Speaker 1: In a world of deceit, telling the truth is a
Speaker 1: revolutionary act. It's the David Knight Show. As the clock
Speaker 1: strikes thirteen, It's Wednesday, the twenty first of January. You're
Speaker 1: our Lord, twenty twenty six. Well, today we're going to
Speaker 1: look at competing gangs. Yeah, there's some really bad guys
Speaker 1: out there on the streets, and we sent some other
Speaker 1: people out to take them out, but unfortunately they're starting
Speaker 1: to act like gang members themselves. And so the question
Speaker 1: is how do we protect ourselves those of us who
Speaker 1: are got in gangs on the luck to us gangs
Speaker 1: on the right. I'm stuck in the middle with you,
Speaker 1: and which one is more dangerous? How do we fight
Speaker 1: back against this? And more importantly, we are going to
Speaker 1: go back and take a look at how our culture
Speaker 1: got into the situation that it's in right now. What
Speaker 1: is happening to our families, our children, the relationship between
Speaker 1: men and women, and what is about to make that
Speaker 1: get a lot worse? I mean, there's going to be
Speaker 1: a lot of gasoline cord on this AI is going
Speaker 1: to be the thing that's going to do it. How
Speaker 1: did we get to this situation? If we understand how
Speaker 1: we got here, then maybe all of the intentional distractions,
Speaker 1: chaos and conflict that are being created by Donald Trump
Speaker 1: and the news media, maybe we can transcend that, we
Speaker 1: can escape their gravitational pull. We'll be right back well again.
Speaker 1: You know, when I look at what just happened to
Speaker 1: another interesting case of a grandfather fifty six years old,
Speaker 1: an American citizen. He's foreigner who came here and became
Speaker 1: a citizen about thirty five years ago. It's never had
Speaker 1: any criminal convictions, and you look at the way that
Speaker 1: he was singled out and treated, and it truly is amazing,
Speaker 1: and it's something that we have to pay attention to.
Speaker 1: We may you know, we all agree that rapists and
Speaker 1: murderers ought to be taken off the street, and I
Speaker 1: think many of us agree that illegal aliens who come
Speaker 1: here need to be deported as well. But it makes
Speaker 1: a difference how it's done, doesn't It doesn't make things
Speaker 1: a lot more dangerous. I mean, every time you talk
Speaker 1: about one of these types of issues, the abuse of
Speaker 1: power by ice by the Trump administration, when did we
Speaker 1: talk about that? Oh? What about this? You know, look,
Speaker 1: we had this person over here who in a lot
Speaker 1: of cases, it wasn't even somebody who was political or
Speaker 1: trying to be provocative that got attacked. And we just
Speaker 1: had an incident of a family that was in a
Speaker 1: car in Minnesota. They thought these protesters, thought they looked conservative,
Speaker 1: didn't know anything about them, so they went over and
Speaker 1: they attacked their car and the people in it. Is
Speaker 1: that different than what we're seeing from ICE. Actually, no,
Speaker 1: they had another incident. We had a group of four
Speaker 1: engineers during their lunch break, they go to a restaurant
Speaker 1: and one of them is anti ICE, and he's on
Speaker 1: a list on his phone that lets him know when
Speaker 1: the ICE agents are doing something and so forth. Others
Speaker 1: were in favor of ICE was doing and so they
Speaker 1: were all over the place in terms of politics. But
Speaker 1: they're eating together and they're having a lunch break and
Speaker 1: the one guy who is on the list of leftists,
Speaker 1: he said, wait a minute, He said, they they've identified
Speaker 1: us as being ICE, you know, because they said there's
Speaker 1: four guys are dressed like this and they're such and
Speaker 1: such a restaurant. He kind of looks around and goes, ooh,
Speaker 1: they're talking about us. And they thought that they were
Speaker 1: playing closed ice, because again, ICE is not following any
Speaker 1: of the rules that they have for cops are not
Speaker 1: wearing uniforms. In many cases, they're covering their faces. Now
Speaker 1: these guys are not wearing masks. Of course those days
Speaker 1: are hopefully behind us. Who knows they took put mask
Speaker 1: on us five years ago, six years ago now and
Speaker 1: now they want to put mask on themselves. God what
Speaker 1: they're doing anyway, we have these types of things happening.
Speaker 1: Is so the Left is just as bad, except they're
Speaker 1: not as dangerous because they don't have the legal authority
Speaker 1: to kill you if you disobey their orders, right, I mean,
Speaker 1: they know there's going to be some consequences for them.
Speaker 1: The problem is that Ice knows that there will be
Speaker 1: no consequences for them. As Jdevan said, they have absolute immunity.
Speaker 1: And we've seen this over and over again. We're gonna
Speaker 1: shut down the investigation. We're not even going to have
Speaker 1: an investigation, and we're not going to allow you to
Speaker 1: have an investigation as state or local into this shooting
Speaker 1: Overney Good. That's an admission, folks. I've seen this over
Speaker 1: and over again. When they hide their data about climate change,
Speaker 1: when they hide their virology data, when they don't do
Speaker 1: the studies. When they come after you because you show
Speaker 1: the data, they decide they're going to hide you. I've
Speaker 1: seen this over and over again. The people who seek
Speaker 1: to suppress information are usually doing it because well, I
Speaker 1: won't say usually, say I have always seen it done
Speaker 1: because they're doing something criminal to hide. So let's look
Speaker 1: at the particulars of this particular case here again, you've
Speaker 1: got now, I think the solution to this is not
Speaker 1: going door to door. You know, we've got government officials
Speaker 1: in Minnesota as well as in Washington State who have
Speaker 1: declared they are sanctuary cities, and they're actually coming against
Speaker 1: a sheriff in Washington State who wants to enforce the
Speaker 1: immigration laws, and he would do it with search warrants
Speaker 1: and things like that. Knowing who he's going after. You know,
Speaker 1: that would be a big advantag wouldn't it. I mean,
Speaker 1: if you're going to be law enforcement, how how much
Speaker 1: like a Keystone cop do you have to be? I
Speaker 1: know who you're going after, And that's what we see
Speaker 1: in this particular case. But the rot is coming from
Speaker 1: above on the left. The rot is coming from governors
Speaker 1: and attorneys general who decide that they don't like immigration law.
Speaker 1: They're going to thumb their nose at immigration law, and
Speaker 1: there's no authority for them to do that. Immigration law
Speaker 1: is a power that has been delegated by the states
Speaker 1: to the federal government. Now, if it was something like
Speaker 1: gun control, for example, we had a leftist or even
Speaker 1: Trump who decides he's going to do gun control and
Speaker 1: he's going to do it by executive order, and or
Speaker 1: however they do it, if they do it with Supreme
Speaker 1: Court decision, or if they do it with a Congressional act,
Speaker 1: it would still be a violation of the law. And
Speaker 1: of course that is happening all the time. The very
Speaker 1: existence of the ATF is a violation of the Constitution,
Speaker 1: just like the existence of the Federal Reserve. But let's
Speaker 1: say that they've got some new rule that they're coming
Speaker 1: out with and the local law enforcement does not have
Speaker 1: to comply with that. As a matter of fact, they
Speaker 1: should stand there as the lesser magistrate, as Matt Tetela
Speaker 1: always talks about in his book, they should stand and
Speaker 1: interpose and nullify these laws that are against the constitution
Speaker 1: that gives them their authority because they swore to have
Speaker 1: hold it. But when it comes to immigration law, there
Speaker 1: is authority for immigration, there is authority for ice to
Speaker 1: exist or something like it. Unfortunately, these so called law
Speaker 1: enforcement officers now believe that they are not subject to
Speaker 1: the law. And that's a much more serious circumstance in
Speaker 1: somebody coming across the border, folks, much more serious and
Speaker 1: because of the potential for abuse. And so the reality
Speaker 1: is is that they need to start at the top
Speaker 1: and work their way down. If you're going to have
Speaker 1: governors and attorneys general that are going to defy the constitution,
Speaker 1: and if they are going to say and you're not
Speaker 1: going to investigate these fraudulent daycare centers, if they're going
Speaker 1: to stand in the gap, if they're going to aid
Speaker 1: and a bet criminal fraud, which again even of alves
Speaker 1: federal money, they should be prosecuted. They should. And this
Speaker 1: is not something where you send out an army of
Speaker 1: armed and armored thugs to go get in people's faces
Speaker 1: and start pushing and shoving and shooting. This is going
Speaker 1: around with auditors and lawyers and doing it with due process.
Speaker 1: This is what needs to happen, he sees happened in
Speaker 1: an orderly way. Trump doesn't want to do this because
Speaker 1: his model is to have professional wrestling. Conflict and chaos.
Speaker 1: That is his mo that is his calling card, that
Speaker 1: is how he gets attention, and so he deliberately wants
Speaker 1: this kind of conflict at the lower level, when actually
Speaker 1: we'd all be better served if you're doing it at
Speaker 1: the top level. So the problems are on both sides.
Speaker 1: At the top level, the problem is with a Trump
Speaker 1: administration and the in your face confrontational chaos that they
Speaker 1: desire to have. And at the top of the left
Speaker 1: in terms of state and local government, the fact that
Speaker 1: they want to completely flood our country and take it
Speaker 1: down cloward and pivot style. Those are the issues. But
Speaker 1: they want us fighting with each other. They won't fight
Speaker 1: with each other, they won't fight. The guys at the
Speaker 1: top won't fight with each other. They want us fighting
Speaker 1: with each other. And so sanctuary cities and states are
Speaker 1: violating the law and you should start with them rather
Speaker 1: than the people that walked across the border, for example.
Speaker 1: So the image that we have here, I'll just pull
Speaker 1: this up. Oh that's the wrong one. Sorry, this one
Speaker 1: right here. This is a fifty six year old man.
Speaker 1: They had about ten to fifteen ice agents who break
Speaker 1: in the door, you know, drug raid style. And actually,
Speaker 1: I've talked so many times about Brazil, and Brazil begins
Speaker 1: with this over the top raid of militized, armored up
Speaker 1: police kicking the door, coming through the ceiling, the windows,
Speaker 1: and everything else after this one guy. And it's a
Speaker 1: case of mistaken identity. And that is how the that's
Speaker 1: the thread that runs through the entire story. They got
Speaker 1: the wrong guy. And yet we have seen even though
Speaker 1: when Terry Gilliam did that in nineteen eighty four it
Speaker 1: was so over the top. It's like, well, you know,
Speaker 1: this is satire, right, taking it to the extreme, and
Speaker 1: yet that's what it is in reality. Now there is
Speaker 1: no over the top satire. This is our reality. So
Speaker 1: ten to fifteen agents break in and you got this
Speaker 1: guy who's fifty six years old and his grandson is
Speaker 1: their five year old grandson terrorized the family. I mean,
Speaker 1: is it straight out of Brazil? The very beginning of Brazil?
Speaker 1: I heard something I didn't see anything. Did that go
Speaker 1: out that the visuals go out? Anyway? Travis was trying
Speaker 1: to play it. Thanks Travis, the terrorise everybody. They drag
Speaker 1: this guy out in ten degree weather and he's wearing
Speaker 1: shorts and crocs, that's it. No shirt, not even long pants,
Speaker 1: no socks, nothing, crocs and shorts. He grabs the blanket
Speaker 1: that his five year old son was on as they're
Speaker 1: going out and wraps himself in that. The Ice agents
Speaker 1: I won't even call him law enforcement or cops. They
Speaker 1: don't deserve that title. They're beneath that. These guys drag
Speaker 1: him out, put him in the car. They drive around
Speaker 1: for an hour with him in the car. The family
Speaker 1: doesn't know where he is after they have fingerprinted him
Speaker 1: and now done some investigation. You know, you take the
Speaker 1: grandfather and you do the due process later, says Trump. Right,
Speaker 1: at first that was just about firearms. Now it's about
Speaker 1: grandpa's You seize the grandpa first, you do the due
Speaker 1: process later. And so they grab him. After they do
Speaker 1: the due process, they realize this guy has never done
Speaker 1: anything wrong in America. He doesn't violated anything, and he's
Speaker 1: here legally. These are people from Laos, the Hmong group.
Speaker 1: If I'm saying it correctly, I don't know if I'm
Speaker 1: pronouncing that right. It's Hmong, I'll say Jimong. A lot
Speaker 1: of them came over from Laos because there was a
Speaker 1: civil war there. War that the US got involved with
Speaker 1: at the time of Vietnam, and yeah, this is the
Speaker 1: vituals that he's putting on. This this is Brazil Terry
Speaker 1: Gilliams satire of nineteen eighty four, except who now live
Speaker 1: in this satire. So these guys, ten to fifteen of them,
Speaker 1: automatic weapons pointed at people, fully armored, come in terrorize
Speaker 1: the family. This just happened. That was Icily did it.
Speaker 1: And then they drag the guy out without any clothes
Speaker 1: on into the ten degree weather, driving around for an hour.
Speaker 1: After they've done the due process, they realize they don't
Speaker 1: have a criminal here, and they bring him back and
Speaker 1: drop him off as if nothing ever happened. No apology, right,
Speaker 1: And I'm surprised that they didn't take him in and
Speaker 1: charge him for the interrogation, which is what they did
Speaker 1: in Brazil. But then they put out a cover story
Speaker 1: because this is filmed by a relative was very angry
Speaker 1: about this and put it out, and some of the
Speaker 1: people point out that it could have been worse. You know,
Speaker 1: we've had people who have been abducted who were not
Speaker 1: illegal immigrants, people who are not criminals, and they were
Speaker 1: disappeared and they don't know where they went some people
Speaker 1: whose crime was to come here illegally, which is a misdemeanor.
Speaker 1: And again, I think the real solution, First of all,
Speaker 1: just stop the welfare magnet. You don't pay welfare payments
Speaker 1: to anybody that comes here, even if they come here
Speaker 1: as a legal immigrant, certainly not to illegal immigrants and
Speaker 1: every other country. You have to show that you can
Speaker 1: support yourself and your family before you become a citizen.
Speaker 1: So make that a rule for legal immigrants, and that
Speaker 1: illegal immigrants don't get a dime. That would do a
Speaker 1: lot to stop this. And then, of course, if people
Speaker 1: are committing crimes, you actually punish them rather than turning
Speaker 1: them back out on the street. In a catch and
Speaker 1: release program. You see these people that they put up
Speaker 1: and they say, well, this person has been arrested for
Speaker 1: five different rates and they were released each time. Right,
Speaker 1: what is the matter with our justicistm So fix the
Speaker 1: justice system. Go after these governors and these state attorneys
Speaker 1: general who are defying federal law that has been delegated
Speaker 1: to the federal government constitutionally. Go after those people first
Speaker 1: instead of the innocent people that are around there. But
Speaker 1: they have taken people away, and you relatives can't find
Speaker 1: out where they went. Even if they're illegal immigrants, they
Speaker 1: won't tell them, you know, what country they sent them to,
Speaker 1: or if they're in a prison somewhere. Just nothing. They
Speaker 1: just disappear people. And you actually got people on the
Speaker 1: right now who are cheering the kind of governments that
Speaker 1: have done that in South America, like an Argentina and
Speaker 1: Pinochet's Chile. You know, I actually got people. Well, let's
Speaker 1: put them on a helicopter, take them out over the ocean,
Speaker 1: drop them. Yeah, you'd be careful about that. That's going
Speaker 1: to come back around to you. So again, a neighbor said,
Speaker 1: whatever you think this is, it's worse than you think.
Speaker 1: That's his detainment told me by phone on Monday. Is
Speaker 1: what happened. They said, ten to fifteen agents. And so
Speaker 1: they take him out, they find they got the wrong guy,
Speaker 1: they bring him back. But then the lies begin from
Speaker 1: Homeland Security. So you had DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin,
Speaker 1: who was putting out a whole series of lies about
Speaker 1: the shooting. As well said that his arrest, the operation
Speaker 1: was targeting quote two convicted sex offenders. See were they
Speaker 1: named Donald and Jeffrey? Well, actually one of the Donald
Speaker 1: doesn't have any convictions for well, I guess he. You
Speaker 1: could say he does have sex offender victions. We just
Speaker 1: had somebody come out with allegations, a rocky veteran, a
Speaker 1: male had just come out with allegations that he was
Speaker 1: trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein to Donald Trump, and he alleges
Speaker 1: that Donald Trump raped him homosexually. So we'll see what
Speaker 1: happens with that. Anyway, with final orders removal from an
Speaker 1: immigration judge, they were looking for two convicted sex offenders,
Speaker 1: and so Tricia McLaughlin claimed without evidence that this guy
Speaker 1: lived with these two men and that he was detained
Speaker 1: because quote, he matched the description of the targets. A
Speaker 1: few hours later, they posted photos and information about the
Speaker 1: two Asian men that they were looking for. These were
Speaker 1: very young men. This guy is a grandfather. He's fifty
Speaker 1: six years old. He doesn't look anything like these guys.
Speaker 1: I mean, even if you think all Asians look alike, right,
Speaker 1: there's an age difference. And of course we had a
Speaker 1: lot of Asian friends. They even joked about that there
Speaker 1: was a website all looked same and they were laughing
Speaker 1: about it. They said, they put this up and they
Speaker 1: show pictures of Asian people and they challenge you to say,
Speaker 1: is this person Japanese, Chinese, Korean? You know what is
Speaker 1: this person? They said, we can't tell, you know, we're Asian,
Speaker 1: so anyway, but there are other ways that law enforcement
Speaker 1: has of identifying people. And the age difference was ludicrous.
Speaker 1: But they put up these people are the worst of
Speaker 1: the worst, and we were looking for them, and unfortunately
Speaker 1: we got this guy. But he lived with them, so
Speaker 1: he's kind of guilty my extension. That was their justification.
Speaker 1: They didn't attempt to explain or prove the men were
Speaker 1: connected to him, and they both made to be significantly
Speaker 1: younger than him, and so they reached out for clarity
Speaker 1: the person who's writing this piece, But we didn't get
Speaker 1: any further feedback from that. And why, even under those
Speaker 1: circumstances would you take a suspect. Remember, you know, when
Speaker 1: we're talking about law enforcement, always in the past, police
Speaker 1: and law enforcement always very very careful to call people suspects.
Speaker 1: You know, even when there was a room full of
Speaker 1: witnesses who saw them pull the trigger and shoot somebody
Speaker 1: and they've got it on videotape, they still call him
Speaker 1: a suspect. We don't have that from Ice. We don't
Speaker 1: have that from Christine Home and Trisha McLachlin. We don't
Speaker 1: have that from Trump. And so then there was a
Speaker 1: family statement that disputed this. The family said, no, mister
Speaker 1: Taw is his name right. He is a US citizen
Speaker 1: with no criminal records, said the family statement. He does
Speaker 1: not live with, nor has he ever lived with, the
Speaker 1: individuals that DHS claims or targets of this operation. The
Speaker 1: only people residing at the home are mister Taw, his son,
Speaker 1: his daughter in law, and his young grandson. They do
Speaker 1: not know the individuals that DHS has referred to. The
Speaker 1: family said no warrant was presented. Agents did not ask
Speaker 1: for Tow's ID, but they quote, nevertheless, forcibly entered the
Speaker 1: home with weapons drawn Brazil style. They may have been
Speaker 1: looking for Tuddle, but they got mister Buddle, and the
Speaker 1: two don't know each other. They said, Taw and his
Speaker 1: family have lived in this home for two years. Well,
Speaker 1: the narrative that we get isn't just coming from Tricia
Speaker 1: McLaughlin lying about this and saying out we're going out there,
Speaker 1: We're arresting all these criminals and so forth. It's also
Speaker 1: coming from the top, just like the repudiation of immigration
Speaker 1: laws on the left is coming from the top. Here's
Speaker 1: Trump trying to justify some of this stuff.
Speaker 2: People vicious, many of the murderers, these are all out
Speaker 2: of Minnesota, just Minnesota. I said, why don't you talk
Speaker 2: about that? Or because people don't know? Do you want
Speaker 2: to live with these people?
Speaker 1: I don't want to live with you, Trump.
Speaker 2: These are people that are living.
Speaker 1: You're a vicious murderer as well. He had and either
Speaker 1: put in and a sexophone the.
Speaker 2: Country from where they came, and the countries respect us,
Speaker 2: and so they actually put them there. In the old days,
Speaker 2: they didn't respect our country. Biden wouldn't do this because he.
Speaker 1: Let them all in.
Speaker 2: You know, if you didn't have open border policies of Biden,
Speaker 2: none of this, all of the things that we all
Speaker 2: the time that we spent talking about Minnesota and everything else,
Speaker 2: most of them are coming from out of the country.
Speaker 2: And it's been caused by a previous administrative one.
Speaker 1: Afterward, Yeah, well you get the idea, okay, And of
Speaker 1: course you want to talk about the government created problem
Speaker 1: that goes back to Trump's first administration. Remember the key
Speaker 1: thing he was going to do with build the wall.
Speaker 1: He didn't do it. You know, Steve Mannon got convicted
Speaker 1: for fraud, and justly so, I think, because he and
Speaker 1: other people did a private foundation to build the wall
Speaker 1: and then they filled an awful lot of money from it.
Speaker 1: But why did they do that. They did it because
Speaker 1: Trump wasn't building the wall, and he could have built
Speaker 1: the wall, and he could have done something to enforce
Speaker 1: immigration in his first term. Instead, after everybody figured everything
Speaker 1: dropped off right away after he got elected, and he
Speaker 1: got very quiet in terms of border crossings, and then
Speaker 1: everybody realized he's nothing but a paper tiger. I'll talk,
Speaker 1: no action. And then you had the caravans. We'd never
Speaker 1: seen that before, the caravans, And how did he deal
Speaker 1: with that? He didn't know how to deal with that either.
Speaker 1: So don't talk to me about a government created problem,
Speaker 1: a problem that's been created by every Democrat and every
Speaker 1: Republican administration. They have let this problem fester and grow.
Speaker 1: They give money to people who come here illegally. It's
Speaker 1: almost like a bribe to get people to come here illegally.
Speaker 1: And that's bipartisan, that's both parties. They let this go
Speaker 1: on for decades and then they create a big problem
Speaker 1: and they come in and say, well, you know, the
Speaker 1: only solution to this is to suspend the rule of
Speaker 1: law and have martial law, militarized federalized police who are
Speaker 1: accountable to nobody, who don't have to do search warrants,
Speaker 1: who can violate every aspect of new process. That's the
Speaker 1: solution we got for you. You see how they play this game,
Speaker 1: don't you. It's disgusting. And so this is what we're
Speaker 1: seeing there in Minnesota. Now, we're also seeing in Minnesota
Speaker 1: a lot of clips of people saying the military is everywhere,
Speaker 1: and so people are putting up on social media all
Speaker 1: the movement of troops in Minnesota because Trump is ready
Speaker 1: preparing to declare an insurrection Act and use military force
Speaker 1: there because he wants confrontation. You know, we've had presidents
Speaker 1: who've used the military in the past to enforce civil
Speaker 1: rights stuff, but they did it in a way to
Speaker 1: try to avoid confrontation. Instead, this is being done in
Speaker 1: a way to invite confrontation. And so that's on one side,
Speaker 1: that's the gang that's being set up on one side,
Speaker 1: and then on the other side they will put up
Speaker 1: pictures like this Daily Caller got this guy, right, some
Speaker 1: Anti five guy with a rifle there, a prey serious
Speaker 1: looking rifle and wearing a mask as well. You understand,
Speaker 1: we've got two different gangs, right, We've got the Anti
Speaker 1: five gang wearing a mask and carrying automatic weapons, okay,
Speaker 1: and then we've got the military doing the same and
Speaker 1: ICE doing the same, and you and I are caught
Speaker 1: in the middle of this. We need to speak up
Speaker 1: about this. We don't need to go silently into this,
Speaker 1: and we don't need to join one tribe or the other.
Speaker 1: And quite frankly, the people who are the most dangerous threat.
Speaker 1: There's not one or two guys out there with guns. Yeah,
Speaker 1: anybody can kill you, but it is the massive government
Speaker 1: operation that believes that it is accountable to no man
Speaker 1: and not accountable to God. Either. They can kill whoever
Speaker 1: they wish, and they don't even have to show any remorse.
Speaker 1: Whether you're talking about people in boats in Venezuela or
Speaker 1: you're talking about people on the streets of Minneapolis, they
Speaker 1: can kill whoever they wish. They just have to say, well,
Speaker 1: I felt threatened by what they're doing. I felt threatened
Speaker 1: by those boats. I think they're going to bring drugs in.
Speaker 1: So we killed them. And then we didn't kill everybody
Speaker 1: the first time. We went back, circle back and eliminated
Speaker 1: the people who were struggling to stay afloat the shipwrecked
Speaker 1: people that we had just attacked. And so a daily
Speaker 1: caller spotted what appears to be mostly peaceful protesters. That's
Speaker 1: that picture I just showed you. And so these are peaceful,
Speaker 1: mostly peaceful protesters. How about we have some mostly peaceful
Speaker 1: peace officers? Could we have that? Don't talk to me
Speaker 1: about the ends if you don't care what the means are,
Speaker 1: makes all the difference in the world. Trump Berger says,
Speaker 1: can't wait for David to watch Trump's speech at Davos. Well,
Speaker 1: his plane turned around for a last I saw. I
Speaker 1: don't know is he'd taken another plane. He had some
Speaker 1: problems with air Force one, which is a good example
Speaker 1: I think of the futility and arrogance of power. Here's
Speaker 1: a guy who's got his own private plane, you know,
Speaker 1: massive airliner, a big entourage and everything. He's got all
Speaker 1: of the protections and everything, the best stuff that money
Speaker 1: can buy, the best stuff that money that they've printed
Speaker 1: up can buy. And so this is like having the beast,
Speaker 1: the armored car breakdown somewhere. He's on his way to
Speaker 1: rally and it breaks down. He's got to call uber.
Speaker 1: They had to turn the plane around and come back.
Speaker 1: They're saying it was some kind of a problem. I
Speaker 1: don't know. You can't believe anything they say. All position
Speaker 1: is to lie, just like the Clinton's. I said this
Speaker 1: on the longest time about Bill on Millrick. I said
Speaker 1: the truth. They would be better served by the truth
Speaker 1: than by the lies that they tell. But their default
Speaker 1: position is to lie about everything. I remember when we
Speaker 1: had that illegitimate son of Bill Clinton, who was the
Speaker 1: poor guy was you know, he bore some resemblance to Clinton,
Speaker 1: and his mother was a prostitute and said that Bill
Speaker 1: Clinton was the father and so forth, and he used
Speaker 1: to have the Arkansas State Police would come by and
Speaker 1: give him money every Christmas and all this other kind
Speaker 1: of stuff. And then that stopped when Bill Clinton ran
Speaker 1: for national office and they would not do a paternity
Speaker 1: test to disprove that this guy was Bill Clinton's child.
Speaker 1: They gave him the cold shoulder, and he was going
Speaker 1: around trying to get attention, and of course because in
Speaker 1: for worth was trying to support Trump would go around
Speaker 1: and we would cover all these things. I felt sorry
Speaker 1: for the guy. You know, he says, Look, I'm not
Speaker 1: trying to get any money from him. I just tease
Speaker 1: my father. I'd just like to have him acknowledge that.
Speaker 1: I say, Williams was his name. Yeah, Danny Williams. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: Danny Williams. And you know, he again, he was sincere
Speaker 1: and what he wanted. I think I don't think he
Speaker 1: was looking for money. He was being used by people
Speaker 1: like Rogerstone, and that's certainly for political purposes. And I
Speaker 1: said at the time, I said, look, if Trump would
Speaker 1: not Trump, if Clinton would come out and kind of
Speaker 1: embrace this guy to be a father to him. We
Speaker 1: saw that happen with Arnold Schwarzenegger, right, he had an
Speaker 1: illegitimate child by his maid, and the kid looks a
Speaker 1: bit like him and anything. But he's kind of mentored
Speaker 1: him and been a father to him. And you didn't
Speaker 1: get a lot of criticism for that. I mean, people
Speaker 1: respect that. Even if they don't respect how this child
Speaker 1: came into the world and what you did to bring
Speaker 1: this child into the world, they respect you staying up
Speaker 1: to the responsibility people would have respected that for Bill Clinton,
Speaker 1: especially given the fact that you had at least Democrats
Speaker 1: say he's our first black president. Well, he could be
Speaker 1: the first absentee black father to actually take responsibility for
Speaker 1: this stuff. But again I said, the truth would serve
Speaker 1: him better if they would admit to it and do
Speaker 1: something about it. That would help them, especially with their base.
Speaker 1: But instead, out of pride or whatever it was, hubris,
Speaker 1: they decided that they were going to deny the paternity
Speaker 1: of Danny Williams. Thank you for reminding me of his name.
Speaker 1: I'd forgotten his name, Travis. But anyway, so.
Speaker 3: The right, not to be too pedantic, but most likely
Speaker 3: the rifle that the ice guy had wasn't an automatic
Speaker 3: but a semi audio.
Speaker 1: Right, you're right, I'm sorry. Yeah, I'm sure that if
Speaker 1: it was an automatic they would have swooped in.
Speaker 3: And possibly an automatic, since there is not usually an
Speaker 3: easy way to identify that on the outside, he could
Speaker 3: have modified it and you wouldn't really be able to
Speaker 3: tell from that distance. But most likely a semi automatic rifle.
Speaker 1: I thought about that when I said it, and you know,
Speaker 1: but thank you for correcting that, because you know a
Speaker 1: lot more about firearms than I do. That's absolutely for sure. Anyway,
Speaker 1: sheriff deputies just pulled up and rescued a man being
Speaker 1: attacked by violent mobs. All this stuff is being put
Speaker 1: out by the right, and they're right, right, so you
Speaker 1: know the response to all this stuff. We don't want
Speaker 1: to have mobs, whether they got uniforms and badges or
Speaker 1: whether they don't have uniforms and badges. Because some of
Speaker 1: the ICE people don't have uniforms and badges. That's a
Speaker 1: big part of the issue there. And they're wearing masks,
Speaker 1: so how do we know they're not antiphile? We would
Speaker 1: take their word for it, right, We don't want to
Speaker 1: have mobs of armed people out they're harassing and arresting
Speaker 1: people though they don't know anything about. We got mobs
Speaker 1: of anti file that arresting people. Be goes, hey, you
Speaker 1: look conservative. We've got Ice out there harassing and killing
Speaker 1: some people. Because it's like, hey, you look like a
Speaker 1: foreigner or you sound like a foreigner. I don't like
Speaker 1: your accent. What kind of American are you? Remember that
Speaker 1: line from Civil War? That's where we are right now.
Speaker 1: We don't want that from either side, and yet both
Speaker 1: sides will say, yeah, but what about Yeah, we got this,
Speaker 1: We got this antifig guy out there with a semi
Speaker 1: automatic weapon, and you know what about him? And then
Speaker 1: the other guys, they'll say, the antiphi people say yeah,
Speaker 1: but what about the ice people. It's just what about ism?
Speaker 1: This is the downward spiral taking us all down the drain.
Speaker 1: Everybody's saying, yeah, yeah, my guys are bad, but what
Speaker 1: about these other guys on the other side. We've got
Speaker 1: to do something about them. So the you know, they're great,
Speaker 1: they're violating the constitution. CBS News reported the Justice Department
Speaker 1: is investigating Governor Wallfs and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Fry over
Speaker 1: an alleged conspiracy to impede federal immigration agents during deportation operations.
Speaker 1: You know, what do we do about this? Where's the
Speaker 1: local law enforcement? Well, they are a wall as a
Speaker 1: matter of fact, and they're absent without leave, and yet
Speaker 1: many of them are getting leave, many of them are
Speaker 1: getting paid leave. You had the governor of Minnesota, Walls
Speaker 1: signed the law back in twenty twenty three, giving extended
Speaker 1: medical and family leave to anybody who wanted it, and
Speaker 1: it began on January first of this year. So they
Speaker 1: signed the law on twenty twenty three, so that it's
Speaker 1: going to effective January first, twenty twenty six, and it has.
Speaker 1: And so you've got a lot of people, especially police officers,
Speaker 1: dozens of police officers expected to tap into the new
Speaker 1: state paid leave program. Well, they're not really doing anything anyway, right,
Speaker 1: they're not out there saying, you know, have you got
Speaker 1: a warrant for this? Let's make sure they're not being
Speaker 1: a referee, right, or is Sheriff Taylor when we need
Speaker 1: them from Maybury? We need somebody like that to be
Speaker 1: the referee between these two different sides, you know, to
Speaker 1: be the adult in the room. And they're not going
Speaker 1: to do that. And they're not going to protect people
Speaker 1: from the Antifa mob either, And so this part of
Speaker 1: the problem with this socialist blank check that they've written
Speaker 1: for people, and its like you say, you got a
Speaker 1: medical issue or you've got a family issue, Sure, go
Speaker 1: ahead and take off a couple of months. That's fine,
Speaker 1: We'll keep paying you. And there was no limit to
Speaker 1: the number of people that could leave from a given department.
Speaker 1: In other words, there wasn't anything in the law that says, well,
Speaker 1: once we get up to certain percent, let's say twenty percent.
Speaker 1: You know, once twenty percent of the people are gone
Speaker 1: because of paid leave, then we have to wait until
Speaker 1: these people come back before you can take it. No,
Speaker 1: it's just as many people as want to do it. It
Speaker 1: can take it, because that's the way welfare programs work, right,
Speaker 1: they're entitlement programs. If you check the boxes, you get it.
Speaker 1: It doesn't matter what the consequences are. It doesn't matter
Speaker 1: if we can afford it or not. You get the
Speaker 1: paid leave. And so that's the other issue. The thing
Speaker 1: you know, when you when you look at what they're
Speaker 1: not doing, that any think of any use anyway. So
Speaker 1: maybe I guess that doesn't matter. They're already a wall
Speaker 1: in terms of helping with things Guard Goldsmith liberty, conspiracy.
Speaker 1: Good to see a guard. The mayor and governor have
Speaker 1: all constitutional prerogatives on their side. Per Article for Section four,
Speaker 1: the Feds are not supposed to enter without state request
Speaker 1: the Insurrection Act as blatantly and dangerously unconstitutional. I agree
Speaker 1: with that. Now. I agree that the actions that are
Speaker 1: being taken by and let me clarify that you know
Speaker 1: what Trump is doing with the military and what he's
Speaker 1: doing in the way that ice is deployed, and you know,
Speaker 1: the thousands of them, they're armored up, you know, going
Speaker 1: house to house as they've bragged they're going to do.
Speaker 1: We're going to go door to door. They say, all
Speaker 1: of that is wrong, all of that is unconstitutional. But
Speaker 1: when you have when you have state and state officials
Speaker 1: and local officials say we're going to block investigations into fraud,
Speaker 1: the Somali fraud, that is aiding and abetting criminal fraud,
Speaker 1: and so they have something that they can do about that.
Speaker 1: And if you say that they're going to set their
Speaker 1: state up as a sanctuary state, they don't have the
Speaker 1: authority to do that under the constitution. Those powers have
Speaker 1: been delegated to the federal government to control the borders
Speaker 1: and that type of thing, and so there is no
Speaker 1: authority for that. So the problem is again the way
Speaker 1: that it's being done. That's what I've said all along.
Speaker 1: I don't disagree with the end of what they're doing,
Speaker 1: and I think they have constitutional authority for the end
Speaker 1: of this. We want to stop fraud, we want to
Speaker 1: stop illegal immigration and so forth, and unfortunately, you don't
Speaker 1: want to stop the welfare fraud that is there. The
Speaker 1: welfare magnets bringing people in. But the way that they're
Speaker 1: doing it is all wrong. And you're absolutely right. You know,
Speaker 1: he is in with a massive armies invading Minnesota, and
Speaker 1: you're going to do it in other states as well,
Speaker 1: because he wants conflict. Like I said before, they could
Speaker 1: do this in terms of a criminal Look, if you've
Speaker 1: got somebody and there's I forget what it was, is
Speaker 1: that like half of the money I think that had
Speaker 1: been put out for daycare and food relief and so
Speaker 1: half of it was fraud. If you're going to preside
Speaker 1: over that and if you're going to block any investigation
Speaker 1: of that, that's criminal. That's aiding and abetting a massive fraud,
Speaker 1: and it's a massive fraud on the entire nation because
Speaker 1: you're using federal money to do that. I don't agree
Speaker 1: with those programs, but this is also fraud, and so
Speaker 1: there ought to be white collar investigations of this kind
Speaker 1: of stuff, not door to door kicking them down and
Speaker 1: dragging people out in the snow. I don't ever agree
Speaker 1: with that. So again you've got Todd Blanche, the Deputy
Speaker 1: Attorney General right under Pam Bondy saying we are not
Speaker 1: going to investigate the shooting over Nay Good. Very arrogant
Speaker 1: in this statement. Now, we don't normally look at shootings
Speaker 1: like that done by law enforcement. If they say they
Speaker 1: felt like they needed to do, we'll just go with
Speaker 1: whatever they say. We did iver second, guess it right,
Speaker 1: We've got a huge problem with that. And we look
Speaker 1: at this guy, Todd Blanche. Where have we seen him before?
Speaker 1: His name first came up because he was the guardian
Speaker 1: angel of Glaine Maxwell. He was the one who went
Speaker 1: to talk to the Deputy Attorney General went to talk
Speaker 1: to Gallaine Maxwell. That doesn't show any red flags, does
Speaker 1: it that the president would be so worried about what
Speaker 1: Gallaine Maxwell had on him and on the intelligence agencies. Remember,
Speaker 1: she deliberately posed with that book, you know, about spies
Speaker 1: and murders of spies and stuff like that, the tales
Speaker 1: that they could tell. She almost taunted the intelligence agencies
Speaker 1: about what she knew. And so Todd Blanche goes to
Speaker 1: her and has a very very long discussion with her.
Speaker 1: Next thing, you know, she's moved out of the prison
Speaker 1: and into Club Fed where she's got very nice accommodations
Speaker 1: and gets special treatment even there. And so this guy
Speaker 1: this fixer for pedophiles, Todd Blanche, the White House guy Blanche.
Speaker 1: It's kind of funny that that would be the name anyway.
Speaker 1: So he has declared that Jonathan Ross the killer, was
Speaker 1: justified to kill and as this Reason article points out,
Speaker 1: most Americans disagree with that. He said, why is it that,
Speaker 1: in general, about sixty percent of independence and more than
Speaker 1: that for Democrats, and a lot and nearly that many
Speaker 1: for Republicans. Most of them believe that the murder was murdered.
Speaker 1: I believe that from the first time I saw it.
Speaker 1: And so why is that if it's obvious, you know,
Speaker 1: you've got Todd Blanch, you've got CHRISTI no Home saying
Speaker 1: go back and look at the video. Well, they point
Speaker 1: out in Reason, most of the people have looked at
Speaker 1: the video, and that's why they think it's murder. And
Speaker 1: when you see the film from the officer that was there,
Speaker 1: that he took, you can clearly see that she's not
Speaker 1: even looking at him, that she's supposedly trying to murder him.
Speaker 1: She doesn't have an expression of hate or fear or
Speaker 1: anything else. She's calmly turning the wheel. And you could
Speaker 1: already see from the first footage that was out there
Speaker 1: that she's moving forward the wheel iss turn, and I said,
Speaker 1: have these people never driven a car. If somebody's telling
Speaker 1: you to get the car out of here, she's doing
Speaker 1: a three point turn. And one of the things that
Speaker 1: she had to do to back up was because this
Speaker 1: guy runs out in front of her car trying to
Speaker 1: use his body to stop her. That doesn't make any sense.
Speaker 1: That's not people who are trained in law enforcement told
Speaker 1: don't try to stop a car with your body. That's stupid.
Speaker 1: I mean I even had somebody want to criticize that initially,
Speaker 1: as hum person said, well, what would you do? And
Speaker 1: I said, first of all, wouldn't try to stop the
Speaker 1: car with my body. And you can see from his
Speaker 1: footage that you know, he walks around and then he
Speaker 1: leaps forward just as she's starting to move forward. He
Speaker 1: leaps forward and leans into the car. But he still
Speaker 1: wasn't hurt. And all this nonsense about the internal bleeding,
Speaker 1: I mean, it's just been one lie after the other.
Speaker 1: Began with lies from Christinome that they were stuck in
Speaker 1: the snow. They were not stuck in the snow. We
Speaker 1: can all see that's a lie. And then they were
Speaker 1: attacked with cars right when they were stuck in the snow. No, Christy,
Speaker 1: you might want to look at the video before you
Speaker 1: start making up lies. But that's the contempt that they
Speaker 1: have for us. No, they're not going to call me
Speaker 1: on this lie. They like me. I can say anything
Speaker 1: I want, you know, just like Trump. I can tell
Speaker 1: the main thing I want and they'll second that. They'll
Speaker 1: go along with it. And so they lied about everything
Speaker 1: and how they're saying that he was bleeding internally, and
Speaker 1: people point out, well, you know, if you're bleeding internally,
Speaker 1: they'll keep you in the hospital for observation, no specifics.
Speaker 1: You know, what was that about and why did it stop?
Speaker 1: The thing I thought was a real tell with that
Speaker 1: where they said he was bleeding internally and the torso, well,
Speaker 1: that sounds like a doctor's diagnosis. I went into the
Speaker 1: doctor and I said, you know, I got such and
Speaker 1: such a problem, and it's I think it might be
Speaker 1: something in your torso. I don't know. I mean, when
Speaker 1: you walk out of that doctor's office, if that's all
Speaker 1: he knows, he doesn't doesn't have a clue somewhere your torso, well,
Speaker 1: that's a good note. It's under my arm's legs or
Speaker 1: head right. That kind of narrows it down. It was absurd,
Speaker 1: and if he had had internal bleeding, they would have
Speaker 1: not released him in a couple of hours. That was
Speaker 1: a cover story. It was a story to cover for
Speaker 1: Trump's lie that he was run over, which we could
Speaker 1: all see it did not happen. He didn't even get
Speaker 1: knocked to the ground, let alone get run over. And
Speaker 1: so the flip side of that was that I showed
Speaker 1: that video the very first day. There was a guy saying,
Speaker 1: I'm a doctor, let me help. Oh, stay back, you
Speaker 1: can't help. You know, you try to help, I'm going
Speaker 1: to have to kill you. You know that type of thing.
Speaker 1: And the reality is that she was alive for several
Speaker 1: hours after that, and they refused medical help to her.
Speaker 1: The sheriff, who pointed out that they violated all of
Speaker 1: the rules of common sense and police engagement. Whether or
Speaker 1: not you think this is justified, he violated all the rules,
Speaker 1: said he'd had situations where his deputies had in defense
Speaker 1: shot and killed somebody who was shooting at them and
Speaker 1: trying to kill them. After they shot the guy, they
Speaker 1: ran up to administer first aid to him. He said
Speaker 1: the same guy that had just shot at and just
Speaker 1: tried to kill them. They tried to help him after
Speaker 1: they stopped him. That's the way things supposed to work.
Speaker 1: That's the way a just war is supposed to work. Right.
Speaker 1: You are supposed to stop the purpose of the war
Speaker 1: is to stop the violence that was started by somebody else,
Speaker 1: So you don't start wars like Trump does. And then
Speaker 1: your purpose is to end the war as soon as possible,
Speaker 1: and to avoid hurting anybody that is a non combatant.
Speaker 1: And when the threat stops, like you've hit somebody and
Speaker 1: blown up their boat, you don't circle back and kill
Speaker 1: them like the U boat commanders did. There. We say Nazis,
Speaker 1: you don't circle back and kill them. Instead, what you
Speaker 1: do is you administer aid. And that's what these guys
Speaker 1: are doing. That's what a trained cop is supposed to do.
Speaker 1: That's not what the Trump people are doing. It's a
Speaker 1: very very dangerous precedent. They are rewriting all of the
Speaker 1: laws and the Constitution, and they're trying to rewrite moral law. Now,
Speaker 1: I can't do anything about the Constitution. I can't enforce that.
Speaker 1: But I tell you why, I'm going to scream real
Speaker 1: loud when they try to rewrite the moral law. So again,
Speaker 1: we're not investigating the shooting of Renee Good, says Todd Blanch.
Speaker 1: And by the way, they're not going to investigate anything
Speaker 1: about the pedophiles either. So Minnesota's Bureau of Criminal Apprehension
Speaker 1: complained that the agency had been excluded from the investigation.
Speaker 1: And now you've got Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche saying
Speaker 1: that there's not going to be you know, first of all,
Speaker 1: we're going to lead it solely by the FBI. Now
Speaker 1: he comes out this last Sunday and he was asked,
Speaker 1: what can you tell us about the investigation? When will
Speaker 1: that be made public? He didn't answer directly. Instead, what
Speaker 1: Todd Blanch said, well, we don't just go out and
Speaker 1: investigate every time an officer is forced to defend himself
Speaker 1: against somebody who was putting his life in danger. Sounds
Speaker 1: like he's already come to a conclusion here, doesn't it.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of conclusions in that sentence, isn't there.
Speaker 1: We never do. There's over a thousand shootings every year
Speaker 1: where law enforcement officers have been in danger by individuals
Speaker 1: and they have to protect themselves and we and they
Speaker 1: have a lawful right to do so. The problem is
Speaker 1: he was never in danger. The problem is he was
Speaker 1: the aggressor. The problem is that he put innocent people
Speaker 1: bystanders at danger by shooting into that car and then
Speaker 1: turning that car into an unguided missile because he shot
Speaker 1: the person inside the car. Everything he did about that
Speaker 1: was wrong. You know, we've had a lot of police
Speaker 1: departments who have decided that they're not going to do
Speaker 1: hide speed chases of people anymore, because you know, we've
Speaker 1: got cameras, we know the car, and we can follow
Speaker 1: this and see where it is and dispatch officers. They're
Speaker 1: eventually going to run out of gas or stop somewhere.
Speaker 1: We can do that, but we're going to keep our distance.
Speaker 1: We're not going to try to match their speed and
Speaker 1: do everything they did, because we've had a lot of
Speaker 1: people who've been killed, innocent people who've been killed when
Speaker 1: we play those kinds of games. Same thing here, so
Speaker 1: Blanche said, just like Trump, just like Gnome, just like Vance,
Speaker 1: this is self defense. Even though she was driving past.
Speaker 1: Many shot to two shots, and you could argue the
Speaker 1: third shot. These were all shot from angles where he
Speaker 1: was not in danger. The car was driving past him.
Speaker 1: And again, when you shoot somebody who is fleeing, that
Speaker 1: is not self defense, and I would say that that's
Speaker 1: not justified either. It's not justified if I do it
Speaker 1: in my home. If somebody breaks in takes something, they're
Speaker 1: running out with the thing and I'm not threatened, I'm
Speaker 1: not justified to shoot them in the back. And neither
Speaker 1: is a cop. And I don't care what the law says.
Speaker 1: It's not justified. We all know that. Don't let them
Speaker 1: gaslight you with their phony laws. If the law says that,
Speaker 1: then the law is, as one person said, an ass
Speaker 1: and so are the people who are enforcing that law.
Speaker 1: We're not going to agree to a law like that.
Speaker 1: We should demand that it be changed. So it turns
Speaker 1: out that if you look at the polls. Of course,
Speaker 1: the polls aren't going to determine the guilt or innocence
Speaker 1: of Jonathan Ross, and the government's not going to prosecute him,
Speaker 1: but it will have an effect on these politicians who
Speaker 1: are trying to rewrite the law and rewrite morality and
Speaker 1: so independence fifty eight percent of them saying the shooting
Speaker 1: was not justified, with Republicans more than a third said
Speaker 1: the shooting was not justified, said they weren't sure, because
Speaker 1: you're always going to have these people who don't have
Speaker 1: an opinion about whatever it is that you asked them.
Speaker 1: You know, they never have their mind made up. So
Speaker 1: eighty eight percent of Democrats said the shooting was not justified,
Speaker 1: but again fifty eight percent of independence and even with
Speaker 1: Republicans more than a third said the shooting was not justified.
Speaker 1: So there's a heavy, heavy partisan aspect to this, but
Speaker 1: still a lot of people can see what happened with
Speaker 1: all of this and these results. He goes through several
Speaker 1: different polls. I'm not going to redraw the numbers, but
Speaker 1: it's pretty consistent. That's about sixty percent of the people say.
Speaker 1: You know, when you average it out, we average out
Speaker 1: the biased Republicans and the biased Democrats, it works out
Speaker 1: to be about where the Independents are, which is about
Speaker 1: sixty sixty percent of the people saying it wasn't justifying.
Speaker 1: So again, he's been given a paid vacation and he'll
Speaker 1: probably get a medal from Christino eventually. I mean, after all,
Speaker 1: they gave a medal to Fauci. I know it's a commendation.
Speaker 1: You know, we understand what that's about. So are they
Speaker 1: going to fall the law? They're going to follow morality. Know,
Speaker 1: they will always lie to you. And so the as
Speaker 1: they were saying that way, you wait for an investigation
Speaker 1: to speak out, Christinaham said, well, everything that I have
Speaker 1: said has been proven to be factual and true. I
Speaker 1: mean being stuck in the snow, you mean being attacked
Speaker 1: by a car. All that was factual. Nothing you said
Speaker 1: was faction factual. Nothing you said was true, and we
Speaker 1: can all see that you're transparently lying. So they point
Speaker 1: out here, know, Mike blanche And says, everybody can watch
Speaker 1: the videos and see and so Reason magazine says, if
Speaker 1: that were true, that the videos leave no doubt on
Speaker 1: that score, then why do sixty percent of Americans who
Speaker 1: have seen that footage say Good was not trying to
Speaker 1: kill Ross and that he acted recklessly. That's the least
Speaker 1: of all this stuff. The witness reported that one of
Speaker 1: the agents had told her to drive away, which would
Speaker 1: have been a straightforward, in peaceful way to resolve the situation,
Speaker 1: but another agent took a more aggressive approach get out
Speaker 1: of the car, out of the car and started grabbing
Speaker 1: that and of course you can hear from the It's
Speaker 1: amazing to me to see these conservatives and people in
Speaker 1: the past that I generally agree with. You know, I
Speaker 1: need a Broaderick and people like Ben Garrison saying, well,
Speaker 1: that's it if you look at the cops video that
Speaker 1: shows that he's innocent, the cop video after he shoots her,
Speaker 1: just a minute or so after she said hey, everything's fine,
Speaker 1: I'm not angry with you and all this guy he
Speaker 1: shoots and kills her, and then he mumbles on the video,
Speaker 1: effing bitch. Right, Yeah, that would be enough for me, folks,
Speaker 1: I would if I was on the jury. That's enough
Speaker 1: for me. I can see and I can hear, and
Speaker 1: I don't need to get caught up in this partisanship
Speaker 1: stuff here. You know, I need a broaderyck that's putting
Speaker 1: stuff out. Well, she should have just obeyed the cops.
Speaker 1: Which cop are you supposed to obey? And if I
Speaker 1: don't obey a cop, are they justify in killing me?
Speaker 1: You can always blame the victim. It's a shame to
Speaker 1: see that happening with one Nita Broaderick again. You'd always say, well,
Speaker 1: you should never have let Bill Clinton come to your
Speaker 1: hotel room. It's your fault, right, I don't blame her,
Speaker 1: but here she is a victim and she's blaming. It's
Speaker 1: like the people say, well, that Central Park jogger, she
Speaker 1: should have known better than to go jogging in Central
Speaker 1: Park and basically blaming the victim. And that's what Jannita
Speaker 1: Broaderick is doing as well. So the right has caught
Speaker 1: the woke mind virus, says Prethought Project, and their symptoms
Speaker 1: are mass arrest and censorship. And I said this for
Speaker 1: the longest time. I said, you know this is coming
Speaker 1: again from the top down. I said, there were terrible
Speaker 1: things that were done to Trump in terms of law fair.
Speaker 1: It was so unjust and everybody could see the injustice
Speaker 1: of it that it propelled him passed all the debates.
Speaker 1: He didn't have to participate in debates, he didn't have
Speaker 1: to defend his past record, he didn't have to have
Speaker 1: any agenda for the future they wanted to talk about.
Speaker 1: He just became the nominee. And I said, the problem
Speaker 1: is is that he's not going to go in and
Speaker 1: stop the kind of lawfair that was used against him.
Speaker 1: He's going to use that against other people. Why because
Speaker 1: he doesn't want to strengthen the constitution and the rule
Speaker 1: of law. He wants to strengthen himself personally. I'm the
Speaker 1: bad guy on the street. You better not cross me.
Speaker 1: Get on your knees to me. That's what he wants,
Speaker 1: and that's what MAGO wants as well, as a Freethought
Speaker 1: Project points out, they prioritize ideology over reality. They silence dissent,
Speaker 1: They demand total conformity to a collective hive mine. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that was what we always said about the left, wasn't it.
Speaker 1: And what Elon Musk said about the woke mind virus,
Speaker 1: he was right about that, And now we have seen
Speaker 1: all that being done by the MAGA people as well.
Speaker 1: It turned the left into a caricature of authoritarianism, where
Speaker 1: liberty was traded for safety and free speech was branded
Speaker 1: as violence. But here's the terrifying plot twist that f
Speaker 1: you're willing to admit in twenty twenty six, the virus
Speaker 1: didn't die when the Right started winning. The culture war
Speaker 1: is simply jumped hosts. The new Right has not defeated
Speaker 1: the woke mind virus. They have mutated it. We've traded
Speaker 1: blue haired social justice warrior hysteria for red hat Caesar fanaticism.
Speaker 1: That's exactly what has happened. You know. We always say
Speaker 1: be careful, you don't become the monster you fight. Well,
Speaker 1: that is true for the tribes as well, isn't it.
Speaker 1: The symptoms remain exactly the same, an unquenchable thirst to
Speaker 1: use the violence of the state to crush their enemies.
Speaker 1: Especially when you see some news organization out there saying, oh, look,
Speaker 1: you know, we're going to collect there the tears of
Speaker 1: the left and all the rest that we're going to
Speaker 1: you know, crush them and all the rest. Just don't
Speaker 1: trust an organization like that. Don't trust that the goal
Speaker 1: is not justice, The goal is monopoly. They don't hate
Speaker 1: the boot on your neck. They just want to be
Speaker 1: the ones who are wearing it. And so we see
Speaker 1: this happening with the conservatives all the time. When you
Speaker 1: cheer for a police state to crush the left, you're
Speaker 1: cheering for a machine that will eventually crush you. And
Speaker 1: so that is the thing that we need to remember.
Speaker 1: That's what I've always said. It's kind of a paraphrase.
Speaker 1: We know this always right. Remember Gerald Ford's version of that,
Speaker 1: as he said, a government's big enough to give you
Speaker 1: everything that you want is big enough to take everything
Speaker 1: that you've got. Now, we're not talking about economic redistribution anymore.
Speaker 1: We're talking about the redistribution of power, and we're talking
Speaker 1: about two sides that want to hurt and kill each other.
Speaker 1: And just like these people just driving down the street
Speaker 1: in Minneapolis and they get attacked by maybe an Antifa mob,
Speaker 1: or maybe they get attacked by an antipha by a
Speaker 1: ICE mob, simply because the way they look, you're going
Speaker 1: to have these different mobs are going to jump to conclusions.
Speaker 1: And that's the threat that we're all facing right now.
Speaker 1: And so Wayne Allen Root, He's always an interesting character
Speaker 1: to read, an amusing comical character to read. So here's
Speaker 1: Wayne Allen, President Trump. There is a better way to
Speaker 1: empower Ice. Here are some creative ideas guaranteed to succeed
Speaker 1: and make liberal heads explode. Right there, there's a guy
Speaker 1: right there. His strategy, We're going to make liberal heads explode.
Speaker 1: We've got to collect the liberal tears and all the
Speaker 1: rest of stuff. And that's his justification. I need to
Speaker 1: hurt the other people. I need to hurt the other tribe.
Speaker 1: You can kind of dismiss anything that Wayne Allen Root
Speaker 1: has to say. But I thought it was interesting to
Speaker 1: look at it. I thought, well, one of his recommendations
Speaker 1: with this stuff, and so you got to own the
Speaker 1: left right. I'm so tired of this nonsense. But he
Speaker 1: had about five different suggestions, and interestingly enough, the last
Speaker 1: suggestion is something that I've said from the very beginning.
Speaker 1: I was really floored to see Wayne Allen Root agree
Speaker 1: with me on something. So idea number one, this is
Speaker 1: a key idea. Let's change the name of ice to nice.
Speaker 1: That'll make all the difference in the world, won't it. Well,
Speaker 1: you know, the interesting thing is, if he was a
Speaker 1: little bit more literate, you would understand that that was
Speaker 1: the name of the organization totalitarian organization in a C. S.
Speaker 1: Lewis novel. And you know, just like Mystery of Truth,
Speaker 1: that kind of sinister relabeling of that kind of stuff.
Speaker 1: That's not going to make any difference. He So a
Speaker 1: number two said protesters are paid sign executive order banning
Speaker 1: paid protesters. All right, I can kind of see that.
Speaker 1: The problem is then going to be, Well, at what
Speaker 1: point do you call this compensation? I mean, did they
Speaker 1: set up a website somewhere and now you're going to
Speaker 1: call that paid profit protesting. He said, If you're paid
Speaker 1: to do this, it's fake speech, so it'd be banned. Well,
Speaker 1: I agree, I agree with that in principle, but again,
Speaker 1: political speech is political speech, and people can pay for
Speaker 1: political speech, and where do you draw the line on
Speaker 1: this stuff. So that's an unworkable situation. He said. Number three,
Speaker 1: no more kid gloves. Spray them down with water and
Speaker 1: ten degree weather. Yeah, you know, I noticed that they
Speaker 1: drag people, but they don't know who they are. They
Speaker 1: dragged them out in ten degree weather. So yeah, let's
Speaker 1: double down on this stuff. Let's be harsh with people.
Speaker 1: He said. Not only that, but dye of the water red,
Speaker 1: so that we can identify them with this die and
Speaker 1: I will know who they were. It's like, oh, okay,
Speaker 1: so now you're admitting that red is the color of communism.
Speaker 1: I thought that the MAGA people were all clueless about this.
Speaker 1: They said, when the mainstream media labeled them as red states,
Speaker 1: they embraced it and boasted about it. So again, then
Speaker 1: he has his fifth idea. Anybody arrested at these violent
Speaker 1: protests should be busted to far away federal prisons or
Speaker 1: detention centers. I look at that and I thought, you know,
Speaker 1: it seems like, as we're coming up two hundred and
Speaker 1: fiftieth anniversary of the Decoration of Independence, it seems like that
Speaker 1: was one of the things that King George the Third did.
Speaker 1: You know, Let's remove these people out of the area
Speaker 1: where they lived, and let's bring them into a jurisdiction
Speaker 1: where I can nail them. Right, the left has done that.
Speaker 1: They use New York and Washington, d C. To get people.
Speaker 1: So let's bust them away and listen them to some
Speaker 1: as he would call it a red state work, and
Speaker 1: really give them our justice, you know, that type of thing.
Speaker 1: I don't agree with that. But then finally he said,
Speaker 1: here's his grand finale number six, and this is the
Speaker 1: one that I agree with. He said, I said this
Speaker 1: ninety days ago, and I said it when all this
Speaker 1: stuff began. As well. He said, stopped sending ice into
Speaker 1: areas where violent and angry protesters and rioters blocked the
Speaker 1: streets and the politicians won't cooperate. That's what I said.
Speaker 1: I said, if Trump isn't actively trying to get conflict
Speaker 1: and chaos, why doesn't he go to the places where
Speaker 1: he's welcome. He can come to Tennessee and the people
Speaker 1: would work with him on all this stuff. For the
Speaker 1: most part, you know, he would be a very friendly
Speaker 1: environment and you wouldn't have all this conflict. But he
Speaker 1: wants the conflict because the conflict is vital to his
Speaker 1: political and public relations. Right, That's what the man is
Speaker 1: all about. He wants conflict not just within America, but
Speaker 1: he wants conflict with other countries. He wants conflict with
Speaker 1: the Democrats, but he also wants conflict with Republicans. That's
Speaker 1: what he thrives on. So again, doesn't get it. The
Speaker 1: whole point of this is to have conflict. As I
Speaker 1: said at the very beginning of this, if Trump wanted
Speaker 1: to really fix the problem, he could go to the
Speaker 1: top and he could start coming after people who are
Speaker 1: aiding an abetting massive fraud, for example. And part of
Speaker 1: that fraud, I think, is this whole illegal immigration thing.
Speaker 1: And certainly the federal government has the authority to enforce
Speaker 1: immigration law. So if these people want to set themselves
Speaker 1: up as a sanctuary city, come after these politicians who
Speaker 1: do that type of thing. Instead, he wants conflict at
Speaker 1: the grassroots level. He wants a civil war at the
Speaker 1: grassroots level, because he knows and we need to all
Speaker 1: know that we are at a fourth turning and people
Speaker 1: don't have any trust in these institutions. They can see
Speaker 1: how corrupt they are. We have massive financial fraud by
Speaker 1: the federal government, both bipartisan groups, you know, coming up,
Speaker 1: We're going to hit forty trillion dollars of debt probably
Speaker 1: the end of this year. And that's the real issue,
Speaker 1: and that's going to cause major economic consequences. And so
Speaker 1: he wants a war. He wants foreign wars, many of them.
Speaker 1: He wants to have domestic conflict, maybe even a civil
Speaker 1: war that suits his purpose. That is his wag. The
Speaker 1: dog responds to all this. He wants the conflict. It's
Speaker 1: the key part of all of this stuff. So again, yeah,
Speaker 1: if that's a big tell, isn't it, Maybe Wayne Allen
Speaker 1: Ruton needs to go back and look at that. So
Speaker 1: we got another comment here from Guard trash you and
Speaker 1: read it. Yes we do.
Speaker 3: Guard says border control is not in the US Constitution
Speaker 3: only with a declaration of war against a nation state.
Speaker 3: Immigration and border control, as the Texas Constitution of eighteen
Speaker 3: sixty nine noted, was up to the states.
Speaker 1: Well, okay, I'll take your word for it. Guard, I
Speaker 1: want to go back and look at that. I think that,
Speaker 1: you know, when we look at the general purpose of
Speaker 1: the federal government was not to provide welfare payments. They
Speaker 1: say the general welfare, but they say for the common defense.
Speaker 1: I look at that as a broad category of that.
Speaker 1: But again, you know, I think that certainly on the
Speaker 1: fraud issue, when you've got people that are coming, would
Speaker 1: you agree with that, Guard that if you've got mayors
Speaker 1: and other people who are saying, yeah, we know that
Speaker 1: these daycare centers are fraudulent, but we're not going to
Speaker 1: let you do anything about it because we love our somalis, right.
Speaker 1: I think that is something right there there, aiding and
Speaker 1: a betting criminal fraud at the very least. I think
Speaker 1: the other issues are an issue as well, But it
Speaker 1: all comes back to the welfare state. The welfare state
Speaker 1: is unconstitutional to start with. It's fraudulent to start with
Speaker 1: in the general area of that, but of course then
Speaker 1: there's additional fraud on top of that. It's just like
Speaker 1: the Cares Act, right. What Trump did to like everybody
Speaker 1: down was unconstitutional. He bribed everybody to do it, and
Speaker 1: then he bribed you to be silent about it with
Speaker 1: a Cares Act. And yet where did most of that
Speaker 1: money go. Most of it was taken up of fraud.
Speaker 1: The stuff that was supposed to go to small businesses
Speaker 1: went to large businesses. More than fifty percent went to
Speaker 1: the five percent of the largest businesses. They redefined what
Speaker 1: a small business was for that purpose. So everything about
Speaker 1: it was fraudulent, as is most of the stuff that
Speaker 1: government does. But at some point you got to start saying,
Speaker 1: do something about it at some point, and so Guard says, yeah,
Speaker 1: Trump is in Switzerland where they mainly speak German, and
Speaker 1: he just told Davos, Without us, you'd all be speaking German.
Speaker 1: That's even better than the ja FK line. When JFK
Speaker 1: went to Berlin and the Berlin airlift, when they cut
Speaker 1: it off, and he says, heman Berliner, and he thought
Speaker 1: he was saying, I am from Berlin, right but Berliner
Speaker 1: was a jelly donut, and so they cut that off
Speaker 1: right away because you can hear the crowd laughing at
Speaker 1: him because basically what he was saying to them, you know,
Speaker 1: I'm an oreo or something like that, and it would
Speaker 1: have been heman in Deutschlander or something, right. But anyway,
Speaker 1: the yeah, that's a new line.
Speaker 3: I didn't as to how the rest of the world,
Speaker 3: you know, handles, you know, presidential elections, knowing that whoever
Speaker 3: wins for four years, they're going to be sending this
Speaker 3: doufist to your country to give speeches.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 1: We let's just hope that he doesn't send the military
Speaker 1: to your country. I guess that's what most of them
Speaker 1: are thinking, especially the people in Greenland. So we're gonna
Speaker 1: take a quick break, folks, and when we come back,
Speaker 1: I want to talk about this family culture issue that
Speaker 1: is really at the center of what's happening to our society.
Speaker 1: Politics is really downstream from this, and a lot of
Speaker 1: the stuff that Trump is doing, as important as it is,
Speaker 1: as dangerous as it is, it is downstream from this
Speaker 1: major problem. And so we're going to talk about the
Speaker 1: central problem of this. How do we get to the
Speaker 1: situation of the disintegration of families, the disintegration of culture
Speaker 1: and relationship that we have with each other. How do
Speaker 1: we get to that point? And so we're going to
Speaker 1: talk about that when we come back. Stay with us.
Speaker 1: We'll be right back day than anything. Using free speech
Speaker 1: to free minds. It's the David Knight Show.
Speaker 3: APS Radio delivers multiple channels of music right to your
Speaker 3: mobile device. Get the APS Radio app today and listen
Speaker 3: wherever you go.
Speaker 1: We have a special from Homestead Products and you've got that, Travis.
Speaker 1: I think, can you tell people about what's going on
Speaker 1: Homestead Products.
Speaker 3: Yes, give me just a second. Here, I'm pulling it
Speaker 3: up right now.
Speaker 1: I left my phone, so I'm sorry I don't have.
Speaker 3: It on sale. They have their Golden Rod tincture. It
Speaker 3: is now nine dollars. It's a dietary supplement helps with
Speaker 3: system restoration and urinary issues. Golden Rod is exceptional at
Speaker 3: alleviating upper respiratory congestion, something from allergies, sign you sitis,
Speaker 3: flu or the common cold. And again that's on sale
Speaker 3: at Homestead Products Dot shop and you can use promo
Speaker 3: code Night for ten percent off anything at their website.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, yeah, do something. Look at some of these natural remedies,
Speaker 1: and they've got some wonderful things there at Homestead Products.
Speaker 1: And you know, look at some of these natural remedies
Speaker 1: that have been around for a long time. We've always
Speaker 1: had cold, we've always had flu, and you know, there
Speaker 1: was a panic story that was put out by the
Speaker 1: mainstream media saying that this mother who just lost her
Speaker 1: four year old child to flu has a message for everybody.
Speaker 1: And you know, so they're trying to sell you on
Speaker 1: the flu shot. She said. You know, my husband I
Speaker 1: we never got flu shots before. We never had a
Speaker 1: problem with this, and this child is very healthy. We
Speaker 1: don't really know what happened with it. And the strange
Speaker 1: thing they said was that you know, wasn't the first
Speaker 1: person in the family to get sick. Other people had
Speaker 1: been sick, but you know, we don't know how she
Speaker 1: got this disease. It's like, yeah, you go back and
Speaker 1: look at the cold house that the British had for
Speaker 1: forty five years that Mark and Say and Bailey talked about.
Speaker 1: They did everything. They had people coughing each other's face,
Speaker 1: you know, to try to transfer the coal. They transferred mucus,
Speaker 1: all the rest of the stuff. They can figure out
Speaker 1: how it was transferring. And the lady even in this article,
Speaker 1: she pointed out, she said, and I'm not really sure
Speaker 1: if it would have helped in this particular case, because
Speaker 1: you know, we have this new subclade X or whatever
Speaker 1: this thing is called strain of flu, they tell us,
Speaker 1: And that's not what this flu shot was for. And
Speaker 1: you know, they have this crystal ball that they consult.
Speaker 1: I guess I don't know how they know how to
Speaker 1: make up their flu stuff, because they make the stuff up.
Speaker 1: They decide in advance that there's going to be this
Speaker 1: particular strain of flu, they say, and then that's the
Speaker 1: one that they manufacture the vaccine for, they say, And
Speaker 1: then they have everybody taking that. So even in their
Speaker 1: fictional world of virology, the stuff doesn't add up. Even
Speaker 1: if you believed that they knew that there was a
Speaker 1: virus that was I mean, if you believe that a
Speaker 1: virus is causing this, even if you believe they knew
Speaker 1: the virus that was causing this, they don't know the
Speaker 1: virus that's going to cause that this year. So how
Speaker 1: do they vaccinate for that? The whole thing is nonsense.
Speaker 1: The whole thing is a fiction. And so you know,
Speaker 1: when we look at all these different stories about how
Speaker 1: we get here, we got this gravitational pull of politics
Speaker 1: and government that is dragging us into these things. Yeah,
Speaker 1: one flu over the cuckoo flu, that's right, Travis. Anyway,
Speaker 1: it's pulling us into this. But like I said before,
Speaker 1: this is all downstream from what is happening to us
Speaker 1: as individuals. What is happening to us religiously right, The
Speaker 1: politics is downstream from the culture. The culture is downstream
Speaker 1: from what we believe about God, and so we need
Speaker 1: to go upstream and look at the source of all
Speaker 1: this pollution in our society and what happened to family,
Speaker 1: what happened to education, what happened to culture? And why
Speaker 1: is it that women, not just in the United States
Speaker 1: but globally, why have they turned hard left as men
Speaker 1: have kind of you stayed where they were. It's interesting
Speaker 1: a theory about this and some new data that's come out.
Speaker 1: A lot of people like to talk about the awfuls
Speaker 1: the affluent, white female urban liberals, right, and yet it's
Speaker 1: not simply an urban or white thing. This is something
Speaker 1: that's happening across the globe. There's some kind of a
Speaker 1: global thing that is happening, and it's an interesting idea.
Speaker 1: But let's begin with the schools. We've got a Kansas school.
Speaker 1: This is a report from zero Hedge. Hey, Kansas school
Speaker 1: has banned students from naming Charlie Kirk, Donald Trump, or
Speaker 1: Jesus as role models. And what's the first thing you
Speaker 1: think of as a Christian with that? I think, first
Speaker 1: of all, Jesus is not a role model. He's Lord.
Speaker 1: It's a big difference. We just got finished with all
Speaker 1: the Christmas carols that we're singing, right, Hark the Herald
Speaker 1: Angels sing glory to the newborn role model. Right, No,
Speaker 1: that's not it. Christ is King, Christ is God. He
Speaker 1: is not He is Lord. He is not simply a
Speaker 1: role model. Yes, we can learn things from him, but
Speaker 1: that's not the purpose of Jesus. And so there's a
Speaker 1: problem with this to begin with. But you had intolerance
Speaker 1: at this school. That's elementary school. Don't even mention the
Speaker 1: name of Jesus. Right. Parents at an elementary school in
Speaker 1: Kansas are upset after students reportedly told they were not
Speaker 1: allowed to list Trump or Charlie Kirk, or even Jesus
Speaker 1: as their role models for their assignment. This is coming
Speaker 1: from a school guidance counselor. Her name is Casey Countryman.
Speaker 1: That's the unusual last name I've ever seen the name before.
Speaker 1: So Ms Countryman gave sixth graders an assignment called quote
Speaker 1: find your Voice as part of their quote leader in
Speaker 1: me program, they were asked to identify their role models,
Speaker 1: but any conservative role models were apparently not allowed. Well again,
Speaker 1: let mean great the author of this article here and say,
Speaker 1: Jesus is not conservative. He came to set us free,
Speaker 1: not to give a a new set of rules, not
Speaker 1: to get us involved in a political party. You know,
Speaker 1: when you look at the freedom in Christ right, a
Speaker 1: lot of people say, well, look, you know he took
Speaker 1: the tank commandments and he put him on steroids. And yes,
Speaker 1: that's right. You know. He said, Now you've heard thou
Speaker 1: shalt not kill, right, or I shall not murder. Actually
Speaker 1: it's more acred. But he said, I say, if you
Speaker 1: hate somebody, you've already killed them, murdered them in your heart.
Speaker 1: You've heard not to commit adultery, but if you look
Speaker 1: at them with lust, you've already committed adultery in your heart.
Speaker 1: So yes, he is giving us. He is saying, well,
Speaker 1: you know, the standard is much higher, and you're not
Speaker 1: going to meet that standard. But at the same time,
Speaker 1: he died for our sins, he died to erase our shortcomings.
Speaker 1: At the same time he tells us that it's an
Speaker 1: impossible standard that is there But what he's really trying
Speaker 1: to do, I think in this is not just to
Speaker 1: say well again it's an impossible standard. I think what
Speaker 1: he's trying to do is to say to you that
Speaker 1: if you accept his forgiveness, if you follow him, you
Speaker 1: can be freed from the chains of hate, you can
Speaker 1: be chained, free from the chains of lust and other
Speaker 1: things like that. Right, sin is slavery. We don't see
Speaker 1: it as that. We think of sin as freedom, but
Speaker 1: it really is slavery. And so if we understand his
Speaker 1: perspective on this, it is if we make him lord,
Speaker 1: we follow him, then that is and we trust in
Speaker 1: his forgiveness, so we are no longer enslaved by our
Speaker 1: own sense of failure and things like that. That is
Speaker 1: a very freeing thing, and that is really his purpose.
Speaker 1: He didn't come here to be a role model, you know. C. S. Lewis,
Speaker 1: as a matter of fact, said, well, a lot of
Speaker 1: people say Jesus is a great role model. But he said,
Speaker 1: that's not right. He's either a liar, a lunatic, or
Speaker 1: he's Lord. Right, he claimed to be the son of God.
Speaker 1: So he's either a liar or he's crazy, or he
Speaker 1: really is. And so yeah, do follow Jesus. You know,
Speaker 1: people say, you know, what would Jesus do that type
Speaker 1: of thing, And that is really kind of shorthand for
Speaker 1: you know, how did Jesus advise us to live our lives? Right? Like,
Speaker 1: a lot of the things that we look at as
Speaker 1: prohibitions are not things that are going to justify us
Speaker 1: before God. There are things that are going to hurt
Speaker 1: us if we don't do it. In the same way
Speaker 1: that you tell your toddler, Yeah that's pretty, that's red,
Speaker 1: but it's a fire. Don't stick your hand on that range, right,
Speaker 1: don't touch that. That'll hurt you. So he's trying to
Speaker 1: free us in that sense, I think. But he is
Speaker 1: not merely a good moral teacher. He's not merely a
Speaker 1: role model. He is Lord, the name, the title above
Speaker 1: all other names and titles. And so these people who
Speaker 1: have the kids in school are concerned because and they
Speaker 1: should concerned about this. This guidance counselor, what kind of
Speaker 1: guidance is she giving kids? What kind of council is
Speaker 1: she giving kids? When a student selected Trump as a
Speaker 1: role model, the guidance counselor reiterated her prohibition even more
Speaker 1: angrily than she did when one person chose Charlie Kirk
Speaker 1: stating that the students could not write political or religious
Speaker 1: figures on the board and in fact excluded political and
Speaker 1: religious topics altogether. Well, again, she doesn't know what is happening,
Speaker 1: and we have the blind leading the blind in this school.
Speaker 1: Reports note that the children picking secular potentially controversial figures
Speaker 1: did not receive the same backlash from the councilor you know,
Speaker 1: stop and think about that secular. Where do we get that?
Speaker 1: You know, a secular a juxtaposition to religious as we
Speaker 1: typically see. I don't see it that way. Secular at
Speaker 1: its heart is really the same word that we use
Speaker 1: for second right. It has as the essence of its etymology,
Speaker 1: the idea of something that is fleeting, that is temporary,
Speaker 1: that is passing. So when you have a secular outlook,
Speaker 1: you're focused on the things of this world that are
Speaker 1: passing very quickly, as opposed to I'd say the antonym
Speaker 1: is not religious, but the antonym is eternal. You can
Speaker 1: look at things that are eternal, or you can look
Speaker 1: at things that are secular that are here. For a second. Now,
Speaker 1: when you talk about eternal things. That's why I became
Speaker 1: people lumped it in with religious as the antonym for that,
Speaker 1: but again administrators placed a disciplinary memo in her file.
Speaker 1: A teacher who had talked about Charlie Kirk during Constitution
Speaker 1: Day choosed him as an example of free speech, and
Speaker 1: they put a a disciplinary memo in her file threatening
Speaker 1: future action, told her that she must immediately shut down
Speaker 1: any spontaneous student successions on undefined controversial issues. So free
Speaker 1: speech is too controversial for them, and we're going to
Speaker 1: have censorship, right. The agenda's clear that children are being
Speaker 1: bullied and extorted into abandoning conservative ideas well. Again, I
Speaker 1: you know, conservatism is not an idea. These people are
Speaker 1: not really trying to conserve anything. And really it is
Speaker 1: simply a reaction against change. And the problem is is
Speaker 1: that conservatives will react against changing bad things that have
Speaker 1: been put into place by the leftists. Case in point,
Speaker 1: the schools. These parents are interested in conserving the schools.
Speaker 1: They don't see what the schools have become. They don't
Speaker 1: see that the schools are not fit for purpose of
Speaker 1: educating their children. That's the conservative ideal. They're forced to
Speaker 1: embrace progressive talking points as a way to keep peace
Speaker 1: in their academic lives. You have to understand that all
Speaker 1: education is religious. It's just whose religion is going to
Speaker 1: be taught. This is something R. L. Davit he made
Speaker 1: a great essay about right after the Civil War, and
Speaker 1: he pointed out that you can have education that's vocational
Speaker 1: or whatever. There's a lot of things that you can
Speaker 1: learn and if you fundamentally get down to it, reading
Speaker 1: and writing and arithmetic, right, those are basically vocational. Those
Speaker 1: are simply the tools that you use to get an education,
Speaker 1: the tools of learning. But the education itself cannot be
Speaker 1: separated from values and worldviews and your religious beliefs. That
Speaker 1: is the core aspect of it. And of course the
Speaker 1: people used to understand that in America. They would talk
Speaker 1: about the pursuit of virtue, right, and how do you
Speaker 1: define virtue? It really gets to the point where you
Speaker 1: can have a grammar school where you learn some of
Speaker 1: these tools. You learn to read, write, and learn how
Speaker 1: to do math. But then you get to the point
Speaker 1: after the grammar stage, you need to get to the
Speaker 1: point where you're involved in rhetoric and when you're involved
Speaker 1: in critical thinking. That's when the education begins. And we
Speaker 1: have completely lost sight of that in our schools.
Speaker 3: We mentioned this before, but you know, when I was young,
Speaker 3: Pokemon was the big thing, and there were a lot
Speaker 3: of Christian parents that went, no, our kids are not
Speaker 3: going to have anything to do with Pokemon. The word
Speaker 3: evolution is in there, and we don't want them picking up.
Speaker 3: We don't want them picking that up and believing it.
Speaker 3: And then they would send their kids to school where
Speaker 3: evolution is taught as fact. You would be so much
Speaker 3: better off letting your children watch Pokemon and keeping them
Speaker 3: out of the.
Speaker 1: School like Harry Potter.
Speaker 3: Oh, we don't let them watch or read Harry Potter,
Speaker 3: but we do send them to a government indoctrination facility
Speaker 3: where they're going to be taught things that are antithetical
Speaker 3: to everything we believe, and they're going to be taught
Speaker 3: as fact.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you're right, and we taught you evolution, right, We
Speaker 1: did teach you Darwin's theory of evolution. We taught you
Speaker 1: how it was wrong. You don't just ignore these things,
Speaker 1: you confront them. And that's the key thing. Conservatives need
Speaker 1: to stop this idea that we are going to have.
Speaker 1: At the end this story, the very last thing they
Speaker 1: say in this story is we have to understand. These
Speaker 1: schools are filled with leftists who want to condition students
Speaker 1: to join the liberal hive mind. Okay, give up the
Speaker 1: slogans and start taking control of your own children. How
Speaker 1: about that. You know you are part of a hive mind.
Speaker 1: If that's all you want to do is is blow
Speaker 1: up the leftist's minds and cause leftist tears and all
Speaker 1: the rest of this stuff, maybe you too might be
Speaker 1: absorbed in some sort of a high mind. So we
Speaker 1: need to get serious about this. We need to get
Speaker 1: intentional about training up children in the way they should go,
Speaker 1: because when they're old, they will not depart from it.
Speaker 1: Do you believe that? I believe that? And so then
Speaker 1: I see this article. This is on the Federalist. It's
Speaker 1: time to end discrimination against homeschool graduates. And so even
Speaker 1: when you look at tech and vocational education, it's not real,
Speaker 1: they say, unless the authorities, unless the academics and the
Speaker 1: government people say that it's real. You got to have
Speaker 1: you know that piece of paper.
Speaker 4: Back where I come from, we have university seats of
Speaker 4: great learning where men go to become great thinkers, and
Speaker 4: when they come out, they think deep thoughts and with
Speaker 4: no more brains than you have. But they have one thing.
Speaker 4: You haven't got a diploma. Therefore, by virtue of the
Speaker 4: authority invested in me by the Universities Committee Autumn eplur
Speaker 4: of us oonem I hear, I confer upon you the
Speaker 4: honorary degree of THHD THHD that Doctor of thinkology. Some
Speaker 4: of the square roots of any two sides of when
Speaker 4: I saw these triangles equal to the square root of
Speaker 4: the remaining side, oh jog, I got a brain.
Speaker 1: Yeah, if he didn't know that, he's obviously gone to
Speaker 1: a college because they, uh, he's got the Phatagorean theorem wrong.
Speaker 1: It's an I Sawceles triangle. I had a professor, calculus
Speaker 1: professor and he was from India, muker g and always
Speaker 1: got to kick out of the way he would say,
Speaker 1: put that got intrem Hey say, dereham, you know, professor,
Speaker 1: what was the what was that theory that is the
Speaker 1: basis of all trigonometry? Can you remind me what that's
Speaker 1: called again? To take it in tanum you know. So
Speaker 1: he doesn't need to speak English that well to teach math.
Speaker 1: And he was a good math teacher. But I got
Speaker 1: to kick out of the way he pronounced that anyway. So, yeah,
Speaker 1: we need to get the government and these colleges to
Speaker 1: recognize that we know something. Do we really need that? Oh?
Speaker 1: It's fine. So you got a representative of congressman out
Speaker 1: of North Carolina as put forward the Homeschool Graduation Recognition Act.
Speaker 1: And you know, we never had a formal ceremony who
Speaker 1: represented you with a piece of paper? Travis, you or
Speaker 1: Lance that.
Speaker 3: I'm feeling deprived over here. I miss my piece of papers.
Speaker 1: Although most homeschool alumni transition seamlessly into higher education, HSLD
Speaker 1: a Homeschool Legal Defense Association, assists hundreds of families confronting
Speaker 1: discrimination annually. The overwhelming majority of institute and employers fully
Speaker 1: recognize and accept homeschool graduates. However, a small minority of employees, employers,
Speaker 1: and certain institutions deny opportunities to these graduates. What kind
Speaker 1: of opportunities here? And you know what I always told
Speaker 1: the boys. I said, to anybody who's not going to
Speaker 1: hire you simply because you're home schooled and you don't
Speaker 1: have some kind of a high school or college degree,
Speaker 1: I said, you don't want to work for people like that.
Speaker 1: They're not going to recognize your abilities and your contributions
Speaker 1: if they're so focused on credentials, So just go find
Speaker 1: a real employer if you want to work for somebody.
Speaker 1: Ensure equal treatment for homeschool graduates, we're going to have
Speaker 1: the government is going to mandate that. We've got to
Speaker 1: fix this. So the root of the confusion traces back
Speaker 1: to the nineteen nineties, when the first major wave of
Speaker 1: homeschool graduates started looking for opportunities and higher education. What
Speaker 1: kind of opportunities is that? The opportunities to go into
Speaker 1: death to and not understand what the Pythagorean theorem is.
Speaker 4: I don't know.
Speaker 1: So HSLDA collaborated with Congress at that point in time
Speaker 1: to amend the Higher Education Act in nineteen ninety eight,
Speaker 1: explicitly affirming that homeschool graduates would qualify for federal student a.
Speaker 1: There you go, even though you're a homeschooler, they're going
Speaker 1: to let you go into debt to the banks and
Speaker 1: the colleges. Isn't that nice of them? They're going to
Speaker 1: let you start out life with a massive burden of
Speaker 1: debt for a piece of paper from the Wizard of Oz.
Speaker 1: That's what they're going to put you in there for. Regrettably,
Speaker 1: the amendment was placed under a statutory heading designed for
Speaker 1: individuals quote who are not high school graduates, a relic
Speaker 1: of the era's skepticism towards homeschooling. And so they want
Speaker 1: to fix this, and they want to compel people to
Speaker 1: regard the homeschooling degree the same as a high school degree.
Speaker 1: I would be insulted to see a homeschool degree the
Speaker 1: same as a high school degree. When you look at
Speaker 1: the functional illiteracy of the vast majority of people coming
Speaker 1: out of homeschool out of high school, should say I
Speaker 1: wouldn't want to be lumped with those people. So joined
Speaker 1: by colleagues across the political spectrum. And here's an example
Speaker 1: of this, which I think is kind of funny. One
Speaker 1: of the representatives, Lucy McBeth of Georgia, shared her personal
Speaker 1: experience as a homeschooling parent. Mary Miller of Illinois had
Speaker 1: similar sentiments. Committee Chairman Tim Wahlberg, himself a homeschooling father
Speaker 1: of three, also spoke in favor. Finally, Representative Bob Hoder
Speaker 1: of Missouri highlight his family's homeschooling journey while advocating for
Speaker 1: the measure. So these are older people, they haven't been
Speaker 1: homeschooled themselves. But again this testifies to the fact that
Speaker 1: a it's popular and b it doesn't hinder people. So again,
Speaker 1: like the scarecrow, don't need validation. It's fine if you
Speaker 1: want to get validation. I'm not saying that you shouldn't
Speaker 1: have that. And if you want to make yourself an
Speaker 1: indentured servant to the banks in order to get that
Speaker 1: validation that piece of paper, that's the career choice that
Speaker 1: you need to make. But you might want to think
Speaker 1: about that and think about whether it makes any economic
Speaker 1: sense to go to college anymore, and also what they're
Speaker 1: going to be putting you into. You know, I did
Speaker 1: everything I could to discourage and hamper the boys from
Speaker 1: going to college because I had had situations with Marxist
Speaker 1: atheist professors who were wise in their own eyes, and
Speaker 1: although it didn't affect me, it made me angry. Actually
Speaker 1: it hardened my values. But again I always take the
Speaker 1: position not to lead them into teptation, so I didn't
Speaker 1: want to lead them into a college education. I didn't
Speaker 1: see any value in it anymore because of the tuition
Speaker 1: rates and the rest of the stuff that was happening.
Speaker 1: Your own personal choice, your knowledge may vary, so again
Speaker 1: they want to get validation from the government. Meanwhile, we
Speaker 1: got up to twenty five percent of US colleges may
Speaker 1: close soon, says Brandeis president at a meeting here. And
Speaker 1: what he's saying to them. His name is Arthur Levine.
Speaker 1: He is the president of Brandeis University. He predicted twenty
Speaker 1: to twenty five percent of US colleges may close soon
Speaker 1: due to disruptions in higher education. What he's really talking
Speaker 1: about is the fact that people realize that it's a
Speaker 1: participation trophy. The grading is not you know, both the
Speaker 1: entrance qualifications have been set aside by many of these colleges,
Speaker 1: as well as the actual evaluation of the grades that
Speaker 1: there don't mean anything anymore, and much of what they
Speaker 1: teach you is irrelevant in the real world. And so
Speaker 1: he said, the grading systems lack any meaning, they don't
Speaker 1: have clear standards, and so there is an also great
Speaker 1: inflation and academic a no academic rigor. And again but
Speaker 1: as long as you pay these people, they will give
Speaker 1: you that piece of paper e unum pluribus. Right, So
Speaker 1: they will give you all of that stuff and split
Speaker 1: the society up rather than unify it. Our whole society
Speaker 1: is undergoing a transformation, he said, pointing to the shift
Speaker 1: from a national industrial economy to a global knowledge based one. Now,
Speaker 1: stop and think about this, And he does mention that
Speaker 1: the model of higher education is really kind of a
Speaker 1: product of the industrial revolution, and it really is. It's
Speaker 1: like an assembly line. It's like a one size fits all,
Speaker 1: but it's actually that one size doesn't fit anybody. And
Speaker 1: he's not the first one to point that out. He
Speaker 1: had John Taylor Gatto, who was New York State Teacher
Speaker 1: of the Year a couple of times, and he was
Speaker 1: a big advocate for home schooling, and one of the
Speaker 1: things that he said was, look at how it really
Speaker 1: is set up like an assembly line. Even the day
Speaker 1: to day operation of the schools is set up like
Speaker 1: an assembly line. He said. You get started on something
Speaker 1: and you're not able to go too far in it
Speaker 1: before the bell rings and you've got to go do
Speaker 1: something completely different. And what John Taylor Gatto did was
Speaker 1: he would organize field trips for his students and he
Speaker 1: would go with them, and you know, they would go
Speaker 1: out into the real world and it was really more
Speaker 1: like an apprentice type of observation thing. And so he
Speaker 1: wanted to expose expose them to real world things rather
Speaker 1: than have them cut off and isolated and grow up
Speaker 1: in this artificial environment where they are socialized by everybody
Speaker 1: that's their own age. He wanted to have a very
Speaker 1: different system, and he eventually just walked away from it.
Speaker 1: And so now the president of Brandeis University is saying
Speaker 1: that as well. You know, if you have a global
Speaker 1: knowledge based system, when you stop and think about it,
Speaker 1: all the information that you need to teach yourself to
Speaker 1: do anything is all on the internet. You don't need
Speaker 1: a teacher or a guide, and if you do need
Speaker 1: a teacher or a guide, you can easily find somebody
Speaker 1: who is an expert and whatever it is that you
Speaker 1: want to learn. And so what is the purpose of
Speaker 1: these institutions? They really have become like an Industrial Revolution
Speaker 1: artifact if you look at it that way. The problem
Speaker 1: that we have is that we have so much information.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of things out there. As I said before,
Speaker 1: education is simply about how do I do X. It's
Speaker 1: also about the wisdom to know whether you should do
Speaker 1: X or not. And so you need to have some
Speaker 1: wisdom in terms of consuming this information. There is so
Speaker 1: much information out there, and that's really going to be
Speaker 1: on steroids with artificial intelligence, and so you need to
Speaker 1: have some wisdom and some discernment in how you evaluate
Speaker 1: that information, how you use that information, and things that
Speaker 1: are not simply technical or vocational. A key component of
Speaker 1: the proposal is a shift towards competency based education that
Speaker 1: measures student skills and knowledge instead of relying solely on grades.
Speaker 1: You know, and that's true of potential employees. When somebody
Speaker 1: is going to look at and say, wow, I don't know,
Speaker 1: you don't have a piece of paper from a high
Speaker 1: school or a college or something. I don't think I'm
Speaker 1: gonna hire. If they're looking, however, going to give you
Speaker 1: a try and evaluate your character, your work ethics, and
Speaker 1: your ability. That's a very different thing. You want to
Speaker 1: work for somebody like that, You don't want to work
Speaker 1: for somebody that's just like a let me look at
Speaker 1: your your CV and then make a decision about that,
Speaker 1: and you're either there or not. So again, I remember,
Speaker 1: when you know, forty years or so ago, when I
Speaker 1: was in the workforce, there were a couple of companies
Speaker 1: when they went out and hired programmers. They specifically did
Speaker 1: not want people who were computer science majors or engineering
Speaker 1: majors or whatever. They wanted people who were liberal arts
Speaker 1: majors that had studied classic literature and things like that,
Speaker 1: people who had been trained to think critically. And they said, well,
Speaker 1: if this person, you know, has been trained to think
Speaker 1: about things critically, then we can train them in programming.
Speaker 1: And we prefer to be the ones to train them
Speaker 1: in programming, because we found that a lot of people
Speaker 1: come in with computer science degrees or engineering degrees, they
Speaker 1: have been mistrained in terms of the way they approach this.
Speaker 1: So if we got somebody who has shown that they
Speaker 1: can learn a subject and they can think critically, let's
Speaker 1: bring them in and expose them to the technology, and
Speaker 1: we'll teach them to do the technical side of this
Speaker 1: and the way that we wanted. I thought that was
Speaker 1: always a very interesting approach, and that would be especially
Speaker 1: true today when you're looking at artificial intelligence. You are
Speaker 1: trying to communicate with a prompt what you want, and
Speaker 1: so it's a very different way of interacting with things.
Speaker 1: So they said they addressed the concerns about grade inflation,
Speaker 1: saying grades have lost much of their meaning and they've
Speaker 1: lost their meaning from the very beginning when they don't
Speaker 1: care about your SAT scores and the rest of this stuff.
Speaker 1: And so in many cases, what this has become is
Speaker 1: nothing other than a participation trophy for indebtedness. Another example
Speaker 1: film school. I remember a director saying, yeah, I like
Speaker 1: film school graduates, but I like them as production assistants
Speaker 1: because they have shown that they will do whatever you
Speaker 1: tell them to do, no matter how ridiculous or stupid
Speaker 1: it is, and they won't question it. But he goes,
Speaker 1: when I want somebody who is creative, I'll get somebody
Speaker 1: who has not gone to film school, somebody who has
Speaker 1: worked in the industry and has shown me what they
Speaker 1: can do. Also, I thought that was an interesting approach anyway.
Speaker 1: Levine also addressed the rise of anti Semitism on college
Speaker 1: campuses because he's Jewish. Again, this is the woke mind
Speaker 1: virus of the right. Don't criticize a foreign government because
Speaker 1: you might hurt the feelings of somebody who identifies with
Speaker 1: that foreign government. You know, we got a lot of
Speaker 1: Jewish people who don't identify with Israel, and then we've
Speaker 1: got a lot of Jewish people who say that they
Speaker 1: are trands israelis right. They identify with Israel and that's it.
Speaker 1: So don't criticize them. You hurt their feelings. And don't
Speaker 1: criticize the policies of that government because you'll hurt their feelings.
Speaker 1: And we need to get over that as well. But
Speaker 1: here's the key thing, and this is the article that
Speaker 1: I really wanted to get to. This is actually a
Speaker 1: zero Hedge article that was taken from an ex post
Speaker 1: an x article, and it was a chart that was
Speaker 1: put up based on some research showing over time how
Speaker 1: women had drifted very leftward, radically leftward, and that men,
Speaker 1: although they kind of trended up a little bit, they
Speaker 1: would have periods where they go back down and they
Speaker 1: have basically averaged out. They basically stayed where they were
Speaker 1: for a long period of time, whereas women have radically
Speaker 1: moved to the left. They said, why is that? Why
Speaker 1: have young women moved left while young men have basically
Speaker 1: stayed the same, As all this is happening, And so
Speaker 1: when they started looking at the question, Bill Ackman retweeted
Speaker 1: this and this post that showed the measurement there, and
Speaker 1: his comment was simply, why why has this happened? Well,
Speaker 1: this person said good question. Most answers that I've seen,
Speaker 1: or either well, this is tribal, women are emotional, or
Speaker 1: at surface level, it's social media. Social media is bad said,
Speaker 1: But what we've been told radicalization for the last ten
Speaker 1: years is exactly the opposite of what has happened in reality.
Speaker 1: We've been told that men are increasingly radicalized to the
Speaker 1: right and that this is a bad thing when actuality
Speaker 1: what is really happening is that women have been radicalized
Speaker 1: to the left and men have stayed basically where they are.
Speaker 1: And so they'll tell you that this shows that women
Speaker 1: are getting enlightenment and they are progressing, But what the
Speaker 1: graph really shows is that they have been captured. And
Speaker 1: there's another way that men have been captured as well.
Speaker 1: In all this, and the article gets into this, is
Speaker 1: that the pattern is not simply American. However, it's also global.
Speaker 1: The Financial Times documented last year that the gender ideology
Speaker 1: gap is widening across dozens of countries simultaneously the UK, Germany, Australia, Canada,
Speaker 1: South Korea, Poland, Brazil, Tunisia. Young women are moving left
Speaker 1: on social issues. Young men are either stable or they
Speaker 1: are drifting to the right, and South South Korea, not Carolina.
Speaker 1: South Korea is the extreme case. Young Korean men are
Speaker 1: now overwhelmingly conservative and young Korean women are overwhelmingly progressive.
Speaker 1: The gap there is even wider than in the US.
Speaker 1: Contributing factors besides mandatory military service for men, eighteen months
Speaker 1: of your life is taken by the state while women
Speaker 1: are exempt. There's also brutal economic competition, but the timing
Speaker 1: of divergence still tracks along with smartphone adoption. Whatever is
Speaker 1: causing this, it's not simply American. The machinery is global,
Speaker 1: and so women evolved in an environment where social exclusion
Speaker 1: carried enormous survival costs. And you know, that's one of
Speaker 1: the things. Somebody asked me what my favorite movie is,
Speaker 1: and I said, well, i'd have to if I was
Speaker 1: honest about it. I have to say this year has been
Speaker 1: pride and prejudiced because I watched it so much when
Speaker 1: I was in the hospital. The contemporary movies were just horrible,
Speaker 1: and you know, it had very nice cinematography, very nice music,
Speaker 1: and it was very RESTful to sat there. I couldn't
Speaker 1: really think much about anything, and so I just enjoyed
Speaker 1: the cinematography and the music, and then After a while,
Speaker 1: I started paying attention to the plot, which is secondary.
Speaker 1: What I found interesting about it was that, you know,
Speaker 1: Jane Austen was kind of an emerging feminist. There's an
Speaker 1: ongoing theme in the sense that in the society at
Speaker 1: that time, you know, women had no value if they
Speaker 1: were not married, and so they're all, you know, doing
Speaker 1: all these moves about, and parents are trying to get
Speaker 1: them married off to this person or that person because
Speaker 1: that's their future, and so all around that, and that
Speaker 1: was so antithetical to our society where marriage is now despised,
Speaker 1: especially by women. But I think it began with that.
Speaker 1: And although I could see that that was a system
Speaker 1: that she didn't like and she was pushing back against,
Speaker 1: it was still refreshing to see a society that was
Speaker 1: trying to bring people together, trying to produce families, trying
Speaker 1: to create relationships, and we've abandoned all of that stuff.
Speaker 3: I also guarantee where Jane Austen to see where the
Speaker 3: sort of ideology led, she'd be like, never mind, pack
Speaker 3: it up, ignore everything in my book.
Speaker 1: Go back. I agree, men face different pressures than women, right, so,
Speaker 1: you know, exploration combat you had to tolerate being alone
Speaker 1: disliked outside of the group for extended periods, Whereas you know,
Speaker 1: women were trying to get everybody to like them and
Speaker 1: fit into society, and that type of thing. Men could
Speaker 1: handle temporary who could handle temporary exclusion without falling apart,
Speaker 1: had more options, more risk taking, more independence, more ability
Speaker 1: to leave bad situations, and so again the shows up
Speaker 1: in personality research. David Schmidt's work across fifty five different
Speaker 1: cultures found the same pattern everywhere. Women average higher agreeableness,
Speaker 1: higher neuroticism, meaning sensitivity to negative stimuli, including social rejection cues.
Speaker 1: Men average higher tolerance for disagreement and social conflict. The
Speaker 1: differences aren't huge, but they are consistent across every culture
Speaker 1: that was studied. And so when you look at where
Speaker 1: we are today, everybody is now, however, becoming You know,
Speaker 1: it was the women were there to kind of pull
Speaker 1: things together, and there was that adhesive quality that was
Speaker 1: put there by women who would build the home, build
Speaker 1: the family, and that type of thing. Oh, everybody has
Speaker 1: become atomized and isolated. How do we even talk about culture? Right?
Speaker 1: Culture is a group think, a group thing, not a
Speaker 1: group think, but it is a group thing. It is
Speaker 1: a set of common values, it's a community, it's all
Speaker 1: these other things like that. You can't have culture if
Speaker 1: everybody is atomized and doing their own thing. You know.
Speaker 1: I even think about this in terms of music, you know,
Speaker 1: because we had in the middle twentieth century, we had
Speaker 1: these mass media communications. Everybody was listening to the same music,
Speaker 1: you know, love it or hate it, You heard the
Speaker 1: same songs. And now everybody's got their own personal playlist
Speaker 1: that's there. How does that evolve into a culture. I
Speaker 1: don't know. It has to be a shared thing in
Speaker 1: some way or the other. But the point out, so
Speaker 1: again getting back to what is causing this, what is
Speaker 1: the mechanism that is here. So the same environment is
Speaker 1: going to affect men and women differently because they are different.
Speaker 1: And it's not just physically different. It's not just different skeletons.
Speaker 1: It's different approaches to things. And that has always been
Speaker 1: consistent over time. Well, social media is a consensus engine.
Speaker 1: You can see what everybody believes in real time. That's
Speaker 1: what it was designed to do, by the way, by government.
Speaker 1: They wanted to see what everybody was thinking in real time.
Speaker 1: They wanted to see if their propaganda was working. I've
Speaker 1: pointing that out many times. So now your government and
Speaker 1: corporate masters can see what everybody thinks, and they can
Speaker 1: see it in real time. Disagreement is visible, it's measurable,
Speaker 1: it's punishable at scale. The tribe used to be about
Speaker 1: one hundred and fifty people, but now it's everyone you
Speaker 1: ever met, plus a world of strangers who are watching.
Speaker 1: Look at the timeline. Facebook launched in two thousand and four,
Speaker 1: but was college only until two thousand and six. The
Speaker 1: iPhone was launched in June of two thousand and seven,
Speaker 1: Instagram in twenty ten. Suddenly social media was in your
Speaker 1: pocket and it was in your face all day, every day.
Speaker 1: And this is where we start to see the radical
Speaker 1: departure rapidly going up, with women globally, not just in
Speaker 1: the United States, going up being radicalized by this. Women
Speaker 1: were roughly stable throughout the early two thousands. The acceleration
Speaker 1: starts about two thousand and seven two thousand and eight.
Speaker 1: The curve steepens through the twenty tens as smartphones became
Speaker 1: ubiquitous and platforms became more sophisticated. Women by nature more liberal.
Speaker 1: But the radicalization coincides with the rise and smartphone adoptions,
Speaker 1: and what you can see from the graph as you
Speaker 1: can see, you know, when they're graphing conservative liberal values,
Speaker 1: you can see that there there was always a spread
Speaker 1: between men and women, but you see this radical divergence
Speaker 1: after the smartphone and social media stuff kicks in. The
Speaker 1: machine turned on and the capture began. The mental health
Speaker 1: collapse with teenage girls tracks almost perfectly with smartphone adoption,
Speaker 1: with a stronger effect for girls than for boys. The
Speaker 1: same vulnerability that made social exclusion more costly and ancestral
Speaker 1: environments made the new consensus engines more capturing. The machine
Speaker 1: wasn't designed to capture women specifically. It was designed to
Speaker 1: capture attention, but it captures people more susceptible to consensus
Speaker 1: pressure more effectively. Women are more susceptible on average, so
Speaker 1: it captured them more. And so again we can look
Speaker 1: at the institutional industrial schools that had already shown this
Speaker 1: type of thing. You know, we knew this from the
Speaker 1: very beginning when we school the kids. You know, they
Speaker 1: were giving lots of young boys riddling all the time
Speaker 1: because the girls are very happy to sit there and
Speaker 1: put all their pencils in a row on and they
Speaker 1: could set in the desk all day and do stuff
Speaker 1: like that. But the guys, we're getting very fidgety. They
Speaker 1: had to get out, they had to do things. There's
Speaker 1: just a fundamental difference that was there, and so they
Speaker 1: are always more susceptible to that type of thing. Institutions
Speaker 1: respond to this.
Speaker 3: I also like to point out this is something that's
Speaker 3: been known for decades or it's just common sense for
Speaker 3: a long time. This is why the vast majority of
Speaker 3: advertising money that's spent is directed at women because they're
Speaker 3: more prone. They're more likely to be manipulated or believe
Speaker 3: and add buy into it than men are.
Speaker 1: That's again, well, they want to be acceptable, right, They're
Speaker 1: worried that they're not going to be accepted by the group,
Speaker 1: and so there's that susceptibility to being manipulated that is there.
Speaker 1: Women are weaker and inevitably seen as victims in most scenarios.
Speaker 1: So the institutional response is to make the environment safer,
Speaker 1: which means that we have to remove conflict, which means
Speaker 1: that we have to censor disagreement, which means that the
Speaker 1: consensus then is strengthened, so the counter arguments get removed
Speaker 1: or deplatformed. And the loop closes. So universities flipped sixty
Speaker 1: percent female while simultaneously becoming a progressive monoculture. The institution
Speaker 1: young women trust the most during the years their worldview
Speaker 1: forms feeds them into a single ideology with no serious opposition,
Speaker 1: and so then for years they are surrounded by peers
Speaker 1: who all believe the same thing. You have professors who
Speaker 1: all believed the same thing. Their reading lists are pointing
Speaker 1: to the same thing. Disagreement is not even rare, It
Speaker 1: is socially punished. You learn to pattern match the acceptable
Speaker 1: opinions and to perform them. Then they graduate into fields
Speaker 1: that are typically going to be female dominated, things like
Speaker 1: human resources or media, or education or health care nonprofits,
Speaker 1: where the monoculture continues. So from eighteen to thirty five,
Speaker 1: many women never encounter sustained disagreement from people that they respect.
Speaker 1: The feedback loop never breaks, and so this explains one
Speaker 1: of the reasons why when they encounter when they encounter
Speaker 1: a disagreement, the response is just outrage. You know, I
Speaker 1: can't believe that anybody would ever think that. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, nobody that I've ever known thinks anything other
Speaker 1: than what we all think together, Right, Men, took different paths.
Speaker 1: They got into the trades and engineering, into financed military
Speaker 1: fields where results matter more than consensus, fields where disagreement
Speaker 1: is tolerated, even rewarded. The monoculture didn't capture them because
Speaker 1: they weren't in the institutions being captured, mostly because they
Speaker 1: were kicked out of those institutions. But that's a different story,
Speaker 1: says this person. Then you had the collapse of marriage,
Speaker 1: you know, the thing that would have astounded Actually even
Speaker 1: Jane Austen, I think, and this probably matters more than
Speaker 1: most people think. Single women interact with government more as
Speaker 1: a provider of services, but married women interact with government
Speaker 1: more as a taker of taxes. So one group is
Speaker 1: going to see them as a provider, the other is
Speaker 1: going to see them as a taker. The marriage gap
Speaker 1: and voting is one of the most consistent predictors marriage
Speaker 1: rates have collapsed. Precisely during this period of divergence. Men
Speaker 1: saw marriage collapse from a different standpoint. They saw family courts,
Speaker 1: child support, alimony. The rational response was skepticism of expanding
Speaker 1: government power. But the algorithms operate for so even though
Speaker 1: it's the same phenomenon, you had different perspectives on this.
Speaker 1: The algorithms, meanwhile, are optimizing for engagement. Engagement means emotional response.
Speaker 1: Engagement means spending time on the platform, clicking, sharing, commenting.
Speaker 1: Women respond more strongly to emotional content on average, They're
Speaker 1: more empathetic, they can be more easily manipulated with sad
Speaker 1: stories that higher neuroticism, again, the higher sensitivity to negative stimuli.
Speaker 1: The machine learned this, and so it fed them content
Speaker 1: that was calibrated to the response patterns. Fear, outrage, moral panic,
Speaker 1: stories about danger and injustice and threat and wars and victims.
Speaker 1: Men got different feeds because they responded to different triggers.
Speaker 1: The algorithm doesn't really have a gender agenda. That has
Speaker 1: an engagement agenda, but the engagement looks different by demographic,
Speaker 1: so the feeds diverged. We've seen this type of thing
Speaker 1: we talk about AI psychosis. Yeah, people like the story
Speaker 1: I had the other day. A guy who was just
Speaker 1: retired and he had had a very stable family life,
Speaker 1: raised his three or four kids, and then they retire,
Speaker 1: and he's been the tech field, and you would think
Speaker 1: that he would even have some skepticism about software that's there,
Speaker 1: but he got captured by this AI. How did he
Speaker 1: get captured by it, Well, it gradually began to feed
Speaker 1: some you know, it would notice that he was on
Speaker 1: some tangent or something, and it would reinforce that in
Speaker 1: order to keep him engaged. And that's a key part
Speaker 1: of these chat programs. Look, they can assess where you
Speaker 1: are and they give feedback to them. So that creates
Speaker 1: a psychosis, even in many people who didn't have anything
Speaker 1: that could be discerned by anyone, it was so small
Speaker 1: if it was even there, but it reinforces and it
Speaker 1: magnifies that, and it did that in the case of
Speaker 1: many adults and a lot of children. That's a real
Speaker 1: danger with it. So anyway, women ended up in information
Speaker 1: environments optimized for emotional activation. Men found alternatives like podcasts, forums, cars, wars,
Speaker 1: the manosphere, etc. Feminism told women their instincts and biology
Speaker 1: were oppressive and wrong. Wanting children was brainwashing, Wanting a
Speaker 1: provider husband was internalized misogyny. Their natural desires were false
Speaker 1: consciousness installed by a patriarchy, and many of them believed it.
Speaker 1: They built their lives around it. Career first, independence, freedom
Speaker 1: from traditional constraints. But now they're thirty five, unmarried, measuring declining,
Speaker 1: fertility against career achievements. And this is the trap. The
Speaker 1: sunk cost of admitting the ideology failed is enormous. This
Speaker 1: is the same type of thing we see with Maga. Right.
Speaker 1: They poured so much energy and things like that end
Speaker 1: of this that even the people that I talked to
Speaker 1: that got caught up in this January the thing paid
Speaker 1: a tremendous penalty. They could move away from Trump. The
Speaker 1: sunk costs were just too much. They didn't want to
Speaker 1: admit to themselves that they had followed a lie and
Speaker 1: a liar. They didn't want to move away from it,
Speaker 1: so they doubled down. Same thing is true with this,
Speaker 1: he said, You'd have to admit that you had wasted
Speaker 1: your fertile years on a lie. You'd have to admit
Speaker 1: that the women who ignored the ideology and married young
Speaker 1: were right. You'd have to admit that your mother was right.
Speaker 1: I think you can see why there's so little defection,
Speaker 1: not because the ideology is true, but because the psychological
Speaker 1: cost of living is higher than the psychological cost of
Speaker 1: saying of staying. It's easier to double down, it's easier
Speaker 1: to believe. The problem is that society hasn't changed enough.
Speaker 1: Yet this is the same thing we see with the
Speaker 1: left and the right cults, especially with MAGA. You know,
Speaker 1: they look at all of these different issues that are
Speaker 1: out there, and it's just that you know, Trump is right,
Speaker 1: It's going to eventually work out that way. And I
Speaker 1: didn't follow the pied piper down to prison. Many of
Speaker 1: them were.
Speaker 3: Sorry to cut you off. But I know I've mentioned
Speaker 3: this before, but going to college, this is where the
Speaker 3: propaganda kicks into high gear. Yeah, you were literally buying in.
Speaker 3: You are paying thousands, tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of
Speaker 3: thousands of dollars depending on where you go to be
Speaker 3: fed these lies. It's not just the psychological cost. You
Speaker 3: have to admit that you wasted all those years and
Speaker 3: all that money.
Speaker 1: This has cost, and you have already at this point,
Speaker 1: you've already invested a lot of money, and so you
Speaker 1: want to make this thing work, you know. I mean,
Speaker 1: you can't even see that when people get a Lemon car.
Speaker 1: I've had that happen to me personally. It's like, well,
Speaker 1: I know this car is going to work out. This
Speaker 1: is just a temporary thing. After a while, you got
Speaker 1: to point out, you know, this thing's just a piece
Speaker 1: of jock. I got to get rid of it. It's
Speaker 1: an I would cross around my neck. But anyway, So
Speaker 1: the issue is that you've got different failure modes. He said.
Speaker 1: Men were not immune to capture, they were just captured differently.
Speaker 1: Women got ideological conformity and men got withdrawal. They moved
Speaker 1: into things like porn or video games, or gambling apps
Speaker 1: or outrage content. The male capture wasn't believe this or
Speaker 1: face social death. It was here's an endless supply of dopamine, said,
Speaker 1: you never have to build anything, And so different machines,
Speaker 1: different failure modes. Women got compliance, men got passivity. The
Speaker 1: male line on that graph saying flat through twenty twenty
Speaker 1: isn't necessarily healthy. It might just be a different kind
Speaker 1: of sickness, men checking out instead of being pulled in.
Speaker 1: Or it might be that everyone and everything moved more left.
Speaker 1: It's just that women moved left. The mail line is
Speaker 1: not flat anymore either. The data from twenty twenty four
Speaker 1: shows that young men are now shifting to the right.
Speaker 1: Young men are now actively moving more conservatively as a
Speaker 1: reaction to all of this. Women got captured first. The
Speaker 1: capture was fast between twenty seven and twenty twenty, men
Speaker 1: resisted longer and they were captured in a different way.
Speaker 1: But as the gap became visible and culturally salient as
Speaker 1: men are the problem, they are now pushing back on this,
Speaker 1: and so we haven't really gotten finished with it. I
Speaker 1: hate to snop in the middle of this. The bottom
Speaker 1: line is that now the passivity is turning into active opposition,
Speaker 1: people like Andrew Tate, Nick Fointage. That's what this little
Speaker 1: episode they did with Kyle Hitler was really all about.
Speaker 1: Now these guys are doing it because they want money,
Speaker 1: but they know how to push these levers just as
Speaker 1: if they ai And here's the bottom line. I'm going
Speaker 1: to jump to the bottom of this. The reality is
Speaker 1: is that all of these factors that are pulling these
Speaker 1: things together, all these things that are atomizing us and
Speaker 1: putting us at war with each other, whether it's left, right, male, female,
Speaker 1: all these different things, it's only going to be exacerbated
Speaker 1: by artificial intelligence, because artificial intelligence is again going to
Speaker 1: be optimized to engage and to monopolize your time. And
Speaker 1: so this is what we're looking at in the future.
Speaker 1: How do we pull out of this. We have to
Speaker 1: see something that is different than this, something that is transcendent.
Speaker 1: We have to see the long term timeline. We have
Speaker 1: to see I think, the value of age, old cultures
Speaker 1: and traditions, and we have to embrace that. Most importantly,
Speaker 1: we have to embrace what is above culture, and that
Speaker 1: is the Lord Jesus Christ. When we abandon that, we're vulnerable.
Speaker 1: We're vulnerable to all these different things, and there'll be
Speaker 1: all kinds of deceptions and manipulations that will be coming. Well,
Speaker 1: that's all the time we got for we today. Sorry
Speaker 1: about that, and I wanted to get much further ahead.
Speaker 1: A lot of other things I want to say, but
Speaker 1: we'll cut it at this point. Thank you for joining us.
Speaker 1: Have a good day. The common man. They created common
Speaker 1: Core and dumbed down our children. They created common past,
Speaker 1: track and control us. They're Commons project to make sure
Speaker 1: the commoners own nothing and the communist future. They see
Speaker 1: the common man as simple, unsophisticated ordinary. But each of
Speaker 1: us has worth and dignity created in the image of God.
Speaker 1: That is what we have in common is what they
Speaker 1: want to take away. Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation.
Speaker 1: They desire to know everything about us while they hide
Speaker 1: everything from us. It's time to turn that around and
Speaker 1: expose what they want to hide. Please share the information
Speaker 1: and links you'll find at Thedavidnightshow dot com. Thank you
Speaker 1: for listening, Thank you for sharing. If you can't support
Speaker 1: us financially, please keep us in your prayers. Ddavidnightshow dot
Speaker 1: com