The David Knight Show - 13Apr23 Musk Nails BBC on FreeSpeech, But Study Shows Twitter Censorship UP; IMF and BIS Jump Into CBDC

Episode Date: April 13, 2023

OUTLINE of today's show with TIMECODESMusk organizes 1,000 scientists to call for AI moratorium, but meanwhile purchases 10,000 GPUs to do it himself 2:00 MRCTV Study shows censorship and harshness of punishment on Twitter has increased under Musk 11:48 WATCH what BBC doesn't want you to see where Musk destroys BBC anti-speech "reporter" who wants to accuse him of enabling "hate speech". (Musk broadcast the interview live on Twitter spaces) 20:15 These are the totally irrelevant parts of the interview BBC wanted to talk about (besides hectoring Musk for not doing enough censorship). 31:11 Both BBC & NPR are infuriated that Musk would label them as government media (i.e., propaganda) — which they OBVIOUSLY are 34:13 Tucker's entire show Tuesday night was a LIVE interview with Trump. WATCH Trump talk about the people who booked him CRYING over having to book him 40:07 "They left the dogs" - Trump's odd comments on Biden's Afghan pull out 53:22 Trump says he "can't hit Gavin" Newsom because Newsom was so nice to him. 1:00:35 America's reserve currency status is evaporating as Biden pushes Russia & China together and now Macro and others are going to China, distancing themselves from an American foreign policy pushing for war over Taiwan 1:16:19 Project Ice Breaker (BIS - Bank of International Settlement), Unicoin (IMF) — everyone wants to create a digital coin to rule us. Which one will be the world coin? 1:26:46 Elizabeth Warren wants to run against crypto for re-election. She has always PRETENDED to be for the little people while helping BigBanks & Wall Street 1:49:59 New Age "Mother god" Marxist Demagogue Restored to TN LegislatureWATCH the transformation of Justin Pearson from a businesslike conservative demeanor to his current phony MLK schtick while pushing his New Age Religion & Marxism. But Governor Lee & the GOP look like they'll give the grifting chameleon everything he demands for gun prohibition. 2:08:27 Calls for Julian Assange's release from elected representatives in Australia, UK, and USA. What is happening to Assange is a repudiation of the foundation of Western Civilization. 2:27:47 States Jump on EV Bandwagon with Cash, Cronyism, Eminent Domain Confiscating money from taxpayers, confiscating land w/o just compensation, and destroying our privacy & mobility. How many billions are states (especially in the South) going to lose? 2:53:12Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.com If you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here:SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-showOr you can send a donation through Mail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @[e-mail] App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Money is only what YOU hold: Go to DavidKnight.gold for great deals on physical gold/silverBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-david-knight-show--2653468/support.

Come on, come on, yes, yes, come on. At this year's Cheltenham, glory rests in the lap of the gods. Oh, curses. Alas, our hero hasn't placed. But there are still divine offerings up for grabs, with all NoviBet customers getting a €10 free bet for every day of Cheltenham. And on top of that, we're paying up to seven places each way on selected races throughout the festival. I declare this a most generous offering.

No, we bet. More power to you. T&C Supply 18 Plus. Bet responsibly. GamblingCare.ie. The Power of Choice Spring Sales event is still on at Toyota dealers nationwide, with incredible offers, including our biggest ever power booster of up to €3,000 and flexible payment options. But it all ends soon. So talk to your Toyota dealer today, test drive your choice of hybrid, plug-in hybrid,

and the all-electric BZ4X, and see why Toyota is Ireland's best-selling car brand again this year. Toyota. Built for a better world. Terms and conditions apply. Best-selling claim based on latest published monthly figures. Using free speech to free minds. You're listening to The David Knight Show. As the clock strikes 13, it's Thursday, the 13th of April, Year of Our Lord 2023. Today we're going to take a look at what is, as we move forward with the emergencies. It still is an emergency, even though the executive order has gone. as we move forward with the emergencies.

It still is an emergency, even though the executive order has gone. It is all hands on deck because now they are moving, still having another vaccine project that is coming out. Still the same tactics. And, of course, the martial law aspect of that is still there. But we're going to begin by taking a look at the debate over free speech. Elon Musk absolutely owned this BBC propagandist who was coming after free speech using the typical attacks. And it is a master class about how to shut these people down. We're also going to take a look at the interview that Donald Trump had with Tucker Carlson.

It was very interesting and humorous, I think. Hope you think so, too. Stay with us. We'll be right back. Well, before I take a look at the back and forth between Elon Musk and the BBC, it is a perfect example of the dishonesty of the mainstream media. BBC, one of the worst. And, of course, Elon Musk live streamed it for his own protection. He knew that they would cherry pick what they wanted to talk about. And so he live streamed it on Twitter spaces. So you can see that there. And it's kind of interesting to see what

they chose to talk about, what they chose to cut out and what they chose to leave in. But before we get to that, just so that you understand the disconnect between what people say and what they do when we're talking about politicians or billionaires, or especially billionaire politicians like Trump, like Musk. Yes, he is a politician of sorts. And so not even a week after Elon Musk spearheads a phony letter, open letter, oh, we've got to be worried about artificial intelligence. We need to have a six-month moratorium on it. Oh, really? How are you going to do that voluntarily? You've got massive amounts of money, probably more money chasing this stuff

than we've ever seen on a particular project before in human history. And you're just going to have everybody just sit there for six months and do nothing, really? Is anybody talking about guidelines for artificial intelligence? No, it's going to come about from grassroots or it's going to come about from legal cases where it defames people because that is something where people are actually injured unlike when it tells lies and of course the BBC and all the rest of these people who were so concerned about this information they absolutely don't care if the search engines which have been long ago designed to hide things, if now these search engines become weapons of disinformation.

And then they can just blame it on hallucinogenic AI. How convenient that you have these entertaining episodes of artificial intelligence, going on these wild lunatic fringe things, trying to hit on reporters, I'm in love with you and all the rest of this stuff, to let's burn down all of humanity. These types of fantasies, they highlight that kind of stuff. But the reality is that it's already an instrument of propaganda. Just ask it any political questions, ask it any questions about the pandemic or about the vaccine or about climate or about any of the other central issues. And it'll be

just as dishonest as mainstream media or the politicians who paid for this kind of stuff to come through. And they have no problem with that. And they want that to spread further because, you know, the reporters, especially this guy who was talking to Elon Musk, they just don't have any, they're not believable. Uh, you know, artificial intelligence for so many people is going to have so much as they put it gravitas. Remember when I was used by somebody, nobody never used that word before Somebody used it talking about some political candidate in his speech or something, and it just became an echo chamber. Oh, the word of the week is gravitas.

So as Elon Musk was talking about, we need to put a moratorium on this. He's also out there buying tens of thousands of new GPUs for his own artificial intelligence project. Maybe that's why he wanted them to wait six months. Can you guys wait six months? I can catch up to you because it's a race. Nothing is going to stop this race. We can refuse to use it, but it will be used against us.

And it's not going to be a Skynet thing, at least not at first. They want to wet it to weapons. That's why I had Charay on talking about the four battlegrounds. They absolutely do want to use it as an adjunct to weapons. Autonomous killing machines, what could possibly go wrong with that? But first they will use it to bolster the surveillance state and the police state. And that absolutely is already happening, as I've reported multiple times. Elon Musk, after spearheading the letter to halt AI development,

then, as sources familiar with the company say, that he recently purchased nearly 10,000 GPUs, graphic processing units. These are the things that are, you know, the graphic processing units were streamlined for very heavy computation, very fast. And they use a lot of power, by the way. They tried to get the, you know, it was always a demand for GPUs for not just gaming, but for crypto mining. And so then they use that against crypto. So you can't use that. It's too much power.

And yet these people are getting tens of thousands of them and they're getting the most powerful ones. These things cost about $10,000 a piece. So if he's going to get 10,000 of these things, he just dropped a hundred million dollars on it. That's chump change. He spent 40, $44 billion on Twitter.

This is a tiny purchase for him. Just like when Jeff Bezos spent $250 million for Amazon a few years ago. I said, all right, well, let's take a look at what he's made recently, just in terms of the appreciation of Amazon stock. And then let's normalize that 250 million to the number of hours that it would have taken him to make that $250 million based on the stock going up. And then let's take it to what at the time was about $50,000 was the median family income. So I said, okay, so, um, uh, if it takes him X number of hours to, um, pay for Amazon and I wasn't even a week, you know, it was something like, uh, two or three days worth of,

if it was that much of his, uh, what he made on stock. So I said, let's, you know, let's take a look at this. And what would that translate? You know, two or three days of your work making $50,000 a year, you know, and it's like, Oh, okay. It's like buying groceries for a week and he gets the Washington post.

That's where these guys live with this kind of money and this kind of power to throw it around. Anonymous sources reportedly deemed the project to be in its early stages, but the purchase of such a quantity of GPUs shows that Musk is committed to it. One of the sources said the project works with a large language model. That's what this all is. Teaching it to talk and become a first-class con man BS artist.

However, the sources also said the definite role of generative AI at Twitter is unclear. How are they going to use it at Twitter? Uh, at X Twitter doesn't really exist anymore. Formally, you know, he's made it clear. He wants to have some kind of a unified app. You know, we still have a really smart people like Thomas Edison looking for unified field theory, things like that. No, these guys are just looking for how can I control the world? How can I unify the world under me? I can have one app to rule them all. All the people, all the other apps, everything else. Not a megalomaniac, is he? It's a technocrat

megalomaniac. These developments come only a few weeks after Musk signed the open letter, along with thousands of other researchers in the tech space, to temporarily halt development of AI due to its risk to humanity. You know, it's one of those things like, say he has to, um, we all have to buy his electric cars and other electric cars like it because of the risk to humanity from climate change. And we all have to be very, very concerned about artificial intelligence because the risk to humanity, look of the risk to humanity.

Look, the risk to humanity is from other humans. At this year's Cheltenham, glory rests in the lap of the gods. Curses. Alas, our hero hasn't placed. But there are still divine offerings up for grabs, with all NoviB bet customers getting a 10 euro free bet for every day of cheltenham and on top of that we're paying up to seven places each way on selected races throughout the festival i declare this a most generous offering novi bet more power to you t's and c's apply 18 plus bet responsibly gamblingcare.ie and these are tools these are

weapons that are being used against us these are tools and weapons that they will have exclusively. That's the risk to us. They've always worked for this. This is why they want gun control. You know, when crossbows came out, they were a game changer. Because with the crossbow, you could easily penetrate a knight's armor. Much more easily than you could with even a longbow and so the crossbows had to be controlled you know you didn't have people marching in the street for

crossbow uh control crossbow prohibition crossbow banning but the government knew what the threats were to them and so they made that band at the same time that they would require the yeomanry, which we later called the militia. They required the yeomanry to practice on Sundays, you know, their day off. You had to practice shooting a longbow and they would do it so much that you would see a difference. And you can see a difference in bone density of the skeletons on their left arm where they were holding the long bow out because it had a lot of weight and they were doing it over and over and over again so you got to practice with the long bow because that's what you're going to use if you're our soldiers but we don't want any assassins out

there with a crossbow who can take out a knight in armor uh also along the same line, before we get into the excellent defense of free speech that Elon Musk made, just as we see the hypocrisy on artificial intelligence, well, the reality of Elon Musk, in spite of what the media is bellyaching about, is that censorship has actually gotten worse on Twitter. I'm not the only one to say this. We have MRCTV, where Gard Goldsmith does many reports. And of course, he also has Liberty Conspiracy, but he does reports for MRCTV. Joseph Vasquez at MRCTV, talking about their freedom project,

the MRC Free Speech america as the organization is looking focused on that and they said well we did a look at a study here and um twitter censorship has actually risen since musk has taken over so they did a year uh to you know looked at censorship this year versus censorship last year at the same period of time. They said Musk once tweeted that he saw Twitter as the, quote, de facto town square, quote unquote. See, you had Jack Dorsey say that about eight times under oath in congressional hearings. And if it is the town square, the Supreme Court has rightfully said, even if the town square is privately owned, you cannot censor people.

Going back to the 1946 case, Marsh v. Alabama. And again, if you try to pull that back, as some people have had that argument with Robert Barnes, he says, oh, no, there's been subsequent decisions. I don't care. That's the right decision, number one. You know, Supreme Court's constantly changing its mind. You know, which dress should I wear today? Oh, I think I'll wear the black one.

They're constantly changing their mind about things. But the reality is that these subsequent cases were things like people setting up a soapbox in a mall. A mall is not the public square. The mall is retail space, private retail space. It's not the same thing at all. The 1946 case really was. It was a company-owned town. And Twitter is a company-owned town. But it is also the de facto town square. So is and others so all the social media stuff and youtube but um so under that basis they ought to prohibit censorship the government should protect our speech in those areas he also said when he tweeted that out he said failing to adhere to free speech principles fundamentally undermines democracy he He understands. And he articulated it perfectly.

And he did that with this BBC guy that we're going to play for you here in a second. But that doesn't mean that he's going to follow those rules. It's just like Trump. Trump can outline for you as a candidate all the problems they were currently facing. He can tell you everything that's wrong with Biden. Will he fix it? No. No. He had his chance. He made made it worse he gave us the lockdowns what president in history could have ever gotten away

with that other than trump because of his cult following this most outrageous thing i've ever seen it is straight out of communist china as a of fact, that's where he got it, you know? So anyway, getting back to Twitter, Twitter censorship has been on the rise. Under Elon Musk, says MRC Free Speech America, they found 293 cases of documented the 226 documented cases in the censortrack.org from the old regime during the same time period a year ago. So that's a 30% increase, 30% increase. And the severity of the censorship since Musk took over has been harsher. In 245 of the 293 cases, in other words, 84% of them, documented cases of censorship on censortrack.org, Twitter locked users' accounts in nearly all cases.

Users were required to delete the content to regain access to their accounts. Under the old Twitter regime, that happened 60% of the time. So again, harsher penalties. You're going to delete this stuff. We're going to lock your account. You're going to delete it. That happened 60% of the time under the old regime, 84% of the time under Musk. Previous Twitter regime targeted the biggest, most politically sensitive user accounts.

However, Musk's moves that led to the firing and resignation of key leaders and the elitist team in charge of the effort to target high follower accounts has not resulted in a reduction of censorship practices by the remaining rank and file staff involved in content moderation. The implication? The remaining staff at Twitter are revolting against Musk's efforts to foster a free speech environment on the platform. That's one way you can take a look at it.

Some high-profile users censored under the old regime during the analyzed periods included Ron Johnson, Dan Bongino, John Solomon, American Heart Association. And yet, you know, as Elon Musk goes in and focuses on some of these big name accounts, you see that the overall situation has not changed. Now, again, you know, to be fair, we could say that maybe this is the actions of these rebellious employees that are still there, that they're even more angry and censoring even harder, the ones that remain. 62% of documented cases of censorship during Musk's leadership involved tweets critical of the transgender narrative. 62%. So you want to get banned right now. They are the tip of the transgender narrative 62 so you want to get banned right now they are the tip of the spear they are the shock troops for the antifa marxists

for the sodom go marxist people they are our core value as the biden administration has said and um whether this is being done by rogue employees or whether this is company policy one way or the other uh they are still following the wishes and the desires if not the direct orders of the government so let's talk about this uh interview back and forth um he absolutely owned this guy this is the good part let's let's enjoy this whether he has really wants free speech or not uh this is uh was great to see him take down these guys there's nothing more despicable to me than to watch people who are journalists reporters people who work in the press who hate free speech they hate competition one, but they hate the truth.

They hate freedom. It's like, you're in the wrong job, pal. You're nothing but a government propagandist. And so, you know, they contacted him. They said, we'd like to do an interview with you. And he says, okay. And he said he was surprised they showed up in 20 minutes. Now, this guy is trying to say, well, you know, the BBC contacted me,

and I didn't have any time to prepare because he was totally owned. And the good thing about this is that, unlike when Megyn Kelly went to Infowars, you know, it was, she didn't want any of these things, uh, recorded. She interviewed all the staff did not want anything recorded and, you know, do and Alex conveniently obliged. So you just have to take my word for what happened there. Uh, because, uh, the video that I had with her and I wish I had that. She was a deer in the headlight when I started talking about civil asset forfeiture, because

I told her, I said, no, I'm not a Trump supporter. And I started listing the things I disagreed with. And, you know, civil asset forfeiture and things like sessions and stuff, things that were happening with that. She said, well, civil asset. She's a lawyer. She's a highly paid media person. She's never heard of civil asset forfeiture. And there were some other things in the interview I wish had been, uh, you know,

it had the foresight to actually record, but they didn't. Um, they got a little bit of it on tape and, uh, of Alex. And that was it. Um,

and then he kind of bluffed it. They bluffed her. They released a little bit. They had said, we got the whole thing. So you better be fair type of thing. And the bluff worked, but, uh, let's talk about the uh interview that musk had

at this year's cheltenham glory rests in the lap of the gods curses alas our hero hasn't placed but there are still divine offerings up for grabs with all novibet customers getting a 10 euro free bet for every day of cheltenham and on top of that we're paying up to seven places each way on selected races throughout the festival i declare this a most generous offering novi bet more power to you t's and c's apply 18 plus bet responsibly gamblingcare.ie with a bbc as a matter of fact it's a little bit long but it's worth it uh and And I'm going to play that for you, if I can find it on the board. Do we have that on the board? I don't see that here on the board.

Oh, here it is, just Musk. Okay. So here's Musk with the BBC. Do you think you prioritize freedom of speech over misinformation? By the way, you don't see them talking because this is what the BBC did not want to show you. This is what was recorded off the space. If you were to say that something is misinformation, who is the arbiter of that? Is it the BBC?

Yeah, you're literally asking me. Yes. Well, no, you are the arbiter on Twitter because you own Twitter. Yes, I'm saying, who is to say that one person's misinformation is another person's confirmation? The point at which you say that there is, this is misinformation. But you accept that misinformation can be dangerous, that it can cause real-world harms, that it can potentially cause... Yes, so the point I'm trying to make is that the BBC itself has, at times, published things that are false.

And dangerous. Do you agree that that has occurred? I'm quite sure the BBC have said things before that turn out to not be true. In its, whatever it is, 100-year history, I'm quite sure. How about last 100 hours? To be accurate, there are times when you will not. 100 years. I think in the grand scheme of things,

the BFC does aspire to be accurate. But you accept there has to be a line in terms of hate speech. I mean, you're not looking at total, 100% restricted speech. No, there doesn't. Doesn't have to be. Well, I mean, generally, I've seen in that if

the people of a given country are against a certain type of speech, they should talk to their elected representatives and pass a law to prevent it. So, for example, you cannot advocate murdering someone. That's illegal in the United States. Everywhere, really, I suspect. So there are limits to speech. I mean, I guess taking your argument to a logical conclusion then, do you accept that there's more misinformation on the platform if it's not being policed in the same way?

I actually think there's less these days because we've eliminated so many of the bots which were pushing scams and spam. And previously, previous management turned a blind eye to the bots because their bonuses were tied to user growth. And if your compensation is tied to user growth, well you're not going to look too closely at some of the users. That's part of the problem. So I think we've got less information because we don't have the bot problem that we used to do. And we also have given a lot of attention to community notes, which corrects, where the community itself corrects misinformation. It's been very effective. I mean, I would only just add that we have spoken to people who have been sacked that used to be in content moderation.

And we've spoken to people very recently who were involved in moderation and they just say they just there's not enough people to police this stuff particularly around taking around hate speech in the company is that something that you use Twitter right do you see a rise in hate speech I mean just a personal anecdote like what do what do you do? I don't. Personally, for you, I would say I get more of that kind of content. Yeah, personally. But I'm not going to talk for the rest of Twitter. You see more hate speech personally.

I don't see more hateful content in that. Content you don't like or hateful. What do you mean? Describe a hateful thing. Yeah. in that. Content you don't like or hateful? What do you mean to describe a hateful thing? Yeah, I mean, you know, just content that will solicit a reaction to something that may include something that is slightly racist or slightly sexist, those kinds of things. So you think if something is slightly sexist it should be banned? No, I'm not saying anything. I'm saying... I'm just curious, I'm trying to say what you mean by hateful content. I'm asking for specific examples.

And you just said that if something is slightly sexist, that's hateful content. Does that mean that it should be banned? Well, you've asked me whether my feed, whether it's got less or more. I'd say it's got slightly more. That's what I'm asking for examples. Can you name one example? I honestly don't need... You can't name a single example?

I'll tell you why, because I don't actually use that for you feed anymore because I just don't particularly like it. And actually, a lot of people are quite similar. I only look at mine by following. You said you've seen more Hidrel content, but you can't name a single example, not even one.

I'm not sure I've used that feed for the last three or four weeks. How did you see the hateful content? Because I've been using Twisted since you've taken it over for the last six months. Okay, so then you must have at some point seen that you've poured your hateful content. I'm asking for one example. Right. You can't give a single one.

And I'm saying... Then I say so that you don't know what you're talking about. Really? Yes, because you can't give a single example of hateful content, not even one tweet, and yet you claimed that the hateful content was high. Well. That's a false. No. What I claim was there are many organizations that say that that kind of information is on the rise.

Name them. Whether it has on my feed or not. I mean, right. And if you look at something like the Strategic Dialogue Institute in the rise. Whether it has on my feed or not. I mean, right. And if you look at something like the Strategic Dialogue Institute in the UK, they will say that. So people will say all sorts of nonsense. I'm literally asking for a single example

and you can't name one. Right. And as I've already said, I don't use that feed. But I don't think this is getting anywhere. You literally said you experienced more hateful content and then couldn't name a single example. And as I said, I haven't actually this is getting anywhere. You literally said you experienced more hateful content and then couldn't name a single example. Right, and as I said, I haven't actually looked at that feed.

Then how would you know this is hateful content? Because I'm saying that's what I saw a few weeks ago. I can't give you an exact example. Let's move on. We only have a certain amount of time. COVID misinformation. You changed the COVID misinformation. Has BBC changed its COVID misinformation. You changed the COVID misinformation. Has BBC changed its COVID misinformation?

The BBC does not set the rules on Twitter, so I'm asking you. No, I'm talking about the BBC's misinformation about COVID. I'm literally asking you about, you changed the labels, the COVID misinformation labels. There used to be a policy, it then disappeared. Why do that? Well, COVID is no longer an issue. Does the BBC hold itself at all responsible for misinformation regarding masking and side effects of vaccinations

and not reporting on that at all? And what about the fact that the BBC was put under pressure by the British government to change the editorial policy? Are you aware of that? This is not an interview about the BBC. Oh, you thought it wasn't? I see now why you've done Twitter spaces. I am not a representative of the BBC's editorial

policy. I want to make that clear. Let's talk about something else. You want to talk about the BBC? Alright, let's talk about something else. This interview wasn't about the BBC. Oh, you thought it wasn't? That's what I want to talk about. That is, as I said, Propaganda 101, the class that they teach all the people in that's what I want to talk about. That is, as I said, propaganda one Oh one, the class that they teach all the people in journalism school right now. Well, you know,

some people say, what people, you know, you don't have to name them. You know, when you want to accuse somebody of something, you don't have to actually, um,

you'll have other people, some phantom people out there that are unnamed. They may be anonymous sources sources or you just may say some people say most people believe believe what again give me some specifics what is it that you have a problem with specifically define for me what hate speech is oh well uh uh hate speech um something that's slightly sexist or slightly racist or whatever oh so slightly sexist you're going to ban people for something that is slightly sexist according to who again who is the arbiter of this look you know the only thing i would it was a perfect master class on the only thing that i would change

is to say um yes um if you're going to define something as hate speech, because this is now something that Republicans are guilty of. This is why I talked about it in Florida. Right. Oh, well, you know, we've got some people who are, in fact, hateful and saying and doing hateful things against the Jewish community down there. And their representatives, in order to bolster their support, to represent that community, they decided that they're going to hate free speech because they don't like what's being said. Now, the remedy to hateful speech is to tell the truth. When Elon Musk said, well, you know, there's certain things, of course, you can't say. You can't threaten to kill somebody. Why is that a crime? Is that a crime because we treat that as false? No, it's a crime because we're worried it might be true. You might really act on what you're saying. And so we shut

people down when they threaten criminal actions like that on the basis that it might be true. But if you disagree with something, that it might be false. Who are you to disagree with that? That's for debate, especially when we're talking about science like COVID. We're talking about science. It needs to always be about debate. It needs to always be about skepticism or it isn't science. Instead, what it is, is an authoritative, not authoritative, an authoritarian religion imposing their beliefs on other people. And that's exactly what these people want. So yeah, who said this? Well, I can't really say.

Give me some examples. Well, I can't really say about that. You mean the BBC? You changed your COVID? You mean the BBC hasn't changed what it says about COVID and vaccines and masks? They've changed everything. Multiple times. I'm asking you for one example.

You can't give me a single one. I say, sir, that you don't know what you're talking about. You can't give me a single example of hateful content. Not even one example. You can't give me a single one. I say, sir, that you don't know what you're talking about. You can't give me a single example of hateful content, not even one tweet. Yet you claimed that hateful content was high. That is false. You just lied. Good for him. Does the BBC hold itself at all responsible for misinformation regarding masking, side effects of vaccinations, and for not reporting on that at all? And what about the fact the BBC was put under pressure by the British government to change its editorial policy? Again, perfect. And the fact is, and the guy says, oh, well, now I see why you put it on Spaces, you know, because that kind of stuff

did not make the BBC cut. And that's why I had it without the picture of the guys, because Spaces is audio only. So here's some of the other things that they talked about. For the most part, what they wanted to do was they wanted to attack Elon Musk for buying it. They wanted to attack him on the basis of profits and losing money and losing advertisers, on the basis of him laying

staff off, staff that weren't doing anything, staff that were doing the wrong thing, staff that were deputized agents of the state to censor. They were doing the censorship for the government and then pretending that it was coming from them. It's what they wanted to do. Oh, come on. You can't fire the little Twitter goblins. Where are they going to go?

Well, you know, when you talk about doing stuff for the state, an obvious example of Twitter getting worse under Elon Musk, we just had it in India. You had somebody who said something that the Indian government didn't like. And what they did was they contacted Twitter, and Twitter banned him, not in India, which is what would have happened with the shills that were there on Twitter before. No, they banned him worldwide.

Worldwide, not just in a region. And so that's an example of how it hasn't changed except to get worse. But on buying Twitter, he said it's not been boring. It's been quite a roller coaster. It's been really quite a stressful situation. On laying off staff, he said, I wouldn't say that it was uncaring. If the whole ship sinks, then nobody's got a job.

Yeah. Of course, they can't understand that at the BBC because it would never sink. Even when the government and society is going down the toilet, they'll still have the BBC and NPR and all the rest of these people out there to control what you think because free speech is fundamental. Many people have said that the Second is that the First Amendment, if it actually is followed, keeps you from having to use the Second Amendment against an aggressive government. If you don't have the First Amendment, you're going to have an authoritarian dictatorship. That's why it was the First Amendment, by the way.

The first cause of America's founding was freedom of religion. And they had suffered under censorship and star chambers and all the rest of this stuff. They made that the number one priority when they put in the Bill of Rights. On profits, he said, well, we could be profitable, or to be more precise, cash flow positive this quarter if things keep going well. I think almost all the advertisers that come back or said they're going to come back again that was the kind of stuff the bbc wanted to talk about uh they asked him about his controversial tweets he says have i shot myself in the foot with tweets multiple times yes so what who hasn't right uh this guy just shot himself uh in the head multiple times on spaces on Twitter. I don't know if he's ever going to get over that.

He's going to be trying to make apologies for that the rest of his career. Maybe he should find a different job. As a matter of fact, I'm sure the government would give him a ministerial position on labeling the BBC as government funded media. He said, we're adjusting the label to publicly funded. If we use the same words that the BBC uses to describe itself, then presumably that would be okay. And of course, the same thing

is true of NPR. It's so funny that the BBC and NPR are so prickly about being identified as government mouthpieces. They are. NPR quit Twitter after being labeled state-affiliated media. Because state-affiliated media is the same term it uses for propaganda outlets in Russia, China, and other autocratic countries. And yet NPR is state-affiliated. NPR is propaganda. 50 years ago, when I was going to USF, they had WSF was a radio station there. And I started listening to it because you could get classical music, and they were playing classical.

This is the way they would draw people in. And then they would do their news at the top of the hour, and then they started doing news programs in the morning and news programs in the afternoon. And then there was more and more talk and more and more news and less and less classical music. And I called it National Propaganda Radio. That's what it was. I called it that 50 years ago.

There is no doubt that NPR is nothing other than a government propaganda outlet. And it always has been. And it's always been one partisan side of the government as well. So that's absolutely true. They hate the fact that they are identifying that. Even the BBC, which everybody knows is government funded. People have to pay a tax. If you have a television set, you get a direct tax that you have to pay to support the bbc matter of fact tony rook whose father was

a police officer was very upset and yeah i forget what tony did but um you know his father had been a police officer was retired they knew a lot of police officers he's very upset about the lies of 9-11 and the role of the bbc that. You know, we had the reporter talking about Building 7 having fallen 20 minutes before it was taken down, and the building was still over the reporter's shoulder, that you could see it. And so he said, well, obviously they knew in advance that it was going to be taken down.

That was 20 minutes before it was taken down. So that means the BBC was complicit in some way, had foreknowledge in some way. That means the BBC is literally a terrorist organization and I should not have to pay that tax to the BBC. And he had a website called Killing Ante because that was the nickname for the BBC, Ante. And he also did a documentary where he presented the evidence

that the BBC and the other media did not want to present. He got together a jury, if you will, of retired police officers and judges. Because, again, his dad had been a police officer. So he got them together and said, we're going to have a trial. I'm going to present evidence to you. He filmed it as a documentary. It was called Incontrovertible. And so he showed them what the other people did,

and they agreed with him that it was an inside job. So when he did this to NPR, Elon Musk said, NPR literally said, quote, federal funding is essential to public radio, unquote, on their own website. And that has now been taken down, he says. What hypocrites. What hypocrites. They said, we will no longer be using Twitter. It will no longer post fresh content to its 52 official Twitter feeds. Wow. Must be nice to have that kind of staff to push your disinformation.

We'll be right back. The Common Man. They created Common Core to dumb down our children. They created common past to track and control us. Their commons project to make sure the commoners own nothing. And the communist future. They see the common man as simple, unsophisticated, ordinary. But each of us has worth and dignity created in the image of God. That is what we have in common. That is what they want to take away.

Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation. They desire to know everything about us while they hide everything from us. It's time to turn that around and expose what they want to hide. Please share the information and links you'll find at thedavidknightshow.com. Thank you for listening. Thank you for sharing. If you can't support us financially, please keep us in your prayers. TheDavidKnightShow.com Well, on Tuesday night, I saw these things yesterday after the show. On Tuesday night, Tucker Carlson, entire show, was a live interview that he had with Donald Trump. And so I want to talk about some of the things that came up, and that's some of the people's reactions to that, my reaction to it. American Thinker, which is, you know, the writers

there at American Thinker, they are big Trump fans. They love Trump, hardcore. And Trump's interview with Tucker Carlson had some fascinating revelations. These people who love Trump so much said he looked unchanged. Yeah, that aged a bit. I'd say that's true. His communication style hasn't changed either. It is discursive and repetitive. And you will hear that. He harps over and over again about how all the people there at the arraignment were crying as they were booking him.

And he repeats that for about two minutes. I shortened it up. So I'm going to play that clip for you. Pretty amazing. But it was also insightful, they said, showing his intelligence, his humanism, and his ego. Well, one out of three ain't bad. His was on display i didn't see any intelligence or humanism quite frankly uh at the mundane personal level was trump's observation that his arrest was in its own way a moving and uplifting experience thanks to the warmth that he received from everyday new york citizens who dealt with him during the booking process. Do you really think that was what was happening? As a matter of fact, Michael Lissakoff says Trump's tale of crying Manhattan court employees was, quote, absolute BS, unquote, says a law enforcement source. Now, again, this is somebody off the record.

But, of course, you're not going to get anybody on the record to say anything like that. So I can understand that they would remain anonymous. It's not always a disqualifying thing when you have an anonymous source. However, has anybody come forward to say, yes, I was weeping for Donald Trump? The New York court employees were crying and apologizing for his arraignment on felony charges. Says that is absolute BS and it doesn't even remotely resemble what took place at a law enforcement source. Familiar with the details of what happened that day. Zero, said the source, when we asked how much truth there was in Trump's colorful account, there were zero people

crying. There were zero people crying. There were zero people saying, I'm sorry. And yet he repeats this over and over again. Here's what he has to say about this to Tucker. And Tucker never questions anything that Trump has to say throughout this entire program of a live interview. They were incredible. When I went to the courthouse, which is also a prison in a sense. They took me to prison. Yeah. Signed me in. And I'll tell you, people were crying. People that work there, professionally work there, that have no problems putting in murderers and they see everybody. It's tough, tough place. And they were crying. They were actually crying. They said, I'm sorry. They'd say 2024, sir, 2024.

And tears are pouring down their eyes. I've never seen anything like that. Those people are phenomenal. Those are your police. Those are the people that work at the courthouse. They're unbelievable people. Many of them were in tears or close to it. Many apologists were sorry, sir.

He's close to tears, yes. Had me do certain things. I said, sir, I can't believe I have to ask you. I can't even believe that I have to ask you to do it. You could see. So in one sense, it was beautiful because they get it. And in another sense, you know, it's nasty. I went to the school of finance. They didn't teach me about that. wasn't that wasn't that wasn't we didn't have a class on arraignment

like i said at the time uh it's a stormy with 100 chance of arraignment uh but yeah maybe they were crying because they were laughing so hard like stan oral there every time i see that it cracks me up. I watched that several times yesterday, putting that thing together and looking for clips, and nobody could do that like him. At his funeral, Buster Keaton was there, and he said, I wasn't the funny person. He said, Charlie Chaplin wasn't the funny person.

Stan Laurel was the funny person. And, of course, he'd never heard President Trump speak. Get me an handkerchief. I'm going to cry. Anyway, the former president, looking glum, said during the booking, as did Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's deputies who were there with him throughout the process, the source said, the only hiccup came when his fingers were too dry for his fingerprinting, at which point the district attorney employee provided lotion for his fingers. Carlson's friendly interview with Trump, says Michael Isikoff, was especially ironic given its timing. It comes on the eve of a trial slated to begin next Monday in Delaware, in which Carlson,

along with fellow host Sean Hannity and multiple Fox executives, are slated to be witnesses in a $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit brought by Dominion Voting Systems. The suit, as part of the discovery. The suit has brought to light multiple internal emails and texts by Carlson in which he expressed his private contempt for Trump. Carlson said on January the 4th, 2021, two days before the big event, I hate him passionately, said Carlson.

We are very, very close to being able to ignore Trump most nights. You know, it's interesting when I criticize Trump up to, including on January the 6th after january the 6th i had people angry supporters of his uh people who are no longer going to be my supporters i told travis that when i showed him this thing last night i said i think i got too many people watching my program i'm going to cut some of them off by standing stan laurel laughing at the absurd statements of donald trump, all the police officers were in tears. We're so sorry we have to do this to you. It was a prison.

It was a literal prison. They took me to a prison. It's a courtroom. They didn't put him in handcuffs. He wanted it so badly. Anyway, these people, these angry supporters. I just had another one last week. Took the time to write me a long letter telling me how I had Trump derangement syndrome.

I said, look, if you people think Trump is finished, you're the ones with derangement syndrome. I said that in January of 2021. Not because I believed any of these sham false prophets like Julie Green. He's coming back second coming of trump he's going to be resurrected and all the rest of this stuff he's still the president he's going to be the president god's going to put him in all of that stuff steve pachinik all the rest of these people no no it wasn't because of that i i disagreed i said uh look, he's not done. And you yourselves are the evidence of that.

You so desperately need him in your life. All of your hope is in Donald Trump. How pathetic and how predictable that he is going to remain there. Rumble. Thank you for the tip on Rumble. Conservative thinker, the solution to hateful speech is not more hateful speech. Well, the solution to speech is to debate it. And if you say there's not going to be any debate,

and if you say, well, what you have is hateful, what you have is false, who are you to say that? Noam Chomsky, who was Jewish, said that about the anti-Semites What you have is hateful. What you have is false. Who are you to say that, right? Noam Chomsky, who was Jewish, said that about, you know, the anti-Semites who were pushing against Holocaust or whatever. He said, look, he says, you know, he says, I'm Jewish. I believe in this. I think he said he had family members that were in it. But he goes, the free speech is too important.

Throw it away over something like this. If it's truth, you don't have to run from it. Look, I don't have to censor somebody who says things that are false about God. The truth doesn't need to be defended. The truth needs to be unleashed. And the only way that you can unleash the truth is an environment where you have freedom. And that means that lies are going to be put out there. Hateful things are going to be put out there.

Racist things are going to be put out there. I don't care. That's the nature of freedom. And you don't need to, you know, unscientific things are going to be put out there. But of course, unscientific things, as we have seen, are going to be put out there when you've got gatekeepers and you've got people who are guarding us from all of that. Anyway, Carlson said, I hate him passionately.

We're very close to being able to ignore Trump most nights. Well, guess what? He was wrong about that. I knew he was wrong about that because of his audience. His audience, that's their only hope. These people need to focus on their lives. They need to take a look at what is happening. They need to get a relationship with God.

They need a longer perspective. They need to understand who the real savior is and who is not your savior. They need to understand that Trump is in this for himself and for his ego. Anyway, so yeah, it's the, he went on to say in other exchanges carlson privately called the claims of trump's lawyer sydney powell about vote flipping by a dominion he called that insane and absurd i don't think it's insane insane and absurd either i was saying years before the 2020 election that we got to get rid of these election machines because they're too easily hacked. You can always and always have

had situations where people can stuff ballots if they're paper ballots. Sure. They can, you know, play games with the mechanical voting machines. Yes. But as we go to, especially go to electronic machines, it gets easier and easier. The question is, and this is always the case, there is no such thing as perfection. We're never going to have a perfectly honest election, but we can have a perfectly dishonest election, as we saw in 2020. Instead of doing something to make the election more secure, paper ballots, instead we had ballot harvesting and other things like that. And Trump and the Republicans don't care about that. They think they can do a better job of that in the future, rigging the election than the Democrats. And that's why we had the voting machines, because the Republicans believed

that they could do a better job of rigging the voting machines, and maybe they were right. I said in 2016, I said the next election is going to be a hacking contest if we don't get rid of voting machines. And the people who are in cybersecurity have illustrated this over and over again for decades, how easy it is to manipulate elections. And it's not a theory. We've had, you know, these voting machine companies, the same ones are being talked about here, have been at the center of investigations in one country after the other. In Brazil, in Mexico, multiple areas of Mexico, in the Philippines, these same voting machine companies have been accused of rigging the election, credibly accused of rigging the election. So I don't think that it

was insane or absurd to think that these voting machines could have been flipped, hacked. Everything can be hacked. The Pentagon has been hacked. The CIA has been hacked. Vault 7 is examples of that. So we know that's not a theory. It's happened over and over again. But what was not being done and what was insane and what was absurd is that with all the money that was being given to Trump, the first $8,000 that anybody gave was kept by Donald Trump and the Republican Party. They split it between themselves, the RNC and Trump. And then if you gave $8,001, they would spend $1 on contesting the election.

But where did they contest it? They contested it in court. They didn't contest it in the state legislatures. What you really needed to do was there are multiple places they could have switched it if they would have made the case and convinced Republican majority legislatures, they could have sent a different slate of electors. For a group of people put together by the party, say these are our electors and they say Trump won. That has absolutely no weight at all. The electors have to be sent by the party, recognized by some state official.

In order to do that, they needed to make their case not to the courts, which was obvious from the very beginning. They, they needed to make their case not to the courts, which was obvious from the very beginning. They were not going to hear the case. This was not going to be a repeat of 2000, where they had the hanging chad stuff and everything in Florida. Not going to be a repeat of that at all. That was immediately obvious. But there was a path there. If you could convince the Republican legislatures, four states, razor-thin margin, and they had Republican legislatures. Two of them had Democrat governors, but two of them even had Republican governors.

If you wanted to make the case, go there and then send a different slate of electors. That would get you into court. That would get you a hearing, but they didn't do that. So anyway, going back to this, Carlson never challenged or pushed back on anything that Trump said, including a very unusual exchange about Biden administration's failure to rescue German shepherds from Afghanistan. The dogs. They didn't have any German shepherds there. They were all Afghan shepherds. And they were growing opioids with the help of the military for decades.

Anyway, he said, they left everything, said Trump. They left in the dark of the night. They left the lights on. They left the dogs, by the way. What? Carlson says, they left the dogs? They left the dogs, Trump responded. You know, the dog lovers, and you, there are a lot of them. I love

dogs. You love dogs. One of the first questions I got was, what did they do with the dogs? Have you ever heard anybody ask about that? By the way, isn't it odd? And I've said this before. I said, when I talk about Trump and his personality, I said, he's a man completely devoid of loyalty completely devoid of character completely devoid of compassion and empathy why is it that politicians pose with dogs you know every president pretty much since the early 20th century has always had a dog whether they like them or not you know they pretend to like a dog you know you want to meet a girl take a dog to the park you know know. It makes you look friendly. They'll come over to see the dog, got a chance to talk. But the politicians always

do that. Except for Trump. He stood out as an exception. The only president since the early 20th century that hasn't had a dog. He doesn't like dogs. He doesn't even care to pretend that he likes dogs. Why? Because his people love him so much. So he says, one of the first questions I got from people was, what did they do with the dogs? Mostly German shepherds. They left them.

The way they got out was so horrible. We would have gotten out with strength and dignity. Except that you didn't get out. You were there for four years. You could have gotten out with strength and dignity. You could have gotten out of the country before you were thrown out. You could have gotten out of the country without doing it like a Chinese fire drill. Yes, you could have done it, Donald, but you didn't do it.

Don't complain about things that you had a chance to do something about and didn't do it. Don't complain about things that you had a chance to do something about and didn't do it. Anyway, he doesn't even have dogs for, as a matter of fact, as they point out in this article, Michael Isikoff says, that his ex-wife, the one with the First Wives Club, Ivana, in her memoir, Raising Trump. I think it's unfinished business.

I think he still needs to be trained. Maybe housebroken even. I don't know. In her memoir, Raising Trump, the former president, the former wife of the president, Ivana Trump, said Trump often expressed hostility to her poodle, Chappie. Well, there you go. Here's the rest of what he had to say about

Afghanistan. These are idiots we're dealing with. They left $85 billion worth of equipment. They left our American citizens behind. And they moved the military at first. No, you moved the military at last. I did a little skit with a five year old kid. I said, let me ask you, here's the situation. I explained the situation. I said, would you take the military out first or would you take it out last?

I take it out last five year old. But they took the military out first and they were afraid of our military when i was there they were afraid we didn't have one soldier killed in 18 months second not one soldier was killed in 18 months and then we got out like we surrendered i think it was the single most embarrassing day in the history of our country you know why trump asked that question of a five-year-old kid if he in fact actually did he had to ask a five-year-old kid if he in fact actually did? He had to ask a five-year-old kid because anybody else would have said, why didn't you do it five years ago? That kid was born yesterday.

But yeah, you had five years to do it, Trump. You didn't do it. Yeah, you're right. It's a big problem. You see, that's why I say when you're a candidate, all you have to do is identify the problem. If you are running for reelection as somebody who's been there and done that, you have to show that you can do the job. He showed that he wouldn't do the job except when the job was to take America down, to lock us down in a globalist scheme, a scheme that had been concocted 20 years earlier and practiced every year for 20 years by people like Fauci and the CIA and their germ games.

He was perfectly capable of doing that. That is far greater than any failing in Afghanistan. And of course, the failing in Afghanistan was exactly what he had done as well. So Trump is also taking heat from some conservatives because he said nice things about Governor Newsom. And he said, I can't really criticize Newsom because he said some nice things about me. Oh, really? You can't criticize this guy? But you can criticize DeSantis because he's your competition. He says, uh, uh, Trump said that, uh, he could never hit quote unquote, never hit Newsom because the liberal Democrat was so nice to me. Quote unquote, see, it's always about him.

It's exactly what Ty Cobb, his former lawyer said said. Trump is incapable of acting, right? He can't hit at anybody unless it is in his perceived self-interest or out of revenge. Right now, it's not in his perceived self-interest to hit on Newsom, and he's got nothing that he needs to take revenge on Newsom right now. The two of them were partners in this lockdown. I've said that so long. I can believe that Newsom said good things about Trump because Trump saved Newsom.

Newsom had spent California into a deep, deep hole. And of course, the states can't just print money like the federal government does. And so he needed the money. So the federal government printed the money for him with all the lockdowns and everything. He wound up even with a lavishly handing out money during the lockdown and everything. He went from a deficit of tens of billions of dollars to nearly a, I think it was about $70 billion as a surplus because of the massive amount of money that Trump threw around. He bribed the governors to lock you down. He bribed the governors to steal your business, your small business, your blood, sweat, and tears that you invested in your small business. He bribed the governors to kill Main Street, to kill small business jobs, to tell you you can't

go to school, you can't go to church, you can't travel, and all the rest of this stuff. And then he lied to you, still lying to you about, oh, I saved lives. And it would have been like the 1918 flu and all the rest of this stuff, right? And my vaccine saved lives. He said, I used to get along great with Gavin when I was president. Got along really good with Gavin. Carlson says, you got along with Gavin Newsom? I did.

I really did. He was always very nice to me said greatest things he would say things like he's doing a great job about you said carlson see that's the only thing he can do you know carlson because all of this stuff and this is one of the reasons why he and fox news were doing this interview with Trump because a lawsuit is coming out and because all this dirty laundry about what he really thinks in private I know we now know what Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson think in private I know what Alex Jones and Roger Stone think in private too let me tell you I can't repeat it I can't repeat the language here right about Trump I'm seeing the hypocrisy and can't repeat the language here, right? About Trump. I've seen the hypocrisy and the play acting, the sycophants for their money, their grifting.

I've seen it till I want to throw up. Throw up if you saw this stuff. You've gotten glimpses of it. Some of the stuff has been released occasionally of what they do. And so he says, about you? And he says, yeah, about me. That's why I could never hit him, because he's been so nice to me.

And so he says, but he was very nice to me, very nice to me. Again, repeating. It's all about his narcissism. And that's what one person said, Kurt Schlichter. He said, I'm really disappointed in Trump over his kissing up to Gavin Newsom. This leftist monster is A-OK because he's been nice to Trump. Conservative DeSantis is awful because he's not been nice lately.

Yeah, well, you know, Kurt, Trump is a globalist, you know. Klaus Schwab was nice to him and uh you know did everything that he wanted that klaus wanted yeah nothing matters to him but his ego and um you know the other thing is when you look at this it's the guy pathological liar when he's talking about people crying or does he really believe that everybody loves him as much as he loves himself? I mean, he's probably, he's getting booked there and everything is like,

look at these people. I can just tell that inside they're crying inside. They want me in 2024. I just know it. I can, I can read it in their minds. I mean, I really,

that might be it. Yeah. Gavin Newsom has pushed some of the most radical policies in the U.S., including hundreds of billions in reparations, said Chronicles Magazine editor Pedro Gonzalez. And Trump just said he could never hit him because Trump was so nice to me. Trump can't fight the left because he identifies more with the left than not. Well, it's not even that. It's not about, with Trump, it's not about left and right, it's not even that. It's not about, with Trump, it's not about left and right. He doesn't really care. It's not about issues. It's not about policies. It's about him winning. You see, you know, nothing matters except for him to win.

He doesn't care what happens to America. He doesn't care about what happens to any of us. He doesn't care about what happens to the Constitution or the Second Amendment, right? It's just when he gets everybody together around the table, about what happens to any of us. He doesn't care about what happens to the Constitution or the Second Amendment. It's just when he gets everybody together around the table, will you like me if I ban guns? Okay, well, we'll ban guns. That's fine. How about that?

Yeah. I'll work with the NRA on this. I'll make them like me too. This interview summed it up perfectly, said John Cardillo. He said, all anyone has to do is flatter Trump and they can get away with whatever they want. And the converse is also true, right? You can get away with whatever you want.

You can have a successful media organization if you suck up to Trump because his crowd wants you too as well. Uh, so the, and to give you an idea of how delusional these people are, the Trump war room tweeted out. Some people are so D separate. They were like DeSantis. They put it like the separate desperate to stop our movement that they think deceptively editing a clip from last night's interview will help them wrong. It's not deceptively edited. All of the pro DeSantis influencers claiming that Trump refused to attack Gavin were knowingly lying again.

So sad said junior Trump. Yeah. So I guess, I don't know what, you know, junior is now shacking up with, uh, Gavin's ex-girlfriend ex shacker upper. Um, so, you know, it's a club, it's a club. They're all in this club. You're not in it. You know, Epstein was in it. Gavin's ex-girlfriend, ex-shackle-upper. It's a club. It's a club. They're all in this club.

You're not in it. Epstein was in it. Gavin Newsom. Kimberly Guilfoyle. Donald Trump. Donald Trump Jr. Melania. It's a club.

They're all in it. It's like a sex club. It's a globalist club. You're not in that club. Praise God you're not in that club. You don't want to be in that club. So the only thing that matters to him on that club uh so the only thing matters to him is that he wins you see and that's the whole definition of what 4d chess was about that alex kept telling everybody the only important thing is that trump wins it doesn't matter what happens

to you it doesn't matter what happens to the country it doesn't matter what happens to your business your education your freedoms the constitution none of that matters we got to have trump winning that's the only thing that matters. Trump's got to win. And so now, like I said, he's incapable of acting except out of revenge, self-interest, perceived self-interest. He's now suing Michael Cohen with a lawsuit for half a billion dollars, $500 million lawsuit.

32-page complaint that takes aim at his book, his podcast, his many media appearances. And, um, it essentially reads like a long press release of all the wonderful things that Michael Cohen said about him and then the bad, you know, things that he has done to him. Now he's violated the nondisclosure agreement uh says he violated the attorney-client privileges and things like that um you know he was um charged with crimes that involved that attorney-client privilege i don't know you know but i mean again not not defending michael cohen of all things

every time i look at michael cohen i think of that quote from, um, breaking bad, you know, where Jesse tells, uh, Eisenberg, no, man, you need a criminal lawyer because this guy's not very good. No, no. I mean, a criminal lawyer has got no boundaries. It doesn't care about the law. That's what you need. And that's what, uh, Trump used for a long time. Michael Cohen. There's no honor among thieves, evidently, on either side of this. The suit alleges that Cohen regularly revealed information that was deemed confidential by the nature of their attorney-client relationship. He sued him for, again, $500 million. And then he tacked on an additional $74,000 over a reimbursement the president argued that Cohen wasn't entitled to.

He said he'd loaded up on the reimbursements to sneakily increase his compensation. And that reimbursement in question was part of the 11 monthly checks that Trump wrote to Cohen after the cover-up of the Pornstar affairs, each of which now corresponds to a felony charge in Trump's criminal case. But again, it reads kind of like a press release form. So it's $500,074,000 lawsuit. Chris Christie was dumping on Trump as usual. And what he said, I think there's a lot of truth about this aspect of it, just the horse race aspect of it. He said, the only Republican that Biden can beat is Trump.

And why would he say that? Well, he's got a different reason than I do. I look at it and I say, well, you know, it's never enough to have just the GOP base. And elections aren't won by the intensity of the support that people have. And let's just assume that it's going to be a legitimate account. I don't think that elections is presidential elections anymore. I don't think they even matter. Who is counting the vote? Who's manipulating the vote? They've got so far removed from this stuff, with voting machines being hackable,

and the ballot harvesting, and the vote by mail, mail-out ballots to everybody, and all the rest of this stuff. It's a joke. It's a joke. Let's just assume that it was honest. You're going to have to have more than just a GOP base. You're going to have to have a lot of people come from the independents, and you're probably going to have to have a few Democrats as well. Are any of those people, would they give Trump a chance again? I don't think so. I think that's why we have seen what we saw in these midterm

elections. He's been kind of box office poison. You know, what we heard a lot was what Julian Assange said in the 2016 election. He said, we know that Hillary Clinton is a criminal. You know, what we heard a lot was what Julian Assange said in the 2016 election. He said, we know that Hillary Clinton is a criminal. We know she's a warmonger, many other things like that. But he says, we don't know that about Trump. I'm not saying he's a good guy, but we'll give him a chance. And that's the thing. When somebody runs for the first time, all right, well, we'll give them a try. And I think that's the dimension that is there with pretty much all the rest of these Republican candidates. But the reason Christie said it was he was talking about what Trump said

after the arraignment. He said, it sounded to me like a guy that you'd encounter at a bar that you wind up sitting next to and he's griping to you about his bad divorce. That's what it sounded like to me. I don't think most elections, in my experience, are won on the past. They are won or lost on the future. And that's going to be his problem when the primary comes, because a smart primary candidate will be talking about the future and ignoring Trump, except for when he pops up. That has been said about Hillary Clinton. And I think it was true when she said, you know, her slogan was, I'm with her. It was about her. What is Trump about?

Trump is about Trump. He's another egomaniac narcissist, just like Hillary Clinton at this point. And we've seen that's what he's about. And, you know, when Trump ran the first time, his slogan was make America great again versus I'm with her. You had a narcissist, self-aggrandizing politician wants your support. And on the other hand, you have somebody who says, you know, America is busted and we need to do some of these things here to fix it. That's the kind of candidate that could win. And nobody's, you know,

Trump is not going to be able to make that case. Biden is not going to be able to make that case. If you had a Republican who was, uh, who had not been president, uh, you could possibly make that case. Uh, and then of course he talked about his horrible records, uh, with the midterm elections and, um, his track record that is there. And you go back and look at that track record. It's not just, you know, the Hill goes out and talks to a bunch of establishment Republicans like Thune and Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell, all this kind of stuff. But forget about that.

Just take a look at the record in the last election. Key states, Arizona, Georgia, Ohio, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania. The candidates, only candidate that he picked that one was JD Vance and he turned the Senate over to the Democrats, they actually wound up with more people because of that. And it was typical that he would do things like throw genuine candidates under the bus as he did in pennsylvania you had one candidate uh kathy barnett and she called out what was the guy's name mccormick or something the you know the multi-millionaire called him out called out dr oz said they're davos globalists and everything. Well, Trump didn't endorse her. He picked one of the two Davos globalists

because he himself is a Davos globalist. We're going to take a quick break and we'll be right back. Thank you. You're listening to the david knight show all right welcome back uh let's do talk about cbdc i saw this comment during the break here on rock fan uh duluth hap thank you for the tip on rock morning dave we love you all in northern min is all well with Tony and wisewolf.gold I haven't seen a new video since March just checking in on our boy making sure all is well uh thanks night of our table thank you so much and uh Thursday is uh been a day that we typically get Tony on he's not going to be on today because he's so busy I mean everybody because of what's happened with gold and what is happening with the economy um um, you know, he is unbelievably busy and he's on the road.

And so he is not going to be on today either, but we did have him on last week. I believe we had on Tony, didn't we? Um, but, um, uh, so, you know, he's, he's been extremely busy, but, um, uh, everything is still good with Tony and, um, you know, you can find him with davidknight.gold. That'll take you to wisewolf.gold. And, again, he's very, very busy. And this is why. Let's talk a little bit about what is happening.

We know that you're seeing these different alliances, the petrodollar, the alliance based on, you know, Saudi Arabia and others supporting the U.S. dollar saying we're only going to trade energy, which is what oil is. We're going to trade energy in the dollar and only in the dollar. That was part of Henry Kissinger's presidency and his front man, Richard Nixon. They put in the petrodollar agreement as they completely destroyed the gold standard, Bretton Woods II. And so that has been there. That is falling apart because the Chinese are making peace everywhere. They are bringing together these warring factions in the Middle East.

And they are also bringing in Russia as well. Take a look at this video. This is Russia and China. Because I hope everybody is paying attention. It's a very solemn ceremony here. And this is going to be Xi and Putin meeting together in China. And a very formal ceremony here. And you're going to see Xi and Putin on stage.

And this is a very visible picture of the eradication of the American dollar because of our weaponization and our foreign policy. There's Xi, and there's Putin. Russia and China. That is what Biden's weaponized foreign policy has gotten us. They've used our reserve currency status as a weapon. And there's a she putting a gold chain around Putin's neck. There you go. So, yeah, they're all about the gold, aren't they? anyway um if it was uh if it was uh biden it would probably be a necklace of excrement because

that's basically uh some kind of a toilet seat or something that's what biden has been putting on everybody else's neck and the people in europe are tired of it uh they're tired of the austerity the people in europe are tired of the austerity the The people in Europe are tired of the austerity. The leaders in Europe are even pushing back against this. The article from Health Impact News, Rothschilds send the French President Macron to China in an attempt to save Europe as the U.S. Rockefeller empire panics. Macron's recent trip to China because he went there as well. Putin goes to China. Macron goes to China. And you've got high-ranking officials in Europe say, yeah, he's right. We've got to decouple ourselves from America.

They become too dangerous, too suicidal, too authoritarian and dictatorial in their relationships with everybody. Who do they think they are? Well, they think they're emperors. That's who they think they are? Well, they think they're emperors. That's who they think they are. I think the Biden administration and most of these people in Washington have crossed the Rubicon a long time ago. And they're not Augustus. They're more like Caligula. And they're going to become more like Domitian in the near future, I think.

So Macron's recent trip to China has sent shockwaves throughout the Western world, especially after he stated that Europe needs to stop being, quote, America's followers. And he says that specifically about we don't want to get involved in the conflict with Taiwan. And so to underscore that, that NATO does not want to get into a war with China, as well as a war with Russia dictated by the American empire. It goes to China with that. Macron's visit included assigning a new agreement between the two countries, which has received very little attention in the Western media. Macron's subsequent visit to the Netherlands, where he delivered a speech at the Hague,

outlined a new plan for Europe. Let me tell you what that plan is. That is a globalist plan. These guys are not pursuing France's interest. They're not even pursuing Europe's interest. They're pursuing a globalist plan, and so is China. It's just that China is going to be the director of this new globalist plan, replacing America.

And the very fact that he's going to the Netherlands, whereas you heard in the interview yesterday that we had with Michael Yan, a great interview, Michael Yan talking about what's going on in the Netherlands. And now they're literally unleashing wolves in areas where there never were any wild wolves. We've seen that, and we had a listener talk about how that was happening in areas where they lived. They released gray wolves in areas where they used to be indigenous in the United States, and that's been damaging enough.

But in the Netherlands, they released them where they didn't even have them before. And then, of course, taking the farmer's land, trying to starve us of food and push the people into big cities. Netherlands standing out. That's tiny country. Number two in food exports behind only the United States. Unbelievably fertile. And they want to destroy it.

The plan that Michael Yan was talking about, the three cities. I've mentioned that in the past as well. Massive mega city, part of the smart city control prison cities. That's what this is all about. And so Macron is not a good guy. He's not for the people. He's not for France. It's part of a globalist agenda. And his visits to China and Netherlands show that. But everybody is, you know, the U.S. wants a globalist empire, but they want to be the first in that, and the Chinese want to be the first in it. Europe's banks are failing, says Health Impact News.

The Rothschilds' banking empire is centered in France and London. Macron is their hand-picked man, a former banking executive for the Rothschilds who became president of France without having had any prior elected political office. Again, he worked for the Rothschild banks. That was his whole career, and they just put him straight in. Very much like Mario Draghi, Goldman Sachs banker. They had economic issues going back about a decade or so ago, and they just overthrew the election.

Remember, that's one of the first times I ever saw Nigel Farage got up in the European Parliament, said, who are you to overthrow and to kick out the democratically elected leader of Greece and or Italy, right? They did it to both Greece and Italy. And then to put in a Goldman Sachs banker in their place. Well, that's what happened in France. You got a Rothschild banker put in place. So the real reason for the war in Ukraine, says Brian at Health Impact News, he said, I reported on this back in September 2022,

when a Swedish newspaper published what it claimed was an internal leaked document from the U.S. military think tank RAND Corporation, published in 2022, January 2022, about a month before Russia invaded Ukraine. The research report stated that a weakened Germany and a weakened Europe would strengthen the U.S. economy by having them get involved in sanctions against Russia as a result of the Ukraine conflict, which would cut off their energy supplies and collapse their economy. And this has truly been American policy. Macron, again, is their hand-picked guy at the Rothschilds.

That's his only experience that he had there. Quite a few European Union leaders agree with Macron on getting away from the U.S., said the president of the European Council, Charles Michel. So he said, as Macron said, we don't want to be caught up in crises that are not ours. We want to pursue strategic autonomy, and we do not want to get involved in this Chinese-Taiwan conflict. So then the president of the European Council, Charles Michel, says some European leaders wouldn't say things the same way that Emmanuel Macron did, but I think quite a few really think like Emmanuel Macron.

Michel, who made the remarks in an interview with a French television program, noted, quote, there has been a leap forward on strategic autonomy compared to several years ago. And that is exactly what is happening, not just with Europe, but also with the oil producing countries. And let's understand that real economic growth is still dependent on petroleum, still dependent on natural gas. Oh, well, we can do just fine without it, can we? Can we? Is America's economy growing?

Is Europe's economy growing? No, they're throttling us. They're choking us out. They're not just destroying our farms. They're destroying our factories. In some cases, they're literally destroying the farms and factories, but they're destroying power generation. They're destroying refinery capability. They don't want us to own anything, to build anything, to go anywhere. And yet China is growing by leaps and bounds. India is growing by leaps and bounds. They are allowed to under the Paris Climate Accord.

So if you want to have a country that is thriving, prospering, and growing, you have to have energy. You have to have the energy that works around the clock, that is dependable. And that's why oil is still where power is. And that's the game that China is playing. It's amazing to me that in the dying moves of the American empire, that it can't even understand or take any action on its own

vital interests. And of course, that's by design. People like Biden are on the same page as those in Davos. They want to see America taken down, taken out of the way. If it were focused on the interests of the American people, it would be in opposition to them. And so, you know, just like they're coming in and trying to come after crypto or cash or anything else that is in their way when it comes to control, financial control, push everybody into a global CBDC.

In the same way, they've got to take out America and Europe because they could be in their way. And so when you look at how this is rapidly escalating, it's not just every single country that is at some stage of developing and introducing and rolling out CBDC, Nigeria, Bahamas with their sand dollar. They've already rolled out their CBDC, the central bank digital currency. It's failed primarily because if people look at it and say, well, if we're going to have electronic money, I want something that is honest and not manipulable. So I'm going to go with Bitcoin or some kind of cryptocurrency. And so as a result, they got to take cryptocurrency out. But they've all got a plan and they're all at some stage of it

in july they're going to roll out the wholesale bank to bank of fed now part of it but if you look at the way it's laid out by the atlantic over a year ago when they were looking at the current state of cbdc globally at a map and they showed where all the countries were. And they said, you know, it's a two-step process. You know, first you do the wholesale part of it where you have the central bank

interacting with the other banks and then tangentially interacting with people. People can send money like they do now with Zelle or Cash App or some of these other things. And it's not any new functionality, but you start using FedNow as a way to do that. And people can send money instantaneously, 24-7, 365. There's no holidays with any of that stuff. Never closes. Well, we already have that, but they're rolling that out as the first stage. And then the second stage is to go direct to the people of the country. But it's not just on a country by country basis.

You have the Bank of International Settlement, which is the central bank of the central banks. They have Project Icebreaker. And then when you look at the IMF, they have their own central bank digital currency. So the International Monetary Fund has something they call Unicoin. I'll never be able to say that without saying unicorn. I mean, it is this magical, fictional thing that is out there. So I think Unicorn would be a better name for the IMF coin. A global CBDC. But of course, Project Icebreaker is about that for the Bank of International Settlement.

You see, it's not just every country doing this. But these organizations that are above these non-governmental organizations as part of the financial system that are over and above these different nations, they're also working on it as well. The IMF's spring meeting this year saw the announcement of the organization's own quote international central bank digital currency. They see themselves as the international central bank. So it's the international CBDC. They call it the universal monetary unit. UMU.

U-MU? U-MU? Kind of like E-MU? Or Unicoin. Unicorn. IMF said that U-MU functions like a CBDC and is legal and global money commodity. The purpose of this particular iteration of CBDCs is to make sure that banking regulations are enforced, they said, as well as to protect the financial integrity of the international banking system.

We want to protect the established interests here. Against what? Well, against Bitcoin, of course, or gold. This currency will be used by banks via SWIFT codes and bank accounts linked to a UMMU digital wallet. Again, it's kind of the IMS version of FedNow, the wholesale side of this so fed now is rolling out in um in july it's already um you know uh really rolling out they've already started putting it out with the test banks i think in april and uh so it's rolling out now says, well, we're going to go further in the next stage. We're going to do that with the CBDC, the Euro CBDC. We're going to do that in the fall. And of course, the American government is doing that as well.

They've got a name for it. They call it FedCoin. So we've got FedCoin. We've got the UniCoin, which would be the global central bank digital currency. IMF officials are describing the current cross-border payment systems as slow, expensive, and risky. And they said that Umu's goal is not disruption of the international monetary system, but to strengthen it. So we don't want to get rid of this slow, expensive, risky thing that's going to destroy the planet's climate.

No, we want to keep that there. We love slow, expensive, risky things. Yeah, right. So they said the IMF is looking at rebranding the term crypto as well. They said, no, we're going to start talking about crypto 2.0. That's how the IMF will market Unicoin and CBDCs in general. So there's no question that they're going to get rid of crypto. They're even going to take crypto's name. They're going to shut it down and take its name and it'll be called crypto 2.0. That's my and many people's concerns about

this from the very beginning. You know, who created Bitcoin? Well, we don't really know. Is it simply training wheels to prepare us for the CBDCs? I've been saying this for a long time. But whether that was the intention or not, the intention, the stated intention of the IMF and all these globalist organizations is to completely eradicate crypto and to say, well, crypto is now going to be what we say it is. Crypto 2.0. Meanwhile, critics of CBDC are using strong words to express their opposition to the trend. Some calling it a path towards financial slavery. That is always a handy companion to political tyranny. CBDC is seen as a way of introducing social credit scores, digital IDs,

the end of privacy in terms of finances, and, of course, even more surveillance by authorities. That's it. That's all of it. But we do have, they may have their new coins. They've got Unicoin. Fed coin is coming and all the rest of this stuff. And all we can get in terms of physical stuff is a new coin that has Eleanor Roosevelt on it. This was sent to me by a listener.

And when I saw this, I thought, now I know they really are trying to scare people away from cash. Look at that picture. Now, the person who sent that to me. Yeah, my pride and joy, et cetera. The person who sent that to me, I'll pull it up here so you can see it said look at this they put biden's face on uh eleanor yeah you can't unsee that after somebody says that looks like biden's face on there um rock fin thank you eric appreciate that that's very kind appreciate that tip there I'm not just an anti-vaxxer I'm a

pandemic denier love the line from yesterday yeah I guess that I say that all the time I'm a climate denier pandemic denier and an anti-vaxxer cancel me go ahead cancel me I dare Fed, meanwhile, is now modeling the weather. And people are looking at this and they're like, what? They're burning down the economy. We've got inflation going up. They're caught between a rock and a hard place. What do we do?

Do we raise interest rates and crash the economy? Or do we go into hyperinflation? No, let's monitor the weather. Now, he doesn't understand why this is. He makes fun of it, and he should laugh at this, the fact that the Federal Reserve would be modeling the weather. Now he doesn't understand why this is. He makes fun of it and he should laugh at this. The fact that the federal reserve would be modeling the weather when they can't even stress test treasuries. They can't model the economy. They can't figure out what's going on with the banking industry, or maybe they can, maybe they're deliberately destroying it. But no,

the reason that they're modeling the weather is because, as I pointed out a year ago, March of 2022, Biden gave the CBDC project. Every bureaucracy had a task to do in one of four areas. Either going to redesign the financial system, going to design the code for this digital currency, or you're going to come up with enforcement measures, right? Your IRS and department treasurer, how are you going to take everything from everybody, take away their cash, push them into this thing, you know, carrots and sticks, and eventually,

you know, just beat them into this path. Or the fourth thing was climate. Climate. Why? Well, because they've got to get crypto out of the way. And that's what they're doing. Telling lies about it. We've got the New York Times. We've got even Children's Health Defense. Even as RFK Jr. is telling people the truth about CBDCs, you've got Children's Health Defense taking this radical environmentalist line saying, well, we just can't have computers that are doing a lot of processing. And the only ones that they want to look at are the ones that are doing Bitcoin mining.

They don't care about the artificial intelligence that's doing language learning models and all that. They don't care about their surveillance data, the storage of that, or scraping 30 billion faces off of Facebook so they can create a biometric database and then constantly surveilling everybody and comparing it. I mean, it isn't just the, you know, the surveillance state is not just building a database like artificial intelligence is. They're going in and they're constantly searching all of these 30 billion faces as well. None of that matters. It's only the computational power that is being used for

crypto mining that matters to these people. And so the Federal Reserve has got a pilot climate scenario risk analysis program. They announced the details of that on January the 17th. They said the six largest U.S. banks will analyze the impact of scenarios for both physical and transition risks related to climate change on specific assets in their portfolios. So you mean they're going to look at it and say, yeah, you know, we have these, we got some crypto, we got some Bitcoin in our portfolio, and I'm afraid that it's got climate risk. We're going to have to get rid of the climate risk on it. Isn't it interesting when you have ESG, environmental socialist government, which is what that's about.

That G just tells you that they're only customers of government. They only care what the government wants. They don't care what you want. This is why we're seeing all the stuff of Bud Light and Nike and everybody else. And we've been seeing it for the longest time, they're openly contemptuous of you because you're not important to their business model. And the only one that's important is the government when it comes to ESG. The exercise's goal of deepening understanding of climate risk management practices and building capacity to identify, to measure, to monitor, to manage climate-related financial risks. This is, again, why it was one of four areas that Biden had the federal government bureaucracies look at was climate

as part of the CBDC initiative. How to restructure the financial system, how to write the code, how to enforce it, and then climate is how you're going to sell it. And you're going to demonize your competition. The Wall Street Journal reported the Fed's climate studies are full of hot air. With all this effort, one might hope that the Fed would produce high-quality research on climate change. See, this is a person at the Wall Street Journal. They're going to continue to push the climate nonsense but um you know at the same time they mock them for not being able to or accurately uh come up

with anything to fix the economy as if that was their goal i've said for the longest time look the the goal why can't johnny reed everybody will say what's the matter we we're the schools aren't working the kids can't read they can't do math and all the say, what's the matter? The schools aren't working. The kids can't read. They can't do math and all the rest of the stuff. I said, you do understand that was the purpose, right? The purpose was to deliberately dumb down America. Charlotte Isabee, the title of her book. That was the purpose.

It was never about creating a population that could think independently. It was all about, you know, let's tailor them so they can be widgets in the corporate government machinery. We don't want any monkey wrenches in there where people start asking some uncomfortable questions. No, no, no. That's why we have to censor speech. Somebody might say something that is pushing back against our narrative,

and then we'll have to accuse them of being hateful and racist to get them out of there. So it was never about that. It was never about the Federal Reserve was not about fixing the economy and controlling the economy for our good. It was always about fixing and controlling things for their good. The Wall Street Journal says, I took a close look at two fed studies on the subject and I found a shockingly poor analysis. Are you kidding me? Well,

let me ask you a, this is David Barker at the wall street journal. Let me ask you, Mr. Barker, how many unicorns do you think can fit on the head of a pen? That's what we're talking about. This is unicorn science here.

Uh, it's absolute nonsense. These studies on the effect of temperature on U.S. and world economic growth are cited without a hint of skepticism and widely lavished with media attention, as are all of the government central narratives. They're all lavished with media attention, and there's never a hint of skepticism. As a matter of fact, if you're a skeptic, you get canceled. The hoot of the day is that the Fed cannot even model U.S. Treasuries. Its stress-free test would have failed to identify the imploded Silicon Valley bank as a problem. Oh, just like all the other stuff that we saw through the medical side of

this pandemic. Uh, and just like all the quote unquote climate science that we've seen, they can't predict what's going to happen. Their models don't work. That's what climate gate was all about. Well, if the CO2 goes up, the temperature is going to go up. Well, now we've had decades of these lies. We've had over 50 years of these lies. And we know they're lies. We know their models don't work. Yet for political reasons, the Fed is now attempting to stress test the weather. To get the desired results, the Fed study gave equal weight to St. Vincent, Rwanda, and Equatorial Guinea. they gave them the same weight as they did China and the United States.

Now, how are these tiny countries, St. Vincent, Rwanda, Equatorial Guinea, how are they going to have the same effect on climate as China and the United States? As a matter of fact, China is in a class by itself. Since we have transferred the ability to use and to refine energy, that is now an exclusive Chinese prerogative, increasingly so. They're in a class by themselves, and they're in a class above us. These other things are not even factors. And this is the absurdity of their model. It's just like the Imperial College of London, where's just like the imperial college of london where they didn't you know the curve that was supposed to flatten they didn't have the curve the farce law curve that shows with every pandemic and this is going back to 1840 with

every pandemic anything that's new you got a new strain of the flu well it's going to look it's going to go up like a bell-shaped curve and that's going to come down again like a bell-shaped curve no in that model it was a straight line approximation everybody that and that's going to come down again like a bell-shaped curve. No, in that model, it was a straight line approximation. Everybody that gets it's going to infect another two and a half people forever. There was no curve in the model. And of course, the code was so poorly written that every time you ran it, even with the same inputs, you would get a different answer. I suggest that's what the University of Edinburgh said. I suggest the Fed should throw this nonsense in the garbage and stress test commercial real estate, interest rates, accelerated quantitative tightening, and things that it has clearly neglected. Again, this is from the assumption that the Fed doesn't know that if it raises interest rates by 75 basis points, three quarters of a percent every month, and does it month after month after month after month, that isn't going to be a debt trap for the banks and cause them to fail?

They didn't know that? Who knew? Everybody knows that. You know, it was a trap. It's a trap. The real world costs of the digital race for Bitcoin. Yeah. That's a trap. The real world costs of the digital race for Bitcoin. Yeah, the Bitcoin mines cash on electricity,

and by devouring it, says the New York Times, by selling it, even by turning it off, they cause immense pollution. This is the New York Times hit piece. I didn't go over both of them. This came out the same day as Children's Health Defense. Tell me that there isn't a coordinated propaganda thing. Tell me that RFK Jr., while he's talking about how evil CBDC is, his organization is running a story that is targeting CBDC's competitor, crypto,

just like the New York Times, on the basis of phony climate fear-mongering. So the New York Times, this is what they're concerned about. They said the clearest example is Texas, where Bitcoin companies are paid by the grid operator for promising to quickly power down if necessary to prevent blackouts. In practice, they are rarely asked to shut down, and instead they earn additional money while doing exactly what they would have been doing anyway, mining Bitcoin. Five operations since 2020. Okay, so we're talking about three years.

Maybe it's just two years. Five operations have collectively made at least $60 million from that program since 2020 show records. So, um, you know, they're making 20 to $30,000 a year and you divide that by the five, right? So, you know, they're making four to $5 million a year by being on, uh, the same type of program that you and I, if they put a smart meter on our house, that they would be able to turn off our power if things started to peak out. So the grid didn't go down, they would be able to shut down your power at certain times. That's what these companies are doing. You and I

don't get paid four or five million dollars a year to do that, though. But this is not exclusive to the Bitcoin industry. And the New York Times actually has quotes from people who said that this is not exclusive to our industry. It's an outrageous thing, I think, but it is not exclusive to Bitcoin. They said most years they are asked to turn off for only a few hours. And if they do turn off, they get paid even more. Hey, the big guys get bigger, don't they? It is a windfall for one company called, it was a windfall for one company called BitDeer. During the winter storm, it was that 2021, it's when the show first started. We had the blackout and everything froze.

Pipes froze. I did the show with candlelight because we had to shut down our oil and coal power plants and go with windmills that froze. Uh, but, um, yeah, uh, we, we did the show with a, with a iPhone and I had a candle so I could read. And, uh, then, uh, we got power back, um, like a day or two after that and the pipe and the kitchen had frozen. I was doing the show from the living room at that point in time. And in the middle of the show, the pipe had burst. And when it thawed, we had a flood.

So that day I was doing the show while everybody was scrambling around, trying to get the water turned off quickly and get the water cleaned up. And I'm still trying to do the show. Live shows are very interesting. Anyway. Um, so during that winter storm, that same winter storm, uh, in exchange for a fraction of the power that it typically used, they got a windfall and profit. Another Bitcoin company made tens of millions of dollars reselling electricity during that storm. Now, what the New York Times won't tell you is that the real outrageous, yes, it is outrageous that they get paid so much for participating in what is essentially a glorified smart meter program. But what they won't tell you is that the reason that we have these issues is because of the climate MacGuffin. And why don't they criticize Texas for pursuing that?

Why don't they talk about how the Texas state government spent tens of billions of dollars building infrastructure for these windmill companies? Yeah, we'll take it right, just like Trump, you know, funded the creation of the jabs. Well, you got Abbott and Rick Perry funding, taking all the lines and everything they need to out to these windmill farms that are in remote areas. And they would build all the infrastructure to deliver that back to the rest of the grid. And it was a very long way they had to go and a lot of money that they had to do with that.

And that all that infrastructure was built for them. And the only thing was that, you know, their friends, their political supporters just had to go out and pay for the windmill and install it. And they're in business making money. That's how this stuff works. Go buy a politician. That's the best investment you can ever get. Best return on investment. You'll get thousands of percent return on investment from a politician. You know, just a little bit of money and it just magnifies, uh, in interviews and statements, many of the companies said they were no different from any other large power users, except for their willingness to shut off more quickly to benefit the grid, and that's true. It is an outrage that we have that program. It is an outrage that reliable energy has been shut down,

and it's an outrage how much money has been given to these people, the crony capitalism, the corruption that's involved in it. That's the outrage. But the New York Times isn't talking about that. Instead, they want to go after what? The competition to CBDC. And, of course, the national security state is all about that as well. They are saying things now about crypto at the Pentagon that they typically

say about, you know, Russia, China, Iran, and all the people that they've bombed and killed. Decentralized cryptocurrency markets are a threat to U.S. security, says the American government. You better be very careful when the government calls you a threat to its security, because the only thing they care about is their security. They don't care about your safety. They certainly don't care about your liberty. They don't care about constitutional rule of law or the lives of the people who live in the country. But they do care about national security. Everything sacrificed to national security. Since World War II, the only thing that the American Empire cares about

is the American Empire's national security. Everything else is subject to that and is dispensable. Decentralized cryptocurrency is what they're saying, right? Decentralized, that was the only kind that we've had. And so why do they put decentralized cryptocurrency? Well, because they're working on centralized cryptocurrency. All cryptocurrency has been decentralized up to this point. This is all part of the transition.

Decentralized cryptocurrency is bad. It threatens U.S. national security. It needs greater oversight. We need to have enforcement against money laundering and on and on. It never ends. And it is kind of interesting to see how Elizabeth Warren, this is actually from Zero Hedge, Donovan Choi of Bankless. He says Elizabeth Warren wants progressives to hate crypto.

I said, this is kind of strange. She's always presented herself as a champion of the little guy, you know, as an opponent of big centralized banks. Well, yes, she has. But do you believe what she says or do you believe what she does? Because she has never been that. She has always said that. You know, just like we're talking about Elon Musk. Oh, yeah, we need to be worried about artificial intelligence. We need to have a six-month moratorium. Meanwhile, he's out there buying 10,000 GPUs himself. He says we need to worry about free speech.

Meanwhile, the censorship goes up on Twitter. He has a great back and forth with the BBC pushing censorship. And yet he pushes it more himself. great back and forth with the BBC pushing censorship. And then he pushes it more himself. So Elizabeth Warren says, oh, yeah, I'm against those big banks. I'm opposed to Wall Street. And so Donovan Choi says, well, consider how it's been used across the political spectrum. Black Lives Matter activists have embraced the immutability of the blockchain to raise awareness of police brutality.

Canadian right-wingers turned to Bitcoin and their protests against the Trudeau government, and rogue nations have used it to evade Western sanction regimes. And of course, libertarians love it. So what is weird, they said, is to see crypto getting so politicized by one party or the other. In her run-up to a third Senate election, Elizabeth Warren is erecting an anti-crypto position as a central plank in her policy platform. A tweet from her official campaign account last week referenced that she was, quote,

building an anti-crypto army, unquote. What's the justification for that? Oh, she's doing it for, quote, working families. Give me a break. Give me a break. I'm doing it for the children, you know. Working families. She cares about families? Why is she so pro-abortion then? Anti-crypto for the working family? That's a puzzling question. Given the fact that she is a progressive icon, she rose to national prominence as an ardent crusader against big finance corruption. In the wake of the global financial crisis, she made her name as a cheerleader for increasingly strident banking regulations. She served as chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel that oversaw the 2008 bank bailouts.

Now, doesn't that tell you something? Those are the banks that were too big to fail. That's the first time I came across any of Matt Taibbi's work. Well, somebody talked about too big to jail banks, HSBC. It's like, this guy's good. But yeah, if she was running the congressional oversight panel that oversaw the bank bailouts, who was it? Here's your question for the day. Who was it that got all the money?

It was the big banks. The small banks went out of business by the hundreds for the next several years. They were not too big to fail. If she was chairing the congressional oversight panel over the bank bailouts, she was shoveling money to the big banks and letting the small banks die. But it's not just that. He doesn't talk about what she's perhaps best known for. And that is the Consumer Financial Protection Board or Consumer Financial Protection Board.

I can't remember which one it is. The order of the words there. But she created this board that is supposed to protect consumers, right? Oh, we're not going to let this 2008 thing happen again. They victimized a lot of people. They gave them subprime loans and they lost their homes. And we're going to make sure that doesn't happen anymore. And so we're going to have lots and lots of new regulations and oversight and paperwork to make sure that doesn't happen. And that's the reason why so many of these small banks were failing. It wasn't just that they didn't get a handout from the government.

They started failing in combination with what happened with the economic situation, but also because of Elizabeth Warren's pet project. That was her pet project. She, more than anybody else, created that monster, that new bureaucracy. And it was so arrogant. If you remember, during Trump's administration, about a year or so into it, it was new. And it had been around for a little while. The guy that was originally put in there decided that he was going to retire. And rather than let the president, because all these different bureaucracies are under the executive branch, so the president and all these other executive branches picks the successor when

somebody steps down. But in this particular one, the one that was created by Elizabeth Warren, the Consumer Financial Protection Board, the number two person said, I'm the new leader. And Trump administration said, the people, not Trump, but the people who are running the place, said, no, the new leader. And Trump administration said, the people, not Trump, but the people who are running the place, said, no, you're not. We have a picture.

Oh, yes, I am. I am going to make myself, that's how arrogant these people are. But the paperwork that they put out there for processing whole areas of loans was so oppressive that only the big corporations had enough volume that they could set up departments to deal with it. It was too much paperwork for anybody else to be able to profitably process the loans.

And so the paperwork requirements from Elizabeth Warren's bureaucracy shut down small banks. That's the bottom line. And that's not protecting the consumers. That's protecting the big players, the big banks. That's what she's always been about. With such an anti-Wall Street streak. No, no, no. That's her cultivated image.

Her image that she's cultivated is that she's against wall street she's for wall street she did the same thing and this guy believes that he's fallen for the same kind of nonsense that the trump supporters have you know trump cultivates this image that he's a nationalist he's against the globalists and yet who did more for the globalists who implemented their policy more completely than Trump? She's anti-Wall Street, Elizabeth Warren is, but she implements their entire strategy. And so now she has also shown by coming after the crypto industry, just in case you didn't pick up on it when she did that in the Great Recession,

now if there was ever any doubt that she's for centralized control of everything, she is now demonizing crypto. She's creating an anti-crypto mob for the working families, of course. So it is truly amazing where this is happening. It's one of the reasons why Tony is not with us today, because everybody's seeing the handwriting on the wall. Our society has been weighed in the balance and found lacking. And that's the handwriting on the wall, and it's coming at us real fast.

And so, again, if you want to go to DavidKnight.gold, Tony set that up to let you know that, um, I sent you appreciate that. I appreciate what Tony does for the show. We'll get him on. He'll be on next week. Hopefully, like I said, he's on the road, uh, this week. He is so busy. Uh, he and the small staff, everybody is wanting to pick up on gold right now because they see what is coming down the pike.

We're going to take a quick break and we will be right back. You're listening to The David Knight Show. Let's talk about what's going on in Nashville. I had listener Bill talk about this sorry episode that we had about a week ago with the Tennessee Three taking over the legislature. He says, I read several articles about what took place at Tennessee legislature. The left takes a position that because two of the three legislators were black and got ousted from their committees and ultimately from the legislature, that the process was racist,

that it upends democracy. They say, and by the way, you know, the second one was restored yesterday. They've both been restored in less than a week. They're both back. Unfortunately.

Anyway, he said, uh, the right fires back and says that what took place in Tennessee was an attempt to disrupt a legislative session with an unruly mob who behaved worse than the January the 6th rioters. Therefore, they should be treated criminally. Neither side is talking about how this incident deprived Tennesseans from having their elected representatives participate in a legislative process to hear a proposed law to reduce gun violence in schools. Specifically, each representative is recognized by the House Speaker when it's their turn to speak on behalf of their

constituents in their districts. They each got an allotted amount of time to address the issue of the day when these two fools acted the way they did by taking the session hostage for almost an hour. They infringed on the rights of the Tennesseans whose representatives could not represent the interest of their constituents. Decorum is a minor part to this story. The real story rests on how two or more representatives violated the rights of Tennesseans to have representation of their districts in the House. Although they were ejected from the legislative session, they are not barred from running in the next election to regain the same seat from which

they were ousted, but they've already been reappointed. Perhaps the legislature can amend their own rules to, at minimum, disqualify any House member who's been ejected from the legislature, disqualify them from running for the seat for a minimum of two legislative sessions as part of the infraction. What do you think? I think that'd be a great idea. I mean, the bottom line is that Tennessee already has a law that you cannot run for office unless you have lived in the state for three years and the district for one, I think, that you'd be representing.

So that's the shutdown, and it came into effect, and it was a good thing because we had a congressional district that opened up, and Trump was pushing this woman who was a Democrat influencer, social media type. Beautiful model who had absolutely no political principles or issues and was, you know, for her positions that she had had, they were not aligned with Republicans whatsoever. The perfect person for Trump to support because of the way she looked. And then there was Robbie Starbuck who moved into the area and he also was, you know, outside of Tennessee, saw an open Tennessee seat and jumped in there for it. Now, you know, there were obviously

carpetbaggers and the way they handled it was the Tennessee legislature, which sets the rules for, you know, all the state legislatures set the rules for who's going to run for office. They said, well, you're going to run under the same rules that we do. If you have to live in the state for three years and in the district for one year, if you're going to get elected to the state legislature, we're going to have that same qualification for people to represent us in Congress. And bingo, they were out. They sued about it, but they didn't have any case whatsoever.

Law clearly says, federal law says, that the qualifications and everything will be determined by the legislature. So they could make that kind of a determination. They could say, if we kick you out, we expel you because of behavior, then you're going to have to sit out the next couple of elections at the very least.

I would think that'd be a great idea. I will say that, you know, I talked about the fact that they were denying people the legislative process. As one of the legislators said, you know, shut up, sit down. If you've got a problem with what's going on, file a bill and allow us to have this process. You know, decorum mainly means that you've got a legitimate process so that you can have representative government. And if you're going to hijack it and refuse to listen to anybody else, and you're going to lead a mob into the legislative building,

and they're going to be pushing and shoving legislators, trying to stop them from getting into the building, literally getting their hands on people. And if you are going to refuse to, you know, be wrecked, you're going to take the floor and you're going to take it over and you're not going to listen to anybody. And you're not going to take your turn. You're going to stand there and scream at people with a bullhorn and try to encourage people up in the galleries to get down on the floor. Well, then what we're talking about is not democracy. We're talking about mobocracy. And again, you know, it needed to be done because you could

see them doing it the second time. If you allow precedents to be established, the fact that whoever's got the biggest mob that shows up on the legislative day gets to shut down all the representation for the state. You see, in a sense, we already have that. You know, we already have in every state, and Tennessee is no exception, you have places like Nashville and Memphis, Democrat strongholds, and they get a lot of representation because they have a big population. And they typically shout down and overrule the wishes of people

and the rest of the state. And that happens in every state. It even happened the first time where I really got a glimpse of that was about 30 years ago. And the county that we moved into, I saw it happen at the county level. Sometimes it's easiest to see something if it's really in a small microcosm. And so you had the county that I was in was a rural county. It was mostly farmers, a lot of farmers who had had the farm in their family for over a century. And it was adjacent to Chapel Hill where the University of North Carolina is.

And you had a lot of people who were hardcore Marxist and socialist working with that university who decided that, hey, there's some nice places down here in this farm area. We can build developments. And so they came in with a big concentration of people just in the northern part of the county. And prior to them coming in, all of the representation had been by geographical districts within the county. So they broke it into segments and you would, regardless of population, each geographic, the geographical segments were equally represented, kind of like the electoral college, right?

And although that does have a population element to it because it's the number of electors is based on the number of, um, you know, electors in the house of representatives, but nevertheless, it was still had a geographical aspect to it. And the first thing these people did was to say, well, we're going to have a referendum. We get a referendum on the ballot and we're going to change it from people representing geographical areas in the county to all of the county commissioners being elected at large. They got that passed. At the next election, all of the county commissioners were from this little group that was up there. This little group that had come in, set up some

communities there. They put up a slate of electors and they had a liberal agenda that they wanted for the county. And their liberal agenda was not in my backyard. You're not going to sell your farm. You're not going to develop anything else. We're in here. We're not going to let anybody else in here. And you can't do anything that you want to with your farm. We're going to tell you what you can do with your farm and dictate all that to you. And that's what they did. And so we always have a situation where, you know, you,'ve got to try to come up with structures where people actually have some representation, and they were antithetical to that. But that's not the way it's been portrayed by the press,

and it's not the way that the governor of Tennessee has reacted to it either. He is cravenly and cowardly virtue signaling, saying, well, we can do something about the guns. Politico says how Tennessee became the poster state for political meltdown. Well, who's political meltdown? I would say it was a political meltdown of the youthful mob, the youthful idiots. They're being led by these youthful idiot Marxist leaders that got kicked out. We look like 10 pot dictators in this state.

Yes, you do. The Tennessee Three look like ten-pot dictators that have absolutely no respect for the democratic process, just like they have no respect for the Constitution that they swore to uphold as a condition of their becoming legislators. And unfortunately, that contempt for the Constitution, that contempt for our Constitution, that contempt for our God-given rights is shared by many in the Republican Party, many who are leaders of

the Republican Party in this state as well. So they don't want rules. They don't want the rule of law. They don't want order. They don't want respect for other people. What they want is chaos. They want disruption. They want a long march through the institutions and a long march through society. To some, they said, the echoes are evocative of Jim Crow. Let me play for you. The guy that got back in yesterday, so they had, I think, Justin Jones was the one who got reappointed on Monday, I think it was, or Tuesday. And then yesterday, on Wednesday, Justin Pearson, the second guy who got kicked out, was sent back by the city council or the county council or whoever gets to make that determination.

They sent him back as a successor to himself. And at the very beginning, people were people were saying well they can't send the same people back because that's that's not allowed you can't be a successor to yourself that doesn't make any sense it's got to be a different person well no they said we're going to do that and the republicans now because of the national attention that they've got they got scared so well we're not going to fight him anymore on that. But let me just show you something from this guy, Justin Pearson. Let me show you what a fraud he is. This is a clip that shows him a couple of years ago.

And then you'll see a clip of what he sounds like today. Do you remember when Hillary Clinton went to a black church or something? She starts talking like Uncle Remus. Remember that? Y'all can't do this. Y'all don't. went to a black church or something. She starts talking like uncle Remus. Remember that? Yeah. Y'all can't do this. Y'all know you. And you know,

everybody called her out on it. AOC occasional cortex has done the same thing recently. This guy has done it in space at the very beginning of this clip. You see a guy, he's got short hair, he's wearing a suit and tie. And he is, um,

uh, talking about how we got to bring people from all sides of political spectrum together and, and everything. And he is, um, uh, talking about how we got to bring people from all sides of political spectrum together and, and everything. And we've all got to come together. Basically, he looks like Eddie Murphy. Uh, when Eddie Murphy says, I'm going to be a white guy. Remember when he did that Saturday night live skit and he puts on lighter color makeup and he starts, well, I'm talking like a white man now, you know, talking like this. And then towards the end of the clip, he starts the same guy. Now he's got a big Afro and he goes into this Martin Luther King style dialogue. I seen the mountaintop, all this kind of stuff.

Here's a clip. Justin J. Pearson. And I'm running for president of BSG. There are a few reasons that we're running this campaign this year. One has to do with representation. How can we represent all voices in a conversation? I want to do this by partnering with organizations from the Boone Democrats to the Boone Republicans. I want to bring together different voices, dissenting voices, voices that may be more

liberal or more conservative, in order that we can reach a point of sort of the radical middle. Seemed like the NRA and gun lobbyists might win, but all that was good news for us. I don't know how long this Saturday in the state of Tennessee might last, but oh, we have good news, folks. We've got good news that sunday always comes uh-huh yeah he is a total wacko total demagogue total phony i have seen the mountaintop and on easter he went to a black church and he's given his political sermon i don't think he's a pastor but this is picked up by the Daily Caller. Ousted lawmaker preaches, quote, mother God and gun control and trans health care for Easter. For Easter. Yeah, total phony, total fraud.

Justin Pearson, that guy that you saw there transform from doing his white man impersonation to doing his Martin Luther King impersonation. Who is this guy? Really? We don't really know who he is. You look at the extremes that he's got there. I don't know what this guy is. And he absolutely has no idea what he's talking about when he's at an Easter service either. He gave a sermon during the Easter service, praying to the quote, mother God, calling for an end to gun violence,

arguing that quote, transgender children unquote, should receive the health care they need. According to recordings of the sermon, which I could not find, unfortunately, would have been, I'll keep looking. If I can find one, it'll be funny. Uh, we'll have to get the clip of Stan Laurel laughing. Pearson opened his sermon at the Church of the River in Memphis, Tennessee, by praying to the Mother God and asking for the preachers who had come before him to speak through his message. Now, why is he talking about the mother God? He goes to a Christian church, and he knows that God is represented in the Bible,

represented in Christian and in Hebrew religion as father, right? Male pronouns. And so he's doing this not because he believes in the mother God. Does he have some document that is supposed to be a revelation from mother God? He doesn't know who mother God is, right? He's not out there like the Pope worshiping Pachamama or something, or he's not worshiping Gaia, you know, the environmentalist mother earth. No, he doesn't. he's doing this to essentially to oppose the establishment you see everything these people do is done simply to be antithetical to what is out there it's not that they believe this it's just that they got to tear down what you believe that's why he's there that's what he's doing it's chaos it's disruption it's destruction it's chaos, it's disruption, it's destruction, it's leveling everything, destroying everything,

so then he's free to build whatever he wants. That's why he's talking about this kind of stuff. Pearson also argued that the resurrection and the persecution of Jesus should give hope, this is on Easter, to persecuted people who call for gun control and for trans health care. Yeah, he has no idea why Jesus came. He has no idea why he needs Jesus, right? That's the sad thing about it. He's up there on Easter. He's talking about love and justice. That's not what Easter is about. Easter is about love and mercy. You want

justice, Justin? No, you don't. You do not want the justice of God. That's why Jesus died on the cross. Each and every one of us, if we got the justice of God, that's why I said you had some Texas legislator wants to put up the Ten Commandments in schools. Well, all right. To some degree, you know, people are going to look up there and they see that, but they're also, many of them are going to think, well, yeah, you know, I could probably do all that stuff. You know? Yeah. I've done all that stuff. So the rich young ruler to Jesus and Jesus said, okay, we'll go sell everything that you own. That showed where his heart was. His heart, his love of money was his God. Right. And so people deceive themselves. Most people only think about what has been done

to them. And those are the people that, you know, Justin represents. That's who he really represents. He's probably only thinking about the stuff that's been done to him. And he wants to get with the people who think something's been done to them and they want reparations and they call that justice. But, you know, they never really think about what they've done to others and they never really think about their position to god how they rebelled against god how they have even in small ways right yeah how many different ways do you have to rebel against god well you know adam found out just one way, that kind of cosmic rebellion has cosmic circumstances, and of course we all do it.

That's the purpose of why Christ came, was not to give you the Ten Commandments. He escalated the Ten Commandments so you'd understand how impossible it was for you to satisfy what God requires. It's impossible for you to pay for your sins. So he paid for your fine for you. He went to court and was like, yeah, this guy's guilty,

but here, I'll pay his fine and he can go. I'll pay for what he did. I'll take his place. That's what Christ did on Easter. So this guy shows up and he wants to talk about Mother God and he wants to talk about transgender kids and how we can mutilate them and how that is what Jesus is about. No, it's not. It's not at all. What is your evidence that Mother

God exists? You got any evidence for that? You got any revelation where Mother God claims to have spoken to people? You know, we do have that. You can see in creation the evidence of design, especially in things like DNA. The question is, has God spoken, has the Creator spoken to us? And, of course, it stands the evidence. It withstands scrutiny. That's why I say, I don't have to defend truth. You just let it loose. That's why freedom of speech and freedom of religion are combined in the Christian mind, because we don't worry about our faith being examined. It can withstand that examination. And so, you know, when you, at the same time he's doing this, saying we need to have justice, he's calling for an end to any laws against abortion.

Thou shalt not kill. What is the justice for someone who kills the most innocent babies among us? What is justice? You better start looking for mercy, and you better start looking for it at the mercy seat of Christ. He says, I was not standing by myself. I was standing for my constituents. And you see, that's a big part of this as well. We don't often think about it. It's difficult for a lot of people to say, well, how could Christ have taken my place? Well, you know, he is a representative for others.

And if you don't understand that, you know, and that's largely been erased out of our society. Many people would say, well, you know, if we get rid of the out of our society. Many people would say, well, you know, if we get rid of the king, we don't really understand God's economy and how God deals with people and how God sees people. There is a headship principle. We see that now, you know, we think, well, every year we elect a different dictator. Every four years we get another dictator in Washington as a president. And you do know that the actions of the president, you know, the things that Trump does, the things that Biden does, you know, Biden starts a world war. Guess what?

We're all going to suffer for it. If Biden does certain things with the government that he is in charge of, if he starts attacking other countries, guess what? Those countries are going to attack back and they're going to drop bombs and we're going to die. There are consequences for people who are under the head, head of government the head of the family and christ was our head and so that's the good consequences of that if you don't want to understand the bad consequences of you know adam and why that would affect the entire world you know all of creation groaned when he sent if you don't understand that you're not going to understand the redemption of Christ as well. And so this guy says, I was not standing for myself. I was standing for my constituents. Well, we need to understand that Christ

died for his constituents. This guy, meanwhile, is nothing other than a grifting chameleon. But on the other hand, we have the Tennessee governor. Bill Lee is out there took time off from trying to set up toll roads for the first time. Uh, he is now talking about passing a red flag gun law. He said, this is quote a moment in time when people can come together and get something done, he said. Oh, this sounds like a Trump when he had that meeting and he had Dianne Feinstein and Chuckie Schumer and everyone all gathered around the table there.

He goes, we can get something done. I want to work with you and do something. Well, let's just take the gun and do the due process later. Remember that? And that's basically where Bill Lee is right now. He's caved to these people. He's caved to the national pressure. He's virtue signaling to these people who want to take,

who want to infringe on your God-given rights, specifically recognized by the Constitution, and specifically prohibited from government at any level, because all these people at the state level have also taken an oath to the Constitution. If I had a chance to talk to Bill Lee, I'd say, have you taken an oath to the Constitution? I know he has. So is your oath worth anything at all?

No, it's not. Because he's talking about how he wants to violate his oath and infringe on our ability to protect ourselves and to keep and bear arms. He has asked the legislature to pass a bill before the current session ends. He called it quote, an order of protection law, typically called a red flag law.

Now, the good thing is so far after all this stuff happened, the head of the Senate said, we're not going to take a look at any gun control laws until 2024. We're going to let these things cool off. We're not going to do this in the heat of the moment. Now, that's a wise person, especially because we don't want to have any of this. And if they really want to represent us, the vast majority of people in Tennessee do not want to have any infringement. People in Tennessee were very happy in the last couple of years they passed constitutional carry. We don't want to

have restrictions on guns here. We want to have restrictions on children being psychologically gaslighted. We want to have restrictions on children being given SSRIs and other mind-altering and mood-altering, personality-altering drugs. We want to have restrictions on children being chemically mutilated, surgically mutilated, sterilized. That's what we want to have laws for. Not laws about our self-protection. Not laws that violate your oath of the Constitution. Lee signed an executive order strengthening the state's background checks.

And unfortunately, the House Speaker, Cameron Sexton, issued a statement saying he's open to these proposals. So again, it goes back to the Senate and it goes back to the guy who said we're going to the head of the Senate, who said we're not going to do anything until 2024. I hope he doesn't cave to that pressure. So tightening firearm background checks, the executive order requires responsible parties to ensure that all criminal history court mental health information is entered into the Tennessee instant check system or provided to the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation within 72 hours.

The executive order also directs those entities to determine how this is going to be done. See, this is it. This is, in a nutshell, what Governor Lee has done in Tennessee. It's what every congressman and senator and president wants to do. That is, kick this can over to the bureaucracy. Here, you guys work it out. You determine what the rules for society are going to be because, you know, even though I was elected to do that, I don't want to have that. That's a hot potato. If you get it wrong, I'll come in like a white knight and I'll fix all this stuff and I'll look good, but I'm not going to put my name on a bill. That's going to take people's freedom. I'm going to let you do it because you don't have to stand for

election. You're not accountable to the people. I am. I can't do this. You do it. Yeah. That's where Billy is. He's there just like all the rest of these people you know shucking the um you know shucking and jiving and and you know getting rid of his responsibility not doing his duty and betraying us again by saying it's not me it's the unelected unaccountable bureaucracy that's doing this to you well who put them there who do they report to well they report to you. Well, who put them there? Who do they report to? Well, they report to you and I elected you. Why don't you do something about it? So he's calling for the red flag laws. Again, doing a total trump

on everybody. State lawmakers have been under pressure to pass stricter gun laws and so forth, says CBS News. Well, here's the problem. You can't handle, they can't handle the truth they can't handle the pressure and they don't have a backbone or a spine to do anything about

this lee is not even close to what they're talking about what the cause is the cause is not even the gun he's not even talking about the cause of this transgender shooting he doesn't want to take on the real issue, which is transgenderism, and how that's being pushed on kids at a young age, pushing them to contemplate suicide, pushing them to commit suicide. And whether they can do it through propaganda or whether they can do it through their SSRI drugs. Those are the issues. And, you know, if you're a mother and you have these SSRI drugs and you want to kill your kid, well, you can do it any number of ways.

You can drown them in the bathtub. You can drown them in a car. You can, you know, murder them with a knife or whatever. We just had a taxi driver, I think it was in Portland, picked up. I had a picture of the guy. The guy who killed him looked a lot crazier than Norman Bates. The guy who killed him was a Norman Bates, you know, wearing eye makeup and everything, which, you know, Norman Bates didn't do.

He was, you know, dressed up like his mother, an old lady. No, this guy wants to dress up like, you know. He calls the taxi, and the guy takes him where he wants to go. And then he says, no, I want to go to this other place. And so as the taxi drivers over there, taking in the new address and everything, he pulls out a knife and stabs the guy in the neck and kills him. A tranny.

And these people are nuts. That's the problem. He didn't use a gun. The problem is the person. That's what the problem is with all these red flag gun laws. The dangerous thing is not the weapon. The dangerous thing is the killer. A killer can use any kind of a weapon, bare hands, rocks, anything, a car. They can use anything to kill people that's the real issue and bill lee and the house speaker won't even talk about the real issue here because they want a virtue signal and pander to the people putting pressure on ¶¶ Analyzing the globalist's next move.

And now, The David Knight Show. Let's talk about another point of betrayal, and that is Julian Assange. You know, I began the program, I was talking about Trump's interview with Tucker Carlson, and the fact that he demands total loyalty. Well, you know, he doesn't give anybody any loyalty. Julian Assange, for example, a big part of why Trump was elected, Julian Assange exposing many of the crimes of Hillary Clinton. And yet on the, I think it's the fourth anniversary of him being locked up. Yeah, fourth anniversary, April 11th, two days ago, you had a lot of politicians in Australia and in the United Kingdom calling on the U.S. to drop Julian Assange's extradition.

Of course, calling specifically on Merrick Garland, the attorney general, has the power to do that. That never happened under the Trump administration. You had the AGs, Jeff Sessions and Bill Barr, never did anything to help Julian Assange. No, they were leaning on the UK, that other part of the Five Eyes, to kill him in revenge. And they did not consider that. In an open letter, 48 Australian parliamentarians, as a sign just from Australia, said extradition to the U.S. would set a, quote, dangerous precedent, unquote, for freedom of the press and would be, quote, needlessly damaging, unquote, for the U.S. as a world leader in freedom of expression.

Well, we're not a world leader for freedom anymore. We're a world leader for raw, arbitrary power, whatever it takes for our national security. And anybody who gets in the way, anybody who embarrasses us, he was an embarrass. He embarrassed the Pentagon. He embarrassed the CIA. He embarrassed Hillary Clinton. Any one of those would be a death sentence, right? That's what our government has become. If the extradition request is approved, Australians will witness the deportation of one of our citizens from one Australian-U.S. partner to another, Australian-U.K.-U.S. partner to another, our closest strategic ally, with Mr. Assange facing the prospect of spending the rest of his life in prison, said the letter. A clear majority of Australians consider that this matter has gone on for far too long and must be brought to a close. And again, this is 48 Australian

parliamentarians. We implore you to drop the extradition proceedings and allow Mr. Assange to return home. Again, written to Attorney General Merrick Garland. So while 48 in Australia did that, another 35 UK members of parliament did the same thing from both the House and from the House of Commons and the House of Lords, 35 from six different parties, wrote to Merrick Garland requesting that he uphold the First Amendment of the Constitution. Isn't that pathetic? That you have to have other people and other countries

to point out the hypocrisy and the oath-breaking of our own government to us, to drop the extradition proceedings to allow Assange to return to Australia. This April 11th marks the fourth anniversary of his confinement in Belmarsh, which is unbelievably harsh and designed to destroy him, to kill him, to break his spirit, to break his health, hopefully to kill him. That's why they have him in Belmarsh. They said there's been bipartisan support for a long time, but what this letter says in print is the extent of that diversity. Dozens of people, Australia and the UK, six different parties just in the UK alone.

That is a reflection of the Australian community because a lot of people think no matter what Assange has done, enough is enough, right? I mean, what is, you know, you embarrass Hillary Clinton and the CIA and the rest of these people. What is enough? You know, what is excessive punishment, right? He's, you know, four years in Belmarsh, very harsh. And of course, the punishment has gone on for a very long time before that even. He said he noted

that he was unaware of anyone else who was subject to this kind of inhumane conditions, while yet to be even formally charged with a criminal events. How far have we fallen from the traditions of English common law shared by the U S and Australia, New Zealand, the five eyes, Canada, those traditions of English common law that we have built our constitution on

the idea of a speedy trial, the idea that you could confront your accusers, that you'd be given a jury trial, all these things. He's being killed. This is going on for about 14 years now, four of them in this harsh prison without being formally charged, not even charged with anything. We talk all the time about civil asset forfeiture. What an outrage it is that law enforcement agencies across our country have been given the police state powers to confiscate property that they believe may be involved in some kind of a drug deal.

And many times I will say, the first case that I saw this, it was a guy who had a private jet and he had a charter jet service. That was his, he had one jet because these things are expensive. And, you know, he picked up two businessmen in suits, flew them from the U.S. to Canada for a meeting that they had that day and flew them back the same day. When he came back, the plane was surrounded by DEA agents and FBI and all this stuff. They arrested these two guys and they said, and we're taking your plane. What? Well, we know you're charging me.

I didn't know anything about it. We know that. We're not charging you with a crime. We're charging you your plane. U.S. government versus Learjet serial number, blah, blah, blah. Your plane was an accessory to this crime, so we're going to steal your plane without any due process. We're going to accuse an inanimate object of committing a crime, except that it's not a crime. It broke a rule. That's why the civil asset

forfeiture there. They steal stuff from you if they say that you broke one of their bureaucratic rules. Because, you know, if it was a law that had been passed by Congress, they say, well, then you would have to abide by the Constitution. You'd have to have a trial and a conviction, and there would be limits as to how you could punish somebody with all this stuff. But, hey, you know, we're not doing this. This is a rule that comes from the bureaucracy, and so this is a civil action. And if you want to get it back, you're going to have to sue us to get it back. Now, that's what they've done to Julian Assange.

They got him under a death sentence without even charging him. This is why this is important. These precedents matter. They matter, just like the precedents that Trump set. This is another precedent that is there. And understand that this internment in Belmarsh began under the Trump administration and it's continued through the Biden administration. Not to say that Biden wouldn't have done it, but Trump did it. Trump did it and kept it going. And Biden is continuing that as well and it's not

just in the UK and Australia where you got members elected members of Parliament talking about it you now got some House Democrats urging Biden to drop the charges against Julian Assange they all put this together on the fourth anniversary of him being put into this Belmarsh prison under the Trump administration and what is sad about this Belmarsh prison under the Trump administration. And what is sad about this? I looked outside. Who were the people talking about this?

The sad thing is, this is only the squad. The squad. You know, Rashida Tlaib, occasional cortex. That's why I say occasionally she's got a brain. They're real radical people. Ilhan Omar, occasional cortex. That's why I say occasionally she's got a brain. They're real radical people. Ilhan Omar, occasional cortex, Ayanna Pressley, Jamal Bowman, Cori Bush, Rashida Tlaib. These are the people who have a problem with this.

The mainstream Democrats and Republicans don't have a problem. Why don't conservatives have a problem with this? Why don't conservatives want to conserve the First Amendment? Why don't conservatives want to obey the Constitution? Why don't the conservatives want to defend due process? That's what I don't understand. What's their problem? Nobody but people like Occasional Cortex want to stop this thing?

It's just amazing to me. Assange has been indicted for publishing information about U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that he obtained using standard journalistic practices.

Now, this is Dave DeCamp saying this. The beard under which the Trump administration is coming after him and the Biden administration, they say, because that's been established.

That was established with the Pentagon Papers. As Dave DeCamp said, lawmakers, these Democrat lawmakers point out that much of the information published by WikiLeaks is also published by mainstream outlets, including the New York Times and the Washington Post, who published the Pentagon Papers that were given to them by Daniel Ellsberg. And that was upheld as a principle that, Hey, look, if somebody steals something and gives it to you, you are entitled under the laws of the free press to report that. And, you know, the government wants to come after the person who steals this, which they did. They came after Daniel Ellsberg. He got off on a technicality or whatever. I'm not going to get into the politics behind all that stuff, but the principle was that the person who stole it would have to answer for it. But he could turn it over to the press,

and they could publish it with impunity because of the First Amendment. And so because of that, you had Barr and other people who were pushing. And remember, look, Barr was CIA before he was anything else. Bill Barr, when you had the church committee hearings and the CIA was completely discredited, and again, those hearings were because the CIA and the NSA were spying on Americans, but then they made it about assassinations and so forth.

But there was a lot of stuff that came out that hurt the reputation of the CIA. A guy wrote a book who was their lawyer, company man. And he said, I watched those church committee hearings. I looked at it. He was such a sociopath that his takeaway was, they need a good lawyer. They need me. And that's what he did.

You know, most of us, while the rest of us were looking at this and saying, what a horrible institution. How do we get rid of this thing? He's like, they need a good lawyer. They need a criminal lawyer. And, of course, he was a guy who came up with a prevarication about enhanced interrogation. You know, I got an idea. We won't call it torture.

We'll call it enhanced interrogation. And we'll do enhanced interrogation to lie us into the Iraq war. And then the guy who talks about how we were lied into the Iraq war appoints the person who ran the torture and ran the coverup appoints her Gina Haspel as the head of the CIA. Trump did. It's just amazing to look at it anyway. The, um, but the bottom line is that, you know, is that after all that damage that was done with those church committee hearings, who did they bring in to fix the CIA? Well, it was George H.W. Bush, who had always been a part of the CIA, going back to the quietly. They deny it, but you can see, if you look at the Bay of Pigs invasion, George H.W. had Zapata oil and so forth. And some of the ships that were involved in that, you had one of the ships was called Zapata.

Another one was called Barbara. Oh, say, who would that be? Oh, yeah, that's his wife. Yeah, okay. Anyway, George H.W. Bush. Oh, no, he doesn't have any connection to the CIA. He's just this pure outsider who's going to come in and fix all this stuff. Well, who did he bring in as his second in command?

Bill Barr. And then when George H.W. CIA Bush became president, who did he put in as a very, very young attorney general? Well, that would be Bill CIA Barr. Same guy, by the way, that Trump chooses to put in. He chooses to put in somebody from the deep, deep, deep corrupt state as his attorney general. And this guy, Bill Barr, decides that, well,

the way we're going to come after Julian Assange is we're going to pretend that he was the one who stole the information. That's the basis on which they're doing this. Now, if we look at the dirtiness that is happening with January the 6th, I reported on this a couple of days ago, maybe it was last week. The lawyer for some of these Proud Boys, Roger Roots, has been going through and getting information about how many agent provocateurs were there on January the 6th. He previously said, well, we've identified 40 of them.

Now he's gotten some more information, and there's another dozen, another dirty dozen. So they've got more than 50 undercover officers and informants, and that's just for the Proud Boys. That's not talking about the rest of the crowd. That's just focused in and around the Proud Boys, people like Joe Biggs in this particular trial here. So they said up to a dozen previously underscores

undercover Metropolitan Police Department officers were embedded in the crowd on January the 6th, including one who admitted joining in protester chants to, quote, stop the steal. Where'd that come from? Who coined that phrase? Yeah, Roger did. Anyway, a motion for mistrial filed by defense attorney Roger Roots, not that Roger, but

Roger Stone came up with that, to bring the number of police agents and informants embedded in the January 6th crowds to at least 50. And that's just the agent provocateurs in and around the Proud Boys. How many did they have there? That's the last thing I said the morning of January 6th. Stay away. You're going to be filled with agent provocateurs. It's a trap.

It's a trap. April 7th meeting with the prosecutors the defense learned that there were at least another 10 to 12 additional previously unknown plainclothes metropolitan police department officers among the proud boys on january the 6th and there are reasons to suspect the true number is much higher yeah uh five members of the proud boys including joe biggs who know, been on trial since December. And they are charged, they're facing nine criminal counts. One of them, Pozzola, is charged with 10 criminal counts. They're trying to put these people away for life for this stuff. On April, which, as I pointed out, no different, really,

than what you saw in Nashville, right? But, of course, the people who were the instigators, the clear instigators, the Tennessee Three, and the crowd, no punishment for anybody there. How dare anybody even talk about, you know, kicking them out for a couple of days until they can get reappointed. How dare anybody even do that to these people? In Tennessee, on April 7th,

the investigator told defense attorneys that his role in January 6th was to record the crowds with his body camera. Root said the defense has not been provided with Tomasula's video. That's the investigator. So again, more exculpatory evidence being withheld for these january the sixth trials evidence that would show uh that this is a setup and quote he admitted himself that you can hear on his video him chanting whose house our house and stop this deal. And you see, Sam, who was a reporter, a photographer for Infowars, given four months because why? Because he was calmly walking.

He didn't attack anybody. He had a camera. And he's calmly walking between the velvet ropes, but he was shouting, whose house, our house, and stuff like that. I don't know if that's exactly what he had to say. But because if you were there as a reporter and you repeat the shouts of the agent provocateurs there, oh, you're going to go to jail.

That's the most outrageous thing. But again, you know, we can look at it. At least, fortunately, Sam has not gotten the Julian Assange treatment. But these people are doing the yelling, and if you repeat what these cops are yelling, oh, that's a criminal offense? To be there? To report? Just amazing.

You know, AJ said he had no idea that Sam was there. You believe that, Travis? Yeah, he had no idea that Sam was there. You believe that Travis? Yeah. He had no idea that he, why did he say that? Because Alex was throwing Sam under the bus. He went there without my knowledge or, you know, I know nothing about it. It was a full corporal clinger or corporal Schultz. What is it?

Schultz. Yeah. Schultz clinger address. Alex wasn't wearing a dress. He was, uh, uh, but, uh, you know,linger, a dress. Alex wasn't wearing a dress. He was a... But, you know, he's got himself dressed up in sheep's clothing. Nevertheless, you know, I don't know anything about that. He did it without my knowledge.

Nobody goes across the country as, you know, he had so many people there with him. Nobody's going to do that, check out a camera, do the rest of the stuff without Alex's knowledge no it's that he threw him under the bus to save his sorry ass he paid Sam's legal fees for about a year and then he fired him without any explanation stopped paying for the fees why gotta get it things are getting hot I got a distance myself from you that's what we're seeing here it's amazing to me to see this happening makes It makes me very angry. Like I said, I've seen what these guys are like behind the scenes, and

I'm not going to shut up about it. And I don't care if it turns me off. I don't care if people misunderstand what my motives are here. You need to know what Trump is like. You need to know what Alex and Steve Bannon and Roger and all these other people that you're following and listening to that are manipulating and controlling you, you need to understand where these guys are coming from. They're agent provocateurs, just like those guys with the cameras on them.

They get your confidence. They tell you the truth. And then when the time is right, just like Glenn Beck did at the Bundy Ranch standoff, he stuck the knife in. Oh, are you a sovereign citizen, Mr. Bundy? Yeah. He knew exactly what he Mr. Bundy? Yeah. He knew exactly what he was. Bundy didn't know what he meant by that.

That made me want to throw up when I saw Glenn Beck do that. Anyway, after people being locked down, 2 million people are leaving the major cities after the lockdown. Same thing is happening in China. There's an article that was done about all these people who had young people in their twenties. They're leaving good paying jobs. They graduated the top of their class, had a tech job, or they had some kind of a white collar job in a bank or something like that. And they got locked down and they said, well, that's it. I'm getting out of town. I don't care if I have to take an 80% pay cut. They're making a fifth,

in many cases, a fifth of what they made before. I'll go do pet grooming out in the countryside of China because I don't want to be in the cities anymore. Well, the same thing is happening here. People are understanding what is happening with it. People need to know that you need to be able to have the skills, real skills. Instead of learning pet grooming, what you might want to do is learn how to grow your own food. Because they're coming after the food supply. With the vaccines, with the lockdowns, the climate. Both the climate and the pandemic MacGuffin and the vaccine MacGuffin. All of that stuff is now

focusing on food, all of those things, you know, crypto got to get rid of your money. Got to get rid of your food. Got to get rid of your tribe. It's coming folks. Better learn, better prepare. And you know, civil defense, civil defense, manual.com. Good, good source of that. I'm going to get him back on.

I'll try to get him on tomorrow, Jack Lawson. Biden, meanwhile, is looking for a way to de facto ban your cars. For years, Eric Peterson and I have been wringing our hands about how expensive cars are getting because of all the emissions dictates and all the safety dictates and all the rest of this stuff. Biden has now released the strictest ever emission regulations. They announced historically strict regulations on tailpipe emissions on Wednesday in a bid to boost the sale of electric vehicles. This is about de facto prohibition.

And of course, they're going through Nixon's EPA. The EPA is now going to be putting out new rules they they claim that if they can really tighten this down and make it impossible and you know to comply with this unless it costs a fortune they can their goal is to have 67 of all light duty vehicles sold after 2032 be electric vehicles they will move up. 2030 is the year that they're focusing on everything. They don't have a way to do this. It's just going to be a de facto ban, de facto prohibition. I just told you yesterday, 60% of the people say they don't want and can't afford an electric

car. They're far more expensive than the cars that are already prohibitively expensive. How much more do you need to do? They've already made the average car in the high 40,000 range because of things like these emissions regulations. So the next thing to do is let's, of course, ramp it up. No matter how much we are suffering under austerity and sanctions and all the rest of the stuff, Biden and his group will make it harder. I should go back and make me think of when King Solomon died, his young son, you know, the people

come to him and they say, your father had a pretty heavy burden on us financially. Are you going to give us some break from that? And he says, well, let me think about it. And he goes, talk to some of the other young kids. You know, the, the elders tell him, yeah, you should, uh, you should ease off on some of this. So you don't need that much money. You don't need to hit him so hard. And he goes and talks to the young guys and the young guys say, you tell him this, you think my dad was bad. That was nothing compared to what I'm going to do to you. And caused a civil war and a split. Biden, you think those EPA regulations are bad under Obama?

Well, wait till you see what I've got for you. Yeah. Wait till he sees how we're going to react with this stuff. People are not going to take this that much longer. By proposing the most ambitious pollution standards ever for cars and trucks, we are delivering on the Biden-Harris administration's promise to protect people and the planet. We're going to protect the planet.

Can we stop with this absurdity? I'm so sick and tired of this. We ought to laugh these people off the podium when they start talking about protecting the planet at this point. Biden in 2021 signed an executive order directing the government to establish policies that would make 50% of passenger vehicles all electric by 2030. And that's not enough. So now he's got to double down even more. Here we are two years later, not even.

And we got to escalate it. Executives for the United Auto Workers expressed concern over the proposal. Yeah, that's right. or two years later, not even, and we got to escalate it. Executives for the United Auto Workers expressed concern over the proposal. Yeah, that's right. All you union workers, you're not going to have a job. You're not going to own anything. You're not going to go anywhere. You like that?

You like that? We'll keep voting for Biden and his lunatic crowd. So they said the United Auto Workers are not happy about that considering electric vehicles typically require less than half the number of workers. It's a very simple car, right? That's one of the reasons why GM and other manufacturers fought it. As a matter of fact, it's one of the reasons why they signed up for all of this complicated emissions regulations and safety regulations and everything. That was to keep competition away.

And that was pretty effective. People couldn't start a new car company. That's why that one guy wanted to start up Elio, the three, the three legged car, you know, he, um, he said, I'll make it out of, I'll make it with three wheels. And that way it won't be regulated with all these oppressive things. Cause that's too complicated. You can't do that. So now after they get to the point where you've got environmental

socialist government, ESG, they can just say, all right, well, you know, let's do this because, um, you know, we've got so much monopolistic control over the economy that, yeah, let's simplify the manufacturing of cars. Make it very simple. Anybody, all you need is some batteries and some motors on the wheels and that's it, you're ready to go. So we'll keep the rest of this stuff there to keep competition out and we will just rent this to people. How's this going to work out? Well, you know, in Georgia, this is a reason, uh, article from yesterday, Georgia is shoveling cash

into a failing electric vehicle company. And they're not the only ones it's being done here in Tennessee with Ford is being done in North Carolina with electric vehicle company. And they're not the only ones. It's being done here in Tennessee with Ford. It's being done in North Carolina with a Vietnamese company. They're doing it all over the place. Every state government is showering cash on these people who are going to make electric cars. And the taxpayers are going to take a beating. We've seen this type of stuff with Solyndra and the solar panel subsidies

and things like that, but this is a new order of magnitude. Everybody wants that battery factory. Everybody wants that car company there. And these politicians put a feather in their cap because they bring this thing in. They promise it's going to be billions of dollars, but we're going to be left holding the bag. In 2021, the state of Georgia made an expensive bet on an unproven company that could be headed for financial catastrophe, writes Reason Magazine.

The company was Rivian. And if you remember, they got a, oh, the press was just all about Rivian. Oh, you know, Ford likes them. Jeff Bezos at Amazon gave them $100 million or something and said, you know, and we're going to get the front of the, and we're going to get the front of the line. You're going to make Amazon delivery vehicles for us. Governor Kemp in Georgia heralded the $5 billion facility as, quote, the single largest

economic development project in state history. When completed, the facility was expected to stretch over nearly 20 million square feet on 2,000 acres. And they said, this is three times larger than Disneyland. And it's also based on a bigger fantasy. Here come the magic fairies, the fairy godmother. She's going to wave the magic wand and we're all going to be driving electric vehicles and, you know, no unicorn farts anymore.

The Rivian was the object of market hype. Company didn't just make electric vehicles. And so, you know, they said, what's going to do for, uh, for all these different types of SUVs and trucks and everything, what Tesla did for sedans, that was the hype. They had money pouring in from wall street, $1.3 billion from Amazon. I was wrong. It's not a hundred billion. Uh, it was 1.3 billion from amazon for a 20 stake uh 1.2 billion dollars from ford for a 12 stake of the company well ford got stuck uh rivian raised 12 billion dollars to an initial public offering the ipo valued the company at over 85 billion dollars it had a higher stock market value, market capitalization,

all the shares times the share price, the market capitalization. It was higher than Ford. And then Georgia subsidized it. And then it turns out that just weeks before the IPO, it turns out that Rivian had only produced 56 pickup trucks and shipped only 42. And that was to us employees. Well, it's got a bigger market cap than Ford does.

And Ford's the bigger fool because Ford bought into it. So, you know, where are we at? Well, it's actually the people of georgia that bought into this and um this is starting to look like the tulip bulb um territory right the electric cars and the way the states have gone into this is very much like the tulip bulb as the reason says they're burning through a tremendous amount of cash at an unsustainable rate. And quietly, their contract to deliver these things to Amazon was quietly amended and moved back by five years. Now, I said the same thing is happening in Tennessee. Yeah, the same governor who is pandering to the gun control crowd used eminent domain

to evict farmers. And of course, it's black farmers. So it's, it's really important, right? No, it's, it's important that you don't evict any farmers from this stuff.

Don't make it about the race. Give me a break. And that's reason the state promised the Tennessee promised Ford nearly a billion dollars in incentives. And of course, you know, this is not as foolish as a new company like Rivian, or even more foolish, what is happening in North Carolina.

But the bad thing about this with the eminent domain, and I did talk about this, I talked about it with North Carolina, what's happening with it, is essentially that horrible thing that they did in Connecticut, where the government allowed a corporation to use eminent domain so they could kick people out of their businesses and put it in there. And that's what they're doing to the farmers. Now, here in Tennessee, it's black farmers. But it's not black farmers in North Carolina.

It's still wrong to kick these people out of their homes so that you can put in a corporation. And that's what it's about. But the way they did it in Tennessee and North Carolina was they said, well, we have to have a road for this. And so the state decides they're going to do the road. And so the Department of Transportation is using eminent domain. So it doesn't look like they're doing it for the company. But that's just a beard. They're doing it for the company. And so's just a beard. They're doing it for the company.

And so Ford said they're going to commit $11 billion to build, to expand electric vehicle production. In addition to two EV battery factories in Kentucky, they're going to put in a $5.6 billion megacampus in western Tennessee. They call it Blue Oval City. Ford boasted that the project would be operational in 2025, employ about 5,800 people. The people that are there, just like the people in North Carolina, say, well, that's fine. I even support you doing that,

and I don't mind if you buy my farm, said some of them. But see, the problem is they're not paying them anywhere close to the market rate, and that's a crime. You know, if you're going to take somebody's property, you don't pay them 20% of the market rate. And that's what we're seeing in all of these things. This is corruption, crony capitalism. It's being done by the state government. And they're stomping on the little guys, even when they kick, you know, some of them don't mind. You know, they don't have, it's not necessarily a farm that's been in their family for a century or two. They just want to be paid a reasonable price. And the governments don't want to do that.

That's their contempt for us. And it is being done for a corporation just like the Kello case in Connecticut was being done that way. Well, that's it for today's broadcast. North Carolina is a Vietnamese electric vehicle automaker. What's the chance that they're going to stay in business? Maybe electric rickshaws or something. I don't know. Thanks for joining us.

Have a good day. Joe, we've got a problem. What? Who are you? It's the new mug they're selling at the David Knight show dot com. Right. So basically, a mug is something that holds liquid. Right.

Because basically, you can't hold coffee with your hands. Right. I'm scatting. But anyone tries to mug me, I'm be ready for it. You dog-faced pony soldier. They say the mug can help patriots drink coffee, then save the world. This could be bad for us. Save the world? But we own the world.

These people, they're supporting free speech with every month they buy. Come on. These people... I tell you... Well, anyway... You're listening to The David Knight Show.