Speaker 1: In a world of deceit, telling the truth is a
Speaker 1: revolutionary act.
Speaker 2: It's the David Knight Show. At the clock strikes thirteen,
Speaker 2: It's Monday, the eighth of December. Here of our Lord,
Speaker 2: twenty twenty five. Well, today we see that the EU
Speaker 2: descends further into darkness as we see more censorship, more
Speaker 2: desire for war, more barbarians being brought inside their gait.
Speaker 2: As it's being done across Europe. And of course the
Speaker 2: EU is a part of this. The UK is a
Speaker 2: part of this as well, I should say. But we'll
Speaker 2: take a look at a new book about C. S.
Speaker 2: Lewis and Tolkien, their friendship, their working relationship. They're times
Speaker 2: that were parallel to ours, you know, morality and heroes,
Speaker 2: the types of things that are missing from Pete's Pentagon.
Speaker 2: And yet the amazing cheerleading of these anti Christian, anti
Speaker 2: Western value conservatives through out there cheering this what are
Speaker 2: they trying to conserve? They're going to destroy, have destroyed
Speaker 2: foundations of our society and me tooism, this idea that
Speaker 2: because somebody else did it, because somebody else is a hypocrite,
Speaker 2: now you can commit those same crimes. We're going to
Speaker 2: take that on, stay with us, will be right back.
Speaker 2: We also have another layer of the pharmaceutical onion poison
Speaker 2: that's been pulled back. There's many, many, many more. We're
Speaker 2: still just on the surface, but something to celebrate, and
Speaker 2: we'll talk about that coming up. And there's more chatter
Speaker 2: from Trump about not being happy with NATO. Don't believe
Speaker 2: for a minute that he's going to get out of it.
Speaker 2: He's criticizing Europe, but NATO is a These guys are
Speaker 2: trying to be the tail that wags the dog. However,
Speaker 2: but we'll get into that as well. But let's begin
Speaker 2: with the censorship. Now, the French government has a plan.
Speaker 2: They've all got a plan to censor people, but they
Speaker 2: don't like they're going to label news outlets and this
Speaker 2: is backfiring on him in terms of popularity in the country.
Speaker 2: But does it matter at this point? I mean, who
Speaker 2: likes Macron, who likes Starmer, who likes Trump? Well, there's
Speaker 2: some people in the US that do like Trump, and
Speaker 2: they're making all kinds of apologies for him, but these
Speaker 2: other guys have less of a tribal following. Macron announced
Speaker 2: a new media labeling system a few weeks ago. These
Speaker 2: assurances that he's told people that we're only going to
Speaker 2: label it, it's not going to be any sort of
Speaker 2: state backed labeling. Well, you've got a lot of news
Speaker 2: organizations pointing out that that is not true. And by
Speaker 2: the way, this is what Candice Owens should be focusing on,
Speaker 2: rather than trying to invite attention, which is really what
Speaker 2: she's doing. She's getting attention now, she's getting a lawsuit
Speaker 2: now over ridiculous claims, just like Alex Jones.
Speaker 3: But you live by the lie, you die by the lie.
Speaker 4: Anyway Candace owns is gone completely insane.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Nevertheless, you know that is that she knows that that
Speaker 2: gets her attention. She loves the attention. That's the addiction
Speaker 2: to it, and of course the money that comes with it.
Speaker 2: There was an article over the weekend. I won't go
Speaker 2: in any detail about it, but I was absolutely astounded
Speaker 2: and the astronomical sums of money that she was making
Speaker 2: on doing ad reads, you know, and tens of thousands
Speaker 2: of dollars for each ad that she reads. And it's
Speaker 2: not that much different for Alex by the way, he'd
Speaker 2: laid it into me one day because I just mentioned
Speaker 2: something about somebody's business, and you know, they had done
Speaker 2: something in the news. I don't even remember who it
Speaker 2: was or what it was specifically about, but I just
Speaker 2: remembered who it was and I gave them credit. And
Speaker 2: he says, you know, that's like ten thousand dollars you
Speaker 2: just gave that person. That's what I charged for that
Speaker 2: kind of stuff. And it was like, I had no idea,
Speaker 2: you're getting confiscatory phase, Like maybe should pass on that on,
Speaker 2: you know, But anyway, it's amazing, but they get in.
Speaker 2: They were saying that for conservatives, they find that they
Speaker 2: have a more loyal following and they will buy the
Speaker 2: products and more likely to buy the products. And they
Speaker 2: are for the left wing podcasters, so they're getting paid
Speaker 2: quite a bit more than the left wing podcasters. Besides
Speaker 2: the fact they have a larger audience.
Speaker 4: I mean, most of the left wing podcasters viewer base
Speaker 4: or broke liberal socialist college students. I guess there's not
Speaker 4: much money in marketing to that crowd. They're just going
Speaker 4: to steal it from the store.
Speaker 2: But if you want to get into an ad hominem
Speaker 2: attack with Emmanuel Macron over his wife and just point
Speaker 2: out the fact that she's a known pedophile. I mean
Speaker 2: she pursued him as a student when he was under age.
Speaker 2: Anybody that did what she did. If you do that
Speaker 2: in the US, you go to jail. She has gone
Speaker 2: to the equivalent of their White House for doing that. Anyway,
Speaker 2: back to the issue at hand, this is what they
Speaker 2: should be focusing on, because this is what is happening globally.
Speaker 2: Why because the first casualty of war is the free press,
Speaker 2: and they are at war with us in many, many
Speaker 2: different areas. These assurances have only stoked fears of an
Speaker 2: authoritarian creep into the media sphere. And the authoritarian creep
Speaker 2: is named to Minuel Macron. It's like the Nixon and
Speaker 2: the committee to re elect the President was called creep
Speaker 2: fittically so so in November, he had told a press
Speaker 2: organization that a labeling process carried out by professionals was
Speaker 2: in the works to highlight the media outlets to respect
Speaker 2: certain ethical standards and thus also those that are deemed
Speaker 2: to lack ethical standards. So one journal that was owned
Speaker 2: by a conservative organization said, this is just a project
Speaker 2: for information control. That's the same type of excuse that
Speaker 2: we have seen in the US as well. The difference
Speaker 2: is now that when this all be going back to
Speaker 2: twenty eighteen, when we look at it, it was being
Speaker 2: done covertly. They were not doing it out in the open.
Speaker 2: It was kind of a secret Cold War where they
Speaker 2: were attacking people, but they did not agree. That continued
Speaker 2: for the most part throughout the COVID stuff. Now they're
Speaker 2: coming out and doing it openly. That's what's changing. The
Speaker 2: tyrants have been emboldened by the fact they've gotten away
Speaker 2: with this stuff, so now they're doing it openly. And
Speaker 2: the DSA has had their first massive fine applied to
Speaker 2: Elon Musk personally as well as to Twitter, and he
Speaker 2: had some choice words for them, which we will get into,
Speaker 2: and he was absolutely right. Look, I don't think that
Speaker 2: he is an altruistic billionaire by any means. I think
Speaker 2: he bought Twitter because this is a guy who was
Speaker 2: the king of chronicapitalism. He he has made his money
Speaker 2: through government, through government connections, through political means, and for
Speaker 2: the same reason that Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post
Speaker 2: for pittance tends of I think it's two h and
Speaker 2: fifty million dollars or something paid for, which is nothing
Speaker 2: compared to Twitter. But it also doesn't have the kind
Speaker 2: of impact that Twitter does, but these guys get those
Speaker 2: papers because of those reasons. Jeff Bezos wanted to be
Speaker 2: in wanted to own the Washington Post because it's in Washington,
Speaker 2: d c. And it has a lot of influence in
Speaker 2: terms of politics. And Musk is playing the same game,
Speaker 2: but in a different way. He is moving to the
Speaker 2: rank and file people out there in terms of trying
Speaker 2: to get political advantage. And so I understand what his
Speaker 2: motives are. Nevertheless, in his political motives might align him,
Speaker 2: might align him with the right thing in this particular case,
Speaker 2: it does you know if he wants to be a
Speaker 2: populist technocrat.
Speaker 3: I guess.
Speaker 2: I know it's a contradiction of terms, but he wants
Speaker 2: to appeal to the popular sentiments so that he can
Speaker 2: get through his technocracy. He may wind up being on
Speaker 2: the right side of some issues, and he's on the
Speaker 2: right side of this issue. But getting back to France,
Speaker 2: this journal said this is a project for information control.
Speaker 2: Another conservative spoke out there and said, the role of
Speaker 2: the state is not to certify the truth with an
Speaker 2: obscure label. It is to guarantee freedom of the press
Speaker 2: and freedom of expression and so you know, we had
Speaker 2: the same thing where they went to some pet project
Speaker 2: areas and said, well, you're going to tell us what
Speaker 2: is true what is not true for social media for
Speaker 2: other things. We'll use you to vet information. If you
Speaker 2: say that somebody had faults, will take them down. If
Speaker 2: you go back and look at the Coalition for Content
Speaker 2: Providence and Authentication, the CCPA, I say, the Chinese Communist
Speaker 2: Party of Americas, Well we could also call it. That
Speaker 2: was the thing that's put together with Microsoft. It's a
Speaker 2: keep partner working with the government, so you could get
Speaker 2: hardware and software. They get the apps that you use
Speaker 2: to create information, whether it is a document, a meme,
Speaker 2: a video, or audio. They're going to then work with
Speaker 2: their trusted advisors in the media and they will decide
Speaker 2: whether you are somebody that they want to be allowed
Speaker 2: to speak. And if they put you on the blacklist,
Speaker 2: then they can stop your stuff before you can ever
Speaker 2: create it or upload it. They can mark you. That's
Speaker 2: what the providence means, So they would authenticate who you
Speaker 2: are and then they would say, well, because that is
Speaker 2: coming from this person we don't like, then it's not
Speaker 2: going to be posted. So they stop you even before
Speaker 2: it gets uploaded, and all of those are still in
Speaker 2: the works here in America as well. So another they're
Speaker 2: they're saying that they've got to stop disinformation and that
Speaker 2: they're fighting disinformation, and they will decide what disinformation is.
Speaker 2: Of course, So I've now launched in retaliation, They've launched
Speaker 2: a petition entitled media, Yes to Freedom, No to Labeling.
Speaker 2: It's garnered forty thousand signatures. I don't see that as
Speaker 2: a good thing, you know, the old expression, can fifty
Speaker 2: thousand Frenchmen be wrong? Yes, they can also be apathetic
Speaker 2: when they are being marched into the Gulag, which I
Speaker 2: think is what's happening here across Europe. It's not just
Speaker 2: the EU, it's the individual countries, and it's the UK,
Speaker 2: which is not in the EU. So it is struck
Speaker 2: back at the EU tyrants. After this something like one
Speaker 2: hundred and forty million dollar fine. But that's just the beginning.
Speaker 2: They'll keep adding to it, and they're going to add
Speaker 2: other companies to it as well. X is the first,
Speaker 2: but they will come after all the other social media
Speaker 2: companies to get them to toe the line. He calls
Speaker 2: them the fourth Reich, and he's not wrong. He's not
Speaker 2: taking the outrageous fine lying down. He says that they
Speaker 2: have Nazi characteristics oppressing their own citizens' best interests. The tyrannical,
Speaker 2: unelected bureaucracy oppressing the people of Europe are in the
Speaker 2: second picture. Puts up a picture of this is Europe,
Speaker 2: this is EU. In other words, it's non existent. Musk
Speaker 2: also re shared a post about an Irish teacher, Enick Burke,
Speaker 2: who was jailed for refusing to use transgender pronouns and
Speaker 2: later reply to another user, so many politicians in Europe
Speaker 2: are traders to their own people. All true, All true
Speaker 2: must highlid the fact that Meta was a verification program
Speaker 2: similar to Exis. Yet the EU has onerously fined the
Speaker 2: more censorship prone Meta. They haven't, I should say, he said,
Speaker 2: I didn't do the Twitter purchase because I thought it
Speaker 2: was a great way to make money. I knew that
Speaker 2: bazillion slings and arrows coming in my direction. It really
Speaker 2: felt like there was a civilizational danger that unless one
Speaker 2: of the major online platforms broke ranks, and then because
Speaker 2: they're all just behaving in lockstep with the legacy media
Speaker 2: said literally, there was no place to actually get the truth.
Speaker 2: It was almost impossible, So everything was just getting censored.
Speaker 2: The power of censorship apparatus was incredible. And again I
Speaker 2: don't think that he did this for altruism. I think
Speaker 2: he did it for political advantage. But the political would
Speaker 2: be to do the thing that everybody wants. Everybody wants
Speaker 2: free speech. We're not on board with these leaders, not
Speaker 2: in the EU, not in the UK, not in France,
Speaker 2: not in the US either. He confirmed that another user's
Speaker 2: report that ex terminated the EU Commission's advertising account, so
Speaker 2: basically shut them down, and shut down the EU commissions
Speaker 2: one account.
Speaker 4: All fine, you don't get to play, he says.
Speaker 2: For years, many in the free speech community, most vehemently,
Speaker 2: and Jonathan Turley says, head, you've warned about the threat
Speaker 2: of EU to free speech, particularly with the enactment of
Speaker 2: the infamous Digital Services ACTSA. You know, we've talked about
Speaker 2: it repeatedly.
Speaker 3: Here.
Speaker 2: The U has a virtually declared war on free speech.
Speaker 2: Let's understand, they want a war against US, so they
Speaker 2: also want a war against Russia. And you can't have
Speaker 2: that kind of free speech that's out there. That's why
Speaker 2: they're going full on open.
Speaker 4: Tyranny everything in Europe seems to be spiraling down and down,
Speaker 4: getting worse and worse at a more more rapid rate.
Speaker 4: So there's going to be more and more that they
Speaker 4: have to crack down on, more people that they have
Speaker 4: to censor. There's going to be more people getting thrown
Speaker 4: in jail or talked to by the police because they
Speaker 4: posted a photo on LinkedIn that somebody didn't like.
Speaker 2: That's right, and this has typically been coming with the
Speaker 2: Dei values that they've been using that as justification. Ever,
Speaker 2: look at what is happening in the US, and it's
Speaker 2: also happening in the UK that they are increasingly doing
Speaker 2: this on behest of Israel and in.
Speaker 3: Support of Israel. Just like that video we showed last week.
Speaker 5: Saw a thing about how cloud flairs are going to
Speaker 5: be outsourcing their decisions about legality of what's posted to
Speaker 5: something based in Germany that applies German free speech laws
Speaker 5: to websites.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and that's the danger. That's the danger, and there's
Speaker 2: and we're going to talk about a possible remedy that
Speaker 2: we guess what be even state based, not federal based,
Speaker 2: because the federal government doesn't like free speech either, many
Speaker 2: states don't. So the war has just begun openly with
Speaker 2: this DSA fine, and.
Speaker 3: The fine is.
Speaker 2: I'm still looking forward here and highlighted earlier. I think
Speaker 2: it's one hundred and forty million dollars.
Speaker 3: But we'll get to it. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Back in January twenty twenty three, EU Commissioner a vice
Speaker 2: president openly warned must that his quote freedom of speech absolutism.
Speaker 2: Guess what, there's no other way to have freedom of
Speaker 2: speech unless you have absolutism. If you don't allow absolute
Speaker 2: values for freedom of speech. It is a fundamental value.
Speaker 2: And you're not talking about free speech anymore if you
Speaker 2: put conditions on it. So that would not fly, saying
Speaker 2: the time of the Wild West is over. I grew
Speaker 2: up liking the Wild West, and I like freedom, threatening
Speaker 2: sanctions if Twitter didn't comply with the DSA rules. She
Speaker 2: complated illegal content with anything that the elites deem to
Speaker 2: be offensive, which at the stage for what is happening now.
Speaker 2: And then, of course, I've shown many times when EU
Speaker 2: Commissioner Theory Breton, I call him conspiracy Theory, fired off
Speaker 2: a letter to X and of course he went to
Speaker 2: Austin and I said, we'll see what happens with Musk
Speaker 2: because Musk kind of bowed and scraped company said, well,
Speaker 2: we've got the DSA thing that's out there. You're going
Speaker 2: to comply with that? Oh, yes, yes, yes, I will. Well,
Speaker 2: I'm glad that he's not doing it. I just don't
Speaker 2: know if he will keep doing it. Will he stick
Speaker 2: to his guns here? So theory Britain fired off a
Speaker 2: letter demanding that X address back in October of twenty
Speaker 2: twenty three illegal content and disinformation relating to the Gaza conflict,
Speaker 2: there again on the side of the Israeli Musk fired back,
Speaker 2: demanding a specific list of violations so the public could
Speaker 2: judge for themselves. Breton's vague accusations, citing repurposed images and
Speaker 2: unverified claims, highlighted the EU's preference for opacity of accountability.
Speaker 2: List the violations you allude to on X so the
Speaker 2: public can see them, said Musk. The EU's response was
Speaker 2: not forthcoming, but they continued to threaten further. Musk brings
Speaker 2: receipts showing that EU sent him a formal letter demanding
Speaker 2: that he censor Donald Trump during the twenty twenty four
Speaker 2: US presidential election, and he's posted the letter on X
Speaker 2: so I thought he can see it. So this find
Speaker 2: does not exist in a vacuum. It's part of a
Speaker 2: chilling pattern of overreach and it's going to threaten privacy
Speaker 2: and free speech across the continent and the world.
Speaker 3: And let me just say this, folks, if.
Speaker 2: They're going around locking up thousands of people in the
Speaker 2: UK and in Germany, in France for things that they
Speaker 2: said on social media, how much longer do you think
Speaker 2: it'll be before they start doing civil lawsuit action against
Speaker 2: people in the US for what they say. And I'm
Speaker 2: not just saying that making defamatory statements about Macron's wife.
Speaker 2: I'm saying because they don't like what you're saying about climate,
Speaker 2: or what they don't like what you're saying about the
Speaker 2: COVID situation, or about their particular war that they want
Speaker 2: to push. These are all things that are coming. By
Speaker 2: the way, I mentioned the climate mcguffin. We have on
Speaker 2: third Hour today we have Alex Newman is going to
Speaker 2: be joining us as a New American. We talked to
Speaker 2: Alex frequently about homeschooling. He's at the forefront of advocating
Speaker 2: for homeschooling and freedom and education, but he also does
Speaker 2: follow the climate mcuffin. He goes to these cop meetings
Speaker 2: that happen everywhere, and he just got back from the
Speaker 2: one that was just held there. So we're going to
Speaker 2: get his update, get the temperature as to how these
Speaker 2: people are dealing with their setbacks in this area. Because
Speaker 2: they have had some setbacks, that's good news. We'll be
Speaker 2: talking to him in the third hour. Take the proposed
Speaker 2: Chat Control law, which would mandate backdoors into encrypted messages
Speaker 2: on apps like WhatsApp and Signal. Sold as a child
Speaker 2: protection measure, it would scanned billions of private conversations, exposing
Speaker 2: them to hacking, to fraud, and to government spying. The
Speaker 2: heart of it all is the e use obsession with
Speaker 2: controlling the flow of information. Remember if we go back
Speaker 2: to January twenty twenty four speech of we have the
Speaker 2: it was I'm trying to find it here which video
Speaker 2: the Bond film film of here we go, Tavos, this
Speaker 2: is Ursula vonder Lean or as I call her, Ursula
Speaker 2: fond of Lyne.
Speaker 6: Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen. Yet Laos, your annual Global risk
Speaker 6: report makes for a stunning and sobering read for the
Speaker 6: global business community. The top concern for the next two
Speaker 6: years is not conflict or climate. It is disinformation and
Speaker 6: misinformation followed closely by polarization within our societies.
Speaker 1: In a world of deceit. Telling the truth is a
Speaker 1: revolutionary act.
Speaker 7: You are listening to the David Knight Show.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it is a revolutionary act.
Speaker 2: The EU, the UK and these government censors are evolting.
Speaker 3: Why aren't we?
Speaker 2: The latest EU assault ont X has infuriated of course,
Speaker 2: jd Vance, you're coming after my friends here. But the
Speaker 2: EU claims to champion democracy while it is building an
Speaker 2: Orwellian apparatus that monitor, scans and punishes speech. It's not
Speaker 2: about safety. It's about power. It always is about power.
Speaker 2: It's never about safety. They always come for your liberty,
Speaker 2: promising you safety, but it's always about enslaving you. The
Speaker 2: EU should be supporting free speech, not attacking American companies
Speaker 2: over garbage. She said, Well, he said that earlier in February.
Speaker 2: He kicked off by going to the Munich Security Conference
Speaker 2: and tearing into them about censorship. We'll see what happens
Speaker 2: with this. No voter on this continent, he said, went
Speaker 2: to the ballot boxed open the floodgates to millions of
Speaker 2: unvetted immigrants, and he declared labeling Europeans as more interchangeable
Speaker 2: cogs in a global economy. The German Defense Minister Boris
Speaker 2: Pistorius is name Rimes called Vance's opinions unacceptable, but he
Speaker 2: proved Vance's point about normalizing authoritarianism. Yeah, it was one
Speaker 2: hundred and forty million dollars. Here it is one hundred
Speaker 2: and forty million dollars. Hit on X is not just
Speaker 2: a fine, it's a declaration of war against free speech globally.
Speaker 2: Jonathan Turley said this is his first time under the DSA,
Speaker 2: that the EU officials acknowledged that it will lay the
Speaker 2: foundation for additional penalties to come to force companies to
Speaker 2: comply with EU quote unquote values on free speech. They
Speaker 2: don't have values on free speech. They have values they
Speaker 2: value censorship and control. X has sixty days to develop
Speaker 2: solutions to address the issues, ninety days to implement the changes,
Speaker 2: or it may face additional fines. And you know when
Speaker 2: I look at has been proposed by one person up
Speaker 2: in New Hampshire calls it the Granite Act, but he
Speaker 2: actually came together. We'll put together an acronym to oppose
Speaker 2: censorship in it to use to come up with a name. Granted,
Speaker 2: but I'm sure you could probably get AI to do
Speaker 2: that stuff for you pretty easily.
Speaker 3: Now. People probably were really straining to do that earlier.
Speaker 4: But yeah, AI is great for that sort of thing.
Speaker 4: It can coin many a backronym.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: So the EU imposed this crazy fine not just on X,
Speaker 2: he said, but also on me personally, which is even
Speaker 2: more insane. Therefore, it would seem appropriate to apply our
Speaker 2: response not just to the EU, but to the individuals
Speaker 2: who took this action against me. So I look at
Speaker 2: this and I think about the fact that whether or
Speaker 2: not you agree with his compensation, I mean, you don't
Speaker 2: have to buy his products if you think he's overpaid.
Speaker 2: But there was a judge in Delaware, where Tessel was incorporated,
Speaker 2: that says you can't pay him that much. It's like,
Speaker 2: what gives you the legal authority to decide that? And anyway,
Speaker 2: because of that, they relocated the company to Texas and
Speaker 2: incorporated in Texas. And wouldn't it be interesting if Texas
Speaker 2: were to do this for Elon Musk basically was being
Speaker 2: proposed by this libertarian in New Hampshire and the Granite
Speaker 2: Act to say, well, what's your collection mechanism. Okay, you're
Speaker 2: going to have to have Our banking system is going
Speaker 2: to have to be used to try to grab this
Speaker 2: money from them, and we're not going to recognize this
Speaker 2: without a trial in court. Good luck with that. The
Speaker 2: DSA the EU can impose fines of up to six
Speaker 2: percent line Platform's annual global revenue if they fail to
Speaker 2: censor for them. This is just the first salvo in
Speaker 2: a war that some have warned is coming, and we
Speaker 2: cannot be passive at this moment. Americans who will find
Speaker 2: themselves subject to European censors, and I say that they
Speaker 2: will probably do this directly eventually. I wouldn't be surprised
Speaker 2: if the EU and the UK are going around and
Speaker 2: arresting people in the middle of the night because they
Speaker 2: posted something they find offensive. What do you think they
Speaker 2: might do to me? In terms of lawfair? I can
Speaker 2: imagine I would see that coming, you know, And how
Speaker 2: do you fight that kind of lawfair against a country
Speaker 2: that is coming at you. So Musk has called for
Speaker 2: the abolition of the EU, which we could all sympathize with.
Speaker 2: You argue that the EU bureaucracy is slowly smothering europe
Speaker 2: to death. It has, and it is a smother effect
Speaker 2: all government regulation and all governments do this. I mean,
Speaker 2: you look at what our government has done in terms
Speaker 2: of smothering home ownership or car ownership or the rest
Speaker 2: of these things. Has it done. It's done by continually
Speaker 2: piling on more and more regulations. And they're very much
Speaker 2: like a book constrictor. They just keep tightening it until they.
Speaker 3: Till they smother you to death. Haven't.
Speaker 4: It's not slow anymore either. No, things have sped up
Speaker 4: to a remarkable rate. Every single day there's something new.
Speaker 2: Yeah, all of the governments have turned into Burmese pythons.
Speaker 2: They're not just book constrictors. We had when I worked
Speaker 2: at Bush Gardens, we alternated with a belly dancer band,
Speaker 2: and the girl that was one of the girls that
Speaker 2: went out with them had a book instrictor that she's
Speaker 2: very small. The book constrictor was very very large, and
Speaker 2: she called him thing. And so it was like the
Speaker 2: belly dancers and some costume characters and the woman with
Speaker 2: a giant book and stricter wrapped around her would go
Speaker 2: that alternate with us.
Speaker 3: It tells you something about what they thought about us, right.
Speaker 4: Anyway, yeah, you're right next to the snake act.
Speaker 3: So uh.
Speaker 2: She she she would bring him back in and and
Speaker 2: she would drape him over the the costume racks that
Speaker 2: were there in the break room. And one day Abdul,
Speaker 2: the costume character, came crashing in and scared the snake
Speaker 2: and he he chumped off, and she said, it's okay,
Speaker 2: he's just molting. Well, I don't know what the excuses
Speaker 2: for the federal government. I guess these bureaucrats are just
Speaker 2: molting or whatever it is, or is that what they
Speaker 2: call it molting when they shed their skin.
Speaker 4: Is some snakes, it's called in blue because they get
Speaker 4: this film over their eyes make some kind of milky blue.
Speaker 3: So well, it wasn't that shitting. It wasn't the term
Speaker 3: that she used.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but anyway, he was a little bit he was
Speaker 2: a little bit touchy, and after that she brought in
Speaker 2: some smaller stakes. Ever, unless she had a whole niagerie
Speaker 2: of him at home.
Speaker 4: That's part of the reason they get cranky is because
Speaker 4: the film of their eyes makes it so they can't
Speaker 4: see very well, and so they just get very nervous
Speaker 4: and skittish because they don't know what's going on.
Speaker 3: Yeah, what is this gigantic costant character of the big
Speaker 3: head coming in anyway?
Speaker 2: Musk previously described the EU as a giant cathedral to bureaucracy.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Rubio criticized ruling as an attack on all American tech
Speaker 2: platforms and the American people by foreign governments. Jade Vance
Speaker 2: said the EU had targeted X for not engaging in censorship.
Speaker 2: Question is, what, if anything, are they going to do
Speaker 2: about it. Polish Foreign Minister Sikorski reacted to Musk's high
Speaker 2: raid by saying, go to Mars. There's no censorship of
Speaker 2: Nazi salutes there. Well, it's also no war there is yet,
Speaker 2: because you don't have people like this Polish Foreign minister
Speaker 2: also pushing for war in Europe.
Speaker 4: I just have to say, if Musk were to become
Speaker 4: a goose stepping fascist and fly off to Mars, they
Speaker 4: would be upset and demand that we go there and
Speaker 4: kick him off the planet, because we can't have a
Speaker 4: goose stepping fascist planet. That's there is no place that
Speaker 4: they would tolerate this ideology. I'm not saying it's a
Speaker 4: good ideology, but this is a false narrative they're spinning. Well,
Speaker 4: why don't you just leave. There's no place they could
Speaker 4: go where you would not track these people down and
Speaker 4: enforce your own ideology on top of them. You're like, no,
Speaker 4: you can't think that. You can't say that.
Speaker 3: Well, it was that sci fi movie A Nazis on
Speaker 3: the Moon or something.
Speaker 4: There's one called Iron Sky, if memory serves, where there's
Speaker 4: moon space Nazis.
Speaker 5: Well, you don't have to go to Mars. We have
Speaker 5: free speech right here in America where his company is based.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's rights based on what So just how dystopian
Speaker 2: could Starmar's Britain become? And again, it's not just the EU.
Speaker 2: The UK is out of the EU, but they're still
Speaker 2: doing this. And each and every one of these countries, folks,
Speaker 2: if they were to get rid of the European Union,
Speaker 2: each and every one of these political leaders, like the
Speaker 2: leaders of France and Poland and Germany and so forth,
Speaker 2: they would all be doing the same thing. They're all
Speaker 2: fully on board with all of this stuff. This is
Speaker 2: a dark time that we're going into. I mean, this
Speaker 2: is not just the rise of Nazis and Germany. This
Speaker 2: is the rise of that kind of authoritarianism across the
Speaker 2: board and all the countries that used to be Western civilization.
Speaker 2: They have now thoroughly rejected the values of Western civilization.
Speaker 2: That's what this article is about. From naked capitalism. They
Speaker 2: So we first asked this question, just how dystopian coul
Speaker 2: Starmer's Britain become. We asked that about a year ago.
Speaker 2: At that point in time, with the government just four
Speaker 2: months in office, all we could offer as an answer was, well,
Speaker 2: how long is a piece of string? Now, thirteen months later,
Speaker 2: it's clear that the said string is very long, indeed
Speaker 2: in getting longer by the day. On his election July
Speaker 2: twenty twenty four, Starmer promised his government would tread let's say,
Speaker 2: does that means stomp more likely on the lives of voters,
Speaker 2: one of the growing multitude of pledges that Starmer has
Speaker 2: broken during his seventeen months in office. In this particular case,
Speaker 2: it took just two months for Starmer to change course,
Speaker 2: telling delegates at the twenty twenty four Labor Party Conference
Speaker 2: that the state would in fact take greater control over
Speaker 2: people's lives. Plans run veiled to, among other things, launch
Speaker 2: non mandatory digital identity, which will become mandatory, of course,
Speaker 2: to expand the use of live facial recognition technology. By
Speaker 2: the way, you know, we talk about mandatory digital ID,
Speaker 2: mandatory ID, sof remember real ID was said, oh, it'll
Speaker 2: never be mandatory, and yet they haven't made it mandatory.
Speaker 2: What they have done is they said, we'll give you
Speaker 2: forty five dollars fine if you don't have it. That's
Speaker 2: the way it works here. So facial recognition technology resurrect
Speaker 2: an old Tory policy to grand inspectors of the Department
Speaker 2: of War Conpensions, increased power to snoop on claimants bank accounts,
Speaker 2: and to intensify the British state's crackdown on lawful speech.
Speaker 2: Especially that was just for starters. For the main course,
Speaker 2: the government is now setting its sights on trial by jury.
Speaker 2: Think about this, folks. This is one of the seminal
Speaker 2: foundation blocks really of Western civilization and our individual liberties
Speaker 2: is trial by jury. So much so Gilbert Sulvan even
Speaker 2: did a little opera about it.
Speaker 3: Trial by jury.
Speaker 2: But it is the legal protection that's existed in England
Speaker 2: for almost one thousand years, and it's spread to other
Speaker 2: countries and now they're unrolling all of this stuff. And
Speaker 2: the way it works in the UK is very similar
Speaker 2: to the way that works here they say in theory
Speaker 2: that you have it, but in practice you don't. Now
Speaker 2: Here it's done by intimidation, by multiplying charges and threatening people,
Speaker 2: basically blackmailing them into a plea bargain, and so you
Speaker 2: have very few cases that go to jury trial here.
Speaker 2: Same thing is true in the UK. But now they
Speaker 2: want to formalize that. They've announced plans to limit people's
Speaker 2: right to trial by jury in England and Wales. A
Speaker 2: tier of swift courts, they call it, will be created
Speaker 2: to replace jury trials for most offensives that carry a
Speaker 2: likely jail sentence of less than three years, as well
Speaker 2: as complex fraud and financial cases. Well, here we have
Speaker 2: death by a thousand cuts. You know, you have your
Speaker 2: traffic court, your tax court. Don't forget the FISA court
Speaker 2: where they can put you on a no fly list
Speaker 2: without you even knowing that you've been charged. That is
Speaker 2: more like a star chamber. And you know when it
Speaker 2: comes to traffic court at least I don't know if
Speaker 2: it is in Tennessee, but in Texas they had in
Speaker 2: their right to trial by jury, and you could use
Speaker 2: that if you're in Texas. That is a tremendous lever
Speaker 2: against the prosecutor to do a plea bargain with you,
Speaker 2: because they want to avoid jury trials by all means,
Speaker 2: they really do hate jury trials. So only the most
Speaker 2: serious offenses murder, manslaughter and rape would continue to be
Speaker 2: heard by a jury of one's peers unless the people
Speaker 2: want to plea bargain out of it. There, I guess
Speaker 2: like they have there, despite the fact that English common
Speaker 2: law draws on the ancient right of trial by jury
Speaker 2: rooted in the Magna Carta. They said, we must you
Speaker 2: had one of the guys. They're saying, we must never
Speaker 2: forget that Magna Carta employs us not to deny or
Speaker 2: to delay justice, so we can't delay justice. So what
Speaker 2: we'll do is will delay the jury trial aspect of Magneicarta,
Speaker 2: who were complying with Magne Carter.
Speaker 3: He says, now.
Speaker 2: Bearing the ORWELLI and title swift and fair plan to
Speaker 2: get justice for victims. Well, you know that's another thing.
Speaker 2: You don't really get any justice for victims here in
Speaker 2: the US. There is no victim or in the British
Speaker 2: system either. There's no victim compensation for these criminal cases.
Speaker 2: They may find them even the state may find them,
Speaker 2: may send them to jail, but you don't get compensation.
Speaker 2: That's why we look at the Law of Moses. It
Speaker 2: was so much better God's law anyway, and there would
Speaker 2: be compensation that would be given to the people who
Speaker 2: had been injured. The origins go back to Magna Carta
Speaker 2: in twelve fifteen, which promised that no one would lose
Speaker 2: their liberty or property without lawful judgment of his peers
Speaker 2: and the law of the land. Purpose of this and
Speaker 2: the reason they talked about peers, it was the peers
Speaker 2: who put this on the king forced him to sign it,
Speaker 2: because that was a pushback against an authoritarian, detalitarian king,
Speaker 2: a monarch, which is what all these people aspire to be.
Speaker 3: Why getting rid of it?
Speaker 2: If you call this and said, the name of the
Speaker 2: thing should not be swift justice, it ought to be
Speaker 2: evil King John's revenge or whatever. So, yeah, John's revenge.
Speaker 4: He's back and this time he's not leaving.
Speaker 3: That's right.
Speaker 4: It's truly amazing when you look at a little bit
Speaker 4: off topic, when you look at Richard and John, neither
Speaker 4: of them were good guys. Richard was a warmongering, brutal,
Speaker 4: just thug and John was a more limp wristed, closer
Speaker 4: to home thug. Richard wanted to go to the Holy
Speaker 4: Land and do war there. John just wanted to simply
Speaker 4: tax the people, and you know, slept with a bunch.
Speaker 3: Of their wives.
Speaker 4: And the nobility hated him because he kept doing that
Speaker 4: and taxing them. They were both just terrible, terrible rulers.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and they've had several of those.
Speaker 2: As a matter of fact, we just recently watched Anonymous,
Speaker 2: which is about there. Yeah, I think the very credible theory.
Speaker 2: Most people are Shakespeare experts don't believe that it was
Speaker 2: actually the guy from Stratford. On aon they made difference
Speaker 2: to who they think it is, but for most people
Speaker 2: they believe it was Edward de vere the Duke of Oxford.
Speaker 2: And anyway, they did a movie that pretty much towed
Speaker 2: to the line of research. One of the best books
Speaker 2: on that was by Joe Sobran and it was Let's
Speaker 2: see what was it called Shakespeare?
Speaker 3: That was it?
Speaker 2: Yeah, and he's another guy that was purged by the
Speaker 2: Israeli lobby and unjustly so purged my William F. Buckley,
Speaker 2: who was their National Review. Joe Sobrand's an excellent writer
Speaker 2: and he had an excellent book about that.
Speaker 4: Sure meant they had purged William Shakespeare. I was like,
Speaker 4: what is it is really lobby having against Shakespeare?
Speaker 3: Probably shy. Yeah, that's what they got to, I guess.
Speaker 2: But the anyway, it's an excellent movie Anonymous and I
Speaker 2: had never seen.
Speaker 4: It before, and yeah, that one is really good.
Speaker 2: And we're getting back to this. What made me think
Speaker 2: about it? We're talking about bad kings. And the theory
Speaker 2: is is that Edward de Vere, who was you know,
Speaker 2: William Shakespeare, the guy at Stratford on Avon, never had
Speaker 2: a background where he would write from the perspective of
Speaker 2: people who were in the king's court and I didn't
Speaker 2: have the educational background, but he certainly didn't have the
Speaker 2: social background. Obviously, the person who wrote these things had
Speaker 2: a great deal of experience in court intrigue and other
Speaker 2: things like that, and all these different life experiences that
Speaker 2: were in Edward de Vere's life. You'll see elements of
Speaker 2: them in the plays that he wrote, and they explained
Speaker 2: very clearly why he would not want to own to it,
Speaker 2: why he could not own to it. But at one
Speaker 2: point in time he started to organize a coup against
Speaker 2: the King James forces. And one of the things that
Speaker 2: he did was the movie Richard the Third, movie the
Speaker 2: play I think always think in terms of movies Richard
Speaker 2: the Third, of course, you know, humpbacked, and everybody agreed
Speaker 2: that he was an evil figure. The reason he made
Speaker 2: him a humpback was because he wanted to villainize this
Speaker 2: one guy who was on the other side of this
Speaker 2: political intrigue, and everybody knew that it was targeted towards them.
Speaker 2: But anyway, so we have a lot of twisted humpbacks. Now, yes, yeah,
Speaker 2: that guy was hump back.
Speaker 5: And also Devi's had a history of being connected to plays.
Speaker 5: He was the director of the Noble Play.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the Lord Chamberlain's Players, Yeah, which performed for Elizabeth
Speaker 2: and others.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I mean it's a very fascinating thing. And when you
Speaker 2: look at the when you look at the movie, if
Speaker 2: you watched the movie, it stuck pretty closely to the
Speaker 2: theories about Edward de Vere fascinating the idea, but where
Speaker 2: are the people like that that we need?
Speaker 3: Now? The judge and the.
Speaker 2: Legal philosopher, Lord Devlin described trial by jury as a
Speaker 2: lamp that shows that freedom lives. I guess that lamp
Speaker 2: is being snuffed out now smothered. In practical terms, jury
Speaker 2: trials already form only a small part of the system,
Speaker 2: accounting for only two percent in the UK of all
Speaker 2: criminal cases. Most criminal cases are resolved in the magistrate's court,
Speaker 2: in which there are three magistrates who determine guilt as
Speaker 2: well as the sentence. So it's a bit different from
Speaker 2: here where they blackmail you into a plea bargain. And again,
Speaker 2: even if they don't do that, part of the problem
Speaker 2: with the jury system here in the US is just
Speaker 2: like jerrymandering, where they pick the voters, they pick the jurors,
Speaker 2: and they can manipulate it that way. I guess we'd
Speaker 2: call that jurymandering.
Speaker 4: If you mentioned if you get picked for jury duty
Speaker 4: and you mentioned jury nullification, guess who's not going to
Speaker 4: be on the jury. Yeah, if you are slightly conservative
Speaker 4: at all, if you hint at that, they will throw
Speaker 4: you out.
Speaker 2: Even if you bring it up explicitly in the jury deliberations,
Speaker 2: sometimes you get thrown out and replaced with an alternate
Speaker 2: that's there. In other words, this probably have a limited
Speaker 2: impact on the court backlog. So what they're saying is
Speaker 2: we've got to move this stuff through quickly because we've
Speaker 2: got a huge backlog on criminal cases. And they do.
Speaker 2: They have seventy eight thousand Crown Court cases.
Speaker 4: I have an idea and how it can reduce the
Speaker 4: number of criminal cases that they're dealing with. I think
Speaker 4: maybe if you get reportation criminals that you're bringing into
Speaker 4: the country.
Speaker 2: Well, they have seventy eight thousand cases that are backlog there,
Speaker 2: but since only two percent of them go to jury trial,
Speaker 2: that is not a response. There's something else involved in this,
Speaker 2: for sure. The main cause of the backlog is years
Speaker 2: of budget reductions, court closures, maintenance backlogs, and limits on
Speaker 2: the number of days that courts are permitted to sit.
Speaker 2: For centuries, court juries have served as a Democrat check
Speaker 2: on government power. Exactly why they made King John sign
Speaker 2: the Magnet Carter requesting the crits that trial by jury
Speaker 2: is a check on the King's total power. The renowned
Speaker 2: English jurist, justice andry politician William Blackstone, which everybody refers to,
Speaker 2: wrote the following about trial by jury and the commentaries
Speaker 2: and the laws of England. He said, trial by jury
Speaker 2: ever has been, and I trust ever will be looked
Speaker 2: upon as the glory of the English law, so that
Speaker 2: the liberties of England cannot but subsist so long as
Speaker 2: this palladium remains sacred and inviolate, not only from all
Speaker 2: open attacks, which none will so heartily make, but also
Speaker 2: from secret machinai which may sap and undermine it, introducing
Speaker 2: new and arbitrary methods of trial, which is what they're
Speaker 2: doing again. The people who run our countries we are
Speaker 2: talking about the US or the UK or the EU,
Speaker 2: they're all death by thousand cuts. I mean, they're infringing
Speaker 2: on these basic foundations of Western civilization, and in many
Speaker 2: cases they've gotten so bold as to just wipe them
Speaker 2: out the full stroke.
Speaker 4: It's truly amazing how realistically, for about the past two
Speaker 4: hundred years we've lived in something of a golden age
Speaker 4: for liberty. We don't think about it, but for most
Speaker 4: of history it has been sort of subsistence living, where
Speaker 4: people really don't even have the liberty to think about liberty.
Speaker 4: They're mostly focused on their daily survival needs. They're focused
Speaker 4: on making sure that they've stored up enough food for
Speaker 4: the winter that their house is going to be able
Speaker 4: to survive. And then for about two hundred years, the
Speaker 4: West has been able to sit around and think like,
Speaker 4: what is titled to a man? What should we focus on?
Speaker 4: What should he be you know, I gues said, entitled
Speaker 4: to what can the government not do to him? Most
Speaker 4: other countries never cared about that. They were never interested
Speaker 4: in discussing that or giving you know, the individual citizens anything.
Speaker 4: And we've had for two hundred years, basically in Europe
Speaker 4: and America, this Golden Age, and we're just throwing it
Speaker 4: away and so many people just do not care.
Speaker 2: So new Dark Ages is coming in. Of course, the
Speaker 2: Dark Ages were there after the Roman system, which did
Speaker 2: have rules that were followed. I mean they were Sonoma gons,
Speaker 2: but in terms of attacking other people. But once you
Speaker 2: got into the Roman system, you had rules that were followed,
Speaker 2: and that all just kind of went away into the
Speaker 2: Dark Ages. So we're headed into another Dark Ages for sure.
Speaker 2: Starmer himself, it's set in nineteen ninety two. The right
Speaker 2: to trial by jury is an important factor and the
Speaker 2: delicate balance between the power of the state and the
Speaker 2: power of the individual's pocracy. Folks, that is true, and
Speaker 2: he knows that's true, and that's why he's doing this
Speaker 2: because he wants to empower himself and take power away
Speaker 2: from you. It is a zero sum game.
Speaker 5: I can play that video if you want.
Speaker 3: Yeah, sure, go ahead and play it. Thank you.
Speaker 8: The entire house is concerned about victims, including attacks on
Speaker 8: women and girls. But the entire house is also concerned
Speaker 8: about the men and women who will undoubtedly suffer miscarriages
Speaker 8: of justice if the right to trial by jury is
Speaker 8: curtail and I would quote from a lawyer, the right
Speaker 8: to trial by jury is an important factor in the
Speaker 8: delicate balance between the power of the states and the
Speaker 8: freedom of the individual. The further it is restricted, the
Speaker 8: greater the imbalance. That lawyer is our current prime minister.
Speaker 8: He wrote that in nineteen ninety two. It is true then,
Speaker 8: as it is true today. How can the Chancellor stand
Speaker 8: up and propose a limitation of the rights to try
Speaker 8: by jury when he knows perfectly well the category of
Speaker 8: defendant who will suffer the ill effects of it?
Speaker 3: Yeah, it is.
Speaker 2: And you know, when I look at what has being
Speaker 2: done in Venezuela again, I see this in the context
Speaker 2: of the destruction of the moral foundation and the rule
Speaker 2: of law in America. And I'll show you exactly why
Speaker 2: that is happening and what concerns me. There's a number
Speaker 2: of people who are cheering for that, that are the
Speaker 2: influencers and propagandists for the GOP and for Trump and others.
Speaker 2: It's absolutely thoroughly disgusting to see what's happening with that. Again,
Speaker 2: these principles of what a just war is those were jettison.
Speaker 2: The idea of following the constitution. That was jettison with
Speaker 2: the drug war, the just war theory and not attacking civilians.
Speaker 2: We got rid of that during World War Two. So
Speaker 2: this is a logical conclusion where we are with this.
Speaker 2: Steve James writing about this, and one of the real
Speaker 2: targets of the proposed legislation is something called jury equity
Speaker 2: or jury nullification. That's right, that's what they really gets
Speaker 2: them upset. This refers to the right of a jury
Speaker 2: to determine whether their crime has been committed at all,
Speaker 2: regardless of the opinion of the trial judge. Well, no,
Speaker 2: that's not actually true. It is you can acknowledge the
Speaker 2: fact that it is a violation of the law. The
Speaker 2: nullification is really to judge the law and not just
Speaker 2: the facts of the case. The whole point of it.
Speaker 2: So you know, you look at the similar case in
Speaker 2: that I've talked about many times, the ordeal of Edwin Bushnell,
Speaker 2: who was the foreman of a jury that was setting
Speaker 2: in judgment of William Penn, who deliberately and openly violated
Speaker 2: the laws in the UK saying that you will only
Speaker 2: go to the official Church of England. They were Quakers,
Speaker 2: so they continued to meet in their Quaker church. They
Speaker 2: locked the doors of the Quaker church and said, well,
Speaker 2: that's fine, we'll just meet on the steps. So then
Speaker 2: they arrested him for that. When he was brought up
Speaker 2: for charges, the jury decided that they didn't like the law,
Speaker 2: saying that you had no right of conscience, and so
Speaker 2: they found him not guilty. The judge was furious and
Speaker 2: through the foreman and the number two person on the
Speaker 2: jury and to jail themselves. And they were there for
Speaker 2: a month or so, and finally their lawyer came back
Speaker 2: and said, what does this say in the law that
Speaker 2: you can't nullify these laws with the jury, that the
Speaker 2: jury has to follow the law, And that was habeas corpus,
Speaker 2: And so the judge didn't have any law that was
Speaker 2: just his own personal peeve, and so that case established
Speaker 2: the idea of habeas corpus as well as dury nullification.
Speaker 2: He says, very equity was famously exercised in nineteen eighty
Speaker 2: five by the jury and the case against civil servant
Speaker 2: who leaked details of the then Tory government's misinformation over
Speaker 2: the circumstances surrounding the nineteen eighty two sinking of the
Speaker 2: Argentine cruiser General Belgrano by the Royal Navy with a
Speaker 2: loss of two hundred and seventy two liners. I remember
Speaker 2: that very well, but you heard about that all the time.
Speaker 2: The General Belgrano was a ship that Argentina had in
Speaker 2: the Falkland Wars, and it was ancient. I mean, it
Speaker 2: was World War two or older. And they took it
Speaker 2: out with a couple of missiles. You know, that was
Speaker 2: like their entire navy ship.
Speaker 4: It also now just sounds like a Taco Bell menu item. Honestly,
Speaker 4: the General bel Grano Now at Taco Bell, go get
Speaker 4: yourself one.
Speaker 3: Oh that's an on sale. Yeah.
Speaker 2: So this guy was acquitted after a two week trial,
Speaker 2: despite admitting that he had leaked the documents in question,
Speaker 2: and the trial judge's insistence that he had no defense
Speaker 2: in law. The person leaked it claimed, and the jury
Speaker 2: agreed that were leased any documents which exposed government lies
Speaker 2: over the circumstances of the sinking was in the public interest.
Speaker 2: How history repeats itself right in rhymes. They should say,
Speaker 2: we have another scandal about the sinking of ships. And
Speaker 2: it's not just a second strike. It was reprehensible from
Speaker 2: the very first missile, not just that they circled back
Speaker 2: and killed the survivors who were shipwrecked. The principle has
Speaker 2: become an irritant to governments ever since, particularly following a
Speaker 2: series of cases in which members of climate and anti
Speaker 2: genocide protest organizations such as Extinction Rebellion and Palestine Action
Speaker 2: have been acquitted despite instructions from the Bench.
Speaker 3: But it's not just.
Speaker 2: That you may or may not agree with these particular issues,
Speaker 2: but it's how they ended alcohol probition. For the most part,
Speaker 2: jury started nullifying it by refusing to send people jail
Speaker 2: for drinking whiskey or selling it or whatever.
Speaker 5: So why they don't want people planning about this to
Speaker 5: undermine their drug war nonsense prohibition?
Speaker 2: And that's why they don't want to call the drug
Speaker 2: war prohbition because they don't want to point out the similarity.
Speaker 4: Hey, wait a minute, we tried this once before.
Speaker 5: It's all the people tearfully and reluctantly sending peaceful people
Speaker 5: to prison because they had a little bit of marijuana
Speaker 5: or something.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we've seen that over and over again. You know,
Speaker 2: that mandatory minimum stuff came up in regular administration that
Speaker 2: was pushed by Joe Biden. Interestingly enough, when we get
Speaker 2: to this stuff about what's going on with the ships
Speaker 2: and everything, you've got the apologists for this reprehensible policy saying, well,
Speaker 2: Joe Biden said that we needed to attack the cartels
Speaker 2: of the military. So there you go. You know, Joe
Speaker 2: Biden hated the constitution. Joe Biden was authoritarian, one of
Speaker 2: the most authoritarian senators we've ever had. I said that
Speaker 2: about him when he was running for president. I said,
Speaker 2: watch out. You know, this guy is unbelievably evil. I
Speaker 2: said it when he ran the first time as well.
Speaker 2: Not only was he plagiarists and couldn't think. I mean,
Speaker 2: he wasn't such a bright bulb even before he had
Speaker 2: old age dementia, but he was guilty of plagiarism, and
Speaker 2: he was also one of the most authoritarian people out there,
Speaker 2: and so they're now using now the Conservatives who were
Speaker 2: haranguing Biden for the mandates about the Trump shots, Oh
Speaker 2: look at how authoritarian he is. Now they're going back
Speaker 2: and saying, well, look, he said that we needed to
Speaker 2: execute people if they were drug dealers, and so we
Speaker 2: should be doing it because the other sides already embrace this.
Speaker 2: I am so disgusted with this whole idea that because
Speaker 2: the other tribe engaged in criminal activity, because the other
Speaker 2: tribe are hypocrites, therefore that gives you a free pass
Speaker 2: to be hypocrites yourself and to engage in criminal action yourself.
Speaker 2: But that's what we're seeing from all these influencers who
Speaker 2: are trying to tell you that there's a coup against
Speaker 2: Pete Hegseth. If only there were, I wish there were
Speaker 2: a coup against him. We need to get people like
Speaker 2: him out of the Pentagon. Oath breaker, that's what he is. Anyway.
Speaker 2: One of the things that is going to apply to
Speaker 2: is financial crime and fraud cases. Those that involve hidden
Speaker 2: dishonesty or complexity outside the understanding of the general public
Speaker 2: will also be exempt from trial. By jury if the
Speaker 2: proposed bill is and acted deeply troubling because this is
Speaker 2: not getting much attention at all on the media. They're
Speaker 2: just focusing on violent crime. So that's time.
Speaker 5: You've got a Sam Bankman Freed type that they want
Speaker 5: to let go. They don't have to do any sort
Speaker 5: of legal nonsense to pretend that that's right actually giving
Speaker 5: him a trial.
Speaker 4: I cannot believe anyone anyone ever trusted Sam Bankman Freed
Speaker 4: with their money. You could have pointed them out to
Speaker 4: me in a crowd, be like no, absolutely not never.
Speaker 5: Or you can say the same about any of the
Speaker 5: two thousand and eight people or many others that are
Speaker 5: government connected criminals.
Speaker 4: Yeah, you know, I'm saying like you should viscerally physically
Speaker 4: be able to look at Sam Bankman free to go. No,
Speaker 4: this man is untrustworthy, Like there should be something in
Speaker 4: you that rises up and goes No. He looks like
Speaker 4: he's going to eat my money, just consume it like
Speaker 4: a little rat.
Speaker 2: Well, as I said, the present system is an open
Speaker 2: invitation to fraudsters. And they said that, they point out
Speaker 2: that it's going to become even worse with it person right,
Speaker 2: this says this is after all the UK that we're
Speaker 2: talking about the country that arguably perfected the art of
Speaker 2: financial crime. Well, I don't know if that's true or not.
Speaker 2: I think maybe we had a lot of contributions in
Speaker 2: that as well. Kirs Armer said, one person has to
Speaker 2: be the most unlikable prime minister in my lifetime, and
Speaker 2: he's got some stiff competition. He's a compulsive liar, he's
Speaker 2: drunk on power, and he's a sanctimonious hypocrite. I got
Speaker 2: to say I could say that about pretty much most
Speaker 2: of the presidents in my lifetime. The difference is how
Speaker 2: open they are about it, and I think Trump has
Speaker 2: been the most open about being a compulsive liar, drunk
Speaker 2: on power and a sanctimonious hypocrite. But they are laying
Speaker 2: the foundations of authoritarian states everywhere, and freedom of speech
Speaker 2: is one of the key things. That is the thing
Speaker 2: that is primarily under at tech in the UK, in France, Germany,
Speaker 2: the EU and guneral. There is one example. The former
Speaker 2: UK ambasstor Craig Murray put a blog and he said
Speaker 2: the terrifying case of Natalie Strecker. She was charged with
Speaker 2: eliciting support for Hamas and Hesbela. Why because eight tweets
Speaker 2: cherry picked by the police and prosecutors from around fifty
Speaker 2: one thousand tweets and they found eight out of fifty
Speaker 2: one thousand that she complained about what was happening in Gaza,
Speaker 2: So that makes her a terrorist? Does that sound like
Speaker 2: the labels being thrown around at these Narco terrorists? So
Speaker 2: we can do whatever we want to, right, I mean
Speaker 2: in the UK they're only locking people up. We fire
Speaker 2: missiles at people if we call them a terrorist. Now,
Speaker 2: So Judge John Saunders interrupted the prosecution and her child
Speaker 2: asked whether they were saying that he would be guilty
Speaker 2: of support for terrorism if in a lecture he told
Speaker 2: an international law class that Palestinians have the right to
Speaker 2: armed resistance according to international law. And so the prosecution said, yes,
Speaker 2: there would be an offense for you to tell law
Speaker 2: students that you can't quote the law to them. You know,
Speaker 2: we've seen this type of thing before. A New Jersey
Speaker 2: weed man who decided, you know, he was very heavy
Speaker 2: marijuana users. As a matter of fact, when I interviewed him,
Speaker 2: he started he lit up a joint. I was interviewing him.
Speaker 2: But he said based on the quantity of marijuana that
Speaker 2: they had. They automatically started referring to him as a dealer.
Speaker 2: He goes, I'm not a dealer. I use it all.
Speaker 2: But he had enough brain cells left that he realized
Speaker 2: that there were enough people out there who didn't like
Speaker 2: the marijuana law that if he made the argument about
Speaker 2: Durdy nullification, that he would be likely to get off.
Speaker 2: Says his first trial. He and it's actually in the
Speaker 2: state constitution of New Jersey that you have a right
Speaker 2: to judge not only the facts of the case, but
Speaker 2: also judge whether or not you agree with the law
Speaker 2: and whether or not you agree with the penalties that
Speaker 2: are going to be applied. For instance, you know, if
Speaker 2: Joe Biden and Richard Nixon have decided that they're going
Speaker 2: to send you to jail for ten years for mandatory
Speaker 2: minimum for possession of plot or something like that, a
Speaker 2: lot of people might think that that is excessive, so
Speaker 2: they might just nullify that. And so he put that
Speaker 2: up and started to talk about it. The judge had
Speaker 2: take that down, or I'm going to come after you
Speaker 2: for contempt of court and you're going to go straight
Speaker 2: to jail. And so he took it down. But it
Speaker 2: was too late. They had already seen it, and so
Speaker 2: he had seven of the twelve jurors vote to quit him.
Speaker 2: And so then they decided they would come after him
Speaker 2: a second time. When they came after him, the prosecutors
Speaker 2: came after him a second time, because they can do
Speaker 2: it three times. When they came after him a second time,
Speaker 2: the judge allowed him to keep it up because it
Speaker 2: is after all a part of the state constitution, and
Speaker 2: that's what they're saying here. You can't tell you, judge,
Speaker 2: could not tell your law students about the international law
Speaker 2: that says that the postings have right to armed resistance,
Speaker 2: and we would send you to jail. And so that
Speaker 2: judge left it there. He got acquitted twelve to nothing,
Speaker 2: which meant that they could not come after him anymore
Speaker 2: for that.
Speaker 5: But yeah, I like defense line from the well offense
Speaker 5: line I guess from the prosecution. Yes, judge, you also
Speaker 5: would be going to prison under this if you convict
Speaker 5: this guy.
Speaker 3: That's right. Well, he didn't get off. I think that at.
Speaker 2: Least they told the truth, because it was pretty obvious
Speaker 2: that they would have come after him.
Speaker 5: So I didn't get this story to you last night,
Speaker 5: but I saw something that I thought is very relevant
Speaker 5: to this.
Speaker 3: Let me pull it up.
Speaker 5: It's a.
Speaker 7: Wrong one.
Speaker 5: This Swiss man was jailed after saying that men and
Speaker 5: women have different skeletons. This apparently is transphobic. It was
Speaker 5: a comment on social media, and he apparently got ten
Speaker 5: days in jail for it.
Speaker 2: That is a proven fact as a matter of fact.
Speaker 2: Maybe it was in relation to that, but I was
Speaker 2: looking at scrolling through Twitter pretty quickly and what is this.
Speaker 2: Somebody's taking a metal ball and passing it through a
Speaker 2: skeleton's pelvic area. And I paused to look at that
Speaker 2: and say, what is this about? And what they were
Speaker 2: saying was this is a ball that is like the
Speaker 2: size of a baby's typical head. And see it passes
Speaker 2: easily through a woman's pelvic area, but it will not
Speaker 2: pass through a man's pelvic area. The bones are closer
Speaker 2: together in a man's pelvic area. So that's you know,
Speaker 2: that's basically what he's saying, and it is true.
Speaker 3: But the truth is no defense. Now there is a law.
Speaker 5: Right was convicted of hate speech, fine sentenced to ten days.
Speaker 5: And here's his post right here.
Speaker 4: I said in a Facebook post, if you excavate LGBTQ, lesbian, gay, bisexual,
Speaker 4: blah blah blah people. After two hundred years, you will
Speaker 4: only find men and women among the skeletons. Everything else
Speaker 4: is a mental illness that was fostered by the curriculum.
Speaker 3: Very true, very true.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it is amazing the amount of time and effort
Speaker 4: we have to spend sitting around and telling these mentally
Speaker 4: ill people know, you're not a man, No, you're not
Speaker 4: a woman.
Speaker 5: Well, I mean it, do spend that time and effort
Speaker 5: in the wrong country. You get ten days in jail
Speaker 5: on a fine.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's right. Well, this article here talking about cure
Speaker 2: Starmer facial recognition and every city, town and village, every village,
Speaker 2: every village like the prisoners village, and that's exactly what
Speaker 2: these people are looking at. Starmer's government is planning to
Speaker 2: unleash live facial recognition cameras across the UK's urban landscape,
Speaker 2: completing a project has begun some years ago into the Tories.
Speaker 2: I mean, they've already got cameras everywhere. Now what they're
Speaker 2: going to be able to do is wed that to
Speaker 2: artificial intelligence and next thing you know, they'll be wedding
Speaker 2: that to their robot armies of cops who are going
Speaker 2: to come and arrest you based on how it has
Speaker 2: flagged you for a particular thing. Well, I said earlier.
Speaker 2: This is from Preston Burn and you'll find it on
Speaker 2: zero Hedge. The Granite Act how Congress could strike back
Speaker 2: against foreign sensors. Please find below the draft text of
Speaker 2: the Granite Act, a bill I've offered to New Hampshire
Speaker 2: legislators for consideration for enactment in that state. It could
Speaker 2: serve as a template for the US fight back against
Speaker 2: global censorship if adapted for federal use. The gist is simple.
Speaker 2: The only real defense a foreign censor has from injunctive
Speaker 2: relief in the US court, as we saw with Offcom's
Speaker 2: recent fine letter to four Chan and the strategy employed
Speaker 2: by Trump media and technology groups attorneys in their case
Speaker 2: against Alexander de Morey in the Middle District of Florida,
Speaker 2: the only strategy to have his sovereign immunity. Foreign countries
Speaker 2: can bully American citizens and companies because they know that
Speaker 2: US law potentially protects them from consequences for doing so.
Speaker 2: And so you know, basically, I think what he is.
Speaker 2: The gist of what he's doing. If I get condense
Speaker 2: it is to say that it's.
Speaker 3: Illegal to.
Speaker 2: Do a they call it a slap lawsuit, you know,
Speaker 2: kind of something that is quite obviously just being done
Speaker 2: out of intimidation, and that is recognized as I forget
Speaker 2: the acronym for the slap thing is.
Speaker 3: But there are.
Speaker 2: Pushbacks against that, laws prohibiting that. There should be laws
Speaker 2: prohibiting this, and he said, we should take the immunity
Speaker 2: away from them. Such a move would have teeth because
Speaker 2: these foreign countries' economies a breakdown if they didn't have
Speaker 2: access to the U S banking system. The Granite Act
Speaker 2: would make foreign censorship in bound to the US a
Speaker 2: very simple cost benefit exercise for these countries. You can
Speaker 2: try to censor an American citizen or a corporation, but
Speaker 2: if you do, they can sue you, and you and
Speaker 2: mister foreign censor are not judgment proof because your country
Speaker 2: needs access the financial system to survive. Well, the other
Speaker 2: thing you could do is you could come at it
Speaker 2: from the law fair perspective, and this could all be done.
Speaker 2: I don't think it has to be done at the
Speaker 2: federal level. I mean you could do this at the
Speaker 2: state level. And he said.
Speaker 5: I it seems like it's some sort of anti slap thing.
Speaker 5: I mean, I suppose, granted act is essentially an anti slap,
Speaker 5: but there's already a law for that.
Speaker 2: That's true, But you know it's this is what he's
Speaker 2: focusing on, is to say that if somebody comes after
Speaker 2: you like that, a foreign entity, then you can sue them,
Speaker 2: and they don't have immunity for that, so you could
Speaker 2: theoretically get compensation out of their online stuff. But again,
Speaker 2: I think it's only just a matter of time before
Speaker 2: they start coming after US individuals whose opinions and whose
Speaker 2: speech on social media they don't like. When you look
Speaker 2: at how nitpicking and trivial they are to their own citizens,
Speaker 2: you can imagine that if it is something of consequence
Speaker 2: that you were talking about, their war policy, their pandemic policy,
Speaker 2: vaccine policy, whatever it is, that, their climate policy, whatever
Speaker 2: it is that they're pushing, if they think it is consequential,
Speaker 2: even their transgender policy, because remember they're doing that, they're
Speaker 2: the ones who are pushing that. But they would come
Speaker 2: against anyone who is making comments or writing articles or
Speaker 2: doing podcasts in America that conflict with their interests. I
Speaker 2: think it's just a matter of time before that happens.
Speaker 2: Let's take a quick break here.
Speaker 4: We have quite a few comments though. Pezovante seventeen seventy
Speaker 4: six says, Elon bys Twitter slash X, he loses up speech.
Speaker 4: Conservatives flocked to the site. They and their speech are
Speaker 4: identified and monitored and eventually will be controlled.
Speaker 3: There's a trap.
Speaker 4: The ropidope, Pavante says X. Control will come because must
Speaker 4: cannot be trusted not to sell out freedom of speech
Speaker 4: for money.
Speaker 3: That's it.
Speaker 2: It's all about what's in it for him, And I
Speaker 2: don't believe that he is altruistic fighting for principles. He's
Speaker 2: fighting for Elon Musk.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: You know, hey, his interests may converge with us for
Speaker 2: a while, but just be careful. Right, It's just like
Speaker 2: Stalin and Hitler converge. Their interests converged for a moment
Speaker 2: til Hitler attacks Stalin.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 5: Henry Kissinger that said, we don't have allies, We just
Speaker 5: have permanent interests.
Speaker 3: That's right.
Speaker 5: It's the same thing.
Speaker 3: We don't have permanent dinciples.
Speaker 5: They just have interests.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we don't have permanent allies, have permanent interests. That's right,
Speaker 2: misters Machiavellen.
Speaker 4: We have three Little Birds says free speech allows complaints
Speaker 4: about government actors and corporate stooges. Steve Swan, Candice Owens,
Speaker 4: and Tucker Carlson recovering crazy things in order to delegitimize
Speaker 4: true patriotic I agree, are.
Speaker 3: You, Steve? I think so. Yeah, that's one of the
Speaker 3: ways that you do.
Speaker 2: It's one of the things that Oinkuy introduced Alex Jones,
Speaker 2: that he makes the truth unbelievable. I thought that's the
Speaker 2: best introduction to Alex Jones I've ever seen. Just turn
Speaker 2: the frogs Gate for example. Right, the truth is in there,
Speaker 2: but the way that he phrases it makes it subject
Speaker 2: to ridicule and unbelievable.
Speaker 4: Everything Candie Owens has done this year has been ludicrous.
Speaker 4: She goes in on the Bridget McCrone is actually a
Speaker 4: man based on this research from these French people that
Speaker 4: doesn't really hold up too much scrutiny.
Speaker 2: And there's yeah, otherwise, thing is fine, Right, there's really
Speaker 2: nothing going on in America that we should be concerned about.
Speaker 2: Let's be concerned about Emmanuel Macron's wife and whether she's
Speaker 2: really a woman.
Speaker 4: Now, just she's on there talking about how what is it?
Speaker 4: Oh a bunch of world leaders gotten an Egyptian troop transport,
Speaker 4: flew to the town where Charlie Kirk was assassinated, stayed
Speaker 4: for like a week, and left the morning before Charlie
Speaker 4: Kirk was assassinated, despite the fact they were there to
Speaker 4: watch him get assassinated. Because she couldn't figure out the
Speaker 4: time zones and thought that the plane was there after
Speaker 4: the assassination, but really it had left like four hours before.
Speaker 4: She has gone completely insane. The French are apparently sending
Speaker 4: assassins after her. But she was at Dollywood over a
Speaker 4: weekend or two ago over Thanksgiving. Yeah, she was out
Speaker 4: in Dollywood having a great time. I guess the French
Speaker 4: assassins aren't too good at their job. I don't know.
Speaker 3: But you know, she's doing it for the money. She's
Speaker 3: doing it the right way, I guess. You know.
Speaker 2: You look at the astronomical amounts of money that she's making.
Speaker 2: That explains it all from one aspect of that. But yeah,
Speaker 2: they are being used to delegitimize certainly, that's the way
Speaker 2: everybody else is using them. They might be out there
Speaker 2: doing it simply because you know, they're con man and
Speaker 2: grifters and they want toy like a lot of money,
Speaker 2: or they could be in on the con But that's
Speaker 2: why everybody else is using it.
Speaker 3: That's absolutely right.
Speaker 4: But yeah, canus owen's gone completely insane. Yeah, Niberu twenty
Speaker 4: twenty nine, Larry think we will be forcing behavior whackjaw.
Speaker 4: The World Health Organization is proposing a Gates funded global
Speaker 4: digital ID framework that would link newborns, vaccinations records to
Speaker 4: lifelong tracking through inter interoperable registries, socioeconomic data and AI.
Speaker 2: You know, that's the thing. The World Health Organization, the
Speaker 2: World Economic Forum, the Chinese, all these different all of
Speaker 2: them have plans to censor us. All of them have
Speaker 2: plans for digital IDs, all of them have plans for
Speaker 2: travel control. And that's really what's going on with the
Speaker 2: TSA and this real ID stuff as well. But everybody's
Speaker 2: got a plan. They've all got the same plan. They
Speaker 2: all call it something different, and the amazing thing is
Speaker 2: how they are all on the same page and the
Speaker 2: timing is all the same. But don't call it a conspiracy.
Speaker 4: So Bogus says, no freeman shall be seized or imprisoned,
Speaker 4: or stripped of his rights or possessions or outlawed er
Speaker 4: exiled or deprived of his standing in any way, nor
Speaker 4: will we proceed with force against him, or send others
Speaker 4: to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his peers,
Speaker 4: or by the law of the land. The Magna Carta
Speaker 4: twelve fifteen.
Speaker 3: Yep.
Speaker 2: Yeah, words that we could have lived by, but they
Speaker 2: don't want to live by them anymore.
Speaker 4: Guard Goldsmith and of course Guard Goldsmith hosts Liberty Conspiracy
Speaker 4: Monday through Friday at six pm. You can also find
Speaker 4: him on substack as well and Twitter. Go check out
Speaker 4: Guard Goldsmith. He says, back and the cat is happy.
Speaker 3: You know. JD.
Speaker 4: Vance's stance on EU pre speech smacks of hypocrisy. Yeah,
Speaker 4: he says, Sakespeare never taught his daughter to read, never
Speaker 4: owned a library, little indication he was into reading writing.
Speaker 4: But his name was on the productions as putting on
Speaker 4: the plays. Interesting.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and actually one of the things they point out
Speaker 2: was that his name was actually Shakspear without the e,
Speaker 2: not a shake. But yeah, it's it's it's amazing when
Speaker 2: you look at how Edward de Vere, how his events
Speaker 2: line up, even the people he was. His family was
Speaker 2: the first peerage in the UK, so I mean they
Speaker 2: were involved in the court intrigues and stuff from the
Speaker 2: very beginning. And a lot of the kings that come
Speaker 2: across as villains were their political rivals as well, So
Speaker 2: just keeps going on and on and on when to
Speaker 2: look at all different aspects.
Speaker 4: But yeah, pez on Avante seventeen seventy six, those gray
Speaker 4: wigged magistrates need to be dragged out of those courtrooms, immediately, arrested,
Speaker 4: charged and jailed. Alien poop evolution. Small towns have a
Speaker 4: jury trial once every five years. You were going to
Speaker 4: engage in a jury trial in b caves in Texas. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 4: got a speeding ticket.
Speaker 2: They don't like that. No, yeah, they don't like it.
Speaker 2: They'll do anything to that. That's when they'll start negotiating
Speaker 2: with you.
Speaker 4: Don't make me deal with the bureaucracy that's supposed to
Speaker 4: be for you.
Speaker 2: And I can say it now I'm not in Texas,
Speaker 2: but I really you know, I couldn't really take off
Speaker 2: of work to go fight this thing, because they also
Speaker 2: play the game that you know, you can't be sure
Speaker 2: that you're going to actually you go there and you
Speaker 2: camp out all day and maybe we'll get to your case,
Speaker 2: maybe we want you know, that's their their their side
Speaker 2: of the thing, so it's it's kind of a negotiating
Speaker 2: tactic really.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 4: That or they change the date of your trial last
Speaker 4: minute and send you a parcel that shows up.
Speaker 7: Like a day earlier.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so continually.
Speaker 4: Playing all kinds of games.
Speaker 3: That's right. The whole thing is a game.
Speaker 4: Guard Goldsmith says. Nobody expects the EU inquisition, the US inquisition,
Speaker 4: the UK inquisition. They want to stop those jury trials.
Speaker 2: We have three primary weapons. Going to make it four,
Speaker 2: we have the Germans as well. Yeah, nobody's saw that coming.
Speaker 4: The real octo spook. American courts are trail trial by
Speaker 4: pocketbooks or richest wins.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 4: That's a part of the reason that we when the
Speaker 4: whole Alfred Hitchcock thing happened, just like, well, there's not
Speaker 4: really anything we can do about this. The Alfred Hitchcock
Speaker 4: estate has millions upon millions of dollars. That's just not
Speaker 4: a fight you can win. They'll simply bleed you dry,
Speaker 4: you'll never see trial, you'll bankrupt yourself and won't accomplish anything.
Speaker 4: Be my Valentine finds make money from plea deals. Too
Speaker 4: expensive to run jury trials Cletis five five five. I
Speaker 4: never had to mention jury not nullification. I just told
Speaker 4: the court that I didn't think that anyone should be
Speaker 4: arrested for having marijuana, and they let me go and
Speaker 4: have never called me back since. Hell on, guys, he
Speaker 4: believes in freedom, Get him out of here. He's got
Speaker 4: to go. Guard Goldsmith. By the way, the state Senator
Speaker 4: Keith Ammon here in New Hampshire proposed the Granite Act
Speaker 4: is a free State project member.
Speaker 3: Good guy, Well, good for him, Good for him.
Speaker 4: If Guard like someone thinks he's good on liberty, you
Speaker 4: can believe he is good on liberty. The real octo spook.
Speaker 4: I am sure when judges and attorneys wake up, AI
Speaker 4: will decide the verdicts.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, you know what you're saying. Getting back to
Speaker 2: the Granite Act, Guard and that kind of stuff, we
Speaker 2: really do to our own detriment. Not realize how much
Speaker 2: can be done at the state level. So many of
Speaker 2: these things can be We could even fight against this
Speaker 2: kind of international tyranny at the state level. That's where
Speaker 2: the rubber meets the road, and we ignore that to
Speaker 2: our peril.
Speaker 4: Zoksaw of Oxhaws. That's anatomy and physiology. Every nursing student
Speaker 4: knows some basics on skeletal differences. There's so many obvious
Speaker 4: differences and the fact that we pretend there aren't so
Speaker 4: for the benefit of a small, small minority of mentally
Speaker 4: ill and sick individuals, is I mean that's right.
Speaker 2: Well, we're gonna take a quick break and I'm gonna
Speaker 2: play you Christmas Carol.
Speaker 3: Here.
Speaker 2: We'll give you the uh the Jimmy Stewart add and
Speaker 2: I've got a clip here of Jimmy Stewart talking about
Speaker 2: about talking about it's wonderful life. I'm gonna play for
Speaker 2: way after that.
Speaker 3: Stay with this. Will be right back, and.
Speaker 7: You're listening to the David Knight Show.
Speaker 9: I wish I had a Christmas Night album. You can
Speaker 9: get the Christmas Night Album at the Davidnightshow dot com
Speaker 9: for just thirteen ninety nine. It's right in the second
Speaker 9: floor there.
Speaker 10: Say what'd you wish, George, Well, not just one to
Speaker 10: wish your little hat flog.
Speaker 9: First, I'm going to the Davidnightshow dot Com and purchase
Speaker 9: the Christmas Night Album. Then I'm gonna listen to Christmas
Speaker 9: classics like who are you gonna throw it?
Speaker 5: Rog?
Speaker 11: I want the Christmas Night album too.
Speaker 10: That's pretty good.
Speaker 12: Hello, girls, can't you come out to me?
Speaker 13: Can't you?
Speaker 9: David's Christmas Night Album includes twenty one instrumental Christmas melodies
Speaker 9: like God Rest You, Merry Gentlemen, Silent Night, and It's
Speaker 9: all New.
Speaker 10: I'll be home for Christmas. What do you want? You
Speaker 10: want the moon?
Speaker 12: Just say the word and I'll throw a lasshole around
Speaker 12: and pull it down.
Speaker 14: I'll take it and what and then I'll buy you
Speaker 14: your own download of David Knight's Christmas Night album.
Speaker 13: What trouble are you getting back into movies? Because you
Speaker 13: started with a bang, with a marvelous movie made by
Speaker 13: Frank Capra. It's a wonderful life that I mean, did
Speaker 13: you want to get back in the moon?
Speaker 2: Oh?
Speaker 12: I certainly did, but I uh, it was sort of.
Speaker 2: A again, this is after you took a leave because
Speaker 2: he fought in World War Two.
Speaker 12: In my career, because I didn't exactly know whether the type.
Speaker 3: Of thing that I'd done.
Speaker 12: Before, whether that would be accepted, and it turned out
Speaker 12: that it wasn't very accepted.
Speaker 3: That It's a wonderful life didn't do very well, didn't it?
Speaker 12: I The next picture didn't do very well and it
Speaker 12: was sort of falling back on that, on that sort
Speaker 12: of thing that I'd gotten into the romantic comedy and
Speaker 12: people didn't want that.
Speaker 3: So but before you.
Speaker 13: Go on the Jimmy, come up a look at seen
Speaker 13: them from from Wonderful Life.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I didn't realize it.
Speaker 10: Fact it didn't.
Speaker 13: It wasn't a commercial success because it's it's it's a
Speaker 13: nice little isn't it.
Speaker 12: But it's amazing, it's it's my favorite picture and Frank
Speaker 12: Capri's favorite picture.
Speaker 10: You're a father in heaven. I'm not a grand man.
Speaker 10: But if you're a player, and you can hear me,
Speaker 10: show me the way. I'm at the end of my robe.
Speaker 10: I show me the way God didn't wanna, right, George
Speaker 10: or somebody take your hard Why you're dreaming so much?
Speaker 10: My friendly Please go home, mister Bailey. This is Christmas
Speaker 10: Eve Bailey.
Speaker 12: Wish Bailey this mister George better.
Speaker 13: You said, Jim that was your favorite movie of all
Speaker 13: of all the movies you made.
Speaker 10: That.
Speaker 13: Yeah, still, why is that?
Speaker 12: I don't know a lot of reasons. I just noticed
Speaker 12: that that scene there, Uh, that scene I remember when
Speaker 12: I when I first read the first draft of the
Speaker 12: script and that scene the Little Prayer affected me and
Speaker 12: when I read it, when I did it in the movie,
Speaker 12: it did and it did the same to me right now.
Speaker 3: And this.
Speaker 12: Is a theory that I've always had that creating moments
Speaker 12: in movies, this, I think is the important thing. Nobody
Speaker 12: knows exactly how it happened.
Speaker 3: Uh, but.
Speaker 12: What you should do is to prepare yourself as best
Speaker 12: you can to make these moments happen, because in a
Speaker 12: movie it's it's really not so much the performance, it's
Speaker 12: really not there are moments. There are moments just like
Speaker 12: like there, I think.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and in that moment he was not so that
Speaker 2: was not in there that he would be crying like that. Yeah,
Speaker 2: it's a genuine so yeah. Actually, according to the code,
Speaker 2: you know, they had their own code, the Hayes Code
Speaker 2: they put in, and it was put in primarily to
Speaker 2: pull back some of the abuses that were there in
Speaker 2: Hollywood from the very beginning, From the very beginning. This
Speaker 2: stuff didn't come in with a sexual revolution in the sixties.
Speaker 2: Hollywood was as scrupt as could be from the very beginning,
Speaker 2: and so they had a lot of nudity and sex
Speaker 2: in the early silent film days and so they were
Speaker 2: going to shut the whole thing down, and so Hollywood
Speaker 2: kind of did its own policing thing. A similar thing
Speaker 2: happened with comic books. They came up with the comic
Speaker 2: book code and everything, so they had different codes that
Speaker 2: were there. And in this particular case, what was relevant
Speaker 2: about it was that they had said that it wasn't
Speaker 2: just about sexual things or nudity.
Speaker 3: It was also that you.
Speaker 2: Will not have any characters praying, and that was still
Speaker 2: in effect, and so what they did was they kind
Speaker 2: of skirted that and did an in run with the
Speaker 2: way they wrote that end too, the end of the script,
Speaker 2: so that it was kind of on the side. But anyway,
Speaker 2: let's talk about how we have lost our foundation.
Speaker 4: Here really quickly.
Speaker 3: Though.
Speaker 4: Also, just Jimmy Stewart did some fantastic movies. If you're
Speaker 4: looking for a great Western Winchester seventy three is an excellent,
Speaker 4: excellent movie. It's an excellent film and always worth a
Speaker 4: watch or a rewatch.
Speaker 3: We watched that many many times.
Speaker 4: I've seen Winchester seventy three. I don't know how many
Speaker 4: times we had it on VHS, And that was one
Speaker 4: of those ones where you know, put it on and
Speaker 4: just watch it every so often.
Speaker 2: I like Liberty Valance man who shot Liberty Balance with
Speaker 2: him and John Wayne, until one day it kind of
Speaker 2: dawned on me. Wait a minute, what they're saying is that,
Speaker 2: you know, the Liberty is an evil thing. You know,
Speaker 2: we don't want the wild West, and it's like, no,
Speaker 2: I want the wild West. Like I said earlier, I
Speaker 2: think the wild West is good. You can handle people
Speaker 2: like Liberty Balance. But you know, the whole thing was
Speaker 2: that we had some other everybody with laws. It was
Speaker 2: kind of a backdoor slap at that. But anyway, that's
Speaker 2: just my opinion. Poor Pete. The war on Pete hegsath
Speaker 2: and this is something that was done by a guy
Speaker 2: who operates under an alias who writes on American Great
Speaker 2: and zero Hedge thought it was so good that they
Speaker 2: published it as well, And I got to say, I
Speaker 2: think it's one of the most disgusting things. The only
Speaker 2: thing that I've seen more disgusting take than this is
Speaker 2: the article I'm going to cover after this.
Speaker 4: So get ready, folks, this is about to be a segment.
Speaker 2: Poor Pete. Pity him right, I've had enough. I can
Speaker 2: no longer sit still while the deep state does its
Speaker 2: very best to smear murdering Pete Hegseth and have him
Speaker 2: remove from his post via lies, rumors, propaganda. Talk to
Speaker 2: me about lies. This guy has changed his story more
Speaker 2: times than Hillary Clinton changed their story about Bengaza. So
Speaker 2: you know they can't tell the truth. Take a look.
Speaker 2: And yet you've got zero Hedge, you got bright Bart,
Speaker 2: you got Info Warris, you got American greatness.
Speaker 3: They're all out there. It's a coup.
Speaker 2: It's a coup, and it's got to be the Soros
Speaker 2: people as well. Same narrative all the time, right, Yeah,
Speaker 2: it's a far side doesn't win. It's a coup by
Speaker 2: the deep state. I'm so sick and tired of this trope.
Speaker 2: It's disgusting. It's a rerun over and over again. I've
Speaker 2: seen this movie before. In this particular case, it does
Speaker 2: not apply. He is not a victim. He is a liar.
Speaker 2: He's a criminal.
Speaker 4: Hey wait, I've seen this one. It's a classic.
Speaker 2: Yeah, he's guilty of premeditated murder and they're trying to
Speaker 2: get him off. He said, clearly, this is an orchestrated,
Speaker 2: carefully constructed character assassination campaign against Egsath well before he
Speaker 2: can assassinate his character. He's got to have some and
Speaker 2: this guy is as bad as Megan Kelly, who was
Speaker 2: out there saying I want them to suffer, you know,
Speaker 2: make them bleed.
Speaker 5: Yes, she's saying that, but he's the one actually killing him.
Speaker 3: That's right.
Speaker 2: We now know, of course that it was all a lie,
Speaker 2: and they're not talking about what Hegseth had said. The
Speaker 2: Democrats and national media want you to believe that two
Speaker 2: fishermen survived a first strike on their drug laden speedboat
Speaker 2: and we're then floating in the water helplessly like Rose
Speaker 2: and Jack at the end of Titanic. Well, actually they were,
Speaker 2: and if they violated your illegal war on drugs, there
Speaker 2: is no death penalty for it. So when you look
Speaker 2: at this, we were just talking about getting rid the
Speaker 2: foundations of Western society, free speech, trial by jury, the
Speaker 2: Magna cart, all these things being purged. These people in America,
Speaker 2: this American greatness and zero hedge. These people, they are
Speaker 2: pushing this something that is far more dangerous now, that
Speaker 2: is getting rid of the idea of a just war.
Speaker 2: They have nothing but contempt for that and for the
Speaker 2: rules of war. And let me tell you, yeah, it
Speaker 2: may sound like an oxymoron. But if ever there was
Speaker 2: a place we need to have rules to try to
Speaker 2: mitigate the slaughter that's in war, and we abandon all
Speaker 2: that to our demise. Really, newsflash. They admitted all this stuff,
Speaker 2: folks after boasting about striking the ship. And that's the
Speaker 2: key thing in Reason got it right about this.
Speaker 3: They said.
Speaker 2: The danger of all this talk about the second strike
Speaker 2: is that we don't realize that as it was originally
Speaker 2: presented and as Pete hegg Seth boasted about it, it
Speaker 2: was still a war crime. It was still murder. There
Speaker 2: was no conflict, there was no threat. There was no
Speaker 2: legal justification under US or international law to execute people
Speaker 2: on the mere suspicion of drugs. There's no law international
Speaker 2: or domestic that allows you to execute them, even if
Speaker 2: you gave them due process. It's not a capital offense.
Speaker 2: I don't know what's the matter with people like this
Speaker 2: during this but the damage has done, and too many
Speaker 2: Americans are still clinging to the lies on the Washington
Speaker 2: Post heg Seth, Levitt Trump, all of them have changed
Speaker 2: their tune. All of them have changed their tune. They've
Speaker 2: all walked back their statements which means that they were
Speaker 2: all lying and it's just become the lies have become untenable.
Speaker 2: That's why they change the story. Just like Hillary Clinton,
Speaker 2: I'm Benghazi.
Speaker 5: What a ridiculous article to say that. Oh yeah, they're
Speaker 5: saying two fishermen survived, as though yet being a drug
Speaker 5: runner makes you more likely to survive getting your boat
Speaker 5: blown up. Yeah, a drug runner, I could believe he
Speaker 5: could survive that attack. But a fisherman, Well.
Speaker 2: They're saying it because they said, well, these people are
Speaker 2: not innocent. The reality is is that, as ram Paul said,
Speaker 2: from the very beginning, when the Coastguard interdicts people and
Speaker 2: searches their boats, as they continue to do in spite
Speaker 2: of the fact that in this particular area, because it's
Speaker 2: not about the drugs at all. It's about it's about bullying,
Speaker 2: corrupt capitalism, the kind of stuff that was called out
Speaker 2: by Smedley Butler. War is a racket really is, and
Speaker 2: you know we still use that word rico, the racketeering
Speaker 2: and influence and corrupt organizations. It's organized crime, and the
Speaker 2: entire drug war is organized crime run by organized criminals
Speaker 2: that we call the federal government. And this only exacerbates
Speaker 2: all this. So this one is from the Daily Signal.
Speaker 2: I believe it's a Heritage Foundation daily wire. I think
Speaker 2: is Ben Shapiro saying Daily Signals Heritage Foundation. These are
Speaker 2: people who are cheering, hegseeth. Matter of fact, three cheers
Speaker 2: for the Pentagon's two step boat attack. They said, all
Speaker 2: week long, I've tried to cry for the narco terrorists.
Speaker 2: See this is the childish labels that they throw on people,
Speaker 2: just like the leftists do. Oh, we'll call them narco terrorists.
Speaker 2: Now I gotta because I label you a narco terrorist.
Speaker 2: Now I have a right to jail you, to gas
Speaker 2: you at a protest or whatever. I'm going to label
Speaker 2: your organization in a terrorist organization. That's why people showed
Speaker 2: up on the No King's Day and said, I am
Speaker 2: antifah if you're going to just arbitrary label them as this,
Speaker 2: we don't like that principle. But they use that label
Speaker 2: and now they can kill you if they wish. So
Speaker 2: it's however, I tried to cry for them, but my
Speaker 2: eyes are stayed totally cry. Yeah, well, maybe you ought
Speaker 2: to weep for the loss of due process, the loss
Speaker 2: of the constitution, the loss of the rule of law
Speaker 2: and the loss of morality in our society because people
Speaker 2: like you at the Daily Signal have pushed this. The
Speaker 2: only thing wrong with Venezuela and two step is the
Speaker 2: Secretary of War Pete Hesse did not hold a press
Speaker 2: conference and take full credit for this operation. A newsflash.
Speaker 2: It's not the Secretary of War. That's going to cost
Speaker 2: two billion dollars if they do it. But they haven't
Speaker 2: done it yet. He calls himself that it's just an affectation.
Speaker 2: He's like a little I think Kelly got it right.
Speaker 2: He's like a little boy playing war. I probably could
Speaker 2: go into his office.
Speaker 3: He's got little toy soldiers all set up around the
Speaker 3: place there.
Speaker 5: But yeah, not only did he not take credit for it,
Speaker 5: he's repeatedly lied about it and changed his story.
Speaker 2: That's right, Yeah, he lied about it because it's worse
Speaker 2: than a war crime, and it's cold blooded murder. And
Speaker 2: what we found in this statement, we found that it
Speaker 2: was premeditated murder. They talked about it for forty one
Speaker 2: minutes to decide what they're going to do, and then
Speaker 2: what they did was still murder. So this premeditated murder,
Speaker 2: planned and malice of forethought. So this off ed piece
Speaker 2: as the bad ombres and those narcotics stuffed boats are
Speaker 2: not Venezuelan sailors. They are private sector criminals, namely drug
Speaker 2: cartel thugs, for which I would add no death penalty law,
Speaker 2: and there is no declaration of war to identify them
Speaker 2: as combatants. There was no conflict, there was no combat,
Speaker 2: and so from the very beginning, this is equivalent to
Speaker 2: killing civilians. You know, we just had a video that
Speaker 2: I haven't shown it on the show, but it was
Speaker 2: taken by somebody as from a distance as Israeli soldiers.
Speaker 2: We're arresting someone in Gaza. The person's got their hand
Speaker 2: up and the Israeli soldiers just executed them. That's what
Speaker 2: this is about. And it's no wonder that we support
Speaker 2: Israel in that war, because we do the same thing.
Speaker 5: I do have that video. I don't know if you want.
Speaker 3: To play it. It's long. Let's go.
Speaker 2: We've got a guess that's coming up. I want to
Speaker 2: get through this trendy. Rugua and their lawless associates did
Speaker 2: not sign the Geneva Convention, and as non state actors,
Speaker 2: they're not entitled to its protections. Bothers me a great
Speaker 2: deal that a a think tank, the Heritage Foundation, the
Speaker 2: biggest of the conservative think tanks, would put out something
Speaker 2: like this.
Speaker 4: I just have to say, it's just I'm I didn't
Speaker 4: sign the Constitution, I didn't sign the Bill of Rights.
Speaker 4: Does that mean that I'm not entitled to that protection
Speaker 4: of my individual freedoms and liberties.
Speaker 3: That's a good point. Yeah, the point.
Speaker 5: That KARDA isn't there to legislate the victims, like it's
Speaker 5: there to restrict the people that are committing the war crimes.
Speaker 3: That's right. It is not.
Speaker 2: You know, we've said over and over again, the Bill
Speaker 2: of Rights does not give us rights. The Bill of
Speaker 2: Rights recognizes are God given rights and it prohibits the
Speaker 2: government from infringing on those. The same thing is true
Speaker 2: of the Geneva Convention. The Geneva Convention recognizes the morality
Speaker 2: of what was informed by Christian thought, and that is
Speaker 2: the just war theory. That you don't attack people who
Speaker 2: are non combatants. That means civilians, and that means even
Speaker 2: soldiers who are now out of combat, sailors who are shipwrecked.
Speaker 2: This is the exact case that they use. So you
Speaker 2: don't get your human rights because you sign a Geneva convention. Again,
Speaker 2: I find it very troubling that the Heritage Foundation would
Speaker 2: publish something like this. But the Heritage Foundation never really
Speaker 2: got the gist of what was happening with social media
Speaker 2: censorship either, and by the way, neither did the Cato Institute.
Speaker 2: The biggest concern did, the biggest libertarian think tanks did
Speaker 2: not support free speech against censorship when it's being done surreptitiously.
Speaker 2: They came back and said, well, this is being done
Speaker 2: by the social media companies and their private entities, so
Speaker 2: they can do whatever they want to take somebody's free speech.
Speaker 2: No they can't, No, they can't, And I don't care
Speaker 2: if the Supreme Court says it or not. Those were
Speaker 2: not rights that were given to me by the government.
Speaker 2: Their rights that are given to me by God, and
Speaker 2: the corporations cannot take those rights. Ever, we can never
Speaker 2: give them that kind of power, just like we can't
Speaker 2: give it to the government either. If the US armed
Speaker 2: forces are no longer may kill narco terrists who survive
Speaker 2: single tap strikes, then these individuals suddenly have grown a
Speaker 2: right to life that must be respected. Think about this
Speaker 2: conservative think tank talking about how somebody has grown a
Speaker 2: right to life. Anyone wonder that we struggled for so
Speaker 2: long to stop abortion that the right to life people
Speaker 2: couldn't get the kind of traction that they needed from
Speaker 2: Heritage Foundation. Welcome to post Christian conservatism, where you supposedly
Speaker 2: grow rights to life. No, it is not something. These rights,
Speaker 2: as I said, even about the Bill rights, these rights
Speaker 2: are not granted by the government. They're not granted by
Speaker 2: the document. They're not granted only to citizens. We have
Speaker 2: these rights because we're human, and that means that people
Speaker 2: who are citizens of other countries also have human rights
Speaker 2: and were not allowed to kill them wantonly if they
Speaker 2: are if it's not in self defense. This is clearly
Speaker 2: not in defense. It's an unjust war.
Speaker 3: It was an.
Speaker 2: Unjust strike, and the first strike was unjust. Yeah, the
Speaker 2: second one just drives at home.
Speaker 5: He's saying that if you're okay for the first strike,
Speaker 5: then surely you should be okay for the second one.
Speaker 5: He's pointing out that it's ridiculous to think that someone
Speaker 5: could suddenly grow right to life. The only thing is
Speaker 5: he's saying that they never had a right to.
Speaker 11: Life by what ease?
Speaker 3: That's right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, welcome to post Christian conservatism quote unquote, the neo
Speaker 2: cons and the never christ.
Speaker 3: That's what these people are.
Speaker 2: They want war and they pretended they're conservative, but they
Speaker 2: don't want to conserve anything, especially Western civilization.
Speaker 3: He says.
Speaker 2: So, imagine that Navy seals. This is the most absurd
Speaker 2: straw man argument I've ever heard, the most absurd. Listen
Speaker 2: to this how he justifies this. Imagine the Navy seals
Speaker 2: aboard the USS gerald Ford swoop in to save these survivors. Surprise,
Speaker 2: an enraged narco terrorist opens fire on the incoming gringoes.
Speaker 2: Three seals tumble into the Caribbean dead. What would those
Speaker 2: bashing excess say.
Speaker 3: That, Well, I would say to you, that's the most
Speaker 3: absurd argument I've ever seen in my life.
Speaker 4: Look at this scenario I made up, Look at what
Speaker 4: could have Look at this thing that I'm imagining.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they were not model citizens.
Speaker 3: There you go.
Speaker 2: So you don't like them and they're criminals, so just
Speaker 2: execute them. Where do we draw the line? When do
Speaker 2: we stop executing people that are not model citizens? According
Speaker 2: to the Daily Signal, I wish this person had put
Speaker 2: their name there. I would like to make them a celebrity.
Speaker 2: This is just crazy. According to a source familiar with
Speaker 2: the incident, the two survivors climbed back onto the boat
Speaker 2: after the initial strike. Well, what else do you think
Speaker 2: they're going to do. They're trying to survive in the ocean.
Speaker 2: They were also waving for help, by the way, that
Speaker 2: has also come out. They said, well, they believed that
Speaker 2: they were potentially in communication with others and that they
Speaker 2: might then salvage the drugs, so they determined that they
Speaker 2: were still in the fight with the valid targets. Understand
Speaker 2: that the way they have defined conflict, right, they have
Speaker 2: defined conflict mean these people were possession of illegal drugs.
Speaker 2: Therefore they were a threat. Therefore there was combat, Therefore
Speaker 2: it was conflict. None of that is true. It has
Speaker 2: never been true, and we better hope that it never
Speaker 2: becomes true. When are they going to start executing people
Speaker 2: on the streets like du Terte did in the Philippines.
Speaker 2: There is a simple solution to all this. Those who
Speaker 2: prefer not to get obliterated in narcotics boats or wind
Speaker 2: up clutching wreckage after being shot need to not do
Speaker 2: any drugs.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 2: Isn't that amazing? And then here is Steve Watson and you.
Speaker 5: Said you wanted his name. This was written by Deroy Murdoch.
Speaker 3: Really wow wow, Okay, I missed that. Thank you.
Speaker 2: How pathetic that is, Manhattan based Fox News contributor.
Speaker 3: Well there you go, Yeah.
Speaker 2: Deroy, you are a pathetic excuse for a human being.
Speaker 2: Just to disgusting to see this. And here's another one,
Speaker 2: Steve Watson, Paul Watson's brother Modernity News.
Speaker 3: Watch this.
Speaker 2: Here's Biden calling for a strike force to crush drug
Speaker 2: dealers in nineteen eighty nine. Okay, well, then if Biden
Speaker 2: did it, I guess we can do it too.
Speaker 4: Here's Joe Biden, known purveyor of good policy.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Steve Watson repeat after me. Okay, hypocrisy and crimes
Speaker 2: of the other tribe do not mean that your tribe
Speaker 2: can do the same type of thing. It was deplorable
Speaker 2: when Biden said it, Biden. If you knew anything about
Speaker 2: history and America, Steve, you would know that Biden has
Speaker 2: been one of the key instigators of this criminal, illegal
Speaker 2: war on drugs and the authoritarian over the top tactics
Speaker 2: things like mandatory minimums and things like that, as well
Speaker 2: as the civilized at forfeiture. This is all coming from
Speaker 2: Joe Biden. Joe Biden, as I've said over and over again,
Speaker 2: when Clarence Thomas was having the hearings, the Democrats got
Speaker 2: very angry with him because they wanted him to focus
Speaker 2: exclude Civilly on this. He said, she said thing about
Speaker 2: Anita Hill, and instead he focused on attacking Clarence Thomas
Speaker 2: because Clarence Thomas supported natural rights and the Constitution of
Speaker 2: the Bill Rights, and Biden hated the thing.
Speaker 3: You know, he doesn't even remember.
Speaker 2: What it's called decoration Independence and the rest of that stuff.
Speaker 2: He hates the founding principles of this country, the Decoration
Speaker 2: of Independence, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution. He despises it.
Speaker 2: He is one of the worst authoritarian gangsters out there.
Speaker 2: And of course that's why he was picked, and that's
Speaker 2: why Trump was picked, because they're both alike in that regard.
Speaker 2: So a clip, Steve Watson found a clip where Joe
Speaker 2: Biden is demanding the same aggressive action decades ago, proving
Speaker 2: that their opposition as pure partisan sabotage, as cartel poison
Speaker 2: floods America unchecked, Steve, they would be so proud of
Speaker 2: you with our first czar in America, William Bennett and
Speaker 2: the Reagan administration. They'd be so proud of you towing
Speaker 2: the line for this. You know, we got to do
Speaker 2: whatever it takes for the war on drugs. It was
Speaker 2: the guy that Steve A. Chennick was working with Tom Clancy,
Speaker 2: who came up with clear and present danger. They were
Speaker 2: selling that idea to people a long time ago. Yeah,
Speaker 2: let's just choose the CIA in the military to kill
Speaker 2: all these cartel people. That's the way. Let's turn the
Speaker 2: war on drugs into a real war. You know, it
Speaker 2: wasn't long ago that conservatives dinged Biden for his anti
Speaker 2: human rights, his anti Bill rights mandates. Well, okay, this
Speaker 2: is poison and we all know it was poisoned that
Speaker 2: Trump put out and Trump says he's the father of
Speaker 2: but it was Biden who mandated it, and violation of
Speaker 2: the Bill rights and violation of our human rights. He
Speaker 2: mandated it. Now these same conservatives are out there saying, well,
Speaker 2: Biden did it, so now we can do it. Right,
Speaker 2: this is the way it's going to operate. No hipocrisy
Speaker 2: and crimes of the other tribe. Do not excuse the
Speaker 2: hypocrisy and the crimes of your tribe. So, in addition
Speaker 2: to calling for more prisons and more cops. Biden says,
Speaker 2: the Democrats want the creation of a strike force to
Speaker 2: do all this stuff. And again, the explosion of prisons
Speaker 2: that we had because of mandatory minimums and things like that,
Speaker 2: did that stop drugs? No, you have people who die
Speaker 2: of overdoses in these corrupt federal prisons as well. And
Speaker 2: what is it going to I've said this all along,
Speaker 2: What does it say if you can't even stop drugs,
Speaker 2: if people can get enough drugs to overdose on them
Speaker 2: in prison, what kind of a society are we going
Speaker 2: to have If you're going to try to stop this
Speaker 2: spiritual problem by force by police, we'll all be living
Speaker 2: in a prison. Now that's worth they taking this. They're
Speaker 2: using this as an excuse to put us all in
Speaker 2: a prison. And so the clip from February seventh, nineteen
Speaker 2: eighty nine Senate hearings on Crime and Drug shows Biden
Speaker 2: pushing for swift, severe punishment of dealers and international operations
Speaker 2: to dismantle cartels before they infiltrate the US. This is
Speaker 2: like arguing that, well, you know, Hitler said that we
Speaker 2: should do such and such, so let's do it. You know,
Speaker 2: he's he's he's bought into this, so let's it gives
Speaker 2: us the permission to do that. I look at Biden
Speaker 2: as somebody who as authoritarian as Hitler. He would do
Speaker 2: all these things to us if he could. This psycho
Speaker 2: is Trump's designation of cartels as foreign terrorist organizations, a
Speaker 2: move that Biden never pursued, despite his tough talk. Yeah,
Speaker 2: it took the left right thing. And they always pull
Speaker 2: this stuff with a Republican. You know, it was Biden
Speaker 2: who was pushing all this stuff behind the scenes really
Speaker 2: hard and in the Senate when Reagan was president. And
Speaker 2: of course, you know they need to put in Donald
Speaker 2: Trump because it can. Conservatives will applaud this stuff because
Speaker 2: the conservatives, just like the liberals, want government to do
Speaker 2: whatever they think is important. Conservatives don't like drugs. You
Speaker 2: shouldn't like drugs, But because they don't like drugs, they
Speaker 2: will allow the government to do whatever the government tells them.
Speaker 2: Will stop the drugs, no matter how disconnected that is
Speaker 2: from reality, no matter how much it destroys our society,
Speaker 2: no matter how much it erodes the foundation or destroys
Speaker 2: the foundation of our country. So he says, one person says, well,
Speaker 2: that's the Biden. I remember he was pro America back
Speaker 2: when Dems could be patriots. Now you have to piss
Speaker 2: all over everything that's rb of Jonesborough. Actually he's I
Speaker 2: think he's living in Jonestown.
Speaker 3: The cult.
Speaker 2: Isn't that amazing? So now they're cheering Biden because he
Speaker 2: was about killing people without due process, just like he
Speaker 2: was about locking you down and taking away your job
Speaker 2: if you didn't get the vaccine. They hated him for that,
Speaker 2: but now they like him because he doesn't respect any
Speaker 2: principles of liberty or law. And this is Steve Watson
Speaker 2: putting this in here as a look at this. You know,
Speaker 2: people are making the point for him. He goes and
Speaker 2: collects tweets about it. It's amazing. Trump is everything that
Speaker 2: Democrats ever wanted in a single package, and yet they
Speaker 2: hate him. I agree, I agree. I've said this for
Speaker 2: the longest time. He is a New York City Democrat.
Speaker 2: He has a casino owning, organized crime thug, and that's
Speaker 2: the way he runs the country as well. He is
Speaker 2: a New York City Democrat. Why do they hate him
Speaker 2: so much? Well, Stephen Miller said, this is the first
Speaker 2: time I can ever think where a major political party
Speaker 2: has sided with narco trafficking, murdering terrorist scum. Well, Stephen,
Speaker 2: you need to get a little bit better educated. Both
Speaker 2: parties have sided with a CIA, which is all of
Speaker 2: the above, go trafficking, murdering terrorists, scum. That is the
Speaker 2: job description there at the CIA. And if you think
Speaker 2: that the major parties haven't sided with this, they've both
Speaker 2: done it. They've both done it, he added. A Democrat says, Oh,
Speaker 2: there's no such thing as a narco terrorist. They're just
Speaker 2: narco persons. ISIS and these narco terrorists in our hemisphere
Speaker 2: use the same tactics. We're going to go off running
Speaker 2: around the Middle East, he says.
Speaker 3: Sorry.
Speaker 2: Miller says, we that means the Trump administration, we're not
Speaker 2: going to go off running around the Middle East trying
Speaker 2: to build democracies in caves and deserts and in distant
Speaker 2: lands that have never known democracy.
Speaker 3: Oh you're not.
Speaker 2: You just had the thug that was put in by
Speaker 2: the CIA and Syria, an ISIS thug.
Speaker 3: He wants to equivocate these.
Speaker 2: These people that he labels as narco terrorists, he wants
Speaker 2: to equivocate them with ISIS, and yet it was actual
Speaker 2: ISIS Kaida terrorist that the US government both parties supported,
Speaker 2: and Syria both parties armed. Biden gave him escorts to
Speaker 2: beat a sod out of Syria, the A ten warthogs
Speaker 2: that were there. Have these people forgotten that they just
Speaker 2: put Isis in charge of Syria? Has Stephen Miller forgotten
Speaker 2: that Trump honored him in the Oval office? Seriously, we're
Speaker 2: supposed to believe that these people have got such short memories.
Speaker 2: They want to ding Biden for dementia. Maybe they've got dementia,
Speaker 2: or maybe they're just machiavellian liars, people like Steve Watson
Speaker 2: as well as Joe Biden and Steven Miller. I'm going
Speaker 2: to want to get answers on what the pete hegseth
Speaker 2: order was, said Democrat Senator Warner. And again this is hypocrisy,
Speaker 2: but it is true. He said, we haven't seen the
Speaker 2: whole unedited video. If there's nothing inappropriate here, you could
Speaker 2: have cleared this up without the admiral coming in. Just
Speaker 2: show us the video. And again that tells you everything,
Speaker 2: the fact that they don't want to show the video.
Speaker 2: And it's a very awkward moment when a Fox reporter
Speaker 2: pressed Warpeat on all of this. Now, where's the video?
Speaker 2: You're going to release this video? Oh, this national security issue?
Speaker 2: You know knows job security issue for you, pow. And
Speaker 2: yet when the truth comes out, Oh a Soros who's
Speaker 2: doing a coup against Tike Seth. Give me a break.
Speaker 4: Also, it's just so blatantly obvious. What on earth could
Speaker 4: be related to national security? And footage of a drug
Speaker 4: boat being blown up. Let's assume even if it is
Speaker 4: a drug boat, it's not fishermen, they are actually smuggling drugs.
Speaker 4: What is going to be on that footage that is
Speaker 4: going to be detrimental to the United States government.
Speaker 2: He was pushing out that footage and boasting about it.
Speaker 2: The initial strike, which I say is the initial crime,
Speaker 2: that was as criminal as going back and hitting the
Speaker 2: people who were shipwreck Although that is a little bit
Speaker 2: more clear to most people. I think we need to
Speaker 2: not focus on that. That's the point that Reason had made. Anyway,
Speaker 2: going back to Watson, he says, fresh reporting dismantles the
Speaker 2: media smears.
Speaker 3: He said.
Speaker 2: The New York Times revealed that Hegseth authorized the strike
Speaker 2: to kill people on the boat and destroy the vessel
Speaker 2: and eliminate its drug cargo. Which, by the way, Watson
Speaker 2: is murder to start with. There was no war, there
Speaker 2: was no conflict, there was no threat. This is no
Speaker 2: different than if you have an army going to Gaza
Speaker 2: and start lining people up against the wall that are
Speaker 2: civilians and executing them and saying, well, you know they
Speaker 2: are Palestinians, so it's just a matter of time before
Speaker 2: they joined forces with the mas. I'm going to kill
Speaker 2: them first, which is what that Jewish woman said. We've
Speaker 2: got to stop in the lawn and just kill them,
Speaker 2: all right. In addition, ABC's Martha Raddits gave key updates
Speaker 2: and said the survivors climbed back on the boat. Well,
Speaker 2: to him, that's admission that they're still dangerous, not that
Speaker 2: they're trying to survive in the water. They tried climbing
Speaker 2: up several times, as they point out, and they kept
Speaker 2: falling off of the boat. They couldn't get on the boat. Well,
Speaker 2: I think you're trying to write that boat so that
Speaker 2: you can bring drugs in the country. So therefore you
Speaker 2: are still in conflict with us, because again, remember, the
Speaker 2: possession of the drugs is taken the same as if
Speaker 2: they were shooting at the US Navy. It's not it's
Speaker 2: not conflict, it's not a threat, and it wasn't coming
Speaker 2: to the US either.
Speaker 5: What but imagine this scenario, to paraphrase the other guy.
Speaker 5: The Navy shows up and these people give them drugs
Speaker 5: and then they take it and die.
Speaker 3: Yeah, any man, I get some good stuff here. Take this.
Speaker 4: What if they got all of US Navy seals addicted
Speaker 4: to cocaine, They.
Speaker 5: Had enough vatanol on that boat to kill an entire battleship.
Speaker 2: You just wait, they're going to use that at lance.
Speaker 2: That's that's a good point. They've actually used that kind
Speaker 2: of logged logic quote un logic. So they believe they
Speaker 2: were potentially in communication with others and they might salvage
Speaker 2: some of the drugs. Well, again, there's no true conflict
Speaker 2: in this. But that's the fundamental lie behind all this
Speaker 2: is that having the drugs makes them enemy combatants. So
Speaker 2: Andy War says, US military blows up another boat in
Speaker 2: Latin America amid scrutiny or the bombing campaign. It happened
Speaker 2: at exactly the same time as he's going in there
Speaker 2: on Thursday, and he's answering questions about their premeditated, cold
Speaker 2: blooded murder of people who are not a threat to them.
Speaker 2: And again, how many times you have to go through this.
Speaker 2: You can't shoot somebody in the back, even if they
Speaker 2: come into your home, if they're running away, if they're
Speaker 2: not a threat to you, you can't shoot them in
Speaker 2: the back. Police are supposed to abide by those same rules.
Speaker 2: They get away with it too frequently, But the military
Speaker 2: is definitely not allowed to do that because they have
Speaker 2: so much more force. They have to be held to
Speaker 2: a higher standard. The government has to be held on
Speaker 2: a higher standard than the homeowner. Southcom claimed the strike
Speaker 2: killed four more quote unquote narco terrorists, a term used
Speaker 2: to justify attempt to justify the extra judicial executions at sea.
Speaker 2: They've got all kinds of catchphrases, a lethal kinetic strike,
Speaker 2: illicit narcotics, all the rest of this stuff. What I
Speaker 2: saw in that room is one of the most troubling
Speaker 2: scenes I've ever seen in my life in public service,
Speaker 2: said Democrat Jim Hines. You have two individuals in clear
Speaker 2: distress without any means of locomotion, and a destroyed vessel
Speaker 2: who are killed by the United States. Well, again, I
Speaker 2: would say to him, since we're talking about somebody attaining
Speaker 2: the right to life, perhaps Jim Hines, who is a
Speaker 2: Democrat a Connecticut I imagine he has supported over and
Speaker 2: over again abortion right, and that kind of hypocrisy does
Speaker 2: not mean that it's still not a crime for Pete
Speaker 2: Hegseth to murder people in the water. But again, when
Speaker 2: you're talking about abortion, you're talking about if you go
Speaker 2: back and you look at that video of it's called
Speaker 2: the procedure based on the first hand person account of
Speaker 2: a guy he was called in to do ultrasound, didn't
Speaker 2: realize it was for an abortion. He talked about what
Speaker 2: he saw and they animated that. This is the same
Speaker 2: thing in principle, folks, same thing in principle. Conservatives are
Speaker 2: cheering this. I'm disgusted. I'm not a conservative, not a conservaive.
Speaker 2: I rechecked that label. Not a conservative, not a Republican.
Speaker 2: They aren't trying to conserve anything of any value. So
Speaker 2: again we're going to grow into human rights and grow
Speaker 2: into a right to life. The bombing campaign says anti
Speaker 2: war is clearly illegal under US and international law, but
Speaker 2: more importantly, it is immoral under a law that is
Speaker 2: higher than human law, a law that is higher than
Speaker 2: the law of the land higher than the constitution, God's law,
Speaker 2: and pete Hegsteth continually takes God's name in vain when
Speaker 2: he wears his tattoo sleeves. About all his Christian symbols
Speaker 2: to him is just gang symbols, it really is. I mean,
Speaker 2: all the stuff that's there, you know, it's just, oh,
Speaker 2: there's this cross that represents that, there's this and that
Speaker 2: it's just a bunch of gang signals symbols that are
Speaker 2: out there. The threat that's a suposedly justified killing two
Speaker 2: boat attack survivors was entirely speculative, says Reason. And again,
Speaker 2: you know, imagine if some Navy seals had gone to
Speaker 2: rescue them and somehow these guys who are struggling to
Speaker 2: survive in the water. Imagine if they then pull out
Speaker 2: their machine guns that they've kept concealed and start shooting
Speaker 2: at the seals. Can you imagine if they did that.
Speaker 11: Well, we want to drown.
Speaker 5: We don't want to be rescued.
Speaker 2: So the Reason says, the confluence of these two developments,
Speaker 2: that is the fact that he was testifying and at
Speaker 2: the same time they were doing yet another one of
Speaker 2: these strikes highlights the risks that the debate about Bradley's
Speaker 2: second strike will obscure the broader issue of whether Trump's
Speaker 2: reality defying assertion of a quote armed conflict unquote with
Speaker 2: drug smugglers, which supposedly turns criminal suspects into combatants, is
Speaker 2: enough to transform murder into self defense. While the renewed
Speaker 2: congressional interest in the legal and moral justifications for Trump's
Speaker 2: bloodthirsty drug strategy is welcome, the inquiry should not be
Speaker 2: limited to the question of whether one particular attack violated
Speaker 2: the law of war. They've all violated it. And I
Speaker 2: said that from the very first day, they have committed
Speaker 2: twenty two unwarranted attacks. They have killed eighty seven people.
Speaker 2: Don't forget that. Eighty seven murders by Warpete and Trump,
Speaker 2: and they're owning it now. Bradley's defense nevertheless illustrates the
Speaker 2: outrageous implications of conflating drug smuggling with violent aggression. We
Speaker 2: cannot allow them to do this, because, folks, if we
Speaker 2: do this, there's absolutely nothing to stop Trump from going
Speaker 2: into the cities and start executing people like Dutte. And
Speaker 2: remember Trump praised Duterte in the Philippines for doing this
Speaker 2: very same thing. So if they're going to say that,
Speaker 2: if they believe that you're doing drugs, we can just
Speaker 2: shoot you on the street. We have people getting shot
Speaker 2: on the street because of the or of the illegal
Speaker 2: prohibition that's being done. It's a un agenda. So I'll
Speaker 2: never forget that.
Speaker 4: We have our guests ready before we get to the guest,
Speaker 4: So I'd like to run through these comments really quickly.
Speaker 4: We have Niburu twenty twenty nine. Behind all censorship stands
Speaker 4: criminal money attempting to hide its criminalities. Be my Valentine.
Speaker 4: It's a wonderful life festival this weekend in Seneca Falls,
Speaker 4: New York. Zu Zoo Child actress from the movie, will
Speaker 4: be there. She has a great Christian testimony.
Speaker 2: She's probably the last one alive, probably because she was
Speaker 2: one of the youngest person.
Speaker 3: Yeah, she's even the youngest of the kids.
Speaker 4: Yeah yeah Wowovante seven Yeah, Seneca Falls, New York. If
Speaker 4: you're in the area, I'm not Povante seventeen seventy six.
Speaker 4: US bombs and creates enemies and displaced migrants, and after
Speaker 4: the radicalization from bombing over there, the US opens the
Speaker 4: door here to displaced Muslim masses.
Speaker 3: And That's what's going to happen in Venezuela.
Speaker 2: After they're dirty war, after they lose, because it's asymmetric warfare,
Speaker 2: they're gonna lose it, just like they lost in Iraq,
Speaker 2: in Afghanistan, Lies about weapons of mass destruction, lies about
Speaker 2: fentanyl being weapons of mass destruction. The bottom line is,
Speaker 2: after a lot of blood and money is spent in
Speaker 2: Venezuela for corporations to get the oil, then what's going
Speaker 2: to happen is you're gonna have massive refugees brought in
Speaker 2: and we're gonna see this whole movie done over and
Speaker 2: over again.
Speaker 4: Roy mh says they aren't model citizens, are politicians. That
Speaker 4: is so thinking. Emoji defy tyrant seventeen seventy six, drug
Speaker 4: dealer kills two gets life in prison, White House drug
Speaker 4: dealer kills millions gets a second term. That's right, well
Speaker 4: played by different rules.
Speaker 2: Yeah, if they're gonna kill millions of people and call
Speaker 2: it salvation with a jab, I guess you shouldn't be
Speaker 2: surprised that they're doing.
Speaker 4: This, right, Yeah, minute man militia, these idiots actually believe
Speaker 4: those folks are tying to grab drugs from this Royd B.
Speaker 4: Well I mean, if you've only got a few minutes
Speaker 4: left to live and you're surrounded by a bunch of cocaine,
Speaker 4: you might as well have a good time. I guess
Speaker 4: that's right. Well, our guest coming up is Alex Newman
Speaker 4: of The New American. He's been on the show many times.
Speaker 4: He does a lot of great research and we appreciate
Speaker 4: him being on. Get ready, we're going to take a
Speaker 4: quick break and then we'll be back with Alex Newman.
Speaker 3: Yes, we'll be right back.
Speaker 7: And now the David Knight Show.
Speaker 15: Tell Alexa to add the APS Radio skill and have
Speaker 15: access to the best channels anywhere from country to blues,
Speaker 15: classic hits to news. APS Radio curates incredibly diverse playlists
Speaker 15: for you to enjoy. Get details at apsradio dot com.
Speaker 2: Well, welcome back, and our guest is Alex Newman, Senior
Speaker 2: editor of The New American, award winning international journalist, educator, author, speaker,
Speaker 2: nationally syndicated radio host and consultant. He's an award winning
Speaker 2: international journalist, educator and consultant. So we've had him on
Speaker 2: many times, talking mainly about education, but I always get
Speaker 2: him on every year. He goes to wherever they have
Speaker 2: these cop things. We're now up to number thirty and
Speaker 2: this time we covered the road that they were building
Speaker 2: for the elites to go down and cutting down massive
Speaker 2: numbers of trees. I don't know, what was it, one
Speaker 2: hundred thousand alex where'd they cut down with those trees?
Speaker 11: Yeah, that's the number I heard as well.
Speaker 3: Yep.
Speaker 2: But now you know they have these people are constantly
Speaker 2: flipping their story. And it used to be that trees
Speaker 2: were our salvation and you would pay an indulgence to
Speaker 2: pollute so they could plant trees somewhere. But now Bill
Speaker 2: Gates wants all the trees cut down, not used for anything,
Speaker 2: but buried in the ground because they're going to release
Speaker 2: all that carbon that they have absorbed. This is the
Speaker 2: most insane thing I've ever seen. But there's a lot
Speaker 2: of insanity with that. Did you get to go down
Speaker 2: that road?
Speaker 16: Well, we wasn't ready yet, so nobody was able to
Speaker 16: go down it, except you know, the machinery that was
Speaker 16: building it.
Speaker 11: But it was quite the story.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 16: They literally cut down an enormous swath of the rainforest,
Speaker 16: protected virgin rainforests. This was supposed to be untouchable, and
Speaker 16: they decided that hey, we've got a climate summit coming
Speaker 16: in the city's not very nice. The traffic's horrendous, so
Speaker 16: why don't we build these people some nice new roads
Speaker 16: so they don't have to mingle with the riff raff
Speaker 16: and wait in the traffic like the rest of the suckers.
Speaker 11: And fortunately for the.
Speaker 16: Suckers, they actually didn't finish the road in time for
Speaker 16: the climate summit, which is very typical of the socialist
Speaker 16: powers in Brazil.
Speaker 3: So that's our salvation.
Speaker 2: These people can't build anything, not even a road, in time,
Speaker 2: all of this for the bent and then they missed
Speaker 2: the time window there, so they.
Speaker 11: Have very embarrassed about it.
Speaker 4: David.
Speaker 16: They actually put out military and police to try to
Speaker 16: guard this so people couldn't get to it.
Speaker 11: We rented a car.
Speaker 16: And we snuck through the rainforest in the middle of
Speaker 16: the night, very very late, so that we would be
Speaker 16: able to get through there. We actually had to go
Speaker 16: all the way out past where there's cell service, passed
Speaker 16: where there was even GPS reception, which I don't even
Speaker 16: know how that works, but we did finally find it,
Speaker 16: and we found one of the local residents that lived
Speaker 16: in the jungle, and he was very upset. He said,
Speaker 16: we don't need this stupid road. What we need is
Speaker 16: water and electricity.
Speaker 2: Please, Yeah, we need water and electricity. But they're building
Speaker 2: AI data centers. That's what we get over here about, sir,
Speaker 2: because now they don't care about energy usage or heat
Speaker 2: generated as long as it's for AI, because that's going
Speaker 2: to give them their control over us.
Speaker 3: But tell us what else you saw there.
Speaker 2: I mean a lot of people are saying after Bill
Speaker 2: Gates moved back, they're saying, well, you know, this is it.
Speaker 2: These people have basically played out all their lies and
Speaker 2: they're on the run. Do you see that or does
Speaker 2: it look like these people are going to still keep coming.
Speaker 2: I think they're going to keep coming.
Speaker 16: What do you think, No question about it, David. I
Speaker 16: was going to say that all of this reporting, and
Speaker 16: we even saw some of it in the fake media. Oh,
Speaker 16: the climate thing was a failure. Nothing to see here.
Speaker 16: Go back to your regularly scheduled football games. There's nothing
Speaker 16: to worry about. You know, Bill Gates says it's over.
Speaker 16: And I think Bill Gates just made a strategic decision.
Speaker 16: Like you said, he needs AI data centers to enslave
Speaker 16: humanity more than he needs the climate.
Speaker 11: Hoax at this particular moment.
Speaker 16: But the idea that they're going to give up the
Speaker 16: climate hoax is utterly ludicrous. They actually did get an
Speaker 16: agreement this year. You know, the Trump administration boycotted it.
Speaker 16: State Department told us it was because they the conference
Speaker 16: was designed to bankrupt the United States and we weren't
Speaker 16: going to participate. But there was a lot in the
Speaker 16: final agreement, David. One of the things that got in
Speaker 16: there was the carbon budget for humanity. It turns out
Speaker 16: there is a carbon budget that we can be allowed
Speaker 16: to admit.
Speaker 11: And this this is crazy, David.
Speaker 16: They got this in the final tax degree to by
Speaker 16: every government in the world. We've already gone through four
Speaker 16: fifths of it and most of that has come from
Speaker 16: the United States and Europe and the West. And so
Speaker 16: what's left, the one fifth of the carbon budget that
Speaker 16: we still have left, needs to be allocated to the
Speaker 16: mass murderingy dictatorship in communist China, and the Indian government
Speaker 16: and the Brazilians and the South Africans and so on.
Speaker 16: So the biggest that's right and prepared to have your
Speaker 16: CO two emissions rationed slaves, because that's coming down the Pike.
Speaker 16: They got the infrastructure in there to eventually create the
Speaker 16: enforcement mechan They went into this with the Marxists would
Speaker 16: be dictator of Brazil Lula saying that he wanted to
Speaker 16: create an enforcement body. He was calling it the Global
Speaker 16: Environmental Council. They didn't get that, but they got all
Speaker 16: of the metrics and tools and monitoring frameworks that they'll
Speaker 16: need to be able to get that going forward.
Speaker 11: So that was big progress.
Speaker 16: And there was also a lot of side agreements. David,
Speaker 16: a whole bunch of US allies got together and signed
Speaker 16: a Declaration on Information Integrity, basically promising to work together
Speaker 16: to censor US. They got more than half of the
Speaker 16: governments agreed to create a fossil fuel phase out road map,
Speaker 16: so were having the first meeting for that in Columbia
Speaker 16: in April. And then, for me, one of the biggest
Speaker 16: takeaways David, it always is and nobody ever pays attention
Speaker 16: to this is the religious angle. This conference to me
Speaker 16: was the place where it was most clear. And I've
Speaker 16: been going to these for fifteen years watching here an
Speaker 16: attempt to repaganize the world. Basically, the paradigm, David is
Speaker 16: Christianity is to blame for the environmental and ecological catastrophe
Speaker 16: because Christianity holds that man has made in the image
Speaker 16: of God, that the planet is here for our benefit,
Speaker 16: that we are calling Genesis to take dominion of the
Speaker 16: planet and its animals and things like this for our
Speaker 16: benefit and for the glory of God. That's the reason
Speaker 16: why Mother Earth is suffering so much. And so they paraded,
Speaker 16: I mean literally an endless parade of Native American pagans,
Speaker 16: you know, a lot of them from the rainforests. That's
Speaker 16: why they held it in the rainforest who came to
Speaker 16: enlighten all the delegates about how Mother Earth is angry
Speaker 16: at us for our co two emations, and we need
Speaker 16: to go back to appeasing the forest spirits and the
Speaker 16: river spirits and the rock spirits, and we do that
Speaker 16: by basically repaganizing the world and cleansing it of Christian civilization.
Speaker 16: So this was a very, very very significant motif throughout
Speaker 16: this conference, and I think it's one of the big takeaways.
Speaker 2: You know, it's been that way for a while, and
Speaker 2: we've had again they're making it, you keep propagating this,
Speaker 2: but we've had bits and pieces of this. I remember
Speaker 2: Jennifer Lawrence, the actress, was very serious about Mother Earth
Speaker 2: being upset with us, so you know, we had some
Speaker 2: natural disasters or something like that. They take that very seriously.
Speaker 2: The Gaia theory that was done by James Lovelock. I
Speaker 2: remember we were in the UK in two thousand and
Speaker 2: one and it was everywhere. It was, you know, science
Speaker 2: magazines that we saw left behind on the train from people.
Speaker 3: It was all over that.
Speaker 2: And I took the kids to a children's museum and
Speaker 2: they had this loop playing that was saying that, you know, guya,
Speaker 2: mother Earth is this sentient being and that humans are
Speaker 2: like a virus, and so therefore we need to be exterminated, right,
Speaker 2: and so that type of thing has been going for
Speaker 2: quite some time now. Interestingly enough, Lovelock, who came up
Speaker 2: with that analogy based on pagan religion, Guya mother Earth,
Speaker 2: he has now moved back away from that. He's now
Speaker 2: recanted that. But these people are doubling down and going
Speaker 2: on with it, and it is a religion and they
Speaker 2: pursue it religiously. You know, that is the worldview in
Speaker 2: which they frame everything. You know, I think, Alex, I
Speaker 2: think what is going on the way it might take
Speaker 2: on all this. I want to see what you think
Speaker 2: about this. I think one of the reasons that they're
Speaker 2: pulling back on this is because they've got to get
Speaker 2: the infrastructure in with AI, and they've got to get
Speaker 2: the infrastructure in with digital money, you know, not CBDC,
Speaker 2: but they'll be doing it through through stable coins. That'll
Speaker 2: give them the same kind of control and you know,
Speaker 2: being able to observe everything that we do and control
Speaker 2: and prevent us from making certain transactions. I think they've
Speaker 2: got to get that infrastructure in and so they're going
Speaker 2: to wait and do that, and then they will roll
Speaker 2: in the come back to the population control stuff, and
Speaker 2: it is population control in every aspect of it, making
Speaker 2: sure they don't have as many people, but then the
Speaker 2: people that are there, they want to control every aspect
Speaker 2: of our life. What do you think about that? Did
Speaker 2: you see stuff there about Sea forty, for example, you
Speaker 2: know the thing that was put together by City, Kahn
Speaker 2: and Bloomberg. When I saw all the angst about mom Danny,
Speaker 2: and I thought, well, we've already had a Muslim mayor
Speaker 2: and a communist in London and New York putting out
Speaker 2: this prescription for how they're going to ration our lives
Speaker 2: to us. They call it Sea forty initiative. So I
Speaker 2: didn't really see that anything was different about that. But
Speaker 2: what do you think, what do you think in terms
Speaker 2: of why they have stepped back away from this climate
Speaker 2: mcguffin and I think they're going to step back into
Speaker 2: it once they get these tools in place.
Speaker 16: Yeah, My take, David is that they realized that the
Speaker 16: bitter cleaners in America are not going for it. You know,
Speaker 16: they've done the polling. I've seen the polling results. They
Speaker 16: know the majority of Americas don't even believe that human
Speaker 16: activity is responsible for climate change. And then when you
Speaker 16: when you drill down even further, even the people who
Speaker 16: do believe, even the kool aid drinkers, don't care enough
Speaker 16: to actually do anything. There was an interesting poll by
Speaker 16: ap Nork Center for Public Affairs. Less than one third
Speaker 16: of Americans were willing to pay one single solitary US
Speaker 16: dollar on their monthly electric bill climate change. Okay, that's
Speaker 16: how little Americans care, even though ones who are dumb
Speaker 16: enough to fall for this. So their strategy was really
Speaker 16: clear to me, David. They're working through a variety of institutions,
Speaker 16: but education is one of the critical ones. UNESCO had
Speaker 16: a big, big, big event there. They called it Greening Education.
Speaker 16: They partnered with the Marxist Brazilian government and the OECD,
Speaker 16: and they talked about how we are going to brainwash
Speaker 16: the children in every single country to believe this, and
Speaker 16: it's not going to be optional. Right, You're going to
Speaker 16: include it in your nationally determined contributions, your NBCs that
Speaker 16: you got to update every five years. Under PARIS, they're
Speaker 16: going to be including what they call climate literacy on
Speaker 16: the International Standardized Assessments.
Speaker 11: The PISA as it's called PISA.
Speaker 16: And so basically, if your God isn't brainwashing the little
Speaker 16: ones to believe that we're all doing from climate change
Speaker 16: and that they need to become climate activists, you're going
Speaker 16: to look stupid right when you come out on.
Speaker 11: These international assessments.
Speaker 16: So they were saying this openly the top officials at UNSCO,
Speaker 16: the UN Education Agency.
Speaker 11: So I think that's their plan. You're right.
Speaker 16: The data centers and the AI is a critical component
Speaker 16: of this. They can't restructure the whole economy around carbon
Speaker 16: credits and your carbon footprint until they've got the computing
Speaker 16: power and the data to go with the computing power
Speaker 16: that makes this all trackable, and then you've got to combine.
Speaker 11: It with the social credit scores.
Speaker 16: So you're right, the AI and the data centers are
Speaker 16: a precursor to the ultimate flip. But they are one
Speaker 16: hundred percent committed to this. I think the only reason
Speaker 16: it wasn't covered in the American media is because they
Speaker 16: now know. The more we talk about this, the more
Speaker 16: angry Americans get, the more likely they are to call
Speaker 16: their congressmen and demand into all this foolishness. So I
Speaker 16: think that's where they're going. But you know, to go
Speaker 16: back to the religion thing for a moment. The first
Speaker 16: time I saw the paganism, I was just a young
Speaker 16: whippers snapper journalists fresh out of journalism school. It was
Speaker 16: in Cancun. The head of the UN Framework Convention on
Speaker 16: Climate Change. In case down, if you get is opened
Speaker 16: up with a prayer to ex Jail, whom she described
Speaker 16: as the goddess of tapestries and creativity. So you know
Speaker 16: I'm dead serious. She opens up and says, we need
Speaker 16: a pray to each shell that she'll give us the
Speaker 16: wisdom and creativity to create a creative tapestry of climate
Speaker 16: solutions for this crisis whatever.
Speaker 11: So I whip out my laptop and look up this
Speaker 11: each shell.
Speaker 16: And she's the goddess of cannibalism and war and human sacrifice.
Speaker 3: Oh not just basket weaving, right, it was prayer.
Speaker 16: We've got to get rid of the disease on this planet,
Speaker 16: which is humanity. And so you know, they've been set
Speaker 16: back by the fact that nobody believes them.
Speaker 11: But they're going to go for our kids.
Speaker 16: They're going to go for our churches, and they will
Speaker 16: be back with a vengeance as soon as enough of
Speaker 16: the older population dies off and they've got enough of
Speaker 16: the younger dupes ready to move into positions of power.
Speaker 3: I agree you're talking about the OECD.
Speaker 2: It's almost like inserting education in the e of education,
Speaker 2: inserting that into OCD, obsessive compulsive disorder, because that's what
Speaker 2: they have done with the kids, and they can get
Speaker 2: a sizable percentage of kids if we started from an
Speaker 2: early age, can brainwash them into this stuff. That's why
Speaker 2: they had that guy of video running in the children's museum.
Speaker 2: But you know, when you talk about the religious side
Speaker 2: of it, I remember Pope Francis when he was first
Speaker 2: first getting in this. One of the first things he
Speaker 2: did was a climate encyclical, and then he got people
Speaker 2: upset with him because he had that pacamama thing from Amazon.
Speaker 2: I remember some people then threw it into the river
Speaker 2: there near the Vatican. But was Poppy Pakemama was that
Speaker 2: featured in this particular one in Brazil.
Speaker 16: I didn't see Pacamama, but I didn't watch the papacy
Speaker 16: very closely because you know, Francis has now gone on
Speaker 16: to Trinity.
Speaker 11: I don't know what that looks like for him, but
Speaker 11: he did the new guy.
Speaker 16: I was like, well, let's see, is he going to
Speaker 16: continue the environmental crusade, the environmental holy war? And sure
Speaker 16: enough he doubled down on it. I mean before the conference,
Speaker 16: I'm sure he saw the video of him blessing this
Speaker 16: big block of ice. Might have been the weirdest ceremony
Speaker 16: I ever saw, except for the time of mom I think.
Speaker 16: But then he releases this He's got the biggest delegation
Speaker 16: ever at a climate center. All these cardinals and bishops
Speaker 16: and the Secretary of State gave the big opening speech
Speaker 16: on his behalf and he produced a video and I
Speaker 16: mean people should watch.
Speaker 11: It was only like two and a half minutes.
Speaker 16: He's like, to the religious people gathered in the Amazon
Speaker 16: to save the climate, you know, keep it up, but
Speaker 16: we can't just have hope, you know, now we got
Speaker 16: to have action and really really blatant collaboration with paganism.
Speaker 11: And you also had the Muslims there, which was really
Speaker 11: interesting too.
Speaker 16: You had one Muslim leader lecturing everybody about how Mohammed
Speaker 16: was really a great environmentalist because this one time he
Speaker 16: said we shouldn't drink all our water, we should conserve resources,
Speaker 16: and clearly he was a climate activist. You know, even
Speaker 16: had a word.
Speaker 4: I forget what the word was in Arabic.
Speaker 16: But they're bringing all the religions of the world and
Speaker 16: I say religions of the world in you know, the
Speaker 16: evangelical biblical sense, and all the religions of the world
Speaker 16: are uniting behind this climate foolishness. And you had organizations
Speaker 16: purporting to represent over one hundred Christian denominations there a
Speaker 16: lot of them led of course by the Vatican.
Speaker 11: But this is dead serious and Americans aren't seeing it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they talked about climate justice and things like that,
Speaker 2: and yeah, it is amazing. And so that's all alive,
Speaker 2: and wealth still with a religious people, and it's becoming,
Speaker 2: as you point out, kind of a world religion where
Speaker 2: they can pull them all in. I wonder if it
Speaker 2: never occurred to anybody that maybe what Mohammad was saying
Speaker 2: about conserving water was because they're in the middle of
Speaker 2: the desert.
Speaker 16: Right, Yeah, yeah, yeah, absolutely yeah.
Speaker 2: So what is the status with the Paris Climate Accord?
Speaker 2: I have talked about this over and over again. I
Speaker 2: was so disappointed because in many regards, even the first
Speaker 2: Trump administration, there was some very positive stuff in terms
Speaker 2: of pushing back against some radical environmentalism, and of course
Speaker 2: we've seen some good moves in this one as well
Speaker 2: for whatever reason. But one thing that they did not
Speaker 2: do was to just say that the Climate Accord was
Speaker 2: null and void. And it was null and void because
Speaker 2: you remember it was John Kerry who said, yeah, Obama
Speaker 2: and I just self ratified at ourselves and so and
Speaker 2: I say, the Republicans are just as guilty of this
Speaker 2: as the Democrats are, because I remember had I can't
Speaker 2: remember his name now. He had somebody that I'd worked
Speaker 2: with before in terms of climate stuff, and he said,
Speaker 2: what needs to happen is the Republican Senate needs to
Speaker 2: come in and say we're going to have a vote
Speaker 2: on this presumed treaty. We're going to put it up
Speaker 2: for a vote. There's no way that it was going
Speaker 2: to get the sixty percent votes that it needed, so
Speaker 2: so they needed to do that, and so they could
Speaker 2: shut it down, but they never did. And the fact
Speaker 2: that there was never a single Republican that pointed that out,
Speaker 2: that said this is a bogus, bogus treaty. It is
Speaker 2: null and void, it has no effect. And then throughout
Speaker 2: the entire Trump administration, they pretended that they couldn't get
Speaker 2: out of it because I think it was deliberately put
Speaker 2: in saying if you want to get out, you got
Speaker 2: to wait four years, knowing that that's the term of
Speaker 2: the American president. So this time they say, well, okay,
Speaker 2: he got out, and then Biden puts us back in immediately,
Speaker 2: again violating the idea of treaties. And then when Trump
Speaker 2: gets in, now he's going to get out. But since
Speaker 2: it's the second time he's getting out now, according to
Speaker 2: the treaty, he only has to wait one year, but
Speaker 2: we're waiting that year to get out. Have you seen
Speaker 2: that has a Trump administration ignored these principles. Have they
Speaker 2: done anything to violate the Climate Agreement or are they
Speaker 2: still complying with it for this year?
Speaker 16: Yeah, So this is a really important subject, David, and
Speaker 16: I'm going to try to break it down as simply
Speaker 16: as possible. They make it needlessly complicated so that normal
Speaker 16: people and even people who follow these things closely can't
Speaker 16: understand it. So there's an underlying treaty. This is approved
Speaker 16: back in nineteen ninety two. It came out of the
Speaker 16: Earth Summit that was held in Rio de Janeiro in
Speaker 16: nineteen ninety two. George HW Bush signed it on behalf
Speaker 16: of America, and that's where we got the Earth Charter,
Speaker 16: that's where we got the Agenda twenty one. But we
Speaker 16: got this nineteen ninety two treaty that was called the
Speaker 16: UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which is very confusing
Speaker 16: because that's also the name of the bureaucracy that's in
Speaker 16: charge of implementing the treaty. So every year these climate
Speaker 16: summits are hosted by the UNF Triple C. It's headquartered
Speaker 16: in Bond, Germany, And that treaty was, at least according
Speaker 16: to the Congressional Record, ratified by the US Senate. I've
Speaker 16: heard some legitimate questions about the whether the ratification was legitimate.
Speaker 16: But nineteen ninety two, the US Senate officially ratified this
Speaker 16: monstrous treaty that George hw Bush, mister New World Order, signed,
Speaker 16: And so each year they hold these annual climate sumits.
Speaker 16: This was the thirtieth one, as you pointed out, the
Speaker 16: cop thirty. And each year they come up with a
Speaker 16: new agreement, and each year they like to pretend like
Speaker 16: they're just going to tack that onto the back of
Speaker 16: the nineteen ninety two treaty. And so we don't need
Speaker 16: the Senate to look at this again. It's just part
Speaker 16: of the.
Speaker 11: UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, right, because this is
Speaker 11: the mechanism that they set up.
Speaker 16: And so every year comes and they try to take
Speaker 16: at least one giant leap forward on the climate scam,
Speaker 16: whether it's set up a carbon market, set up a
Speaker 16: loss and damage fund, have the United States plead guilty
Speaker 16: for causing the climate crisis. So each year they take
Speaker 16: a big new jump into usurping more power, etc. Now,
Speaker 16: the Parish agreement was one of these supplemental agreements. They
Speaker 16: did not treat it like a treaty they treated it
Speaker 16: as just an addendum to the nineteen ninety two treaty.
Speaker 16: So here's where we're at now. And I talked to
Speaker 16: a lot of people in the Trump administration about this,
Speaker 16: including at State, including at EPA, to try to get
Speaker 16: a handle on what's going on. And I'm told by
Speaker 16: multiple people who are very well informed, people who were
Speaker 16: very much involved in getting U out of the Paris
Speaker 16: Agreement the first time, that there are now discussions about
Speaker 16: the possibility of withdrawing from the UNF Triple C. That
Speaker 16: would be, as far as I'm concerned, checkmate for the
Speaker 16: climate cult that LEASA is far as the United States
Speaker 16: is concerned.
Speaker 11: But here's the kicker. We're not out of the UNF
Speaker 11: Triple C.
Speaker 16: So we're down in Brazil at this un Climate summit,
Speaker 16: and you've got some of the top globalist puppets at
Speaker 16: this summit, likely Stana Piagatas so I mentioned earlier, former
Speaker 16: Executive Secretary of the UNF Triple C, said it's great
Speaker 16: that Trump didn't come. You know, his administration would have
Speaker 16: just been a big obstacle. It would have been a
Speaker 16: big roadblock. We might not have even been able to
Speaker 16: pass these agreements. By consensus, which is what they do.
Speaker 16: And so frankly, it's fantastic that Trump is not here.
Speaker 16: You had Gene Sue, a very prominent legal mind on this.
Speaker 16: Right now she's with the Center for Biological Diversity, but
Speaker 16: she'll almost certainly work for the next Democrat regime when
Speaker 16: they get the White House again, says, hey, this is
Speaker 16: fantastic that the Trump administration didn't send anybody. We're going
Speaker 16: to pass a super ambitious agreement. And then the US
Speaker 16: is still in the unf Triple C. So as soon
Speaker 16: as Trump is gone and we get the next president in,
Speaker 16: this will all be binding on the United States and
Speaker 16: we'll we'll enforce it all on the United States. So
Speaker 16: that's essentially the situation right now. Trump has his executive
Speaker 16: order on day one, this was January twentieth, twenty twenty five.
Speaker 16: Putting America first in international environmental agreements did get us
Speaker 16: out of Paris, It did get us out of all
Speaker 16: of these subsequent agreements that have been tacked onto the
Speaker 16: back of the nineteen ninety two treaty.
Speaker 11: But as of right.
Speaker 16: Now, it's only a temporary measure. As soon as we
Speaker 16: get a Democrat or a Rhino Republican back in the
Speaker 16: White House. All they got to do is whip out
Speaker 16: their pen say we're back into all of it.
Speaker 11: And that's what they're planning.
Speaker 16: By the way, that's what Gavin Newsom talked about, you know,
Speaker 16: Gavin Newsom and his hair showed up in the Amazon
Speaker 16: and said that, hey.
Speaker 11: Don't worry, we're still in.
Speaker 16: You know, Trump is an invasive species. He's not a
Speaker 16: permanent fixture of American politics. As soon as he's gone,
Speaker 16: we'll be right back in. And by the way, in
Speaker 16: the meantime, me and most of the American population and
Speaker 16: most of the American economy are still part of this. Right,
Speaker 16: California is going to keep implementing Paris and all the
Speaker 16: other ones. They have this coalition, it's called We're still in.
Speaker 16: It's mayors, governors, CEOs, And technically they're correct. If you
Speaker 16: look at their jurisdictions, like the state of California, you
Speaker 16: add them all together, they do have most of the
Speaker 16: American population, most American GDP, and they're pretending like we're
Speaker 16: still in all of these subsequent agreements that we're added
Speaker 16: on to the back of the unf tripleC.
Speaker 11: So I know that's super confusing.
Speaker 16: That's where we're at. I just want to add one thing, David.
Speaker 16: I am not a lawyer, but I play one on TV.
Speaker 10: No.
Speaker 16: But I have read the Constitution, and I think anybody
Speaker 16: is capable of reading the Constitution. With a third grade
Speaker 16: level of education and intelligence, you should be able to
Speaker 16: understand this. The Constitution does allow the President to sign
Speaker 16: and the Senate to approve of treaties which are binding
Speaker 16: on the United States of America. But there's a big
Speaker 16: kex that nobody ever talks about. And most of the
Speaker 16: lawyers haven't even read the Constitution, so they probably don't
Speaker 16: even know this. But if you go to Article six,
Speaker 16: where it says that the statutes passed by Congress and
Speaker 16: the treaties are part of the supreme law of the
Speaker 16: land along with the Constitution, it says that they need
Speaker 16: to be made in pursuance thereof. So statutes and treaties
Speaker 16: that are made in pursuance thereof, in other words, that
Speaker 16: are made constitutionally. Show me where the Constitution and grants
Speaker 16: the federal government the power to regulate my co two emissions.
Speaker 16: Show them where it grants me them the power to
Speaker 16: shut down my power plant, create new emission standards for
Speaker 16: my cars.
Speaker 11: Right, they don't have that power.
Speaker 16: If they want that power, they need to go to
Speaker 16: Article five. There's two different options there for passing a
Speaker 16: constitutional amendment. And this has been by the way, very clear,
Speaker 16: very ironclad, from the beginning of our republic. Thomas Jefferson explained,
Speaker 16: if the treaty power is boundless, in other words, if
Speaker 16: they could just grab new powers by signing a treaty,
Speaker 16: there's no point in.
Speaker 11: Having a constitution.
Speaker 3: And we have right.
Speaker 16: Even in nineteen fifty seven, the Supreme Court ruled in
Speaker 16: Read versus Covert, the federal government cannot grant itself new
Speaker 16: powers just by approving in the international treaty. So, top
Speaker 16: far as I'm concerned, the unf Triple C is totally illegitimate.
Speaker 16: Federal government never had those powers, and we need to
Speaker 16: treat it that way. It's a user patient. It's null
Speaker 16: and void. As even Alexander Hamilton said in the Federalist Papers,
Speaker 16: this is a fraud.
Speaker 11: We have no obligation to obey this thing.
Speaker 2: I absolutely agree with you, and you know I would
Speaker 2: say what they're trying to do with this is kind
Speaker 2: of akin to what they did with the authorization for
Speaker 2: the use of military force. So we've done this one thing.
Speaker 2: Now we can have wars without having a declaration or
Speaker 2: discussion or vote on it or whatever. So now we
Speaker 2: got into this treaty once back in nineteen ninety two,
Speaker 2: and now we can amend it and extend it, and
Speaker 2: we can do all these different things that are in
Speaker 2: violation of the US Constitution, and we never have to
Speaker 2: go back and relitigate this or reapprove any of these treaties.
Speaker 2: I reject that, just like I reject the authorization for
Speaker 2: the use of military force. But the point that you
Speaker 2: made is that these treaties cannot amend or suspend the
Speaker 2: US Constitution, that is the controlling document. The problem is
Speaker 2: that we've let them get away with this in so
Speaker 2: many different areas, just like we're talking about the war
Speaker 2: on drugs and the way this is extended. Honestly, I
Speaker 2: think alex they called it a war on drugs instead
Speaker 2: of prohibition because they don't want people to think, well,
Speaker 2: wait a minute, we had prohibition. There was a constitutional
Speaker 2: amendment required for that, the eighteenth Amendment. So they play
Speaker 2: these games where they just assume these powers and then
Speaker 2: it's up to you to stop it and to somehow
Speaker 2: stop it using other lovers of government as they continue
Speaker 2: to say that they have those powers when they don't
Speaker 2: really have them. That's the whole fraud behind this. But
Speaker 2: it really is, it really is about power. It really
Speaker 2: is about depopulation. I mean, I remember when this whole
Speaker 2: thing started. I was in high school when they started
Speaker 2: had the first Earthday, and I remember it was all
Speaker 2: about depopulation. And my friends who bought into all this stuff,
Speaker 2: they were just constantly wringing their hands. There's too many people.
Speaker 2: There's too many people. There's too many and paul Erlick
Speaker 2: is out there, how do we get rid of people? Well,
Speaker 2: wars are good, but disease is even better, you know,
Speaker 2: And so we need to have all these different ways
Speaker 2: that we can kill people. But the governments look at
Speaker 2: it and although they like to kill people, they like
Speaker 2: to control the people who are still alive as well.
Speaker 2: And so I think it really checks all the boxes
Speaker 2: for the people in power. It gets them exactly what
Speaker 2: they want. And of course it's checked the boxes where
Speaker 2: a lot of people have made a lot of money
Speaker 2: off of this stuff. What does it look like they're
Speaker 2: lining up to do now? With this some what kind
Speaker 2: of financial schemes are they rolling out.
Speaker 11: On the climate change front.
Speaker 16: Yeah, well, a lot of the governments of the world
Speaker 16: are moving ahead of this, ahead on this without us
Speaker 16: for now, right. And the assumption is, as I just explained,
Speaker 16: they're saying this openly. The assumption is that they'll just
Speaker 16: impose this on the United States later. So they've got
Speaker 16: several really significant financial arrangements, and they got a lot
Speaker 16: of these into the.
Speaker 11: Cop Thirty one point three trillion dollars.
Speaker 16: A year is the number that they put in the
Speaker 16: final agreement, agreed to by consensus. By the way, the
Speaker 16: United States wasn't there to object so implicitly, since we're
Speaker 16: still part of the unf Triple C. We agreed too.
Speaker 16: This is something nobody wants to talk about, but it's true.
Speaker 16: One point three trillion in well three distribution per year
Speaker 16: by the year twenty thirty five, so we're talking ten
Speaker 16: years from now, they're going to be extracting one point
Speaker 16: three trillion from whatever's left of the American middle class,
Speaker 16: if we still have one, whatever's left of the middle
Speaker 16: class in Europe. That's in addition to a tripling of
Speaker 16: climate adaptation finance which is basically bribing third world cleptocracies
Speaker 16: to pretend like they're adapting to climate change by putting
Speaker 16: money in their Swiss bank accounts and buying nicer limousines,
Speaker 16: building themselves nicer mansions and things like this.
Speaker 3: That's exactly right.
Speaker 16: And so Joe Biden agreed to a loss and damage
Speaker 16: fund him and John Kerrey, where we're going to be
Speaker 16: paying climate reparations apart from all.
Speaker 11: These other things.
Speaker 16: And a huge development that almost nobody in the American
Speaker 16: media talked about. They're now integrating carbon markets. So the
Speaker 16: European Union and the Marxist Brazilian government came up with
Speaker 16: this big special event. They got a new agreement. I
Speaker 16: forget the whole title of it was like open carbon market,
Speaker 16: transparent reform mechanis something where they are bringing together the
Speaker 16: European Union carbon market, the Brazilian carbon market, the Chicom
Speaker 16: carbon market. They're all going to start using the same
Speaker 16: standards so that they can all be integrated, so that
Speaker 16: a carbon credit in the European Union is the same
Speaker 16: as a carbon credit in Brazil is the same as
Speaker 16: a carbon credit. Eventually in the United States of America,
Speaker 16: when they think they can pass this abomination on us
Speaker 16: and for all people who think this isn't a threat
Speaker 16: for the next three and a half years while we
Speaker 16: have Trump in office, I would just remind everybody that
Speaker 16: there's a lot of people in the administration who have
Speaker 16: publicly expressed support for these things in the past. Howard Lutnik,
Speaker 16: the Commerce Secretary, has actually been deeply involved in creating
Speaker 16: the infrastructure for the carbon markets.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 16: Elon Musk has been blabbering about carbon markets for years,
Speaker 16: and it'd be a big boon to Tesla, but he
Speaker 16: has suggested that carbon markets carbon taxes are a really
Speaker 16: efficient way of reducing our carbon emissions. You've got a
Speaker 16: lot of people in the administration, and I'm sure Scott
Speaker 16: Bessent is among them who think these kinds of ideas
Speaker 16: are good and proper.
Speaker 3: So to George Soros, yeah absolutely.
Speaker 11: Of course.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 16: And the CFR, the Council on Foreign Relations, I mean,
Speaker 16: the guys I think through and through suspect. But we
Speaker 16: need to realize that this is this is not a
Speaker 16: threat that's over And I think that's one of the
Speaker 16: dangerous narratives that has gone through the alternative media in
Speaker 16: recent years, is like, oh, we won All right, you know,
Speaker 16: let's go back to focusing on more important things. The
Speaker 16: climate change hoax is still the pretext, not a pretext,
Speaker 16: the pretext for completely restructuring the global economy, completely undermining
Speaker 16: national sovereignty and transferring power and authority to the UN
Speaker 16: and bringing all the religions of the world together so
Speaker 16: that we can save Mother Earth. And nothing has changed
Speaker 16: about that. They've just stopped talking about it in the
Speaker 16: fake media in America.
Speaker 3: That's right.
Speaker 2: And when you look at Lutnik, you know the fact
Speaker 2: that he wants to common you know, I think about it.
Speaker 3: How do we get the EU?
Speaker 2: Well, it all began with the common market, right again,
Speaker 2: so with the economic unification, and then before you know it,
Speaker 2: you've got a common currency. Well what's that common currency
Speaker 2: going to be. It's going to be some stable coins
Speaker 2: that are being done by Lutnik, so they can monitor
Speaker 2: everybody's use and stop you from being able to spend
Speaker 2: if you don't, you know, do it the right way.
Speaker 2: So it's basically the way that they're going to bring
Speaker 2: in the CBDC. When you look at people getting very
Speaker 2: upset about this, it's primarily the power bills and they're
Speaker 2: going to continue escalating these power bills by leaps and
Speaker 2: bounds for the purpose of artificial intelligence. And so they're
Speaker 2: going to have that fight. They're going to build that
Speaker 2: up as a necessity, and you know, once they get
Speaker 2: that in, they're going to use that to impose all
Speaker 2: of these these carbon markets and carbon credits and everything
Speaker 2: for individuals. And that's really where this is all headed.
Speaker 2: It is the perfect I talk about it as being
Speaker 2: the mcguffin. You know, Hitchcock always had he said, it
Speaker 2: doesn't really matter what it is that they're chasing. It
Speaker 2: could be a multie falcon or whatever. They've got a
Speaker 2: different eject. You know that that's what we're using as
Speaker 2: our plot device for the for the movie. And so
Speaker 2: they got these different plot devices and they just keep
Speaker 2: moving them around, but they always seem to go in
Speaker 2: the same direction. You know, we had the COVID mcguffin.
Speaker 2: It was all about getting some kind of a vaccine
Speaker 2: ID so they could track you in that time. So
Speaker 2: we've got to have the infrastructure to be able to
Speaker 2: track people's movements. We've got to have the digital biometric
Speaker 2: infrastructure so we can see what they've done and keep
Speaker 2: records on people. So they always have this always comes
Speaker 2: back to the same solution for all these different mcguffins,
Speaker 2: and they just have a different panic mode that they're
Speaker 2: trying to put people into.
Speaker 16: Truly is amazing, yep, absolutely, And you know fear is
Speaker 16: of course, so one of the tools. Be afraid of
Speaker 16: climate change, be afraid of a COVID, be afraid of
Speaker 16: you know whatever. The pretext is, be afraid of drugs,
Speaker 16: be afraid of you know some people group in another
Speaker 16: part of the world that so lives in caves, you know,
Speaker 16: whatever it takes to make you very scared so that
Speaker 16: you'll give up more of your money, more your freedom.
Speaker 16: And so this is the oldest trick in the book, right,
Speaker 16: I mean, you can go back two hundred years. Look
Speaker 16: at Frederic Bastiat, the great French philosopher lawmaker, said that
Speaker 16: these totalitarians are constantly concocting the poison and the antidote in.
Speaker 11: The same laboratory. Climate change is the ultimate example of that.
Speaker 16: Create a fake crisis over here, and then create fake
Speaker 16: solutions to the fake crisis over here, and pressed that
Speaker 16: you take away people's money and freedom.
Speaker 2: How about that Frederick Bastiat knew about the Dark Winter
Speaker 2: and operational works feed long before it ever happened.
Speaker 11: Right, that's all right.
Speaker 16: He knew the pattern of politicians well enough to be
Speaker 16: able to identify it, right, And unfortunately today people don't
Speaker 16: know this because they've been brainwashing a government school. You know,
Speaker 16: they really don't know much of anything. They haven't been
Speaker 16: trained in logic, they haven't been trained in history, they
Speaker 16: haven't been trained in analysis and reasoning.
Speaker 11: So you know, someone on TV said.
Speaker 16: Climate change is going to get you, and a big
Speaker 16: percentage of the population says, oh, no, what do we
Speaker 16: need to do master to save me from this boogeyman?
Speaker 3: And here we are.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and that gets us, really, I think to the
Speaker 2: real anecdote of this, and that is education, which you
Speaker 2: focus on quite a bit. You've written a book, The
Speaker 2: Indoctrinating Our Children to Death, and of course you also
Speaker 2: have a blog. The Newman Report is that on substack.
Speaker 16: The new Report is on Freedom Project our substack. People
Speaker 16: can find it at Liberty Sentinel and we'd love to
Speaker 16: have people sign up.
Speaker 11: Two times a week we send out the most important
Speaker 11: stuff that we're working on.
Speaker 2: So that's great. Yeah, yeah, what do you see happening
Speaker 2: in terms of education.
Speaker 3: Where's your.
Speaker 2: Where are the threats that you see developing? Or do
Speaker 2: you see any good news in education?
Speaker 11: Well, there's good news and there's bad news.
Speaker 16: As you mentioned, you were kind enough to have me
Speaker 16: on to talk about indoctrinating our children to death about
Speaker 16: a year ago. I think more relevant today than ever.
Speaker 16: And amazingly it's been endorsed by you know, a lot
Speaker 16: of great American patriots, including you, and so a lot
Speaker 16: of the things that we warned about that we're going
Speaker 16: to come in this book are now materializing. So we've
Speaker 16: got another book coming out in January. I wrote it
Speaker 16: with Robert Borton's he's the CEO of Classical Conversations.
Speaker 11: It's the biggest homeschooling organization in the world.
Speaker 16: Yes, over one hundred and thirty five thousand students, over
Speaker 16: a million graduates so far. And the book is called
Speaker 16: wocan Weaponize, How Karl Marks won the Battle for American
Speaker 16: education and how we can take it back. And it
Speaker 16: does focus some on the history. You know, we go
Speaker 16: back to the first guys that seriously proposed that the
Speaker 16: government ought to be educating our children, and they were occultist,
Speaker 16: they were totalitarians, They were comedies, they were weirdos.
Speaker 11: They were talking to.
Speaker 16: Spirit friends, and you know, we got smoking gun evidence
Speaker 16: of all that.
Speaker 3: But we're still going on today. So oh absolutely, And.
Speaker 16: I mean they don't even hide it anymore, right, Shirley mccoon,
Speaker 16: who George H. W. Bush put in the Department of
Speaker 16: Education and start nationalizing education. She's she's running around telling
Speaker 16: people she's talking to spirit ascended masters who are giving
Speaker 16: her the secret wisdom into the New Age and the
Speaker 16: Fifth Dimension and total bonkers.
Speaker 11: But that's what they're up to.
Speaker 2: Well, you got you got General Flynn who was leading
Speaker 2: people in prayers to ascended masters in the Seven Rays
Speaker 2: or something like that. He was plagiarizing Elizabeth Claire prophet.
Speaker 2: He's doing it.
Speaker 3: This is your awaken American things.
Speaker 2: So yeah, there's a lot of discernment that needs to
Speaker 2: be hot out there and a.
Speaker 3: Lot of education.
Speaker 2: And that's what I like about your your book Indoctrinating
Speaker 2: Our Children to Death. You go into the history of
Speaker 2: this and so we can the trend lines and where
Speaker 2: these people are coming from and what they said they
Speaker 2: wanted to do. Very important. Yeah, so you got a
Speaker 2: new book coming out in January.
Speaker 3: That's great. Yes, we do.
Speaker 11: Yeah, and the big threat right now.
Speaker 16: You know, the good news is millions of families are
Speaker 16: continuing to flee from this corrupt, decaying government and doctrination
Speaker 16: system mass writing as a school system. The bad news
Speaker 16: is the UN knows this. The globalists know this, and
Speaker 16: they've got a plan, and we've got the reports where
Speaker 16: they outline their plans that we're going to give you
Speaker 16: free money and all you got to do is surrender
Speaker 16: your freedom and take our tests and teach our curriculum.
Speaker 11: The UN actually just released a report.
Speaker 16: David, about three weeks ago, maybe a month ago now,
Speaker 16: where they said homeschooling must if it's going to be allowed,
Speaker 16: it must be under the control of government. They have
Speaker 16: to be taught you and approved values, they have to
Speaker 16: use you and approved education content. It was literally prepared
Speaker 16: under a North Korean communist and it says so in
Speaker 16: the acknowledgments. So they are absolutely coming for our children.
Speaker 16: And if we don't take this threat seriously, I think
Speaker 16: all the other fights were engaged in. You know, we
Speaker 16: might as well just raise the white flag because we're
Speaker 16: going to lose over the long term. We've got to deal.
Speaker 11: With the education issue.
Speaker 2: I agree it really is about the hearts and minds. Yeah,
Speaker 2: I mean that was what they kept saying during Vietnam War.
Speaker 2: It's about the hearts and minds. Well, that's what the
Speaker 2: education system is really about, hearts and minds of your children.
Speaker 2: They're coming after them, and it is a war to
Speaker 2: take that. That's why you know when you look at
Speaker 2: and again, they'll do it with money. They always do
Speaker 2: it with money. And that's why I was absolutely flabbergasted
Speaker 2: when people didn't get that, about the lockdowns and about
Speaker 2: the COVID pandemic and everything that everybody would say, it's
Speaker 2: not Trump, it's the bad democratic governors.
Speaker 3: I said, he's paying people to do this. He's subsidizing
Speaker 3: the hospitals, and he's giving everybody else money for this.
Speaker 3: That's the way they always get around the Tenth Amendment
Speaker 3: or any illegal requirements. They give you money and then
Speaker 3: you do whatever they want. Once they give you that money,
Speaker 3: then you get accustomed to it. And they own the
Speaker 3: printing press.
Speaker 16: They've got infinite money, and they know that as long
Speaker 16: as they can print some new money, you'll dance to
Speaker 16: their tune.
Speaker 11: I mean, it's the greatest scam concocted in the history
Speaker 11: of man.
Speaker 2: Well, I tell you you know, Alex, I've said many times,
Speaker 2: it's going to be really, really difficult for us here
Speaker 2: in America once we lose that magic money tree, that
Speaker 2: they can just print it all out of nothing, right,
Speaker 2: But that's the only way that you're going to break
Speaker 2: the power of the federal government is if you break
Speaker 2: the printing presses. And so it's going to be a
Speaker 2: good news bad news thing. It's kind of like the
Speaker 2: silver lining of the of the school like towns. I
Speaker 2: still think it's funny to go back and look at
Speaker 2: people talking about the pandemic and the ill effects of that, and.
Speaker 3: Look at it kept the school It's kept school schools for.
Speaker 2: A long time, and it's like, yeah, to me, that
Speaker 2: was one of the big advantage, the only advantage of it,
Speaker 2: the only silver lining that and the fact that people
Speaker 2: could finally see what was happening in their child's classroom.
Speaker 2: I can't tell you the number of times I've talked
Speaker 2: to people and they say, yeah, yeah, I understand what's
Speaker 2: going on over there in that other state, or maybe
Speaker 2: even here in this state, or maybe even in my
Speaker 2: particular school, but not in my kids classroom. Well, this time,
Speaker 2: they could actually see what was happening in the classroom,
Speaker 2: and that was the big impetus. So the co author,
Speaker 2: there's someone who's running Classical Conversations. That's an excellent program.
Speaker 2: We didn't do that when we schooled our kids, but
Speaker 2: it really is an excellent, rigorous curriculum there it is.
Speaker 16: Yeah, we've actually got our own kids enrolled in there.
Speaker 16: That's how I originally connected with them. It's such a
Speaker 16: good program. Watching the kids coming out of this, they're
Speaker 16: so far ahead of the poor victims of the government schools.
Speaker 11: It makes you want to cry.
Speaker 16: But you know, if you're a parent and you're looking
Speaker 16: for a good program to get your children a real education,
Speaker 16: that's the one.
Speaker 3: Check it out.
Speaker 11: Classical Conversations.
Speaker 3: I agree.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think it's got a lot of great content
Speaker 2: in it. Well, it's always great having you on and
Speaker 2: again people can find you at Liberty Sentinel, is that correct.
Speaker 16: Liberty Sentinel dot org, and then the Newamerican dot com
Speaker 16: is where most of our climate coverage is going to be.
Speaker 16: So for the folks out there who haven't signed up
Speaker 16: for the magazine and encourage them to do that, at
Speaker 16: least the free daily headlines, the Newamerican dot com and
Speaker 16: then my website, yeah, Liberty Sentinel dot org.
Speaker 2: Okay, and I just remember the name of that guy,
Speaker 2: Steve Malloy. Steve Malloy was one of talk About Junk
Speaker 2: Science dot com. I worked with Steve prior to Info
Speaker 2: Wars and he's a really good guy and he's really
Speaker 2: had his finger to the pulse of what's going on
Speaker 2: with the environmental stuff, just as you have. Thank you
Speaker 2: so much for joining us. And it's always a pleasure
Speaker 2: talking to you, Alex. And let us know when you
Speaker 2: got that new book on, like to talk to you
Speaker 2: about that when it's ready.
Speaker 16: Absolutely, thank you so much. It's an honored a pleasure
Speaker 16: to be here. Thank you, David, God bless you. And
Speaker 16: Merry Christmas.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Merry Christmas to you as well. We'll be
Speaker 2: right back, folks. To stay with us.
Speaker 7: You're listening to the David Knight Show.
Speaker 15: Here news now at Apsradionews dot com or get the
Speaker 15: APS Radio app and never miss another story.
Speaker 2: Well, I want to think, don't frag me, bro. That
Speaker 2: is very kind. I appreciate that. It's very generous. So
Speaker 2: three chairs for Dka's perseverance, faith and conviction to overcome
Speaker 2: the health challenges. Well, thank you and thank you for
Speaker 2: your prayers to do that a great example, he said,
Speaker 2: Merry Christmas, Happy New Year to the Knight family to
Speaker 2: more good years, sprang the t thank you so much.
Speaker 2: And speaking of prayers, I want to pass this on
Speaker 2: from Ryan for Love of the Road. He's someone who
Speaker 2: has been a big supporter of this program and we
Speaker 2: really do appreciate the things that Ryan has done and
Speaker 2: he is in need of your prayers right now. His
Speaker 2: family is. Let me just read you what he sent us.
Speaker 2: He said, my dad is currently in the hospital waiting
Speaker 2: to undergo open heart surgery this week. He's been complaining
Speaker 2: about a toothache. Turns out it was a blockage in
Speaker 2: his arteries. They said he's got triple vessel disease. Thank
Speaker 2: god he didn't have end up having a stroke. Apparently
Speaker 2: was a mini heart attack or whatever it was that
Speaker 2: you had after yours. The heart attack that's not as
Speaker 2: life threatening, so they were going to do a heart stint,
Speaker 2: but some of the blockages are just too much. My
Speaker 2: mom's doing better after her surgery and she's with him now.
Speaker 2: They're doing a bunch of tests and might need to
Speaker 2: move him to Detroit. So always appreciate your prayers, and
Speaker 2: so please keep Ryan and his family in your prayers.
Speaker 2: Prayers for his parents' circumstances, and also prayers for Ryan
Speaker 2: and his family as they deal with these issues, because
Speaker 2: it's always a strain on the rest of the family
Speaker 2: when these things are happening. And I want to pass
Speaker 2: on another situation. He hasn't well. He has in a
Speaker 2: way asked for his producer has asked for prayer support.
Speaker 2: This is Clyde Lewis, and I've been on Clyde Lewis's
Speaker 2: program about once a month or so before the stroke.
Speaker 2: It's always a difficult thing for me to do his
Speaker 2: program because it's extremely late at night for us. He
Speaker 2: comes on nighttime on the West Coast, so I'm up
Speaker 2: to like one o'clock in the morning, and I would
Speaker 2: wind up getting like two or three hours worth of sleep,
Speaker 2: and I was dead for most of the rest of
Speaker 2: the week. It was difficult to do. So Travis contacted
Speaker 2: him and said that I'm up and I can can
Speaker 2: try to do that again. And then his producer said, well,
Speaker 2: Clyde is in the hospital right now and there is
Speaker 2: a GoFundMe that's been organized for him and he's looking
Speaker 2: for He's got a goal of seven thousand dollars and
Speaker 2: they're about sixty five percent of the way through. So
Speaker 2: if you need a reminder just how independent from corporate media,
Speaker 2: Clyde Lewis really is. Ground Zero has been off the
Speaker 2: air for several days because his host is in the
Speaker 2: middle of a serious medical crisis. As a result, he's
Speaker 2: asking fans to help him again. Not only has bills
Speaker 2: and living expenses, but that is his entire source of income.
Speaker 2: He doesn't have a contract with the radio network. It's
Speaker 2: just what comes in at the moment, in the same
Speaker 2: way that we are. It was really blessed to have
Speaker 2: Travis and Lance step in and do the broadcast when
Speaker 2: I was gone, but his broadcast has been shut down.
Speaker 2: That means that his advertising revenue has gone to zero
Speaker 2: as well. His producer Ron Patten said that Clyde recently
Speaker 2: countered a medical emergency due to kidney failure. It's been
Speaker 2: in the hospital for about a week on dialysis along
Speaker 2: with getting physical therapy. The good news is that his
Speaker 2: health is gradually improving and there's hope that he'll get
Speaker 2: back on air with the show soon. Thank you very
Speaker 2: much for your support through prayers and good thoughts. As
Speaker 2: Clyde does have medical insurance, there are miscellaneous bills associated
Speaker 2: with his medical issue. Our primary income source is subscriptions,
Speaker 2: but unfortunately that is stagnated due to his illness. Furthermore,
Speaker 2: our advertising revenue is on hold until he's back on broadcasting,
Speaker 2: and we don't receive any money from our radio syndication.
Speaker 2: We also pay for studio rental and have a staff.
Speaker 2: So can you please help us with donations? That's what
Speaker 2: they're asking for. So I would just recommend him for prayers.
Speaker 2: I don't know Clyde that well, but you know, whenever
Speaker 2: we go through things and our circumstances, we always pray
Speaker 2: for God to help us in our circumstances and to
Speaker 2: relieve of these things. Sometimes we go through them just
Speaker 2: because it is a growing experience that God wants us
Speaker 2: to go through. So we'll never know, really in this
Speaker 2: life exactly what is behind these things. So sometimes in
Speaker 2: his kindness, God says no. And I'm not saying that's
Speaker 2: the situation here, but I'm saying, please pray for him,
Speaker 2: and please pray that God will bless him in these
Speaker 2: circumstances and that God will bless us to make him
Speaker 2: closer to him going through this type of thing. And
Speaker 2: that'd be my prayer for anybody who's going through something
Speaker 2: like that. Real quickly, let's take a quick look at
Speaker 2: some news that we skipped over. We were just talking
Speaker 2: about grabbing Newsom or the nuisance guy. As we talk
Speaker 2: about him. I thought it was pretty amazing to hear
Speaker 2: him say that them that that basically the Democrats need
Speaker 2: to be more culturally normal.
Speaker 17: I mean, look, you know, we could talk about why
Speaker 17: Kamala lost, which is separate. I mean it's part derivative
Speaker 17: of the larger narrative, but issues around inflation scars. We
Speaker 17: don't talk enough about interest rates. We didn't talk about
Speaker 17: incumbency issues related you said, be beyond related, Israeli politics, immigration,
Speaker 17: the border in particular. You could talk about all those things,
Speaker 17: not just one hundred and seven days, not just talk
Speaker 17: about Biden.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you are not with the people on any issued Newsom.
Speaker 17: I think there's a broader narrative that we often address.
Speaker 3: That is, we have to be more culturally normal, we.
Speaker 7: Have to be a little less judgmental, we have.
Speaker 17: To have to be a party that understands the importance
Speaker 17: and power of the border substantively.
Speaker 3: Yeah, right, politically, we.
Speaker 2: This is I talking about the border and talking about
Speaker 2: culturally normal. Remember Gavin Newsom as mayor of San Francisco
Speaker 2: was doing homosexual marriage when it was illegal everywhere. Arnold
Speaker 2: Schwarzenegger was governor at the time, and he called him
Speaker 2: out on it, you know, and they said, well, if
Speaker 2: you want to do that, we've got to have we've
Speaker 2: got to change the law. Right, got a constitutional amendment
Speaker 2: or something, and for the state of California. And they
Speaker 2: did try to do that in California, and you know,
Speaker 2: it was so out of the cultural norm that it lost.
Speaker 2: Even in California, homosexual marriage lost. And this is even
Speaker 2: with Tim Cook contributing millions of his own money and
Speaker 2: pledging matching amounts from Apple for homosexual marriage. It's still lost.
Speaker 2: With all that, and he has the audacity to talk
Speaker 2: about culturally normal. It was imposed by the Supreme Court
Speaker 2: and defiance of state laws and defiance of state constitutions,
Speaker 2: and they had no authority to make that determination. And
Speaker 2: the Tenth Amendment was precisely to stop that type of thing. Yeah,
Speaker 2: is pretty amazing to me that he was talking about
Speaker 2: being culturally normal, and of course he can say anything
Speaker 2: he wants and he's running, and you know what he's
Speaker 2: going to do once he gets in based on his
Speaker 2: past behavior. Well, Biden was also giving illegal aliens FAHA
Speaker 2: backed mortgages. We just find this out from the current
Speaker 2: administration's HUD. Illegal aliens got federally backed mortgages during the
Speaker 2: Biden Harris regime years. Scott Turner, who is now Trump's
Speaker 2: HUD secretary, characterized this as a significant policy failure, evidence
Speaker 2: of what he called misplaced priorities that favored illegals over
Speaker 2: American home buyers. There were over twelve million illegal aliens
Speaker 2: that came over the border, straining our housing supply and
Speaker 2: making the costs go up, and the government was helping
Speaker 2: them to get loans, something that it wasn't doing to
Speaker 2: all Americans. Even so, he worked with a gnome at
Speaker 2: DHS to make sure that only Americans did us are
Speaker 2: living in HUD funded housing. Well, again, the government doesn't
Speaker 2: really have the authority on the Constitution to give loans
Speaker 2: to people and subsidized loans for people. But if they're
Speaker 2: going to do something like that, it is truly outrageous
Speaker 2: that they would do it to illegal aliens. But of
Speaker 2: course we know why that happens. Even though this is
Speaker 2: bad for citizens, even though citizens are paying taxes and
Speaker 2: on the debt that they are incurring, subsidizing housing for
Speaker 2: people coming from other countries and raising the price of housing,
Speaker 2: it's really good for the banks. And that's one of
Speaker 2: the reasons why it's happening here. Taxpayers subsidizing government ensured
Speaker 2: home loans for illegals just what the bank's ordered. Biden's
Speaker 2: policy amounted to a generational betrayal of citizens and prospective
Speaker 2: home buyers, pushed aside over the last four years, amid
Speaker 2: the worst housing availability and a generation, and driven by
Speaker 2: an out of control climate crisis spending and an invasion
Speaker 2: of illegals that strained an already tight housing market.
Speaker 3: Well, that's true.
Speaker 2: A major climate crisis study has been retracted over inaccuracies.
Speaker 2: But the doom narrative, they say, collapses, But it is
Speaker 2: going to continue as well. It doesn't matter.
Speaker 3: Really.
Speaker 2: They have propagandized kids from elementary school on and they
Speaker 2: will impose it by force once they get the proper
Speaker 2: infrastructure in. But this is a widely hyped climate doom
Speaker 2: study that was published in Nature in April twenty twenty four,
Speaker 2: amplified by corporate media outlets like CNN and Bloomberg. It's
Speaker 2: been embarrassingly retracted as a matter of fact, that people
Speaker 2: put it up said that it was so bad they
Speaker 2: were not going to try to make a correction to it.
Speaker 2: They were just going to retract it in total. The
Speaker 2: Economic Commitment of climate change as the title of it.
Speaker 2: The economists discovered that flawed data from Uzbekistan.
Speaker 3: Had been used to skew the results.
Speaker 2: Again, when we look at this, think about this, how
Speaker 2: they can skew the results based on the obscure country Uzbekistan,
Speaker 2: which doesn't have a really large population either.
Speaker 5: And I'm sure the people that put this together didn't
Speaker 5: notice that Uzbekistan's data was so heavily skewed that it
Speaker 5: skewed the entire thing that and then choose to use
Speaker 5: that as a key part of their study. I'm sure
Speaker 5: that was just a coincidence.
Speaker 3: That's right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, As a matter of fact, it tripled the effect
Speaker 2: by the data that they used from Uzbekistan. Kind of
Speaker 2: reminds me in a lance of when they talk about
Speaker 2: the journal population and they said, well, you know, the
Speaker 2: populations like this and if it gets to this number,
Speaker 2: we're all going to die. Well, it turns out that
Speaker 2: they have severely underestimated population. Population has already passed the
Speaker 2: point of no Bible according to them, and they underestimated it.
Speaker 2: These are not they're not going out and doing a
Speaker 2: global survey. But when they did actually go out and
Speaker 2: do a detailed survey, when they looked at areas where
Speaker 2: the government was going to come in and build a dam,
Speaker 2: for example, and they looked at when they did that,
Speaker 2: they were going to be very specific because handing out
Speaker 2: people money as they relocate them. And so they compared
Speaker 2: that to the way that they had estimated these other things,
Speaker 2: because the government would typically, as George Bush would say,
Speaker 2: misunderestimated the number of people that they're going to have
Speaker 2: to pay off. And so when they looked at that misunderestimation,
Speaker 2: they said, if we if we extrapolate this out, which
Speaker 2: again when we do this with the vaccine, they have
Speaker 2: a fit, but that's really the way that it works.
Speaker 2: So for twenty months, the study was touted by Bloomberg,
Speaker 2: sand in Forms and countless mainstream outlets. They helped to
Speaker 2: manufacture wildly misleading narrative of an impending climate catastroph How
Speaker 2: many times have we seen the world is ending and
Speaker 2: never never happens. Headline like this climate change to cause
Speaker 2: thirty eight trillion dollars a year and damages by twenty
Speaker 2: forty nine. I think they got that wrong. I think
Speaker 2: they make climate change policies are going to cause thirty
Speaker 2: eight trillion dollars a year and damage by twenty forty nine.
Speaker 5: Now what they really mean is climate change is going
Speaker 5: to cause us much profits for us by twenty.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they're going to They talk about reparations, but it's
Speaker 2: really a massive wealth transfer, not to third world countries
Speaker 2: but to them, and that's really what's going to happen.
Speaker 2: So there's an element of truth and that, just as
Speaker 2: there always is. But the you know, they think that
Speaker 2: they're winning now because Bill Gates and al Gore have
Speaker 2: pulled back against some of this stuff, But that is
Speaker 2: not really the case. I think they're just regrouping and
Speaker 2: they're waiting until they bring in the heavy artillery. You know,
Speaker 2: we have these people calling for ceasefire. The Russians said, oh,
Speaker 2: they're just calling for a ceasefire in Ukraine because they
Speaker 2: want to regroup and build some more weapons. That's really
Speaker 2: what I think is happening here. I don't think that
Speaker 2: that they're trying to move on from this. And so
Speaker 2: Trump has filed for divorce from NATO over Ukraine. I
Speaker 2: don't think that's going to happen either. As a matter
Speaker 2: of fact, I haven't seen this reported except with RT,
Speaker 2: and even they are skeptical, and the subtitle they say, well,
Speaker 2: it remains to be seen if Washington is serious about this.
Speaker 2: But it is a document that was produced out of
Speaker 2: the White House. It is the twenty twenty five National
Speaker 2: Security Strategy of the US, the document that was released
Speaker 2: on December fourth, which is pretty amazing because the stuff
Speaker 2: that is saying is true and it would be good
Speaker 2: if it were true. It's basically talking about pulling back
Speaker 2: Europe from war and distancing ourselves from Europe as they
Speaker 2: go into this suicidal circling of the drain that they're
Speaker 2: involved in, downgrading China from a pacing threat to a
Speaker 2: competitor in economic issues. But I don't think any of
Speaker 2: this stuff is really going to happen with the Trump administration.
Speaker 3: I think is very much like.
Speaker 2: The document that they had about insurance. Remember when Trump
Speaker 2: ran the first time, the two big issues were the
Speaker 2: border and Obamacare, and then Obamacare really just kind of
Speaker 2: ceased to be an issue after that. The border was
Speaker 2: still there and the wall that they didn't build and
Speaker 2: so forth. But when you look at Obamacare, they had
Speaker 2: a great detailed, structured plan. Basically it involved market choices
Speaker 2: and involved through tax code structure and savings accounts and
Speaker 2: things like that, giving people the economic power to make
Speaker 2: these decisions, giving them the information to make these decisions,
Speaker 2: eliminating the some of the anti competitive rules have been
Speaker 2: put in at state and federal level, so there was competition,
Speaker 2: but also giving people information about health providers and insurance
Speaker 2: companies that have been hidden from people. All those types
Speaker 2: of things were there. They were all necessary. They would
Speaker 2: have reduced costs, that would have made us more intelligent
Speaker 2: consumers and given people economic power to do that. And
Speaker 2: that was all just deep sixth memory hold right after
Speaker 2: the election. This I don't understand what the purpose of
Speaker 2: this is unless when I saw that it was this
Speaker 2: is an article that's published by RT. Perhaps this is
Speaker 2: aimed at Russia, at Europe, and perhaps this is kind
Speaker 2: of a carrot and a stick approach to these two organizations.
Speaker 2: I don't think that's really going to happen. The document
Speaker 2: is unapologetically partisan, crediting Trump personally for brokerang peace and
Speaker 2: eight conflicts, but organizes US strategy around three pillars homeland defense,
Speaker 2: the Western Hemisphere, and economic renewal. Secondary forces focuses rather
Speaker 2: include selective partnership in Asia, Europe, Middle East, and Africa.
Speaker 2: But it is basically the way they summarize it is
Speaker 2: that it moves from global cop to regional hegemon and
Speaker 2: a ideological retreat where democracy promotion is explicitly abandoned. Quote,
Speaker 2: we seek peaceful commercial relations without imposing democrat change, and
Speaker 2: as Russia says, tell that to the Venezuelans. So basically
Speaker 2: they're paraphrasing George Washington and his farewell address. And I
Speaker 2: don't believe that this is the policy of the Trump
Speaker 2: administration at all.
Speaker 3: I wish it were. I wish they were trying to.
Speaker 2: Get a divorce from NATO, but I think NATO's got
Speaker 2: something on them, just like Milania does.
Speaker 3: Have a good day.
Speaker 2: Thank you for joining us the common man. They created
Speaker 2: common Core and dumb down our children. They created common
Speaker 2: Past to track and control us. Their commons project to
Speaker 2: 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.
Speaker 7: It's time to turn that around.
Speaker 2: And expose what they want to hide. Please share the
Speaker 2: information and links you'll find at the Davidnightshow dot com.
Speaker 2: Thank you for listening, Thank you for sharing. If you
Speaker 2: can't support us financially, please keep us in your prayers.
Speaker 2: D Davidnightshow dot com