Speaker 1: In a world of deceit, telling the truth is a
Speaker 1: revolutionary act. It's the David Knight Show.
Speaker 2: As the clock strikes thirteen, it's Friday, the sixth of February.
Speaker 2: You're of our Lord, twenty twenty six. Well, today we're
Speaker 2: going to have our ask Me anything questions. We're going
Speaker 2: to talk about that, and I thought it was kind
Speaker 2: of interesting. We could did a couple where we asked
Speaker 2: groc Ha said gronc of he could ask me a question,
Speaker 2: what would it be? And I thought I had some
Speaker 2: very provocative questions. So we're going to talk about that
Speaker 2: as well. We're going to begin with the news and
Speaker 2: what is happening financially. We're also going to have an
Speaker 2: interview from thirteen years ago where I talked to doctor
Speaker 2: Noel Sharky. He is a computer science, robotics and artificial
Speaker 2: intelligence expert from the UK and he's pretty well known
Speaker 2: on TV there because of robot Wars and other things
Speaker 2: that he was a consultant to and I think was
Speaker 2: on screen with it. But when we talked to him
Speaker 2: about efforts to try to stop economous killing robots because
Speaker 2: they're on their way and that's what warpete wants mora
Speaker 2: lethality regardless of who's in control.
Speaker 3: We'll be right back stay with us.
Speaker 2: Well again, we're going to do some news here before
Speaker 2: we get into what is happening with the asked Me
Speaker 2: anything questions and our interview with doctor Noel Sharky. We've
Speaker 2: had the markets really in turmoil yesterday on Thursday, kind
Speaker 2: of along the lines of what I was saying. You know,
Speaker 2: we're seeing Bitcoin going down way below seventy thousand, and
Speaker 2: we're seeing the tech markets stock market is shaky as well.
Speaker 2: It's very concerning when you look at the traps that
Speaker 2: have been laid for everybody in the state by state
Speaker 2: and the UCC code, as I pointed out yesterday, the
Speaker 2: great taking that is right there waiting for them to
Speaker 2: take everything from us. Meanwhile, we have as I pointed
Speaker 2: out last week was last Friday was a premier of
Speaker 2: the Milania film. And my comment yesterday was I thought
Speaker 2: it was kind of interesting all of these you know,
Speaker 2: big name Christian people. Of course say big name, I
Speaker 2: mean Robert Jeffries and Dallas has got a huge megachurch,
Speaker 2: but he's always done whatever needs me done to get
Speaker 2: a seat at the table with Trump. But I also
Speaker 2: saw people that I knew going to see Millennia, and
Speaker 2: it's like, out in the world, could you go to
Speaker 2: see that if you know anything at all about what's
Speaker 2: going on with the Epstein files, And how can you
Speaker 2: miss that? How could you miss her involvement with all
Speaker 2: of that stuff as well as Donald trump'suff? You know,
Speaker 2: it's kind of interesting. There was a movie theater in
Speaker 2: Portland and they put up the guy said, well, we
Speaker 2: decided we would carry the film that was last week.
Speaker 2: We decided to carry the film because when you look
Speaker 2: at the what was available out there in terms of
Speaker 2: films that we could put in the theater, it was
Speaker 2: an absolute desert, he said, So we decided we'd put
Speaker 2: it up. And so to tease the movie in Portland,
Speaker 2: where they know people are not going to care much
Speaker 2: about Millennia, they put up on the billboard they said,
Speaker 2: does Millenia Wear Prada? Find out on Friday, of course,
Speaker 2: you know, referring to the movie title The Double Wears Prada.
Speaker 2: And so they got there. The film pulled by Amazon
Speaker 2: because of that, But look, we all know what was
Speaker 2: really going on with that film. We know it was
Speaker 2: a naked grift that was going on from Jeff Bezos
Speaker 2: to the Trumps. She got twenty eight million dollars for that.
Speaker 2: As I pointed out last week, you look at the
Speaker 2: box office numbers, they were oh amazing box office numbers.
Speaker 2: They spent thirty five million dollars promoting it, spent forty
Speaker 2: million dollars making it. Of that forty million dollars, twenty
Speaker 2: eight of it went to Milania. Don't tell me this
Speaker 2: isn't some play to play garbage that's happening with the Trumps.
Speaker 2: That happens with them all the time. And when you
Speaker 2: look at the kind of budgets you typically see the documentary,
Speaker 2: even if you take out her twenty eight million dollar cut,
Speaker 2: you're still talking about a twelve million dollar budget for
Speaker 2: a documentary, the kind of thing that we used to
Speaker 2: shoot all the time, just three guys and with cameras
Speaker 2: and anyway, it was really absurd how they threw money
Speaker 2: at this thing. And of course, the success of it
Speaker 2: has nothing to do with the whether or not it's
Speaker 2: a good film or not. People are going to go
Speaker 2: to see it because they like Trump, and that's the
Speaker 2: bottom line. People are not going to go see it
Speaker 2: because they don't like Trump. And so it's not really
Speaker 2: about the film itself. Although you had Matt Labasche say
Speaker 2: is this the worst film of all time? And he says, well,
Speaker 2: I can't say that it is because I haven't seen
Speaker 2: every single film, because I've seen a lot of awful
Speaker 2: films and the names a bunch of them. And he said,
Speaker 2: and of all the films that I personally have seen
Speaker 2: in my life, this is absolutely the worst. So the
Speaker 2: UAE royal investment and Trump crypto firm preceded major us
Speaker 2: AI chip access. Yeah, another pay to play. This is
Speaker 2: just the same type of thing that Bezos did. Right, So,
Speaker 2: just days before Trump's inauguration, a secret foreign investment quietly
Speaker 2: reshaped the ownership of this family's new cryptocurrency venture. The
Speaker 2: buyer was tied to one of the most powerful figures
Speaker 2: in the UAE. Within months, that same figures country secured
Speaker 2: sweeping access to advanced American artificial intelligence chips. And of
Speaker 2: course this guy is known as the spy Chik because
Speaker 2: he is involved with technology and espionage and that type
Speaker 2: of thing. So, I mean, nothing to see here, right.
Speaker 2: The arrangement detailed in a Wall Street Joureral investigation is
Speaker 2: fueling renewed accusations that Trump is monetizing the presidency. Folks,
Speaker 2: who's no questioning about that. It really is nakedly exploited.
Speaker 2: As they put in here, he has never have we
Speaker 2: seen a person president who has so nakedly exploited his
Speaker 2: position on such a scale. And again, the family fortune
Speaker 2: has balloon by four billion dollars in twenty twenty five.
Speaker 2: That number excludes profits from the family's pre existing businesses.
Speaker 2: As a matter of fact, people want to investigate ilhan
Speaker 2: Omar or AOC, Yeah, absolutely should investigate them. What about Trump?
Speaker 2: How could you not look at this and say something
Speaker 2: is wrong? I mean, we talked about Obama. How this
Speaker 2: guy who had never really had a job. He was
Speaker 2: a community organizer, then he became a politician. He had
Speaker 2: various political offices and everything, none of them paid that well.
Speaker 2: How did he wind up being a multimillionaire? How does
Speaker 2: Trump somebody who's net worth was probably about three or
Speaker 2: four billion dollars according not according to Trump, but according
Speaker 2: to the people who actually investigate these things. How could
Speaker 2: he double his net worth in just one year the
Speaker 2: first year in office of the second term. Four days
Speaker 2: before Trump's inauguration last year, lieutenants to Abu Dhabi's royal
Speaker 2: secretly signed a deal with the Trump family to purchase
Speaker 2: a forty nine percent stake and the fledgling cryptocurrency adventure
Speaker 2: for half a billion dollars. The deal involved World Liberty Financial,
Speaker 2: the president's own crypto venture. It was co founded with
Speaker 2: his three sons and with Steve and Zach Whitcoff So.
Speaker 2: According to The Wall Street Journal, the previously unreported deal
Speaker 2: was signed by Eric, one of the President's sons. Under
Speaker 2: the agreement, the buyers would pay half upfront, steering one
Speaker 2: hundred and seven million dollars to Trump family entities. Now
Speaker 2: what did they get for it? Well, at least thirty
Speaker 2: one million was slated to flow to entities affiliated with
Speaker 2: the family of Steve whitcof two weeks earlier, had been
Speaker 2: named US Envoy to the Middle East. Another thirty one million,
Speaker 2: And again does that ring any bells? I mean, here's
Speaker 2: a guy who's going to be the envoy to these people,
Speaker 2: and they're buying influence with him, giving him thirty one
Speaker 2: million dollars before he takes the office. Another thirty one
Speaker 2: million went to an entity tied to co founders Zach
Speaker 2: Folkman and Chase Herrow. Sheik tat Noon backed the investment.
Speaker 2: The Wall Street Journal describes him as the spy Sheik.
Speaker 2: They said, that's his nickname. Brother to the UAE's president,
Speaker 2: the government's national security advisor, as well as the leader
Speaker 2: of the old rich country's largest wealth fund. He oversees
Speaker 2: more than one point three trillion dollar empire funded by
Speaker 2: his personal fortune and by state money, which again, you know,
Speaker 2: they just mix those two together, just like China, just
Speaker 2: like the Trump regime. So it spans from fish farms
Speaker 2: to AI to surveillance, making him one of the most
Speaker 2: powerful single investors in the world. The deal marks something
Speaker 2: unprecedented in American politics for foreign government official taking a
Speaker 2: major ownership stake in an incoming president's company. At the
Speaker 2: center of the controverty he's not just a business deal,
Speaker 2: but access to technology that Washington treats as strategically sensitive.
Speaker 2: The previous administration was unwilling to share it with the UAE.
Speaker 2: As a matter of fact, to Noon's efforts to get
Speaker 2: AI hardware had been largely stymied over fears that he
Speaker 2: was going to pass it along to China and his company,
Speaker 2: the AI firm G four two had stoked alarm among
Speaker 2: intelligence officials and lawmakers over its close ties to Huawei
Speaker 2: and other Chinese firms. Remember and Trump's first term, they
Speaker 2: wanted to roll out five G and other things in
Speaker 2: six G. Perhaps they wanted to make sure that Huawei
Speaker 2: was not going to be involved in any of that.
Speaker 2: And they said, well, if they are so paranoid about
Speaker 2: the Chinese having the ability to surveil US, what do
Speaker 2: you think that tells you about the US government. Don't
Speaker 2: you think that there also are aware of the technology
Speaker 2: to surveil people with the networks that they're rolling out.
Speaker 2: Of course they are. They just want to be the
Speaker 2: ones who are doing the surveillance. But Whahwei was what
Speaker 2: they were focused on to stop. And so here you
Speaker 2: have a guy who is one handshake away from Huawei.
Speaker 2: Trump's election opened the door for him, right to the
Speaker 2: Wall Street Journal. After the election, to Noon met multiple
Speaker 2: times of Trump, Steve Whitkoff, and other US officials. During
Speaker 2: a March White House visit, the sheikh told officials that
Speaker 2: he was eager to work with US on AI and
Speaker 2: on other issues. G four to two celebrated the shift,
Speaker 2: saying it accelerated projects including stargate UAE. Isn't it interesting
Speaker 2: this guy Again, he doesn't just do the same types
Speaker 2: of things as Trump. You know, we're going to merge
Speaker 2: our corporate and government fortunes together and I'm going to
Speaker 2: profit off of this. They also both had this stargate thing.
Speaker 2: Remember that was the thing that Trump did. I think
Speaker 2: it was his first day back in the Oval office.
Speaker 2: Oracle Cisco and Nvidia, the SoftBank group, and Trump was
Speaker 2: talking about AI plus mRNA technology And so again America's
Speaker 2: got a stargate project. They're talking about a five hundred
Speaker 2: billion dollar AI infrastructure project. UA is going to do
Speaker 2: the same thing, and we're going to give them to
Speaker 2: Chips whish they will then turn over to China. Most likely,
Speaker 2: what wasn't publicly known was that to Noon's emissaries had
Speaker 2: signed the deal to purchase forty nine percent of World
Speaker 2: Liberty that January. So, yeah, don't need to look at this.
Speaker 2: I'm sure there's nothing there, don't you think. Well, this
Speaker 2: is report from New American They said they concluded that
Speaker 2: the World Liberty Financial operates in a legally permissible but
Speaker 2: ethically questionable space. This sure looks like a violation of
Speaker 2: the Born in monument's clause and more of the point,
Speaker 2: it looks like a bribe, said Washington University law professor.
Speaker 2: The transaction, she said, should be a five alarm fire
Speaker 2: about the federal government being for sale. Well, that pretty
Speaker 2: much is everything about the Trump administration. Meanwhile, we had
Speaker 2: ran Paul come out and push back against Trump. He's
Speaker 2: done this now on both the Venezuela extra judicial killings
Speaker 2: that are going on there as well as the out
Speaker 2: of control ice, as well as now this statement from
Speaker 2: Trump that he's going to nationalize the elections. Ran Paul said,
Speaker 2: that's not what the constitution says. And so you had
Speaker 2: Caroline Lovett come out. She was asked you know about
Speaker 2: this canceling elections. Here's what she had to say.
Speaker 4: Asked you about his residence interview with lawyers.
Speaker 5: She said that he was joking about canceling the elections.
Speaker 4: But Americans for generations have fought and died for democracy.
Speaker 4: For this democracy.
Speaker 2: Actually what the president finds the idea of canceling elections.
Speaker 3: Funny, Andrew, were you in the room, No, you weren't.
Speaker 3: I was in the room. I heard the conversation, and
Speaker 3: only someone like you would take that. So seriously and
Speaker 3: pos it a question that way?
Speaker 2: Are you as tired as I am of these snarky
Speaker 2: women who work for Trump? And I'm talking about Pambondy
Speaker 2: as well. When she goes to be interviewed, not interviewed,
Speaker 2: but question by the Senate, she goes in with a
Speaker 2: paper of talking points, so she just rolls in rather
Speaker 2: than respond to any of the questions, as we saw
Speaker 2: Pam Bondy do. Pam Bondy looks up and say, who's
Speaker 2: this guy? Oh? Yeah, here he is. Okay, here's my
Speaker 2: smear against you. I've got personal ad hominem attack against you,
Speaker 2: and I'm not going to answer you a question. I'm
Speaker 2: going to answer your question quote unquote with an attack
Speaker 2: on you personally. That's exactly the same play as Caroline Lovett.
Speaker 2: Are they being coached by the cricket at the top.
Speaker 2: This is the Trump regimes tactic. We don't respond to questions,
Speaker 2: We attack you personally if you ask us a question.
Speaker 2: And so, why is he joking about not having an election?
Speaker 2: Why would that even be funny? It's not funny. It's
Speaker 2: especially not funny when you've got somebody who runs roughshod
Speaker 2: over the Constitution and the rule of law. Who has
Speaker 2: no respect for that whatsoever. And then we got that
Speaker 2: crook Bannon, who is pardoned by the other crook. Trump
Speaker 2: is out there saying no, no, we really are going
Speaker 2: to run him for a third time. We're going to
Speaker 2: manipulate the Constitution. There's things we can do, and on
Speaker 2: and on. I'm so sick and tired of these people
Speaker 2: who fought this stuff. And that's why when Rampaul says, well,
Speaker 2: you know, we got something called a constitution, and he says,
Speaker 2: that's not what the Constitution says about elections. He said
Speaker 2: the US Supreme Court limits states in some ways, such
Speaker 2: as barring them from setting different rules for some issues,
Speaker 2: including things like term limits, but he said the Constitution
Speaker 2: gives states the powers to determine the time, the place,
Speaker 2: and the manner of elections. The Supreme Court, he said,
Speaker 2: did rule that, for example, Washington State can't set term
Speaker 2: limits on federal officials if Georgia doesn't, it has to
Speaker 2: be a uniform election law. But as far as the time, place,
Speaker 2: and manner of elections, that under the Constitution is a
Speaker 2: state activity. So I'm not for nationalizing it, he said.
Speaker 2: And again, when we look at how does Trump want
Speaker 2: to nationalize it? Well, he wants to, And again Bannon
Speaker 2: was all excited about having ice show up at the polls.
Speaker 2: You don't need to have ice at the polls. If
Speaker 2: you want to do ID, you can do ID. You
Speaker 2: don't have to have these intimidating thugs and their camouflage
Speaker 2: and their body armor and their fully automatic weapons pointed
Speaker 2: at you. What's that about.
Speaker 6: The best thing they could do to energize the base
Speaker 6: for the opposition. That would ensure a major blue wave.
Speaker 6: If people have to walk past armed, masked storm troopers guarding.
Speaker 2: The uh that might be the thing that get me
Speaker 2: to vote for change. Paul added. The Democrats tried to
Speaker 2: implement sweeping national election reforms when Biden was in office,
Speaker 2: but the Republicans blocked it in the Senate. When he
Speaker 2: did that, he said, I was against Nancy Pelosi's bill,
Speaker 2: which would have nationalized it, but I would also be
Speaker 2: against any bill coming from this administration that would nationalize
Speaker 2: the election. See how that works. If you're doing something
Speaker 2: because of principle, because of the constitution, because of the
Speaker 2: rule of law, or because of ethics and morality or something,
Speaker 2: it doesn't matter who is in office, you oppose it
Speaker 2: both times, and if you are going to act differently
Speaker 2: based on who is in office, that's how we get
Speaker 2: people like Mike Johnson that are there. So again, you know,
Speaker 2: Trump has frequently and absurdly claimed that he lost Minnesota
Speaker 2: because the smalies showed up and voted folks. Not even
Speaker 2: Ronald Reagan could carry Minnesota. He won forty nine states,
Speaker 2: places like Hawaii, in California and New York when he ran.
Speaker 2: But even Ronald Reagan couldn't win Minnesota. He didn't lose
Speaker 2: it by much. He only lost it by two or
Speaker 2: three thousand votes, I think. But even Ronald Reagan couldn't Cary.
Speaker 2: There is absolutely no way that Trump would have won
Speaker 2: in Minnesota. But what is his response? Oh, okay, well,
Speaker 2: we got all these Somalis who were brought in. Yeah,
Speaker 2: they were brought in. They didn't cross the border, they
Speaker 2: were brought in as part of the refugee program. We
Speaker 2: had a six billion dollar budget for that last year.
Speaker 2: In the previous years. Trump and the Republicans wont to
Speaker 2: increase at two five by another five billion, So he's
Speaker 2: almost going to double it. It's an eighty percent increase.
Speaker 2: Why would you do that. If you say the Somalis
Speaker 2: are the problem, well, because the real problem is Trump,
Speaker 2: who is trying to create conflict unnecessarily. That's what this
Speaker 2: is all truly about. And I'm very suspicious really about
Speaker 2: national involvement in IDs for elections. Again, that is a
Speaker 2: state issue. We've had national involvement for ID in terms
Speaker 2: of stopping it, prohibiting it, saying, well, you can look
Speaker 2: for picture ID, just like you would have to do
Speaker 2: if you even cashed a check at the grocery store.
Speaker 2: You can require a picture ID. But if you're one
Speaker 2: of these southern states, because we've had these gem crow
Speaker 2: laws in the past, We're not going to allow you
Speaker 2: to do that. We're going to say somehow that is
Speaker 2: racist to do it, patently absurd, And it is federal
Speaker 2: involvement in the time, the place, and the manner of
Speaker 2: the election, and the federal government should get out of that.
Speaker 2: But out of that. But the issue is, and I've
Speaker 2: talked about this many times. You look at North Carolina
Speaker 2: for example, in the twenty twelve election, I was already
Speaker 2: in Texas. My brother in law was back in North Carolina.
Speaker 2: He had a friend. When you went in to vote,
Speaker 2: you would just give them a name and address, and
Speaker 2: they had these big computer print outs and they would
Speaker 2: go through and find your name and your address, and
Speaker 2: that was all that was required. You just need to
Speaker 2: go in with an aim and address. And they didn't
Speaker 2: know who you were. And they kept saying, well, we're
Speaker 2: not having any voter fraud, because that is like, oh, really,
Speaker 2: you're not. And so he had a friend who said
Speaker 2: I went to vote, gave him my name and my address.
Speaker 2: They looked it up and said, you've already voted. He says, no,
Speaker 2: I haven't. I was on election day. He said no
Speaker 2: I haven't. I said, yeah, you have. And this other
Speaker 2: person here at your name address, same last name, same address,
Speaker 2: has already voted as well. He said, that's my mother.
Speaker 2: She's been dead for a while. And so while that
Speaker 2: is happening, the Democrats in North Carolina would say, oh,
Speaker 2: there's no cheating going on this. I said, he's got
Speaker 2: to go public with his story, and he said no,
Speaker 2: he doesn't want to get involved with it. But North
Speaker 2: Carolina had one of the longest and still does I
Speaker 2: think perhaps the longest voting period. It was one of
Speaker 2: the longest, and so you could just go anywhere you
Speaker 2: want and just give him a name and address and you
Speaker 2: could vote and then mark it down. Is that's done?
Speaker 2: So yeah, we do need to have some ID. My concern, however,
Speaker 2: is when the federal government gets involved in it. It
Speaker 2: was a federal goal want to do when it's got ID, right,
Speaker 2: it's always looking for some excuse to have a national ID,
Speaker 2: a biometric ID. Look at what TSA is doing, and
Speaker 2: look at even some of the other Republican areas. You know,
Speaker 2: we've got Republican states like in Florida, they said we're
Speaker 2: going to have mandatory everify. Well, I'm going to get
Speaker 2: the federal government to say that I can have a job.
Speaker 2: I got to be vetted by the federal government. How
Speaker 2: easy is it going to be for them to say, well,
Speaker 2: we don't like as politics, you can't have a job,
Speaker 2: or we're going to get rid of anonymity on the
Speaker 2: internet because we've got kids who are going to porn sites. Well,
Speaker 2: there's always different ways, different things that we could do
Speaker 2: to solve these different problems, but their solution is always
Speaker 2: a federal national ID, a biometric idea, you name it,
Speaker 2: things like that. So I'm suspicious about what the Trump regime,
Speaker 2: which is head over heels and love with surveillance and
Speaker 2: artificial intelligence. Very concerned about anything that they would do
Speaker 2: with the election. Just get the government, the federal government,
Speaker 2: out of the local elections. They, under the constitution don't
Speaker 2: have the right to say anything about the manner of
Speaker 2: the place or the time of the elections. So let
Speaker 2: the states have photo ID in order to vote and
Speaker 2: they can handle it themselves. Rand said, the Republicans should
Speaker 2: say we want to take over. I'm sorry this is
Speaker 2: a Trump saying it. The Republicans should say we want
Speaker 2: to take over. We should take over the voting, the
Speaker 2: voting and at least as many as fifteen places Republicans
Speaker 2: oughten nationalize the voting, said Trump. Well. Those statements received
Speaker 2: pushback from a lot of high profile Republicans, not just
Speaker 2: Ran Paul, also the Senate Majority leader John Thune. Pushback,
Speaker 2: he told reporters that voters should be required to show
Speaker 2: ID to prove their citizens, but he does not support
Speaker 2: the federal government seizing the power to run elections. He says,
Speaker 2: I'm supportive of only citizens voting and showing idea p places,
Speaker 2: but I'm not in favor of federalizing elections. So no,
Speaker 2: that's a constitutional issue. I'm a big believer in decentralized
Speaker 2: and distributed power, said the senator. I think it's harder
Speaker 2: to hack fifty election systems than it is to hack one.
Speaker 2: In my view, at least, that's always a system that
Speaker 2: has worked pretty well. Perhaps that's one of the reasons
Speaker 2: why Trump wants to nationalize it. If you've got one
Speaker 2: central location, it makes it a lot easier to rig
Speaker 2: the election. That's a pragmatic reason why we should not
Speaker 2: be doing it. But of course Trump and the people
Speaker 2: around him. I've never seen such open naked corruption in
Speaker 2: terms of self enrichment by a politician, not just the present,
Speaker 2: by any politician. And I've never seen such open naked
Speaker 2: contempt for the constitution and the rule of law as
Speaker 2: the Trump regime has well, and the whole.
Speaker 6: Thing of here is a legitimate problem, and here's the
Speaker 6: government solution of Oh, let's add in the ID. It's
Speaker 6: exactly what we see with the Somali's and with the
Speaker 6: fake pandemic and everything else. As you just mentioned.
Speaker 2: That's right. Yeah, So the Supreme Court is still thinking
Speaker 2: about Trump's tariff usurpation, and you know he likes to
Speaker 2: brag about how he's lowered taxes, but as I've pointed out,
Speaker 2: the increase in taxes that he the figures that he's
Speaker 2: come up with, even even if you go with lower
Speaker 2: figures than he's come up with, is still a bigger
Speaker 2: tax increase that happened under FDR. So he has added
Speaker 2: these new taxes, and he hasn't done anything to eliminate
Speaker 2: the income tax, and these small changes that he's made
Speaker 2: in the income tax code are wiped out by the
Speaker 2: tax increases that he's had with the tariffs. As I
Speaker 2: pointed out, if you adjusted for inflation, even adjusted for inflation,
Speaker 2: I know, we're talking about dollars that are not, you know,
Speaker 2: the same as they were in nineteen thirty three, But
Speaker 2: even when you adjust it for the devaluation of the dollar,
Speaker 2: it's three times as much as what FDR added in
Speaker 2: terms of taxes. But he likes to present himself as
Speaker 2: a tax cutter, just like he a tax country after
Speaker 2: country and tries to present himself as the peace president. So,
Speaker 2: according to Trump, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Fry endorsed a very
Speaker 2: serious violation of law last week when Fry said Minneapolis
Speaker 2: does not and will not enforce federal immigration law. But
Speaker 2: it is Trump whose understanding of the law is seriously impaired,
Speaker 2: says reason because of the non Common Daring Act, not Act,
Speaker 2: but the principle that has been established. You know, it's
Speaker 2: really the nullification principle that has been there all along.
Speaker 2: There was a Supreme Court case, remember the one that
Speaker 2: we talked that Sheriff Mack was involved in. It based
Speaker 2: on the Brady Bill, and that established with the Supreme
Speaker 2: Court back in nineteen ninety seven, the non commondeering principle
Speaker 2: that you cannot force local and state law enforcement. You
Speaker 2: can't not just law enforcement, but you can't force them
Speaker 2: to enforce federal law in any way, shape or form.
Speaker 2: And so guess who wrote that decision. The conservative legal
Speaker 2: hero Antonin Scalia. So there you go. I'm going to
Speaker 2: argue with Scalia. Of course, every time I think about Scalia,
Speaker 2: and now I think about the pillow over the head
Speaker 2: thing at the Cibolo Creek ranch. I was thinking about
Speaker 2: that when I saw the Zarro ranch. That was that
Speaker 2: was one thing that I have seen that I cannot
Speaker 2: unsee what was going on at that ranch. How strange everything.
Speaker 2: And I said, I didn't see anything happen. It's just
Speaker 2: the really, really bizarre aspect of that ranch was unbelievable
Speaker 2: and very occultic. Anyway, the continuing silence from the Supreme
Speaker 2: Court on these terrafts has led to worrying speculation among
Speaker 2: some of the president's critics. The longer it takes the
Speaker 2: Court's terroist's decision to come out, the better it is
Speaker 2: for the White House. And I said this from the
Speaker 2: very beginning, when Trump was saying, well, it's going to
Speaker 2: be a real mess if you try to undo what
Speaker 2: we've done, so you just better leave it alone. Right,
Speaker 2: That's not an argument, that's not a legal argument. He
Speaker 2: doesn't have a real emergency. And even if he had
Speaker 2: a real emergency, the way that he's done this is
Speaker 2: still not called for in the law. This is just
Speaker 2: a repudiation, a prevarication, a usurpation. And so now he's
Speaker 2: trying to say that you need to leave this in
Speaker 2: because it's going to be too difficult to undo it.
Speaker 2: And as they point out in this thing that what
Speaker 2: should have happened since this is being discussed, they should have said, well,
Speaker 2: we're going to put a moratorium on the collection of tariffs,
Speaker 2: but instead they allowed the government to continue to collect
Speaker 2: the teriffs. And when you look at the questioning, it
Speaker 2: was pretty clear that the justices understood that this is
Speaker 2: a tax, that tariffs are always taxes. And yet the
Speaker 2: fact that they couldn't come to an immediate decision is
Speaker 2: very troubling because it says that, I think, in my opinion,
Speaker 2: some pressure is being put on it. If you remember Roberts,
Speaker 2: everybody believed that the Obama Care stuff was going to
Speaker 2: be shut down by the Supreme Court, and the argument
Speaker 2: that they wanted to put forward was not that this
Speaker 2: was some new usurped federal power, but this was in
Speaker 2: fact a tax or something, you know. So he bought
Speaker 2: into that argument, and then he wrote the opinion to
Speaker 2: shut down Obamacare, and then he wrote the opinion to
Speaker 2: allow it. So he kind of did a complete one
Speaker 2: to eighty. The same guy wrote both the dissenting opinion
Speaker 2: and the concurring opinion in the case, which tells me
Speaker 2: that somebody got to him at the very last minute. Away.
Speaker 2: Trump claims that tariffs have brought America back. Here are
Speaker 2: three things that he got wrong. This is from Reason
Speaker 2: as well. Number one, the trade deficit I guess we'd
Speaker 2: call this three blind lies. Three blind lies. So the
Speaker 2: number one lie is the trade deficit. He claims that
Speaker 2: it has slashed our monthly trade deficit by seventy seven percent,
Speaker 2: but the Census Bureau reported last week that the trade
Speaker 2: deficit actually increased, not decreased, by nearly thirty seven percent
Speaker 2: in November. Through the first eleven months of twenty twenty five,
Speaker 2: the trade deficit was four percent higher than it had
Speaker 2: been in twenty twenty four, the opposite of what Trump
Speaker 2: is claiming. But of course part of this is because
Speaker 2: the tariffs actually did not get started when Trump announced them.
Speaker 2: There was a delay in them, and then even as
Speaker 2: there was a delay, he kept adjusting the rates down
Speaker 2: and that type of thing. So, as they point out,
Speaker 2: the other lie is who pays the tear tariffs? By
Speaker 2: number two, Trump wrote in his op ed piece on
Speaker 2: the Wall Street Journal that foreign producers and middlemen are
Speaker 2: paying at least eighty percent of the tariff costs. In fact,
Speaker 2: the paper that he cited concludes that quote tariffs led
Speaker 2: to both rapid and gradual retail price increases. The study
Speaker 2: that whoever wrote this for Trump, the study that they're
Speaker 2: referenced by the Harvard Business School found that the quote
Speaker 2: prices began rising within days of the March announcements and
Speaker 2: continued to increase steadily over subsequent months. They also said
Speaker 2: imported goods rose roughly twice as much as domestic goods
Speaker 2: relative to pre tariff trinsity. Get that, so we've had
Speaker 2: inflation of domestically produced things, and we've had even with
Speaker 2: that inflation, we've had imported goods go up by twice
Speaker 2: that amount. And as we talked about this before, when
Speaker 2: people say, oh, look, we haven't seen a huge difference
Speaker 2: in this kind of stuff yet. In the past, when
Speaker 2: tariffs have been applied, they have been slow to be
Speaker 2: passed on because the first instinct of the businesses is
Speaker 2: going to be to try to not raise prices. That's
Speaker 2: the competitive advantage, of course, try to compete on price.
Speaker 2: But then after a while, what they realize is that
Speaker 2: they can't compete on price. They can't swallow if they
Speaker 2: get hit with a tariffs it's ten or twenty percent
Speaker 2: or something they have to pass out on eventually because
Speaker 2: they don't operate most businesses don't operate on a profit
Speaker 2: margin that's going to allow them to absorb those types
Speaker 2: of costs, they have to be passed on the consumer.
Speaker 2: That's why the minimum wage increases that are mandated by
Speaker 2: Democrats are inflationary. They have to be passed on in prices.
Speaker 2: And that's why corporate income tax we've always understood. I
Speaker 2: thought as conservatives that you don't tax corporations. When you
Speaker 2: tax corporations, they pass that on. It always works that way.
Speaker 2: And so for imported goods are up nine point seven
Speaker 2: percent from their pre tariff trends, while domestic prices are
Speaker 2: up four and a half percent. Those increases have added
Speaker 2: an next estimated one percent point to inflation as measured
Speaker 2: by the consumer price indings, and it always lags. It's
Speaker 2: going to get worse. So the next time Trump is
Speaker 2: complaining that the Federal Reserve won't lower interest rates, remember
Speaker 2: that the main reason the Central Bank is keeping interest
Speaker 2: rates higher is that inflation is still over two percent.
Speaker 2: But it would be significantly lower if not for Trump's
Speaker 2: tariffs and then the third lie economic collapse. He said
Speaker 2: in his op ed piece. When I imposed historic tariffs
Speaker 2: on nearly all foreign countries last April, the critics said
Speaker 2: my policies would cause a global economic meltdown. He said
Speaker 2: that meltdown didn't occur, So that must prove that the
Speaker 2: president was right and his opponent's wrong. Well, this is
Speaker 2: not a gotcha moment that the president seems to believe.
Speaker 2: It is. Reason says Trump repeatedly back down and eased
Speaker 2: tariff threats in the face of negative shocks from both
Speaker 2: the stock market and the bond market. The Liberation Day
Speaker 2: tariffs announced on April the second, were postponed a week
Speaker 2: later after a huge stock market sell off, and those
Speaker 2: were later imposed at a lower rate. A threatened one
Speaker 2: hundred and thirty percent tariff on Chinese goods never materialized.
Speaker 2: No wonder Taco Trump always chickens out entered the political
Speaker 2: and financial lexicon last year. Yale's Yale Budget Labs data
Speaker 2: shows that Trump raised the average US tariff rate from
Speaker 2: less than three percent to more than twenty five percent,
Speaker 2: but those rates declined in the second half of the
Speaker 2: year and settled at around seventeen percent. That's still very high,
Speaker 2: but not as high as it could have been, so
Speaker 2: it makes sense that the consequences were less severe and delayed.
Speaker 2: Of course, as well, so if the bar for success
Speaker 2: is I didn't crash the global economy. Congratulations, I guess
Speaker 2: he says, there's not. Really, it's not something to brag about,
Speaker 2: and it certainly doesn't excuse Trump from the economic damage
Speaker 2: that is lower, less extreme tariffs have done. And again,
Speaker 2: the levels of the tariffs are not nearly as damaging
Speaker 2: no matter what they are as is on again, off again,
Speaker 2: constantly changing chaotic environment that keeps people who are in
Speaker 2: business from being able to know what the costs are
Speaker 2: going to be from one day to the next. Tariffs
Speaker 2: are effectively a wealth transfer mechanism. It takes money from
Speaker 2: consumers and businesses and it gives it to preferred businesses,
Speaker 2: right to help protect them. No wonder he loves terrafts
Speaker 2: because it really is kind of his business model. Right,
Speaker 2: I'm going to reward my friends crony capitalism and of
Speaker 2: course punish his enemies that he hates. So yeah, and
Speaker 2: Trump's case, the sectors of the economy that are supposed
Speaker 2: to benefiting from the tariffs, manufacturing and other forms of
Speaker 2: industrial production, are not even realizing those benefits. It's because
Speaker 2: higher prices on raw materials make it more difficult to
Speaker 2: manufacture things. For example, American businesses are now paying much
Speaker 2: higher prices for aluminum than manufacturer is elsewhere in the world.
Speaker 2: That's a good way to discourage manufacturing in America, not
Speaker 2: to promote it. Trump is clearly unwilling and unable to
Speaker 2: understand these trade offs. It's hopeless to believe that he'll
Speaker 2: ever change his mind. It's really up to others to
Speaker 2: stop him. Not going to be anybody in his immediate
Speaker 2: circle that's going to stop him for anything, is it.
Speaker 2: And of course then we have the in terms of
Speaker 2: Trump's contempt for the rule of law and the constitution.
Speaker 2: When the Trump administration went to the Federal District Court,
Speaker 2: Judge Richard Leon expressed shock. The judge expressed shock on
Speaker 2: Tuesday that the Trump so called Justice Department was asking
Speaker 2: him to break new First Amendment ground. We're going to
Speaker 2: punish Mark Kelly because of what he said, you know,
Speaker 2: and what did he say that was so offensive? That's
Speaker 2: the amazing thing about this. Just go back to the
Speaker 2: very beginning, you know, And it was a comment that
Speaker 2: Lance had. He said, why don't they just say we're
Speaker 2: not giving any illegal orders? Instead they said, how dare
Speaker 2: you say to people to not follow illegal orders? We're
Speaker 2: going to come after you for saying that. Why didn't
Speaker 2: they want to just defend it by saying, well, our
Speaker 2: orders are not illegal. And shame on Mark Kelly and
Speaker 2: the other senator who has retired CIA who when they
Speaker 2: were asked by people what laws, what illegal orders has
Speaker 2: Trump given, they couldn't think of any Are you kidding me?
Speaker 2: You know what we saw happening in Venezuela. You can't
Speaker 2: think of anything that violated the law. I can't think
Speaker 2: of anything that complied with the law and any of that.
Speaker 2: Why are we there? What are we doing? Why are
Speaker 2: we shooting people in the first place without knowing what
Speaker 2: they've got on their boat? Why are we circling back
Speaker 2: and murdering people in the water who have been shipwrecked?
Speaker 2: Everything about that operation was criminal and illegal. Mark Kelly
Speaker 2: and this other person can't think about it. But then
Speaker 2: the real farce about all this stuff is that Trump
Speaker 2: and Warpete couldn't just say well, I didn't we didn't
Speaker 2: do anything illegal. If they had taken that approach, Mark
Speaker 2: Kelly and these other people would have backed down, because
Speaker 2: they backed down where they were challenged by news anchors
Speaker 2: to name something. Meanwhile, the judge says, you're asking me
Speaker 2: to do something that the Supreme Court has never done.
Speaker 2: Isn't that a bit of a stretch? The Trump administration
Speaker 2: tried during the hearing to argue that the diminished speech
Speaker 2: rights that apply to active duty military meant to preserve
Speaker 2: obedience and discipline, should apply to Kelly, who is now retired.
Speaker 2: That's never been done before, said the judge. Leon seemed
Speaker 2: particularly perturbed about Kelly's situation, specifically that under the Trump
Speaker 2: regime's new proposed rule, retired members of the military serving
Speaker 2: in Congress could be punished for criticizing the Pentagon.
Speaker 1: World.
Speaker 2: Does that make any sense, right, if you are not
Speaker 2: in uniform anymore, How does that mean that you can't
Speaker 2: exercise your free speech rights to criticize the president? I mean,
Speaker 2: we saw the contempt for the Constitution the Biden administration
Speaker 2: had coming after j six people because you have a specific,
Speaker 2: specifically enumerated right in the First Amendment to redress your
Speaker 2: grievances against the government. Right, So they came after people
Speaker 2: and punished them for that. Here we have Trump doing that,
Speaker 2: doing it to a senator even who is not in
Speaker 2: the military, you know, trying to punish him for this.
Speaker 6: So in other words, they're saying that if you were
Speaker 6: ever a part of the military, you have permanently given
Speaker 6: up your free speech rights.
Speaker 2: That's right, that's right. That's like saying that if somebody's
Speaker 2: ever been convicted of a felony, they could never own
Speaker 2: a gun before again, right, even if it's some kind
Speaker 2: of a minor, non violent felony. Because we've got pelonies
Speaker 2: all over the place. It's like Harvey Silverglate's book, Three
Speaker 2: Phlonies a Day. You know, phonies you don't even know about.
Speaker 6: To protect other people's rights, you give up your own,
Speaker 6: but you protect presumably.
Speaker 2: Or you know, in Washington State, you get convicted of
Speaker 2: a felony because you got an illegal three D printer.
Speaker 2: You know, So now you can never never own a
Speaker 2: fire gun. Not just you can't print a so called
Speaker 2: ghost gun, can never own a firearm because that's a felony. Well,
Speaker 2: he says, how is a member of the Armed Services
Speaker 2: Committee supposed to do his or her job, the judge
Speaker 2: asks the lawyers of the Trump regime. In other words,
Speaker 2: if congressman or senator is on the Arm Service exhibition,
Speaker 2: how can they be punished for criticizing what the Pentagon
Speaker 2: is doing? If you're going to do this type of
Speaker 2: thing to Mark Kelly, it's absolutely insane, so he said.
Speaker 2: And after the trial, Mark Kelly was there, he said,
Speaker 2: hesth censured me, and he's now trying to demote me
Speaker 2: for things that I said and for doing my job
Speaker 2: as a US state, as a US senator. He said,
Speaker 2: this isn't happening in isolation. Since taking office, this regime
Speaker 2: he used the word administration, I use the word regime
Speaker 2: has repeatedly gone after the First Amendment rights of many Americans,
Speaker 2: not just him. And so that's where we stand.
Speaker 1: With the law.
Speaker 2: We're going to take a quick break and we're going
Speaker 2: to come back with your ask me Anything questions. So
Speaker 2: stay with us. We will be right back.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the David Knight Show.
Speaker 7: Here News Now at apsradionews dot com or get the
Speaker 7: APS Radio app and never miss another story.
Speaker 2: Okay, and here are they ask Me Anything questions? Received?
Speaker 2: This and this from Will. I won't say last names,
Speaker 2: Will L. He said, I hope this day finds you well.
Speaker 2: Can you cover the situation in Western Canada where the
Speaker 2: government is removing land owners to return land to the
Speaker 2: First Nations quote unquote it's relevant with the Billy Ellish
Speaker 2: nonsense that's happening. And of course that's a singer at
Speaker 2: the Grammys, and she was saying that we're living on
Speaker 2: stolen land. So we had people show up in front
Speaker 2: of her multimillion dollar mansion and say, you stole that,
Speaker 2: so I want it back or whatever. Okay, let's understand
Speaker 2: the principle that's involved here, and the founding father has
Speaker 2: understood this. It's just plain common sense. Really. Thomas Jefferson
Speaker 2: is famous for the quote the earth belongs and usufruct
Speaker 2: to the living, right, and what do you mean by that? Okay,
Speaker 2: it is basically when you look at that term, we
Speaker 2: don't use that anymore. Perhaps it's used in legal circles.
Speaker 2: I don't know, but the sense of that word usufruct
Speaker 2: is actually his quote was that's a construct of his
Speaker 2: quote to Madison in a letter of what he said
Speaker 2: was the dead have neither Let's see I wrote this down.
Speaker 2: I have trouble reading this. They have neither power nor
Speaker 2: rights over these things, right, And in essence, what you're
Speaker 2: talking about is something that is basically a usufruct. It
Speaker 2: is enjoying the fruits and the benefits of a property
Speaker 2: without actually owning it, so as so far as it's
Speaker 2: compatible with it not being destroyed or injured. And so
Speaker 2: when you look at this, what does that mean? Well,
Speaker 2: you know you can't take it with you, right, And
Speaker 2: so if you want to go back and say, we're
Speaker 2: going to eradicate all the property records of things that
Speaker 2: people have done to transfer this down through you know
Speaker 2: periods of time people have gone out and they've used
Speaker 2: their money to buy this property and everything. But we're
Speaker 2: going to ignore all that and we're going to go
Speaker 2: back and look at who originally owned this and give
Speaker 2: it to their descendants rather than all the different things
Speaker 2: that have happened.
Speaker 6: Yeah, and even the term first nations itself is propaganda.
Speaker 6: They love to set these terms to control the dialogue. No,
Speaker 6: they weren't the first nations, as though before the white
Speaker 6: men came they just lived in perfect peace and harmony. No,
Speaker 6: they took it from the people that had it before them.
Speaker 6: Who took it the people that had it before them?
Speaker 6: It was a lot of war amongst the tribes before
Speaker 6: the white people got there, and you know we got
Speaker 6: there in the middle of it. We have courtings of there.
Speaker 2: They had slavery, they had conquests, they had all of
Speaker 2: these different things that happened. Yeah, what they didn't have
Speaker 2: was registries of deeds, which we have. We have an
Speaker 2: orderly way to transfer this stuff, and they want to
Speaker 2: just bring chaos to us. And of course the question
Speaker 2: put first nations in quotes, and so you know, we
Speaker 2: understand that's their term and we know what's meant by it.
Speaker 2: But again just understand that, you know, we're all here
Speaker 2: as caretakers of land. How do we get this and
Speaker 2: why is it that people want to throw all these
Speaker 2: boundaries off and just great chaos. Well, they've got their
Speaker 2: own agenda and it doesn't have anything to do with
Speaker 2: justice or social justice or anything else. Justice is to
Speaker 2: allow the people who have worked for these things and
Speaker 2: have legally transferred this. We have a system for ownership,
Speaker 2: and this is just trying to turn the apple cart
Speaker 2: over and pursue a position of theft. But again, the
Speaker 2: dead have neither power nor rights to the land the
Speaker 2: earth belongs and to the living. In other words, we're
Speaker 2: here as caretakers temporarily and we will pass on, and
Speaker 2: then there has to be an orderly way for that
Speaker 2: to pass on, and we need to leave that alone. Well,
Speaker 2: another question here from Charlie says, so you need to
Speaker 2: do some good news segments every show. Two hours of
Speaker 2: straight bad news is too depressing. Find something positive please. Well,
Speaker 2: when I talk about the news, quite frankly, the news,
Speaker 2: the news that we have here at this point in
Speaker 2: time is all really bad. Quite frankly. I mean, I
Speaker 2: could tell you a story about somebody who a police
Speaker 2: officer who gives a pair of shoes to somebody who
Speaker 2: needs them on the that's homeless, and there have been
Speaker 2: stories like that that's happened several times. But it really
Speaker 2: my purpose in this show is to try to warn
Speaker 2: you about things that are coming down the pike, like
Speaker 2: this great taking you know where they have gone through
Speaker 2: and surreptitiously change the UCC code so you don't really
Speaker 2: own any stocks or securities or bonds and it is
Speaker 2: now you just have an entitlement to it that can
Speaker 2: easily be wiped out if there's a major financial crash,
Speaker 2: which we have already seen one in our lifetime. In
Speaker 2: our recent lifetime in two thousand and eight, you have
Speaker 2: something like that happened again, and they've already set everything
Speaker 2: up to take everything away from you. So my purpose
Speaker 2: in this show is to warn people about things like that,
Speaker 2: to warn people about things like the lockdown and the
Speaker 2: so called pandemic and the vaccine and things like that.
Speaker 2: So I know that's bad news, but there is some
Speaker 2: good news. And that's why when I do talk about
Speaker 2: Christian aspects, I talk about the Lord Jesus Christ. There
Speaker 2: is good news that you know, we are just here
Speaker 2: for a short period of time. We're not going to
Speaker 2: take any of this stuff with us, and there is
Speaker 2: something better that is coming, that is far better that's coming,
Speaker 2: and it is a free gift of grace. This is
Speaker 2: something that Jesus paid it all and you need to
Speaker 2: understand that look into that because you're not going to
Speaker 2: live forever. You've got these people like Jeffrey Epstein and
Speaker 2: Donald Trump who think they are but they're not. And
Speaker 2: I think this is also from Charlie. He said, I'd
Speaker 2: like to see a real DK coin in silver. Alex
Speaker 2: Jones sells a tenth of a gram of zero point
Speaker 2: nine nine nine gold for one hundred dollars and says,
Speaker 2: you're not paying two thousand dollars an ounce like you're
Speaker 2: getting a better deal. It says, today's value of a
Speaker 2: tenth of a gram is something like sixteen dollars, so
Speaker 2: it is a five hundred percent markup. Well, so a
Speaker 2: couple of things here. I'm not interested in getting into
Speaker 2: gold and silver right now, because, as I pointed out,
Speaker 2: in terms of selling it and having an inventory that
Speaker 2: I've got to turn over and so forth. I'm interested
Speaker 2: in getting gold and accumulating it as an individual because
Speaker 2: I think that that is one of the few things
Speaker 2: that we can do to prepare financially. However, I don't
Speaker 2: want to get into doing what Tony does because this
Speaker 2: is a it's a crazy market right now if you
Speaker 2: look at how volatile it was. We were just talking
Speaker 2: about that yesterday.
Speaker 6: Yes, well, in a sense, you can get a David
Speaker 6: knight Show silver coin. It just won't say the David
Speaker 6: knight Show. You get your silver through the Why is
Speaker 6: Wolf program?
Speaker 2: Why is Wolf program?
Speaker 6: Yeah, still getting David knight Show silver in a sense,
Speaker 6: and it's a great price, not the absurd markup, that's right.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I looked at that. I thought, okay, so what
Speaker 2: are we doing. Well, you know, first of all, you
Speaker 2: change from ounces to graham right. Typically the gold and
Speaker 2: silver is priced and ounces so one tenth of a gram.
Speaker 2: If you say we got five thousand dollars gold, he's right,
Speaker 2: that'd be about seventeen dollars and they're charging one hundred
Speaker 2: dollars for it, So that sounds about the right markup
Speaker 2: for Info Wars. I gotta say the silver that I
Speaker 2: like from Wars was the stuff that you could swallow
Speaker 2: or brush your teeth with. That was the best silver
Speaker 2: that they had. So in defense of Info Wars, I
Speaker 2: will say that because the market is so incredibly volatile.
Speaker 2: I mean, if you're going to put something up on
Speaker 2: the website and just have it stocked as far as inventory,
Speaker 2: and you're going to sell it out to people, you
Speaker 2: better put it in something crazy like a five hundred
Speaker 2: percent markup, or you're going to lose a lot of
Speaker 2: money on it. So again, this kind of volatility, it's
Speaker 2: not something I wouldn't want to be a retailer. And
Speaker 2: as I said to Tony yesterday, I don't know how
Speaker 2: he does it. I mean he's operating, literally, folks, in
Speaker 2: a hyperinflation environment. It's bad enough that it's going up
Speaker 2: very rapidly, but then you got these places where it
Speaker 2: retrenches and we just saw over the last weekend now
Speaker 2: it dropped significantly, so it's it's really difficult to do
Speaker 2: things in a volatility market like that. So anyway, this
Speaker 2: is from Rick d. He said, what are your thoughts
Speaker 2: on the Epstein document that claims Joe Biden and died
Speaker 2: in twenty nineteen and was replaced by an actor in
Speaker 2: a mask. I've noticed that Biden's ear lobes changed from
Speaker 2: time to time. His height also changes. There's a photo
Speaker 2: of Biden at Colin Powell's funeral and there seems to
Speaker 2: be a square tab on his ear, and he sent
Speaker 2: some photos of that. And Yeah, there was a guy
Speaker 2: who did a AI synopsis. You've seen the AI things.
Speaker 2: I think I showed you one where you've got a
Speaker 2: guy doing selfies and he runs up to a movie
Speaker 2: set and you've got some actors there, like maybe Harrison
Speaker 2: Ford on the set of Indiana Jones. So he runs
Speaker 2: up and he does a selfie next to Harrison Ford,
Speaker 2: and then he runs over to another area and there's
Speaker 2: another classic movie that's over there, and he does another one.
Speaker 2: He keeps doing that over and over again different places. Well,
Speaker 2: somebody did that with Jeffrey Epstein. And one of the
Speaker 2: scenes that they had, they had a group of politicians
Speaker 2: and them was Joe Biden, and then they had a
Speaker 2: Joe Biden that was absurdly tall, like eight feet tall,
Speaker 2: right behind him, and that's what they were trying to
Speaker 2: refer to. But I've seen some pictures of Joe Biden
Speaker 2: and some things that look like masks on his neck
Speaker 2: and everything. Look, I can't say one way or the other.
Speaker 2: I have no way to know whether that is true.
Speaker 2: I just I know, however, that that is not anything
Speaker 2: that I would put past them. They would certainly be
Speaker 2: capable of doing that. They might actually be technically capable,
Speaker 2: but certainly they would be morally capable of pulling off
Speaker 2: a hoax like that. I don't believe that Trump was
Speaker 2: shot in the ear because of the you know, the
Speaker 2: rapid healing that he had and the no scar of that.
Speaker 2: So there's a lot of things like that that I
Speaker 2: am suspicious of. But I'm not going to major on
Speaker 2: that because I can't prove it one way or the other.
Speaker 2: I just have my suspicions, you know, That's what I
Speaker 2: think is And so it might very well be that
Speaker 2: they replaced Joe Biden. But unfortunately, I think as bad
Speaker 2: as the Biden presidency was, as authoritarian and tautalitarian as
Speaker 2: his policies were. And I said this a long time,
Speaker 2: you know, when he was running for office, I said,
Speaker 2: Joe Biden is absolutely one of the most tautalitarian senators
Speaker 2: I've ever seen in my life. He was always involved
Speaker 2: with Warren drugs, and he pushed that along against the
Speaker 2: Constitution for the longest time. Yes, Lands, I.
Speaker 6: Would just be careful about these really salacious things, because
Speaker 6: at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter
Speaker 6: if he was an actor in a mask or just
Speaker 6: a senile old man who was reading whatever he was
Speaker 6: told to read. I don't think anyone really thinks that
Speaker 6: Biden was the mastermind behind the Biden presidency. So at
Speaker 6: the end of the day, it's.
Speaker 2: But Biden himself. You know, when he was sharp and
Speaker 2: articulate and when he was talking on his own as
Speaker 2: a younger senator, had nothing but contempt for even the
Speaker 2: concept of individual liberty. And that was apparent from the
Speaker 2: confirmation hearings for Clarence Thomas. He absolutely despised Clarence Thomas
Speaker 2: because Clarence Thomas had written about natural rights. That's the
Speaker 2: basis of the Decoration of Independence, you know, the thing
Speaker 2: that he was talking about, and the people around Biden,
Speaker 2: the Biden regime were equally totalitarian and authoritarian. So if
Speaker 2: Biden was alive or dead, whether he was signing the
Speaker 2: stuff or was autopin, that was the group that was
Speaker 2: around him. And again, do you really think that most
Speaker 2: of the stuff that's happening is Trump. He's the front
Speaker 2: face of this and he's the person that they used
Speaker 2: to create chaos and conflict. But I'm not going to
Speaker 2: make a I'm not going to plan a flag in
Speaker 2: this and say, well, he was absolutely dead, because look,
Speaker 2: if you jump into things like this as lean as
Speaker 2: was saying, get into something's really salacious like that and
Speaker 2: major in that, first of all, you're missing some of
Speaker 2: the more subtle, dangerous things like I was talking about
Speaker 2: good example of the UCC stuff and how they've manipulated that.
Speaker 2: So you're going to miss that if you're focusing on
Speaker 2: these salacious things, and if you get it wrong, that
Speaker 2: discredits everything that you've said basically, so you have to
Speaker 2: be careful not to go places where it's not verified.
Speaker 2: And that's there's a lot of stuff that's out there
Speaker 2: that is like that.
Speaker 6: And I do have that epstein Ai video that you mentioned.
Speaker 6: If you want me to play it.
Speaker 2: No, that's okay, Well, yeah, go ahead and play it.
Speaker 2: I guess we can go ahead and play it. It
Speaker 2: is really creepy video here, and there's a lot of
Speaker 2: Easter eggs that they've thrown out here. By the way,
Speaker 2: that reminds me of Creek Crank. That's what made me
Speaker 2: think about all of those masks on the wall of
Speaker 2: faces that people that he partied with. I mean, there
Speaker 2: were crazy masks on the wall. And of course the
Speaker 2: pizza party.
Speaker 8: There we are, I see the money just kid.
Speaker 2: One from True. I don't know who that guy is.
Speaker 2: There's Bill Gates and he's got to soar on his lep.
Speaker 2: I wonder what that refers to. There's Prince Andrew and
Speaker 2: Kevin Spacey and all these guys and a hot cub together.
Speaker 2: There's the Pope John Paul and of course that refers
Speaker 2: to something came out as well. And the Dali Lama.
Speaker 2: That's right, there's going Max. Well, she's in the recording
Speaker 2: studio where they're editing the videos that they have taken people.
Speaker 2: And here's the Cryer Jeneka experiments there.
Speaker 8: I guess, yeah, let's see up to here, Mala, there's
Speaker 8: Jerome Powell and Bernanke and the federal reserved people whose
Speaker 8: Wall Street connections, his bitcoin manufacturing facility right.
Speaker 2: There, his involvement with a terrorist organizations through the intelligence agencies.
Speaker 2: There's the giant Biden saying right in front of him
Speaker 2: is a normal size Biden. And then here's all the
Speaker 2: clowns and cash Beteld, all the influencers like libs of
Speaker 2: TikTok and d C Draino and all the rest of
Speaker 2: them with their Epstein documents. Remember that that was about
Speaker 2: a year ago. And there's Trump being carried in on
Speaker 2: a what do you call that thing where they got
Speaker 2: four guys carrying it, and there's a seated shair that's
Speaker 2: sanan Is that what that's called. There's Natya Whuo flipping
Speaker 2: the switch the owl up there the occultic stuff. I
Speaker 2: guess he's going in the tunnels with them. I don't
Speaker 2: know what the significance of him pointing to his wristwatches there,
Speaker 2: but here he is. He's back at the temple. Yeah,
Speaker 2: crazy a no name asked me. So see if you
Speaker 2: can interview Bradley Dean and or Tim Brown from Sons
Speaker 2: of Liberty, and I've been interviewed several times by Bradley Dean.
Speaker 2: I've had him on as well, and he's doing a
Speaker 2: podcast now. I think he used to be on Genesis
Speaker 2: Radio and that foldage, so now he's doing a podcast.
Speaker 2: Jay Fletcher says Espen was deeply involved in the quote
Speaker 2: unquote science community, CERN, prestigious medical schools, astrophysicists, computer scientists, them,
Speaker 2: cell research. The list is long. He seems to have
Speaker 2: a steering hand on modern science. What was he are
Speaker 2: they up to? Well? I talked about that yesterday. The
Speaker 2: fact is that he's heavily involved in a lot of
Speaker 2: these different things because they have been able to use
Speaker 2: science to control, manipulate and of course make a lot
Speaker 2: of money with things. But it's control manipulation when you
Speaker 2: see what he was doing with the emails in terms
Speaker 2: of gates and how they were going to profit from
Speaker 2: the pandemic, how they were going to be able to
Speaker 2: use we've got to restructure these things so that we
Speaker 2: can make money off of your charitable organizations and actually
Speaker 2: take money out of that for profit. But it's also
Speaker 2: the transhumanist aspect of it and the genetics aspect of this,
Speaker 2: and that is really truly an evil. And let me
Speaker 2: just interject here because I stopped yesterday before I got
Speaker 2: completely finished with what was truly happening with the transhumanism
Speaker 2: aspect of it. Going back to JD. Hall and what
Speaker 2: he had to say, I thought it was very interesting
Speaker 2: because I've talked about how transhumanism is a religion. It's
Speaker 2: the religion that was there right there in Genesis when
Speaker 2: Eve has the forbidden fruit and disobeys God. I'm going
Speaker 2: to live forever and I'm going to become like God.
Speaker 2: And that really is the basis of transhumanism. But I
Speaker 2: never thought about the fact that they have an eschatology,
Speaker 2: the end Time Study, and their eschatology is called the Singularity,
Speaker 2: which I thought was kind of funny. And he says,
Speaker 2: and then of course they also have a salvation narrative
Speaker 2: defeating death through technology. It has a priesthood, the Silicon
Speaker 2: Valley futurist and the tech billionaires. It has rituals biohacking
Speaker 2: and genetic modification, and I would say abortion as well.
Speaker 2: It also has sacred texts from Kurzweil and Yuill Harari
Speaker 2: and Elon Musk. So, yeah, it is something of religion,
Speaker 2: isn't it. The Epstein files prove that it merges seamlessly
Speaker 2: with ancient pagan worship. The same people funding AI research,
Speaker 2: we're funding temple construction. The same network pursuing genetic superiority
Speaker 2: through breeding programs was engaging in ritualistic abuse documented by
Speaker 2: victims and investigators. This isn't a coincidence. This is convergence.
Speaker 2: And all false religion ultimately serves the same principalities, whether
Speaker 2: you call them ishtar Moloch, or progress and evolution. And
Speaker 2: just remember, you know, when we've got Donald Trump and
Speaker 2: his mania about building monuments to himself, this two hundred
Speaker 2: and fifty foot monument, this arc that he's got arch
Speaker 2: that he wants to put up to be the largest
Speaker 2: arch of anybody that's out there, and he wants to
Speaker 2: make it two hundred and fifty feet because that'll be
Speaker 2: taller than any of the other ones. And he says
Speaker 2: it's going to because we've got that two hundred and
Speaker 2: fiftieth anniversary of the Decoration of Independence. It's like he
Speaker 2: probably ought to put up a fallen arch, I think,
Speaker 2: because that's what has happened. This nation has fallen from
Speaker 2: the principles that were there. Stable Nuclei says, oh wait,
Speaker 2: move on.
Speaker 6: There's a whole lot of bioengineering stuff in the Epstein files,
Speaker 6: and most of it's very dark, but there is one
Speaker 6: that's kind of funny. He was involved in a project
Speaker 6: to create pigs with different non cloven hooves in order
Speaker 6: to make quote from Epstein, kosher bacon.
Speaker 2: Yeah, because it's defined as something with a cloven hoove
Speaker 2: you can't eat. So let's make pigs that don't have
Speaker 2: cloven hoofs and then we can enjoy bacon. I guess
Speaker 2: he doesn't want to get involved with the imitation bacon.
Speaker 2: That's out of soy right. I'll leave that to the soyumgham.
Speaker 2: But so evidently he did have some religious beliefs there. Right,
Speaker 2: he's got to have it kosher bacon because you're gonna
Speaker 2: have pigs that don't have cloven hoofs.
Speaker 6: Yep email from twenty to fifteen, as reported by af Post.
Speaker 2: So this is a stable nuclear. I asked me do
Speaker 2: you wear pants before twelve pm? He says, I do
Speaker 2: not answer my own question. Take it easy and God
Speaker 2: bless well, I do wear pants, and this is not
Speaker 2: Anchorman here, I guess everybody because of Anchorman. Everybody's wondering, so,
Speaker 2: what's the guy that's sitting at the desk, what as
Speaker 2: you're really wearing. Well, I hate to disappoint you, but
Speaker 2: I do wear pants before twelve pm. I guess I
Speaker 2: could aspire to being retired someday and maybe not wearing
Speaker 2: pants before twelve pm, but as it is right now,
Speaker 2: I do put them on one leg at a time. Actually,
Speaker 2: could you give your opinion on the weather manipulation? For instance,
Speaker 2: Maryland had snow, ice and freezing temperatures single digits at night,
Speaker 2: while Alaska and Greenland had temperatures in the mid to
Speaker 2: upper thirties. Well, I've said before I don't spend a
Speaker 2: lot of time on it, but I said before that
Speaker 2: I think that there's a tremendous amount of manipulation of
Speaker 2: the weather that is happening, and it is you know,
Speaker 2: I believe that the chymptrail thing is real. I've seen
Speaker 2: convincing evidence of that myself. And of course, they had
Speaker 2: geo engineering conferences on a regular basis decades ago and
Speaker 2: they said, yeah, we can do all that stuff. We
Speaker 2: just have to decide who gets to set the thermostat,
Speaker 2: you know who. Some people want it colder, some people
Speaker 2: want it warmer. And as he's pointing out, we got
Speaker 2: these temperature inversions. It's hard to say. I just got
Speaker 2: to say that when we look at the schemes that
Speaker 2: they want to do now in terms of doubling down
Speaker 2: and making them really really obvious, and putting a bunch
Speaker 2: of stuff in the stratosphere and blocking out the sun,
Speaker 2: how dangerous is that. It's almost like these people are
Speaker 2: trying to terraform the planet so that we can't grow food.
Speaker 2: Isn't it trying to shut off sunlight, trying to kill
Speaker 2: co two that plants need. Everything that they're doing mitigates
Speaker 2: against that. But of course when they do the geoengineering,
Speaker 2: then they can claim that it was man made, which
Speaker 2: it was not made by us, but they use that
Speaker 2: as a pretense to ban the things that we have.
Speaker 6: And another thing to sort of tie in with what
Speaker 6: we were talking about with Biden and the really slacious stuff.
Speaker 6: When you're talking about wever manipulation, you should focus on
Speaker 6: the conferences points when they talk about what they are
Speaker 6: capable of rather than looking at a specific freak Weber event,
Speaker 6: because there have been freak weather events for long before
Speaker 6: there was Weber manipulation.
Speaker 2: That's right. Yeah, And I mentioned it frequently, that AMA
Speaker 2: conference that went to in Austin, where everybody is struggling
Speaker 2: to predict the weather, and all them talking about, well
Speaker 2: this is we looked at these factors and measured these
Speaker 2: things and then gave these kind of weights to these
Speaker 2: different things, and it didn't quite work out. And so
Speaker 2: in that environment you had this Sours funded group that
Speaker 2: was trying to tell the weathermen. You know, you can
Speaker 2: really get people. You have the influence to tell people
Speaker 2: that climate change is real. Most of you don't believe
Speaker 2: that climate change is real, but you need to reconsider
Speaker 2: this because it is real and man made climate change.
Speaker 2: You need to start talking about global warming. And I
Speaker 2: thought it was kind of interesting because they admitted that
Speaker 2: the vast majority of meteorologists didn't believe in the climate
Speaker 2: change stuff because they know how variable the weather is,
Speaker 2: and so they were trying to convince them, and they
Speaker 2: did convince some of them. Unfortunately, John Hunter says. Rick
Speaker 2: Jackson just announced that he's running for governor in Georgia.
Speaker 2: While he's not perfect in any way, I do think
Speaker 2: he's the best candidate in the race. What are your
Speaker 2: thoughts on this candidacy? And he gave me his website.
Speaker 2: He said, I work for one of the companies that
Speaker 2: he founded, and I want to hear an outside opinion. Well,
Speaker 2: just briefly. I don't want to get into too much
Speaker 2: detail about it because I'm not involved in that election,
Speaker 2: but I did go to the website and take a
Speaker 2: look at it. He's the interesting guy. He's a businessman,
Speaker 2: and his personal story is very impressive. It's a success story,
Speaker 2: by the way. You know, when we when people run,
Speaker 2: the first thing they do is, you know, he's got
Speaker 2: one tab here that's about him, his personal story and
Speaker 2: what he's doing and how he got there. And then
Speaker 2: he's got another tab that's got some policies that he
Speaker 2: thinks are important. And I got to say, you know,
Speaker 2: when we had the situation where they had a tremendous
Speaker 2: amount of out of state money that came in to
Speaker 2: support this guy who was running against Frank Nicely, and
Speaker 2: because Frank Nicely had worked very hard to try to
Speaker 2: stop out of state money from coming into Tennessee. So
Speaker 2: because got lost in the legislature, he got hammered by
Speaker 2: that in the next election. And the guy that they
Speaker 2: put up, I have never ever seen anybody running for
Speaker 2: political office that doesn't tell you anything about their background.
Speaker 2: I thought that was the most suspicious thing I'd ever
Speaker 2: seen in my life, because he didn't tell you what
Speaker 2: he did for a living now or ever. And so
Speaker 2: the guy was a completely you know, you knew less
Speaker 2: about him than you know about ice agents. And so
Speaker 2: when you look at Rick's story, it is very impressive one.
Speaker 2: He said, he grew up in foster care, five different
Speaker 2: foster homes, thirteen schools. He lived in the projects in Atlanta.
Speaker 2: I never knew his father, raised by mother who was
Speaker 2: struggling with alcoholism. And this guy became very, very wealthy.
Speaker 2: He's got companies that generate over three billion dollars in revenue,
Speaker 2: and so he is. He said he worked his way
Speaker 2: out of this. When he couldn't afford to stay in college,
Speaker 2: he took a straight commissioned sales job later bought the
Speaker 2: company that he worked for. So again, hats off to him.
Speaker 2: That is an amazing success story. When I look at
Speaker 2: what he's chosen to talk about that. He did. He
Speaker 2: talks about helping Brian Kemp in Georgia with the COVID situation,
Speaker 2: and evidently his businesses have something to do with medicine
Speaker 2: in some way, shape or form, which to me that
Speaker 2: would be a bit of a red flag anymore after
Speaker 2: this point, especially if somebody brings it up in the
Speaker 2: context of COVID. But anyway, he also worked to help
Speaker 2: foster youth people youth who are in foster homes and
Speaker 2: that type of thing because of his background. But he
Speaker 2: does have some good things. They're kind of standard Republican stuff,
Speaker 2: promising to cut taxes or costs, secure the state, and
Speaker 2: make government work for the people. That type of thing.
Speaker 2: It's kind of boiler plate Republican rhetoric that's there. But
Speaker 2: he does talk about freezing property taxes. That is something
Speaker 2: that is important. I don't know specifically what his plans are.
Speaker 2: I mean, you know, we have was the guy's name
Speaker 2: in Indiana ran from Governor's Libertarian. He had very specific
Speaker 2: way to limit property taxes. I thought Donald Rainwater that
Speaker 2: was his name, and his idea was, okay, let's just
Speaker 2: fix it something like seven percent and you pay it once,
Speaker 2: just like you do when you buy a car something,
Speaker 2: you pay it once. And so you could either take
Speaker 2: that seven percent and pay it all up front and
Speaker 2: fold it into your thirty year mortgage, or you could
Speaker 2: pay like, pay it over seven years, one percent a
Speaker 2: year for seven years and then you're done. You paid
Speaker 2: it at the closing and you're done, or you pay
Speaker 2: it over a seven year period and you're done. And
Speaker 2: I think that's really wise. I think it is criminal
Speaker 2: that we can't own property, and we can't own property
Speaker 2: as long as we are under the idea of property taxes.
Speaker 2: So at least he's looking at that, he's saying to
Speaker 2: freeze it, not to end it. It's also talking about
Speaker 2: cutting the state income tax, again cutting it rather than
Speaker 2: eliminating it. But if you look further into his policies,
Speaker 2: he's saying that he wants to cut it in half
Speaker 2: in four years and eliminate it by eight years. So
Speaker 2: again I don't have any problem with most of the
Speaker 2: stuff that he's got here, but I do have concerns
Speaker 2: when he talks about making government education more efficient. I
Speaker 2: just you know, when we start talking about education is
Speaker 2: even a role of the government, you lose me at
Speaker 2: that point personally, as you all know if you've heard
Speaker 2: me speak, he says, use technology and AI to eliminate
Speaker 2: wasteful spending and improve services. You know, I could get
Speaker 2: behind a candidate who would say, let's eliminate AI from government.
Speaker 2: Let's prohibit government from using AI because it's going to
Speaker 2: be used to surveil us, it's going to be used
Speaker 2: to aganda is US, is going to be used to
Speaker 2: audit send everything that we do. And so I'd like
Speaker 2: to see a prohibition of AI completely from government.
Speaker 6: It reminds me of that old I think it was
Speaker 6: from IBM, back in like the eighties or nineties. They
Speaker 6: had a message like computer can never be held responsible
Speaker 6: for its decisions, so therefore a computer can never make
Speaker 6: a management decision. That should apply double to government.
Speaker 2: I absolutely, I agree, absolutely that should be the case.
Speaker 2: So again, you know that's my take on I'm sorry
Speaker 2: if other people are not interested in that, but I
Speaker 2: was kind of interested to see what a politics would do.
Speaker 2: He goes on to say, the other thing I'd like
Speaker 2: to add is that I have it on good authority.
Speaker 2: Is Christian faith is genuine? Well, I hope it is.
Speaker 2: I certainly he's had an excellent brought himself up from
Speaker 2: rags to riches, and good for him, but I don't
Speaker 2: know about his politics that are there, Steven says David.
Speaker 6: As you watch, Before we move on to the next question,
Speaker 6: I want to say we aren't looking at the chat
Speaker 6: for tips and comments today since we're just focusing on
Speaker 6: the AMA, But come Monday, we'll be back to reading
Speaker 6: out your comments and tips.
Speaker 2: Yes, yes, this is from Steven. He said, did you
Speaker 2: watch Matt Trohala's sermon titled A Nation and Turmoil? He
Speaker 2: totally praises and supports ICE actions and called Alex pretty
Speaker 2: an evil criminal. Says I always appreciated Matt's hardline stance
Speaker 2: against tyrannical government and tyrannical law enforcement, especially admired as
Speaker 2: doctrine of the lesser magistrates. But it seems that he
Speaker 2: has done a one to eighty on the issue of
Speaker 2: ICE and their thuggish tactics on the streets of America.
Speaker 2: I'd like to get your thoughts on this. Well, I
Speaker 2: did not see the sermon, so I'll just go with
Speaker 2: your take on it, because I've seen a lot of
Speaker 2: people who have they want to support law enforcement and order,
Speaker 2: and this looks very leftist and radical anarchist on first inspection.
Speaker 2: I'll just say that when I've talked to Matt in
Speaker 2: the past and again, I you know, Matt and I
Speaker 2: are one hundred percent of the same page when it
Speaker 2: comes to what's really important, and that is our relationship
Speaker 2: with Christ and I really respect what he does. So
Speaker 2: that he's a pastor, he's very busy with that, he's
Speaker 2: very busy with pro life organization, the mission that he
Speaker 2: has there, and so I can just assume that based
Speaker 2: on the conversation I had with him when all this
Speaker 2: stuff was kicking off at the very beginning in Venezuela,
Speaker 2: I said, do you want to talk about that? Because
Speaker 2: I thought that was just a moral outrage, and I
Speaker 2: still do think it's a moral outrage from the very beginning,
Speaker 2: from I think it was in September or something. And
Speaker 2: Matt came on, he goes, well, I don't really know
Speaker 2: about that, and I haven't followed that at all. And
Speaker 2: so I understand that Matt doesn't get into current events
Speaker 2: in the level of detail that we typically look at this.
Speaker 2: That's not his main area of involvement, you know, like
Speaker 2: I said, he's more involved as a pastor as somebody
Speaker 2: who's trying to operate on a pro life mission and
Speaker 2: things like that. So I certainly understand that. And there's
Speaker 2: been a tremendous amount of stuff on the internet on
Speaker 2: social media that you see from people who are cheering this.
Speaker 2: That really surprised me about that, and so I imagine
Speaker 2: that if Matt is just kind of glancing at this,
Speaker 2: maybe that's what he's picking up on, and maybe he's
Speaker 2: gotten a skewed picture of that. But as you know,
Speaker 2: I don't appreciate what I says done at all. I
Speaker 2: think it is tyrannical and I think it is very evil,
Speaker 2: and we could have a difference of opinion on it.
Speaker 2: I just based on what I know about Matt, I
Speaker 2: just think that probably it's just the current event that
Speaker 2: he was listening to people, but maybe he trusted and
Speaker 2: these people are pushing Trump in terms of all this stuff. Well,
Speaker 2: those are the ask me anything questions that we got,
Speaker 2: and we also thought it'd be kind of interesting to
Speaker 2: ask groc something about me, do you have any questions
Speaker 2: for me? Grok? Because I had looked at grok. You know,
Speaker 2: it has a summary for different profiles, and I thought
Speaker 2: when it summarized what I had, what I was about,
Speaker 2: and things that I said on Twitter and on X.
Speaker 2: I thought it was actually pretty perceptive, you know, when
Speaker 2: you think about GROC. I thought it was kind of
Speaker 2: aptly named by Elon Musk because it comes from the
Speaker 2: novel Robert Heinlein novel Strangers in a Strange Land, and
Speaker 2: the essence of GROC what it really means in terms
Speaker 2: of definition, is to acquire an intuitive understanding, to know
Speaker 2: without having to think. That is kind of the way
Speaker 2: that AI operates. It kind of has this intuitive thing
Speaker 2: by looking at statistical stuff and it doesn't think, but
Speaker 2: it seems to know certain things. It seems to know
Speaker 2: certain things about me as well. So here's I think
Speaker 2: you'll find this interesting because if you've listened to the program,
Speaker 2: you kind of know where I am. It's interesting to
Speaker 2: see the questions that this AI would ask me. Said,
Speaker 2: Number one, you've been consistent for years and warning about technocracy, transhumanism,
Speaker 2: and centralized control via institutions like the NIHCDC and emerging
Speaker 2: AI surveillance systems. So what do you see as the biggest, single,
Speaker 2: biggest tipping point moment right now? In twenty twenty six,
Speaker 2: where these agendas could accelerate irreversibly, and how should every
Speaker 2: day people respond practically. Well, I would say that that's
Speaker 2: one of the reasons why I've covered these issues with
Speaker 2: what is happening here domestically, I think that is the
Speaker 2: biggest issue. And I know that a lot of people
Speaker 2: disagree with me on the ice issue, but I think
Speaker 2: the federalization, the militarization of the police is something that
Speaker 2: has been happening for a very long time, and that
Speaker 2: it is being accelerated and we're seeing a convergence of
Speaker 2: a lot of these different things, these technologies. When you
Speaker 2: look at the amount of money that DHS is spending,
Speaker 2: I think what they spend on surveillance so something I
Speaker 2: forget exactly which aspect of it. I think it was
Speaker 2: on surveillance equipment, but it was more than they had
Speaker 2: spent combined in the last decade on this stuff. And
Speaker 2: so this is rapidly accelerating under Trump, and I think
Speaker 2: they know that, and they're trying to create not only
Speaker 2: in the US, but in every Western country. They're trying
Speaker 2: to create with this massive migration. They're using that as
Speaker 2: a tool of chaos and conflict and division and that's
Speaker 2: exactly the way they're playing that here. So I think
Speaker 2: that that is really the aspect that we see here.
Speaker 2: So i'd say, how do people respond to this practically? Well,
Speaker 2: you need to prepare for chaos domestically, for war domestically,
Speaker 2: because we have all these countries are trying to get
Speaker 2: involved in foreign wars as well. Foreign wars may come
Speaker 2: to our shore. I don't think are insulated against that
Speaker 2: anymore because of our complicated infrastructure. So again I would
Speaker 2: suggest that you go to jacklosson books dot com take
Speaker 2: a look at the books that he's got there. In
Speaker 2: terms of preparing, he's got tremendously valuable detailed advice about
Speaker 2: things that you can do as an individual to prepare.
Speaker 2: I think you need to keep your ear to the
Speaker 2: ground and see what is happening with all this stuff.
Speaker 2: And of course, financially, gold and silver are part of
Speaker 2: that as well. Number two you says, after your departure
Speaker 2: from Info Wars, you built an independent platform emphasizing critical thinking,
Speaker 2: historical parallels, and spiritual insight. What were the key lessons
Speaker 2: or frustrations from that era that shaped how you run
Speaker 2: the David Knight Show today, especially regarding media independence, audience trust,
Speaker 2: and avoiding echo chambers. Well, again, there's not you know,
Speaker 2: that's kind of a perceptive thing there. But I think
Speaker 2: the key thing is not to be trusting of any
Speaker 2: individual source. But again going back to critical thinking and
Speaker 2: to evaluate these things on a one by one basis,
Speaker 2: not just to take it as a well, this is
Speaker 2: something that the Wall Street Journal center, this is something
Speaker 2: that the New York Times, this is something that Fox
Speaker 2: News said. And I trust those people. Don't trust anybody.
Speaker 2: Don't trust me. I could get things wrong. So do
Speaker 2: your own investigation. I'll tell you why I think what
Speaker 2: I think, and you can do your own thinking about that.
Speaker 2: Here's another one on COVID vaccine skepticism, what you call
Speaker 2: the medical martial law. You've highlighted things like potential DNA impacts,
Speaker 2: immune disruption, and elite agendas. Looking back, with several years
Speaker 2: of hindsight, what stands out as the most vindicated claim
Speaker 2: you made early on and what, if anything, would you
Speaker 2: revise or emphasize differently? Now? Well, I think what I
Speaker 2: think I got the most wrong was the lab leak stuff.
Speaker 2: In December. I was the first one at info Wars
Speaker 2: to talk about that because it seemed fishy from the start,
Speaker 2: and I said, well, you look at this supposed wet
Speaker 2: market where they had the bat soup and later on
Speaker 2: came panglin soup and all this other kind of nonsense.
Speaker 2: I don't believe that. I said, it is interesting that
Speaker 2: the only biosafety level four lab that they have is
Speaker 2: right there near that wet market in Wuhan, So I
Speaker 2: said it might be some kind of a leak of
Speaker 2: gain of function research. Well, in the years since that,
Speaker 2: I've become not only anti vaccine but anti virology, and
Speaker 2: I'm skeptical of all these contagion narratives that are out there.
Speaker 2: Number one, number two. It took me about a month
Speaker 2: before we started seeing the response of the governments. And
Speaker 2: when I saw the response of the governments was to
Speaker 2: lock everybody down and to keep us isolated until they
Speaker 2: got a vaccine ready for us, It's like, Okay, this
Speaker 2: is dark winter that is out there. So I would
Speaker 2: say that that was vindicated early on, and so the
Speaker 2: lab leak aspect of it, I think was wrong. I
Speaker 2: still think it's wrong, and I think that the people
Speaker 2: who are pushing that are doing it as an alibi
Speaker 2: for what they did. Well, we it was real, it
Speaker 2: wasn't real, and we did the best we could to
Speaker 2: protect people. We'll do better next time, Oh you bet
Speaker 2: they will do more. The next time. They won't do better,
Speaker 2: but the next time they have a phony pandemic, they
Speaker 2: will double down on that as well. So it says
Speaker 2: your show frequently ties current events to spiritual and biblical principles,
Speaker 2: resisting tyranny as moral imperative, elite protection networks as modern
Speaker 2: principalities and powers. How do you balance the conspiracy research
Speaker 2: side with encouraging faith and hope, especially when the audience
Speaker 2: can get overwhelmed or cynical. As one of the people
Speaker 2: who left us the question here said, can you do
Speaker 2: some good news, you know, every day?
Speaker 6: And I am going to start looking for other more
Speaker 6: positive stories to.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, well you know again. Let me just say this,
Speaker 2: you know, as somebody who goes through the news, that's
Speaker 2: what I see, and I go through and I talk
Speaker 2: to you about what I think is and in terms
Speaker 2: of being overwhelmed or cynical, or black pilled or all
Speaker 2: the rest of this stuff, let me just say here's
Speaker 2: a reality, folks. Each of us is walking right now
Speaker 2: the valley of the shadow of death. We're going to
Speaker 2: walk through the valley of death at some point in time,
Speaker 2: and so you can. It doesn't help to whistle through
Speaker 2: the graveyard. You're going to be in the graveyard soon enough.
Speaker 2: Tomorrow is not promised to any of us. And so
Speaker 2: does that sound does that sound black pilled or whatever
Speaker 2: it is. But here's the good news. Christ died on
Speaker 2: the cross for you. He paid the price for the
Speaker 2: sin that each of us has committed. And you can
Speaker 2: leave that all behind. You can separate that as far
Speaker 2: as the east is from the west. So that's the
Speaker 2: good news. That's how we get through this. That's how
Speaker 2: we get through life. Look, life, this is a fallen world.
Speaker 2: It is very dark, it is very evil. And take
Speaker 2: a look at the people who are above us, the leaders.
Speaker 2: Of course, it's dark and evil. And so that is
Speaker 2: the good news. And all the rest of the stuff
Speaker 2: is a lot of the stuff that we look at
Speaker 2: as good and happy news, A lot of that is
Speaker 2: just trivial and it's to help you feel a little
Speaker 2: bit warmer about what is going on. But if you
Speaker 2: take an honest look at what is happening, I think
Speaker 2: you've got to admit you're not getting out of here alive,
Speaker 2: and you're not taking anything with you. So why are
Speaker 2: these people killing each other over artificial boundaries and other
Speaker 2: things like that, trying to steal stuff from people. Don't
Speaker 2: get caught up in that. Instead, get caught up in
Speaker 2: your relationship with God, the creator of the universe. Find
Speaker 2: the love that he has there. That is what's going
Speaker 2: to sustain you. You're not going to be sustained by
Speaker 2: the things that you can grab or being the strongest
Speaker 2: guy on the block, the Steven Miller approach. There's no salvation.
Speaker 2: There's no joy in that either. So one more question
Speaker 2: from Gronk. You've interviewed to why range of guests over
Speaker 2: the years, from economists like Jouselenty to liberty advocates. Who
Speaker 2: would be your dream guest right now, someone who's been silent, controversial,
Speaker 2: or hard to reach, And what one question would you
Speaker 2: lead with? What do you think Lance, you got an
Speaker 2: idea who if we could interview anybody that we want to,
Speaker 2: I think I would get Donald Trump here next to
Speaker 2: me and I would ask him some questions.
Speaker 6: I was going to say, either Trump or Massy, the
Speaker 6: head of the resistance.
Speaker 2: I might be able to get massy, But I don't know.
Speaker 2: I know I couldn't get Trump. If I did, I'd
Speaker 2: probably get SWAT team the next day. But that is perfect. Yeah,
Speaker 2: we've got Yeah. But you know, Donald Trump, you know,
Speaker 2: what would I ask him? Well, I think I think
Speaker 2: good question for Donald Trump is what does the Constitution
Speaker 2: mean to you? Right? What does this Bill Wrights mean
Speaker 2: to you? We got the tw hundred and fifteth anniversary
Speaker 2: of the Bill Wrights. What does it mean to you? Right?
Speaker 2: But then I would follow up just kind of do
Speaker 2: a what is it Colombo thing? Oh? One last thing?
Speaker 2: Who told you to lock down the world in twenty
Speaker 2: twenty and would you do it again? Did you think
Speaker 2: that it was effective? And why did you believe them
Speaker 2: when they told I know he was told by he said,
Speaker 2: he was told by Fauci and by Deborah Burke said,
Speaker 2: two very smart people. They bragged about the fact that
Speaker 2: they followed this bogus simulation from the Imperial College of London.
Speaker 2: But I would ask him, why did you believe that
Speaker 2: it's so ridiculous? At the point that you did it,
Speaker 2: there was no evidence of a pandemic. But anyway, that's
Speaker 2: I guess. We can always dream about that. We're going
Speaker 2: to take a quick break, folks, and we will be
Speaker 2: right back. Stay with us.
Speaker 9: Neither than any.
Speaker 1: Using free speech to free minds. It's the David Knight Show.
Speaker 7: Elvis, a Beatle and the Sweet Sounds of Motown. Find
Speaker 7: them on the Oldies channel at apsradio dot com.
Speaker 2: And I've got a name and may question from Lance.
Speaker 2: He asks one of the best places to donate to
Speaker 2: the David Knight Show because I don't do any plugs here,
Speaker 2: I guess, but yeah, you can go to Davidnight dot
Speaker 2: news and that will tell you where you can find
Speaker 2: the show, both video and audio rebroadcasts as well as
Speaker 2: live shows, and it'll also have links there as to
Speaker 2: where you can support us. Cash app Zel is probably
Speaker 2: the best one because there are no fees at all. Well,
Speaker 2: everything else has fees, but right now Zell does not
Speaker 2: have that. A subscribe star is good because that is
Speaker 2: something that you can set up as kind of like
Speaker 2: a monthly recurring fee that's like a budgeted thing, and
Speaker 2: then you don't have to think about it each time
Speaker 2: until your credit card changes. And then I've had a
Speaker 2: lot of people say, you know, they stop taking out
Speaker 2: of my credit card because it changed. I didn't realize that.
Speaker 2: But anyway, if you go to Davidknight dot news, you
Speaker 2: can find the places where the program is broadcast, as
Speaker 2: well as places where you can support us. And we
Speaker 2: really do appreciate that we were one hundred percent user supported.
Speaker 2: So let's I've got a little bit of time here
Speaker 2: before we get into the Noel Sharky interview. And it's
Speaker 2: a really interesting interview, and I appreciate Ryan finding that
Speaker 2: and cutting it out and sending it to us. It
Speaker 2: was back in twenty thirteen we did that interview, and
Speaker 2: I think you're going to find it pretty amazing. So unfortunately,
Speaker 2: he lays out the issue that's there, and we don't
Speaker 2: have any happy news on the killer robot front. It's
Speaker 2: only bad news, sorry, folks. Bad news about that we
Speaker 2: got swarms. They've for the last thirteen years since I
Speaker 2: talked to Noel Sharky, they have been going like bats
Speaker 2: out of hell in terms of trying to weaponize this technology,
Speaker 2: and they're getting it into a pretty frightening level here.
Speaker 2: So but let's talk a little bit about some other
Speaker 2: issues here. This is a detransitioner was awarded millions of
Speaker 2: dollars in the first malpractice case of this gender mutilation
Speaker 2: that we're talking about. I call it minor mutilation, although
Speaker 2: it's pretty major mutilation, isn't It is the sterilization and
Speaker 2: mutilization of children. How evil is that? I mean, that's
Speaker 2: why when you look at things like the Jeffrey Epstein stuff,
Speaker 2: is it any surprise that the elites were focused on
Speaker 2: this type of thing. Look at how they hate humanity,
Speaker 2: how they want to kill people, how they want to
Speaker 2: harm children, And that tells you that this is a
Speaker 2: satanic agenda behind all this, right there an unforgivable evil,
Speaker 2: which is what this is characterized. At only sixteen years old,
Speaker 2: a young girl underwent quote unquote top surgery, a double missectomy,
Speaker 2: I guess, a transgender affirming procedure in which her perfectly
Speaker 2: healthy breasts were removed. Now, at twenty two years old,
Speaker 2: no longer identifying and con trast to her real biology,
Speaker 2: she has become the first de transitioner to successfully win
Speaker 2: a malpractice lawsuit against those who abused her. And that
Speaker 2: really is what happened, folks. So it's a two million
Speaker 2: dollar judgment. A jury in New York held both her
Speaker 2: psychologist as well as the plastic surgeon liable for this
Speaker 2: for the so called medical care that they gave. And again,
Speaker 2: I think we're going to look back on this in
Speaker 2: a few years, and we're going to look back on
Speaker 2: it like people look back on the frontal lobotomies that
Speaker 2: they were doing to people Back when was that, I
Speaker 2: guess the fifties. It was one of the daughters of
Speaker 2: the Kennedy clan that they did a frontal lobotomy too.
Speaker 2: So I said, you've got some psychological issues here, We're
Speaker 2: just going to cut out a part of your brain.
Speaker 2: And I think that's going to be the way that
Speaker 2: people are going to eventually see the truth of this.
Speaker 2: Since the entire case is sealed, including all the trial transcripts,
Speaker 2: the product of my furious note taking during the proceedings
Speaker 2: may be the only way for the public to learn
Speaker 2: the final definer details of the lawsuit, said Benjamin Ryan.
Speaker 2: He was the only reporter to attend the entire trial,
Speaker 2: and since they kept it closed to the public, it's
Speaker 2: just his notes that he took. The attorneys representing the
Speaker 2: representing the person who was damaged, said Einhorn. The psychologist
Speaker 2: drove the train in terms of the counseling of the
Speaker 2: then teenager, accusing him of putting the idea in Fox's
Speaker 2: head that she needed to address her apparent gender dysphoria
Speaker 2: by permanently changing her body through a double missectomy. Her
Speaker 2: mother said during the trial that she was opposed to
Speaker 2: the surgery but ultimately gave in fearing her daughter would
Speaker 2: commit suicide without the irreversible procedure, a frequent refrain of
Speaker 2: those who advocate for transgender procedures. I think it was
Speaker 2: a scare tactic. I don't believe it was malice. I
Speaker 2: think he believed what he was saying, but he was very,
Speaker 2: very wrong. Well, I just got to say, you know,
Speaker 2: when you look at this, I don't know how it
Speaker 2: you know, I would be hard to say that it
Speaker 2: wasn't malice, but nevertheless, it was definitely wrong. And Robbie Starbuck,
Speaker 2: director of the War on Children, said what was done
Speaker 2: to these kids is a crime against humanity, an unforgivable
Speaker 2: evil that must be extinguished from the earth never again.
Speaker 2: The damage these kids carry is heartbreaking. That's absolutely true.
Speaker 2: That's my son. I think it'll be recognized as the
Speaker 2: equivalent of frontal lobotomies. Later on, like so many others,
Speaker 2: she discovered transgenderism as a struggling teenager online. I was
Speaker 2: fifteen when that started. Medicalization began at sixteen. They started
Speaker 2: giving her hormone treatments and other things like that. And
Speaker 2: just look at the fact that Planned parenthood that has
Speaker 2: a business model that is based on ripping babies apart
Speaker 2: limb by lamb. Of course they have made this a
Speaker 2: profit center for them as well. So if they can't
Speaker 2: kill you as a baby, maybe they can rip you
Speaker 2: apart as a teenager or a child. British freelance columnists
Speaker 2: Sonya Soha called the verdict quote very significant, noting more
Speaker 2: cases are coming they're likely to fundamentally change the US
Speaker 2: medical profession's approach to surgically altering the healthy bodies of
Speaker 2: children were questioning their gender, and again, why are they
Speaker 2: making an exception for something that is this serious, this irrevocable,
Speaker 2: and allowing children to make that decision, and even in
Speaker 2: some jurisdictions coming after parents who try to stand in
Speaker 2: the way of what the school is doing. And it
Speaker 2: all goes back to this pedophile agenda. When you lick
Speaker 2: at number of people and seen this for the longest time,
Speaker 2: it's not just Jeffrey Epstein, the people around him in
Speaker 2: a scandal. The longest serving Speaker of the House for
Speaker 2: the Republicans and perhaps maybe for the Democrats as well,
Speaker 2: was Dennis Aster, a guy who was a wrestling coach, pedophile,
Speaker 2: and he was handpicked by the Republicans to be a
Speaker 2: Congressman and then put in the position of being the
Speaker 2: Speaker of the House, the leader of the Republicans. They
Speaker 2: want corrupt people like that, and so this is how
Speaker 2: we get to this point. We are filled at the
Speaker 2: top with people who are have secret private lives that
Speaker 2: are exactly the opposite of what they present to the public.
Speaker 6: Still, I guess you could say this is a sort
Speaker 6: of good news story and that they won the lawsuit.
Speaker 6: Arees could Yeah, some major changes, that's right. So that's
Speaker 6: a good news story. There you go, we got it
Speaker 6: very same show.
Speaker 2: That's right. Go. A man has painted over heretical messages
Speaker 2: on a massive billboard in LA and so people this
Speaker 2: one group, which is they say that they are Christian
Speaker 2: and yet they deny Christian theology. They say they're taking
Speaker 2: out billboards saying Jesus is not God and trying to
Speaker 2: make that argument from the Bible, which you can't do. Actually,
Speaker 2: you can't say that you believe the Bible and you
Speaker 2: don't believe that Jesus is God. Those are mutually contradictory. There.
Speaker 2: They also believe in the flat earth thing. They disavow
Speaker 2: the Trinity. They push the view that the earth is
Speaker 2: flat and so forth. And so one guy who disagrees
Speaker 2: with that decides that he's going to paint the billboard.
Speaker 2: You have the picture of that land, so basically what
Speaker 2: it is. He just painted the entire billboard black and
Speaker 2: people took pictures of him painting it black, and it
Speaker 2: went viral. Now I think it's.
Speaker 6: They painted over the not so it was Jesus is
Speaker 6: not God. He changed it to Jesus is God.
Speaker 2: Yeah, says the Bible says Jesus is God. He just
Speaker 2: painted over them. Well, that's not the picture that they
Speaker 2: put up on this article. In the article, they just
Speaker 2: had a complete black thing there. Well, that changes everything.
Speaker 2: They didn't have that video embedded in the article. Instead,
Speaker 2: they put up a picture that is not at all
Speaker 2: what was there. They just had a picture of a
Speaker 2: blacked out billboard. I looked at that, I thought that's nothing,
Speaker 2: but censorship. That doesn't answer anything, does it. That's a
Speaker 2: very different thing. I don't know why they did that.
Speaker 2: Why didn't they just take a screenshot of what was
Speaker 2: really happening there.
Speaker 6: Yeah, the guy standing up and painting over it in
Speaker 6: front of the lights is its own message. If it
Speaker 6: were just censorship, it would be a different thing. I
Speaker 6: think the best thing he could have done, hypothetically would be, say,
Speaker 6: getting his own billboard saying no, it really does say this.
Speaker 6: But I'm not prepared to say that this is definitely
Speaker 6: wrong what he did.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's different, it's not just censoring. You know. When
Speaker 2: I saw that, what that reminded me of was when
Speaker 2: Karen was at the abortion clinic and they were talking
Speaker 2: about black genocide and you had anti FLA show ups.
Speaker 2: First time I ever saw antiphah. They showed up with
Speaker 2: just black squares and put them over her sign, and
Speaker 2: then she'd take her sign down low, he'd go down low.
Speaker 2: She had to go up by something, going up and down,
Speaker 2: up and down. He just wanted to censor what they
Speaker 2: had to say. Censorship is not an answer. Silence is
Speaker 2: not an answer. You need to give people the full truth.
Speaker 2: But I think that it's important for us to understand
Speaker 2: that we don't need to run from people who have heresies.
Speaker 2: And if you've got doubt, you need to dig into
Speaker 2: it because the truth is there and it can stand
Speaker 2: the scrutiny. Again, the statement, I think it was attributed
Speaker 2: to Augustine said the truth, the truth, the Bible is
Speaker 2: like a lion that doesn't need to be protected. It
Speaker 2: needs to be let loose and protect itself. And so
Speaker 2: I think that's the key thing. I'm for free speech.
Speaker 2: I'm for debating these different issues, and I think rather
Speaker 2: than just making the comment taking out the knot, I
Speaker 2: think you need to tell people why you believe that
Speaker 2: Jesus is God and give the references for it. Unfortunately,
Speaker 2: that is not what this person did, but again I
Speaker 2: understand his motivations there. I just think that it's important
Speaker 2: for us as Christians not to recoil in fear and
Speaker 2: in censorship. You know, we can handle this, We can
Speaker 2: handle the evolution stuff. We should each of us have
Speaker 2: handled it on our own, because when somebody brings up
Speaker 2: a question like this, you need to settle it in
Speaker 2: your own mind. And if you've settled it in your
Speaker 2: own mind, then you can tell other people the reason
Speaker 2: that you have hope anyway, Again, it is over and
Speaker 2: over again we see the people putting different different ideas.
Speaker 2: That again putting out the idea that Jesus is not God.
Speaker 2: That's an old heresy that's been around. It's called arianism
Speaker 2: a long time ago. It was a couple of hundred
Speaker 2: years after the New Testament has written that. Somebody suggested that,
Speaker 2: and it was pushed back and pushed against. We celebrate
Speaker 2: her courage. This is the LDS, the Mormons who are
Speaker 2: praising Eve's choice to eat the frib and fruit. That
Speaker 2: has also gone viral. This is a post from an
Speaker 2: ex account and it is LDS DIMS and so it's
Speaker 2: Democrats and LDL and so LDS. I should say it's
Speaker 2: gone viral with two million views as of the writing.
Speaker 2: Now you could dismiss this and say, well, this person
Speaker 2: doesn't represent Mormon theology, but actually Mormon theology has said
Speaker 2: this thing. If you go back and look at the
Speaker 2: guys who have become who were recent presidents and prophets
Speaker 2: of the LDS church, it was Dollan h. Oaks who
Speaker 2: said it was Eve who first transgressed the limits of
Speaker 2: Eden in order to initiate the conditions of mortality. Her act,
Speaker 2: whatever its nature, was formally a transgression, but eternally a
Speaker 2: glorious necessity to open the doorway toward eternal life. Well,
Speaker 2: that is kind of the not the eternal life aspect
Speaker 2: of this is something that many atheists and other people
Speaker 2: have said, Well, this is actually a good thing, you know,
Speaker 2: because we got the ability to think and to become
Speaker 2: more like God. No, actually, it was cosmic rebellion. That's
Speaker 2: why when you look at it, it's just only one thing, right,
Speaker 2: just had you had one command and you violated that right,
Speaker 2: that's the bottom line. And so that was rebellion to God,
Speaker 2: and that's why it was such a serious consequence. That's
Speaker 2: what God was telling us.
Speaker 6: And it's a ridiculous thing to say it opened the
Speaker 6: door to eternal life. They already had that. It was
Speaker 6: through this that death entered the world. So in a
Speaker 6: sense they're right. They did open the door to it
Speaker 6: and then left out. They lopped out of it.
Speaker 2: That's right, they walked out of eternal life. That's a
Speaker 2: good point. When it's also former LDS president Russell Nelson,
Speaker 2: who passed away in twenty twenty five, like Oaks made
Speaker 2: his statement during the October nineteen nineth three Journal conference.
Speaker 2: We and all mankind are forever blessed because of Eve's
Speaker 2: great courage and wisdom by particting of the fruit. First,
Speaker 2: she did what needed to be done. No, what she
Speaker 2: did was she reveled against God, and through that sin
Speaker 2: entered the world. The entire world was cursed. And so
Speaker 2: when you look at the evil that is happening in
Speaker 2: this world and the nature of sin, this is one
Speaker 2: of the differences between Christianity and evolution why you can't
Speaker 2: reconcile those like Francis Collins, who is a part of
Speaker 2: the Human Genome Project. Before he got to the NIH,
Speaker 2: he tried to reconcile these things. But you can't because
Speaker 2: the evolutionist looks at death as an engine of creation.
Speaker 2: We look at it as a curse. It is not
Speaker 2: our natural state and is not something that should be
Speaker 2: glorified and regarded as something that takes us to a
Speaker 2: higher state. Let me just give a little bit of
Speaker 2: an introduction here to Noel Sharky, because we're going to
Speaker 2: run this interview we had with him thirteen years ago.
Speaker 2: It's kind of interesting this came up because I was
Speaker 2: talking about warpete and his fight with the CEO of Anthropic,
Speaker 2: because the CEO of Anthropics said, I don't think we
Speaker 2: should be doing autonomous killing machines, and I don't like
Speaker 2: the way AI is being used for the tyranny that
Speaker 2: we see being done by ice, and so I said, yeah,
Speaker 2: I talked to Noel Sharky several times about a decade
Speaker 2: or so ago, and unfortunately this Anthropics CEO is the
Speaker 2: only one who's pushing back against this stuff. You've got Google,
Speaker 2: which used to have as their slogan, don't be evil.
Speaker 2: Now they want to be evil and they'll do anything
Speaker 2: for money, right, same thing with Elon Musk, the same
Speaker 2: thing with Zuckerberg, and the same thing with Sam Altman
Speaker 2: at Open Ai. And so Noel Sharky as an introduction
Speaker 2: here as an expert in robotics and AI and has
Speaker 2: been quite some time. He was known to the public
Speaker 2: because of his appearances on the BBC's Robot Wars, and
Speaker 2: of course we got an American version of that. I
Speaker 2: believe Thomas Massey competed in Robot Wars at one point
Speaker 2: in time because he was an engineer. If I don't
Speaker 2: have that wrong, I think he did, and also a
Speaker 2: program that's called Techno Games. So Noel Sharkey was known
Speaker 2: to people in the UK through those BBC programs. He's
Speaker 2: a chair of computer Science at Sheffield University. He held
Speaker 2: teaching positions at Yale University and computer Science and at
Speaker 2: Stanford in psychology. He has a PhD in psychology as well.
Speaker 2: I guess that comes in handy when you're talking about AI.
Speaker 2: That's ultimately this is headed. He also chairs, and this
Speaker 2: is why I was talking to him, the International Committee
Speaker 2: for a Robot Arms Control and he is a co
Speaker 2: founder and co director of Foundations for Responsible Robots, and
Speaker 2: so he knows what he's talking about. And this is
Speaker 2: somebody who I guess he's not really too happy about
Speaker 2: what's happening either. So it's not necessarily happy news, but
Speaker 2: it's news that we all need to hear. So here's
Speaker 2: this interview from two thousand and thirteen, twelve years ago.
Speaker 10: You are committing thought crime. Turn off this broadcast. Now,
Speaker 10: you are committing thought crime. Turn off this broadcast. Now
Speaker 10: commit thought crime.
Speaker 2: Now. We're joined right now with doctor Noel Sharky. We
Speaker 2: were concerned that we might be able to get him
Speaker 2: he is traveling the globe trying to wake people up
Speaker 2: to the dangers and the abuses of robotics technology. He's
Speaker 2: actually a professor of artificial intelligence and robotics, and he
Speaker 2: has now after he had kind of an epiphany. We're
Speaker 2: going to let him tell you about it. I won't
Speaker 2: try to describe it. His core research interest is now
Speaker 2: in the ethical applications of robotics and artificial intelligence, Doctor Sharky,
Speaker 2: can you hear me?
Speaker 4: I can hear you?
Speaker 2: Very clear?
Speaker 1: To you, David, great?
Speaker 2: Great, So you found a wi fi in that monastery. Yes,
Speaker 2: that's that's great. Tell us a little bit about your epiphany.
Speaker 2: When you went from you were working in robotics, you
Speaker 2: were very much interested in the technology of it, but
Speaker 2: like so many of us who work in engineering or technology,
Speaker 2: you didn't realize exactly some of the dark ways it
Speaker 2: was being used.
Speaker 5: No, I didn't. I had my head in the big thing,
Speaker 5: just getting almost my research. And I was at a
Speaker 5: press conference in London about a government report on talking
Speaker 5: about robots, worrying about housing benefits for robots of the future.
Speaker 5: It was kind of a nutty report and it was
Speaker 5: the first report our government had put out about robotics,
Speaker 5: and at the press conference some journalists said to me, well,
Speaker 5: can you tell us a little bit about military robots,
Speaker 5: And of course I knew nothing about it, apart from
Speaker 5: a little bit about bomb disposal because I'm from Northern
Speaker 5: Ireland and we know.
Speaker 4: About bomb disposal there.
Speaker 5: So I thought I'd go off for the evening and
Speaker 5: just have a quick look at the internet, you know,
Speaker 5: an hour or so sort of answer questions. Seven months later,
Speaker 5: I finished that little look at the internet, having read,
Speaker 5: you know, through all the US plans from two thousand
Speaker 5: and one right up to the present at the time,
Speaker 5: which was five years, six years of plans for all
Speaker 5: the US forces, the road maps, and they were all
Speaker 5: talking about the application of autonomous robots and for killing people.
Speaker 5: And I just thought this is ridiculed. The way they
Speaker 5: were talking about it. It was like science fiction. They
Speaker 5: didn't seem to have an idea about the limitations. And
Speaker 5: so I wrote an article for the Guardian newspaper in
Speaker 5: the UK then two thousand and seven, and it started
Speaker 5: there and it's been a whirldwind since.
Speaker 2: I find it very alarming because I look at every
Speaker 2: week we see some kind of new robotic technology, they're
Speaker 2: spinning it in the media as saying that these are
Speaker 2: the Pentagon's rescue robots. I don't think that DARPA is
Speaker 2: really funding rescue operations. I don't think the Pentagon's really
Speaker 2: funding that. If anybody thinks that after looking at the
Speaker 2: way they're using drones to assassinate people all over the world,
Speaker 2: they need to have their head examined. That's some of
Speaker 2: the most obvious propaganda I've ever seen. The media should
Speaker 2: be ashamed of itself for putting out these killer robots,
Speaker 2: these potential, these robotic projects that are being put out
Speaker 2: by the Defense Advanced Research Projects DARPA. DARPA has a
Speaker 2: research budget that is higher than they've got for the
Speaker 2: entire budget of North Korea. We're supposed to be concerned
Speaker 2: about North Korea, yet North Korea's entire economy is about
Speaker 2: the same size as the DARPER research budget, and DARPER
Speaker 2: is constantly this seems to be their primary focus.
Speaker 5: Well, darker aren't accountable, so their thing, that's a good
Speaker 5: research agenda. Their agenda is you just keep funding everything
Speaker 5: that's eemn slightly crazy, and as long as one of
Speaker 5: them comes up, and you know, comes up trumps, then
Speaker 5: you're okay, But I was laughing there because one of
Speaker 5: the reports I read from DARPA.
Speaker 4: About these humanoid robots that are going.
Speaker 5: To they're going to carry wrenches, and they talk about
Speaker 5: them going ahead of the forces. Well, why would you
Speaker 5: have a pilot of humanoid robots going ahead of the
Speaker 5: forces with wrenches unto people's water.
Speaker 2: Pipes, fakes some broken tanks. Yeah, here's the headline. This
Speaker 2: six foot three hundred and thirty pound robot may one
Speaker 2: day save your life. That's talking about the Atlas robot.
Speaker 2: And this troubling thing is is that when the Atmos
Speaker 2: robot came out, I looked at it. I thought it
Speaker 2: was very frightening, the way that this thing is able
Speaker 2: to move around, and the fact that it has these
Speaker 2: two long arms that essentially look like cylinders, where I
Speaker 2: could imagine them being guns of some sort. And Ray
Speaker 2: Kurzweild comes out and says, that's great. Now all he
Speaker 2: needs is a brain so he can act autonomously.
Speaker 5: Oh god, yeah, that's I think you're right, though, I
Speaker 5: can see the cylinders are going to become machine guns,
Speaker 5: so I would say, you know, it's no doubt about
Speaker 5: that at all.
Speaker 4: Maybe not for a while. But that's the thing that
Speaker 4: would be the general plan.
Speaker 5: I would think, Yes, why would why would dark would
Speaker 5: be spending money and rescuing people when when the business
Speaker 5: of rescue ever?
Speaker 2: Yeah, and then we have these articles that are coming
Speaker 2: on now. This is about a year ago. This is
Speaker 2: from Wired's Dangerom. It says the Pentagon doesn't trust its
Speaker 2: own robots. They say that there's a cloud of distrust
Speaker 2: and misunderstanding hovering over robots of the Pengon already has.
Speaker 2: So they're looking at this and they're evaluating this, and
Speaker 2: they don't really like it. So we've got to conduct
Speaker 2: a media campaign to change the public's mind, to change
Speaker 2: the military's mind. You're pushing back in the opposite direction.
Speaker 2: And we understand that the military industrial complex wants this
Speaker 2: very badly. They see this as a brand new profit center.
Speaker 2: I'm very, very concerned about the lack of accountability that
Speaker 2: is going to happen with these killer robots. Can you
Speaker 2: address that?
Speaker 5: Yes, I mean you're right about the profit. I mean
Speaker 5: just in terms of the drone so what we know
Speaker 5: about already. I mean, Israel made four point eight billion
Speaker 5: in the last five years profit on those and this
Speaker 5: competition is so stiff. So the idea is that you've
Speaker 5: got all the drones, how do you compete in that
Speaker 5: big market. And the way you compete is let's add
Speaker 5: autonomy to it. Let's make them work on their own,
Speaker 5: and then we can make a lot more money. And
Speaker 5: what we're trying to do is we're trying to preemptively
Speaker 5: ban them. That means ban them before they get out
Speaker 5: and before there's too much investment, because once billions of
Speaker 5: dollars have been spent on it, it's going to be
Speaker 5: very difficult. Yes, yes, I'm thinking we're making very good
Speaker 5: headbit to un Actually.
Speaker 2: Well that's good. I'm glad that you're going around and
Speaker 2: you're addressing the press, you're dressing governments, you're pointing out
Speaker 2: to them where this could head. I see this. You know,
Speaker 2: you know, when we're talking about nuclear war, if some
Speaker 2: government presses the button and launches a bunch of nuclear
Speaker 2: weapons on someone, there's going to be literally hell to
Speaker 2: pay for that. There's going to be accountability for that.
Speaker 2: But if they take a bunch of killer robots, as
Speaker 2: we've already seen with drones, we've seen how they can
Speaker 2: go in with drones. They can destroy a village and
Speaker 2: there's no accountability. Nobody is held responsible for that. And
Speaker 2: it'll even be easier for them. Once these robots have
Speaker 2: self autonomy, they can basically say that they've got plausible deniability.
Speaker 2: They can say, well, the software went wrong on it,
Speaker 2: or it was a hardware bugget. It wasn't me, it
Speaker 2: wasn't the president, it wasn't the general, it wasn't the lieutenant,
Speaker 2: it was just these this crazy technology, So we'll fix it. Meanwhile,
Speaker 2: they've killed a lot of people and I can see
Speaker 2: them using this domestically as well as abroad. So if
Speaker 2: you think that this is something historically governments have killed
Speaker 2: more of their own people than they've killed in other countries.
Speaker 2: It's called demicides. So if you think this is something
Speaker 2: that is simply going to be used against these people
Speaker 2: on the other side of the world that you don't like,
Speaker 2: you need to wake up about that as well.
Speaker 4: I think you really do.
Speaker 5: And the thing is that what will the United States
Speaker 5: and the high technicians like the UK. They have a
Speaker 5: problem understanding that this stuff will proliferate and everyone will have.
Speaker 4: It, and then where are we going yes be? And
Speaker 4: that's my.
Speaker 5: Biggest worry is this idea that we'll keep ahead of
Speaker 5: the technology will be the ones who'll use it without
Speaker 5: thinking at all that everybody else is going to have it,
Speaker 5: and they will all interact together, and then it's going
Speaker 5: to be a real mess.
Speaker 2: We've already seen countries like Iran setting up their own drones.
Speaker 2: They're not that technologically advanced. It didn't take them that
Speaker 2: long to get drones. It's not going to take them
Speaker 2: long to get robots. This is something and what we're
Speaker 2: concerned about here. I have to say, doctor Sharky, we
Speaker 2: have a little bit different. Situation in the US is
Speaker 2: unique in the sense that now we have this massive
Speaker 2: program of bringing home weapons that have been used in
Speaker 2: Iraq and putting them in police departments here in America.
Speaker 2: And we're already concerned about the fact that humans themselves
Speaker 2: are not being held accountable for their actions when they
Speaker 2: fire on a child with a toy gun. What's going
Speaker 2: to happen when a robot does that? Do you think
Speaker 2: there's going to be the accountability for that?
Speaker 4: Do you really think the United States police will start.
Speaker 5: I mean, they certainly talk about arming robots with tasers.
Speaker 5: Mm hmmm, that'll start for it, But tasers are kind
Speaker 5: of deadly. I mean, one hundred and fifty people died
Speaker 5: in the US within a period of two years tser.
Speaker 5: So if you start arming robots with tasers, then I
Speaker 5: think it's only a short step.
Speaker 4: To arming them with weapons really well.
Speaker 2: Yes, lethal, and they're very horrible non quote unquote non
Speaker 2: lethal weapons, very horrible ones. It's not just tasers. They
Speaker 2: have all kinds of things that they can beam at
Speaker 2: you to make you sake, to blind you, that sort
Speaker 2: of thing we just had you talked about how they
Speaker 2: kill people. We've got a teenager right here just south
Speaker 2: of Austin that was tasered by a cop and a
Speaker 2: school who was standing there standing around a fight and
Speaker 2: didn't get out of the way in time. The cop
Speaker 2: tasered him, fell down and cracked his head. He's now
Speaker 2: in a coma. They believe he may die. That happens
Speaker 2: all the time with tasers. So when you talk about
Speaker 2: non lethal force, you talk about shooting people with rubber bullets,
Speaker 2: you talk about using these gases on people. That's not
Speaker 2: something that we're looking forward to seeing happen. In terms
Speaker 2: of crowd control. That can be very very oppressive.
Speaker 4: Yes, but you don't have to worry too much because
Speaker 4: it went to stop.
Speaker 2: It good. Good. So tell us about your campaign. Tell
Speaker 2: us you're going around and you're talking to different governments.
Speaker 2: I guess you're having public speeches where you're trying to
Speaker 2: inform the public. How is your press coverage?
Speaker 5: Well, press coverage has been very good. But we had
Speaker 5: a breakthrough recently at the United Nations.
Speaker 4: There's a committee the.
Speaker 5: United Nations called all the CCW, and that's the place
Speaker 5: where poisonous gas has got bound biological weapon, it's got
Speaker 5: banned chemical weapons. So that's the place for prohibiting new weapons.
Speaker 5: And we spoke to the French have just taken up
Speaker 5: the presidency, and we spoke to the French ambassador. Then
Speaker 5: we spoke to the US delegation and they've agreed with
Speaker 5: this that they would put this forward as a mandate
Speaker 5: for discussion in the UN. And last Friday Friday, two
Speaker 5: weeks ago, they had a one hundred and seventeen nations
Speaker 5: from the CCW met and one of those nations could
Speaker 5: v to it. Russia over there, China were there. There
Speaker 5: was a massive, massive discussion and they accepted the mandate.
Speaker 5: So next year the CCW Committee are setting up an
Speaker 5: expert workshop to take this on board and discuss it.
Speaker 2: Well, that's that's great. And your campaign is stop Killer
Speaker 2: Robots dot org. They can learn about that on the
Speaker 2: internet wwws stop Killer Robots dot org. It's a campaign
Speaker 2: to stop killer robots. Now you've taken this to the UN,
Speaker 2: you've taken it to other country trees. I'm a little
Speaker 2: bit more skeptical of the UN and these other countries.
Speaker 2: Hopefully they will ban this, and hopefully these other countries
Speaker 2: won't secretly develop this on their own. Worry that they're
Speaker 2: going to have some kind of a robot gap or
Speaker 2: something like that, like they've had weapons defensively do it
Speaker 2: because they're afraid the other guy might do it. My
Speaker 2: big concern, and I think your campaign will be very
Speaker 2: effective at this as well, and that is to address
Speaker 2: the engineers and the scientists to try to get them
Speaker 2: to understand because that, I believe is where we really
Speaker 2: need to go. As long as there's an engineer or
Speaker 2: a scientist who will develop this kind of stuff for pay,
Speaker 2: who doesn't look at the ethics of their work, you're
Speaker 2: going to find some kind of a politician or a
Speaker 2: dictator somewhere, who will do it, who will use those people,
Speaker 2: who will pay them large amounts of money, and who
Speaker 2: will break any treaty that comes up, won't you.
Speaker 5: Well, the problem is it's mainly the US because they're
Speaker 5: a bit more cautious in Europe. In the US, it's
Speaker 5: very difficult to not get funded by the military. Yes,
Speaker 5: most of the robotic slabs are run by the military
Speaker 5: or funded by the military, and the people aren't necessarily
Speaker 5: making weapons and things. But when you're funded by the military,
Speaker 5: it stops you speaking up.
Speaker 2: Yes, yes, it stops you sitting.
Speaker 4: Up against it. I mean we had there was a
Speaker 4: there's hope.
Speaker 5: I mean there was a there was There's a professional
Speaker 5: magazine in the US called The Engineer, and they ran
Speaker 5: a poll of the readers asking how many people would
Speaker 5: go for a complete ban or how many people would
Speaker 5: just go for trying to make the weapons more perfect
Speaker 5: over time. Only three percent of the readership said they
Speaker 5: would make the weapons go more perfect over time, and
Speaker 5: sixty seventy three percent said there should be a total ban.
Speaker 4: So I think consciousness of.
Speaker 2: It that's very hopeful because so many times we'll talk
Speaker 2: to directly, Alex will talk to soldiers and policemen over
Speaker 2: the radio and say, understand that the kind of society
Speaker 2: that you allowed happen. If you allow and are part
Speaker 2: of this kind of abuse that we see happening in
Speaker 2: the streets, that's going to be the society that you live.
Speaker 2: That could be your family that is brought under that.
Speaker 2: And historically we've seen that always does happen. It doesn't.
Speaker 2: It can't be contained and only limited to people who
Speaker 2: don't work for the government. But we need to have
Speaker 2: that kind of awareness with engineers. And as you pointed out,
Speaker 2: it's very difficult in America to get a job if
Speaker 2: you're an engineer that doesn't involve the military industrial complex.
Speaker 2: I know when I got out it took me a
Speaker 2: while to find a job where I wasn't working for
Speaker 2: the military. That was my degree initially. So I understand that,
Speaker 2: and it's good that people will privately say that, And
Speaker 2: I think I really applaud you for what you're doing
Speaker 2: because getting the information out there. People don't even believe
Speaker 2: that this could happen. In so many cases, they don't
Speaker 2: believe that the technology is there. They think it's just
Speaker 2: the science fiction fantasy of the terminator and We've been
Speaker 2: criticized for that here that we're talking about some wild thing,
Speaker 2: talk about the absolute talk about how the technology is
Speaker 2: approaching rapidly.
Speaker 5: Well, we've had forty four nations at the UN and
Speaker 5: now speak.
Speaker 4: Up with concern. So people better believe me.
Speaker 5: Now it's not science fiction anymore when you have major
Speaker 5: countries like the US, Germany, Pakistan, even you know, all
Speaker 5: speaking up against killer robots or about them. So it's
Speaker 5: definitely on course to happen. There's no question of that
Speaker 5: unless we stop it. But you have to be very
Speaker 5: worried in the US as well about your privacy. I mean,
Speaker 5: you've got the NSA. They're really doing a lot of
Speaker 5: nasty things surveying people. But you're starting to get a
Speaker 5: lot of drones, and once the drone has become autonomous,
Speaker 5: not even arms, they can be everywhere.
Speaker 4: They're getting very small.
Speaker 5: And what worries me is is not the current government
Speaker 5: you have, but these are legacy systems, So what does
Speaker 5: the next government do with them?
Speaker 4: What does the next government do with them?
Speaker 5: Because they just inherit them directly, And if you ever
Speaker 5: want to create an authoritarian regime, you're going to have
Speaker 5: the right to to do it, and that is a
Speaker 5: great concern to me as well.
Speaker 4: Military stuff.
Speaker 2: You hit the nail on the head. What we're building
Speaker 2: in the United States right now is a perfect infrastructure
Speaker 2: for tyranny. And whether our current leadership uses it or
Speaker 2: it's the next door second administration down, that's what we're
Speaker 2: concerned about, doctor Sharky. What I would like for you
Speaker 2: to talk about in this segment is the state of
Speaker 2: the art in robotics. People don't understand how imminent this
Speaker 2: problem is, how rapidly it's coming upon us. Could you
Speaker 2: address that.
Speaker 4: Yes, certainly.
Speaker 5: Well, we've got lots of armed robots on the grind
Speaker 5: and in the air as you know, that are remote controlled.
Speaker 5: But what's happening now is a very rapid development of
Speaker 5: platforms that will carry the weapons. The more we talk
Speaker 5: in the campaign about banning these weapons systems, the more
Speaker 5: we're driving them underground. It seems there's less talk about
Speaker 5: it now. But for instance, in the United States, you've
Speaker 5: got three devices I'd.
Speaker 4: Like to mention to you.
Speaker 5: One is called the X forty seven B and that
Speaker 5: land on there. It's a fighter jet, a combat unmanned
Speaker 5: combat aircraft fast subsominic just beneath the speed of sound.
Speaker 5: It can land on an aircraft carrier, it can take
Speaker 5: off from an air car carrier, and it's going to
Speaker 5: be used in the Pacific. It's got ten times the
Speaker 5: range of one of your F thirty five fighter jets,
Speaker 5: so that's really productive for them. And it's just been
Speaker 5: tested two weeks ago in very windy conditions and.
Speaker 4: That's working very well.
Speaker 5: That will be weaponized and used, so it's like a
Speaker 5: super drone, but you don't need people involved at all
Speaker 5: and controlling it. You've also got a prototype system called
Speaker 5: the Crusher and that's developed by Carnegie Mellon and DARPA.
Speaker 4: Again.
Speaker 5: Of course, there's a seven and a half ton truck
Speaker 5: and you can see it. If anybody wants to go
Speaker 5: on YouTube and just to crusher CMU, they will find
Speaker 5: it and they'll see it crushing cadillacs and it's got
Speaker 5: a big gun up there on top of it. Now,
Speaker 5: the other device that you're making in the United States
Speaker 5: is on the ht B two program again DARPA, and
Speaker 5: they've got an aircraft called a Fault and the idea
Speaker 5: is to be able to get an unmanned combat aircraft
Speaker 5: anywhere on the planet within a one hour window. So
Speaker 5: this thing has been tested at thirteen thousand miles an hour,
Speaker 5: so that's just.
Speaker 4: The United States. In the UK we have the.
Speaker 5: Tyrannus, which is actually supersonic, so that's even faster. That's
Speaker 5: an intracontinental unmanned combat aircraft. Fully autonomous means that there's
Speaker 5: no human controlling it, and that's been tested in Australia
Speaker 5: just in the last couple of months, so these are
Speaker 5: progressing very quickly.
Speaker 4: The Chinese have the Invisible Sword as the.
Speaker 5: Engine and that's being designed and built for air to
Speaker 5: air combat, again no human controlling it.
Speaker 4: The Russians have the SCAT.
Speaker 5: The Israelis are using one called the Guardian, and at
Speaker 5: the beginning when they've developed it, they talked a lot
Speaker 5: about it being fully autonomous to do roots and to
Speaker 5: fire in people at the borders, but in Palestine and Israel.
Speaker 4: But I spoke to it, and it was really colleague the other
Speaker 4: day who was very excited because I have had an.
Speaker 5: Early picture off it with guns on it, and now
Speaker 5: that they can't find any pictures off them with guns,
Speaker 5: So I'm afraid we're driving these people underground a bit.
Speaker 4: But they're still doing it well.
Speaker 2: You know, we can understand very quickly the implications of
Speaker 2: something like the Crusher that's going to crush vehicles domestically,
Speaker 2: but even when it comes to these supersonic jet transports
Speaker 2: that are taking off from aircraft carriers, that are unmanned
Speaker 2: aerial vehicles that are remotely controlled, that has a lot
Speaker 2: of danger in the sense that that's going to make
Speaker 2: our already aggressive government starting wars everywhere for very little
Speaker 2: justification and without congressional authorization. That's going to make them
Speaker 2: even more likely to get involved in these wars. And
Speaker 2: there's this thing called blowback. You know, once you start
Speaker 2: a war somewhere else, it will come home to you
Speaker 2: one way or the other. Eventually. It may be asymmetric warfare,
Speaker 2: it may be terrorism with people coming to your country
Speaker 2: and blowing people up and shopping, which will then be
Speaker 2: used to send out the crusher robots. But thank you
Speaker 2: so much, Professor Sharky for joining us. We're out of time.
Speaker 2: Good luck on your campaign. Keep trying to educate people
Speaker 2: about these dangers. It's a very important thing you're doing.
Speaker 4: Thank you for having me on spreading the word for us.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. That's stop Killer Robots dot org.
Speaker 2: The common man. They created common Core, the dumbed down
Speaker 2: our children. They created common past, track and control us
Speaker 2: their Commons project to make sure the commoners own nothing
Speaker 2: and the communist future. They see the common man as simple,
Speaker 2: unsophisticated ordinary. But each of us has worth and dignity
Speaker 2: created in the image of God. That is what we
Speaker 2: have in common. That is what they want to take away.
Speaker 2: Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation. They desire
Speaker 2: to know everything about us, while they hide everything from us.
Speaker 2: It's time to turn that around and expose what they
Speaker 2: want to hide. Please share the information and links you'll
Speaker 2: find at Thedavidnightshow dot com. Thank you for listening, Thank
Speaker 2: you for sharing. If you can't support us financially, please
Speaker 2: keep us in your prayers. Ddavidnightshow dot com