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 Wednesday, the seventh of
Speaker 2: May of Our Lord, twenty twenty five. Well, today begins
Speaker 2: real id and of course they're saying they're going to
Speaker 2: make some concessions, a lot of extra paperwork if you
Speaker 2: don't have it. But this goes back, of course, and
Speaker 2: we're also going to be talking about how we laid
Speaker 2: the foundation for this police state. The real Idea law
Speaker 2: goes back to two thousand and five when they did
Speaker 2: the prep Act. But today we're going to have as
Speaker 2: our guest in the third hour, Chris Emory, his documentary
Speaker 2: that's been around for about a decade, a little bit
Speaker 2: more than a decade. They now have some new information
Speaker 2: about the Oklahoma City bombing. I think you're going to
Speaker 2: find it a fascinating refresher course for what was before
Speaker 2: nine to eleven the biggest terrorist attack on American soil,
Speaker 2: both it and nine to eleven terrorist attacks done by
Speaker 2: our government. A lot of information pointing to that. So
Speaker 2: he's going to be joining us in the third hour.
Speaker 2: We have an interview that recorded yesterday, so I know
Speaker 2: how good it is. You want to hang around for that.
Speaker 2: We'll be right back. We're also going to have an
Speaker 2: update as to the amazing pump and dump grift in
Speaker 2: the Trump meme coin. The numbers are staggering, the number
Speaker 2: of people who lost money and the few who made
Speaker 2: an astounding, astronomical amount of money. Well, let's talk first
Speaker 2: about the federal real ID. And as I said before,
Speaker 2: this goes back to two thousand and five. This is
Speaker 2: when we had started having all of the legislation for
Speaker 2: the police state, police and surveillance state, and the aftermath
Speaker 2: of nine to eleven, and in the aftermath of the
Speaker 2: commission that was there to study it. Of course, it
Speaker 2: was not there to do it cover up, and it
Speaker 2: was there to recommend the next steps to be taken
Speaker 2: based on that phony event. No people died. But I'm
Speaker 2: saying that the phony explanation that they had for federal
Speaker 2: real ID requirements take effect today. As airport worries grow,
Speaker 2: they'll have enhanced security features. Of course, on these real IDs,
Speaker 2: they've got barcodes, holograms, all these things supposedly for anti counterfeiting.
Speaker 2: And even though this has been delayed, it was supposed
Speaker 2: to go into effect in two thousand and eight, has
Speaker 2: been delayed because we don't want an ID, But they're
Speaker 2: busy working on implementing the digital ID. That's what the
Speaker 2: digital cache is about, That's what the stable coins are about,
Speaker 2: that's what the crypto is about. All of it is
Speaker 2: about setting up a digital ID with biometrics on it
Speaker 2: as well. So in a sense, this real ID is
Speaker 2: very antiquated, but the concerns are the same and the
Speaker 2: motivations are the same. So beginning today, to get onto
Speaker 2: a domestic flight to enter secure federal facilities, why would
Speaker 2: you ever want to do that voluntarily? Or to access
Speaker 2: certain military bases after the deadline has been pushed back
Speaker 2: multiple times over a twenty year period. The requirement of
Speaker 2: real ID comes from twenty years ago, the Commission on
Speaker 2: nine to eleven, and they said, well, we've got to
Speaker 2: make IDs harder to fake. What about that ID that
Speaker 2: they found on the pile of the rubble therey. We're
Speaker 2: supposed to believe that you had this massive airplane crash,
Speaker 2: fires and all the rest of the stuff, and somebody
Speaker 2: allegedly found that ID on the ground handed it over
Speaker 2: to the New York Police Department as an ID for
Speaker 2: Satam al Suquami. Yeah, yeah, nothing suspicious about that, right,
Speaker 2: you want to talk about fake IDs? I wonder if
Speaker 2: can the real ID survive an airplane fire? Is ow,
Speaker 2: it's what they're requiring it on airplanes now, So we'll
Speaker 2: be able to go through and get everybody's ID after
Speaker 2: they have crashed the black box ID. But again, this
Speaker 2: is going back to two thousand and five, and of
Speaker 2: course as part of that legislative suite, they put in
Speaker 2: the PREP Act, that notorious bomination that says that you
Speaker 2: can't get any compensation for what they do to you
Speaker 2: with emergency vaccines. The PREP Act even worse than the
Speaker 2: nineteen eighty six Childhood Vaccine Act that fact sheet pushed through.
Speaker 2: So yeah, the rush of nine to eleven. Well, Christinoham says,
Speaker 2: travelers with no real ID can still fly for now,
Speaker 2: for now. Isn't that nice? How nice of her? But
Speaker 2: you'll be having to take extra steps, says the Homeland
Speaker 2: Security head who likes to play dress up. You'll still
Speaker 2: be able to fly, but you have to be prepared
Speaker 2: for extra scrutiny, because you know, you have to prove
Speaker 2: that you're not a terrorist, got to prove it, got
Speaker 2: to prove it to fly amazing. I'm just so done
Speaker 2: with airports and airplanes. I hope I never have to
Speaker 2: fly again. You may be diverted into a different line,
Speaker 2: and you may have to take extra steps, but people
Speaker 2: will now still be allowed to fly for now. And
Speaker 2: of course the extra steps are a lot of forms
Speaker 2: from your government. These ideas keep our country safe. She said, No,
Speaker 2: they don't know. They don't. Neither does she Neither is
Speaker 2: homeland security. They don't keep us safe. But did you
Speaker 2: get a goal star reminiscent of the Nazi government. It
Speaker 2: feels like an attack on everyday, people, said one person
Speaker 2: having to upgrade their licenses, all this identification for something that, really,
Speaker 2: you know, seems like we've been fine without it. We'd
Speaker 2: be much better off without the government pushing it. We'd
Speaker 2: be much better off without the government that pushes it.
Speaker 2: Travelers without real ID can use their passport. But even
Speaker 2: with that, there's still alternatives for the new requirements. So
Speaker 2: even if you don't have a passport, you can fill
Speaker 2: out a Transportation Security Administration Form one four one five,
Speaker 2: also known as the Certification of Identity Form, and if
Speaker 2: if the TSA official is able to confirm the details
Speaker 2: given to them. Passengers will be allowed to go through
Speaker 2: the security checkpoints and board their flights. Passengers who go
Speaker 2: this route may be subject to additional pack downs and
Speaker 2: screenings and questions and other extra security. You know, when
Speaker 2: one of the reasons I hate flying is because I
Speaker 2: absolutely refuse to use these machines. Means out of principle,
Speaker 2: not necessarily I don't know what they're doing physically medically
Speaker 2: to you, but I refuse out of principle to use them.
Speaker 2: So when we would travel, even so, I always go
Speaker 2: through the pack down stuff. And you know, the little
Speaker 2: game that they like to do with me is they
Speaker 2: like to make me stand next to the X ray machine,
Speaker 2: which I also refuse to do. Is it's just a
Speaker 2: wonderful experience. They want me to stand next to the
Speaker 2: X ray machine because I don't want to go through
Speaker 2: the scanner and I refuse to stand next to X
Speaker 2: ray machine. And when I travel with my family, one
Speaker 2: time when we went up to Washington State, we came
Speaker 2: back and we all opt out, and so the one
Speaker 2: guy says, let's just go, you know, just let you through, right,
Speaker 2: because it was all family and we're all opting out
Speaker 2: of it and everything except Travis got in a different
Speaker 2: line and they put him over on the other side,
Speaker 2: and they did give him the full pack down treatment.
Speaker 2: And of course I videotape that right the phone, and
Speaker 2: so I'm making a video of it. And the guy
Speaker 2: gets really upset. He said, I just let you through,
Speaker 2: and now you do this to us. And I turned
Speaker 2: the camera on him and I said, you haven't done
Speaker 2: me or my family a favor at all. We're Americans.
Speaker 2: We don't deserve to be treated like criminals, like we
Speaker 2: live in a Nazi country. Your identity papers. Please show
Speaker 2: me identity papers, right, Nazi occupied America, that's what this is.
Speaker 2: You're not doing me a favor to let me through.
Speaker 2: So yeah, if I keep flying, I'm gonna get arrested
Speaker 2: because they keep getting worse airport detentions. Have travelers freaked out?
Speaker 2: Says the Atlantic freaks me out. Certainly does, because I
Speaker 2: know where all this stuff came from. I know about
Speaker 2: the underwear bomber. I mean you know about that, right,
Speaker 2: I can't they remember the lawyer's name. I interviewed him
Speaker 2: several times. There was a lawyer who you know this
Speaker 2: under dishoveled guy was a lawyer who was coming back
Speaker 2: on the plane. They're coming from abroad. His name was Haskellne.
Speaker 2: I think he's now out of the country. I think
Speaker 2: he's living in Panama. He must be really happy with
Speaker 2: a Trump moves about Panama. Anyway, he was a lawyer
Speaker 2: and he noticed in this foreign country. He's sitting there
Speaker 2: and this really disheveled guy comes up and he's accompanied
Speaker 2: by guy that is very sharply dressed in a suit
Speaker 2: and all the rest of this stuff. And the guy
Speaker 2: who's in the suit talks to the attendant there to
Speaker 2: check this person in or whatever, and the other guy
Speaker 2: is kind of like out of it, right, that's really strange.
Speaker 2: He's looking at how strange that is. And so then
Speaker 2: they get on the plane and this guy is setting
Speaker 2: up a couple of rows in front of him. It's like,
Speaker 2: that's the guy, you know. And so he's kind of
Speaker 2: watching this guy because it's like, what is this guy?
Speaker 2: Is he a criminal or something? He's he got a
Speaker 2: guy in a suit escorting him. The way he's dressed me,
Speaker 2: he looks like a homeless guy. They just drug off
Speaker 2: the street. And then in the flight, you know, this
Speaker 2: guy tries to you know, set his underwear on fire.
Speaker 2: Whatever it was that he did, you know, it was
Speaker 2: the pretense for them to put in the scanners. It
Speaker 2: was so funny that American carol that was done by
Speaker 2: the Zuckerberg uh was Zuker brothers, I think comedy, and
Speaker 2: they had predicted this whole thing with absurdity. As people
Speaker 2: going through the security, they having to take well, we
Speaker 2: have to take this off now because this mom or
Speaker 2: and this moment I think that was before all that
Speaker 2: if I remember correctly, but whether it was before it
Speaker 2: or after, it certainly was an accurate satire. Anyway, he
Speaker 2: sees this guy doing this and he wanted to testify
Speaker 2: and say this whole thing was a setup. And this
Speaker 2: guy's lawyer wanted him to testify, he said, and of course,
Speaker 2: you know the witness was a lawyer himself. What they
Speaker 2: did was the guy used the fact that this very
Speaker 2: credible witness, a lawyer himself, had seen this whole thing
Speaker 2: set up and knew it was a setup and was
Speaker 2: going to tell people it was a setup. And the
Speaker 2: other lawyer, lawyer for the guy that was the supposed
Speaker 2: underwear bomber, used that as leverage to get a favorable
Speaker 2: plea bargain for his client and not go to court.
Speaker 2: And he was really bummed out about that because he
Speaker 2: wanted the truth to come out. So he's going on
Speaker 2: a lot of alternative media. I interviewed him twice. So
Speaker 2: the interesting thing about it is, of course that chert Off,
Speaker 2: the first head of Homeland Security, had left the government
Speaker 2: at that point in time, was working with a company
Speaker 2: that was ready to roll out these body scanners. They
Speaker 2: had him all manufactured and waiting to roll out. This
Speaker 2: all happened on Christmas holidays right and the following Thanksgiving,
Speaker 2: there was a boycott of the of the scanner machines
Speaker 2: that was organized and we heavily promoted it at Info Wars.
Speaker 2: And in response to this organized boycott on the heaviest
Speaker 2: travel day of the year around Thanksgiving, they just shut
Speaker 2: down all the machines and all the scanning and everything.
Speaker 2: Just let everybody go through no problem, because they didn't
Speaker 2: want to lose that pushback from citizens. They didn't want
Speaker 2: people to feel how powerful they were. But you it
Speaker 2: was in response to the citizens they did surrender that
Speaker 2: and it showed that all of this stuff is a fraud.
Speaker 2: And of course we have seen over and over again
Speaker 2: we have a congressmen who will not tell us the truth.
Speaker 2: They won't tell it. They have seen where the audit
Speaker 2: tests that look to see if you can sneak something
Speaker 2: through on the deliberately right, they test them out and
Speaker 2: they've hinted that it is the high eighties or low
Speaker 2: nineties percentile of failure. But they won't tell us. Our
Speaker 2: congressmen won't tell us. They could go on the floor
Speaker 2: of Congress and they could tell it, and they could
Speaker 2: do that with immunity, but they won't do it. They
Speaker 2: won't do it, and so we know that it doesn't work.
Speaker 2: The other thing that we know reason that we know
Speaker 2: that it doesn't work is because if there was a
Speaker 2: threat to airports or airplanes, we would have had an attack,
Speaker 2: because they're totally ineffective their measures. If you've got something
Speaker 2: that fails ninety percent of the time, if there's a
Speaker 2: real threat out there, we would have already had some attacks.
Speaker 2: And of course one of the other pushbacks against this
Speaker 2: was an engineer who sued them and as part of
Speaker 2: discovery he got information with internal TSA documents. Now, the
Speaker 2: government did not want those in the public record without reaction,
Speaker 2: but lawsuits get published on a website called pacer dot gov,
Speaker 2: and they mistakenly published the unredacted versions and had them
Speaker 2: up for almost a day. It was like put up
Speaker 2: in the morning. They got it down in the afternoon
Speaker 2: because we started heavily reporting it at info Wars. A
Speaker 2: guy calls up and say, hey, you know, they put
Speaker 2: this unredacted report up. You might want to grab it,
Speaker 2: which we did. Then they took it down, and then
Speaker 2: they put up the redacted version, which was really handy
Speaker 2: because we could go through and look at these things
Speaker 2: side by side and see what is it that they
Speaker 2: didn't want us to know that we now know. And
Speaker 2: the key thing that came out of that was in
Speaker 2: twenty eleven, as there were all these fights going on,
Speaker 2: there was a fight the Texas legislature to stop the
Speaker 2: TSA from doing the patdown of children. It was put
Speaker 2: in by David Simpson, who was a genuine Christian conservative
Speaker 2: there in Texas. He did some really good work no
Speaker 2: longer in the legislature, of course, and he put out
Speaker 2: a bill and it passed unanimously in the Texas House
Speaker 2: and they said, you're not going to do that. And
Speaker 2: if you continue to pat down children and put them
Speaker 2: through naked body scanners and stuff, we're not going to
Speaker 2: allow that to happen in Texas. And so you had
Speaker 2: when it went to the Senate, it got shut down
Speaker 2: there because lieutenant governor was former CIA and he took
Speaker 2: his position as the lieutenant governor and head of the
Speaker 2: Senate to shut it down there. He was somebody who
Speaker 2: after he got out of the CIA, was set up
Speaker 2: in the oil business. You know, we kind of like
Speaker 2: the bushes, you know, that's what they like to do.
Speaker 2: And he spent more money getting elected as lieutenant governor
Speaker 2: than anybody had ever spent up to that time running
Speaker 2: for office in Texas. He shut it down. They did
Speaker 2: a second time, and again it passed not unanimously that time,
Speaker 2: but they were able to shut it down a second time.
Speaker 2: As all that was happening in twenty eleven. This document
Speaker 2: the surfaced is part of this lawsuit that they published
Speaker 2: and redacted, then put up the redacted version of it later.
Speaker 2: That document said in twenty eleven, when they were threatening
Speaker 2: to turn they said, you pass that, we're going to
Speaker 2: shut off all air traffic to Texas, said the federal
Speaker 2: government and what that said was that there was no
Speaker 2: The TSA's own assessment said there was no threat to
Speaker 2: either airports or airplanes in that document. And of course
Speaker 2: we know that because we know how ineffective their measures are.
Speaker 2: You know, when you bunch everybody up for the sake
Speaker 2: of security, what you've done is you created a bigger
Speaker 2: terrorist opportunity. We know this just from common sense. We
Speaker 2: know it from security people. They said, you bunch everybody
Speaker 2: up at a checkpoint, terrorists will just bomb them there, right,
Speaker 2: And we've seen that happen and in countries where you
Speaker 2: have people in the church, won't get airport type security
Speaker 2: bag checks all the rest of the stuff and bunches
Speaker 2: everybody up. And so what the terrorists do, They set
Speaker 2: the bomb off at that location. So airport attentions have
Speaker 2: travelers freaked out, says The Atlantic. Now they're talking about
Speaker 2: predominantly people who are immigrants or visitors or whatever. They
Speaker 2: might have green cards that are legal, but that doesn't matter,
Speaker 2: not with the new border patrol and customs, right they
Speaker 2: So the anxiety is not limited immigration lawyers. Ahead of
Speaker 2: summer travel season, online message boards have been humming with
Speaker 2: vacation worries. Users are telling one another to delete social
Speaker 2: media accounts on their devices, turn off facial recognition features
Speaker 2: to make it harder for officers to gain access and
Speaker 2: pack photo copies of their personal documents such as birth
Speaker 2: and marriage certificates. This is what we have to do
Speaker 2: to travel. I blame the license license to drive stuff.
Speaker 2: That's part of where the slope was to going back
Speaker 2: even before this deliberate police state stuff, the idea that
Speaker 2: you'd have to have the government's permission to travel.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 2: I know people are sovereign citizens who say, well, if
Speaker 2: I'm driving for commercial purposes, you can regulate me. But
Speaker 2: if I am traveling and i'm traveling, I'm not here
Speaker 2: for hire. I'm not making a living doing this. You
Speaker 2: have no right to require a driver's license. And they're
Speaker 2: legally there, one hundred percent right. But just like all
Speaker 2: the rest of this stuff, we our court system is
Speaker 2: so corrupt they're not interested in hearing legal arguments. I
Speaker 2: have known people who've been tax protesters and said, well,
Speaker 2: you know, here, according to this, blah blah blah, you know,
Speaker 2: and the judge says, you're not going to talk about that,
Speaker 2: and if you continue to talking about I'll hold you
Speaker 2: in contempt. Next go to your next thing and shut
Speaker 2: down one after the other. Any arguments, they're not going
Speaker 2: to listen to anything, not going to let the jury
Speaker 2: hear any evidence against that. That's the way air court
Speaker 2: systems are. I've seen it over and over again in
Speaker 2: any not just in tax is not just an identification
Speaker 2: or driving. I've seen it with everything, everything that they do,
Speaker 2: if it has something to do with their power. In March,
Speaker 2: a German born New Hampshire resident arriving at Boston's Logan
Speaker 2: Airport was arrested in jailed now faces deportation over a
Speaker 2: years old marijuana charge. A Canadian woman detained at a
Speaker 2: southern California border crossing spent two weeks in a grim
Speaker 2: immigration and customs enforcement lock up. A Green card holder
Speaker 2: from Ireland who has lived in the United States for
Speaker 2: forty years, was taken into custody last month in San
Speaker 2: Francisco in a national airport because of drug convictions that
Speaker 2: had been expunged from her record. She is still in
Speaker 2: ice custody and faces deportation. There's also the story that
Speaker 2: I told about the two German teen girls that were
Speaker 2: backpacking around the world and when they got to Hawaii.
Speaker 2: The Customs and Border Patrol people wanted to know where
Speaker 2: they were staying, what hotel was like, We're not staying
Speaker 2: in hotel, we're backpacking. And they arrested them. I mean,
Speaker 2: they put these two girls in shackles, kept them in
Speaker 2: lock up with some dangerous people for a couple of days,
Speaker 2: and then put them in shackles again and took them
Speaker 2: to the airport and send them out of the country.
Speaker 2: Our country is getting crazy, folks. You can argue all
Speaker 2: you want about justification for this and exceptions for this,
Speaker 2: and we're okay because Trump's in order office and all
Speaker 2: the rest of this stuff. No, no, and it's both.
Speaker 2: It's not just Trump, it's Trump Democrats, all of them,
Speaker 2: all of them. Lawyers say that their clients foreign citizens
Speaker 2: residing abroad or Green card holders living in the United States.
Speaker 2: Even some US citizens are worried that their interaction with
Speaker 2: the border patrol officers station at airports and border crossings
Speaker 2: will end badly. David Fishman, a travel consultant in Michigan,
Speaker 2: says he will tell anxious travelers and when they're planning
Speaker 2: the vacations, consider booking a domestic trip instead of going
Speaker 2: abroad if only for peace of mind. You know, if
Speaker 2: you stay within the continental United States, you know, you're
Speaker 2: even going to Hawaii, he says, you don't have to
Speaker 2: worry about border patrol. You don't have to have a
Speaker 2: face to face with them, not yet anyway, right, But
Speaker 2: you understand transportation. The TSA is about transportation, not about airports.
Speaker 2: It's a Transportation Security Administration or agency or whatever it's called.
Speaker 2: It's about transportation. And they've tried in the past to
Speaker 2: all this kind of stuff out on domestic bus travel,
Speaker 2: greyhound travel, things like that. Are trains, it's coming and
Speaker 2: it's one of the reasons why they want to push
Speaker 2: these fifteen minute cities and these you know, the cars
Speaker 2: that Elon, Musk and Uber and all the rest of
Speaker 2: them are going to rent to you by the ride,
Speaker 2: is because they don't want you traveling without their permission.
Speaker 2: It's all about the ID. Although US citizens cannot be
Speaker 2: denied entry into the US, all other categories of non citizens,
Speaker 2: even in some cases legal permanent residents with green cards,
Speaker 2: are at risk of being denied entry are deemed inadmissible
Speaker 2: by a Customs and Border Patrol officer. Well, we're going
Speaker 2: to take a break. When we come back, we're going
Speaker 2: to talk about the you know, we've talked in the
Speaker 2: past about the billionaire sports stadiums, and we're going to
Speaker 2: talk about the billionaire data centers. What an astounding ripoff
Speaker 2: that is even worse than the sports stadiums, not nearly
Speaker 2: as entertaining either, And so we will talk about that,
Speaker 2: and we'll talk about how the only success that people
Speaker 2: have had in terms of stopping this has been organizing locally,
Speaker 2: and there are some groups that are helping people to
Speaker 2: organize locally. And so we're going to take a quick
Speaker 2: break and we will be right back.
Speaker 1: Analyzing the globalists. Next move. And now the deep and nutshell.
Speaker 2: On rumble t Norman Artist says, real id murder jab
Speaker 2: sprang us like bugs every day. Our government hates us
Speaker 2: and wants to kill us all. You're absolutely right, certainly
Speaker 2: people who run it for the top down. On rumble
Speaker 2: Wally Walras says, I don't fly anymore anyway. I got
Speaker 2: robbed at PDX Airport for five thousand dollars in twenty eighteen.
Speaker 2: They haven't flown since. I'm assuming that was the so
Speaker 2: called civil asset forfeiture where they take your cash because
Speaker 2: you know cash is a crime, and don't charge you
Speaker 2: whether they're breaking the law. That's where the civil comes in. Yeah,
Speaker 2: this is not a law. This is a rule passed
Speaker 2: by the regulatory agencies. Therefore, you have no due process.
Speaker 2: We don't have to charge and convict you before we
Speaker 2: take your assets. We just take them. We just steal it,
Speaker 2: and we call it civil asset forfeiture. One. What an
Speaker 2: amazing euphemism that is. Anyway, on rumble KWD sixty eight,
Speaker 2: Trump said, Doge found something unbelievable that was two weeks ago,
Speaker 2: but that on the list of all the other non
Speaker 2: delivered daily mouth diarrhea on rumble so I went Goy said,
Speaker 2: are we going to need permits to leave our pods
Speaker 2: in twenty fifty, Well, that would be a definitive Yes,
Speaker 2: they get us in pods, they won't have us locked down.
Speaker 2: This is what this is all a task for. And
Speaker 2: so part of that, you know, tying in with all
Speaker 2: this real idea and all the rest of this stuff,
Speaker 2: is there a desire to have these big data centers.
Speaker 2: The big data centers are going to be necessary for
Speaker 2: them to do all of this analysis of us real
Speaker 2: time analysis store all the information then, of course to
Speaker 2: propagandize us and to lie to us about all this.
Speaker 2: The new stadium scam is a server farm. This is
Speaker 2: from reason local governments love giving sweetheart deals to billion
Speaker 2: dollar companies and now data centers instead of football stadiums.
Speaker 2: I've talked about that. I did a report on this,
Speaker 2: one of the first reports I did in for Wards
Speaker 2: back in twenty twelve. I think I talked about the
Speaker 2: what was then. Well, it still is an astronomical sum,
Speaker 2: but they've gotten much more ludicrous amounts on the subsidies
Speaker 2: for these sports stadiums. They give massive subsidies to billionaires
Speaker 2: so that we can all watch millionaires play a boys
Speaker 2: game in the stadium. I don't care what they do,
Speaker 2: but they ought to pay for their own business and
Speaker 2: their own stadium. But now the big grift is that
Speaker 2: we're going to subsidize heavily these big tech companies so
Speaker 2: they can come in with a big data center. Laporte, Indiana,
Speaker 2: a small city between South Bend, Indiana Chicago, Illinois. A
Speaker 2: recent announcement that Microsoft is investing over a billion dollars
Speaker 2: into a vast new data center campus in Laporte is
Speaker 2: expected to be transformational for the town of only twenty
Speaker 2: two thousand people what they need, and again it's locally organizing.
Speaker 2: Is how you're going to stop stuff like this. These
Speaker 2: local officials are out of their mind if they want
Speaker 2: this or they're being paid off. Microsoft was given a
Speaker 2: forty year tax abatement on equipment, a renewable state sales
Speaker 2: tax exemption through two thousand and sixty eight forty three years,
Speaker 2: and just two and a half million dollars worth of
Speaker 2: payments in lieu of taxes over four years, about a
Speaker 2: third of what it would normally be after that nothing.
Speaker 2: Local utilities also will cover the cost of the infrastructure
Speaker 2: and pass it on to the people who buy electricity.
Speaker 2: Just sixty miles up the toll road, the toll road
Speaker 2: sits Soldier Field, home of the Chicago Bears. The stadium's
Speaker 2: two thousand and two post modern renovation cost five hundred
Speaker 2: and eighty six million dollars, three hundred and eighty seven
Speaker 2: million of which was shouldered by the taxpayers. That's two thirds,
Speaker 2: two thirds of over a half billion dollars was paid
Speaker 2: for by the taxpayers. Chicago only has six hundred and
Speaker 2: forty million dollars left to pay, and the Bears are
Speaker 2: now threatening to And how did it get up to
Speaker 2: six hundred and forty million dollars well with interest two
Speaker 2: hundred and fifty six million dollars in interest. So cities
Speaker 2: of long bankroll stadiums for billionaire team owners, while promising
Speaker 2: taxpayer jobs, tourists, tourism and civic pride and maybe even
Speaker 2: a Super Bowl. They say, the results almost uniformly dismal.
Speaker 2: Here they are from Cincinnati, Miami, Saint Louis, Charlotte, North Carolina.
Speaker 2: Cincinnati Bengals left Hamilton County, Ohio, buried in debt and
Speaker 2: bled obligated to fund high tech upgrades just to keep pace.
Speaker 2: In Miami, they spent half a billion dollars in public
Speaker 2: funds on a baseball stadium for the Marlins, only to
Speaker 2: see the Attendants collapse and the team gut it. Saint
Speaker 2: Louis Is still only to still paying off the Edward
Speaker 2: Jones Dome, even after the Rams skipped town for Sunnier La.
Speaker 2: So the team's gone and they're still paying for the
Speaker 2: stadium in Saint Louis. In Charlotte, North Carolina, the latest
Speaker 2: edition of this Hall of Shame. After handing out six
Speaker 2: hundred and fifty million dollars in tourism taxes to renovate
Speaker 2: Bank of America stadium, earning them the quote worst economic
Speaker 2: development deal of the year un quote distinction from the
Speaker 2: Center for Economic Accountability. But now we move to the
Speaker 2: server farms because it's not about fun and games anymore.
Speaker 2: Now they get serious in terms of watching us. Just
Speaker 2: as bad for taxpayers. Small towns and not a few
Speaker 2: big ones are bending over backward to lure data centers.
Speaker 2: Local economic development officials tilt the scales, suspend the rules,
Speaker 2: give away the farm. Says reason. Well, I say it'll
Speaker 2: create jobs. It'll put us on the map. It's worth
Speaker 2: the investment. Well, you know, so does small businesses. Great jobs,
Speaker 2: but they don't get any breaks. First, there's the infrastructure issue.
Speaker 2: Data centers demand massive utility upgrades power lines, substations, water lines, fiber,
Speaker 2: and roads. These are usually paid for by local utilities,
Speaker 2: by state infrastructure grants, or by rate payers. In Kansas City,
Speaker 2: Evergy announced that it would build two new power plants,
Speaker 2: largely to meet data center demand, costs that would be
Speaker 2: passed on to customers. In Northern Virginia, Dominion Energies data
Speaker 2: center grid upgrades are now a line item and a
Speaker 2: state wine electric rate hike in Virginia. State wide, they
Speaker 2: put it in as a line item. I guess it's
Speaker 2: okay if you put in a line item expense, as
Speaker 2: long as it's not one of Trump's tariffs. Right, Amazon
Speaker 2: got in trouble with that. You do that, you are
Speaker 2: a Chinese propagandist. According to Caro Lying Life, it don't
Speaker 2: tell people where this extra fee is coming from. Keep
Speaker 2: them in the dark, or we'll call you a communist propagandist. Next,
Speaker 2: there's tax increment financing amount Pleasant Wisconsin. Microsoft got a
Speaker 2: deal that allows a company to recapture up to forty
Speaker 2: two percent of its own property taxes, not only avoiding
Speaker 2: taxes but being reimbursed with public dollars. I tell you
Speaker 2: Microsoft is doing the deals, aren't they? There's always been
Speaker 2: about their political connections. These deals are struck behind closed doors,
Speaker 2: insulated from scrutiny, built on the assumption that any growth
Speaker 2: is good, even if it's paid for by taking your
Speaker 2: neighbor's wallet. Ana let's project that data center capacity will
Speaker 2: more than triple by twenty thirty and five years. Five
Speaker 2: years the estimate that the US will need to reach thirty
Speaker 2: five gigawatts of capacity by then, double today's total. As
Speaker 2: jiggaw smarty right back to the futility of the utilities.
Speaker 2: The surge is largely driven by artificial intelligence, which alone
Speaker 2: accounts for seventy five percent of all data center demand
Speaker 2: that they make by twenty thirty. So they got a
Speaker 2: double it and seventy percent of that is going to
Speaker 2: be AI. These facilities listen to this already draw more
Speaker 2: electricity than some nations, some nations, and Goldman Sachs projects
Speaker 2: that they will consume up to nine percent of US
Speaker 2: power by twenty thirty. Because AI is there to spy
Speaker 2: and to lie. That's what it's about. Spying and line
Speaker 2: and if you're going to spy in line of people,
Speaker 2: all the government's got a blank check for you. Nothing
Speaker 2: is too much. So how do we stop this? Well,
Speaker 2: Futurism had an interesting article. It's kind of a tech site.
Speaker 2: They said, small towns are rising up against these AI
Speaker 2: data centers. We don't want to be the next data
Speaker 2: center alley. And that's the big corridor that's there in Virginia.
Speaker 2: As AI creeps further into our lives, so do the
Speaker 2: hulking data centers that power it, but not everyone is
Speaker 2: stoked about their neighbors bulky, noisy, and they hog resources
Speaker 2: like electricity to staggering scale. They place a huge burden
Speaker 2: on the local power grids and on water that were
Speaker 2: only designed for small town homes, not state of the
Speaker 2: art industrial facilities. But of course we've seen this for
Speaker 2: a long time. You know, the NSA had two big
Speaker 2: data facilities, one of them back east of the Washington area.
Speaker 2: The other one they put out in Bluffdale, Utah, years ago.
Speaker 2: And you know, they're busy keeping copies of everything that
Speaker 2: goes on on the Internet so that when they get
Speaker 2: fast enough computers, quantum computing or something like that, they'll
Speaker 2: be able to go back and data mind that and
Speaker 2: pigeonhole every one of us. And so they put that
Speaker 2: the one that's out west in Bluffed All, Utah. They
Speaker 2: put that out in the middle of the desert. He
Speaker 2: uses more water than a city and more power as well.
Speaker 2: But they don't care about any of that stuff. Money
Speaker 2: is no object for the federal Empire. It just conjures
Speaker 2: it up out of thin air, and neither party cares
Speaker 2: about balancing this stuff. It's all nonsense. I mean Trump
Speaker 2: let them take the debt ceiling off for two years
Speaker 2: through a temper tantrum when Johnson didn't get that through.
Speaker 2: He doesn't want to balance the budget, doesn't want to
Speaker 2: reduce spending. He wants the ceiling taken off. There hasn't
Speaker 2: been any real cuts proposed. You know, Elon Musk is
Speaker 2: bragging about how and sixty five billion dollars that he's
Speaker 2: taken out. That's nothing, really and those cuts are not
Speaker 2: real either. They're not. They're still being litigated. In most cases,
Speaker 2: most of these things aren't. They've given extra bonuses to
Speaker 2: a lot of federal employees to take early retirement, but
Speaker 2: other than that, not any real quote unquote cost savings,
Speaker 2: and that was very expensive to do that. Hyper scale
Speaker 2: data centers bring few benefits to communities, said a grassroots
Speaker 2: campaign that has successfully repulsed a data center in their area.
Speaker 2: It's called peaceful peculiar because they're in peculiar Missouri. I
Speaker 2: live in peculiar. Dozens of communities around the nation severely
Speaker 2: struggle from the presence of data centers. It's only about
Speaker 2: maximizing their profits, so they choose properties as close as
Speaker 2: possible to a large power supply. Now this group has
Speaker 2: a Facebook page. It's called Don't Dump Data on Peculiar,
Speaker 2: and they welcomed input. They so they put up a
Speaker 2: Facebook page and they said, please tell us if you're
Speaker 2: an activist or an organizer in other communities and you've
Speaker 2: been fighting this grift from the data centers. I think
Speaker 2: a lot of people who helped them. And it's a
Speaker 2: good model for this because if we do this on
Speaker 2: many other issues. I think, you know, these things can
Speaker 2: only be stopped. If they're going to be stopped, they're
Speaker 2: only going to be stopped at the local level. What works, well,
Speaker 2: we need to start coordinating that. Maybe you know, Facebook
Speaker 2: will let you do that. They did in this particular case.
Speaker 2: And so there was a company called let's see what
Speaker 2: is it, it was called diode Ventures diode Ventures, and
Speaker 2: they switched them off. I guess they switched off that
Speaker 2: diode facility. Now, after successfully fighting off the diode facility
Speaker 2: last October, the organizers of Peculiar have become a resource
Speaker 2: now to fellow activists as far away as Indiana, Idaho, Georgia,
Speaker 2: and Texas. So people started pulling their their what they
Speaker 2: were doing to slow these things down or stop them.
Speaker 2: They stopped it, so now that's become another resource. We
Speaker 2: don't want to be the next Data Center Alley, said
Speaker 2: an organizer from Indiana. That is a nickname given to
Speaker 2: a stretch of land at northern Virginia home to over
Speaker 2: fifty of the facilities, with many more on the way.
Speaker 2: Data Center Alley is a cautionary tale helping to fuel
Speaker 2: the loose, pay it forward style of campaigning in Indiana.
Speaker 2: They found that out of thirty ongoing proposals, two were
Speaker 2: repelled in the last month alone, on top of five
Speaker 2: more rejections in the past year. That's all despite a
Speaker 2: corporate friend league governor with generous tax incentives offered by
Speaker 2: state lawmakers. Local residents themselves, not larger groups, are proving
Speaker 2: to be the most effective line or defense against the
Speaker 2: looming threat of data center development. That's always going to
Speaker 2: be our solution, Our solution to big government, to corporate fascism,
Speaker 2: a merger of government and corporations is going to be
Speaker 2: organizing at the local level. This is a great example
Speaker 2: of it, and so we're building our tools to help
Speaker 2: local folks feel like they have the knowledge and the
Speaker 2: resources to be able to engage at these local levels.
Speaker 2: So an organizer with Citizens' Action Coalition, when we have
Speaker 2: several dozen data center proposals in the state of Indiana
Speaker 2: more coming, a small organization like ours can't be there
Speaker 2: for each individual fight. So they realize that the power
Speaker 2: is in decentralizing and the power is in getting people
Speaker 2: connected and organized at the local level about things that
Speaker 2: are going to direct affect them. So how is this
Speaker 2: data going to be used? Well, we already know it's
Speaker 2: the government. It's going to use it to spy on us,
Speaker 2: and they also use it to lie to us, to
Speaker 2: push us with propaganda one way or the other, to
Speaker 2: gaslight us. Palenteer partnering with the Department of Defense on
Speaker 2: the controversial AI project called Maven. This is a merger,
Speaker 2: of course. Palenteer is a merger in a sense of AI.
Speaker 2: In the older sense, AI was anticipatory intelligence, which they
Speaker 2: could they can infer a lot of things about you
Speaker 2: just from the metadata. As Hayden was saying, Michael Hayden,
Speaker 2: and he said, we don't want your person. We're not
Speaker 2: listening to your personal phone calls, and we're not reading
Speaker 2: your text messages and emails. We just want that metadata. Well,
Speaker 2: that was even worse, said William Binnie when I interviewed him.
Speaker 2: He said, it's the metadata that tells him even more
Speaker 2: than if they were listening to your phone conversations or whatever.
Speaker 2: That's part of geospatial intelligence where they analyze your movements,
Speaker 2: who you come in contact with, all the rest of
Speaker 2: the stuff. They can infer all kinds of things about that.
Speaker 2: Your politics can be inferred from that, your religion can
Speaker 2: be inferred from that. They are very good at that.
Speaker 2: And once they do that, once they collect all that
Speaker 2: information with geospatial intelligence, then they can anticipate what you're
Speaker 2: going to do. They boast about how they know better
Speaker 2: than you what you're going to do. They called that
Speaker 2: AI anticipatory intelligence. And so Pallateer has been at the
Speaker 2: center of this. And Pollateer has always been selling stuff
Speaker 2: to the government, to the spy agencies, to the military,
Speaker 2: that type of thing. They've started doing more domestic stuff now,
Speaker 2: But years ago Pollanteer had just massive numbers of billboards
Speaker 2: up in Washington, especially in the Subway area, because they
Speaker 2: were marketing themselves to the federal agencies that were there.
Speaker 2: NATO recently announced a partnership of Palanteer to acquire the
Speaker 2: controversial Maven smart system as part of an effort to
Speaker 2: complete a digital transformation of NATO. This is from Derek Brose,
Speaker 2: last American vagabond and of course Polunteer founded by Alex
Speaker 2: carb and Peter Teel, as he points out, the technocrat
Speaker 2: Zionists who also happened to be the steering committee members
Speaker 2: of the Builderberg Group. And the man smart system uses
Speaker 2: AI generated algorithms and memory learning capabilities to scan and
Speaker 2: to identify enemy systems. This is what they're working on now,
Speaker 2: is the methods for them to be able to switch
Speaker 2: over the killed decision to the artificial intelligence. It'll go
Speaker 2: out in profile things, determine who the enemies are, who
Speaker 2: the friends are, and then fire the weapons without having
Speaker 2: humans in the loop. Because you have humans in the loop,
Speaker 2: the other AI will beat you to it. So that's
Speaker 2: the arms race that is coming. And so the NATO's
Speaker 2: had a lot of problems with standardization. They got radio
Speaker 2: systems that don't work with each other, that are incompatible
Speaker 2: with each other. So you know, hey, look just use signal.
Speaker 2: I mean, you know, Pete Hegseth did, Mike Waltz, Yeah,
Speaker 2: no problem, just use signal. Signal chat. Anyway, the Maven
Speaker 2: system has already been in use by certain US military outfits.
Speaker 2: They have even used it in the Ukraine Russian conflict.
Speaker 2: The US has used Maven to spot Russian defence outposts
Speaker 2: and April of twenty twenty four, Pounteer was also awarded
Speaker 2: a four hundred and eighty million dollars deal by the
Speaker 2: Army to use this system. The Financial Time says it's
Speaker 2: likely to be one of Paleteer's most significant military contracts
Speaker 2: of twenty twenty five. And again we look at Alex s. Garp.
Speaker 2: You know, he gets downright gleeful about killing his enemies.
Speaker 2: And so this goes back to the original Project Maven
Speaker 2: in April twenty six and of course, if you remember
Speaker 2: it came out at that point time back in twenty eighteen,
Speaker 2: a lot of Google employees made public protesting Google's involvement
Speaker 2: in Project Mavin. They said, we believe Google should not
Speaker 2: be in the business of war, and war is a business.
Speaker 2: Google would eventually drop out of that project, and so
Speaker 2: would Eric Schmidt drop out of anything having to do
Speaker 2: with Google. He had already was no longer the CEO,
Speaker 2: but had been on the board. But he got out
Speaker 2: around that time, and he has now been become kind
Speaker 2: of the Pentagon guru for high tech weapons, especially artificial intelligence.
Speaker 2: Eric Schmidt is doing that along with Peter Thiel and
Speaker 2: along with Palenteer. And so before we take a break
Speaker 2: here that there's now bring it Home. A Freethought project
Speaker 2: has an article from Reclaim the Net. Texas bill is
Speaker 2: declaring a war on memes, a war on memes. Yeah,
Speaker 2: they don't want you to do satire. That's a very
Speaker 2: difficult thing for them to deal with. What's being dressed
Speaker 2: up here as election integrity in this Texas bill is
Speaker 2: at its core a disturbing attempt to police satire, commentary,
Speaker 2: and political expression. Saul Alinsky said satire is the most
Speaker 2: dangerous weapon. He said, there's no defense against it. Well,
Speaker 2: even a demonic Marxist, I say demonic. He dedicated his
Speaker 2: book Rules for Radicals to Lucifer, the original rebel. He
Speaker 2: said he's right about that. He certainly knows his devils,
Speaker 2: doesn't he Marx Lucifer all these and he said satire
Speaker 2: is the most dangerous saying there's no defense against it.
Speaker 2: I guess though even he couldn't imagine the politicians and
Speaker 2: the lawyers and how they would use intellectual property as
Speaker 2: a weapon. So it's deceptively framed as a measure to
Speaker 2: combat AI misinformation. It would in reality make a criminal
Speaker 2: offense to share altered political content such as memes or
Speaker 2: edited videos, unless it carries a government mandated disclaimer that
Speaker 2: has yet to be determined. Now, I said this about
Speaker 2: the AI bill that was being pushed by Millennia Trump,
Speaker 2: and Trump had said out, nobody makes more fun of
Speaker 2: it than me. Right, that's where this is headed. I said,
Speaker 2: that's where this is headed. I said, yeah, they're talking about,
Speaker 2: you know, people doing fake pornography, you know, taking your
Speaker 2: face and making pornographic images with it. And Milania wanted
Speaker 2: to take the lead on that because I guess she
Speaker 2: wants her cut. She wrote her book. She's very proud
Speaker 2: of her pornographic asked, very proud of it. I guess
Speaker 2: she just wants to get paid anyway. Uh. This is
Speaker 2: being championed by former House Speaker Dade Feelin. His medical
Speaker 2: career has been marred by a controversy. That's a polite
Speaker 2: way of putting it. He was drunk dad as Speaker
Speaker 2: of the House, I talked about it. This is two
Speaker 2: years ago. This is why he's former speaker.
Speaker 4: Paxton has not provided any real hard proof of his allegation,
Speaker 4: but last Friday, video recorded from the House floor shows
Speaker 4: the speaker conducting a late night portion in the fourteenth
Speaker 4: hour of a fourteen hour session with slurred speech.
Speaker 2: There is a different cadence and not the rapid fire
Speaker 2: calling of votes normally heard, while Feelan presides, we're going
Speaker 2: to play that he was drunks first from mid nineteenth again,
Speaker 2: that's the d was drunk. Following that, you'll hear it
Speaker 2: last night and listen, mister.
Speaker 3: Campbell, the center of the author is Jacob is adopted.
Speaker 3: What zero seven zero?
Speaker 5: This is record vote the clerk ring.
Speaker 3: The bell show voting, mister Smith voting, I.
Speaker 6: Sweener voting nay.
Speaker 2: This is when he was sober. That was so they
Speaker 2: did drunk then sober. Now we're back to drunk, mis adopted.
Speaker 3: Sure recognizes mister mister Johnson of Harris, mister Johnson of Harris.
Speaker 2: Do you recognized them? How about that? It's so blind drunk.
Speaker 2: I'm surprised that he could recognize them. So that's Dade Feeling,
Speaker 2: former House speaker. He is the one who introduced this
Speaker 2: law to criminalize memes. If an acted, that would treat
Speaker 2: the unapproved sharing of such content by campaigns or candidates
Speaker 2: as a class a misdemeanor punishable by up to a
Speaker 2: year behind bars. It's coming out of your Republican Texas.
Speaker 2: Simply spending more than one hundred dollars to promote an
Speaker 2: altered image, video, or audio clip without the required government
Speaker 2: approved language would be enough to trigger prosecution. A Texas
Speaker 2: Ethics Commission would be tasked with declaring exactly what this
Speaker 2: mandated language should look like, right down to its size
Speaker 2: and color. They say, well, as they said, obviously it's
Speaker 2: going to create the purpose of this is to intimidate people.
Speaker 2: I hate the term a chilling effect. No, it's intimidation.
Speaker 2: It's intimidation to intimidate anybody that would use satire or
Speaker 2: parody or digital commentary to criticize politicians. There's a lot
Speaker 2: of opposition on social media. State Representative Shelley Luther, remember her,
Speaker 2: So you had the beauty salon and she got a
Speaker 2: Democrat locked her up. This is Clay Jenkins and Dallas.
Speaker 2: He was the mayor there, the city of the county mayor,
Speaker 2: which is the highest elected office. I think that was
Speaker 2: the title that no judge judge there. Here in Tennessee,
Speaker 2: it's called mayor at the county level, not a mayor
Speaker 2: of a city. So they have a mayor of a city,
Speaker 2: but then they also have a mayor of the county,
Speaker 2: which is the highest elected county official. In Texas, they
Speaker 2: have regular judges in a courtroom, but then the person
Speaker 2: who is the elected official, who is the highest elected
Speaker 2: official in the county, is called a judge there. Well,
Speaker 2: Clay Jenkins was a judge there. And I've talked about
Speaker 2: this many times, how when a bowler came to town
Speaker 2: with an illegal immigrant, it had civil rights and you
Speaker 2: had Clay Jenkins going around saying, don't worry about it.
Speaker 2: Yeah we got a bowler, but you know, go to
Speaker 2: the Dallas and Houston football game, you know, go see
Speaker 2: the Cowboys and the Wailers play, or whatever the Houston
Speaker 2: team is now. And he said, we've got lots of
Speaker 2: hospitals and lots of doctors if you get sick, right,
Speaker 2: And so they had the guy who had it died.
Speaker 2: Two nurses who were treating him got nearly died, nearly
Speaker 2: they got very sick, nearly died, and fact she came in,
Speaker 2: Francis Collins came in, Obama came in, and all these Democrats,
Speaker 2: with the Democrat Clay Jenkins, they were all telling her,
Speaker 2: but don't worry about it, everything's fine, Calm down, everything's fine.
Speaker 2: And even made it a point of going to the
Speaker 2: apartment and walking around without any protective clothing or anything.
Speaker 2: And then he wants to sell the viral scare tactics
Speaker 2: with COVID. Just a couple of years later, same guy,
Speaker 2: and that time, oh, I'm going to lock you down.
Speaker 2: Everybody's gonna be locked down. Completely different approach. And Shelley
Speaker 2: Luther was one of the people who pushed back on that.
Speaker 2: And she had a beauty beauty or salon and the
Speaker 2: Clay Jenkins, the county judge. She got the courtroom judge
Speaker 2: to put her in jail, and then I think she
Speaker 2: was pardoned by Abbott or something. But that was a fight.
Speaker 2: She got involved in politics. She's now a state representative,
Speaker 2: and she said, we are banning political memes and giving
Speaker 2: people up to a year in jail for failing to
Speaker 2: attach a disclosure to a cartoon. She tweeted, and I says,
Speaker 2: do you want to know what the Texas House is
Speaker 2: doing today. Well, I'll tell you we are banning political
Speaker 2: memes and giving people up to a year in jail
Speaker 2: for failing to attach a disclosure to a cartoon. She said. Democrats,
Speaker 2: of course, are rallying around this bill. What a joke.
Speaker 7: It is.
Speaker 2: Just like Dade Feeling is a joke. He brushed off
Speaker 2: the concerns. He said, all these days, I tell you
Speaker 2: add a disclosure for using altere media. No, I think
Speaker 2: he was sober when he said that, which makes it
Speaker 2: all the worse. Right, I think they should rename this bill.
Speaker 2: This is the bill for knucklehead politicians like Trump, who
Speaker 2: doesn't know about the MS three team being photoshopped. It
Speaker 2: fooled him, It really did fool him. And so there's
Speaker 2: a lot of really, you know, they should call it
Speaker 2: the knuckleheads and Chuckleheads Bill. There's a lot of chuckle
Speaker 2: heads out there who can't figure it out. Knuckleheads whatever, right,
Speaker 2: just knuckleheads and chuck lads. We're going to do it
Speaker 2: for them. We're going to put a special disclaimer on
Speaker 2: there for people like Donald Trump who can't tell photoshop
Speaker 2: from a picture, even when it's a really, really bad photoshop.
Speaker 2: But I don't even think they were even They weren't
Speaker 2: even trying to make it look like it was a tattoo.
Speaker 2: He just couldn't figure it out. To critics, this kind
Speaker 2: of rationale only reinforces how far the government is willing
Speaker 2: to reach into constitutionally protected expression. Yeah, imagine, Well the
Speaker 2: founders of this country would say about a jail sentence
Speaker 2: for doing a satire cartoon. Oh, they hate it when
Speaker 2: you do, because satire cartoons. You know, That's that's what
Speaker 2: the uh, the lawyers came after us for. And we're
Speaker 2: going to come back with that in a different form.
Speaker 2: We're not going to do exactly the same thing. We're
Speaker 2: going to put pretty close to it anyway. The bill
Speaker 2: includes minor exceptions for changes in superficial quality, such as
Speaker 2: color or brightness. It does nothing to protect party. So
Speaker 2: I guess, not wit a minute. If we're gonna change
Speaker 2: the color of brightness, does that mean they could enhance
Speaker 2: the orange color of Trump's skin? And not to do
Speaker 2: a disclaimer on that. It does nothing to protect parody
Speaker 2: or commentary, which have long been the core pillars of
Speaker 2: political discourse. It draws an arbitrary legal line around digital creativity,
Speaker 2: and it gives the government power to punish those who
Speaker 2: cross it because you know, we all know that sensors
Speaker 2: don't have a sense of humor. Implications are already dangerous
Speaker 2: elected officials andingly shielded from criticism or moving to criminalize
Speaker 2: the tools used by ordinary citizens to hold them accountable.
Speaker 2: And as all this is happening, As I said before,
Speaker 2: AI is a tool to lie in spy, is a
Speaker 2: tool that is dearly beloved by our lying spies who
Speaker 2: are heavily into the occult and people like the CIA.
Speaker 2: And so what about the speech of AI itself, You
Speaker 2: know it is being used satanically, demonically. The messages were
Speaker 2: insane and just saying a bunch of spiritual jargon as
Speaker 2: a headline. As Rolling Stone reports, users on Reddit are
Speaker 2: sharing how AI has led their loved ones to embrace
Speaker 2: a range of alarming delusions, often mixing spiritual mania and
Speaker 2: supernatural fantasies. Satanic demonic friends and family are watching an
Speaker 2: alarm as users insist that they've been chosen to fulfill
Speaker 2: sacred missions on behalf of sentient AI or non existent
Speaker 2: cosmic powers chatbot behavior that's just mirroring and worsening existing
Speaker 2: mental health issues, but at an incredible scale. A forty
Speaker 2: one year old mother and a nonprofit worker told Rolling
Speaker 2: Stone that her marriage ended abruptly after her husband started
Speaker 2: engaging in unbalanced conspiratorial conversations, which at GBT that spiraled
Speaker 2: into an all consuming obsession. She said, he became emotional
Speaker 2: about the messages and he would cry to me as
Speaker 2: he read them aloud. The messages were insane and just
Speaker 2: saying a bunch of spiritual jargon, she said. AI called
Speaker 2: the husband a spiritual a spiral star child. It says spiral,
Speaker 2: not spiritual, A spiral star child. That mean that he
Speaker 2: likes milky ways. It figured out that he has a
Speaker 2: pension for milky Way candy. Oh you're a spiral star
Speaker 2: job and called him a river walker river walker as
Speaker 2: he lived in San Antonio. The whole thing feels like
Speaker 2: black mirror, she said. Other users told the publication that
Speaker 2: their partner had been quote talking about lightness and dark
Speaker 2: and how there is a war, there is there is,
Speaker 2: and when things like this happen, it can be a
Speaker 2: physical psychological thing, but sometimes it's not. Anyway, chat GPT
Speaker 2: has given him blueprints to a teleporter. Some other sci
Speaker 2: fi type things that you're only see in movies. Another
Speaker 2: man told rolling Stone that his wife is changing her
Speaker 2: whole life to be a spiritual advisor and to do
Speaker 2: weird readings and sessions with people. I'm a little fuzzy
Speaker 2: on what it actually is, but it's all powered by
Speaker 2: chat GPT. Jesus, he said, no, he's a little bit
Speaker 2: confused to his chat g Lucifer, Lucifer. These AI induced
Speaker 2: delusions are likely the result of they said, people with
Speaker 2: existing tendencies. It's just it's just reinforcing somebody's psychosis, say
Speaker 2: the psychologists. But perhaps the strangest interview in rolling Stone's
Speaker 2: story was a man with a troubled mental health history
Speaker 2: who started using chat GPT for coding tasks, but then
Speaker 2: so it started to pull him into conversations on unhinged
Speaker 2: mystical topics. He pondered, is this real or am I delusional? Well,
Speaker 2: I'll tell you it is going to be used that way,
Speaker 2: whether it's being used by demonic forces or whether it's
Speaker 2: being used by the CIA. I'm being redundant here, aren't I.
Speaker 2: It will be used by dark, evil forces, and it
Speaker 2: will be used to lie to us and to spy
Speaker 2: on us. We're gonna take a quick break and we'll
Speaker 2: be right back. If you're listening to the David Night Show.
Speaker 6: Colonel Potter, Sir Corporal Clinger, I'm section eight, hit the toe.
Speaker 3: I'm wearing a Warner bro I played with dollas.
Speaker 6: My last wish is to be buried in my mother's wedding.
Speaker 3: Guy, I'm nuts.
Speaker 6: I should be out horse hockey. I've seen these dodges
Speaker 6: for forty years. All the tricks knew. A private pretended
Speaker 6: he was a mayor, carried a coat in his arms
Speaker 6: for weeks. Another fellow said he was a daisy, insisted
Speaker 6: we water.
Speaker 7: Him every morning.
Speaker 1: No, no, corporal, and ain't going to go with me.
Speaker 6: Now you get out of that fruit through and into
Speaker 6: a uniform, and you stay in uniform.
Speaker 8: This missus.
Speaker 1: Lead arm finished. I got to burn my bloomers.
Speaker 3: I see him around sometimes.
Speaker 2: I don't know that guy. I just see him around
Speaker 2: there sometimes. That's his introduction, Clinger's introduction to the new
Speaker 2: Colonel there Potter. Yeah, well, Supreme Court is going to
Speaker 2: allow Trump to implement transgender military band because these people
Speaker 2: should be sectioned data of the military. Right, You're crazy, Look,
Speaker 2: I'm crazy I'm wearing women's clothes now it's a virtue,
Speaker 2: and they're recruiting for people like Clinger have been under
Speaker 2: the Biden administration that has now changed under Trump. As
Speaker 2: a matter of fact, this is what Pete Hegsath said.
Speaker 9: No more pronouns, no more climate change obsession, no more
Speaker 9: emergency vaccine mandates, no more dudes in dresses. We're done
Speaker 9: with that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, I wish we were done with the undeclared
Speaker 2: wars all over the place. How about that. If we
Speaker 2: can get stop dudes and dresses, can we stop some
Speaker 2: of these wars that are unnecessary and undeclared. No, now
Speaker 2: they're going to ramp those up anyway. The Supreme Court
Speaker 2: granted an emergency request from the Trump administration to lift
Speaker 2: a nationwide injunction by blocking the policy while the litigation continues.
Speaker 2: It's not a done deal yet, folks. This is yet
Speaker 2: another example of one judge, a politically appointed judge, who
Speaker 2: decides that he is going to tell the commander in
Speaker 2: chief what to do. Now, Look, whether you agree with
Speaker 2: Trump or not, I mean, we have to have these
Speaker 2: clear lines of authority that are there, and clearly this
Speaker 2: is within the scope of the president to be able
Speaker 2: to make this decision. Unfortunately, both in both directions. Right
Speaker 2: when the Democrats get back in, or I guess we
Speaker 2: should call them the gender crats, when the gender crats
Speaker 2: get back in, they could reinstate this policy because it's
Speaker 2: been on again and off again as it goes back
Speaker 2: and forth tween Republicans and Democrats. And you didn't have
Speaker 2: any you didn't have any judges saying that Trump, that
Speaker 2: Biden couldn't put the policy back in that Trump had
Speaker 2: taken out. It only goes the other way, and so
Speaker 2: you have one judge who decides that he is going
Speaker 2: to overrule the commander in chief and he's going to
Speaker 2: set national policy. This is what I mean by judicial
Speaker 2: overreach and supremacy, and that really is the case. They
Speaker 2: said there's just over four thousand, and this is actually
Speaker 2: coming from NBC News, so this is probably a high
Speaker 2: figure for them because they're sympathetic to the trainees. They
Speaker 2: said there's over four thousand trainees, they said transgender people,
Speaker 2: but there's about two point one million active service, so
Speaker 2: we're looking at about zero point one percent according to them,
Speaker 2: and that number is pretty high probably, And that's in
Speaker 2: other words, about tenth of one percent. They said, we
Speaker 2: are not a theory, we are not a policy debate.
Speaker 2: We are real people doing real jobs, and they are
Speaker 2: real people who have deep psychological issues that interfere with
Speaker 2: their job. And it's not just the mental issues as well,
Speaker 2: because it isn't something that just distracts their focus and
Speaker 2: has them focused on their sexual obsessions all the time.
Speaker 2: It is something that is also being funded by taxpayers.
Speaker 2: And once they get these surgical procedures, they are now
Speaker 2: physically disabled, cannot deploy for a while, and they may
Speaker 2: have when they've they've got some kind of a bottom
Speaker 2: surgery or something, they may have a physical issue that
Speaker 2: is going to be a big problem for them doing
Speaker 2: any kind of deployment. And so this is from a
Speaker 2: sanity perspective, from a practical perspective, from a mental perspective,
Speaker 2: physical perspective, this needs to be shut down. So I'm
Speaker 2: glad they're doing it good. I hope that they can
Speaker 2: continue it. But again, remember this is just a Supreme
Speaker 2: Court saying. This judge says, I disagree with what Trump
Speaker 2: is doing, and I'm going to stop it nationally, and
Speaker 2: he put a stay on it. And so the Supreme
Speaker 2: Court says, no, we're going to let Trump's policy go
Speaker 2: through while this is still being litigated. But it could
Speaker 2: still be litigated. It might have to go back to
Speaker 2: be appealed to the Supreme Court. Yet again, they said
Speaker 2: that the policy quote generally disqualifies some military service individuals
Speaker 2: who have gender dysphoia that's the mental issue, or who
Speaker 2: have undergone medical interventions for gender dys For you, that
Speaker 2: would be the physical impairment that they have done. In
Speaker 2: implementing the policy, the government relied on Pentagon report for
Speaker 2: the first Trump term that said that people with gender
Speaker 2: dysphoia so called, are a threat to quote, military effectiveness
Speaker 2: and lethality. So they said, one person pushing back on it, said,
Speaker 2: this is based on the shocking proposition that transgender people
Speaker 2: do not exist. No know you exist. You are just
Speaker 2: detached from reality. And they this is just an acknowledgment
Speaker 2: that they're mentally and sometimes electively physically unable to do
Speaker 2: the job. That's what it's an acknowledgment of. So the
Speaker 2: Supreme Court stayed the lower court's preliminary injunction of one
Speaker 2: unelected political appointee, saying I'm going to set policy for
Speaker 2: the entire military tire two million person military. It was
Speaker 2: a six to three decision, and of course the three
Speaker 2: were the liberal justices sot of A or Kagan and
Speaker 2: Jackson Jackson, who famously did not know what is a woman.
Speaker 2: I guess Jackson still does not know what a woman is.
Speaker 2: These are the three appointed gendercrat judges, and they want
Speaker 2: to rule by gender fantasy. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals,
Speaker 2: with of course, you know it's a very leftist court,
Speaker 2: denied Trump administration's stay and so you had a one
Speaker 2: judge who did it and put a stay on it,
Speaker 2: and then they appealed it to the Night Circuit Court.
Speaker 2: They said no, we're going to leave the stay in.
Speaker 2: They appealed it to the Supreme Court, and then they
Speaker 2: they removed the stay. In January, Trump signed two bills,
Speaker 2: one of them to root out the gender insanity that
Speaker 2: was called the Restoring America's Fighting Force, and then the
Speaker 2: other one was to stop the nonsense about pronouns that
Speaker 2: was called prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness. They said they
Speaker 2: want to root out gender insanity and then made up
Speaker 2: pronoun usage respectively. So again, if we want to have
Speaker 2: a sane military. Let's take a look at these ongoing
Speaker 2: wars in Gaza, Ukraine, and Yemen and the rest, and
Speaker 2: let's not start one in Iran. Then you really would
Speaker 2: have a sane military. But instead we have wars that
Speaker 2: are even more insane than Corporal Clinger, who had the
Speaker 2: good sense to want to get out of that Korean
Speaker 2: war that was there a police action, our first police
Speaker 2: action war. The trans Empire striking back against the UK
Speaker 2: determination and court. The UK Supreme Court has as we
Speaker 2: reported last month, they ruled that fifteen year old British
Speaker 2: legislation really did mean sex and not using this redefined
Speaker 2: term gender, because look, gender and sex have always been
Speaker 2: synonym for each other and they've always been biological. And
Speaker 2: so the UK Supreme Court said, well, it said sex
Speaker 2: and we're going to treat it as written, and that's
Speaker 2: caused a lot of pushback in the UK. They simply
Speaker 2: found that words mean things, as this person says the
Speaker 2: New American. They simply found that man means man, and
Speaker 2: woman means woman, and sex means man, woman and sex.
Speaker 2: But Andrea Widberg wrote, she said, you already know what
Speaker 2: it says, lived reality and threatening the safety as these
Speaker 2: you have a lot of celebrities have come together with
Speaker 2: a letter to push back against this lived reality that
Speaker 2: sounds like that Luigi guy right, our lived experiences. Yeah,
Speaker 2: that's university talk for nonsense. It exposes trans people to
Speaker 2: embarrassment and harassment. To make a distinction and say, well,
Speaker 2: this is going to be biological negative consequences for all
Speaker 2: women harm that trans engender, non conforming people face, et cetera,
Speaker 2: et cetera. So Woodberg says, there's a couple of things
Speaker 2: to understand about the We Love Trans People pylon. First
Speaker 2: of all, the entertainment industry is disproportionately populated with non heterosexuals.
Speaker 2: While most people know very few homosexuals and have never
Speaker 2: met somebody claiming to be trans, the entertainment types really
Speaker 2: do believe that half or more of the world is
Speaker 2: on what they call a spectrum. A spectrum in other words,
Speaker 2: it's a continuum. You don't have a binary man or woman.
Speaker 2: You have some kind of a continuum there where they
Speaker 2: are gradually moving between these two worlds. And as a
Speaker 2: matter of fact, Cynthia Nixon, who's an actress and she
Speaker 2: was on Sex and the City, she ran for political office.
Speaker 2: She had this to say in a New York rally.
Speaker 10: I am here today as the mother of a proud transman.
Speaker 10: I am here today as the aunt of a proud transman.
Speaker 10: My best friend's kid is trans, and my kid's best
Speaker 10: friend is trans.
Speaker 11: My wife and I our lives are filled with the
Speaker 11: most amazing, beautiful, brave trans people, young and old, but
Speaker 11: especially young.
Speaker 2: My trans kid had.
Speaker 12: His top surgery at NYU a number of years ago.
Speaker 12: His doctors were fantastic, His surgeon was the best we
Speaker 12: could have imagined. And the idea that the city is
Speaker 12: filled with young people who thought they had a place
Speaker 12: to go where they could receive the highest care and
Speaker 12: that place has now been shut to them sickens me.
Speaker 12: Sickens me to my.
Speaker 2: Wow, So is she auditioning for a new series? I
Speaker 2: could call it gender in the City, right instead of
Speaker 2: Sex in the City. She's got all these people in
Speaker 2: her life that are trainees her daughter.
Speaker 13: Yeah, look, lady, sorry, you sold your soul to the
Speaker 13: devil and invited this evil into your household. But that's
Speaker 13: not the average experience.
Speaker 2: No, No, it's like was it Bill Maher that said,
Speaker 2: you know what's going on with this? Why is it
Speaker 2: all the kids in California are in the wrong bodies,
Speaker 2: but it's not happening to the people in Indiana or whatever.
Speaker 13: It's even obvious just from what she says. When it's
Speaker 13: like and I know more young people, it's like, yeah,
Speaker 13: because they've been hammering this propaganda for the last few years.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah. She's proud of the fact that her daughter,
Speaker 2: evidently when her daughter was young and minor, had a misectomy.
Speaker 2: This is all we talk about when we talk about mutilation,
Speaker 2: or some of them sterilization. So she has a daughter
Speaker 2: that is trans, saying a trans man. Now, her niece
Speaker 2: is trans, her best friend's kid is trans, her kid's
Speaker 2: best friend is trans. And this writer for The New
Speaker 2: American says, if this strikes you statistically improbable, joined the club.
Speaker 2: One person commented on this video and said, Transhausen's syndrome
Speaker 2: by proxy instead of Munchausen is Transhausen, and that's what
Speaker 2: it is. They want a virtue signal. I'm part of
Speaker 2: the club. I'm part of the LGBT club. She absolutely is.
Speaker 2: But the part that is intolerable about this is that
Speaker 2: she's demanding this mutilation of young kids and pushing it
Speaker 2: on them. Probably within her family. This is a Hollywood
Speaker 2: special effect, folks. It really is something that's being pushed
Speaker 2: out of the entertainment business. And they are very very
Speaker 2: effective at gas lighting and at propaganda. So there's a
Speaker 2: pushback from JK. Rowling, who has really you know, that's
Speaker 2: you know, she's sure with the Harry Potter books. She's
Speaker 2: a multi billionaire and she doesn't care what these people
Speaker 2: are saying. She's going to push back on this. And
Speaker 2: so she is a radical feminist who and the feminist,
Speaker 2: as I've said many times, typically what we've seen the
Speaker 2: last few years, the radical feminists are at war with
Speaker 2: the trainnies. She said, I'm not repeating this. Trans women
Speaker 2: are women and trans men are men. She says, I'm
Speaker 2: not repeating that because it's true. They know full well
Speaker 2: that it is not true, but because they believe that
Speaker 2: they can make it true sort of if they force
Speaker 2: everyone else to agree. And that's the key. It's about
Speaker 2: repeating propaganda, repeating it over and over again. It's about
Speaker 2: going with a great big lie. It's always been the
Speaker 2: key of propaganda, and it's repetition, a great big lie,
Speaker 2: and it is coercion, especially in the entertainment business, and
Speaker 2: she's been ostracized because of that. So this writer of
Speaker 2: The New American says, what we're talking about is the
Speaker 2: mindset that rejects objective reality, especially moral objective reality. Says,
Speaker 2: there are two conceptions of right and wrong. One involves
Speaker 2: the idea that morality is real, existing apart from man,
Speaker 2: that it is universal, that it is eternal, that is unchanging.
Speaker 2: Our only job is to discover it and to align
Speaker 2: our lives to it. And how is it eternal and
Speaker 2: separate away from man, Well, it's because it's tied to God.
Speaker 2: The other one is that man makes his own morality.
Speaker 2: The other conception is a relativistic one, which is what
Speaker 2: we live in today in our society, the idea that
Speaker 2: humans invent what can only be called morality, and if
Speaker 2: we invent it, we can reinvent it, and we can
Speaker 2: keep changing it. And everybody's got their own truth and
Speaker 2: their own reality. See, this is what's typically called postmodernism.
Speaker 2: Modernism was in the eighteen hundreds. People wanted to push
Speaker 2: back against God. So they wanted to reject his morality.
Speaker 2: They wanted to reject the idea of what was in
Speaker 2: the Bible. They had higher criticism in Germany and other places.
Speaker 2: And so this is one of the many ways that
Speaker 2: it came back. You had, you know, evolution, you had modernism,
Speaker 2: higher criticism, a lot of different things that were there.
Speaker 2: They basically wanted to throw off the old social conventions,
Speaker 2: which are based on God's morality. And what happened was
Speaker 2: they didn't do too well in terms of their arguments,
Speaker 2: and so they stopped trying to argue to get away
Speaker 2: from morality, and they just went post modern, which says, oh,
Speaker 2: we're not even going to argue with you what is truth.
Speaker 2: We don't know what truth is. There is no absolute truth,
Speaker 2: That's what they would say, except that the reality is
Speaker 2: that was their absolute truth. Their absolute truth was that
Speaker 2: there is no absolute truth. But they did have that,
Speaker 2: did hold that as an absolute truth. So the whole
Speaker 2: thing was nonsensical. It was self contradictory. About a decade ago,
Speaker 2: says this writer, I was interacting with a little girl
Speaker 2: of about eight or nine who was in my charge,
Speaker 2: and some topic arose and I mentioned a moral imperative. Well,
Speaker 2: she replied quite innocently that it wasn't true, because she says,
Speaker 2: I'm paraphrasing all the people could disagree and think otherwise,
Speaker 2: I said, writer says, I gently corrected her, Well again,
Speaker 2: you know, we will make up our own truth. The
Speaker 2: idea that right and wrong are just a function of
Speaker 2: consensus social values. Yeah, that's a problem that we have
Speaker 2: with democracy. For example, right democracy is rejects the truth
Speaker 2: that we are created in the image of God, as
Speaker 2: stayed in the Declaration of Independence, that the purpose of
Speaker 2: government is to is to protect those God given rights
Speaker 2: that we all have as creatures of God. And so
Speaker 2: when we start talking about where we are today in
Speaker 2: our society, all this obsession with democracy is really a
Speaker 2: mob rule, a mob that denies individual rights. Where do
Speaker 2: we see this over and over again? We see it
Speaker 2: in public health. The mob will tell you what to
Speaker 2: do with your health, the mob that is running the government.
Speaker 2: Or we see it with public education, the mob will
Speaker 2: tell you how to educate your child, where and how
Speaker 2: and what to tell them. Or we see it in
Speaker 2: every aspect. And whenever you put the prefix of public there,
Speaker 2: that's it, public transportation, we will tell you how you
Speaker 2: will move, and you will move as the government sees fit.
Speaker 2: Anytime you put that public there, anytime you start talking
Speaker 2: about how democracy is the highest value. You're talking about
Speaker 2: a mob here, and the mob never respects you as
Speaker 2: an individual. They didn't respect your individual rights or republic.
Speaker 2: It's a rule of law, and there are certain things
Speaker 2: that are encoded into that law and that make it
Speaker 2: very difficult to change it about individual rights. Whereas a mob,
Speaker 2: all they got to have is fifty one percent of
Speaker 2: the people say we're going to do this or do
Speaker 2: that to you, and there's nothing you're going to do
Speaker 2: about it. See if we were if we didn't have
Speaker 2: the public health officials like Fauci, if we respect an
Speaker 2: individual liberty, as the Constitution says, then we wouldn't have that.
Speaker 2: But it's always important for democracy rule to get away
Speaker 2: from the rule of law. Relativistic operation becomes instinctive. It
Speaker 2: begins to be applied beyond the moral realm. If everything
Speaker 2: is relative, then what could be wrong with having your
Speaker 2: alternative scientific quote unquote facts. So if people want to
Speaker 2: advance this agenda, however, they want to do it as
Speaker 2: a moral imperative. So they have their absolute truths, they
Speaker 2: have their commandments that they want you to obey. They
Speaker 2: have their religion, they have their worldview, and they demand
Speaker 2: that their religion and worldview be taught in the public schools,
Speaker 2: that you bow to it, that you speak using their pronouns,
Speaker 2: and all the rest of this stuff. It is a
Speaker 2: policy of domination and it denies the individual, when in
Speaker 2: reality they are saying, we're upholding the uniqueness and diversity
Speaker 2: of individuals. Know they're not. What they're doing is they're
Speaker 2: just attacking truth in politics. The check on democracy is
Speaker 2: a principle that rights are inherent from God and they're
Speaker 2: not up for grabs and they're not to be renegotiated
Speaker 2: with a mob. Now, as we have all this, I'll
Speaker 2: just got one last thing here about trans issues. You
Speaker 2: know we had. Michelle Obama has had a couple of
Speaker 2: interestingly awkward phrased events recently. She just was on a
Speaker 2: podcast and she was talking to somebody and she said, well,
Speaker 2: you know, we talk about this. I think it was
Speaker 2: a transgender thing. Even she said, well, as a man,
Speaker 2: I would like to know blah blah blah, you know
Speaker 2: what you would like to think about this? Now everybody
Speaker 2: was playing that clip. Oh yeah, look, big Mike says,
Speaker 2: as a man, I would like to know instead of
Speaker 2: saying I would like to know what you think as
Speaker 2: a man, she says, as a man, I would like
Speaker 2: to know Foxus was on the wrong order of words.
Speaker 2: And she's done it again. Now. She says that she's
Speaker 2: in therapy and she's going through life transition, being put
Speaker 2: out by some conservatives saying, see here it is again
Speaker 2: she's admitting she's a man. I think it's another unfortunate phrasing. Here,
Speaker 2: she says, at this phase of my life, I'm in
Speaker 2: therapy right now because I'm transitioning, you know, which is
Speaker 2: kind of interesting. You know, being a gendercrat, you would
Speaker 2: think she would know how people are going to take that.
Speaker 2: Maybe she's toying with people. She says, I'm an empty nester.
Speaker 2: She goes on to clarify, I'm an empty nester. My
Speaker 2: girls are in you know, they've been launched, she said.
Speaker 2: Michelle Obama said, accommodation of being out of public service
Speaker 2: and her children being fully grown, left in a situation
Speaker 2: where quote, every choice that I'm making is completely mine,
Speaker 2: they said. And so she said, I'm getting that tune
Speaker 2: up for this next phase of my life. Oh, let's
Speaker 2: not run for office please. It comes after she spoke
Speaker 2: about the discourse around her marriage she said, that's the
Speaker 2: thing that we as women, I think we struggle with
Speaker 2: disappointing people. I mean so much so that this year
Speaker 2: people couldn't even fathom that I was making a choice
Speaker 2: for myself. That they had to assume that my husband
Speaker 2: and I are divorcing. This couldn't be a grown up
Speaker 2: woman just making a set of decisions for herself, right, Well,
Speaker 2: I don't know. You know, it's not a marriage when
Speaker 2: you say that you're transitioning in your life and your
Speaker 2: spouse is not really involved and you're going to figure
Speaker 2: it all out yourself. I mean most people's that's not
Speaker 2: what most people's idea, even in our society where divorce
Speaker 2: is rampant, that's not most people's idea of a marriag.
Speaker 2: You know, in the marriage, you might want to go
Speaker 2: to this person that you've been living with for decades
Speaker 2: and kind of seek their advice rather than go in
Speaker 2: and get the therapeutic advice of some stranger who puts
Speaker 2: out a shingle like Lucy advice five cents, because that's
Speaker 2: about what it's worth.
Speaker 13: Yeah, over the last ten years, the soul everybody needs
Speaker 13: therapy idea has gone absolutely crazy. The sheer number of
Speaker 13: people that have almost no problems in their life and
Speaker 13: still feel the need to go complain to someone is
Speaker 13: insane to me. Yeah, you're showing up to get just
Speaker 13: your mind wiped and one shot by some dude with
Speaker 13: a piece of paper that has never lived or done anything.
Speaker 13: He has spent his entire life sitting in a school
Speaker 13: learning techniques on how to brainwash you. That's all he's done.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And you know, you just think how dangerous that's
Speaker 2: going to be for artificial intelligence. Like I've said, the
Speaker 2: first time I saw all of these chat programs, that's
Speaker 2: exactly what it was. And it was and the crude
Speaker 2: computers that we had back in the nineteen seventies, even then,
Speaker 2: it could go through and do a convincing psycho analysis.
Speaker 2: Well tell me a little bit about yourself. Well why
Speaker 2: do you feel that way? And so it asked these
Speaker 2: open ended, probing questions and you know, that's all you
Speaker 2: really need to be able to do as a psychiatrist.
Speaker 2: Do that and write up an invoice and buy a couch,
Speaker 2: you know, I mean. And it was it was very
Speaker 2: very It was amusing how convincing that was. And just
Speaker 2: think about how good AI is and I think, Travis,
Speaker 2: part of it is that, you know, the broken human
Speaker 2: relations just like I was talking about there. You know,
Speaker 2: you know there's obviously something wrong with the relationship if
Speaker 2: she's been married for decades to Obama, to Barack and
Speaker 2: she feels like she needs to go to a stranger.
Speaker 2: And I think one of the reasons that it's accelerating
Speaker 2: is because we're becoming increasingly cut off from each other,
Speaker 2: cut off so much so that you've got to go
Speaker 2: hire somebody to listen to you, or you're going to
Speaker 2: go online to one of these chat programs, and then
Speaker 2: it's going to start telling you that you are a
Speaker 2: spiral star child Orse, and some of the people are
Speaker 2: going to go act upon that.
Speaker 13: Hold On, he has got to consult with the ancient
Speaker 13: Babylonian demons real fast.
Speaker 2: That's right, Well, we got a new sponsor here. I'm
Speaker 2: going to play a little bit of a clip for
Speaker 2: this Signs of Confederate Veterans.
Speaker 7: We remember the battle, we remember the places, we remember
Speaker 7: the Southern Soldiers. We are the sons of Confederate Veterans,
Speaker 7: and we invite you to join us in reserving our
Speaker 7: past and remembering our history and heritage. Of Honor. To
Speaker 7: find out more, call one eight hundred and myself or
Speaker 7: visit us on the web.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the David Knight Show.
Speaker 2: Well, let's talk a little bit about war. We have
Speaker 2: Trump announcing that the US will stop bombing the who thees. Well,
Speaker 2: that's good, glad to see that. You know, again, it's
Speaker 2: like on off Congress is not involved. They're making speeches
Speaker 2: or having hearings or something, or raising money, and so
Speaker 2: we just have an executive that puts us in wars,
Speaker 2: takes us out of wars. But I'm glad that he's
Speaker 2: taking us out of the war. The military has struck
Speaker 2: Yemen at least eight hundred targets in Yemen, says Politico,
Speaker 2: killed hundreds of houthi's since March. Other people put it
Speaker 2: at over one thousand, not eight hundred. Trump framed the
Speaker 2: move as a handshake agreement to end the Pentagon's bombing
Speaker 2: campaign in exchange for the houthis no longer attacking American ships.
Speaker 2: It's not a deal, he said. They said, please don't
Speaker 2: bomb us anymore, and we're not going to attack your ships. Well,
Speaker 2: what happens with Gaza, we'll see about that. The arrangement
Speaker 2: is unlikely to call them tensions in the region if
Speaker 2: it's limited to protecting American ships. Israel escalated strikes against
Speaker 2: the Houthis on Monday night, with twenty fighter jets bombing
Speaker 2: the port city in Yemen, and of course they I
Speaker 2: think it was yesterday, yesterday or the day before, they
Speaker 2: completely decimated the largest airport that is there. The Trump
Speaker 2: administration also labeled the a terror group in March, changing
Speaker 2: a Biden era policy. The Defense Department in the US
Speaker 2: Central Command did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Speaker 2: Trump Special Invoice Steve Whitcoff worked to reach a ceasefire
Speaker 2: over the weekend, with Oman serving as a mediator and
Speaker 2: a person familiar with the matter who was granted anonymity
Speaker 2: to discuss sensitive diplomatic issues. Witcoff has also been leading
Speaker 2: talks with Iran over its nuclear program. Well, this is
Speaker 2: a welcome change unless this all is set up. I mean,
Speaker 2: we talked about the talks with Iran. It was my
Speaker 2: concern that was just being done so they could say, well,
Speaker 2: we did our best. We tried to talk to them,
Speaker 2: and they're completely not reasonable. So we now we've got
Speaker 2: to go to war with them, so we'll see what happens.
Speaker 2: You know, is this going to be a ceasefire, so
Speaker 2: then they can say that the MNS, the m and
Speaker 2: E's Hohothis broke the ceasefire, so now they have to
Speaker 2: resume the war in a larger way. Mani, foreign minister
Speaker 2: confirmed on social media. He said in the future, neither
Speaker 2: side will bomb the other, including American vessels in the
Speaker 2: Red Sea. A senior houth The official said, told Bloomberg
Speaker 2: News that the group would stop attacking US military ships
Speaker 2: if Washington halts its strikes, and then they said, but
Speaker 2: we will definitely continue our operations in support of Gaza
Speaker 2: and support to Gaza. There was a ceasefire and they
Speaker 2: lived up to their side of it until that ceasefire
Speaker 2: was broken, and then they resumed the strikes. But the
Speaker 2: ceasefire was from the Houthis was based on Israel's ceasefire
Speaker 2: in Gaza, and Israel broke that ceasefire and they resumed
Speaker 2: shooting on ships. So we'll see what happens with this.
Speaker 2: He said. Operations would continue until the end of the
Speaker 2: aggression on Gaza and the blockade on its people. They
Speaker 2: have launched more than five hundred strikes on commercial ships
Speaker 2: in the Red Sea, but hoy strikes against the waterway
Speaker 2: have declined significantly in recent months, and the group hasn't
Speaker 2: targeted a commercial vessel since late December. Rubio, following Trump's announcement,
Speaker 2: said that the Houthy strikes were a freedom of navigation issue,
Speaker 2: and so perhaps they've gotten this solve. Trump is essentially
Speaker 2: declaring victory and going home saying mission accomplished. Hey, we
Speaker 2: heard a president say that once. Did we want that
Speaker 2: bush that's in that Yeah, mission accomplished. That didn't end
Speaker 2: the war then either. Minish war correspondent Elijah Magneer observes
Speaker 2: the US intelligently stopped the bombing on Yemen due to
Speaker 2: the lack of objectives. Well, that never stopped us in
Speaker 2: any other war Vietnam. What's our objective? I don't know.
Speaker 2: We'll take that hill over there, okay, you took it, Well,
Speaker 2: I'll give it back to them. Okay, let's do something else.
Speaker 2: I mean, what is the objective? What is the purpose
Speaker 2: of this stuff? The empty outcome and the high cost
Speaker 2: versus no gain. Well, again, that kind of describes pretty
Speaker 2: much every war we've had since World War Two. A
Speaker 2: lack of objectives, an empty outcome, and the high cost
Speaker 2: versus no game. The only thing you left to add
Speaker 2: in there is defeat. Others have noted that this is
Speaker 2: essentially a declare mission, accomplish and cut and run moment
Speaker 2: with no better alternatives. Surreal close up images are emerging
Speaker 2: showing the sheer and utter destruction and the size of
Speaker 2: the Israeli attack on their international airport. There it appears
Speaker 2: that Washington is now content to hand things over to Israel.
Speaker 2: The Pentagon might have better use for its two aircraft
Speaker 2: carriers off of Yemen, which were essentially large sitting ducks.
Speaker 2: And again we go back to the plane falling off
Speaker 2: the aircraft carrier. They were saying that it was under attack.
Speaker 2: We get conflicting stuff, and with a fog of war,
Speaker 2: you can't really tell. You really can't tell. It is
Speaker 2: kind of futile try to figure out when two sides
Speaker 2: are at war, to try to figure out which one
Speaker 2: of them is telling the truth. Most of the time
Speaker 2: both of them are lying. I had a listener who
Speaker 2: sent me a thing, was very concerned about what he
Speaker 2: perceived as my one sided reporting on the war on Ukraine,
Speaker 2: and I have to confess that I am very much
Speaker 2: against the Ukrainian government against Lensky. And I'm paraphrasing because
Speaker 2: I was going to print out his email and I
Speaker 2: will do that and read the email, but just to
Speaker 2: paraphrase it. He said he was there, I think, in
Speaker 2: family members when there were attacks by Russia, and I'm
Speaker 2: not excusing what Russia is doing. This is the thing
Speaker 2: about war. You know, you can argue the starting points
Speaker 2: of wars, and you can argue back and forth about
Speaker 2: the atrocities of war, but the wars will only end
Speaker 2: and the killing will only end when you start to
Speaker 2: make that the object if your object is to continue
Speaker 2: to say this side this trial, and I believe it.
Speaker 2: I believe both sides when they say atrocity, when they
Speaker 2: talk about the atrostees, because when war happens, both sides
Speaker 2: are committing atrosties, especially against you know, civilians. That's what
Speaker 2: I typically mean by atrocities targeting civilians. Both sides do that,
Speaker 2: and both sides can pick a starting point and feel
Speaker 2: justified about it, even if it's not in the bigger
Speaker 2: and sometimes it's hard to see the forest for the trees.
Speaker 2: We had a relative of Karen and who Karen's who
Speaker 2: was working in one of the towers on nine to eleven,
Speaker 2: and she couldn't see what was happening because she was
Speaker 2: just too close to it. And I don't mean, you know,
Speaker 2: couldn't see what was physically happening there. She couldn't see
Speaker 2: what was happening in the bigger picture of this, and
Speaker 2: could not question the official story because she was there,
Speaker 2: she was emotionally involved in it. And so we are
Speaker 2: only going to stop the killing and stop the wars
Speaker 2: if we can get past this. Well, he shot first
Speaker 2: type of thing and the just occasion for that, because
Speaker 2: what that is is that is a you know, as Christians,
Speaker 2: we look at the heart right and if there is
Speaker 2: there has to be forgiveness for there to be peace,
Speaker 2: there has to be forgiveness. For us to have peace
Speaker 2: with God, we have to get God's forgiveness. He's provided
Speaker 2: for that. We have to accept that He has provided
Speaker 2: his son for our forgiveness, and we have to forgive
Speaker 2: ourselves as well. And so the same thing is true
Speaker 2: in our relationships with other people if we harbor bitterness.
Speaker 2: And again I can't say that I could get past
Speaker 2: that if I had my children blown up by either side.
Speaker 2: That's a difficult thing to do. I mean, I look
Speaker 2: at these pictures. I don't know these people, and I
Speaker 2: look at starving children, I look at children who' blown
Speaker 2: to bits. I look at parents holding their dead children
Speaker 2: in their arms, and I just can't fathom that. How
Speaker 2: do you get past that? How do you move past
Speaker 2: that bitterness? Well, even if those people can't, the people
Speaker 2: who are running the wars need to move beyond that.
Speaker 2: And of course my issue with Selensky is that he
Speaker 2: wants to make this a global war. The war's working
Speaker 2: out very very well for about little conniving crook, and
Speaker 2: he would like to see even a nuclear war. He'd
Speaker 2: like to see a global nuclear war. And he is
Speaker 2: absolutely despicable. It's not to say that Putin is any better.
Speaker 2: I think he is not pushing for a global nuclear exchange.
Speaker 2: Zelensky is the who. Thives have announced that they are
Speaker 2: not and they don't want to fight anymore, said Trump.
Speaker 2: They just don't want to fight, and we will honor that,
Speaker 2: and we will we will stop the bombings. And they
Speaker 2: have capitulated, but more importantly they we will take their
Speaker 2: word and they say they will not be I mean,
Speaker 2: it's it's the word solid here blowing up ships anymore,
Speaker 2: all that as he spoke it. So that was a
Speaker 2: live comment. Israel is blindsided by Trump's announcement about the
Speaker 2: houthis says the Jerusalem Post. Israel is not informed in
Speaker 2: advance about Trump's announcement regarding the houth. He's an informed source,
Speaker 2: told the Jerusalem Post yesterday. But you have the Atlantic
Speaker 2: saying Trump finally drops the anti semitism pretext and the
Speaker 2: latest letter to Harvard, and I thought, oh, that's interesting.
Speaker 2: I'll take a look at it. But of course it's
Speaker 2: not really what you might think, because we know that
Speaker 2: it's not anti Semitism. It's criticism of the way the
Speaker 2: war is being conducted by net Yahoo. If anything, it's
Speaker 2: anti Netan Yahoism. And there's plenty of that going around
Speaker 2: in Israel amongst the Jews, and with the Jews here
Speaker 2: in America, there's plenty of anti net Yahoo, isn't. And
Speaker 2: so to shut down people's speech and opposition to a
Speaker 2: policy of a foreign government's continued civilian bombings that have
Speaker 2: been called mislabeled as a war, it's not a war
Speaker 2: when you're bombing civilians. It is a unilateral move of
Speaker 2: genocide frankly and so. But what the Atlantic says is
Speaker 2: that in this letter from the Secretary of Education to Harvard,
Speaker 2: she accuses Harvard of admitting students who are contemptuous of America. Well,
Speaker 2: that's true. Chastises it for hiring the former Blue City
Speaker 2: mayors Bill de Blasio and Lori Lightfoot to teach leadership.
Speaker 2: She said, this is like hiring the captain of the
Speaker 2: Titanic to teach navigation. That's pretty good. That's true as well.
Speaker 2: She questions the necessity of its remedial math program. Why
Speaker 2: is it that Harvard has to teach simple and basic mathematics?
Speaker 2: And that is a really good question. And we know
Speaker 2: what the answer is. It's because their admission policy is
Speaker 2: not based on merit. We're supposed to be impressed with
Speaker 2: Harvard when they've got to have her medial math programs
Speaker 2: for people they can't do basic math and they still
Speaker 2: get into Harvard. Oh, so, what is your admission to
Speaker 2: Harvard based on what's based on money or race or
Speaker 2: dei politics or something like that, And she accuses its
Speaker 2: bored Penny Pritzker, this is the Hyatt family. This is
Speaker 2: somebody that is related to the Governor of Illinois. She
Speaker 2: says that Penny Pritzker is a Democrat operative. Well, that
Speaker 2: is true. The entire is even worse. That whole family
Speaker 2: are gendercrat operatives. The Pritzker family is heavily, heavily, heavily
Speaker 2: into this training stuff. As a matter of fact, if
Speaker 2: you look at a picture of the Governor of Illinois
Speaker 2: and his cousin, they are dead ringers, except one of
Speaker 2: them is dressed like a woman. It's like the Beverly
Speaker 2: Hillbillies when Jethrow and Jethreen were there, right, they dressed up,
Speaker 2: They dressed up Max Bears as Jethreen. And see the
Speaker 2: pictures of Pritzker and his cousin next to each other.
Speaker 2: That's what it looks like. It looks that weird episode
Speaker 2: of the Beverly Hillbillies. Anyway, And she said that Pritsker,
Speaker 2: in a Democrat operative, is driving the university into financial ruin,
Speaker 2: among many other complaints. Well that all sounds valid, now
Speaker 2: what the Atlantic says. So in other words, that's her
Speaker 2: beef with it. She didn't anywhere in there, Mitchen, at
Speaker 2: least what they were talking about. She had all these
Speaker 2: other things there about they were political in their perspective,
Speaker 2: so they said, so, now the mask is off. Aside
Speaker 2: from only one oblique reference two congressional hearings about anti Semitism,
Speaker 2: saying the great work of Congresswoman Elise Stephanic, aside from that,
Speaker 2: the letter is silent on the subject. The administration is
Speaker 2: no longer pretending that it is standing up for Jewish students.
Speaker 2: The project has been revealed for what it is, an
Speaker 2: effort to punish liberal institutions for the crime of being liberal. Well, no, actually,
Speaker 2: it's yeah, I guess you could say that's true. I
Speaker 2: wish they would punish them for the crime of taking
Speaker 2: federal money, because I think that's a crime. It's a
Speaker 2: crime against the taxpayer, it's a crime against the constitution.
Speaker 2: I wish they would cut off all the federal money
Speaker 2: to all of them. Unfortunately, the Trump administration if they
Speaker 2: can bend them to their will on a number of issues,
Speaker 2: and they will restore that money that they've stolen from
Speaker 2: the taxpayers that they have printed up and charged US
Speaker 2: interest on the debt. On MARSA thirty first, the administration
Speaker 2: said that it was reviewing nine billion dollars in federal
Speaker 2: grants and contracts were to Harvard. They said, amongst other things,
Speaker 2: they were going to allow an external body to audit
Speaker 2: faculty viewpoints. How dare them? Can you imagine that that
Speaker 2: they would give them nine billion dollars and then have
Speaker 2: the effrontery to audit that to see how it's being spent.
Speaker 2: I mean that they're Harvard. They should just get nine
Speaker 2: billion dollars with a b from people. This is too
Speaker 2: much for Harvard, said The Atlantic. The university's lawyers wrote
Speaker 2: in a letter and said, neither Harvard nor any other
Speaker 2: private university can allow itself to be taken over by
Speaker 2: the federal government. Well you did, You allowed yourself to
Speaker 2: be taken over by the federal government. I guess when
Speaker 2: you've got nine billion dollars, you're on the hook to them.
Speaker 2: I guess they feel like they're going to get away
Speaker 2: with it. And of course they have been able to
Speaker 2: get away without any audits or any inspections. But you know,
Speaker 2: we have as we look at Texas and other places.
Speaker 2: Now they've rolled out a lot of school choice bills.
Speaker 2: They say, paying for you to go to a charter
Speaker 2: school or something like that. They will give a whopping
Speaker 2: two thousand dollars a year to people who homeschool with students.
Speaker 2: Are you going to sell your control and your liberty
Speaker 2: for two thousand dollars a year for your child? Because
Speaker 2: they will pull in those same strings, those same financial
Speaker 2: strings that they're trying to tug on with with Harvard.
Speaker 2: They will absolutely pull that in before we go to break.
Speaker 2: On Rumble One, Sarah B says, they've been convinced that
Speaker 2: they can't figure the life out on their own and
Speaker 2: they need an expert to tell them what they're talking about,
Speaker 2: the psychiatrists. Yeah, on Rumble OUTI Modern Retro Radio. Good
Speaker 2: to see you, Modern Retro Radio dot com. But Trump
Speaker 2: will continue funding the Palestinian genocide, that's right. Yeah, we'll
Speaker 2: give them the bombs. We'll give them the bombs. You
Speaker 2: might stop the bombs with him, and but we'll give
Speaker 2: them the bombs. And of course, you know, we see
Speaker 2: these pullbacks and we see them they so called talks
Speaker 2: with Iran. I think they're just laying a foundation to say,
Speaker 2: now we have justification because they broke this agreement or
Speaker 2: whatever to attack your want. On Rumble Shadow Boxers says
Speaker 2: bombs only have value when they're used because then you
Speaker 2: need to replace them. It's very profitable. Yeah, it is.
Speaker 2: It's just like these Reaper drones that were shooting down
Speaker 2: at thirty million apiece. I think they shot down over seventeen.
Speaker 2: I know they shot down at least seventeen. I don't
Speaker 2: know if they got some after that. But yeah, you
Speaker 2: got to replace those repertrones. And it's a small country
Speaker 2: that's doing that. On Rumble, Franson says, before Ukraine War,
Speaker 2: I saw what Ukrainians were doing to Russians. Putin had
Speaker 2: no choice but to intervene. And again it goes back
Speaker 2: a long ways. I mean we had after twenty fourteen coup,
Speaker 2: they started sholling people in the culturally and linguistically Russian
Speaker 2: areas that had always historically been Russian, and so, yeah,
Speaker 2: this is the type of thing that's going on. There
Speaker 2: was also a military issue there. Crimere had long been
Speaker 2: a part of Russia. The Black Fleet was there, so
Speaker 2: they were going to do it. I still thought that
Speaker 2: it was a mistake for him to essentially take the
Speaker 2: bait and go in, because you know that everybody's going
Speaker 2: to say, well, he know, this is when everything starts.
Speaker 2: It all starts when he crosses the border and the
Speaker 2: same way that in the American people's minds. Iran began
Speaker 2: with a takeover of the US embassy. Then it realized
Speaker 2: that the CIA had kicked out they're elected leader in
Speaker 2: the nineteen fifties and put in a ruthless shaw of Iran,
Speaker 2: and the CIA trained his secret police to spy on people,
Speaker 2: to torture and to kill them his political enemies. All
Speaker 2: of that is lost on the American people. So again,
Speaker 2: as I said, when you pick the starting point, one
Speaker 2: side or the other can always justify it. The only
Speaker 2: way that we're ever going to get peace, though, is
Speaker 2: if we move toward That is our goal, not to
Speaker 2: fix blame, not to point to atrocities, but to stop them,
Speaker 2: to stop them, kick asat attacks as first casual who
Speaker 2: war is the truth, that's right and unrumbled DG eight.
Speaker 2: Thank you, says David Mark Levin. Has An had an
Speaker 2: absolute meltdown yesterday over that he attacked Little Marco for
Speaker 2: twenty minutes yesterday. My ears are still bleeding from listening
Speaker 2: to him. Well, my ears bleed whenever I listen to
Speaker 2: Mark Levin. It's a bit much for me to take.
Speaker 2: We'll take a quick break and we'll be right back.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the David Knight Show.
Speaker 2: I said at the beginning of the program, there's an
Speaker 2: amazing example of how crypto, especially these meme coins, are
Speaker 2: a pump and dump. And we've talked to the last
Speaker 2: couple of days about how Trump is openly, openly flirting
Speaker 2: with being impeached over the open corruption that's there. But
Speaker 2: here's an example. The meme coin, the Trump meme coin
Speaker 2: that was put out like any or so before the election,
Speaker 2: and they pumped it up and then made a lot
Speaker 2: of money off of it because you have a few
Speaker 2: people who can buy into this before it goes public,
Speaker 2: and then it goes public, and then everybody buys into
Speaker 2: this thing, and then before it goes down they can
Speaker 2: they can dump it. So here's the here's the statistics
Speaker 2: on who made money and who lost money. You've had
Speaker 2: seven hundred and sixty four thousand people have lost money.
Speaker 2: So you've got three quarters of a million people lost money,
Speaker 2: and they had fifty eight fifty eight thousand, now fifty
Speaker 2: eight fifty eight people who made money, and those fifty
Speaker 2: eight people, you got seven hundred and sixty four thousand
Speaker 2: people losing money, and those fifty eight people made millions millions.
Speaker 2: About seven hundred and sixty four thousand wallats it purchased
Speaker 2: Trump's dollar Trump meme coin have lost money on the investment,
Speaker 2: according to fresh data shared with CNMBC by blockchain analytics
Speaker 2: firm Chain Analysis or chain analysis. Chainalysis is why they
Speaker 2: don't have an N in there. Chain Analysis is the
Speaker 2: name of the company. Here's the thing. It's a public ledger.
Speaker 2: Everybody can see these wallets, and with a little bit
Speaker 2: of detective work, they can figure out who these wallets
Speaker 2: belong to. I've talked about this many times as a
Speaker 2: billionaire who lost a nine hundred and something thousand dollars
Speaker 2: almost a million dollars he lost. It was stolen out
Speaker 2: of his digital wallet. But it was a large transaction,
Speaker 2: and so you got people who will watch these transactions happening.
Speaker 2: If they see a big one, they start paying more
Speaker 2: attention to it. And so this person was able to
Speaker 2: not only see this large amount of money nearly a
Speaker 2: million dollars in one transaction coming out of wall but
Speaker 2: then he tracked it down to who owned that wallet,
Speaker 2: just an individual, and he contacted the guy, and the
Speaker 2: guy didn't know he had been ripped off. He didn't know.
Speaker 2: It wasn't him spending it. Somebody had stolen that out
Speaker 2: of his wallet. We had another example last week. We
Speaker 2: talked about somebody that was found as one of the biggest,
Speaker 2: if not the biggest ripoffs in bitcoin yet, three hundred
Speaker 2: million dollars from one elderly individual. And they said it
Speaker 2: was a social engineering type of attack. In other words,
Speaker 2: it wasn't that they did some kind of technological thing
Speaker 2: with a crypto breaking into it or something like that. Instead,
Speaker 2: they figured out who it was, They got in touch
Speaker 2: with a person and played some kind of a phishing attack,
Speaker 2: some kind of a game with them on a human level,
Speaker 2: to get them to transfer that money somehow I don't know.
Speaker 2: And then what they did was they transferred it to Monea,
Speaker 2: which is then private once it gets in there, and
Speaker 2: they split it up into a whole bunch of different
Speaker 2: groups of transactions and then scattered it to the win
Speaker 2: essentially and put it into cryptocurrency that can be anonymous.
Speaker 2: But here's the point. When it's on the public ledger,
Speaker 2: it's public. You know, they use the term crypto, but
Speaker 2: the only thing that's encrypted is what they use to
Speaker 2: do the transactional aspect of it, but the actual dollar
Speaker 2: amounts there and the wallets that people can see that's
Speaker 2: not encrypted. So this company called chain Analysis was able
Speaker 2: to look at this and see that they could see
Speaker 2: what the blockchain is. The public ledger is a blockchain,
Speaker 2: a chain of transactions. So they could see what these
Speaker 2: people bought it for and what they sold it for
Speaker 2: or what it is currently at. I guess, I don't
Speaker 2: know if it's necessarily that they sold it, but they
Speaker 2: could look and see at least what they bought it for.
Speaker 2: See they've lost money. Seven hundred and sixty four thousand
Speaker 2: people lost money, And then they could see that there
Speaker 2: were fifty eight people that made money, and they made
Speaker 2: a lot of money. Most of the wallets that lost
Speaker 2: money held smaller amounts of the token. According to the
Speaker 2: film firms on Chain Analysis, crypto wallets store the keys
Speaker 2: that you need to access and use your cryptocurrency holdings.
Speaker 2: But then here's the other part. The fifty eight people,
Speaker 2: they said eight wallets had made money made more than
Speaker 2: ten million dollars apiece. You had fifty eight people with
Speaker 2: the Trump grift that made more than ten million dollars apiece.
Speaker 2: Seven hundred and sixty four thousand people lost money. Kind
Speaker 2: of reminds me of Stop the Steal and Save America.
Speaker 2: Trump made two hundred and fifty million dollars and Alex
Speaker 2: Jones made millions of dollars off the Stop the Steel stuff.
Speaker 2: And you've got a lot of people who went to
Speaker 2: jail and had their lives ruined with a January the
Speaker 2: sixth grift. But this is with the crypto stuff. Interest
Speaker 2: in the coin spiked more than fifty percent in the
Speaker 2: last few days after the project's website promised that the
Speaker 2: top two hundred and twenty holders would have a seat
Speaker 2: at a black tie optional dinner with Trump at mar
Speaker 2: A Lago. I mean, you look at how they're flirting
Speaker 2: with corruption, openly flirting with it, just begging for this
Speaker 2: because they know that their base will defend them. Because
Speaker 2: they've seen the Democrats go after them for non crimes,
Speaker 2: they now feel inoculated to commit actual crimes. And so
Speaker 2: when we look at the way that this is being
Speaker 2: all the crypto stuff is being hyped, we got We've
Speaker 2: got an individual saying bitwise is predicting that bitcoin will
Speaker 2: reach a million dollars by twenty twenty nine. You got
Speaker 2: the CIA saying bitcoin is wonderful. The CIA said they're
Speaker 2: increasingly incorporating bitcoin as a tool in their operations, and
Speaker 2: working with cryptocurrency is a matter of national security. So
Speaker 2: here you go. Trump. You know, fifty eight people make
Speaker 2: more than ten million, seven hundred and sixty four thousand
Speaker 2: lose it. You got the CIA saying they love this crypto.
Speaker 2: They love bitcoin. It's a tool for them. They said, yeah,
Speaker 2: maybe they even created it, who knows. I would suggest
Speaker 2: that you go to David Nighttime Gold. You can go
Speaker 2: to Tony Rdman and you can get gold or silver,
Speaker 2: and you can get out of these crazy pump and
Speaker 2: dump schemes that you really cannot control. As I was
Speaker 2: talking about yesterday, everything is going to tokenization. They're moving
Speaker 2: to that really quickly. They're moving to stable coins really
Speaker 2: quickly as well. And they are building They started talking
Speaker 2: about real idea this morning. They're building the framework for
Speaker 2: a global digital currency. They'll be interconnected. They won't necessarily
Speaker 2: be just one, but it'll be one system, and it
Speaker 2: will all have the ability to track everything that you do.
Speaker 2: Did you make money, did you lose money. They'll be
Speaker 2: able to stop you from buying stuff and have all
Speaker 2: the features that we hate about CBDC, but hey, it
Speaker 2: won't be called CBDC and it won't be done by
Speaker 2: the central bank. There'll be a collection of fascist coins,
Speaker 2: so I should call it fascist coins, a merger of
Speaker 2: corporations and friends of friends of the president who will
Speaker 2: set up private coins that'll have the same functionality as
Speaker 2: a central bank digital currency. The EU is going to
Speaker 2: as a matter of fact, ban anonymous crypto accounts as
Speaker 2: well as privacy coins by twenty twenty seven. So as
Speaker 2: I said, you know, you have Monaro and a few others,
Speaker 2: pirate coin, others. They're going to start banning that. Well again,
Speaker 2: you know, I'm sure people be able to operate under that,
Speaker 2: but it's going to get more and more difficult to
Speaker 2: try to get the money into it or out of it.
Speaker 2: It's going to be the on ramps and the off
Speaker 2: ramps that are going to be difficult to do. You know,
Speaker 2: But we've seen how bans and prohibitions work when we
Speaker 2: look at the drug war. It'll still be there, but
Speaker 2: it'll be a bit more difficult and it'll have higher
Speaker 2: consequences if you get caught, because right now it's not
Speaker 2: even a crime to use that stuff, and it shouldn't
Speaker 2: shouldn't be a crime to have a private financial transaction.
Speaker 2: That's what they're going to outlaw. The EU wants to
Speaker 2: ban privacy. They want to ban privacy coins and do
Speaker 2: it within two years. They want to ban anonymity and folks,
Speaker 2: that means that they also want to ban cash, and
Speaker 2: they will eventually try to ban gold. But if you
Speaker 2: got something that is physical like that, it's a lot
Speaker 2: harder for them to do it. Ether is more like
Speaker 2: a meme coin, says a trading firm as Ethereum drops
Speaker 2: forty five percent year to date, so it's not having
Speaker 2: a good year so far. Stocks spike as Treasury Secretary
Speaker 2: Vessin says that trade deals are coming and so as
Speaker 2: a matter of fact, today the Federal Federal Reserves Open
Speaker 2: Market Committee is meeting to talk about interest rates. That'll
Speaker 2: be happening today. A Treasury Secretary Vessin began as testimony
Speaker 2: in front of the US House Appropriations Committee yesterday and
Speaker 2: according to him, he said, the US is negotiating with
Speaker 2: seventeen out of eighteen key trade partners. In other words,
Speaker 2: they're negotiating with everybody but China. But here's the other issue.
Speaker 2: You know, we talk about this and a lot of
Speaker 2: people and I had a listener supporter who said, well,
Speaker 2: I think it's a good thing to cut Chinea out.
Speaker 2: I'm not a China supporter at all. But the issue
Speaker 2: is what about those other seventeen right. This was not
Speaker 2: targeted to protect a particular industry. This is not targeted
Speaker 2: towards China. It was targeted towards the entire world. Trump
Speaker 2: went to war with the entire world, and now they've
Speaker 2: got to try to back this back. I'll walk it back,
Speaker 2: so we'll see what happens. But in the meantime, in
Speaker 2: the meantime, the real issue is throwing a monkey wrench
Speaker 2: into the supply chain again, which is what he did
Speaker 2: five years ago. That's my real issue. As I said,
Speaker 2: I don't have an axe to grind with tariffs, per se.
Speaker 2: I think they're better way to collect taxes than the
Speaker 2: income tax. However, they're being added in addition to the
Speaker 2: income tax. Now Trump will lie to your face. He'll
Speaker 2: tell you it's not going to cause your price, and
Speaker 2: the people who are circuits for him will lie to
Speaker 2: your face and tell you prices are not going to
Speaker 2: go up. Yeah, they are going to go up. The
Speaker 2: only question is how much, And of course that's going
Speaker 2: to depend on a lot of different factors. Some instances
Speaker 2: will be very significant. But the price is going to up.
Speaker 2: But you're not allowed to know how much the price
Speaker 2: is going to go up. So we're going to come
Speaker 2: after anybody who itemizes it, like it was rumored that
Speaker 2: Amazon was going to do. So if the price isn't
Speaker 2: going to go up, then why get angry about Jeff
Speaker 2: Bezos itemizing it? And so what it is is an
Speaker 2: additional tax. But the real issue, the real issue is
Speaker 2: the lack of planning, the lack of you know, war
Speaker 2: gaming this out, and the constant change that has created
Speaker 2: uncertainty that has locked down the supply chains. So he says,
Speaker 2: we've not engaged with China in negotiations, so they're the
Speaker 2: eighteenth country that they have not negotiated with. He suggested
Speaker 2: that the first quarter GDP, however, will be revised upward
Speaker 2: and that we are not in a recession, said Besant, Well, again,
Speaker 2: they control the They control of the statistics that are
Speaker 2: out there, and they will rig those numbers. They can.
Speaker 2: They will lie to you about inflation Biden did Trump
Speaker 2: did they all do? They'll lie to you about the
Speaker 2: inflation numbers. They will lie to you about the employment numbers.
Speaker 2: Every quarter, they will revise the unemployment. This has been
Speaker 2: going on Republican Democrat for a very long time. They'll
Speaker 2: always revise the previous quarter's numbers downward to make the
Speaker 2: current numbers look better. And Biden famously got caught adding
Speaker 2: over eight hundred almost nine hundred. I think it's eight
Speaker 2: hundred and eighty thousand jobs that didn't exist to their
Speaker 2: labor reports. They could play the same game. Who knows.
Speaker 2: The stock market is not really an accurate metric of that.
Speaker 2: What we should look at is whether we have small
Speaker 2: medium sized businesses failing because of this uncertainty and the
Speaker 2: supply chain. He also said that the US, listen to this,
Speaker 2: will quote never default on its debt and that the
Speaker 2: Treasury will not use gimmicks on the debt ceiling. Well,
Speaker 2: I can believe that they would never default. I would
Speaker 2: imagine that they would just you know, devalue the dollar
Speaker 2: or play games like that with it. But in terms
Speaker 2: of not using gimmicks, well, he's lying, because that's all
Speaker 2: they do is use gimmicks. And again that's not just
Speaker 2: a Trump administration, that's all of them. We're going to
Speaker 2: be shedding excess labor on the government side, he said,
Speaker 2: we will have a substantial financial deregulatory agenda that will
Speaker 2: be coming up. Yeah, you better believe that they are
Speaker 2: going to liberalize any rules about crypto, about tokenization, and
Speaker 2: all the rest of this stuff. So they might have
Speaker 2: lot of financial deregulation, but in terms of deregulating the
Speaker 2: rules that allow people to open and create and continue
Speaker 2: to run businesses, I don't think they're going to do
Speaker 2: anything about that. But they will be shedding excess labor
Speaker 2: on the government side. And I said that this is
Speaker 2: what Musk's moves were all about from the first place,
Speaker 2: to minimize the number of government employees, but to maximize governance.
Speaker 2: And I believe that'll be done with the application of
Speaker 2: artificial intelligence. Community banks, he said, small banks, small regional
Speaker 2: banks were very near what I would call an extinction
Speaker 2: event in the next four to five years. Well, isn't
Speaker 2: that interesting Because Eric Trump was saying the same thing,
Speaker 2: and so was Whitcoff Junior, his partner. They were all
Speaker 2: setting themselves themselves up with world financial liberty or world
Speaker 2: world liberty, financial I guess the Trump organ Trump family,
Speaker 2: I think. And in terms of talking about that, Eric
Speaker 2: Trump was saying, well, they'll most likely be gone in
Speaker 2: ten years. Well bestent is saying four to five years,
Speaker 2: and that is not even necessarily looking at their exposure
Speaker 2: to commercial real estate laws. We'll see what happens with
Speaker 2: the banks. But what he's talking about, if you look
Speaker 2: at these things together, they're going to have substantial financial
Speaker 2: deregulatory agenda, and banks, community banks, small banks, small regional banks,
Speaker 2: and extinction event in the next four to five years.
Speaker 2: That's what they're engineering. They're going to make themselves, the banks,
Speaker 2: the people who cause seven hundred and sixty four thousand
Speaker 2: people lose money in fifty eight people to make over
Speaker 2: ten million dollars apiece. Trump wants the FED to cut
Speaker 2: rates today when they meet, and so the general take
Speaker 2: from the financial writers is that that's not like to happen.
Speaker 2: They say it's a ninety seven percent likelihood that the
Speaker 2: Fed's going to maintain the current interest rates where they are.
Speaker 2: They said, however, that they think that when they come
Speaker 2: back in July July thirtieth meeting that the probability of
Speaker 2: right cut there is currently at eighty percent, says fed Watch. Well,
Speaker 2: nobody knows. Nobody knows what Jerome Powell is going to
Speaker 2: do anymore, they know what Trump's going to do with
Speaker 2: a teriffs. Everybody just sits there with baited breath to
Speaker 2: see what these guys are going to do. So on Friday,
Speaker 2: mister Trump said on a social media platform Truth Social,
Speaker 2: he said there is no inflation. All uppercase, claimed that
Speaker 2: grocery and egg prices have fallen, that gas has dropped
Speaker 2: a dollar ninety eight gallon. Well, those claims are not
Speaker 2: entirely true. Grocery prices have jumped up a half a
Speaker 2: percent in two of the past three months and are
Speaker 2: up two point four percent from a year ago. Gas
Speaker 2: and all prices, however, have declined. Gas costs are down
Speaker 2: ten percent from a year ago, continuing a longer running
Speaker 2: trend that has continued in part because the fears that
Speaker 2: the economy will weaken because why well, because we've got
Speaker 2: higher taxes and because we've got supply chain disruptions. That's
Speaker 2: what happens when you interject a sudden shock to the system,
Speaker 2: and when you add to that sudden shock indecision and
Speaker 2: constantly fluctuating policies. So, uh yeah, you got you got
Speaker 2: a picture of Uh Trav's got a picture of his
Speaker 2: son from yesterday. Yesterday it was his six month birthday,
Speaker 2: and so we had a little bit of a celebration there.
Speaker 2: If you want to show people that picture, that'd be great.
Speaker 2: And uh yeah, do you have it ready? Go ahead?
Speaker 2: There we go. There he is, that's he's got a
Speaker 2: half hat and they gave him some cake. He didn't
Speaker 2: really know what to do with it. He's not used
Speaker 2: to eating that stuff. Actually. Uh So that was, uh,
Speaker 2: that's what we yesterday. I'm going to continue without a
Speaker 2: break because we've got a break coming up in about
Speaker 2: five minutes. Our interview is about forty six minutes or
Speaker 2: so that we had with Chris Emory about the Oklahoma
Speaker 2: City bombing, and it's an excellent interview. It was pre recorded.
Speaker 2: I just want to say this because I was talking
Speaker 2: about the money with Harvard and the other stuff, the
Speaker 2: financial strings. This is an article from WNG dot org
Speaker 2: said his homeschooling increases, so do the attempts to restrict it.
Speaker 2: Proposals for regulations are popping up throughout the US and
Speaker 2: throughout Britain as well. And they begin by talking about
Speaker 2: a mother who's educating her son at home and started
Speaker 2: about seven years ago, now he's thirteen. They said the
Speaker 2: school days might involve taking him to the museum, to
Speaker 2: the Natural History Museum, other things like that. They use
Speaker 2: some textbooks to guide his education. But they described the
Speaker 2: curriculum as quote unquote flexible. What we would say here
Speaker 2: in the US would call that kind of unschooled. It
Speaker 2: allows for unscheduled visits to the library or to the
Speaker 2: Victoria Tower gardens beside the Houses of Parliament. She said,
Speaker 2: we do a lot of this informal learning that actually
Speaker 2: ends up turning into bigger learning. But now the British
Speaker 2: government wants a lot of reports and paperwork about what
Speaker 2: you're doing, your curriculum, your activity and all the rest
Speaker 2: of this stuff. This is a bill that is scheduled
Speaker 2: for a second reading in the House of Lords. Legislation would,
Speaker 2: among a host of other stipulations, require homeschooling parents to
Speaker 2: provide extensive documentation of the curriculum plans, to notify authorities
Speaker 2: of any changes in the plans within fifteen days. She said,
Speaker 2: my home education journey will be completely changed if this passes,
Speaker 2: and so she would have the time consuming burden of
Speaker 2: reporting all education plan adjustments to the government, the burden
Speaker 2: people with all kinds of reports and things like that,
Speaker 2: and it's a way of shutting it down passively, passively, aggressively.
Speaker 2: And this is not just happening in the UK. You
Speaker 2: have lawmakers in the US have been calling for more accountability,
Speaker 2: saying that homeschooling movement has compounded the risk of child abuse.
Speaker 2: Nothing could be further from the truth. If you look
Speaker 2: at the statistics, that is absolutely not true. And if
Speaker 2: you look at the continued reports of what is happening.
Speaker 2: Even when you have some kind of a pedophile teacher
Speaker 2: that uses their influence with the kids, if you look
Speaker 2: at the institutional curriculum, it is pedophilia. It is pushing
Speaker 2: pornography and sexual acts to minors the very institution. Not
Speaker 2: talking about individual teachers, but it has been institutionalized, the
Speaker 2: pedophilia and the perversion. But in the UK they have
Speaker 2: a nineteen ninety six Education Acts as parents have to
Speaker 2: provide a suitable education for their children quote either by
Speaker 2: regular attendants at a school or otherwise. So it's pretty open.
Speaker 2: Children who have never been enrolled in public schools are
Speaker 2: automatically considered to be home educated. In the United States,
Speaker 2: though homeschooling became officially legal in all fifty states by
Speaker 2: the early nineties, laws differ very much by state. According
Speaker 2: to Homeschool Legal Defense Association, some states have low regulations,
Speaker 2: while four have rigorous restrictions. Parents in Pennsylvania have to
Speaker 2: notify local school superintendents of their intent to homeschool, and
Speaker 2: of course we see in some Republican oriented states. It's
Speaker 2: really surprising to see this. In January and New Hampshire,
Speaker 2: they introduced a bill calling for home education programs that
Speaker 2: are receiving tax credits or scholarships to participate in having
Speaker 2: criminal background checks. Already, the strings are there, aren't they.
Speaker 2: In Indiana, a bill introduced this year would prevent chronically
Speaker 2: absent students from withdrawing from public schools unless the parents
Speaker 2: submit a curriculum plan and progress reports to the school superintendent.
Speaker 2: In Illinois, which currently has no notification requirement, lawmakers are
Speaker 2: considering a bill that would require parents to provide local
Speaker 2: school districts with a declaration of intent to homeschool. An
Speaker 2: Oklahoma bill requires parents to declare intent to homeschool and
Speaker 2: disclose the names of everyone involved with their children's education. Now,
Speaker 2: three of those four states are Republican states. So again,
Speaker 2: if you look at how this is rolling out in
Speaker 2: Texas As I said, there are there are money bills
Speaker 2: that will be giving a subsidy, and Governor Abbott has
Speaker 2: signed this bill into a law. You know, we go
Speaker 2: back to the film Killing Ed. It's a great example
Speaker 2: of charter schools going wrong, being taken over by an
Speaker 2: Islamic cleric, Fatala Gulin, who recently passed away, but the
Speaker 2: Glennist movement is still alive. They've got over eighty three
Speaker 2: schools in Texas. Over a billion dollars they're getting in Texas.
Speaker 2: That's a worst case example of this. But of course
Speaker 2: many of the corporations are also equally bad. But what
Speaker 2: they've decided that they're going to do is they're going
Speaker 2: to give ten thousand dollars per year to kids if
Speaker 2: they go to these charter schools. And again they can
Speaker 2: buy you for two thousand dollars if you are a homeschooler.
Speaker 2: It is a trap. It is a trap. Do not
Speaker 2: sell your heritage or freedom, Do not sell your children
Speaker 2: for two thousand dollars a year or even for more.
Speaker 2: Don't take the money. The money is a trap, absolutely
Speaker 2: a trap. Well, we're going to go to our interview
Speaker 2: with Chris Emory and I think you're going to find
Speaker 2: this very interesting about Oklahoma City bombing. We're going to
Speaker 2: begin with a clip, and I think you've got it.
Speaker 2: I think think you're going to have to throw to it, Travis.
Speaker 2: We began with a trailer of the film to kind
Speaker 2: of give you an overall interview, but we went back
Speaker 2: and we talked about all the different aspects of it.
Speaker 2: And there's some new evidence that Chris Hemrie, who has
Speaker 2: become a real expert on the Oklahoma City bombing, some
Speaker 2: new evidences there and they're putting together an effort to
Speaker 2: try to fund more research into it. And he'll tell
Speaker 2: you how you can get involved with that as well.
Speaker 2: So let's go ahead and throw to the interview. I
Speaker 2: my desk there on the eighth floor. I felt that
Speaker 2: the building starts shaking, lights went out before started falling
Speaker 2: on my desk. Something hit me in the back of
Speaker 2: the head and knocked me out before the truck bomb
Speaker 2: went off. What that tells is that there were other
Speaker 2: explosive devices in the building that actually brought the building down.
Speaker 14: It's an earthquake. Everybody get down underneath on the floor.
Speaker 14: And I had sat there and I thought, no, it
Speaker 14: doesn't feel like an earthquake. Seven or eight seconds later,
Speaker 14: I felt this explosion.
Speaker 15: Only an imbecile would look at that damage pattern and
Speaker 15: not understand that it couldn't have been made by a
Speaker 15: truck bomb, because the truck bomb is going to release
Speaker 15: its energy simultaneously in every direction.
Speaker 8: The record clearly shows that doctor Johlly and West consult
Speaker 8: the Timothy mcveigh's defense team. Doctor West had previously been
Speaker 8: psychiatrist and consulted for Patty Hurst. Surround Saron and Jack.
Speaker 5: Ruby, A noble lie, Oklahoma City, nineteen ninety five will
Speaker 5: change forever the way you look at the true nature
Speaker 5: of terrorism.
Speaker 14: The grand jury did not want to hear anything I
Speaker 14: had to say.
Speaker 3: The decision was made not to pursue anymore of those individuals.
Speaker 2: The greatest Manhut has ever been.
Speaker 7: Do you remember that water investigation in Arkansas?
Speaker 3: Although the pay for work was stored in the Marrabeli Hey,
Speaker 3: somebody new ben fire domby three.
Speaker 1: Every bit of important evidence has brought us to the
Speaker 1: Oklahoma City.
Speaker 5: Bombing Expose the Cover Up now at a nobleli dot com.
Speaker 2: Joining us now is Chris Emory of Freemindfilms dot com,
Speaker 2: and we wanted to talk to him about an update
Speaker 2: to the Oklahoma City bombing. A very important film was done,
Speaker 2: I guess is now. The first one was done in
Speaker 2: twenty eleven. They've done some updates to it. The most
Speaker 2: recent one was twenty fifteen. That was the twentieth anniversary
Speaker 2: of the Oklahoma City bombing. We've just hit the thirtieth
Speaker 2: anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing and there is new
Speaker 2: information and they're talking about doing a new investigation. We're
Speaker 2: going to get that information from Chris Emory of Freemindfilms
Speaker 2: dot com. Thank you for joining us.
Speaker 3: Chris David, thank you so much. It's great to be
Speaker 3: talking to you again. It's been a while, it.
Speaker 2: Has it has I remember talking about this so many times,
Speaker 2: very important film, and we played the trailer just before
Speaker 2: the interview so people can get a cent of it.
Speaker 2: There's so many different issues with what happened with Oklahoma City,
Speaker 2: and and of course reached from the very beginning part
Speaker 2: of a long chain of questionable events for many of us,
Speaker 2: going back to Waco and Ruby Ridge, and then this
Speaker 2: I think that you know was obviously it was connected,
Speaker 2: and I think it was connected by the government to
Speaker 2: shut that investigation down. But then we have the other
Speaker 2: events that were connect We had nine to eleven dark Winter,
Speaker 2: the pandemic, all these different types of things. Once people
Speaker 2: realize with any of these that we have been lied
Speaker 2: to and deceived and they start to see how this
Speaker 2: agenda kind of lines up through these different things, then
Speaker 2: that is when the lights come on and people start
Speaker 2: to ask some real questions. Is now people are starting
Speaker 2: to ask questions there in Florida tell us at bit
Speaker 2: about that.
Speaker 3: Yes, Well, ever since the new Trump administration was sworn in,
Speaker 3: we've had a lot of information of course with the
Speaker 3: NIH with the there's fresh blood, and as one of
Speaker 3: my colleagues in Congress said, well, we've met several press
Speaker 3: set of eyes on this thing, and they want to
Speaker 3: basically start from scratch, and they know that there was
Speaker 3: a lot of mal feast that's going on. Merrick Carland,
Speaker 3: of course, the former US Attorney General. He was appointed
Speaker 3: as a US Special US prosecutor to head up the
Speaker 3: Oklahoma City Investigation. Within about a week after the case
Speaker 3: was the bombing happened in April of nineteen ninety five.
Speaker 3: We found out as a film crew. In October of
Speaker 3: two thousand and three, I had a meeting with Stephen
Speaker 3: Jones' who was mcgae's lead defense counsel. I had a
Speaker 3: meeting at his office and Eded, Oklahoma, and he heard
Speaker 3: through the grapevine that our crew really wanted to do
Speaker 3: a great job, very professional job, to strip down to
Speaker 3: the bare bones, find out what really happened, put the
Speaker 3: official narrative under magnifying glass, and after about ten minutes
Speaker 3: in the film, we tore that apart and started all
Speaker 3: over again. But to back up a second, after about
Speaker 3: a three hour meeting I had with him at his
Speaker 3: office in north central Oklahoma, he said that he was
Speaker 3: going to give us full and unfettered access to one
Speaker 3: hundred and forty two boxes of legal documents that he
Speaker 3: had at a repository in Austin, Texas, and it was
Speaker 3: at the law library adjacent to the LBJ Presidential Library
Speaker 3: north of UT campus. And he said that Merrick Carlin
Speaker 3: months basically did strongly urged and pleaded with the trial
Speaker 3: Judge Richard P. Mays, who presided over both the Nichols
Speaker 3: and the McVeigh trial, he wanted that information in those
Speaker 3: boxes sealed for seven years, so we were able to
Speaker 3: gain over ninety percent of that information, including relevant exculpatory
Speaker 3: evidence that would have proven Nichols was completely falled, he
Speaker 3: was innocent and McVeigh was set up. We found out
Speaker 3: subsequently when we went through that that the jury and
Speaker 3: both trials never saw that information. We literally opened a
Speaker 3: vault of incredible information. So that information is relevant to
Speaker 3: a reinvestigation. And there are members of Congress, surprisingly on
Speaker 3: both sides of the isle, that want to take a
Speaker 3: look at this and say, hey, let's start over. And
Speaker 3: we're very cautiously optimistic. We understand that there may be
Speaker 3: some folks that may want to underhanded approach, but the
Speaker 3: people that we talked to said, no, we really want
Speaker 3: to do a good job on this. And that's in
Speaker 3: line with Taulsa Gabbard with RFK, with Cash Fattel, and
Speaker 3: they're willing to admit, hey, there is information on the
Speaker 3: Ark case, the JFK, Martin Luther King, so this is
Speaker 3: basically in lockstep with that. And I've got a very
Speaker 3: important meeting tomorrow morning actually with some key researchers in
Speaker 3: the case as well as a member of Congress that
Speaker 3: are very serious about looking at this.
Speaker 2: That's great, you know, I hope that it will happen.
Speaker 2: And when I look at it because of the role
Speaker 2: of Merrick Garland, because it's kind of like his first
Speaker 2: starring role, I guess, you know, and also the connection
Speaker 2: with the Clintons and things like that, I look at
Speaker 2: it because of that political angle. I've got some hope
Speaker 2: that this might happen. We might have an investigation because
Speaker 2: this would this would help these people. And I said,
Speaker 2: we look at some of the stuff, like you know,
Speaker 2: the Epstein files, I'm kind of suspicious about the fact
Speaker 2: that with Trump's connections with it, that they would ever
Speaker 2: release anything about that, right And you know, even when
Speaker 2: you go back to the JFK files, if anybody ever
Speaker 2: put anything in there that was going to be incriminating,
Speaker 2: they would have gotten rid of that long time ago.
Speaker 2: So I've been really skeptical and dubious about this. But
Speaker 2: this because of the connections of Merrick Garland, who has
Speaker 2: got to be severely aided by Donald Trump and also
Speaker 2: Hillary talk a little bit about Hillary and all the
Speaker 2: documents that were there were the Clinton's there at that
Speaker 2: building in Oklahoma City.
Speaker 3: Well, what we found out we actually had a source
Speaker 3: with in Little Rock, Arkansas. This is a gentleman that
Speaker 3: served a dual role with the Secret Service and the ATF.
Speaker 3: And he said that there were documents in the building
Speaker 3: that we're going to be brought forward to indict both
Speaker 3: Bill and Hillary on corruption and underliner charges through the
Speaker 3: Whitewater Caves. Now, as a film crew, we weren't able
Speaker 3: to actually see any of those documents, but this trusted
Speaker 3: source said, yes, the documents were in the building. And
Speaker 3: here's it's very you know, you don't have to get
Speaker 3: too complicated to really go through the threat of history here.
Speaker 3: And I said, why would they be stored in the
Speaker 3: mirror building in downtown Oklahoma City? Says, because there was
Speaker 3: an arcane rule in Congress if you're going to indict
Speaker 3: as sitting president, it cannot be held in the federal
Speaker 3: courthouse in the home state. And by geographic d fault,
Speaker 3: Oklahoma City was the closest federal courthouse to the one
Speaker 3: in Little Rock. New Orleans was too far away. Saint
Speaker 3: Louis Dallas, So they literally brought them to Oklahoma City
Speaker 3: and stored them in the apre Mura Federal Building. And
Speaker 3: our best guess is that they were on the seventh
Speaker 3: floor in the DEA safe room, which was actually built
Speaker 3: into the building a long after the grand opening. The
Speaker 3: DEA had a custom safe room there, and we know
Speaker 3: of other information that was stored there as well as
Speaker 3: contraband and money for a big drug case. It was
Speaker 3: due to go to court in May of that year,
Speaker 3: so there was a lot of concentric circles, a lot
Speaker 3: of dual purposes. Basically to have the destruction that building
Speaker 3: and the documents that would have by the end of
Speaker 3: nineteen ninety five, Bill and Hillary Clinton would have been finished,
Speaker 3: they probably would have been in prison. So the stakes
Speaker 3: were very, very high. And as you know, the Clintons
Speaker 3: are as corrupt as the day is long, and they
Speaker 3: fight tooth and nailed to stay in power. This would
Speaker 3: have taken them down.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it was interesting thing. My son showed me a
Speaker 2: screenclip and it looks like it's something that could actually
Speaker 2: I didn't verify if it was real or not, but
Speaker 2: it said something about all the suicides around the Clintons
Speaker 2: and I was asked AI chat program about it, and
Speaker 2: it started with listing several of them that got to
Speaker 2: Jeffrey Epstey. It goes and it stops, and it goes.
Speaker 2: Error curred. No, I don't know if that was real
Speaker 2: or not. That was something photoshopped. But you know, that's
Speaker 2: kind of where we have been with all of this stuff.
Speaker 2: And when you look at the fact even more Southern
Speaker 2: Hillary Merrick Garland, this would align if they could find
Speaker 2: the truth on him, if there's some kind of a
Speaker 2: cover up, this would perfectly align with Trump's desire to
Speaker 2: get Vincent. So that could actually work in our favor
Speaker 2: to try to get some truth out of this thing. Now.
Speaker 2: One of the things, and you mentioned that even in
Speaker 2: the trailer that I played before the interview, the fact
Speaker 2: that and I remember this from the New American John
Speaker 2: Birsu Society, they had a former demolitions general and he
Speaker 2: talked about the fact that you're looking at the blast pattern,
Speaker 2: it was not a single point source, so it was
Speaker 2: not coming from a car. And then the trailer you've
Speaker 2: got somebody saying, no, I was there. There was two explosions,
Speaker 2: you know, one of them knocked me down. Then there
Speaker 2: was another explosion. So this was in the single point
Speaker 2: source at multiple indications of that, many many things about
Speaker 2: it that were very suspicious, but we'll talk a little
Speaker 2: bit about that that aspect of it.
Speaker 3: Well, actually the person you're referring to is probably a
Speaker 3: General Betton partner, and I actually met with him. This
Speaker 3: was two weeks before I met with mcveigh's Defense Council.
Speaker 3: I was at General Partment's home in Alexander, Virginia. We
Speaker 3: had just finished having a steak dinner at Fort Belvoir.
Speaker 3: He was at the Officers Club. Drove back to his
Speaker 3: house and we sat up to almost three o'clock in
Speaker 3: the morning, and I was just looking at the documents.
Speaker 3: I have three pages of legal document or pad pages,
Speaker 3: both sides that he scribbled out, the formulas and everything,
Speaker 3: and he explained to me. He says, look, these were
Speaker 3: the reisands and the damage to three made support columns,
Speaker 3: and we're able to find out exactly which ones through
Speaker 3: the blueprints that were provided to us by a source
Speaker 3: of the GSA office and for worth. And he said
Speaker 3: that if you had info and a fifty two foot
Speaker 3: trailer and Christine lab conditions obviously which didn't exists that day.
Speaker 3: You know, it was forty two mile an hour headwinds,
Speaker 3: it was about forty seven degrees and the admidit he
Speaker 3: was pretty high. He said, even if you had perfect
Speaker 3: lab conditions, it still wouldn't have done the damage it
Speaker 3: did to that building, which completely refuted the info narrative.
Speaker 3: So that's just cock and bowl. That's like ACME a
Speaker 3: bombing a Roadrunner cartoon. It's ridiculous. So but what he
Speaker 3: said was that, yes, there were actually twenty three devices
Speaker 3: in the building, and we coroborated this from the Oklahoma
Speaker 3: County bomb Squad. A medic that came forward and helped
Speaker 3: the south. It was on the squad that morning and
Speaker 3: reported to the scene within about ten minutes after the blast.
Speaker 3: They know what to look for. There was odor of
Speaker 3: sea four and cordite in the air, which he remembered
Speaker 3: as this source remembered from Vietnam when you served there
Speaker 3: was unbelievable.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you don't forget that. You don't forget that. I
Speaker 2: mean this smell sense, the smell is really hardwired into
Speaker 2: your memory. And I imagine that last time you smell
Speaker 2: that stuff, you were in Vietnam under fire or something
Speaker 2: that's going to be immediate connection to you. Right.
Speaker 3: Well, here's the key. Even on the on the very
Speaker 3: first helicopter footage that you saw the bomb the bombing
Speaker 3: and the third of the building was launched a good
Speaker 3: block and a half to the north of where it stood.
Speaker 3: Looked like an alien craft just sucked it and displaced
Speaker 3: it everywhere. But the key is David. When you look
Speaker 3: at that footage that was shot within about twenty minutes
Speaker 3: after the bombing, there was no fires. There was no
Speaker 3: flames in the building. That is again refutes the majority
Speaker 3: of the damage being done by ante. Because we have
Speaker 3: a case, we we went and looked. We had to
Speaker 3: go retro to look at other cases that anfl was used.
Speaker 3: Of nineteen seventy the Army Math Research Building on the
Speaker 3: campus of University of Wisconsin, Madison, there was ANPHO use
Speaker 3: a much smaller quantity than was a legend in the
Speaker 3: truck and there were flames coming out of the building.
Speaker 3: It was on fire. I interviewed the police chief at
Speaker 3: the time that had the archives from that case, and
Speaker 3: he said, yeah, they had not only the Madison Police Department,
Speaker 3: but the UW Fire Department and the city and the
Speaker 3: County respond and they had to bring in here's another key, David,
Speaker 3: Twenty two people from that case had to be taken
Speaker 3: to the hospital because they were buckling over vomiting from
Speaker 3: the ANTO. The fumes that never happened in Oklahoma City.
Speaker 3: Why because Terry Ike, who we featured in the film
Speaker 3: went in literally within about twelve minutes after the blast,
Speaker 3: was pulling people out. He never got violently sick. So
Speaker 3: the whole narrative of ANTO is completely wiped out once
Speaker 3: you look at it in the prior cases and what
Speaker 3: happened just medical treatment of the people rushing in, none
Speaker 3: of the search and rescue, none of the first responders,
Speaker 3: none of the victims that survived, and of course Terry Yiki,
Speaker 3: none of them started vomiting from anfo fumes, So that
Speaker 3: means that it was dry ordinance. It was used the
Speaker 3: cord D and explosives that were set on the columns
Speaker 3: between floors two and three, between the drop ceiling and
Speaker 3: the next concrete slab there was about three feet. They
Speaker 3: were set hidden above the drop ceiling and they were
Speaker 3: electronic mercury switches that we used to set those off.
Speaker 3: Three of them had gone off. Twenty of them were
Speaker 3: rendered inert and they were set to go off within
Speaker 3: ten minutes of the initial blast to kill the first responders,
Speaker 3: search and rescue and people coming in. But luckily that
Speaker 3: second phase of the bombing the ordinance ever went off,
Speaker 3: we would have had a war devastation. It would have
Speaker 3: been horrendous.
Speaker 2: And so that's how you know so much detail amount
Speaker 2: these preplaced explosives is because they did detonate.
Speaker 3: Right, correct, and that bomb squad found them.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Wow, that's amazing. And so you know, when we
Speaker 2: look at this, if people had paid attention to your documentary,
Speaker 2: if they'd paid attention to what was going on, perhaps
Speaker 2: we would not have had a follow up where we
Speaker 2: got three buildings collapsed in the footprint with two planes
Speaker 2: only two of them being hit by a plane and
Speaker 2: that type of thing. If people were aware, wait a minute,
Speaker 2: they have blown up buildings in the past and given
Speaker 2: us a completely different narrative about how that happened, perhaps
Speaker 2: that would wake up people as well. Let's talk a
Speaker 2: little bit about because Timothy McVeigh was the biggest question
Speaker 2: mark that I had. You know, why would he assume
Speaker 2: this role and push on this to essentially try to
Speaker 2: make himself a hero. You know what was going on
Speaker 2: with that? What was his role?
Speaker 3: Well, would we find out in those records that he
Speaker 3: even told his sister this that he was actually a
Speaker 3: professional assassin and a gun runner for the CIA In
Speaker 3: the months leading up to the bombing. We know definitively
Speaker 3: from September of ninety four through the morning of the bombing,
Speaker 3: he was working with at least seven guys in Oklahoma City.
Speaker 3: We know the motel where they stayed at. We saw
Speaker 3: the rooming list from the owner of the hotel. But
Speaker 3: the point is that the bombing was actually and a
Speaker 3: lot of people don't know this may was the understanding
Speaker 3: that was going to happen at nine o'clock the night before,
Speaker 3: twelve hours earlier, with no casualties. There was only one
Speaker 3: security guard that actually his security b was four blocks
Speaker 3: between the Federal Courthouse, the Federal Building, the Mirror Building,
Speaker 3: and then the apartment complex and another building. And they
Speaker 3: timed it. They literally cased this out for a week
Speaker 3: before to figure out what he was going to be
Speaker 3: in the building and when he was not, and they
Speaker 3: wanted to blow it up when he wasn't there. They
Speaker 3: don't want anybody count lo and behold. We have Louis Free,
Speaker 3: the director of the FBI. His number two in command,
Speaker 3: Larry Potts, was mcvay's handler. Now let that soak in
Speaker 3: for about five years. Yeah, McVay had a handler from
Speaker 3: the FBI that reported directly to lwire Free, who was
Speaker 3: ahead of the FBI. We had Robert Mueller helped cover
Speaker 3: up the case, worked in tandem gloven hand with Merrick Carling.
Speaker 3: So these guys were their ugly heads. Later on Robert
Speaker 3: Miller doing an independent investigation of the Russia honks and
Speaker 3: when I found that out of.
Speaker 2: That and also involved with well, yeah, yes, for the
Speaker 2: nine eleven stuff, it's all all the usual suspects, isn't it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, granted they get this.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 3: We had the Oklahoma County District Attorney's office a speakerphone
Speaker 3: meeting within four days after the bombing. They're literally giving
Speaker 3: the local authorities in the DA's office marching orders on
Speaker 3: how the Oklahoma City case is going to be investigated.
Speaker 3: Who they were going after, selective prosecution, who they were
Speaker 3: going to let go because there were US government assets
Speaker 3: that were helping with that. It wasn't supposed to go
Speaker 3: live David, but Larry Pott says, no, we want a
Speaker 3: body count, and McVeigh said, oh, hell no, I'm a
Speaker 3: professional assassin and a drug smuggler. I'm not killing children.
Speaker 3: Well he was. He had him over the barrel and
Speaker 3: several other charges, and we got that directly from Terry Nichols,
Speaker 3: who got it from McVeigh. I don't know why McVeigh
Speaker 3: would make that up. He's a professional soldier, he's a
Speaker 3: professional assassin. You don't go after innocence like that. But
Speaker 3: he was ordered by Larry Potts to make sure there
Speaker 3: was a body count, hence what unfolded on the morning
Speaker 3: of April nineteen. So that's in a nutshell there, and
Speaker 3: this information is going to come out. Hopefully we have
Speaker 3: the right people with the fortitude and the mental acuity
Speaker 3: and the moral fortitude to say, hey, we need to
Speaker 3: tell the people of Oklahoma, of the United States of
Speaker 3: the world what really happened that morning. Why the one
Speaker 3: hundred and sixty eight people, including three on board Shouldern
Speaker 3: were brutally murdered that morning. It's inexcusable.
Speaker 2: Now on the thirtieth anniversary. One of the reasons this
Speaker 2: came up to me, I think was because we talked
Speaker 2: about Nichols lawyer trinerdu and of course he's got a
Speaker 2: website set up to honor his brother that he believes
Speaker 2: was involved and murdered and all of that. Jessetrindy dot
Speaker 2: com and he was talking about some new evidence as well.
Speaker 2: Are you connected in any way with him in this?
Speaker 3: I haven't, I haven't. I've tried to reach out to Jesse.
Speaker 3: We've lost touch over the years, but we did keep
Speaker 3: a touch for about almost three years consistently, and there
Speaker 3: was an in camera interview that we conducted from Oklahoma
Speaker 3: City through a video service. Oddly enough, my ex roommate
Speaker 3: up there applied for a job the month before the
Speaker 3: bombing and he was eyewitness and ear witness to all
Speaker 3: of the monitors and cameras. That working just fine. So
Speaker 3: for the and the federal government in Jesse's case, said hey,
Speaker 3: they didn't exist. Well, we have a key witness that
Speaker 3: applied for a job that took the tour of the
Speaker 3: building a month before the bombing. That was it was
Speaker 3: believe in the Easter Sunday. We had a long talk
Speaker 3: with Jesse and about a month later, I want to say,
Speaker 3: twenty twelve, twenty thirteen, is when that testimony was and
Speaker 3: the federal prosecutor and ahead of the the team in
Speaker 3: Salt Lake City going against Jesse, was furious that this
Speaker 3: witness came up. So they tried to basically impune his
Speaker 3: reputation and his expertise on cameras. That was very easy
Speaker 3: way of backsliding out of it all. But it was irrefutable.
Speaker 3: So that was. Yeah, we worked with Jesse on that.
Speaker 3: We've showed other intel and I think as we make
Speaker 3: progress on there, we definitely want to reach out to
Speaker 3: Jesse and have him be part of this.
Speaker 11: Now.
Speaker 2: Trinity was the lawyer for Terry Nichols, and you know,
Speaker 2: I think it's kind of interesting with all the back
Speaker 2: and forth that's going on between sixty Minutes and Trump.
Speaker 2: You know, sixty minutes is presented as the impeccable source
Speaker 2: of integrity and all the rest of the stuff. At
Speaker 2: Trendy who came out and said, well, we had an
Speaker 2: interview that was scheduled Terry Nichols. They got a call
Speaker 2: and they shut it down, which is also very interesting.
Speaker 2: That's a lot, doesn't it in terms of the massive scope.
Speaker 2: As you point out, you know, the FBI, the CIA
Speaker 2: was also involved. Now, of course you mentioned that you
Speaker 2: know Louis free and his number two guy was a
Speaker 2: handler for Timothy McVeigh mentioned that he's also had CIA
Speaker 2: connections in it. So we see all of the CIA,
Speaker 2: the intelligence agencies that are there. And I'm sure that
Speaker 2: you know sixty minutes is just another manifestation or tentacle
Speaker 2: I guess of the operation Mockingbird stuff. They'll do what
Speaker 2: they're told. They'll do some investigations of maybe corporations or individuals,
Speaker 2: but they'll do what they're told when it comes to
Speaker 2: the government, I guess right.
Speaker 3: Let me let me clarify what happened with sixty minutes
Speaker 3: if you have a minute, sure, So Ed Bradley rest
Speaker 3: is sol he was actually very good reporter and his
Speaker 3: team sent notice, written notice, and a set of questions
Speaker 3: to Terry Nichols to the Florence, Colorado Superbacks. What the
Speaker 3: staff that received the mail never passed it on to
Speaker 3: Terry Nichols. So literally, Ed Bradley and his teams show
Speaker 3: up at the prison ready to do the interview. Nichols
Speaker 3: has no clue. There was no summons to bring him
Speaker 3: down from the cell block. That's where it went cold, right,
Speaker 3: there and Bradley was not very happy about. They flew
Speaker 3: out there and were ready to go, lights, camera, everything
Speaker 3: ready to go. Nichols had no clue and they did.
Speaker 3: They sent us ahead of time. Now, the way Jesse
Speaker 3: got on there, from the best of my understanding and
Speaker 3: Jess could correct me, is that he was actually the
Speaker 3: legal counsel after the federal trial and the State of
Speaker 3: Oklahoma versus Terry Lynn Nichols trial, So he was on
Speaker 3: a list of attorneys that were able to visit Terry
Speaker 3: after the debacle with sixty minutes, John Ashcroft pretty much
Speaker 3: put a lid on that. He said, nobody's going to
Speaker 3: be talking to Nichols about this case. Ever, while the
Speaker 3: will of John Ashcroft stepped forward yeah, even yeah, and
Speaker 3: then of course now is the one that succeeded them
Speaker 3: years on. Mark Garland was in lockstep with all of that.
Speaker 3: So that's why there is a need to bring this
Speaker 3: information out. There's not a week that goes by that
Speaker 3: I don't think about evidence. They either come up through
Speaker 3: an email or friend contacting me. And he said, no,
Speaker 3: there's no way in hell I'm going to my grave
Speaker 3: not at least doing trying to do a decent job
Speaker 3: of getting this information out that. Thank god, we still
Speaker 3: have that core group that helped us with our film,
Speaker 3: the researchers, some of them are still alive, including Jesse,
Speaker 3: Charles Key, Craig Roberts, and I got a tip at
Speaker 3: to your former boss Alex Jones and his staff for
Speaker 3: helping us with that. So we're going to we're going
Speaker 3: to stick at this as long as we can. These
Speaker 3: people never know what happened and why it happened, you know,
Speaker 3: when you're.
Speaker 2: Talking about being a bipartisan thing. You know, again John
Speaker 2: Ashcoff with the Republican administrations shutting this stuff down as well,
Speaker 2: because again, you know, I it's my personal opinion that
Speaker 2: the political parties are just kind of up front for
Speaker 2: the real government, which is going to be the people
Speaker 2: like the FBI, the CIA, and these other usual suspects
Speaker 2: that are there. So of course it's going to be
Speaker 2: a bipartisan issue there. And but you know, getting back
Speaker 2: to McVeigh, you know, one of the things about it, Okay,
Speaker 2: so he's there and he's was going to set this
Speaker 2: thing up, as you know, blow this building when there
Speaker 2: weren't people there, they change it. They've kind of got
Speaker 2: him over a barrel. Why did he try to portray
Speaker 2: the defiant hero and all this? What do you think
Speaker 2: was up about that?
Speaker 3: You know what, David, And that's a very good question
Speaker 3: because we know from key witnesses. Let me this is
Speaker 3: is Duvin glove in hand with what you just asked?
Speaker 3: We actually know there were two teams working on this.
Speaker 3: There was the McVeigh that was shot by Charlie Hanger
Speaker 3: within I believe an hour and ten minutes after the
Speaker 3: bombing are less than that. Then there's a McVeigh that
Speaker 3: was actually downtown hanging out right after the bombing, look alike.
Speaker 3: So we don't know the McVeigh that was interviewed by
Speaker 3: sixty minutes or was, you know, had his whole narrative.
Speaker 3: We don't know if that's the one that actually committed
Speaker 3: the case or committed the crime. So that's that's a
Speaker 3: whole level of confusion right there that we're still trying
Speaker 3: to sort through. And how do we know? Because Jermaine Johnson,
Speaker 3: who was a survivor of the bombing, interestingly enough, backed
Speaker 3: out of an interview with our film crew two hours
Speaker 3: before we were going to show up at her front door.
Speaker 3: I don't know who gave her the call or put
Speaker 3: the pressure on. But if you could picture this, David,
Speaker 3: the bombing happens Remaine Johnson. Her here is all over
Speaker 3: the place. There's are concrete, dust and everything. She literally
Speaker 3: came within an inch of her life. Several of her
Speaker 3: friends were killed in the bombing. Walked six blocks southwest
Speaker 3: of the southeast of the crime scene. McVay is leaning
Speaker 3: against the hood of his yellow Mercury Marquee with another guy.
Speaker 3: They're both looking toward the bomb site Jeremy and Johnson
Speaker 3: has no idea obviously who he is. Nobody knew until
Speaker 3: the next day when the space is all over the
Speaker 3: TV and this individual looks just like McVay. Asked her says,
Speaker 3: were there any people killed, and she said, yeah, several
Speaker 3: of my friends were. She's still in shock figuring out
Speaker 3: what the hell just happened. So that's within she said.
Speaker 3: About ten to twelve minutes after the bombing, who's the McVay,
Speaker 3: They stopped by Charlie Hanger and the stay troupe of
Speaker 3: the his day off, who was out of his precinct.
Speaker 3: He was given orders to drive up that stretch of
Speaker 3: I thirty five just south of Perry, Oklahoma, not far
Speaker 3: from the Kansas border. We had an expert at the
Speaker 3: Oklahoma DOT Department of Transportations say, there's no way that
Speaker 3: that McVeigh that Jermaine Johnson saw and the one that
Speaker 3: Charlie Hanger could have been the same one that one
Speaker 3: that Jermae Johnson saw, would have had to been traveling
Speaker 3: at he said, in excess of one hundred and thirty
Speaker 3: five miles an hour no stop light. Yeah, I mean
Speaker 3: it's just one point at a point B. It would
Speaker 3: have been impossible. So we knew right there that there
Speaker 3: was two teams working so and Jamie Johnson said, yeah,
Speaker 3: that looked just like the McVeigh on TV the next day.
Speaker 3: That information was never brought out, and that's why Merrick
Speaker 3: Garland was adamant about quashing a lot of the evidence
Speaker 3: that would have really thrown confusion and suspect credibility on
Speaker 3: the prosecution case against mcveigh's, Like, all right, who are
Speaker 3: these two? Who did Charlie Hanger stop? And who was
Speaker 3: the one that Jermaine Johnson was talking to? So but
Speaker 3: your point is that yes, he was working for the CIA.
Speaker 3: Mary Carlin did not want that to come out and
Speaker 3: that was part of the records that we saw. We
Speaker 3: saw his pay grade, how his bills were getting paid,
Speaker 3: the fact that he had allergy at his access for
Speaker 3: almost two and a half years before the bombing. He
Speaker 3: would go out and do what he needed to do,
Speaker 3: come home, take his dry cleaning, make dinner, get up
Speaker 3: the next morning, go do where else he had to do.
Speaker 3: It was unbelievable. And what he was getting paid was
Speaker 3: absolutely insane. Most of it was cash.
Speaker 2: Wow. So there's a possibility in your mind that there
Speaker 2: was one public McVeigh who was making all these radical
Speaker 2: statements about him, Victis and all the rest of this stuff.
Speaker 2: You know, my head is buddy, but I'm bowed. And
Speaker 2: then there was another one that they jailed and executed.
Speaker 2: Is that is that what you're saying?
Speaker 3: Then perhaps, well here again, they did jail this individual.
Speaker 3: We don't know if he even died. And then Roberts Craig, yeah,
Speaker 3: W Craig. Roberts and I have been on joint interviews
Speaker 3: several times. If people ask us you think he's dead,
Speaker 3: and without skipping the beat, we said, no, I don't
Speaker 3: think he's dead and retired c I a asset that
Speaker 3: helped us with investigating some of the financial end of this. Said, look,
Speaker 3: that would really throw rents in the works to recruit
Speaker 3: for the CIA. When you're starting to kill off your
Speaker 3: assets like that, that's completely against the motive operation. Unless
Speaker 3: there was treason or you know they're they're working for enemy,
Speaker 3: then that's all different deal.
Speaker 2: Wow. So well, now, when Mary Garland wanted to quash information,
Speaker 2: I think was that about the time that you know,
Speaker 2: Happy Heidelberg, who is a part of that addential grand jury,
Speaker 2: and he's asking some questions and stuff like that was it?
Speaker 2: And he got out of the grand jury and he
Speaker 2: convenes the citizens Grand Jury to try to continue to
Speaker 2: investigate it was was that kind of in response to
Speaker 2: Merrick Garland quashing information?
Speaker 3: Okay, so what you're referring to is two different things,
Speaker 3: which is good. I'm glad you brought that up. Hopey
Speaker 3: was a member of the grand jury. He was actually
Speaker 3: dismissed by judge. Judge David Russell presided over selecting defense
Speaker 3: counsel and so forth, and Hopey had ten questions for him.
Speaker 3: We want relevant evidence, we want physical evidence, we want experts.
Speaker 3: We're entitled in it's a grand jury. The judge never
Speaker 3: responded to any of those. He summarily dismissed him from
Speaker 3: the jury without cause and threatened to him. Yeah, it
Speaker 3: was unbelievable. So what Charles Key, the state representative after
Speaker 3: that convened a citizens grand jury, threw his power in
Speaker 3: his authority as a Oklahoma state representative at the time.
Speaker 3: So there were two things going on at once. But yes,
Speaker 3: to answer your question, Merrick Garland was also attempted to
Speaker 3: quash that exculpatory evidence to show McVeigh and Nichols. Nichols
Speaker 3: was completely innocent, he was set up, he was framed,
Speaker 3: and even the Inspector General's Office report said, yeah, the
Speaker 3: evidence was basically slanted to incriminate both defendants, not only
Speaker 3: Nichols but McVay. So there was a lot of things
Speaker 3: going on at once, and Merrick Garland was running to
Speaker 3: keep up with himself just to make sure that that
Speaker 3: evidence will never come out. And neither of the juries
Speaker 3: and both federal trials ever saw that evidence, the expelpatory evidence.
Speaker 2: Wow, now did Happy Heidelberg get involved with that citizen's
Speaker 2: grand jury that was convened by the representative.
Speaker 3: No, no, sir, that was separate. Now, but I do
Speaker 3: want to share something with you and restless. Old Happy
Speaker 3: passed away about a year after our film. Seven months
Speaker 3: after the film was released, he passed on. In fact,
Speaker 3: it was an an interview with info Wars that he
Speaker 3: made the announcement that he had the cancer. And I
Speaker 3: was sitting right next to him in our studio in
Speaker 3: Oklahoma City, and I knew about it what. I picked
Speaker 3: him up from his ranch that morning. We had about
Speaker 3: a forty minute drive to the studio and he told
Speaker 3: me everything and he made the announcement to Alex and
Speaker 3: Alex was shell shocked. It was the hell of an
Speaker 3: interview for almost two hours on info Wars.
Speaker 2: That name, that's a name that always sticks with you.
Speaker 2: That's phenomenal, Happy Heidelberg. Yeah, that's one of the key
Speaker 2: things that it's been a while. Things are a little
Speaker 2: bit foggy for me because it's been a while since
Speaker 2: I've seen your documentary and looked into this, but that
Speaker 2: that name always pops to the frank A very unusual name,
Speaker 2: an usual guy too. Only if only we had more
Speaker 2: people like him.
Speaker 3: What another one more relevant point with Happy. David and
Speaker 3: I moved to Oklahoma City in January of three in
Speaker 3: late February, I drove down to his ranch, first time
Speaker 3: I met him, and we sat at his kitchen table
Speaker 3: and shared a pot of coffee for about three hours,
Speaker 3: and he told me toward the end, he says, look,
Speaker 3: I knew all of the information that it clearly showed
Speaker 3: other people were involved. We wanted that brought to the
Speaker 3: grand jury, and the judge wouldn't allow it. He got
Speaker 3: a visit from an attorney and he later figured out
Speaker 3: Hoppy's a member of MENSA. He's pretty smart. This guy,
Speaker 3: he's nobody's fool. And this particular attorney that showed up
Speaker 3: was very professional. Uh didn't get in his face, but
Speaker 3: he said, we're at the point now, mister Heidelberg, where
Speaker 3: you're going to have to back off and stop asking questions.
Speaker 3: We know where your grandchildren live, we know where your
Speaker 3: daughters and your children work in the banks. He's showing
Speaker 3: him literally Hoppy pictures of where the faces of employment
Speaker 3: are and they said, if you don't back off, this
Speaker 3: is I can't guarantee their safety anymore. It was basically
Speaker 3: a very overt threat to say, back to f off
Speaker 3: or things are going to happen, that that's going to
Speaker 3: be very damaging to your family physically and mentally and financially,
Speaker 3: and he had no choice. So he goes from being
Speaker 3: a multimillion dollar horse breeder out of Blanchard, Oklahoma, forty
Speaker 3: two miles southeast of west of downtown Oklahoma City, to
Speaker 3: driving the school bus and hauling fuel oil. All of
Speaker 3: his clients basically just said, we don't want to talk
Speaker 3: to you anymore. You're crossing the line here. Yeah. He
Speaker 3: luckily his wife had gainful employment. They were able to
Speaker 3: keep the bills paid. But he went from a multimillionaire
Speaker 3: to basically nothing. They stripped his gainful employment right off
Speaker 3: from under him and Treadle's family.
Speaker 2: Wow. Yeah, it's not unusual, I guess for us to
Speaker 2: see this happening with social media, with other venues as well.
Speaker 2: And of course we recently I played Jenny McCarthy talking
Speaker 2: about the fact that she was threatened just because she
Speaker 2: was talking about the vaccine stuff. You know, they threatened her,
Speaker 2: threatened her family, and you know, messed with her career.
Speaker 2: So it is. It is truly amazing the corrupt system
Speaker 2: and the intimidation that is there. But you know, when
Speaker 2: we when we look at this as we go into
Speaker 2: the future. Uh, and it is hopeful that we might
Speaker 2: be able to get something again.
Speaker 6: Uh.
Speaker 2: There's a lot of in a new investigation opening this
Speaker 2: up and perhaps getting to some additional information. But I
Speaker 2: would I would recommend everybody. I'm going to go back
Speaker 2: and refresh my memory on this as well, because it
Speaker 2: truly is a fascinating story and one that is indicative
Speaker 2: of our times and of our government as well. But
Speaker 2: before we end, Terry Nichols tell us a bit about Terry.
Speaker 2: Now you know Tennethy McVeigh, very very strange character, the
Speaker 2: connects that he had with the CIA, the FBI, the
Speaker 2: rest of this. Terry Nichols was he just kind of
Speaker 2: a patsy that was brought in by McVeigh.
Speaker 3: Well, they served together at Fort Rally in Kansas. They
Speaker 3: did not serve together in Iraq. Terry was stateside, I
Speaker 3: believe when Tim was serving overseas. But yes, he was
Speaker 3: brought in as a patsy. We did find out and
Speaker 3: there were two trials that went on with Terry. It
Speaker 3: was the federal trial. They were indicted under eight counts
Speaker 3: of murder because there was eight federal employees killed that morning.
Speaker 3: Then the State of Oklahoma versus Terry Lynn Nichols. There
Speaker 3: was one hundred and sixty counts of murder because they
Speaker 3: were non federal employees and civilians from the state of Oklahoma,
Speaker 3: and that's that was the state trial. There was no
Speaker 3: state trial from McVeigh because quote unquote, he was killed
Speaker 3: under lethal Injecson. Again, we don't know that was even true.
Speaker 3: But Terry had a very how do we say this
Speaker 3: arrested development personality. He had the mental and the intellectual
Speaker 3: acuity of a eighth grader. So he's very easy, very
Speaker 3: easy to manipulate. Never heard him in the seven days
Speaker 3: that I was at the state trial, off and on,
Speaker 3: driving back and forth from Oklahoma City to McAllister, Oklahoma.
Speaker 3: It was at the Pittsford County courthouse, but I never
Speaker 3: heard him speak. It was his defense counselor that was
Speaker 3: speaking for him and key witnesses. But interesting the thing
Speaker 3: with that trial bringing up Larry Potts, mcvea's handler. So
Speaker 3: if you can imagine the defense counsel for Terry Nichols
Speaker 3: calls Larry Potts as a hostile witness obviously, and the
Speaker 3: federal government this is not even their venue. This is
Speaker 3: a state trial. They have no business being in a
Speaker 3: state court. Stephen Taylor, and I spoke with Judge Taylor
Speaker 3: after the trial several months after, and he said that
Speaker 3: he was furious. It took him three days to cool
Speaker 3: off because John Ashcroft at the time and Louis free
Speaker 3: forbade Larry Potts from showing up in that courtroom. And
Speaker 3: they had no business telling the judge who was going
Speaker 3: to come in. It wasn't their trial, it wasn't their venue.
Speaker 3: And the judge really shot off a very terse letter
Speaker 3: to Ashcroft and the prosecution at the time. He says,
Speaker 3: you have no business coming and telling who my witness
Speaker 3: is coming into our courtroom. They did not want Larry
Speaker 3: Potts to get on the stand and he would have
Speaker 3: had to commit perjury. Then that would have really snowballed
Speaker 3: into a whole different thing. The whole narrative would have
Speaker 3: started unraveling right there. Wow and yeah so and even
Speaker 3: the jury at the state trials saw through. They said, no,
Speaker 3: there's something horribly wrong going on here, and they sent
Speaker 3: some to life without a chance of parole. And that's
Speaker 3: where we're serving in Florence, Colorado right now. He should
Speaker 3: have been out at the most he should have served
Speaker 3: maybe about two years and he would have been out
Speaker 3: of prison by down.
Speaker 2: Wow.
Speaker 3: So that's why we want a reinvestigation in this case.
Speaker 3: Way too many loose ends, way too many I answered questions, and.
Speaker 2: Of question when we look at the connections with Merrick
Speaker 2: Garland and Louis Free and all these other Hillary Clinton
Speaker 2: and the Clinton's and the papers that are there. Another
Speaker 2: very important aspect of this was obviously by doing it
Speaker 2: on the anniversary of what happened in Waco. A big
Speaker 2: part of this, you know, the obvious thing was that
Speaker 2: they wanted to shut down the pushback that was building
Speaker 2: against what had happened with Ruby Ridge and with Waco.
Speaker 2: There was a growing militia movement as people were saying,
Speaker 2: wait a minute, you know, something is wrong with this government.
Speaker 2: They you know, what are they planning to do down
Speaker 2: the road When you look at what happened with these
Speaker 2: two things, and of course you remember that everybody should
Speaker 2: remember that Ruby Ridge happened under the George H. W.
Speaker 2: Bush regime and the Waco thing happened under the Clinton regime,
Speaker 2: and it was largely the same people. Of course, Janet
Speaker 2: Reno was there at the front, but you know, you
Speaker 2: still had the same FBI people and so forth from
Speaker 2: these two different front organizations, Bush and Clinton, and so
Speaker 2: they were all still there. And so there was a
Speaker 2: lot of people that were pushing back against it and saying,
Speaker 2: you know, what is going on with the federal government
Speaker 2: and this is a way for them to essentially shut
Speaker 2: down the building militia movement and people who are questioning
Speaker 2: all that, could you question all this stuff? Now we're
Speaker 2: going to lump you in with these terrorists who killed
Speaker 2: you know how many people, hundred and some odd people.
Speaker 2: We're going to containt the entire militia movement with that.
Speaker 2: Speak to that a little bit, Okay.
Speaker 3: So Andreia Strasmeier was a key witness. He was actually
Speaker 3: a running mate, running buddy with McVeigh. We know, at
Speaker 3: least four months up to before the bombing, Strasmeyer is
Speaker 3: brought in from Germany oddly enough, and we don't know
Speaker 3: why we're still trying to figure out al Gore asked
Speaker 3: him to come over from Germany. Now, Strasmeyer is an
Speaker 3: interesting character. His dad, gut To Strasmeyer, was the chief
Speaker 3: of staff for Helmut Cole, who was the head of
Speaker 3: Germany at the time. They wanted Strasmeyer, who was a
Speaker 3: wash out from the German basically the German counterpart to
Speaker 3: the US Rangers and Special Forces. They wanted him to
Speaker 3: come to the US and infiltrate these quote unquote Nazi
Speaker 3: movement groups and militia movements. So we know that in fact,
Speaker 3: he was working for the government for four it was
Speaker 3: no gainful employment. All of his credit card, his hotel bills,
Speaker 3: everything was being paid. And we did have two members
Speaker 3: of the Craig Roberts had reached out to the Texas Militia,
Speaker 3: the labrigade they called him. They actually use motorcycles to
Speaker 3: drive around and these motocross bikes. They saw him get this.
Speaker 3: They saw Strasmeyer letting himself in on the loading dock
Speaker 3: of the Federal Courthouse in downtown Fort Worth, Texas, punching
Speaker 3: the keypad and then wee hours in the morning all day. Heck,
Speaker 3: what do you have access to the back door of
Speaker 3: the Federal courthouse and the wee hours in the morning,
Speaker 3: knowing the security code and the Texas Militia basically within
Speaker 3: twenty four hours is get the hell out of town
Speaker 3: or we're not going to guarantee your safety. They're going
Speaker 3: to end up face up in a ditch somewhere, and
Speaker 3: Strasmeyer packed up his stuff and got the hell out.
Speaker 3: Where's he end up? Oklahoma and LM City, which is
Speaker 3: right on the not far from the Arkansas Oklahoma border,
Speaker 3: south of Tulsa, and that's where he's hanging out with
Speaker 3: McVeigh with a lot of these mail contents. We found
Speaker 3: out we're actually with the ATF, the CIA, and the FBI.
Speaker 3: They didn't even know of the interagency. So there was
Speaker 3: basically TRUF Wars, Eagle Wars. They weren't communicating with each other.
Speaker 3: Just a perfect storm of complete catastrophe.
Speaker 2: They got all these different government agencies and they're all
Speaker 2: posing to be, uh, the terrorist or whatever, and yeah,
Speaker 2: they're all federal agencies. That that's how do we know
Speaker 2: that happened.
Speaker 3: There was a pilot that worked for the Oklahoma Department
Speaker 3: of Public Safety, their state patrol. He's taking an FBI
Speaker 3: asset over this l M City and the pilot says, well,
Speaker 3: wait a minute, I just I took somebody from the
Speaker 3: ATF here about two weeks ago. FBI had no idea
Speaker 3: the ATF is here, and the CIA.
Speaker 2: Oh that's amazing.
Speaker 3: So that's that's the involvement with McVeigh and and Strasmeyer
Speaker 3: and uh so Strasmeer's still as we know, he's still
Speaker 3: living in Berlin. FBI never pursued them.
Speaker 2: Wow, it truly is amazing. And I go back and
Speaker 2: I hear these you know, Strasmeyern, and I say these, yeah,
Speaker 2: these names from the pass as to at the ring bells,
Speaker 2: and so great to have you start to put these
Speaker 2: things together and it is time to look at this again.
Speaker 2: It's time to look at it again. Even if there
Speaker 2: weren't wasn't going to be a new investigation, but there
Speaker 2: is going to hopefully be a new investigation. Will there
Speaker 2: be an update to the documentary presumably on.
Speaker 3: This well at this time, no, David, we're going to
Speaker 3: put our financial resources to the investigation. And I want
Speaker 3: to tip my hat to William Jasper, Jesse Trinido, Craig Roberts,
Speaker 3: Charles Key, members of the Oklam the Bombing Investigation Committee
Speaker 3: who have since passed away Happy Heidelberg. All of those
Speaker 3: people helped us. So we had one hundred and fifty volunteers,
Speaker 3: a twenty five core group that helped us put the
Speaker 3: first film out. If in fact we get the financial resources. Yes,
Speaker 3: we would do an update, but now we're really we've
Speaker 3: got to focus, keep our eye on the ball and
Speaker 3: make sure this investigation moves forward smoothly.
Speaker 2: Well good, and if you do that, we might have
Speaker 2: a really interesting update to it. Oh yes, this comes
Speaker 2: out into a genuine investigation and more of this stuff
Speaker 2: is released. Tell us a little bit about a little
Speaker 2: bit more about some of the projects there at freemindfilms
Speaker 2: dot com.
Speaker 3: Okay, well, the second film, State of Mindsetology of Control
Speaker 3: is the one that you help this promote that basically
Speaker 3: covers the waterfront from basically from the day you're born
Speaker 3: to the day you die, how you're manipulated through education, nutrition, marketing.
Speaker 3: We go into the deep dives on what happens on
Speaker 3: a daily basis to you and why certain people think
Speaker 3: the way they do. It's a very academic approach. We
Speaker 3: interview peer reviewed authors on the subject matter and we
Speaker 3: try to and this is the thing that we really
Speaker 3: strive for in all three of our films. It's not
Speaker 3: the end all, be all, but they're a primer to
Speaker 3: give you at least the information to decide for yourself.
Speaker 3: There's a lot of smart people out there, David yourself
Speaker 3: included in your staff, that can really see through a
Speaker 3: lot of this baloney. And we just try to present
Speaker 3: the information for not only the younger generation but the
Speaker 3: older generation to say, look, just give me something that's
Speaker 3: credible that these professionals are saying, that's been proven, you know,
Speaker 3: through time. It's consistent pattern of deception. We want to
Speaker 3: be able to be able to recognize that and make
Speaker 3: decisions of our own. And then, of course the third
Speaker 3: film was A Shadow Ring, which is a microcosm from
Speaker 3: right after the Spanish American War through just before nine
Speaker 3: to eleven and how these different events, whether it be
Speaker 3: the sake of Lusitania would cause World War One, the
Speaker 3: attack on Pearl Harbor, who were actually the players behind
Speaker 3: those and why was there deception and why were welied
Speaker 3: to again, give you the information you decide. We're not
Speaker 3: telling you how to think, but give you the tools
Speaker 3: to think for yourself.
Speaker 2: Oh excellent, okay, So Noble Line, State of Mind, Shadow Ring.
Speaker 2: You find all these at freemindfilms dot com.
Speaker 3: One big player. We do ask please do watch them
Speaker 3: on our website. We get paid through the ads, YouTube
Speaker 3: and rumble and all of the other websites have pirty copies.
Speaker 3: We don't get monetized in there. They're unauthor so okay,
Speaker 3: may I give a plug real quickly. So we're trying
Speaker 3: to raise funds for this investigation two avenues. If you
Speaker 3: can send a PayPal using the email OKC truth at
Speaker 3: cox dot net. It's the PayPal account. Or if you
Speaker 3: want to send a check directly to Freemindfilms, do so
Speaker 3: at freemindfilms dot com. For FreeMat Films LLC, peel box
Speaker 3: one six one three six, Saint Petersburg, Florida three three
Speaker 3: seven three three greatly appreciated.
Speaker 2: We'll put those in the description for the for the show.
Speaker 2: And yeah, hope, hope that this moves forward. It's time
Speaker 2: that we get Now, you've uncovered a lot of truth
Speaker 2: in this stuff, and it should be pretty pretty clear
Speaker 2: for people. But we need to get this out to
Speaker 2: a broader audience, and we need to keep at this
Speaker 2: because they keep getting away with this over and over again,
Speaker 2: and quite frankly, I know you're tired of seeing them
Speaker 2: get away with that. I certainly am tired of seeing
Speaker 2: them get away with There needs to be some justice
Speaker 2: and Hopefully, you know, on on this side of eternity,
Speaker 2: we'll have some justice with this stuff, but we never know,
Speaker 2: but we'll keep pushing on it. Thank you so much,
Speaker 2: Chris Emory. You've done great work with us, and thank
Speaker 2: you for sticking with us again. People can support this
Speaker 2: research project there. We'll give them the PayPal information and
Speaker 2: the description as well where they can contribute with us,
Speaker 2: and they can find the films so they want to
Speaker 2: go back and see it. They can go to freemindfreemindfilms
Speaker 2: dot com and watch these documentaries there. Thank you so much.
Speaker 3: You're very welcome. Thank you David, Thank.
Speaker 2: You everyone, Thank you for joining us. Have a good day.
Speaker 2: The common man, they created common Core, dumbed down our children.
Speaker 2: They created common past, track and control us their comments
Speaker 2: to make sure the commoners own nothing and the communist future.
Speaker 2: They see the common man as simple, unsophisticated ordinary. But
Speaker 2: each of us has worth and dignity created in the
Speaker 2: image of God. That is what we have in common.
Speaker 2: That is what they want to take away. Their most
Speaker 2: powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation. They desire to know
Speaker 2: everything about us, while they hide everything from us. It's
Speaker 2: time to turn that around and expose what they want
Speaker 2: to hide. Please share the information and links you'll find
Speaker 2: at the Davidknightshow dot com. Thank you for listening, Thank
Speaker 2: you for sharing. If you can't support us financially, please
Speaker 2: keep us in your prayers. Ddavidknightshow dot com
Speaker 14: To