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 Monday, the fifth of May,
Speaker 2: year of our Lord, twenty twenty five. Well, today we're
Speaker 2: going to take a look at some interesting statements that
Speaker 2: came out of President Trump. Some of them. I think
Speaker 2: one of them was really startling when taken out of context.
Speaker 2: We're going to put it in context. But there's other
Speaker 2: issues besides whether or not the president has to follow
Speaker 2: the Constitution. There are other issues involved with us, and
Speaker 2: that is does the does the Bill of Rights apply
Speaker 2: to foreign citizens here here even if they came here illegally.
Speaker 2: We're going to take a look at that. We'll be
Speaker 2: right backstay with us. Well, you know, we hear so
Speaker 2: much about make America great again. What was it about
Speaker 2: America that was great? I mean, obviously implicit in that
Speaker 2: is that America is not so great today, and I
Speaker 2: would agree with that. I would also agree that we
Speaker 2: were much more free, prosperous, even if we didn't have
Speaker 2: the kind of disposable income that we are looking at.
Speaker 2: And of course Trump was saying, well, okay, you're not
Speaker 2: going to have thirty dollars, you'll have two or three
Speaker 2: or whatever, and we'll talk about that. I don't agree
Speaker 2: with him on that, but I also don't think that
Speaker 2: America is great because we have all kinds of consumer goods.
Speaker 2: I mean, that's part of it's an outcome of freedom.
Speaker 2: And we don't need to have a forced austerity, do we?
Speaker 2: And that seems to be what these people are talking about.
Speaker 2: You know, we got him agenda here. You just need
Speaker 2: to get in line and follow our agenda. It's like, well,
Speaker 2: before I go marching off to your drum beat, I
Speaker 2: need to be convinced that you're taking us in the
Speaker 2: right direction. I'm not going to go marching off to war,
Speaker 2: economic or otherwise. If I'm not convinced of the justice
Speaker 2: of what's going on, and if I'm not convinced of
Speaker 2: your leadership, that's a big issue. And of course it's
Speaker 2: not just the goals that they have. It's a laudable
Speaker 2: goal for us to have industry that has just been
Speaker 2: eviscerated in the last twenty thirty years in America, and
Speaker 2: we know why, we know exactly why, but it is
Speaker 2: it's alaudable to try to undo that. Except understand that
Speaker 2: it was the government's ideas that created that in the
Speaker 2: first place, and we need to also look at how
Speaker 2: their approaches are going to work or not. And apart
Speaker 2: from all of this, what form are we going to
Speaker 2: pay in taxes? And is this going to help us
Speaker 2: to achieve? I don't know what are we trying to achieve? Right,
Speaker 2: that's the question. Is it going to help us to
Speaker 2: achieve it? But the big issue is the uncertainty, and
Speaker 2: so the question is why are we trying to achieve?
Speaker 2: There's an interesting survey that was put up on zero hedge.
Speaker 2: You know, what is the end goal of all this?
Speaker 2: We're having a discussion over this weekend about education, and
Speaker 2: I recounted the story of one individual who accompanied his
Speaker 2: personal story that he told he accompanied his kid to
Speaker 2: parents' day at the kindergarten, for example, and he's there
Speaker 2: and the kindergarten teachers so excited about this new program
Speaker 2: that they've got, and we got him doing this and
Speaker 2: this and this, and he raises the father raises his
Speaker 2: hand and he said, so, what's the purpose of this,
Speaker 2: what's the purpose of it? Well, yeah, and they were
Speaker 2: just kind of caught flat footed. They didn't really thought
Speaker 2: about the purpose of it. And so the question is
Speaker 2: what are you trying to achieve here? And I think
Speaker 2: the statements that Trump made are you know, raising some
Speaker 2: real key issues about what is it that we're trying
Speaker 2: to achieve here? And so they asked Americans what they value,
Speaker 2: and of course health is first thing. I mean, you
Speaker 2: can't do anything if you don't have health, if you're sick,
Speaker 2: family members are sick. Second thing was family, and I
Speaker 2: think that's very hopeful. I think that people have their
Speaker 2: priorities straight way down the line, Travis, pull up the
Speaker 2: chart there, scroll down a little bit down the line.
Speaker 2: There we go. You can make that smaller so people
Speaker 2: can see it, or maybe they can. I just got
Speaker 2: this on the side. Yeah, there we go. But you know,
Speaker 2: health was and it was you know, he doesn't add
Speaker 2: up to one hundred percent. They weren't saying, you know,
Speaker 2: what was the most important thing, but just name some
Speaker 2: things that are important to you. Well, more people name
Speaker 2: health than anything else sixty percent. Closely following that is
Speaker 2: family life at fifty eight percent. Making money was down
Speaker 2: at third place at forty seven percent. And then you
Speaker 2: had things like personal growth, authenticity, career, tradition, which I
Speaker 2: was surprised to see. Tradition was there that was important
Speaker 2: to twenty seven percent of the people. And then down
Speaker 2: at the bottom of this, you know, this is eight
Speaker 2: different items that they had there at twenty six percent
Speaker 2: was supporting good causes. Now that's going to include but
Speaker 2: it's not going to be limited to a course political
Speaker 2: actions of people out there. Right all this political activity,
Speaker 2: people pushing for the Democrat Party or pushing for the
Speaker 2: Republican Party, these are good political causes and that type
Speaker 2: of thing. You know, it would include some other things
Speaker 2: as well. You know, somebody might be involved in something
Speaker 2: that is some kind of a help pusher or something
Speaker 2: like that, some sort of society for people who were
Speaker 2: suffering from disease. You could put a lot of different
Speaker 2: things in there. But of course, and so that means
Speaker 2: that so you could put a lot of different things
Speaker 2: in there that people who are focused on the political action,
Speaker 2: that's really pretty small, and I think that's a very
Speaker 2: healthy thing. Look, I focus on politics because I want
Speaker 2: to warn you about what these people are conniving scheming
Speaker 2: to do to you that may be a threat to
Speaker 2: you and your health. Number one issue, you and your
Speaker 2: family the number two second largest mentioned thing there or
Speaker 2: number three even making money, being able to have some
Speaker 2: financial independence. And so we look at that and we
Speaker 2: keep an eye on politics. But that is not really
Speaker 2: what we value. I certainly don't value it. I despise politics,
Speaker 2: and so I want to keep an eye on it.
Speaker 2: And when we look at where we are with these tariffs,
Speaker 2: there was another chart that came up. This was actually
Speaker 2: one that was tweeted out by somebody in the Trump administration,
Speaker 2: and they're t trade representative. US Trade representative put a
Speaker 2: chart up on X showing the steep decline percentage of
Speaker 2: apparel sold in America that was manufactured in America. You
Speaker 2: know the look for the union label. You know that
Speaker 2: if you remember that commercial. Now go down and show
Speaker 2: that chart. It's first of all, we know what has happened.
Speaker 2: And he just takes two in points. It would be
Speaker 2: interesting to see the intermediate data. He shows one chart
Speaker 2: there in nineteen ninety one and another one in twenty
Speaker 2: twenty three. In nineteen ninety one, fifty six percent of
Speaker 2: American clothes are made in America, fifty six percent. That's
Speaker 2: down to four percent in twenty twenty three. And so
Speaker 2: the question is what happened? Well, we do know what happened,
Speaker 2: but they're not showing there is an intermediate point is oh,
Speaker 2: we mentioned it many times on the show. Jerald Clent's
Speaker 2: made it many times in the show. George W. Bush,
Speaker 2: three months to the day after nine to eleven December
Speaker 2: the eleventh, two thousand and one, brought China into the
Speaker 2: World Trade Organization and gave them Most Favored Nation status.
Speaker 2: I was just talking over the weekend to a friend
Speaker 2: who used to work for the US government and their trade,
Speaker 2: you know, the trade bureaucracy in Washington. He was a lawyer,
Speaker 2: and he said that, you know, first of all, we
Speaker 2: didn't put a whole lot of emphasis on trade and
Speaker 2: trying to make it fair. He said that Japanese had
Speaker 2: twenty thousand people doing that in Japan, and the US
Speaker 2: we had one thousand. But he said, when you look
Speaker 2: at what happened with us, he said, before that happened,
Speaker 2: before you had the China getting into the World Trade
Speaker 2: Organization getting Most Favored Nation status. He said, you could
Speaker 2: still buy stuff from China, but they were treated like Cuba,
Speaker 2: and it was difficult. You had to go through a
Speaker 2: lot of red tape, to buy stuff from China, and
Speaker 2: so it was all this amazing reversal right there three
Speaker 2: months after nine eleven, nobody paying attention to it because
Speaker 2: everybody was focused on that and the aftermath of it.
Speaker 2: And so again we went from China and buying stuff
Speaker 2: from them. They were a pariah like Cuba, sanctioned and
Speaker 2: all the rest of stuff. And then all of a sudden,
Speaker 2: you know, they're one of us, and that is what's happened,
Speaker 2: along with the fact that they gamed it. Perhaps the
Speaker 2: initial designation of them being like Cuba and a hostile
Speaker 2: was absolutely true. It really was. And so I share
Speaker 2: the stated goals be where we want to go. We
Speaker 2: understand what the issue is here. But now again the
Speaker 2: question is what do we do about it? Is taxation
Speaker 2: the path to prosperity? How do we decide which industries?
Speaker 2: And of course that's not even a part of this.
Speaker 2: There's not even some strategic proposal. This has just been
Speaker 2: a blanket shotgun to shoot this at everybody in the
Speaker 2: world all at once. Even the people that we have
Speaker 2: trade surpluses with we are going to punish them. We're
Speaker 2: going to punish everybody equally. It's kind of stupid. Kind
Speaker 2: of looks like there's no plan. It kind of looks
Speaker 2: like what Marco Rubio said. The one thing I like
Speaker 2: about this administration, we don't do studies. We can tell
Speaker 2: you're winging it. You're not studying anything, You're not planning anything.
Speaker 2: There is no plan, folks. The plan is for you
Speaker 2: to trust them, put your hope in government, and trust
Speaker 2: the government. That is not a plan, folks. That's a disaster.
Speaker 2: Never never, never trust government, especially this one, especially one
Speaker 2: that is vast and uncertain about what it wants to do.
Speaker 2: That obviously shows that it has no plan. This is
Speaker 2: very destructive plays in the process of doing. The only
Speaker 2: hope that we have is that Trump will undo Trump.
Speaker 2: But in the meantime, he's been so vacillating and so
Speaker 2: punitive in the tariffs that it has literally locked us
Speaker 2: down yet again. That's the key. America was not great
Speaker 2: because of taxes. America is not great because of tariffs.
Speaker 2: What made America great was freedom and having government that
Speaker 2: was small, distant, and out of our lives. That was
Speaker 2: what made government great. And the biggest problem that we
Speaker 2: have is not China. The biggest problem we have is Washington,
Speaker 2: and that we have big problems with the state governments
Speaker 2: as well, and local governments as well. Government at every
Speaker 2: life needs to get away from us, but especially especially
Speaker 2: the federal government. They're not your savior. They're not going
Speaker 2: to save you with taxes and regulation. That's what we're
Speaker 2: talking about with tariffs. It's taxes and regulations. That is
Speaker 2: not what made America great. That's what kept America from
Speaker 2: being great. That is the source of our problem. As
Speaker 2: Ronald Reagan said, government is not the solution, it's the problem.
Speaker 2: And the specific problems of government are taxes and regulation.
Speaker 2: And what Trump is doing is adding taxes and regulation.
Speaker 2: He's increasing the problem. And so these are the things
Speaker 2: that we don't have. The freedom to compete, the freedom
Speaker 2: to create businesses that has been regulated to death. Now
Speaker 2: when we look at what may happen with us, we
Speaker 2: don't know what Trump is going to do from one
Speaker 2: hour to the next. They put that out in their
Speaker 2: little cabinet meeting as if that was a positive feature.
Speaker 2: It's changing, said Rubio. You know, from day to day,
Speaker 2: from hour to hour, from minute to minute, it's changing.
Speaker 2: It's constantly changing. Because they don't have a plan. Unless
Speaker 2: chaos is a plan. Unless locking the country down is
Speaker 2: their plan. Other than that, they don't have one. And
Speaker 2: so the question is going to be is there going
Speaker 2: to be a legal pushback against this. We have California
Speaker 2: and twelve other states have sued the Trump administration over
Speaker 2: his unilateral dictates of taxes. I think this is a
Speaker 2: very very bad idea to let one individual who can't
Speaker 2: make up his mind, who is blown around with every
Speaker 2: advisor that talks to him, and then is blown around
Speaker 2: with every foreign country that they talk to, or every
Speaker 2: industry that they talk to, and unfortunately, who they're not
Speaker 2: talking to small and medium sized businesses and consumers, because
Speaker 2: small businesses are not essential. Trump told us that Trump
Speaker 2: showed us that in twenty twenty, and you should believe
Speaker 2: him when he said that. You should believe what he did.
Speaker 2: In this interview that he has yesterday on Sunday shows
Speaker 2: Kristin Welker, he says, Okay, well, you know, the good
Speaker 2: stuff is me, The bad stuff in our economy is Biden,
Speaker 2: and ultimately I'm responsible for all of it. He said,
Speaker 2: Oh really, well, tell that to the MAGA people. Tell
Speaker 2: it to the MAGA people. Oh no, Trump's not responsible
Speaker 2: for anything bad. That happens. He's not at all. He
Speaker 2: doesn't do anything bad. And if it's bad, somebody else
Speaker 2: did it, or if it's bad and Trump did it,
Speaker 2: it's because somebody deceived him. That's what we hear all
Speaker 2: the time. Well, as I said, the thirteen states that
Speaker 2: are suing, and it's kind of interesting because twelve of
Speaker 2: them are going have taken a challenge to a trade
Speaker 2: organization within the United States that they're supposed to oversee that. California, however,
Speaker 2: went into the court system to the Ninth Court, ninth
Speaker 2: Circuit Court, which is very leftist, and so these you know,
Speaker 2: there's California and then there's twelve states, and they have
Speaker 2: filed in different jurisdictions and may get very different results.
Speaker 2: On Wednesday, speaking from the White House, Trump suggested that
Speaker 2: families scale back on gifts this year. And we'll talk
Speaker 2: about that. But you know, when we look at this,
Speaker 2: this is one of the things that bothers me, besides
Speaker 2: the the fact that he rules by executive order that
Speaker 2: is predicated on phony emergency like the pandemic in twenty twenty.
Speaker 2: But he's had one phony emergency after the other, you know,
Speaker 2: fentanel and immigrants are coming in from Canada, so we've
Speaker 2: got to do this or that, or we've got a
Speaker 2: national emergency because we have foreign cars that are being imported.
Speaker 2: It's like, what, So he's really taken this template. If
Speaker 2: I declare an emergency and I have the ability to
Speaker 2: decide if something's an emergency or not, nobody had and
Speaker 2: he does, you know, foolishly. In this system, the president
Speaker 2: has been given the ability to arbitrarily decide to declare
Speaker 2: an emergency, and once he does, now he can operate
Speaker 2: under martial law in that particular area. That's what we
Speaker 2: were seeing all through twenty twenty. I called it medical
Speaker 2: martial law. And so now that is still what he's doing.
Speaker 2: But Biden has done some of the same stuff as well.
Speaker 2: Of course, right he didn't have as many executive orders
Speaker 2: as Trump. But now you know, that was a bug
Speaker 2: when it was done by Obama. It was bad when
Speaker 2: it was done by Biden. But it's good now that
Speaker 2: Trump has done far more than either of them. That's
Speaker 2: a good thing. Now, that's a sign of strength. We
Speaker 2: want a strong man there in the Oval office. Well,
Speaker 2: my concern with it, as I said before, both Biden
Speaker 2: and Trump have decided that they will coerce and force
Speaker 2: us into austerity for their particular agenda. Now, I disagreed
Speaker 2: with Biden's agenda of climate changes, absolute nonsense. I agree
Speaker 2: with the agenda that, hey, you know, we've been eviscerated
Speaker 2: in terms of our industry. I don't agree with Trump's
Speaker 2: solution to that. I agree with the fact that it's
Speaker 2: a problem. I don't agree with the solution. But the
Speaker 2: bottom line is that both Trump and Biden, regardless of
Speaker 2: whether and of course, look, if you take Biden's climate
Speaker 2: change stuff as a problem, you could still make the
Speaker 2: same argument that his solutions weren't going to solve anything.
Speaker 2: What were they going to do. They're going to make
Speaker 2: money for his Green New Deal crony capitalists. And that's
Speaker 2: what Trump's stuff is going to do. It's not going
Speaker 2: to solve the problem. It's going to make money for
Speaker 2: his crony capitalist friends and for him. And that was
Speaker 2: what was happening with Biden and both of them, for
Speaker 2: whatever their end goal is, whether their end goal is
Speaker 2: good or whether it's bad, both of them feel like
Speaker 2: they have the right to force us into austerity to
Speaker 2: achieve that goal. And they're not any different from any
Speaker 2: of these foreign dictators that we say doing this all
Speaker 2: the time. And so it's not enough to agree with
Speaker 2: the goal. But we need to understand that if we
Speaker 2: want to achieve any of these goals, the way you
Speaker 2: do it is with liberty, not with austerity. We need
Speaker 2: the cumulative feedback of the American people to come back
Speaker 2: in and talk about whether or not this is you know,
Speaker 2: if they make a case for it, if we agree
Speaker 2: with it, and that's you look at this arbitrary on again,
Speaker 2: off again, on again, off again tariff stuff. What's wrong
Speaker 2: with that? Well, we want to have a large, deliberative
Speaker 2: body that is going to take some of that volatility
Speaker 2: out of the system. Right, you can have Congress was
Speaker 2: going to levy taxes and levy tariffs rather than one
Speaker 2: individual is just going to make it up on his own.
Speaker 2: Well how about this, how about instead of Congress, how
Speaker 2: about if we have market solutions? What if people are
Speaker 2: you have to convince people that there's a problem, And
Speaker 2: maybe you're wrong when you say there's a problem, because
Speaker 2: all these people are there. I've said many times the
Speaker 2: problem with central planning is not that you don't have
Speaker 2: smart people doing the central planning We've had very smart
Speaker 2: people doing central planning in every country, including America, who've
Speaker 2: gotten it completely wrong. Why why is it that you
Speaker 2: can have millions, of tens of millions, or hundreds of
Speaker 2: millions of ordinary people of average or even below average
Speaker 2: intelligence who can do a better job than one really
Speaker 2: smart person who is issuing orders from Washington. It's because
Speaker 2: of the You could talk about it as being a
Speaker 2: neural network, but they don't have sufficient information in Washington
Speaker 2: to make these decisions. They they can't see all the
Speaker 2: implications of it. And what you have is what Elon
Speaker 2: Musk has talked about as the hive mind, that the
Speaker 2: collective people out there and what we call the marketplace
Speaker 2: are looking at all of this data and giving feedback.
Speaker 2: You think about it as a big hive mind, a
Speaker 2: big neural network or whatever. We want to use computer analogies.
Speaker 2: But they can do a much better job of a
Speaker 2: grabbing the information and b making the decision than any
Speaker 2: person can, no matter how smart. They are, operating blind
Speaker 2: compared to what the marketplace is doing. So, if you
Speaker 2: want to fix the problems that we've got, what we
Speaker 2: don't need is somebody on a throne in the oval
Speaker 2: office doing it. That's beyond stupid. That's the real issue.
Speaker 2: And so that's why I say we need liberty, not austerity.
Speaker 2: We need the freedom to be able to choose. Milton
Speaker 2: Friedman and shrined that and his Economics UH lecture his viewpoint.
Speaker 2: He called it free to choose, and he talked about
Speaker 2: how societies that were free, like Hong Kong was free
Speaker 2: at the time that he did it, I think it
Speaker 2: was in the eighties, and he talked about how free
Speaker 2: Hong Kong was because basically the British were not interested
Speaker 2: in governing them, and you know, they were isolated from
Speaker 2: the Chinese who wanted to govern them to death, and
Speaker 2: so they had all kinds of freedom. And he was
Speaker 2: comparing that to you know, the different countries and showing
Speaker 2: that the freer you are, the more you have choice,
Speaker 2: the better choice of society makes. It's not always going
Speaker 2: to be perfect, but it'll be far better than any
Speaker 2: forced decision. And that's what we're talking about. Trump is
Speaker 2: now openly talking this is the real issue. Everybody's saying, well,
Speaker 2: he says he doesn't have to follow the constitution anything. Now,
Speaker 2: the real issue is that he has the arrogance of
Speaker 2: the elite. He thinks he knows better than you, and
Speaker 2: he thinks that the stuff in your life is not
Speaker 2: essential when he's not going to pull back on anything.
Speaker 2: So let me play for you this this austerity. Talk
Speaker 2: about how many dolls you may be able to get
Speaker 2: for your children this Christmas?
Speaker 1: Much of a weater? Need you know?
Speaker 3: Somebody said all the show e said it's going to
Speaker 3: be open. Well, maybe the children will have two dolls
Speaker 3: instead of thirty dollars, you know, and maybe the two
Speaker 3: dolls will cost a couple of bucks more than they
Speaker 3: would normally. But we're not talking about something that we
Speaker 3: have to go out of our way.
Speaker 4: They have ships that are loaded up with stuff, much
Speaker 4: of which not all of it, but much of which
Speaker 4: we don't need.
Speaker 1: And we have to make a fair of you.
Speaker 5: We've been you are at your cabinet meeting. You said, quote,
Speaker 5: going to quote what you said, Maybe the children will
Speaker 5: have two dollars instead of thirty dollars, and maybe the
Speaker 5: two dolls will cost a couple of bucks more than
Speaker 5: they would normally. Are you saying that your tariffs will
Speaker 5: cause some prices to go up?
Speaker 6: No, I think a tariffs is going to be great
Speaker 6: for us because it's going to make us rich.
Speaker 5: But you said some dolls are going to cost more.
Speaker 5: Isn't that an acknowledgement that some.
Speaker 1: Prices go up.
Speaker 6: I don't think a beautiful baby girl needs at eleven
Speaker 6: years old, needs to have thirty dollars. I think they
Speaker 6: can have three dollars or four years because what we
Speaker 6: were doing with China was just unbelievable. We had a
Speaker 6: trade deficit of hundreds of billions of dollars with China.
Speaker 5: When you say they could have three dollars instead of
Speaker 5: thirty dollar are you saying Americans can see empty store shelves.
Speaker 6: No, No, I'm not saying that. I'm just saying they
Speaker 6: don't need to have thirty dollars. They can have three.
Speaker 6: They don't need to have two hundred and fifty pencils,
Speaker 6: they can have five.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you don't need a lot of pencils either, Right,
Speaker 2: two hundred fifty pencils maybe you know, times get rough.
Speaker 2: You might need a half two hundred and fifty pencils
Speaker 2: that you saw on the street corner.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: This is the arrogance of billionaires, the arrogance of people
Speaker 2: like Michael Bloomberg, Donald Trump, by the way, both of
Speaker 2: them New York City Democrats. This is their arrogance. The
Speaker 2: smart ones of us will determine what you need. This
Speaker 2: is coming on the back. As I pointed out last week,
Speaker 2: I was absolutely disgusted with Breitbart for literally doing seventy
Speaker 2: one pages of Milania Trump and her new outfit. And
Speaker 2: I mean it's just one outfit, and it went pay
Speaker 2: picture after a picture, after a picture after a picture.
Speaker 2: She's got a new trench coat, folks, She's got some
Speaker 2: flat and all of them cost thousands of dollars. But
Speaker 2: the key thing in her wardrobe that there were three items,
Speaker 2: and they do seventy one pictures on Milania, and the
Speaker 2: expensive item more so than her burbery trench code or
Speaker 2: her whatever flats, I don't know who even who it
Speaker 2: was it made. It is her purse that costs thirty
Speaker 2: five thousand dollars. And I was talking about, uh, Christina
Speaker 2: and oh she's got a she's got a five thousand
Speaker 2: dollars purse. Well, you know, Millennia's got a thirty five
Speaker 2: thousand dollars purse. And you know, how dare you go
Speaker 2: out there and harm our country? You know, I want
Speaker 2: to have more factories in this country. I can't do
Speaker 2: it because you're going out there buying cheap junk from
Speaker 2: the Chinese. You got to be paying thirty five dollars
Speaker 2: thirty five thousand dollars for your purse, like thirty five
Speaker 2: for us.
Speaker 1: I guess.
Speaker 2: I'll have being married to Karen. She shops for bargains. He's, uh,
Speaker 2: she's really good. Yeah, thirty five dollars will be more
Speaker 2: like it or anyway the h but this is a
Speaker 2: kind of let them eat cake type of thing, right,
Speaker 2: Let them eat cake, Let them have two dolls, not
Speaker 2: thirty or what? Who are you right? That's a and
Speaker 2: look and don't write me about this. And listener years
Speaker 2: ago and maybe I don't know if he's still listening
Speaker 2: or not, but he got very upset. I was talking
Speaker 2: about let them meet cake Marie Antoinette. He said, I'm
Speaker 2: related descended to from Marie Antoinette. And she never said that.
Speaker 2: That's a lie. I was like, okay, whatever, The point
Speaker 2: is was the elitism, you know, whether she said that
Speaker 2: or not. The point was the elitism of those people,
Speaker 2: very similar to you know when you have Voltaire, who
Speaker 2: was really a horrible person, except when it came free speech.
Speaker 2: Voltaire never said I may disagree with you, but I
Speaker 2: will defend to the death your right to say it.
Speaker 2: He never said that. That was a summary, a summary
Speaker 2: of Voltaire's writings, an accurate summary, by the way. And
Speaker 2: I think the let them Eat Cake was a summary
Speaker 2: of elitist attitudes. I don't care about their austerity not
Speaker 2: doesn't bother me. I'm fine, I'm just fine. Well, there
Speaker 2: is a toy store in Saint Paul, Minnesota that has
Speaker 2: joined a number of small American businesses who are suing
Speaker 2: the present over the tariff plan. And again a ground
Speaker 2: swell of lawsuits led by thirteen states that challenged his
Speaker 2: tariff programs. And you know, Californian one jurisdiction and twelve
Speaker 2: other states in another his ambitious tariff program. You might
Speaker 2: have wondered, why is he allowed to do this? And
Speaker 2: as coin Telegraph was saying, well, he might not have
Speaker 2: the legal ability to do that. That's what these court
Speaker 2: cases are about. Does he really have the power to
Speaker 2: do this? The president's power to unilaterally imposed tariffs is
Speaker 2: not really in the office's constitutional article to power. Instead,
Speaker 2: it is a delegation of authority by Congress. Now here's
Speaker 2: the thing, folks, That's what I'm saying. Forget about tariffs.
Speaker 2: We're talking about tariffs here, but we're talking about something
Speaker 2: that's far, far more important. That's the Constitution of Constitution
Speaker 2: and presidential powers, a separation of powers, and all the
Speaker 2: rest of the stuff. That's the issue before us. This
Speaker 2: is not a Trump versus Biden thing. This is not
Speaker 2: a Trump versus Democrats thing. This is not a Trump
Speaker 2: versus China thing. This isn't about tariffs or free trade thing.
Speaker 2: The bigger issues here are really what do we do
Speaker 2: about the Constitution. And these issues are coming back over
Speaker 2: and over again. As I've said before, Trump wants to
Speaker 2: rule by fiat, and he wants to be able to
Speaker 2: say that he can rule by fiat by declaring phony
Speaker 2: emergencies about everything. And he also wants to get the
Speaker 2: Constitution out of the way. And that's whether we were
Speaker 2: talking about immigration issues, or trade issues or any of
Speaker 2: these issues, they all come back to the fact that
Speaker 2: Trump doesn't want to be encumbered by the rule of
Speaker 2: law and the Constitution. Now ask yourself if you would
Speaker 2: like to have Obama or Biden, or Bernie Sanders or
Speaker 2: occasional cortex or any other Democrats you can imagine, right,
Speaker 2: would you like them to be unburdened by the law
Speaker 2: and the constitution? Because if you remove that for Trump
Speaker 2: to get through the things that you want, that's where
Speaker 2: you're going to be. And so this isn't about tribalism
Speaker 2: or your favorite political figure or even any of these issues.
Speaker 2: And as I said before, I agree with him on
Speaker 2: the goals about immigration and on trade, but not with
Speaker 2: the way he's doing this. It is very dangerous, very destructive.
Speaker 2: And then we could add other things too, like his
Speaker 2: absolute contempt for free speech, not just what is happening
Speaker 2: in the universities on the behalf of Israel. But don't
Speaker 2: you dare criticize him or he will a sue you
Speaker 2: frivolously with a basically something that'll be shut down with
Speaker 2: a slap law and slap back him in the face.
Speaker 2: But he will also come after licenses of journalists of networks,
Speaker 2: TV networks, and so we have to be careful about
Speaker 2: what he's doing. There's a right and wrong way to
Speaker 2: oppose these things. Article one of the US Constitution creates
Speaker 2: Congress and Section eight delegates the authority to quote, lay,
Speaker 2: and collect taxes, duties, and posts and ex scizes unquote,
Speaker 2: a series of colorfully named tariff programs that we've had
Speaker 2: in the past, like the Tariffs of Abomination of eighteen
Speaker 2: twenty eight that nearly caused a civil war. It's a section,
Speaker 2: but the timing wasn't right. We weren't at a fourth
Speaker 2: horn turning we are now. We are now. So that
Speaker 2: was a trade issue, and South Carolina came very very
Speaker 2: close to seceding in response to the Tariff of abominations.
Speaker 2: They had a nullification crisis. By the time wasn't right
Speaker 2: for a civil war, so they agreed to a negotiated
Speaker 2: settlement and that happened. Then you know, another thirty years
Speaker 2: later we had the dingly terr eff Act of eighteen
Speaker 2: ninety seven, culminating in the infamous smoot Holly Tariff of
Speaker 2: nineteen thirty. Now I could insert here the Ben's ninething,
Speaker 2: you know, like treated a class in smoot Holly. You know, bueller,
Speaker 2: bueller do that. But look, there's been a lot of
Speaker 2: dispute as to whether smoot Holly was really the trigger
Speaker 2: for the Great Depression. Did come after the stock market
Speaker 2: crash and there were other things happening. I think the
Speaker 2: appropriate way to look at Smoot Holly is the fact
Speaker 2: that it raised tariffs on over twenty thousand items. It
Speaker 2: also did this to record levels on twenty thousand items.
Speaker 2: And it did it when you had a economy, an
Speaker 2: economy that was getting much much weaker, right, And so
Speaker 2: one of the reasons that it was done the economy
Speaker 2: was weakening. So they thought, we're going to strengthen it
Speaker 2: by putting tariffs on and we'll we'll start trading with
Speaker 2: ourselves instead of with foreign countries. Sound familiar putting on
Speaker 2: record tariffs broadly based twenty thousand, Well, now this is
Speaker 2: on everything, everything that comes into the country, everything, not
Speaker 2: just twenty thousand. So this is bigger. This is bigger
Speaker 2: than Smoot Holly. And if you want to add really
Speaker 2: record high tariffs to everything in the economy, h well,
Speaker 2: I don't know. It sounds very familiar to me. And
Speaker 2: so what was the result of the Smoot Holly Act,
Speaker 2: whether or not you want to blame the depression on it, Well,
Speaker 2: it reduced our exports, not just our imports. It reduced
Speaker 2: our exports as well. By doing that by setting things
Speaker 2: off in a situation where all the different countries are suffering,
Speaker 2: and they are largely because of net zero, largely because
Speaker 2: of preferential treatment given to China, And of course they've
Speaker 2: wasted a lot of that money with a frivolous central
Speaker 2: planning and development of real estate and things like that.
Speaker 2: But China is in a difficult situation as well, commercial
Speaker 2: real estate, domestic real estate. The Chinese have made a
Speaker 2: wreck of their system. Way that you can blame them,
Speaker 2: but the reality is is that it's very shaky for
Speaker 2: them as well. And so when we saw what happened
Speaker 2: with this, everybody is reducing exports, everybody starts everything starts
Speaker 2: shutting down. It exacerbated everything that weakening. Economy was weakened further.
Speaker 2: So it wasn't just imports that were reduced, it was
Speaker 2: exports that were reduced as well. It also increased prices,
Speaker 2: inflation went up, and it also disrupted supply chains. And
Speaker 2: it was doing this to everybody in the world really
Speaker 2: to one degree or the other, which is what led
Speaker 2: to a war. And that's why at the fourth turning,
Speaker 2: and that was our last fourth turning, we're making all
Speaker 2: the same moves again, aren't we Isn't that amazing? I
Speaker 2: find it very interesting that the mainstream media never stops
Speaker 2: talking about these generations. Oh, we got the millennials, and
Speaker 2: we got the Generation X and Y and Z and
Speaker 2: all the rest of this stuff, right, the boomers and
Speaker 2: this everything, all the talk is generational. Everything that they
Speaker 2: their entire perspective of society is based in what Strauss
Speaker 2: and Howe did with generations. But they don't do the
Speaker 2: book that immediately followed it, which was Fourth Turning. It
Speaker 2: expanded on that generational cycle. Every four generations you have
Speaker 2: a major turning where institutions are wiped away. It's always
Speaker 2: accompanied by major financial concerns and usually by war. And
Speaker 2: so nobody is paying attention to the fourth turning, even
Speaker 2: though they live in this generational view of history of cycles.
Speaker 2: And when you look at the smooth Holly Terr Effact,
Speaker 2: and you see what it did and how it exacerbated everything,
Speaker 2: didn't do, nothing improved with it. It made the Great
Speaker 2: Depression greater. Let's make America Great Depression again. In the
Speaker 2: early nineteen thirties, FDR pushed for legislation to grant his
Speaker 2: office the authority to negotiate tariffs. He argued that the
Speaker 2: tariffs had wrecked the economy and that he should have
Speaker 2: the power to reduce them. He was going in the
Speaker 2: opposite direction, and so they wound up with a Reciprocal
Speaker 2: Trade Act of nineteen thirty four, gave the President the
Speaker 2: power to set tariff rates provided it came as part
Speaker 2: of a reciprocal agreement with the counterpart. This allowed the
Speaker 2: office to negotiate directly with other nations and promoted a
Speaker 2: period of liberalized trade. So this reciprocity thing, right, reciprocal
Speaker 2: trade agreements. You know, Trump talked about that a lot.
Speaker 2: And he had that phony formula from Peter Navarro, the
Speaker 2: dumbsack of Bricks, that's his advisor, another Democrat who came
Speaker 2: up with this, saying and look, you could whatever you
Speaker 2: want to call that formula that he's got. It was
Speaker 2: a lie to call a tariff. It was not a tariff.
Speaker 2: It had nothing to do with tariff rates. It was
Speaker 2: a formula that was based on deficits and based on
Speaker 2: how much they buy from us or whatever. Right that
Speaker 2: was not just based on It was not based on tariffs.
Speaker 2: They didn't try to average the tariffs or do any
Speaker 2: kind of adjustments to actual terriff rights. They ignored the teriffs.
Speaker 2: They went with this other metric and then called that
Speaker 2: a tariff. That's stupid and it's a lie. It's a
Speaker 2: stupid lie from a dumb sack of bricks called Peter Navarro.
Speaker 2: So this Reciprocal Trade Agreement Act, however, it's not the
Speaker 2: law that Trump is relying on. And of course, you know,
Speaker 2: these tariffs are not reciprocal, they're unilateral, and they're based
Speaker 2: on a number that's not even a tariff. Congress continued
Speaker 2: to delegate authority to the president through the mid century.
Speaker 2: You had the Expansion Act of nineteen sixty two, you
Speaker 2: had the Trade Act of nineteen seventy four, then you
Speaker 2: had the International Urgency Economic Powers Act of nineteen seventy
Speaker 2: seven AIPA. I guess I E E p A. If
Speaker 2: you want to try to pronounce I don't know anyway,
Speaker 2: that's the one that he's hanging his hat on. It
Speaker 2: doesn't say anything about tariffs. It's better known as the
Speaker 2: law that recent presidents have used to levy's sanctions against
Speaker 2: enemies like Russia. But he's used his power to respond
Speaker 2: to declared emergencies to response to unusual and extraordinary threats.
Speaker 2: The president's also got the power to declare emergencies, but
Speaker 2: that comes from another Act, the National Emergencies Act. This
Speaker 2: is Reason Magazine, Reason dot Com. They're basically two legal
Speaker 2: arguments that you can make against Trump's tariffs. Number one
Speaker 2: that the IEEPA doesn't authorize the president to implement his
Speaker 2: tariff program. And number two that it is unconstitutional, even
Speaker 2: if it did, for AEPA to delegate such broad authority
Speaker 2: to the president. And this is exactly what California and
Speaker 2: the other twelve states did, and they're lawsuits. They argued
Speaker 2: number one that the president's actions are beyond his legal authority,
Speaker 2: and number two that even if he was given legal
Speaker 2: authority by Congress, it would violate the separation of powers.
Speaker 2: Reasons said, there's a few reasons why this might be true.
Speaker 2: Any action under this i e EPA must be tailored
Speaker 2: to quote deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat. And
Speaker 2: you know when we look at things like he also
Speaker 2: references back this early nineteen sixties act to say that
Speaker 2: he could put the car terriffs on. Well, that's not
Speaker 2: an emergency. That's nothing extraordinary. That is not unusual for
Speaker 2: people to buy foreign cars for the last sixty years,
Speaker 2: over sixty years, and it is not unusual or extraordinary,
Speaker 2: even if it was a threat. So the nearly worldwide
Speaker 2: ten percent tariff level is wholly unconnected to the state
Speaker 2: of basis of the emergency declaration. They say that's in
Speaker 2: their complaint. It alleges it applies whether without regard to
Speaker 2: any country's trade practices or purported threat to domestic industries. Again,
Speaker 2: they leveled this ten percent thing across the board, even
Speaker 2: to countries that we had a trade surplus with, like
Speaker 2: the UK in Australia. It's not a threat if we've
Speaker 2: got a surplus to them. If you're saying that that's
Speaker 2: the basis of the threat. Secondly, there is a constitutional
Speaker 2: limit on Congress's ability to delegate Article one powers to
Speaker 2: the present. It's known as the non delegation doctrine. Well,
Speaker 2: I wish they would enforce this. The problem is the
Speaker 2: Congress has been delegating things to the executive right. It's
Speaker 2: not necessarily to the present, but to the bureaucracy. You know,
Speaker 2: when Nancy Pelosi said we're going to pass Obamacare to
Speaker 2: find out, wasn't it, That's exactly what she was telling you.
Speaker 2: That's the way they operate. They don't put the details
Speaker 2: in they just create these broad movements. They might create
Speaker 2: an agency or whatever and then or it might be
Speaker 2: thrown over to an existing agency. And the devil is
Speaker 2: in the details that come out of the bureaucracy. And
Speaker 2: so we've also seen Congress delegate power that it doesn't have.
Speaker 2: You know, this is a power that it does have
Speaker 2: setting terraces and taxes and excise rates. But we've seen
Speaker 2: them delegate things that they don't have under the constitution
Speaker 2: as well. They really would rather have show hearings and
Speaker 2: collect money and run for office, and have show hearings
Speaker 2: and collect money and run for office, and rinse and repeat.
Speaker 2: So the you know, when you look a good example
Speaker 2: of this, Okay, it's regulations that have been used to
Speaker 2: tell us that we can't have certain appliances, we can't
Speaker 2: have cars, and stuff like that. They Congress created a
Speaker 2: power out of thin air that the federal government doesn't have,
Speaker 2: and that is to monitor and to regulate energy ificiency.
Speaker 2: And they gave that power to the newly created Department
Speaker 2: of Energy right in the seventies or whatever. And then
Speaker 2: the same thing with the EPA. The new department newly
Speaker 2: been created, and they say, and we're going to say
Speaker 2: that the federal government has the power to regulate emissions,
Speaker 2: and we'll give that power to the EPA. That's an
Speaker 2: example of Congress creating a and unconstitutional bureaucracy in both
Speaker 2: of those cases to do something that they have no
Speaker 2: authority to do, and then to create special new powers
Speaker 2: and hand them to those new unconstitutional bureaucracies that they create.
Speaker 2: That's not deep. We're into this stuff, and we've got
Speaker 2: to avoid the trap of making a second mistake rather
Speaker 2: than admitting the first one. So that's why we need
Speaker 2: to have radical change. When we talk about radical change,
Speaker 2: what that means is you grab it by the roots.
Speaker 2: That's the root word of radical, I mean radics, you know,
Speaker 2: getting it at the root and pull it out. And
Speaker 2: that's the problem with Washington. It does need radical change.
Speaker 2: It needs to be uprooted. It needs to be these
Speaker 2: weeds that have been sown into our lives and every
Speaker 2: aspect of our life, every aspect I mean where we're
Speaker 2: talking about, how whether or not we travel, how we travel,
Speaker 2: the things that we have to go through when we travel.
Speaker 2: What about the education of our children, what about how
Speaker 2: we earn a living, how about what we're allowed to
Speaker 2: keep an eye, and we have weeds that have been
Speaker 2: sown throughout every fabric of our society. Those are the
Speaker 2: things that are our problems more so than China. I'm
Speaker 2: not saying China is not a problem. I'm saying they're
Speaker 2: small compared to Washington. Washington doesn't want you to see
Speaker 2: them as a weed that is metastasizing cancer, this metastasizing
Speaker 2: throughout society. They want you to look at the ouslander, right,
Speaker 2: the foreigner. They're the problem, not the Nazis in Washington.
Speaker 2: So the Supreme Court has not struck down an executive
Speaker 2: action on these grounds since nineteen thirty five. But despite
Speaker 2: the constitution uncertainty, the net of the arguments is broadly
Speaker 2: perceived as strong. A right reason this is one. This
Speaker 2: is why one prominent conservative lawyer, so called told ABC
Speaker 2: News that the plaintiffs might win in a fight against Trump.
Speaker 2: He or she said, there is a strong argument that
Speaker 2: the tariffs imposed under AEPA, we'll say, are not legal
Speaker 2: or constitutional, and it sounds like it's speedy Gonzales orp.
Speaker 2: Speedy Gonzales AEPA. Under that particular statute, tariffs are not
Speaker 2: listed amongst the various actions that a present can take
Speaker 2: in response to a declaration of national emergency. So they're saying,
Speaker 2: you don't have the legal authority, be a bad idea
Speaker 2: if you did. And Congress can't delegate this to for
Speaker 2: its separation of powers. So there's some other factors in
Speaker 2: the presence favor. However, the administration may be able to
Speaker 2: hear these claims in the US Court of International Trade,
Speaker 2: which has exclusive jurisdiction over tariff disputes. Appeals from this
Speaker 2: court are heard in the Federal Circuit, which is generally
Speaker 2: seen as favorable for Trump, and the twelve state complaint
Speaker 2: was actually filed in this court from the beginning. However,
Speaker 2: as I said before, California filed its complaint, which is
Speaker 2: basically the same complaint, but they filed it in a
Speaker 2: different court, the Ninth Circuit of Court, Ninth Circuit Court,
Speaker 2: which would be more friendly to you from a political standpoint,
Speaker 2: more friendly to the Democrats than the Trump vice versa
Speaker 2: on the Trade Court. So if Trump succeeds in removing
Speaker 2: that action to the Court of International Trade the CIIT,
Speaker 2: it will be an early victory for the administration. Trump
Speaker 2: argues that the courts have consistently held that the president's
Speaker 2: emergent sdency declarations are unreviewable, and that therefore any challenge
Speaker 2: to the fact of an emergency itself, particularly the claim
Speaker 2: that the emergency is not unusual or extraordinary enough in
Speaker 2: the plaintiff's view, is a non jurisdictional political question. But
Speaker 2: this court lacks jurisdiction to consider. And so that's the
Speaker 2: argument he's making. Because if I call something an emergency,
Speaker 2: you can't second guess it in the courts. You can't
Speaker 2: litigate this in the courts. That's a very dangerous idea.
Speaker 2: That's a very dangerous idea. And that regardless of what
Speaker 2: we're talking about anything, right, if you're talking about lockdown
Speaker 2: and masks, that's a very dangerous idea. If you're talking
Speaker 2: about tariffs, that's a very dangerous It's a very dangerous
Speaker 2: idea applied to anything. Anything, the potential for abuse, and
Speaker 2: we don't even have to say it's potential for abuse.
Speaker 2: It's what was done to us five years ago. I
Speaker 2: could people forget. Presidence track record in court has historically
Speaker 2: been poor. He has a win rate of thirty five
Speaker 2: percent in the Supreme Court versus the average presidential win
Speaker 2: rate of sixty five percent. Though he loses about twice
Speaker 2: as often as the average president. So we're going to
Speaker 2: take a quick break. I'm want to read some of
Speaker 2: your comments here and I take a break and we'll
Speaker 2: talk a little bit more about you know, hey, the
Speaker 2: stuff that they like to have, that's important. What do
Speaker 2: you want to have, you know, if it's cheap clothes
Speaker 2: or dolls or something that's not important, that's really not important.
Speaker 2: On Kick for the Love of the Road is gifted
Speaker 2: twenty five subs Thank you very much. That is a
Speaker 2: that's about you know, five dollars a subscription, I think,
Speaker 2: isn't it. So that's a substantial contribution, Thank you very much.
Speaker 2: On Rumble, he kills us says Trump sounds like Bernie
Speaker 2: Sanders now yeah, yeah, a Northeast liberal Democrat. On Rumble,
Speaker 2: honor Seeker says Trump can get a sesson and get
Speaker 2: rid of his goal plated toilets. That's right. You know,
Speaker 2: think about how many dolls you could buy with Melaennia's purse.
Speaker 2: On Rumble Sam Miller one two three, he says, who
Speaker 2: is he to tell us how many dolls our children
Speaker 2: can have? That's exactly it. That the meat cake, right,
Speaker 2: he is such a liar and a dictator. Now he
Speaker 2: wants to be the pope. I know, I know. Oh,
Speaker 2: he's just kidding, right, Don't you love it? How when
Speaker 2: he puts himself out as the Messiah and his followers
Speaker 2: put him out as missile. Oh, he's he's just joking.
Speaker 2: When they build golden idol statues to him, Oh, it's
Speaker 2: just a joke. And when he puts himself out as
Speaker 2: the Pope, that's also just a joke. And it's just
Speaker 2: a joke right after this guy has died, And that's
Speaker 2: important to some Patholics around there, and they're very offended
Speaker 2: by that as well. On Rumble DG eight, thank you
Speaker 2: for the tip, he says, David. The most dangerous thing
Speaker 2: about Trump is his media and his cult. They will
Speaker 2: cheerlead tyranny. Yeah, and his missteps and they will call
Speaker 2: it winning. I thought the Obama cult was insane. This
Speaker 2: is another level. Yeah, Rumble Stealth Patriot, thank you for
Speaker 2: the tip very much. He said, none of the criminals
Speaker 2: that facilitated the invasion of our country by illegals are
Speaker 2: being prosecuted. A good point. Did I do anything about majorca,
Speaker 2: he says, or Biden or Merrick Garland. Instead you get
Speaker 2: violations of the Fourth Amendment against us. I think that
Speaker 2: tells you everything, right. They like the problems, they like
Speaker 2: the problems, and so they're not going to come after
Speaker 2: these people who criminally, you know, shut down investigation. You know,
Speaker 2: when we talked with the guy that does not have
Speaker 2: MS thirteen on his knuckles, that guy, you know, the
Speaker 2: photoshop terrorist, he was photoshopped into being a terrorist, but
Speaker 2: he may be actually involved in a cartel if you
Speaker 2: look at the trafficking stuff, all of the stuff that
Speaker 2: the Trump administration put out there. They said, begin with
Speaker 2: all this stuff. Well he was sent there mistakenly. Okay,
Speaker 2: let's just go with that statement. Then bring him back,
Speaker 2: give him some due process, determine what's going on with
Speaker 2: this guy. You said, you made a mistake. And then
Speaker 2: what they do is they engage in character assassination. Well,
Speaker 2: you know, his wife got a restrained order against him,
Speaker 2: and this and that, you know again, you know, and
Speaker 2: then engage in lies about the tattoos on his knuckles
Speaker 2: and things like that, that knuckle headed approach, rather than
Speaker 2: looking at you know, quietly percolating in the background, is
Speaker 2: this investigations done by the Tennessee Star saying he was
Speaker 2: trafficking and caught with the Tennessee Highway Patrol trafficking people.
Speaker 2: He may very well be a cartel member, maybe not
Speaker 2: MS thirteen, but you know, he was trafficking people for
Speaker 2: the cartels. But they don't talk about that. Instead of
Speaker 2: what they do is they engage in character assassination, They
Speaker 2: engage in fabrication of absurd lies. And then they come
Speaker 2: back and they saying, we don't have to get due
Speaker 2: process to people in this country if they're not citizens.
Speaker 2: And we'll talk about that coming up. That's a very
Speaker 2: important question, and I'll give you both sides of this.
Speaker 2: You know, this is something that's now being debated. I remember,
Speaker 2: you know, when I first talked about this, Garcia guy said, look,
Speaker 2: they made a mistake. You made a mistake. You bring
Speaker 2: him back and if there's other evidence that's there, do
Speaker 2: something about it. Somebody sent me the actual report, the
Speaker 2: gang report that was there and that jurisdiction, and I
Speaker 2: think it was Maryland. I talked about that at the
Speaker 2: very beginning, and that whole procedure and that you know,
Speaker 2: it was done in a couple of different jurisdictions by
Speaker 2: the police that whole approach, that whole procedure. That organization
Speaker 2: was disbanded because they found that it was operating in
Speaker 2: a very unjust way. As a matter of fact, the
Speaker 2: cop who brought those charges against him and filed that
Speaker 2: report was himself kicked out of the police force and
Speaker 2: charged for criminal activity that he was involved in. So
Speaker 2: that's all of the evidence that they had except for
Speaker 2: this trafficking thing. It's phony, phony, garbage. And they double
Speaker 2: down and say, we don't have to correct that. But
Speaker 2: Trump did, his administration did back in twenty eighteen, this
Speaker 2: first Trump administration, they mistakenly deported somebody to a foreign
Speaker 2: country and then they corrected that and brought him back.
Speaker 2: And so this is a different attitude. It's a very
Speaker 2: dangerous attitude, a lawless attitude, an arrogant, elitist attitude. And
Speaker 2: I don't like that. Yeah, it's another level. And they're
Speaker 2: not coming after the people who threw us under the
Speaker 2: bus with open borders, right. Instead, what they're doing is
Speaker 2: they're trying to come after the constitution instead of the criminals.
Speaker 2: On Rumble self Patriot, Let's see, that's the one I
Speaker 2: just read on Rumble Audi modern retro radio goods see
Speaker 2: says Trump and Bernie have more in common than not. Yeah.
Speaker 2: I agree. Let's take a quick break and we'll come
Speaker 2: back because I want to talk a little bit about
Speaker 2: this comment about how Trump doesn't care about rising prices
Speaker 2: because we've got cheap gas. Okay, Well, we'll talk about that.
Speaker 2: We'll be right back. Joyed listening to the David Knight Show, Well,
Speaker 2: Trump said, rising prices are peanuts compared to cheap gas.
Speaker 2: Let's not bring in some pet squirrels into this discussion.
Speaker 2: Here in the interview on Meet the Press with Kristen
Speaker 2: Welter Welker and he said some price, She said, some
Speaker 2: prices are going up. Tires, strollers, some clothing, and the
Speaker 2: wake of your terraces. He said, excuse me, that's peanuts
Speaker 2: compared to energy. Energy is sixty percent of the cost.
Speaker 2: Energy is the big thing, as they point out, by
Speaker 2: Trump's one hundred day in office, the average price of
Speaker 2: gas had dipped around fifty cents per gallon from a
Speaker 2: year prior, according to data from the Triple A. He said,
Speaker 2: I think the good parts are the Trump economy and
Speaker 2: the bad parts of the Biden economy, because he did
Speaker 2: a terrible job he did a terrible job on everything.
Speaker 2: He said, well, there we go. Well here's the It's
Speaker 2: not the economy stupid, It's not other things like the
Speaker 2: inflation rate that can be manipulated. It really is the
Speaker 2: end decision that is creating a lockdown again. Trump will
Speaker 2: most likely be the second second, the one person who
Speaker 2: has lockdown our economy twice, first one to do it.
Speaker 2: Now he wants to do it again. I guess. It
Speaker 2: was an interesting article on Wall Street Journal and it
Speaker 2: was with a guy, Ryan Peterson, and he talked about
Speaker 2: if you recall in twenty twenty one, there was a
Speaker 2: ship that got stuck in the Seuez Canal, was stuck
Speaker 2: in the Suez Canal for six days, and it was
Speaker 2: a major transruption of global trade just in that one
Speaker 2: canal stuck for six days. It costs nine point six
Speaker 2: billion dollars per day for those six days to the
Speaker 2: global economy and created all kinds of supply chain issues.
Speaker 2: That was the key thing, because what Ryan Peterson does
Speaker 2: is he's got a business. Flexport is about shipping, and
Speaker 2: so in his business he has access to all the
Speaker 2: details about what is happening with the supply chain. And
Speaker 2: he actually wrote a book. It was a kid's book
Speaker 2: about it, right, but he actually wrote a big The
Speaker 2: Ship and the Big Digger or something like that, and
Speaker 2: he wrote a book about how that works to kind of,
Speaker 2: you know, give a little bit of something you'd use
Speaker 2: to educate your kids economically about things like that. But
Speaker 2: he points out that everything's being paralyzed by Trump's uncertainty
Speaker 2: Trump administration. He says, I've got thirteen thousand customers, and
Speaker 2: he said they're feeling helpless and they are feeling unheard
Speaker 2: because they don't have lobbyists. Right, the automobile industry has
Speaker 2: got lobbyists, or other groups have got lobbyists, and they'll
Speaker 2: come in and they'll talk to the Trump administration. They'll
Speaker 2: get some concessions from Lutnik or whatever. But these are
Speaker 2: small and medium sized businesses who don't have lobbyists. And so,
Speaker 2: you know, like Hillary Clinton said she can't be bothered
Speaker 2: by all these undercapitalized people when she was going to
Speaker 2: impose the massive hardship of Hillary Care on everybody before Obamacare,
Speaker 2: She's gold to be bothered with these people who didn't
Speaker 2: have any money. If you don't have any money, you
Speaker 2: can't have access to me. And you don't have a say,
Speaker 2: you're not a stakeholder, right, So these stakeholders with lobbyists
Speaker 2: who can get the year, and they can come in
Speaker 2: and they can talk personally to Trump's advisors and everything
Speaker 2: get them to switch. That's part of what's happening with
Speaker 2: the uncertainty. But these thirteen thousand customers of his, there's
Speaker 2: small and medium sized businesses, don't have anybody that can
Speaker 2: buy their way into this corrupt system we call the
Speaker 2: US federal government. And so he points out, you know,
Speaker 2: we got as I said the other day, you know,
Speaker 2: it's like three months for this supply chain. People place
Speaker 2: the orders, it's made, it's put on the ships, and
Speaker 2: it comes here. And we're starting to see everything slowing down.
Speaker 2: I talked about the number of ships that were coming
Speaker 2: to the Western Port LA. You've seen that just taking
Speaker 2: a nose dive and being cut in half, and it's
Speaker 2: going to continue. And he said a lot of people also,
Speaker 2: you know, we had we haven't seen any of this.
Speaker 2: As a matter of fact, we saw a slight uptick
Speaker 2: because a lot of people, when they saw these terrors
Speaker 2: coming in, they placed advance orders, just like Apple brought
Speaker 2: in several plane loads of iPhones from China. I mean,
Speaker 2: they're going to move their production to India, but that's
Speaker 2: going to take a while, right. Why they do in
Speaker 2: the meantime, well, you know, let's not have one hundred
Speaker 2: and forty five percent increase on these things. So they
Speaker 2: just shipped as many of them as they could on
Speaker 2: planes to get in out of the deadline. And a
Speaker 2: lot of people are upping their purchases and storing stuff
Speaker 2: because they don't know what's going to happen with this.
Speaker 2: It may go up, it may not, But now everybody's
Speaker 2: kind of freezing it. And so when we get out
Speaker 2: another couple of months, that's when you're going to see this.
Speaker 2: So we may start to see it sooner in the
Speaker 2: transportation industry because these these ships that are arriving are
Speaker 2: already cutting in half. But this is what he said,
Speaker 2: how he summed it up. Brian Peterson. This is an
Speaker 2: article on the Wall Street Journal where they interviewed him.
Speaker 2: He characterizes it as an asteroid level extinction event for
Speaker 2: small businesses, supply chain and things like that. You mean
Speaker 2: an asteroid level extinction business for the small businesses that
Speaker 2: Trump tried to kill once before, saying they were non essential.
Speaker 2: Leave the walmarts open, close the other stores over here.
Speaker 2: Shut down those service businessinesses, which we've shut down all
Speaker 2: the other aspects pretty much because of regulation. So the
Speaker 2: only thing left to most people is service businesses. If
Speaker 2: they want to be an entrepreneur, if they want to
Speaker 2: create something, so shut that down. Shut down the restaurants.
Speaker 2: Five times. Trump team told Americans to accept being poor again.
Speaker 2: This is the kind of billionaire arrogance that we've seen
Speaker 2: from people like Michael Bloomberg. And I'll play the clip
Speaker 2: for you one more time.
Speaker 1: Much of it we don't need, you know.
Speaker 3: Somebody said, all the shelves it's going to be open. Well,
Speaker 3: maybe the children will have two dolls instead of thirty dollars,
Speaker 3: you know, and maybe the two dolls will closet a
Speaker 3: couple of bucks more than they would normally. But we're
Speaker 3: not talking about something that we have to go out
Speaker 3: of our way.
Speaker 4: They have ships that are loaded up with stuff, much
Speaker 4: of which not all of it, but much.
Speaker 1: Of which we don't need. And we have to make
Speaker 1: a fair of you.
Speaker 5: We've been you are at your cabinet meeting. You said,
Speaker 5: quote to quote when you said, maybe the children will
Speaker 5: have two dollars instead of thirty dollars, and maybe the
Speaker 5: two dolls will cost a couple of bucks more than
Speaker 5: they would normally. Are you saying that your tariffs will
Speaker 5: cause some prices to go up?
Speaker 6: No, I think a tariffs is going to be great
Speaker 6: for us because it's going to make us rich.
Speaker 5: But you said some dolls are going to isn't that
Speaker 5: an acknowledgement that some prices go up.
Speaker 6: I don't think a beautiful baby girl needs that's eleven
Speaker 6: years old, needs to have thirty dollars. I think they
Speaker 6: can have three dollars or four dollars, because what we
Speaker 6: were doing with China was just unbelievable. We had a
Speaker 6: trade deficit of hundreds of billions of dollars with China.
Speaker 5: When you say they could have three dollars instead of
Speaker 5: thirty dollars, are you saying Americans could see empty store shelves.
Speaker 6: No, No, I'm not saying that. I'm just saying they
Speaker 6: don't need to have thirty dollars. They can have three.
Speaker 6: They don't need to have two hundred and fifty pencils,
Speaker 6: they can have five.
Speaker 2: Yeah, who again, who are you to the sign? As
Speaker 2: I showed you begin with two dollars. Then somehow the
Speaker 2: two of them switched it to three dollars. On some
Speaker 2: of this stuff. We're gonna have empty shells here. As
Speaker 2: she said, this guy Larry Piffer put up on X.
Speaker 2: He says, well, maybe the children will have two dollars
Speaker 2: instead of thirty. And you see empty shells with two
Speaker 2: dolls on it, one Donald Trump doll and the other
Speaker 2: one an Elon Musk doll. And the child is crying
Speaker 2: her eyes out, or you know, we might have this
Speaker 2: type of thing, right, he said. Trump said American kids
Speaker 2: will beginning two dollars instead of thirty because with tariffs,
Speaker 2: the other twenty eight dollars will end up at mar
Speaker 2: A Lago. And here are the the adult dolls that,
Speaker 2: of course he would surround himself with. And as he said,
Speaker 2: it's gonna be great. We're gonna make a lot of money.
Speaker 2: One person says, yeah, having too many dolls is excessive.
Speaker 2: Take a look at Donald Trump and his gold covered
Speaker 2: house there. Yeah, that's that's not excessive. But you know, hey,
Speaker 2: this eleven year old doesn't need those kind of dollars.
Speaker 2: Did he ever tell that to Ivanka? No, No, you
Speaker 2: don't need thirty dollars. I'll get you one that cost
Speaker 2: one hundred and fifty thousand dollars. How about that? Is
Speaker 2: that okay? I'll get you thirty that cost one hundred
Speaker 2: and fifty thousand. Who cares? The potential in his trade
Speaker 2: war could reduce the average household's income by nearly thirty
Speaker 2: eight hundred dollars this year, according to Yale Budget Labs estimates.
Speaker 2: So you know you don't need that thirty eight hundred dollars.
Speaker 2: Come on, yeah, you didn't need that the average household's income.
Speaker 2: That's pretty big because you know, the average household income,
Speaker 2: I don't know what it is now with the inflation
Speaker 2: that we've had. It was just a couple of years ago.
Speaker 2: It's like, you know, mid fifties, fifty thousand four household.
Speaker 2: Are you going to take out thirty eight hundred?
Speaker 1: Is that okay?
Speaker 2: Well, you're you gonna take out like six or seven
Speaker 2: percent tax on people, additional tax with this stuff. So
Speaker 2: Trump is saying the quiet part out loud, says reason
Speaker 2: that Americans should be four first to pay higher prices
Speaker 2: for basic goods and household items. So he said, here's
Speaker 2: four other recent incidents in which national conservatives in Trump's
Speaker 2: orbit admitted as much. Now, one of the things is
Speaker 2: he doesn't talk about Benny Johnson, who wasn't saying that,
Speaker 2: you know, hey, you're buying junk and you shouldn't be
Speaker 2: allowed to buy junk and help China. So we're gonna
Speaker 2: stop you being able to get cheap stuff. And that's
Speaker 2: what these other quotes are about. But you know, Benny
Speaker 2: Johnson said, well, hey, you know, losing money costs you
Speaker 2: absolutely nothing, quote unquote. That's what he said, losing money
Speaker 2: costs you absolutely nothing. What is he talking about? Yeah,
Speaker 2: and he's not saying that. You know, he's not giving
Speaker 2: you as you know, paraphrasing Jesus and sermon in them out.
Speaker 2: You know, don't don't give any thought for these things.
Speaker 2: You know. Follow you know, God takes care of the race, Evans,
Speaker 2: He takes care of the flowers of the field, and
Speaker 2: he will take care of you. Follow him for a thing.
Speaker 2: He's not talking about that. No, no, no, you want
Speaker 2: to be able to save the country. Am I allowed
Speaker 2: to question whether or not Trump's plan is going to
Speaker 2: save the country. Well, no, no, don't talk about that.
Speaker 2: He said, losing your country is everything. Well, how does
Speaker 2: raising prices save our country exactly? You know, you might
Speaker 2: want to explain that to us. And he wasn't talking
Speaker 2: about losing our constitution in order for economic benefits. You see,
Speaker 2: this is the fallacy of this exchange that people like
Speaker 2: Benny Johnson are putting out there. Okay, losing money cost
Speaker 2: you absolutely nothing. We're talking about saving your country. Well,
Speaker 2: I'm not sure that your plans are going to save
Speaker 2: the country, but I knew, though, do know that your
Speaker 2: plans are harming the constitution, And that's how we lose
Speaker 2: our country by destroying the constitution, by destroying the rule
Speaker 2: of law. And I don't really care about your grandiose
Speaker 2: plans because you don't have any plans. You're changing them
Speaker 2: every hour, you said, right, So you don't have a
Speaker 2: plan to save the country. You've got a plan to
Speaker 2: destroy the constitution and make yourself into some kind of
Speaker 2: a ten pot dictator. That's what you've got to plan for. Well, yeah,
Speaker 2: the lose your country for the promise of economic security.
Speaker 2: But let's look at some of these comments that they
Speaker 2: put in reason. Robert Leiitzinger August of twenty twenty two.
Speaker 2: He was the first Trump administration's US Trade representative. He
Speaker 2: dismissed free trade as being rooted in a philosophy of
Speaker 2: consumption that is too materialistic. Again, he's not talking about,
Speaker 2: you know, put your faith in God. There are things
Speaker 2: that are more important than money. No, he's saying that,
Speaker 2: you know, I've got a better economic plan to make
Speaker 2: you money. That's what he's saying in the long term.
Speaker 2: So the best way to fixed consumerism is to raise prices. See,
Speaker 2: that's what he's against. He's not against materialism, he's against consumerism,
Speaker 2: which to these guys is buying dolls instead of buying
Speaker 2: private yachts and private jet planes and mar Lagos. Is
Speaker 2: consumption really a problem in America? They asked, Well, that
Speaker 2: might be easy to say. As someone who spent his
Speaker 2: career bouncing back and forth between law, politics, and finance.
Speaker 2: Leisinger just landed a plush new gig as a quote
Speaker 2: senior advisor unquote for a city Corps city group. For
Speaker 2: many Americans, however, higher prices would mean a material reduction
Speaker 2: in living standards, a real reduction. Got a household income
Speaker 2: of fifty thousand or so, you have thirty eight hundred
Speaker 2: dollars that is going to cost them When Leisinger criticizes
Speaker 2: consumerism and consumption, he's really just saying that you should
Speaker 2: be happy with paying more and getting less. Right again,
Speaker 2: can't get dolls for your kids, but he'll be able
Speaker 2: to afford his toys, private jets, yachts. Dan Bishop April
Speaker 2: twenty twenty four, a Republican congressman from North Carolina, to
Speaker 2: cried the quote cheap crap unquote that Americans were importing
Speaker 2: from China. He said, you can go buy sneakers on
Speaker 2: Timu for five dollars in a sweater for seven. Timu
Speaker 2: reportedly loses thirty dollars per order in a deliberate strategy
Speaker 2: to flood the US market with cheap crap. Okay, so
Speaker 2: I guess we should go buy the five thousand dollars
Speaker 2: perse that Christin dum gets or the thirty five thousand
Speaker 2: dollars perse that Milania Trump gets. These are people trying
Speaker 2: to make an economic decision here, and I understand predatory pricing,
Speaker 2: and you know what, that also happens with domestic corporations
Speaker 2: against small businesses. I've talked about how Blockbuster did that.
Speaker 2: It's not just an issue with China being able to
Speaker 2: do this because of the pockets of national subsidy. Wall
Speaker 2: Street in general does that. Wall Street in general does
Speaker 2: that to small and medium sized businesses. Small and medium
Speaker 2: sized businesses have to compete in a competitive free market,
Speaker 2: but the big box retailers win because they don't have
Speaker 2: to make a profit. They can operate at a loss
Speaker 2: until they drive their competition out of business because they're
Speaker 2: getting the greater fool's money on Wall Street. So unless
Speaker 2: you're going to talk about fixing the Wall Street bank
Speaker 2: for these big box retailers, you're still not talking about
Speaker 2: a competitive free marketplace. And what you're going to wind
Speaker 2: up doing. If you shut down the Chinese predators that
Speaker 2: are out there, you're going to have the domestic Wall
Speaker 2: Street predators who are going to be on your case
Speaker 2: shutting it down. That's what we've seen. You know, it
Speaker 2: wasn't the Chinese government that shut down all the hardware stores.
Speaker 2: It wasn't the Chinese government that shut down all the
Speaker 2: stationary stores like dunder Mifflin or whatever, right the office. Now,
Speaker 2: this was done by big box retailers. This is a
Speaker 2: strategy that was really pioneered by Mitt Romney and his organization.
Speaker 2: You know, let's put these things together. We'll we'll, you know,
Speaker 2: have the big hardware stores, the big office supply stores,
Speaker 2: and on and on and on, and we will drive
Speaker 2: all these small retailers out of business. And they did.
Speaker 2: Then we go to JD. Vance. August of twenty twenty four,
Speaker 2: not long after being named Trumps running mate, JD. Vance
Speaker 2: declared in a campaign speech a quote A million cheap
Speaker 2: knockoff toasters aren't worth the price of a single American
Speaker 2: manufacturing job. It's that affordable and abundant labor saving appliances,
Speaker 2: as reason, are part of why the twenty first century
Speaker 2: America is the best place to live in the history
Speaker 2: of the human race. Kevin Cochrane said, a product being
Speaker 2: cheap in both senses, both low cost and low quality,
Speaker 2: is not in and of itself a problem. Sometimes buying
Speaker 2: something and expensively and basic is a perfectly sensible option,
Speaker 2: because you know, not all of us can afford a
Speaker 2: thirty five thousand dollars perse like millennia. Again, when we
Speaker 2: look at this, I don't like predatory collusion, but understanding
Speaker 2: that it isn't just happening with the Chinese government, It's
Speaker 2: happening with all these big American corporations, and they are
Speaker 2: working with the American government, the Washington government that you
Speaker 2: think is going to be your savior on this stuff.
Speaker 2: They're working with them, just like the Chinese companies are
Speaker 2: working with the Chinese government. So again, if we're just
Speaker 2: trying to we're trying to live life between the rampaging,
Speaker 2: stomping hoofs of these elephants that are around there, what
Speaker 2: Vance is really saying is that you should be poor.
Speaker 2: Ed Gresser, the former assistant US Trade Representative who is
Speaker 2: currently the Director of Trade and Global Markets for the
Speaker 2: Progressive Policy Institute, is coming from the left. He said
Speaker 2: that fully American made toaster would cost at least two
Speaker 2: hundred and fifty dollars, significantly more expensive than the thirty
Speaker 2: to fifty dollars toasters that are readily available in American
Speaker 2: stores today. If there are American stores left Amazon, in
Speaker 2: Vance's world, that trade off is worth it because of patriotism.
Speaker 2: And don't talk to me about patriotism you're talking when
Speaker 2: you're talking about patriotism like that, what you're talking about
Speaker 2: are crony American capitalists who, in my opinion, are no better,
Speaker 2: no better than the crony Chinese capitalists working with their government.
Speaker 2: Scott Bessant March of this year just recently said that
Speaker 2: at the Economic Club of New York, Treasury Secretary Bessant
Speaker 2: said that quote access to cheap goods is not the
Speaker 2: essence of the American dream.
Speaker 1: Well, I agree.
Speaker 2: The essence of the American dream is liberty, the freedom
Speaker 2: to be able to choose to do things. And the
Speaker 2: appropriate response for these predatory practices by foreign and domestic
Speaker 2: enemies of the free market is to have less regulation,
Speaker 2: to have more freedom of choice. In other words, just
Speaker 2: like with speech, the answer to bad speech is not censorship,
Speaker 2: it's more speech. And so the answer to these things
Speaker 2: that are harming us is to have more liberty, not austerity.
Speaker 2: So and Beston, of course, is not talking about this
Speaker 2: from an anti materialist view, and he's not saying, you know,
Speaker 2: there's things that are more important than money, which I
Speaker 2: would agree with. No, he's not saying that he's got
Speaker 2: a certain way that you know he wants to He
Speaker 2: loves money and he wants you to pay more, is
Speaker 2: all he's saying. So buy the expensive stuff from his friends.
Speaker 2: As a saying goes, when somebody shows you who they are,
Speaker 2: believe them the first time. You know, when Trump said
Speaker 2: you're non essential in twenty twenty, you should have believed
Speaker 2: him then. I mean, I still got a lot of people, yeah, friends,
Speaker 2: conservatives and everything. Well, let's give Trump a chance. No
Speaker 2: believe him the first time. Pay attention to what he
Speaker 2: did and said the first time, because he's doing it
Speaker 2: again and he's going to keep doing it again and again.
Speaker 2: We're just trying to figure out how we're going to
Speaker 2: not get stomped on by these rampaging elephants foreign in
Speaker 2: domestic governments, foreign and domestic predatory competitors. How are we
Speaker 2: going to navigate that environment? The nationalist conservatives now running
Speaker 2: the Republican Party, says Reason has repeatedly said they believe
Speaker 2: Americans should have to pay higher prices for sneakers and
Speaker 2: household goods in order to achieve weird political goals like
Speaker 2: more toaster factories? Right, and who does that help? Does
Speaker 2: that help Howard Lutnik to have more toaster factories? Am
Speaker 2: I better with domestic toaster factories? Then I am getting
Speaker 2: cheap toasters from China? Is it better off that the
Speaker 2: obscenely rich predatory people that are going to be selling
Speaker 2: me toasters or Americans rather than Chinese. I don't think so.
Speaker 2: I don't think so at all, And somehow you're supposed
Speaker 2: to this is another form of tribalism. Well, I don't
Speaker 2: mind if I get ripped off and these people become
Speaker 2: trillionaires as long as they're Americans, right, I just don't
Speaker 2: want those Chinese trillionaires doing that. Right Well, Trump says
Speaker 2: it's terrorists. Will mean that Americans won't be able to
Speaker 2: afford as many toys for their kids, but He'll be
Speaker 2: able to afford any toy he wants, no matter how expensive,
Speaker 2: including those twenty eight dollars wearing skirts at his mar
Speaker 2: a Lango thing. You'll never hit what you aren't aiming at, folks.
Speaker 2: Trump is not aiming at your prosperity. He's not aiming
Speaker 2: at an upwardly mobile society, or he'd be getting rid
Speaker 2: of regulations left and right, and he'd be changing the
Speaker 2: structure of government. He's not doing that. You know, he's
Speaker 2: not doing that for his bab He's changed the structure
Speaker 2: of government to make it more centrally controlled. He's aiming
Speaker 2: for himself. He's aiming for his family. He's aiming for
Speaker 2: his friends. To get obscenely rich. And you know he's
Speaker 2: aiming for you to own nothing. We'll be right back.
Speaker 7: He is a song, Oh a bantu here in your part.
Speaker 7: You'll own nothing and be happy. I got no cash,
Speaker 7: ain't got no car, not too empty, four booster shots
Speaker 7: in your arm. Own nothing to be happy. You can't
Speaker 7: even buy it in the store because of your low
Speaker 7: social credit score. Own nothing, be happy. You will own
Speaker 7: nothing and be happy. Be happy at eats the bugs.
Speaker 1: They're doing what in the place they named after me?
Speaker 2: Good thing?
Speaker 1: I have the David Knight Show to keep me informed
Speaker 1: on the plots of these traders. Making sense common again.
Speaker 1: This is the David Knight Show.
Speaker 2: Well, Michael Hartnett, who's with Bank of America, says that
Speaker 2: the market is now expecting a Trump pivot. They think
Speaker 2: that Trump is going to lower tariffs, He's going to
Speaker 2: lower rates, He's going to lower taxes. In other words,
Speaker 2: Trump is going to reverse Trump. The first one hundred
Speaker 2: days was so wonderful, wasn't We were winning with everything,
Speaker 2: were we? You know, we just had you look at
Speaker 2: the elections. Not only did Trump get Mark Carney, mister
Speaker 2: World Economic Forum. I mean, this guy is better connected
Speaker 2: than Klaus Schwamp and just as dangerous as Klaus Schwamp.
Speaker 2: He wanted him, then he didn't want the Conservatives in.
Speaker 2: So he's doing all this garbage. And he openly said
Speaker 2: that it wasn't just that he foolishly made an offhand
Speaker 2: comment about Canada being fifty first state right before the election. No,
Speaker 2: he was openly talking about it, several comments. I don't
Speaker 2: like Polliev, he doesn't respect me. Mark Carney is very
Speaker 2: obsequious when he talks to me. Right, They didn't say that.
Speaker 2: I'm paraphrasing what he had to say, but I'm sure
Speaker 2: that Mark Carney is very obsequious to Trump. That's the
Speaker 2: way these guys operate is Flat or Trump. You get
Speaker 2: whatever you want, including you know some guy that is
Speaker 2: not just a puppet of the World Economic Form, but
Speaker 2: one of the guys is pulling the strings of the
Speaker 2: World Economic form. You put him in power there in Canada.
Speaker 2: That's good. Then we had over the weekend you had
Speaker 2: the labor left in Australia rise to power again out
Speaker 2: of people's absolute contempt for Donald Trump. He's harming these
Speaker 2: different conservative populist movements that are out there. What people
Speaker 2: who support Trump also support He's harming those movements one
Speaker 2: by one in other countries. We see that in the
Speaker 2: UK Nigel Frag's Reform Party, which is again a pushback again.
Speaker 2: And I'm not supporting any of these particular parties that
Speaker 2: are out there. I'm just saying that when you look
Speaker 2: at the Reform Party, or you look at La Pennz
Speaker 2: Party in France, or you look at AfD in Germany,
Speaker 2: you know these are parties that are for smaller government,
Speaker 2: stopping the open borders and the swamping of their societies
Speaker 2: by a bunch of foreign young men who are coming into.
Speaker 2: The crime rates or rape rates are soaring and all
Speaker 2: the rest of the stuff. So anybody pushes back against that. Now,
Speaker 2: the AfD has been penalized over and over again, and
Speaker 2: they've just now by their secret agency, have been declared
Speaker 2: a terrorist organization. Their spy agencies declared them to be terrorists.
Speaker 2: An absolute lie, but they're doing that. They you know,
Speaker 2: they were the number two vote getter, but they would
Speaker 2: not include them in a coalition. We saw the same
Speaker 2: thing happening in France where you had the Marine Lapinz
Speaker 2: Party UH one. The elections and the European Parliament. They
Speaker 2: had a triggered a domestic election in two phases, and
Speaker 2: the first phase they were doing much better than Macron's
Speaker 2: party and so forth. So Macron and all the other
Speaker 2: parties got together in a conspiracy and said, jurisdiction by
Speaker 2: jurisdiction will decide which one of us is in the lead,
Speaker 2: and the other parties will step down so that we
Speaker 2: keep whatever Marine Lapin's party was, we keep them from
Speaker 2: gaining power. Now, you know you can. I'm sure we
Speaker 2: can find things that we don't like about Marine Lapinn's party.
Speaker 2: But one thing I don't like about is that kind
Speaker 2: of conspiracy. That's not a democracy. And again I'm not,
Speaker 2: as I said on Friday, I don't care about democracy.
Speaker 2: I don't like democracy, frankly, and neither did the founders.
Speaker 2: They wanted to have a republic. They're respected individual rights.
Speaker 2: You know, we've got a we have supposedly, with Israel
Speaker 2: being the only democracy in the Middle East, How does
Speaker 2: that democracy respect individual rights of free speech in America? No,
Speaker 2: they don't. They're using all of their massive clout with
Speaker 2: the politicians that they've paid off to try to eviscerate
Speaker 2: our First Amendment. Oh, great, that's democracy for you, right there,
Speaker 2: isn't it. So Marine Lapen not only did they and
Speaker 2: each of these success so they wound up coming in
Speaker 2: much further down, like third place in terms of seats
Speaker 2: that they won, except that in each of these elections,
Speaker 2: from the European election to the first round and the
Speaker 2: second round, their party went up in vote totals each time,
Speaker 2: even though ultimately they got pushed down a distant third
Speaker 2: in terms of seats, they should have won, but they
Speaker 2: played that conspiracy game and then that wasn't enough for them.
Speaker 2: After the election, they brought criminal charges against her so
Speaker 2: that she can't run in future elections. That's what's going
Speaker 2: on in Germany right now with AfD. It's a really
Speaker 2: dark future ahead because all of these quote unquote democracies
Speaker 2: don't care about individual rights, they don't care about anything
Speaker 2: other than the raw exercise of power, and so I
Speaker 2: don't know what's going to happen. In the UK right now,
Speaker 2: people are pushing back against the radical green agenda of
Speaker 2: the Labor Party and their open borders and things like that,
Speaker 2: pushing over towards the Reform Party. But it could be
Speaker 2: that if the left Kerstarmer is capable of tying hydrol
Speaker 2: praes to Trump, which wouldn't be hard to do. That
Speaker 2: could kill his popularity there as well, just like it
Speaker 2: hurt the conservatives in Canada and Australia as well. So again,
Speaker 2: Michael Hartnett Bank of America says, now the stock market
Speaker 2: is picking up. We've had nine days of consecutive gains
Speaker 2: since November two thousand and four, the longest stretch since
Speaker 2: November two thousand and four. People are betting on Trump
Speaker 2: to reverse Trump. And even as they're betting on Trump
Speaker 2: to reverse Trump, we see that Trump says, we got
Speaker 2: too many foreign movies, and I'm going to put one
Speaker 2: hundred percent tariff on foreign movies. You see, this is
Speaker 2: the kind of petulant, stupid dictator type of stuff that
Speaker 2: you would see coming out of North Korea or out
Speaker 2: of China. Right are some other ten pot dictators. This
Speaker 2: is why he shouldn't have this kind of power. He's
Speaker 2: now going to add one hundred percent terratit. I don't
Speaker 2: even know how that works. I mean, you know, are
Speaker 2: they going to be able to itemize the tariff charges
Speaker 2: if you watch movies online or something? Oh? Oh, this
Speaker 2: is a this is a foreign film. So now you've
Speaker 2: got to pay one hundred percent tariff. And look, it
Speaker 2: would be the easiest thing in the world to shield
Speaker 2: that from any kind of foreign ownership. I mean, I
Speaker 2: just guess you can't go back and look at Felleeni
Speaker 2: films or something, even if you wanted to. I would's
Speaker 2: not a big fan of of foreign films either, but
Speaker 2: you know it's if you wanted to go back and
Speaker 2: watch that, I guess now you're gonna have to pay
Speaker 2: double the price because one hundredercent tariff. So when we
Speaker 2: look at just a summary and what is happening here,
Speaker 2: it is been quite an amazing week. There has been
Speaker 2: a documentary, as a Brian Schulhavey on help impact dot
Speaker 2: compoints a new documentary on BBC called The Settlers. He
Speaker 2: said that he was actually shocked that the BBC would
Speaker 2: actually air something like this. I'm not because again, the
Speaker 2: UK has been taken over by Arabs. You know, just
Speaker 2: like Washington has been taken over by Zionists. The UK
Speaker 2: has been taken over by Arabs, no question about it.
Speaker 2: So this BBC documentary called Jewish Settlers, many of them
Speaker 2: are American Jews, blatantly disobey the law to forcibly take
Speaker 2: land away from Palestinians, as Israeli government allegedly looks the
Speaker 2: other way. We've seen this over and over again. Look
Speaker 2: at look at India for example, right Indian Hindus, and
Speaker 2: a lot of times this type of stuff is religiously
Speaker 2: ethnically backed up, which is what we see in India
Speaker 2: with the Hindus looking the Hindu government under Modi. You know,
Speaker 2: the pal of Tulsa Gabbard and J. D. Vance's, you know,
Speaker 2: they're they're big friends with Modi. They think he's great,
Speaker 2: except that his government looks the other way. As you've
Speaker 2: got radical Hindus slaughter Christians and Sikhs in India, or
Speaker 2: you've got the Nigerian government that looks the other way
Speaker 2: as their Flani Muslim tribesmen slaughter Christians by the you know,
Speaker 2: hundreds they're in Nigeria. So this is the type of
Speaker 2: thing if we don't have the rule of law, that's
Speaker 2: the type of thing we can expect. So the other
Speaker 2: thing is that we see here happening is kind of
Speaker 2: interesting as tech companies are afraid to talk too much
Speaker 2: about their price increases even though they are having price increases.
Speaker 2: You saw Amazon's CEO Jeff Bezos harangued by Carol lying
Speaker 2: Levitt as she accused him of being a Chinese propagandist
Speaker 2: because he itemized the tariff that was surcharged on there
Speaker 2: by the Trump administration. How dare you to even talk
Speaker 2: about that? Of course, Timu and another one are going
Speaker 2: to be doing that in China. And this was Amazon Hall,
Speaker 2: it wasn't even going to be Amazon, but he backed
Speaker 2: down when he got a call from Trump. And so
Speaker 2: Microsoft just announced that it jacked up prices on its
Speaker 2: game products. Its Xbox console went up by one hundred
Speaker 2: dollars twenty percent, from five hundred dollars to six hundred dollars.
Speaker 2: As they point out, it was an extraordinary move because
Speaker 2: five year old consoles like the current generation of Xboxes
Speaker 2: almost always see price cuts, not increases. Five years old
Speaker 2: and they went up by twenty percent. Well, you know
Speaker 2: it's the tariff, right has to be, because it's not
Speaker 2: because they came out with any new features. It's five
Speaker 2: years old. It's ancient to anyone even dimly aware of
Speaker 2: economic news. It was fairly obvious that Microsoft's Xbox changes
Speaker 2: were reaction to Trump's administration's tariffs on electronic manufactured overseas,
Speaker 2: but tech companies like Microsoft are going out of their
Speaker 2: way to avoid crossing the present by, for example, attributing
Speaker 2: their price increases to his tariffs, says Healthimpact dot Com.
Speaker 2: It's easy to understand why Microsoft chose not to telegraph
Speaker 2: this because look at what happened with a Jeff Bezos again,
Speaker 2: you call him a Chinese propagandist. Well, if that isn't
Speaker 2: projection on her part, she is the propagandist, and she
Speaker 2: calls other people propagandist, and so, as he said, most
Speaker 2: Americans still have no idea what's coming in the very
Speaker 2: near future if Trump doesn't reverse himself again, the market
Speaker 2: is looking at this hoping that Trump is going to
Speaker 2: reverse himself. If he doesn't, it is going to be catastrophic,
Speaker 2: not just for it won't be as catastrophic for consumers
Speaker 2: as it will be for the small businesses. But maybe
Speaker 2: Wall Street is even pricing that in there. You know, hey,
Speaker 2: the big guys that we find are going to do
Speaker 2: better because I'll have more of a monopoly. A big
Speaker 2: tech is continuing also to inflate the AI bubble. That's
Speaker 2: another part of why the stock market is going up
Speaker 2: and continues to go up. It's just a few stocks
Speaker 2: that are there, like Nvidia and some others. They continue
Speaker 2: to go up, and it is a bubble, as Healthimpact
Speaker 2: dot Com says, until big tech stocks go through a
Speaker 2: correction or blow up completely, the AI bubble will continue
Speaker 2: to inflate, driven by the fear of being left behind
Speaker 2: by the AI spending frenzy fomo, the fear of missing
Speaker 2: out fully automated self driving vehicles have already seen investments
Speaker 2: of probably over a trillion dollars in the past decade
Speaker 2: with no real return on profits. And yet, and yet
Speaker 2: that may be about to change. I hope it isn't.
Speaker 2: But we're going to talk a little bit about that.
Speaker 2: Some self driving trucks are starting to hit the market.
Speaker 2: I should say the roads, because they're now in Texas especially,
Speaker 2: starting to use these large semis without any human beings
Speaker 2: in them on the highways. There you go, we'll be
Speaker 2: right back.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the David Knight Show.
Speaker 2: Well, I've long talked about my disdain for driverless cars,
Speaker 2: but it is nothing compared to my disdain for driverless
Speaker 2: semi trucks. You take an eighty thousand pounds rig and
Speaker 2: you take the human driver out of it. You know.
Speaker 2: We at the same time, we've got the Trump administration
Speaker 2: saying we're going to stop non English speaking drivers here
Speaker 2: because aither are taking Americans jobs and b is dangerous
Speaker 2: if you can't read an emergency sign. And yet in Texas,
Speaker 2: Texas is pushing harder to uh you know, for these
Speaker 2: autonomous semi trailers. They're pushing harder for this than even California.
Speaker 2: Is California is a close second. But you have a
Speaker 2: company called Aurora. UH driver lest trucks are officially running
Speaker 2: their first regular long haul routes, making round trips between
Speaker 2: Dallas and Houston. It's another reason to stay off the
Speaker 2: Interstate Travis when you're going back and forth between here
Speaker 2: in Texas. You know, get on the back roads there. Anyway.
Speaker 2: On Thursday, autonomous trucking firm Aroar announced that launched commercial
Speaker 2: service in Texas under its first customers, Uber Freight, Uber
Speaker 2: Freight and another company. Now, of course it was Travis
Speaker 2: Kalalnik of Uber who was one of the you know,
Speaker 2: boasting about this. You know, come work for Uber. It's
Speaker 2: going to be a great job. A great career, blah
Speaker 2: blah blah, you know, and then saying, you know what
Speaker 2: makes our rights expensive, it's side the other dude in
Speaker 2: the car. We're going to get rid of them. So
Speaker 2: this is uber freight. And so they were running these
Speaker 2: tests for a while with a human driver in there.
Speaker 2: And again when we look at that, we've seen how
Speaker 2: that worked out in Phoenix, Arizona, where you got the
Speaker 2: woman who is sitting there and she's you know, playing
Speaker 2: with her phone or whatever. Boom, you know, runs over
Speaker 2: somebody who's jaywalking on the road, a homeless person who
Speaker 2: was jaywalking and killed him. And everybody said, oh, you know,
Speaker 2: she didn't see this coming. And of course she couldn't
Speaker 2: see it because it was dark and you can't see
Speaker 2: the head license like no, no, no, no, no, no no.
Speaker 2: The driverless car should have, you know, the lights. It
Speaker 2: doesn't use the lights. Now Tesla does use I think
Speaker 2: visual stuff, but the other ones use light ar so
Speaker 2: it doesn't need the light. It should have seen her
Speaker 2: coming for quite some time and it should have put
Speaker 2: it on the emergency brakes. Oh well, the emergency brakes
Speaker 2: are disconnected because they were you know, throwing the emergency
Speaker 2: brakes on too often, and that in and of itself
Speaker 2: was a danger. Yet it is, but all these things
Speaker 2: are indications of you know, so the emergency breaks being
Speaker 2: put on and appropriately by the self driving software. They
Speaker 2: just took off the emergency break, so that happened. And
Speaker 2: then of course the person who's supposed to be the
Speaker 2: human operating this, and that's the fallacy of this stuff.
Speaker 2: They can't turn over control to the humans. You put
Speaker 2: them to sleep, and then all of a sudden there
Speaker 2: is an emergency is dumped into the lap by artificial intelligence.
Speaker 2: By the way, that's a metaphor for what's going to
Speaker 2: happen to our entire society. Everybody gets lulled into sleep
Speaker 2: and passivity. And you know, we've got i think Microsoft
Speaker 2: doing about a third of its code now with artificial intelligence.
Speaker 2: What happens when the AI makes some really really big
Speaker 2: mistakes that compound in that software in the near future,
Speaker 2: and you know, maybe it's far enough down that you
Speaker 2: don't have a whole lot of human programmers, or any
Speaker 2: human programmers that are as good as they would be
Speaker 2: if they were doing the programming all the time. They've
Speaker 2: been kind of they've taken a back seat to the
Speaker 2: AI doing the programming. Are they going to be able
Speaker 2: to figure it out? Are they going to be able
Speaker 2: to reverse it? And for how long is it going
Speaker 2: to take them to do that after they have lost
Speaker 2: a lot of their skills because they turned it over
Speaker 2: to AI. Same thing with this driving stuff. Now, that's
Speaker 2: a perfect metaphor for what I think is going to
Speaker 2: happen to our society in general, as we've become pacified
Speaker 2: by these helpers who do everything for us, making us
Speaker 2: increasingly helpless and unable to do it for ourselves. As
Speaker 2: of Thursday, the company's self driving tech had completed over
Speaker 2: twelve hundred miles without a human and a truck. Wow,
Speaker 2: twelve hundred miles, that's nothing, but you know, hey, they're
Speaker 2: good to go, no problem, let's let them go. They
Speaker 2: did a whole twelve hundred miles of training there. That's great.
Speaker 2: So they've had over a decade of hype. Tesla, GM
Speaker 2: others have poured billions of dollars into the tack. And
Speaker 2: remember DARPA was the one that started all this stuff
Speaker 2: with their very first competition was driverless vehicles at DARPA.
Speaker 2: So autonomous trucking or driving tends to use states like
Speaker 2: Texas and California as they're testing ground for technology. Yeah,
Speaker 2: they're just gonna let them do whatever they want. Consumers
Speaker 2: and transportation officials have raised alarm over the safety record
Speaker 2: of autonomous vehicles. So the ones that they've tried as
Speaker 2: taxis and various jurisdictions have had such, you know, been
Speaker 2: such a problem. Now let's take it at scale it up.
Speaker 2: Let's scale it up to a giant semi. Earlier this year,
Speaker 2: the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration rejected a petition from
Speaker 2: autonomous driving companies Waimo and Aurora, the one that's running
Speaker 2: this trucking company, seeking to replace traditional warning devices used
Speaker 2: when a truck broke down with a cab mounted beacons.
Speaker 2: So again, you know, you don't need it same kind
Speaker 2: of stuff that you would have for the humans and
Speaker 2: the self driving vehicles. With Tesla, that was kind of
Speaker 2: a whistle that was used to sell the electric cars.
Speaker 2: People make it all look very futuristic, right, forget about
Speaker 2: how poorly it worked. As Steve Wozniak, the co founder
Speaker 2: of Apple Computers that he'said, I love my Tesla, but
Speaker 2: don't put on the self driving is trying to kill you. Well,
Speaker 2: now we'll be able to kill other people with a
Speaker 2: big semi stuff out there. But all of this is
Speaker 2: the excuse that was given to us was the climate. Mcguffin.
Speaker 2: We've got to have the electric cars and of course
Speaker 2: the self driving cars that are going to be out there.
Speaker 2: I don't care if somebody wants to drive an electric car,
Speaker 2: if somebody wants to normalize, and of course our hero
Speaker 2: to the conservatives now, Elon Musk, has said nobody will
Speaker 2: be driving cars in the future, and that's my problem,
Speaker 2: the fact that they will keep us from being able
Speaker 2: to drive cars, just like my problem with electric vehicles
Speaker 2: is the fact that they're not going to allow you
Speaker 2: to make the choice that you don't want an electric vehicle.
Speaker 2: You will have an electric vehicle, and they're not going
Speaker 2: to give you the choices to whether or not you
Speaker 2: would like to drive or not. Either. Eric Peters and
Speaker 2: I have been talking about this for the longest time,
Speaker 2: and as they pointed out, the only way these electric
Speaker 2: vehicles will be able to operate is if they ban
Speaker 2: human drivers, because if we've got human drivers there, they
Speaker 2: may not be able to react to the situation. But
Speaker 2: you don't even need to have a human driver to
Speaker 2: mess them up. Remember the situations that we had in
Speaker 2: San Francisco. I think it was where they all went
Speaker 2: to one intersection and stopped. They all went to the
Speaker 2: same intersection and stopped and blocked everything. They also block
Speaker 2: emergency vehicles and other things like that. It isn't the
Speaker 2: humans that are the problem. It is the autonomous driving cars.
Speaker 2: But of course this is all in response and a
Speaker 2: solution to a climate mcguffin, which is also not a problem.
Speaker 2: And I thought it was kind of interesting to see
Speaker 2: this article about Venice. Venice is sinking. Well, I finally
Speaker 2: admitted the truth that the city is sinking. It's not
Speaker 2: that the ocean is rising. Although there is a good
Speaker 2: bit of panic and misinformation propaganda about climate change in
Speaker 2: this article, the gist of it from CNN is how
Speaker 2: the city itself is sinking, and they blame it on
Speaker 2: They said, you know for thousands of years. You know,
Speaker 2: this city has been there until about fifty years or
Speaker 2: so ago. Forty fifty years ago they started doing something
Speaker 2: with the underground water and that caused the city to
Speaker 2: start sinking. But most of the time, what they're showing
Speaker 2: in this picture that is at the top of the
Speaker 2: article here is showing the sidewalks submerged with water, people
Speaker 2: wading through it, and water up to their knees while
Speaker 2: the boats are there at the same time. It's become
Speaker 2: kind of a poster child for this phony nonsense about
Speaker 2: the rising oceans. We have seen reports in the Pacific Ocean,
Speaker 2: you know, like the South Pacific, and then you know
Speaker 2: a little bit north of it. Oh, look, well, the
Speaker 2: ocean has risen x amount at this island, and it's
Speaker 2: x plus three amount in this other island. It's like,
Speaker 2: are you trying to tell me that the Pacific Ocean
Speaker 2: has higher in some places than it is in others,
Speaker 2: or is it that your island The two islands are
Speaker 2: sinking and at different rates, because that is something that
Speaker 2: happens all the time, all the time. In the past century,
Speaker 2: Venice has subsided, that's what they call it. When a
Speaker 2: city sinks, they call it a subsiding. Has subsided by
Speaker 2: about twenty five centimeters or nearly ten inches in the
Speaker 2: past century. Meanwhile, the average sea level one Venice has
Speaker 2: risen nearly a foot since nineteen hundred. Again, that's not
Speaker 2: going to be the case. You're not going to have
Speaker 2: Venice going up. Sea level rising in Venice, and only
Speaker 2: in Venice. They just underestimated the amount of they attributed
Speaker 2: this stuff that was subsidy. The land sinking there, they
Speaker 2: attributed that to the rising ocean to some degree. And
Speaker 2: they said, it's not just a regular flooding, but it's
Speaker 2: a slump of this city into the watery depths. So
Speaker 2: they said, but now they're looking at what could they
Speaker 2: do to raise the city. And so you have one
Speaker 2: engineer who's looking at this and he said, well, the
Speaker 2: city sunk about a foot because we pumped water out
Speaker 2: of these other areas. So maybe what we could do
Speaker 2: is we could pump water underneath it and lift it
Speaker 2: back up again. Well, they don't know if that's going
Speaker 2: to work. They don't know if it would be uniform
Speaker 2: or if it's going to because they're talking about lifting
Speaker 2: it up by about a foot, and so they don't
Speaker 2: know if that's going to work or not. They don't
Speaker 2: know if it is would crack everything up or if
Speaker 2: it'd be a waste of money. They're not sure what
Speaker 2: it's going to do to the the the rest of
Speaker 2: the other aspects of the city. Of course, pumping salt
Speaker 2: water in there, What is I going to do? So
Speaker 2: during the city's thousand year history as republic, they were
Speaker 2: constantly re routing rivers and digging new canals and rechanneling
Speaker 2: the waters of the lagoon. And everything was fine until
Speaker 2: the twentieth century, and then things started to go wrong.
Speaker 2: During the nineteen sixties and seventies, groundwater was pumped from
Speaker 2: the industrial area on the mainland that faces the lagoon.
Speaker 2: CNN says, big mistake. It caused the entire area to sink.
Speaker 2: From nineteen fifty to nineteen seventy Venice's precious city center
Speaker 2: subsided nearly five inches. Okay, so it is man made problem,
Speaker 2: isn't it. But not because of climate change, not because
Speaker 2: of emissions, and it's not causing the ocean to go up.
Speaker 2: It was something locally done that was stupid and ill
Speaker 2: advised and had a blowback effect. And so as they
Speaker 2: saw it sinking and continuing to sink and accelerating and
Speaker 2: it's sinking, they decided that they would set up a
Speaker 2: system of barriers that they could raise whenever there's going
Speaker 2: to be high tide. And I remember in the past,
Speaker 2: I don't remember it was CNN or not, but I've
Speaker 2: put up the pictures before they would show flooded Venice
Speaker 2: and say this is it. You know, all the seas
Speaker 2: are melting, the ice caps are melting, the seas are rising,
Speaker 2: and blah blah blah. You know, it's their poster child,
Speaker 2: as I said. And then a few months later there
Speaker 2: were pictures of the canal and boats in the canal
Speaker 2: that are setting high and dry. It's like, what happened.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, they tied one out, you know, and it's
Speaker 2: now a drought. So they go from a situation where
Speaker 2: there's floods and then there's droughts, but then they always
Speaker 2: attribute it to climate change and rising seas, and yet
Speaker 2: it goes in both directions. Now they're talking about since
Speaker 2: the city is dropping off, they're talking about putting up
Speaker 2: these these barriers that are going to be there. So
Speaker 2: the problem is that when they raised the barriers, the
Speaker 2: lagoon is effectively closed off and it keeps people from
Speaker 2: being able to get in or out of Venice, which
Speaker 2: is the second busiest port for Italy and the fifth
Speaker 2: busiest port in the Mediterranean. So if they raise these
Speaker 2: big barriers, they basically just closed the city to tourism.
Speaker 2: And to shipping. That shipping is more important actually, and
Speaker 2: also it prevents the lagoon's natural action of flushing itself
Speaker 2: out with the tides. So now what do they do
Speaker 2: with this? And they said they thought that they would
Speaker 2: only be raising these things like five times a year,
Speaker 2: so we could live with it, you know, just completely
Speaker 2: seal off the city five times a year. But in reality,
Speaker 2: in the five years since they've put this up, they've
Speaker 2: had to do it on an average of twenty times
Speaker 2: a year. They've done it one hundred times in five years.
Speaker 2: So this is starting to get unworkable. But again it
Speaker 2: always goes back to these big government projects, so they
Speaker 2: don't really think about what they're doing. And so now
Speaker 2: they're going to have another big government project. So if
Speaker 2: you're still traveling in spite of all the TSA harassment
Speaker 2: and the vaccine mandates and all the rest of the stuff, you
Speaker 2: might want to get to Venice before they do this
Speaker 2: next phase. They're proposing drilling dozens of wells in a
Speaker 2: ten kilometer diameter around the city of Venus and then
Speaker 2: trying to pump the city up, of course, raising it
Speaker 2: on a waterbed like cushion while the land surrounding it,
Speaker 2: stays level sounds like a recipe for disaster or a
Speaker 2: disaster movie. This guy says, well, it's not like fracking.
Speaker 2: Don't worry, it's not like fracking. We'll see what happens.
Speaker 2: Maybe it's all going to crack up. Maybe that'll start
Speaker 2: to create earthquakes like they're fracking has done in some places.
Speaker 2: But anyway, it's it's them messing with it. So now
Speaker 2: they're going to mess with it in a different way.
Speaker 2: We have this ridiculous article from The Guardian, which seems
Speaker 2: to specialize. There are ridiculous articles pushing climate fear, pushing
Speaker 2: virus fear and everything, and so this this headline, the
Speaker 2: world may be quote post heard immunity unquote two measles,
Speaker 2: says top us scientists. Give me a break, they said,
Speaker 2: the fear of quote the most contagious disease for humans
Speaker 2: is growing. A leading immunologist warned of a post heard
Speaker 2: immunity world. Well, you know here again, we'll come back
Speaker 2: to this idea of this heard immunity was the person
Speaker 2: who came up with it, The concept came up with
Speaker 2: it before they were talking about it in conjunction with vaccines.
Speaker 2: They said, so if everybody gets these diseases that we
Speaker 2: think are contagious, uh, and they get over it, and
Speaker 2: now they seem to have immunity to it in the future,
Speaker 2: and if you have enough people who have immunity because
Speaker 2: they've gotten the disease and survived, now you've got a
Speaker 2: heard immunity. They explained that as the pattern that you
Speaker 2: see with the Far's law, the bell shaped curve that
Speaker 2: was the curve was supposed to flatten. Remember, well, that
Speaker 2: kind of immunity and that model of what was happening.
Speaker 2: And again I still have I'm still skeptical about that
Speaker 2: whole model. Now since they're not actually doing science. That
Speaker 2: may be a theory, but it remains it may be
Speaker 2: a valid theory, but it remains an unproven theory scientifically.
Speaker 2: But nevertheless, the whole idea of herd immunity was not
Speaker 2: strictly about vaccines. They made it strictly about vaccines. They
Speaker 2: rewrote everything so, well, now you can only get immunity
Speaker 2: if you've got a synthetic vaccine or something, not even
Speaker 2: the people who had a disease and survived it. And
Speaker 2: I said, well, that really doesn't make any sense when
Speaker 2: you look at their theory. Their theory says that the
Speaker 2: disease trains your immune system. Your immune system, you know,
Speaker 2: has fought this disease, beat it, and has now learned
Speaker 2: how to fight that disease if it sees it again.
Speaker 2: And supposedly that was a whole purpose of a vaccine,
Speaker 2: was to train your immune system with a simulated but
Speaker 2: not real disease so that they could fight it in
Speaker 2: the future. And now they're telling us that somebody who's
Speaker 2: had an actual disease that they're that they're vaccinating you
Speaker 2: for really hasn't gone through that training. That's like saying
Speaker 2: that you know you can you being a real, a
Speaker 2: real fighter, and a dog fight doesn't train you. You've
Speaker 2: got to go back and do it on a simulator.
Speaker 2: You know. No, actually that's exactly the opposite. But that's
Speaker 2: that's their theory, and they're not even consistent with that theory,
Speaker 2: and that this is the same kind of stuff coming
Speaker 2: of this herd immunity. Your vaccine doesn't protect you, it
Speaker 2: protects other people. Your mask doesn't protect you. They're right
Speaker 2: about that, but they tell you then that your mask
Speaker 2: protects other people. Well, if it doesn't protect you, it's
Speaker 2: not going to protect other people either, and so they're
Speaker 2: trying to still sell this. I guess there's some people
Speaker 2: who will never be able to think through this and
Speaker 2: figure out what's going on now. They said in Europe
Speaker 2: they've had thirty five, two hundred and twelve cases in
Speaker 2: twenty twenty four of measles. Eighty seven percent of them
Speaker 2: were reported in Romania. You notice that nobody died. They
Speaker 2: had thirty five thousand, two hundred cases in Europe. Nobody
Speaker 2: died from measles. And this is what we all know,
Speaker 2: those of us who are around the middle of the
Speaker 2: twentieth century. This is why they're making jokes about it.
Speaker 2: On the Brady Bunch. It was raarer than rare. It's
Speaker 2: more rare than Huafacci calls rare for somebody to die.
Speaker 2: Thirty five thousand cases and nobody dies. And I remember
Speaker 2: this is the same article. I'm going to tell you
Speaker 2: how The Guardian contradicts itself in its own article. They
Speaker 2: say just this week, Kennedy RFK Junior told a crowd
Speaker 2: that the MMR vaccine contains quote aborted fetus debris unquote.
Speaker 2: They said, the rubella vaccine, like many others, is produced
Speaker 2: using decades old sterile fetal cell lines derived from two
Speaker 2: elective terminations in the nineteen sixties.
Speaker 1: So what.
Speaker 2: Somebody chose to kill a baby It was elective, and
Speaker 2: then they chose to use the cell tissues. This is
Speaker 2: what a lot of people I think rightfully object to
Speaker 2: in terms of the morality of this form of cannibalism. Really,
Speaker 2: Ketty's Health Department also stayed this week that it would
Speaker 2: implement new safety surveillance systems and approval requirements for vaccines. Well,
Speaker 2: Guardian wants to push back against that. The Guardian sells
Speaker 2: you the two big mcguffins of climate and you know,
Speaker 2: the pharma mcguffin of the pandemic mcguffin. They're real big
Speaker 2: about that. I guess that's where they get their funding anyway.
Speaker 2: Experts said that running certain trials, such as for decades
Speaker 2: old vaccine like MMR, would be unethical. What it really
Speaker 2: would it be unethical? Well, it's unethical because we know
Speaker 2: it to be safe, So why would you run a
Speaker 2: trial on it, except that we have a lot of
Speaker 2: people who think that it is not safe. And if
Speaker 2: it is not safe, how is it ethical to not
Speaker 2: test it? Since it was never tested before and since
Speaker 2: you're playing statistical games to tell us this. The MMR
Speaker 2: vaccine they said is ninety seven percent effective. Have you
Speaker 2: done the test? Oh no, that's right, you didn't do
Speaker 2: the test, So how do you know that it is
Speaker 2: ninety seven percent effective? They never test these, They never tested.
Speaker 2: They never said it'd be unethical to let people be
Speaker 2: exposed to something as dangerous as measles. Yeah, where thirty
Speaker 2: five thousand people can get it, not a single person dies. Oh,
Speaker 2: it be unethical to actually test. That be unethical to
Speaker 2: give one control group the vaccine and the other control
Speaker 2: group doesn't have the vaccine, and then you expose them
Speaker 2: to the measles. Maybe it's because they never isolated the virus.
Speaker 2: Maybe it's because they couldn't run that test because they
Speaker 2: didn't isolate the virus. Maybe they've never even gone in
Speaker 2: and done a test to see if the people that
Speaker 2: have a particular disease that they say is caused by
Speaker 2: a virus, do they have some substance there that we
Speaker 2: can identify and call a virus that is present in
Speaker 2: the sick people that is not in the well people
Speaker 2: know we didn't do that, so of course they're not
Speaker 2: going to do any of this stuff. It's all a
Speaker 2: big fraud. But again, look at how they lie. Here's
Speaker 2: what they say. Measles kills one in a thousand children
Speaker 2: who become infected with a disease. Okay, so they just
Speaker 2: told us at the beginning of the article that EU
Speaker 2: had over thirty five thousand cases of measles, and now
Speaker 2: they tell us that one out of a thousand die.
Speaker 2: So we should have had thirty five deaths last year
Speaker 2: from measles if that's true. We had zero. And then
Speaker 2: they talk about the fact that there have been twenty
Speaker 2: three hundred cases in the US. Well, then we should
Speaker 2: have two to three deaths, shouldn't we in the US?
Speaker 2: And yet we haven't had They had the two deaths
Speaker 2: there in Texas, but those were debunked. Those are not
Speaker 2: due to measles. The one child had recovered and had
Speaker 2: a respiratory issue and it was malpractice and the father
Speaker 2: has gone public with that. Same with the other one.
Speaker 2: Measles vaccinations believe to say more than ninety three million
Speaker 2: lives worldwide. Prove it, prove it, and I don't always
Speaker 2: say this, And so what if you're not going to
Speaker 2: allow people to have informed consent, you should tell them
Speaker 2: that it has also been linked in terms of its
Speaker 2: association with autism and other things along whether it's MMR,
Speaker 2: whether it's just the massive multiplication of mass vaccination to
Speaker 2: kids and seventy six of them, Why don't you tell
Speaker 2: people about that side of it and let them make
Speaker 2: the decision. So whether or not they'd like to take
Speaker 2: the risk of what you say is one in a thousand,
Speaker 2: but you haven't shown that risk of death or whatever.
Speaker 2: But again, you know, they want to say, well, you
Speaker 2: know a couple of you know, going to be one
Speaker 2: death per thousand cases, except there were thirty five thousand
Speaker 2: cases in the EU last year and no deaths. So
Speaker 2: then they want to take their phony statistic and say
Speaker 2: that it is saved more than ninety three million lives worldwide. Well,
Speaker 2: I'd never ever heard of anybody that had had that issue.
Speaker 2: And then as we look at rand Paul and others
Speaker 2: continuing to push this is Telsey Gabbard Ran Paul. Now
Speaker 2: you have RFK Junior. You've got both the establishment media
Speaker 2: as well as the alternative media are all pushing this
Speaker 2: Lablik stuff and all pushing it towards Fauci and Paul says,
Speaker 2: Fauci thought he could sail off into the sunset and
Speaker 2: w'd forget about him. But that's the furthest thing from
Speaker 2: the truth. He will be held accountable for his role
Speaker 2: in the pandemic and the COVID cover up. What about
Speaker 2: your role, Rand, You didn't do anything to stop it.
Speaker 2: Neither did Trump. Trump was paying people to do all
Speaker 2: this stuff. And so Tulsea Gabbard says, the soon the
Speaker 2: COVID origins are going to be exposed, very soon, quote unquote, Well,
Speaker 2: are you going to since you were head of the
Speaker 2: intelligence that they're going to tell us the involvement of
Speaker 2: the CIA and DARPA and creating all this stuff. How
Speaker 2: about you tell us about the role of the CIA
Speaker 2: and DARPA and creating the real bio weapon, the vaccine. Yeah,
Speaker 2: we saw a slight uptick and deaths, but we could
Speaker 2: also attribute that to the lack of treatment. We could
Speaker 2: attribute that to the kinds of treatment when people finally
Speaker 2: got it, you know, they push them off and say,
Speaker 2: don't come back to your really say oh, now they're
Speaker 2: really sick. Put them on a ventilator, kill them with that,
Speaker 2: kill them with rim deseeverr all that financially incentivized, and
Speaker 2: then when the vaccine rolls out, being pushed by Biden
Speaker 2: with threats and intimidation, then we see the gigantic spike.
Speaker 2: Gigantic spike. Folks, we all know that it was a vaccine.
Speaker 2: We all know that this is both an alibi as
Speaker 2: well as preparation for the next time they do it.
Speaker 2: We're going to take a quick break and before we
Speaker 2: go and read some of the comments. Who rumble Sam
Speaker 2: Miller one two three said, what about the possibility of
Speaker 2: being able to hack these driverless semis of vehicles just
Speaker 2: another weapon against the people? Well, that's already sorry, had
Speaker 2: been done. We look at Michael Hastings situation and forget
Speaker 2: the guy's Richard something other. The guy who was he
Speaker 2: was in the intelligence agencies, and he was talking about
Speaker 2: how it was used in the past to assassinate people.
Speaker 2: We had people at the def Con, the black Hat
Speaker 2: conference and stuff in Vegas. You know, I've talked many
Speaker 2: times to goat Tree about how, you know, exposing the
Speaker 2: fact that you could hack into medical medical equipment to
Speaker 2: kill people and that type of thing. And one of
Speaker 2: the guys who was going to do a big expos
Speaker 2: that at the black Hat conference, I've just suddenly died
Speaker 2: of a drug overdose, and go Tree told me, he said,
Speaker 2: he's as sober as you are. He doesn't do he
Speaker 2: didn't do drugs. He was going to reveal some stuff
Speaker 2: about that that they didn't want revealed. And so we
Speaker 2: talked about how that they at those conferences they would
Speaker 2: hack ordinary cars. And Michael Hastings was in what was
Speaker 2: by far and away the most connected car at the
Speaker 2: time that he could drive, which is Mercedes. He thought
Speaker 2: they were going to try to kill him. He was
Speaker 2: going out looking at his car all the time, and
Speaker 2: then you had that, you know, that strange situation. Anyway,
Speaker 2: I won't go into me more detail about that, but
Speaker 2: on Kick, a Syrian girl says, well, there you go.
Speaker 2: If they can't keep us from driving by taking away
Speaker 2: your cars, they'll make us afraid to drive because the
Speaker 2: huge self driving death machines. You know, the image that
Speaker 2: comes to my mind is Brazil, just like the way
Speaker 2: that film started out with an over the top, no
Speaker 2: knock swat team raid grabbing the wrong person, and that
Speaker 2: was the central thing that kind of runs through it.
Speaker 2: The other part of it was this guy had a
Speaker 2: little if you ever seen it, the three wheeled maybe
Speaker 2: you can find it. Travis three wheeled Messerschmidt, a little
Speaker 2: weird German car post World War Two and he's driving
Speaker 2: to work. He's driving between these extraordinarily large semi trailers
Speaker 2: as he's going to work, and you know, imagine that's
Speaker 2: what it's going to be like. But they'll also not
Speaker 2: only be gigantic, but they'll also be self driving keep
Speaker 2: us off of their interstaces. Of course, the Interstate System,
Speaker 2: it was not really Eisenhower designed it really for the
Speaker 2: military to use, you know, just kind of became an
Speaker 2: afterthought that was used by civilians to do that kind
Speaker 2: of stuff. But yeah, so anyway, on rumble, honor Seeker says,
Speaker 2: what happens if the lens on the board camera gets dirty,
Speaker 2: of the windshield in front of it gets iced, or
Speaker 2: it gets missed over. Well again, some of them are
Speaker 2: using light ar. Most of them use light ar, but
Speaker 2: the Tesla does use visual stuff that may be part
Speaker 2: of the problem with it. Kick Solo Cat nineteen eighty says,
Speaker 2: I guess an island slowly sinking is better than he
Speaker 2: I remember that Hank Johnson was that the person. They
Speaker 2: believed that they could. He wasn't joking as Google claims,
Speaker 2: you know he was. They were serious. You know, he
Speaker 2: got too many people on this island. It's just going
Speaker 2: to capsize and flip over. Remember that. Well maybe that'll
Speaker 2: what's going to happen with Venice. They're gonna have to
Speaker 2: cut down the number of tourists. It doesn't just doesn't
Speaker 2: just flip over, be floating on a whole bunch of
Speaker 2: water one way or the other. Well, we're gonna take
Speaker 2: a quick break and we'll be right.
Speaker 1: Back, Liberty, it's your move. And now the David Knight Show.
Speaker 2: Well let's talk about it about war abroad. We have
Speaker 2: Ukrainian drones now targeting historic Orthodox churches in Russia. It's
Speaker 2: this is something that we have seen. For some reason.
Speaker 2: Zelenski seems to absolutely hate Russian Orthodox churches. He has
Speaker 2: closed them down, he's confiscated monasteries, he's arrested monks, and
Speaker 2: now he is deliberately attacking these churches in Russia, hitting
Speaker 2: them with missiles and drums. This is what we're seeing
Speaker 2: more and more when we look at the modern warfare
Speaker 2: is turning more and more toward civilians.
Speaker 1: Isn't it.
Speaker 2: And so the attacks on religious sites have been going
Speaker 2: back to all the way to twenty fourteen, the beginning
Speaker 2: of the conflict in the Dombas, and if we understand
Speaker 2: who the aggressors are, goes back to the late nineties
Speaker 2: with the attacks on Yugoslaviet made it very clear that
Speaker 2: they were not going to abide by their assurances against
Speaker 2: NATO expansion, but they were going to expand and try
Speaker 2: to take out Putin. They made no bones about it.
Speaker 2: You know. Within a few years you had you had
Speaker 2: Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Lindsay Grahmson. Next year, We're going
Speaker 2: to go get paytent, you know, all the rest of
Speaker 2: this stuff, I mean, just openly saying it. And then
Speaker 2: when they had the coup in twenty fourteen, and you
Speaker 2: had areas that were culturally linguistically Russian and had been
Speaker 2: Russian for centuries. Crimea had been a part of Russia
Speaker 2: as long as the United States has been a country.
Speaker 2: And so when they said, well we want to stay
Speaker 2: with Russia, they started bombing them. And of course part
Speaker 2: of that was bombing civilian targets, bombing churches, the church
Speaker 2: buildings that were their famous historic monasteries shut down, seized
Speaker 2: by the Ukrainian authorities, monks expelled, churches raided by nationalistic
Speaker 2: militant groups. On the other side, Russian aerial raids have
Speaker 2: often devastated whole Ukrainian neighborhoods, including destruction of local churches.
Speaker 2: In a fresh incident, the Russian government and media sources
Speaker 2: say a Ukrainian drone was sent across the border and
Speaker 2: struck an iconic historic church in Belgarade region, setting the
Speaker 2: church on fire. And not only that, but there was
Speaker 2: an even more well known church recently destroyed. This is
Speaker 2: the New Jerusalem Church and it was the name of it.
Speaker 2: They said. You could see from the videos that it
Speaker 2: was clearly targeted in the attack. Ukrainian drones dropped explosives
Speaker 2: directly on it. It wasn't just like you know, just
Speaker 2: dropping bombs and they're hitting this or hitting that. No,
Speaker 2: they came in directly targeting that building. The Ukrainian armed
Speaker 2: forces reportedly attacked the temple at least twice, preventing local
Speaker 2: residents and firefighters from putting it out. And there's the
Speaker 2: burning building that you can see there. Yeah, a historic building.
Speaker 2: This is why I say these societies are just it's
Speaker 2: just the desire by Zelenski and others to just destroy
Speaker 2: everything is truly as amazing. And at the same time
Speaker 2: we see that Israel has now bombed a humanitarian aid
Speaker 2: flotilla there was going to take food and medicine to Gaza.
Speaker 2: This had happened once before, fifteen years ago. When they
Speaker 2: did that twenty ten, they killed ten people injured dozens more.
Speaker 2: This time apparently there have not been any casualties, but
Speaker 2: they have disabled the ship that was going to carry
Speaker 2: food and medicine to the people that they are intent
Speaker 2: on starving in the Gaza Strip. A ship carrying supplies
Speaker 2: bound for Gaza Strip was attacked by Israeli drones in
Speaker 2: international waters on Friday, close to Malta as a matter
Speaker 2: of fact, and it was just after midnight multa time.
Speaker 2: According to the activist group that organized with flotilla, the
Speaker 2: vessel reportedly took at least one direct hit on its
Speaker 2: hull sustained damage from fire, forcing its crew to issue
Speaker 2: an urgent call for help. So, you know, repeatedly the
Speaker 2: Israelis and using American bombs or bombing food supplies, bombing
Speaker 2: food ships, bombing hospitals, all the rest of this stuff.
Speaker 2: Ukrainians bombing doing the same thing, you know, and bombing
Speaker 2: church buildings, historic church buildings, they said. One of the
Speaker 2: vessels is attacked by an unidentified drone. The ship was
Speaker 2: called well, it's part of a group called the Freedom
Speaker 2: Flotilla Coalition. The ship was called the Conscience. Came under
Speaker 2: direct attack and international water armed drones attacked in front
Speaker 2: of the unarmed civilian vessel twice, causing a fire and
Speaker 2: a substantial breach in the hull. The drone strike appears
Speaker 2: so deliberately targeted the ship's generator, leaving the crew without
Speaker 2: power and placing the vessel at a great risk of sinking.
Speaker 2: And it was en route to Malta, where it was
Speaker 2: scheduled to pick up other activists. Now here you go,
Speaker 2: here's where everybody will lose it. One of the activists
Speaker 2: that they're going to pick up was going to be
Speaker 2: Greta Thunberg. Oh okay, well, good, I'm glad they shouldn't,
Speaker 2: you know what, That's what I'm gonna hear. Good, glad
Speaker 2: they bombed that thing had Greta Thumberg on it. Well,
Speaker 2: as much as I might applaud the bombing, of Greta Thunberg.
Speaker 2: Under ordinary circumstances, this was going to be food for
Speaker 2: starving children. And I don't know. I mean, she's got
Speaker 2: her own agenda where she would starve children by denying
Speaker 2: them dairy meat and other things because of her climate obsessions,
Speaker 2: but I don't know that she's Yeah, whatever cause she's in,
Speaker 2: maybe she's trying to rehabilitate herself because as everybody sees
Speaker 2: the massive intentional ongoing bombing of civilians and starvation, this
Speaker 2: policy of starvation, they you know, Israel is losing this
Speaker 2: propaganda war. Is why they're so desperate to shut down
Speaker 2: freedom of speech because people see what they're doing. And
Speaker 2: so I think i've Greta Thunberg might even look at
Speaker 2: this and say this is one way for her to
Speaker 2: rehabilitate her flagging image. The group said that it arranged
Speaker 2: the aid shipment quote under a media blackout to avoid
Speaker 2: any potential sabotage, but nevertheless it did happen. In twenty ten.
Speaker 2: The ship that was attacked then was a was also
Speaker 2: going to give aid to GASA, and it was organized
Speaker 2: by a Turkish organization. It was attacked by Israeli forces
Speaker 2: and international water Nine people were killed in the assault,
Speaker 2: with another later dying from injuries, while dozens more were wounded.
Speaker 2: A UN report later found that all ten activists had
Speaker 2: sustained gunshot wounds. Gunshot wounds so this is I guess
Speaker 2: done by planes or were they firing the guns from
Speaker 2: a drum. They added that the quote circumstances of the
Speaker 2: killing of at least six of the passengers was in
Speaker 2: a manner consistent with extra illegal, arbitrary and summary execution.
Speaker 2: The story from andy war dot com, but many people
Speaker 2: have picked up on this information. Liberation picked up on
Speaker 2: it as well. The front of the vessel was targeted twice,
Speaker 2: resulting in a fire. In breach of the whole, Israel
Speaker 2: has been enforcing a total blockade against Goza for two months,
Speaker 2: an attempt to starve the people there out so they
Speaker 2: can have the land. They've used US supplied weaponry to
Speaker 2: bomb hospitals, water facilities, other essential civilian infrastructure, and a
Speaker 2: clear violation of international law and internal law. The Trump
Speaker 2: administration announced on March the first that they would use
Speaker 2: emergency powers to rush the Jewish State another four billion
Speaker 2: dollars in military assistance, not to rush food and water
Speaker 2: or medicine, but to rush more bombs there. Two weeks later,
Speaker 2: Israel broke the ceasefire agreement that the Trump administration had negotiated,
Speaker 2: and there was no pushback from Washington about that, and
Speaker 2: then they proceeded to conduct civilian massacres in Gaza. An
Speaker 2: American surgeon who's just returned recounts what he witnesses said,
Speaker 2: I don't think a horror movie could fictionalize how these
Speaker 2: scenes make them any more sick and twisted and disturbing
Speaker 2: than they are. And then in Yemen we have the
Speaker 2: American government there. We've now gotten up to over one
Speaker 2: thousand bombings there in just six weeks. In Yemen, as
Speaker 2: that is happening, A missile fired from Yemen struck an
Speaker 2: access road on the grounds of Israel's Mungarian Airport on Sunday,
Speaker 2: as heavy US bombing campaign has failed to deter the
Speaker 2: Yemeni Huthis. Israeli military tried multiple times to intercept the missile,
Speaker 2: but failed. A US terminal high Altitude Area defense the
Speaker 2: THAD system that is deployed to Israel also failed old
Speaker 2: to intercept the Yemeni missile. Those are not interesting, you know,
Speaker 2: these iron domes and the THAD system and all the
Speaker 2: rest of this stuff. And the Trump is talking about
Speaker 2: a golden defense system. Russia said, air defense system like
Speaker 2: that anti ballistic missile system. Russia said, well, you know,
Speaker 2: we've got this cruise missile that we've developed that has
Speaker 2: a has nuclear power and it can stay airborne for days, weeks,
Speaker 2: months until we want it. And so you know, it's
Speaker 2: not and your golden system is not going to be
Speaker 2: any defense against that, uh and the missile systems, and
Speaker 2: of course that's not going to be around for a
Speaker 2: while either. The anti ballistic missile systems that are unable
Speaker 2: to stop the the Yemeni missiles are not which are
Speaker 2: not nearly as sophisticated as the hypersonic missiles for Russia, again,
Speaker 2: Russia said, you know, here's an example. We're going to
Speaker 2: just bomb that city over there and did it, and
Speaker 2: you're not going to be able to stop it. They're
Speaker 2: not able to stop the Yemeni missiles, So why do
Speaker 2: they continue to push on with this? Maybe you know,
Speaker 2: they would realize that it's not even in their tactical
Speaker 2: or geopolitical interests to push into a war that they
Speaker 2: can't win, except that they are building their underground bunkers.
Speaker 2: I guess that's what they want to do. That's their
Speaker 2: depopulation move. This missile left a crater next to the
Speaker 2: airport on the road. Six people were injured by the attack,
Speaker 2: none of them were seriously hurt. Israel launched a few
Speaker 2: rounds of air strikes on Yemen last year, but hasn't
Speaker 2: done so under the Trump administration. In March, the Israeli
Speaker 2: news site Ynet reported that the US has asked Israel
Speaker 2: not to respond to the Huthis attack, said, the US
Speaker 2: forces will handle the retaliation. Let us do the fighting
Speaker 2: for you.
Speaker 1: There we go.
Speaker 2: So again, we've had about one thousand strikes against Yemen
Speaker 2: and six weeks those that work out to be that
Speaker 2: works about one hundred and sixty six a week, about
Speaker 2: twenty four per day, bombing Yemen twenty four times a day.
Speaker 2: Who agreed to that? What did we have the vote
Speaker 2: for that that we would get involved in bombing Yemen
Speaker 2: twenty four times a day? Trump on March seventeenth, there's
Speaker 2: a truth social post. He said he would blame each
Speaker 2: hoothy attack on Iran, he said, and then who said
Speaker 2: Trump is absolutely right? Attacks by the hoodies M and
Speaker 2: eight from Iran. Well, these who Thi's hoodies? Whatever? If
Speaker 2: they can shoot down reaper drones and they've shot down
Speaker 2: seventeen or eighteen of them already, and of course you
Speaker 2: know they're unmanned, so we don't have any casualties. There's
Speaker 2: good and the military industrial complex gets to replace them
Speaker 2: and make a lot of money thirty million dollars apiece.
Speaker 2: So that's good for everybody except for the US taxpayer.
Speaker 2: But you might want to ask, if they're saying that
Speaker 2: this is being done by Iran, then where is the
Speaker 2: logic and directly attacking Iran? Do you think Iran is
Speaker 2: giving their best stuff to the houthies. I don't think so.
Speaker 2: It is a much much much bigger country than Iraq
Speaker 2: and much much larger, and it is much more sophisticated technologically.
Speaker 2: But of course Trump is also said Trump is done
Speaker 2: the truth. Who knows, But he also said, hey, these
Speaker 2: the houthis. Maybe he called them hooties. I like, I
Speaker 2: prefer calling them hoodies. But the hoodies just the blowfish
Speaker 2: missile the uh, they they can make their own missiles.
Speaker 2: It's pretty amazing that they're very effective because they're shooting
Speaker 2: down these thirty million dollars deeper drones with their own missiles.
Speaker 2: But now he wants you to know, to tell you
Speaker 2: that it's coming from Iran. Since March the fifteenth, US
Speaker 2: has launched over a thousand strikes on Yemen, killing more
Speaker 2: than two hundred civilians. Well, there we go. That's what
Speaker 2: happens when you're bombing them twenty four times a day.
Speaker 2: The Huthi's, known for their resilience, have vowed that they
Speaker 2: will not stop their attacks on Israel or in the
Speaker 2: blockade on Israeli shipping unless there is a ceasefire in Gaza.
Speaker 2: By the way, when there was a ceasefiing Gaza, they
Speaker 2: stopped attacking the shipping until the ceasefire was broken. They've
Speaker 2: offered to stop attacking US warships if the US stops
Speaker 2: bombing Yemen, but the Trump administration has shown no interest
Speaker 2: in peace. Instead, what we want is war and more
Speaker 2: weapons the Pentagon. By the way, so the Intercept is
Speaker 2: saying that the Pentagon is covering up American casualties in
Speaker 2: the Yemen War. According to a report by The Intercept
Speaker 2: published on Saturday, US Sentcom, the Office of the Secretary
Speaker 2: of Defense, and the White House have refused to disclose
Speaker 2: how many US service members have been killed or wounded
Speaker 2: since the launch of Operation rough Rider. That's what they
Speaker 2: call this, coming after a Yemen in March of twenty
Speaker 2: twenty five. And of course, you know a lot of
Speaker 2: this was the signal Gate stuff that's going back and
Speaker 2: forth with Waltz and Haig Seth and all the rest
Speaker 2: of them. I guess they came up with the idea
Speaker 2: of rough Riders. So they're you know, plotting on how
Speaker 2: they're going to break the ceasefire even before the Israelis
Speaker 2: do and start bombing civilians in Yemen. And then they
Speaker 2: you know, while they're on signal Chat, and then they
Speaker 2: go in and to a million dollar a plate fundraiser
Speaker 2: dinner at Marlago. How decadent is this government. One recent
Speaker 2: incident underscored the risk. The Fa eighteen Super Hornet fighter
Speaker 2: that fell off the USS Harry Truman aircraft carrier earlier
Speaker 2: this week, reportedly because it made a sharp turn. Like
Speaker 2: I was saying, you know, it wasn't one of these
Speaker 2: deals like that.
Speaker 1: Did you guys like that? Now?
Speaker 2: Did you shut it down? I didn't like it. I
Speaker 2: thought you did it. You know it wasn't one of
Speaker 2: those things. I mean, they were obviously making some really
Speaker 2: hard turns and probably broke off something that was there.
Speaker 2: One sailor was injured and the sixty million dollar jet
Speaker 2: was lost. When the intercept acts the Pentagon for casualty figures,
Speaker 2: officials deflected and directed the inquiry to Sentcom, and then
Speaker 2: Syncom referred the request to the White House. And none
Speaker 2: of them will talk. The White House won't talk. Yeah,
Speaker 2: can't get Caroline Leavitt to say anything. Well, of course,
Speaker 2: you know, there's been no declaration of war and there's
Speaker 2: been no information about the war, is there. Compare that
Speaker 2: to the cases of measles, right, think about that, we're
Speaker 2: le they're dropping bombs and anything. We're not going to
Speaker 2: talk about it if anybody is killed, not going to
Speaker 2: mention it at all. But hey, somebody gets a relatively harmless,
Speaker 2: pretty much harmless childhood disease, and I will say it's
Speaker 2: a harmless disease. Look, children can die from pneumonia and cold, right,
Speaker 2: and it's not even to say that, you know, when
Speaker 2: they fundamentally die from that. They want to make it
Speaker 2: about measles, but you know, you just look at it.
Speaker 2: We're going to be inundated with every person who gets
Speaker 2: a couple of spots on their face, regardless of what happens.
Speaker 2: But we're not allowed to know what's going on with
Speaker 2: the soldiers who are in an undeclared war, a war
Speaker 2: that was basically declared on a signal chat between a
Speaker 2: lot of spoiled brats on their way to a million
Speaker 2: dollar plate fundraiser. Trump's former national security advisor, Michael Waltz,
Speaker 2: who is part of that signal Gate, was dismissed the
Speaker 2: weekend part for including a journalist and a sensitive about yemens.
Speaker 2: But it wasn't even about that. He had also been
Speaker 2: pushing for a lot more military action against Iran. As
Speaker 2: we reported in the past, Michael Waltz was one of
Speaker 2: the favorites of Apak. They pushed him to get him
Speaker 2: into Congress and all the rest of this stuff. And
Speaker 2: there was suggestions at the very beginning of this that
Speaker 2: maybe the reason that this journalist, who is a leftist
Speaker 2: but a hardcore supporter of the Israeli government, maybe the
Speaker 2: reason that he got included on that was because maybe
Speaker 2: Michael Waltz was giving him information. Well, what triggered this
Speaker 2: firing was not Signalgate, even Zero Hedge says it was
Speaker 2: reportedly because he coordinated closely with Netanyahu, and so I
Speaker 2: guess he wins this week's Jonathan Pollard Award for Traders
Speaker 2: right throwing his own country under the bus intense coordination
Speaker 2: with Netanyaho in terms of plotting how to get into
Speaker 2: war with Iran. So the Washington Post ran an article
Speaker 2: inside Waltz's ulster before Signal Gate, talks with Israel angered Trump.
Speaker 2: And so what they're saying is is that they got
Speaker 2: you know, there was indications pictures taken of things that
Speaker 2: he was doing. Also a discussion that he had with
Speaker 2: net Yahoo when net yah who came And the narrative
Speaker 2: that is now being sold through leaks out of the
Speaker 2: White House is that Walts wanted to do whatever net
Speaker 2: Yahoo wanted to do, but evidently Trump doesn't. Is that right?
Speaker 8: Oh?
Speaker 2: Okay? So, so Trump is now the still the peace president,
Speaker 2: and if there is a war with Iran, which they're
Speaker 2: pushing for, it won't be because Trump is a shill,
Speaker 2: a puppet of net Yahoo. He was clashing with other
Speaker 2: top officials since early in the administration, including over whether
Speaker 2: to pursue military action against Iran said senior officials on Friday,
Speaker 2: as he was kicked out, Now are they're going to
Speaker 2: put him in the UN? I guess that's where they
Speaker 2: want to put the most hard core Zionists, at least
Speaker 2: Stephanic there. But they pulled her out because it's going
Speaker 2: to jeopardize their majority in Congress. So now we'll take
Speaker 2: another hard core Zionist and put him in the UN.
Speaker 2: Walts supposedly upset Trump after an Oval Office visit in
Speaker 2: early February by net Yahoo, where Waltz, the National Security Advisor,
Speaker 2: appeared to share the Israeli leader's conviction that the time
Speaker 2: was ripe to strike. Iran said two of the people
Speaker 2: Waltz wanted to take US policy in a direction that
Speaker 2: Trump wasn't comfortable with because the US hadn't attempted a
Speaker 2: diplomatic solution yet. So now we've got, you know, these
Speaker 2: so called talks that are out there, which is just
Speaker 2: a beard so they can say, well, we tried, but
Speaker 2: it didn't work, so now we're gonna have to kill him.
Speaker 8: Right.
Speaker 2: It got back to Trump and the President wasn't happy
Speaker 2: with it, said the people who were leaking on behalf
Speaker 2: of Trump. So Nettanna, whose office released a statement Saturday
Speaker 2: confirming that he did meet with Walt's ahead of the
Speaker 2: Oval Office visit, but denying that he had any quote,
Speaker 2: intensive contact with him. So again, I think this is
Speaker 2: just an opportunity for Trump to pretend that he's not
Speaker 2: a puppet of Israel, when in fact he is. The
Speaker 2: view by some in the administration was that Waltz was
Speaker 2: trying to tip the scales in favor of military action
Speaker 2: and was operating hand to anglove with the Israelis. But
Speaker 2: of course Trump wasn't I say, we give them both
Speaker 2: at Jonathan Pollard to war for betraying America to Israel.
Speaker 2: You know, both of both Trump and Waltz should get
Speaker 2: that award. If Jim Baker was doing a side deal
Speaker 2: with this in Saudi's to subvert George H. W. Bush,
Speaker 2: You'd be fired, said a Trump advisor, referring to George HW.
Speaker 2: Bush's secretary of State. You can't do that. You work
Speaker 2: for the president of your country, not a president of
Speaker 2: another country. On Wednesday, Waltz was photographed by a Reuters
Speaker 2: reporter using an Israel made obscure and unofficial version of
Speaker 2: signal designed to archive messages so again, he's been caught
Speaker 2: multiple times with that stuff, and this is an opportunity
Speaker 2: for them to try to inoculate Trump from being a
Speaker 2: Jonathan Pollard trader. On the day he was fired as
Speaker 2: a National security advisor, Mike Waltz used an Israeli app
Speaker 2: to archive signal messages. That's reported by drop site News.
Speaker 2: They show the pictures that Reuter's got tech professionals have
Speaker 2: moved between companies like Telemessage and some of the leading
Speaker 2: Israeli spy firms, and then they give an example of
Speaker 2: eight different people who have done that. Walts was known
Speaker 2: as an APAC favorite when Trump first hired him, and
Speaker 2: so Chris Manhem at Information Liberation says, so, I don't
Speaker 2: know why what he was expecting, right, He says, it
Speaker 2: appears Walts is not only handing out US war plans
Speaker 2: to Jeffrey Goldberg, but was also potentially handling all his
Speaker 2: private messages over to Israeli intelligence using their highly questionable software.
Speaker 2: That said, there's no reason to expect that Rubio, another
Speaker 2: APAC favorite, is any better. Same goes for Pete Hegseth,
Speaker 2: who dreams about Jews rebuilding their third temple in Jerusalem.
Speaker 2: As he's said many times and of course reported last week.
Speaker 2: Last Thursday message to Iran said, hegg Seth, you know
Speaker 2: very well with the US military is capable of, and
Speaker 2: you were warned you will pay the consequence of the
Speaker 2: time and place of our choosing what an arrogant, dangerous
Speaker 2: person take. Seth is not operating in our best interests
Speaker 2: by any stretch of the imagination we're being told, says
Speaker 2: CHRISMNHM to believe that Trump surrounded himself with Israel firsters
Speaker 2: who would explicitly pledged to restore the power of the
Speaker 2: Israeli lobbry over Congress as well, but somehow he doesn't
Speaker 2: actually want to do Israel's bidding. Despite taking all the
Speaker 2: steps necessary to launch another war for Israel, Trump is
Speaker 2: threatening to enact secondary sanctions against countries that even buy
Speaker 2: Iranian oil. Yeah. Yeah, he says that we're going to
Speaker 2: meet with them, and then he puts on says, if
Speaker 2: you even buy Iranian oil, then we'll sanction you. And
Speaker 2: of course sanctions are an act of war, as we've
Speaker 2: always said. On kick Minuteman Militia said, we have autonomous
Speaker 2: haul trucks at the mine. Well, you know that's but
Speaker 2: you know, that's very different than being on the highway
Speaker 2: with a lot of ordinary cars and a lot of
Speaker 2: people who may not even know the thing is being
Speaker 2: autonomously done. I mean, they're gonna be out there interacting
Speaker 2: and have to interact and react with people on the interstate.
Speaker 2: I have a big problem with that. On Rumble One,
Speaker 2: Sarah b says, not the first time that Israel attacked
Speaker 2: a freedom flotilla, that's right, Kick the Real Octos Spook says,
Speaker 2: when criminals have taken hostages in a building structure area,
Speaker 2: isn't it common practice to cut off water and food
Speaker 2: to them? No? Not actually, And you know what, it's
Speaker 2: not common practice. Just bringing in the swat team and
Speaker 2: the artillery and blowing the house to bits with the
Speaker 2: hostages in there. That's also not typically done. But that's
Speaker 2: what Israel is doing. We'll take a quick break and
Speaker 2: we'll be right back.
Speaker 1: If you are listening to the David Night.
Speaker 2: Show, Yeah, you know, I think that if you had
Speaker 2: a police department that just destroyed everybody in the house,
Speaker 2: if you know that, or let's say a bank right
Speaker 2: in a bank situation, as that usually handle. You know,
Speaker 2: let's make a deal. We want to keep the sausages
Speaker 2: safe and all the rest of this stuff. Instead, if
Speaker 2: they just open up and kill everybody inside, I think
Speaker 2: people would have a problem with that. And I think
Speaker 2: that what's happening with Israel and what's going on in
Speaker 2: Gaza is that people are seeing the pictures of the
Speaker 2: children with the sunken eyes that are being starved to death.
Speaker 2: There's no justification for that whatsoever. Even people who aren't
Speaker 2: Christians have the discernment to see that. That's why Israel
Speaker 2: is becoming a pariah. So the let's see marky Mark
Speaker 2: says Dave. They were towing the F eighteen, moving it
Speaker 2: around the hangar deck. It was near one of the
Speaker 2: elevators when the ship healed over. Physics took over and
Speaker 2: the plane got away along with a tug. Well, I guess, yeah,
Speaker 2: we'll never know for sure. We'll never know for sure
Speaker 2: because the Pentagon's not gonna tell us anything when we
Speaker 2: of course, I guess that's what they're saying, and maybe
Speaker 2: that's true. I mean, you know, it's a lot to
Speaker 2: see what's happening. I just when we look at Yemen,
Speaker 2: there's no way that I can support that war, No way,
Speaker 2: no way I can support what is happening there. So
Speaker 2: let's talk a little bit about the Constitution. And I
Speaker 2: think that there are some issues with this, but I
Speaker 2: don't think that they're the issues that people are actually saying.
Speaker 2: You know, the headline was, well, Trump says he's not
Speaker 2: sure if he has to support the Constitution. That's not
Speaker 2: what he's saying. But I'll play you the clip and
Speaker 2: then we'll say what he's really saying, which is also troubling.
Speaker 5: Actually, your Secretary of State says everyone who's here, citizens
Speaker 5: and non citizens, deserved to process. Do you agree, mister,
Speaker 5: I don't know.
Speaker 6: I'm not a lawyer. I don't know.
Speaker 5: Well, the Fifth Amendment, I don't know.
Speaker 6: It seems it might say that, But if you're talking
Speaker 6: about that, then we'd have to have a million or
Speaker 6: two million, or three million trials. We have thousands of
Speaker 6: people that are some murderers and some drug dealers and
Speaker 6: some of the worst people on earth. But it is
Speaker 6: some of the worst, most dangerous people are earth. And
Speaker 6: I was elected to get him the hell out of here,
Speaker 6: and the courts are holding me from doing it.
Speaker 5: But even given those numbers that you're talking about, don't
Speaker 5: you need to uphold the Constitution of the United States
Speaker 5: as president, I don't know.
Speaker 6: I have to respond by saying, again, I have brilliant
Speaker 6: lawyers that work for me, and they are going to
Speaker 6: obviously follow what the Supreme Court said. What you said
Speaker 6: is not what I heard. The Supreme Court said, they
Speaker 6: have a different interpretation.
Speaker 5: Is anyone in your administration right now in contact with
Speaker 5: El Salvador about returning a brigovarsiatry?
Speaker 6: I don't know. You'd have to ask the Attorney General
Speaker 6: of that question.
Speaker 2: All right, So that's the full context, and you can
Speaker 2: see that when they say Trump says, I don't know.
Speaker 2: This is the headline MPR does a present need of
Speaker 2: all the Constitution? Trump says, I don't know. Well, that's
Speaker 2: not what you just heard there. The context of what
Speaker 2: he's saying is that we've got millions of people here,
Speaker 2: so we can't do due process. And then he pivots
Speaker 2: to not just the millions of people who are here,
Speaker 2: but the people who are gang members and so forth,
Speaker 2: and you know, we can't do due process with anybody
Speaker 2: that is here, which is what he's saying. Now, you
Speaker 2: know that is I don't really don't know how you
Speaker 2: solve this problem. This was I think that even if
Speaker 2: you've got millions of people here, you should give them
Speaker 2: some kind of due process, some kind of a review.
Speaker 2: And I think that that could be done, especially when
Speaker 2: you look at how much money the government is spending
Speaker 2: on wars and on other non productive stuff. Maybe you
Speaker 2: could rapidly expand this and set up or review boards
Speaker 2: and things like that to expedite this stuff. Yeah, it
Speaker 2: would take a very long time. But the bottom line
Speaker 2: is what he was not saying is that he doesn't
Speaker 2: have to follow the Constitution. I know that Trump doesn't
Speaker 2: think that he has to fall the Constitution, but that
Speaker 2: wasn't what was being said in the context of this stuff.
Speaker 2: And so he was saying that I don't What he
Speaker 2: was saying awkwardly and Trump speak was well, I don't
Speaker 2: know if that is going to be if that is
Speaker 2: the law, if that is the Constitution in this And
Speaker 2: so that's the real crux of the issue that they're
Speaker 2: not focusing on. Instead, they're going to go with something
Speaker 2: very simplistic. Trump said he doesn't have to follow the constitution,
Speaker 2: or he doesn't know if he has to follow the Constitution. Now,
Speaker 2: the real issue is do people who are foreign citizens
Speaker 2: get rights when you know, and like due process and
Speaker 2: things like that. Are their human rights going to be
Speaker 2: respected when they're in the United States. I think that's
Speaker 2: the right way to phrase the question here, because I,
Speaker 2: as I said, you know, I saw this. One person
Speaker 2: responded when I talked about this Garcia thing, which I
Speaker 2: thought was the way the Trump people represented this thing
Speaker 2: when they said, but he was mistakenly deported. Wealthy was
Speaker 2: mistakenly deported. It's real simple. You bring him back and
Speaker 2: you give him some due process. But then they doubled down.
Speaker 2: They did ad hominem attacks. They photoshopped a picture put
Speaker 2: MS thirteen on his knuckles, and Trump thought that was genuine,
Speaker 2: and all the rest of the stuff. I think that
Speaker 2: there's other evidence that he was involved in cartels. As
Speaker 2: I said, you know, the trafficking that was going on
Speaker 2: there in Tennessee. Got caught with eight other people in
Speaker 2: his car, none of whom had luggage or money, don't
Speaker 2: speak English, and all the rest of this stuff, and
Speaker 2: the car itself belonged to somebody who had been convicted
Speaker 2: with due process of trafficking, and yet the Tennessee Highway
Speaker 2: Patrol let him go. Because the FBI said, we've got
Speaker 2: jurisdiction here under Biden. They said, we have jurisdiction here
Speaker 2: and we want you to let him go. So Biden
Speaker 2: ought to be investigated. The people in the FBI who
Speaker 2: did that ought to be investigated. But that's not happening.
Speaker 2: But again, the question is, you know, one of rights
Speaker 2: and of privileges. And so as she pressed him on
Speaker 2: whether and I didn't need to buy it by the
Speaker 2: Constitution and the rights that it provides two people in
Speaker 2: the United States, he said, I don't know. I don't
Speaker 2: know if foreign citizens have rights if they're in the
Speaker 2: United States. And so that is the real issue. And
Speaker 2: there was opinion piece on Plticos that visa applicants don't
Speaker 2: have First Amendment rights. Well, I think this is the
Speaker 2: issue and when we look at it, regardless of you know,
Speaker 2: whether you think that should be the case. And like
Speaker 2: I said, one person said, well, we're going to talk
Speaker 2: about rights for non citizens. Now, well, then that's going
Speaker 2: to be a hard passed. I'm not interested in listening
Speaker 2: to this program anymore. So let me just ask you this.
Speaker 2: Do rights come from God or do they come from government?
Speaker 2: Of course, if a government tells you can do something
Speaker 2: that's a privilege that has been granted by government. Rights
Speaker 2: come from God. Why, Well, in the American system, the
Speaker 2: foundation of the American system, what it was based on,
Speaker 2: was defined in the Declaration of Independence. It was a
Speaker 2: declaration about the fact that we were all endowed by
Speaker 2: our Creator with certain inalienable rights, and that among these,
Speaker 2: among these the rights the life, liberty, and pursuit of
Speaker 2: happiness and so forth. But that's not all of them, right,
Speaker 2: and so the whole context again, they take Trump's comments
Speaker 2: out of context. Letus understand when we talk about rights,
Speaker 2: where the real context is. The real context is the
Speaker 2: Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. The Bill
Speaker 2: of Rights does not grant anybody any rights. What it
Speaker 2: does is it recognizes our God given rights and it
Speaker 2: prohibits government from interfering with those God given rights. Who
Speaker 2: does God give the rights to human beings. Does that
Speaker 2: mean that you, as a human being, don't have any
Speaker 2: rights if you're not an American consitizen. No. Now, what
Speaker 2: we're talking about is government granted privileges. Again, because the
Speaker 2: government is going to define who a citizen is. God
Speaker 2: defines who a person is. And we have seen This
Speaker 2: reflected in our law when we talk about Faiza, for example,
Speaker 2: when you know from their inception, again, the CIA and
Speaker 2: the NSA and intelligence agencies were violating the Constitution and
Speaker 2: the requirement to get a search warrant if you're going
Speaker 2: to spy on people. They were doing it. From their inception,
Speaker 2: they were spying on Americans. And so that was the
Speaker 2: basis of the Church Committee hearings about the CIA and
Speaker 2: the NSA hearings that were conducted in Congress at the time.
Speaker 2: And out of that came the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,
Speaker 2: which said that you will not listen to you'll not
Speaker 2: spy on Americans without getting a search warrant. You will
Speaker 2: also not spy and that's domestically and foreign, and you
Speaker 2: will not surveil foreign citizens in America. That's the key.
Speaker 2: You'll not surveil foreign citizens in America without a search warrant.
Speaker 2: But you can surveil foreign citizens in foreign areas without
Speaker 2: a search warrant, but not a foreign citizen in America.
Speaker 2: Why did they do it that way? Now, you can
Speaker 2: disagree with them, but I think that was wise because
Speaker 2: I think that we want human beings who are within
Speaker 2: the jurisdiction of the American government to be treated as
Speaker 2: human beings. You know, we talk about human rights and
Speaker 2: foreign countries and all the rest of this kind of
Speaker 2: stuff all the time. Right, Why is that important? Because
Speaker 2: if you have a government that decides that it doesn't
Speaker 2: have to give human rights to a certain class of humans,
Speaker 2: then you know, first they came for the op ed writers,
Speaker 2: right as as the OpEd peace went by James Beauvart.
Speaker 2: First they came for the op ed writers, and they
Speaker 2: came for everybody else. You don't want to go down
Speaker 2: that path where the American government is free to violate
Speaker 2: human rights in America, because human rights are defined by
Speaker 2: you being a human, not by your legal status by
Speaker 2: the US government. That's my opinion. That's reflected in the
Speaker 2: Faiza legislation by the Congress fifty years ago. And the
Speaker 2: Supreme Court may have a different take on it, and
Speaker 2: if they do, I disagree with that take. And I
Speaker 2: do think that foreign citizens have human rights in America,
Speaker 2: and I don't want to live in an America where
Speaker 2: they don't have human rights, because that's going to be
Speaker 2: in America that takes away my human rights. And they're
Speaker 2: pretty hard pressed to do that right now, We've got
Speaker 2: a foreign government. The wantes that take away are human
Speaker 2: rights to free speech in America. They want the America.
Speaker 2: The Israeli government wants and is paying the American government
Speaker 2: to take away our rights of free speech. You really
Speaker 2: want that now. On the other hand, the question is
Speaker 2: is entry into the United States Is that a privilege? Well,
Speaker 2: I think it is. I think it is. I think
Speaker 2: that it is a privilege and that can be controlled by
Speaker 2: the government, and I think that that is a real
Speaker 2: you know, the real basis for this, I think is
Speaker 2: the fact that you know, when we look at the Bible,
Speaker 2: God has appointed nations, tongues and tribes, the nations of
Speaker 2: the borders. Tongues are languages, tribes are the cultures, and
Speaker 2: so forth. But God has appointed that God has appointed
Speaker 2: those places. God has appointed those times that certain countries
Speaker 2: will exist. America may not always exist, you know, institutions,
Speaker 2: countries come and go. God has appointed their places and times.
Speaker 2: He's also appointed their boundaries. And part of their power
Speaker 2: is to decide who can be in their country and
Speaker 2: who may not be in the country. So I think
Speaker 2: it's a perfectly legitimate thing to say that they can
Speaker 2: that that is a privile that is granted to come
Speaker 2: into the country, and so it also means that they
Speaker 2: can be removed. The question then is how how are
Speaker 2: we going to throw out the basic rules that respect humanity,
Speaker 2: that respect human rights, that recognize the freedom and dignity
Speaker 2: of people who have been created in the image of God.
Speaker 2: Are we going to throw that away for the expediency
Speaker 2: of getting out the people that have been flooded into
Speaker 2: this country by by Joe Biden. You know, there's a
Speaker 2: lot of talk about people who have self deported, and
Speaker 2: I think one of the things that they could do
Speaker 2: without doing due process, to without going through a length
Speaker 2: the process and hearings of millions of people that have
Speaker 2: been that have come into this country illegally. One of
Speaker 2: the key things that you do is you get rid
Speaker 2: of the welfare magnet and you kill a couple of
Speaker 2: birds with one stone, because, folks, welfare is not a right,
Speaker 2: even though the left says that it is. It is
Speaker 2: not a right. You do not have a right to
Speaker 2: be supported at the expense of somebody else, and that
Speaker 2: is a Christian principle as well. If they will not work,
Speaker 2: they will not eat. You don't get them working. You know,
Speaker 2: that's one of the things that the Pilgrims learned. When
Speaker 2: they decide they're going to set up a system of communism,
Speaker 2: then they realize, hey, that doesn't work. Let's give everybody
Speaker 2: a plot of land and they will eat what they grow.
Speaker 2: And if they don't grow anything, if they don't work,
Speaker 2: they won't eat. It's just that simple. And so yeah,
Speaker 2: I think that we have a system. You understand that
Speaker 2: welfare is not guaranteed anybody, and that's why I talk
Speaker 2: about getting rid of the welfare magnet. You know, immigration
Speaker 2: and crossings and everything basically come to a stop because
Speaker 2: Trump is militarizing the border and militarizing our society. Now,
Speaker 2: that's one way to do it. Do we want to
Speaker 2: live in that kind of country or would it be
Speaker 2: better to have a situation where you say, well, guess what,
Speaker 2: if you come into this country, you are not going
Speaker 2: to get any welfare benefits. You will never get any
Speaker 2: welfare benefits. As a matter of fact, when we identify you,
Speaker 2: we will financially penalize you or other things. There's things
Speaker 2: like that that they could do to financially disincentivize illegal immigration.
Speaker 2: And they could take that welfare magnet that is drawing
Speaker 2: people into this country under the wall, over the wall,
Speaker 2: through the wall, around the wall, and instead they could
Speaker 2: turn that magnet around and use the other pole and
Speaker 2: repulse them with economics. You don't have to set up
Speaker 2: a dictatorship to do this, and you need to not
Speaker 2: get rid of human rights. What you need to do
Speaker 2: is get rid of the idea that welfare is a right.
Speaker 2: And of course this is all the Cloward and Pivet stuff,
Speaker 2: the Democrats economic study by a couple of people named
Speaker 2: Cloward and Piven, saying that we had hoped that welfare
Speaker 2: would collapse our society and get everybody dependent on government.
Speaker 2: Unfortunately that hasn't happened to a significant degree with Americans,
Speaker 2: and so we need to accelerate this. So let's offer
Speaker 2: welfare to everybody outside of the United States. And if
Speaker 2: we do that and draw these people in, then it'll
Speaker 2: collapse the system here. So let's understand what they're trying
Speaker 2: to do, and let's respond to that particular issue. And
Speaker 2: let's also get past the idea that welfare is a right.
Speaker 2: It is not a right. But people in power will
Speaker 2: make two mistakes rather than admit to one, and that
Speaker 2: is what we're seeing over and over again. So you know,
Speaker 2: the question is also asked. You know, this is American
Speaker 2: greatness article. We don't need an executive order to bar
Speaker 2: illegals from social Security. We need a government that obeys
Speaker 2: the law, and we need a government that recognizes that
Speaker 2: welfare is not a right. But I said, you know what, universe,
Speaker 2: does it make a sense that the President of the
Speaker 2: United States has to sign an executive order to stop
Speaker 2: illegal aliens from receiving Social Security benefits? It's a tragic indictment.
Speaker 2: Excuse me of how far this nation has strayed from
Speaker 2: the rule of law, from common sense, and from constitutional integrity. Well,
Speaker 2: I completely agree with that. That's the key issue, and
Speaker 2: that's the way you get rid of people who are
Speaker 2: here Now if they are criminals, that's a separate issue.
Speaker 2: What Trump is doing is he's conflating a mass number
Speaker 2: of people, some of them who came here to work,
Speaker 2: some of them who came here for welfare, some of
Speaker 2: them who came here to engage in criminal cartel activity.
Speaker 2: Those are different types of things. They're not going to
Speaker 2: have the same solution, are they, right. So somebody that's
Speaker 2: here for welfare. Somebody's here for criminal activity, you handle
Speaker 2: them differently, and there are ways to handle that. So
Speaker 2: can the president refuse to spend money authorized by Congress
Speaker 2: if Congress, of course they haven't done that really authorizes
Speaker 2: social security for illegals or from many of these other
Speaker 2: issues you know, really can be done. This is from
Speaker 2: Reason and they said, well, you know, we look at
Speaker 2: the line item veto for example, or long history of
Speaker 2: what they called impoundment. What do you do to cut
Speaker 2: spending to the executive branch the same type of issue
Speaker 2: in a sense that you know Trump is He's like,
Speaker 2: you know, well, we got these people, they're here illegally.
Speaker 2: Does that mean that I don't have to follow the
Speaker 2: law to get rid of these people? They're here illegally, right?
Speaker 2: And then they also look at this and it's like, well, okay,
Speaker 2: I was elected. For example, as the Reason says, well,
Speaker 2: if you got somebody who runs the campaigns on spending
Speaker 2: less money, maybe even balancing the federal budget, and then
Speaker 2: you get in office and they try to carry this out.
Speaker 2: They've got a mandate, you know, from the people that
Speaker 2: voted for them. How do how do you do that? Well,
Speaker 2: the Constitution grants Congress the sole power of the purse.
Speaker 2: They said, the executive branch is tasked with faithfully executing
Speaker 2: the laws the Congress passes. If Congress passes a law,
Speaker 2: saying jump, is the president's job to jump, Well, not exactly.
Speaker 2: I mean, there is the reason that we have checks
Speaker 2: and balances. Checks and balance is just another name for
Speaker 2: nullification from one branch of the government to another branch
Speaker 2: of the government, nullifying it because they think that that
Speaker 2: action that they're doing is in violation of the constitution.
Speaker 2: Just because it's a law doesn't mean it's a constitutional law.
Speaker 2: But of course, now here's the issue here. What they're saying,
Speaker 2: very simplistically is that the Congress passes a law and
Speaker 2: allocates spending for a particular function. And again a lot
Speaker 2: of this is going to be tied to entitlement programs,
Speaker 2: saying that if you meet these qualifications, then you automatically
Speaker 2: get the funding that type of thing. Well, not even
Speaker 2: that is true, I pointed out, we talk about whether
Speaker 2: or not Trump has to spend the money that is
Speaker 2: in this budget. He clearly doesn't because we have seen
Speaker 2: over and over again, just on one issue, trainees in
Speaker 2: the girl's bathroom. Obama said, if you don't put the
Speaker 2: trainees in the girl's bathroom, I'll take your money away.
Speaker 2: Trump comes in and says, if you put the trainees
Speaker 2: in the girls bathroom, I'll put your money away. Do
Speaker 2: the opposite of that, then I'll take your money away.
Speaker 2: And then you got Biden who comes in and says,
Speaker 2: you put the trainees in the girl's bathroom, or I'll
Speaker 2: take your money away. And then Trump comes back and
Speaker 2: he says, if you put the trainees and then I
Speaker 2: will take your money away. So they're going back and forth,
Speaker 2: but all of them, Republicans and Democrats, just on that
Speaker 2: one issue. They're showing that even though the schools meet
Speaker 2: the qualifications so under the entitlement program, they meet the
Speaker 2: qualifications to get that money, that the president can say,
Speaker 2: but I'll withhold that money if you don't do what
Speaker 2: I want to do. This is the argument that I've
Speaker 2: had from for the last five years, the people trying
Speaker 2: to make excuses for what Trump did when he incentivized
Speaker 2: the lockdown and the mass killing of people using hospitals
Speaker 2: being paid by him, bribed by him to kill people
Speaker 2: of ventilators and remdesevir and maltreatment and all the rest
Speaker 2: of this stuff that was deliberately being done by him.
Speaker 2: The governors were taking the money that he was funding
Speaker 2: that and telling them what he would like them to do.
Speaker 2: And of course they had already prepared the legal authority
Speaker 2: and their states to do that based on the twenty
Speaker 2: year plan in practice, going back to Dark Winter. But
Speaker 2: that's the key presence. Have always done that. So and
Speaker 2: it's strange to me that they're not making that argument now.
Speaker 2: They're going back. In this Reason magazine article, they're going
Speaker 2: back to the Impoundment Act. They said, Trump views the
Speaker 2: Impoundment Control Act as an unconstitutional limitation on executive power. Well,
Speaker 2: where did that come from? That goes back to nineteen
Speaker 2: seventy two, Congress passed the Federal Water Pollution Control Act amendments.
Speaker 2: It was a series of updates and expenditures that became
Speaker 2: better known as the Clean Water Act. Nixon believed though,
Speaker 2: that the twenty four billion dollar law was too expensive.
Speaker 2: This is this guy who created the EPA. But now
Speaker 2: he says, okay, but that Clean Water Act is too
Speaker 2: much money. I'm going to cut nine billion dollars out
Speaker 2: of it. And so he vetoed the bill Congress and
Speaker 2: mustered the two thirds majority to override the veto. Nixon
Speaker 2: then simply refused to spend a large chunk of the fund.
Speaker 2: So he refused to spend nine billion of the twenty
Speaker 2: four billion dollars. So you know, depending on who you asked,
Speaker 2: did the Congress have the right then to come back
Speaker 2: with this Impoundment Act? Because he defied Congress. They say,
Speaker 2: going back to the early eighteen hundreds, Jefferson decided not
Speaker 2: to spend fifty thousand dollars that have been appointed to
Speaker 2: build a fleet of new warships to fight on the
Speaker 2: Mississippi River. He said that's not necessary, and so he
Speaker 2: wasn't going to spend the money. And then Congress just
Speaker 2: back down and they didn't take him to court or anything.
Speaker 2: But then when Nixon tried to do the same thing
Speaker 2: that a group of cities, including New York and Nixon's
Speaker 2: own EPA then got into a long battle with him
Speaker 2: in the Supreme Court in nineteen seventy five ruled that
Speaker 2: Nixon's refusal to spend the funds had been illegal. So
Speaker 2: if they apply this, then you have to spend them.
Speaker 2: Like I said, we have now seen this on so
Speaker 2: many different issues, issue after issue after issue where Trump says, well,
Speaker 2: if you are not, you know, doing what I tell
Speaker 2: you want to do, and he's not the only one
Speaker 2: who does it, you know, if you are, if you've
Speaker 2: got speech at your university that I don't like, well
Speaker 2: I'm going to cut your money that type of thing.
Speaker 2: And so, you know, I think that it is still
Speaker 2: up in the air. It'll be interesting to see what
Speaker 2: is happening. Trump, by the way, in this interview also
Speaker 2: said he doesn't rule out using military force to control Greenland.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, he did rule it out for his World
Speaker 2: Economic Forum buddy Mark Carney. However, now that Mark Carney
Speaker 2: is in Canada, I guess doesn't have to fear invasion
Speaker 2: by the United States. Again, this is the same NBC
Speaker 2: Beat the Press interview on Sunday. Asked about using force,
Speaker 2: he says, I don't rule it out. I don't say
Speaker 2: I'm going to do it, but I don't rule it
Speaker 2: out anything. No, not there. We need Greenland very badly.
Speaker 2: Greenland is a very small amount of people which we
Speaker 2: will take care of, will cherish them, and all of that.
Speaker 2: You know, So sincere isn't it small number of people
Speaker 2: that we will cherish and subsidize and give massive amounts
Speaker 2: of money to But we need that for international security.
Speaker 2: No we don't, No, we don't. And again, what a
Speaker 2: lie that is. As I pointed out, you know, they've
Speaker 2: had a military base there since the end of World
Speaker 2: War two, since not the end of World War two.
Speaker 2: During World War two they put a base there, and
Speaker 2: they enlarged it. They have an early warning you know,
Speaker 2: nor Rid system. They enlarged it to ten thousand people
Speaker 2: on that base. They've now got two hundred. So obviously
Speaker 2: they don't need it for national security. They still have
Speaker 2: the base, but they've reduced it from ten thousand to
Speaker 2: two hundred. How do you argue national security is needed
Speaker 2: for that. He was also asked about the idea of
Speaker 2: using military force against Canada and because he keeps talking
Speaker 2: about it being the fifty first state, he says that's
Speaker 2: highly unlikely. Why would you even entertain the idea for
Speaker 2: either one of these? He says, I don't see it
Speaker 2: with Canada, I just don't see it. I have to
Speaker 2: be honest with you. He said he had spoken to
Speaker 2: the new Prime Minister from the World Economic Forum and
Speaker 2: central banks. The Central Banker of Central Banks. Mark Carney,
Speaker 2: he confirmed that they had not spoken since about making
Speaker 2: his country part of the United States. But you know,
Speaker 2: he likes Mark Carney, and he said that many times
Speaker 2: before the election, and after the election, he did say
Speaker 2: he didn't like the Conservative Sixty eight percent of Americans
Speaker 2: believe that Trump is serious about the US trying to
Speaker 2: take over Greenland. Fifty three percent think Trump is serious
Speaker 2: when he talks about the US trying to take control
Speaker 2: of Canada. The survey commissioned by ABC News found the
Speaker 2: respondents didn't think that either annexation would be a good idea.
Speaker 2: So the majority of people think he's going to do
Speaker 2: something and they think it's a bad idea. About eighty
Speaker 2: six percent said they opposed the US trying to take
Speaker 2: control of Canada. Seventy six percent opposed trying to take
Speaker 2: control of Greenland. Ooh, there's ten percent of the people.
Speaker 2: But don't do it to Canada, but do it to Greenland.
Speaker 2: And again, you know, when you look at what's happening
Speaker 2: with this, it doesn't make any economic sense. It doesn't
Speaker 2: make any geopolitical sense either. An interesting thing, you know,
Speaker 2: we're talking about Greenland, Canada, Panama. I was talking to
Speaker 2: my friend who has long ties and Panama. He's American,
Speaker 2: but you know, his family was down there. They've had
Speaker 2: had ties down there. And he said, interestingly enough, because
Speaker 2: he reads he reads Spanish as well as English, and
Speaker 2: he gets the local Panamanian newspapers as well as an
Speaker 2: English newspaper that is there. And he said, there was
Speaker 2: a memorandum of understanding between the US and Panama when
Speaker 2: Pete Haigseth went down there, and he said, it was
Speaker 2: really crazy what was happening with that. He said, there
Speaker 2: was this big display of military force, had all these
Speaker 2: ships there and all these planes there to intimidate the
Speaker 2: Panamanians and the Secretary of Defenses down there to talk
Speaker 2: about a memorandum of understanding. And he said, in the
Speaker 2: memo that was published in Spanish, it talked about recognizing
Speaker 2: you know, yeah, we're going to have a security partnership here,
Speaker 2: but it's going to recognize the sovereignty of Panama. And
Speaker 2: he said, the Panamanian Spanish newspaper said yet, but the
Speaker 2: English version of that memorandum of understanding did not have
Speaker 2: that phrase in there. Did not have that in there.
Speaker 2: They said, so what's going on with this? They published
Speaker 2: one version in Spanish that's amenable to the Panamanians and
Speaker 2: another version in English that is not. And but you know,
Speaker 2: it was briefly shown and it wasn't really published. So
Speaker 2: my friend contacted the American you know, the military and
Speaker 2: the and the State Department. It went through this long
Speaker 2: chain of command trying to find where he could see
Speaker 2: the America the English version of the MoU the memo
Speaker 2: of understanding, and they gave him. They pushed him around
Speaker 2: from one place to the other. That this long, long chain.
Speaker 2: Bottom line is they're not showing it to anybody. They're
Speaker 2: not showing it to anyone, although they did get a
Speaker 2: version of it, and the people there did get a
Speaker 2: version of it, but out but our government will not
Speaker 2: publish it, will not give it to anybody. But the
Speaker 2: other people did get it. There Isn't that so fitting
Speaker 2: that they would come up with two different versions. By
Speaker 2: the way, that I think heavily underscorees reason why we
Speaker 2: need to have one official language in the United States,
Speaker 2: and not too We can imagine what they would do
Speaker 2: with that kind of stuff, you know, putting one thing
Speaker 2: in one language like they did with Panala. You put
Speaker 2: it in one version but not in the other version
Speaker 2: on Rumble MAV twenty twenty two, government created a situation
Speaker 2: that sows seeds of division for people to be angry
Speaker 2: enough to allow rights to be trampled. That's exactly exactly
Speaker 2: what is happening. And so when you look at this imperialism,
Speaker 2: it doesn't make any economic sense, it doesn't make any
Speaker 2: geopolitical sense. So much of what we're looking at falls
Speaker 2: into that category. We didn't even get a chance to
Speaker 2: get in. There's a lot of things we didn't get today.
Speaker 2: We'll get to them tomorrow. But I just want to say,
Speaker 2: you know, you start to prepare for this stuff. You know,
Speaker 2: start to prepare. I had a lot that I wanted
Speaker 2: to talk about in terms of the pushback against homeschooling.
Speaker 2: Understand about that. Prepare about that. One of the things
Speaker 2: that you can do to prepare about that is you
Speaker 2: start to see the pushback and legislation happening in multiple states.
Speaker 2: If you're homeschooling, make sure that you were connected to
Speaker 2: the homeschool Legal Defense Association. They helped to establish our
Speaker 2: God given rights, helped to establish that under law to
Speaker 2: homeschool our children. They can help you to defend that.
Speaker 2: Also go to David Knight dot gold and start to
Speaker 2: defend your right to transactional privacy. Financial transactional privacy, that
Speaker 2: is key. David Knight dot gold take you to Tony Arburn.
Speaker 2: Thank you for joining us.
Speaker 8: They have a good day, the common man.
Speaker 2: They created common Core and dumbed down our children. They
Speaker 2: created common Past to track and control us, their Commons
Speaker 2: project to make sure the commoners own nothing and the
Speaker 2: communist future. They see the common man as simple, unsophisticated ordinary.
Speaker 2: But each of us has worth and dignity created in
Speaker 2: the image of God. That is what we have in common.
Speaker 2: That is what they want to take away. Their most
Speaker 2: powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation. They desire to know
Speaker 2: everything about us, while they hide everything from us.
Speaker 1: It's time to turn that around.
Speaker 2: And expose what they want to hide. Please share the
Speaker 2: information and links you'll find at the Davidknightshow dot com.
Speaker 2: Thank you for listening, Thank you for sharing. If you
Speaker 2: can't support us financially, please keep us in your prayers.
Speaker 2: The Davidnightshow dot com