Using free speech to free minds. You're listening to the David Night Show as
a clock strikes thirteen. It's Thursday, the fifth of October, one day
after the EBS, which is perhaps not the emergency broadcast system, but the
extra BA that we were told by all these people. So we're going to
go back and take a look at this, what did and did not happen,
what we should be concerned about, and what we should not be concerned
about. But we also had some very important court decisions that have come out,
a very disturbing decision about David de Leiden and the Center for Medical Progress.
We'll talk about that also the direction that these court decisions are heading.
And by the way, one of our guests today, Tony Ardband, will
be joining us wise Wolf Gold. We'll also have Guy Relford, who was
a lawyer second Amendment lawyer in Indiana, is going to talk to us about
some very important self defense cases. There an important law that he got pushed
through that made a big difference in one of these cases. To stay with
us, we'll be right back. Well. Yesterday, Angry Tiger commented on
a video, my wife saw it because they got senter because he commented on
it, and she follows him. So you're not too shadow band yet,
angry tiger. But we'll see what happens. But it was a comment that
he made posted by high Impact Flicks who said info Wars is saying the emergency
alert system is going to be broadcast at a specific high frequency signal today yesterday,
with the intention of activating graphene oxide and other nanoparticles that have been inserted
into billions of human beings. To the jabberino, does anybody know where they're
getting that information? If true, what will graphene oxide activation quote unquote actually
look like? Will it kill people? Will then turn them into zombies?
So is it kill you, resurrect you as a zombie or does it turn
you into zombie and then kill you? We need to know. And of
course he says, do you buy any of this? And he posted this
little clip from Greg Greese's report. On October fourth, at two twenty two
pm Eastern time, the emergency broadcast system will be activated across the entire United
States under the leadership of FEMA, disguised as a test. However, this
test will be used to send a specific high frequency signal through devices like smartphones,
radios, and TVs with the intention of activating graphine oxide and other nanoparticles
that have been inserted into billions of human beings around the world through the obvious
mediums. If the October fourth date does not occur for any reason, the
backup plan will be to do it on October eleventh at the same time.
In the case that this is not able to be stopped, I asked you
all to shut off your phone and all other relevant devices at two pm Eastern
Time for a period of two hours to be safe. Okay, well,
well you didn't follow his advice. But Anger Tiger's comment was utter and total
bs. They spelled it out a little bit more specifically, though, hope
it gets you lots of clicks and views, and of course it does.
Oh they got record number of clicks and views, and they sold the nonsense
about the sting even though it was easily disproven. Right now, we've got
twenty thousand troops out there rounding people up because you know, Trump has laid
this trap for them. They had special blockchain watermarks planted on the balance.
They know who forged this stuff, and they've already got National Guard troops fanning
out across the country. On rock Fan, Handy said Trump must have done
a covert mission. Yeah see, and saved us all in the last second.
You don't want the bad emergency broadcast, it's just a good one.
Well, you know, that's some funny thing, is what I saw in
terms of follow up on this stuff. I wasn't, you know, well,
did anybody turn into a zombie? I wasn't looking for that, of
course, but I was. I saw these articles about how first of all,
people were complaining because it was early. It was two minutes early.
And then of course you heard in that clip, I think he said two
twenty two. It was actually two twenty It was scheduled, but it actually
went off at two eighteen. But other people were saying, I didn't get
my signal. Complain about that, like where's my test, where's my mask,
where's my jab? You know, I mean, you're always going to
and that's really what they mean by zombies when the government refers to us as
zombies. I had a lot of people very upset with me, as a
matter of fact, and one person, as I mentioned earlier in the week,
said your controlled opposition, seriously, you won't look at proof. So
as proof. He sent me a video that I had already debunked. I
don't know if he watch his program or how much I may don't cover the
same information every day I covered it. Somebody asked me the question. I
gave him a quick answer at the very end of the show on Friday,
and I looked at this and it's like, what is this nonsense? Over
the weekend and I talked to on THEO talked about on the following Monday.
But anyway, he also sent me another video. Here is what the here's
what the crew selling this stuff looks like. By the way, this is
the video that he wanted me to pay attention to. Five G. Doctor
Rashid Booter, Attorney Todd Calendar, Karen Kingston, retired says force means Air
Force retired. They lost the Air Force anyway. Retired Air Force Lieutenant General
Thomas McInerney how five G hydrogel and nanotechnology will be used to activate pathogens and
the COVID nineteen vaccines. Now, as one person said, we don't rule
that stuff out, And as one of the listeners contacted me, he said,
this is never about the dates. He says, this is a ruse
for the actual zombie event. And so don't you understand these dates are simply
placed there to dismiss the whole of the event as just woo wu, And
I told you so, all the while the public will be completely unaware and
unprepared when it actually does happen. Well, I think all this stuff there's
a bunch of woo wo to distract people from the real concerns about the vaccine
and the real concerns about five G and those remain, and it doesn't have
to be that, you know, the concerns are not that it's going to
turn us into zombies, it's going to kill us. You met at the
average well, yeah, what were you saying? Have you met what the
average one? Have you met at the average leftist? The average average leftist?
What about them? Zombies? Already zombies? That's right, that's right,
the average Well, you know, and we've seen them referring to us
as zombies many times. I've talked about the NSA slides that were really only
published in Germany by Deshpiegel. They were part of the Snowden documents, but
the US press decided not to do it because it cast a negative light on
Apple that they that buys ads on their platforms. But it said, you
know, who would have thought in nineteen eighty four, And it shows the
Apple commercial pushing the Macintosh of the Ridley Scott commercial super Bowl commercial that only
ran once, but people played it over and over again, that nineteen eighty
four commercial. But this would become Big Brother. And they show Steve Jobs
holding up the iPhone. Then they show an Apple store and everybody lined up,
and they said the zombies would line up to purchase it. They referred
to us as zombies because they have absolutely no respect for us. They think
we're walking dead, brainless idiots and that they've got to kill us. And
so that is one aspect of it. But look, none of this is
to say that the jabs are not dangerous. Anybody listens to me knows that
I've been talking about this even before they went out. We knew they were
going to be dangerous, and I know we had lots of evidence of this.
We don't know what is in the nanotech stuff, could be anything.
We have seen particulates come out of the millions. One batch was one point
four million, another batch was a million. Two different batches in Japan that
they just destroyed. Because they had black particles that had precipitated out of the
vaccines and they interacted with mag We don't know what this stuff is, and
I said at the time, I said, perhaps this is why they have
to keep these things super cold. We don't know what is going to activate
them, if it's going to be time released, or what is going on,
or if it's five G. Five G has got its own issues,
of course, as I've said over and over again, its own untested health
issues and concerns, as well as the real concerns about privacy in a very
real sense. Just like the vaccine also has issues of civil liberties in terms
of saying your health doesn't matter, you're going to get this or else.
The five G has both civil liberties issues as well as health issues. So
none of this is to say that that there's not concerns about those things.
My concern is the same thing he's saying here, even though he thinks that
the endgame here is zombies. I think the endgame is just to kill us,
not to make us brain dead, not to kill us in resurrectus.
I think they just want to kill us, and of course they want to
control us if we remain alive. As long as as we remain alive,
that's the real agenda. And any of this stuff about a specific date,
any specifics about how this stuff works, I think is just a bunch of
nonsense. So let me go back to the EBS crew here. Now.
I talked about Dan calendar, and it was pretty clear when he was giving
all this specific information about the EBS system, the extra BS system that was
coming out there, just recap it quickly. He said, it's eighteen gigherts
and that's going to cause this stuff. You know, they've got pathogens that
are sealed inside the lipid nanoparticles. It's going to cause the lipid nanoparticles to
dissolve and release those pathogens and it's going to create a new plague or whatever.
Okay, well, eighteen gigaherts is not a five g frequency. And
then he goes on to say, even though he focuses on the eighteen gigaherts
over and over again, he goes on to say, and what's troubling about
this EBS, this emergency broadcast is it's going to be activating all the frequencies.
Well, look, if you understand, and I talked about the fact
that you've got all these frequencies. Every frequency of AM radio was out there
all the time. It's just that you tune into specific ones, specific carrier
signals, you tune into specific FM signals. They're all out there all the
time. All the TV, all the Wi Fi, all the cell phone
stuff is constantly there, and so that's nothing changes with the fact that they
are sending out information to everybody at the same time. Your phone is constantly
sending and receiving if it's not turned off. None of that changed by the
emergency broadcast system. So we know it was complete lunacy and Todd Calendar has
got some real critical thinking issues here. Number one. Then we go to
Karen Kingston, was who disappeared. Remember she was a whistleblower for Pfizer,
And then everybody in the mainstream media was what's going on? Had she been
killed? She had been killed, you know, because we had Rashid Bhutar
who had talked about these health effects and he died, So therefore it was
a conspiracy. I don't know if it was or not. But then right
after that, Karen Kingston disappears. Turns out she was the one who disappeared
herself. She eventually came out. Mike Adams tried to resurrect her credibility.
I'm sorry, I don't see her credibility. And then the worst of all,
Lieutenant General Thomas McInerney. And if you remember, it was mcinernie who,
with the election fraud, was doing the same stuff as Steve Patchennik.
He was the one. Mcinernie was the one who came out and said there's
been a Special Forces operation on a German facility that had a German computing facility
that was rigging the elections or something to that sort. Not true at all.
It's just like Steve Chennick's thinking that, oh he got twenty thousand troops
out there arresting people. Mc and Ernie said right after the election, he
came up with his own fable. And both of these guys have got a
history of selling lies for the right wing military industrial complex at once perpetual war.
McInerney sold the lies about the Iraq War, the lies that were the
product of torture. And the woman who was head of the torture and the
woman who covered it all up, Gena Haspell, was promoted by Trump the
head of the CIA, and so mcinernie was selling those lies to get us
involved in the Iraq War, and he was pushing the Iraq war very hard
and for George W. Bush. And then he's pushing this nonsense narrative about
special operation forces that are happening, you know, over the election information at
the very beginning of all this stuff, getting everybody hyped up about all this
stuff so they could push everybody into January the sixth. What a bunch of
traders, what a bunch of Judas goat liars, just looking for clicks and
views, and always given a platform by Alex Jones. So anyway, there's
real concerns out there. This stuff takes people's real concerns away. But again,
as I said yesterday, people were concerned because it didn't go off at
the scheduled time. It went off two minutes early. As a matter of
fact, we were on the phone. We had a conference called Karen and
I did with another person and the other person's phone did not go off.
Both of our phones went off. We had to shut them down. The
hurst didn't go off. And at Karen's phone, excuse me, she's got
an iPhone. I got an Android phone, hers said Presidential message or something
presidential on it, on the announcement, mindset emergency message or something. So
I guess that's the difference between the two systems. But the third persons didn't
even go off, and so other people are complaining that theirs didn't go off.
I didn't get my emergency broadcasting system. I didn't turn into a zombie
or whatever, And so people going to social media, they complained that they
had been left out. I didn't get my test or my mask, or
my vaccine or my EMS. Why didn't I get the emergency alert all upper
cases? Oh, I am so dead when the apocalypse comes. Yes,
there are delusions on both sides of this. So some of them were joking
about it. I didn't get the five G zombie emergency alert, rip off,
said another person. We'll be right back. The common man. They
created common Core and dumb down our children. They created common past, track
and control us. They're 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. Will you share the
information and links you'll find at the Davidnikeshow dot com. Thank you for listening,
Thank you for sharing. If you can't support us financially, please keep
us in your prayers. D David Nikeshow dot com. Well on rumble Harps,
thank you for the tip. He says, I can't speak for the
brain dead idiots, but when I do, I say, bah bah.
I have gotten so much hate mail over this when I denied that the five
G was going to be used that way or the anything to do with that,
and I had to comment on it, not just to debunk these liars
and grifters, but because we don't want to allow these people to We don't
want this narrative to take hold, so the establishment can then dismiss any concerns
that we have about the vaccines are about five G. That's the key issue,
and that's the reason why you have things like Steve Patchennik's sting and like
mcinnernie's Special Forces operation in Germany and all the rest of this stuff that that's
just a bunch of nonsense. Let's put out there to discredit any real concerns
that people have about this stuff. On Rock Fan, Richard Williams, thank
you very much, he said, the Kennedy assassination nine to eleven and Trump's
vaccine. If your default is to still trust the government, ignorance cannot excuse
your stupidity. There I said it. And on Rock Fann, thank you,
James. I appreciate the tip. Let's talk about something that I think
is really tragic. It's a personal tragedy for one individual, it's a personal
tragedy for who knows how many babies, and it's a real tragedy for us
legally, constitutionally, in our liberties as well. The Supreme Court has declined
to hear an appeal from David de Lighten in the Center for Medical Progress.
If you remember years ago, I think it was sent here. I think
it was twenty fifteen. They did an undercover, you know, Project Veritas
style thing. I say Project Veritas, but it's not just Project Veritas.
As they pointed out their brief to try to get the Supreme Court to hear
it, This is the same thing that was done by mainstream media ABC News
twenty twenty investigation, and it was actually even an ABC News twenty twenty investigation
of abortion clinics and so, but now things have change, haven't they.
You're not allowed to do that, not in radical vicious degenerated California run by
people like Grabbing Nuisance and La La Harris and Javier Bessera, because it was
those three who were involved at coming after them. They came in. You
remember the clips, people say yeah, I want to get my Lamborghini.
You know, well we can. You know, we need to have these
body parts and we will pay you handsomely for this stuff. What can you
get for us, Well, you tell us exactly what you want and when
you want it, we'll get it. And so as we talked about that,
we pointed out that this is actually murder for hire. These are not
dead babies that are sitting over here in a stack. And they go back
and they get the organs. No, as we've talked about organ harvesting and
china from prisoners and things like that, they take the organs out of living
bodies because they want them to have to be fresh. They start deteriorating right
away, and as soon as the body dies, certain things begin to happen
in the body, and so you want to take the organs out while the
body is still alive. That's why they are so eager to get brain dead
patients organs, because you know their body is still functioning. But excuse me,
in the case of these abortions, they're looking for babies who have at
a specific level of maturity, and they would then make an appointment, have
everything ready to transport the organs, and then they would induce labor to some
extent. But they're not going to start ripping the baby be a part as
they would in a typical abortion procedure. Four steps and all the rest of
the stuff. You're damaged the organs. They're also not going to inject saline
that would damage the baby or poison it in any other way, you know,
the saline salute or not, is it sent anyway. They have a
solution that they burned the baby with and kill it. So that type of
thing, that type of poisoning or physical damage, they can't do. So
they have the baby born normally, extract the organs and kill the baby that
way. That's the way it has to be done. And we've pointed this
out from the very beginning. And then as part of this trial, this
ordeal of David de Leiden, over the years, as part of their discovery,
they found that you had Francis Collins and Fauci at the NIH as well
as the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh. I used to live in that area.
But anyway, they found that they were buying these baby parts and they
had the price and everything else. And so what is the issue here,
Well, the issue is that these are democrats and they will come after anybody
that they don't like with law fare, and they'll get away with it,
and they'll get away with it all the way to the Supreme Court. And
so the High Court denied to even hear this. Following a twenty twenty two
ruling by the ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals, which again is very is
the most left leaning court in the country. The Fifth Circuit Court's the most
right leaning. In the most leftist leaning is the Ninth Circuit Court. They
come up with lunatic stuff. But the Ninth Circuit Court upheld most of the
damages that a lower court had awarded to planned Parenthood and its lawsuit against California
based Center for Medical Progress and its founder, David de Leiden. The pro
life organization first made headlines in twenty fifteen when it published online secretly recorded conversations
with Planned Parenthood doctors and staff haggling over the prices of baby body parts.
As the joke goes, we've already established what Planned Parenthood is. We're just
haggling over the price. And it's twenty sixteen lawsuit then Planned Parenthood argued that
the organization's actions constituted fraud, trespassing, breach of contract, and a violation
of Rico Act. You see, they always bring that Rico Act in one
of the people who weaponize that, and well, of course it was Biden
who helped to weaponize that, But the person who used it a great deal
is Rudy Giuliani is now being used against him. But Planned Parenthood, that
has been their favorite approach to come after pro life individuals and organizations. They
came after Randy Alcorn years ago. Andy Alcorn christian pastor and an author,
and he had gotten involved in pro life. He'd basically had not been involved
in that, and there was a crisis pregnancy that he got to know the
young mother and it changed his mind, and so he started showing up at
the abortion clinics and things like that. They came after him planned parenthood and
won you know, type this face act type of thing. Got to stay
away from the clinics, stay away from the people, all the rest of
this, and they charged him with rico charges. They got I think it
was an eight million dollar judgment against him. And Randy Alcorn has had a
lot of very very big books. He's got a great book series on Heaven
another one. I would also highly recommend The Treasure Principle because Jesus talks a
great deal about money. Now where your heart is there, your treasure is
also That is an excellent book. Everybody should or listen to that book.
So he was very and he also did a lot of fictional stories as well,
very good writer fictionally. And so they said, well, we're going
to get a lot of money from him. Eight million dollar judgment. Randy
Alcorn resigned as pastor of the church and he continued to write and published books
Christian books, but he lived on whatever the allowable minimum wage was for over
twenty years. They said, I will not pay planned Parenthood one penny,
and so he just took all that his organization took all proceeds and millions and
millions of dollars that he made from these books and gave it away pro life
organizations, Christian organizations. So when you look at what Planned parent is doing
here, it's not their first rodeo with Rico. But the issue is,
you know, what is the fraud? What fraud is involved here? Is
it the fact that these people didn't want to pay up for the body organs
or that they never actually placed in order for anybody parts. They never took
delivery of any body parts. They just talked about, well, what would
it, what would what would you commit this murder for the type of thing.
And it's also interesting that Planned Parenthood did not sue them for defamation.
Why not wouldn't you think that that would be the very first charge their defamation.
You're accusing us of trafficking and body parts. You're accusing us of murder
for hire, murder of babies for hire. No, that wasn't an insult
to them. As a matter of fact, one person said, you know,
if you look at this, Tucker Kralson has been alleged to I don't
know if it's actually been filed, that REYEPS would file a lawsuit against Tucker
Carlson because Tucker Cralson and others had accused him of being a FED. There
has already been a lawsuit where you had a guy who I think he was
a rapper. He was accused of being FED informant and so he and he
was not, and so he sued and the judge said, he sued for
defamation. And the judge said, what's wrong with being a federal informant?
I think that's great. You haven't been defamed. Is this person is saying,
well, you know that's I've been established that, you know, being
a federal informant is not not a dishonor to the federal court system. So
we don't know how far Reyep's case against Tucker would go in that kind of
situation. Well, you know, they don't think Planned Parenthood doesn't think that
it's any big deal to be a baby killer for or higher either. So
they didn't put defamation in there. They put fraud. You know, you
said you're going to pay us to get these baby organs and you didn't,
you know, do that. So anyway, three years later, a jury
sided with Planned Parenthood and also said that the pro life group had violated the
Federal Wire Tap Act, although the appeals court later overturned that aspect of the
verdict. It accounted for less than one hundred thousand of the two point four
million dollars in damages plus thirteen million and attorneys fees it was initially awarded.
So they argued before the Ninth Circuit of Court that their journalistic methods were protected
under the First Amendment, but that argument was unanimously rejected by the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals, which said invoking journalism and the First Amendment does not shield
individuals from liability for violation of laws applicable to all memory of society. No,
it was an investigation, and this is done this way and has been
done by many organizations and should be done that way. And there had already
been that doesn't mention it in this article here, but there had already been
hearings in Congress saying that this is going on. And they said, because
of those hearings, we conducted this investigation. What this is is a big
attack on the First Amendment. It's a big attack on the free press.
It's a big attack on truth, but it also lets these killers go free.
So the Center for Medical Progress actually reported pointed to a very similar undercover
investigation that was conducted by Chris Wallace that was published on ABC News' twenty twenty
quote using a fictitious name and fake critics. ABC journalists met with fetal tissue
vendors in the abortion industry. Their three month investigation revealed a host of illegal
and unethical practices in the industry related to the sale of tissue from aborted babies.
At the time, when it was not the focus of the investigation.
Planned Parenthood praised ABC's report because they were investigating Planned Parenthood's competition. You see,
this is how this is the only difference between what Center for Medical Progress
and David de Lyden did and what ABC's twenty twenty and Chris Wallace did.
ABC and Chris Wallace didn't want to come after Planned Parenthood. They went after
their competition. David Delyton went after Planned Parenthood. That is the only difference,
the only difference. That's how politically connected they are. That the Democrats,
even when it was against the law, was we're giving them millions of
dollars of subsidies, they don't care. At the time, when it was
not the focus of the investigation, Planned Parenthood praised ABC's report and condemned the
abortion provider who was its target. Gloria Felt, then, the president of
Planned Parenthood, publicly stated, where there is wrongdoing, it should be prosecuted,
and the people who are doing that kind of thing should be brought to
justice. They see, they'll come out and do that when it's some individual
like Kermit Gosnell or something, as long as they're not affiliated too Planned parented.
But if you come after Planned Parenthood, understand you're coming after somebody who
is, you know, a made man in the mafia. If you will,
you know they have somebody that is protected and under the protective care of
the federal government because they have bought so many politicians. According to the Center
for Medical Progress, mister Lyden modeled his investigation on abcs using nearly identical methods
and means. The group also charged that Planned Parenthood had euphemistically labeled its losses
as infiltration and as security damages to circumvent the challenge challenges presented by the defamation
case, which would include showing that the published speech in question was false,
and yet they were not making it about defamation. It was about you defrauded
us and the rest of stuff. You know, you didn't pass the money
you said you're going to do. The complaint contains a list of grievances that
are inextricably intertwined with a Center for Medical Progress's decision to publish videos detailing the
results of its investigation. Thus, even though Planned Parenthood failed to file a
defamation claim, they said it sought substantial damages to reimburse it for expenses that
it voluntarily occurred to prevent similar investigative reports by others in the future. See
this is a key part of this. Don't mess with Planned Parenthood, or
are you going to be in court for eight years like David Delighten and you're
going to come out with thirteen million dollar debt. Planned Parenthood has denied selling
the body parts of aborted babies for profit, even though Discovery showed that one
of their clients was actually Fauci and Francis Collins and the NIH and the University
of Pittsburgh. They said this was part of a smear campaign against Planned Parenthood,
a smear campaign, and yet they didn't charge them for defamation. It's
not defamation of character. This is definition of character. Planned parenthood, murders
for hire, it's just selling the baby parts. Was a new wrinkle that
the public hadn't really understood yet, just like they didn't really understand the whole
concept of so called comfort care, where if a baby survives or attempted murder
at ripping them apart or bringing them to death with a solution, then they
just stick them over on the side and let them die, like happened in
the pagan societies of the Roman Empire than others. The Supreme Court announced this
rejection of the case on the very first day of his twenty twenty four term,
which will run through June. Not a very good beginning, and as
a matter of fact, there were other things that were not very good coming
out of the Supreme Court. Vox is very very happy about the fact that,
as they see it, the Supreme Court had an uncharacteristic moment of sanity
when they decided that a lawsuit that was trying to shut down the Consumer Protection
and Financial Board or Financial Protection I get those you were those mixed up anyway,
This thing that was a Frankenstein monster, that was a special creature of
Elizabeth Warren that came out with a god Frank bill in twenty ten, was
supposed to fix us ever having another mortgage crisis. That type of what it
did was it strangled to death hundreds hundreds of small and medium sized banks on
an annual basis. I remember when Drudge was still doing conservative news, he
would talk at the end of the year for several years running, after this
thing was created and the new rules that it created, he would run an
article talking about how many small and medium sized banks had been put out of
business by this Consumer Financial Protection Board rules. Of course, now he's gone
to the other side. He's got articles like this from vox saying, imagine
the Supreme Court of the United States spent an entire morning debating where the penguins
are the primary cause of colon cancer. They think it's that absurd the question
the constitutionality or what any of the bureaucracy of any of these bureaucratic organizations,
or their actions or their very existence, that's just insane. The federal government
can do anything that it wants Fox essentially, so they said, that's more
or less equality of the arguments of the former Trump Solicitor General Noel Francisco presented
at the Court on Tuesday as part of a quizzical effort to commence the justices
to declare an entire federal agency and constitutional. You who can imagine that?
I mean, that's like, you know, talking about if penguins are the
primary cause of colon cancer, Any and every imaginable bureaucracy is of course constitutional.
To the leftist press, like Fox, All three of the liberal justices
took turns beating up Francisco as an exasperated justice, Sonya Soda Mayor telling Francisco
at one point that She's trying to understand his argument, and I'm at a
total loss. I just can't imagine a government He'll be limited by the constitution.
What is this guy talking about? Soh Sodo. Mayor appeared to be
joined in her frustration by Kavanaugh and by Amy Cony Barrett, the agency that
he was trying to get them to strike down, they said at the end
of the argument, even Clarence Thomas appear to be fed up with the inability
to articulate a coherent argument. Is this a bad lawyer? Well, he
does have a very bad argument for getting rid of it. But this is
a conclusion from box. They said, it seems very likely that the CFPB
being struck down will not happen. And that's a very good thing. They
said. Listen to their logic, as the banking industry warned, and a
brief to the justices, striking down the CFPB would mean striking down the agency
that writes the rules telling them how to comply with federal laws governing mortgages.
And without these rules in place, the entire US mortgage market could seize up.
How did we exist? How did the banks operate before twenty ten?
Well, we didn't have such a and now it's that concentrated banking industry run
by the few banks that are too big to fail and that have now used
this very agency to strangle their competition. They said, oh, we got
to have that. Of course they do. That's how they kill their smaller
competitors. What an absurd argument, so that it would seize up. Well,
you know what's effectively seized up right now is the housing market. Interest
rates have gotten so high and prices have continued to climb because there is a
shortage of housing and uh the uh, and people are afraid to because people
are afraid to renegotiate their loans. They've got their their they're locked into a
lower mortgage rate, so they don't want to put their house on the market
and take you know, they can't afford a new loan on a new house.
And so because of all that, the market is frozen up. It's
frozen up by the actions of the federal government were actually more effectively the actions
of the Reserve, which is not the federal government. But a decision against
the CFPB, they said, in other words, could usher in the kind
of economic ruin that has not been seen in the United States. Sin it's
a great depression, that's right, would have dogs and cats living together.
It would be the apocalypse, even the zombie apocalypse. No, it's Fox
that is unhinged here. So his argument, which is not a good argument,
was not where's your authority for this to exist in the first place.
This argument was, well, they were created with perpetual funding. And so
the judges, even Clarence Thomas, are scratching their heads and saying, well,
wait a minute, we got all these entitlement programs that are out there
that are created with perpetual funding. What is the difference between them, well,
but it's different. I'm not saying they're going to get rid of any
the welfare programs or Medicare, Medicaid, so security of that, you know,
this is but this is different because it's got perpetual funding and you know
somehow, And that's what none of them could get their head around, because
it's a nonsense argument. And he never made the case that, hey,
you know, we have the federal government doesn't possess any powers that have not
been expressly given to it. Where is the authority for them to do this
type of thing, because that would affect pretty much everything the government does,
including the welfare programs. But they want to try to carve that out somehow.
They can't make an intellectual argument for that. I think clearly when you
look at things like social security, people have been lied to all their life.
I remember about thirty years ago there was a poll. They asked people,
how many of you believe you're going to get your social security versus how
many people believe that there were UFOs and aliens and that type of thing.
And there are a lot more people believed in UFOs and aliens even thirty years
ago, and now that they're pushing that. That's got inter seeing the efforts
of the Biden administration against Social Security, they're actually the ones trying to strangle
it. But again, and you know, when you look at what the
government is doing, I think you need to transition out of these things that
people have been promised and planned around for their entire lifetime. There needs to
be a reasonable transition for these things. But you need to stop the programs
that are wrong. But more than that, it's just one agency after the
other that is strangling our economy, that's strangling our liberty and the constitution.
But they don't like the Constitution. No. For the longest time we've had
a difference of opinion, the majority opinion has been that the words don't really
mean anything. Right. This is the living constitution viewpoint. And then there
are the people who are originalists or textualists or whatever who say we have to
go with what the text actually says and in its original meaning, it means
what it says. And we understand what when we talk about a militia,
we understand that that was the yeomanry of people men sixteen to sixty and at
the time, and that was and if we understand that we understand the reasoning
behind it, but whether or not you understand what the militia is. Those
words shall not infringe the rights the right of the people. That kind of
is non negotiable, and it should be. And so the words mean something.
But then you have the people say, well, it's a living document,
and you know, I don't think that we need to be governed by
these things that are written down before. Well, if you don't do that,
then you have total chaos because now everything is subjective. There is no
objective standard. We have an objective standard. If you don't like what that
objective standard says, there's a process for changing and amending the constitution, but
you don't just get to write it away. But now they've got a third
way, because now we're getting so far removed from reality. They're talking about
crystal ball constitutionalism, if you will. And this is to make rulings,
and this is being pushed by Washington University Law Review. They call it judicial
moral prophecy. That's their claim. They're pushing this. They need to be
able to think about how these things are going to be perceived in the future.
And so these people not only see themselves as lawgivers, these judges.
Judges are never to be lawgivers, but they not only see themselves not only
as lawgivers, but as profits who can foresee the future and can take this.
You know, we've gone so far away from the original text and something
that is grounded an objective reality. This is kind of like the Furries version
of courts here, you know, with all the transgender stuffing of people dressing
up like furries. This is the equivalent of that courts should contemplate and heed
the moral judgments of coming generations. Total nonsense. But they say doing so
is not an arbitrary projection of personal fancy. It is, but they say
it's a corollaria of the shared practice of retrospective condemnation. Tenets of cultural morality
often achieve judicial recognition, and those truisms inevitably shape how courts perceive their interpretive
responsibilities. This is kind of academic yeah, pablem. That is the basis
of the chaos and confusion that we see in so many sectors of our society.
Despite the formalizing pressures of modern legal discourse, a counter trend has begun
to emerge, that of judicial moral prophecy. It's not even philosophy. You
shouldn't be injecting your philosophy into the law. But now they're going to inject
their prophecies into the law. Factors that will ultimately eclipse Logical precision can and
should inform conceptions of judicial duty in the pre isn't. In other words,
we want to move away from precision. We want to move away from logic.
We want to move away from objective truth. If originalism and textualism are
focused on, the text has written in the past, as the commentator on
this, and this is actually coming from a Second Amendment site bearing arms dot
com. If originalism and textualism are focused on the text is written in the
past and living in constitutionalism favors in the present vagaries and vicissitudes. Judicial moral
prophecy seeks to divine an unknowable, unpredictable future and turns the judiciary into psychics
and soothsayers. What has been running the mcguffins right with their models and their
projections. Oh, we see a pandemic is coming. It's coming. I
can just see it. I can see it in my computer models. We
don't have anybody that's died yet of me this stuff, but you know,
we need to lock down the country in March of twenty twenty, even though
nobody's died and we don't have anything that could even be called We don't have
a pretended body count in China or Italy or any place like that where they
said this is ore, he started. There was no body count that would
support an epidemic there, but a worldwide pandemic. They said they could just
see it. And so we had the psychics and the soothsayers. But you
know, instead of looking at goat and trails or you know, some kind
of Ouiji boards or tarot cards, they had computers and so that made it
all believable to idiots zombies, and the same thing has been going on for
decades with the climate stuff. Again, instead of goat and trails, they've
got computer models that are probably as worthless as maybe even more worthless, because
at least people can see through that scam. But you know, that's where
we are right now, that's where they are advocating for the judiciary to go.
Before we take a quick break here on rock Finn angry Tiger, thank
you for the tip, and thank you for the tip showing us what was
that little clip? He says, yes, David, is to marginalize all
of our information and group us together with the grifters. That's right, Yeah,
that is That's why the CIA does this stuff. That's why I call
it the EBS thing that happened. It was the extra bs as an excrement,
because it's that extra BS that they add to the truth that allows him
to discredit the truth. It allows him discredit the concerns about five G,
the concerns about the JAB, and all the rest of this on rock Finn
Spencer long, thank you for the tip, he said, David. Since
I didn't die in the apocalypse yesterday, consider this my October subscription. Thank
you. I saw a babelin b article a few days ago that Congress signed
up for Ukraine Plus like Disney Plus, for only forty billion dollars a month,
So I consider this subscription to be much much more affordable. Well,
yeah it is. We're gonna take a quick break and we'll be right back.
You're listening to the David Knight Show. Let's take a look at the
new hero of the left in the mainstream media in the Supreme Court, and
that is Justice Kavanaugh. This guy, if you remember, they vilified him
like a me too monster. Remember how they did that? And now he's
their new hero because this Trump appointee has done all everything that they love,
with the exception of the Dobbs decision that overturned Rob Wade. This is the
headline from the La Times. Justice Kavanaugh taps the brakes on the Supreme Court's
sharp move to the right. Now, he's always been a leftist, you
know, guy coming from the usual place. It seems like they get most
of their Supreme Court appointee from one Jesuit university, George Washington University. He's
always been a leftist. He is just like Roberts, and they actually point
that out, you know that he's even more of a swing vote. He
used to clerk for Kennedy, who became a pretty hardcore leftist as well.
He was. I think it was Reagan who put him in, if I
remember correctly. He's talking about it here. I had not looked that up,
but I think, you know, he had. They had expectations of
him being conservative for a libertarian, but he had unhinged from reality decisions and
unhinged from liberty decision totally unhinged from the Constitution and from liberty and Kavanaugh is
the same way. So he's now the new hero to the leftist establishment,
they said, Stotch, Conservatives of the LA time may have reason to worry
about Kevanaugh. We do. He voted most often with Roberts, and he
voted more often with the courts three liberal justices than he did with Thomas,
the most conservative. They said, Kevanaugh cast a deciding fifth vote to poll
the Biden administration's plan to require a COVID nineteen vaccine. That basically tells you
all you need to know about this guy. That is the dividing line.
If you can force somebody to inject an experimental thing into their body as a
condition of living their life, that's how does he come help? Could you
call anybody like that conservative or libertarian? And of course the new absurdity is
that Biden is now claiming that he didn't have any mandates. Yeah, well,
what a bunch of liars these people are. You know, just like
Fauci, I didn't tell nobody to do nothing. I didn't make nobody do
nothing. I made some you know, recommendations. You know, It's kind
of like when the mafia would show up at your small vegetable shop. In
Brooklyn. I'd suggest that you pay somebody for some protection. Oh, we've
never been robbed here, beating up. You know, this is old school
New York. No, you know, something could happen to you, you
know, like for me, protection from me. And that's what faut You
was selling. It was a protection racket, which government always is. But
it had some real clear blackmail involved there for the corporations. If they did
not run this stuff through, you know, there's going to be carrots and
sticks, financial carrots and sticks. And that's why I said, you know,
Trump was down with that. He had already said in twenty nineteen,
Hey, they got to get the shots. It's going around about measles and
that type of thing. We're not going to listen to any parents objections about
this. We don't care what any medical objections are about this. We don't
care about any religious objections. Don't care if this is a private religious school.
You're going to get that measles shot, said Trump. So it was
in these people just play this game. As I said before, this is
like the Nuremberg excuse, but upside down. You know, in Nuremberg people
said that's just following the autis there's autis from above. Well, these people
are saying I didn't give nobody, not what is any mandates? Well they
did, and you had a majority of the Supreme Court said they could.
And now even after that, even after went all the way to the court,
they argued that they could force people to get it, and Kavanaugh signed
on with those people. And now Biden says, we didn't order anybody,
you know, So what was that case about? What a bunch of liars?
And this was again, you know, the the financial extortion, blackmail
millions of workers in hospitals and nursing homes that had to get it or those
high hospitals would have their Medicare and Medicaid funds turned off. And so here's
the for varication at the heart of Kavanaugh's decision. Kavanaugh said, well,
the hospitals didn't object to this requirement, Yeah, because they're going to get
the money. They're being bribed for this or blackmailed for this. The rules
were challenged by sixteen Republican state attorney generals who did it on behalf of the
medical staff that were going to be used as guinea pigs. Kavanaugh didn't care.
The majority of the Supreme Court didn't care and a five to four decision,
and he was a swing vote on that. Four other conservatives, including
Trump, Gorsch, and Amy Coney Barrett. Trump appointed justices Neil Gorsich and
Amy Coney Barrett that would have been the other two would have been Clarence Thomas
and Alito dissent to and said that hospital workers should not be required to undergo
what Alito called an irreversible medical treatment quote unquote. And yet Roberts and Cavanaugh
joined with a quote unquote liberal branch. They are the liberal branch of the
Supreme Court. And I don't mean liberal in terms of being focused on liberty
or freedom, which is how they stole that term. I mean authoritarian anti
constitutionalists. Twice, Kavanaugh played a key role in upholding Biden's immigration policies against
lawsuits against lawsuits brought by Texas Republicans. As a matter of fact, remember
also going back to this, they don't mention it in the La Times thing,
but I think it was one of the key issues is that you had
Trump. Under Trump, the CDC said we're going to tell people that you
can't evict anybody because now we've done this novel approach of locking people. Never
before in the history of America or the world have we done this type of
thing. But we're going to do this now. And so now that we
locked everybody down and we told them that they can't work and we put them
on universal basic income, you can't throw people out of their homes and you
can't eject them for non payment of rent. Okay, you can't e victim.
And so that happened under Trump. It was extended multiple times under Trump.
Trump had no problem with that because he was pushing that universal basic income.
You'll have nothing and you'll be happy with what we give you. And
then it continued to be extended under Biden for quite some time. And so
he had several lawsuits. They said CDC doesn't have the authority to come in
and do something like that. That's a private contract. How in the world
can you imagine that the CDC has that kind of authority, And they were
winning court decision after court decision, and of course is a very clear issue
if you look at the law, and when it got to the Supreme Court,
you had Justices Kavanaugh and Roberts again making a five to four majority saying
no, they they don't have the authority. They don't have the authority,
but they promised that they're going to stop soon, by the end of the
month. So I'm not going to take that away from them. Well,
why wouldn't you. They're only going to do it for another month or so,
so we'll let them. And then on another month or so happened and
they didn't do it. The case came back up, and then Kavanaugh and
Roberts says, all right, you never had this authority. You said you're
going to stop it, and so we didn't want to clip your wings here,
you know, but now that you're continuing with this thing, we're going
to say you can't do it. That's the kind of judges that Roberts and
Kavanaugh are. I think they're more contemptible, quite frankly, than even the
three leftists. They're just so dishonest. They have the same values as a
leftists, but they lie to you about it. This is why I'm so
angry at Trump. I see a trader as being far worse than the enemy
soldier who flies his flag and wears his uniform. And these people are traders.
And Trump is a trader as well, because he does the same thing
stabs you in the back, pretends to be one thing when he's another thing.
As I've said many times, you treat prisoners of ward very differently than
you treat spies in your midst don't you. The immigration law that he's affords
a substantial discretion to the executive he said, and a five four ruling in
Biden versus Texas, and he says in different presidents may exercise it differently.
Well, I think that they treat different presidents very differently at the Supreme Court,
don't they. Because with Biden, they let him do whatever he wants
to do. With Obama, they let DACA go through. Obama's administration doesn't
have to enforce the law. They can declare they're not going to deport anybody,
they're going to defer action on childhood arrivals. And then when Trump comes
along, you know again he didn't want to do it. He kicked it
over to the Supreme Court because he clearly has the authority to overrule an Obama
administration executive order. He's now the executive but he kicked it to the Supreme
Court, and the Supreme Court said, no, you can't do anything about
that now. In this one when it comes up to Biden, the Supreme
Court says five to four, No, the President can do whatever he wants
to with immigration. It's not about the law, it's about whether they agree
with that policy or not. And so la times he may become the Supreme
Court swing vote. Yeah, lots of cheering in the mainstream media over this.
And we know already what has happened with him and also with the Supreme
Court when they talked about shutting down churches and lockdowns. Yeah, you can
shut down the churches, but you can't shut down the casinos. What and
so you had church that lost that court decision went to a casino and held
their church service in the casino to make up point. It's just insanity.
And so now the pronoun debate is likely to come up to the Supreme Court,
says Politico. So is the Supreme Court now going to tell us what
to say? Know, there's really more about whether or not other people are
going to be allowed to dictate what we can say. And it's really fundamentally
about parental rights. About parental rights, This article from Politico was once again
a pitch battle in America's culture wars is making its way to the US Supreme
Court in this round, which whether you're talking about marriage, you're talking about
when life begins, and all the rest of this stuff, these are not
issues for the Supreme Court in this round. The emerging question is whether public
school children have a right to choose names and pronouns affirming their gender, their
identity, or where their parents' rights to manage the upbringing of their children overrides
it. Well, you know, it's kind of inherent in the way we
always refer to them as public school children. You read that phrase there from
Politico, and most people just kind of skip through that and what does that
really mean? What they really mean by it, And they've been very explicit
about it and passed court decisions. Public school children are children that the parents
have abandoned to the state. And previous court decisions they said, once you
bring your child to the public school and drop them off at the steps,
you have abandoned your child to the care of the school, and we will
do whatever we wish to them. We will talk to them about any kind
of sex that we wish. You know, when that was first done,
that was an eight year old girl. The father did not want her to
be involved in in a sexual class where they were just explaining heterosexual sex.
But he thought she was too it was too early for her to have that
kind of detail, so he wanted her out of that class. They said
no, so he went in to take her out of the class. They
arrested him for trespassing. They said, you know, you drop your kid
off, you've abandoned them to the state, and we will operate in place
of the parents and local parentice and so all this stuff about printal rights.
People need to start understanding that in the view of the government, you have
surrendered your rights when you surrender your child. They belonged to the state at
least for that majority of the day. And the pronouns that we see here
don't really matter. The pronouns are just a proxy of who has power and
who will dominate and who will raise the children. Will they be raised by
the parents or by the public school. That's the real issue, and people,
even all of this fighting of the school boards and all the rest of
stuff is a distraction from that fundamental issue. Parents sued over these gender issues
here in Politico says they alleged that the defendants violated three different rights derived from
the Fourteenth Amendment one their fundamental parental rights to direct the education and upbringing of
their children. Two their fundamental right to direct medical and mental health decision making
for their children, and three their fundamental right to familial privacy and family integrity.
Okay, now, I don't know if that was in their brief saying
these rights were given to us by the fourteenth Amendment the Constitution, and the
government does not give us rights. If they give us rights, they're not
rights, they're privileges. Rights come based on our humanity. They are God
given and therefore inalien government is told in these amendments to respect those rights.
There should be a printal rights Amendment to the Constitution, not to grant those
rights, but to tell them that they need to respect those rights, just
like they need to respect our free speech and our ability to protect ourselves with
firearms and that type of thing. But all of that is true except for
the fact that it comes from the fourteenth Amendment. Politico says, none of
these rights are expressed expressly identified in the Constitution. They don't have to be
right. We have the ninth and tenth Amendment, which says, you know,
you don't have these powers federal government or any government. Unless this has
been given to you by the people, by the states, or whatever.
You cannot assume these powers and the idea that get to direct the upbringing of
their children, that they get to direct medical and mental health decision making,
and that the family is an important institution. This is not something that we
have to be told from the right or privilege that we have to be granted
by the government. The government needs to be told this in a very explicit
way. Leave these things along. The children do not belong to you.
This is all this that takes a village to raise a kid's stuff, all
this Melissa Harris Perry stuff from MSNBC. We've got to get over this idea
that the children belong to you. Well, you better understand where these people
are coming from and where Politico is coming from. They said, all these
rights stem from the same aspect of the Fourteenth Amendment that produced the original decision
in Roe v. Wade, that of substitive due process. That is total
bs. They're trying to tell you that Roe v. Wade gave us printal
rights. This is such a perversion and an inversion of the concept of rights.
It's a perversion and an inversion of what the Constitution is all about,
and what the Bill of Rights is all about, and what parenting is all
about. But that's where these people are coming from, and that's where they
stand, and they are going to stand on that and they're going to try
to enforce that. But I think it's very important to understand where these people
are coming from. On Rockfinn Duke Nukem, thank you very much for the
tip. He says, I enjoy your show, Missley, especially when we
talk about religion and God. Well, thank you. It's very divisive issue
certainly here we talk about religion and politics. Nothing controversial, right though I
generally abide with the notions of peace, faith and love for others. You
can see how the Bible is used as yet another tool used to fracture humanity
us versus them. The violence justified by biblical mandate throughout history makes me blush.
When you come off as an apologist for this, well, let me
be an apologist for that. And I'm not apologizing for any of it.
I'm just explaining it. That's what an apologist is. You know, when
you look at a situation, I think the one that comes up most often
is you know, as God tells the Israelites to go in and take the
land from the Cannites, he said, kill everybody, take the babies,
and bash their heads against the rocks. Completely eradicate that civilization. And we
should ask why that hasn't happened to us, and why God was saying to
do that to them. It was because if you go back and you look
at history and you look at the context of this and later on, you
see that in the Old Testament when he says stay away from these people.
Their culture is a disease, and it was a disease and it pulled the
people of Israel into it. And rather than multiplying and you know, taking
the land and that type of thing, instead what they did was intermarried with
this culture. They adopted it. You even had kings of Israel who were
pass seeing their children through the fire. It was a religious right they had.
That. The two big things that were you know that you see coming
back over and over again are these ashtroth polls, you know, the goddess
a Shira or astronot, you know, various variations of that. That was
a free sex celebration, right, big festival all around, free sects everybody
right, and then you would a few months later you would have this other
festival that would be where you could sacrifice your children to Molik for prosperity,
murder your child. Now we know from archaeological digs, we know that this
was rampant throughout the Canaanite area, Palestine area, and down into northern Africa,
the area that would later become Carthage. They had these big I think
it's called Pofits where they had massive graveyard of bones of children, and God
had you know that that is something that you know. They didn't need a
direct revelation from God. They didn't need law from Moses or anybody else to
tell them that they needed to. Everybody knows that, you know, there
is a natural law that everybody knows. You don't kill other people, you
don't steal stuff from them, but especially you know, you don't kill your
children. That is so incredibly unnatural. And so they were justified. God
was justified in terms of telling them to execute judgment. And over and over
again in the Bible we see tremendous hardship even on his own people Israel.
When they rebelled, he brought in other nations to judge them. Unbelievably harsh
things that happened with the Babylonians and the Assyrians, and even in many cases
God would come back to them with a prophet said, you know, well,
I pulled in these nations. I moved them to come against you as
a punishment. They did so much more. I'm going to punish them now
for their excesses. But we should look at the Bible and we should tremble
and what happened in Sodom and Gomoor and the judgment that they suffered. What
happened to the people in the Canaanites who were doing this child sacrifice, and
it continued on even after Israel went into that area and so forth during the
Roman Empire and Carthage, where you had Hannibal who was always fighting the Roman
Empire, and you had you know, he's the one who crossed the Alps
with the elephants and things like that, but he was a big threat to
them, and perhaps because of that, but I think it was because God
was moving them to judge Carthage, because Carthage was involved in these same child
ritual child sacrifices and these sexual orgy cult followed up by child sacrifice cult,
and they go hand in hand. And there was one Roman senator, I
think it was Kato, I can't remember Kato, the elder or younger anyway,
who ended every one of his speeches in the Roman Senate they'd say,
oh, and one more thing, Carthage must be destroyed, and they did
destroy it. God will execute judgment on people. So the question, when
we look at this and the harshness, the question should not be why were
these people judged harshly? The question should be why has he been so merciful
to us to delay this judgment? To us, it's God's mercy and long
suffering. He has shown us part this is justified punishment to these people.
He has shown that to us, that that is what will happen to us.
And yet he has, in his mercy, both shown us what is
right, shown us the consequences of what is wrong, and given us time
to do the right thing and turn towards him, both as individuals and as
a culture. It may be too late for our culture, it's not too
late for any of us as individuals. And all of this is those types
of concerns that people have for that are again the types of concerns that people
have, would God actually throws somebody in hell? He makes it very clear,
and if you believe the Bible, that's very clear. People reject that
because they don't like that that's what the Bible says. But the key is
that all of us have been given extended time. We've all been given an
offer of God's free grace and mercy and forgiveness and the offer of a new
beginning. And every day that we thumb our nose at it is another day
that we're building up, storing up wrath to come. Whether it's society or
whether it's us as individuals. But anyway, that's my perceptive the way I
see it. On Rock Fan, Dougalog, thank you very much for the
tip. On Rumble Rabid Roach, thank you for the tip, he says,
I was happy to suffer through a class with my worst high school group
because I knew i'd follow it up with David Knight. Well, thank you,
thank you. Here's another piece of history here. You still have Jack
Phillips, the guy who was the masterpiece of bakery. And if you remember,
you know this is a bakery. He says, Well, I got
pre made goods and I don't discriminate. I selled anybody who comes in here.
But if you come here and you tell me that you want a particular
cake to celebrate your homosexual marriage, then I'm not going to do it because
you're only doing that because you want to rub my nose in this. Because
you know I'm a Christian. He's playing Christian music, I think in the
bakery. I'm not sure about that, but I think I remember that.
But you know, you know that I'm a Christian. It's like going into
a Jewish deli and saying, you know, I want you to, you
know, spell out I love Hitler or whatever. You know. It just
that they were targeting his beliefs and telling him that he had to create that.
So he fought that in Colorado and as a Colorado state government that was
coming after him. The Colorado Supreme Court was also involved in it, but
it got overturned at the US Supreme Court. And on the day that it
was overturned in the US Supreme Court, you had one of the local Colorado
lawyers who was an LGBT radical came in and he was now a trainee,
and he said, I want you to make a cake to celebrate the anniversary
of my transition. I guess I'd be a transversary cake. So he demanded
that, and he says, no, I'm not going to do that,
and so that began a new round, and that began a new round of
the government in California and Colorado coming after him. And again it's the same
principle and they really don't care. And so now he's fighting them again for
years. And this is another case that is going to be heard by the
Supreme Court. Presumably, the state, even though it had just been slapped
down, launched an almost identical lawsuit against another Christian owner of a digital corporation,
three h three Creative, and that was also shut down by the Supreme
Court. But again, they're coming after this guy for the second time after
there's already been a Supreme Court ruling about him and about these practices specifically there.
I mean, it's no difference. It's kind of like this judge in
the Trump case I played yesterday and goes, well, okay, there's no
two identical cases. You know, maybe this guy was wearing a red shirt
on that day instead of a blue shirt. So I guess maybe that's the
difference in this was that when this guy came in and demanded that he do
that cake, maybe on that day he was wearing a green shirt instead of
a red one or something. No, the principal still the saying is still
the same. And so they're trying to get the Supreme Court without having to
go through all the legal process to shut this down. Tell the Colorado State
persecutors to just stop this because this is something that should affect everybody. Whether
or not you agree with this. You should not be compelled to do things
that violate your religious beliefs. That was what Thomas Jefferson said. You know,
the thing that he was most proud of was not the Declaration of Independence,
but his Document for Religious Liberty in the State of Virginia. That's what
he wanted to be recognized for. He said, is that it is abhorrent
to compel people to pay for and to engage in beliefs and to do things
that they don't agree with. So this is a fundamental violation of that for
everybody. And I used to, as I said, he used to go
to Colonial Williamsburg all the time. There's a guy that who was very good
is Thomas Jefferson. He's no longer there now looked him up the other day
he is now at Monticello, and as an older Jefferson, because he's quite
a bit older now. But it was back in the nineties when he was
doing Jefferson and he would be brought down to Raleigh, close to where we
lived, and there would be think tanks that would have invite him in,
and so I would go there I and I engaged him in those meetings,
and I engaged in at Williamsburg. I'm sure that he was tired of hearing
the question, but you know, I said, well, you know,
you said that it was wrong to compel somebody to fund a religion that they
didn't believe him. That's what establishment of religion really is. You know,
they would require people all these different states had different state religions, and the
First Amendment came up because they didn't want there to be an established federal state
religion and that would be imposed on everybody else because you know, in Rhode
Island it was a Baptist, In Maryland, it was the Catholics, and
it was kind of the Congregationalists in most of New England and things like that,
and so they didn't want to give up their state churches. They're established
state churches, and those established state churches would in many cases require you to
attend that church. But in other cases they said, well, you don't
have to attend it, but he's still got to pay for it, still
got to pay for it. And so I would tell the guy who is
a Jefferson and actor, I said, so, I agree with that principle,
but you know, education is very fundamentally about religion. So isn't it
wrong to compel people to continue to fund beliefs that are abhorrant to you,
even if you're you and your children are not compelled to attend. It is
abhorrent to me to fund this gender grooming that is going on, this Marxism,
this hatred for our country, this abuse of children, that is abhorrent
to me. To fund that, it violates everything in my conscience, you
know, my idea of government, my idea civility of the family, of
the constitution, violates my religion. To fund that. But anyway, that's
where we are. So and we had this discussion. I remember when it
was going on and Gary Johnson was running for president as a Libertarian, and
he made the ridiculous analogy he said, yes, you know, this guy,
Phillips should be forced to make this cake. Now, what has happened
to the Libertarian Party? If they're going to make this, they're going to
have this guy be their candidate who makes this argument. And the absurdity of
what he had to say was he said, well, you just think about
this. Think about if an electric company could turn off your electricity because you're
gay and they don't like that. It's like, this is not at all.
Do you realize you're talking about electric utilities. You're talking about a company
that's been given a monopoly. This guy does not have a monopoly of bakeries.
There's any number of bakeries that they could have gone to. They chose
to go to him because they wanted to up his nose in the cake.
I said, a better analogy would be to look at the censorship that's being
done on social media, which is a de facto monopoly of the public square,
or a doopoly or oligarchy, if you will. You have a few
companies that are enforcing this stuff. Even before we had all the receipts to
show that it was coming from government, we knew it was coming from government.
But I said, if you want an analogy, Gary Johnson, then
the analogy would be the phone company when the phone company was mob Bell and
or AT and T or whatever, and they had a monopoly on the phones,
and you got you know, the operator, you know, one ring
eating from what was her name? Any of you wouldn't know. It was
very old. But she's listening in on the phone and she doesn't like what
you say. She doesn't like you, so the monopoly phone company turns off
your phone service. I said, that's the analogy. Want to bring an
anopoly thing in there to it. It's not an individual small baker who is
being who's being targeted. But this latest lawsuit about the transiversary cake was this
lawyer came back who had been fighting him, you know and opposing him publicly,
came in on the day that he woned the Supreme Court and said,
I'm starting a new case against you if you won't make my transiversary cake.
So that is where we are, and that is something that should affect everybody.
No Americans should be compelled to express or to do what they don't believe.
And of course it's surprising that the Supreme Court got that right because they
were standing behind the fact that people could be compelled to do what they don't
believe when it comes to the public health and the jabs and all the rest
of this stuff. We'll be right back making sense. Comment again, you're
listening to the David Knight Show. Yeah, follow up comment. Thank you,
rabid roache. She says, Uh, bake a cake to celebrate the
fact that I chopped off my genitals and set myself up for a life of
misery. You big it? Yeah, that's un it is. It is
a sad situation, and uh it just the saddest thing about it. I
mean, you know, we see a lot of adults who regret this.
And I remember when all this stuff began, we didn't hear anything about this,
and till about fifteen, twenty, fifteen, sixteen or whatever. Back
in twenty fourteen, Michael Finn was taking the lead with that with an adult
Navy seal who had done that, and he really regrets it, and he
says, you know, I was set up by these people. And he
says, if I can be set up as an adult, we need to
protect these kids. And we've heard this over and over again from adults who
were set up for this stuff. How easy is it to groom children.
It's just reprehensible what is being done. What is being done by the medical
community and the psychological community, a psychologist, these people have been sources of
misery and suffering for so many people in so many different ways, and now
they're focused like a laser beam on the kids. That's what's so reprehensible about
it. Anyway, this while we're waiting for Tony to come on. This
is a short story, and it is one of the funniest things I think
I've seen quite some time. Sam bankman Fried, and there has been a
very detailed biography that has come out just recently by the guy who wrote the
book about the Big Short, very good book about the Big Shorts. I
don't know about SBF, but this detail. He evidently has a dog that
is trained to kill, but who doesn't. But Sam bankman Fried doesn't know
the activation word. He's like lost the password for the dog. It's like
all these stories about Joe Biden. You know, We're getting this constant stream
of people that the dog has attacked as Secret Service agents and now has attacked
somebody who is just there in the garden. But I guess it's he's the
family dog, but in this particular one, this story is that and again
the book Is Going Infinite by Michael lewis filled with strange anecdotes about this so
called crypto hero or maybe he's a heel, or maybe he's an inside plant
to discredit crypto in general. At the end of the book, the writer
includes what may be an allegory for the entire debacle and aside about his parents
getting a German shepherd that is trained to kill if it hears a German language
command that they learned but that their son failed to memorize. He doesn't know
the password for his dog. He better not have any German friends, I
guess I gotta say that. So when Sam was in a room with a
dog, it always felt as if an accident was waiting to happen. He
wrote, it would have been very Sam Bankman fried to have been eaten by
his own guard dog. Well, the whole story sounds like a potential metaphor.
The existence of a canine killer named Sandor was well documented at the beginning
of twenty twenty three, when the bankman Friedes welcomed the pup into their Palo
Alto home while their son was on house arrest. As Forbes reported at the
time, Sandor was indeed trained to attack with a secret word quote unquote and
puck. The publication The UK revealed that SBF's parents got the dog for him
as an unsolicited gift. Maybe they've got a death wish for their son up
for his reckoning. He had just shown up one day, so you know
when when you look at this and then we'll get back to SBF later in
the show. Probably, But isn't that the most amazing thing. You got
to attack dog trained to kill. But this dufist doesn't bother to learn the
pass where the kill word, setting himself up for this stuff. So we're
gonna take a quick break and we're going to be right back with Tony or
armand stay with us, hm hm Joy listening to the David Night Show.
All right, welcome back and joining us now? Is Tony Ardiman Why Wolf
Gold? Of course he's kindly set up David Knight dot gold to direct you
there and to let him know that you're coming from this program. Good to
have you, Tony, Welcome, good to see you, David. Thanks
for having me. I think SPF's dog. Maybe the password is audit perhaps
he lost he lost the keys to his own dog, like people lose their
keys to their bitcoin wall, you know, isn't that funny? That is
the how many people we seen lost the keys to something that is worth millions
of dollars and they can't find it anywhere, or they threw away the disk
drive that had all the stuff, you know, that that type of thing.
And of course this is a real world consequence. Audit sounds kind of
German, doesn't it. Or maybe it's just the association with the I R
S and uh, these these neo Nazis or whatever that that's a double N
word. I guess, the neo Nazis. But I guess that's why I
associate it with something German. I don't know, but yeah, tell us
what what is on your mind? You as we were talking in the break,
you said there's a lot of banks that have been put on a death
watch. Tell us a little bit about that. Yeah. I was looking
at a tweet from Robert Kiyosaki from back on the first of October and I
wanted to read it. I was not to retweet it on the wisewolf Gold
Twitter account, but I was going over this morning. It says the FDIC
has over seven hundred and twenty five US banks on a death watch list.
Says, what does that mean? It means America does not need enemies.
America has bankers, our criminal bankers, start with Jerome Powell, the Fed,
Janet Yelling of the Treasury, and Jamie demon of our banks. God
help us. USA does not need criminals. We hire them as our bankers.
So said Robert Kiyosaki on his Twitter account. Well that's so true.
This is I think the biggest story of our time, David, is going
to be the collapse of this financial system, this fake financial system that really
has accelerated since nineteen seventy one, since Richard Nixon took us off the gold
standard. And I wanted to talk with you a little bit today about you
know, you opened up you're talking about Sam Bankman Fry. But the crypto.
There's been so much movement there and so many things going on with bitcoin
and crypto, and it's global. We see Bank of America has launched its
own crypto. We've talked about CBDC. All of that. The private sector
and the decentralized market is a response to the collapsing FIAT system. This is
all going on at the same time, and I mean we're watching gold,
watching central banks buying gold at record pace. Shift Gold put out an article
today on zero Hedge. So there's there's so much happening all at once,
you know, and the powers that be are trying to capture that momentum by
creating CBDC. I honestly, David, I'm watching this and I'm just I'm
wondering if they can. I wonder if it's gotten out of the control at
this point. Yeah, yeah, who knows. It is amazing how many
different times I have seen these articles that we've talked about this, you know,
before you and I about Costco selling gold and being sold out everything.
You know, this is not about central banks collecting gold anymore. This is
about the public starting to realize what's going on here. And they've got a
new inflation floor, they're saying them. This is a Mark Spiegel of Standfull
Capital says, the new inflation floor is going to be three to four percent.
They're not even trying to get back to the magic standard has always been,
let's get inflation down to two percent. You know, they want to
inflate. They want to have inflation but they don't want it to be any
higher than two percent. Now they've just doubled that goal, which tells you
that there's something else going on. And of course you're seeing people going through
Costco and other places showing snapshots that they took a few months ago or a
year ago of what prices are and how things are not up just a few
percent, there may be a double or triple what they were. Well,
the the UN put out a notice asking governments to stop the two percent goal
of inflation because it's hurting the economies by not being more inflationary. And wait
a minute, I thought this was supposed to be transitory. I thought that's
what Jerome Palle said. This was all transitory, and Janet Yellen's used that
word transitory, that this wasn't going to be an issue after they printed eighty
percent of all the dollars that ever created. Everything about the financial markets worldwide
is FIAT. It's fake, it's built into the system, and it's unsustainable.
I mean, we're talking about trillions upon trillions upon trillions. None of
this is going to be able to be reeled in. And as we start
to see in the market in the US, it's schizophrenic. As we talked
about every week on your show, we're watching the price of gold go down.
At the same time, it's a lot of the traders are saying,
well, we're fearful of the future. Why aren't you buying gold? But
they're saying, well, it's because the Fed has raised rates, and of
course they have raised rates faster than any time in history. We don't have
interest rates to the teams yet, but they're believing that. And that's why
I think you're seeing the numbers in precious metals. They're believing in the supremacist
of king dollar. I think that's very short sighted. I don't think they
understand what has happened to the system itself is in decline, and I think
that's what we're watching here. Yeah, you know, it's We went back
and rewatched recently The Big Short and it was that same author who was doing
the biography of SBF and the common thing. As I was looking at it
at this time, I was thinking, you know, they came up with
these financial derivatives that they had securitized mortgages and everything. We just mix it
all together, put it in a blender, and you know, you get
this whole slush slush fund thing essentially. But you know, they've always got
a different angle and everybody always thinks that it's something that is different, and
yet there is a fundamental similarity there. You know, tistory doesn't repeat itself,
but it rhymes, and this financial history rhymes. They come up with
these new schemes that are out there, but the fundamental thing is you got
to look at it these is this real or not? And you've got to
get back to what is real. And that was the thing about the two
characters, the central characters in his book. There's a couple of them that
saw that, you know, this whole securitized mortgage thing was going to go
really bad and that it was not real at all, and they saw that
this was, you know, whatever you make the financial instrument. The thing
that remains is that it is some way for them to remove you from reality.
And you've got to get back to something that is sound and that is
real. And I think there's nothing that's more sound and more real than physical
gold. That's the key thing. And you know you can't when you try
to evaluate all these different games and tricks that they play, They're always going
to have a different game and different tricks, but again your question always has
to be is this something that is solid and is it real? Yeah,
the term hard money it comes from the actual hardness of the asset and how
hard it is to produce. Every time when you talk about the subprime mortgage
market or just credit itself after nineteen seventy one, every time that you create
a loan, when you create a mortgage, that's new currency that's being created
into the system. So if you have this bonanza, this this market that's
looking at something like the mid two thousands where they're you have low interest rates
and the government is creating the environment to say no, you have to write
these loans, and you can. You can get the ninja loans, the
no income, no job loans, and just again, over and over,
these subtrimes built into this giant bubble that is built to crash. Whereas something
that is backed by gold, you have a currency system that has to have
checks and balances. That's where you can have a safe environment. There's a
there's an economy that you can build something on, you can have savings.
All of that's been taken away from us. So we're in this free fall
where you know, the rich get richer and the poor get poor because of
that system. That's why the elites built the Federal Reserve, and it's the
money supply is the issue. You go back to nineteen thirteen, you have
a dollar as good as gold. You know, again, a twenty dollars
gold piece is roughly an ounce of gold. By nineteen thirty three, because
the Federal Reserve had taken control of the money supply, which is really the
banksters, they took control of it, they crashed the system. You know,
they had people were borrowing funds, they had liquidity to borrow against stocks,
and then margin call happened, so you know, you have the Great
Depression, and FDR made it illegal for you to own gold so they could
get the gold out of the hands of the American people. He said,
turn your gold in, and people did, and all of that gold David
went to the Bank of International Settlements. And once those twenty dollars goal pieces
were turned into all those gold coins, Franklin Roosevelt raised the price of gold
to thirty five dollars an ounce. So they got the gold, and they
got the higher prices, and they were able to offset whatever their losses were
that they caused and the Great Depression. So it's an end. It's a
club, and you ain't in it. You're not going to win this game.
So you got to look and see what the elites do and what the
banksters do, and not what they say they want you in their fiat system.
And I was reading an article yesterday and I didn't even know this,
just a little bit of history, but it was on zero Hedge by the
International Man and they were talking about in the nineteenth century, aluminum was very
sought after. It's very rare, it doesn't occur naturally that often, and
now we just think of it's ubiquitous. It's like twenty cents a pound or
whatever it is, because we have the ability through chemistry to make it in
mass. But back then, I mean, Napoleon had his utensils that when
you go to his parties, people the poor staff ate off the gold and
the silver, and the rich had the aluminum, which is funny to us
now, but it was so much more expensive, and by the Industrial Revolution
it just the price crater. But people were getting their hands on aluminum.
And so what the article was saying was if something is rare, something cannot
be reproduced easily, it becomes an asset. And again it's another example of
hard asset. Well, gold has stayed steady. I mean, we see
what's happened to illuminum, Gold and silver have states that he especially gold.
You know, silver I think is manipulated beyond the point where I can even
explain it. And we talked about this many times, where you know,
even the paper price. You look and it's estimated that for every ounce of
silver that they sell in paper, you know, two hundred and forty times
one ounce exists in the real world. We don't really know what they're doing,
but I look at these these prices right now are just absolutely ridiculous,
and I think it has to do with that's the schizophrenia in the financial system,
and we really haven't reached a point where reality is rearing its ugly head.
But I think that that day is coming. You know, look at
this tweet by Robert Kiyosaki. You mean the damage done and again inside job
controlled demolition FTX, silver Gate Bank, Silicon Valley Bank, and all the
regional pressure that was put on We're watching David. I think the auditioning of
the major banks to roll out the Central Bank digital currency. It's going to
come after a crisis. So oh yeah, well, I mean the long
way of saying, you need to look at what value is that in the
future, not your dollar, And that's true. And you know they're they're
how come you've got so many banks that are on the death watch list?
Now, Well, it's because they manipulated them with what with their bonds and
their treasury bonds and anything, rapidly changing the rates on these things to you
know, make those bonds worthless, and they couldn't adjust their position quickly enough.
So you know, now people are saying, hey, you bonds are
really good investments. Like seriously, it was only just a few months ago
that we saw that as the weapon to destroy these banks. You know,
when you've got something that it's like a manufactured collectible or something, you know,
yeah, everybody go get the beanie babies because their value is only going
to go up. And it's like, you're kidding me, right, They're
just making this stuff up all the time, and it's not anything that's going
to have any lasting value. We see seven hundred and twenty five of them
on the watch list, and you know, as I mentioned earlier in this
court, case that went before the Supreme Court about the Consumer Protection financial Consumer
Protection and Financial Board or whatever that was put in place supposedly to protect consumers
and put in a lot of new rules about what banks could how they could
do mortgages, right, and that was what was driving these banks out of
business at the rate of a couple hundred a year. And drudge doesn't import
on that again, you know, but again that was a couple hundred a
year, and now we're looking at seven hundred and twenty five based on the
actions of the Federal Reserve and their rate manipulation in just this last year.
And the ridiculous commentary from mainstream media was it was Vox who said, oh,
yeah, we don't want to get rid of the consumer financial Consumer Protection
Financial Board, and all the banking industry is telling us they don't want to
get rid of it because those are the guys, the big guys who profited
from these rules. They made it impossible for small and medium sized banks to
do home loans anymore, and that put a lot of them out of business,
and they want to keep that thing going. But that's the insider game.
And when we talk about out silver and the paper silver and paper gold.
I mean that that is essentially the same game that they were playing with
secure highed mortgages. You know, what do you really have here? Well,
do you really have a do you really have a valuable mortgage here?
Is there anything of any value here? No, we just put this all
together and then you can buy shares in it. And that's what they're doing
with the silver and goal, and they're doing it in Shanghai, China.
You want to get you you want to get yourself shanghaied, you know,
buy into the paper gold and the paper silver shares. It's easy to buy
into them. You know, you just go on to into the stock market
and they'll sell you this stuff. But does it have any real value?
I don't think it does. I think that there's another scam, just like
the securitized mortgages. It's funny when history when governments pick up on that before
long before the people do. And you look at what happened in the nineteen
sixties after the assassination and murder of John F. Kennedy by the deep state.
We took the silver out of our coin. It's something JFK didn't want
to do. He actually signed an executive order on silver and had you know,
printed five dollars bills and notes direct from the treasury, the only president
since Lincoln to do that. Well, you look at the debasement of the
currency. It happened post nineteen sixty four. The governments around the world started
to take notice because we were technically on a gold standard. We you know,
had the Breton Woods Agreement nineteen forty four. Gold was thirty five dollars
announce and these countries would come over and take their notes that they collected US
dollars and get a go to the gold window. Well, after we started
debasing the currency, countries took notice. As matter of fact, the president
of France, the Gaul, he sent warships over from France to pick up
his gold and again I think they started to understand that. So there's a
there's a hint here that you know, when you start debasing things, and
especially since we've done this with the massive amount of printing historical that's you know,
we don't these numbers, you can't even fathom them that we delved into
post twenty twenty. And that's why I think this everything that's based off dollars
right now is really a skew and it doesn't make any sense. And this
may be a time when they're accumulating. You really just don't know. But
these numbers aren't reflecting reality. I mean, the price of goal broke.
It's all time high in August of twenty twenty, David, as you know,
and what's happened since then. We've had a massive debasement of our currency
since then, and even the amount of dollars used in financial transactions has dropped
close to fifteen percent globally since that time. I mean, again, unprecedented.
So I don't think I don't think the financial eleads and the mainstream media
they're never going to talk about this until it's too late. And from what
I'm seeing, these stress tests and other things. You have talked about the
banks going out of business and were talking about bonds and other things. The
countries that are dumping us rapidly, and it's happening even going into gold or
going to the Chinese. You want, this is historic and it's happening rapidly.
Oh yeah, And you know in an article where they're talking about how
the use of the Euro has really collapsed in the last nine months, again
because of this Ukraine stuff. Their economy is on the ropes. And they
point out that the share of transactions in the euro has dropped from thirty eight
percent in January to twenty three percent at the end of August. And they
said, what is unusual about all this is the fact that it hasn't happened
to the US yet. That is right now is just in the Eurozone economy.
But you know, they continue to be able to suspend reality with their
manipulations. And the question is, you know, how long can they play
this con game. That's another thing I noticed from the Big short you know,
these guys are going around and saying, you know, look, this
is what's being done, and this is totally criminal and there's absolutely no value
here. And they're going to the regulators, and they're going to the people
who do the rating of the bonds and the ratings of the investments and stuff
like that, and they said, yeah, okay, well, so what
I'm not going to do anything about it. And this one character is like,
I just can't believe that the system is this corrupt. I mean,
he just could not get his head around the fact that these people are knowingly
doing this. But you know, that's where we are right now. There's
many of us who understand that, and that's really what is happening. But
in spite of all that, there's a zero hydraunical talking about how gold is
held up extremely well in September, even against rising real rates, even as
the home mortgages are starting to go up to eight percent and everybody is to,
oh, now you need to get into bonds and things like that.
No, actually, gold is holding its own yeah, and it always will.
I mean again, there's the charts. If you look at the actual
supply of gold, I mean right now, you know the annual supply is
not well, it's not in flux. There's not a lot of volume based
off of what's happened in history. Most of the gold right now has already
been mined, and then it's come from the centuries and centuries of mining.
So this isn't something that you can't just go and create a new stock of
gold. They're not going to hit some mother load anymore. This is not
going to happen. This is any new exploration, any new mining is very
well crafted, very well planned. It takes years, it takes lots of
work, so you just can't create it out of thin air. And again
that's why governments are accumulating it. Well. And as we look at you
know, this this mess in the Civil War and the House GOP and I
I was looking at that, somebody came up with about ten or twelve possible
candidates. You know, you've already had Jim Jordan throw his hat in the
ring, then Steve Scalise officially. There's other people they think may run,
like the house whipped Tom Emmer. I thought, well, that'd be interesting.
I don't know anything about most of these guys. I learned yesterday that
McHenry who is you know, the secret speaker pro tem You know, they
don't tell people who it is until the speaker's taken away for some reason.
Then that's like, you know, well, let's open up the sealed letter
and find out who the replacement is. So the temporary replacement mckenry, somebody
who's been involved with the World Economic Form speaking there many times, just like
McCarthy as well. But when you look at Emmer, I don't know his
background except for the fact that he has for several years running it has been
a big issue for him to oppose this CBDC thing and to me, you
know, when we talk about all the different things happening and the economic uncertainty,
inflation rearing its head, and all the rest of this stuff, and
getting something that is real physical money, to me, it still goes back
to the CBDC thing. One of the reasons why I don't think that emer
would get it because I think the powers it be would want to keep somebody
away from the House Speakership who is that that's strongly in opposition to CBDC,
because that is a big push for both Trump and for Biden and for the
establishment to get that through. But I think that is the key thing,
is what is going to happen with the CBDC. That's always what I look
at in terms of the gold stuff. Yeah, and it's going to be
interesting because economic pressure is really where the rubber meets the road in politics goes
back to the economy. Stupid, you know, but that's really what it
comes down to it. Right now, we're still floating. There's a lot
of I mean psychological but the economy, despite what Robert Reich and Paul Krugman
say, the economy is not doing well. I know that because I have
almost inverted my business where I'm buying more instead of selling. And that's fine
because we're here, that's what we do. We're a professional gold and silver
exchange. But I can tell people are raising money, and I know people
and you know that are experiencing harder economic conditions and having a harder time getting
liquidity. And some sectors are really hurting, especially lending. So it's it's
not good. And you look at what happened when when you have a financial
system that's on the ropes like ours, and when we reach some sort of
calamity, candidates like Robert F. Kennedy Junior are going to be a lot
more attractive. And he's talked about, uh, the ability to hold bitcoin
being being sovereign and having your own keys and your own wallet. That's good
and I think people are going to start turning turning to golden We look at
you talked about the costco story and you can't find gold there. Well,
you can get gold from men. You can lock in the trade. You
can go for me anytime if if the trading floor is open, I'll lock
it in for you. But people, I think again, this is this
is the beginning of the end of the end, result of what's called Gresham's
law. And Gresham's law is when bad money enters a system, good money
goes into a hot into hiding, and that goes into hiding until this system
is complete, when it runs out of everything. It's you know again,
Richard Nixon took us off the gold standard seventy one. You got to know
this history, because that's when our money became completely fake, and then other
countries all over the world started to follow. So it's a complete worldwide financial
fake system. And they just print it's Kynesian, you know. And I
think even Nixon said we're all Canesians. Now, well, good luck with
that, you know. John Mayner Kaine said that gold was a barbarous relic.
Well, okay, then I guess I guess. I guess I'm a
barbarian because I like value and I don't want to take part in your fake
fiance system which has created so much evil around the world. So I think
this people need to understand there's going to be a shift in our perception of
what value is, and especially even the average consumer. If you're selling out
of gold at costco, that's a tell. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
I think kines in economics is a cane that people are going to lean on
that's going to pierce their hand. You know, it's kind of and as
you're talking about, you know, the Gresham's law as a system runs through
its completion now the words you go through a cycle whereverybody realizes what a minute
this is, Uh, this is garbage. And we're in that right now.
That's what the fourth turning is really about. People realizing that, hey,
you know, Congress doesn't work. Even the congressmen in Congress understand Congress
doesn't work. Uh, the federal government doesn't work. None of these institutions
work. The schools don't work. They're weaponized against us. And and and
you know when people look at the financial system, they see how it's not
working and how it is also weaponized against us. That is all part of
a fourth turning. Fourth turning. Key thing in all of them has been
economics. They don't you don't always have a war, but you always do
have massive economic unrest because of these institutionals, institutional things that are failing.
Tell us a bit about what's going on at Wisewolf and you know, how
are you doing personally there? And with a store that's opened up now in
Texas physical presence there as well as in Arkansas. But you know, tell
us at a bit about Wisewolf, what's going on. Well, this morning,
I'm in Branson, Missouri, and I'm here at this shop for the
next week or so. I've got a great team up here, and we
got Dennis and Texas running it. It's doing well, which is kind of
one customer at a time, and it's proximity to the trading floor. And
we did that on purpose to create a supply chain. Really, David,
I mean, I think that's all goal dealers will be defined by their ability
to source product in the future. So that's what I'm doing here. And
we have for your listeners if you're listening live. We haven't announced it yet,
but I did a big silver buy in for ninety percent, So all
those coins I was talking about pre pre John F. Kennedy nineteen sixty four
or nineteen sixty three and before ninety percent quarters half dollars, and we have
some ten ouns silver bars and about I think about forty thousand dollars worth.
So we're going to be putting that on a flash sale for all wolf Pack
members and that's going to go out probably a little bit later today. I've
had it for a couple of days. Well, we're giving away Constitutional Silver
or anybody who joins wolf Pack or upgrades and wolf Packet, if they're a
David Night listener, you can go and just make sure you give David Knight
credit and we'll put your name aside and that's going to we're going to send
you free Constitutional Silver, or if you recommend somebody to join. That's to
me. Wolf Pack has been put out front because the it's the community I
want to build and the network, the purchasing power, all that I'm able
to do buy ins it. It's just a good, good way to save.
It's a good way to stack in kind of the face of dollar cost
averaging and the loss of purchase power of the dollar. So whether gold's up
or down, you can just kind of set it and we'll let us go
out and source your product for you. So go to David Knight dot gold
and check out the tab that says join Wolfpack. We have a lot going
on there, and like I said, there's a flash sale going on today.
If you want to go ahead and email us or go to Davidnight dot
gold and just let us. Know you come from here. We haven't put
it out anywhere, so this is the first time anybody's really hearing about it.
I had a David Night listener call me yesterday and I actually sold him
some I said, well you get to you get the first crack at it
because I have it sitting over here on the shelf. So lots going on.
We definitely want to make gold and silver affordable. Uh, and that's
why we developed wolf Pack. So every call is important to us. Doesn't
matter how much you have, So go to David Knight dot Gold. We
want you to be a part of our of our pack. Well, that's
a great thing. You know that you set this up to help people be
able to exchange information with each other and and learn as well as you know
the flash sales like you're talking about, and then provide for you a main
to save on a regular basis. You know, that's the key thing for
any kind of an investment program, just doing it gradually and repetitively, and
that really does accumulate. And so all those things are just indicative I think
of the way that you view the business, Tony. You do a great
job of service for people, and Tony I've known him for years, a
great, great guy, trustworthy and all of that is very important. But
you know, it's we're now starting to see that shift there. That's why
you're seeing the talk about. You know, people can't find this stuff at
retail, but Tony's got access to the stuff there at the trading floor and
you know he'll eventually he can lock in that price and eventually get that for
you. And that's the key thing. So thank you so much for joining
us Tony again. Wisewolf Gold and you can find it at David Knight dot
Gold. We'll take you there and let Tony know that we sent you.
Thank you so much, Tony, Thank you, Dave appreciate it. Have
a good day. Okay, folks, you gotta take quick break and we're
going to join We're going to have Guy Ralford join us, the gun guy.
It's got some very important information about a self defense issue. He has
a Second Amendment attorney there, and I think you're going to find this very
interesting. Stay with us, will be right back in a world of deceit,
telling the truth is a revolutionary act. You're listening to the David Knight
Show, Yeah, you bet all right. Joining us. Now is Guy
Ralford, and we've had him on several times. That guy is an attorney
as well as an NRA firearms instructor and other things like that, but he
focuses on a second amendment his practices in Indiana, and there's a couple of
very interesting cases that he was directly involved in, as well as a law
in Indiana that helps to clarify what our rights are when we have to use
deadly force and self defense. And so we want to talk about those two
cases with him. Thank you for joining us, Guy. Oh, it's
always a pleasure, David. Let's talk about this is a couple of different
cases. Christy Phillips was one that you got involved in, and tell us
a little bit about the facts of that case and then how that got you
to get involved in changing the law. And then now you've had another second
case and you've seen how important it is that that law was changed. But
first tell us bit about Christy Phillips and what happened in that particular case.
You bet Kisty is a very heroic young lady who lives down in southern Indiana
in a very small town called Rising Sun, Indiana. And here about four
years ago, she was involved in a situation where there was a traffic stop
right in front of her house, and it being a very small town,
the officer who had pulled over this guy for suspicious activity in the neighborhood.
That officer's son was actually at Kisty's house because he knew Kisty's daughter, and
so they're watching it basically as this kid's dad and their fellow community member.
This police officer had pulled this person over. A person turned out to be
on drugs, on methamphetamine as well as other illegal drugs. He immediately got
out of the vehicle. He's screaming profanity. He's screaming undecipherable gibberish. The
officer tells him to get tells him to get back in his vehicle. He
doesn't. He ends up running up on the officer, tackles the officer and
is trying to get the officer's gun. The person who was a former high
school wrestler, pretty stocky guy, and he's winning the fight and and the
officer's losing control of his firearm. There's they're still wrestling over it to some
degree, but but Kissy realizes this is about to turn very bad very quickly,
she grabs her gun. She runs out to the front of her house,
and she's yelling, get off him, get off him, stop.
Stop. That guy doesn't stop. The gun's literally seconds or milliseconds away from
being aimed at the police officer's head, and she shot the bad guy and
uh and ended the threat and that person ended up dying. But the that
officer actually later on told me, uh, he said, he said,
you know, when I heard that gun shot, I really thought it was
me dying, and I was and I was saying a prayer that I just
hope my son didn't didn't watch me get killed. But in fact, that
the gunshot was Kissedy, uh, which is like Christie without the R.
It always sounds like people are mispronouncing it. Yeah, I see that really
quickly. Yeah. Well it's not as weird as guy, but it's a
little bit of an unusual name. But but at any rate, Uh.
The local prosecutor's office called your hero. The local police officers called your hero.
This particular officer definitely called her a hero, saying that she clearly saved
his life, but just shy of Two years later, just before the statute
limitations would run, she get sued for millions and millions of dollars by the
family of the deceased bad guy, uh, saying that she was just a
hysterical female who had overreacted and and and there was never a reason to use
deadly force. Uh and this was wrongful death. And she now owes the
family mill Wow, did they not have a Was there a police officer's body
camera or and our camera in the police car that requires Yeah, there was
no video. There was no video of the event. But everybody there,
everyone who witnessed it, including the officer, told the same story. I
mean, there was really no ambiguity about what happened. But because this was
something that happened literally in her front yard, her homeowner's insurance was implicated.
And what's really interesting about homeowners insurance in this situation is there's an exclusion for
intentional acts, like if I intentionally hurt somebody on my property. But there's
an exception to the exclusion, which is if I acted lawful and justified self
defense or defense of a third person. So her insurance company center a letter
and said, well, we're going to defend you, but one we have
the right to settle if we want and two, if it turns out you
were not justified, you have no coverage as against any verdict that might be
imposed against you. Wow. So the local police officers, the fterneral order
or police down there, looked at this whole situation and said, we don't
like anything about this, the fact she's being sued, that the insurance company
has the ability to control the defense and any potential settlement. And they actually
called NRA. At the same time, they set up a gofund me account
and raised a bunch of money, almost six figures. And so we want
to hire the best self defense lawyer that we can find in Indiana, and
they called NRA. NRA thankfully, at least I'm grateful they recommended me,
and she hired me, And I told her two things when she hired me,
I said, I said, Kissy, we're not only going to win
this stupid case because it's a frivolous lawsuit. Well, we're going to use
this case to change the law. And that's exactly what we did. We
got that case dismissed. But in the meantime, we had a bill pending
in the General Assembly in Indiana that says there's complete immunity for the lawful and
justified use of force and self defense or defense of a third person. You
can't file a lawsuit if you were injured by that justified use of force,
or you're if you're the family of a person who dies as a result of
that justified uh force and self defense or defense of a third person. And
if you say, damn the torpedoes and file a lawsuit anyway in the face
of this immunity, there's a mechanism to get the case dismissed curly on what's
called summary judgment. And there's a mandatory attorneys fees provision that says that the
plaintiff then has to pay back all the defendant's attorneys fees were having brought that
troublous lawsuit in the face of the immunity statute. So that's and you yours,
what we did. You were involved that is an amazing case, the
facts of that, and then and then the follow up to that, and
then you are involved in that legislation. Is that correct? I was because
and I'm real active legislatively. I started a group called the Two Way Project,
which is folks focused on Second Amendment rights. As you mentioned, my
law practice is folks focused on Second Amendment rights, and so I'm very I've
always been very involved legislatively, and I've helped write other bills or have written
other bills, and so here I wrote a self defense bill that laid out
what we just described and then took it to some legislators here in Indiana and
said, hey, we want to get this thing passed. And I was
able to do that in the context of Kisty's story, which made it that
much more compelling. And by the way, I mean, I always liked
to brag that I wrote this thing and then helped to get it passed.
But Kisty came in and testified in both both the House committee that heard the
bill and the Senate committee in Indiana, and it wasn't it dry eye in
the room because of how compelling her story was that she really was forced into
this to defend a neighbor and a police officer, and then her life basically
could have been destroyed by her being sued for millions and millions of dollars,
and it was very compelling. So Kisty Phillips is the reason we have that
new statute. Well, that's great. I'm glad to see a happy ending
to this, and it is a happy ending, and you know, she
went through this, but it's going to be something she can be proud of.
You know, this there wasn't it wasn't pointless suffering, and it had
a good resolution in it. You know, you talk about her particular testimony,
it reminds me of years and years ago the Louby cafeteria situation. Had
a woman who was a dentist and she was there with her parents and she
was you know, at the time, she wasn't allowed to carry her firearms,
so she left it, and you know, she was worried about the
legal invocations of it, so she left it in her glove compartment, had
somebody drive through into the building with its car, it gets out, starts
shooting people. And her testimony, she later became a legislator, and I
remember seeing her testimony many many times, careful testimony of how if she had
had her gun, she could have saved her parents, but she was told
that she couldn't and that made a big, big difference. And unfortunately,
you know, it was a very tragic situation for her because she lost both
of her parents and a lot of people were killed in that The good thing
in this one is that even though Kissy went through a real ordeal with that,
and it is an ordeal whenever you have to use your gun to kill
somebody, but it is it is preferable to seeing your loved ones or friends
or someone killed murdered unnecessarily. And so you know, for all the stuff
that she went through it and had had a great outcome, that's a super
story really well, you know. And and what really hit me hard it
meant a lot to me is in one of the committee hearings, I was
in the House Judiciary Committee, one of the legislators seeing that that Kissy was
very emotional about this and was obviously putting herself through the trauma again by coming
in and testifying publicly about it when she didn't have to do that. She
she could have stayed home and avoided having to relive that whole traumatic situation,
including the trauma be ensued where she was worried about losing her her kids who's
a single mom. She was worried about losing her her daughter's college savings funds,
and her house. But at any rate, one of the legislators asked
her and said, you know what made you come in and speak to us
and and and support this bill. As you said, you know what,
without an immunity bill like this, if these people were able to successfully sue
me, for instance, then I'm worried that the next person won't run out
their door and save that police officer, or the next person won't, you
know, take their take their gun into Libby's and have it available to them
to save innocent lives. And I'm I'm worried about the negative effect that a
law seat like this has. And I'm willing to put myself through this because
I think that we need this law for exactly that reason, and as a
deterrent to those lawsuits, so that the lawsuits aren't a deterrent to law abiding
citizens defending themselves or defending other innocent people. And again, I that was
incredibly compelling. Oh yeah, yeah. And of course the insurance company,
if they didn't throw her under the bus, they would have thrown everybody else
under the bus, even by making some kind of a settlement. You know,
that's probably what these people had calculated. She's got deep pockets because of
the policy that's there, and you know that would have established that kind of
precedent that you talked about for everybody else and put a lot of people at
risk. It would have raised everybody's insurance premiums, because that's why the insurance
company doesn't care about that kind of stuff. It's like, yeah, we'll
make a settlement with them, and we'll just raise everybody's premiums. So it
helped in so many different ways. It truly is amazing. And that's something
the law getting passed is how long ago was this case? You said they
waited two years before they came after Kissy was And then when did this law
get put through? Did the law just get passed through recently? Actually the
law just the law went into effect twenty nineteen, Okay, okay, So
I guess the event with Kissy was perhaps a little earlier than what I described.
But the law was passed in twenty nineteen, and that was a little
more than two years after the original incident. And it was kind of neat
because we had the NA annual meeting here in Indianapolis that year and UH and
our governor, Governor Holcomb actually signed the bill into law from the from the
main stage at the NA leadership conference, which was a big event. So
it was it was. It was very satisfying. A lot of workmen into
it. But I was able to be there with kisst when the governor signed
it, and so it was it was. It was a big event,
but it's a it's a it's a really important change, and I'm proud that
it happened in Indiana. But one of the reasons I was so enthused about
talking to you about it, David, is there's no reason why this shouldn't
be the law in all fifty states. Now we know there are blue states
out there that would never consider it in a million years. Could they despise
our ability to defend ourselves. But for for for the majority of the states
in his country, there's no reason why there shouldn't be a similar lay out
there protecting people. And I'll tell you, I mean, for instance,
I'm I'm not only an instructor, but I'm kind of a training junkie when
it when it comes to firearms and self defense, and I go to multiple
classes every year, and I bet I've been literally, I bet I've been
to three or four dozen k classes where at some point there's a lecture that
says, and oh, by the way, if you use force even if
you're completely justified, you just better count on getting sued. The bad guy
is going to suit on. It doesn't matter if he breaks into your house,
if he gets hurt, he's going to sue you. Or if he
gets killed, his family's going to sue you. And I would always sit
there listening to that lecture, especially as a lawyer, going well, why
is that? Why is that? Okay? You know what, and let's
fix this thing. You know, we got this nail that we've been got,
the old sleeping dog has been laying on this nail on the front porch
and just too much a problem to get up and do something about it.
You know, let's fix this problem exactly. And and and by the way,
Kissy at the time was the seventh person that I had represented who would
lawfully and justifiably use force and self defense and either got prosecuted or got sued
or both. And I looked at that and said, you know, that's
just not okay. I'm not trying to cut into my own business, but
I'd rather have citizens have immunity. And that mandatory attorneys fees provision is so
important because that's a big deterrent because before that Planeff's lawyer. I mean,
how many times have you heard the commercial of well, unless I recover for
you, you don't have to pay me any attorney's fees, right, I
mean you see that commercial all the time. Well, now they can say,
well, you don't have to pay me any money as your lawyer is
the Planeffs lawyer, unless we recover. But oh, by the way,
there's this immunity that we probably can't defeat. And if we can't defeat it,
the case is going to get dismissed. And once the case get is
dismissed, you have to pay all the other side their attorney's fees back.
Yeah, after recovering nothing. So it's a huge deterrent and we're really proud
of it. That's good. Yeah, people need to look at that.
And you know, we see these types of things going around there, the
gun control laws. Some you know, California will come up with some idea
in New Jersey and they'll start passing that around. But it works the other
way as well. You know, we've seen the increase in constitutional carry bills
going around and increasing in states, and this is the type of thing that
really does need to increase. I've heard all the commercials about you know,
well, if you carry concealed, you know you need to join this organization.
We've got like an insurance policy here to defend you. But you know,
cut it off at the beginning, you know, don't clutter, don't
expose anybody to this jeopardy. If it is justifiable and the law enforcement people
realize that it's justifiable, you should not have any legal jeopardy over some kind
of a civil action that is being taken over that that really is the right
approach. You're correct about it, and that's how our statute works. Actually
good picking up exactly on your point, David, which is that if there's
no criminal prosecution from the use of force where self defense or defense of a
third person is claimed, that lack of criminal prosecution raises a presumption of justification,
which implicates the immunity, and you can use that presumption of justification to
get the case thrown out early based on a lack of criminal prosecution. So
it really works exactly like you suggested, and that's how we wrote the statute
that we've had for a while, and here just recently what was really satisfying.
I know you've seen this opinion is. We were able to use that
statue to get a case where I represented two homeowners who defended their home against
somebody trying to break in in the middle of the night and then got sued
for it. We were able to successfully have that case dismissed her more recently,
and that's a compelling story too. Yeah, yeah, have this.
So you were involved in the landmark case that pushed through the legislation that you
helped to write, and now you had somebody who decided that they would they
felt lucky, so they were against this law even though and you got that
shed down. Tell us about that particular case. That's the details of that.
Sure, that one much more recent. In fact, it's really still
pending over a couple of straight of issues. But this is one where two
homeowners in Indianapolis. We're asleep in bed at three o'clock in the morning.
The dog starts barking. They realize someone's pounding on the front door. They
ran out and the man did and someone is kicking on their front door.
Then he's putting the full force of his weight and his shoulder into the door,
trying to break the door down. He's screaming, let me in.
Let me in. The homeowner yells, I don't know you go away,
and the guy outside is cussing a lot and doesn't make a lot of sense,
but he runs around to the back of the house tries to get in
the back door. It's locked, thankfully, but then he breaks the window
in the next to the back door in a parent attempt to reach in and
unlock the door. And the homeowner at this point has retrieved his handgun and
he said, listen, go away, I have a gun, and the
guy that responded by saying, well, then you're going to have to shoot
me. Word I won't used it starts with a B. You know you're
gonna have to shoot me, And at which point he tried to gain entry,
and the homeowner, having no alternative, shot him. And exactly the
same thing in the sense that the prosecutor's office looked at it. The police
investigated, all the physical evidence matched up with what the story the both he
told and his wife told. It was a clear case of castle doctrine,
where you can defend your home, including with deadly force the way our laws
written in Indiana against an unlawful entry and even to prevent an unlawful entry you
don't have to don't have to be in your house. If they're trying to
get in your house, you can prevent that unlawful entry, including with deadly
force. And that's the way the law's written, this way it should be
written, and we included in our immunity statue we defined as a forcible felony
someone trying to break into your home in violation of the castle doctrine committee a
crime. A lot of states call it breaking an entry, breaking and entering.
In Indiana we call it residential entry. But anyway, we said,
if you're trying to commit residential entry, that's a forcible felony. And in
Indiana, stopping someone from committing a forcible felonies also justified in terms of the
use of deadly forced So again no prosecution. And we raised this new immunity.
I put it in my answer to the planeiff's complaint and said you can't
file this lawsuit. We have immunity for this, and there's going to be
an attorney's fees award. They said, damn the torpedoes. No, no,
we think we can defeat it. We think we have evidence that wasn't
justified. And just a couple of weeks ago, we went in and had
a hearing, hearing Marion County, which is Indianapolis, and just a matter
of days ago got the judge's opinion where he said, Nope, the law
is clear. There's immunity under this situation. The presumption that arises from the
lack of criminal prosecution could be used to get a case dismissed when the plantiff
has no affirmative evidence to rebut the presumption that the use of force was justified.
And here they had no a had speculation. They said, well,
he was just asking to come in. He wasn't trying to break in.
Really, what about the broken window? I mean, it was really kind
of silly. But judge, judge, and I give judges a lot of
credit because judges don't like to dismiss cases early. If you look at when
judges get reversed on appeal U grant, you know, dismissing cases early is
fertile ground for getting that reverse. Not here because it's very very clear cut,
but generally speaking, judges are reluctant to grant summary judgment or motions to
dismiss, and this judge had the had the fortitude to do just that.
And said the laws also clear that the plantiffs have to pay the defendants back
their attorneys fees, and so asked me to submit my final statement on my
fee, which the courtal review, and then they're going to award attorney's fees.
So my client doesn't have to worry about paying me any money because they're
going to get that paid from the planet. Uh. And you deserve it.
You've done a great job. You defended that other person. You got
a law run through there, and that law has held up now and that's,
you know, for a second time, you defended some of course you
said you defended a lot of people like that, but that's exactly what we
should see with that. Let me and of course I didn't mention the beginning
of the program. You've also got a radio program. Besides being ANRA instructor
and besides having a law firm that specialized in the Second Amendment, Guy Relford
R E. L F O R D. If you want to find him
on Facebook if you need his help, But you also have a radio program,
The Gun Guy. I love the title that. Yeah, yeah,
yeah, again the radio station likes making use of my odd name, but
yeah, but yeah, it's just a weekly show, David. It's just
on Saturdays in Indianapolis, but they also put it out there as a as
a podcast as well, so a lot of people who can't listen in live
from five to seven in central Indiana. We reach I think fifty two counties,
so it's a it's a good sized radio station. But people who can't
listen in can go to WIBC com and find the podcast as well. And
we just talked about Second Amendment issues. And it's it's kind of fun because
it's a call in show for the whole two hours. Yeah, I'm on
the air, and that's my favorite. My actually, my very favorite is
when people call in and want to argue with me because I do this for
a living, right, But but it's it's a lot of fun. And
but you know, people call in with everything under the sun, from legal
questions. I don't give legal advice on the radio, but I can explain
what the laws say, and to technical questions, gun questions, you know,
I mean, how do I fix this problem with my trigger? On
AR fifteen. I'm just it's really interesting. I never know what I'm going
to get, which really makes it it's fun for me to do. Of
course, I always have somewhat of an agenda in terms of what I want
to get into, but the listeners often take us in different directions based on
the calls we get, which make it makes it a lot of fun.
I bet it's fun, especially when somebody calls in they want argument that when
you said where, you said that that made me think of the old Monty
Python skit. You know where, because you want an argument starts arguing about
whether he's going to do an argument with him or not. But you've got
more substantial arguments to talk about. Let me ask you this, because we've
had some interesting things. As you point out, it brings up a lot
of different interesting points of law, and we've had an interesting back and forth.
I talked about last week about the fact that Trump went to South Carolina
and they had a commemorative gun that had his face on the handle, and
it's like, oh, yeah, I got to get one of these and
everything, and then his assistant said, yeah, he bought it. And
then he had all these people say, wait a minute, he's indicted for
a fella. He can't buy a gun, which is very similar. As
Reason pointed out, it was exactly the same type of thing that they're coming
after Hunter Biden. You know, they're saying, well, you know,
you're not allowed to buy a gun if you're a drug addict or drug user
or whatever. You know, both of these things are non violent issues.
You know, Trump hasn't been convicted of anything. He's just been indicted for
something, indicted for something that is not a violent crime even and so you
know, they were looking at this and they said, you know, we
need to look at these laws and not be so colored. You know,
you've got people who were cheering the fact that maybe we got another thing on
Trump here, or other people saying, yeah, let's get Biden on this
thing. But you know, maybe the law itself is a thing that needs
to be changed as to whether or not the ATF has it. And then
I saw another issue where they said, it looks like a Hunter may wind
up trying to use Bruin and that decision to say, you know, this
is an unusual restriction that's been put here that is not doesn't really have doesn't
fit in the historical context of what was meant by the Second Amendment. And
so according to Bruin, maybe you know, he gets off. He still
has an issue I would imagine of lying on a form. But nevertheless,
you know, what do you make of that of those two juxtaposition. I
oh, it's an interesting juxtaposition of those two that you might have actually the
Biden family supporting the Second Amendment and some freedoms involved there an intentional war and
litigation maker strange bedfellows. And but yeah, I mean, if anybody would
have ever asked me I would support a legal argument that Hunter Biden was making,
I would have doubted it. But but here your wise, and you're
dead on David to focus on the Brewin decision, because both in the Trump
scenario and the Hunter Biden scenario, that that's exactly where they're going. In
fact, the exact law that you mentioned relative to Hunter Biden was recently found
to be unconstitutional. This is it a district court case in Texas, so
it has no direct bearing on his case. But I can see that it
really snowballing because you know, as you said, and as you know,
you know, Bruin says, look, we look at text, history and
tradition, and we look at the text the Second Amendment. Does this law
implicate a protected writer not? If it does, then we say, all
right, does the long history and tradition of the regulation of this right support
this particular limitation in the sense that it's been upheld and it's been found to
be legal and allowable under the Second Amendment historically and traditionally in this country.
And that's going back to the founding. That's not since the Brady Bill in
nineteen ninety four. I mean, that's all very very recent stuff. It's
all, you know, going back to the founding and even to some degree
looking at English law that US law is based on, and in this case
that found the law that says, if you're a user of or addicted to
in the illegal drugs, you can't possess a firearm and make it a felony
to do so. This court in Texans looked at that and said, hold
on, we can find historical restrictions on saying someone can't possess a firearm if
they're currently intoxicated or you know, inebriated, impaired, but we don't see
anywhere just the occasional user and important distinction. That was a case where this
guy was an occasional marijuana user and he admitted to authorities he yeah, he
said, you know, I'm a recreational marijuana user. I said, Oh
well, and marijuana is still illegal at the federal level through the Controlled Substances
Act in nineteen seventy, so therefore it's illegal under federal law. Therefore,
you've admitted you're a user of or addicted to an illegal drug. Therefore you're
going to prison for ten years or at least a maximum. And that's what
they found to be unconstitutional under the Brewin analysis. But the very similar thing,
and in fact, Amy Cony Barrett now on the Supreme Court wrote an
opinion that said just this. It was a descent, but it was at
the Seventh Circuit. They said laws saying even people convicted of nonviolent felonies should
not lose their rights. And the law that says that if you have any
felony conviction, even a non violent one, I mean you could have a
get a you know, an accounting conviction based on tax fraud or something,
and suddenly you're being likened to a violent criminal. We can't trust with a
firearm. And Amy Cody Barrett wrote an opinion before ruined, obviously that said
this is unconstitutional. There's no history and tradition of limiting nonviolent people just because
of a criminal conviction, and then compound that and say, well, here
Trump hasn't even been convicted of a non violent felony. He's only been indicted.
Yeah, So the law that says if you're just under an indictment for
a felony, even a non violent felony. So to say that's unconstitutional under
a Bruin analysis is not a stretch because we're seeing we were seeing these different
laws, a lot of these very recent laws, a lot of them part
of the Brady Bill, some of them part of the Gun Control Act in
nineteen sixty eight. But a lot of these are following one after the other.
And I'm somewhat expecting the pendulum to swing back because, for instance,
there's a there's a case in front of the Supreme Court right now that involves
the law that says if you are under a domestic violence order of protection,
you can't possess a firearm, and that that doesn't mean you've been convicted of
a cron That doesn't mean you you know, you've been, it's been pre
that you are, you know, a violent person based on your criminal history.
Is just a judge found enough of a threat to say you ought to
be under this domestic violence order protection. The Fifth Circuit again, another case
coming out of Texas found that law to be unconstitutional, to say, wait
a minute, there's no criminal conviction here, there's a there's a potential threat,
but we don't take people's constitutional rights away on that basis, at least
not historically and traditionally under the Bruin analysis that is in front of the Supreme
Court right now. And and and it doesn't feel very good, I will
tell you, because the guys think they might take the gun into the due
process later, as Trump said, But this one had had been in multiple
domestic violence. This particular litigant had been under mutual domestic violence order protection involving
multiple women. And and and he does appear to have somewhat of a criminal
history. Now there's a reason that blindfold is on, lady judge right.
And the judges aren't supposed to look at the facts of any individual case and
be influenced by that. They're supposed to do a strict legal analysis under the
concept that justice is blind. But I think anybody who wouldn't think that these
particular facts wouldn't leave the Supreme Court to go well, maybe we had to
roll this back just a bit. I think it's probably being a little naive
because there's no old saying among lawyers that bad facts make for bad law,
and these facts are not great. It's not the case I would have wanted
to have taken up on that issue. But anyway, based on the analysis
is out there right now and based on Bruin as it exists, these laws.
You know the fact that a eighteen to twenty year old can't buy a
handgun in a gun store under federal law. What's the history and tradition of
having to be twenty one to be armed in this country when if you've joined
the militia quote unquote in seventeen ninety one, at seventeen or sixteen. So
there's there's a lot to talk about for a lot of these laws where we
get drafted in modern America at eighteen and sent to Vietnam. Right, but
you can't buy a gun, and you know, that's the kind of stuff
that you know, we see, and of course you know that was even
you know when I mentioned, you know, take the gun and do the
due process later with the red flag stuff and everything at that same meeting,
you know, Trump was pushing the idea of let's raise the age that people
can buy guns. It's kind of interesting because this whole Brewin thing, I
think it's going to you know, hit a lot of these different issues again,
you know, like the bump stock for example. You know, what's
Brewing going to do to the bump stock. We've seen a surprising number of
losses in terms of the challenges against the bump stock. And to me,
that was a very, very big precedent because it established the fact that not
only could they infringe against our constitutional you know, protections of a god given
right, but they could also it could be done not just by the legislature,
but it could be done by the bureaucracy or by a president that's running
the bureaucracy. And now we've seen you know, Biden exercising that as well.
And so when you go back here, look at the bump stock thing,
we got this I think it's a Fifth Circuit talked about it just last
couple of days. Yeah, the Fifth Circuit court where you got i know,
a Michael Carrgill back at that Central Texas Gun Works who's running that through.
He's had a victory there, but there's been losses on the other side
of this with a lot of other courts. What do you think is going
to happen with that bump stock because that is a big precedent. You know,
we've never had regulation of attachments and things like that before, especially by
executive order. Yeah, it's such an important point, David. I'm glad
you raised it because I said when it happened, you know Trump, you
remember the news conference he said, well, bump stocks are gone, right,
Tady's responding to the horrific shooting in Las Vegas, and he said that,
well, he said, I can do that. I don't need to
have any Guys. It's like, well, that's exactly that's exactly right.
And and so many people on on you know, our side of the Second
Amendment debate said well, you know what, if we give them bump stocks,
then maybe they won't come after so called assault weapons SI automatic rifles,
and so nobody really cares about bump stocks anyway. So uh, you know,
and even the NRA came out and I strongly disagreed with the NRA on
this, and I said, this publicly huge mistake. NRA came out and
said, we invite the ATF to re examine the legality of bump stocks.
And I'm saying, I'm sorry, you're inviting the ATF to rewrite laws written
by Congress and and and simply because the president tells them to do so doesn't
make it legal or constitutional. It's a it's a it's an inappropriate use of
the legislative power by an executive agency. And that's what we need to reel
back in this country. But but when Trump did it and people say,
well, guy, do you really care about bumpstocks? I go, Now,
bumpstocks are stupid. If you come to my range where I'm teaching a
class and you get a bumpstock on your rifle, I'm gonna make fun of
you, even you know, before the band, because you're trading. You're
trading accuracy for rate of fire, which is typically stupid. So at any
rate, I didn't care about bumpstock. Bumpstocks are dumb. I would never
own one. But the precedent, and that's why the point you made is
the important one. The precedent he made by saying I'm going to snap my
finger. Well, what did Obama say? I got a phone and a
pen? Yeah, Well, he never much delivered on that, but President
Trump did and then and then, now, what do you see in ATF
on so called ghost guns, atf on what they're calling forced reset triggers,
ATF on short barreled rifles, where they're saying, oh, well, we
told you ten years ago that if you put a brace on your pistol,
it doesn't make it a rifle. But we changed our mind. So now
we're going to rewrite a definition of short barreled rifle as written by Congress and
all that's based on the bumpstock precedent. And now I think we have a
great shot at destroying a lot of these, not only under the Bruin analysis,
but because they are in fact unconstitutional in the fact that their legislative authority
being exercised by the executive branch. And we even had an important decision that
had nothing to do with guns at the Second Amendment came out of Supreme Court
here a couple of years ago. It was a West Virginia and it was
an ep A regulation case. I think it was a clean water or clean
air case. I don't remember now, but they said hold on, you
know, the EPA just going out there and making up its own rules without
an express delegation of authority from Congress does doesn't fly anymore. And we're reeling
back on that fourth branch of government that's become so danger in this country,
so dangerous in this country that our founders never intended for, you know,
for the I R S and the at F and all these executive agencies to
be able to have the power they do, and a bunch of armed agents
turning around putting people in prison. That's not what we ever envisioned from in
terms of enforcing rules that they've written and that they've created without Congress. That's
what was never intended by our founders. And so hopefully we get that reeled
back, and ATF is fertile ground for that right now, for all the
reasons you mentioned, Yeah, that really it just I couldn't believe when that
happened, because I've talked for the longest time about the power of the gureacracy
of the regulatory state. I said, you know, we had this,
the slogan for the for seventeen seventy six was no taxation without representation. Well
we have now taxation without representation because these people can find us. But we
also have regulation without representation. And what's even worse is they say, well,
because this is a rule and not a law, you don't get due
process, you're going to get the presumption of innocence, and you don't get
protection against excessive fines. And so we've seen this metastasize. You know,
originally I think it was the IRS that was doing it predominantly, but now
it's metastasized all these different agencies, and so now they're going to just do
gun control by doing that as well, that's a really, really dangerous thing.
And it was. It was not just the bump stock, it was
also the pistol brace under Trump, and that got put in in twenty nineteen.
Then they pulled it out in December of twenty twenty, but then Biden
puts it back in La La Harris when she's running, said yeah, I'm
going to give Congress on hundred days to do all the gun control stuff I
want if you elect me as president, and then I'll just do it by
executive order. If they don't do it at that point. It really is
a horrific thing, and it is a much bigger problem than even just a
second amendment. To try to get this regulatory state under control. So it'd
be interesting to see what happens with the Supreme Court decisions on this. And
again, I think the bump stock issue is such an important thing, even
though the bump stock itself, as you point out, this total piece of
garbage. You know, everybody says it's based of garbage, but it's an
important principle and that's the key thing. The principle is so important even if
the item isn't so well. It's always great talking to you guy. And
again people can find a gun guy, and they can find that at what's
the call letters for the radio station? Again, where they can find that
poost WIBC. Yeah, you can find me at WABC dot com or my
Twitter or x I guess we're calling it now is just at Guy Ralford.
Great, great, Thank you very much, guy. Always a pleasure to
talk to you and thank you for what you've done. And that's a great
example that you got there and other states do need to implement that. That
is an important law to protect people who are doing what they can to protect
themselves and protect they are innocent people. At the same time, thank you
so much. Thank you, David. Always an honor. Thank you.
We're gonna take a quick break, folks, and we'll be right back.
The seed in our hold, my boys, man that go where all can
see me and with our devotion. Boys call it the Liberty Tree. It's
a tall old tree and the strong old tree. And we are the sons,
Yes, we are the sons, the sons of liberty. M liberty.
It's your move. You're listening to the David Knight show. Well,
we had a disturbing thing and it happened yesterday in the UK. And always
a lot of disturbing things happening. They're the fantasticizing Orwellian state. Lawrence Fox,
who is a was an actor until he spoke out about his politics and
he got banned, but of course he still is a very good actor.
He was in the played Hunter Biden of all Things and My Son Hunter that
was done by fellow mclere. And he is run for Mayor of London against
Sadik Khan. He has been involved in the creation of a political party to
try to undo this globalist attack on our society and our liberties, called Reclaim.
But he was arrested yesterday for things that he had to say and I
thought it was kind of an This is an interesting case because they have charged
him with conspiracy, not with hate speech or something. He's been arrested on
suspicion of conspiring to commit criminal damage to these despicable ultral o emission zone cameras.
And we've seen the videos of the people out there, you know,
wearing masks and hiding their identity and cutting these things down, and I sympathize
with them. Actually I'll say that I applaud them, but I'm not engaging
in any of this conduct myself. But he had declared his intention to participate
in that, openly defying these cameras, and so it was, you know,
this is a bit of activism that's strictly speech. But let me show
you what happened. Here he is, as he's live streaming the police coming
into his home prior as part of his arrest, doing a search of his
home. Morning guys in London's knife ridden capital city where a fifteen year old
girl was stabbed to death with a sword. We've got one two, show
one two, another three upstairs stealing going through my house to intimidate me.
Because this is what the police are. They don't police with consent, anymore.
They police with fear and intimidation. That is the stars the police force
that we've got nowadays. Instead of being on the streets solving crimes ie the
murder of the poor fifteen year old girl, they're on all over social media.
I take it the Uless scam. Cameras outside of London are a complete
out of Uless done is a complete scam. There's no scientific evidence. City
kind of rubbished the evidence and had it rewritten to serve as needs. No
one vaited it. It's the beginning and bringing in of a surveillance state.
And he's trying to make noises so that I can't say that it's the beginning
of the surveillance state. And these boys are the Starzi City stars. He
bless him so to have a lovely day. I'm going to spend my day
in the clink in it. Yeah, And he's absolutely right about all that.
At the beginning of the you know, well, it's not the beginning,
but it's fantastasizing in the next level of in your face surveillance state,
and these guys are acting as the Starzi uh. And then but he had
also the reason that they were there. This this clip shows him talking a
little bit about them being there, but also about what he said, which
is what they claim gives them their rate to come there coming after what Look,
how many coppers there are in my house coming to feel everything? Take
everything out of my ouse? La ladies and gentlemen. Is the company that
we live in. The Only way to deal with this be tearing down you
less cameras and to tear down every single camera there is. And I will
I will be joining them to tear down cameras as well, because I have
to. I'm one of those people that puts my money where my mouth is,
so I'm pretty close with several and I will be. Yeah, I'll
be out there with my angle grinder. I would encourage mass, mass removal
of the surveillance state, because once it's there, you cannot remove it.
I would happy to be arrested myself, so you know I won't be.
I won't be when I go out and take their cameras down, which I
will be doing, I won't be. I will be taking my phone with
me so they know exactly where I am. I would happily sit there and
go sit in and go who voted for this? What's your evidence for the
outer lon and clean air zone. What's your evidence for that? Why are
you doing this? You know i'd sit there and do it, but I
do that I've got, you know, several court cases go on his neck,
but yeah, I would. So I think he knows what he's doing.
I think he is doing this knowing that he's going to be arrested.
And this is the issue. You know, we think about how do we
how do we approach these things? There are certain things that are lines that
if you cross them, they will arrest you. For example, you know,
we look at police dogs that are out there and even if they set
the dogs on you, you entered that dog, they they come after you
legally as if you had attacked a police officer or something. And the same
thing is going to happen with these robot police that are now being rolled out
in New York City and other places. You have these surveillance dialects. If
you want to call him that, you know, the doctor who things is
what they look like. They don't shout danger, danger warning Will Robinson like
the lost in spatialies. But you know, if you don't like these things
and you kick them or vandalize them or something that they'll probably come after you
as if you kick the police officer and if you declare that you're going to
do that, and an open defiance of it. And I think he knows
that he's not stupid. He knows that, and he wants to challenge that
directly, and so hats off to him, you know, to take that
on directly, to challenge this directly. I hope that they have a better
trial by jury system than we do here in the UK in the US,
because again, the as we saw from the Trump judge, well I can
do whatever I want. Well, juries don't know what they're talking about.
And this is what we see from judges as they've shut down trial by jury.
They lie to the jury's they say, well you don't. You're not
there to judge the facts of the case or the law or how it's going
to be applied. You're not there to judge whether or not the uless cameras
are correct. Your question is just was he going to damage these things?
Was he conspiring to do it? I'm talking to other people in that type
of thing. So if they're able to pull that same kind of game that
they do here, he'll be courageous but he'll be a martyr at the same
time. To do that. I would like to see it establish a precedent
where jury says, yeah, that's right, we don't like these things,
and we're going to let people off if they want to tear him down.
But that is I'm not sure if that's the world that we live in.
I'm not sure if that's the judicial system that they're going to see there.
It's very much like what he's talking about in terms of cutting the heads off
of these u LES surveillance cameras. It reminds me of the beginning of Cool
Hand Luke or you see as the credits are rolling at the beginning of the
film, you see a drunken Paul Newman who is out there with a like
a pipe cutter and he's like staggering around and he's cutting the heads off of
parking meters and everything. And he gets arrested and they sent him to jail
for a considerable amount of time for the property damage that he did. And
he gets that's there and you know, what are you here for? And
he says that cutting the heads off parking meter sir, And he goes,
oh, what do you think that's going to get you, He said,
I don't know, sir, what it's going to get you a couple of
decades here in prison. And then of course that key seen from the movie
where they are putting the handcuffs and the chains on his ankles and his feet,
which is really what these uless cameras are really about. They are hammering
them in and that's what's happening right now as they're putting those cameras up,
as they're enacting these restrictions against us. It's the handcuffs and the manacles that
they're putting on us. Would you never stop listening to them clinging, because
they're gonna remind you what I've been saying. You don't go, I wish
you being so good to meet Cavin. Don't you ever talked that way to
me? Let up? What we've got here is failure communic Some man you
just can't reach, that's right, and some men you just can't beat into
submission. And I got an idea that Lawrence Fox is one of those men
you can't beat into submission. Well, you have this case in Switzerland about
free speech. This is more typical of what we see happening a Swiss writer
who called a journalist quote a fat lesbian unquote was sentenced to sixty days in
prison, and the LGBT is plotting that, and so is the main stream
media. And this woman is objectively a lesbian. She makes that very clear.
She's an activist about that, so there's no question about that. Of
course, fat is subjective and it's meant as an insult. So we're not
allowed to insult somebody. And I guess when you pull up one of the
pictures there are the NBC News AP report from Information Liberation shows her picture,
I guess the truth is no defense so at this, but again it's an
insult. You're not allowed to insult people if they're politically connected or if their
causes are those of the government. NBC News and the AP, as Information
Liberation points out, are praising this jail sentence. This guy who said that
got sixty days in jail for calling this woman a fat lesbian. But again,
you know, in this particular picture, she doesn't look like she's that
heavy. But again it's all subjective and it fundamentally was an insult. So
he gets sixty days in jail for insulting her. LGBT groups as NBC hailed
the sixty eight jail sentence of a court in Switzerland gave to a writer and
a commentator for writing a journalist as a fat lesbian, among many other critical
remarks. You know, we used to have really harsh things said about people,
even during campaigns. People called Abraham Lincoln a nutmeg addict, among other
things. They made fun of his physical appearance, and resident was actually a
hatchet face. That's the son of a nutmeg dealer. That's right, that's
right. Yeah, thank you for correcting me on that. That's You're exactly
right, Travis, hatchet faced son of a nutmeg dealer, because that was
essentially a kind of a drug at the time. The AP goes on to
say, this court decision is an important moment for justice and for rights of
LGBTQI people in Switzerland. The conviction of Alain Sorel is a strong signal that
homophobic hatred cannot be tolerated in our society. These are people who hate free
speech because again, your ability to you should be able to say hateful things,
even if I don't agree with that sentiment, even if I don't like
hearing hateful speech from people like Trump or other people. He should be allowed
to say that, and it should not be a crime. It is only
a crime if you hate speech. I don't know the AP was chiming in
on this, and of course the AP has been famous for quite some time
about having its own speech rules, So I'm not really exactly sure what terms
the AP would like you to use for a fat lesbian that would be acceptable
to them. On rock Fan, Chris m thank you very much for the
tip, he says, thanks for all you do, David. I'm a
longtime listener, and I've listened. I've learned a lot from me. Well,
thank you. Two favorite things that I've learned from you. Precedent Trump
is right. This simple title summarizes Trump in just two words. I'm afraid
that's just correct. And the term of guffin. I'd never heard of this
term before you introduced it to me. I liked the term so well that
I ordered a McGuff and T shirt from your website today. Well, thank
you very much. I have one here. I don't usually talk about merchandise,
but here is the mcguffin T shirt, and you can see that in
real real time. Here there we go. And so thank you very much.
I appreciate that, and I'm proud of that design. By the way,
I think for the love of the road, for the Trump chew toy
that he sent to us and our dogs really do like this as well.
She can see he's missing two legs or one leg in an arm. And
it's been a rough time here for Trump and in this the Night Household,
but we have on multiplications thrown him to the dogs, both metaphorically and literally.
So it really was a surprise to see that package where we opened for
the arm was like, what is this this orange hair that was ticking up
there? But on Rock fan, Chad Warren, thank you very much.
I'm glad I finally started watching David's show after all this time. Well,
thank you, I appreciate that. Before we run out of time here,
we've got about eight minutes left. I wanted to talk about what's going on
with emmigration, and you may have seen that at the top of the Drudge
Report last night. I think it popped up the fact that Biden is going
to build a wall, and of course it'll be just as ineffective as Trump's
wall was, and it's just as much of a dodge for the immigration problem,
because that's not really getting to the fundamental aspect of it. And let's
talk about the fundamental aspect of it. I've always said that it's about the
welfare magnet and what you can get when you come in. Well, of
course, as we talked about the person who had all these people who were
seated, they had been caught and they were going to be released by the
US government. And so they're asking them of the reporters going down the line,
asking them in English and also in Spanish if necessary. But a lot
of these people coming from Africa or from Asia, all these different places,
but asking them, you know, where'd you come from and where are you
going? Almost all of them are going to New York. Why, Well,
because, like the bank robbers said, that's where the money is and
that is where the nice hotels are for people. And so Babel and Bee
had had a funny headline vacationing family poses as illegal immigrants to get a free
hotel room in New York City. Good evening. I mean, oh,
la amiga, amigo, amigo has amiga. I guess I don't know.
In nice Spanish, I guess one is gender related, right, How is
that going to happen all these these languages like Spanish and German, so if
you have to know the gender of something, they got to really be confused.
This goes way beyond pronouns for those people. Anyway, we're weary illegal
immigrants looking for a top floor owner suite, preferably with a jacuzie away from
the ice machine, poor Fovar. Feeling compassion for their plight, the hotel
employee offered condolences to the Donaldson family for Governor Hockle's harsh words about illegal immigrants
coming to New York such ignorance, responded Missus Donaldson. You know, a
little room service would go a long way toward healing the wounds some what do
you Americans call them margaritas? Perhaps, Well, that's not too far away
from the truth that we say happening there in New York. They're spending on
these migrants between three hundred and five hundred dollars a night on hotel rooms.
That's one of the reasons why they're looking at a bill, a total tab
because of the number of people, in the amount of money that they're spending,
a bill of about four and a half billion dollars. And of course
these rates that they have now negotiated with these hotel owners are in many cases
twice twice what the hotel owners were paying we're charging for rooms before. Well,
I tell you, those New York liberals drive a hard bargain, don't
they tell you what? We got this big contract and we're gonna you know,
one of the hotels talking about this about three months ago. It's a
hotel that was declaring bankruptcy because nobody other than illegal immigrants from other countries,
you know, illegal aliens want to go there and get free stuff. But
most people don't want to go to New York to vacation for so many reasons.
But you know it's after the lockdown. Everything they not recovered and things
have, you know, a lot a lot of issues reasons that you would
not want to go to New York City the past. People used to want
to go for a Broadway. I don't know that's even opened up yet really,
but anyway, they were going out of business, and then Eric Adams
comes around. It's like, well, I will give you, like,
you know, ninety percent occupancy guaranteed and we'll pay you twice of what you
were charging people before. Wow, you know that's driving a really hard bargain.
If you're going to come in and give somebody full occupancy and pull them
out of bankruptcy, you don't you think you'd negotiated price. But no,
not these guys. And so this is the type of thing that is pulling
people in. And there was about four hundred and fifty miles of wall that
is there now at the border out of two thousand miles, and you know,
those four hun and fifty miles, most of that was a repaired wall
that Trump did. He didn't really do anything new. So think of this
in terms of, well, we've got a you know, we got a
twenty foot wall here, but there's only four feet that actually have a wall.
The rest of it is a big open walkway. The other sixteen feet
is a big open walkway. That's what our border looks like. You know.
So maybe got two feet on this side and two feet on that side,
and then you got sixteen feet of an open walkway for people to come
right through. That's what our border looks like. After Trump's wall, you
think it's going to get any better with Biden's wall, And of course you
had the Department of Homeland Security come in and say, well, we've just
waived all these environmental regulations, and I forget, it's like a like thirty
different regulations. They just waved, why didn't Trump do that? Why didn't
and again it's not going to stop anything. They said, well, we
have an emergency, this is this is something. We needed to do something
about this immediately, says may Orcus at Homeland Security. And yet the only
thing they could do would be, you know, set up some Concertino wire
and put the military there at the border to defend our border for once,
except that the Biden administration has been sending troops down to cut that Concertina wire
or whatever. There was a recent video by Michael Jahn who had interviewed he
was now at the Darien Gap doing reports about how these traffickers, these NGO
traffickers who charging people a fortune, or they're getting paid by Soro so other
people like that, bringing them in and they're now indebted to them. Maybe
they have to work in prostitution, or they bring these kids in or trial
trafficking. But however they get there, they're coming into various places in Central
America and then they have to funnel through that Darien Gap. And so he
was showing all the people coming in, but he had a picture of somebody
in uniform and you see a big crowd of people on the other side of
the concertina wire. And then this is an American official in uniform and he's
got heavy gloves on and he's holding the wire and he's cutting it, and
there's a patch on his shoulder. And when I saw that, I don't
know if there was an update to that to say where the guy was from,
but Michael Jahn put that out and he says, so who is this?
You know what is this patch? Anybody recognize this patch? And you
know what group or organization or branch of the military. You're a border patrol
or you know what bureaucracy is this guy part of? Now we need to
know what's going on. And quite frankly, it has gotten so bad now
that Biden is going to talk about building a wall, but it's just talk.
If you've got the welfare magnet, you're going to pull people over it,
under it, through it, around it. That's why they're coming in.
And you've got to stop that welfare magnet. The wall is ever much
every bit as much of a distraction as a beard as a headfake, as
it always was with Donald Trump. But isn't it interesting that Biden is now
resorting to that. Of course, you know, the JAB was bad until
he became president, and then it was a good thing and he mandated it.
And of course maybe he sees an opportunity to build a wall around us,
because that's what Ron Paul always said. To be careful about that wall.
It can keep you in a country as well. Thanks for listening.
The David Night Show is a critical thinking super spreader. If you've been exposed
to logic by listening to The David Night Show, please do your part and
try not to spread it. Financial support or simply telling others about the show
causes this dangerous information to spread. Father people have to trust me, I
mean, trust the science. Wear you mask, take your vaccine, don't
ask questions using free speech to free minds. It's the Evid Night Show. H