arms that essentially look like cylinders, where I can imagine them being guns of some sort.
And Ray Kurzweil comes out and says, that's great.
Now all he needs is a brain so he can act autonomously.
Oh, God.
Yeah, that's bad.
I think you're right, though.
I can see the cylinders are going to become machine guns.
I would say some, you know, it's no doubt about that at all.
Maybe not for a while, but that would be the general plan, I would think.
Yes.
Why would DARPA be spending money and rescuing people?
When they've been in the business of rescue ever.
Yeah.
And then we have these articles that are coming out.
Now, this is about a year ago.
This is from Wired's Danger Room.
It says, the Pentagon doesn't trust its own robots.
They say that there's a cloud of distrust and misunderstanding hovering over robots that the Pentagon already has.
So they're looking at this and they're evaluating this and they don't really like it.
So we've got to conduct a media campaign to change the public's mind to change the military's mind.
You're pushing back in the opposite direction.
We understand that the military industrial complex wants this very badly.
They see this as a brand new profit center.
I'm very, very concerned about the lack of accountability that is going to happen with these killer robots.
Can you address that?
Yes.
I mean, you're right about the profit.
I mean, just in terms of the drones, which we know about already, I mean, Israel made 4.8 billion in the last five years profit on those.
And this competition is so stiff.
So the idea is that you've got all the drones.
How do you compete in that big market?
And the way you compete is let's add autonomy to it.
Let's make them work on their own.
And then we can make a lot more money.
And what we're trying to do is we're trying to preemptively ban them.
That means ban them before they get out and before there's too much investment.
Because once billions of dollars have been spent on it, it's going to be very difficult.
Very difficult.
Yes.
And we're making very good head at the UN, actually.
Well, that's good.
I'm glad that you're going around and you're addressing the press.
You're addressing governments.
You're pointing out to them where this could head.
I see this.
You know, when we're talking about nuclear war, if some government presses the button and launches a bunch of nuclear weapons on someone, there's going to be literally hell to pay for that.
There's going to be accountability for that.
But if they take a bunch of killer robots, as we've already seen with drones, we've seen how they can go in with drones.
They can destroy a village and there's no accountability.
Nobody is held responsible for that.
And it'll even be easier for them once these robots have self-autonomy.
They can basically say that they've got plausible deniability.
They can say, well, the software went wrong on it, or it was a hardware bug.
It wasn't me.
It wasn't the president.
It wasn't the general.
It wasn't the lieutenant.
It was just this crazy technology.
So we'll fix it.
Meanwhile, they've killed a lot of people.
And I can see them using this domestically as well as abroad.
So if you think that this is something historically, governments have killed more of their own people than they've killed in other countries.
It's called democide.
So if you think this is something that is simply going to be used against these people on the other side of the world that you don't like, you need to wake up about that as well.
I think they do.
And the thing is that what the United States and the high technicians like the UK, they have a problem understanding that this stuff will proliferate and everyone will have it.
And then where are we going to be?
And that's my biggest worry is this idea that we'll keep ahead of the technology.
We'll be the ones who'll use it without thinking at all that everybody else is going to have it and they will all interact together and then it's going to be a real mess.
We've already seen countries like Iran setting up their own drones.
They're not that technologically advanced.
It didn't take them that long to get drones.
It's not going to take them long to get robots.
This is something, and what we're concerned about here, I have to say, Dr. Sharkey, we have a little bit different situation in the U.S. is unique in the sense that now we have this massive program of bringing home weapons that have been used in Iraq and putting them in police departments here in America.
And we're already concerned about the fact that humans themselves are not being held accountable for their actions when they fire on a child with a toy gun.
What's going to happen when a robot does that?
Do you think there's going to be any accountability for that?
Do you really think the United States police will start?
I mean, there's certainly talk about arming robots with tasers.
That would be the start for it.
But tasers are kind of deadly.
I mean, 150 people died in the U.S. within a period of two years from taser abuse.
So if you start arming robots with tasers, then I think it's only a short step to arming them with weapons, really.
Yes.
Lethal weapons.
They're very horrible, non-quote-unquote, non-lethal weapons, very horrible ones.
It's not just tasers.
They have all kinds of things that they can beam at you to make you sick, to blind you, that sort of thing.
We just had, you talked about how they kill people.
We've got a teenager right here just south of Austin that was tasered by a cop in a school who was standing there, standing around a fight and didn't get out of the way in time.
The cop tasered him, fell down and cracked his head.
He's now in a coma.
They believe he may die.
That happens all the time with tasers.
So when you talk about non-lethal force, you talk about shooting people with rubber bullets.
You talk about using these gases on people.
That's not something that we're looking forward to seeing happen in terms of crowd control.
That can be very, very oppressive.
Yes, but you don't have to worry too much because we're going to stop it.
Good, good.
So tell us about your campaign.
Tell us, you're going around and you're talking to different governments.
I guess you're having public speeches where you're trying to inform the public.
How is your press coverage?
Well, press coverage has been very good, but we had a breakthrough recently at the United Nations.
There's a committee of the United Nations called the CCW.
And that's the place where poisonous gas has got banned, biological weapons got banned, chemical weapons.
So that's the place for prohibiting new weapons.
And we spoke to the, the French have just taken up the presidency, and we spoke to the French ambassador, then we spoke to the U.S. delegation, and they've agreed with us that they would put this forward as a mandate for discussion in the UN.
And last Friday, two weeks ago, they had 117 nations from the CCW met, and one of those nations could be to it.
Russia were there, China were there.
There was a massive discussion, and they accepted the mandate.
So next year, the CCW committee are setting up an expert workshop to take this on board and discuss it.
Well, that's great.
And your campaign is stopkillerrobots.org.
They can learn about that on the internet.
www.stopkillerrobots.org.
It's a campaign to stop killer robots.
Now, you've taken this to the UN.
You've taken it to other countries.
I'm a little bit more skeptical of the UN and these other countries.
Hopefully, they will ban this, and hopefully, these other countries won't secretly develop this on their own, worried that they're going to have some kind of a robot gap or something like that.
Like they've had weapons defensively do it because they're afraid the other guy might do it.
My big concern, and I think your campaign will be very effective at this as well, and that is to address the engineers and the scientists to try to get them to understand, because that, I believe, is where we really need to go.
As long as there's an engineer or a scientist who will develop this kind of stuff for pay, who doesn't look at the ethics of their work, you're going to find some kind of a politician or a dictator somewhere who will do it, who will use those people, who will pay them large amounts of money, and who will break any treaty that comes up, won't you?
Well, the problem is it's mainly the U.S. because they're a bit more cautious in Europe.
In the U.S., it's very difficult to not get funded by the military.
Unmanned Combat Aircraft 00:06:41
Yes.
Most of the robotics labs are run by the military, are funded by the military.
And people aren't necessarily making weapons and things.
But when you're funded by the military, it stops you speaking up.
Yes.
Yes.
It stops you speaking up against it.
I mean, there's hope.
I mean, there's a professional magazine in the U.S. called The Engineer.
And they ran a poll of the readership asking how many people would go for a complete ban or how many people would just go for trying to make the weapons more perfect over time.
Only 3% of the readership said they would make the weapons go more perfect over time.
And 73% said there should be a total ban.
So we're beginning to see a consciousness of it.
That's very hopeful because so many times we'll talk to directly.
Alex will talk to soldiers and policemen over the radio and say, understand that the kind of society that you allow to happen, if you allow and are part of this kind of abuse that we see happening in the streets, that's going to be the society that you live.
That could be your family that is brought under that.
And historically, we've seen that always does happen.
It can't be contained and only limited to people who don't work for the government.
But we need to have that kind of awareness with engineers.
And as you pointed out, it's very difficult in America to get a job if you're an engineer that doesn't involve the military-industrial complex.
I know when I got out, it took me a while to find a job where I wasn't working for the military.
That was my degree initially.
So I understand that.
And it's good that people privately say that.
And I think I really applaud you for what you're doing because getting the information out there, people don't even believe that this could happen in so many cases.
They don't believe that the technology is there.
They think it's just the science fiction fantasy of the Terminator.
And we've been criticized for that here, that we're talking about some wild thing.
Talk about the absolute, talk about how the technology is approaching rapidly.
Well, we've had 44 nations at the UN now speak up with concern.
So people better believe you now.
It's not science fiction anymore when you have major countries like the U.S., Germany, Pakistan even, you know, all speaking up against killer robots or about them.
So it's definitely on course to happen.
There's no question of that unless we stop it.
But you have to be very worried in the U.S. as well about your privacy.
I mean, you've got the NSA there really doing a lot of nasty things, surveying people, but you're starting to get a lot of drones.
And once the drones become autonomous, not even armed, they can be everywhere.
They're getting very small.
And what worries me is not the current government you have, but these are legacy systems.
So what does the next government do with them?
What does the next government do with them?
Because they just inherit them directly.
And if you ever want to create an authoritarian regime, you're going to have the right tools to do it.
And that is a great concern to me as well.
You hit the nail on the head.
What we are building in the United States right now is a perfect infrastructure for tyranny.
And whether our current leadership uses it or it's the next or second administration down, that's what we're concerned about.
Dr. Sharkey, what I would like for you to talk about in this segment is the state of the art in robotics.
People don't understand how imminent this problem is, how rapidly it's coming upon us.
Could you address that?
Yes, certainly.
Well, we've got lots of armed robots on the ground and in the air, as you know, that are remote controlled.
But what's happening now is a very rapid development of platforms that will carry the weapons.
The more we talk in the campaign about banning these weapon systems, the more we're driving them underground, it seems.
There's less talk about it now.
But for instance, in the United States, you've got three devices I'd like to mention to you.
One is called the X-47B, and that can land on an air.
It's a fighter jet, a combat, unmanned combat aircraft, fast subsonic, just beneath the speed of sound.
It can land on an aircraft carrier.
It can take off from an air carrier.
And it's going to be used in the Pacific.
It's got 10 times the range of one of your F-35 fighter jets.
So that's really productive for them.
And it's just been tested two weeks ago in very windy conditions.
And that's working very well.
That will be weaponized and used.
So it's like a super drone, but you don't need people involved at all in controlling it.
You've also got a prototype system called the Crusher, and that's developed by Carnegie Mellon and DARPA again, of course.
Of course they are.
The Crusher is a seven and a half ton truck.
And you can see it on, if anybody wants to go on YouTube and just do Crusher CMU, they will find it and they'll see it crushing Cadillacs and it's got a big gun up there on top of it.
Now, the other device that you're making in the United States is on the HTV-2 program, again, DARPA.
And they've got an aircraft called the Falcon.
And the idea is to be able to get an unmanned combat aircraft anywhere on the planet within a one-hour window.
So this thing has been tested at 13,000 miles an hour.
So that's just the United States.
In the UK, we have the Tyrannus, which is actually supersonic, so that's even faster.
That's an intercontinental unmanned combat aircraft.
Fully autonomous, means that there's no human controlling it.
And that's been tested in Australia just in the last couple of months.
So these are progressing very quickly.
The Chinese have the invisible sword as the engine.
And that's being designed and built for air-to-air combat.
Again, no human controlling it.
The Russians have the SCAT.
The Israelis are using one called the Guardian.
And at the beginning when they developed it, they talked a lot about it being fully autonomous to do routes and to fire on people at the borders between Palestine and Israel.
But now I spoke to an Israeli colleague the other day who was very excited because I had an early picture of it with guns on it.
And now they can't find any pictures of them with guns.
So I'm afraid we're driving these people underground a bit, but they're still doing it.
Well, you know, we can understand very quickly the implications of something like the Crusher that's going to crush vehicles domestically.
But even when it comes to these supersonic jet transports that are taking off from aircraft carriers that are unmanned aerial vehicles that are remotely controlled, that has a lot of danger in the sense that that's going to make our already aggressive government starting wars everywhere for very little justification.
Exposing Hidden Dangers 00:01:53
And without congressional authorization, that's going to make them even more likely to get involved in these wars.
And there's this thing called blowback.
You know, once you start a war somewhere else, it will come home to you one way or the other eventually.
It may be asymmetric warfare.
It may be terrorism with people coming to your country and blowing people up in shopping malls, which will then be used to send out the crusher robots.
But thank you so much, Professor Sharkey, for joining us.
We're out of time.
Good luck on your campaign.
Keep trying to educate people about these dangers.
It's a very important thing you're doing.
Thank you for having me on, spreading the word for us.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
That's StopKillerRobots.org.
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.
Export Selection