Using free speech to free minds. You're listening to the David Knight Show.
Welcome one and all to the David Knight Show. I'm Gardner Goldsmith filling in
for David with a great tip of the hat to David in his entire family
and to you thanks for believing in freedom, one and all. We've got
a very busy day today on this as we round off December. So many
stories to discuss. Let's find out what's on tap for today twelve, twenty
seven and twenty three. Thanks for joining me, everyone, and again,
thank you to David and everyone in the Night family, and to you the
audience and all the people out there who've supported the David Knight's Show and the
principles of individual liberty so well. I thank you so much for joining me
from today to noontime, from non to noontime, today we'll be tripping across
the world. We'll be running across the world and checking out major stories that
might have a bearing on your freedom, plus historical context that might allow us
to carry away some intellectual ammunition to defend freedom. I'm really glad you're here,
one and all. You can join us in Rockvin in Rumble and on
Twitter and on d Live, and I hope that you are having a very
good morning as we round off this twenty twenty three year, and what a
year it has been. We'll take a look at some of the things that
are big on my list for the year. On front tomorrow, Tony Arterburn
will be filling in Tony of course of Wise Wolf Gold and Silver Exchange,
and I'm looking forward to hearing from him. He and I have been chatting
with each other and he was going to be able to take tomorrow to take
that chunk of the morning out, so I'm really anticipating his wisdom. It's
always great to hear Tony. His knowledge of history and politics and philosophy is
amazing, amazing, and it's incredible to think that I can be in touch
with such people as David Knight, as Tony Arterburn, and as many of
you in the chats as well at Rockfinn and Unrubble. And by the way,
if you are watching on David Knight's Twitter feed, you can comment in
there as well, because now the streaming system that I get to use also
allows me to see the comments as we're streaming live on David Knight's X feed,
which of course is at Liberty Tarian, that's at Liberty Arrian. So
welcome everyone to the program. Nice to have you, long for the ride.
Let's see what's on tap for today, the David Knight Show for twelve,
twenty seven, twenty three. Yes, indeed, one and all.
Let's see today we're gonna be discussing an issue I did not get to discuss
yesterday because we just ran out of time. And it's a big one and
I think it has maybe some echoes of what we might have seen with the
Heller decision that might be hidden within it. And as I mentioned here,
it's called Bruin versus gun rights. This might be surprising to some conservatives.
After almost two years ago the Supreme Court delivered its decision in the New York
Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruin. That's of the New York state government
gun rights Supreme Court's decision, and a lot of people thought it was a
real positive. Well, they thought the same thing about Heller, And perhaps
in the immediate it might seem as if it's a positive. But just like
the Heller decision almost what fifteen years ago, not necessarily the case. We'll
talk about what Bruin hides in plain sight, as the Illuminati expression might go.
We'll also discuss Biden meeting the Mexican president and what that might entail,
and a story that really hasn't gotten a lot of attention out there. But
I have to say big thanks to the MRCTV team and the higher ups there
allowing me to write a piece on this particular sort of hiding in plain sight,
maybe not so much in sight issue about the United States government its border
policy, which is just amazing and insulting almost every day. And then we
are going to look at what the United States government was proposing to do just
a couple of weeks ago inside Mexico. Yes, if you thought today was
going to be a charge of caffeine espresso, you are right. Then we're
going to talk about rand Paul's Festivus list, and I have mixed feelings about
the Festivus List, but I have to say again the MRCTV team, they're
so gracious to me. They let me write a piece on this one with
a lot of major quotes, and I would love to get your ideas on
what you might add to the list of government grievances, especially regarding what Ran
Paul lists as waste, and that is the key term everybody. Then we'll
talk about a big new book and I want to hold it up for you
and show you what I have been reading and what you can enjoy as well.
If you go to the Libertarian Institute's website and check out the great work
of the mighty James Beauvard. This is Lost Last Rights, the sort of
sequel to Lost Rights by mister Beauvard. James is a friend of mine,
a hero of mine before I got the opportunity to meet him, and then
we became friends. And on the back I think you will see what he
might be discussing inside, Yes, police state tactics, police state approach,
and mentality of course, the loss of rights and what might be coming in
the future in the United States. It's amazing. It's voluminous, and I've
picked out three subjects that we might be able to discuss starting at eleven o'clock.
Who knows, we might not be able to get to all of them.
But if you have items that you want to discuss, put them in
the chat at Rockfin and Rumble, and don't forget everybody over at Rumble until
the end of the year, if you want to contribute, I believe that
Rumble is not taking a percentage of those contributions. Everything will go to David
and the Family and David's show, which of course is only listeners supported through
donations through things like subscribe star and through the Davidnightshow dot com store, the
Davidnightshow dot com store. And by the way, not as if I'm hawking
anything, but since I was praising the MRCTV folks yesterday, as tra Night
knows yesterday, after I finished the show yesterday, and thank you everyone for
all the kind thoughts about hosting the show yesterday, I thought everything was really
fun. It was terrific to get all the insights from people. And that
really is not a fatuous, blowing smoke sort of statement, because I see
things from people who are covering stuff that I am not getting, and it's
just fantastic or insights or thoughts or philosophies the way people were brought up,
and it gives me windows of images or ideas, logic that sort of stuff
that I can take away with me. So again it's intellectual ammunition I really
appreciated. But yesterday talking about MRCTV, I got together in a meeting.
I told Travis, I said, all Travis, I'm going to be away
for a little while. I have to go to a meeting. And so
I got together with the director of MRCTV, Eric Shiner, and Eric and
I sat down. We were hanging out for quite a while, chatting,
having a great time. And he's just a really, really good guy.
His whole family is terrific, and he's a big fan of the Monkeys.
He's probably one of the top four Monkeys fans with knowledge of the Monkeys.
Not the great apes, but the band and the television show that sort of
was musicians and actors who ended up forming a band themselves after they performed on
other people's music. And Mike Nesmuth and Peter Torricardi had done their own music,
and of course Davy Jones was a very well known Broadway actor and Mickey
Dolans actually was classically trained on guitar and then he had to learn drums to
play. But he brought me this, so this might be a little something
for today's theme, and I'll show you if I can hold this up.
It is the Monkeys banana nut soda. It's I think it's recent. I
don't think it's old, and in line with many of the other interesting tie
ins and promotional items that the Monkeys did with things like rice Krispies and things
like that. They now have Monkeys Banana Nuts, soda and one of the
greatest sets of music ever put out, The Great American Songbook. Really can
be heard within the Monkeys' music, everything from pop songs to psychedelia with things
like Zor and Zam and Daily Nightly and the soundtrack to their film Head.
Working with people like Carol King and Neil Diamond and Bobby Boyce and Tommy Hart
just amazing, amazing songwriters of course, Mike Nesmith and Peter Tork writing their
own, Mickey Dolan's writing some great stuff, Davy Jones's performances on vocals,
and so they were absolutely wonderful. And I'm not going to open this one
up, but he says it tastes like banana nut bread but in liquid form,
and it's not a beer, it's just a soda. So I want
to thank Eric Shiner the bad and thank the whole team at MRCTV. That
is something else. And yes, for a while I collected food that really
should not have been made like there was a product from a Hostess called Grizzly
Chomps, which was essentially their Hostess cupcakes, but to save money they made
the product smaller and lighter by pretending that there was a bear on the involved
with the cupcake who had taken a bite out of each of the cupcakes,
and two cupcakes that came in the plastic container, so it was called Grizzly
Chomps. I also kept a container of Australian vegemite. This is for you,
Harps and anybody else who might be watching from Australia or be a fan
of vegemite or marmite if you're over in the UK. I was, I
think personally, just to give you a little insight into the what I'm thinking
about. When I got to visit Australia, I didn't know what vegemite was,
and I had heard the Minute Works, you know. He just smiled
and gave me a vegeamite sandwich and he said, I come from London,
you know, Okay, great song great stuff, and a great band men
at work, amazing musicianship, amazing songwriting, you know. But when I
got to Australia, I thought vegemite was just like ground up vegetables, like
on peter bread with like maybe a like a salad dressing oil type thing.
I thought that was a vegemite sandwich. I didn't know what vegemite was.
So I got to Australia, and you know, it's twenty six, twenty
seven hours of flying from the East coast go to LA. We had to
switch planes at Lax, so I got to see La from the airport.
Maybe it was safer that way, I don't know. And then I flew
a flow out and some flights stop in Hawaii, but others just go straight
over. We went to New Zealand and I had a torn gluteal muscle.
So the entire flight, everybody else was sleeping. I didn't sleep a wink
on that plane. And I was in such pain. I was in the
middle of a row at a certain point where I couldn't get water and I
had I was in such pain. I was dry swallowing ibuprofen tablets and not
you know, a lot, but you know, trying to keep pace.
I'm like, oh, geez, it was. It was rough as Rodney
danger Field was safe. I tell you, it's rough being me. I
gotta take ib give it to me an iv oh my doctor, doctor Finnie
boom butts eh. I love the one from Rodney and he saysh I was
young. I got no respect. Even as a kid. I told my
dad, I said, Dad, I'm tired of running around in circles.
He said, shut up, or I'll know your other foot to the floor.
I'll tell you it's rough. My wife, Oh, she's such a
bad cook. We leave dental floss out on the counter. The cockroaches hang
themselves. Oh man. Anyway, I used to do Rodney Datidfield depressions.
One of my favorite comedians, and he was great with other comedians too.
In fact, I think it's Jim Carrey credits Rodney really forgiving him a chance
taking him on to Jim Carrey was living out of his car and Rodney saw
him doing an open mic and said, hey, hey kid, why don't
you come on tour with me. Ronnie was awesome. He was just a
really really stand up dude. And so and by the way, if you
haven't seen Back to School with Rodney Daviefield, you got to see that man.
A lot of people look at Caddyshack and stuff, but you got to
see Back to school. That is a phenomenal film. So we get to
Australia from New Zealand. We stop in New Zealand. We get into New
Zealand and it was the most glorious thing. They had hot showers in the
bathrooms at the New Zealand Auckland, New Zealand Airport and you didn't have to
get jabbed. I was like, what huh, I felt like Scooby Doo.
It was great. So I got in the shower and the hot water
on the you know, the tour mustling. Oh, it was just and
after being in the in the plane and just feeling slimy, it was terrible,
you know. So then they flew us. They hopped us over from
ou clond to Brisbane and I stayed one day. It was a rotary group
locally, they picked like young people to switch over in a rotary group.
I'm not in the rotary but they just picked local people to do a cultural
exchange in Australia and it was great. I was there for like six weeks.
It was amazing. And so so they flies into Brisbane and I'm all
backwards. Everything's upside down. I'm on the other side of the planet.
I don't know what's going on in Harps. I think you're in the rock
fin Chat, so I think you know what I'm talking about. You know,
I've mentioned this before on my Liberty Conspiracy show, and I haven't even
plugged the show yet. We'll do that in a little while. Let me
just spend some time with you, everybody. So if you are on,
if you're in the Northern Hemisphere, this will show you what it's like talking
about normalcy bias if you're raised every day with a particular sort of pattern,
that is the sun coming up in the east going down in the west.
Okay, we're pretty much reliably using abductive reasoning that's deductive and inductive and can
kind of figure Okay, I've observed this thing. I'm sort of using my
mind now in inductive reasoning to say I think I can therefore come up with
a pretty good theory about what's going to happen in the empirical world. So
that's just for the philosophy students out there. But so in the Northern Hemisphere,
if you're looking at the sun, and by the way, the camera
here is on the north sort of north northwest, you are in the north
northwest looking at me sort of south southeast. So if you're looking at the
sun, you're sort of looking south. So east is to your left and
west is to your right. Okay if you're in the northern hemisphere, but
if you get in the southern hemisphere, it's switched. So everything. For
the first I don't know how many days I was there, I was completely
confused. I would go running and get lost. It was nuts, because
if you're looking at the sun in Australia, east is that way. You're
looking north and west is that way, which is actually one of the errors
that they made in those C. S. Lewis films. They shot in
many of the areas in New Zealand where they shot Lord of the Rings,
but they didn't so in the Narnia books, the Ice Queen is coming down
from the north, but they didn't take into consideration that when they were facing
north, the people in the Northern Hemisphere were seeing shadows that didn't line up.
They were seeing shadows that looked like they were coming from the north,
which didn't make any sense because they literally were pointing north when they shot that
film, and you can see the shadows are coming from that away. What
you would think would be the north. It's totally messed up. It's very
strange. They did it right in Lord of the Rings. And also,
by the way, on Planet of the Apes that that cliff with the you
know what, that's in the sand at the end of Planet of the Apes.
That's supposed to be the eastern coast facing that statue, so you're facing
sort of north. The producers understood that they had to shoot that at a
certain time to make sure that it looked like the sunlight was at the right
angle for Charlton Heston's character to look like it was the sun was coming up,
when actually they shot it on the west coast the sun was going down,
but it looks like it's on the East coast, as it should.
So just a few things from my film background working in television at Star Trek.
But it's very interesting because the folks hosting me gave me some vegemite,
and I didn't know what it was. I was sitting there at the kitchen
table and they had toast in the little toast things and they had these little
packets like you get at the ihops and stuff, the little plastic packets they
had, you know, blueberry jam and strawberry jam and stuff like that,
and they had one that said Craft on it, and you know, the
craft label, and it was this inside of it. I looked at the
bottom. It was like this viscous brown stuff and I'm like, what's that
And he goes, oh that and I was like yeah, and he goes,
oh, that's vegemie and I was like, that's vegemite. He said
oh yeah. I was like, well, you know, what do you
do? He goes, oh, yeah. We put it on a toast
and I was like all right, So I said okay, So I opened
it up. He goes, ah, yeah, yeah, but it's very
strong. It's very strong, very strong flavor. And I'm like okay.
So he goes, yeah, put got put it on real thin. So
I put it on very thin and he goes, ah, nah, now
as much too thick. I was like, oh, he goes you'll say,
So I scrape it off. There's like a micro millimeters worth, like
a nanometer on there, and I put it in my mouth and literally,
other than maybe the name Nancy Pelosi, it is the dirtiest foulst thing I've
ever ever had on my tongue. It was the worst tasting stuff. And
I'm sorry Harps or anybody in Australia, but I said what I was.
It was one of those like whoa, whoah, you know, but I
didn't want to do it in front of the hosts. And I was like
oh, and he's smiling at me because he knew, and he goes,
I told you it was strong, and I was like oh. I was
like, what is that stuff? He goes, well, you know when
you make be and I'm like yeah, he goes, well, we scraped
the inside of the barrels as a scum and we scripe it and that's vegemite.
I was like, well, he goes, yeah, we scripe it
and we eat it. Like what Wait a minute, Wait a minute.
I thought this was some unique thing to Australia. I was like, you
know, we could do that in the United States, we could scrape the
interior of the barrels and put it in our mouths. We don't do that.
So I realized what's actually going on if you ever go to Australia.
It's a giant national joke against all tourists who come to Australia. They don't
actually eat vegemite, right, I mean, who in their right mind would
eat vegemite. They gotta be insane. They got to be like you know,
people who would lock down their their citizens and not let them move from
say Victoria to Queensland. You know, they would mandate travel passes and arrest
people for not wearing masks. They would never eat that stuff. It's a
giant national joke, this said. There's a ah, we got another one.
I got him to eat that crap. It's the same thing in England
with marmite. So there you go, everybody, and harps, I know
you are in Rockfinchat. I thank you for being there. Brian de McCartney,
thank you for being there. Karen Carpenter, thank you so much.
Angus, Angus Mustang, Brandon Bennett. Boy, what a crowd. John
henry Man, I love it. I love it, love it, love
it, and welcome to the program. One and all. When you watch,
please remember that you can go to the Davidnightshow dot com and see what's
happening over there, and of course when you do, please consider going to
the store and finding out what's what over there. Well check in on rumble
chat in a little while, but right now, let's find out what's on
tap for today on the program, of course Bruin versus Gun. So let's
start off. I think we need a little something special and for that,
I'm going to turn to one of my favorites. Everybody with a man who
played basketball for the Boston Celtics. He played professional baseball. He was of
course six foot five. He was the riflemen gun rights one and all Oh
Riflemen second one, Chuck Conners. I gotta say the best thing. The
best thing about that is when Chuck Connors looks up for the second time.
That's the best part. See you see Chuck Connors looking at the screen,
right, he looks at the screen and then says the rifleman, and then
he looks up like he's heard the announcer like hey, what are you doing.
He gives you that nasty look like whoa, that's Chuck Connors. You
don't mess with Chuck Connors. And then after they say starring Chuck Connors,
then he looks back up again, so they say sorry, Chuck Connors.
And then he looks back up again and he's like, hey, you're talking
to me, and then he kind of gives you a little bit of a
smile. It turns into a little something kind of friendly right there. He
starts to smile, his bottom eye eyelids starts to go up, and you're
like, he's a good guy. I don't have to worry about him trying
to wipe me out with his rifle. What a great show. Shot with
some of the best film noir cinematographers. They actually brought many of them over
from Germany. If you watch The Riflemen, it is really one of the
most beautifully shot television shows. I mentioned Route sixty six yesterday, it's one
of the most and they intentionally shot it in black and white. They knew
that it was going to look really good for lighting and so on. They
really wanted it to look terrific. Did a lot of wonderful exterior shots.
And boy Chuck Connors with his guest star that the boy who played Mark became
a pop star and he just passed away. He was elderly when he passed
away, had some dementia problems. The young man who became a pop star
who played Mark, But he always credited Chuck Connors for being so kind to
him and mentoring him for years, giving him great advice so that he could
avoid the pitfalls of stardom. Chuck Connors, what a guy. And also
if you get to see Soiling Green, he does a great job in Soiling
Green. So let's find out if the government is doing a great job for
us or not. Oh, that's right, it doesn't matter. They're going
to take our money, ha ha. And everybody has different views on what
the government should do. So maybe some people think it's doing a good job
for them and others don't. Well, when it comes to rights, the
incipient mindset behind government is that they can break your rights supposedly to protect your
rights. Yes, that's the anarchist voluntarist in me. So please check out
Liberty Conspiracy at six o'clock Monday through Friday. If you'd like to dig in
more with the voluntarist philosophy, look at history, look at economics some more.
After the David Knight Show today, after our three hours together, maybe
you want some more, head over to Liberty Conspiracy. We're on Rockvian,
on Rumble and on my Twitter feed which is at guard Goldsmith. I should
have mentioned that earlier, so you'll see here. This is the MRCTV website
and this is the latest one from yours truly. It was released yesterday thanks
to the great team in MRCTV, and it says Federal District Judge rules Massachusetts
gun band constitutional, seriously. And this is why I've talked on my show
with Toby Leary, who owns Cape Gunworks and Hyenas mass sadly very close to
the Kennedys and the living living quarters around southern Massachusetts and on into other places
like Rhode Island for some of the Kennedys. But I got to say this
one reveals, This peels the onion on some of the problems that I saw
coming and you might have seen coming. And I think also Toby Leary,
who is one of the co owners of Cape Gunworks, who fights very very
hard against Massachusetts encroachments into gun rights, the right to the natural right to
keep the bear arms for self defense. This is what many of us saw
coming. Let me enlarge this for you so you can see it on the
screen. And just in case you want to get a you know, a
fine keepsake photograph of me in the corner, you know. But here we
go, Federal District Judge rules Massachusetts gun band constitutional seriously. Now I want
to hit this one first and then we're going to go into Joe Biden's breaking
news story, the breaking news of Joe Biden meeting with the Mexican president.
But I think this one might have a little bit more weight to kill with
you. The other one is just something that is sort of a leap issue,
a leap news story that lets us dive into other issues that are connected
to this, which has to do with the border. So the actual meeting
of Biden and the President of Mexico might not have any immediate effect on your
life. It might be a publicity thing. Maybe they'll come up with policies,
but it does open the door, or open the window. The open
window Assaki might have written wonderful little short story that he wrote. It opens
a window into discussing the immigration issue and what is constitutional, what is not,
what is ethical, what is not. But let's hit this gun issue
right now. As I noted, many saw this coming, and I noted
the Supreme Court ruling in twenty twenty two, many people who were proponents and
defenders of the right to keep bear arms, they have been issuing warnings as
I often have, about the bruined decision that came down. It was the
new York Rifle and Pistol Association decision in twenty two, and the key facet
of it, everybody, was this two tiered so called scrutiny that the Supreme
Court invented as their so called lipmus test to see if state infringements, which
ought to be enough to tell you no, no, thank you on the
right to keep in bear arms, actually are infringements. Well, as I
mentioned, this second tier has become the slippery slope of government inserting itself in
the right to keep in bear arms and infringing on it. It's this second
tier, I said recently. The second tier standard just invited a lower court
to say that it is perfectly fine for Massachusetts politicians to ban guns. So
I don't really understand how the second tier comports with the first tier. Well,
let's get into it. Nicky Brown reports for CNN. Quote, a
federal judge ruled a Massachusetts ban on assault weapons. So called love that term
it's undefined and amorphous is it's whatever they think is scary, so they can
gin up fear in the public, and somehow government has to protect you against
these things that assault weapons. This Massachusetts ban on assault weapons is somehow consistent
with a recent landmark Supreme Court decision that established firearms so called regulations, which
is a euphemism for government threats against you engaging in peaceful activity. That these
established firearms regulations must be consistent with the nation's so called historical tradition. So
again, that is the second tier of analysis on the so called Bruin standard.
Okay, so I said. This focuses our attention on the two levels
of so called scrutiny provided as the new precedent in Bruin. First, the
Supreme Court in twenty twenty two ruled that gun grab statutes and anything associated with
the right to keep and bear arms otherwise known as licensing waiting periods, you
might have red flag so called statutes in there, that they must be studied
with regard to the strict wording of the Second Amendment. Okay, that ought
to be enough. Right, what else do you need? You got the
second Amendment. It's the strict wording. Hello, I think we're done here,
Thank you, Let's move on. No, they always have to leave
a caveat, just like they did in the two thousand and seven two thousand
and eight Heller decision with Dick Heller. Second, the Scotis in twenty twenty
two in Bruin ruled on this second level that these right rights infringing statutes must
be checked according to their resemblance to any early US gun rights infringing move by
a government. So let me get this straight. They're saying, First,
you've got to check the rights in infringing statutes according to something that says shall
not be infringed, which means you should be done for the day. You
can have lunch, dinner, whatever, go home, bye bye. Right,
But then they say, oh yeah, and by the way, you
also have to check it according to other infringements of rights that might have come
in American history, and see if there's a president that might have been said.
So what they're saying is, if you can find other areas where the
Second Amendment has been infringed and say that those are part of American history,
which if they have been have been committed against people, they are part of
American history, then they say, if those are analogous to the contemporary statute,
then that's fine. What yeah, I said. Second, the Supreme
Court ruled that these rights infringing statutes, which ought to be a non starter,
right there must be checked according to their resemblance to any early US gun
rights infringing move again a non starter by a government local, state or federal
that can be viewed as analogous to the contemporary statute. And here is what
Judge F. Dennis Sala the foth I guess the other three just weren't good
enough. They had to have the sequel. That's district Chief Judge F.
Dennis Saila the fourth said, quote, the relevant history affirms the principle that
in seventeen ninety one, as now, and listen to this language, as
now, there was a tradition of regulating dangerous and unusual weapons. Well,
that's quite loaded and left up to interpretation and subject to viewing, isn't it
dangerous and unusual weapons? Says the judge, specifically those that are not reasonably
There's another term that they leave open for government interpretation, because the government determines
what's reasonable. As a former New Mpshire Justice of the New Hampshire Supreme Court
told me, he later went to Congress and goes, oh, yeah,
we insert reasonable into statutes, so it gives the government lots a room to
interpret what's reasonable, Like oh, isn't that nice? I feel so safe
now, thank you, bye bye. So he says reasonably necessary that are
those that are not reasonably necessary for self defense. So if the aggressors of
government determined that your item for self defense against the government is not, in
their eyes reasonable to have, well then they can set their government goons on
you, and they'll have their tax funded guns to go after you. So
that's what he said on Toy's Day. So I said, let's employ some
logic, history, and ethics to pierce this smoke screen of socialism. Notice
what the judge claimed that in seventeen ninety one, at the time of the
adoption of the Bill of Rights, there was a quote tradition of blocking ownership
of unusual so called unusual firearms. This exposes first the illogic of the man
to claim that any firearm that isn't widely owned is to be distinguished from others.
A few Americans own personal canons, and Paul Revere used to make them
he with his son. Second, this shows us that the Bruin second level
standard of is their historical precedent for an analog to this contemporary kind of rights
infringement has nothing to do with rights or justice. It's an opening for government
to point their tax funded weapons at us while simultaneously pointing to their rationales previous
instances of other government officials targeting people in their own eras. I mean,
how much more fatuous could you get? I said. Third, this fallacious
language from the judge reminds us that the second level of bruin has nothing to
do with the strict wording of the Second Amendment or the first level of bruin.
I said, That's all that should matter to a person operating under the
Constitution. If the Second Amendment strictly asserts, nay mandates, that no body
of government can infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, then it
doesn't matter who in the Supreme Court or what federal judge creates an exception for
one or two or any number of weapons that they don't like. The second
level of bruin actually contradicts the first level, which requires that strict that particular
strict reading of shall not be infringed. So they contradicted themselves in their own
Supreme Court ruling. They said, yeah, you gotta have a strict reading.
That's our first level, and our second level is well don't have a
strict trading It's absurd, it's so stupid. I said to cap that off,
one might go beyond the constitution. And again, thank you MRCTV for
publishing this. I said to cap that off, one might go beyond the
constitution. Again, I'm a libertarian, Christian anarchist anarchy, not being the
socialist nineteen twenties adoption of the term anarchy, which didn't apply to socialists because
they were collective as they favored government for their purposes as the left wingers always
have. You know, many of the piece nexs of the sixties didn't want
to dismantle the state. They just wanted to take over the state, and
of course engaged in their own war mongering. Just ask Bill Clinton, asked
the Somalis, ask the Iraqis, ask ask the people in Serbia. So
I said, if we go beyond the constitution, and we actually see that
the constitution was signed by people who never got our permission to sign it for
us, They just signed it. And generationally people are like, oh,
yeah, it applies to you. Really, when did I give my permission
for that? Oh? I never did, So you can't say that right.
Well, the only people to whom the Constitution applies are the politicians who
swear ohs to abide by it. But again by swearing it out to abide
by it, gives them no more so called authority to dominate our lives in
any way because they've signed up to a document. We never signed We never
agreed to it. So they've signed on to something that says, yeah,
we can play with other people's lives people who never agreed to this. To
me, that's called aggression. That's a mafia system. That's one of the
reasons why I'm a voluntarist anarchist. I'm in favor of what's called agorism,
voluntary associations, and what many people might see as a black market, free
market decisions apart from government meddling with people and pushing them around. So this
gets us to this extra point, even if they were to amend the Constitution,
folks I said, to cap that off, one might go beyond the
Constitution and wonder on an ethical moral level, how a group of political players
can claim the power to so called make rules, including so called constitutional rules,
even if they amended the Constitution. For others about how, when,
where, and of what kind of firearm? They may own. I said,
of course, one can wonder, but they in the halls of government
claim authority over us. And when you hear people say, well, there's
no constitutional authority for that, I hope you'll keep in mind that distinction.
The Constitution has no authority over anybody who has not voluntarily signed onto it.
And by saying well, you haven't fled to another place, you're still here,
So that tells me I'm claiming I'm setting the parameters by you not fleeing
government aggression under even the constitution, that means you accept it. Since when
has that been the deal? And you're walking down the street and a robber
puts a gun to you and he says, well, you're not running away,
so you must accept me. Give me your wallet. And this isn't
robbery? Now, how is that at all morally acceptable and logical? It's
not, I said, of course one can wonder, But they in the
halls of government claim so called authority over us. So we are relegated to
the posts of constant fighters, constantly vigilant to beware the machinations of political predators.
In the case of Massachusetts, this judge is entirely on the side of
government. What a surprise. In fact, Judge Sailor took it upon himself
to decide that the amorphous, undefined term assault weapons so called, can apply
to what the state decides. And he also thinks these evil weapons aren't suitable
for self defense. He thinks, so, so you must comply with what
he thinks. Get it? You have no control over your own tastes and
interest quote. The assault weapons, as he says, prohibited by the Massachusetts
are not suitable for ordinary again interpreted by him self defense purposes, and pose
substantial dangers far beyond those inherent in the design of ordinary firearms, the judge
wrote, end quote. Remember that I said, Remember that when buying a
rifle to protect your home from intruders, when buying a rifle to protect your
farm or woodland abode, or when you get a rifle to protect yourself against
potential government attackers. Ah. But government exists only by attacking and taking the
fruits of our labor. How dare we, like the people at Lexington and
conquered in Massachusetts? How dare we as they did it in April of seventeen
seventy five, want to own our weapons to defend our rights? Against government
goons like this judge who might attack us and our progeny with words that would
trigger the government to go after us, or those government agents with the tax
funded guns. Massachusetts was the home of the shot heard around the world,
operative impertinent words being shot and heard. Those ought to be enough for the
judged sailors of America to see why the Second Amendment was written. Perhaps their
death to the echoes of fights for liberty. Perhaps they, like even the
majority on the Supreme Court, are blind to the meaning of rights and the
wording of the Second Amendment. But we are not. We see and understand
that the fight for our rights against conniving tyrants never ends. So I hope
that was aoka for you. Let me know your thoughts in Rockfinchat and Rumble
Chat and I have to say Audi is in the chat modern retro radio creator.
Check it out. He's chatting with Jason says, I mean, if
we're going to have a bill of rights, how about the ones who take
an oath to abide by it? Yes, at least we can ask those
people to be honest about their o's. But of course they use it as
a smoke screen. They use it as a Beard. So let's look at
how one senator is now trying to find her way into further invading gun rights.
Of course, she's from Maine. She's Senator Susan Collins, a supposed
Republican and as you can see here from wmtw in Portland, where by the
way, don't forget in Augusta, Maine, they were going to have their
meeting just before Christmas to decide on mandating the evs on people, and they
couldn't have the meeting because they didn't have power after a storm. That's great
logic on their part. So here it is. Now this has to do
with the military and this mass shooting recently in Lewiston from a person who was
in the US military. So here we go in response to the Lewiston mass
shootings. Of course, it's always in response in response. Well, of
course, he picked soft targets. A bar where they served alcohol, they
didn't allow firearms. Bowling alley didn't allow firearms, had the signs on the
door. And as John Lott has noted, the presence of guns in areas
tends to get criminals who are interested in violent criminal acts against people to go
elsewhere. We'll talk about that again in a little while, just the sheer
consequentialist argument, the logic of it, we don't even have to talk about
the morality of it. But this is a very mixed bag because the morality
of it is blurred because this is about members of the military, and it
gets us into this idea of what is or is not acceptable for a mandate
or investigations of people, or constrictions on people who enter the military voluntarily.
It's a very interesting story, and Susan Collins is really trying to find an
opening here. So if you're in the military, if you're, of course,
as Jason Barker is, just out of the military, let me know
your thoughts. If you know people in the military, let me know your
thoughts. Or of course, if you're paying for the military, Oh yeah,
that's all of you. Ah, let me know your thoughts. In
response to the Lewiston mass shootings, main Senator Susan Collins, aren't you glad
you pay her salary? Is working on a bill that would require branches of
the military to utilize state level weapons restriction laws when appropriate. Okay, so
those state level weapons restriction laws are otherwise known as infringements on the right to
keep in bear arms. The right to keep in bear arms shall not be
infringed. It seems pretty plain. But what happens when you're in the military.
Do you still read the Second Amendment the same way? That gets us
to start thinking about what is or is not the militia and how warped the
perception is today of what is the army the army of the so called the
United States, because in the original colonial period, in the founding period,
there was no army of the United States. There was an army of the
Potomac. There were various branches of the military that fought against the British once
they pushed out the Articles of Confederation and they brought in the usurpation of the
Constitution contrary to the very rules under which they had agreed to the Articles of
Confederation. After they threatened an embargo on Rhode Island to get them to vote
for the Constitution to adopt it. Bill of Rights was brought in because people
like James Madison were worried, and they established the Second Amendment, which was
a double layer, mentioning again again that certain rights they wanted to make sure
don't forget, do not infringe on these things, and then they said anything
that is not an enumerated power for the federal government is left to the states.
There was no enumeration in there for a standing army. The idea of
the standing army was restricted to it is us, we are the militia,
and only when there was a declaration of war could the militia be called up
or as I mentioned in the constitution. And we'll talk about this in a
minute when we get into the immigration issue with Biden going to Mexico. Only
if a governor or a state legislature asked for militia aid under the president's help,
could militia members from other states got under the president, go into another
state to suppress an insurrection, rebellion, or hard violence that would threaten their
constitutional way of governance inside that state. So the second Amendment should apply at
all times. There's no standing army. It's only and as I mentioned,
you can look at one of my mrc TV articles who look at the California
Constitution, you'll see it noted that there is no standing army. It's the
militia. They're under the governor's control up to that point until they might be
called out on a declaration of war. And even then you don't have to
go. They can't just pull you in, you know, they can't.
They can't create some force that's going to pull you in. And and you
know, cause cause you to be drafted into it. You have to decide
if you're going to go. And so compulsory military is not part of the
original concept, and neither is standing army. And of course there is the
amendment in the constitution. Third Amendment prohibits forcing us to pay for the housing,
forcing us to house soldiers. And I would look at paying for the
housing of soldiers as basically the same thing as housing soldiers. So if I
have to pay for standing bases outside the United States, that I think is
housing a soldier on my I shouldn't have to do that to me. It's
all coercion anyway, it's all morality, but it's all immorality. But on
the constitution level, I think that that can be stressed. So Senator Collins,
I think is off base. Here. Let me give you more of
the story. According to a statement from a spokesman for Susan Collins, it
appears military units Lewiston mass shooter Robert card was associated with to be very very
poorly written with which he was associated did not act to use New York's Red
Flag Law or mains Red Flag Law. Okay, so the first thing we
have to ask is are those red flag laws constitutional? No, they are
not. They abridge the Second Amendment. They infringe on that, and they
also infringe on the fourth, fifth, sixth, and eighth Amendments because they
are taking property from someone without just compensation. They are also infringing on due
process. They're infringing on the right to a speedy trial. They're infringing on
the right to a trial in front of a jury of your peers rather than
kangaroo courts. They're just taking property. They are punishing people without a trial,
which is prohibited by the Eighth Amendment of the Bill of Rights. So
they are all massively unconstitutional. New York's Red Flag Law also has seen the
killing of one innocent man in the first year of its establishment. Main's Yellow
Flag Law is also unconstitutional. But can it be applied to members of the
military in some other way under military commands if there is a federal law statute
that has passed to adjust the way the military operates. Well, if you
can't have the state statutes. What if they try to say, we're going
to write our own federal statute that will be a red flag statute for anybody
in the military. That's not the approach she's taking, but I want to
introduce that to you as a thought something in the thought process. Despite numerous
warning signs that led to mister Carr's hospitalization and psychiatric hospital in New York and
the Army's decision to prevent him from having access to weapons, ammunition, and
participation in live fire exercises, said Annie Clark, communications director for Collins.
Well, where's the rest of that all? They didn't put the rest of
that in the report? Again poorly written, but despite that, of course
he was able to get his hands on weapons. Well, he was a
sniper trainer. He trained for sniping, and it says Cards Army unit from
Saco train cadets at West Point in New York for several years and July Card
was taken to a psychiatric hospital after behaving erratically. Well, of course,
Susan Collins has an idea, she says. Her office says work on the
bill is expected to resume in January, and they want to make sure that
the state red flag laws apply. A person who helped draft Mainz Yellow Flag
Loss says Collins' bill would close a so called safety gap. So if it
doesn't apply to members of the military, now why does it not apply?
Isn't that interesting? I think that Susan Collins is off base branches of the
military utilizing the state statutes. The state statutes being unconstitutional would negate the military
being able to use them. But again I pose the question to you,
what if the military were to say you can't own a firearm, Well,
if you're not currently called up by the military, how can they you?
Again, it's that question of does the Second Amendment universally apply? And if
we look at the contemporary view of the military, the concept of the army,
Navy, air Force, marines is really not the original concept For many
members of the founding era, Yes they could form the navy, yes they
could have ships, but the idea of a standing army was not part of
their lexicon. And so if you are going to be calling people onto a
ship and they're in the militia, then I can't see how even if they
are called to service, the government can infringe on their personal right to keep
in bear arms now. Folks in Rockfinnchat are mentioning. Brian de McCartney says,
spot on guard. Thank you, Brian deb thank you two to two
viewers in one and Brian de McCartney says that guy was a total mind controlled
operative. He definitely had some major problems. That is for darn sure.
Want to check out rumble chat and see what you have to say in rumble
chat as well, and thank you all for watching. Matthew Ronson says on
Rumble a weapon in every pot, Thank you very much. Dragon Dragon Grieta
on Rumble says, with militias you can remove criminal politicians in your state.
And Matthew Ronson, good point. V thank you. I want to make
sure I mention this if I dropped that the Navy is the only service called
called to be standing maintained constitutionally. And how nine thousand Watson again one of
the most catchy and memorable nicknames on any chat that I see that amazing reference
to the evil of IBM during World War Two Illuminati shooter card and here we
go a great statement, and I definitely want to mention this, especially because
David Knight often we'll mention this really really overlooked egregious attack on the right to
keep them bear arms and attack on the separation of powers, the assumptive power,
the power assumption of Trump. Stealth Patriot unrumble everybody. If you're just
watching on Twitter, I want to give this to you here in the David
Nights Show, Stealth Patriot says, it's sickening to see how many people make
excuses for Trump's bump stock band. Absolutely, he should have been impeached instantly
for that. That's a criminal threat against you. If it was Biden who
did that, they would have grabbed the pitchforks and torches. So true,
and how thank you. You are welcome very much, Risha M. Thanks
for being there. Risha M says, good morning, Guard and DK family.
Absolutely right, and I have to say it's really a heartwarming thing to
be here with you and share these things with you. So let's roll some
more. But while I have the opportunity, let's take this opportunity to again
remind you of the great work and don't mean that with a pun intended for
the Illuminati, the great work of David Knight and what he does every day
and what you do in the audience, And so with that, I want
to offer you the opportunity to check out a little something that I actually put
together from my show, A little interlude from the Little Drummer Boy from a
little Liberty conspiracy show that I think you might enjoy. Hello, Hello,
Hello. I like that donkey. He's a okay, good donkey. And
of course I put that together just recording a little something from a music box.
I bought a bunch of music boxes for the family, different songs like
when Irish Eyes Are Smiling and Frosty the Snowman and things like that, and
gave them to my family members, little wind up ones. I love those
things. And I can't come close to the amazing powers of David Knight and
his musical compositions. His ability to play music, to compose music, is
knowledge of classical music and all sorts of wonderful stuff on contemporary music as well.
And so I want to give you the season's Greetings from New York as
a way to sort of spoof myself, to remember, folks, I can't
come close, but I hope I'm providing you with good news and information filling
in for David Knight today, And of course if you want to see my
show, It's Liberty Conspiracy Monday through Friday at six o'clock on Rockfin and Rumble.
And I didn't intend to make this like a little plug for my show,
but I should do that actually. And if you want to find my
substack, you can go to the substack and that is Gardner Goldsmith substack.
And if you're just listening in your car, it's gar d ne R.
Goldsmith like Gardner Mass and yeah, you can check that out. And on
Sundays, the Sunday News Assembly has at least twenty stories that pertain to your
liberty. And I try to put in contextual information to draw out those lessons
of liberty. Philosophy has history, economics, and I don't look at it
as one of my classes or anything like that, or I might be teaching
some philosophical thing or bringing up a term in economics. But I try to
draw in some of those themes from the classes so that people reading these things
can get that ammunition and arm themselves for future instances of these sorts of encroachments.
So thank you very much, And again, if you want to join
the show Monday through Friday, you can join us live on Rockfin and Rumble
and on my Twitter feed which is at guard Goldsmith g r d Goldsmith and
you can also see my work at mrctv dot org. But please join us
on the show and after the fact you can see the show give it the
thumbs up. And you know we're not even a year old, and so
I really welcome everybody to join us. And again remember if you want to
contribute to The David Knight Show today on Rumble or Rockfinn, everything goes to
those folks and the David Knight family and they are purely supported by you and
your appreciation for his amazing, amazing news gathering, news analysis capabilities, every
day news resources. So let's continue and keep trying to spread the word about
the David Knight Show. In fact, since I played that little piece,
I want to show you what it's really about. With the David Knight of
Course Christmas Album. I'm delighted to present something born from my love for music
and the Christmas season. Christmas Night is a perfect companment for anything from family
gatherings the moments of peaceful reflection. I hope is to provide a fresh take
to the soundtrack of Christmas. This collection of twenty instrumental songs brings new life
to timeless Christmas classics with original orchestrations alongside lesser known, yet equally enchanting carols.
For the listeners of The David Knight Show, this is more than music.
It's part of our shared journey. Christmas Night is available at the Davidnightshow
dot com. May it bring a little extra joy and peace to your Christmas
season. Thank you for your unwavering support and for joining me in this new
musical adventure. Merry Christmas to all and all a good Christmas night. Beautiful
stuff from David, and boy is it wonderful. It's absolutely fantastic. His
musicianship is unparalleled. It's really really great, and it's just symphonic. It's
it's heartwarming, and I'm gonna be listening to it all year long. It's
gonna be one of my favorites. And now we're gonna hear from another one
of my favorites, a little theme to get into our next news item on
the program, Everybody, We're going across the Border with alfjord h m HMUs
go on. Of course, this song about selling weapons in a Spanish civil
war, when what the ways the ghost found the clouds turns direct and silver
on the b on my Wall, What a great song on my wall,
the colors of the maps surround me. I loved the chorus. In the
village where I grew up, nothing seems the same. It's just the patterns
that remain an empty shell. Just amazing lyricism. Al Stewart, of course
you're the cat his biggest hit, but on the Border, and that Spanish
guitar. By the way, the man who played it had never really done
Spanish guitar before, but he happened to hit something as they were sitting together
working and Al Stewart had this idea. He said, you know what this
is about Spain and he had an acoustic He says, can you do a
little Spanish guitar riff? And the man said, well, yeah, I
could try that. And it ended up that it became so popular in the
songs that he would do a solo live and people would go crazy. So
he became a Spanish guitar player. Really a remarkable set of musicians working with
Al Stewart. So let's talk about Joe Biden going a ross the border.
Everybody meeting with the Mexican President here's the story from Reuters. Here it is
there. They are. Yes. Indeed, President Joe Biden meets with Mexican
President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador. I think tomorrow he's going to add one more
name to his name. I'm not sure it's inflation. You know, you
need more names. But this headline reads Biden Mexico's president agree more border enforcement
needed. Well. Part of the reason why I played on the Border rather
than one of my other favorite songs Mexican radio today, that, of course,
being Wall of Voodoo, was because on the Border mentions weapons, arms
and ammunition. And that lets us think about the great Eric Holder with the
fast and furious idea of going across the border with weapons so that they could
first slow walk. And there was originally an idea. It wasn't fast and
furious, but the idea was generated under the Bush administration, George W.
Bush, and they wanted to bring weapons into Mexico, get them to the
drug cartels. Awesome, they love you so much. They really care about
that so called war on drugs, don't they. That's why the military was
guarding the poppy fields in Afghanistan so long. And as we know, Haraldo
Rivera interviewed a man named Lieutenant Colonel Brian Christmas about twenty years ago, and
they were standing in front of the poppy field because, as you know,
the War on Terror was so important that they had to sit inside and occupy
Afghanistan for twenty years and see the United States military guard the poppy fields so
that the percentage of the world's opium actually increased from sales from Afghanistan. And
they claimed in this interview, and I'll show it on Friday. Remind me,
I'll show it on Friday to show just how contradictory the policies are.
As the politicians tell you that they're working for your good, kind of like
the fallacy of the state, that it's there for your protection, but of
course it can only exist by threatening you and your property. Just enjoy not
paying sometime and see what happens for that wonderful protection service. Yeah, see
how comfortable and safe you feel by your protectors from your protectors. But he's
interviewing this man and he says, well, if we don't, if we
don't guard the poppy fields, then the Taliban will just take over and they'll
they'll get all the money from these things. So we've got to guard the
poppy fields. I'm paraphrasing. Essentially, he says, we've got to do
this because the poor people who own these fields, they owe money to the
to the Taliban. They've got to pay off the Taliban. Otherwise talban are
just coming and take over everything. Okay, So what happens now? The
United States has left in that wonderful way that Joe Biden left with billions of
dollars worth of military equipment on the ground there, you know, people dying.
Oh, it's just it was a classic classic you know what, you
know, cluster, you know what. But the percentage of opium is no
longer at ninety seven percent under the United States tutelage and guarding, which rose
from ninety percent where it was before the United States got in. You know,
while the United States is engaging and it's so called war on drugs unconstitutionally
giving US civil asset forfeiture when we might talk about that with James Board coming
up in the eleven o'clock hour. But something peculiar seems to have happened,
which is that the Taliban took over those fields and they destroyed many of them.
They destroyed them. So regardless of one's view of one group of people
destroying the property of others, that I should have nothing to do with that.
I should have nothing to do with my neighbor's choice to ingest anything that's
made from opium or anything like that. I should only have a say on
my defense. I can't charge somebody else to provide for my defense. I
can't for somebody else to not take a drug. I can't threaten him or
her to make sure that he or she does not ingest something. And of
course by doing so, you get a black market. And of course we
saw that in the United States with their war on drugs, which against which
they were fighting with the US military, and you were paying for both.
Isn't that great? Yeah, So here we've got the on the border theme
from Al Stewart reminding us about what Eric Holder did, and that saw a
border guard getting killed with a firearm that had been brought down into Mexico in
Operation Fast and Furious. So that's awesome because Eric Holder is out there talking
right now about justice and our rights about firearms. He's the guy who said
many years ago, we just have to continually repeating, keep repeating gun control
messages and just basically brainwash people. And he used the word brainwash people into
agreeing to further government attenuation on their rights. But that's not the point.
It's not that you might agree to an attenuation on your rights. It's that
you're agreeing to get the government to attenuate somebody else's rights. That's the problem.
So, yes, we can be upset about their attempts to brainwash,
their pr spin their Edward Burnet's propaganda, but we also can remember that typically
when people are talking about gun control, it's not for themselves voluntarily, Oh
I'm going to give up my guns. When was the last time you saw
a politician walking around without armed a federal politician walking around without some sort of
armed protection. In Congress, they've got armed protectors all over the price.
I think Nancy Pelosi doesn't have armed protectors while she votes to take away your
firearms right. So let's find out what they discussed in Mexico. It's just
the first blush, but as I mentioned at the start of the show,
it opens up a much larger panoply of issues that we can discuss, one
of them being very important. Mexico City, Washington, US President Joe Biden
and his Mexican counterpart agreed during a call on Thursday that more enforcement at the
border for you got it, immigration between their countries, is needed. Okay,
so let's not forget that when Jim Jordan and he always seems to talk
a good, good game and then doesn't seem to kind of pull through.
He has some hearings, we get some good television footage, but nothing's ever
done. Maybe it's because Jordan doesn't have enough sway to be able to get
some legislation passed to change some of these things. After he is involved with
some of the questions about oh, say, January sixth, the footage there,
or the jabs or that sort of thing. Okay, you know,
I appreciate at least what he's getting out. I wish he would be more
forceful. Maybe he just can't get enough people to support him. Thomas Massey
always on the right side of things as far as the issues go down there.
I don't support the state at all, but if you're going to have
a guy involved with the state, at least try to stop the state from
growing. US President Joe Biden and his Mexican counterpart agreed during a call on
Toy's Day that more enforcement at the border, at the border and that right
there is a misnomer between their countries is needed. The White House said this
as record numbers of people are trying to cross and they have disrupted trade.
Top US officials including oh, by the way, yes, that's Alijndro.
Majorca's was not responding to Jim Jordan's request to find out not the number of
interactions that Majorcas keeps using as a cipher to draw attention away from the real
numbers of how many returns, arrests and returns. That's what people want to
know. He keeps saying, well, we've had this many interactions. Well,
that's not too helpful to people who might live, oh, say,
in the Midwest, and your interactions are seeing the border agents who aren't even
supposed to be on the US border in places like Arizona, because it's supposed
to be the Arizona border guarded by the Arizona government. But we'll get into
that. They're not even talking about shipping people on the buses. Those are
their interactions. They're putting them on buses, they're giving them plane tickets.
We saw just a little while ago Ashley Saint Clair from the Babylon b took
footage in an airport as people were at a delta gate. Every one of
them she could tell was an illegal immigrant. I mentioned yesterday on my program
the United States government is now allowing this is the TSA in the airports.
They're allowing illegal immigrants to use their arrest charges, their arrest warrants as id
so as you have to go through the Gelian dialectic of being scanned or grow
having your face scanned, which, as I mentioned, people seem to be
very upset when Right Aid Pharmacy was engaging in that, but they are not
speaking up in arms and crying out foul when the US government does it contrary
to half the Bill of Rights. It's like you don't have to go to
that drug store, but the government imposes itself between you and the airline,
which one is actually immoral? How about the goverment the other one? You
can decide do I want to do it or not? Is this their policy?
Well, I don't want to go right now. If it's surreptitious,
then that's different, but on the part of the drug store. But if
they make it an open policy, you can decide and they can rise or
fall based on their policy. Government's going to keep getting your money, and
of course for this bogus homeland security stuff, and Alejandro Majorca's even Jim Jordan
can't get proper answers from the guy. Well we've had this many interactions.
Well we're not talking about interactions, we're talking about how many returns have you
done? Geez? So yes, Alejandro Majorcas and Secretary of State Anthony Blincoln
and Homeland Security Advisor Elizabeth Sherwood Randall, Yes, and she gets applause for
the hyphens. We'll travel to Mexico in coming days to meet with President Andres
Manuel Lopez Obrador on the issue, White House National Security spokesman John Kirby said
in a briefing with reporters. So pretty much every one of those people are
almost comical. The visit will focus on efforts to stem migratory flows. Who's
paying for that, I don't know, and how the two countries can work
together, Kirby said, later, adding that the leaders had spoken about what
could be done from Mexico to slow down the process. Quote, there's probably
more we can be doing, Kirby said. Dozens of major US agricultural groups
on Wednesday urged the US to reopen two rail crossings on the Texas Mexico border
to restore trade routes closed due to the rising migrant crossings. Well, how
about the trade routes that have been closed due to the Jabman dates. Yes,
Joe Biden picked up that baton from Donald Trump and just ran all the
way to the border with it. On the border. The White House then
said it was working with Mexico to resolve issues that led to the closures.
Okay, Conservatives, again, let's just mention that if you think it's a
really good idea to have central command and control, that runs against most of
your philosophy. I thought you liked decentralization. I thought you didn't like central
command and control, Soviet style decision making. I thought you didn't go for
that. Well, let's turn to MRCTV. There's my ugly mug over in
Brighton, England, when my first novella came out over in Brighton. And
let's look at this this story from the Biden administration, Biden border patrol to
work like travel agents inside Mexico. And this is the one I mentioned at
the beginning of the David Knight show this morning that I really don't think a
lot of people are discussing, so don't mind me, everybody. I think
I'd like to make sure that I give you this information. And again big
thanks to the MRCTV people for letting me put this story out. Let's just
give this a quick one right now. Oh, there's going to be stop.
Did you know thousands of Americans are piggybacking off an IRS? You know,
Albert Einstein often receives credit for observing insanity is doing the same thing over
and over and expecting different results, And conservatives might want to reflect on that
aphorism, especially when discovering this new wrinkle in the increasingly distorted, nasty face
of federal control over immigration. Hi. Everyone, I'm Gardner Goldsmith for MRCTV
and here's the absolutely crazy story. Joseph Simonson reports for the Washington Free Beacon.
Quote. A senior official familiar with the plan told the Washington Free Beacon
that the Department of Homeland Security wants to dispatch customs and Border Protection agents to
areas of Mexico that has seen large influxes of migrants there. Documents obtained by
the Free Beacon show law enforcement would begin the screening process for migrants and expedite
their final journey across the Southern board. Such a program is virtually unprecedented and
represents an escalation of what critics call the Biden Administration's facilitation of illegal immigration.
Indeed, in just the last few months, Americans already have seen the Center
for Immigration Studies exposing a Biden administration program offering to potential migrants and app that
they can use to get air travel tickets that will bring them virtually anywhere in
the US, allowing them to land and avoid federal border checks. Altogether,
Americans already have seen Capitol Hill arguments and accusations about Biden's border patrol withholding data
related to the numbers of migrant encounters relative to the number of US government returns
of the migrants. And even this past week, we saw Senator Jony Erst,
a Republican of Iowa, remind Americans that Massachusetts Democrat at Governor Maura Healey's
verbiage about a migrant emergency in her state kind of runs counter to her previous
statements in favor of virtually unlimited immigration and counter to her continued support for more
migrants coming to Massachusetts Senator Earnst told viewers of Fox News not to forget that
Heale had used tax money to subsidize the housing of migrants and hotels near the
stadium where the Big Army Navy football game took place Saturday, December ninth.
Senator Ernst correctly made reference to the fact that Healey's recent rhetoric about an emergency
seems offered merely to turn on the nineteen eighties Massachusetts statute that upon a governor's
declaration of an emergency for shelter, the statute mandates that the state give shelter
to anyone asking for it, and it facilitates legal and medical welfare for said
recipients of the shelter. It also facilitates Heally calling on you got it,
Homeland Securities are Alejandro Majorcas to send her more nationally collected tax cash, regardless
of there being nothing in the US Constitution allowing that. Now we get the
lovely insult to the supposed rule book of the United States, the Constitution,
and to US taxpayers. In this new story, Simonson reports, quote,
what the Department of Homeland Security wants to do is send customs officers to Mexico
so we can pre clear surges of migrants, ostensibly in hopes they stop crossing
illegally. The DHS official told the Free Beacon they would be doing background vetting
so migrants can be waved through, but the plan could put further strain on
border patrol, which already faces a staffing shortage ahead of an expected winter surge.
Staff who spoke with the Free Beacon said miles of the southern border have
gone unguarded because agents have been relegated to processing migrants well. The standard conservative
observation of the Biden narrative has been to question how many of the migrants who
cross the border are apprehended and returned. Then added to that, there's the
question of the FEDS and various state governments like that of Massachusetts literally subsidizing people's
moves. When was the last time your move to a new locale was subsidized
by someone else's sweat and toil and tax money at Simonson quote. President and
Joe Biden has overseen the largest immigration crisis in US history, with law enforcement
recording more than five million illegal crossings on the southern border since he took office.
Blue state governors say the record number of migrants coming to their cities is
straining their welfare systems, and cities including New York and Chicago, are considering
budget cuts to offset the cost of housing and feeding migrants. The Department of
Homeland Security declined to comment. Of course, the DHS didn't respond. In
a constitutional America, there would be no DHS to respond to these questions because
the DHS is massively toweringly unconstitutional. In a conservative America, the border would
be handled according to the wording of the Constitution, meaning that state governments would
handle the matter. Doesn't it strike conservatives as odd that a senator from Iowa
should be talking about hotel rooms and political problems in Massachusetts? Or should one
recall Einstein's admonition here? Conservatives generally talk the good talk when it comes to
opposing central planning and central government. They oft promote the Founder's ideal of decentralization
and federalism. Yet nowadays few conservatives acknowledge a key fact about their US Constitution.
The words immigration and immigrant do not appear in the US Constitution. The
only passage of the Constitution from which one might infer a link to immigration is
in Article one, Section nine, and this provision tells readers that prior to
eighteen oh eight, Congress could not write laws regarding the migration into any of
the original thirteen states from outside the US or from other states in the Union.
The Founders understood that immigration was not a federal purview. If a state
legislature or governor should call on the federal government to lead the militia from other
states to that state in order to protect that state's republican form of government from
violence or insurrection, the Feds are constitutionally bound to respond. And ironically,
Governor Greg Abbott of Texas has done that, and of course Joe Biden,
well, he hasn't responded in any constitutional fashion. In fact, we now
witness the possibility that Biden's border so called patrol will head to Mexico to make
it easier for migrants to come to the States. Perhaps conservatives can see that
the problem is not just Biden. The problem is the reliance on central command
and control and the discarding of the original Constitution. What else is needed to
awaken that spirit of constitutionalism of the Founders and see conservatives resist the temptation to
centralize immigration. What else do we have to see when this issue has been
mismanaged for so many years, and now we're starting to see this in Mexico
as a possibility. Big lessons about history, morality, ethics, and freedom.
Thanks so much for watching. Everybody, please like and subscribe, and
so there you go, everybody. I thought the team at MRCTV they're great
guys, really good guys. I was just looking at my bright red here.
And yes, Jason Barker, this is in honor of you and so
many of the other people who know that. I did my scriptwriting time at
Star Trek Voyager, and yes I am a Red Shirt, but I guess
statistically the Red Shirt guys weren't killed as often as people say on Star Trek,
so hopefully I'm not the sacrificial lamb for freedom out there. But yeah,
it was great that MRCTV allowed me to put that out there. And
I'd like to amplify on this story that you know, this story about Mexico,
the Mexican President, Joe Biden and so on, this story really is
It's just superficial. It doesn't really mean very much right now at all,
but I think it indicates that they're going to be trying to do something.
They're going to do some other really bad thing. I don't know what it'll
be. We don't know whether or not they're going to be issuing these you
know, working as travel agents in Mexico, but it probably is going to
have something to do with sending money to Mexico. They're probably going to try
to shell out money down to Mexican go for something. I don't know what
it'll be. We'll find out, but it's the first blush telling us that
yes, they're getting all set up for some pomp and circumstance, uh to
engage in some other bad central government border border patrol, cross cultural Mexico America
arrangement. But I'd like to amplify on what you just saw from MRCTV because,
as I've mentioned to numerous people, I think a lot of conservatives.
I've mentioned this before when I filled in for David. I've had great conversations
with Pat Buchanan and Tom tan Credo, JD. Hayworth a little mini debates
in a very free, friendly spirited uh you know, you know, exchange
of information idea concept where I have explained to them. I said, guys,
I understand that the the supposed care that Democrats have about immigrants is really
that's just a smoke screen. Everybody knows that. For years they have wanted
to use a sort of variation on cultural Marxism to try to make it look
as if there for the downtrodden immigrant. There for the person who's going to
be coming in and working the fields and doing the day labor. They they
don't want to see people having to work as under the black market and things
like that illegally. And there might be a small percentage of the Democrats,
but the Democrat politicians you could tell for years anybody who's been working in Washington.
I spent a summer in Washington doing journalism there. You know what the
Democrats actually want for immigration. Their policies don't come from the heart. They
don't come from an understanding of the Constitution. They come from wanting to come
from their desire to get more people onto what they think will be the government
dole, to get more supporters for their party, to get more people who
would support their ideology and vote for them. That's what they want. It's
about votes. For the Republicans, it's a bit of a mixed bag.
You get some conservatives who culturally maybe they think that there's a problem. They
want the culture to be a certain way. But that's a tiny, tiny
portion of people, because, of course, there have been a lot of
different types of cultures that in America. You know, many conservatives have learned,
and even many people who come up from Cuba are very conservative people.
So conservatism and antagonism for different groups of so called racial groups and things like
that is not necessarily the conservative line that the Democrats constantly tell us. But
okay, let's say there's a certain percentage. I think the larger percentage of
conservatives were concerned with a that they thought that the border was supposed to be
controlled by the government, the federal government or or a Another alternative is that
they worried about welfareism and possible crime schools being overloaded and things like that by
immigrants. Okay, then there's this sub portion for both parties that they get
these give and take on whether or not the migrants will be so called stealing
American jobs. On the economics side of that, Okay, so the Republicans
generally speaking, for a long time, we'd talk about we don't want these
people adding to the welfare roles, which is what the Democrats seem to want.
But even Anne Colter, and I've met her, she's a very pleasant
woman. She's been recently speaking out about abortion in terrible ways. I don't
like the fact that she wants Republicans to drop the abortion issue. It's like,
please this, we're talking about human life here, the fourteenth Amendment.
If she as a trained lawyer, she recognized the Fourteenth Amendment should stand for
the protection of all human beings. State statutes prohibiting murder should apply to all
human beings, and fetuses are human, and at the moment of conception,
they are being That's when it starts the great natural arc that leads to our
natural demise thanks to God deciding right human beings interfering. That's taking a human
life. Simple. It's a basic syllogism, you know, And she should
get it. But I'm sure she does. But I don't understand why she's
making those calculations. But I understand the differences between the parties, the differences
that people have. But oftentimes Conservatives will talk about welfare stuff, and it's
almost as if they're accepting now of welfare for Americans. They're saying, well,
these are foreigners, they're getting welfare. They shouldn't be getting welfare.
They don't pay taxes. Well, in many cases, they do pay taxes
in various forms, whether or not it's income taxes. There might be property
taxes that they're paying indirectly, gasoline taxes, sales taxes, a lot of
different kinds of taxes they'll be paying if they're up here, right, That's
just those are just how many angels can dance on the head of a poisonous
pen. You're not getting to the root of the issue right getting to the
root radical radii radish right in the Greek. So let's get to the root
of things right now and talk about amplifying a couple of those issues that I
mentioned. At eleven o'clock, James Boulevard will be with us and he will
be talking about as I done, My Spectacles, My spect Spectacles. Yes,
we'll be talking about his book of course, Last Writes, just out
from the Libertarian Institute. Great stuff. And by the way, in addition
to getting that book from the Libertarian Institute, my sister gave me Tom Woods's
latest one with a forward by Jay Batikaria, Diary of a Psychosis from you
got it. The Libertarian Institute, formed by one of my friends, Sheldon
Richmond, and of course hold on second, okay, yeah, well,
I'll go into it later on. I don't know, don't want to get
too far into but great people, great people at the Libertary Libertarian Institute.
I was going to mention Scott Horton and start talking out about how great Scott
Horton is. But okay, let's get into a little amplification from what you
got to see on that. And if you're joining us for the first time
in the David Knight Show, thank you for doing so. I'm Gardner Goldsmith
filling in for David. And what you just got to see was an MRCTV
production of this story that we don't know whether it's going to happen. We'll
find out. But people who are very upset about the thousands of folks coming
over the border, they are justified to be upset. But I think that
conservatives are making a mistake when they're looking to the central authority here. And
I noticed there's some great, great comments on both Rock Finn and Rumble.
Michael Silvio says, slave labor. Yeah, and that's one of the other
things too, Michael. I was going to mention the other part of it
is, you know, the competition against so called Native workers. Union people
don't want the immigrants coming in, and by making it prohibited, those people
who are now working and coming to the United States, they might be having
it relatively better than where they came from, but they can't turn to any
above board, recognizable so called authorities to get any sort of compensation or adjudication
over a work dispute. So many times they can be preyed upon in much
easier ways than if they were legal. And I use the terms legal and
illegal very carefully. By the way, Yes, banks that hopefully I do
look like Nosferato. I used to pretend I was Nosparati at times. So
let me go into this for you and offer you a bit of information about
immigration. Now, I wrote in two thousand and six about something that was
in dispute in the Senate at the time, and so I want to go
into the Constitution and talk about what is in the constitution. And you saw
in that video, and there are portions of the argument that actually aren't in
the video and could have deserved amplification, but they had to cut them out
for time. So I'm going to amplify on this now and give you the
rundown from my book. This is from my book Lived for Your Die if
you're looking for it, and it was published in two thousand and seven,
I believe. And again if you've never watched that, my father has quotes
inside this as well. That's my dad when he was in the Navy in
World War Two, taken in Hawaii. That's my father, Paul H.
Goldsmith. So he has different sayings and aphorisms that he has in here.
But I said, let's look at the Constitution. I said, Article one,
section eight of the Constitution gives Congress the power to control naturalization, a
provision which has often been mistaken for the granting of power over immigration itself.
As if to meention on my own show, Mark Levin does this all the
time, Mark Levin, I'm very upset all the time. I can't stop
talking like this. Can you imagine being his wife? Hi, honey,
good morning, good morning, Okay, okay, Mark. Anyway, that
naturalization provision often has been mistaken for the granting of power over immigration itself,
and has been used to promulgate heaps of premicious legislation for decades, despite the
fact that there is a profound difference between naturalization becoming a citizen and immigration being
on the soil of one of the United States. Many so called conservatives have
taken it upon themselves to mix the two as they attempt to justify federal immigration
law. For example, Mark Levin, well known radio host in New York
City an author of Men in Black, has stated quote, the first effort
to control immigration and naturalization came with a Naturalization Act in seventeen ninety when Congress
set the residency requirement for the US citizenship at two years. In seventeen ninety
five, the requirement was increased to five years. Did you notice what he
did there? He included immigration, He said, I'll read it again.
The first effort to control immigration and naturalization came with what the Naturalization Act.
It had nothing to do with immigration at all. Unfortunately, for many conservatives
and for mister Levin's claims, the Naturalization Acts of both seventeen ninety and seventeen
ninety five pertained strictly to what was constitutionally granted to the Congress the power to
determine citizenship requirements. The acts had nothing to do with whether people could be
in one of the many United States the power over immigration was a state purview,
and the founders knew it. To try to mix the two is either
a mark of an amateur historian or someone who is attempting to mislead his readers.
The only place where the concept of immigration appears in the US Constitution is
Article one, Section nine, and that's the concept of it, not the
word, and that's the one that's mentioned in this But the tail part of
my point was not in this video. So I want to give it to
you. And that reads in part, the migration or importation of such persons
as any of the states now existing, that's the thirteen States, any of
the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by
the Congress prior to the year one thousand, eight hundred and eight period.
Now why did they do that. It was a compromise for the Southern states
because they didn't want the federal government interfering in the importation of slaves. It
had to do with slaves, the importation of slaves or the movement of slaves
from one state to another state, so that their states would not be turned
into Djura by law free states by the Congress blocking the importation of slaves into
there, and eventually people the generations passing, and they're having no more slaves,
okay, So I said, this provision of the Constitution tells the careful
reedo that prior to eighteen oh eight, Congress could not write any laws regarding
the migration into any of the original thirteen states from outside the US or from
other states in the Union. Such wording and the philosophy of the founders themselves
would imply that unless the Constitution was amended, Congress did not have jurisdiction to
right laws dealing with immigration in the original states before eighteen oh eight, and
did not have the power to write laws pertaining to immigration in any states that
subsequently joined the Union. This is just basic logic, I said. This
is an important dist one lost on most so called conservative politicians, and sadly
one also lost by Supreme Court justices very early in US history. And so
I've run through this with Pat, I've run through this with Tom tan Crado,
and they've been very friendly. They've listened, we've exchanged I've listened to
them, and then they let me go through the other portions of this and
they all end up agreeing well, Gardner, I can't fault your argument.
You're right, and I know, I know I'm right. I've done it.
I've gone really in depth on this. But then they always fall back
to but and then they go on and it's like, oh, you guys,
so let's go through a little more here. So it was not until
eighteen seventy five, with the Supreme Court decision in the case of Chi Loong
v. Freeman and the passage of the Page Law subsequent to that in Congress,
that federal control was established regarding immigration into more than the original thirteen states.
As one would expect, and as we have seen with the push to
restrict immigration today, the driving force behind this nineteenth century shift in power was
political economics. In the West, native US workers were upset by the growing
presence of lower cost Chinese labor in gold mines and on railroads. The Transcontinental
Railroad, even though it was a boondoggle, was built in no small part
by low priced Chinese workers. As a result, they lobbied This is the
native people, not the Chinese people, but the so called Americans at that
time. They lobbied their representatives to restrict their foreign competition. Such activities seems
very familiar today, just as the unions. In eighteen eighty two, the
so called Chinese Exclusion Act was passed in the United States. It barred entrance
into America by Chinese laborers for ten years, halted Chinese non labor immigration for
sixty years, and prohibited entirely all naturalization by Chinese people, just like today,
as members of the United Auto Workers and Senator Chuck Schumer of New York
tell us that only certain kinds of immigrant labor are acceptable, those that in
no way stand to compete against their excessively high wage rates the politicians, and
that's money that consumers could keep and then spend on something else. This is
why the expanding economy also includes trying to keep your labor costs low part of
your process of manufacture, whether it's the raw materials, labor time, whatever
it is. In our contemporary battle over immigration, the unionized mercantile interests find
odd allies in the conservative wing of the Republican Party. And that is something
that I found problematic with Pat Buchanan's presidential run. So now I want to
add to that a little bit more. Well, I can go into the
economics of immigration at a different time. But now I want to tell you
a little bit more about the constitutional side of things and go beyond just that.
So let's start talking about Oh, I have a little thing from the
rotary here. I'm talking about rotary in Australia. That's interesting. I went
to speak there after I went to Australia. They're just so nice to me.
Those guys are good guys. I really appreciate that. So now let's
go into a little bit more on the constitutional side of things. I said
in the preceding arguments about immigration, it has been noted that the US Constitution
explicitly grants the federal government power to control immigration or migration migration after eighteen oh
eight, and only the states that existed at the time. I've received some
criticism for this observation and engaged in some rewarding friendly debates with some who disagree
with my analysis. For the record, those who believe the US Constitution grants
the federal government the power to control immigration in every state must grapple with a
few important facts. First. Under any strict reading of the Constitution, the
immigration issue is verbally tied to the important importation of slaves Article I, Section
nine. According to the Constitution, Congress was forbidden from regulating the importation of
slaves or other people into the states existing at the time, and there was
a very powerful political reason for this clause. If it had not been written,
the Southern states would not have been likely to approve the Constitution. Here's
the layout as it stood at the time of the Founders. By the time
the Constitution was written, the Northwest Ordinance had already banned slavery in the Northwest
territory. Southern agricultural interests were reluctant to sign on to the Constitution without some
kind of assurance that their way of life would not be immediately threatened by northern
states exercising great power in Congress. As a result, the famous three fifths
compromise was soon established, each making each slave count as three fifths of a
man for the purpose of congressional representation. And I noted we can discuss the
disaster of slavery at another time. After the Constitution was written, the Missouri
Compromise was achieved, and this is very important. This set. This compromise
set a standard for the process of admission of states from the territories of the
Louisiana Purchase whereby the northern free territories and Southern slave territories would alternate in admission.
If the federal government could set the rules regards guarding new state importation of
slaves i e. Immigration, as they might try to say it out from.
If they could do this outside of those original thirteen states, then there
would be no reason for them to have had the Missouri compromise. There would
be no need to decide which kinds of territories could gain admission in what sequence,
because the territories themselves, upon becoming states, could then see Congress place
restrictions on them regarding slave importation or general immigration if people wanted to expand it
beyond slaves. It is unlikely that the Southern states would have accepted such an
arrangement when debating the Constitution. What the South wanted was an assurance that Congress
would not be able to stop importation of slaves in any of the future states
that might be admitted beyond the borders of the Northwest Territory. If one reads
Article one, Section nine, he sees the use of the term of the
states now existing, and that was intentional. The exclusion of future states was
intentional as well. The ninth and tenth amendments then set the bar higher for
any assumption that Congress could adopt this power or make it up Stronger than the
opinion I offer is the fact that Thomas Jefferson took this view on immigration in
seventeen ninety eight, when he forcefully commented on the Alien and on the Sedition
acts in the Kentucky Resolutions. Kentucky Resolution number four quote resolved that alien friends
are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the state wherein they are,
that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor
prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens, and it
being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments of the Constitution
having also declared that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States respectively and to
the people. Therefore, the Act of the Congress of the United States,
passed the twenty second day of June seventeen ninety eight, entitled an Act Concerning
Aliens, which assumes power over alien friends not delegated by the Constitution, is
not law, but is altogether void and of no force. You often hear
people talking about the Sedition Act and how terrible that was to say that you
can't criticize John Adams, but it's okay to criticize Thomas Jefferson. And if
you're a newspaper person, they're going to arrest you if you criticized John Adams.
And Jefferson reversed all that paid people back. Well, they did the
same thing with the Alien Act. After he was elected. Jefferson pardoned all
people captured under the law, and Congress paid restitution. Later, President Grant
of all pace people held the same view. Quote responsibility over immigration can only
belong with the states, since this is where the Constitution kept the power,
he once said in a letter to Congress. In Texas, the state constitution,
approved in eighteen sixty nine had an article in it establishing a Bureau of
Immigration headed by a Superintendent of Immigration for the state. Consider this riddle me,
this batman. If the people of Texas believed Congress had the power to
control immigration in the New States, why would they have bothered to include such
a provision for their own state government. It's doubtful in the least. In
numerous Supreme Court cases of the early nineteenth century, for example Milne v.
New York, Smith v. Turner, and Norris v. Boston. Participants
cited numerous laws enacted by the state legislatures that put restrictions on the kinds of
peace people such as poppers, that shipmates could allow in the respective states,
and many of the laws were passed after the adoption of the Constitution. There
was debate as to whether the states could impose taxes on such imports, or
if such taxes infringed on Congress's power to impose levies and tariffs. States can
impose teriffs but they must get permission from Congress first, according to the Constitution.
There was debate about that about putting a price tag on those imported people.
There were also controversies about whether such state taxes could trump federal treaties with
other nations. But there were many non monetary restrictions placed by states on the
immigrants that were imposed by the state legislatures that were never questioned until the Chi
Lung v. Freemen in eighteen seventy five, dated before it was the Supreme
Court. Malfeasans and congressional politics in the late eighteen hundreds that brought about the
federalization of immigration policy. It was not the US Constitution. This is something
supposed to conservatives ought to remember when debating. Now, the next phase,
as I've sometimes mentioned, the next phase comes when we get responses from Tom
tan Credo and Pap you Can and JD. Hayworth. They've all responded with
the same thing. They say, yeah, but Gardner, it's an invasion.
We are being invaded. Of course, the all inclusive government. You're
part of the part of it, whether you like it or not. Social
contract fallacy of the royal Wei now is the so called representative or democratic government
when if you want to be left alone, you can't be left alone.
They're going to make you part of the wei. So, in other words,
it's a pronoun of aggression. The royal wi under the state. So
they say, we are being invaded the United States, so therefore you've got
to have some sort of border. You've got to have protection of the border.
And I say, okay, look, let's look at your logic,
let's look at your terminology. And if the United States thinks that, if
people of the United States think the United States plural are being invaded, then
what is the proper constitutional answer. JD. Hayworth was a congressman. Tom
caam Cradle was a congressman. Pat Buchanan was running for president. More than
once, they've looked at the constitution. Surely they swore os to the Constitution
two of the three. So what do they say, Well, the answer
is, you declare war against the nation state that you claim is invading.
And if these people are not uniformed combatants from another nation state, you can't
declare war against those people because they're not officially part of the government of that
nation state. So you can't, in traditional parlance declare war with the capital
w against those people because they're civilians. So therefore you respond with the second
phase, which is the president can lead mercenaries under letters of mark and reprisal.
So if you can't declare war against the nation state, like let's say
they don't want to declare war against Mexico, but you're seeing people coming in
from Mexico through Panama and so on up through Mexico, whatever, swimming over
or not even swimming but rafting over from Cuba. Whatever. Let's say you
want to stop this group, that group, all the groups I don't know
right, Well, then you can't declare war against the nation state, but
you can have Congress issue letters of mark and reprisal, which lets the president
hire mercenaries to then go after those people. Okay, they haven't done either,
clearly, right, So what is the only other alternative. The only
other alternative is what I mentioned about Greg Abbott and how the Constitution you saw
that in the MRCT video. The Constitution does allow for federal so called federal
troops that would be the militia, to be called up to go into a
state if the governor, if the legislature of the state calls for help to
protect their constitutional form of government against invasion, against insurrection, rebellion, or
violence. Okay, so if we look at the Constitution, let's now go
over into article Let's see Article four. I'll just read the pertinent clause for
you. Okay, so you can probably see the scrolling on my face.
Article four, Section four here it is all right. Now again, I'm
an anarchist, I'm a voluntarist. I never signed this document, and just
saying, hey, if you just want to play fair, you know,
even in this unfair world of government imposing it on me, at least just
look at the rules, just do it this way. So this is the
only way that the federal troops could be brought in on the border. So
right now, the border patrol even fifty seventy five miles inside Arizona, pulling
people over as they're trying to get to work, being able to control the
dogs to jump on the cars. The dog got a signal, so now
I can check your car. Contrary to the Fourth Amendment, none of it.
It's absurdly unconstitutional, it's laughably unconstitutional. It's a farce. It's an
absolute clown show game. But they are wearing guns. So here it is
Section four, Article four. Section four. The United States shall guarantee to
every state in this Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each
of them against invasion, declaration of war right and on application of the legislature
of that state, or of the executive of that state, if the legislature
cannot be convened, against domestic violence. So this actually is what Greg Abbott
did last year. He asked Joe Biden to protect Texas. Otherwise it's supposed
to be Greg Abbott. And as we saw one other sort of echo of
constitutionalism a couple years ago, even Ron DeSantis said he had agreed to supply
militia units National Guard to go to Texas to help the protection of the border
in Texas. Greg Abbott has officially asked Joe Biden to carry out and he
hasn't even cited Article four, Section four, but he's just generally asked and
it conforms, it comports with anybody who wants to be strict on the wording.
It does work. He's and that's on their constitutional level. He's asking
for help on the border to protect them against the violence and the instability there.
Joe Biden has not responded properly, and in fact, they have worked
to stop Greg Abbott, who just last week was going to call up state
police units to help on the border. The Department of Homeland Security and the
Justice Department are trying to stop Greg Gabbott from handling things on the border.
Right now. You've got the central government Conservatives. If you think that you're
going to have the border patrol being done your way, contrary to your claim
that you are constitutionalists, Let's say you're willing to let that drop and say,
well, yeah, I'm a constitutionalist. Accept Let's say you're comfortable with
that even if you're comfortable with that, the consequentialist practical outcome of what you
are proposing and aspiring to is that when somebody gets in there and you don't
like him, the policy's going to change. Do you really really want to
have some unconstitutional system of central command and control like Soviet Russia deciding what happens
on the border to the extent now where Joe Biden is giving people phone apps
to get on planes to fly to the Midwest, this is what your central
your focus on the central authority, has rot. You're not gonna get it
a lot better. You thought Donald Trump was gonna do something. He's singing
the same thing. He's whistling the same tune as he whistled before he got
elected the first time. Oh, we're gonna put up the wall. It's
gonna be the best wall. Meanwhile, he's occupying. He was occupying Syria.
We got it there to Syria. We're on the best oil. It's
really nice. I use it in my hair to keep it down in the
wind. It's really good. Best occupation of all time, except for the
Afghan occupation, which I helped end. But you know, we let it
go on. We didn't just pull out immediately, which we should have constitutionally.
This reason is absurd. The whole thing is a farce. So that
Article four, Section four is the only out. And again, if we
look at the breaking news about this Mexican meeting, what does it mean?
It doesn't really mean that much, right, we don't know what's going on,
but it can signal a learning opportunity. Right, this is the leap
point. This is when you're at the punk rock show and somebody's doing a
stage dive, iggy Pop's jumping out at you. You got something happening there,
and it's a big deal. It's a very very big deal, whether
or not. You know, I'm not gonna win my arguments, right,
I'm not gonna win politically. I'll win the argument, but I won't win
politically. I'm not going to see anything change. But for you know,
I get satisfaction out of just trying to get the information out there. Maybe
that's why I've enjoyed teaching. You know, I think it's great you make
a connection with somebody and they say, oh, yeah, you know,
okay, that's cool, And it's not necessarily it's a satisfaction of like,
yeah, I think I've proven my point. I think everybody might get that
satisfaction, but it's more in I think I've presented it in a in a
logical and understandable way, and maybe somebody else will find this valuable. Right.
I think I'm holding my side up as it might be holding up my
side for truth. Right. So yeah, I've got my fingers crossed that
people will like that. And yeah, we will see how things play out
with the with the elections. I wouldn't expect much whether it's Trump or Biden.
And please don't forget you know, Trump's emergency order in March thirteenth to
twenty twenty, that's what brought up so many of the lockdowns the state legislators
and state governors imposed with the Model State Health Emergency Plans, and you know,
massive infringements on the Bill of Rights, added onto what they did after
nine to eleven with the so called Patriot Act and even the FISA, the
FISA Act, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and the Drug War, all
those things, year after year, layer of tarnish upon layer of tarnish on
what seemed to be that shining babble of the US Constitution. You know,
let's take an opportunity give you a little more wonderful music from David Knight.
And when we return, we're gonna be joined by our guest, none other
than James boulevard Erbit listening to the David Knight Show. Wow, wonderful stuff
from David Knight. Remember you can get the Christmas album over there a couple
of days after Christmas, but they had the Feast of Saint Stephen's was it
yesterday? So you know, keep the spirit alive everybody, and remember anything
you contribute over at David Knight's Rock Finn channel, everything goes straight to the
show. I'm Gardner Goldsmith guest hosting, and I just you know, it
just is an amazing and wonderful pleasure to be here with all of you in
the chats online wherever you might be in. Thanks again on the backside of
Twitter at guard Goldsmith for the kind words from yesterday's show. I really appreciated
that, and I want to say a big couple words of appreciation to Karen
Carpenter and the Rock Finn Chat. She mentions that satisfaction of teaching. One
day, I gave a lecture about heart attacks to second graders because they were
curious about it. I drew pictures of the circuitory system. It was spur
of the moment, but what a who The students were enthralled. And some
also some great comments from Wes Robertson talking about what Greg Abbott can do.
Abbott can end the illegals coming through his state anytime, constitutionally just by nullifying
federal dictates. Well again, you know, I hope that the outlines they
gave about the Kentucky resolutions. And James Madison also in letters mentioned that it's
supposed to be a state purview. That eighteen seventy five chaw Long decision is
as bad as the dred Scott decision, as bad as the Roe v.
Wade decision. It warps the perception of the constitution and so many people start
to think that that's the way it should be. And then of course everybody
starts to argue over the one size must fits all. So very interesting stuff.
I really want to thank everyone in the rumble chat as well. That
one person says, too bad Bitchoot doesn't have the money behind them that Rumble
has. Bitchhoot has always been solid. I like Bitchoot as well, and
high boost mentioned Trump, and he says Trump used Facebook twenty sixteen to win,
but it was used against him in twenty twenty. Kind of funny.
Well, yeah, you know, I think it's going to be very interesting
to see what happens in this next election. But I have no vested interest
in this whatsoever. I do want to welcome, however, a man who
has been watching this longan than I have, and has been one of my
big heroes for a long time. He's our guest now on the David Night
Show. He is James Bouvart, coming to us from just outside the swamp
of Washington, d C. On The David Knight Show. James, welcome
to the program. I see the symbol for you. I think we've got
audio and welcome and congratulations on your new book. Last, writes James Beauvard.
Thanks very much, thanks for having me on, having me back on,
and thanks for plugging the book. And yeah, I was trying to
figure out whether or not to use the video today and I thought it might
overwhelm viewers that have two photogenet guys on the screen. Well, thank you,
thank you, James. I don't have the beard. I couldn't grow
the beard the way you do. But yes, I know we would probably
count your blessings on the beard. Isn't that what? Isn't that what the
Ministry of Truth is all about. Nina Jenkovitch was there to stop us handsome
guys from getting too much airtime, right, I don't know and Tomy what
she was supposed to do, but she was. I mean, she was
great for comic relief. I mean, it's always good to have to have
a woman who's whose videos included who asking who exactly? Kind of filled the
blank to become rich and powerful. Yes, I wouldn't use that verb because
you've got a family friendly so but it was great to see online. It's
like, you know, I guess you know the Biden White House. When
they were vetting her for that appointment, forgot to ask one important question,
does she sing? Maybe they'll have to put that on the application for him
from now on? Right? Well, the nice thing is once they booted
her, everybody thought the Ministry of Truth was done, but it wasn't.
They brought in Michael Chertoff. Well, yeah, I mean, it's just
it's amazing that he would have any credibility in washing after the things he's done,
and the lobby lobbing he's done. But uh no, I mean you've
heard. I'm sorry, go ahead, No, No, I heard Jim
that he wants people to pass through an airport scanner before they can get online
to speak. I think that's his new gimmick, just to saw more scanners.
Yeah, well, you know you're got to find some use for those
damn airport scanners. Hell haven't done any good as far as catching weapons and
bombs. So I mean, I've you know, I've had I've had some
memorable experiences for those scanners with the TSA. And that's right. I've tried
to settle accounts. Hey, I tell you, James Bovard is our guest.
Folks, go to Jimbouvard dot com and follow him at Jim Bouvard on
Twitter. And the new book is great. And I know that you wrote
about your recent experiences with the TSA. It hasn't changed. That's not any
more secure. We know that every few years they would have their studies on
how many bomb like materials would go through, and even ABC News would do
their own studies. It never changed, despite the increasing budget, despite the
daily, minute by minute, person by person encroachments, into the Fourth Amendment,
the Fifth Amendment, the sixth Amendment, the Eighth Amendment, so many
things. And that lets us look at Last Rights. And I want to
bring this up to all the audience, everybody. Last Rights the latest from
James Beauvard and has a picture of the Capitol building with the razor wire and
the fence just in the foreground and of course on the back. I showed
this at the start of the show. Everybody, the armed goons protecting our
liberties. Isn't that? I'm sorry, They're protecting the politicians from we people
they tell us are free. James, You've got a lot in this book.
First of all, I know you've been working on this for a long
time. How long ago did you start to think, Okay, I'm going
to get this book out, because this is a crucial time to have this
book released, shortly before COVID. Actually, I was trying to tie a
lot of things together that I've been writing about for years. I mean,
this is this is a flashback to nineteen ninety three, ninety four when Lost
Rights came out. The book that preceded this, it's and it was a
roundup of a lot of the federal state and local atrocities and abuses back then,
and folks said I was much too cynical, And it's kind of like,
you know, I don't think so. But it's sad to look back
in the nineteen nineties almost as like if it was a golden era for freedom.
Oh isn't that? It's bizarre, isn't it. I mean, it's
like it's like going, it's going. It's like going from one abusive relationship
into a worse relationship. And let you know, and then you say yourself,
gee, I I had it better off when I was, you know,
when I was getting beat up this way. It's ridiculous. It's like
going like drowning in water versus drawing a quicksand it gets worse. It just
gets worse. And and you know, they keep using these rationales where the
government gets caught at something. You know, we see James Clapper testifying in
front of Ron Wyden, and Widen already knows that they're surveiling people because they've
got this snowed in information. It just hasn't gone public yet, and all
of a sudden boom. What happens, he asked him, is the NSA
collecting data on people? No, and then Ryden gives it. Widen gives
him a chance to get out of possibly perjuring himself, which he just did,
and he says no, and he said, well not knowingly, like
no, you were doing it knowingly. That's what the is about. That's
what the whole face the thing is about. And it's not just Section seven
oh two. It's a very concept of it's not in the Constitution. It's
strictly prohibited. And the prohibition doesn't mean that it only applies to the government
invading Americans rights. It's anybody's rights. They don't have the ability to scan
somebody in Sweden, just like they don't have the ability to scan somebody in
New Hampshire. They just don't have the power. It's amazing to me,
James, you have so many things here. Can I run through a little
bit? Thank you so much. Pardon the spectacles here. I just wanted
to make sure I look like Charlie Robinson, the great Charlie Robinson, a
great podcaster, and so in the book Everybody just released from the Libertarian Institute,
and I hope you will check it out at the Libertarian Institute website.
As you mentioned here, you have in the introduction tyranny comes to main street.
Americans today have the freedom to be freedom in quotes, and this is
very very important to me, James. And I'm so glad that having you
know, as a teenager, I picked up one of your books. You
know, I'm like ten years behind you or something like that, and I'm
like, I like this guy. And now I know you, and I'm
like, I like this guy. And you always Yeah, you keep getting
the bat on the leather, you keep hitting it. Man, It's great.
Okay, that's a new Hampster phrase. Yeah, absolutely is. My
daddy used to play for the Red Sox, their farm team. Yeah,
yeah, they used to do. They were called the Hooligan Squad. It
was before World War Two. And he never Yeah. Yeah, it was
interesting. Americans today, you say, have a quote freedom end quote to
be fleeced, groped, wire tapped, injected, censored, ticketed, disarmed,
beaten, vilified, detained, and maybe shot by government agents. Politicians
are hell bent on protecting citizens against everything. Accept Uncle Sam. It's that
wonderful social contract, isn't it? As America? Is America becoming a cage
keeper democracy where voters merely ratify the latest demolition of their rights and liberties.
And you cover in this book. It's not just a wide array. It's
as if you're using a logical syllogism from point A down to point fifteen.
What letter is that? You know? M something like that. You talk
about seizure fever, the war on gun owners, licensed to kill, the
COVID crackdown, catastrophe, School's gone wild, ten thousand czars, subsidies and
subjugation dominate, and yeah, be careful what you wish for. States and
corporations dominate, intimidate, control, taxation and tyranny. No place to hide,
see no evil democracy, mindless ministry of truth, ah, the Singing
Singing Spirit, Spirit of Nanny Jenkowitz, American Gestapo, ronamok and last Chance
for Liberty. Concluding things with tons of endnotes. So James, you put
this together, it's a lot of work. In addition to the articles you
write. I don't know how many articles you write every week. Do you
have a certain set number that you put out every week? James No,
I'm you know, with the book being done, I'm aspiring tout have three
or four out for week. But I have a question for you on the
book is that a paperback or a hardbacked version. This is the hardcover Okay,
okay, because I haven't seen that. I was trying to find it.
I mean, Amazon was supposed to have it and they you know,
I don't know, but so where did you order that from? I can't
remember if I got this through the Libertarian Institute website or I went to Amazon
just so I could get it shipped over more quickly. Yeah. Well,
you know, it looks good. I'm just I was trying to get some
hardbacks and I've got paperbacks, but I will track those down. Oh,
this is absolutely fantastic, James. I got a few of the items I'd
like to discuss with you, and I've bookmarked each one far away. Okay,
we've got chapter three, the War on gun owners. Of course,
I was talking about the way that so called red flag laws or contrary to
half the Bill of Rights, punishment without any trial, Second Amendment, third
Amendment, fourth Amendment, fifth Amendment, sixth Amendment. Then we've got license
to kill. And this is really something else. It goes back to the
nineties a lot of different things with the Justice Department and how so called reform
was never actually instituted and as they often do. The reform that they claim
actually give them permission to do even worse things to us. Then we're talking
about the American Gestapo run amok. That is the FBI. So if you'd
like to pick any one of those for our audience, and if anyone has
any questions for James Bouvard, put it in the Rock Fin or Rumble Chad.
And if you're watching on David Knight's Twitter feed, I can also check
those in a little while, but we'll go with Rock Fin and Rumble Chad.
James, is there any one of those you'd like to hit first?
You know, I don't have any specific preference on the FBI the American Gestapo.
That was a phrase from President Truman right in his diary, I think
in late nineteen forty five, maybe forty six. He said he was worried
that the FBI was becoming a Gestapo and that America did not need that.
That was just after the defeat of Nazi Germany. Yeah, I see here,
we want no gestapo or secret police. FBI is trending in that direction.
Nineteen forty five you wrote, yep, yep, And that's so he
was aware of the damage of the danger, and other politicians have had some
very eloquent statements on that over the subsequent decades. But the FBI, you
know, still has vast unchecked power. The FBI tried to throw the twenty
sixteen presidential election to Hillary Clinton. The FBI had a huge role in helping
Joe Biden win the twenty twenty election. And I don't know, you know,
there hasn't been any effective effort that I know of to put a lease
on the FBI for the twenty twenty twenty four presidential election. So you know,
yeah, I don't see how I don't see how democracy survives this.
Well, you know, it's amazing because you can roll back so fluidly in
conversation to some of those things, and every one of those things you mentioned
the twenty sixteen right, So one of the things on which I was reporting
an MRCTVS was the so called DNC hack. Right. We know that the
DNC didn't give the computer to the FBI. Initially, they gave it to
CrowdStrike. CrowdStrike run by this guy Aparamov or something like that. I remember
the Atlantic Council. They came out with their report which is absolutely ridiculous.
Bill Benni has mentioned that there's no way that the data could have been transferred
as quickly as it was transferred if it was done through phone lines. It
had to have been done on site with data sticks, flash drives. And
then this guy aproa Vamach or whatever comes out and says, oh, it
was the Russians, and that entire Russian the Russians interference Russian thing carried through
as the Portman Murphy bill was circulating in twenty sixteen and got pasted in that
last NDAA that Obama signed in December of twenty sixteen, which created the Portman
Murphy Countering Foreign Propaganda Act, which helped give a lot of this money to
places like News Guard and Election Guard and all these different agencies that we found
were actually being funded by the FEDS. Simultaneous to that, we see the
FEDS now hiding information about like the Hunter Biden laptop and literally reaching out to
the New York Times to say, don't talk about this thing that we know
the hard drive had the chain of possession already set up. They knew it
was authentic, but they didn't want people to know about this. And that
is that's one of the softer things, but it had incredible implications, and
I was amazed that many people were unaware of the FBI's role in that.
Yeah, I mean that's something the New York posted great work on and they
have dogged that issue very effectively. It's it's frustrating to see how much yes,
the government still gets away with and talking to folks who were moderates,
liberals, democrats, or even undecided, their knowledge base on these scandals is
very low. And it's sort of like caught a conservative about the torture scandals,
like what that never happened? Right, So it's just you know,
and this is part of how the how the outrage is snowball, and you
know, they turned to precedence and there's almost no way to put a leash
on them. It's amazing, you know, we know that prior to say
this contemporary era, we might be looking out a twenty sixteen, there were
all sorts of problems with the FBI, as we know, you know,
whether it was the Black Panthers, Martin Luther King Junior, and so many
of the different things that were instituted with the creation of the FBI right on
through. It's always been very very sketchy. It's always been something where the
FBI, on the surface carried this sort of mantle of pride and all this
is and a lot of the guys we go into the FBI think I'm going
to do the right thing. But there have always been very dark factions to
the FBI and a lot of questions constitutionally about well, is it really excusable
to create a police agency for crimes that might happen across borders, or is
it really just the maximum that the Feds would do would be to facilitate extradition
between states, And that's sort of the fundamental question about the FBI. But
there are other things that have happened recently. We've seen the FBI, and
of course the Department of Education being implicated at the Justice Department as well in
possibly investigating concerned parents who go to school board meetings and investigating Catholics who are
traditional and Catholic masses. Would you like to amplify on some of the other
things that you discovered as you wanted to put this together or throughout your life
some of the things that stand out for you about the FBI and just how
inflammatory it has become or how bad it was in the past. Yeah,
that's a very good question. Uh. The giption. Going back to the
the FBI and the Catholics, it came out earlier this year that the that
the FBI in Richmond other places had a secret campaign to infiltrate church services to
quote identify the bad Catholics. And you know, I don't I'm not comfortable
at all with the FBI setting themselves up to be secret judges of who is
and who is not a good Christian or a good Catholic. You know,
this is you talk about a Pandora's box, and this is something it wasn't
just one knit with FBI agent who did this. This is something which got
approved at multiple levels. But one of the things that sticks in my mind
most vividly on the FBI was Ruby Ridge. You had the FBI send their
snipers out there. You had the FBI, you know, the FBI snipers
were given an order to shoot to kill, basically shoot on site for the
adults that were being besieged federal agents. And then the FBI sniper guns down
Vicky Weavers. She's holding her baby in the cabin door. That age lawn.
Harryucci, Uh, never was never received any sort of uh uh,
any sort of punishment. In fact, he got advances after killing right yep.
And so that was something I wrote about and it was fasting to see
the pushback. FBI Director Lewis Free condemned me in public for for slandering FBI
agents and the FBI itself. But I later got hold of a five hundred
page confidential Justice Department report on their analysis of Ruby Ridge, and the Jests
Department had many of the same condemnations of the FBI that I had as far
as their their conduct and their cover up of Ruby Ridge. But you just
said it publicly. Uh. I set up publicly, and the FBI chief
I thought that he could squash my reputation like a bug. Well you know
you are. You are, James Bouvard. And by the way, as
we talked about last writes, I want to mention I remember at that time
Ruby Ridge. G Gordon Lettie was doing his radio show. Oh he was.
He was great, yeah, and he was excellent on that Ruby Ridge
issue, and he would mention what you were talking about. I remember him
talking about your work on his show. And I got to meet him a
number of years ago, and he was very very nice to me, and
Uh, you know, I obviously going to prison after the Nicks and Nixon
issues and things like that, but he really did a splendid job talking about
Loanhara Ucci, Ruby Ridge and Randy Waver and his family. And I really
appreciate the fact that you you stood up for those people. You know,
David Knight was down there with UH with the UH down at Bundy Ranch when
the Bureau of Land Management was trying to wipe out the Bundy Ranch and take
that over. They were sabotaging the water pipes and so on. David was
there at the standoff as the snipers had their guns trained on them. He
was right there. Yeah, there's a section in the book on the Bundy
Ranch case and the FBI just just it's it's incredible, and I don't it's
it gets me choked up a little bit sometimes to think about just how far
people have it. You know, you get these little, these little bubble
ups of people standing up for what is appropriate. They're standing up for their
rights. These people at Bundy Ranch had a land agreement when Nevada was a
territory, and as I've mentioned, there is no provision for the United States
government to run land other than Washington, d C. Territories and militaried garrisons.
And as you know, when according to the Constitution, territories become states,
they're supposed to enter with, as they say, all the rights and
privileges of any other state. And there is no mandate that they have to
seed land to the government. And even if they had to seed land,
even if they wanted to seed land to the federal government, they the federal
government has no provision in the Constitution to manage that land. So all these
areas Grand Escalante as I mentioned yesterday and David's show, or the Bears,
the Bear's Feet, or the Anwar, anything like that, all these areas
where they've opened up national parks or you know, closed off Anthracite to help
the lip Bo group for the Clinton administration, any of those things, those
were supposed to be up to the states. And since the Bundies had an
agreement from that territory of Nevada before it became a state, they were grandfathered
in, their family had grazing rights, and Feds were trying to wipe them
out. And it's amazing to think that the pop media could portray people who
were just trying to mine their own business, were just sitting there who got
invaded by federal agents, the FBI, the BLN them with their tax funded
guns. They can portray the the bundies as the flipped out aggressors, as
the wild gun totals, and they were just defending their property and that sort
of I love to correct the record on that sort of thing, especially for
peaceful people like that. James. Yeah, and it was fascinating to see
the evolution of the federal court cases and the federal judges on that issue.
Yeah, there was a I think Judge Navro, maybe Gloria Navro, Yeah,
it was. She started out very much leading in favor of the FBI
and the fedes, but by the time at a certain point there were there
a number of very late revelations the FEDS made that blew their credibility to pieces,
and she basically threw the case out of court and gave the FBI a
very thorough cussing. Yeah, the discovery process there on every one of those
was so important. And of course, you know, I think James,
it harkens back to back to the days when they would try to have the
kangaroo courts during the Revolutionary era to take people away from their local juries,
and they you know, they try them up in Nova Scotia. That was
one of the things you wanted to have jury of your peers. People hear
this information. Even judges sometimes will stand up and say, you know what,
this is just wrong? Uh and and and yeah, good for judge
Navarro. I was. I was really pleased about that, James, any
other thoughts in the FBI. I'd love to talk to you a little bit
about something tied to the FBI, that the war on drugs and things like
civil asset forfeiture. If that's sure, go for it. Okay, Well,
let's let's talk a little bit about the so called war on drugs,
you know, starting up with Lyndon Johnson, but even before that, certain
statutes, a lot of the old jazz musicians finding that they, you know,
were running into problems with the law. We've got an idea that somehow
the person accused with some crime against to others just for possessing a substance,
which is not a violent act of aggression against anyone, just the possession of
a substance or the sale to a voluntary, willing participant of a substance like
drugs, whatever it might be, that somehow, first any state agency,
agency of the state, in its normative sense, should be involved in stopping
that person from engaging in that peaceful activity. But on the constitutional level,
the superstructure of this, on a national and historical level, for the United
States, James Boulevard, we've got the so called war on drugs that has
incentivized local police forces, and even the Obama administration threw down a smoke screen
with Eric Holder in there, and you talk about some of this, some
of Eric Holder's background on this, the so called war on drugs, the
seizure of people's property, and how it incentivizes the local police to engage in
these types of raids because they can make tons of money. They get to
keep people stuff. Can you talk a little bit about the concept of civil
asset forfeiture and how you approach it in last rites James Boulevard, Yeah,
civil asset forfeiture means that the government come in and confiscate your property based on
a mere allegation that it might have been misused at some time in the past.
And there was I think a dea agent wh would say that the Great
thing about asset forfeiture is is not up to us to prove anything, and
so so so, the if a government agent stops you walking down the street
and he says, let me take a look at your wallet, and so
he pulls he pulls out your cash, and then a drug dog comes up.
The drug dog alerts to the drugs supposedly on the on your currency.
Boom, that's sufficient for the government to seize your currency. However, the
vast majority of American currency has micro traces of drugs and suffici to trigger a
canine alert, and judges have known that for thirty years. Judges have been
condemning this a canine dog currency seizure as a bunch of crap, going back
to probably even before Bill Clinton's presidency. Right, but you know it's still
there, and it's it's almost like a Monty Python tests of whether or not
a woman is a witch. If she weighs more than a duck, So
she's made of wood, that's it. That's it. Got a drowner.
Maybe she was eating crunchy frogs. I don't know. Yeah, yeah,
that's I've always avoided. Yes, yes, and James h let's I I
mentioned this before you came on. I've done this on my Liberty Conspiracy Show,
but I'd like to show this for the David Knight audience as I fill
in for David Knight. James Bovard is our guest on the David Knight Show.
Everybody and place your questions in Rock Finchat after we show this, get
to its thoughts about the conflict, the seeming bipolar problem between the so called
war on drugs unconstitutional of course, and the so called war on terror,
which has seen such a destruction of so many of the rights that are supposed
to be protected by the US Bill of Rights. And James, I'd like
to turn right now to this. There might be a little ad that pops
up. This is from twenty years ago. It's Heraldo Rivera on the ground
in Afghanistan as US soldiers guarded the Heroin poppy crop. The fact that the
Dural government is here and is the opium trade the Taliban is using it to
intimidate the population. Joining us from Helmand Province is Haroaldo Rivera. Good morning
to you, Haroldo. Tell us what you've seen during your days there in
Afghanistan. Hi Allison, Dave n Clayton. Yes, in some ways.
The Marines brilliantly executed invasion of Marja, this town in the middle of Helman
Province was the easy part. The hard part now is governing this province and
province as you suggest, that has become addicted to opium in many many ways.
That is the principal crop that is being grown here. The Taliban lend
the farmers the money they are indebted to the Taliban, they have to grow
the opium. Now, the Marines, in their success, are in a
sense of victim of their success because now the population is you know, they
have these opium fields and we are tolerating it. We are tolerating the cultivation
of the opium because we know that if we were to destroy it now,
the population would turn against the Marines and it would be a real security risk.
Let me introduce Lieutenant Colonel Brian Christmas. He's the commanding officer of the
third Battalion, six Marines. Really a wonderful group of Marines here. I
know that you care deeply about this contradiction, the fact that here you have
one of the best fighting forces in the world ever mounted and in the sense
you're watching as this opium as being grown. I know it grinds at your
gut. How do you deal with it? What are you doing about her?
Well, frankly, this is part of the culture. So while my
grind and my gut, it's what they do. So it's very interesting,
James. I bring that up, of course, knowing that they were unconstitutionally
there. Ron Paul offered a declaration of war. He got three votes.
Of course, he was not going to vote for it himself, and I
thought that it was important to bring that up because we have this bipolar situation
of the US government telling us they have this so called war on drugs,
then invading a foreign nation, occupying it for two decades, and as they're
occupying it, seeing the opium coming out of there increase and the proportion of
the world's trade going up to near ninety seven percent coming from Afghanistan. Now,
James, just a few weeks ago, I was reading about how the
Taliban, and again I'm not in favor of one group destroying the crops of
anybody, but Afghanistan is no longer number one on the export of opium poppy
products. It's now something like me on mar or something like that. They've
dropped because the Taliban did get in there, and rather than doing what the
government told us they would do, which would be to take over the fields
and run them themselves, they're destroying the fields. And it is amazing to
me because we got people who are accustomed to the United States being in Afghanistan,
even some military members. I've spoken to them, and I've been at
airports. I've seen them in their fatigues and I say, oh, are
you heading out somewhere. They're like, yeah, I'm going to Afghanistan,
going to Iraq. And I say, listen, if you don't want to
answer this question, if it makes you feel uncomfortable, that's okay. I
don't want to make you feel uncomfortable. But I know you swear an oath
to the Constitution. Yes, you will answer to constitutional orders. Yes,
there is no declaration of war. The only way the president can send troops
out constitutionally is if there's a declaration of war. How do you feel knowing
that you swe to the constitution but they're sending you out in a breach of
the constitution. And their answer always is well, I do what they tell
me. And I think that that is sad and of course, very frightening.
And I hope that you know, I don't want to be too explicit
on it, but I hope that people will remember this is the type of
policy what we see right here on the screen. This is the type of
policy you get when people don't try to keep tabs on their own ethics and
what is right and wrong and contradictory based on government policy and what they were
doing there. I wonder, James, if anybody could say, gee,
you know you are guarding those fields. Now, we're going to come in
and do civil asset forfeiture on the US military now, because of course you're
involved with a crime, we can just take your jeeves. You think they
would do that, James, Well, I think it might be difficult to
collect if there is something. And I don't know how long you can stay
with us, James, But I do want to ask a couple questions from
rock Way. Excellent. Excellent, So let's head over to rock Fin and
Rumble Chat and see what you have to say everybody here on the David Knight
Show. And here are some of the points that are brought up over at
rumble a rock Finn. We're seeing Okay, they're talking about Heraldo Rivera.
Now, yes, someone brought up the plandemic, the pandemic and the lockdowns.
Love for you to be able to address some questions on that. Regarding
civil liberties James, and Michael Desalvio says we should just grow it here in
the United States. Very good point and hal nine thousand, Watson, I'm
sure you understand the reference there, James. A little dig on IBM,
says, oh American way, and they also say no war on farmer drugs.
Those are subsidized and protected. Let's talk about the lockdowns for a second,
James, you saw what was going on, and then we'll talk about
the Capitol Building maybe January sixth, because you visited there and just seen the
stark in your face police state appearance and practice there and how things have changed.
Do you have any thoughts about the United States government, including various governors
most of them, and legislatures, cracking down on people's civil liberties, choosing
essential non essential businesses, shutting things down with vaccine, passports, the border.
You've got to be jabbed, all these types of things. There's a
solid chapter in the book on the COVID crackdown, craziness you know, I
think one of the clearest lessons of the pandemic was that in the long run,
people have more interfear from paul fish than from a virus. You have
so many politicians who gave themselves dictatorial power. There were some great Supreme Court
dissents during the early part of the pandemic. I believe it was just just
as Gorsuch, who was who was mocking the state of Nevada for putting very
very low limits for church attendance, but there was there was a much larger
limit for going to the casinos, and he said, it's really difficult to
reconcile the First Amendment with the He had a very good line afterwards, trust
me on that one. But there were lots of lots of good court decisions,
but the hysteria by the media, most of the media, not all
of it in favor of unlimited government power. And to see how the media
made saints out of people like Falci in spite of all of his contradictions,
in spite of his flip flops, it was almost as if groveling to the
government was the only way people could be saved. Absolutely absolutely right, and
his elitist el seignor approach, looking down his nose at people, you know,
the way that you know. I wish ran Paul had gone farther.
I hope he continues to do more, not just questioning the gain of function,
but questioning any of the United States government involvement in the JAB research.
And of course they called those countermeasures, claiming they could do that as a
DoD type of preparatory thing against a potential attack by some foreign nation developing a
virus. But they're the ones who developed developed the virus and directly through Eco
Health Alliance, moving it from North Carolina over to Wuhan. So all of
it is unconstitutional. And here's the quote on page seventy seven, folks from
Neil Gorsuch, James writes in his new book Last Rites, available at the
Libertarian Institute, also on Amazon James Bouvard at Jim Bouvard on Twitter. Politicians
effectively promised to banish all COVID risk by obliterating individual liberty, but according to
the Centers for Disease Control, most Americans still contracted COVID despite quote the greatest
intrusions on civil liberties in the peacetime history of this country. End quote as
Neil Gorsuch declared in twenty twenty three, those lockdowns destroyed millions of jobs,
spurred hundreds of thousands of bankruptcies, and sparked far more suicides, alcoholism and
drug abuse JIM. Everything from local schools and the teachers' unions pushing for even
more outside the school so called education. Everything from parents speaking up about that
sort of thing and the way that they were speaking up about wokeism being detected
by the DOE, then working with the National School Boards Association to try to
concoct a narrative that the concerned parents were somehow potential domestic terror threats, and
then getting the FBI to investigate them, which was halted supposedly but not really
when they got discovered. To the lockdowns, the JAB passports, and as
I've mentioned, the use of HIPPA the nineteen ninety six Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act supposedly to protect our privacy, but in between pages seventy five and
ninety five of the PDF, people can see how the head of HHS can
demand medical records from anybody who is medical in a medical profession, who accepts
Medicare Medicaid patients to things like the people bringing in things on trucks from Canada.
You've got to be jazz to all sorts of things. You can protest
for BLM, but you can't protest for your own rights to protest unbelievable,
unbelievable encroachments, and they cannot be forgotten. These sorts of things have to
be remembered, and they have to be fought. They have to be fought
on a local, state, and federal level. And it just amazes me
that so many people just allow these things to come out and the lies.
Fauci openly saying well, yes, I lied about masks, and now I'm
giving you a spurious reason is because I think they're so important to have masks
when everybody knows the masks aren't important. Just absurd. What were some of
the standout things as you went back on this, because there's so much regarding
the lockdowns and the lies from the federal government and the constitutional side of things
and people's rights. Well, yeah, I've got a section in the COVID
chapter on how the Biden Whitehouse brow beat the FDA to force them to give
full approval the Pfizer vacks for COVID because they had to have that before Biden
imposed his mandate for all Americans working for large companies to get VAS and to
see the absolute contempt for anyone who did not roll over in command. Shortly
after Biden gave his speech in September twenty twenty one on his vax mandates,
Biden showed up on CNN and he said that the only reason that people weren't
getting vaxed because they want their freedom to kill you with their COVID virus.
And this is and these are lines which have a lot never really showed up
in the media radar screen. People do recall that Biden promised that if you
get the injection, then then you won't get COVID and that was a false
statement even when he said it, because the CDC knew there were a torrent
of breakthrough cases, but the FEDS were covering them up. But then the
cover up collapsed absolutely. And we know that even in the during the early
testing, they then got rid of their their control group, they ended up
giving them the injection. The whole thing was absurd. And again, you
know that goes towards my libertarian argument of don't put your faith in the central
authority. That then can be gamed for rent seekers to try to make sure
their stuff gets through, especially when you got that revolving door. And as
we you know, we've discussed with your amazing book, the fair trade fraud,
some of the biggest corporations have big incentives to make sure that their competition
is knocked out and they get either government contracts or tariffs that will protect them
or mandates to say you must use this product. And this is exactly what
Biden did. It's amazing to me to think that people think that this sort
of thing can be reformed without actually at least questioning the very moral and ethical
premises on which these people base their arguments that you must be forced to pay
for your own protection, because it doesn't work. It never works that way.
You're not going to get any satisfaction if the agency that is supposed to
protect you can just take your money at any time. They're actually a protection
racket, you know, yeah, you know. And this is something which
compounds with the censorship stuff because okay, so the Biden folks come in and
Binen was hell bent on persuading people that the COVID vaccines that were had only
emergency use approval. Were panaceas. And so what the Biden Whitehouse did was
cracked down on Twitter and Facebook and force them to suppress people making jokes about
COVID vaccines. If you only made some kind of meme on Twitter, it's
like, boh, you were suppressed because it was like that. The it
was as if the COVID vaccines would only were a freedom of speech was destroyed.
That's absolutely right, James, absolutely right. And I'll point something out
to you. I don't know whether you've gotten to see his tweet today,
but Glenn Jacobs mentioned this on Twitter. I'll see if I can find it,
very very quickly on Twitter he brought up. I retweeted it that since
he is mayor of Knox County. Of course, he's the former pro wrestler
who played Kine and bench press was funny here in New Hampshire bench press five
I was. I was talking to him once at a conference. He told
me he's bench press five twenty. Wow, are you kidding me? No?
No, Holy So I'm not going to argue with him. All right,
Well that's excellent. Yeah, let me see if I can find this
tweet. I don't I could paraphrase it, but let me see if I
can just give this to you, because he mentioned that Deborah Burks joined him
and other people who were involved with government in Tennessee in a closed door meeting,
and he mentioned that she told people that a lot of the information they
had about And I don't want to be too explicit here because I'd rather read
what he said, but I'll see if I can find it here. Yeah,
Burks came to Knoxville in September twenty twenty. Is that the one?
Yes, that's it? Do you have it on yours? James, Yeah,
I have it on this Yeah, yeah, feel free to read that
and yeah yeah. Just quoting Glenn Jacobs, he says that in a private
meeting, Burks told us that bars and restaurants should be closed. She admitted
that the data didn't support it, but said it was necessarily to quote send
a message about the seriousness of the virus. That's marketing, not science,
says Glenn Jacobs. Job, Glenn, and he is a great, great
guy. In fact, I think we might have met either the year you
were up here for the uh Libertarian Pork Porcupine Festival and Naomi Wolf was here,
or it might have been the year after that, but yeah, a
very good guy. And of course he lives down in Tennessee now and yeah,
it's it's amazing to see the stuff that was going on. And and
Glenn fought tooth and nail to try to prevent those sorts of mandates in his
in Knox County, and good for him. And you know, uh,
it's it's you, you guys that come from the country. James, You're
still holding up the side for truth. It's redneck heritage. Yeah, and
you know, I have some comments that were they're also showing comments now people
are watching us on Twitter. Previously, it would be difficult to comment on
Twitter. You would have to go in, and just now people are commenting,
I've got thank you so much for watching The David Knight Show Chs.
Eight four to three on Twitter slash x and he mentioned Freeway Rick Ross and
of course you know the terrible things that happened to Freeway. Rick Ross cleaned
up his life. He says Trump might push for NATO to be closed as
well. Well, I wouldn't. Don't count your chickens before they hatch on
that one, my friend. I don't think they were going to see that
happen. But who knows you can always be hopeful. And let's see over
on rockfinchat Scott Atlas had some very interesting things to say on the highway or
about Berks and Company. Scott Atlas was talking about the inner workings there and
how he kept getting shut out. They would start to have meetings even without
him. They wouldn't even call on him once they found out what his position
would be, he wouldn't be there. And yeah, there's so many,
so many interesting things to discuss, James. What do you think stands out
as you think about all the stories that you have in there? Is there
something that you would want to really stress to the audience One or two items
here before we close things off with you, and thank you very much.
If you have to go, go for it. I mean, thanks,
thanks for all your kind comments, thanks for the excellent questions. I guess
the the over overview I'd want folks to take away is just the fundamental principle
of what happens when politicians and government officials can claim control of your life,
and then once they have that established, it's an unlimited series of often idiotic
dictates. I mean, you think of TSA, what you've got to do.
When you're flying, you think of the COVID lockdowns. You think of
a lot of other federal mandates that are helping wreck this country, wrecking our
prosperity. You think of how the government is destroying our currency. And people
in DC don't give a damn because they're mostly all very well paid. Uh.
And there's just so much damage that the that the political class is inflicting
on the nation, and people need to fundamentally reevaluate how they look at the
US government and American politicians. It's interesting. I was commenting on Facebook someone
in I'd had some posts from a few years earlier, and so I said,
I was replying to someone and said that said something like, well,
well, I hope that we can whip the political rascals in the coming years.
And Facebook gave me a warning for saying talking about whipping the political rascals,
and I was thinking, Okay, I guess that they're not familiar with
Thomas Paine saying that politicians were the most rascally group of humanity. But there
is there is this concervative effort to make people deferential to the ruling class and
to make it seem like the real problem is that people who talk about whipping
the political rascals, not all the lies and abuses from the Washington elite.
James Beauvard at Jim Beaouvard on Twitter, your website. Great conversation recently with
Tom Woods. There's just awesome stuff. Libertarian Institute. Everybody check out the
Libertarian Institute. This is a Libertarian Institute publication. And James, before you
go, I'll refer once more to that page seventy seven because you have that
quote in there, and this should be sufficient. Just this statement should be
enough for people to say, Okay, I need to fight back for truth,
because we knew this was false the minute he said it. Quote,
You're not going to get COVID if you have these injections. July twenty first,
twenty twenty one, President Joe Biden, and you wrote the COVID nineteen
pandemic opened up Pandora's box of perils to freedom, prosperity, and health.
Though judges torpedoed a few despotic to crees, politicians fanned pandemic fears to seize
nearly absolute power. Despite pervasive abuses, not a single government officials spent a
day in jail for the most politically exploited pandemic in American history. And James,
their excuses about so called public health run not only in conjunction with the
nonsense of that man, Joe Biden, but run counter to individual liberty.
It's a consequentialist view, and they have excused the attack on everybody's individual rights.
There's no such thing as public health. There's only individual health. And
the minute someone tells you, I'm in a group of people, we're in
charge, and we are going to decide what the public health is and what
we can do to you, they're immediately negating their own argument, because you
are just a member, as everybody else is of this group. And if
they can threaten you, if they can threaten you, they can threaten somebody
else who's not threatened today, they can threaten him tomorrow, because they're always
going to be there. Yep. And so this is so important this book.
Thank you, Hey, thanks so much for the kind of words.
Thanks for doing a great job of pulling out some of the best parts of
the book. I really appreciate that. Gardner, you got it, James,
you got it. You know sometimes I get I just I just get
so appreciative of your work, James, any any thoughts people, just to
mention where people can find you as you head off and continue working on various
places. I've been doing quite a bit lately for the New York posts.
I've done some stuff for Meazies Is Toude, Brownstone American Conservative Magazine, other
places which I should not be forgetting, but I am. Well, no
problem, James. James Bovard is with us, and James, next time
I bring you on, maybe i'll play that Rifleman's soundtrack in honor of a
great show guy. Uh came from good country country stock and fought for for
goodness. Or maybe I'll play Uh, there's a song called high on Drugs
about the drug war and uh all on drugs. Hey, Hey, I'm
I was. I was trying to follows help my boy scout image that you
know that well well, James, thank you so much. Next time we'll
also talk about some of your personal reflections as you watch around the Capitol and
saw some of the very things that people can see just by looking at the
cover of your book, The Razor Winter on the Capital. Just a quick
comment. The photo and the covers was one that I took when I was
on a hike going around the uh uh, the capital when it was uh,
you know, thousands of National Guard troops with M sixteens and camouflage,
and it was like, you know, I felt like, ah, American
democracy, it's finally being been perfected. Well, how dare you engage in
photography without a license, you Charlottean You you evil man? Don't you understand?
And how dare you put these pictures out on social media? Nina Djenkovitch
is gonna sing at you, my friend, you better watch out. Well,
it'll serve me right. Thanks so much, Turner, Thanks James James
Bovart, Folks, thank you James Bovart so much for being a guest on
The David Knight Show. And boy he calls up the Glenn Jacobs quote right
off the bat. Great stuff. Everyone, have a terrific day. As
we round off the program of The David Night Show tomorrow, Tony Rdeburn of
Wise Wolf Gold and Silver Exchange will be here and Handy says this of course
Handy's profession and EMT work says, I have a hard time even using the
word COVID when I've never seen anything worse than what looks like a cold slash
flu. But I've seen the jab name and kill several harps in Australia.
Have some marmite for me, my friend. Have a great day, everyone,
stay free and great show guard. Thank you so much. Karen Carpenter
says, I like to learn. Karen Carpenter, many hearts to you,
Little John, Thank you, Accult priestess watch a cult priestess on Rock Fann.
She is amazing and what a wonderful gracious host. And Matthew Ronson,
thank you. Photos Taking photos is dangerous. Hel nine thousand, thank you
very much. And chev Ken three two one, thank you very much for
being there. I appreciate all of you being there. Maloney, thank you,
Matthew Ronson, thank you. I appreciate that everyone. Tomorrow, I
won't be here, but i'll be here Friday. We're gonna do a little
countdown on Friday, and we're gonna have a little special guest for the countdown.
I'm looking forward to that. It's gonna be super awesome, super mega
awesome. And if you detect a smile on my face is because I'm planing
something goofy. So it's gonna be on and join me tonight on Liberty Conspiracy.
At six o'clock, we'll run through even more breaking stories, news resources,
The David Knight Show, The Davidknightshow dot Com. Check it out.
Remember if you want to get involved with Gerald Solente's great work, check out
Gerald Solente's work. And uh, if you want to get Gerald Solente's publication,
then you can get a ten percent discount with Gerald Celente. And I
got to say, so many people working for freedom. You know, whether
you get Trends journal or you know you're you're going to watch Redacted or whatever,
you're watching my Liberty Conspiracy. Thanks, thanks for being interested. Really
appreciate it. I'll leave you again with a little ad for David Knight's great
music and a little something to recognize David and the kindness of them welcoming me
to the show. So let's check it out. Everybody. Thank you very
much watching the show. Don't forget if you do want to contribute over on
Rockfin and Rumble, everything goes to them. Still have a chance to do
so, and I really appreciate it and share the show after the fact.
Great to have you there, Ga boy, thank you so much, and
we'll see you again on Friday. Tony Ardeburn tomorrow nine am and of course
my show. If you want to watch Liberty, Conspiracy, Rumble Rock,
find my Twitter at Guard Goldsmith. As the prisoner would say, be seeing
you. You're listening to The David Night Show.