The David Knight Show examines the March 19, 2026, U.S. and Israeli strike on an Iran-Qatar LNG facility, linking it to a broader seizure of Middle Eastern infrastructure. The episode critiques Mark Wayne Mullen's confirmation for ICE, Federal Reserve inaction amid zero job creation, and CIA weather control projects like Storm Fury. It highlights the 1986 Childhood Vaccine Immunity Act's role in suppressing lawsuits, such as toddler Travis's paralysis case, while debunking claims that Iran posed an imminent nuclear threat before Israel's airstrikes. Ultimately, the show argues that declared emergencies enable the administration to bypass legal constraints, mirroring post-9/11 measures and undermining state-level protections for gun rights and gold reserves. [Automatically generated summary]
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 Thursday, the 19th of March, year of our Lord, 2026.
Well, Israel and the U.S. attacked a liquid natural gas facility that was co-owned by Iran and Qatar, daring Iran to set the Middle East on fire.
And now that's what they are doing.
All of these oil refineries, storage areas, ports, natural gas, they're all highly flammable.
Is this the plan of Israel, the long-term plan, so they can take it all?
We're going to take a look at that.
Meanwhile, we had yesterday Rand Paul on fire himself in a confirmation hearing.
It's Mark Wayne Mullen, the guy that Trump wants to run ICE, is shown to be a thug, a bully, just like the rest of the people that Trump picks, especially the ones that he wants to run his standing armies, foreign and domestic.
He's another war peep.
And then the Federal Reserve did not raise interest rates.
They said we had zero jobs created.
Has stagflation already set in?
I think we're going to have inflation regardless of what the Fed does with interest rates.
I think the nations are going to let it run loose so they can monetize the debt.
We're going to talk about the impact on gold because a lot of people are looking at what happens to gold.
So that's what we've got on the agenda today.
We're going to try to get through this quickly.
Before we start, though, there was some CIA weather control files that have now been reduced.
Yeah, those documents, not the Epstein documents, but the ones that talked about chemtrails.
Yeah, this goes back to the Vietnam War.
This goes back to Lyndon Johnson.
And as we talked about many times, there was a general, I forget the guy's name.
I didn't look it up again.
I've talked about it many times.
The guy who was given an award for altering the weather as part of the Vietnam War, given an award by LBJ.
And so they had a couple of projects, CIA projects.
One of them was Project Storm Fury.
The other one was Project Popeye.
Got a lot of projects coming from the deep state, the CIA.
And of course, you had the quote that's famous from LBJ, he who controls the weather will control the world.
Yeah, and controlling history and controlling speech.
And these people are control freaks about everything.
And so there was a letter as part of the documents from Lyndon Johnson expressing support for the activities in a 1962 speech when he was vice president.
He remarked, made that quote, he controls weather, will control the world.
So Project Storm Fury was an experimental effort attempted to weaken hurricanes by seeding clouds with silver iodide.
Think about the fact that they've been working on this for 60-some odd years, right?
What do you think they're capable of doing now?
This has been an open secret.
And of course, they very much want to push back.
Oh, Chemtrell, this is the ultimate conspiracy theory, right?
Well, they've always been working on ways that they can modify the weather.
Johnson's Vaccine Support for Children00:06:21
Chemtrails frequently dismisses a conspiracy theory, but RFK Jr. has jumped in on it.
He says they're real, likely orchestrated by DARPA, caused by materials mixed into commercial jet fuel, other issues involved in that, of course.
Don't expect them to do anything about it, just like he's not going to do anything about the vaccines.
But, you know, what he's doing is he is embracing this and talking about it.
But when it comes to action, whether or not he can do anything is one issue.
Whether or not he will even try is another.
As a matter of fact, when we look at the vaccines, it's not just the COVID vaccine and the mRNA that RFK Jr. is really not stopping.
What needs to be done is we need to get rid of this 1986 Childhood Vaccine Immunity Act that's there.
And here's a good example.
This is reported by the Children's Health Defense.
They have stayed on target even while RFK Jr. is playing his own personal political games.
Routine vaccines paralyze their toddler.
This is a child, Travis, that was just about a month older than your son is right now.
And he was given routine vaccines.
And all of a sudden, he's not moving anymore, getting very irritated.
And so they start trying to figure out what's happening.
And after a short period of time, they had some physicians say, well, I think it's a reaction to the vaccines, autoimmune reaction.
And so that was in 2013.
They fought the system for 11 years to try to get any compensation.
He's been paralyzed now.
He's in a wheelchair, paralyzed from the waist down, and has many other issues as well, autoimmune diseases and things like that.
And it has taken them 11 years to get approval for a payout.
And that's doesn't, you know, compensation is needed, but it doesn't restore him to what he was.
And as they pointed out, this whole system, this childhood vaccine system, is designed to make you quit.
That's exactly what they want to do.
They want to wear you out with the process of this and hold the vaccine companies that are harming children.
Just think about this.
You know, we talk about how outrageous it was that they would target school.
Sloppy work, you could say, right?
They would target a school and kill 160, 70 kids.
Trump did far more than that with his vaccine, probably his COVID vaccine that he's so proud of.
He killed far more children than that, and they're still dying with sudden death heart attacks, myocarditis and long-term effects of that.
And so just imagine what these people do.
They don't care about you and I.
They don't care about children.
People like Trump will sexually abuse them.
He will put out programs that kill them, injure them for life, paralyze them, even to the extent that MAGA thinks that he's going to protect children from this psychological gaslighting, mutilation, and sterilization.
No, no, if the parents want to do it, that's fine.
It does not protect children.
It doesn't protect us.
None of this national security stuff is about our protection.
It's about what they're doing.
Look, the people who are involved who started this war, a bunch of real estate dealers.
What does that tell you about this whole war in Iran?
We're going to talk about that coming up.
I think it's a real estate deal, frankly.
Shortly after receiving the flu and pneumonia and DTP shot, he became fussy, suffered from fever, decreased energy levels.
He stopped crawling, playing.
He started throwing food.
Said, while many practicing physicians and specialists suggested that he may have a genetic predisposition, that his vaccinations exacerbated, retired physicians, who were likely more at liberty to speak freely about vaccines, told family members that vaccine poisoning was a likely cause.
And so this is where we are in our society.
This is the kind of criminality that we have.
And as I said, there was a very long article.
I didn't go into it and discuss it in detail on the program, but just to summarize it, it was done by a physician who was on during the COVID stuff.
He said he had 4,000 interviews on TV.
And I thought it's pretty amazing that he was out.
I never had heard of him before.
But he said that all this subtle science stuff and the intimidation that was there throughout, he said, we've never seen this before.
We always had people who were free to speak their mind and free to make a case for the appropriate treatment or what the cause of a disease was.
He said, that was all shut down.
Never seen anything like that before.
And you know why it was shut down?
Because of money.
That's the way it happens.
Everybody say, oh, Trump didn't do it.
It was the bad Democrat governors that did it.
Well, the Republican governors are just as bad, and they were doing this because they were funded.
And the hospitals that were killing people at the beginning of this, that's the real pandemic.
The ventilators, the Rendesivir and things like that.
That's the real pandemic, folks.
And they were paid to kill people.
And that's the way we got into this situation.
When you get corporations, all they care about is money.
And they'll be more than happy to kill us for money, whether you're talking about big pharma, big hospital, or whether you're talking about the military industrial complex or big agriculture.
You know, big agriculture just wants to be able to produce stuff that looks like food.
They don't care if it's got poison in it or not.
So yeah, bring on the glyphosate.
We can produce more of this stuff and put it on the shelves and make money.
We don't care if it hurts you.
This is the way these people operate.
Well, we're going to take a quick break.
And when we come back, we're going to take a look at the back and forth fight about what Joe Kent said.
No Imminent Threat to Nuclear War00:15:36
And the, is there an imminent threat?
Was there an imminent threat?
This is the big issue that's been going on.
For 30 some odd years, we had Benjamin Netanyahu telling us that there was an imminent threat.
And now, so that is still the issue that is being discussed.
We're going to take a quick break.
Be right back to the
David Knight Show.
APS Radio delivers multiple channels of music right to your mobile device.
Get the APS Radio app today and listen wherever you go.
Well, I guess I'll get in trouble for this here on Rumble, but Dan Bongino fired back at Joe Kent's claim that there was no imminent threat to the U.S.
And you've also got Tulsi Gabbard, who has burned her last shred of credibility, if she ever had any left.
Here's what Tulsi Gabbard said.
So the assessment of the intelligence community is that Iran's nuclear enrichment program was obliterated by last summer's airstrikes.
Yes.
And the opening statement you submitted to the committee last night also stated, quote, there has been no effort since then to try to rebuild their enrichment capability, end quote, correct?
That's right.
And that's the assessment of the intelligence community.
Yes.
The White House stated on March 1st of this year that this war was launched and was, quote, a military campaign to eliminate the imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime, end quote.
That's a statement from the White House.
Quote, the imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime.
Was it the assessment of the intelligence community that there was an imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime?
The intelligence community assessed that Iran maintained the intention to rebuild and to continue to grow their nuclear enrichment capability.
Was it the assessment of the intelligence community that there was a, quote, imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime?
Yes or no?
Senator, the only person who can determine what is and is not an imminent threat is the president.
False.
This is the worldwide threats hearing where you present to Congress national intelligence, timely, objective, and independent of political considerations.
You've stated today that the intelligence community's nuclear enrichment program was obliterated and that, quote, there had been no efforts since then to try to rebuild their enrichment capability.
Was it the intelligence community's assessment that, nevertheless, despite this obliteration, there was a, quote, imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime?
Yes or no?
It is not the intelligence community's responsibility to determine what is and is not an imminent threat.
That is up to the president.
This is the problem.
No, it is precisely your responsibility to determine what constitutes a threat to the United States.
This is the worldwide threats hearing, where, as you noted in your opening testimony, quote, you represent the IC's assessment of threats.
You are here to represent the IC's assessment of threats.
That's a quote from your own opening statement.
And so my question is, as you're here to present the IC's assessment of threats, was it the assessment of the intelligence community that as the White House claimed on March 1st, there was a, quote, imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime?
Yes or no?
Once again, Senator, the intelligence community has You won't answer the question the nature of the imminent threat that the president has to make that determination based on a collection and volume information intelligence that he is provided with.
You're here to be timely, objective, and independent of political considerations.
Exactly what I'm doing.
No, you're evading a question because to provide a candid response to the committee would contradict a statement from the White House.
Yeah, nothing but yes men and yes women around this guy.
They're all afraid of him.
They want their career so badly.
Well, she just burned her career, burned it in front of everybody.
She has absolutely not a shred of credibility left whatsoever.
Yeah, if Trump says that we've obliterated their nuclear program, then we've obliterated it.
If Trump says no, we didn't, and now it's an imminent threat, it's an imminent threat.
It's whatever Trump says.
And it's pure politics.
All the president's men and women can't put Trumpty-Gumpty atgether again, right?
It was like forced gump.
You know, for 35 years, you had Bibi telling us that a nuclear bomb and nuclear threat was imminent.
He was lying then.
Trump is lying now.
And of course, Trump had this to say about previous presidents.
He thinks basically out of his own mouth, Trump thinks that Trump should be impeached.
Nancy Pelosi, the speaker?
Well, you know, when she first got in and was named Speaker, I met her, and I'm very impressed by her.
I think she's a very impressive person.
I like her a lot.
But I was surprised that she didn't do more in terms of Bush and going after Bush.
It was almost, it just seemed like she was going to really look to impeach Bush and get him out of office, which personally I think would have been a wonderful thing.
Impeaching him?
Absolutely.
For the war.
For the war.
Because of the conduct.
Well, he lied.
He got us into the war with lies.
And I mean, look at the trouble Bill Clinton got into with something that was totally unimportant.
And they tried to impeach him, which was nonsense.
And yet Bush got us into this horrible war with lies by lying, by saying they had weapons of mass destruction, by saying all sorts of things that turned out not to be true.
Yeah, exactly what Trump is doing right now.
As a matter of fact, you know, it's not just Tulsa Gabbard.
It's also Dan Bongino, who was willing to lie for the president.
Oh, well, you know, we know that we have these Epstein documents, so we need to release them.
And they go, oh, there's nothing at all there.
We don't need to release it, said Dan Bongino.
Now he's saying, I don't know what point you thought this wasn't an imminent threat after you read a lot of the stuff that I read.
And so he says, the president, I promise you, has a bevy of material that if he told you right now, you would come to the imminent threat conclusion in a snap as he was as Dan Bongino was pushing back against Joe Kent.
The imminent threat was probably a threat from Netanyahu to get money withheld from Trump.
Look, after Bongino lied about the Epstein documents, who would believe anything he has to say?
Now he says, well, you know, if you saw the stuff that I saw, there's no child trafficking, nothing happening with the Epstein people.
And now if you'd seen the documents that I saw, you would realize that Trump was telling us there really are weapons of mass destruction that we have to go after.
Well, Tucker wasted no time in terms of getting Joe Kent on.
And this is what they said.
I cannot, in good conscience, support the ongoing war in Iran.
Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation.
Not to us.
Iran is not.
And they didn't have nuclear weapons to come after Israel either.
I think this is key.
I mean, this would be more challenging to explain had the Secretary of State, the President, and the Speaker of the House not come out and said that we conducted this attack at this time because the Israelis were about to do so.
So that takes away the argument that there was an imminent threat, as in Iran was planning to attack us immediately.
That just simply did not exist.
May I ask you to pause?
And so I've heard people say that, and this just happened, but history has a way of getting rewritten in real time.
And then you look back 10 or 15, 20, 25 years later, and no one seems to understand the things that you saw because they've been eliminated.
So I think it's important to stop and say, here's what we actually know.
So I'd like now, if we could, just to play one of the statements that you alluded to, and that's from Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State.
And this was shortly after this war commenced.
And he was explaining, as is his habit, in a thoughtful, precise way why.
Here's Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
And so the president made the very wise decision.
We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action.
We knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces.
And we knew that if we didn't preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties and perhaps even higher those killed.
And then we would all be here answering questions about why we knew that indeed.
Okay, so that is his almost contemporaneous explanation.
And it's not offhand.
He reasons it out.
He explains there's a logic chain there.
And he says, we knew not that Iran was going to attack.
He did not say that.
He said we knew that Israel was going to attack Iran.
And in retaliation for those attacks by Israel against Iran, Iran might attack American forces.
So the imminent threat that the Secretary of State is describing is not from Iran.
It's from Israel.
Exactly.
And I think this speaks to the broader issue.
Who is in charge of our policy in the Middle East?
Who is in charge of when we decide to go to war or not?
In this case, with what the Secretary described and later on the President, later on the Speaker of the House, and the way the events played out, the Israelis drove the decision to take this action, which we knew would set off a series of events, meaning the Iranians would retaliate.
Now, I think there's a potential there where we could have done several different things.
We could have simply said to the Israelis, no, you will not.
And if you do, then we will take something away from you.
I think that it's fine that we offer defense to Israel.
But when we're providing the means for their defense, we get to dictate the terms of when they go on the offensive.
Otherwise, they stand to lose that relationship.
And the Israelis felt emboldened that no matter what they did, no matter what situation they put us in, that they could go ahead and take this action.
And we would just have to react.
Yeah, a couple of hundred million dollars from Miriam Edelson and a lot of other Zionist billionaires speaks volumes.
Trump's not going to say, no, you will not do this.
And of course, people like Dan Bongino are not going to stay silent if somebody is pointing out what our real relationship with Israel is.
That of servant.
And so he's going to step up and start serving for them.
Bongino fired back against Kent's claim that Israel and the lobby were a major culprit.
He said, I read a lot more intelligence than he did.
Yeah, right.
He said, I had access to just about everything, including the Epstein stuff, which he told you lies about.
And you come to the conclusion that the Israelis did it.
There was no imminent threat here, really.
How could you come to the conclusion, he said, that the Israelis could do it?
Well, it's based on not just what Joe Kent knows, but as he pointed out, it was made easy for him because you had Marco Rubio explain it to everybody.
He said, here's what's going on.
If they say we're going to attack and we don't really care what happens to you, and they say, well, we had to join in because they were going to do it.
We don't have any control over them.
They control us.
Bongino listed reasons that Iran posed a threat.
So they've got anti-ship ballistic missiles.
Yeah, is that a threat?
Israel's got them as well.
So is the U.S.
So do most countries.
They've got a drone program.
So do most countries now at this point.
And they have enriched nuclear material.
And they shout death to America.
Well, I've heard Netanyahu shout death to Iran for 30 some odd years.
And he's finally gotten it because he's finally gotten a puppet regime in Washington that will do whatever he demands.
Then you got Rick Grinnell.
Rick Grinnell is an interesting character.
He was their ambassador to LGBT, but he's the guy that in Trump's first regime, he had the job of Tulsi Gabbard.
You got to wonder about this director of national intelligence position, because after being the DNI in Trump's first regime, Trump put him in charge of the Kennedy Center.
So he goes, it goes from being DNI to head of the Kennedy Center theater.
And I guess that's true because this is all just theater, isn't it?
All this national security stuff, all this stuff about, oh, we have threats that are imminent, and we got to do something about it.
It's all just theater.
And so he says, Rick Grinnell says, I don't have any patience for these people who don't like the policy and don't want to implement the policy.
He said, Joe Kent just needed to, quote, shut up and salute.
So if the president's going to tell us a lie about weapons of mass destruction, if he's going to tell us a lie about imminent threats, you need to shut up and salute and you need to lie along with him, just like Tulsi Gabbard did.
You know, that's what we're getting from our DNI people under the Trump administrations.
He said, problem is we've got a lot of people in Washington with big egos.
Who's got the biggest ego in Washington, you think?
That's right.
President Gump.
And so, yeah, he's got egonomics.
He's got ego politics.
He doesn't do geopolitics.
He does egopolitics.
He says, I don't mind that Joe Kent, I don't think that Joe Kent should be surprised at where the president of the United States was going.
Well, I would agree.
I mean, I sussed this guy out for what he was in 2020.
But what about the campaign promises that Trump had made?
That shouldn't surprise anybody.
Well, Glenn Greenwal says a 9-11-like mass casualty attack could trigger permanent emergency measures.
And he points back to 9-11.
And it's like, well, and he says, you know, we have this permanent hangover from 9-11, you know, Homeland Security and the Patriot Act and all the rest of this stuff.
And it's like, yeah, and you might also want to take a look at what Trump did with COVID, because as I said before, the pandemic McGuffin and the whole idea that they could lock us down for whenever they decide there's some kind of, they declare a phony emergency.
Emergency Lockdowns and Militarized Police00:05:33
They don't have to, it doesn't have to be real.
They have the power to lock us down.
They've been putting these pieces in places for in place for a very long time.
And Dark Winter, which was a war game plan that was exactly what Trump did in 2020, they did that two months before 9-11.
Then they did a real attack of anthrax, but it was likely it was a false flag attack.
And it looks like it came from the CIA.
They were the only ones who had that kind of anthrax.
And of course, the FBI covered that up for the CIA.
That's their purpose.
The FBI is feds blocking investigations, especially when those investigations would show what the federal government is doing.
And so they continued to practice that for 20 years, and then they rolled it out.
These things are all part of taking absolute totalitarian control over our society.
And everything that Trump does is an emergency.
Everything.
He declares it to be an emergency, whether it is or not.
And then that allows him to completely avoid following the law, the Constitution, anything.
And he dares people then to take him to court.
And that takes a very long time, as we saw with the tariffs.
That was an emergency, right?
And so President Trump and his COVID stuff would not be surprised to see a false flag attack.
I mean, quite frankly, the whole COVID thing was not necessarily a false flag attack, but it certainly was false, wasn't it?
And he presides over the emergency branch.
He's got ICE and the police surveillance state.
He wants militarized federal police.
And we're going to, after this, we're going to take a look at this back and forth of Mark Wayne Mullen because that's the real subtext there, folks.
That Trump is looking for people like Mark Wayne.
He's looking for people like War Pete.
These are people who will do whatever he says, who are spoiling for a fight.
They're brawlers, they're thugs, they're bullies.
And he wants people like that to run the military.
He wants people like that to run his federal police, the domestic standing army.
Greenwall laid out a sobering scenario.
He said a mass casualty attacks on U.S. soil could trigger sweeping emergency measures that once imposed become fixtures of life, just as the Patriot Act did after 9-11.
Conversation opened with Greenwald addressing a noticeable imbalance in what passes for acceptable criticism in public life.
He said, it's interesting that there's no criticism of our country that is banned or even discouraged.
But you can't criticize one particular foreign country, right?
As the old saying goes, I don't know who controls you.
You look at who you're not allowed to criticize.
So we have an occupied government, just as Kerry Pregene Baller said.
He said, if you can't criticize a foreign government, then that country is in charge.
What other conclusion should I draw from that?
I can't really provide you with any other option.
And so he said, I feel like there was already an attack in the U.S., that Austin shooting, but we haven't heard much about it.
But it seemed pretty clearly linked to the Iran war.
Well, they're going to come up with something that is bigger.
So he said, Patriot Act was this radical, extremist, un-American law that we needed supposedly in the wake of 9-11.
They assured us, oh, don't worry, it'll be temporary.
Well, here we are, 2026.
It's part of the woodwork, and nobody even talks about it anymore.
That's how quickly these things get normalized.
Yeah, just like the pandemic measures that Trump did.
And whether or not the stuff gets put into enshrined into law or regulations, it still gets enshrined into people's minds.
You still have this Overton window that has been moved.
The normalization of universal basic income, the normalization of being able to lock us all down, just like that.
And when you look at what is happening with cars, it's not just gasoline, it's the insurance, it's the mandated regulations on automobiles.
They've become unaffordable.
They're going to squeeze us out of cars if we don't push back.
There needs to be some move at the state level, just like people in Wyoming tried to do with the gun control laws.
They said, we're not going to allow any gun control here in Wyoming.
And of course, you had the Republican governor pushing back on that.
And he's now pushing back on, you also had the Republican legislature in Wyoming set up a gold reserve.
And the Republican governor is pushing back on that.
He doesn't want you to have guns.
He doesn't want you to have gold.
And you can bet that these people don't want us to have cars either.
Cars need to be something.
We need to do the opposite of what California has done.
California is trying to ban cars nationwide because they are such a large market.
They can do that.
We need to take the other direction.
We need to encourage automotive freedom and liberty.