Speaker 1: Using free speech to free minds.
Speaker 2: You're listening to the David Knight Show.
Speaker 1: As the clock strikes thirteen, It's Monday, the sixteenth of December.
Speaker 1: Here of our Lord, twenty twenty four. Well, we're going
Speaker 1: to take a look today. We're going to begin by
Speaker 1: taking a look at the expanding UFO narrative. And I
Speaker 1: think we might have an idea as to what they're
Speaker 1: really after. And we're going to take a look at
Speaker 1: this in terms of ssioms. How do they prepare this,
Speaker 1: Where can we see the parallels and what they have
Speaker 1: done with mcguffins like the COVID mcguffin, or the climate mcguffin,
Speaker 1: or with nine to eleven. But again, there may be
Speaker 1: an idea as to why the government is doing this.
Speaker 1: And we're going to take a look at some pretty
Speaker 1: sensational footage that people have put up. What is that about?
Speaker 1: We'll be right back. Well, the government has long talked
Speaker 1: about the potential for using a UFO narrative to not
Speaker 1: only increase government power and control over the population scares
Speaker 1: to death, but also to promide a foundation for global governance.
Speaker 1: But I think there may be some more immediate issues
Speaker 1: involved here. I don't think this is ultimately what this
Speaker 1: is about at this time, and I think it is
Speaker 1: another step in that direction. Remember when we had the
Speaker 1: lockdown that happened in twenty twenty, that didn't just come
Speaker 1: out of nowhere. They had practiced that for twenty years,
Speaker 1: and they began it in conjunction with nine to eleven.
Speaker 1: The first one of their practice games was two months
Speaker 1: before nine to eleven. One week after nine to eleven,
Speaker 1: they had a biological attack. They said they blamed it
Speaker 1: on Iraq, which was a lie, and then they pushed
Speaker 1: out the legislation that was used twenty years later. So
Speaker 1: I want to begin by looking at some of the
Speaker 1: things that are being reported as people are getting hit
Speaker 1: with us everywhere across the mainstream media. Two men were
Speaker 1: arrested after a drone flies dangerously close to Boston's Logan Airport.
Speaker 1: Two men were arrested Saturday night on trespassing charges after
Speaker 1: a drone came dangerously close to Logan International Airport in Boston.
Speaker 1: We see this happening all the time. Last year we
Speaker 1: had a Chinese national who was caught arrested for flying
Speaker 1: a drone over a military installation. All of these things
Speaker 1: are part of this right now. Right, they're flying it
Speaker 1: close to the airports, they're having to redirect traffic. We
Speaker 1: even had a situation where sorry, hit the wrong thing there,
Speaker 1: got big thumbs today, even cue the eerie music. We
Speaker 1: even had a situation where it appeared that something that
Speaker 1: had lights on it and it hit an engine of
Speaker 1: a plane close to an airport, and this is what
Speaker 1: that looked like. They're going through here there you go
Speaker 1: now and that plane had to land. We've had other
Speaker 1: people who have taken video outside of the plane to
Speaker 1: actually see the drones that are fairly close to them.
Speaker 1: All of these things are issues, folks, big issues that
Speaker 1: they've always addressed in the past. You get too close
Speaker 1: to an airport when they come out and they arrest you.
Speaker 1: They investigate and they arrest and they're able to find
Speaker 1: out this stuff. Right, just like with a guy who
Speaker 1: was flying it over a military base, these things have
Speaker 1: been flown over military bases as well, says Airport's military
Speaker 1: bases and so forth. By the way, I'd said last
Speaker 1: week that it was also against the law to be
Speaker 1: flying these drones at night. They changed that about a
Speaker 1: year before this began September twenty twenty three, they made
Speaker 1: it legal to fly drones at night. And the question is,
Speaker 1: why would you do that? As one professional drone operator says,
Speaker 1: you can see anything at night, Why would you Why
Speaker 1: would a hobbyist or even a professional photographer being flying
Speaker 1: anything at night like this? You can't take good pictures
Speaker 1: at night. But they made it legal, interestingly enough, and
Speaker 1: so you could say that that is perhaps slaying the
Speaker 1: groundwork for Amazon and others Walmart to deliver stuff at night.
Speaker 1: I don't know if that's the case. Nevertheless, they can
Speaker 1: do something about it. And as I said from the
Speaker 1: very beginning, the most interesting tell about this whole thing
Speaker 1: is a dog that did not bark or that did
Speaker 1: not bite. They haven't done anything about this. In terms
Speaker 1: of investigating, the officers used advance UAS monitoring technology to
Speaker 1: identify the drones location, it's flight history, and its operator's
Speaker 1: position on the largely uninhabited Boston Harbor island known as
Speaker 1: Long Island, Long Island, Massachusetts. I guess isn't that interesting
Speaker 1: They're able to determine the location, the flight history, and
Speaker 1: all the rest of the stuff. You know, who we're
Speaker 1: looking at the Russia Gate lies. They're being put out
Speaker 1: by the intelligence community against Trump. Back in twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: I had people like William Benny, the former head of
Speaker 1: the NSA, on whistleblower and others. He said, they've got
Speaker 1: all the records if they wanted to prove it, they
Speaker 1: could prove it if it was real. Right, They've got
Speaker 1: all the records. We see this all the time. The
Speaker 1: government pretends that it doesn't know, but they have saved everything,
Speaker 1: phone call, every text, every social media post, it's all
Speaker 1: being saved. They got places like Bluffdale, Utah, massive computer center.
Speaker 1: This is way before everybody started talking about these AI centers.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 1: By the way, now Exon is getting in on the
Speaker 1: exclusive energy provision for these AI people, so they're going
Speaker 1: to use natural gas, which is really clean, and yet
Speaker 1: they're going to play the carbon capture game as well,
Speaker 1: so we'll talk more about that coming up. But still
Speaker 1: when you look at that, they know this, they're storing
Speaker 1: everything in places like Bluffdale. They've got others as well.
Speaker 1: Bluffdale was notable because they put this massive data center
Speaker 1: out in a very dry, arid desert place and not
Speaker 1: only uses as much power as a city, but it
Speaker 1: also uses as much water as a city in a
Speaker 1: place where there isn't any water. These people are so
Speaker 1: powerful they don't care whether it makes any economic sense
Speaker 1: or any other kind of sense, and they just do
Speaker 1: whatever they wish. So if they're able to look at
Speaker 1: the drone's location, if they're able to determine its flight history,
Speaker 1: if they're able to determine the operator's position, all of that,
Speaker 1: we know where the drone is, we know where the
Speaker 1: operator is, we know what they've been doing. Why can't
Speaker 1: they do it?
Speaker 4: With this?
Speaker 1: Very interesting, isn't it? A total of seven hundred ninety
Speaker 1: and ninety sen drones, about eight thousand are registered with
Speaker 1: the FAA, nearly evenly divided between commercial and recreational use.
Speaker 1: Drone operators should not fly near airports because quote, it
Speaker 1: is difficult for manned aircraft to see and to avoid
Speaker 1: a drone while flying, says the FAA. Yet this is
Speaker 1: repeatedly what is happening in New Jersey and know the
Speaker 1: vicinities around there. FA safety guidelines said the police in
Speaker 1: a statement, say that operators are prohibited from flying drones
Speaker 1: over people or vehicles and must be aware of airspace restrictions.
Speaker 1: Even small drones post significant risks, including the potential for
Speaker 1: catastrophic damage to airplanes and helicopters. Near collisions can cause
Speaker 1: pilots to vere off course, putting lives and property at risk.
Speaker 1: As a matter of fact, one of the first reports
Speaker 1: of these drowning things was a medical helicopter. It had
Speaker 1: to turn around because there are drones out there. So
Speaker 1: why are they not concerned about this, and why is
Speaker 1: nobody in the federal government interested in enforcing this. Well,
Speaker 1: it turns out that Biden is really facing some this
Speaker 1: this drone stuff is causing him to have some bipartisan headaches.
Speaker 1: And somebody put this clip up to show how the
Speaker 1: drone strike is affecting Biden. They've got all the incidents
Speaker 1: where he's stumbled and following, and they've got him being
Speaker 1: buzzed by drone as the reason for on great use
Speaker 1: of a video twelve he touched down how few hours ago.
Speaker 4: It is a quick trip, as you said, very impactful, Yeah.
Speaker 1: Very impactful, almost an impact in every one of those cases.
Speaker 1: But you know, Biden is pretty agile, and he always
Speaker 1: ducks for government, hits the deck just before that drone
Speaker 1: strikes him, as you could see there. Well, the Biden
Speaker 1: administration is saying that, and this is actually the FBI said, well,
Speaker 1: I think what we see here is fight overreaction from
Speaker 1: people just down playing it, just ignore it. And folks,
Speaker 1: remember this is what they did with COVID at the beginning, right,
Speaker 1: and we're going to talk about the parallels that we're
Speaker 1: going to talk about the scio aspects of it as well.
Speaker 1: And then you've got a New Jersey have a state
Speaker 1: senator very angry about this, calling for the government to
Speaker 1: do something, begging for the government to do And this
Speaker 1: is they do these these created problems like the border
Speaker 1: and other things, so they can get people begging the
Speaker 1: government to do something. That's what you should be concerned about.
Speaker 5: What is the governor saying?
Speaker 1: What have you heard from the president?
Speaker 5: We've heard very little.
Speaker 1: Let's start with the fact.
Speaker 6: First who was questions, Then it was maybe it's comedy,
Speaker 6: and then all of a sudden it became serious and
Speaker 6: now it's insanity. Yesterday the new United States senator had
Speaker 6: to go out with local police to look for drones. Now,
Speaker 6: if the United States Senator Andy Kim can't get any information,
Speaker 6: I'm pretty concerned about that. So I asked for a
Speaker 6: state of emergency to ground all the drones and ask
Speaker 6: the FAA to join our state of emergency, which I've
Speaker 6: asked Governor Murphy to enact in order to ground any drone.
Speaker 6: I've gotten silence, and we met with the State Police.
Speaker 6: The State police have no information. Can you imagine the
Speaker 6: Department of Defense must have some serious secret if we
Speaker 6: can can't get any information of car size drones flying
Speaker 6: over our military basis, So then you have.
Speaker 7: To start asking yourself if all right?
Speaker 6: So either they're withholding information or worse, Yeah, this could
Speaker 6: be more worrisome, Senator, they don't know.
Speaker 8: Well, that's really the point.
Speaker 1: So a car size.
Speaker 6: Drone ocean and we don't hear from the military, from
Speaker 6: the Department of Defense what that is. Now we would believe,
Speaker 6: as citizens and anything of that size would be noticed
Speaker 6: and we would be advised what that is.
Speaker 8: So there must be.
Speaker 6: A pretty big secret, because there has been a top
Speaker 6: secret of briefings, and every time someone comes out of
Speaker 6: the top secret briefing we get the same answer, Well,
Speaker 6: we need more information, but apparently it's not a threat.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's apparently not a threat. Even though we don't
Speaker 1: know what it is. It's not a threat. Well, that's
Speaker 1: the one thing we know. It's not a threat. Well,
Speaker 1: you know what Kavudo is alluding to, and that was
Speaker 1: a New Jersey state senator whose name is John Bramnick.
Speaker 1: She's on there with Neil Cavudo. If it's a foreign situation,
Speaker 1: I mean, that is a possibility. You have to look
Speaker 1: at that. I don't think that is what's happening, but
Speaker 1: it could be a possibility. It could be something like
Speaker 1: the Irrashnik thing. Although they knew and had talked about
Speaker 1: the existence of hypersonic missiles by Russia and China, they
Speaker 1: had not seen one operating yet. So there is a possibility.
Speaker 1: But I don't think that's what it is. I think
Speaker 1: that this is a US government operation, and I'll tell
Speaker 1: you why. As a matter of fact, Sprumford and I
Speaker 1: agree that the drone stuff is likely way to get
Speaker 1: the public to support more government regulation control over drones.
Speaker 1: Problem reaction solution. I'll tell you specifically what I think thereafter.
Speaker 1: At this point in time, we're going to get to
Speaker 1: that here. She Lee says that now they had to
Speaker 1: arrest someone as an excuse of the DOOD autonomous drone
Speaker 1: testing and get used to the drone surveillance. She says,
Speaker 1: shield your eye says, yeah, like Kim trails. And of course,
Speaker 1: like Kim trails, they do it at night. That's what
Speaker 1: they're doing around here. We don't see anything being laid
Speaker 1: down during the day, but when the sun comes up,
Speaker 1: you see the Kim trails all over the place. US
Speaker 1: national security officials so ought to dispel concerns about the
Speaker 1: mysterious drones flying over the Northeast the calls with reporters.
Speaker 1: They had representatives from the FBI, the FAA, the NSC,
Speaker 1: the National Security Council, the Department of Homeland Security, and
Speaker 1: in the Department of Defense, and none of them knew
Speaker 1: what it was or seemed to be concerned about. As
Speaker 1: a matter of fact, it's the FBI official it says, well,
Speaker 1: I think this is over exaggerated or whatever. The senior
Speaker 1: officials remain tight lipped about the origins of the drone.
Speaker 1: During the call with reporters, an FBI official said his
Speaker 1: agency received five thousand tips. He said, of those five
Speaker 1: thousand tips, fewer than one hundred further investigation. Well, even
Speaker 1: if that was true, even if it was only one hundred,
Speaker 1: still they don't do anything. They don't have any answers.
Speaker 1: They do nothing. The FBI officials said, we found no
Speaker 1: evidence of large scale unmanned drone activity. These are the
Speaker 1: same people who found no evidence that Hunter Biden had
Speaker 1: committed any crimes. Either, they find they find what they're
Speaker 1: looking for. If there is no crime, but they're looking
Speaker 1: for it, they will find the crime. If there is
Speaker 1: a crime and they don't want to see it, they
Speaker 1: won't find the crime either. We're doing our best to
Speaker 1: find the origin of that specific you know, those drone activities,
Speaker 1: said the official. But I think there's been a slight overreaction.
Speaker 1: A DHS official said the amount of actual DRAWNE activity
Speaker 1: is likely less than what's being reported. A Department of
Speaker 1: Defense official, this is one of these jokes. You know
Speaker 1: what they like the Canterbury tells something they bring in
Speaker 1: the board. You know, you got a rabbi, a priest,
Speaker 1: and they got their different takes on different things, add official.
Speaker 1: So the agency has gathered quote no intelligence or observations
Speaker 1: that would indicate that the drones were lined with a
Speaker 1: foreign actor or that they had malicious intent. Well, you know, again,
Speaker 1: you have no information about this, and yet you're able
Speaker 1: to I find those guys in Boston. You knew the
Speaker 1: history of the drone. And as I've said before, one
Speaker 1: person said, I fly drones commercially. If I get at
Speaker 1: a particular altitude that's prohibited, I immediately get contacted by them.
Speaker 1: They know we're also significantly restricted, and rightfully so they said,
Speaker 1: in fact, we are prohibited from intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance
Speaker 1: here in the homeland. Say that without going back to
Speaker 1: their fatherland. Right, So there you go, folks, I think
Speaker 1: that is the thing that they're angling for. They're prohibited
Speaker 1: from intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance here in the homeland, said
Speaker 1: the Pentagon official, except that we know they do it.
Speaker 1: We know the CIA does it. We know the NSA
Speaker 1: does it. A matter of factory. You go back and
Speaker 1: you look at the church hearings. It was not about
Speaker 1: CIA assassinations. That's what they made it about. But it
Speaker 1: was about the fact that the CIA in the NSA
Speaker 1: had been spying on Americans illegally since their creation right
Speaker 1: after World War Two, and they continue to deny that. Well,
Speaker 1: they continue to seek legal cover to do that. And
Speaker 1: of course that's what they used FISA for. The PAISA,
Speaker 1: which was you know, after the Church Committee hearings and
Speaker 1: the Pike Community hearings and the House. They created the
Speaker 1: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and that was supposed to prohibit
Speaker 1: them from operating here specifically. Yet again, in other words,
Speaker 1: it was not in their brief for their creation. They
Speaker 1: were not allowed to do that. They're specifically prohibited. And
Speaker 1: then they said, and now we really mean it with
Speaker 1: a FISA Act, you know that's redundant. But anyway, with
Speaker 1: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, then what they did was they
Speaker 1: use the FISA court to give them legal cover. And
Speaker 1: what they're trying to do now is they're trying to
Speaker 1: use in my opinion, they're trying to use this panic
Speaker 1: to give them legal cover to do what they have
Speaker 1: always been doing. They are doing it. They couldn't have
Speaker 1: found those guys at the Boston Logan Airport if they
Speaker 1: weren't doing surveillance and reconnaissance. Somebody's doing it here and
Speaker 1: so they were able to do that and find these people.
Speaker 1: Same with the Chinese guy around the military base. We
Speaker 1: don't have the same capabilities or the same methods that
Speaker 1: we would employ and other locations outside of as the
Speaker 1: homeland to determine points of origin except you just arrested
Speaker 1: somebody on the basis these people just lying. You know
Speaker 1: that they're lying when their lips are moving. There's nothing
Speaker 1: that the government tells you that's true, nothing at all.
Speaker 1: They lie even about things they don't need to lie about,
Speaker 1: and they won't talk to you about things that there's
Speaker 1: no reason for them to cover up. I've seen this forever,
Speaker 1: and I ain't bother to contact the government official for
Speaker 1: any information. We're also significantly stricted, he says. Yeah, So
Speaker 1: that's right, significantly restrict except you do it anyway. So
Speaker 1: here on the military side, we're just just frustrated with,
Speaker 1: you know, with the irresponsible nature of this activity, said
Speaker 1: the DoD official. A National Security Council official echo the
Speaker 1: DODS representative sentiment. You know, if only we had the
Speaker 1: power to do this, you know, we need something like
Speaker 1: the Patriot Act or something like that. You know, they
Speaker 1: just don't have enough power to do what we want. No,
Speaker 1: they're already doing it. They just want to make sure
Speaker 1: they don't go to jail for it. Obviously, we're taking
Speaker 1: this incredibly seriously at this point, said the National Security
Speaker 1: Council official. We have not identified any basis for believing
Speaker 1: that there's any criminal activity involved. You know, flying over
Speaker 1: airports and military bases. That's not criminal activity, is it.
Speaker 1: You know, just like at the border. Don't call them illegals. Yeah,
Speaker 1: they are illegal, and we're going to make as the
Speaker 1: Democrats as they were debating, they said, well, we're going
Speaker 1: to make sure that's not against the law. Well, if
Speaker 1: it's against the law, then they are illegals. Why don't
Speaker 1: you call them illegal aliens, illegal foreigners. So yeah, that's
Speaker 1: already a crime, and they are already arresting people for
Speaker 1: doing these types of things. Well, then it comes to
Speaker 1: the let's just shoot them down type of thing, which
Speaker 1: I said before. I said, you know, law enforcement have
Speaker 1: go out there and shoot some of these things down. Well,
Speaker 1: here's what a sheriff in the area of New Jersey
Speaker 1: where they have the most of these sightings, Lonmouth County.
Speaker 1: Here's what he had to say in an interview.
Speaker 9: When I got together and sent a letter to Congressman
Speaker 9: Smith or Congressman here in Mammoth and Ocean County where
Speaker 9: we've had a number of sightings.
Speaker 8: You know, that letter said, hey, we need some changes
Speaker 8: to the federal law.
Speaker 9: We have to be able to protect our public and
Speaker 9: our residents here, and that would require loosening up and
Speaker 9: the ability for the state or at least the state
Speaker 9: policing units across the country to deconflict and to dedrone if.
Speaker 8: Necessary, meaning and take down a drone.
Speaker 9: So right now, that rests solely with the federal government,
Speaker 9: and I think that's the frustration because as you had
Speaker 9: said earlier in your show, is this some type of
Speaker 9: federal agency. You know, listen to these drones seem sophisticated
Speaker 9: by all accounts. You know, we have a lot of
Speaker 9: false reporting, but the good accounts we do have them
Speaker 9: from military bases, personnel, and from our own first responders
Speaker 9: around northern New Jersey. These things are definitely sophisticated, fast,
Speaker 9: turn the lights.
Speaker 8: Off at time. So we need to get a handle
Speaker 8: on what it is and who's running it.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 1: So it's illegal to shoot one down, correct right now?
Speaker 9: Yeah, it's illegal to shoot one down, and so obviously
Speaker 9: we're telling our residents not to shoot them down. You'd
Speaker 9: be breaking some gun laws in New Jersey. We don't
Speaker 9: want that, and we certainly are.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they got a lot of those gun laws there,
Speaker 1: as you pointed out in.
Speaker 8: Your video, these things are large and you know, they
Speaker 8: could be dangerous.
Speaker 9: So at the at the end of the day, what
Speaker 9: we do need is more deconfliction legislation. Listen, I'm not
Speaker 9: about overregulation, but in this case, don't overregulate, just differentiate, right,
Speaker 9: So we need identifyers on commercial and residential zones.
Speaker 8: You know, they were started, the FA allowed them to fly, got.
Speaker 1: A register twenty three at night identify.
Speaker 9: Some of these are recreational drones, very small, and some
Speaker 9: are commercial. We see the testing going on with Amazon
Speaker 9: and Walmart's and the like, and you know, the skis
Speaker 9: are going to get crowded with these things, and in
Speaker 9: order to guard public safety and particularly national security, we're
Speaker 9: going to have to have laws that differentiate these objects.
Speaker 1: Yeah, gonna have to have laws that differentiate these objects.
Speaker 1: Let's begin with this shoot them down thing. Is that
Speaker 1: the only option? Well, actually, no, take a look at
Speaker 1: how they get rid of illegal or troublesome drones in Japan.
Speaker 1: They get another drone that's got a net. Yeah, and
Speaker 1: it just kind of flies over that one and it
Speaker 1: goes down right there.
Speaker 3: You go.
Speaker 1: Okay, Now, the other part of it is is that
Speaker 1: because they're controlled by because they are controlled by our
Speaker 1: radio signals. You can also do a drone jammer. Here's
Speaker 1: what that looks like. So they just shoot a jamming
Speaker 1: signal directly at the drone. This is not rocket science,
Speaker 1: this is not state of the art stuff. When the
Speaker 1: drone loses its signal, then on autopilot just kind of
Speaker 1: go down to the ground. Problem solved and you're not
Speaker 1: shooting guns over populated areas gets a no no in
Speaker 1: these circumstances, but especially in New Jersey. New Jersey is
Speaker 1: very precious about their gun laws. I mean, I've covered
Speaker 1: what they've done. I'll never forget the New Jersey case
Speaker 1: where we had a guy who was in the process
Speaker 1: of moving and he was moving from one state to
Speaker 1: another state. New Jersey was just an intermediate destination and
Speaker 1: he was going to visit some relatives and he had
Speaker 1: his guns in his trunk buried under all kinds of
Speaker 1: stuff that he was taking with him as part of
Speaker 1: the move trunk and the car was just filled with
Speaker 1: stuff and he was late getting to his relatives. They
Speaker 1: reported him as missing. Then the police find him and he,
Speaker 1: by the way, he was a licensed gun owner for
Speaker 1: carrying that type of thing in these other states, but
Speaker 1: of course New Jersey doesn't recognize that, and so when
Speaker 1: the New Jersey police pull them over, he says, no,
Speaker 1: I'm okay, do you mind if we look at your car? Oh? Sure,
Speaker 1: go ahead, I've got nothing to hide. Well you should.
Speaker 1: You should hide everything from the government. They hide everything
Speaker 1: from you. I mean, it's just it's only fair play, right,
Speaker 1: and you should be very suspicious of them and their motive.
Speaker 1: So they go through the fine tooth coming they unload
Speaker 1: his car that's been packed for his move, and at
Speaker 1: the bottom of his trunk, covered by everything else, they
Speaker 1: find some guns and he goes to jail for a
Speaker 1: significant amount of time. So, yeah, be careful of your
Speaker 1: gun laws there. But as you heard him saying, what
Speaker 1: is the solution to all of this stuff, Well, we
Speaker 1: need to be able to identify. It always comes back
Speaker 1: to id's and control and surveillance, doesn't it. And I
Speaker 1: believe that this is coming back to as well. We've
Speaker 1: got Chuck Schumer saying the same thing. He said he's
Speaker 1: asking Homeland Security to deploy special detection systems that use
Speaker 1: three hundred and sixty degree technology to detect drones. Maybe
Speaker 1: they could get a loaner from Massachusetts who seems to
Speaker 1: have it around the airport, And why wouldn't you have
Speaker 1: that around your airports? He said, if the technology exists
Speaker 1: for a drone to make it up to the sky
Speaker 1: these there certainly is technology that can track the craft
Speaker 1: with precision and determine what the heck is going on,
Speaker 1: said Chucky Schumer. He said there ought to be better technology.
Speaker 1: There ought to be a law. There ought to be
Speaker 1: a federal law as a matter of fact, right, you
Speaker 1: know that's you hear that all the time. There ought
Speaker 1: to be a law against this. And you know, you
Speaker 1: don't ever hear anybody say, don't make a federal case
Speaker 1: out of it. They want everything made a federal case
Speaker 1: out of it. So there ought to be better technology,
Speaker 1: and there is, and we need that technology here in
Speaker 1: New York asap. He also announced that he will co
Speaker 1: sponsor legislation here we go. They'll give local authorities more
Speaker 1: tools for drone detection. Local officials are trying to find
Speaker 1: answers to this problem with their hands tied behind their back,
Speaker 1: said Schumer. If the federal government has a technology to
Speaker 1: address this epidemic is an epidemic now may if you
Speaker 1: get the who involved of NonStop drone sightings. We should
Speaker 1: do everything that we can to help. Trump said on Friday,
Speaker 1: mystery drone sightings all over the country. Can this really
Speaker 1: be happening without our government's knowledge? I don't think. So
Speaker 1: let the public know and let them know now, otherwise
Speaker 1: shoot them down. And so he reflects and also pumps
Speaker 1: up this this anger of people looking at the passive government. So,
Speaker 1: why aren't you doing something? Why don't you doing something?
Speaker 1: I want some strong action. Now, Well, enter Trump, our savior.
Speaker 1: He'll do some strong action. Ask Sunday about the President
Speaker 1: elect's post calling on government to shoot down the drunes
Speaker 1: America said, We're limited in our authorities, so we need
Speaker 1: to have some more authority, give us more control. Staten
Speaker 1: Island Borough president said the drones often seen flying at
Speaker 1: ninety said, I've spotted them hovering over critical infrastructure, including
Speaker 1: Port Liberty, New York, near the near the bridge and
Speaker 1: the Verzano's Nares Bridge and Fort Wadsworth, one of the
Speaker 1: oldest military installations in the country. Governor Hockle in New
Speaker 1: York continued to call for the passing of Federal Counter
Speaker 1: uas Authority, Security, Safety, and Reauthorization Act, which, by the way,
Speaker 1: just happens to be coming up for reauthorization. What a coincidence, wow,
Speaker 1: which she said would give New York and our peers
Speaker 1: the authority and the resources required to respond to circumstances
Speaker 1: like we're facing today. No, we've already got the solution.
Speaker 1: You just need to get it passed, and it's right
Speaker 1: on the schedule right now to be voted on. Hookele
Speaker 1: spoke with Mayorkist twice on Saturday. Connecticut State Police announced
Speaker 1: Friday they have deployed a drone detection system to assist
Speaker 1: in the investigation. The federal response meanwhile, to the mysterious
Speaker 1: drone sighting draws bipartisan criticism. Everybody is calling for something
Speaker 1: to be done, and all the law enforcement and spy
Speaker 1: agencies are saying, we're helpless. We have no legal authority
Speaker 1: to do this. Since when did legal authority ever get
Speaker 1: in their way for anything? These people, everything they do
Speaker 1: is against the law. Everything they do is against the law,
Speaker 1: whether it involves or interactions with US or foreign governments.
Speaker 1: It's always or always violating the law, thumbing their nose
Speaker 1: of the law. But now they pretend they need more
Speaker 1: authority Mike Waltz of Florida, who is Trump's incoming National
Speaker 1: security advisor. The particular issue with drones reported over military
Speaker 1: sites and restricted airspaces, including Trump's home and Bedminster, New Jersey.
Speaker 1: He says, this is all pointing to gaps in our
Speaker 1: capability and in our ability to clamp down on what's
Speaker 1: going on here. We need to get to the bottom
Speaker 1: of it, and I think the Biden administration is working
Speaker 1: to do that. Are they Well, what do these people want? Again?
Speaker 1: It's we got the hint. Hokeel was talking about it,
Speaker 1: Chuck Schumer is talking about it, and you know they
Speaker 1: will you look at all the different possibilities, What would
Speaker 1: be the motive for some pranksters to do this? Or
Speaker 1: they have the resources to do this and the numbers
Speaker 1: that they're talking about, of course not.
Speaker 4: And so.
Speaker 1: You have Gordon Chang, a senior fell at the Gatestone
Speaker 1: Institute think tank, so that these drones and this activity
Speaker 1: is too large, too well organized to be the work
Speaker 1: of hobbyists, and that sort of leaves foreign powers. Oh,
Speaker 1: you're going to immediately rule out the United States government,
Speaker 1: they would never do this. As one of the other guys, well,
Speaker 1: I know it's not the US government, because they would
Speaker 1: tell us. I think that was that congressman from New
Speaker 1: Jersey said they're coming from an Iranian mothership. I know.
Speaker 1: I was told that. Yeah, these congressmen are going to
Speaker 1: be told all kinds of stuff by people who come
Speaker 1: in and present themselves as experts. And as I said,
Speaker 1: when we're talking about that New Jersey congressman, I said,
Speaker 1: they don't do IQ tests for congressmen. And maybe they do.
Speaker 1: Maybe they're screening in advance to make sure that it's
Speaker 1: not too high the IQ tests, But he says, this
Speaker 1: guy says it could be I run. It could be
Speaker 1: a run in connection with China, in connection with Russia,
Speaker 1: all the rest of stuff.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: The thing that really worries me is that if they're
Speaker 1: trying to draw our attention to these drones, the question
Speaker 1: is what are they doing elsewhere in our country? We
Speaker 1: should ask these same questions about the US government. You
Speaker 1: should ask what are the motives? What are they trying
Speaker 1: to cover up? And of course, as I said before,
Speaker 1: the first time it made headlines was after it blocked
Speaker 1: a medical helicopter had to turn around. But of course,
Speaker 1: the narrative from the bide administration is don't worry about it.
Speaker 1: Don't worry about it, while everybody gets increasingly concerned about it,
Speaker 1: while the media hypes it up, while social media hypes
Speaker 1: it up. As a matter of fact, that sheriff, they're
Speaker 1: Monmouth County, that was on there. His police department, their
Speaker 1: sheriff's department put out a heat map showing the shocking
Speaker 1: scale of drawn activity in New Jersey County. And as
Speaker 1: mystery deepens, and this is from the Daily Mail, as
Speaker 1: a matter of fact, they've got a graphic of it.
Speaker 1: Care and if you can find that there residents reported
Speaker 1: sixty three sidings over this time period. They've shared a
Speaker 1: heat map showing where the unmanned aircraft appeared to be circulating.
Speaker 1: They're concentrated and densely populated. That's it, thank you, right there,
Speaker 1: look at that densely popular urban areas. But the map
Speaker 1: also illustrates how the signings cover almost all the inhabited
Speaker 1: parts of this coastal county. Monmouth County is also home
Speaker 1: to the Naval Weapons Station Earl, a Navy base. They've
Speaker 1: got a lot of them there, and so right around
Speaker 1: that area, you know, you've got one, two, three military
Speaker 1: installations you've got Trump's residents there. If you scroll further down,
Speaker 1: you'll see that on the map. Republican US Representative Chris
Speaker 1: Smith said Coast Guard commanding officer told him a dozen
Speaker 1: drones closely followed a Guard lifeboat near Barrengat Light and
Speaker 1: Island Beach State Park and Ocean County over the weekend.
Speaker 1: Smith ards Pentagon to authorize a use of force to
Speaker 1: bring down one or more drones above the ocean or
Speaker 1: in an unpopulated area to try to figure out who
Speaker 1: deploy them, because again they're saying that these things are
Speaker 1: fairly large and that you know if you shoot it down,
Speaker 1: who's it going to land on? Well as marky Mark says,
Speaker 1: thank you for the tips, says one of many of
Speaker 1: these drones are aircraft, and the clip with a New
Speaker 1: Jersey senator, you can clearly see the red and green
Speaker 1: navigational lights. Newark International Airport is in New Jersey. May
Speaker 1: of the lights are two and from there. I think
Speaker 1: that's a factor, But I think it's also a factor
Speaker 1: that these lights and some of them are a different
Speaker 1: pattern than you typically see, and they're turning them off
Speaker 1: on and off, which a plane would not do. Jason Parker,
Speaker 1: We've done. We have drone busters in our inventory in
Speaker 1: the military. They can easily take them down. This is
Speaker 1: all a distraction and a sigh out. That's right, it's
Speaker 1: not just it's not just the people in Japan or
Speaker 1: I don't know where that of the clip was. You know,
Speaker 1: we've got that kind of stuff to eat. Oh oh
Speaker 1: you guys, uh and Jamain, can you send us one
Speaker 1: of those drones with a net on it or something? Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 1: And look, especially when you look at all how rapidly
Speaker 1: this is escalated in the Russia Ukraine war, right, drone
Speaker 1: use and countermeasures and all this stuff. I mean, it
Speaker 1: is just you know, you've had decades worth of development
Speaker 1: happening there in just a couple of years. So absolutely
Speaker 1: the military could something about it, and they don't have
Speaker 1: to do it in a way that it wouldn't danger anybody.
Speaker 1: But they've chosen not to do it, which again tells
Speaker 1: us who is behind all this. That's why it's not
Speaker 1: a foreign thing. I said, you know that you look
Speaker 1: at that as a possibility, but I would rule it
Speaker 1: out because the inactivity of our government JBB. The Defense
Speaker 1: Department just announced that the drones are supplied by Iran,
Speaker 1: built in with Korea, personally flown by Vladimir Putin. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that announcement I expect to see anytime now. Connected all,
Speaker 1: we've got to have China fit in there some way.
Speaker 1: Maybe they're manufactured in China. I don't know. Now, they're
Speaker 1: built in North Korea, so I guess anyway. Octo Spook says,
Speaker 1: if the DoD is ignorant, they're guilty of criminal negligence.
Speaker 1: Would like to hear them argue that. But worse, I
Speaker 1: don't think anybody will hold their feet to the fire. No,
Speaker 1: but a New Jersey senator says feds are too fearful
Speaker 1: of public reaction to tell the truth about the mysterious drones. Again,
Speaker 1: everything is about pushing fear. We're in the that phase
Speaker 1: of the si Oup where they're normalizing all this stuff.
Speaker 1: They're moving the Overton window. People are getting you. Well,
Speaker 1: I'm expecting to see the drones anywhere. So you see
Speaker 1: all this stuff on social media, people sitting there with
Speaker 1: a gun in their lap. I can't wait for them
Speaker 1: to get to Tennessee, or I can't wait for them
Speaker 1: to get to Texas or whatever. Right time to go
Speaker 1: drone hunting, all this kind of stuff. So they're building
Speaker 1: this expectation and they're normalizing it. Whatever these drones are doing,
Speaker 1: the government really doesn't want to know, said the Center
Speaker 1: that I played earlier before. Well, that must mean is
Speaker 1: that they're more concerned with us getting knowledge and being
Speaker 1: afraid of that information than having no knowledge and having
Speaker 1: all these questions. So be afraid, be even more afraid
Speaker 1: because the government's lying to you. Well, I don't know.
Speaker 1: I mean, he's saying, oh, there's something really dangerous out there.
Speaker 1: That's why they'relying to No, they're lying to us because
Speaker 1: that's what they do. There must be something going on
Speaker 1: that they can't tell us. Well, there's actually other explanations,
Speaker 1: and we're going to talk about that explanation in detail
Speaker 1: when we come back. We're going to take a quick
Speaker 1: break and we will be right back.
Speaker 10: Hello, it's me Voladimir Zelenski. I'm so tired of wearing
Speaker 10: these same T shirts everywhere for years.
Speaker 11: You'd think with.
Speaker 10: All the billions I've skimmed off America, I could dress better.
Speaker 10: And I could if only David Knight would send me
Speaker 10: one of his beautiful gray mcguffin hoodies. Or a new
Speaker 10: black T shirt with the mcguffin logo in blue. But
Speaker 10: he told me to get lost. Maybe one of you
Speaker 10: American suckers can buy me some at the David Knightshow
Speaker 10: dot com, and David is giving a ten percent discount
Speaker 10: to listeners from now.
Speaker 11: Until twenty twenty five. At that price, you should be
Speaker 11: able to buy me several hundred.
Speaker 10: Those amazing sand colored microphone hoodies are so beautiful. I'd
Speaker 10: wear something other than green military cosplay to my various
Speaker 10: gallas and social events. If you want to save on shipping,
Speaker 10: just put it in the next package of bombs and
Speaker 10: missiles coming from the USA.
Speaker 2: You're listening to the David Knight Show.
Speaker 5: How long are you watching me sleep? Man? That's not
Speaker 5: cool like at all.
Speaker 12: Mister President, my name is CGB Spender. I'm here to
Speaker 12: brief you on the recent UAP situation. What the heck
Speaker 12: is UAP man? UAP stands for Unidentified anomalist Phenomena.
Speaker 5: From on now, I'm even more confused. Those aren't real
Speaker 5: words it was you just said.
Speaker 12: They used to be called UFOs, but we had to
Speaker 12: change it.
Speaker 5: Wait, what why I liked UFOs.
Speaker 12: Because the former carries a strong association with alien conspiracy
Speaker 12: theories and stigma.
Speaker 5: While you come going back to bed. That would be
Speaker 5: a big mistake, mister president.
Speaker 12: There are reports of the drones being seen in other
Speaker 12: locations as why are they in the Ukraine as of
Speaker 12: right now?
Speaker 2: No, however, they are appearing.
Speaker 5: With that's money. I mean my you know, my democracy,
Speaker 5: Chris needs protected over there. Now what I think? I'm
Speaker 5: going back to bed.
Speaker 2: So this is an urgent matter.
Speaker 12: I understand you are completely checked out, but the fate
Speaker 12: of our country, the fate of our very planet, hangs
Speaker 12: in the balance.
Speaker 5: Wait, what agency do you work for?
Speaker 12: I don't work for any agency, mister president. I'm part
Speaker 12: of a global consortium of elite and exceptional men who
Speaker 12: create history and have made decisions that direct the path
Speaker 12: of our very species.
Speaker 5: A syndicate of men. Oh I saw something on PBS
Speaker 5: about this. What is it? The hold on? It's common?
Speaker 5: The deep state? Yes, the deep state? Thank you. How
Speaker 5: you guys been.
Speaker 12: We've honestly not been doing so hot. It's really, really,
Speaker 12: really and hard to keep things secret.
Speaker 5: Now tell me about it. Oh hey, while I'm thinking
Speaker 5: of it, can I get their new number? I've got
Speaker 5: some mostly property tax or tradition type questions.
Speaker 12: I mean, yeah, I can probably do that. Victoria didn't
Speaker 12: give it to you. We told her to when you
Speaker 12: were in the Jungle.
Speaker 5: Backs tabby Leterous Sea Lion, but honestly, just to check in,
Speaker 5: haven't heard.
Speaker 12: From Well, you're not going to be an office much longer,
Speaker 12: so oh whitch? I almost forgot to tell you. The
Speaker 12: drones are actually Trump's well and the aliens trump is well. Basically,
Speaker 12: the aliens are super red pilled and they just like
Speaker 12: Italian chicks.
Speaker 1: Okay, that's from Timeline Junkie. I thought that was pretty funny.
Speaker 1: But yeah, how are they going to use this? And
Speaker 1: you know part of this and I want to talk
Speaker 1: about the syop aspect of this as well as how
Speaker 1: they're going to use this. The syop aspect of this
Speaker 1: is being aided by what is on social media, and
Speaker 1: we got a lot of very interesting clips. For example,
Speaker 1: here is one of a hanging orb and you can
Speaker 1: see the lights glowing on that and they zoom in
Speaker 1: and it looks very strange when they zoom in, look
Speaker 1: at the strange surfaces there. And as they continue to
Speaker 1: track this, you'll see it start to morph and extent,
Speaker 1: And so the question is what is going on with
Speaker 1: this when you look at something like I just showed
Speaker 1: you with AI. Can we trust anything that we see?
Speaker 1: First of all, there's a lot of push to deceive us.
Speaker 1: We've already established that can you trust anything that you see?
Speaker 1: Can you trust anything that has put up on social
Speaker 1: media or somebody pulling your leg? How many times do
Speaker 1: we see things attributed to something else or other issues?
Speaker 1: And what are we going to do to stay grounded
Speaker 1: on anything? As we see one picture after the other.
Speaker 1: Now it's got some blinking lights that didn't have before,
Speaker 1: was just glowing. Now it's got some things that are extended.
Speaker 1: Some of the people are saying, well, I think we
Speaker 1: confirm that this is definitely not human technology. They look
Speaker 1: more like two antennas that you would see on a
Speaker 1: biological entity that emits light. Well, it doesn't look like
Speaker 1: that to me. But of course the government where you
Speaker 1: look at artificial intelligence, when you look at trolls, when
Speaker 1: you look at the ability to manipulate video, and of
Speaker 1: course they're not even talking about something like Project Bluebeam,
Speaker 1: which they have been talking about for decades, and how
Speaker 1: they would like to use that to roll out a
Speaker 1: global scare about an alien invasion. Here's another one here,
Speaker 1: this drone or take a look at that. You've got
Speaker 1: circles there, and you've got another spinning circle inside of that.
Speaker 1: We've got a lot of different ones. Here's one where
Speaker 1: they've got several points of light and they come zooming
Speaker 1: in and one of them comes in very fast and stop.
Speaker 1: Now another one comes in and they make a triangle
Speaker 1: and they just kind of cover there. You so, again,
Speaker 1: what is being done? Is this real? Is this manufactured?
Speaker 1: Is it manufactured by the government? Is it manufactured by
Speaker 1: the people who are looking at the stuff online? You
Speaker 1: need to think about the stages of the PSIO and
Speaker 1: we have seen this over and over again. Again. It
Speaker 1: could just be a distraction and the key is a
Speaker 1: distraction from what But I think it has a very
Speaker 1: specific purpose. We just mentioned it. We're going to talk
Speaker 1: a little bit more about what that act is that
Speaker 1: I believe they want to get put through. But think
Speaker 1: about this as fear that drives a problem, solution, a
Speaker 1: solution to a problem that they want you to be
Speaker 1: afraid of. You know, we have seen this in the past.
Speaker 1: Look at how they typically rolled this out first there's
Speaker 1: denial that this is really a problem, but they keep
Speaker 1: showing more and more clips of it. Right, the media
Speaker 1: keeps showing clips of it. The government keeps saying it's
Speaker 1: not a problem. We saw this in China, for example.
Speaker 1: The media was showing us clips and the Chinese government
Speaker 1: was showing us clips of we got people collapsing in
Speaker 1: the streets, and of course they didn't look real when
Speaker 1: they were collapsing in the street. They put out clips
Speaker 1: of how they were sealing people inside their homes all
Speaker 1: the rest of this stuff, and that was being put
Speaker 1: over here. I meanwhile, we had health of it. Don't worry,
Speaker 1: that's not a problem here, not a problem. We saw
Speaker 1: the same thing again with a mask. Don't worry. No,
Speaker 1: we're not going to wear a mask. And all of
Speaker 1: a sudden, you've got to wear mask. It's that's mandated
Speaker 1: that you wear masks. Yeah, you think back to what
Speaker 1: was going on in late twenty nineteen early twenty twenty
Speaker 1: before Trump locked everybody down, and so the government kept
Speaker 1: denying that there was any serious problem, while the media
Speaker 1: kept pushing it and normalizing it to people moving the
Speaker 1: Overton window, getting people to accept, well, there's really got
Speaker 1: to be something, So then how bad is it and
Speaker 1: what is it? But there is something there, and so
Speaker 1: many people will begin to look at the billionaires. We'll
Speaker 1: want to know, you know, what is going on. As
Speaker 1: we saw with info Wars, they're part of it as well.
Speaker 1: We had a very fairly well known billionaire who lived
Speaker 1: in Texas. He came to offer He went in to
Speaker 1: talk to the governor, Governor Abbott telling him that, you know,
Speaker 1: we got to lockdown this is really dangerous. You got
Speaker 1: to lock this down before everybody dies. And then he
Speaker 1: comes to info wars and it's given a platform to
Speaker 1: scare everybody on info Wars and I think he was sincere.
Speaker 1: And so you know, you can see how the grassroots
Speaker 1: is going to be panicked by all of this. A
Speaker 1: lot of people are going to be panicking before that,
Speaker 1: even people who should know better will start to panic.
Speaker 1: And then the government will eventually flip and say, yes,
Speaker 1: this is dangerous, and now we've got a solution for
Speaker 1: you as well. Part of this is that this is
Speaker 1: a test. They're always testing us, They're always probing us
Speaker 1: to see what we will buy into, and now they
Speaker 1: have the perfect measurement tool social media they can scrape
Speaker 1: the information off of there. They don't have to have
Speaker 1: a back door into it. They don't have to have
Speaker 1: a partnership within social media companies. All this stuff about TikTok.
Speaker 1: You know, they can scrape this information off of there
Speaker 1: just as easily, pretty much not as easily as the
Speaker 1: people in the back door, but they can with a
Speaker 1: little bit more effort. They can get all that information.
Speaker 1: It's all public, and so it's always a test. They're
Speaker 1: always probing us to see what we will accept and
Speaker 1: how we're going to react with the stimulus that they
Speaker 1: give us. That's always a big part of this, but
Speaker 1: it's also bigger than the drones. The government has been
Speaker 1: pushing this UFO stuff quite sometime, just as we on
Speaker 1: that thing. You know, we're now going to call them UAPs.
Speaker 1: And I said, when they started calling them UAPs, I said,
Speaker 1: they're getting seriously, they're preparing to do something with it.
Speaker 1: They've got to change the label to get people take
Speaker 1: this seriously. And we have seen this now running over
Speaker 1: a couple of years, the government trying to normalize this.
Speaker 1: We put this just as an aside. A lot of
Speaker 1: people talking about alien abductions and things like that. Stephen
Speaker 1: Greer is one of the big uithologists out there. I
Speaker 1: haven't studied this because I don't take any of this seriously.
Speaker 1: And I gave you the reasons last week when I
Speaker 1: talked about the excellent article and you can find it
Speaker 1: on a vaccine impact. Brian Schallhavey had this article from
Speaker 1: an Australian physicist who has had some pretty interesting novel
Speaker 1: inventions that he's had, but he laid out the case
Speaker 1: of why it is some of these observed phenomena are
Speaker 1: not military and they are not interstellar, and he gave
Speaker 1: reasons for it in terms of physics. Believes that they
Speaker 1: are interdimensional. So I think that there is an aspect
Speaker 1: of that. I think there is an aspect of demonic
Speaker 1: deception that is associated with it. But I think there's
Speaker 1: also pentagon deception and deception. And when we talk about
Speaker 1: the Pentagon, and I don't draw a distinction between the
Speaker 1: demonic deception and the pentagon. I mean, it's just, you know,
Speaker 1: two parts of the same narrative. They're really everything that
Speaker 1: the Pentagon is doing along this kind of stuff is deceptive.
Speaker 1: But when you look at people like Stephen Greer, for example,
Speaker 1: and I've seen this over and over again with the
Speaker 1: people who say they were abducted or they had experiences.
Speaker 1: Every one of the ones that I've seen, and again
Speaker 1: I've not done an exhaustive investigation of this stuff, but
Speaker 1: every one of the ones that I've seen, these are
Speaker 1: people who are always not Christian. They're always open to
Speaker 1: the occult. In Stephen Greer is one of those people
Speaker 1: you talked about in terms of his history. He says, yeah,
Speaker 1: my parents and my family scoffed at me. He goes, Now,
Speaker 1: they're into science, and if you can't measure this or
Speaker 1: demonstrate to them, they just don't believe that it's real.
Speaker 1: And they're also you know, Christians, fundamentalists. They're not going
Speaker 1: to be pulled in by this stuff. And you see,
Speaker 1: science and Christianity are not anesthetical to each other. As
Speaker 1: a matter of fact. Real science, real science, real scientists.
Speaker 1: Over the when we did real science, we had people
Speaker 1: like Isaac Newton, we had people like Maxwell who did
Speaker 1: Maxwell's equations and many others. They were doing scientific investigation
Speaker 1: because they knew that it was noble. They knew that
Speaker 1: it wasn't random chance processes. If it was random chance
Speaker 1: process It's why I tried to figure out what was
Speaker 1: going on. But they knew that there was a creator.
Speaker 1: They knew there was a designer, and they wanted to
Speaker 1: discover what he had created, what he had designed. We
Speaker 1: have lost our way. There is no conflict between real
Speaker 1: science and between the real God and what the Bible
Speaker 1: tells us about it. But these people have lost their way.
Speaker 1: But when you look at this, I think that this
Speaker 1: rebranding of the UAP thing is a signal of a
Speaker 1: government scien long term goal is exactly what Ronald Reagan
Speaker 1: talked about, and he mentioned it several times.
Speaker 4: I couldn't help at one point in my discussions with
Speaker 4: privately with General Secretary Gorbatschev, when you'd stop to think
Speaker 4: that we're all God's children, wherever we may live in
Speaker 4: the world, I couldn't help but say to him, just
Speaker 4: think how easy his task and mine might be in
Speaker 4: these meetings that we held. If suddenly there was a
Speaker 4: threat to this world from some other species, from another
Speaker 4: planet outside in the universe, we'd forget all the little
Speaker 4: local differences that we have between our countries, and we
Speaker 4: would find out once and for all that we really
Speaker 4: are all human beings.
Speaker 1: Here on this Earth together.
Speaker 4: Well, I don't suppose we can wait for some alien
Speaker 4: race to come down and threaten us, But I think
Speaker 4: that between us we can bring about that realization. In
Speaker 4: our obsession with antagonisms of the moment, we often forget
Speaker 4: how much unites all the members of humanity. Perhaps we
Speaker 4: need some outside universal threat to make us recognize this
Speaker 4: common bound. I occasionally think how quickly our difference is
Speaker 4: worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat
Speaker 4: from outside this world. And yet, I ask you, is
Speaker 4: not an alien force already among us? What could be
Speaker 4: more alien to the universal aspirations of our peoples than
Speaker 4: war and the threat of war?
Speaker 5: I think maybe I'd answer it this way.
Speaker 4: I keep in my frustrations sometimes, you know, actually, if
Speaker 4: you count some of the things going on in smaller
Speaker 4: countries and all, there have been about one hundred and
Speaker 4: fourteen wars since World War II. But I've often wondered,
Speaker 4: what if all of us in the world discovered that
Speaker 4: we were threatened by an outer power from outer space,
Speaker 4: from another planet, wouldn't we all of a sudden find
Speaker 4: that we didn't have any differences between us at all?
Speaker 1: We were all.
Speaker 4: Human beings, citizens, of the world, and wouldn't we come
Speaker 4: together to fight that particular threat.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, we'd need global government, wouldn't we. Well, you know,
Speaker 1: it turns out that we are being threatened by an
Speaker 1: alien species, just not the way that they think. It's
Speaker 1: from another dimension satanic forces, and they can't see the
Speaker 1: spiritual war because they're too blind to see it. They've
Speaker 1: ruled it out, you know, you can when I look
Speaker 1: at some of these orbs and some of this other stuff,
Speaker 1: it reminds me of all the comedy things that I've
Speaker 1: seen of. You know, they would depict the coronavirus as
Speaker 1: this orb you know, flying around, flying around Trump or
Speaker 1: other people and talking and all the rest of this stuff.
Speaker 1: I thought, you know, we've already had a little bit
Speaker 1: of a trial run. What about that alien threat, the coronavirus?
Speaker 1: Where did it come from? Did it mutate, did it evolve?
Speaker 1: Did it come from the lab? Did it come from China? Right?
Speaker 1: All of this sambiguity about it. Look what they're trying
Speaker 1: to do as they're trying to move the Overton window,
Speaker 1: they're trying to normalize this kind of stuff just like
Speaker 1: we saw before. And then when they're properly prepared for
Speaker 1: this stuff. They flipped the script and they while be
Speaker 1: telling you don't be afraid of this, and they're just
Speaker 1: kind of showing it out there to get you accustomed
Speaker 1: to it, and then all of a sudden they flip
Speaker 1: the script and say, now it's real. Be afraid, right,
Speaker 1: it'll fall for that, you know Reagan's narrative. They've all
Speaker 1: got to unite against some interstellar threat. That's exactly what
Speaker 1: Project Bloombeam was about, you know. Looking at what they're
Speaker 1: going to do with I mean, we have Operation Northwoods
Speaker 1: as a preliminary to nine to eleven forty years before,
Speaker 1: so it's going to feel real. They're going to build
Speaker 1: it with more events. They're going to have experts coming on.
Speaker 1: They're going to talk at some point in time about
Speaker 1: having a global event that may not be this. I
Speaker 1: think this has a more specific intermediate goal here, but
Speaker 1: who knows how they're going to use this. Remember that
Speaker 1: the virus was never isolated. Remember that the virus was
Speaker 1: completely made up. And you try to convince people today
Speaker 1: that there was no COVID virus. Oh, they're all absolutely
Speaker 1: certain that there was. And just like we're talking about before,
Speaker 1: I'm sure that some of these things, as Marky Mark
Speaker 1: was saying, some of these things are misidentification. Once you
Speaker 1: get to a certain level of fear and panic, once
Speaker 1: it starts to build, people are going to start seeing
Speaker 1: it everywhere, even where it isn't. So you start revealing
Speaker 1: it in certain areas to start getting people normalized to it.
Speaker 1: And now they're looking for it, and now they're seeing
Speaker 1: it in a lot of different places. But then they're
Speaker 1: going to flip the script and they're going to tell people,
Speaker 1: we've got to have the power to do this, all
Speaker 1: the governments of the world. When you go back and
Speaker 1: you look at this COVID pandemic, right, there was nothing
Speaker 1: that was isolated, and yet we saw detailed pictures and
Speaker 1: information about this virus that they never isolated. We were
Speaker 1: told that it has this fur and cleavage and all
Speaker 1: the rest of this stuff. You know that if you
Speaker 1: haven't isolated it, right, they made up all these details
Speaker 1: and put it out there. So they're going to make
Speaker 1: up a lot of details about some little green men
Speaker 1: that we can go fight. Are they going to get
Speaker 1: people believing that it's not going to be that hard.
Speaker 1: We've already seen this happen. We've seen the mass delusion
Speaker 1: that they were able to create government narative, and we
Speaker 1: saw how all of the governments of the world cooperated
Speaker 1: in this common threat, just like what Reagan was talking about,
Speaker 1: except that was the imaginary virus, the imaginary virus that
Speaker 1: they were isolated like these other viruses they have not isolated.
Speaker 1: And they all marched in lockstep to do exactly the
Speaker 1: same thing at the same time, including Trump, the guy
Speaker 1: that they brought up there to be the check against
Speaker 1: people's doubts, Trump the anti globalist. Well, Trump believes it.
Speaker 1: Trump believes it. It must be true, right, he's not there,
Speaker 1: he's playing forty chess or something. You know, I don't
Speaker 1: know I mean this, but you know, Trump believes it.
Speaker 1: So he can trust him because even though he's marching
Speaker 1: in lockstep and actually the leader, even though he's actually
Speaker 1: preparing the depopulation shot and bragging about it, we're supposed
Speaker 1: to believe that he's the reality check on globalism, that
Speaker 1: he's not part of this. Oh, he doesn't like globalism,
Speaker 1: he doesn't like NATO and it's wars. Except what he
Speaker 1: did was he got NATO countries to up their anti
Speaker 1: in preparation for this war. With Russia, but you've got
Speaker 1: to believe that he is the anti globalist. And we've
Speaker 1: got all of the media, including the mainstream alternative media,
Speaker 1: playing along with this. That's what happened with Info Wars,
Speaker 1: a Bright Bart, with a Tucker Carlson. They all played
Speaker 1: along with this COVID narrative. And so they use fear,
Speaker 1: they use experts, they use the media. What's our solution
Speaker 1: to all that stuff? Well, first of all, you need
Speaker 1: to remain skeptical. You need to remain cynical about these
Speaker 1: people will always lie to you. You need to say,
Speaker 1: prove it, prove it. As Thomas Soule said, you said,
Speaker 1: what do you say to the leftist? You say prove it.
Speaker 1: You also say, so what if it's true? Right? And
Speaker 1: that was what I was saying in April. Actually I
Speaker 1: said I don't lockdown. But even in April, you know,
Speaker 1: I had John rappaport on and we're saying, you know,
Speaker 1: what if the churches who have locked down in fear,
Speaker 1: what if they opened up for Easter and then we
Speaker 1: could see that nobody died. And eventually they did open
Speaker 1: up and we could see that nobody died. That's why
Speaker 1: they came after the churches so hard I had to
Speaker 1: shut them down. But that's what Christians in the past
Speaker 1: would have said, because when they had plagues in Europe
Speaker 1: and people were getting sick and dying and they didn't
Speaker 1: know what it was, the people there said, so what,
Speaker 1: I'm a Christian, I don't fear death. I'm called to
Speaker 1: do this or that. My life is in God's hand
Speaker 1: and eternity is in God's hand. I'm not afraid of
Speaker 1: this stuff. But we didn't say prove it. We didn't say,
Speaker 1: so what if it's true. Instead, with COVID we had
Speaker 1: Christians who cowered in fear from this plague, as they
Speaker 1: had not done for thousands of years up until twenty twenty,
Speaker 1: and we had with climate we've seen the same type
Speaker 1: of thing. We've got a lot of people out there
Speaker 1: pushing that is the end of the world. Several generations
Speaker 1: now of people who have been propagandized in the institutions
Speaker 1: we call government schools, public schools. They're now scared to
Speaker 1: death that that's the end of the world. But Christians
Speaker 1: look at this and say, that's not how the world ends.
Speaker 1: God will determine how this is going to end. And
Speaker 1: then we've got world government, which is a part of
Speaker 1: all of these things. Whether you're talking about the COVID mcguffin,
Speaker 1: whether they're talking about something like Project Bluebeam or what
Speaker 1: Reagan is talking about where they're talking about the climate stuff,
Speaker 1: all of this is coming into the bigger picture, which
Speaker 1: is world government. Are you afraid of that?
Speaker 9: So?
Speaker 1: What if world government happens? Should we cower in fear
Speaker 1: of world government? For example? No, I don't think so,
Speaker 1: because as Christians, we know that life will be much
Speaker 1: worse and it'll be different if they succeed. But we
Speaker 1: don't have to cower in fear. We don't have to
Speaker 1: cower and depression. We don't have to get suicidal with
Speaker 1: this and despair. No, we have to stay grounded on
Speaker 1: what our foundation is. That's the answer to all of
Speaker 1: this stuff. You know, the Christian is going to say,
Speaker 1: to paraphrase the Psalms, you you are my rock to God,
Speaker 1: You're my fortress, straw. Help me to be still because
Speaker 1: you're the Lord. Though evil men shall be enthroned right
Speaker 1: without cause. They plot my arm, but God can scatter
Speaker 1: them with his mighty arm. Right, that's our result with
Speaker 1: all this stuff. We don't have to be afraid of
Speaker 1: any of the stuff. Of all things, you Christians need
Speaker 1: to be the people who are going to stand firm
Speaker 1: because you're standing on a firm foundation. You don't need
Speaker 1: to be running around like a chicken with his head
Speaker 1: cut off. Even if they use this stuff for a
Speaker 1: world government. You don't have to be afraid of the
Speaker 1: UFO stuff. You don't have to be afraid of the
Speaker 1: COVID stuff, you don't have to be afraid of the
Speaker 1: climate stuff. These are all to borrow the metaphor of
Speaker 1: John Bunyan, these are like paper tigers on a chain.
Speaker 1: You don't have to worry about any of this stuff.
Speaker 1: And so what if it's true? Yeah, we don't want
Speaker 1: world government that will make our lives miserable and the
Speaker 1: lives of our children. It's something worth fighting. But we
Speaker 1: don't fight out of fear. We fight from the position
Speaker 1: of what we know. So let's talk about this drone
Speaker 1: invasion just in time for Congress to reauthorize and our
Speaker 1: will in law. That's what I think this is immediately about.
Speaker 1: I want you to think about syops, think about the
Speaker 1: big picture, because at some point, if we live long enough,
Speaker 1: we're going to be faced with that. I mean, quite frankly,
Speaker 1: I never thought i'd see the twenty thirty stuff happening
Speaker 1: or anything like I saw in twenty twenty. I thought that, yeah,
Speaker 1: that's going to happen, but not in my lifetime. Oh well,
Speaker 1: we'll see what happens. So what about this law that
Speaker 1: they want to reauthorize. While officials are attempting to reassure
Speaker 1: the public, says zero Hedge, some wallmakers have stoked fear,
Speaker 1: leading to widespread panic on social media, with people interpreting
Speaker 1: anything moving in the night sky as a potential drone,
Speaker 1: even commercial jets, even stars if actual truck sized drones.
Speaker 1: Some say of Iranian origin. We're flying in some of
Speaker 1: the world's most restricted airspace. Let's use common sense. The
Speaker 1: Pentagon would have scrambled F twenty two's F thirty five's
Speaker 1: on the East coast almost immediately. This is one of
Speaker 1: the reasons why we know that nine to eleven was
Speaker 1: an inside job. As the gorvitt All said, you know,
Speaker 1: my father or uncle or something had set up I
Speaker 1: think as his uncle had set up Norad. He said,
Speaker 1: I know that they would have taken these things down immediately.
Speaker 1: If this wasn't an inside job anyway, Since that hasn't happened,
Speaker 1: we can't help but be suspicious about the whole drone situation.
Speaker 1: No private satellite data shows the A and drone carriers
Speaker 1: are parked off the coast. In fact, these vessels are
Speaker 1: located seventy five hundred miles away. So Zerah says, let's
Speaker 1: step back and review some of what Elon Musk is
Speaker 1: tweeted out on X recently. September thirtieth, he said drone
Speaker 1: swarm battles are coming that will boggle the mind. September
Speaker 1: twenty ninth, he said epic drone wars are coming. January
Speaker 1: the fifth of twenty twenty three, he said, the drone
Speaker 1: wars are already a big deal, but we ain't seen
Speaker 1: nothing yet. Well, Elon Musk is a defense contractor. That's
Speaker 1: primarily what he does. He's a defense contractor, and of course,
Speaker 1: as a defense contractor, it is very important to shape
Speaker 1: the narrative of the that the public sees. That's what
Speaker 1: X is for. That's one of many purposes that he's
Speaker 1: got with it. But that's one of the things. X
Speaker 1: is not about free speech. It is about narrative. It's
Speaker 1: about propaganda. It's about ser owners, not about free speech.
Speaker 1: The free speech is there, just like the Internet was
Speaker 1: set up to be free initially. Is there just to
Speaker 1: get you dialoguing, you know, think of it as good cop,
Speaker 1: bad cop. That's the way the Sigellian dialectic works are
Speaker 1: the way that Must does. But you know this whole thing.
Speaker 1: What does he know about drone wars? What's been known
Speaker 1: for a very long time is about a decade ago,
Speaker 1: and I've talked about it many times. One of them,
Speaker 1: it's very entertaining fiction book by Daniel Suarez called Kill Decision.
Speaker 1: If you want to see somebody run through this and
Speaker 1: how these drone swarms and drone wars are going to work,
Speaker 1: and what it does to the military industrial complex, how
Speaker 1: it's used by the military industrial complex. That's a great book,
Speaker 1: Daniel Swarz's Killed Decision. Fox News reporter Bill Malugan asked Musk.
Speaker 1: He said, so, do what about what do you think
Speaker 1: about this drone situation? Must says, well, I think it's
Speaker 1: alien spaceships that are controlled by Iran. Obviously, he said,
Speaker 1: so he's being sarcastic, but he does know what's going on.
Speaker 1: Some people have said, wait for the prepackaged solution from
Speaker 1: this latest government manufactured crisis to come in the form
Speaker 1: of Elon's Starshield and Peter Thiel's Pallanteer, and of course
Speaker 1: the thing that's done by what's that guy's name, Lucky
Speaker 1: something earlier, Lucky Palmer and Drewill Andrewill like the sword
Speaker 1: from Lord of the Rings, just like Pallenteers, the all
Speaker 1: seeing eye type of thing. Yeah, there's a lot of
Speaker 1: techno guys that are moving into the military industrial complex.
Speaker 1: Is this the cause of the drone uproar? The FAA
Speaker 1: Reauthorization Act of twenty eighteen expires on December the twenty
Speaker 1: The replacement is being pushed. As that is being pushed
Speaker 1: is a bigger grab at taking away our freedoms. The
Speaker 1: federal government is literally using a terrorism drone mystery SIOP
Speaker 1: against you to manipulate Congress and to passing the new
Speaker 1: HR eighty six y ten, the counter UAS Authority, Security
Speaker 1: Safety and so forth. I think that's it. That's my
Speaker 1: best guess as to what this is all really about
Speaker 1: at this point in time. But this other stuff about
Speaker 1: the UAP, that's why I talked about SIOP and how
Speaker 1: where ultimately they want to go. That will happen at
Speaker 1: some point in time, but I think this is the
Speaker 1: immediate cause of this one. The Counter Uas Authority, Security,
Speaker 1: Safety and Reauthorization Act of twenty twenty four. They got
Speaker 1: people Republican and Democrat demanding this stuff, and they're going
Speaker 1: to have the public demanding it. We need to be
Speaker 1: able to shoot them down. Well, we need to know
Speaker 1: what we're shooting at, like the sheriff said, So we've
Speaker 1: got to have identification authorization surveillance of everything everywhere, all
Speaker 1: the time, and that's going to be necessary. It'll include
Speaker 1: appropriations and enhance the government powers to control you. They're
Speaker 1: even going so far as to use it to push
Speaker 1: for acts of war against other trees. Last week, a
Speaker 1: Homeland Security Joint Community held a hearing on this act.
Speaker 1: This bill would renew and reform counter uas legal authorities
Speaker 1: and strengthen the FAA's oversight powers on drones. Remember that
Speaker 1: congressman who fell for the Iranian mothership thing. They was
Speaker 1: told that by somebody that was I don't know, in
Speaker 1: the intelligence community or something. The intelligence community would never
Speaker 1: lie to you, that's one of the things he said. Well,
Speaker 1: we know it's not our government, because our government wouldn't
Speaker 1: lie to us. How stupid do you have to be? Well,
Speaker 1: this is a guy who is totally controlled. They're in Congress.
Speaker 1: You think they don't rig our elections? Do people like that?
Speaker 1: In the reason we need legal authority is it Without it,
Speaker 1: the use of most effective types of drone detection and
Speaker 1: counter drone technologies could violate criminal laws. See, this is
Speaker 1: about giving them cover. It isn't like they're not already
Speaker 1: doing it. It isn't like they need some new capability.
Speaker 1: It's just that they need some protection for the laws
Speaker 1: that they're already violating. That's what this is really about,
Speaker 1: including those that prohibit destroying or disabling aircraft in flight
Speaker 1: and intercepting signals and communications. Intercepting signals and communications, that's
Speaker 1: what they do all the time. Everything they do is
Speaker 1: based on that. Uh, A sudden surgeon purported drone sightings
Speaker 1: and the accompanying mainstream media and social media panic might
Speaker 1: make a bit more sense as an effort to push
Speaker 1: for the reauthorization of our well inned drone laws rights
Speaker 1: zero hedge and I think that is really the case.
Speaker 1: You got General Flint. Now they're saying, are US military,
Speaker 1: We're given the opportunity to if they were given the
Speaker 1: opportunity to take care of this drone, they have the
Speaker 1: full capability to do so. Immediately. Unleash the Space Force. Yeah,
Speaker 1: this is uh. People are ready to believe anything. You know,
Speaker 1: unleash the Space Force. We've got to come after these aliens.
Speaker 1: See that give they're of a down tie fighter from
Speaker 1: Star Wars and the Empire's soldiers there stormtroopers. Yeah, you know,
Speaker 1: it's interesting. Gateway pundit can see the trap. But they
Speaker 1: would never think that Trump would be very much a
Speaker 1: part of this, despite what happened in twenty twenty. But
Speaker 1: I think this is going to roll out him before
Speaker 1: he takes office. As they say, the outgoing Biden administration
Speaker 1: from Hell or from other deep state elements or else
Speaker 1: it's foreign adversaries or its enemies. They said. The only
Speaker 1: thing they rule out is aliens. These are the This
Speaker 1: is another we look at another one of the never Trumpers.
Speaker 1: You know, never Trumper can cut both ways, just like
Speaker 1: Trump delusion versus the the people on the other side, right,
Speaker 1: you know, these people are the never Trumpers because they
Speaker 1: will never blame Trump for anything. No matter what it is,
Speaker 1: he never gets the blame, even even though he's bragging
Speaker 1: about what he did. They will never blame Trump. That's
Speaker 1: the other side, the flip side of the never trumpers.
Speaker 1: So Gateway Pundit falls into that category. They said. Back
Speaker 1: in the early nineteen fifties, when the UFO mania first
Speaker 1: set in, you had Walter B. Smith, Director of the CIA,
Speaker 1: and a memorandum for the Director of Psychological Strategy Board
Speaker 1: wrote the problems connected with unidentified flying objects appear to
Speaker 1: have implications for psychological warfare as well as for intelligence
Speaker 1: and operations. Another fifties document, declassified and AFOYA release details
Speaker 1: and national security implications stemming from UFO phenomenon. Channels of communication,
Speaker 1: it said, are clogged by irrelevant reports. Continued false claims
Speaker 1: lead to the ignoring of real indications of hostile actions,
Speaker 1: creation of morbid national psychology in which skillful hostile propaganda
Speaker 1: could induce hysterical behavior and harmful distrust of duly constituted authority. Now,
Speaker 1: how would that operate when it's done by our own government, right,
Speaker 1: our own government. We've seen it. You saw four years
Speaker 1: ago they induced illogical, hysterical behavior with the COVID stuff,
Speaker 1: and they created a distrust of duly constituted authority. And
Speaker 1: by that I mean the Bill Rights and the Constitution.
Speaker 1: I'll never forget Scott Adams saying it's getting harder and
Speaker 1: harder to tell these freedom lovers from sociopaths. He said
Speaker 1: that after two weeks of lockdown, when he should have
Speaker 1: known better. I replied, and I said, it's getting harder
Speaker 1: and harder to tell you pragmatists from totalitarians because they
Speaker 1: reject duly constituted authority, the duly constituted authority. These people
Speaker 1: all swear to appoll to the Constitution, the Bill Rights,
Speaker 1: all that was thrown out while these people created hysterical behavior.
Speaker 1: And so that's what we're looking at in the long term.
Speaker 1: As I said, if you look around TikTok, Instagram, elsewhere,
Speaker 1: you'll see a morbid national psychology is on the making.
Speaker 1: Thousands of fake videos are muddying the narrative as well
Speaker 1: as real things. When it comes to Biden regime, one
Speaker 1: feels inclined to believe more in a sy op to
Speaker 1: have the country in a bad shape, says Gateway Pundit.
Speaker 1: And then they say, and to break the climate of
Speaker 1: national love story with the incoming Trump administration. What a
Speaker 1: national love story. Yeah, we got all these people making
Speaker 1: their pilgrimages to mar A Lago and kissing the ring
Speaker 1: and so forth, breaking the national love story for the
Speaker 1: incoming Trump administration, substituting it for a fearful, suspicious citizenry.
Speaker 1: It Breitbart Info wars. These people are a kool aid cult, folks.
Speaker 1: You have to be away aware of them as well.
Speaker 1: As a matter of fact, this is sent to me
Speaker 1: aj Is Alex Jones is out there pushing back against
Speaker 1: people who criticize Trump.
Speaker 7: There is a subgroup of people that know the globalists
Speaker 7: or evil, and the agenda's bad, the deathicult's got to
Speaker 7: be dealt with, but they always want to just sit there. Well,
Speaker 7: they're not in control of any policy, and they're not
Speaker 7: getting attacked by the deep state.
Speaker 8: They're not in the arena.
Speaker 1: They're sitting back as critics.
Speaker 7: Not from a leftist globalist deathicult perspective, but a perspective
Speaker 7: they're the best patriots. They've got all the answers, and
Speaker 7: Trump's bad and Trump's not for real. And look at
Speaker 7: this and look at that demoralizing people breaking the love store,
Speaker 7: getting behind what Trump's doing. When when you look at
Speaker 7: all the evidence, in all the foods and build it
Speaker 7: together in one picture, you would be insane not to
Speaker 7: be behind Trump. The obsession on second guessing and bitching
Speaker 7: about Trump to prove you're the best and you're for
Speaker 7: real is sick and his mental illness.
Speaker 1: Now, what is sick? Mental illness? Is this cool? A
Speaker 1: felt that you're running, Alex. You know exactly what you're doing.
Speaker 1: It's so transparent. Anybody that looks at you, now you
Speaker 1: become a cult leader. It's just like Jim Jones. Is
Speaker 1: he a relative of yours? By the way, are you
Speaker 1: connected at all to Jim Jones? Because you're looking more
Speaker 1: and more like him every day. What is patriotism? Of course,
Speaker 1: you know it's the last refuge of a scoundrel, or
Speaker 1: maybe it is the first refuge of somebody like Alex
Speaker 1: Jones who's lying to you. It's patriotism, right. What is
Speaker 1: patriotism is that love of country? Do you love the country, Alex?
Speaker 1: Or do you love Trump? I think we all know
Speaker 1: what the situation is with that. It's pathetic. By the way,
Speaker 1: is Trump doing nothing? He does? He's not in office
Speaker 1: right now? What did he do when he left off, Well,
Speaker 1: the very last thing he did in office was to
Speaker 1: completely betray his followers with January sixth, after he had
Speaker 1: for nearly a year betrayed the Constitution and done everything
Speaker 1: he could to re constitute, to break down and to
Speaker 1: build back better this country with all of his lockdowns,
Speaker 1: telling small businesses that they're not essential, bankrupting us with
Speaker 1: trillions of dollars in debt, destroying the constitution, pushing masks
Speaker 1: through his subordinates, pushing universal basic income, moving that Overton window.
Speaker 1: That's what all the stimulus stuff was about. And it
Speaker 1: left us in a massive debt. And then we get
Speaker 1: to the depopulation shot, which he still still cheers, which
Speaker 1: you cheered, Alex. How pathetic, How pathetic this is. You know,
Speaker 1: whenever Trump does something bad, the never trumpers like Alex.
Speaker 1: It's never Trump is doing anything bad. Not him or
Speaker 1: Gateway or Bright Barter, any of these people. Talk to
Speaker 1: any of these people now, whenever that happens. Trump is
Speaker 1: never held accountable for anything that he does. You should
Speaker 1: always hold him accountable. And anybody who is cheering that
Speaker 1: he's not about patriotism, Alex is not about this country.
Speaker 1: He's not about putting America first. He's about putting Trump first.
Speaker 1: Trump comes before the interests of America. Trump comes before
Speaker 1: the interest of his supporters. At J six, Trump is
Speaker 1: always first. It is always about Trump and Trump alone.
Speaker 1: Nothing else matters to these people because they get what
Speaker 1: they want. The people who are going to mar A Lago.
Speaker 1: Now you've got Sergey Brnn going there, right, You've got
Speaker 1: Jeff Bezos is throwing in another throwing in a million dollars,
Speaker 1: just like Zuckerberg, just like Pfizer did. All these people
Speaker 1: who are going there to kiss the ring. What are
Speaker 1: they going there for for their own personal gain? Are
Speaker 1: they going there because they've come to the epiphany that
Speaker 1: Trump is the leader that we need to restore America. No,
Speaker 1: they're going there for their connections. And that's exactly what
Speaker 1: Alex is doing. That's exactly what Breitbart is doing. That's
Speaker 1: what I've seen so much of the conservative media doing.
Speaker 1: They're feathering their nest. They're feathering their nests, and I'm
Speaker 1: going to call out these liars, these sheep herders, these
Speaker 1: wolves among the sheep. It is truly amazing the way
Speaker 1: that they have fleeced and trapped their supporters and the
Speaker 1: way they have cheered on the man who destroyed the
Speaker 1: Constitution as much as he possibly could. Well, you know,
Speaker 1: we've got more that we can say, but we're going
Speaker 1: to finish up.
Speaker 3: With this.
Speaker 1: A former CIA officer goes on. Her name is Bolman,
Speaker 1: Laura Balman, and she said the New Jersey drone sightings
Speaker 1: could be a classified exercise. She said, they may be
Speaker 1: testing detection technology. Oh, they're testing. And their detection technology, folks,
Speaker 1: is social media. That's how they detect what you were doing.
Speaker 1: But she is saying, and look, I just look at this,
Speaker 1: and it's like, why is it now that you see
Speaker 1: CIA all over the media. You see them all over MSNBC, CNN,
Speaker 1: left wing media, establishment media. You see it all over
Speaker 1: the mainstream alternative media. Well especially with Alex and Tucker.
Speaker 1: You know, here's Alex and Tucker family is in the
Speaker 1: CIA and all the rest of the stuff. And Alex
Speaker 1: has all of these people. Oh they're former CIA. They're
Speaker 1: good people, now you know all the resta's stuff.
Speaker 4: No, they're not.
Speaker 1: They're trained liars. They lie about everything. They would lie
Speaker 1: even if it was in their advantage to tell you
Speaker 1: the truth. These are the people who pushed out the
Speaker 1: stuff like stop the steal. These are the people who
Speaker 1: were telling you, yeah, there's white hats who are fighting
Speaker 1: in Germany over the election. Remember that lie. It's like
Speaker 1: Steve pa Chennicks. They have We've got twenty thousand people there,
Speaker 1: twenty thousand National Guard who are already arresting people two
Speaker 1: days after the election because they know exactly what happened
Speaker 1: with us, all of that stuff. Why are we seeing
Speaker 1: the CIA always as the experts and now the source
Speaker 1: for these people to get information. It doesn't make them
Speaker 1: more credible that they're in the CIA, It makes them
Speaker 1: non credible. These people have no credibility whatsoever to tell
Speaker 1: us what any of this stuff is about, she said,
Speaker 1: de docing statements from National security spokes from John Kirby
Speaker 1: that these drones are not operating illegally, she said, coupled
Speaker 1: with several op eds that have been out there in
Speaker 1: the last twenty four hours about the need to look
Speaker 1: at our detection systems, makes me think that perhaps this
Speaker 1: is actually a classified exercise to test either evasion technology
Speaker 1: or detection technology in urban areas. She said she wouldn't
Speaker 1: be shocked if the drones were related to the CIA,
Speaker 1: but she says that's not their mandate to operate in
Speaker 1: the United States. What a joke, What a joke. CIA.
Speaker 1: The NSA has been operating in the United States illegally
Speaker 1: from their inception. So here's a new theory that the
Speaker 1: New Jersey drone sightings may be nuclear sniffers. The founder
Speaker 1: of an aerospace company who is a military industrial contractor. Again,
Speaker 1: they're always about sniffing the public reaction, that's what they're
Speaker 1: sniffing and probing the public says, well, maybe these are
Speaker 1: military grades drones, and he said this is being reported
Speaker 1: by zero Hedge. I said, his expert opinion is alarming. Oh,
Speaker 1: he's an expert, leaving many wishing that Paul Krugman's theory
Speaker 1: about an alien invasion was true. Instead, he said, I
Speaker 1: spoke to a gentleman a few months ago who was
Speaker 1: trying to raise the alarm to the highest level of
Speaker 1: our government about this one particular nuclear warhead that he
Speaker 1: physically put his hands on that was left over from Ukraine,
Speaker 1: and he knew this thing was headed toward the United States.
Speaker 1: This is an old, old story they've always talked about
Speaker 1: as the Soviet Union fell. You know, we spent a
Speaker 1: lot of money supposedly securing nuclear weapons that were at
Speaker 1: risk in Ukraine and other places. Of course, then we
Speaker 1: put in biological warfare laboratories there as well. But supposedly,
Speaker 1: you know, trying to secure this stuff because hey, we
Speaker 1: could have a suitcase nuke and a dirty bomb and
Speaker 1: all the rest of this stuff. This is a very
Speaker 1: old story. Everyone knows that this administration is pushing hard
Speaker 1: to get into a war with Russia. He said, So,
Speaker 1: let's back up a few years. Remember when those drones
Speaker 1: were mysteriously flying across I seventy from Colorado to Nebraska
Speaker 1: to Kansas and then Missouri. Well, it was believed that
Speaker 1: those drones were looking for radioactive material that came up
Speaker 1: missing in the US. He said, drones have no reason
Speaker 1: to fly at night because they don't see anything. Unless
Speaker 1: you have thermal optics. Drones really don't see stuff at night.
Speaker 1: Mapping has to be done by drones during the day.
Speaker 1: And he says, so these drones are not nefarious and intent.
Speaker 1: The only reason that they would be flying and flying
Speaker 1: that low at night is because they're trying to smell
Speaker 1: something on the ground. Well, how does he know that
Speaker 1: it's not nefarious and intent. If he doesn't know what
Speaker 1: the intent is, Oh, it's because the government said so.
Speaker 1: So my belief is that these drums are trying to
Speaker 1: smell something on the ground and if that's gas leaks,
Speaker 1: or maybe it's radio material or radioactive material or something.
Speaker 1: His theory was also shared by X user Jersey Futures,
Speaker 1: a self proclaimed RF engineer or radio frequency who speculated
Speaker 1: what you're seeing as America made HPGe nuclear detector drones.
Speaker 1: How does he know that? Yeah, and that's conjecture, he said. Simultaneously.
Speaker 1: The website Geiger Counter World Map. Pull this up. If
Speaker 1: you can't care, do you know where we are?
Speaker 5: Yeah?
Speaker 1: Good, that one right there. Okay, So here's Geiger Counter
Speaker 1: world Map. It shows accounts per minute in New York City,
Speaker 1: so that they're between two hundred and twenty two to
Speaker 1: two hundred and seventy eight, which would put it at
Speaker 1: the low end of the UH put it in between
Speaker 1: a recommended limit for radiation workers every five years as
Speaker 1: one hundred, and the exposure of Chernobyl residents who were
Speaker 1: relocated was three point fifty. And so they're putting this
Speaker 1: at between two hundred and twenty two and two hundred
Speaker 1: and seventy eight in New York City. So that's so
Speaker 1: there's some radiation that's going on there. Well, I would
Speaker 1: just ask you this, If they have this capability where
Speaker 1: they can see it by a satellite map like that
Speaker 1: right then, or whatever they're measuring it by, I'm assuming
Speaker 1: that that's by satellite, Maybe it's by something else. How
Speaker 1: are they measuring this in the first place, whatever they're
Speaker 1: using to measure it to say that it's high in
Speaker 1: New York City, then why would they need drones? They've
Speaker 1: already measured it. Are they trying to pinpoint it even
Speaker 1: more so? I mean, satellites have got amazing detail, but
Speaker 1: they've got some detail there. Where do they get that
Speaker 1: deep whatever they're using to measure there, Why would they
Speaker 1: need to have drones? And why all the drones in
Speaker 1: New Jersey instead of over New York City if that's
Speaker 1: the case. So again, even if the drones were necessary
Speaker 1: to get more detail, more resolution, why would they be
Speaker 1: necessary for over a month now or I guess it's
Speaker 1: almost a month. It's think it started November the eighteenth.
Speaker 1: Why would you keep doing it for a month. I
Speaker 1: don't believe this explanation I'm back to the SIOP thing,
Speaker 1: and I'm back to the legislation that they want to
Speaker 1: push through to give them more authority so they don't
Speaker 1: have any criminal jeopardy for the kind of surveillance that
Speaker 1: they are doing right now, and they want to do
Speaker 1: it openly without any criminal risk. I think that's what
Speaker 1: this is about. So meanwhile, says zero Aguley's purported drone
Speaker 1: sightings are happening around congressional action on counter drone authorities
Speaker 1: and expansion. The new Jersey drone invasion is just in
Speaker 1: time for Congress to reauthor I or well in law.
Speaker 1: And we now see a picture of a point of
Speaker 1: light hovering around the US capital. Do you think that's
Speaker 1: going to scare these congressmen like the one who believes
Speaker 1: that it's an Iranian mothership? You better believe it is.
Speaker 1: That's exactly that's what this is. For the mass hysteria
Speaker 1: surrounding drone sighting superiors to have been exaggerated by mainstream
Speaker 1: media COVID style. Perhaps it's a cover for drones with
Speaker 1: nuclear sniffer sensors, or could be just a deliberate attempt
Speaker 1: to scare the nation with a drone sign up in
Speaker 1: order to push through this legislation. I think that's exactly it.
Speaker 1: One person said, Oh, that was at New Jersey Center.
Speaker 1: I've played before Bramnick. He said, the Department Defense has
Speaker 1: got to come clean with the American government. They never
Speaker 1: American people, They never will. Nobody and the federal government
Speaker 1: is going to come clean with American people, and that
Speaker 1: includes Trump and especially Trump's sycophantic media like Alex We're
Speaker 1: going to take a quick break, folks, and we will
Speaker 1: be right back.
Speaker 13: That's right, boys and girls. There's a post election sale
Speaker 13: on silver and gold from Euphoria has caused a dip
Speaker 13: in silver and gold. It's time to buy some medals
Speaker 13: with vietnalls before they come to there. Since is go
Speaker 13: to David Knight dot Gold to get in touch with
Speaker 13: the wise wolf himself, Tony Harterburn. He knows where to
Speaker 13: look to find silver and gold.
Speaker 3: A little.
Speaker 13: Yuck fiat.
Speaker 4: A.
Speaker 2: You're listening to the David Knight Show.
Speaker 10: Hello, it's me Voladimir Zelenski. I'm so tired of wearing
Speaker 10: these same T shirts everywhere for years.
Speaker 11: You'd think with.
Speaker 10: All the billions I've skimmed off America, I could dress
Speaker 10: better and I could if only David Knight would send
Speaker 10: me one of his beautiful gray mcguffin hoodies or a
Speaker 10: new black T shirt with the mcguffin logo in blue.
Speaker 11: But he told me to get lost.
Speaker 10: Maybe one of you American suckers can buy me some
Speaker 10: at the Davidknightshow dot com, and David is giving a
Speaker 10: ten percent discount listeners from now until twenty twenty five.
Speaker 11: At that price, you should be able to buy me
Speaker 11: several hundred.
Speaker 10: Those amazing sand colored microphone hoodies are so beautiful, I'd
Speaker 10: wear something other than green military cosplay to.
Speaker 11: My various gallas and social events.
Speaker 10: If you want to save on shipping, just put it
Speaker 10: in the next package of bombs and missiles coming from
Speaker 10: the USA.
Speaker 1: Of course, that's done by west Sler. He did a
Speaker 1: great job with that. I even like the fact he
Speaker 1: meets Biden. He looks down at his shirt like he
Speaker 1: needs to have he needs to have, you know. And
Speaker 1: I've even got it in his color right here. You know, mcguffin,
Speaker 1: this looks really good. We had a problem for a
Speaker 1: while with our getting these things printed, and now we've
Speaker 1: got them back, and so I'm getting a late start
Speaker 1: with the Christmas season. But here's the black T shirt
Speaker 1: here and this is the sand colored one. It's a
Speaker 1: really beautiful design. But anyway, we got a light startup,
Speaker 1: but we're putting them in on discount. Was it ten
Speaker 1: percent off? Ten percent off for it till the end
Speaker 1: of the year there, and you don't have my hundreds
Speaker 1: of them and you don't have to send him to
Speaker 1: As a matter of fact, I've got sanctions against Zelenski.
Speaker 1: He can't buy any of my stuff. It's dirty cash,
Speaker 1: it's stolen money, and I don't accept stolen money. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is like doing business with some guy on the
Speaker 1: street who's selling you watches out of the back of
Speaker 1: his car or something. I would not send anything to Zelenski.
Speaker 1: Nancy Chambers. Drones have been seen and photographed all over
Speaker 1: South Jersey as well as North Jersey. Are they a
Speaker 1: food delivery system for Chris Christy? That's that's funny. I
Speaker 1: almost played a video that I saw on YouTube. Somebody
Speaker 1: put up this AI thing and it was like we
Speaker 1: solved the drone mystery and it's got all these unbelievably
Speaker 1: bloated and fat men floating in the air over New
Speaker 1: Jersey in New York. So maybe maybe that's what's really happening.
Speaker 1: You know, it's Jason Barker. The drones are tracking the
Speaker 1: watermarked black chain ballots from twenty to twenty. Trump is
Speaker 1: making his move trust plan. Yeah, that's right, Trust the plan. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that is the plan. The Trust is the plan. Knights
Speaker 1: of the Storm, thank you very much for the tip.
Speaker 1: I appreciate that. That's Jason Barker and Angry Tiger Knights
Speaker 1: of the Storm and you can find them on Twitter
Speaker 1: as well as on Rockfin. So the drones are tracking
Speaker 1: the watermark. Okay, they said that that was Jason Barker,
Speaker 1: but that's a nice of the storm. But anyway, thank
Speaker 1: you very much. I appreciate that three little birds. Where
Speaker 1: it is, these drones are looking for nuclear bombs in
Speaker 1: the US by searching for radiation. There's a few alt
Speaker 1: media networks saying this, Now, that's what they put that
Speaker 1: up there, I guess before I got to it, and
Speaker 1: I still think that it is. I think they're sniffing
Speaker 1: public reaction, and I think they're pushing people in authority
Speaker 1: as well as the public to accept these new draconian
Speaker 1: measures that are going to be ushered in with this
Speaker 1: new law. I'm absolutely certain that's the immediate goal. Long term,
Speaker 1: I think that they've got other things in mind as well.
Speaker 1: Stealth Patriot, thank you for the tip, he said, Q said,
Speaker 1: we're watching a movie. Great sci fi is my favorite
Speaker 1: and they have been. When you stop and think about
Speaker 1: this is something that is, you know, when you look
Speaker 1: at something that's multi generational, and and you look at
Speaker 1: the the occultic stuff. Stuble buying and what was the
Speaker 1: name Ramo or his widow, He used to be on
Speaker 1: Info Wars all the time. I never wanted to interview her,
Speaker 1: but you know, he was the guy who was doing
Speaker 1: all this occultic stuff. And you know, we're doing remote
Speaker 1: viewing and the Men who Steric Goats was kind of
Speaker 1: roughly based on that stuble behind stuff. But they were
Speaker 1: heavily into the occult, heavily into the occult. People like
Speaker 1: Michael Akino at the NSA. Yeah, Temple of Satan, well
Speaker 1: his was called something else. I think Temple of set Set,
Speaker 1: I think is what he called his same stuff. Right,
Speaker 1: these people are heavily into that. But I think I
Speaker 1: think that you know, when you look at the Satanic
Speaker 1: influences on people in Hollywood, and I've I've seen many
Speaker 1: accounts of some of the writers. They're saying, yeah, I
Speaker 1: just kind of laid back on the couch and I'm
Speaker 1: just channeling this stuff, right, whether or without drugs. What
Speaker 1: are you who's feeding them the narrative? I mean, it's
Speaker 1: bad enough when they get the narrative from the CIA
Speaker 1: of some of these people going direct to the source,
Speaker 1: skipping the CI, going direct to the source of the
Speaker 1: Hollywood people, and look at what have they been selling us.
Speaker 1: You talk about normalizing something, you know, going back to
Speaker 1: the nineteen fifties, probably when I was a child, maybe
Speaker 1: I don't know what the date was. They did the
Speaker 1: Day There Stood Still. Robert Why is a great directory,
Speaker 1: did sound of Music and other things like that, but
Speaker 1: he took that narrative, you know, the Day There Stood Still,
Speaker 1: the UFO landing there in Washington, all the rest of
Speaker 1: the stuff, Gort Clattau and all the rest of them,
Speaker 1: you know. So, yeah, they've been laying that narrative for
Speaker 1: a very very very long time. Sci Fi. That's the
Speaker 1: movie we're watching. Twelve June seventeen seventy six. Thank you
Speaker 1: very much. That's very generous. I appreciate that we doubled
Speaker 1: up that DK fuel gauge in the last month of
Speaker 1: this year or what, Yes, did we update that today,
Speaker 1: the fuel gauge. I don't think he's been updated, but
Speaker 1: we got some more to move, so yeah, she's saying
Speaker 1: that we haven't updated. Scott Helmer, thank you very much. Yes,
Speaker 1: thank you for the tip, he says, sharing that I
Speaker 1: have a new song out today. Go Go Go is
Speaker 1: available everywhere you download and stream music, so look at
Speaker 1: Go Go Go Scott Helmer, and you can also go
Speaker 1: to his website Scotthelmer dot com. I like Scott's music.
Speaker 1: He did a couple of songs back with the Lockdown
Speaker 1: and Pandemic to push back again stip, but I mean
Speaker 1: it's not aloud. He's got a lot of different topics,
Speaker 1: a lot of different songs. You can see those at
Speaker 1: Scott Heilmer dot com. But you can also download and
Speaker 1: stream them, and of course that's how he gets paid
Speaker 1: by those streaming revenue. Dustin Helm, thank you for the tip.
Speaker 1: I appreciate that. And Chevkin three two one Zelenski would
Speaker 1: rather well wear stilettos and leather. That's probably true if
Speaker 1: he wears anything at all right, uh so where are
Speaker 1: we now in this society? Listen to this. We've now
Speaker 1: got some government schools that are using AI to swat
Speaker 1: students at home. That's what it is. I'm in the headline.
Speaker 1: So it's to send police to students' homes. They're swatting them. Now,
Speaker 1: they may not come in with you know, armor and
Speaker 1: kick the door down, but it's essentially what they're doing.
Speaker 1: The schools are monitoring and spying on the children. And again,
Speaker 1: everything that the government does is about surveilling its other schools.
Speaker 1: I guess the schools feel like they can do anything.
Speaker 1: They don't have to worry about getting legal permissions. That's
Speaker 1: what you know, the Homeland security and the military and
Speaker 1: the police that they want the ability to identify and
Speaker 1: to track everybody with this stuff. But schools are already
Speaker 1: using a eye powered software to accuse teenagers of wanting
Speaker 1: to harm themselves and sending the cops to their homes
Speaker 1: as a result. What's okay, that's not up on the thing,
Speaker 1: often with chaotic and traumatic results. New York Times says
Speaker 1: software being installed on high school students school issued devices.
Speaker 1: Yeah see, yeah, we got a free Obama phone. I
Speaker 1: just thought the Obama phone, Lady Obama phone, I got
Speaker 1: a MoMA phone for your bomba phone. School issued devices
Speaker 1: are they giving them phones? Are they giving them computers?
Speaker 1: Why are they giving them? But it's a trap. See,
Speaker 1: every time the government gives you something, it is a trap, right,
Speaker 1: And this is one way they're in trapping the kids.
Speaker 1: The school issued devices track every word that these kids type.
Speaker 1: Maybe they should go back to writing things. You know,
Speaker 1: I got away from writing until I went back to
Speaker 1: these things here that I do my annotation on starting
Speaker 1: to get my handwriting back. Nearly got illigible. But a
Speaker 1: lot of these kids don't even learn how to do that.
Speaker 1: They start by typing and touching and all this stuff,
Speaker 1: and they don't learn how to do it. Here's a
Speaker 1: professional tip to the future generation. Being able to handwrite
Speaker 1: notes on paper. That's going to be a superpower in
Speaker 1: the future, pass along as slips of paper, have committees
Speaker 1: of correspondence. Hey it worked, it worked, you know a
Speaker 1: couple hundred years ago. To work now. An algorithm then
Speaker 1: analyzes whatever they're typing. Everything they're typing it's looking at,
Speaker 1: and that it analyzes their language for evidence that the
Speaker 1: teenagers want to harm themselves. Unsurprisingly, the software can get
Speaker 1: it wrong by woefully misinterpreting what students are actually trying
Speaker 1: to say. Isn't this exactly the same things being done
Speaker 1: with all the transgender stuff. Oh well, you know, we
Speaker 1: have to we're going to misconstrue what they're saying. We're
Speaker 1: going to manipulate them, or we got to protect them
Speaker 1: from themselves. They got to protect them from suicide. That
Speaker 1: means that we've all got to worship the gender's flipping
Speaker 1: and all the rest of this stuff. A seventeen year
Speaker 1: old in Missouri was awakened by the police in the
Speaker 1: middle of the night. As it turns out, a poem
Speaker 1: that she had written years ago triggered the alarms of
Speaker 1: a software. Some software called go Guardian Beacon, which is
Speaker 1: maker describes as a way to quote safeguard students from
Speaker 1: physical harm unquote. She said, it's one of the worst
Speaker 1: experiences of her life, said her mother to The New
Speaker 1: York Times. Internet safety software employed during the COVID nineteen
Speaker 1: shutdowns led to widespread surveillance of students in their own homes.
Speaker 1: So they don't have to give you the device. They
Speaker 1: could give you the software. So she can do some
Speaker 1: stuff at home, and maybe that stuff remains As in
Speaker 1: New York Times reports, we have no idea if they're
Speaker 1: at all effective or accurate, since the companies have yet
Speaker 1: to release any data. However, the software remains highly invasive
Speaker 1: and could represent a massive intrusion of privacy. You think
Speaker 1: by definition it does. And of course what we're seeing
Speaker 1: here is parenting by the government. Again, the parents can't
Speaker 1: be trusted with this stuff. The government has to do it.
Speaker 1: I think the government can't be trusted with it either.
Speaker 1: Parents can make a mistake, the government can make a mistake.
Speaker 1: The difference is that if the parents make a mistake,
Speaker 1: they don't come around trying to shoot the kids, which
Speaker 1: the government can do. Baltimore City councilman said, I think
Speaker 1: it's terribly misguided to send police, especially knowing what I
Speaker 1: know and believe of school police in general, to children's homes.
Speaker 1: School police that was not even a thing when we
Speaker 1: went to school. One of the most amazing things, and
Speaker 1: of course it was a key reason why we chose
Speaker 1: not to put any of our kids in school. I
Speaker 1: looked at that and I said, you know what they're doing.
Speaker 1: They're training them to live in a prison. Society. We're
Speaker 1: going to have everybody go through metal detectors all the time.
Speaker 1: Look at how that is proliferated out of the TSA
Speaker 1: all these different places. So it went to the schools,
Speaker 1: and it went to the airports of the TSA, and
Speaker 1: what was it is about twenty fifteen, I guess. We
Speaker 1: went to Orlando that time and they had it at
Speaker 1: You know, we knew Orlando pretty well. We had lived
Speaker 1: in Tampa and everything, so we were there in the area,
Speaker 1: partly for business and partly for vacation. We decided that
Speaker 1: we would go over and kind of you know, walk
Speaker 1: through the area outside of the Universal studios. They had
Speaker 1: a lot of restaurants and things like that. We get
Speaker 1: over there and they got like TSA checkpoints. At that point,
Speaker 1: I got so angry. We just turned around and left.
Speaker 1: I said, I'm not going through this. They can do
Speaker 1: without my money with something like that. But it's everywhere.
Speaker 1: It's pervasive everywhere. And I said, this is what they're
Speaker 1: trying to to normalize and have normalize with the kids.
Speaker 1: You know, the kids get frisked and searched and all
Speaker 1: this other kind of stuff, and then they had lockdowns.
Speaker 1: They were normalizing the lockdowns, and so of course a
Speaker 1: lot of these people don't have any problem when Donald
Speaker 1: Trump does it to them. Open AI whistleblower has been
Speaker 1: found dead in the San Francisco apartment. This is a
Speaker 1: guy who was blowing the whistle on what they were
Speaker 1: doing in terms of and had a direct application to
Speaker 1: this massive lawsuit about copyright violations. A former open ai
Speaker 1: researcher known for whistleblowing the blockbuster AI company face a
Speaker 1: swell of lawsuits over his business model, has died. And
Speaker 1: what they were saying was attorneys for the New York
Speaker 1: at times, so there was someone who had quote unique
Speaker 1: and relevant documents that would support their case against open ai.
Speaker 1: What is the case. Well, three months after he publicly
Speaker 1: accused open ai of violating US copyright laws while developing
Speaker 1: chat GPT, so they said he was one of the
Speaker 1: developers working there. He says, I know they're openly violating
Speaker 1: the copyright laws. He has unique documents about that. We
Speaker 1: were talking about some really really big bucks at stake
Speaker 1: here in these lawsuits, and he turns up dead. Exxon
Speaker 1: is going to build large off grid natural gas plants
Speaker 1: to exclusively sell electricity to AI data centers. I mentioned
Speaker 1: this earlier. Zero Hedges also you can find at technocracynews
Speaker 1: dot com.
Speaker 4: This is.
Speaker 1: Another example of where we get nothing, and we've seen
Speaker 1: this as well. They're going to exclusively set up bring
Speaker 1: online new nuclear power plants after people have had questions
Speaker 1: about their safety, questions about well, what happens to the
Speaker 1: spent fuel. There are technological solutions for that stuff, but
Speaker 1: they're not going to wait for it. They don't have
Speaker 1: any technological solutions for it yet. It's just stored on site.
Speaker 1: And so that was one of the things to put
Speaker 1: a moratorium on this. And quite frankly, I'm a lot
Speaker 1: more concerned about radio it. Make sure fly some drones
Speaker 1: over those areas. If you want to sniff some nuclear weapons,
Speaker 1: do it over there. Nuclear radiation, but I'm a lot
Speaker 1: more concerned about nuclear radiation than I am CO two.
Speaker 1: CO two is fine, nuclear radiation not so much. So
Speaker 1: That's what I'm concerned about. And yet this is what
Speaker 1: everybody's raising to. But now Exon wants to get in
Speaker 1: on the deal. And by moving to this, you know
Speaker 1: again we're seeing yet again that they're going to shut
Speaker 1: down the power grid for the rest of us. They're
Speaker 1: going to have their own separate power grid. That's a
Speaker 1: key takeaway. And we see this coming over and over again.
Speaker 1: But they are going to be pulling this in in
Speaker 1: order to normalize carbon capture and to make money off
Speaker 1: of that. It isn't just nuclear projects that are getting
Speaker 1: in on the selling a power to data center's trend.
Speaker 1: Now Exxon is also joining the trend. And again, Rex
Speaker 1: Tillerson I said in two thousand and seventeen transition, when
Speaker 1: everybody was talking about the fact that Trump was thinking
Speaker 1: about making Rex Tillerson Secretary of State, I said, this guy,
Speaker 1: first of all, at the Boy Scouts, he normalized the
Speaker 1: homosexuality that they injected into the and openly accepted in
Speaker 1: the Boy Scouts. But I said, this guy is full
Speaker 1: on a green grifter. And all these people saying, you
Speaker 1: don't know what you're talking about, this is Exon. That's
Speaker 1: exactly what they're doing. If you look at these offshore
Speaker 1: windmills that are being put on the coast of Long
Speaker 1: Island that are going to make the electricity there, by
Speaker 1: conservative estimates, five times more expensive. I mean, just their
Speaker 1: profit alone is going to be nearly double what the
Speaker 1: entire cost is right now. And those projects are being
Speaker 1: run by oil companies, foreign oil companies that you likely
Speaker 1: haven't heard of, but oil companies nevertheless coming out of Scandinavia.
Speaker 1: But here's Exxon. Exxon's planning a large natural gas powered
Speaker 1: plant to supply electricity directly to data centers, incorporating technology
Speaker 1: to capture ninety percent of its carbon emissions. According to
Speaker 1: New York Times, this will be Xon's first four plant
Speaker 1: that's not dedicated to its own operations. Carbon capture systems
Speaker 1: remain rare and costly, despite federal subsidies limiting their broader adoption.
Speaker 1: This is one of the things that we're going to
Speaker 1: see with the Trump administration. As we've been saying for
Speaker 1: the longest time. You look at Governor Bergham and Gnome
Speaker 1: of North and South Dakota now being brought into the
Speaker 1: Trump administration. They were pushing the carbon capture pipelines and
Speaker 1: things like that, using it for fracking, storing some of it,
Speaker 1: and so forth. And then the big corporation that's running
Speaker 1: the pipeline to take this supposedly toxic carbon dioxide and
Speaker 1: pump it across the continent to be used in North
Speaker 1: and South Dakota. So the guy running the pipeline. That
Speaker 1: CEO plus the two governors of the state coming to
Speaker 1: our a lago, all working with Trump at the same time.
Speaker 1: And now you've got these grifters like Lucky Lutnik and
Speaker 1: all the rest of them. They are heavily into carbon capture,
Speaker 1: carbon taxes, blockchain stuff to track your carbon usage, and
Speaker 1: all the rest of this stuff. This is what is
Speaker 1: being prepared as part of the technocracies control of the
Speaker 1: coming Trump administration. And make no doubt about it, technocracy
Speaker 1: is controlling it. The ex CEO, Linda Yakarino, if I'm
Speaker 1: pronouncing that correctly, has endorsed a bill to promote digital
Speaker 1: ID and wine press this is Winepress News. This is
Speaker 1: as Elon Musk is seeking to transform X into a
Speaker 1: Chinese surveillance state app we chat, And that's exactly true.
Speaker 1: He's even said that. He even said he wants it
Speaker 1: to be something like we Chat. Well, we know what
Speaker 1: that's about. The X CEO recently announced her part in
Speaker 1: revising the Kids Online Safety Act KOSA, a digital censorship
Speaker 1: bill that would force social networks to moderate specific content
Speaker 1: that is deemed harmful and inappropriate for children, writes wine
Speaker 1: Press News. Absolutely true. It opens the pathway for broader
Speaker 1: implementation of digital IDs for things like age farifications. It
Speaker 1: said over and over again, that's the back door way
Speaker 1: to normalize ID. And we've seen these being put out
Speaker 1: in numerous ways, especially by conservatives. Oh well, we got
Speaker 1: to protect children from harmful content online or from pornography
Speaker 1: or whatever, so let's have a digital ID for that.
Speaker 1: We've got to protect people from having their jobs taken
Speaker 1: by illegal aliens, let's have ID for that. We've got
Speaker 1: to shut the border down, Well, we need biometric idea
Speaker 1: at the border and at all the airports and everything
Speaker 1: for that as well. Every solution, every problem, the solution
Speaker 1: is a digital idea, and this is something that's being
Speaker 1: pushed by Republicans left and right. Musk has previously indicated
Speaker 1: that he seeks to turn the platform into something that
Speaker 1: stimulates China's all in one we chat app, which the
Speaker 1: Chinese government is using to enforce their social credit score
Speaker 1: surveillance system. What do you think the carbon tax stuff
Speaker 1: is going to do as well? But do you think
Speaker 1: all this blockchain stuff is going to do? They can
Speaker 1: follow every single transaction, and you've got all of these
Speaker 1: big banking companies MasterCard, all the rest of them. Everybody's
Speaker 1: working on ways to do this, and everybody in the
Speaker 1: Trump administration that has anything to do with anything financial
Speaker 1: is all about this stuff. The Electronic Frontier Foundation EFF
Speaker 1: provided a critical overview of what the Kids on Online
Speaker 1: Safety Act COSA is. They said, the bill allows the
Speaker 1: FTC Commission to sue apps and websites that don't take
Speaker 1: measures to prevent and mitigate various harms to miners, including anxiety, depression,
Speaker 1: substance abuse, and eating disorders. See the FTC, the FCC,
Speaker 1: all these different agencies are kind of in a turf
Speaker 1: war right now, trying to carve out things that they
Speaker 1: can do to regulate the Internet. That's what it's about.
Speaker 1: That's how they build their little fiefdoms, their little empires.
Speaker 1: KOSA is an unconstitutional censorship bill that gives the Federal
Speaker 1: Trade Commission and potentially state attorneys general the power to
Speaker 1: restrict protected online speech that they find objectionable. The bill's
Speaker 1: original co sponsors, Richard Blumenthal, Democratic Connecticut and Marsha Blackburn,
Speaker 1: Republican here in Tennessee. That's what she wants to do.
Speaker 1: They dismissed objections to the bill as a false narrative
Speaker 1: said it would be weaponized by unelected bureaucrats to sinsor Americans. No, no,
Speaker 1: of course not. They would never weaponize anything against us,
Speaker 1: would they. Let's just give them unlimited power, says Marsha Blackburn. However,
Speaker 1: the mechanism for ensuring compliance, that is age verification, is
Speaker 1: going to require implementation of a digital ID system. Oh well, okay,
Speaker 1: so it will be weaponized. It will be used to
Speaker 1: track us. And then we go back to Musk and
Speaker 1: his fascination with becoming we Chat. His involvement with US
Speaker 1: speaks to Musk's desire to transform X into an all
Speaker 1: in one app that emulates China's we chat platform. This
Speaker 1: is not speculation part of me, or Wine Press News
Speaker 1: or anybody else. He's said this publicly said it put
Speaker 1: it all in one place which internal be used just
Speaker 1: as it is by the Chinese government for their social
Speaker 1: credit score. After rebranding Twitter to X, Musk revealed last
Speaker 1: year that X would become the next iteration of an
Speaker 1: all on one application platform that can facilitate social media,
Speaker 1: public and private documentation, banking, and financial services. He said
Speaker 1: Twitter was acquired as an accelerant for X. The everything
Speaker 1: app He said, this is not simply a company renaming
Speaker 1: itself but doing the same thing. In the months to come,
Speaker 1: we will add comprehensive communications and the ability to conduct
Speaker 1: your entire financial world. He says, Well, he's going to
Speaker 1: need some political help and cover for that, and of
Speaker 1: course he's got it now he's got control of Trump.
Speaker 1: That same week, he said X would become half of
Speaker 1: the global financial system. I've played that clip over and
Speaker 1: over again, right, he said, it become half of the
Speaker 1: world's global financial system if done right, he said, And
Speaker 1: of course he's going to have to have big political
Speaker 1: muscle to make this happen. I tell you that two
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty million dollars that he invested in Trump.
Speaker 1: It's looking really really cheap like a bargain now, doesn't it.
Speaker 1: He also said that I'll be done in a way
Speaker 1: that people do not think of when it comes to banking.
Speaker 1: But he said, he'll be quote the most efficient database
Speaker 1: for the thing that is money, whatever that is. He said, Remember,
Speaker 1: I've played that clip many times. Yeah, when we look
Speaker 1: at this, and I'll just remind you again it's excellent
Speaker 1: report that was on wine Press that I talked about
Speaker 1: about tokenization. All this stuff comes together, all of this
Speaker 1: mania about crypto, because crypto is going to be there
Speaker 1: to help them follow what you're doing, but it's also
Speaker 1: to get you accustomed to tokenizing everything, everything, everything on
Speaker 1: the blockchain, everything visible to them. And you know, there
Speaker 1: was an excellent report I covered that, and again you
Speaker 1: can find that in the archives of Wine Press News.
Speaker 1: But he also picked up on what New York Governor
Speaker 1: hokel has proposed, a five hundred dollars inflation refund stimulus check.
Speaker 1: Now we're going to do a stimulus check for inflation
Speaker 1: that they cause. How about that? You know, the whole
Speaker 1: thing just comes full circle. Let's print money. You know,
Speaker 1: Janet Yellen, as Tony Rdaman pointed out, forty two percent
Speaker 1: of the debt of this country has had over its
Speaker 1: two hundred plus years of his existence, and she's done
Speaker 1: forty two percent of it. And you look at how
Speaker 1: the stimulus checks from Trump exploded the deficit, and we
Speaker 1: knew that was going to happen. You had Thomas Massey
Speaker 1: pushing back against that, and Trump said We're going to
Speaker 1: primary him out. Unfortunately, neither Trump nor the Israeli government
Speaker 1: could get Thomas Massey out so good for the people
Speaker 1: of his jurisdiction, the judgment to keep him there against
Speaker 1: those kinds of attacks. But it's all about universal basic income,
Speaker 1: and it's all about moving the Overton window. And that
Speaker 1: was what was so reprehensible. It wasn't just a financial
Speaker 1: recklessness of Trump, you know, leveraging us into the kind
Speaker 1: of debt that bankrupted his casinos, but it was the
Speaker 1: fact that it was moving the Overton window for universal
Speaker 1: basic income. And here's another New Yorker, another New York Democrat,
Speaker 1: just like Trump Governor Hucklebury's Gerald Slnthy. Callser, you got
Speaker 1: another New York Democrat who was out there talking about
Speaker 1: doing stimulus checks. And just remember when we're talking about
Speaker 1: universal basic income. Coming back to Elon Musk. If you remember,
Speaker 1: back in the twenty sixteen election cycle, Andrew Yang ran
Speaker 1: and his initial platform was all about universal basic income
Speaker 1: and nothing else, and Elon Musk gave over a million dollars.
Speaker 1: Elon Musk wants this universal basic can come, just as
Speaker 1: all the technocrats do. He is one hundred percent on
Speaker 1: board with a technocrat agenda. His grandfather was one of
Speaker 1: the big pioneers in the technocracy. And so here we
Speaker 1: have Hochel announced New York State's first ever inflation refund,
Speaker 1: which is stimulus Check, which would deliver about three billion
Speaker 1: dollars in direct payments to around eight point six million
Speaker 1: New York taxpayers statewide in twenty twenty five. And it's
Speaker 1: going to be a life changing amount. Three hundred to
Speaker 1: five hundred dollars, three hundred dollars to single taxpayers who
Speaker 1: make up to one hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year,
Speaker 1: and a payment of five hundred dollars for joint tax
Speaker 1: filers making up to three hundred thousand a year. One
Speaker 1: of the several proposals to help address the cost of living.
Speaker 1: They'll be unveiled as part of the governor's upcoming State
Speaker 1: of the State. So she says, I'll say this as
Speaker 1: New York's first mom governor, should we call her big mother?
Speaker 1: A big mother? Hockel, I'm on your side. I believe
Speaker 1: that this extra inflation driven sales tax revenue shouldn't be
Speaker 1: spent by the state. It's your money and it should
Speaker 1: be back in your pockets. Back in your pockets. There
Speaker 1: you go, show you the money, show you the She's
Speaker 1: actually I got to find the video clip of this.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is so patronizingly stupid. It sounds like
Speaker 1: she's talking to a toddler. You know, your money should
Speaker 1: be back in your pockets. Back in your pockets. There
Speaker 1: you go, show you the money, Show you the money.
Speaker 1: This will help with your expenses to buy groceries for
Speaker 1: your family. Probably three hundred bucks probably doesn't cover one
Speaker 1: week's worth of groceries in New York City, not even
Speaker 1: close to it. Three hundred five hundred dollars these days
Speaker 1: is a nothing, Burger says. Whine resues, and he's right.
Speaker 1: The dollars purchasing power we already greatly eroded. Even further,
Speaker 1: inflation will be much higher than due to the interest
Speaker 1: rates cuts that are coming. And then, of course we
Speaker 1: can expect to see quantitative easing again like we did
Speaker 1: in Trump's first term. And then you can add to
Speaker 1: that tariffs. Terraffs says, as far as I'm concerned, she
Speaker 1: might as well said let them eat cake. I think
Speaker 1: probably what she would say is let them eat twinkies.
Speaker 1: I'm your big mother, and you can have a twinkie.
Speaker 1: How about that. We're going to take a quick break
Speaker 1: before we do. I want to thank some of the
Speaker 1: people have left tips. Dougalug thank you very much, he says,
Speaker 1: there's a little gas for the tank. Thank you. George McDonough,
Speaker 1: thank you very much for the tip, says Merry Christmas everyone,
Speaker 1: Thank you. Teresa Andrea reminds me of the DARE program.
Speaker 1: They forgot to tell kids that be put into foster
Speaker 1: care when they ratted out their parents for smoking cannabis. Yeah, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: it's As a matter of fact, we got something coming
Speaker 1: up here that is tied in to that as well.
Speaker 1: And kind of an update. Atomic Dog help David Knight
Speaker 1: expose government corruption by liking the video, sharing on social
Speaker 1: media and subscribing. Thank you and thank you Atomic Dog
Speaker 1: for always reminding me. We haven't changed it yet, but
Speaker 1: I got the domain name to make it a little
Speaker 1: bit simpler. We had a friend at church who could
Speaker 1: not find the album. Wanted to find the album, and
Speaker 1: of course searching on Google, you're not going to find me.
Speaker 1: You might you can find me on yandex, which is
Speaker 1: the Russian search engine. It turns out, because it's a
Speaker 1: focused in Russia as well, that it's number two with
Speaker 1: three percent. Google's got eighty plus percent of the market.
Speaker 1: Number two they've got like eighty something percent of Search
Speaker 1: engine market. Number two is yandex. But at least they
Speaker 1: know where I am, and they know where my website is.
Speaker 1: But if you search for my website, you're gonna find it.
Speaker 1: And we never could get Davidnightshow dot com. That was
Speaker 1: already taken. So put in the Davidnightshow dot com and
Speaker 1: that's a little bit hard for some people to find.
Speaker 1: So I found I thought. I was thinking about that
Speaker 1: over the weekend because of a friend who couldn't find us,
Speaker 1: and I thought, you know, let me look at some
Speaker 1: of the alternatives. Davidknight dot news. I just bought that,
Speaker 1: so we're gonna get an alias for that. We're gonna
Speaker 1: start using that because it's shorter and it's to the
Speaker 1: point less. You know, what the show's about shows about news,
Speaker 1: not only about news, but it's primarily about news. So
Speaker 1: we got that as well. Marky Mark, thank you for
Speaker 1: the tip, he said. If I don't know, I don't
Speaker 1: know if we the people will be deprived of power,
Speaker 1: TP TB won't be able to monitor us and give
Speaker 1: us electronic bread and circuses via the Internet without it,
Speaker 1: how else would they spy on us? Oh, I think
Speaker 1: they've got ways. I mean, all you need is your
Speaker 1: little cell phone, right that doesn't require a lot of power,
Speaker 1: but they will make sure that you don't have enough
Speaker 1: power to the things that you want to do. It's
Speaker 1: an excellent movie that just came out called twenty thirty five,
Speaker 1: I think, and it shows a day in the life
Speaker 1: of ordinary Americans if they get their way for this
Speaker 1: kind of stuff. I'll show you a little bit of
Speaker 1: that tomorrow. I'm not going to get into it today.
Speaker 1: We're going to take a quick break and when we
Speaker 1: come back, we're going to take a look at some
Speaker 1: of the politics that's going on, and well it's going
Speaker 1: to take a look at quantum computing. There's been some
Speaker 1: announcements so some breakthroughs. Google said that they have tapped
Speaker 1: into a parallel universe, so we're going to talk about that.
Speaker 1: Is it a threat to bitcoin? A lot of different
Speaker 1: things are being talked about with the quantum computing. So
Speaker 1: we're going to cover all that stuff when we come back,
Speaker 1: and we'll be right back.
Speaker 3: Fast. Somebody go.
Speaker 4: Back.
Speaker 2: You're listening to the David Knight Show.
Speaker 1: I wish I had a Christmas Night Album.
Speaker 14: You can get the Christmas Night Album at the Davidnightshow
Speaker 14: dot Com for just thirteen ninety nine.
Speaker 1: There's right in the second floor there, say.
Speaker 5: Would you wish, George, Well, not just one wish, your
Speaker 5: whole hatful.
Speaker 14: First, I'm going to the Davidnightshow dot Com and purchase
Speaker 14: the Christmas Night Album. Then I'm gonna listen to Christmas
Speaker 14: classics like are.
Speaker 1: You gonna throw it up?
Speaker 13: I want the Christmas Night Album too.
Speaker 5: That's pretty good.
Speaker 8: Hello, girls, can't you come out to me?
Speaker 12: Can't you come come old?
Speaker 14: David's Christmas Night Album includes twenty one instrumental Christmas melodies
Speaker 14: like God Rest You, Merry Gentlemen, Silent Night, and is
Speaker 14: all New I'll be home for Christmas?
Speaker 3: What do you want?
Speaker 11: You want the moon?
Speaker 14: Just say the word and I'll throw a glasshole around
Speaker 14: and pull it down. I'll take it in what and
Speaker 14: then I'll buy you your own download of David Knight's
Speaker 14: Christmas Night Album.
Speaker 1: All right, and Marky Mark New Jersey, thank you for
Speaker 1: the tip, he says again. The powers of be also
Speaker 1: need to get the power on to implement CBDC in
Speaker 1: the bast system. No power, no CBD no control over us. Well,
Speaker 1: I agree, but I think they could also make sure
Speaker 1: that they get the power for the places that you
Speaker 1: might go to buy something, of course, mostly would be online.
Speaker 1: They got enough that they can get you online, enough
Speaker 1: that they can monitor, you know, get your phone going,
Speaker 1: that type of thing. So yeah, we'll see what happens.
Speaker 1: It's going to be very easy, I think, and we
Speaker 1: see this more and more. A two tier power system.
Speaker 1: They can do a two tier power system that doesn't
Speaker 1: just include the technocrats and their AI. They can also
Speaker 1: use the tier that enables retailers and the Internet, but
Speaker 1: make sure that you can't do pretty much anything. And
Speaker 1: of course that's what the CBDC would be used for.
Speaker 1: It's to monitor your food, your travel, your clothing, that
Speaker 1: type of thing. Wally Wallris, thank you very much for
Speaker 1: the tip. Merry Christmas. David and family, thank you very much. Wally,
Speaker 1: if that's your name, appreciate that. And Scott Tillmer thank
Speaker 1: you for another tip. I appreciate that. Is there is
Speaker 1: another twenty let's get the tip jar to two fifty today.
Speaker 1: Thank you. It's holiday time. Merry Christmas. Thank you very much,
Speaker 1: and just to remind everybody Scott Helmer Scott Heilmer dot com.
Speaker 1: I think it was. But the new song that he's
Speaker 1: got his Go Go Go. You can find that on
Speaker 1: all the different streaming sites as well, and that helped
Speaker 1: him a lot. I'm sure if you search for it,
Speaker 1: that would bring him up in the in the search algorithms.
Speaker 1: Let's take a look at what is happening in politics
Speaker 1: and is Biden is on his way out. He's talking
Speaker 1: about allowing California to ban new gas powered cars. California,
Speaker 1: eleven other states want to halt the sale of new
Speaker 1: gas powered cars by twenty thirty five. Trump is expected
Speaker 1: to revoke these permissions within days of his inauguration, and
Speaker 1: of course he could do that, right if Biden is
Speaker 1: going to do this by executive order, he could change it.
Speaker 1: But of course we've already seen Trump say well, I'm
Speaker 1: going to get rid of DAKA, which is an executive
Speaker 1: order by Obama. But he didn't do it. Instead, he
Speaker 1: pleaded with the courts to tell him whether he could
Speaker 1: or not, and the courts of course say no, you can't.
Speaker 1: Same thing with Paris Climate Accord. He pretended that we
Speaker 1: were in the Paris Climate Accord, which we weren't. We
Speaker 1: were put in there by Obama, not by the Senate
Speaker 1: ratifying a treaty, and he pretended that we were in it,
Speaker 1: pretended that he couldn't get out of it till the
Speaker 1: final days of his administration because there's a time limit
Speaker 1: for exiting of four years that they put in there,
Speaker 1: I believe specifically for America. And so the question is,
Speaker 1: you know, if Biden puts something like this in with
Speaker 1: an executive order, Yeah, Trump could get us out, but
Speaker 1: would he because he didn't do that with Dhaka, he
Speaker 1: didn't do it with the Paris Climate Accord. California has
Speaker 1: imposed the most ridiculous car regulations anywhere in the world,
Speaker 1: with mandates to move to all electric said Trump, and
Speaker 1: I will terminate that. The state would most likely challenge
Speaker 1: any revocation, setting up a legal battle with a new administration.
Speaker 1: And I think this is why Biden is doing it
Speaker 1: right now. The Biden Cartel. It's not Biden, but you
Speaker 1: know whoever it is, it's really running the place there
Speaker 1: just called the cartel. The Biden Cartel is weighing in
Speaker 1: on this in advance of a court case to give
Speaker 1: it more weight. The nineteen seventy Clean Air Act. The
Speaker 1: EPA has four decades allowed California, which has historically had
Speaker 1: the most polluted air in the nation, to enact tougher
Speaker 1: clean air standards than those set by the federal government.
Speaker 1: Federal law also allows other states, under certain circumstances, to
Speaker 1: adopt California's standards as their own. The EPA has to
Speaker 1: be killed. The Department of Energy must be killed. And
Speaker 1: if they won't do that, as I said last week,
Speaker 1: the thing that needs to be killed. If you're not
Speaker 1: going to get rid of these agencies, which they won't,
Speaker 1: they should at least get rid of the EPCA that
Speaker 1: was put in in nineteen seventy five. That was the
Speaker 1: congressional act that gave these organizations the power to prohibit
Speaker 1: and de ban based on emissions or on energy use.
Speaker 1: If you want to stop all of this nonsense, like
Speaker 1: I said last week, we had that one bill that's
Speaker 1: introduced by Representative Ogels out of Tennessee. They called it
Speaker 1: the Laundry Liberty Act. Well, let's liberate more than laundry.
Speaker 1: Let's liberate let's get rid of this meddling in our
Speaker 1: personal lives by the federal government. There is no constitutional
Speaker 1: authority for the EPCA to exist. They don't have that power.
Speaker 1: Congress can't give power to a bureaucracy that Congress doesn't
Speaker 1: have legitimately, And according to the ninth and tenth Amendment,
Speaker 1: they don't have that power legitimately, so they can't delegate
Speaker 1: that to the bureaucracy. They delegate it to the bureaucracy,
Speaker 1: so they don't have to take the heat. Oh, it's
Speaker 1: that bad agency that we just can't control that is
Speaker 1: doing this. It's not us, well, it is them, because
Speaker 1: they could stop it. They were the ones who pretended
Speaker 1: to have power, pretended that they could give this non
Speaker 1: existent power to the EPCA, to these two agencies, the
Speaker 1: EPA as well as the Department of Energy through the EPCA.
Speaker 1: They need to get rid of the EPCA because if
Speaker 1: they don't, they're going to constantly be meddling in every
Speaker 1: appliance and heating and air conditioning in our cars and
Speaker 1: all the rest of stuff until they ban everything. Biden
Speaker 1: still with his partons. He's now done some more commutations,
Speaker 1: one of them of a quote notorious fraudster Eric Bloom,
Speaker 1: who defrauded investors of over six hundred and sixty five
Speaker 1: million in the largest single financial fraud in the history
Speaker 1: of Chicago's federal court. This is very similar to what
Speaker 1: Trump did. By the way, one of his pardons was,
Speaker 1: if you remember, he pardoned Shalom Weiss, who's fraud mainly
Speaker 1: with other Jewish people in his own community. Con Man,
Speaker 1: you know, same thing we see with January the six,
Speaker 1: coming after your own people. And he the fraud was
Speaker 1: so egregious, bankrupting so many people, they gave the longest
Speaker 1: prison sentence any white collar criminal has ever been given,
Speaker 1: eight hundred and forty five year prison sentence. And Trump
Speaker 1: pardoned him for that. And so now Biden is doing
Speaker 1: the same type of stuff. This guy, Eric Bloom, defrauded
Speaker 1: people with six hundred and sixty five million dollars. Biden
Speaker 1: commuted the sentences of two of Chicago's most notorious fraudsters,
Speaker 1: former Dixon Comptroller Rita Crondwell, who embezzled nearly fifty four
Speaker 1: million from the tiny town to fund a lavish lifestyle,
Speaker 1: and Eric Bloom, the one time leader of a North
Speaker 1: north Brook management firm who to fraud investors of more
Speaker 1: than six hundred and sixty five million. Biden also commuted
Speaker 1: the sentences of fraudsters Timothy m McGinn McGinn and David
Speaker 1: Smith and Christopher Schwartz.
Speaker 8: And so.
Speaker 1: McGinn was a former Albany and investment broker. They call
Speaker 1: him brokers because after you do business with him, you're
Speaker 1: a broker than you were before. He was convicted along
Speaker 1: with David Smith more than a decade ago of defrauding
Speaker 1: the hundreds of clients and a massive scheme that wiped
Speaker 1: out life savings for many of their victims. You know,
Speaker 1: just like Trump's Shalom Weiss did. Schwartz is a fifty
Speaker 1: four year old Watertown food and restaurant entrepreneur who has
Speaker 1: sentence in twenty seventeen to one hundred and fifty months
Speaker 1: in federal prison for committing tax evasion and defrauding lenders
Speaker 1: and investors of more than nineteen million dollars for over
Speaker 1: a decade. Mister Schwartz stole millions from lenders investors in
Speaker 1: the United States using multiple schemes, shell companies, and layers
Speaker 1: of transactions and an effort to escape detection. Well imagine
Speaker 1: Biden liked that. That's so much like, Hey, this guy's good.
Speaker 1: Maybe he could help me when I retire. He's the
Speaker 1: only good at the shell corporations and fraud. Biden may
Speaker 1: actually end up giving Trump a run for his money
Speaker 1: with his own corrupt pardons list, says Information Liberation. This
Speaker 1: list so far from Biden, is so massive that it's
Speaker 1: likely going to take reporters weeks to get through it,
Speaker 1: if they ever do. And the White House is just
Speaker 1: suggesting this is just round one. I mean, this is
Speaker 1: this type of stuff usually gets dropped the last day
Speaker 1: or so. Here we are still, you know, a month out.
Speaker 1: Biden administration is scrambling to auction off the border wall
Speaker 1: sections before Trump takes office. They got stores of material
Speaker 1: to build the border wall. All of that construction stopped
Speaker 1: when Biden became president. But how in the world does
Speaker 1: he get to auction off stuff? Didn Mexico pay for
Speaker 1: the wall? Doesn't Mexico have something to say about this?
Speaker 1: Come on, what's the And of course a wall isn't
Speaker 1: going to save anything anyway. It's the welfare magnet. You
Speaker 1: need to get rid of the welfare. Why are we
Speaker 1: offering wonderful welfare to people who are not citizens, enticing
Speaker 1: them to come here. Well, of course it's a strategy.
Speaker 1: Cloward and Piven talked about it, but we all knew
Speaker 1: who this strategy was long before I'd ever heard of
Speaker 1: Cloward and Pivet. I point out that when I, you know,
Speaker 1: the late eighties Libertarian Party would have this Nolan chart test,
Speaker 1: you know, where they had a different political perspective. Rather
Speaker 1: than just a line that is left and right two
Speaker 1: dimensional things, they had a two dimensional like a diamond
Speaker 1: shape thing. You know, you ask people questions, ten questions
Speaker 1: about civil liberties and ten questions about economic liberty, that
Speaker 1: type of thing, and then then plot you you know
Speaker 1: you're a left right center or authoritarian or libertarian on
Speaker 1: the top of that type of thing. And the one
Speaker 1: question that I would always oppose, I said, you know,
Speaker 1: they talked about open borders, and I said, no, I'm
Speaker 1: not in a favor of open borders unless you stop
Speaker 1: the welfare state first. If you don't stop the welfare state,
Speaker 1: it's going to bankrupt us. And that is exactly what
Speaker 1: Pivot had strategized about. I didn't realize it at the time,
Speaker 1: but it doesn't take it. It's not rocket science to
Speaker 1: know that if you're going to offer these incredible benefits
Speaker 1: to everybody, you're going to pull in everybody from every
Speaker 1: poor country in the world to come live at our expense.
Speaker 1: That's what this is about. Trump made it clear they
Speaker 1: intends to finish construction of the border wall, which will
Speaker 1: make no difference, folks, no difference, really won't as long
Speaker 1: as the welfare magnet is there. That's the issue. I'm
Speaker 1: not against immigration, as long as you're not incentivizing people
Speaker 1: to come here and live at our expense. Making sure
Speaker 1: the materials have remained untouched to the border since Biden
Speaker 1: tug office in twenty twenty one. Again, it's the magnet,
Speaker 1: it's not the steel. I guess that's his way to
Speaker 1: stop the steel. He's going to stop the steel by
Speaker 1: by selling off all the steel components for the wall. Steel.
Speaker 1: Trump made clear that he intends to finish this, so
Speaker 1: he's gonna Biden is going to finish that. And then
Speaker 1: we go to the Army Navy game this weekend. And
Speaker 1: we've got a picture here of course. JD. Vance and
Speaker 1: Donald Trump went to the Army Navy game and there
Speaker 1: you can see they've got Daniel Penny there with it. Good.
Speaker 1: I'm glad this guy deserves some recognition. I heartily approve
Speaker 1: of that. And yet also at the game. And again,
Speaker 1: you know, Vance and Trump aren't president and vice president
Speaker 1: now right, They don't have anything to do, really, I mean,
Speaker 1: they're putting together their cabinet. They can go to a
Speaker 1: football game if they want. There's not anything pressing. But
Speaker 1: there is something pressing for this guy, Mike Johnson, who
Speaker 1: is constantly photo bombing them and hanging out right, get
Speaker 1: to work, Mike. You got people in North Carolina that
Speaker 1: are freezing in the cold, and you won't do a
Speaker 1: thing about it. You just passed nearly a trillion dollars
Speaker 1: for the mill Terry an NDAA bill. You do everything
Speaker 1: in the world, but you don't care about Americans who
Speaker 1: are freezing in the mountains. This pathetic excuse for a
Speaker 1: Speaker of the House. I can't have enough contempt for
Speaker 1: this guy. He's worse than Schumer and Pelosi, because you
Speaker 1: know that Schumer and Pelosi are bad. This guy is
Speaker 1: the essence of a turncoat rhino. Mike Johnson. Look at him.
Speaker 1: How pathetic this guy is, This hanger on, this sickophant,
Speaker 1: the suckerfish, the spineless jellyfish. Mike Johnson, He's hanging out
Speaker 1: of the football game, getting his picture taken great. Well,
Speaker 1: we got Sergey Brinn, the co founder of Google, is
Speaker 1: going to be held going to mar A Lago his pilgrimage.
Speaker 1: He's going to make a dash for cash. He's going
Speaker 1: to go down to mar A Lago. He's going to,
Speaker 1: let's put it politely, say he's going to kiss the
Speaker 1: ring of Trump. It's a remarkable turnaround for Sergei Brand,
Speaker 1: who described Trump's twenty sixteen win as quote deeply offensive.
Speaker 1: Remember that the online aristocracy is having to set aside
Speaker 1: their worries to grapple with a new reality, says the
Speaker 1: Daily Mail. Remember we had to forget who it was
Speaker 1: in the audience said, yeah, Maga means make aristocracy great again.
Speaker 1: That's right. What they call the online aristocracy is a technocracy.
Speaker 1: All of them were playing catchup to Elon Musk, whose
Speaker 1: fortune is growing as he sets in on meetings with
Speaker 1: Trump's political headquarters. Because it's growing on expectations. People are
Speaker 1: buying his stock because it's a Elon Musk owns this guy.
Speaker 1: You know, Jeff Bezos is going to be kicking himself now.
Speaker 1: Jeff Bezos paid two hundred fifty million dollars for The
Speaker 1: Washington Post Elon must pay two undred and fifty million
Speaker 1: dollars to own the presidency. That's why he's richer than Bezos.
Speaker 1: And the undred and fifty million dollars is chump change
Speaker 1: to these guys. It really is. He's got more than
Speaker 1: a million times. He's got like two million times of
Speaker 1: the net worth of the average American. Okay, so would
Speaker 1: you pay hundred twenty five dollars town the present? See
Speaker 1: that's normalizing it to your income level, my income level.
Speaker 1: So yeah, these are all expectations and all this is happening,
Speaker 1: you know, and the DOGE things, they're going to be
Speaker 1: recommending that federal EV subsidies be ended for Musk's competitors
Speaker 1: because Musk has already gotten he's already maxed out on
Speaker 1: all the EV subsidies. So getting rid of the EV
Speaker 1: subsidy program in the name of efficiency, in the name
Speaker 1: of DOGE, is going to hurt his competitors who are
Speaker 1: trying to get into that. And at the same time,
Speaker 1: in California, Newsom has said to Musk that no, you're
Speaker 1: not going to get any test is not going to
Speaker 1: get any subsidies there, so Musk is suing him. Musk
Speaker 1: is suing California for EV subsidies while he is going
Speaker 1: to according to all reports, and I'm sure it's going
Speaker 1: to happen while he's going to shut him down at
Speaker 1: the federal level for his competitors. Yeah, it's all about
Speaker 1: the principal, isn't it. Well, going back to se Brynn,
Speaker 1: he was at one point in time married to RFK
Speaker 1: Junior's running mate Nicole Shanahan and uh as Wall Street
Speaker 1: Journal many other places have reported their marriage broke up
Speaker 1: because she cheated on Saha Brenn with Elon Musk. It's
Speaker 1: a small world, isn't it? And their club this is
Speaker 1: the club, and you ain't in it, and be thankful
Speaker 1: that you aren't in that club. I mean when you
Speaker 1: look at RFK Junior and Elon Muskins, their gay Brennon
Speaker 1: call Shanahan, I mean, it's like, do you really want
Speaker 1: to be in that club? Do you really want to
Speaker 1: be on Jeff re Epstein's island or whatever? No, So,
Speaker 1: Sergey's Brend's visit to mar Lago as an extraordinary turnaround
Speaker 1: from Trump's last victory in twenty sixteen. If you remember,
Speaker 1: they were filmed having a meeting in Google Brent and
Speaker 1: other Google executives caught on video and that went public
Speaker 1: expressing their horror that Trump had won In twenty sixteen.
Speaker 1: Brnn said, as an immigrant and a refugee, I certainly
Speaker 1: find this election deeply offensive, and I know many of
Speaker 1: you do too. I think it's very stressful time. It
Speaker 1: conflicts with many of our values, and it's a good
Speaker 1: time for us to reflect on that. He said, Well,
Speaker 1: evidently he's reflected on it, and I think he believes
Speaker 1: that the most appropriate response is to give Trump massive
Speaker 1: amounts of money to get what he wants, because Trump
Speaker 1: has made some statements about how he thinks that Google
Speaker 1: has been unfair to him. Jeff Bezos, as I said before,
Speaker 1: just like Zuckerberg and just like Pfizer, both of them
Speaker 1: gave a million dollars to Trump's transition team and has
Speaker 1: inauguration fund, not it's just team, but the inauguration fund
Speaker 1: for a big party. You know, how much does it
Speaker 1: cost to have this party? How many millions of dollars
Speaker 1: does he need? Is it for paying for you know,
Speaker 1: balloons and those little noise makers that go on? Is
Speaker 1: that what these people? How many those things can you
Speaker 1: buy with that many millions of dollars. So Zuckerberg's giving
Speaker 1: him a million dollars. Now, Jeff Bezos is going there
Speaker 1: to give him a million dollars. And Jeff Bezos says
Speaker 1: he's going to live stream the inauguration on Prime video. Yeah,
Speaker 1: aren't you glad that you've got Prime video so you
Speaker 1: can watch that. ABC is going to pay Trump fifteen
Speaker 1: million dollars. Now they're not well, I guess in the
Speaker 1: sense they are really buying some in fluence with him,
Speaker 1: because it's part of a defamation lawsuit, and they caved
Speaker 1: even before got into deposition, and so Trump is raking
Speaker 1: in the money from everybody in all quarters. The apology
Speaker 1: was part of a defamation lawsuit settlement that Trump filed
Speaker 1: against ABC News and against George Stephanofflis, do you remember
Speaker 1: that we played the thing when it happened, he had
Speaker 1: Nancy Mason and George Stefanopflis, who used to be a
Speaker 1: high ranking official in the Clinton White House. I think
Speaker 1: he's chief of staff. I can't remember exactly, but anyway,
Speaker 1: he went on then to be like the star of
Speaker 1: ABC News, and he kept hammering Nancy Mace, saying that
Speaker 1: you're supporting a guy that was found liable for rape
Speaker 1: and he wasn't. That was not the finding there, right,
Speaker 1: it was not. He was not found guilty of rape.
Speaker 1: And so because he got that wrong, Trump sued him
Speaker 1: fifteen million dollars. Now my question is they didn't correct that.
Speaker 1: I mean, people knew that right away. I remember when
Speaker 1: that happened. I remember playing the clip we all talked about.
Speaker 1: Thankful you know, no, he wasn't found guilty of rape.
Speaker 1: You have an opportunity there when you're talking about we're
Speaker 1: talking about live liability with this, and you're talking about lawsuits.
Speaker 1: You know, if you don't correct a mistake, then you're
Speaker 1: basically going to lose because then it's interpreted as malice. Right,
Speaker 1: But if you do make a correction with it, you
Speaker 1: got a pretty good chance of saying, well, we just
Speaker 1: misspoke or whatever. But they have settled this in advance.
Speaker 1: Trump is also suing CBS News for ten billion with
Speaker 1: a B and damages over deceptive conduct. A lot of
Speaker 1: people are angry at ABC for paying off Trump fifteen
Speaker 1: million dollars. They described the settlement describes the money as
Speaker 1: a quote charitable contribution from the broadcaster. They so the
Speaker 1: network will pay a million dollars also in legal fees
Speaker 1: to Trump's attorneys. But ABC News is facing backlash from
Speaker 1: both sides. So you got conservatives that are upset with
Speaker 1: them because they misrepresented and argued very argumentative. Oh no
Speaker 1: he was guilty of rape. No he wasn't. So some
Speaker 1: of the people on the right are saying, people are
Speaker 1: not going to forget what ABC did. Meanwhile on the left,
Speaker 1: you got Democrat attorney Mark Elias says knee bent ring kissed,
Speaker 1: another Legacy News outlet chooses obedience. Another reporter said, it's
Speaker 1: not good for the rest of us when you do
Speaker 1: this kind of garbage. ABC. A former prosecutor, Joyce Vance, said,
Speaker 1: I'm old enough to remember and to have worked on
Speaker 1: cases where newspapers vigorously defended themselves against defamation cases instead
Speaker 1: of folding before the defendant was even deposed. That, by
Speaker 1: the way, includes information cases brought by candidates for the presidency.
Speaker 1: And so again, when you look at what is happening
Speaker 1: with free speech, the people who should be defending it,
Speaker 1: the press, not defending it. And again I'm sure that
Speaker 1: there would have been some kind of a judgment because
Speaker 1: depending on you know, how they conducted themselves afterwards. But
Speaker 1: it's the same type of thing that we saw with
Speaker 1: a Sandy Hook lawsuit. It should have been defended. You know,
Speaker 1: I think you have a right to be wrong, and
Speaker 1: so the question would have been was he just wrong
Speaker 1: or was he malicious in what he had to do?
Speaker 1: But he didn't want to have that trial, and so
Speaker 1: he chose not to comply with discoveries. We saw, you know,
Speaker 1: they sent the data to the opposing lawyer, data that
Speaker 1: he said he didn't have. And it was a Perry
Speaker 1: Mason moment, as Alex Jones said, they caught him red handed,
Speaker 1: lying about the fact that he told everybody, I didn't
Speaker 1: even get a chance to argue my case. They just
Speaker 1: shut this thing down. Well, they shut it down because
Speaker 1: you didn't comply with discovery. And then we saw that
Speaker 1: he didn't comply with discovery. But he's still telling people
Speaker 1: that they shut this thing down without having a hearing. No,
Speaker 1: he shut it down without defending the First Amendment. Romney, meanwhile,
Speaker 1: is really coming after the Democrats. It's the New York
Speaker 1: Post that he eviscerates them. He said, I don't know
Speaker 1: how they recover. And he's not just talking about La
Speaker 1: La hilarious. He's also talking about Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren,
Speaker 1: many of the others, and so he's leaving. He's not
Speaker 1: going to be running again. And he credited Trump for
Speaker 1: remaking the gp ND of the Party of the working Class,
Speaker 1: and he predicted that both parties are heading for a
Speaker 1: recalibration of their policies. He said Democrats pushed out the
Speaker 1: working class, he said. He said the Bernie Sanders Elizabeth
Speaker 1: Warren faction of the Democrat Party with some of this
Speaker 1: defund the police and the biological males and women's sports,
Speaker 1: these things had a lot of people in the working
Speaker 1: class caused them to just flee the Democrat Party, said Romney.
Speaker 1: He said, they've lost their base. Union guys and gals
Speaker 1: have left. The Democrat Party is not seen as rich
Speaker 1: people now, but as college professors and woke skulls. So again,
Speaker 1: you know, when we look at this, what do we
Speaker 1: do to reform anything? You know, is it all just
Speaker 1: about the winning? When we look at this as it
Speaker 1: is winning everything and the only thing, No, I don't
Speaker 1: think that's the case. We really need to have meaningful
Speaker 1: moral reform. You know, there's an excellent article and I've
Speaker 1: talked about William Wolverforce in the past, but there's an
Speaker 1: excellent article talking about a public what he wrote in
Speaker 1: eighteen oh seven when he stopped the slave trade. And
Speaker 1: we're not going to go through all the details of it,
Speaker 1: but just to make you aware of it. It was
Speaker 1: called a Letter on the Abolition of the Slave Trade
Speaker 1: by William Wilberforce. It was published less than a month
Speaker 1: before the British Parliament voted overwhelmingly to abolish the slave trade,
Speaker 1: and it encapsulates two decades a relentless effort by Wilberforce.
Speaker 1: One history an aptly described that parliamentary vote as quote
Speaker 1: one of the turning events in the history of the world,
Speaker 1: and it was Slavery has always existed at every time
Speaker 1: and in every culture, but it was William Wilberforce who
Speaker 1: single handedly started to turn this tide. And he did
Speaker 1: it because of his Christian principles. And that's the point
Speaker 1: of this article to talk about how effective and how
Speaker 1: necessary it is for Christians to hold to those principles.
Speaker 1: It's not just about winning, it's not about that at all.
Speaker 1: The whole reason he did this, and understand, take the
Speaker 1: biggest things that are out there that this is like
Speaker 1: one guy taking on all of the technocracy, or one
Speaker 1: guy taking on all of the oil industry, or all
Speaker 1: the military industrial complex, or all the pharmaceuticals, or roll
Speaker 1: those all together, big pharma, big food, the military industrial complex,
Speaker 1: roll those all together. That was slavery at the time
Speaker 1: in his country. He took all that on. Any won,
Speaker 1: and he won because he stood on principle. Wilberforce's work
Speaker 1: is not merely historical. It provides a timeless model for
Speaker 1: how Christians can and should engage in public life. It
Speaker 1: calls us to integrate faith, reason, and courage into our
Speaker 1: engagement with public policy. Wilberforce's approach to public policy was
Speaker 1: unapologetically grounded in Christian morality. By the way, this article
Speaker 1: is from Christian posts. He spoke boldly as a Christian
Speaker 1: and parliament addressing his nation's accountability to God. Even in
Speaker 1: a society that might appear more receptive to Christian values
Speaker 1: on our own, such declarations were not always welcome. Yeah,
Speaker 1: not even in Britain at that time, which is far
Speaker 1: more accepting of Christian values than America is now. Wilberforce
Speaker 1: begins and ends with a solemn warning. He said the
Speaker 1: slave trade was an abominable evil that placed the British
Speaker 1: Empire under the judgment of God. His moral clarity cut
Speaker 1: through the political expediency, challenging his contemporaries to see the
Speaker 1: slave trade not as an economic necessity but as a
Speaker 1: profound moral failing. Same thing as true of abortion today,
Speaker 1: isn't it and so many other issues. We always have
Speaker 1: culture as downstream from religion, and politics as downstream from culture.
Speaker 1: Wilberforce paired his moral convictions with a meticulous research evidence.
Speaker 1: He often spent fourteen hours a day studying and gathering
Speaker 1: facts about the slave trade, a pace that he eventually
Speaker 1: moderated for the sake of his health. The rigorous preparation, though,
Speaker 1: allowed him to systematically counter every objection raised by his
Speaker 1: opponent's folks, if you don't read, you can't lead. You've
Speaker 1: got to lead with the facts, Especially if you're going
Speaker 1: to do things on the name in the name of
Speaker 1: truth and the name of morality, and do things in
Speaker 1: the name of God, You've got to lead with the truth,
Speaker 1: and you've got to know what that is. In his
Speaker 1: letter on the Abolition of the slave Trade, Wilberforce methodically
Speaker 1: dismantled pro slavery arguments, presenting a case so thorough, so compelling,
Speaker 1: that it could not be ignored. His work underscore is
Speaker 1: the importance of combining moral passion with intellectual precision and
Speaker 1: a lot of hard work right. He said, it's not
Speaker 1: enough to simply declare what is right. We have to
Speaker 1: also engage and reasoned, evidence based advocacy. Whether the issue
Speaker 1: is religious freedom, the sanctity of life, or justice for
Speaker 1: the marginalized, we must be prepared to make our case
Speaker 1: with clarity and convictions for us today. He faced fierce
Speaker 1: opposition from powerful interest tied to the slave trade and
Speaker 1: to colonial economies, and at one point he was challenged
Speaker 1: to a duel by a slave ship captain, and he
Speaker 1: received multiple death threats that he pressed on with unwavering determination.
Speaker 1: Wilberforce confronts his opponent's head on in his book, arguing
Speaker 1: that the abolition of the slave trade would ultimately benefit
Speaker 1: the economy. He declared that even if economic loss has occurred,
Speaker 1: the moral imperative to end quote, the most enormous crime
Speaker 1: of slavery outweighed everything else. You know, we have to
Speaker 1: understand and the founders of this country understood that Prosperity
Speaker 1: like liberty are a blessing from God, and that should
Speaker 1: be our first concern. Our first concern should be to
Speaker 1: seek God's blessing, and that means that we follow the
Speaker 1: principles that He laid out. As I say here in
Speaker 1: the Christian Post. For Christians today, engaging in public life
Speaker 1: off a means standing against cultural tides and during criticism
Speaker 1: and hostility. Wilberforce's example challenges us to speak the truth
Speaker 1: and love regardless of the cost. Transformational change is possible
Speaker 1: when Christians engage the public square with conviction and perseverance.
Speaker 1: That is the legacy that was taught to us by
Speaker 1: William Wilberforce. We're going to take a quick break and
Speaker 1: we will be right back.
Speaker 2: You're listening to the David Knight Show.
Speaker 13: That's right, boys and girls. There's a post election sale
Speaker 13: on silver and gold. Trump viephoria has caused a dip
Speaker 13: in silver and gold. It's time to buy some medals
Speaker 13: with via doors before they come to there. Since is
Speaker 13: go to David Knight Gold to get in touch with
Speaker 13: the wise wolf himself, Tony Harterburn, he knows where to
Speaker 13: look to find silver and gold. Yung be out.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we're talking about silver and gold. One of the
Speaker 1: things that always thought about is what is the effect
Speaker 1: of quantum computing going to be on blockchains and cryptography.
Speaker 1: A lot of people have said maybe one of the
Speaker 1: reasons that they are saving everything and bluffed ell utah,
Speaker 1: and I mentioned earlier and a lot of other places,
Speaker 1: is just keeping an archive. Once the computers get fast enough,
Speaker 1: they go back and create a dossier on everybody and
Speaker 1: put us all in jail for whatever reason. So who
Speaker 1: knows what's going to happen with that. That's why I
Speaker 1: like the privacy and the stability of things that are
Speaker 1: that are physical. So again we'll talk a little bit
Speaker 1: about crypto in this, but I, you know, find find
Speaker 1: anything other than the dollar. This is a good time
Speaker 1: to hedge out of the dollar, for sure. But I
Speaker 1: still like the physical stuff silver and gold, and you
Speaker 1: can find that at David Knight. Die Gold will take
Speaker 1: you to Tony Rdiman at wise Wolf Gold. But let's
Speaker 1: take a look at Google saying that they have created
Speaker 1: a quantum chip. They call it Willow. They say calculations
Speaker 1: take five minutes instead of ten septillion years. Not Reptilian,
Speaker 1: but Septilian reptilion years. That might be pretty short, like
Speaker 1: like dog ears or something, right, but septilian. Where does
Speaker 1: that come from? Well, you know you got million, and
Speaker 1: then you got billion. As you add another three zeros
Speaker 1: after the billion, you go to the trillion and the
Speaker 1: quadrillion and so forth. This is seven. You know, up
Speaker 1: to seven billion is two. The septillion is seven. But anyway,
Speaker 1: Google's Quantum computing lab said that their new chip, they
Speaker 1: call Willow can solve the world's most complex computational problems
Speaker 1: in a record five minutes. According to Google, it would
Speaker 1: take one of the world's most powerful supercomputers ten septillion
Speaker 1: years they complete a similar task significantly older than the
Speaker 1: age of the universe. How do they know that? Did
Speaker 1: that computer tell them that as well? It's got the
Speaker 1: age of the universe? There it is. Willo is a
Speaker 1: significant improvement over Google's previous quantum processor, which in twenty
Speaker 1: nineteen showed an advantage over classical computers. Google said its
Speaker 1: chip could solve a calculation in three minutes. Will the
Speaker 1: supercomputer would have taken ten thousand years. Well, it sounds
Speaker 1: like deep thought from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, doesn't
Speaker 1: of course, deep thought. It took it seven and a
Speaker 1: half million years, not ten septillion years, but took it
Speaker 1: only seven and a half million years to come up
Speaker 1: with the meaning of life, which was forty two. Then
Speaker 1: they put it back to work the ask get it
Speaker 1: to figure out what the question was. Anyway, one of
Speaker 1: the main problems with quantum computing remains errors caused by
Speaker 1: the interaction of cubits with their environment. Cubits, and that
Speaker 1: is a qub its, not cub i ts. That kind
Speaker 1: of cubit is a distance from your elbow to your fingertip,
Speaker 1: kind of an imprecise measurement. But you know, hey, those
Speaker 1: best they think of back then. But this is a cubit.
Speaker 1: This is a quantum bit. Unlike classical bits binary bits,
Speaker 1: which can be in either one or zero state, right,
Speaker 1: cubits can be in multiple states at once, making them
Speaker 1: extremely sensitive to external influences, you know, kind of like Trump,
Speaker 1: he can be everything to everybody, and it makes them
Speaker 1: extremely sensitive to external influences. And so that's the key.
Speaker 1: It kind of hallucinates I guess, like AI, susceptible to
Speaker 1: external influences, maybe even susceptible to a parallel universe. And
Speaker 1: we'll get to that in a moment here as well.
Speaker 1: So they said it adds they address this problem by
Speaker 1: adding even more cubits to the system and implementing real
Speaker 1: time error correction methods. The breakthrough is key to advancing
Speaker 1: quantum error correction, a concept that was first proposed by
Speaker 1: Peter Shore in nineteen ninety five. Well, again, these are
Speaker 1: the same people, you know when they're talking about cubits
Speaker 1: and all the rest of stuff, and Google is talking
Speaker 1: about how fast their computer is, and they also say
Speaker 1: they appear to have accessed parallel universes. Okay, now, this
Speaker 1: is the same group of people that just produced their
Speaker 1: graphics program that showed seventeenth centuries scotsman as black and Asian, right,
Speaker 1: So that came from a parallel universe or something. They're
Speaker 1: hallucinating about a lot of stuff, and a lot of
Speaker 1: people are saying that Google is hallucinating not only about
Speaker 1: the parallel universe thing, but they're also hallucinating about their benchmark.
Speaker 1: It's being criticized by a lot of people, especially their competitors.
Speaker 1: So Google has made an eyebrow raising claim saying that
Speaker 1: his new quantum chip may be tapping into parallel universes
Speaker 1: to achieve its results. Could be, could happen? Prove it's
Speaker 1: not happening. Will oh, they said, outperforms any supercomputer in
Speaker 1: the world. This mind boggling number exceeds known timescales and physics,
Speaker 1: and vastly exceeds the age of the universe. It lends
Speaker 1: credence to the notion that quantum computation occurs in many
Speaker 1: parallel universes, in line with the idea that we live
Speaker 1: in a diverse, a prediction first made by David Deutsch,
Speaker 1: a physicist who laid out his multiverse hypothesis in a
Speaker 1: nineteen ninety seven book called The Fabric of Reality. And
Speaker 1: all the people at Marvel Comics in DC just grabbed
Speaker 1: that thing and ran with it. You know, it's all
Speaker 1: about multiverse everything now, in which he suggested that quantum
Speaker 1: computers calculations take place across multiple universes. At the same time,
Speaker 1: Google is suggesting that his chip is so fast that
Speaker 1: his computations may have taken place across parallel universes, a
Speaker 1: bombbastic statement that unsurprisingly drew plenty of skepticism online. And
Speaker 1: you know this whole thing about quantum computing, and again
Speaker 1: I have no idea. These people who are positing it,
Speaker 1: evidently they're able to get some things done, but none
Speaker 1: of it makes any sense. And one of the pioneers
Speaker 1: and It said, if you say that you understand quantum physics,
Speaker 1: then you don't understand it because it is so counterintuitive
Speaker 1: encounter to reality. It seems like these different particles can
Speaker 1: be in multiple states at the same time. It seems
Speaker 1: like they can also communicate instantaneously across vast distances that
Speaker 1: they're somehow still connected across. None of this makes any sense.
Speaker 1: But for the calculation that Willow was tasked to solve,
Speaker 1: the critics say this wasn't really useful to anybody. This calculation,
Speaker 1: this particular calculation in question, is to produce a random distribution.
Speaker 1: The result of this calculation has no practical use set
Speaker 1: a German physicist and science communicator say, being Hassenfelder, she
Speaker 1: said they use this particular problem because it has been
Speaker 1: formally proven with some technical caveats, that the calculation is
Speaker 1: difficult to do on a conventional computer because it uses
Speaker 1: a lot of entangled She said that also allows them
Speaker 1: to say things like this would have taken a septillion
Speaker 1: years on a conventional computer et cetera. Willow is a
Speaker 1: one hundred cubit or quantum bit chip. Unlike conventional computers,
Speaker 1: which use zeros and ones, quantum computers rely on cubits,
Speaker 1: which can be on off, or counterintuitively both thanks to entanglement.
Speaker 1: She said, the mysterious phenomenon allows particles to influence each
Speaker 1: other's states even when separated by distance. It's exactly the
Speaker 1: same calculations that they did in twenty nineteen on an
Speaker 1: approximately one hundred cubit chip, now it's double that size.
Speaker 1: At the time, Google made a similarly bombastic claim, arguing
Speaker 1: that it had achieved quantum supremacy as opposed to white
Speaker 1: supremacy or black supremacy. Whatever the point where quantum computers
Speaker 1: can do things that classical computers can't, regardless of whether
Speaker 1: those tasks are useful, said one person who first coined
Speaker 1: the term in twenty twelve. So while the announcement is
Speaker 1: super impressive from a scientific point of view, and all
Speaker 1: the consequences for everyday life are zero, said Hassenfelder. She said,
Speaker 1: estimates say that we will need about one million cubits
Speaker 1: for practically useful applications, and we're still about a million
Speaker 1: cubits away from that. In other words, a million gibbits
Speaker 1: and you got one hundred, you're still about a million away.
Speaker 1: Google's claim of quantum supremacy to immediate criticism in twenty nineteen,
Speaker 1: sparking a year's long feud between the company and quantum
Speaker 1: computing rival IBM. At the time, IBM researchers charged that
Speaker 1: Google had exaggerated its claims. In a twenty twenty three
Speaker 1: follow up blog post, IBM researchers said Google's quantum computer
Speaker 1: was instructed to solve, and the problem that it's instructed
Speaker 1: to solve in twenty nineteen could quote be performed on
Speaker 1: a classical system in two and a half days and
Speaker 1: with far greater fidelity. Fidelity. So it used to be
Speaker 1: that if you could get multiple answers with the same input,
Speaker 1: says something's wrong with your computer programming. That was the
Speaker 1: point that was made about the Imperial College of London
Speaker 1: the University of Edinburgh. Computer scientists reviewed that said this
Speaker 1: is garbage. First of all, the assumptions the model are wrong.
Speaker 1: And secondly, if you take the same input and run
Speaker 1: it through successive times, you get different answers each time,
Speaker 1: and they weren't using a quantum computer, but they were
Speaker 1: still hallucinating anyway, This is in fact a conservative worst
Speaker 1: case estimate, and we expect that with additional refinements, the
Speaker 1: classical cost of the simulation can be further reduced. They said,
Speaker 1: so in other words, IBM is talking about classical versus this.
Speaker 1: There's still a good reason to believe that Google's latest
Speaker 1: claim that Will could be operating in the multiverse will
Speaker 1: be debunked. Yeah, where all this leaves Google's breakthrough and
Speaker 1: its significance remains debatable. I've seen this happening with Google
Speaker 1: over and over again. You know, Google will buy They've
Speaker 1: got so much money. If somebody comes up with something
Speaker 1: that is good, they buy them and they destroy it.
Speaker 1: You know, Ways is a good example of that, you know,
Speaker 1: but I can think of many others. You can take
Speaker 1: a look at fitbit, the watch and so forth. You know,
Speaker 1: it is absolute garage. Garbage. And speaking of garbage, take
Speaker 1: a look at Google's Christmas ad. You know, We've done
Speaker 1: a couple of Christmas ads. Here's Google's Christmas ad.
Speaker 2: So try nature.
Speaker 11: Chinus, is not it?
Speaker 1: Especially when I have so many holiday looks to pull off. Thankfully,
Speaker 1: I know just the thing, and it's in stocking.
Speaker 6: Your buy.
Speaker 1: Hydrated skin is a gift to everyone, no wrapping need.
Speaker 1: Happy Holidays to me. Wow. I like the headline from
Speaker 1: bright bar Google goes full Jaguar. That's about the only
Speaker 1: way you can describe that. They got Santa with his
Speaker 1: hand on his head, Like, I can't believe this. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you know Santa. Everywhere Santa sells, but Jesus saves. Just
Speaker 1: remember that this Christmas season a man wearing women's clothing
Speaker 1: lamenting over having dry skin during winter during holiday season,
Speaker 1: of course, not during Christmas season even get that close
Speaker 1: to it. So getting back though, that's the world, the
Speaker 1: multiverse that Google lives, and they truly are from a
Speaker 1: different universe, I think, and that that commercial there proves it.
Speaker 1: It's a it's quantum proof that they live in a
Speaker 1: different universe. But the question that everybody and one of
Speaker 1: the reasons I want to look at this everybody was
Speaker 1: looking at, could quantum computing threaten Satoshi Nakamoto's one million bitcoin.
Speaker 1: This is the anonymous maybe pseudononymous person who developed bitcoin,
Speaker 1: whoever that is, and at the beginning of it, when
Speaker 1: the algorithm was a bit different Sotoshi Nakamoto has a
Speaker 1: million bitcoin, and what they're saying is is that that
Speaker 1: older algorithm is now kind of frozen with his stuff,
Speaker 1: his stuff or whoever it is, or collective group or whatever.
Speaker 1: But that's frozen, and that's a large quantity, a million bitcoin,
Speaker 1: and that exposes a vulnerability. You know, of course, as
Speaker 1: computing power develops, and if quantum computing word developed, you
Speaker 1: would expect that bitcoin would change the way that it
Speaker 1: operates to take that into consideration. However, with this frozen
Speaker 1: core of million bitcoins, that creates a bit of an issue.
Speaker 1: And so you know, the should the creator of bitcoin
Speaker 1: have their one million coins frozen to prevent exploitation. The
Speaker 1: concern arises to the vulnerability of bitcoin's earliest transaction format,
Speaker 1: when it was a pay to public key, which exposes
Speaker 1: public keys on the blockchain. So Toshi's one million bitcoin
Speaker 1: presents a high value target for quantum attackers that could
Speaker 1: upturn the market. Imagine if there was a billion bitcoins
Speaker 1: that somehow, you know, got hacked and they're selling this
Speaker 1: into the market, you know what's going to do to
Speaker 1: the price. So Toshi's bitcoin resides in the earliest P
Speaker 1: two PK outputs, a transaction format no longer commonly used
Speaker 1: because it exposes the owner's public key. Since the introduction
Speaker 1: of P two, PK h a format that hides the
Speaker 1: public key behind a hash until the coins are spent.
Speaker 1: Because it's not an anonymous this is something that is
Speaker 1: there that can track you. Quantum computing use for hacking
Speaker 1: has become significantly more complex than attacking an unprotected public key.
Speaker 1: So I mention all that because you know, as Google
Speaker 1: is hallucinating, they're also hiding things. And as I said earlier,
Speaker 1: the Russian search engine y index is now the second
Speaker 1: most popular in the world. But to give you an
Speaker 1: idea of how dominant Google is, I said it was
Speaker 1: somewhere in the eighty percent range when I talked about earlier.
Speaker 1: It's eighty eight percent market share for Google, and the
Speaker 1: number two search engine worldwide is the Russian based search
Speaker 1: engine yandex, which only has three percent. So from number
Speaker 1: one is eighty eight percent, number two three percent, not
Speaker 1: even close. And then you got China's Baydoo which is
Speaker 1: two point seven percent, Microsoft's being is two point six percent,
Speaker 1: and Duck Duck Go is zero point nine percent. Google
Speaker 1: Chrome proved to be the leader among browsers on all platforms,
Speaker 1: accounting for sixty five point eight percent of the market.
Speaker 1: And I think that's because you've also got a lot
Speaker 1: of other browsers that are built on top of Google Chrome,
Speaker 1: things like Brave. Pavel d'rov's telegram became the third most
Speaker 1: popular messenger worldwide, trailing only only metas watts app and
Speaker 1: ten cents QQ and beating out the likes of Viber
Speaker 1: and we Chat. And then they said that Russia, in
Speaker 1: addition to yandex and yandex is a search engine that
Speaker 1: gives you English results, and it actually gives you results
Speaker 1: from me, which Google now doesn't do. Google is a
Speaker 1: search engine designed to hide things and to hide people.
Speaker 1: Gives you an idea of who it is that created Google,
Speaker 1: doesn't it. It's a creation of our intelligence community. So
Speaker 1: the Russians, because of YouTube, and because they've been on YouTube,
Speaker 1: they've now come up with their own version. They call
Speaker 1: it routube Are you Tube? And unfortunately I looked at
Speaker 1: that and I thought I saw this article. I go, oh, good, well,
Speaker 1: look at that. Maybe I can get on there, But no,
Speaker 1: it's all in Russian. There's not any English there at
Speaker 1: all by the way. Talking about names, we used to
Speaker 1: put our stuff up on Huge Tube and I thought
Speaker 1: that was a great name. It doesn't mean it's not
Speaker 1: a joke meaning a huge YouTube. It's a Utah gun
Speaker 1: exchange good people. I talked several times to the owner
Speaker 1: of you YouTube. He set it up primarily for defending
Speaker 1: the Second Amendment and it they branched it out to
Speaker 1: other things, but it's really hard to keep up with
Speaker 1: that kind of stuff and they've just had to close
Speaker 1: that down. So right now, where you will find us
Speaker 1: is on rumble bit shoot and on Odyssey, and you
Speaker 1: can find the links to that if you go to
Speaker 1: the Davidnightshow dot com, and you can also find out
Speaker 1: where you can support us, and also where you can
Speaker 1: get the audio of each day's show as well, if
Speaker 1: you prefer to get it in that format.
Speaker 2: We're going to take a quick break and we will
Speaker 2: be right back. You're listening to the David Knight Show.
Speaker 10: Hello, it's me Voladimir Zelenski. I'm so tired of wearing
Speaker 10: these same T shirts everywhere for years. You'd think with
Speaker 10: all the billions I've skimmed off America, I could dress
Speaker 10: better and I could if only David Knight would send
Speaker 10: me one of his beautiful gray mcguffin hoodies or a
Speaker 10: new black T shirt with the mcguffin logo in blue,
Speaker 10: but he.
Speaker 11: Told me to get lost.
Speaker 10: Maybe one of you American suckers can buy me some
Speaker 10: at the Davidknightshow dot com and David is giving a
Speaker 10: ten percent discount.
Speaker 11: To listeners from now until twenty twenty five. At that price,
Speaker 11: you should be able to buy me several hundred.
Speaker 10: Those amazing sand colored microphone hoodies are so beautiful, I'd
Speaker 10: wear something other than green military cosplay to my various
Speaker 10: gallas and social events. If you want to save on shipping,
Speaker 10: just put it in the next package of bombs and
Speaker 10: missiles coming from the USA, and or you can just.
Speaker 1: Wear it directly from us if you're not Zelenski and
Speaker 1: got them in stock. And you can see here's the
Speaker 1: T shirt as well as the sand hoodie. Nice designs
Speaker 1: and they have come out very nice this time. And
Speaker 1: so we've had shut down our merchandise stuff for a while,
Speaker 1: but now is back and up let's talk in the
Speaker 1: short amount of time that we've got left. Unlocking the
Speaker 1: Brains Black Box. This is from study fines, and so
Speaker 1: they discovered distinct wiring of the human memory. They were
Speaker 1: surprised to find that human brains were wired very, very
Speaker 1: differently than mouse brains. Pinky, I'm gonna take over the world. Yeah,
Speaker 1: So this is a situation where they actually got worked
Speaker 1: with some surgeons who are having to operate on people's brains,
Speaker 1: and they got some you know, fresh brains as Igor
Speaker 1: would say, and they were able to look at it
Speaker 1: in detail. And what they found was that humans are
Speaker 1: very different from mice. Isn't that amazing how the scientists
Speaker 1: were surprised to find that out. For years, scientists have
Speaker 1: relied on rodents to understand how our brains work. But
Speaker 1: what if a mouse brain and a human brain on
Speaker 1: it simply scaled versions of each other. What if, for example,
Speaker 1: men were creating the image of God unlike the mice.
Speaker 1: And what they found was that humans are different, not
Speaker 1: only in the physiology, but that physiology helps to explain
Speaker 1: why humans have a superior memory. As soon as I
Speaker 1: started examining the first patient samples, I realized how much
Speaker 1: we didn't know about the human hippocampus. Although this is
Speaker 1: the best studied brain region in rodents, it felt like
Speaker 1: we didn't know a thing about human physiology because it
Speaker 1: is totally different, and because we are totally different. They said.
Speaker 1: Mouse brains might have numerous, somewhat imprecise neural connections, the
Speaker 1: human brain appears to have fewer, but more targeted pathways.
Speaker 1: This unique wiring might explain our extraordinary ability to farm
Speaker 1: form complex memories and to make intricate associations, they said.
Speaker 1: The study challenge is not only the existing neuroscientific models,
Speaker 1: but it opens up exciting new avenues for understanding how
Speaker 1: we store and retrieve memory. Because this is what these
Speaker 1: people are all about. You know, they really want to
Speaker 1: do the type of stuff that was described in science
Speaker 1: fiction and total recall. They want to be able to
Speaker 1: change and implant false memories and all the rest of
Speaker 1: this stuff. Oh, it's just to help people with PTSD. Right. Well,
Speaker 1: we're finding out that the scientists don't know everything. It's
Speaker 1: always good to say that we're going to be open
Speaker 1: to changing our mind because we don't have complete knowledge
Speaker 1: about things. When they call it a black box, it
Speaker 1: always makes me think about Darwin's black box. He said,
Speaker 1: the human eye. He says that even he with his
Speaker 1: primitive tools could understand how complex the human eye was.
Speaker 1: He says, I'm having a hard time imagining that that
Speaker 1: could have just happened by random chance processes. Yeah, me too.
Speaker 1: We can say we'll talk to you tomorrow. The common Man,
Speaker 1: they created common Core and dumbed down our children. They
Speaker 1: created common past, track and control us. They're Commons project
Speaker 1: to make sure the commoners own nothing and the communist future.
Speaker 1: They see the common man as simple, unsophisticated ordinary. But
Speaker 1: each of us has worth and dignity created in the
Speaker 1: image of God. That is what we have in common.
Speaker 1: That is what they want to take away. Their most
Speaker 1: powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation. They desire to know
Speaker 1: everything about us, while they hide everything from us. It's
Speaker 1: time to turn that around and expose what they want to.
Speaker 1: Please share the information and links you'll find at the
Speaker 1: Davidnightshow dot com. Thank you for listening, Thank you for sharing.
Speaker 1: If you can't support us financially, please keep us in
Speaker 1: your prayers. D Davidnightshow dot com