Speaker 1: In a world of deceit, telling the truth is a
Speaker 1: revolutionary act. It's the David Knight Show.
Speaker 2: As the clock strikes thirteen, It's Friday, the thirteenth of February.
Speaker 2: You're of our Lord, twenty twenty six. Well, today we're
Speaker 2: going to take a look since we didn't have the
Speaker 2: show yesterday about Pam Bondy's hearing on Wednesday, the Trump
Speaker 2: regime has hit a new low. We're also going to
Speaker 2: talk about Mike Johnson. He wants to redefine what a
Speaker 2: day is for the next six months for legal purposes.
Speaker 2: One of the most absurd insults to our intelligence and
Speaker 2: the constitution I have seen. I mean, we're not talking
Speaker 2: about daylight savings time. He wants to pretend that these
Speaker 2: days don't even exist. Then we're going to take a
Speaker 2: look at this strange story out of El Paso, a
Speaker 2: new laser weapon the Pentagon is testing, but also talk
Speaker 2: about being wielded against cartel drones or UFOs or party balloons,
Speaker 2: which one of those you think it is multiple choices.
Speaker 2: But we're going to also take a look at the
Speaker 2: aiessay that I talked about the other day. A very
Speaker 2: impressive essay, is it true. A lot of people are
Speaker 2: saying it's hype advertising, and maybe it's real. We'll be
Speaker 2: right back. Well, yesterday we had an issue with my
Speaker 2: device here that I put all the articles on as
Speaker 2: we've gone paperless, and the problem is is that it
Speaker 2: was centralized control. Whenever you put everything together centrally controlled
Speaker 2: and it goes out, then you have a big problem.
Speaker 2: So it took us quite a while to get a
Speaker 2: work around. And now I've got a second one so
Speaker 2: that this isn't going to happen again. Hopefully. I guess
Speaker 2: the meantime between failure, it's like a radar ray. If
Speaker 2: you've got one disk drive five years. If you've got
Speaker 2: two of them in the mirroring mode, you can get
Speaker 2: many decades, perhaps even longer than that. So hopefully that'll
Speaker 2: happen this time. But I wanted to really talk about
Speaker 2: Pam Bondi, and we weren't able to do that yesterday,
Speaker 2: So they want to talk a little bit about this.
Speaker 2: It was one of the most ridiculous things, but not unexpected.
Speaker 2: What was unexpected was the extent of the absurdity and
Speaker 2: the extent of her temper tantrums that were there. And
Speaker 2: I said it on Wednesday, before it over happened, I said, well,
Speaker 2: she going to be testifying today. It'll be another one
Speaker 2: of these deals where she shows up with a wrap
Speaker 2: sheet on everybody in hurls insults at them instead of
Speaker 2: answering the questions. That's the way she dodges the questions
Speaker 2: whenever she does it. And so she agreed as part
Speaker 2: of the questions. There was only one point of agreement
Speaker 2: that I could really see. Agreed that Maxwell claim Maxwell
Speaker 2: did not deserve special treatment. However, she at the same
Speaker 2: time said she knew nothing about it, wasn't anything that
Speaker 2: belonged to her, that it was just a coincidence that
Speaker 2: the Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche who was Trump's personal lawyer,
Speaker 2: just a coincidence that he went to her jail cell
Speaker 2: and interviewed her for a very long time. And then
Speaker 2: afterwards she gets the special treatment had nothing to do
Speaker 2: with any quid pro quo. And yet at the same
Speaker 2: time we see her lawyer saying that she's willing to
Speaker 2: testify that Donald Trump didn't know them at all, basically
Speaker 2: and never committed a crime as long as she gets
Speaker 2: a pardon. I mean, they're openly putting this out, Well,
Speaker 2: anybody will that do Trump any good? No, it's nobody's
Speaker 2: gonna believe that. Everybody understands it's a quid pro quo
Speaker 2: that's happening here. So we all know this. We've saw
Speaker 2: this happen with Todd Blanche, but she pretends it didn't happen.
Speaker 2: She's transferred to a Texas minimum security prison, of course,
Speaker 2: and now they're floating a pardon for her if she
Speaker 2: says that Trump is exonerated. This is one of the
Speaker 2: club fed print in Texas. For example, she gets all
Speaker 2: kinds of special privileges, puppy, a puppy tie. I don't
Speaker 2: know what a puppy tie is. I don't know if
Speaker 2: she's got a puppy. Anyway, she does have private workouts.
Speaker 3: I had heard she was given a puppy. Yeah, I
Speaker 3: heard that a while ago.
Speaker 2: It's like Washington, d C. They say, if you want
Speaker 2: a friend, get a dog. Well, I guess federal prisons
Speaker 2: are like that as well. Anyway, private workout area, she
Speaker 2: has secretarial services. I don't even have that. And personal mail,
Speaker 2: how about that? And so she was asked in questioning
Speaker 2: and said Attorney General BONDI does a convicted sex offender
Speaker 2: like Glenne Maxwell, deserves special treatment and privileges in a prison.
Speaker 2: Yes or no, Well, of course you're not going to
Speaker 2: get a yes or no answer from Bondi. She's going
Speaker 2: to answer it the way she wants to answer it.
Speaker 2: She said she wasn't transferred to a lower security facility.
Speaker 2: First of all, that's a lie, one of many. And
Speaker 2: then she said she didn't know anything about her being
Speaker 2: transferred to the lower security facility. So first of all,
Speaker 2: it's not a lower security facility according to her. You know,
Speaker 2: that's it's pretty standard in all the prisons that you
Speaker 2: get puppies and secretaries in private workout areas, Right, isn't
Speaker 2: that right?
Speaker 3: Standard issue prison puppy.
Speaker 2: That's right. Yeah, it's a I guess what kind of
Speaker 2: a puppy do you get in prison. It's not a
Speaker 2: Rottweiler or something, right, It's not gonna be a guard
Speaker 2: dog of some sort. And that's what I mean. This
Speaker 2: is such an insult to our intelligence. The lies that
Speaker 2: Pam Bondi told, the lies of Trumpet, and she is
Speaker 2: the mere image of trump. You know, this regime is
Speaker 2: rotting from the head down. You look at people like
Speaker 2: cash Mattel and Pam Bondi, and it's like, what is
Speaker 2: the matter with them? Well, they're just mimicking the guy
Speaker 2: they work for. Anyway, she said, I said, I do
Speaker 2: not agree she should receive special treatment. She was transferred.
Speaker 2: I learned that after the fact to the same level facility.
Speaker 2: Lie And that is a question for the Bureau of Prisons.
Speaker 2: Well a Bureau of Prisons. It wasn't the Deputy Secretary
Speaker 2: of the Bureau of Prisons that got her transferred. It
Speaker 2: was the Deputy Attorney General that got her transferred. So
Speaker 2: it turned into a brawl.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I was just looking up what kind of permissions.
Speaker 3: She's got a special cordoned off area for visitors as
Speaker 3: well as snacks and refreshments for a guest, permission to
Speaker 3: go to the exercise area after hours. There's a whole
Speaker 3: article about it here, as well as the puppy of course.
Speaker 2: Well yeah, yeah, but according to Fan Bondi, it's not happening.
Speaker 3: That's that's it gets that kind of treatment. It's a
Speaker 3: real luxurious life. If you get arrested in given prison
Speaker 3: time for.
Speaker 2: Well, maybe we should consider rob banks or something.
Speaker 3: I think it's only the human traffickers that get this.
Speaker 2: That's right, that's right. Well, it was a brawl, as
Speaker 2: many have characterized it, and I think it's kind of
Speaker 2: interesting to see the reaction of the press, of the public,
Speaker 2: and of the politicians that are there. But first of all,
Speaker 2: some of the things that happened. Here is a Pam
Speaker 2: Bondi and when she is confronted with Ted LUs As,
Speaker 2: you lied under oath.
Speaker 4: There is no evidence that Donald Trump has committed a crime.
Speaker 4: Everyone knows that this has been the most transparent presidency.
Speaker 2: Transparent fraud.
Speaker 5: Got your answer, legislation.
Speaker 6: This is time belongs to the gentleman from California.
Speaker 7: Okay, I'm going to put up another document from a
Speaker 7: witness who called the FBI's National Threat Operations Center because
Speaker 7: I believe you just lied under oath.
Speaker 2: There is ample evidence into Epstein.
Speaker 4: Look ever accuse me of ad.
Speaker 7: You just linder oath And this is all on videotape.
Speaker 2: Even if she commitced it, don't you ever accuse her?
Speaker 7: One I'm showing you here is a witness statement who
Speaker 7: called into the fi's Threat Operations Center. He drove Donald
Speaker 7: Trump around in Limo. He overheard Donald Trump said to
Speaker 7: Jeffrey on his cell phone. He was so angry he
Speaker 7: was going to stop a limo and hurt Donald Trump.
Speaker 7: And he met a girl who said she was raped
Speaker 7: by Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein. She later had her
Speaker 7: head blown off, and the officers at the scene said
Speaker 7: that could not have been suicide. No one, no one
Speaker 7: at the point of justice interviewed this witness. You need
Speaker 7: to interview this witness immediately. Epstein should rot in hell.
Speaker 7: So should the men who patronize this operation. And as
Speaker 7: we say it here today, there are over one thousand
Speaker 7: sex trafficking victims and you have not held a single
Speaker 7: man accountable.
Speaker 1: Shame on you.
Speaker 7: If you had any decency, you would resign right after
Speaker 7: this here with conclude.
Speaker 2: But she doesn't have any decency, So she's not going
Speaker 2: to resign, and she's going to continue to light our
Speaker 2: face regardless of what we know is true. And that
Speaker 2: case was one that I mentioned the other day, and
Speaker 2: you know it was ruled as a suicide by the coroner,
Speaker 2: who but the police officers who are there said there's
Speaker 2: absolutely no way that could be the case. And so
Speaker 2: again you can get people to say whatever you want
Speaker 2: them to say under some circumstances, and so he says,
Speaker 2: you just lied under oath. Isn't that interesting? You know,
Speaker 2: we just had the other day Wednesday. We're talking about
Speaker 2: Lutnik lying under oath on Tuesday, then on Wednesday, Ham
Speaker 2: Bondi lies under oath, and Cash Mattel has done it
Speaker 2: many times himself. Every time these people go it is
Speaker 2: is a perjury trap, except we see that they don't
Speaker 2: charge them with perjury, just like they didn't charge James
Speaker 2: Clapper with perjury when James Clapper was asked point blank,
Speaker 2: are you doing are you spying on Americans with a
Speaker 2: search warrant with the NSA and no senator not intentionally?
Speaker 2: Blah blah blah. Right, we all know that he lied
Speaker 2: under oath, and yet they never charged him. Statue of
Speaker 2: limitations ended, I think in twenty eighteen. That was back
Speaker 2: in twenty thirteen he did it. And so it even
Speaker 2: got to the extent that Pam Bondi went after a
Speaker 2: Jewish Democrat who got so upset she pushed back her
Speaker 2: chair and stormed out. She accused the Jewish rep of
Speaker 2: being anti Semitic because she doesn't support net Yahoo. As
Speaker 2: I've said many times, there's a lot of Jews who
Speaker 2: do not support what Israel is doing, because there's a
Speaker 2: lot of Jews in Israel who didn't vote for Netanya,
Speaker 2: who he barely got together a coalition to govern, and
Speaker 2: he had to have three elections in order to do that,
Speaker 2: and so there's a lot of people who don't support
Speaker 2: him there as well as in the United States who
Speaker 2: are Jewish, and so Pam Bondi is out there throwing
Speaker 2: the race card around just like a liberal, right So
Speaker 2: Pam Bondy traded Barbes just about every Democrat of the
Speaker 2: House Judiciary Committee. When she got to Jamie Raskin, she
Speaker 2: called him a loser. She said that Thomas Massey had
Speaker 2: Trump derangement syndrome. But that's pretty original, isn't it. You
Speaker 2: point out what Donald Trump is, Oh, you got Trump
Speaker 2: dellusion syndrome, says, give me a break. They always resort
Speaker 2: to that. And then she said that Jamie Raskin was
Speaker 2: a loser. He wasn't even a lawyer and so forth
Speaker 2: he taught in law school. Anyway, I think she is
Speaker 2: projecting a total minelt down from Representative Becca Ballant, who
Speaker 2: stormed out of the hearing after the Attorney General seemingly
Speaker 2: grew frustrated by one of the many questions about Jeffrey
Speaker 2: Empstein and launched into a personal attack on her voting record.
Speaker 2: Which is Pam Bondi's tactic and strategy. It is weakness.
Speaker 2: It is clear to everybody that it's a cover up.
Speaker 2: Everybody knows she's dodging the questions. She might as well
Speaker 2: just plead the fifth anyway, accusing her of anti Semitism
Speaker 2: for not supporting Israel. Ballant was the first Jewish Congress
Speaker 2: member to use the term genocide to describe the war
Speaker 2: in Gaza. With this anti Semitic culture, said Bondi. She
Speaker 2: voted against a resolution condemning before being interrupted by Ballant.
Speaker 2: Ballance said, you want to go there. You're talking to
Speaker 2: a woman who lost her grandfather in the Holocaust. Ballant
Speaker 2: responded before slamming her chair into the deis behind her
Speaker 2: and storming out of the room. Fuming. She repeatedly asked
Speaker 2: Bondy if her department had investigated the ties of top
Speaker 2: Trump administration leaders have to Epstein, at one point stating
Speaker 2: this is not a game Secretary, to which Bondi responded,
Speaker 2: I'm Attorney General. My apologies. I couldn't tell She behaves
Speaker 2: like a secretary, doesn't she. And I don't mean a
Speaker 2: secretary with a capital S as part of the cabinet,
Speaker 2: just somebody who is serving the every whim of Donald Trump.
Speaker 2: I thought that was the best comeback of anybody actually
Speaker 2: calling her a secretary. And as you get it reminds
Speaker 2: me of Vinman. Remember that Lieutenant Colonel Vinman to you
Speaker 2: that the Ukrainian shill. Anyway, the Age furiously clashed with
Speaker 2: Jamie Raskin. He accused Bondy of philibustering and he said,
Speaker 2: I told you about that attorney Joan before you started
Speaker 2: speaking about the philibustering. She said, you don't tell me
Speaker 2: anything you want, washed up loser. You're not even a lawyer.
Speaker 2: So we have this hierarchy that you know, lawyers are
Speaker 2: special or something. If that's ever that was the case,
Speaker 2: I think Pambondy just blew blew that. If she's the
Speaker 2: top lawyer, she's the top attorney general. What does that
Speaker 2: say about the profession right there? That's probably one of
Speaker 2: the worst attacks on the legal profession to have Pam
Speaker 2: Bondy there. Nevertheless, before he was a congressman, he was
Speaker 2: a professor at American University Washington College of Law. But anyway,
Speaker 2: whatever you think about Jamie Raskin or in these other
Speaker 2: people that are Democrats who are attacking her, can we look
Speaker 2: at Pambondy and say that she absolutely owned herself As
Speaker 2: a matter of fact, Dana lash who I think says
Speaker 2: she is a Second Amendment person. She has no love
Speaker 2: of Pam Bondy, who has no love of the Constitution,
Speaker 2: especially the Second It's not just the Second Amendment that
Speaker 2: Pampondi hates this everything. She and Christy Nome are out
Speaker 2: there with their surveillance state. They're out there getting Apple
Speaker 2: and Facebook to pull down people who have groups that
Speaker 2: are watching what Ice is doing, punishing them, and so
Speaker 2: far she hates every aspect of the Constitution and the
Speaker 2: Bill of Rights. Anyway, Jay and Paul said, will you
Speaker 2: turn to the survivors behind you now and apologize for
Speaker 2: what your DOJ has put them through the absolutely unacceptable
Speaker 2: release of the Epstein files and their private information. Said,
Speaker 2: I'm not going to get in the gutter with you,
Speaker 2: he said, So she got into the gutter with Donald Trump, though,
Speaker 2: and Jamie Raskin said, this performance screams cover up.
Speaker 3: I'm not going to get into the gutter with you.
Speaker 3: How dare you bring up the reprehensible actions of my department.
Speaker 2: That's right.
Speaker 3: I'm not gut her with the department members.
Speaker 2: I'm not going to get in the gutter with those
Speaker 2: victims over there, the people that we had one job,
Speaker 2: and that was to redact the victims' names. Instead, what
Speaker 2: they do is they put out the victims' names and
Speaker 2: redacted the perpetrators.
Speaker 3: Amazing that she would say, get into the gutter with you,
Speaker 3: as she's insulting everyone and throwing mud. But to get
Speaker 3: into the gutter of you to discuss the actions of
Speaker 3: my department, the mistakes we made.
Speaker 2: Yeah, people like Bondi and Cash Battel, they just epitomize
Speaker 2: the Trump administration and what a disgusting display it is
Speaker 2: for the world to see. As Attorney General, you're siding
Speaker 2: with the perpetrators. You're ignoring the victims, and that will
Speaker 2: leave your legacy unless you act quickly to change course.
Speaker 2: Said Raskin. You're running a massive Epstein cover up right
Speaker 2: now out of the DOJ. He's absolutely right. Now, this
Speaker 2: gets to the point where people want to cover up
Speaker 2: for this, like Breitbart was just disgusting. Bright Bart their
Speaker 2: first response to Larry Lutnik being caught with perjury and
Speaker 2: the awful things that came out in terms of, you know,
Speaker 2: he definitely has a perjury issue, but when you look
Speaker 2: at the financial aspects of what Larry Lutnick is doing
Speaker 2: as Commerce Secretary and the traps that he's laying for
Speaker 2: all of us. Breitbart had a special exclusive interview with him,
Speaker 2: and they were featuring Larry Lutnik all over the place,
Speaker 2: more so even than their defense of Pam Bondi. And
Speaker 2: their defense of Pam Bondi was a Congressman, Brandon Gill
Speaker 2: who came on and said, well, you know, in the
Speaker 2: Biden administration, they didn't do this and they didn't do that. Again,
Speaker 2: it's the what about ism. Well, you know, they committed
Speaker 2: a crime or they did not prosecut this and so forth,
Speaker 2: so therefore we can do the same as they did.
Speaker 2: So they simultaneously criticize somebody else for the wrongdoing that
Speaker 2: they're doing, and then even though they criticize the other side,
Speaker 2: they use it as a get out of jail free
Speaker 2: card for themselves. When is that going to stop? I'm
Speaker 2: so sick and tired of seeing that every time you
Speaker 2: catch the Trump people of the GOP and something. Oh well,
Speaker 2: the Democrats and Biden did it as well. That's no
Speaker 2: excuse none whatsoever. And this is just a downward spiral
Speaker 2: that they're taking the entire country in. You know, once
Speaker 2: the other side commits a crime, and of course they
Speaker 2: usually get away with it. We're not going to try
Speaker 2: to reform anything. We're not going to try to punish anybody.
Speaker 2: And don't you criticize me when I do the same
Speaker 2: thing that I criticize those people for. So they're talking
Speaker 2: about Epstein today, she said, this has been around since
Speaker 2: the Obama had been imistration. The Dow is over fifty thousand,
Speaker 2: right now, there you go. And I think one of
Speaker 2: the best comebacks that I saw from anybody said, we
Speaker 2: don't worry about pedophiles unless the Dow is below fifty thousand.
Speaker 2: Isn't that essentially everything that Jeffrey Epstein was doing. I mean,
Speaker 2: isn't that the essence of what we're talking about with
Speaker 2: the elite as long as they can make money, as
Speaker 2: long as they get away with what they want, as
Speaker 2: long as they get what they want out of it,
Speaker 2: whether it is the hedonism or whether it's the massive
Speaker 2: amounts of money. Then we're not going to punish anybody.
Speaker 2: There's no crime that we need to take a look at.
Speaker 2: She has embraced with that statement that everybody can. She
Speaker 2: embraced the essence of Epstein and the pedophile elite with
Speaker 2: all of that. So Massey launched a blistering attack on
Speaker 2: her for not properly redacting the names of victims. As
Speaker 2: a matter of fact, he had said the night before
Speaker 2: he was a stop by reporter. They were asking him,
Speaker 2: what's going to happen the next day? You have this
Speaker 2: to say, same questions.
Speaker 7: You mentioned that there are some things that have been
Speaker 7: redacted that probably shouldn't have been redacted.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there's anything.
Speaker 1: Can you elaborate it on that?
Speaker 8: Yeah? Six men's names. One of I'm listed as a
Speaker 8: co conspirator. Why would you redact his name?
Speaker 1: Right, there's not victim.
Speaker 9: What I'm saying is it's not just victims' names that
Speaker 9: they've redacted.
Speaker 2: And how can we get those names then? Like the
Speaker 2: public generally.
Speaker 9: Well, I'm hopeful that DJ will release them now that
Speaker 9: I pointed it out to them.
Speaker 8: They could. We've either got to say, Okay, we made
Speaker 8: a mistake. Well we're not gonna unredact.
Speaker 1: That, okay, And are you gonna be going back to
Speaker 1: see I know like there's there's sort of like a
Speaker 1: procession now of members who are going.
Speaker 8: Yeah, I'm scheduled for tomorrow morning too, okay.
Speaker 2: And what are you looking to? What are you going
Speaker 2: to look into tomorrow that you haven't look into today?
Speaker 5: So it just takes a while, and there's millions of
Speaker 5: files still.
Speaker 8: I've still got files up my list to look at
Speaker 8: it than.
Speaker 2: Well, it all began with a question, Jerry Mendler. It's
Speaker 2: amazing this dumpty dumpty like character and to see these
Speaker 2: people doing it again. They can talk about the fallacies
Speaker 2: and the lies and the faults and the crimes of
Speaker 2: the Republicans when they're out of power, they'll ignore it
Speaker 2: when they are in power as well. What difference does
Speaker 2: that make if they committed the crime, it's still a crime,
Speaker 2: even if the Democrats are going to look the other
Speaker 2: way when they do it. So, Jerry Nadler presented her
Speaker 2: with a asked her whether not the DOJ is indicted
Speaker 2: or is investigating any of Epstein's alleged co conspirators, citing
Speaker 2: what he called concrete evidence of disgusting criminality. Bondi attempted
Speaker 2: to decidestep the question. When Nataler repeated it, she raised
Speaker 2: her voice and insisted she would answer the question the
Speaker 2: way I want to answer the question, talking over him.
Speaker 2: As colleagues tried to intercede. As exchange escalated, Bondi pivoted
Speaker 2: away from the from Epstein entirely and went down her
Speaker 2: The Dow is at fifty thousand talking point, isn't that amazing?
Speaker 2: And of course the you know, the back and forth
Speaker 2: with Ted lou where she got very nasty with him.
Speaker 2: You're not even a lawyer type of thing. That's the
Speaker 2: epathetic aspect of this. But let's stick with Massey. And
Speaker 2: this is what happened as the two of them were talking.
Speaker 4: Did you ask Merrick Garland that the last four years?
Speaker 2: What about Merrick Garland? Don't talk to me.
Speaker 9: I'm glad you're asking about Merrick Garland.
Speaker 2: Than Water gave question.
Speaker 9: This goes over four administrations. You don't have to go
Speaker 9: back to Biden. Let's go back to Obama, Let's go
Speaker 9: back to George Bush. This cover up spans decades and
Speaker 9: you are responsible for this.
Speaker 8: Portion of it.
Speaker 9: And I want to know at what point, at what
Speaker 9: point did the FBI and the dj decide that Lex
Speaker 9: Westerner was not a co conspirator? Because our Epstein Files
Speaker 9: Transparency Act requires you please put it back on the screen.
Speaker 9: He's to release the internal decision about whether to prosecute
Speaker 9: him or not. And it's not in the files, and
Speaker 9: it's not in the files for any.
Speaker 8: Of these other men of the gentleman. May she answer?
Speaker 4: And he's a hypocrite because he voted against the band
Speaker 4: that we were talking about on Deep Fake AI porn.
Speaker 4: Only two people voted against it, and you.
Speaker 2: Were has nothing to do with it.
Speaker 9: The gentleman's time has expired, mister chairman.
Speaker 8: Could she answer the question? Chairman?
Speaker 2: Yeah, again, let's pick something totally unrelated and you voted
Speaker 2: against the Deep Fate porn band and it's like, yeah,
Speaker 2: how is that going to solve anything anyway? That has
Speaker 2: nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein and what these people
Speaker 2: were doing or her cover up for them as well well,
Speaker 2: the fact that she violated the law then lied about
Speaker 2: violating the law as well. At the end, there is what, Yeah,
Speaker 2: what's going on with this? Answer the question? Just to
Speaker 2: answer the question. So yeah, so by the end of
Speaker 2: the exchange, Bondy had not answered whether the DOJ agrees
Speaker 2: that there's no credible information about co conspirators, why a
Speaker 2: document listing Wexner as a co conspirator was redacted, or
Speaker 2: who approved releasing victims' names while obscuring alleged abusers. The
Speaker 2: hearing closed with unanswered questions. A stark contrast between Democrats
Speaker 2: early sparring over evasions and a later bipartisan rupture that
Speaker 2: put the departments handling of the Epstein file squarely on
Speaker 2: the center of the kind tell you how damagingly badness was.
Speaker 2: Even a sellout sycophant like Alex Jones criticized this and
Speaker 2: was using every swear word he could think of. He
Speaker 2: was so upset because his team that he's gone to
Speaker 2: bat for fell on its face. She fumbled the ball, Alex,
Speaker 2: didn't she? But they're just a bunch of crooks. You
Speaker 2: know that. I know that. Why'd you ever cover up
Speaker 2: for them? Anyway? The uh, you know, the Jamie Raskin
Speaker 2: thing was your washed up loser lawyer. That's a bit
Speaker 2: of projection that's there, isn't it. But meanwhile, you look
Speaker 2: at what Breitbart does with this as I said before,
Speaker 2: on Wednesday's show, Larry Lutnick was caught committing perjury. It
Speaker 2: testified once before that he had no involvement with Epstein.
Speaker 2: He met him once, he said after they moved next
Speaker 2: door to him. They went over for tea or something
Speaker 2: at at lunchtime on a Saturday, and he talked about
Speaker 2: his massage table and said we thought he was pretty
Speaker 2: creepy and suggestive, and any window about that. We didn't
Speaker 2: ever want to have anything with him, that's any involvement
Speaker 2: with him whatsoever, and we cut it off at that
Speaker 2: point in time. Then the documents show that that's not true.
Speaker 2: He actually went to the island after that, so we
Speaker 2: actually had testified to that one thing under oath. So
Speaker 2: we have a commerce secretary, he's not only next to
Speaker 2: our neighbor friend and island visitor, but also obviously committed perjury.
Speaker 2: So what is Breitbart's reaction to this? They immediately bring
Speaker 2: him in for a special interview, and some of the
Speaker 2: things he had to say have more to do not
Speaker 2: just with the corruption, but with things that are going
Speaker 2: to actually harm us. So watch live. Bright Bart News
Speaker 2: hosts a commerce secretary, Howard Lutnick, for a policy discussion.
Speaker 3: Yes, I just thought it was really funny the way
Speaker 3: that he tried to spin it was. Oh no, I
Speaker 3: really was disgusted by this guy who was talking about
Speaker 3: his massage table and all that. But when I went
Speaker 3: to the island, it was with my kids. My kids
Speaker 3: were there with me. I brought them to go see
Speaker 3: the creepy massage table guy.
Speaker 2: You know, it doesn't they're not even good liars right,
Speaker 2: let alone lawyers. As everyone else is calling for him
Speaker 2: to be impeached, Breitbart has them on for a live
Speaker 2: policy discussion as if again, let's talk about the fifty
Speaker 2: thousand dollars. Now, you know, we can make a lot
Speaker 2: of it. Let's forget about all the stuff with the
Speaker 2: kiddies and everything else. This guy can make us a
Speaker 2: lot of money. He can help America somehow. And yet
Speaker 2: if you look at his policies, that's not there either.
Speaker 2: But notice how these people, whether it's Pambondy or whether
Speaker 2: it's Breitbart, they grabbed this ring of the stock market
Speaker 2: or the promise of money, and they don't care about
Speaker 2: the pedophile ring. They're going for the golden ring. And
Speaker 2: so one of the things that he says is that
Speaker 2: we're going to have automated manufacturing coming to America. And
Speaker 2: I said this in twenty seventeen when Trump did the
Speaker 2: tax cut. Andy, so that's going to reshore all these
Speaker 2: different manufacturing things that have gone to other countries. I said, no,
Speaker 2: it's not. And you know, I remember dryl Centy and
Speaker 2: I talking about it, how it was going. He was
Speaker 2: His big thing was, yes, it's just going to be
Speaker 2: stock buybacks for the corporations to do that, and it
Speaker 2: really was. It was a windfall for all of them.
Speaker 2: It's absolutely amazing. And I said, yeah, they're not going
Speaker 2: to bring back any manufacturing until they get their mechanical
Speaker 2: slaves or robots. And again the robots are not necessarily
Speaker 2: the biped robots that are going to be carrying around
Speaker 2: things like the humans would do. But it's also when
Speaker 2: you look at the all the other aspects of automation.
Speaker 2: I mean, Amazon's got a tremendous amount of robots already
Speaker 2: automating the process, going around and just look like rumbas,
Speaker 2: and they go under a particularly restocking what they've got
Speaker 2: on the shelves and picking stuff off of the shelves.
Speaker 2: You don't have to have something looks like a human
Speaker 2: to do that, and so it's going to be a
Speaker 2: capital intensive thing. They'll get a lot of tax breaks,
Speaker 2: maybe even they'll get subsidies from the from the federal
Speaker 2: government if they change the federal government more like Trump
Speaker 2: wants at his model of economic fascism, where it's actually
Speaker 2: a partnership between the people running the government, just like
Speaker 2: communists China, the partnership between the people running the government
Speaker 2: and the people have the corporations as the two of
Speaker 2: them merge. But he says, the automated manufacturing is coming
Speaker 2: to America and it's perfect for us. We gotta get
Speaker 2: his voice on here, because he's got this gangster rough
Speaker 2: voice that's there, and he really is a gangster I think. Anyway,
Speaker 2: it's perfect for America because we don't want to have
Speaker 2: any Americans working in the higher paying factory jobs. Right
Speaker 2: want to have robots or h one B visa foreigners
Speaker 2: come in. That's really what we want. He said. There's
Speaker 2: some things that should be made overseas, sandals, cheap T shirts,
Speaker 2: and we're cool with that. You can do an enormous
Speaker 2: amount of manufacturing domestically, he said, using advanced robotics, not people.
Speaker 2: You know, we don't want people getting we don't want
Speaker 2: people getting high paying jobs or anything like that. We
Speaker 2: don't want to when we have things that have a
Speaker 2: lot of value, we don't want to pass that on
Speaker 2: to employees. We're want to keep all those profits ourselves.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's really telling how he's like, yes, sandals, we
Speaker 3: don't want Americans making sandals. That's beneath us to make
Speaker 3: sandals and t shirts those things that actual people are making.
Speaker 3: Just have the Asians make those and we'll pay them
Speaker 3: for that and import that. But you know, us the
Speaker 3: owners of these factories, that we can get the machines
Speaker 3: to the stuff that we need.
Speaker 2: Leader, right, it's always been a big part of the
Speaker 2: China price, right, has been slavery, you know, and slave
Speaker 2: wages and things like that. Well, that is actually what
Speaker 2: Robot means. It's the check word for slave's mechanical.
Speaker 3: So it shows that he's not interested in actually bring
Speaker 3: out the actual manufacturing to Americans.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's right. Yeah, close your eyes. Just think of
Speaker 2: a modern auto plant, you know, with the arm that
Speaker 2: goes out and drills like that. You know, that's his thing.
Speaker 2: He's he's such an intellectualistic anyway. Breitbart exclusive. He also
Speaker 2: wants to bring pharmaceutical manufacturing home to America. Four hundred
Speaker 2: billion dollars worth of pharmaceutical manufacturing, he said, Yeah, poison
Speaker 2: those people as well. Don't pay him, poison him. They'll
Speaker 2: own nothing and they'll be poisoned. Yeah. Pay no attention
Speaker 2: to the desperate attempt to protect and cover up satanic
Speaker 2: pedophile rings. The economy is doing great, that's the bottom line.
Speaker 2: That's what Breitbart will tell you, That's what Pam Bondi
Speaker 2: will tell you, That's what the geop will tell you.
Speaker 2: It doesn't matter about satanic pedophile rings and satanic child
Speaker 2: abuse and so forth. That doesn't matter. We can all
Speaker 2: get rich. It's just what we need. It's more billionaires
Speaker 2: poisoning us as they rape our children. We're going to
Speaker 2: get cheaper drugs in America. They're going to be made
Speaker 2: here as well. I expect we're going to have four
Speaker 2: hundred billion dollars of on shoring of pharmaceuticals. Generally speaking,
Speaker 2: said Lutnik to Breitbart. For name brand drugs like Ozimbic, Manjarro,
Speaker 2: things like that, we produce seventy five percent of their
Speaker 2: revenue and one hundred percent of their profits. Right, because
Speaker 2: we are we are the big pay We pay one
Speaker 2: thousand dollars. Everybody else pays one hundred and fifty bucks.
Speaker 2: Why is that? Why is that? And why is it
Speaker 2: that Trump through tens of billions of dollars at Moderna
Speaker 2: and Pfizer to make the mRNA vaccines and continues to
Speaker 2: do that. And they do that, they grease the skids
Speaker 2: for them in terms of approval, and then they turn
Speaker 2: around in gratitude they screw us to the wall. In
Speaker 2: terms of price. We pay many many times more than
Speaker 2: everybody else. That's according to him, it's about factor of ten.
Speaker 2: Why is that? Well, they have this thing called most
Speaker 2: Favored Nation. You would think that the nation that paid
Speaker 2: for the development costs of one of the most profitable
Speaker 2: products they've ever had, the Trump shot, You would think
Speaker 2: that we get some favors back from them, But no,
Speaker 2: they act like they're a country. And so you know,
Speaker 2: countries have most Favored Nation status in terms of trade,
Speaker 2: but pharmaceutical companies do as well. It's just they don't
Speaker 2: favor us. They exploit us. And he wants to be
Speaker 2: a part of that. He wants to as long as
Speaker 2: he can get a piece of it. With Trump RX
Speaker 2: they're all for that.
Speaker 3: And I kind of misspoke of r I was saying
Speaker 3: that comment on it. Well, I mean is when you
Speaker 3: talk about automated manufacturing, the only reason that people would
Speaker 3: want automated manufacturing is for things like sandals and T shirts.
Speaker 3: But he's saying that cheap stuff. Let's just leave that
Speaker 3: to the slaves. You know, we'll have automated manufacturing for
Speaker 3: the stuff that is actually made in America currently a
Speaker 3: few things and a few more. We'll have you know,
Speaker 3: our factories doing that, and maybe they'll be on American soil,
Speaker 3: maybe not. It's just whoever gives us the power plants
Speaker 3: and most water that would have gone to the citizens.
Speaker 2: Yeah, absolutely right, because already we're getting our sandals and
Speaker 2: T shirts from abroad. So he's going to use the
Speaker 2: automation to take American jobs, is what he's saying. You're
Speaker 2: absolutely right. Democrats and one Republican accused Bondy of ignoring
Speaker 2: the victims. You're not showing a lot of interest in
Speaker 2: the victims, is that, Jeremy Raskin? Where there's at Epstein's
Speaker 2: human trafficking ring, or or if it's the homicidal government
Speaker 2: violence against citizens in Minneapolis. A attorney general, you are
Speaker 2: siding with purpse and you're ignoring the victims. And she
Speaker 2: is also siding with the criminals because she doesn't want
Speaker 2: law abiding people to have guns. That is throughout the
Speaker 2: Trump Administration's not just her, it's also people like Janine Perrot.
Speaker 2: The attorney general accused Democrats of only caring about the
Speaker 2: issue because Trump is in the White House. Well, she
Speaker 2: doesn't care about the issue because Trump is in the
Speaker 2: White House. That's the bottom line. Rasking demanded to one
Speaker 2: of those back and forth the Judiciary Chairman, Jim Jordan,
Speaker 2: restore time. And that was another shouting match that they
Speaker 2: got into. Anyway, that's the point at which she called
Speaker 2: him a washed up, loser lawyer, not even a lawyer.
Speaker 2: And so she said, you should all be apologizing. You
Speaker 2: set here and you attack the president, and I'm not
Speaker 2: going to have it. I'm not going to put up
Speaker 2: with it. Yeah, this is her three D approach, the
Speaker 2: typical Trump three D. It's not Chess's checkers, deny, distract,
Speaker 2: divert and always lie. None of them, asked Merrick Garland,
Speaker 2: over the last four years, one word about Epstein, How
Speaker 2: ironic is that you know, why because Trump? Why are
Speaker 2: they coming out? Why is it a big deal with Trump?
Speaker 2: Then with a MAGA people, Well, it's because Trump campaigned
Speaker 2: on releasing these files.
Speaker 3: Yes, so he wasn't talking about it during the Biden administration.
Speaker 3: That was a huge part of his campaign.
Speaker 2: That's right. And Trump was also this pedophile's best friend
Speaker 2: for fifteen years. That's another issue as well. So anyway,
Speaker 2: the it goes on and on, but I'm gonna going
Speaker 2: to move on to something else here. Bondi used her
Speaker 2: time to draw attention to how Democrats and their donors
Speaker 2: that associated with Epstein for years. We're not going to
Speaker 2: talk about Trump associating with them for years, right, See
Speaker 2: the double standard that's there, And I say send them
Speaker 2: all to jail, but they use that as an excuse. Well,
Speaker 2: you got some Democrats associated with him, So now that
Speaker 2: means that you know, because this guy saw him a
Speaker 2: half dozen times, now doesn't mean And now it means
Speaker 2: that for all those disgusting parties and beauty contests that
Speaker 2: he and Jeffrey Epstein did together, that Trump did with
Speaker 2: Jeffrey Epstein, now you don't get to look at any
Speaker 2: of that. You know, we've have now declared Trump to
Speaker 2: be Epstein free. It's absolutely amazing the nonsense logic behind
Speaker 2: all this stuff. And again Breitbart, again, the only thing
Speaker 2: they had about Bondi was the fact that this Brandon
Speaker 2: Gill guy says, well, what about the Biden Harris Department
Speaker 2: of Justice and their weaponizing of the justice system. That's
Speaker 2: the headline on Breitbart. He asked her about several instances
Speaker 2: in which the Biden Harris Department of Justice weaponized the
Speaker 2: justice system. So now she can weaponize the justice system.
Speaker 2: You see every criminal act of the Democrats did. Now
Speaker 2: it can be done by the Republicans, and vice versa.
Speaker 2: The Democrats will play the same game when they get
Speaker 2: back in power, which probably won't be too long, they'll say, well,
Speaker 2: we can do that because Trump did. They already did
Speaker 2: it with gun control by executive order. So he said,
Speaker 2: this is the way this thing ran with Gill, he said, so,
Speaker 2: did the Biden Harris Department of Justice allow Jack Smith
Speaker 2: to spy on a dozen Republican members of Congress? Bondy absolutely,
Speaker 2: did the Biden Harris Department of Justice seize the phone
Speaker 2: of a sitting Republican congressman, Bondi said, yes, see how
Speaker 2: it works, and so now you can do all this stuff.
Speaker 2: And he said, thank you for returning the Department of
Speaker 2: Justice back to its core focus, which is on the
Speaker 2: rule of law. Are you serious? Are you serious? How cynical?
Speaker 2: That is so? Jerry Nadler attacking Attorney General Bondi over
Speaker 2: Epstein while his colleague, Representative Plaskett was using Jeffrey Epstein
Speaker 2: as a confidant an advisor is the height of hypocrisy,
Speaker 2: That's what the Republicans are saying. So let me get
Speaker 2: this straight. He contacted him as a confident, confidant and
Speaker 2: as advisor, but Trump as his party pal. We don't
Speaker 2: want to pay attention to that. And the Republicans want
Speaker 2: to pay attention to the Clintons, but they don't want
Speaker 2: to pay attention to Trump. I say, put them both
Speaker 2: in jail. And I say that. I point this out
Speaker 2: because you just need to understand what Breitbart has become.
Speaker 2: It is one of the most dishonest of all the
Speaker 2: news media. And I mean that whether you're talking about
Speaker 2: alternative media or mainstream media. I don't see anybody lower
Speaker 2: than Bright. It's absolutely amazing. Well, masseew accused Bondi of
Speaker 2: criminal negligence in the Epstein release, the crime being that
Speaker 2: she violated this law that was specifically passed by Congress
Speaker 2: to stop this kind of cover up. And so Massey said,
Speaker 2: I'm trying not to be apathetic and subscribe to the
Speaker 2: memes that say you're not going to vote your way
Speaker 2: out of this. But I want to point out that
Speaker 2: Americans voted for four different administrations and they're all part
Speaker 2: of the Jeffrey Epstein cover up. And you could see
Speaker 2: her her only concern, you know, when he mentioned, yeah,
Speaker 2: this goes through several different administrations. Yeah, yeah, yeah, see,
Speaker 2: it's not Trump at all. That's her only concern. You
Speaker 2: could see in her reaction to what Massey said. She
Speaker 2: didn't care anything about getting these people who had committed
Speaker 2: these crimes. Her only concern is to protect Donald Trump.
Speaker 2: It's absolutely disgusting. It's true.
Speaker 3: She was yelling at him until he brought up someone else,
Speaker 3: and then she goes quite.
Speaker 2: And yeah, yeah, seeing amazing. Yeah, let's play that again.
Speaker 2: As a matter of fact, did you.
Speaker 4: Ask Merrick Garland that the last four years we talk
Speaker 4: about Epstein.
Speaker 9: I'm glad you're asking about Merrick Garland.
Speaker 2: This is bigger than water Gay, this shut up.
Speaker 9: Administrations. You don't have to go back to Biden. Let's
Speaker 9: go back to Obama, Let's go back to George Bush.
Speaker 9: This cover up spans decades, and you are responsible for
Speaker 9: this portion of it.
Speaker 7: And that's I want to know.
Speaker 2: At what Yeah, they started talking over him again. Yeah,
Speaker 2: tell people how other people did this, because now I'm
Speaker 2: exonerated because of the what about ism? I'm covered under
Speaker 2: the what aboutism clause? What about these other three administrations?
Speaker 2: Even though I'm committing a crime, I'm now exonerated. Disgusting,
Speaker 2: Absolutely gusting. So she called him a failed politician with
Speaker 2: Trump derangement syndrome. I think she's the one who's got
Speaker 2: the derangement syndrome. She is the one who's got a psychosis,
Speaker 2: that's for sure. So they're being sued, as I said before,
Speaker 2: for strong arming tech companies to target people who are
Speaker 2: monitoring ICE. That's not a crime. She hates the First Amendment,
Speaker 2: she hates the Second Amendment. She loves pedophiles. What else
Speaker 2: can we say? You know, Brandon Smith of Alt Market
Speaker 2: I liked what he had to say again about the
Speaker 2: psychology of evil. He said, you know, conspiracy theorists are
Speaker 2: almost always right. We've improven right again time and again,
Speaker 2: and we'll continue to be right about many things that
Speaker 2: corporate media used to call fringe. And why is that?
Speaker 2: It's because we are looking at the operation of individuals
Speaker 2: that are there. He says, globalists first and or most
Speaker 2: are an occult network of organized psychopaths. And we look
Speaker 2: at that, you look at the bigger picture of this.
Speaker 2: One of these people's motives in terms of doing this,
Speaker 2: what can we say? Just like with Pambondi, her motives
Speaker 2: are very transparent what she's doing there. Psychopaths seek out
Speaker 2: people with psychopathic traits like them, They recruit, they grow
Speaker 2: their numbers. And remember, you know, I've talked to John
Speaker 2: Kyaku many times. He said, the CIA is always looking
Speaker 2: for sociopaths. They don't really want to hire you if
Speaker 2: you're not a sociopath. And he said, they want you
Speaker 2: to get right up to the line of psychopaths, but
Speaker 2: hopefully not over that. But that's really what they're looking for.
Speaker 2: CIA is one of those organizations that seeks out psychopaths.
Speaker 2: He points out from the mafia, to violent drug cartels,
Speaker 2: to religious cults to authoritarian governments, we have seen psychopaths
Speaker 2: congregate together and cooperate in the worst moments of our timeline.
Speaker 2: And again, the CIA checks almost all those boxes. We're
Speaker 2: talking about mafia, drug cartels, or authoritarian governments, probably even
Speaker 2: as religious cults. There's a lot of evidence that the
Speaker 2: intelligence agencies that are there are heavily evolved in the
Speaker 2: occult right, remote viewing, and a lot of other really
Speaker 2: strange things that they do. They think it's real. So anyway,
Speaker 2: Jeffrey Epstein, he says, was not the top of the pyramid.
Speaker 2: He was also not some self serving flim flam man
Speaker 2: selling sex and depravity just to gain access to the
Speaker 2: halls of power. Rather, he was a middleman, a drug dealer,
Speaker 2: selling dopamine experiences as a reward for members of the
Speaker 2: cabal while collecting the blackmail materials. But the cabal is
Speaker 2: far bigger than what we see in the Epstein files,
Speaker 2: and it supersedes any one nation or government. There are
Speaker 2: strange mentionings of clonings, of baby farming, black market sales,
Speaker 2: of the creation of a superior race in the files.
Speaker 2: In other words, the interests of Epstein and his associates
Speaker 2: went far beyond sexual fetishes, and this is why it
Speaker 2: is so disgusting to see people like Pambondy, Cash Betel
Speaker 2: and Donald Trump covering this stuff up. There's real evil
Speaker 2: at the core of this, and it shows us that
Speaker 2: they are part of that evil. As he points out,
Speaker 2: some of the Epstein emails openly discussed sexual abuse and
Speaker 2: torture of victims brought to the island. From Pizzagate information
Speaker 2: released by WikiLeaks in twenty sixteen, we can see that
Speaker 2: food code words are common for the globalists and seem
Speaker 2: to be tied to the abuse of young children. Pizza
Speaker 2: symbolism has been common within pedophilia networks for many years
Speaker 2: leading up to the exposure of Pizzagate. Is also common
Speaker 2: within the pages of the Epstein files. The word pizza
Speaker 2: is used as a code at least nine hundred times
Speaker 2: in the emails. As a matter of fact, Ben Swan
Speaker 2: got into the Pizzagate stuff when it was first put
Speaker 2: out there, and I saw that. He put up another
Speaker 2: video where he says, I've been vinegated vindicated. Now look
Speaker 2: at these upstairs. Nine hundred times it's mentioned here. He goes, Yeah,
Speaker 2: this stuff is real. There's a lot of disinformation that
Speaker 2: people jumped into that was sensational, and of course that
Speaker 2: is the way the stuff always gets shut down. You
Speaker 2: have people who are basically control ops to shut this
Speaker 2: stuff down. What they do is they put out just
Speaker 2: as we've seen over and over again with Steve Achenick
Speaker 2: about so many different things. They have people like Steve
Speaker 2: Achenick who will put out lies in and around a
Speaker 2: particular event, and then when that gets reported, that gets
Speaker 2: something that is sensational, and because it's false, easily disproven,
Speaker 2: they use that to disprove the entire thing. That's the
Speaker 2: way it's always been done. And so now we see
Speaker 2: with this that yes, the Pizza Gate stuff not necessarily
Speaker 2: that particular pizza parlor or whatever, but was evidence that
Speaker 2: of exactly what they were doing. And it's back again here.
Speaker 2: But there's something else that's there is, as Smith points out,
Speaker 2: the use of beef jerky and the Epstein emails mentioned
Speaker 2: hundreds of times specifically disconcerting considering, including talk of keeping
Speaker 2: quote the jerky on ice unquote, So when do you
Speaker 2: do that? When do you keep beef jerkey on ice?
Speaker 2: A strange obsession with jerky portion weights with lab testing
Speaker 2: of jerky in order to prevent sickness et cetera. Whatever
Speaker 2: they're talking about, it's not jerky. You have to ask
Speaker 2: yourself what kind of edible product would be so criminal
Speaker 2: that it has to be hidden behind elaborate code speak. Well,
Speaker 2: the obvious conclusion would be that jerky is code for
Speaker 2: human meat. So I might argue that there's no benefits
Speaker 2: seating human meat, so why would the elites do it? Well,
Speaker 2: the critics are operating from a logical perspective, not from
Speaker 2: the perspective of the occultist. One can't separate Epstein Island
Speaker 2: from occultism and still understand what happened there. And he
Speaker 2: makes a distinction between Luciferianism and Satanism. The Satanists occupied
Speaker 2: with the pursuit of pleasure, of the expensive morality, while
Speaker 2: Luciferians are occupied with the pursuit of power, so power
Speaker 2: versus pleasure. But they both say do as thou wilt.
Speaker 2: And it is psychopathic in the sense that it has
Speaker 2: no empathy for anyone else, and it functions as essentially
Speaker 2: a parasitic cult on the rest of humanity. He points
Speaker 2: out that if they weren't such a small percentage of
Speaker 2: the human race, there wouldn't be anything left. He said,
Speaker 2: the majority of us have though a mechanism called conscience,
Speaker 2: which either stops us from committing evil most of the time,
Speaker 2: it also causes us to feel guilt. We know that
Speaker 2: we've acted in a destructive manner. If the majority of
Speaker 2: the population didn't have that, we would have gone extinct.
Speaker 2: But the psychopaths, the globalists don't have this mechanism. In fact,
Speaker 2: they think the conscience is a hindrance, It is a
Speaker 2: sign of weakness, and that people have it are easily victimized.
Speaker 2: This is a predatory class of humans. And this is
Speaker 2: something you see from criminals in every regard. I mean,
Speaker 2: I've seen this over and over again in people who
Speaker 2: are scheming about how they can do something to somebody.
Speaker 2: Truly is amazing to watch these people in operation. Well,
Speaker 2: Pambondi unmasked a dark truth about the Trump administration with
Speaker 2: these theatrics, says Daniel Hampton. And the one thing you
Speaker 2: got wrong about that is it's the Trump regime. It's
Speaker 2: not an administration. It's just a power regime. People are
Speaker 2: the Luciferians. During her congressional hearing this week, Epstein survivors
Speaker 2: set behind Bondi unacknowledged and irrelevant to her purposes as
Speaker 2: she performed for the cameras. That is the way it
Speaker 2: was described by Dahlia Lithwick and escathing analysis for Slate
Speaker 2: in which Lithwick said that Bondie's testimony wasn't about justice
Speaker 2: or accountability. It's about a woman who knows that she
Speaker 2: has to seek and maintain protection, and so she says
Speaker 2: the She crows about the dow Jones before the cameras
Speaker 2: because she understands that if she doesn't, she will be
Speaker 2: left behind. What Bondi and Trump and Lutnik and Blanche
Speaker 2: are doing under the banner of law and law enforcement
Speaker 2: and pardons and immunity and impunity is an operatic performance
Speaker 2: of a single truth that the law will now protect
Speaker 2: those who are within the network of favors and privilege
Speaker 2: and secrets and side eyes and nickers and abuse of
Speaker 2: young girls, and the law will abandon those who are not,
Speaker 2: She said, Bondi is theatrics during her combative house hearing
Speaker 2: is very similar to a protection racket. They prey on
Speaker 2: everyone who refuses to buckle. We should probably stop calling
Speaker 2: this law and simply call it power, or maybe we
Speaker 2: should just call it Luciferian It amazes me that as
Speaker 2: all of this stuff was happening, when we talk about
Speaker 2: the Christian aspects of this, we talked about the occultic
Speaker 2: aspects of this. Think about as all this stuff has
Speaker 2: been unfolding over the last couple of weeks. Right in
Speaker 2: the middle of it, you have the Millennia movie comes out,
Speaker 2: and it is truly amazing to see people like Robert Jeffers,
Speaker 2: who has a megachurch in Dallas. Thousands of people go
Speaker 2: to his church and he is there talking about how
Speaker 2: it was so wonderful that he was a part of
Speaker 2: the movie. He said, they have me in this movie,
Speaker 2: and I was surprised to see myself in this movie.
Speaker 2: But here's some of our church ladies who went to
Speaker 2: the event. They even get dressed up. They went to
Speaker 2: the trouble of making replica Milania dresses this long white
Speaker 2: dress with a black zigzag on it. This is a
Speaker 2: bunch of women who go to his church going to
Speaker 2: celebrate this prostitute Milania Trump, an Epstein girl herself right.
Speaker 2: And I don't even know, I don't even know what
Speaker 2: we could how we could explain this to anybody who
Speaker 2: looks at it. I just have to say, folks, this
Speaker 2: is not what Christianity is about. Especially, this is a
Speaker 2: movie that was the comeback movie for a director who
Speaker 2: had had some big films. They weren't good films, but
Speaker 2: they were big budget films. And I mean, he did
Speaker 2: an X Men movie other things, so they gave him
Speaker 2: a lot of money. Hollywood did. But he had his
Speaker 2: fallout in twenty seventeen, a lot of sexual allegations. And
Speaker 2: here he is in the Epstein files hugging a young girl.
Speaker 2: He's the guy on the right. Of course, there's Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 2: The girl's face is blacked out. Now, this is the
Speaker 2: guy that jeff Bezos picked to do the Milania movie. Again,
Speaker 2: as I pointed out, the budgets that you typically have
Speaker 2: on these documentaries, or maybe in the million dollar area
Speaker 2: of the entire budget, they gave her twenty eight million.
Speaker 2: It was a payoff. And Robert Jefferson is so excited
Speaker 2: about the fact that he's in that movie. I would
Speaker 2: want my name taken off of it if they put
Speaker 2: me in there. Make it clear that I had nothing
Speaker 2: to do with that. I can't believe that he is
Speaker 2: pushing that so hard and pushing the people in his
Speaker 2: church to go to it, and he's proud of this.
Speaker 2: He puts this out that says Twitter. He's the one
Speaker 2: who put that picture out there some of our church
Speaker 2: ladies at the new movie Milania that includes my prayer
Speaker 2: for the president and the first lady. Yeah, yeah, I
Speaker 2: have time. I see that. I think of the Fiddler
Speaker 2: on the Roof. Is there a prayer for the Czar? Yes,
Speaker 2: God bless and keep the tzar far away from us. Anyway,
Speaker 2: Lutnick again, sorry not Lutnick, but this is Lithwick who's
Speaker 2: talking about Bondie's theatrics. It's nothing but a protection racket
Speaker 2: that prays on everybody who's not a part of that club.
Speaker 2: And again I said, Dana Lesh has no love for
Speaker 2: Pam Bondi because Pambondi despises the Constitution, especially at the
Speaker 2: Second Amendment. And so Dana Lush Lesh said, this is
Speaker 2: one of the most embarrassing things I've ever witnessed from
Speaker 2: a lawmaker. Republicans Democrats were at asking her about Epstein
Speaker 2: and the Republicans. It wasn't just Massy, You're talking about
Speaker 2: Jim Jordan, You're talking about Brandon Gill. He said, more
Speaker 2: Conservatives than Pam Bondi because they never they had never
Speaker 2: been for gun control like her. If you want to
Speaker 2: sit here and introduce the Dow into it, let's go
Speaker 2: ahead and talk about your positions on red flag laws
Speaker 2: and universal background checks. Attorney General, she was asked why
Speaker 2: she has not prosecuted the people that we know who
Speaker 2: are in these emails, and she tries to deflect. She's
Speaker 2: not savvy enough though, to do that. She has no
Speaker 2: political acumen. She's not savvy enough to take that tone
Speaker 2: and try to spin it like that. It was disastrous,
Speaker 2: she said. Every time she was asked a tough question,
Speaker 2: she would be like, well, you have Trump derangement. The
Speaker 2: person who kept bringing it back to the hearing, kept
Speaker 2: bringing Trump back to the hearing was her. She said
Speaker 2: she was the only one that was bringing up Trump,
Speaker 2: but she was always Trump, this and Trump. She said,
Speaker 2: it was one forced air after unforced error about the
Speaker 2: entire thing. Meanwhile, how does Fox News handle this? Well, crickets, Basically,
Speaker 2: this is media. They went through and they totaled up
Speaker 2: the number of mentions on Wednesday morning of Jeffrey Epstein
Speaker 2: as all this stuff was happening on MSNBC. They mentioned
Speaker 2: Jeffrey Epstein's name three hundred times, and three hours of
Speaker 2: Attorney General Pam Bondi's House Judiciary Committee hearing CNN mentioned
Speaker 2: during those hearings, CNN mentioned it one hundred and fifty times.
Speaker 2: Fox mentioned it three times. Basically, they made it disappear.
Speaker 2: And then of course Bike barn does as they bring
Speaker 2: in the worst of the worst Lutnik and they start
Speaker 2: talking about how he's gonna make all this money for
Speaker 2: America by automating everything. No jobs for the rest of us,
Speaker 2: but for he and his Luciferian friends. We'll be right back.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the David Knight Show.
Speaker 5: Whether you're feeling like the booze or bluegrass, ATS radio
Speaker 5: has you covered check out a wide variety of channels
Speaker 5: at apsradio dot com.
Speaker 8: Well.
Speaker 2: As I said at the beginning of the program talking
Speaker 2: about Mike Johnson and the amazing lies that he's pulling
Speaker 2: off here, it's it's we look at the Trump people.
Speaker 2: It's almost funny if it wasn't so criminal the things
Speaker 2: that they're doing. Now, what Mike Johnson is trying to
Speaker 2: do is he's trying to stop other people in Congress
Speaker 2: from taking back the power that Trump usurped over taxation.
Speaker 2: That's the key power of Congress, the power of the purse.
Speaker 2: And he just declared a phony emergency. Everybody knows it's
Speaker 2: a phony emergency. And that is before the Supreme Court
Speaker 2: right now. And I don't know what is taking him
Speaker 2: so long. It's an open and shut case, quite frankly.
Speaker 2: But anyway, they have people in Congress who are trying,
Speaker 2: they want to be able to bring up motions on
Speaker 2: the floor and say that they're going to stop these
Speaker 2: new tariffs that Trump puts in, and he's trying to
Speaker 2: stop it by this kind of fictional thing about how
Speaker 2: do you measure a day? Is not amazing. And in
Speaker 2: the backdrop of all this, I can't understand why the
Speaker 2: Supreme Court hasn't already come up with a decision on this.
Speaker 2: Because Trump is bragging about the fact that he raised
Speaker 2: tariffs on Switzerland because of the phone call from one
Speaker 2: of Switzerland's leaders. He says, I didn't really like the
Speaker 2: way she talked to me. Isn't that amazing? That's the basis.
Speaker 2: It's not something that has to do with economics, It
Speaker 2: isn't anything that has to do with national security. It
Speaker 2: is about the fact that he doesn't like the way
Speaker 2: she talked to him. Like I said before, his geopolitical
Speaker 2: planning and the things that he's doing in terms of
Speaker 2: geopolitics is nothing but ego politics. And these tariffs don't
Speaker 2: have anything to do with economics. They're egonomics. He said
Speaker 2: on Tuesday that he raised tariffs on Switzerland after a
Speaker 2: phone call with the country's former president, saying he didn't
Speaker 2: approve of the way that she took. He said, so
Speaker 2: the tariffs were at thirty percent. I really didn't like
Speaker 2: the way she talked to us, so instead of giving
Speaker 2: her a reduction, I raised it to thirty nine percent.
Speaker 2: This is exactly why you don't want somebody like this
Speaker 2: in the office of president. But you don't especially don't
Speaker 2: want one person doing the setting the rates. This is
Speaker 2: why tax rates should be and it his at tax
Speaker 2: by the way, in spite of their lives about that,
Speaker 2: you want that to be done by Congress. He said,
Speaker 2: she just rubbed me the wrong way. I'll be honest
Speaker 2: with you. Democrats then said his comments were an admission
Speaker 2: that his tariff policies are not about national security. No,
Speaker 2: they're not about national security. They're not about economics. They're
Speaker 2: about egonomics. It's not about even the trade deficit, and
Speaker 2: certainly isn't about making Americans great again. You know, he
Speaker 2: says America, Bay doesn't say Americans. This is an America
Speaker 2: without Americans being involved in it. In the case of Switzerland,
Speaker 2: he increased the tariffs because, let me check my notes,
Speaker 2: he didn't like the way the Swiss leader quote talked
Speaker 2: to me. So the Democrats in a statement, Republicans must
Speaker 2: join Democrats to end this reckless behavior. I agree. The
Speaker 2: US and Switzerland reached a trade agreement in November to
Speaker 2: reduce tariffs on Swiss imports from thirty nine percent to
Speaker 2: fifteen percent. On Tuesday, three House Republicans joined with Democrats
Speaker 2: voting against banning members' ability to call snap votes to
Speaker 2: repeal the president's tariffs. So, in other words, what Speaker
Speaker 2: Johnson is trying to do was to stop them from
Speaker 2: having a vote to question Trump's tariffs. You can just
Speaker 2: impose these things at will, according to Speaker Johnson. So
Speaker 2: the three who pushed back, Yes, that's.
Speaker 3: The level of forty chesses. You insult him, and it's
Speaker 3: entirely emotional.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's economics. So it was Thomas Massey, Kevin Kylie,
Speaker 2: and Don Bacon. Unfortunately, Don Bacon isn't coming back. He's
Speaker 2: had enough of this stuff. Trump used declarations of national
Speaker 2: emergencies again. All this stuff is phony. Yeah, I don't
Speaker 2: like how they talked to me, so I'm going to
Speaker 2: bump this up. We got a national emergency because of
Speaker 2: trade deficit. No, we don't. You know, if you want
Speaker 2: to talk about deficits being a national emergency, it is
Speaker 2: the budget deficit that is a national He doesn't care
Speaker 2: at all about the budget deficit, but he doesn't want
Speaker 2: to have a trade deficit with anybody. Again, the guy
Speaker 2: doesn't understand economics or anything else. The Supreme Court is
Speaker 2: also considering the legality of using a provision under the
Speaker 2: International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Again, this has absolutely no
Speaker 2: merit whatever. The Marquette Law School poll found that sixty
Speaker 2: three percent of respondents want the Supreme Court to restrict
Speaker 2: the president's authority to impose terror. So what he was
Speaker 2: doing again gets the point. Like I said, they're not
Speaker 2: even good liars. They're not even good. When they try
Speaker 2: to shut this stuff down. They come up with things
Speaker 2: that are absolutely insane. And that's the way it was
Speaker 2: characterized by many people absolutely insane, trying to pretend that
Speaker 2: a day is not a day. What a difference a
Speaker 2: day makes? Twenty four little hours almost got that to
Speaker 2: play that. Mike Johnson lost a key procedural vote Tuesday
Speaker 2: night when he tried to delay future votes on Trump's
Speaker 2: ability to levy terriffs with a rule that rewrote what
Speaker 2: constitutes a day in order to delay a vote on
Speaker 2: Trump's tariff emergency. This is how sick this sycophant, Mike
Speaker 2: Johnson is. And again look at how this guy who
Speaker 2: presents himself out as a Christian, how he is doing
Speaker 2: everything he can to cover up for these pedophiles. Amazing.
Speaker 3: You see, he's just minted. It's like a sent in
Speaker 3: per era. It's the day of Trump right now.
Speaker 2: That's they so each So here's what it's said in
Speaker 2: the bill. This is reading from the bill. Section number
Speaker 2: nineteen provides that each day during the period from February
Speaker 2: tenth through July thirty first to twenty twenty six shall
Speaker 2: not constitute a calendar day. Each day shall not be
Speaker 2: a calendar day for the purposes of Section two oh
Speaker 2: two of the National Emergencies Act, with respect to a
Speaker 2: joint resolution terminating a national emergency declared by the president.
Speaker 2: So again, why is that there. Well, they have twisted
Speaker 2: and inverted the Emergencies Act so many different ways. It's
Speaker 2: the same thing they do the Constitution all the time.
Speaker 2: They turn it inside out upside down. Congress has to
Speaker 2: vote to renew each emergency declaration annually, and they have
Speaker 2: to approve a new emergency after fifteen days. So they
Speaker 2: didn't do any of that stuff. First of all, we
Speaker 2: don't have an emergency. We've had trade deficits that have
Speaker 2: been around this amount for quite a long time. That
Speaker 2: does not constitute an emergency. And then even if it
Speaker 2: were an emergency, they're supposed to have a vote within
Speaker 2: fifteen days of the new emergency. And so none of
Speaker 2: this was done. The same way that they declare war
Speaker 2: with Venezuela. Everything is thrown out. So again, this is
Speaker 2: worse than daylight savings time. This is a calendar day
Speaker 2: lying time. From Mike Johnson, the rule would have allowed
Speaker 2: Trump's emergency declarations to stand through July by simply declaring
Speaker 2: and denying the existence of time, said Thomas Massey, and
Speaker 2: he got it exactly right. He said that the Speaker
Speaker 2: is trying to pass a resolution that literally says a
Speaker 2: day is not a day, just to avoid voting on
Speaker 2: the emergencies that underpin the tariffs. Smoke and mirrors. You know,
Speaker 2: it's lies and fraud is what. It is.
Speaker 3: So absurd you can't even joke about it. It is Yeah,
Speaker 3: that even parodies wouldn't go to.
Speaker 2: I saw this and mentioned it briefly on Wednesday, and
Speaker 2: I I got to go back and do a little
Speaker 2: bit more research on this because that just doesn't make
Speaker 2: any sense. They're going to say that, you know, calendar
Speaker 2: days are not days for you know, six months or
Speaker 2: whatever is And yeah, that's exactly what it is. Only
Speaker 2: Mike Johnson could come up with something that devious and
Speaker 2: that's stupid, and that corrupt former House.
Speaker 3: Republican goes, well, beyond what the meaning.
Speaker 2: Of is is, what's the meaning of days? Yeah? I
Speaker 2: think they need to spell days with a daze? Right.
Speaker 2: A House Republican justin a Ash shared Massey's post and
Speaker 2: added to vote yes on this would have been absolutely insane.
Speaker 2: Yet nearly every Republican voted to pretend that a day
Speaker 2: is not a day. Think about that, all but three
Speaker 2: of them and one of them not running for reelection.
Speaker 3: Two wolves and a sheep voting on what a day is.
Speaker 2: It's so crazy. It is what they will not do
Speaker 2: to curry favor with Trump. It's absolutely amazing. You know,
Speaker 2: they will cover up for pedophiles. They will try to
Speaker 2: redefine what a day is. Congress needs to be able
Speaker 2: to debate on tariffs, said Don Bacon, who is one
Speaker 2: of the ones, one of the three Republicans who vote
Speaker 2: against Listen, stop and think about it. You know, we had,
Speaker 2: of course, what was that it was in terms of
Speaker 2: the Epstein files, it was Thomas Massey and three women
Speaker 2: Nancy Mace Bobert and Margie Tayler Green. Well, Margie Tayler
Speaker 2: Green's gone. The other two voted for this stuff to
Speaker 2: redefine a day. That amazing. But Don Bacon and he said,
Speaker 2: we need to be able to debate tariffs. Tariffs have
Speaker 2: been a net negative for the economy and they are
Speaker 2: a significant tax that American consumers, manufacturers, and farmers are paying.
Speaker 2: Article one of the Constitution. Look at that he's talking about.
Speaker 2: The Constitution places authority over taxes and tariffs with Congress
Speaker 2: for a reason. But for too long we've handed that
Speaker 2: authority to the executive branch. Kevin Kylie, who voted against
Speaker 2: redefining a day, said, I don't think the House should
Speaker 2: be limiting the authority of members and enlarging the power
Speaker 2: of leadership at the expense of our members, and that's
Speaker 2: what this does. So I think it's important for the
Speaker 2: House as an institution to push back against this. Well,
Speaker 2: fortunately because those three Republicans joined with the Democrats, they
Speaker 2: were able to shut it down, and so it would
Speaker 2: have made it impossible to vote on Trump's tariffs until August.
Speaker 2: The same kind of stuff that Johnson would doing to
Speaker 2: try to stop any votes about the Epstein thing. So again,
Speaker 2: there was one guy, a fourth guy that said he
Speaker 2: was going to do it, Tom mclennock, and there was
Speaker 2: a similar resolution back in September. He backed out of
Speaker 2: that one and backed out of this one as well.
Speaker 2: As completely spineless, as are the Guardians of the Pedophiles.
Speaker 2: The GP. Well, we had this strange report about something
Speaker 2: happening in El Paso, and it really is strange, and
Speaker 2: again we don't really know what it is. Just like
Speaker 2: you had all these strange things about drones in New
Speaker 2: Jersey and other places in the northeast. It was about
Speaker 2: a year or so ago, is before Trump became president,
Speaker 2: I think. But anyway, it is another one of those
Speaker 2: deals national security. They're not going to tell you. Some
Speaker 2: people are going to play it up as UFOs, and
Speaker 2: so we've had a lot of different explanations about this.
Speaker 2: Futurism's headline was I thought the best one. You're not
Speaker 2: prepared for what actually shut down the El Paso Airport.
Speaker 2: But let's just say it involves a military mega laser
Speaker 2: shooting something down. And then that's the other part of it, right,
Speaker 2: the first of all, there's the mega laser they and
Speaker 2: they shot that down. But what they shot down, We've
Speaker 2: had a lot of different stories about what that was.
Speaker 2: Was it a drone from the cartels? That's one story
Speaker 2: that came from the White House. And then they pulled
Speaker 2: it back and said, oh no, it was just a
Speaker 2: party balloon. Don't want to alarm anybody. It's like a
Speaker 2: party balloon. You use this gigantic laser and you shut
Speaker 2: down all air traffic control for party balloon. And then
Speaker 2: you've got some people who have put up you see
Speaker 2: a little dot that's on the horizon and say it
Speaker 2: was a UFO and look there's little dots that are
Speaker 2: coming out of this. So it was a mothership UFO
Speaker 2: and they shot the laser at it. I don't know
Speaker 2: if they claim that they shot it down or not,
Speaker 2: but always somebody wants to make it a flying saw.
Speaker 2: And so, according to CBS News, the bizarre airspace closure
Speaker 2: came under orders from FAA Administer Administrator Brian Bedford. Bedford
Speaker 2: made the call after learning that the Pentagon planned to
Speaker 2: unleash high energy counter drone laser weapons at Fort Bliss,
Speaker 2: situated right next to the El Paso International Airport. Fox
Speaker 2: News reported that military personnel had shot down a rogue
Speaker 2: party balloon like you'd see at a child's birthday party.
Speaker 2: Maybe it was a gender reveal or something right near
Speaker 2: El Paso, after misidentifying it as a foreign drone. Whether
Speaker 2: this was done using the Pentagon's Mega laser is unclear
Speaker 2: at the moment, but it would be a wild coincidence
Speaker 2: if this was not the case. And so, again further
Speaker 2: mudding the water as the Trump Administration's claims, the Pentagon
Speaker 2: had taken action disable a vague cartel drone incursion right
Speaker 2: before the airspace shut down. So You've yet to see
Speaker 2: any evidence that that is the case. But again, the
Speaker 2: UFO crowd is there as well, as we see over
Speaker 2: and over again. One thing that I talked about on
Speaker 2: Wednesday that I wanted to come back and revisit because
Speaker 2: I think it's important is the story about AI. And
Speaker 2: there's been a lot of pushback. This is a story again,
Speaker 2: as I pointed out, it was by a AI company CEO,
Speaker 2: Matt Schumer, and his company actually is called other Side AI.
Speaker 2: Their product that they put out is something called hyper
Speaker 2: Write and it is there as an AI writing assistant,
Speaker 2: which has caused a lot of people to say, if
Speaker 2: you look at this, this is another one of these
Speaker 2: AI CEOs telling us that their product is going to
Speaker 2: be godlike and it's going to everybody's going to be
Speaker 2: you know, it's going to be the only thing left standing,
Speaker 2: so you better get in line and start making friends
Speaker 2: with it, and that type of thing. We've seen that
Speaker 2: over and over again going to the federal government. People
Speaker 2: like Sam Altman of questionable integrity. This is the guy
Speaker 2: who was going around not that long ago before he
Speaker 2: weaseled his way into open AI control. He had this
Speaker 2: ORB and he was going to give you cryptocurrency if
Speaker 2: you let him create put you in his database that
Speaker 2: he evidently was putting together one to sell to governments,
Speaker 2: and want to have an eye scan of you. So
Speaker 2: he had this orb like a giant eyeball, and if
Speaker 2: you'd let him scan your eyeballs and put you in
Speaker 2: his biometric database, he'd give you a couple of tokens
Speaker 2: and his new cryptocurrency. That kind of guy. And so
Speaker 2: we've seen over and over again this parade of AI
Speaker 2: CEO is going to Congress saying this is going to
Speaker 2: be the biggest thing ever in the world, and you're
Speaker 2: going to need to have it because the Chinese want
Speaker 2: to have it as well. So you've got to give
Speaker 2: us a lot of money to make sure that we're
Speaker 2: there first. And we've got this creating this arms race
Speaker 2: scenario thing. And then the other aspect of it is
Speaker 2: it is so powerful that it's very dangerous, and so
Speaker 2: you need to have responsible people like me that's going
Speaker 2: to do it, let my competitors do it. You've got
Speaker 2: to put some regulation in there to keep them from
Speaker 2: getting involved in this. And so I guess immediately suspect
Speaker 2: when you start seeing these CEOs of AI companies making
Speaker 2: these pronouncements about what's going on. To me, a lot
Speaker 2: of what the guy said rang true. That's why I
Speaker 2: read it because of the rapid escalation of AI that
Speaker 2: we can see just looking at things like vocal mimicking
Speaker 2: and the images and videos and stuff like that that
Speaker 2: we have a use for with the program occasionally. But
Speaker 2: a lot of people said, no, this is something that
Speaker 2: was written by AI, because that's what this guy's company does. Well,
Speaker 2: the comeback from one person that's talking about it, and
Speaker 2: it went viral. I mean, it had millions of views,
Speaker 2: a lot of people talking about it, and I thought
Speaker 2: one of the most interesting quotes there was from the
Speaker 2: Washington Post Meghan mcgartoll. She said, well, if this was
Speaker 2: an AI written article, it's evidence of his thesis being true,
Speaker 2: because if an AI article could create that much stir,
Speaker 2: maybe that's exactly what he's talking about. But I think
Speaker 2: on the flip side of this, we have seen people
Speaker 2: and this is another reason why I covered it, but
Speaker 2: I didn't have time to get to that much of it.
Speaker 2: On the flip side, we have seen a lot of
Speaker 2: people who are who have no interest in growing an
Speaker 2: AI company. As a matter of fact, they have washed
Speaker 2: out and said I'm done with this stuff. I don't
Speaker 2: want to have anything else to do with it. It's
Speaker 2: going to be very harmful to our society, to humanity,
Speaker 2: and it's going so many negatives to it. I don't
Speaker 2: want to have anything to do with it. And so
Speaker 2: they're resigning and going public with it, and they're not
Speaker 2: trying to sell fear and trying to prop up an
Speaker 2: AI arms race or anything like that, and so that's
Speaker 2: on the other side of it. An open AI engineer
Speaker 2: calls it an existential threat just days after Anthropics Safety
Speaker 2: lead quit over the same concerns. And it's not just them,
Speaker 2: it's also one of the founders of AI guy they
Speaker 2: refer to as the godfather of AI, Jeffrey Hinton, has
Speaker 2: been warning of the negative impacts on society as well,
Speaker 2: in terms of not just employment, but so many different things.
Speaker 8: Well.
Speaker 2: Of course, the issue is what do we do if
Speaker 2: we don't have jobs? Right, it's not just a matter
Speaker 2: of giving people universal basic income. What is the meaning?
Speaker 2: What gives meaning to life? Is it our job, our career,
Speaker 2: our bank account. David Bonson has written a book about
Speaker 2: the importance of work and the importance of it from
Speaker 2: a Christian perspective, and so we're going to talk to
Speaker 2: him about that. Also going to talk to him about
Speaker 2: some of the economic policies or maybe the economic policies
Speaker 2: of the Trump regime. He is somebody who is very
Speaker 2: well versed, of course in economics. He runs the Bonson Group,
Speaker 2: which has eight billion dollars under asset of assets under management.
Speaker 2: I should say, so we're going to take a break
Speaker 2: and when we come back, we're going to talk to
Speaker 2: David Bohson of the Bonson Group. And I just want
Speaker 2: to tell everybody. I apologize that we've not been able
Speaker 2: to do comments and tips today. Everything should be normal
Speaker 2: again on Monday. So I apologize that we're not able
Speaker 2: to respond to you today, but that should be back
Speaker 2: on Monday. So we'll be right back.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the David Knight Show.
Speaker 2: We'll joining us now is David Bnson. He is the
Speaker 2: manager of a eight billion with a B dollar wealth
Speaker 2: man fund. He's also a prolific writer. He is a
Speaker 2: contributing writer for National Review. He serves on the National
Speaker 2: Review Institute Board. He's named on of America's Top financial
Speaker 2: advisors by Barons Forbes and The Financial Times. He's also
Speaker 2: regularly on Fox News and Fox Business, as well as
Speaker 2: a contributor to World Magazine. And I wanted to talk
Speaker 2: to David about several issues. First of all, you know,
Speaker 2: his expertise, of course, is in economics, but he also
Speaker 2: is a published Christian author. He has some perspectives on
Speaker 2: the meaning of life and how to find life's met
Speaker 2: in your work and other things. It's we want to
Speaker 2: touch on that as well. He had a rebuttal to
Speaker 2: a piece that was done on The Atlantic talking about
Speaker 2: the isolation that has been has become characteristic of our society.
Speaker 2: So joining us now is David Bonson. Thank you for
Speaker 2: so much for joining us.
Speaker 8: David, Well, thank you so much for having me pleasure
Speaker 8: to be with you.
Speaker 2: Let's thank you. Let's talk a little bit about this
Speaker 2: piece from the Atlantic. I thought it was pretty amazing
Speaker 2: and it began with an anecdote is mostly stories do.
Speaker 2: This is a guy he's in a restaurant, I think
Speaker 2: it was North Carolina, and he says he's sitting there
Speaker 2: and he's seeing one person after the other coming into
Speaker 2: the restaurant, grabbing a paper bag and going out. There's
Speaker 2: not really any interaction. You know, there's not a group
Speaker 2: of people coming in and having a meal at a table.
Speaker 2: They're not even really interacting with the people behind the counter.
Speaker 2: And he wrings his hand and says, this is awful,
Speaker 2: and this is what is happening to American society. And
Speaker 2: he said he talked to them, that it was very
Speaker 2: bustling place before the pandemic, and yet he believed that
Speaker 2: it was some kind of a problem of capitalism. Is
Speaker 2: what did they say? The problem was? How did we
Speaker 2: get to this?
Speaker 8: Yeah?
Speaker 6: And what what the author ends up doing is concluding
Speaker 6: that it wasn't a problem of markets, so it was
Speaker 6: rather markets adjusting to what the problem was with the culture,
Speaker 6: that the that the society moving towards increased alienation, a
Speaker 6: decreased value on community, on being together. And and of
Speaker 6: course that was an opening anecdote to what was a
Speaker 6: really longer piece. I did a whole podcast at my
Speaker 6: National Review Capital Record podcast about the broader subject of
Speaker 6: how do we reverse this trend of greater alienation and
Speaker 6: isolation in society?
Speaker 8: And one of the points I make is.
Speaker 6: That Mark this restaurant is not going to go out
Speaker 6: of business just because people don't want to go out
Speaker 6: to eat together anymore, so they are going to shift
Speaker 6: to deliveries and door dash and to go orders.
Speaker 8: And some of the other things.
Speaker 6: So the business of the restaurant might find a market
Speaker 6: mechanism that maintains some cash flow, but the societal issue
Speaker 6: that undergirds it is really the challenge. And I want
Speaker 6: to make the argument that markets are not causing the problem,
Speaker 6: they're responding to the problem. We don't blame markets when
Speaker 6: thousands of people go out together for big, successful concert events,
Speaker 6: we don't give markets the credit for that. But that's
Speaker 6: an example of markets accommodating a societal trend for the
Speaker 6: togetherness of what was the successful Taylor Swift concert tour
Speaker 6: a couple of years ago.
Speaker 8: The point I think you're bringing.
Speaker 6: Up, David, is that there was a societal trend taking
Speaker 6: place before COVID of people valuing community and together this
Speaker 6: less and COVID exacerbated it, and it's a trend that
Speaker 6: we ought to be very concerned about.
Speaker 2: I absolutely agree, and of course my listeners know that
Speaker 2: I was a pandemic skeptic before, during, and especially after.
Speaker 2: I mean, the people were pushing this on and say, well,
Speaker 2: we did our best. We just did the wrong thing.
Speaker 2: And that was, as you point out, it was a
Speaker 2: trend that had been happening for quite some time, and
Speaker 2: it was actually war gaming and simulations that they had
Speaker 2: done since two months before nine to eleven to lock
Speaker 2: everybody down and to keep everybody locked down until you
Speaker 2: got their special formula. So I was skeptical of that
Speaker 2: all along. And I've seen the ways that this has
Speaker 2: been used and how it has advanced a lot of
Speaker 2: the let's say, the agenda, because when you look at
Speaker 2: that as well as some things like universal basic income
Speaker 2: and compare that to the stimulus checks, seems to me
Speaker 2: like there was a lot that was going on with
Speaker 2: that that was pushing us down this very bad path
Speaker 2: of isolation and dependency on the government. And it doesn't
Speaker 2: surprise me to see the Atlantic take the approach that
Speaker 2: when the government gas lit enforced a lockdown in isolation,
Speaker 2: that they would then blame people who responded to that
Speaker 2: as businesses trying to stay alive.
Speaker 6: Well, I believe that pandemic response is unforgivable, outrageous. I
Speaker 6: think there were some people who were better intentioned than
Speaker 6: others that all of it Still, you know, I don't
Speaker 6: judge a policy by its intentions, you judge it by
Speaker 6: its results.
Speaker 8: And it was bad results.
Speaker 6: But the lockdowns and pandemic issue ended a long time ago.
Speaker 6: And one of the things Derek points out in the
Speaker 6: Atlantic article he wrote a year ago is that the
Speaker 6: worst year at twenty twenty one was very bad for this.
Speaker 6: Then twenty two was bad, and then it got worse
Speaker 6: than twenty three. No one was locked down by twenty
Speaker 6: twenty three.
Speaker 8: So what you see is this sort of craving of
Speaker 8: people dining alone.
Speaker 6: Robert Putnam's book Bowling Alone was written in the year
Speaker 6: two thousand. Okay, that was twenty five years ago. That
Speaker 6: was well before the pandemic. The death of community is
Speaker 6: a post modern and secular problem, not merely a byproduct
Speaker 6: of the very bad COVID policies.
Speaker 8: And I believe that.
Speaker 6: Societies that don't value mediating institutions like and family end
Speaker 6: up being very lonely societies.
Speaker 2: Well, I agree. Yeah, it was a trend that was
Speaker 2: already in place, and this accelerated it intensified it significantly,
Speaker 2: I think, and we're living with that. I guess that
Speaker 2: was one of the thing I was most surprised about
Speaker 2: was how rapidly this accelerated trends like that that we
Speaker 2: already saw in place and kind of solidified them, you know.
Speaker 2: And my son's generation, almost everybody meets their spouse or
Speaker 2: whatever that they know have met them online initially, And
Speaker 2: there used to be places where you could actually go
Speaker 2: and have a human to human interaction with somebody rather
Speaker 2: than primarily being online. And it's such a strange thing
Speaker 2: to see that, and it really is that kind of isolation.
Speaker 2: And many have bragged about that being the design, you know,
Speaker 2: but they won't to have like a ready player one environment.
Speaker 2: We're all just set there in our virtual world, you know,
Speaker 2: communicating with people on the outside, rather than having any
Speaker 2: kind of in person communication.
Speaker 8: That's exactly right.
Speaker 6: Dining is but one example all sorts of various community activities.
Speaker 8: You know.
Speaker 6: We can talk about the role that COVID played in
Speaker 6: exacerbating it, but nothing is exacerbated quicker than screens than electronics.
Speaker 6: And I think there's a very healthy way in which
Speaker 6: one can use electronics for productive use.
Speaker 8: There's plenty of benefits to come from it. For people
Speaker 8: staying in touch.
Speaker 6: It's an easier way to send your long lost aunt
Speaker 6: and uncle on the other side of the country, family photos.
Speaker 6: There's no reason to be luddite or a techn fobe
Speaker 6: about things. But to the extent that people have replaced
Speaker 6: human interaction with screen time, it is entirely unhealthy.
Speaker 2: Well, it's one of those things where because it makes
Speaker 2: it easier and available to not actually be in person,
Speaker 2: and it takes some of the discomfort of some of
Speaker 2: the aspects that you would have in meeting with somebody
Speaker 2: in person, takes a little bit of that out. It
Speaker 2: is kind of seductive in that regard, and I think
Speaker 2: we're going to see a lot more of that as
Speaker 2: AI intrudes more and more into our lives. But let's
Speaker 2: talk a little bit about the solution. Because you wrote
Speaker 2: a whole book really about a perspective of life, full
Speaker 2: time work and the meaning of life. Give us a
Speaker 2: little bit of an overview of that.
Speaker 6: Well, I try to make the argument from you know,
Speaker 6: creational theology from the very beginning of the world is
Speaker 6: to what God told us as to why he created us,
Speaker 6: that our endeavors here on Earth matter, that work is
Speaker 6: not just something we do for transactional benefit to help
Speaker 6: feed us or sustain us, but that it is a
Speaker 6: venue for creative and productive outlet that in producing goods
Speaker 6: and services enhance quality of life, we can enable our
Speaker 6: dreams to come true, our passions are, we can develop
Speaker 6: our skills in ways that bring tremendous meaning and joy
Speaker 6: to our lives. This is a productive, proactive view of
Speaker 6: human agency versus a reactive and I think very sedentary
Speaker 6: one where people are sitting still waiting for things to
Speaker 6: happen to them. Yes, uh, and and and one allows
Speaker 6: for humans to experience great joy and meaning and dignity.
Speaker 6: And it reflects the created intent and character of our creator.
Speaker 8: And one is.
Speaker 6: Depressing, One leads to isolation, one leads to this societal
Speaker 6: malady that we're dealing with.
Speaker 8: Now. Work is not the source of our problems. It
Speaker 8: is the.
Speaker 2: Solution, absolutely, And it's one more aspect here where we
Speaker 2: can see the wisdom of God, the wisdom of the Bible,
Speaker 2: in the sense that this is what we were designed for.
Speaker 2: And we know that that is a very effecious. A
Speaker 2: matter of fact, just recently we had doctor Oz out
Speaker 2: there saying we need to keep people working longer and
Speaker 2: retiring later. So the cynics came in and said, see
Speaker 2: he just doesn't want us to have a nice life,
Speaker 2: you know. And yet he was pointing out that study
Speaker 2: after study have shown that if you have a fulfilling job.
Speaker 2: As a matter of fact, people who are doing work
Speaker 2: that is not menial or reproduct typically naturally work for
Speaker 2: a longer period of time until help makes it impossible
Speaker 2: for them to do that. But if it's something like
Speaker 2: some kind of an intellectual pursuit or something like that
Speaker 2: that's a part of their work or some kind of
Speaker 2: creative process, they typically do work longer. And I'm thinking
Speaker 2: of the many conductors that I've seen who continue conducting
Speaker 2: the symphony works are in the eighties and nineties, and
Speaker 2: it keeps them young and alive. It's not just waving
Speaker 2: their arms around, you know, getting that kind of exercise,
Speaker 2: but it's something that engages their spirit and their intellect.
Speaker 2: And so there is a truth to that, because there
Speaker 2: is a truth to what God said. He designed us
Speaker 2: to work. He designed us to tend the garden. Work
Speaker 2: has become more difficult because after the Fall, God cursed
Speaker 2: that work, and it has now been deliberately made more difficult.
Speaker 2: And yet there are ways that we can still find
Speaker 2: our purpose in it, even if it is tainted by
Speaker 2: the curse of sin.
Speaker 8: And I will say.
Speaker 6: What I think is a little bit more biblically preciselyanguage
Speaker 6: in Genesis three, we don't generally talk about children of
Speaker 6: as being cursed that there's pains of childbirth now, but
Speaker 6: that verse came before the in Genesis chapter three, the
Speaker 6: curse to the woman was the pains of childbirth. It
Speaker 6: was not the children and the curse the curse to
Speaker 6: the man was not work. It was the sweat of
Speaker 6: the brow. It was the thorns and thistles. You're right
Speaker 6: that we're with the teats in work.
Speaker 2: Now, hang us, I guess David, you're breaking up there
Speaker 2: a little bit. We can we can pull this back here.
Speaker 8: I'm not sure why.
Speaker 2: Yeah, was it breaking up when you heard Atlanta or
Speaker 2: was it just on my end? It was okay, it's
Speaker 2: okay now, Yeah, it was just it was cutting out.
Speaker 2: So we didn't get the last of that.
Speaker 8: So let's let's pick let me pick it up from
Speaker 8: the sentence.
Speaker 2: Before we'll edit that together.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I think that the man that we talk about
Speaker 6: thorns and thistles, that it is a curse that now
Speaker 6: is going to be accompanying work. But that the underlying
Speaker 6: work itself remains a blessing, just like children remain a blessing.
Speaker 6: Sin polluted a lot of things, but in God's redemptive
Speaker 6: plan to restore all of us to an Edenic condition,
Speaker 6: I believe that we air to believe that work itself
Speaker 6: was cursed.
Speaker 8: Work and family both predated.
Speaker 6: The fall, and that perspective I think is important theologically.
Speaker 2: Yes, exactly right, Yeah it is. Work is harder for
Speaker 2: us now, but even hard work like that difficult work
Speaker 2: has its reward, you know, just like the pain of childbirth.
Speaker 2: And yet there is a reward of the children as well,
Speaker 2: and so both of those things are there. The process
Speaker 2: is painful, but the reward that we were built for
Speaker 2: is still fundamentally there is. That. The basis, then, of
Speaker 2: a thesis of your book, Full Time Work and the
Speaker 2: Meaning of Life.
Speaker 6: It is that there is not fifty percent of people
Speaker 6: who are made to work and fifty percent who were.
Speaker 8: Made to consume that because all of.
Speaker 6: Us were made in the image of God, and he
Speaker 6: did this, by the way, because he loves us, not
Speaker 6: because he hates us. That we all have a ability
Speaker 6: to work. Some have different skills and interests and abilities
Speaker 6: and backgrounds and whatnot, but that there is no one
Speaker 6: God made not in his image. And if part of
Speaker 6: being an image bearer of God is the creative, productive,
Speaker 6: innovative capacity that he has, then this means that what
Speaker 6: I'm speaking to doesn't apply to just Elon Musk and
Speaker 6: Jeff Bezos. It applies to all of us in some
Speaker 6: capacity to go and wake up every day with the
Speaker 6: blessing of being able to be productive the four letter
Speaker 6: word we call work.
Speaker 2: I agree with that. That's great, and we shall all
Speaker 2: I think we'd all be better off if we had
Speaker 2: that perspective. Let's talk about what many of us work for,
Speaker 2: and that is a roof over our heads. And you
Speaker 2: talked about the root of the housing problem, and a
Speaker 2: recent article that you had. Trump's got one idea of
Speaker 2: how he thinks he actually he's got several. He came
Speaker 2: up a fifty year mortgage life in venture mint to
Speaker 2: the mortgage company that was one of them, of course,
Speaker 2: manipulating interest rates. And now he's got the idea of
Speaker 2: prohibition of institutional investors. And you take issue with that.
Speaker 2: Tell us why you think that is the wrong approach
Speaker 2: and what the real root of housing problem is well.
Speaker 6: I take issue with almost all of them, although that
Speaker 6: one might be among the worst. We have a tremendous
Speaker 6: problem of inadequate supply.
Speaker 8: Housing is too expensive because we need more of it.
Speaker 8: And this is basic economics.
Speaker 6: When supply stays level but the demand curve moves up,
Speaker 6: then you get higher prices, and so you need an
Speaker 6: equilibrium between supply and demand in order to avoid prices
Speaker 6: going higher, let alone higher than the rate of inflation itself.
Speaker 6: House prices have outpaced wage growth and job growth and
Speaker 6: economic growth for some time, and that is unsustainable and
Speaker 6: it creates.
Speaker 8: An affordability price problem.
Speaker 6: Vice President Kamala Harris, when she was running for president, said,
Speaker 6: we'll all address the affordability issue by giving every American
Speaker 6: twenty five thousand dollars. President Trump has said, or every
Speaker 6: American wants to buy a first time home. President Trump said,
Speaker 6: I'm going to address it by having Fanny and Freddy
Speaker 6: buy a ton of mortgage bonds, so it creates more
Speaker 6: supply of mortgage financing and pushes interest rates down. Both
Speaker 6: things feed demand, but do nothing about supply. And when
Speaker 6: he talks about supply, he says, the institutional people that
Speaker 6: have come in and built new homes and bought homes
Speaker 6: have now made it more unaffordable. The reality is, first
Speaker 6: of all, the largest institutional holder owns about sixty thousand homes,
Speaker 6: thirty thousand that they own to sell, thirty thousand they
Speaker 6: owned a rent.
Speaker 8: This is in a nation with ninety million homes.
Speaker 6: Some of the cities with the worst home price appreciation
Speaker 6: meaning the lowest, have the highest level of institutional ownership.
Speaker 6: Some of the cities that have the highest home price
Speaker 6: appreciation and the biggest unaffordability problem have no institutional ownership.
Speaker 6: So there's no real empirical evidence that this is a
Speaker 6: factor at all. But what it does do is tell
Speaker 6: Americans who they're allowed to buy and sell their home
Speaker 6: to and from. Yeah, exactly, it's just outrageous, and so
Speaker 6: it's not only not addressing the problem, but it is
Speaker 6: a solution that is outside of market principles that most
Speaker 6: of us on the right have believed in for a
Speaker 6: long time.
Speaker 2: That's right, And you point out your article American Enterprise Institute,
Speaker 2: going through and looking at the data behind it, that
Speaker 2: eighty percent of all institutionally owned homes exist in just
Speaker 2: five percent of US counties. So again, that's not the
Speaker 2: systemic issue for prices because they're seeing this everywhere. And
Speaker 2: he also point out that not a single country in
Speaker 2: America has even has ten percent institutional ownership share. So clearly, yeah,
Speaker 2: that's not the issue. Clearly when you look at the numbers.
Speaker 2: But again, what he's talking about doing is, as you
Speaker 2: point out, it's going to feed demand. I look at
Speaker 2: this in a sense like the car issue. You know,
Speaker 2: look at how unaffordable cars have gotten. I talked about
Speaker 2: this week the electric vehicles and how they were bragging
Speaker 2: that this new type of electric vehicle would be priced
Speaker 2: at under sixty thousand dollars. I thought, how is that
Speaker 2: a selling feature that is so incredibly expensive. I went
Speaker 2: back and I looked at the average car price and
Speaker 2: adjusted it for inflation, and that's going from nineteen seventy four,
Speaker 2: so the last fifty years or so, that is double
Speaker 2: what it would be if you just adjusted for the
Speaker 2: inflation for the devaluation of the dollar. And so there's
Speaker 2: something else going on here. We know that the price
Speaker 2: of cars, it's not like it has a supply issue.
Speaker 2: It's really a pricing issue, because the car manufacturers would
Speaker 2: be more than happy to ramp this up. But it's
Speaker 2: all the regulations that are put onto the cars are
Speaker 2: making it very expensive. What about the regulation that make
Speaker 2: houses more expensive because they've got a lot of mandated
Speaker 2: stuff with regulations. From that standpoint as well, how does
Speaker 2: that affect the supply side in your view, Well.
Speaker 8: It's a huge issue.
Speaker 6: And it doesn't just affect the supply side in getting
Speaker 6: priced in. It affects the supply side in not getting
Speaker 6: new supply because some of these regulations are so expensive
Speaker 6: that they simply cannot build, and or they it takes
Speaker 6: so long to build that you end up not keeping
Speaker 6: up with growing demand. There's a few things that all
Speaker 6: played into this, and I'll do this very quickly for
Speaker 6: your listeners.
Speaker 8: But you had the financial crisis.
Speaker 6: There was a big glut of supply relative to demand,
Speaker 6: and when the bubble burst, it was very difficult to
Speaker 6: get capital investment into housing. And then they came into
Speaker 6: a lot of new regulations about the banks what they
Speaker 6: were and weren't allowed to do, and so there was
Speaker 6: so much excess inventory that had to be worked through.
Speaker 6: As millions of Americans had bought homes they couldn't afford,
Speaker 6: so that was going to set everything back a few years,
Speaker 6: and it made a lot of sense why there wouldn't
Speaker 6: be a lot of people lining up to build new
Speaker 6: homes in the immediate aftermath of the financial crisis. But
Speaker 6: then combined with that, demographically at the time, we had
Speaker 6: millennials becoming adult age and normally would be buying a home,
Speaker 6: starting a family. But they were getting married five years
Speaker 6: ten years later than their parents did. They were having
Speaker 6: kids five, ten, twelve years later. So it put a
Speaker 6: big increase of demand on multifamily homes and a big
Speaker 6: decrease in demand on single family But then a few
Speaker 6: more years go buy it turns out they do want
Speaker 6: to get married, they do want of kids, even though
Speaker 6: they're now into their thirties instead of their.
Speaker 8: Twenties, and so that is what it is. But lo
Speaker 8: and behold.
Speaker 6: Now, the housing crisis per is long gone. A lot
Speaker 6: of millennials have gotten older. There's a huge demand for
Speaker 6: single family housing, but we haven't built any new homes
Speaker 6: in ten years. Then the COVID moment happens. Interest rates
Speaker 6: go to zero. There's tons of demand, low price financing.
Speaker 6: Everybody wants to move to a bigger home, and we
Speaker 6: don't have.
Speaker 8: The supply, it pushes prices up.
Speaker 6: Now you have a ton of people own homes at
Speaker 6: very low interest rates and they don't want to sell.
Speaker 8: They think they've made a bunch of money on their home.
Speaker 6: But now all of the young people entering the workforce
Speaker 6: can't afford to buy a home.
Speaker 8: There's three or four things involved there.
Speaker 6: Some are more dominant than others, but I put all
Speaker 6: of them together to say it isn't a simplistic thing.
Speaker 6: People that want to blame Blackstone for the housing crisis,
Speaker 6: or blame Fanny Free for the unaffordability thing, or just
Speaker 6: blame the FED or whatever. There's a lot of different
Speaker 6: things is going on here. But the fundamental solution is
Speaker 6: that you don't have enough supply. And where you do
Speaker 6: have states that didn't give in to SICCA and the
Speaker 6: environmental regulations and burden some permitting and zoning requirements, they
Speaker 6: were able to keep in front of it by building
Speaker 6: a lot of new supply. Now house price has got
Speaker 6: more expensive in Phoenix and Dallas and Charlotte and Miami
Speaker 6: and Nashville too, even though they were much better behaved
Speaker 6: states about building new supply. But that's because their demand
Speaker 6: was huge and so thank god. They built a lot
Speaker 6: of new supply because they had a lot of new
Speaker 6: demand because a lot of people left blue states to
Speaker 6: move to red states that were behaving themselves.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah, we look at building code, you know, you
Speaker 2: look at building code and the massive expansion of regulations.
Speaker 2: There are much of that being driven by Washington, you know,
Speaker 2: pushing out regulations for people. You know, do this, do that.
Speaker 2: It's going to be greener if you do this. And
Speaker 2: so there's a lot of those types of things that
Speaker 2: are there. And when you talk about you brought up
Speaker 2: the concern about Blackstone, and people get Blackstone and Blackrock
Speaker 2: mixed up and you point that out. But I think
Speaker 2: that kind of plays into people's suspicion because Blackrock made
Speaker 2: so much money out of the derivatives market that created
Speaker 2: the real estate crash, that was at the heart of
Speaker 2: the real estate crash. Stuff. They made so much money
Speaker 2: with that, everybody's think, oh, they're going to do something
Speaker 2: about that. Again, I think that's a big part of
Speaker 2: this policy that I would characterize Trump's policy as a
Speaker 2: mixture of demagogery and democrat economics.
Speaker 6: What do you think, Well, there's a lot of demagoguery
Speaker 6: I'm not sure what Blackrock had to do with the
Speaker 6: derivatives market in the financial crisis, right. They were just
Speaker 6: a passive asset manager that had very little fingerprints around
Speaker 6: all that. There's a lot people could criticize Blackrock for.
Speaker 6: There's certain things they could complement Blackrock for. I have
Speaker 6: a pretty thoughtful take on the good, bad, and ugly
Speaker 6: of black Rock, but they have almost nothing to do
Speaker 6: with housing.
Speaker 8: But the Blackstone is a larger.
Speaker 6: I don't blame people for getting black Rock and Blackstone
Speaker 6: mixed up.
Speaker 8: That's easy enough mistake to make.
Speaker 6: I do, however, blame people for still holding on to
Speaker 6: the class warfare narrative when it has been corrected, when
Speaker 6: it has been pointed out, Hey, we're not talking about Blackrock, guys,
Speaker 6: We're talking about Blackstone.
Speaker 8: But the demagoguery is too important to them to let
Speaker 8: go of.
Speaker 6: I want to hold onto truthful narratives when we critique
Speaker 6: public policy, and I don't like seeing my friends on
Speaker 6: the right hold on to untruthful narratives just because it
Speaker 6: fits a demagogaery that has become baked in the cake.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I've said many times the Republicans are the Democrats
Speaker 2: of my youth, and the Democrats are the Marxists of
Speaker 2: my youth. We have drifted in that direction on both sides,
Speaker 2: and so it is kind of interesting the as I said,
Speaker 2: and the demogoguery as well as the Democrat policies. And
Speaker 2: you point out in your op ed piece about how
Speaker 2: this sounds like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warre even.
Speaker 6: Trump by the way, By the way, if I'm being
Speaker 6: fair here, some of it is not sound like them.
Speaker 8: It's literally them.
Speaker 6: It was, you know, banning institutional ownership of homes, limiting
Speaker 6: credit card fees. That was actual legislation that these two
Speaker 6: socialist senators wrote.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, you know, I think that there is something
Speaker 2: to say about usury laws. I think that was something
Speaker 2: that served us well as a society in the past.
Speaker 2: I think there's been a huge imbalance in terms of
Speaker 2: what they actually have to pay to get their money
Speaker 2: from the Fed or whatever, and what they charge people.
Speaker 2: I think we've gotten into loan shark territory there. So
Speaker 2: I'm kind of sympathetic to putting something on about usury.
Speaker 2: But of course what Trump is talking about is a
Speaker 2: one year moratorium on it, and to me, that is
Speaker 2: no different than a kind of a come on rate
Speaker 2: to get you to switch your credit card company that
Speaker 2: we've seen over and over in one year moretorium on lowering
Speaker 2: the rates really doesn't do much to help. You can
Speaker 2: actually get a better deal than that with changing credit
Speaker 2: card companies.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I don't believe that the credit card companies have
Speaker 6: anything to do with usury laws biblically defined. I mean
Speaker 6: the concept of not having exorbitive interest, but in terms
Speaker 6: of usury being a personal law with one's neighbor who
Speaker 6: is destitute and hard up and not taking advantage of
Speaker 6: them for commercial purposes. Credit cards the interest cost is
Speaker 6: zero when you pay your bill every month. This is
Speaker 6: revolving and non purpose credit that one lender in America
Speaker 6: has seven billion dollars of bad debt write downs per
Speaker 6: year because this is totally unsecured lending. And so the
Speaker 6: cost of credit cards to low income and new borrowers
Speaker 6: or maybe people with troubled credit past, the cost of
Speaker 6: it has to factor in just for one bank seven
Speaker 6: billion dollars of people that don't pay their credit card
Speaker 6: bill back. So another party, Hey, my problem is if
Speaker 6: I'm afraid of usury, which it sounds like you and
Speaker 6: I both are. I believe this creates a lot more
Speaker 6: usury because when the bank stop generating credit cards because
Speaker 6: they're going to lose money, their net profit on the
Speaker 6: credit card business is somewhere between seven and nine percent
Speaker 6: when they when they then say okay, well now we
Speaker 6: can't charge more than ten percent, and we're going to
Speaker 6: lose seven billion dollars on bad borrowers. So we're just
Speaker 6: not going to extend credit cards to a whole segment
Speaker 6: of the population that needs them for building credit, for expenditures,
Speaker 6: for medical emergencies.
Speaker 8: What have you. Where are those people going to go.
Speaker 6: They're going to go to real loan sharks, to ayday lenders,
Speaker 6: to other higher cost, higher usury expenditures. So that's why
Speaker 6: I opposed it when Bernie Sanders wrote this bill last year.
Speaker 6: And while I want to see cost of credit be proportionate,
Speaker 6: there's one thing that really does hold the credit card
Speaker 6: companies in line, and that is the competition. But what
Speaker 6: President Trump's trying to do is eliminate competition and make
Speaker 6: everybody charge the same amount.
Speaker 8: That's not going to help.
Speaker 2: No, Yes, I would argue, though I would say one
Speaker 2: more thing. I'd say, if they've got that big a
Speaker 2: bad debt issue. As you point out, maybe they're not
Speaker 2: doing due diligence when the makes ten credit, so maybe that.
Speaker 8: Should be a prodigence on first time home.
Speaker 6: On credit card borers, they have no assets and often
Speaker 6: no income and no credit, so the due diligence means
Speaker 6: not giving them credit, and society hates that even more.
Speaker 6: It's a risky form of credit and what they do
Speaker 6: to pay for it pay for the lack of due
Speaker 6: diligence because this is not like a home underwriting when
Speaker 6: you're looking at income verification and you have an underlying asset.
Speaker 8: You can repossess.
Speaker 6: What they do is they charged twenty percent because they're
Speaker 6: going to recover the bad debt from good payers with
Speaker 6: a higher interest rate. That's the business model. And if
Speaker 6: you take away that, then you can say, hey, we
Speaker 6: are going to have to do harder underwriting, and that
Speaker 6: means we're not going to give about two million of.
Speaker 8: You credit cards.
Speaker 2: There's trade offs right now when you look at some
Speaker 2: of the other policies of Donald Trump in terms of economics.
Speaker 2: She wrote an op ed piece for the National Review
Speaker 2: and it was titled the saddest part of this recent
Speaker 2: economic lunacy. What is the economic lunacy in your view,
Speaker 2: and what is the statust part of it?
Speaker 6: Well, in that particular article, it was all in about
Speaker 6: a four day period, I believe, where the President announced
Speaker 6: and I'm going to say some really great economic things
Speaker 6: that the President has done and hopefully will do. But
Speaker 6: what I was referring to there was the ban on
Speaker 6: institutional ownership, already talked my opinions on credit card interest
Speaker 6: caps that we've already talked about, that I'm going to
Speaker 6: make Fanny and freddie Go buy two hundred billion dollars
Speaker 6: of mortgage bonds to try to manipulate interest rates, and
Speaker 6: then saying I'm going to tell our defense companies that
Speaker 6: they can't return capital to shareholders. So our private companies
Speaker 6: like Lockheed Martin and Raytheon and Boeing, that we're not
Speaker 6: going to allow them to reward investors with dividends and
Speaker 6: stock buybacks, where As if somehow we're going to maintain
Speaker 6: our superiority and as a defense industry, if we can't
Speaker 6: attract capital, and what causes you to not attract capital
Speaker 6: is treating capital poorly. So he had all four of
Speaker 6: those ideas in about a five day period. I wrote
Speaker 6: an article at National Review criticizing all of it, and
Speaker 6: yet right now I hear that the White House is
Speaker 6: very seriously considering indexing capital gains on primary residents to inflation.
Speaker 6: That's a brilliant idea. That's a side that will enable
Speaker 6: people that want to sell a home but are holding
Speaker 6: it because the tax burden. A tremendous tax relief that
Speaker 6: incentivizes a natural flow of activity that creates new available
Speaker 6: inventory in the housing market. He in his first term
Speaker 6: reduced the corporate income tax from thirty five percent to
Speaker 6: twenty one percent in the Big Beautiful Bill Act last year,
Speaker 6: which had plenty of things in it I didn't like,
Speaker 6: and plenty of things they didn't do enough. They didn't
Speaker 6: cut spending enough, in my opinion, But it has supply
Speaker 6: side tax deductions to incentivize more business investment, full expensing,
Speaker 6: bonus appreciation deduction.
Speaker 8: For research and development. So there.
Speaker 6: I'm not a constant critic of the president's economic agenda,
Speaker 6: but I do want to call it out when some
Speaker 6: of the good things in his economic agenda are going
Speaker 6: to be impeded by the bad things in the economic agenda.
Speaker 6: And where it comes from is impatience. It's the same
Speaker 6: thing that caused Kamala Hair or Elizabeth Warren to come
Speaker 6: up with these ideas, the belief that government needs to
Speaker 6: do something.
Speaker 8: Now.
Speaker 6: Most of the time when government does something now, they
Speaker 6: make it worse, not better.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, and you talk about that, you talk about
Speaker 2: human action, human freedom, You talk about some of the
Speaker 2: Austrian eco economists like Mesas and Hyak and so forth.
Speaker 2: The knowledge problem and I've always said that about centralized
Speaker 2: control and centralized planning. Even the smartest person doesn't have
Speaker 2: sufficient information to make these decisions like the marketplace does.
Speaker 2: Is kind of the invisible hand that is there. And
Speaker 2: yet do you think that they will use the idea
Speaker 2: of artificial intelligence to attack that knowledge problem? In other words,
Speaker 2: saying well, we can sort through massive amounts of information
Speaker 2: as they can with AI, they can go through and
Speaker 2: do audits of individuals and a lot of things like that,
Speaker 2: to organize and find the needle in the haystack, and
Speaker 2: then try to make that argument that we ought to
Speaker 2: let government do it with their artificial intelligence. How do
Speaker 2: you see that breaking out?
Speaker 6: If people don't fight back against this, they have no
Speaker 6: idea what kind of tyranny and statism is coming. I
Speaker 6: agree because the notion that all we're talking about the
Speaker 6: knowledge problem means they don't know what questions to ask,
Speaker 6: They don't know time and place circumstances, They don't know
Speaker 6: the immediate context the way a person who runs a
Speaker 6: trucking company in Nebraska knows or a bakery in Des Moines, Iowa,
Speaker 6: that they have local access and thought process and history
Speaker 6: and whatnot at a very imminent proximate level. That those
Speaker 6: are the decision make factors that matter most and what
Speaker 6: we do that Washington, C.
Speaker 8: Can never have the idea that AI is going to
Speaker 8: give the government the ability.
Speaker 6: To do it in a better way than that humans
Speaker 6: using their own language learning models, and then the application
Speaker 6: from that knowledge that you could say, well, AI gave
Speaker 6: us more information, so we may as well let the
Speaker 6: information go to bureaucrats in Washington, d C.
Speaker 8: Because they're really smart. Even if they.
Speaker 6: Get the information because of AI, that doesn't solve high
Speaker 6: X knowledge problems to what they do with that information.
Speaker 6: Context you guys to one's own individual, family, business, community, etc.
Speaker 6: Buying into that argument is an invitation for statist tyranny.
Speaker 2: I agree, and I'm very concerned about the AI initiative.
Speaker 2: That's one of the things that concerns me so much,
Speaker 2: the Genesis Act and clearing the clearing the decks for
Speaker 2: AI to go basically unregulated for ten years. Because there's
Speaker 2: a great deal of harm that can be done by
Speaker 2: AI by the government, there needs to be a regulation
Speaker 2: of the government's use for AI, I think, and that's
Speaker 2: one of the things that really concerns me a great deal.
Speaker 2: We've talked about a lot of different things, and I
Speaker 2: really do appreciate your perspective on it, David, and very
Speaker 2: interesting and I enjoy reading your articles. I have not
Speaker 2: read your book yet, but I'm looking forward to doing
Speaker 2: that at some point in time. I think we all
Speaker 2: need to get back to human interaction and the importance
Speaker 2: of person to person interactions, the family and the community
Speaker 2: and other things like that. And I think all this
Speaker 2: the new technology is being thrown at us. The rapidly
Speaker 2: increasing change is naturally pushing us away unless we fight
Speaker 2: against that tide. And I think it's important for us
Speaker 2: to understand where we're being, where we're drifting to. I
Speaker 2: used to go to Daytona Beach a lot with my family,
Speaker 2: and you could get pulled out with the undertowe not
Speaker 2: really realize how far you are out until the lifeguard
Speaker 2: whistled you in, And so trying to act like a
Speaker 2: lifeguard and whistle people in from this drift that is
Speaker 2: taking us out to see. And I think you've got
Speaker 2: your finger on the pulse of this. We have to
Speaker 2: get back to our interaction and our families and our
Speaker 2: relationship with God. That's very true. Thank you so much, amen.
Speaker 6: I appreciate your kind words, and I agree with you completely,
Speaker 6: and I think it's.
Speaker 8: A great analogy.
Speaker 6: We don't want to get pulled away without realizing we're
Speaker 6: getting pulled away. And yet also one of the greatest
Speaker 6: agents for change here is going to be us modeling
Speaker 6: the right behavior people. The society is not going to
Speaker 6: change if we're not changing, if we're not doing the
Speaker 6: right things.
Speaker 2: Yes, it starts with each and every one of us,
Speaker 2: and then it goes out like a pebble being dropped
Speaker 2: in a pond. You know that you get things right
Speaker 2: with yourself as much as you can, and that's going
Speaker 2: to move out to your family, your community. It's really
Speaker 2: got to come from the bottom up. It's going to
Speaker 2: happen one person at a time. We're in agreement on
Speaker 2: that as well. Thank you so much. David Monson at
Speaker 2: the Bonson Group.
Speaker 6: You have a website, yeah, so a Dividendcafe dot com
Speaker 6: is the easiest one to remember. That way, people don't
Speaker 6: have to spell anything tricky like Bonson given in cafe
Speaker 6: dot com. Plenty of my economic writing and investment writing
Speaker 6: and information there, and then for those that are interested,
Speaker 6: bonson dot com is where all of my other material, theology, politics,
Speaker 6: all that fun stuff can be found.
Speaker 2: Great, and I'll spell it for him. B A h
Speaker 2: s E N so h n s e s oh. Okay,
Speaker 2: there you go. See you just illustrated. The point for us.
Speaker 8: That's right.
Speaker 2: I did it for you.
Speaker 8: Is God gave me a lass name that is easy
Speaker 8: to find on Google.
Speaker 6: But the bad news is he gave me a last
Speaker 6: name that it has to be spelled on radio.
Speaker 2: That's right. Thank you so much, David, appreciate that. Have
Speaker 2: a good doc.
Speaker 8: Thank you.
Speaker 2: The common man they created common Core, dumbed down our children.
Speaker 2: They created common past track and control us. They're Commons
Speaker 2: project to make sure the commoners own nothing and the
Speaker 2: communist future. They see the common man as simple unsophisticated, ordinary.
Speaker 2: But each of us has worth and dignity created in
Speaker 2: the image of God. That is what we have in common.
Speaker 2: That is what they want to take away. Their most
Speaker 2: powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation. They desire to know
Speaker 2: everything about us, while they hide everything from us. It's
Speaker 2: time to turn that around and expose what they want
Speaker 2: to hide. Please share the information and links you'll find
Speaker 2: at the davidknightshow dot com. Thank you for listening, Thank
Speaker 2: you for sharing. If you can't support us financially, please
Speaker 2: keep us in your prayers. Ddavidknightshow dot com
Speaker 3: Sti