The David Knight Show - 18May23 OpenAI & Senators Lay Plans for AI Oligarchy as Altman Plans Iris-Scanning Global ID/Crypto

Episode Date: May 18, 2023

OUTLINE of today's show with TIMECODESCreating AI World Governance: OpenAI CEO & Senators Agree on Partnership Senators & Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI agree that there needs to be new FDA-style agency to create an oligarchy and public/private partnership for AI control. All the worst aspects of regulatory capture combined with the worst aspects of Silicon Valley censorship and narrative control (2:11) OpenAI CEO Altman is weeks away from rolling out a global ID/cryptocurrency to implement UBI (Universal Basic Income) with biometric iris scanning. Will this be the path to global governance and Mark of the Beast? (27:21)The two "problems" WorldCoin solves according to its creators (38:06)Bilderberg Begins. A quick history. Are they working on a Global Version of Euro? (41:19)Soros Chaos. Why is everyone shielding this billionaire and his plans for chaos (shutting down law enforcement with his District Attorneys) with baseless charges of anti-semitism? Why wouldn't Jewish groups want to distance themselves from this malevolent criminal? (51:57)Target alone will lose $1.2 BILLION this year due to Soros Chaos. And now the thieves are getting increasingly violent (1:09:08)Supreme Court declines to block Illinois assault ban. Here's what's next (1:12:35)Republican Gov Lee will call a special session to twist TN Republican members' arms on gun control and radical agitators are planning to "bird-dog" GOP legislators. (1:16:50)Establish GOP and Trump say abortion is NOT the hill to die on. They're wrong. Are either of them worth a single baby's life? (1:26:36)More leaks from Rudy Giuliani lawsuit: "Get over Passover. It was 3,000 years ago. The Red Sea parted. Big deal. It's not the first time that happened." Jerusalem Post calls him anti-semitic then takes its turn attacking the Torah. Rudy & the Post have more in common than they realize (1:47:07)Titanic As Never Seen Before How was it done, what can we learn? (1:56:55)INTERVIEW Crime & Immigration Problems Aren't What You're Told Is the justice system racist? Is there overpunishment? A look at the numbers and the history by Barry Latzer PHD (Professor of Criminal Justice at John Jay College), author of "The Myth of Overpunishment: A Defense of the American Justice System and a Proposal to Reduce Incarceration While Protecting the Public" (2:05?49)New research: Common Cold could give immunity to SARSWhistleblower: UK's NHS gave hospitals incentives to label deaths as Covid when they weren't. (2:54:18)Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.comIf 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/silverFor 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to TrendsJournal.com and enter the code KNIGHTBecome 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. Using free speech to free minds. You're listening to The David Knight Show. As the clock strikes 13, it's Thursday, the 18th of May, year of our Lord, 2023. Today we're going to take a look at some very disturbing moves being made by the OpenAI CEO. This is a guy that I think is the new George Soros, quite frankly. The amount of power that he's going to be accumulating as he goes before the Senate and says that anyone who wants to compete with him needs to get permission from the government, that it needs to be highly regulated for safety. You know, like we have the FDA regulating things for safety. No, it'll be

regulatory capture. And it appears that he's already captured the senators that were there fawning over him, offering him anything that he wanted. We'll be right back. Stay with us. Well, as I've said many times, I don't believe that AI is going to become godlike intelligence. Never believed that. I've interviewed Hugo de Garis many times. He talks about the Artilek War.

That part of it, I do agree with. You know, as somebody who's working in the field, he believed that he had the potential to create a godlike intelligence. I never agreed with that. However, he did say also that as people start to realize the danger of artificial intelligence, that they'll start to push back against it. And that will cause a polarizing war, a war over artificial intelligence, what he calls the artilect war, where the elites will array themselves on one side with superior technology and use that technology against us. Perhaps even, as he suggested, leaving Earth, getting into orbit in their space stations where they can conduct war against us.

Whether that is what is going to happen or not remains to be seen. Of course, as we look at this fourth turning, this is shaping up to be a fourth turning unlike any other with technology at the center of it and when we go back and we look at other fourth turnings they were always accompanied by major changes you know you go back to the american revolutionary war that was part of the enlightenment if you will and changes that were happening around that, as well as the Great Awakening, both good and evil aspects in the American Revolution. And of course, the French Revolution was simply the secular side of that, the first Marxist Revolution. But you had in the Civil War, the greater context, it was not about slavery because it was happening all over the

world. You had a Civil War that was happening in Italy at exactly the same time. It was about the industrial revolution, about the economic powers that were in the ascendancy, the industrial powers pushing out the established agrarian powers and creating instead of. Um, different power centers that were distributed over an area and an agrarian society, creating a consolidated nation state. That was what the civil war was about here. It's what the civil war in Italy at the same time was about all these different things that were happening. You had the creation of the nation states happening at that time,

along with the industrial revolution. I think that this particular four turn, and of course you also had the great depression world war two, but I think this, um, this one is really going to be about the art elect war. And it's going to be about artificial intelligence technology, the global elite, trying to establish a world government using their technology. And so it was very disturbing to me to see what happened in the Senate. As I said, I don't believe it's going to be a super intelligence, but I

believe that it is a very, very powerful tool in the hands of evil people. Like Sam Altman, who is going to be the next George Soros. You just wait and see. Open AI chief Sam Altman wants an FDA-style agency for artificial intelligence. They want the PPP, the private-public partnership. That's what he's pushing. And you got evil senators like Blumenthal on the Democrat side, Lindsey Graham on the Republican side.

All about it. All about it. All about it. Do we really want another FDA? I don't want the one that we've got. It's unconstitutional. Totally evil. Did not protect our health. It killed a lot of people with this warp speed stuff.

So he's talking about a licensing proposal. But let me tell you what this is really about. Whenever you see somebody that is in an industry, and it's always industry leaders, coming in and begging for regulation, it's because they're trying to consolidate their lead or they're trying to create a monopoly and or all of the above. And that's what is happening in this particular case.

At the local level, you can see it frequently with restaurant associations coming in and putting all kinds of obstacles in the way of somebody who wants to open up a new restaurant, for example. Oh, we've got to have more regulation because, you know, if you've got some fly-by-night guy coming in here and setting up a restaurant and people get sick, it's going to make everybody concerned, and they're not going to want to eat at any of the restaurants. Well, no, not really.

So they create all kinds of regulatory obstacles for any new competition. Once they get up the ladder, they want to saw off the lower rungs of the ladder. That's always the case. And that is what's happening here. The creation of a new artificial intelligence regulatory agency. They even have a title for it already. That was all uppercase. A-I-R-A.

A-I-R-A. ERA. It should be spelled E-R-R-O-R But it is pronounced the same, I guess ERA It was endorsed today In a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee On Privacy, Technology, and Law

And of course That was on Tuesday Tuesday During a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee. Senators and witnesses cited the FDA and the NRC, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, as models for how this should function. Ronald Bailey at Reason says this is a terrible idea. Yeah, do you want to model anything after the failed FDA regulatory capture? The witnesses at the hearing were open AI CEO, Sam Altman, IBM chief privacy and trust officer, Christina Montgomery, an AI researcher turned critic, Gary Marcus. And so Marcus argued that AI should be licensed in much the same way that the FDA

approves new drugs. Those are great models if your goal is to stymie progress or to kill off new technologies, says Reason Magazine. That is an outdated way to look at the FDA. Has Ronald Bailey noticed what happened in the last three years with warp speed? We just swept all of that stuff away. I made that argument myself about the FDA, the fact that they would remove the right to try.

Well, we need to also have removed the right to coerce. And we need to have not the FDA as know, not the, uh, FDA as, uh, this thing that is hopelessly corrupt, hopelessly, um, you know, captured by the very agencies that they seek to regulate because we're of all

the FDA heads gone under Trump. One of them went to Moderna. The other one went to Pfizer and it's always been that way. Revolving door. Been that way for a long time. Yes. They would get in the way of people who needed, who were in a terminal situation

and who would have liked to try a new drug because you would let them have a chance to try that, but the FDA would stay in the way. But that has been swept away. In case Ronald Bailey hasn't noticed, Fauci and his cohorts were working to sweep that away in October 2019, and they've effectively done so. Because it's not just warp speed. They've established a new precedent, and all these new drugs are coming out, are going to be following along with that precedent.

We don't have time to wait for this. It's too urgent. Especially if you called a vaccine, it's gone through. No testing whatsoever now uh so uh it's not about killing off new technologies it's not about killing off progress the fda has been been killing off people at this year's chelten, 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 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. NoviBet. More power to you t's and c's apply 18 plus bet responsibly gamblingcare.ie for the last three years by giving a seal of approval and criticizing ivermectin as a horse drug or something like that they've been literally killing people for money, for the people, for the companies that control them. Anyway, he says it takes 12 to 15 years for a new drug to get from the lab bench to the patient's bedside.

Where has he been for the last three years? Anyway, getting back to this hearing, he thinks that it's a bad idea to have the FDA model because the FDA is going to slow things up. I'm ready to slow things up on artificial intelligence. This ain't going to do it. This is simply going to create a very, very dangerous partnership with these evil corporations and these evil people running them and the evil people running our government like Blumenthal, Richard Blumenthal. Now, he did express his concern about industry concentration.

That's a concern. No, it's inevitable that that's going to happen. That's what this is. Fearing that just a few big incumbent companies would end up developing and controlling artificial intelligence technologies. However, Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, said this would be a regulatory advantage. Just think about the fact, since you've got a regulatory agency and you've only got a couple of companies, mine and maybe one other, they will have fewer people to oversee.

So that's an advantage, you see. This guy's pure evil. No, it's an advantage if you give us a monopoly or duopoly or oligarchy if there's just a handful of us out there it'll be easier for you to regulate us it'll be easier for them to regulate the government too as well he said the agency won't have to focus its attention on just a few companies on the other hand marcus noted that the danger of regulatory capture by a few big companies that could afford to comply with the thickets of new regulations,

thus shielding themselves from competition from smaller startups. Exactly. Exactly. But Altman wants to tell you that monopolies and oligarchies are more easily regulated, right? I guess he thinks we were born yesterday. Blumenthal, even though he expressed some concern about industry concentration, doesn't want to call it monopoly.

He also was demanding better control than we currently have with social media. You know, we got to get control of this at the very beginning. You know, it's not like that social media thing. You know, that ran free for a little while. Now we're getting control of it. We're doing everything to control it. But we got to stop this before there's any freedom. Well, Sam Altman's your guy.

I mean, they've been building bias into this thing that is going to be the next expert. Again, what we've seen is Fauci and Walensky, Redfield, Dr. Scarf, Imperial College of London. These people, these quote-unquote experts, have beclowned themselves and people are looking for something that they can trust. Oh, well enter artificial intelligence, which is machine-like and totally unbiased.

What a joke that is. And they're paying humans to label things. They're paying humans at very low wages, uh, about minimum wage in most places, to label stuff. That's where the bias gets put in. They've got an army of humans out there labeling things for AI as it is starting to build the constructs there.

That's why you wind up with the stuff like, tell me a joke about a woman. Well, I can't tell you a joke about a woman. Or let's say I think it's a joke about Trump versus Biden, you know, and that type of thing. Or you honor one or the other, but it won't tell jokes about Biden or women. And it won't praise Trump or men. I mean, that type of silly stuff. That's been shown very clear.

But it extends to everything of their agenda, right? It will continue to lie to you about climate change, always lie to you about climate change. It'll always lie to you about the pandemic, about every aspect of it, about the vaccine and everything else. It's got those biases already built in. They're already labeled. They're paying people to do that. So going back to this hearing on Tuesday, senators say only companies with a government approved license should be able to offer generative AI tools. Well, they're not generative. Anyway,

but gatekeeping so that AI is controlled by powerful corporations who will impose restrictions at the behest of government. That is exactly what is happening as reclaim the net points out again richard blumenthal said uh you know we gotta we got an obligation to do this before ai becomes and the threats and the risk become real he says uh congress failed to regulate social media at the beginning. We've got to do this before any real threats arise. Okay, so what do they have to fight? What do they see as a threat? Dangerous ideas.

Because we're just talking about ideas and information. We're going to regulate this information from the very beginning. So he proposed limitations on use. Not just on who gets into the business. He also called for AI companies to be held liable when they cause harm. I'm going to keep them on a very tight leash. But don't worry. You'll be handsomely rewarded with your monopoly. Do what I say, and everything will be just fine.

If I say that some information is harmful, because it says negative things about me and my agenda, you're going to shut it down, right? I mean, we've openly seen this in social media. Right after InfoWars was shut down, within a week, they had hearings. Didn't call in Alex or anybody that was shut at InfoWars was shut down, within a week, they had hearings. Didn't call in Alex or anybody that was shut at InfoWars. And you had Marco Rubio bringing these executives from Facebook

and from Twitter and from YouTube and said, you're going to censor who I tell you to censor, right? Not who China tells you to censor. You're going to work for me, right? I mean, it was just open. Open. Pretended he didn't know anything about what had happened. Now, that's the way these guys operate.

So Altman noted that GPT-4, the latest version of a chat, LGBT is what I call it, is more likely to refuse harmful requests than any other widely deployed model of similar capability. In other words, we censor for you, Senator, already better than anybody else. And we're going to keep improving that bias. There was no discussion of extreme bias that was already built in. Is extreme bias unsafe?

Well, not if it's biased in your favor, evidently, as these guys look at it. You know, Lindsey Graham doesn't have any problem with the fact that there's a heavily partisan bias built into it. Altman then called for the U.S. government licensing regime that applies to the development and release of AI models. He welcomed AI companies partnering with governments. And he said, as part of these partnerships, companies and governments should examine opportunities for global coordination. Let's make AI the basis for a global corporatocracy. Governments, global governance.

And guess who's going to be sitting in the higher position? The multinational corporations, when you have global governance. And of course, you know, they'll probably retain the beard of having separate countries and nations. You know, they wouldn't want to be too obvious about it right now i don't expect to see them you know create a throne in brussels or somewhere or in new york and have some guy in a funny hat like uh prince charles king charles now you know crowned and sitting on that throne no it'll be, they'll use usual idiots. They'll continue to have their phony elections as we've had.

There'll be the illusion that things are the same. It'll be full on global corporate governance. That's what they're partnering for. So Altman put out a strong call for a federal government licensing scheme. He said it is vital that AI companies, especially those working on the most powerful models, adhere to an appropriate set of safety standards,

including internal and external testing prior to release and publication. To ensure this, okay, so who tested them for bias? Did anybody test them for bias? No, they built it in, and they're fine with the bias that's in there. To ensure this, said Altman, the U.S. government should consider a combination of licensing or registration requirements for the development and release of AI models above a crucial threshold of capabilities alongside incentives. Incentives.

See, it's already there. Pay me extra. This crony capitalism is a part of it give me a monopoly give me some incentives you know you're going to need to have artificial intelligence you know to keep your empire you know that that's the game that they'll play you got to keep up with the Joneses, or I guess in the case of the Chinese communists, right? So you better start incentivizing this and giving us some money. 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 7 places each way On selected races throughout the festival

I declare this a most generous offering NoviBet More power to you T&C Supply 18 Plus Bet responsibly Gamblingcare.ie So alongside incentives for full compliance with these requirements, you pay us and then you prevent our competition from even coming into

existence. Lindsey Graham agreed with Altman's suggestion. Of course he would. What a snake in the grass that guy is. Never saw a war that he didn't want to send Americans to die in. To kill and die in. Of course, he never wanted to go to one himself. He agreed with Altman's suggestion that AI companies should have to obtain a license from the government. And he proposed that a new agency should be responsible for governing

AI and licensing. That's what we need. We need a new bureaucracy. We got a new bureaucracy. We got new technology. They say, well, we got to have a new bureaucracy. He also envisioned empowering this agency to put AI companies out of business if they don't adhere to the standards imposed by government. Lindsey Graham said, we need to empower an agency that will issues a license and can take it away. Wouldn't that be some incentive to do it right?

If you could actually be taken out of business, this guy is as authoritarian as Biden. Talked yesterday about how Biden was instrumental in setting up civil asset forfeiture as we know it. You know, the long stream that led to it. Well, you know, first we've got to have RICO statutes and we've got to do something about this organized crime, but let's not go too far with this. You know, we can't allow them to take anything before anybody's been convicted of anything. And then gradually they start pulling this out in certain cases. And finally the requirement for a conviction is completely gone.

And then they say, well, um, you know, we can, we can grab this stuff before there's a conviction. Well, you know, what do we base this on? Well, if you believe this, that there's some connection there, you can do it. Finally, we get to the, then there was restrictions. Well, you can take this and you can take that, but you can't take things like property, real estate. And then Biden gave us what we have today.

They can take anything, including your house, your home. And they don't have to convict you. They don't even have to charge you. They charge the property with being an accessory to a crime that they don't have to prove. That's where we are with this stuff. Iteratively, iteratively. So, um, Altman responded to Lindsay when Lindsay says, um, yeah, if you don't do it right, we could take you out of business, right?

He says, clearly that should be part of what an agency can do. Yes. Yes. We want you to take out our competition, please. And incentivize us to do whatever you want. Pay me and I'll do whatever you want. The idea of restricting AI via licensing came up again when Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana asked Altman for his AI regulation recommendations.

See, they've been captured already. This Republican Senator Kennedy says, well, you tell me what you want to see. They've already been captured. The senators have been captured. Go back and you take a look. I haven't done that. I bet if you go back and you take a look

at the open AI companies or some of the companies that Altman runs, we'll talk a little bit about Altman and his background. He's got a big venture capital presence footprint. A lot of companies. And I bet those companies have already been giving money to these senators on this committee. Anyway, Kennedy says, what do you think we should do? Altman proposed forming a new agency that can hand out licenses and take them away based on quote unquote safety standards. It's for safety. It's for safety. Whenever they start talking about safety, you know, they're really coming after liberty, right? Safety is the handmaid of tyranny nowadays. Whenever the government talks

about safety, you know they're going to prohibit something, they're going to license something, and they're going to take away your liberty. That's always the false trade-off. And of course, when you sacrifice liberty for the promise of safety, you receive neither and you deserve neither. Marcus recommended a similar licensing scheme to the one proposed by Altman, where companies have to make a safety case in order to get a license. So prove to me that you're safe before you can get a license. Incentivize that license for me. Incentivize licenses going both ways.

You can incentivize the senators and all the rest of it. The OpenAI CEO suggested that the company should have to obtain a license when they surpass a threshold of compute. Computing power is what we mean by that. Or when they surpass capability thresholds. Cory Booker raised concerns about the corporate concentration

of the generative AI space currently dominated by just two companies, Microsoft and Google. Marcus followed up with a warning about the risk of, quote, technocracy combined with oligarchy, where a small number of companies influence people's beliefs through the nature of these systems. Well, that's exactly what the problem is. It's not going to be solved by creating a government agency. That'll only make it worse faster. So the comments from Reclaim the Net, that it would likely entrench the dominant companies.

Of course it will. Of course it will. They said the fact that influential AI companies such as OpenAI already have the ear of the lawmakers that would implement a licensing scheme also gives the dominant companies an avenue through which they can exert influence and potentially shape a licensing scheme to benefit them while excluding competitors. Oh, yeah. You see this with all of these billionaire schemes. Gates comes in. I want you to ban natural food. I don't want you to incentivize my laboratory food and just repeat this over and over again. We see the same thing. Yeah. Outlaw my competition, even if it's something that is already existing and has been used for millennia,

ban that stuff and then incentivize mine. And then down the road, you know, you will mandate that. They've got to do it my way, right? Whatever the made up reason is, but this is a little bit different because, you know, this is something that, you know, saws off the legs of the competition. Anybody that want to compete with these guys and come up with an artificial intelligence that doesn't have a built-in political bias, agenda bias for world governance. Licensing could also restrict free speech.

Of course it will. Much of the justification for licensing during the hearing was centered around preventing harm, harm, and of course, harm and hate. Oh, these people, they only have the best motives, just like George Soros. You know, George Soros doesn't hate humanity. He loves humanity, say his defenders. A far-reaching subjective term used too many times to justify censorship of big type platforms and government censorship.

Truthful but inconvenient content will be considered to be harmful. Censoring such content will be a condition of licensing. And of course, you know, you look at, I call it chat LGBT because it pushes their agenda, their globalist agenda, whether you're talking about the climate or you're talking about pandemic or pharmaceuticals, whether you're talking about Democrats over GOP, women over men, et cetera, et cetera. It's all their values.

It's all their agenda. But now there's something else that is happening simultaneous with this. And that is Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, who's there saying, we want you to create a government agency to protect us and shut down our competition, and we want you to incentivize us, and we'll do whatever you want. He's now closing in on a $100 million funding for a new cryptocurrency. I think there was already a cryptocurrency out there called WorldCoin, but they've been working on this for like a year or so. And this is very interesting because it is a

global CBDC, if you will. It's not a central bank currency. I guess we could say, you know, central billionaire currency, right? Digital currency. These billionaires are centrally controlling everything. $100 million funding for his Iris scanning cryptocurrency plans. Who is this Sam Altman? Well, as I said, I think he is a new Uber globalist villain out there

like Soros. He's only 38 years old. He's already been at the center of a lot. the runs or has run a big venture capital firm. There's been there with the creation, participating in the creation of Airbnb, Stripe, Reddit,

Pinterest, Instacart, many others. He's been there funding Biden and the Democrats like Sam Bankman, fried. And then he gets into his key concern. You know, he's kind of stepped back from some of that venture capital stuff to jump into open AI, but now he wants to do this world coin thing.

A hundred million dollars in funding. He's secured for the company's dystopian iris scanning technology to create a global cryptocurrency called WorldCoin. Why don't you just call the Mark of the Beast and get it over with? We all know what you're doing. Previous investors included FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried, but you also have Andreessen Horowitz Crypto Fund, Reid Hoffman, others.

So the Iris scanning technology would create a global digital ID that'd be used to access WorldCoin. Now, what this does is this combines two of their very important objectives. A global ID to limit access of what you can do, especially on the internet, right? And to track you, to make it biometric as well. But also the idea behind WorldCoin is we're going to help use this to help people whose jobs we take away. Universal basic income.

So they will control you by identification and they'll control you by universal basic income. And that's the point of this thing. He's been very upfront about that. But he calls it privacy preserving. They're going to preserve your privacy because they're going to get a biometric scan of you. This guy is a full-on liar and deceiver. The big takeaway is iris recognition technology said is capable of distinguishing individuals on a billion-person scale. So we're going to protect you from identity theft and things like that because we will own your identity. And we won't let it be stolen. Except TechCrunch shows how people already stole data from WorldCoin. A TechCrunch investigation discovered the susceptibility of WorldCoin operators' devices to a password-stealing

malware, raising substantial questions about the robustness of WorldCoin's security mechanisms. These WorldCoin operators, says Reclaim the Net, in charge of managing the company's biometric devices, are rewarded for every new user they recruit. And so they've fallen victim to this malware. The worrisome component of the malware is the WorldCoin variant, which has the capability to extract saved passwords from victims' browsers. WorldCoin executives claim that their coin solves two issues,

distinguishing between humans and bots, and providing global income to compensate for job losses that will be caused by AI. You see? This is why you've seen so much chatter lately about the big problem of bots. Bots are half or more of all the traffic on the internet, they tell us, right? I've seen several of these articles coming up in the last week or so. So if bots are such a big problem, we've got to have some kind of biometric identification so that nobody gets on anonymously. Oh, and we also need to have some kind of an ID thing to make sure that kids can't look at pornography on the web and things like that. They'll come

up with any kind of justification. We know what they want. Everything has to be by permission. Everything has to be by privilege. They have to stop everyone before they get started on anything, before they can see anything. They want to have complete control of everything that you see as well as everything that you do. So they say they want to provide global income to compensate for job losses that they're going

to create with artificial intelligence has always been the plan and i really do wonder if that is truly what is happening you know there's been a lot of headlines about how well ibm laid off what was it 7 500 people or whatever and said it was going to be because they're going to replace them with artificial intelligence. They said these jobs may be replaced with artificial intelligence, I said at the time. Well, that's a frequent excuse that IBM has used. Going back 50 years ago when I was getting out of engineering,

people would say, well, you know, IBM used to be you'd go there and work for life, but they claim that they don't have any layoffs, but IBM really means I'll be moved. And if they like you and they want to keep you when they move this base of operation across the country, they'll pay for you to move. Otherwise they'll tell you, you got to pay for it yourself, hoping that you will just resign. Typically people would. And so I said, I don't know if that's maybe just an excuse. Well, shortly after that, it was shown that these big tech companies who are laying people off by the thousands, tens of thousands in some cases, are now hitting Congress and saying, we need to have more H-1B visas. We got to bring in more foreign engineers. This is simply rotating people out, getting rid of Americans.

Some people have put it out there. Well, you know, they don't want these spoiled brats working. They were the ones who spoiled them, you know. We got all of your personal trainers and your custom coffee shops or whatever. I can't even imagine all the stuff that they waste on these people in Silicon Valley. But, you know, they pampered them to the nth degree. Well, they want to cut that down and they want to hire engineers from India or wherever that are going to work very cheaply, more cheaply than the people here. And they won't have to give them the benefits these people have become accustomed to.

And so I don't think it's really artificial intelligence. It certainly isn't at the point where it's going to replace these people have become accustomed to. And so I don't think it's really artificial intelligence. Certainly isn't at the point where it's going to replace these people right now. But it gives them an excuse to rotate people out. Now, when they take your job and you don't have a job, what do we need? We don't want you to get angry. Remember back during the 2020 cycle, when you had a whole bunch of Democrats who were running, Michael Bloomberg was one of the ones running. And remember how he got everybody upset because he said, yeah, we can easily replace

those farmers. And everybody's like, farmers have a really complicated, and they do. They've got to manage a lot of technology today. They have to be able, even if they don't, whether they have a highly technological approach or whatever, they have to be able to be very self-sufficient in terms of fixing the stuff. That's even more so the case if you're an independent farmer. You don't have the money to go out and just replace whatever you want or to pay somebody to fix something that breaks. You have to be a jack-of-all-trades.

And so everybody was coming to the defense of the farmers, but that wasn't what Michael Bloomberg said. They missed the entire context of what he was saying. Yes, he does have contempt for everybody. That certainly is true. But he had contempt for the people who work in factories as well, of course. And he mentioned it that way. He said, we've replaced the agrarian, the farmer, and everything.

We created the Industrial Revolution. We put them in factories. And anybody can replace the farmers. Anybody can the farmer and everything. We created the industrial revolution. We put them in factories and anybody can replace the farmers. Anybody can replace the factory workers. And he said, and now the smart ones like me are out there figuring out how we're going to replace everybody and take their jobs. And we got to keep them from coming after us with guillotines. He said that with guillotines.

Universal basic income. This is why when Andrew Yang made it his central focus, you had people like Elon Musk, people like Sam Altman, people like Peter, giving him money to run. Yeah, tell everybody about universal basic income. Make the case for that because that's how we're going to pacify these people. That's how we're going to control them because we're going to take everything from them. They're going to own nothing. We will be the only stakeholders. We'll have a stake in everything,

and they'll have a stake in nothing. So, you know, get them used to the idea. They can just kick back and play video games, and we'll give them some kind of basic income to just barely keep them alive. And they can decide, you know, how much they want to spend on food and how much they want to spend on their virtual reality games to keep them pacified. So this is where they are now, again. WorldCoin executives claim their coin solves two problems,

differentiating between humans and bots and providing a global income to compensate for the job losses that they will cause with AI. After creating a digital ID, users can receive world coin tokens for free. It's an insidious plan. It's an insidious plan. And it relies on our passivity. It relies on us just walking, sleepwalking into this slavery

as they put these chains and handcuffs on us. So that's why you've got all this chatter, about 50% of the internet being bots and that type of thing. So Sam Altman is reportedly in advanced talks about this. you've got all this chatter about 50% of the internet being bots and that type of thing. Uh, so Sam Altman is reportedly in advanced talks about this. The project is aimed at creating a collectively owned. What does that mean? A collectively owned and globally distributed cryptocurrency.

It'll be sourced from a mix of existing and new investors, all the usual suspects, the, uh, primary venture capitalist group that is putting this together is one that's called A16Z, which is actually a shorthand for the Andreessen Horowitz venture capital firm.

But other investors include digital currency group Coinbase Ventures, which venture capital firm, but other investors include digital currency group, coin base ventures, as well as FTX and Sam Bankman fried and LinkedIn co-founder Reed Hoffman raising a hundred million dollars from investors through private token sales, citing two people with knowledge of the matter. And they said, uh, the person who was talking about this,

their source, this is coming from Coin Telegraph. Their source said, you know, you think about it. For crypto, it's not a good time. It is a bear market. It is a crypto winter. And it's remarkable that these guys can get $100 million to get this amount of investment. Does that sound fishy to you too? Yeah, it does to me. Where do you think they're getting this? Are they maybe partnering with some governments in the background who want to incentivize this because this is exactly what they want? According to WorldCoin executives, the aim of the project is to tackle the two problems of global identification

and control with a global ID and pacification and control with universal basic income. Now, they don't put it that way. That's my summary of it. My summary of it is global identification and control, global ID, pacification and control, universal basic income. It's about control with With those two ways. ID and pacification.

Rollcoin is preparing to launch its blockchain protocol and commence recording transactions within the next six weeks. It is right here. Right here upon us. Which brings us to Bilderberg. Which begins, I think it's this weekend? Yeah, this weekend. In Lisbon, Portugal.

So secret that there's no announcement about it. Matter of fact, nobody ever talks about this. Davos they talk about. Davos is elitist. Davos has guards with machine guns everywhere. Keep paying the neck journalist away from these people. But there are thousands of people who go to Davos, you know, 100, 200 people or so that go to Bilderberg. They typically don't tell you who they are. That's why it was such a big deal for people like Charlie Skelton, who goes to every Bilderberg conference. And we were there in Copenhagen.

The idea that, you know, you get pictures of these guys as they're coming and going was really amazing. The only time that's ever really happened. Total media blackout. And guess who is at Bilderberg? Well, so far we don't know. But last year, Sam Altman was there. Albert Borla, CEO of Pfizer, was there. All the usual suspects.

So complete media blackout in the corporate media. As Jordan Schlachtel points out, he said the World Economic Forum's annual closed-door invite-only Davos confab. He said the World Economic Forum's annual closed-door invite-only Davos confab. He said, well, that's one thing, and that's pretty exclusive. But Bilderberg is a level up of exclusivity. Fewer than 150 people end up with invitations to the conference as opposed to the thousands who go to Davos.

He said independent journalists on the ground, Charlie Skelton. Charlie Skelton, what a great guy he is to get to know. He was a comedian in the UK, but he follows this. Usually reports on it, does always reports on it for UK papers. Anyway, I'd like to try to get Charlie on. I don't know if I can get a hold of him anymore,

but I'd like to get his take on this stuff during or even after this happens. We do have confirmation that the meetings are taking place, says Jordan, via the European Commission website. This is how they knew it was taking place and how they knew where it was taking place. The European Commission's website noted on its calendar that two of its top officials were blacking out their calendar because they were going to be attending it on this date in Lisbon, Portugal.

That's how we found out. It's always got the highest publicly elected officials, intelligence agency people, large media companies like, you know, the owners of New York Times and things like that. And again, as he said, although it's significantly staffed by publicly elected officials, the discussions that happened during Bilderberg conferences remained a closely held secret. They say Chatham House rules, Chatham House rules. I don't know how that trumps the Constitution or how it trumps the Logan Act.

Shouldn't. Chatham House rules is an idea that's in England. It's not even an American idea. But they always tell people, no, nothing important's going on here. We're just getting together as friends and just talking informally about things. There's no business being done here. And that's why when Karen got the pictures of Ed Ball, who was the shadow chancellor of the Exchequer,

he shows up on the side. He's fumbling. I've told this story many times. He's fumbling around for his identity card. Didn't have it. He opens up his suitcase and the contents fall out. And guess what? Didn't see any toothbrush. Didn't see any toothbrush.

Didn't see any clothes. I guess those are being sent, you know, by some valet or something. He took the important stuff with him with a roll on. It was all papers. He had a suitcase full of papers. It's not widely covered in the U.S. because, you know, nobody knows who Ed Balls is in the U.S., but it was widely covered in the U.S. because nobody knows who Ed Balls is in the U.S., but it was widely covered in the U.K., and he was the highest elected official to lose in the next election.

Yeah, no business whatsoever. We don't discuss anything important, and yet he's got a suitcase filled with nothing but papers. So we don't know who's there, but who was there last year? As I said, Pfizer CEO, Albert Borla, Sam Altman that we've been talking about, Peter Thiel, Eric Schmidt of Google. You had the CIA director. You had the director of British and French spy agencies. You had the chief of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg.

And last year they said, and of course we don't know what they discussed, right? Do you think they're going to tell you the truth about what they discussed? But what they claimed they were talking about, they'll just, they will put out after the meeting. Typically they'll say,

these are the different topics that we discussed. They won't tell you what they said about him. I don't even know that the topics that they list are true. But you know, things like geopolitical realignments, NATO challenges, China, Sino-US tech competition, Russia, continuity of government, of course, disruption of the global financial system. How do we do it? How do we disrupt this thing? Disinformation. How do we do the disinformation better? Yeah.

Fragmentation of democratic societies. How do we destroy everything? No, that's the type of things they said they talked about last year. And you know why they call it Bilderberg. There's a hotel right there at that site. If you've ever seen the movie, a bridge too far,

it was about operation market garden. And that was a point, you know, getting towards the end of world war two, they had an operation where they were going to make a strategic move and parachute a bunch of people in and, you know, that type of thing. And, um, there at that bridge, the bridge too far, was where the Nazis had their final victory. And they were able to defeat the Allies there. And it was 10 years later that they had the first Bilderberg meeting. 10 years later. And the guy who was the first leader of it, one of the co-founders, Prince Bernhardt

of the Netherlands, you know, where they're having all the problems right now, the farmers are, where they're making some of their first moves. Prince Bernhardt of the Netherlands. Many people suspected that he was a double agent for the Nazis. Many people suspected that he had betrayed this because they were waiting for the allies when they got there and then one of the early movers that were there and the guy who took over for prince barnhart when he stepped down at bilderberg was a british guy lord carrington lord carrington had a big role at that battle lord carrington was one who refused to move forward to support his own troops and cause the defeat. So you've got a guy that people accused of being a Nazi collaborator

and another guy who many people accuse as being the instrumental deciding factor, even though they were already waiting for them. He was the deciding factor in the defeat as well. The two of them, and some other people as well, put together the first Bilderberg meeting at that site, at that hotel, 10 years later, 1954. And it was always about creating a unified Europe,

which is what the Nazis wanted. But now they've all decided that they'll come together. You want a unified Europe to control? I wanted that too, so let's just combine our forces here financially. And it was the second one in 1955 where they came up with a blueprint for the Euro. That's what this place is really about a European unification doing it through finance what both sides been trying to especially the Nazis have been trying to do for the longest time with troops, a unified Europe.

That was the point of it and remains the point of Bilderberg. And so they bring in these types of people. Goldman strategists see the potential profit boom from artificial intelligence. Bloomberg is saying artificial intelligence offers the biggest potential long-term support for U.S. profit margins. Goldman Sachs says artificial intelligence can boost net margins by nearly 400 basis points over a decade. What they're saying is, hey, folks, Goldman is saying the only place where you're going to make any money because we're staring down the scope of a recession or depression, high interest rates, elevated inventory levels,

inflation, recession, all of this stuff. You know, the only place that where there's any hope for making a lot of money and you can make it really big artificial intelligence. And there's only two companies out there that are really there, right? You know, you got Microsoft open AI and a partnership, and then you got Google and they're working with the government to keep all their competitors out. Well, this is going to be like a fire hose of money for these guys, money and power. It truly is amazing whether or not they develop anything. Money in Wall Street is going to be pouring into this stuff. The launch of OpenAI's chat GPT has created a frenzy with companies rushing to introduce competing tools and investors,

snapping up anything that is artificial intelligence related. Hence, the government control of entry. We're going to take a quick break and we'll be right back. decoding the mainstream propaganda it's's the David Knight Show. All right, welcome back. Let's talk a little bit about Soros. We said so much about Soros. Let's talk about the real Soros. And there's been a lot of discussion about it because of what Elon Musk said. Again, I think he started, you know, people are hectoring him over Jeffrey Epstein.

So, you know, he wants to come. First of all, he was very angry about that. Said I had nothing to do with this guy and he may be right. You know, it looks like they're fishing for anybody that's got a lot of money. You know, did you, um, did you have anything to do with Jeffrey Epstein? So it could be a fishing expedition, but he's very sensitive about, uh, how, you know, people asserting that he had a connection with him. So I, you know, he's a crook.

I wouldn't, I never had any associated with him. I don't need any association with him, but I think that was one of the reasons why he, you know, just puts it out there about George Soros. And so they pushed back against it. As I pointed out, accusing him of antisemitism. That's always the way that they shield George Soros. He eventually came back. I think his best reply to the anti-defmitism that's always the way that they shield george soros he eventually came back i think his best reply to the anti-defamation league he said uh the adl should just drop the a part

it's just the defamation league and he's right about that the question i have is all these people who are saying say well this is um this is anti-Semitic. And they will say that regardless. There's all this stuff being written back and forth about Magneto, this comic book character. And they say, well, he's obviously anti-Semitic because Magneto is Jewish. I didn't know that Magneto was Jewish. Did you know that Magneto was Jewish before this? Did you know, Travis, that they had him in a uh concentration holocaust camp thing that's i did

but only because of the movies oh i just said that one i don't remember that in the movie i don't remember a little bit forgettable to be honest yeah i i didn't think too much of the movies um i think i saw them once many many years ago but it surprised me i thought magneto he's jewish i didn't know anything about his origin. But, of course, interestingly enough, they don't criticize Marvel Comics for creating a Jewish supervillain. They get a pass. Disney gets a pass on that, too, because they own Marvel. Stan Lee.

What did you mean by this? Yeah, exactly. So, you know, you've got all these people saying, well, you know, Magneto is really a complex character. You know, he had his good sides, he had his bad sides. Forget about that. This is just about any opportunity to shield George Soros by, you know, throwing up your anti-Semitic. Isn't it interesting that they would do that?

If I was Jewish, the first thing I would want to do is say, I'm not like George Soros. But these people want to embrace George Soros and shield him. That's the thing that I don't understand. That's why you've got all these people coming out of the woodwork to defend George Soros, who are Jewish. I would be the first one, if I was Jewish to throw him to, uh, yeah, take him. He's bad.

Don't get it. Uh, so, uh, some of the people came back and said, uh, no, he's a really good guy. He's a philanthropist and everything. He said, uh, Elon Musk said, um, you assume that he has good intentions. They're not good intentions. He wants to erode the very fabric of civilization sorrows hates humanity so anyway um i i just uh i don't understand why they don't want to distance themselves from him uh they said that musk is encouraging violence against jews said one jewish commentator alex

zeldin he said whether he knows it or not is irrelevant. See, it's an unconscious bias. This is one of these things, right? You know, if you're white, you hate people of color. Even if you really don't, you really do hate them. Even if you don't. It's an unconscious

bias. But they will always shield George Soros. The Atlantic's Yair Rosenberg criticized Musk, said George Soros is an avowed universalist. Well, that means he's a globalist, right? Who grew up speaking Esperanto, an artificial universal language that was meant to unite all people under one tongue. I don't really believe that. I don't really believe that anybody was out there speaking Esperanto. saw that thing kicking around but i don't think it ever had anybody

you know he and two other people if that was the case well they got so didn't he spend his formative years in nazi germany i'm not convinced the nazis were big on esperanto yeah i know yeah i grew up speaking esperanto That, that just defies belief, right? Quite frankly, you know, he and two other people were talking, speaking Esperanto, an artificial universal language that was meant to unite all people under one

tongue. Magneto, however, is an avowed particulars. He's a capitalist who devotes all of his energy to his own people, mutants, literally ideological opposites. Now, here's the thing.

When you say, you wonder where Soros is coming from? It rhymes with chaos, right? Soros is about creating chaos. Soros, like these other globalists, is about depopulation. Babylon B says, Elon Musk apologizes to Magneto for comparing him to George Soros. I would like to say I'm sorry to Max Eisenhardt, also known as Magneto, said Elon in a statement according to the Babylon B. My comparison was unfair.

While Magneto is conflicted and a misunderstood character with real human motivations that you can empathize with. Soros is an insane cartoon villain with an inhuman hatred for humanity, not even close to the same person. The Anti-Defamation League thanked Elon for the apology and expressed hope that he will do better in the future. It is unfair, they said, to compare anyone living or dead to that evil hollow shell of a man known as soros said adl ceo jonathan greenblatt yeah that's right that's what you think would happen wouldn't it i mean wouldn't you think that would be the approach uh i wouldn't attach myself to the most odious person that was like me you know I'd want to distance myself from, you know, somebody like that.

Instead, he identifies with Soros. That's who the ADL identifies with. So as a follow-up to this, you had Elon Musk with an interview with David Sachs. I think that was kind of interesting the way that the left portrayed it. You know, David Sachs kind of pressed him on this Soros stuff. Do you really want to talk about things that are going to hurt your business,

hurt your image? And, you know, and he kept pressing Elon Musk and Elon Musk said, let's not make this interview about George Soros. We have plenty of stuff to talk about. But they pressed him. He goes, well, I mean, just any kind of controversial stuff.

You know, you're engaged in politics now and all these other things. And, you know, that's going to put people off from buying your products or investing in your company or something. And Elon Musk sat there silently for 12 seconds. And so that's what they focused on. He said, look at this. You know, he doesn't know what to say. And he comes back and he makes a reference to the Princess Bride.

And he said said you know when the princess bride or something the guy hunts i i don't that's another piece of fiction that i haven't really paid attention i saw it once i i'm one of the few people that doesn't like the princess I know. I know. Yes, please. Uh, but not a fan, but, uh, anyway, he, he said, you know, at some point he traps a villain evidently and he says, go ahead and try to bribe me this and that. I don't care. He says, I'll say what I want. And if the consequence of that is losing money, so be it. Uh, so, you know know we'll see what happens we'll see if he still says what he

wants when he puts this ceo in at uh twitter anyway um what uh david sacks who was interviewing him uh later said in this um he uh tweeted out later citing a 2016 article by Politico titled, George Soros' Quiet Overhaul of the U.S. Justice System. And understand, this was part of, in the transition period, before Trump took office in 2017, between the election of 2016 and the taking office in Januaryuary 20th or 21st 20th i think it is of 2017. it was openly reported that obama and eric holder were working their strategy was going to be taking over district attorneys and state attorneys

generals offices that was what they were going to focus on. And we saw George Soros then financing that. So this is something the Democrats, especially the one, you know, Obama and the others, they're open plotting to subvert law and order by taking over the district attorney, local district attorney's offices. And for Soros to pour in millions of dollars into a local district attorney's office that typically, you know, that there was a couple of yard signs that people would

do and that's it. You know, typically most people don't even know who the people running for district attorney are, but he put in millions of dollars for that. As a matter of fact, in San Antonio, he tried to take out the incumbent district attorney, put in his district attorney, spent over a million dollars, and the incumbent won against Soros by running against Soros. He said, look at this. Look at all this money that's here. You know where that's coming from? It's coming from George Soros. Do you want George Soros picking your district attorney? And he won. In other places where they didn't do that, they lost. And so David Sachs, citing that Politico article,

put this out in a tweet. He said, George Soros has been so uniquely destructive to law and order in American cities that there's a name for the carnage that he has wrought. Soros DAs. His organization described its strategy to Politico in a 2016 article, saying it would change the law not by going through legislatures, but rather by buying underfunded district attorney elections. His DAs would then change the law through the abuse of prosecutorial discretion and the chaos, the disruption, explosions of crime that we've seen, especially throughout California. Poster child for that. He said Soros' strategy worked because few were paying

attention to the hyper-local district attorney elections. No one expected out-of-town money to come in and seek to radically change their quality of life. Now that the results are clear, many more people are paying attention. This has caused some in the mainstream media and left-wing political groups to attempt to portray any criticism of Soros as anti-Semitism.

This is absurd. But you see, if you understand that what they're defending is not this reprehensible person, reprehensible because of the damage that he's done, but they're really, the damage that he's done and the agenda that he's done, these people are on board with. This is why they don't push him away.

And this is why they'll come after somebody like Elon Musk, who has more money to defend Soros, because they're defending the agenda that he is financing. It's a bigger issue. He's the money behind this. But this is the agenda that is bigger than Soros. He's just the money for this. So Obama's on board. Eric Holder, all the Democrats are on board with this.

This is their agenda to take down America. And, of course, you could argue that Soros pushed them to do it. Soros paid them to do it. I'm just saying it's a bigger conspiracy than one guy. And that's why they all rushed to defend this guy who's done so much harm in so many different countries to people. Soros sought to have an outsized impact on public policy. He should not be immune from criticism in any other context.

The influence of money and politics would be a legitimate topic of conversation. Indeed, it is highly appropriate in a democracy to recognize when a special interest has subverted the public interest. And of course, it's very similar to what we've seen with all their agendas, right? Since when would they tell you, you know, don't read anything, don't think about anything, don't try anything, don't investigate about anything. Don't try anything. Don't investigate. You've had too much to think.

Just do what I say, right? Saw that throughout the last three years. Criticizing anybody who questions anything. And, of course, the values of the left, especially, were to question authority. Don't question authority now. That should be the biggest tell. Right after that, Musk responded to David Sachs. He said, perfectly said, among other things,

Soros astutely identified a massive arbitrage opportunity in the district attorney elections, where a relatively small amount of money has outsized influence. Soros' instructions to his pet prosecutors were essentially to minimize prosecuting even violent criminals. That's why a criminal, someone who had already stabbed his roommate, could brutally assault Dave Chappelle on stage with that same deadly weapon and yet receive merely a misdemeanor. And he says the disaster that is downtown San Francisco, once beautiful and thriving,

now a derelict zombie apocalypse is due to the woke mind virus. Well, it's due to Soros and the Democrats' agenda. We have a Soros-backed prosecutor in St. Louis abruptly resigning after a scandal-ridden tenure. Kim Gardner is stepping down even ahead of schedule. She was under attack from the state attorney general for things that she had done there. A legal effort by Missouri's attorney general to fire her for neglecting her duties. That's what all the Soros district attorneys do.

They neglect their duty. Kim Gardner, a Democrat long mired in scandal and allegations of misconduct, announced earlier this month that she would resign as St. Louis circuit attorney, effective the 1st of June. On Tuesday, however, she changed course and said she'll be stepping down immediately. She was one of the first of the Soros prosecutors, a liberal, that he bankrolled. She announced last month that she would seek a third term. She was first elected in 2016, reelected in 2020. She said she was going to seek a third term. She was first elected in 2016, reelected in 2020. She said she was going to seek a third term. The case against her must be absolutely ironclad to not only get her to step down, but then go, oh, I'll do it now. I won't wait. Yeah, well, it was. It was a very high profile case. You had a

teenage basketball team that was there., this criminal who she let out, you know, violent criminal, uh, that she let out struck a, uh, a teen volleyball player and she lost both of her legs. And so that was a big thing, you know, Hey, you let this guy out, you know, and that's what we see over and over again. That's the purpose of the Soros district attorneys, to do that type of thing. The man charged in the crash with assault, armed criminal action, operating a motor vehicle without a license. He was out on bond awaiting trial for a separate armed robbery case

despite violating the term of his bond several dozen times. Gardner argued that her office had tried to put him back in jail, but a judge had denied the request. And then what they did was they went back and looked at the court records and said, no, you're lying about that. You never filed a request. You're the ones who put him back out on the street. And so now she's out on the street.

You better watch out if you're seeing her car. Anyway, a man who was assaulted congressional staffers earlier this week with a baseball bat, an aluminum baseball bat. Now we see that he was let out by a Soros-funded prosecutor. On Monday, an Asian man assaulted several members of a Democrat congressman's staff with a baseball bat. He attacked two staffers for Congressman Jerry Connolly, Democrat of Virginia, with an aluminum bat. He had previously attacked two police officers in January of 2022, stealing one of the officer's stun guns before being arrested, despite facing charges including resisting arrest and assaulting

law enforcement. The charges against him were dropped by the Fairfax County Commonwealth Attorney Steve Descano, who was put in office, elected with a lot of money from Soros's Justice and Public Safety Pack. Well, you talk about a cynical lie in that name. It's not about justice, and it's not about safety. It's just the opposite. He's got a political action committee that he bankrolls, and this guy was elected in 2020. On top of the congressional assault, this assailant faces additional hate crime charges

for attacking a white woman with his baseball bat earlier the same day. So, attacks a white woman because she's white. Then he attacks these two congressional staffers, turned out by a Soros district attorney. Target's CEO is talking about how they're going to lose $500 million this year because of the enablement of massive shoplifting that we're seeing from these Soros chaos district attorneys. They said inventory shrinkage theft would cost them $500 million in profits

this year. And so Target is on pace to see $1.2 billion in profit go up in smoke. Do primarily to organized retail crime. These are gangs. They organize it. You can steal up to $900 and something at a time each visit. Okay, let's just rotate it through. And so they organized this in gangs. But the CEO of Target also talked about the violence that's being done by these people

inside the store. He said, the unfortunate fact is violent incidents are increasing at our stores and across the entire retail industry. And when products are stolen, simply put, they're no longer available for guests who depend on them. And, of course, it's going to bankrupt. That's why you see these big companies shutting down left and right in San Francisco. And that's the point. This is planned chaos by someone who hates humanity, by someone who is part of the global control agenda of depopulation and the rest of it. It is a planned takedown of our society.

We'll be right back. Thank you. you're listening to the david knight show uh let's uh talk about Second Amendment briefly here. We do have a guest who's coming up in the third hour, and he is going to be talking to us about crime and about immigration and other things like that. Supreme Court has left intact an Illinois assault weapons ban. The Supreme Court declined to immediately block Illinois' assault weapons and high-capacity magazine bans, leaving them in place for now.

A gun rights group and a gun shop owner asked the justices to pause the enforcement of the law by intervening in the case ahead of an appeal court's final ruling. But in a brief, unsigned order, the Supreme Court declined to step in at this stage of the case, which could ultimately return to the Supreme Court on its merits. And of course, in spite of the fact that last summer they handed down the biggest victory for the constitution. That's not the way that it is put by the Hill. They say the, the largest expansion of gun rights in more than a decade,

I guess you could say it was an expansion after they had constricted our gun rights under the constitution. Uh, they recognize our constitutional rights. Uh, the Supreme court has since, however, on three occasions declined to take an aggressive approach using the court's

emergency docket in order to intervene in gun law challenges. And, this was done. Uh, they piggyback this on a mass shooting at a parade a fourth of july parade how many times am i do i need to make this analogy you know we had the christmas parade in waukesha and the guy targeted people and killed more people than were killed in this parade two parades mass murder one of them killed seven people another one killed eight there killed more people than were killed in this parade, two parades mass murder.

One of them killed seven people. Another one killed eight. There were more people who were killed, more people who were wounded with the SUV than in the, and the Christmas parade than at the 4th of July parade with the gun, but they don't care. You see, it's,

it's the person who's the issue. That's why all the red flag laws are stupid, right? You take the gun away from somebody, they can go out and start running people down with a car. But fortunately at this point, they haven't talked about banning cars because of this, because they know they're going to ban cars

because of the unicorn farts. This all began in the city of Naperville in Illinois, located 35 miles southwest of the place where the shooting happened at the parade, Highland Park. So Naperville, the city, passed an ordinance last August that bans the sale of assault rifles, and they defined that to include 26 categories of weapons and other firearms that meet certain criteria.

And we see the same thing is going to be attempted in Tennessee, in Memphis. Memphis wants to go its own way and set up their own control, their gun control laws. The difference is, is that in Illinois, what happened when Naperville did that, the state said, yeah, we'll do that too. And so when it first happened in Naperville, a gun store owner, the store is Law Weapons, I think is what the name of the store is. Yeah, that is the name of the store. Unusual store, Law Weapons. Anyway, he sued over the ordinance and he was joined in a lawsuit by the National Association for Gun Rights. We've done work for them in the past before I worked at Infowars.

Good organization. I like National Association of Gun Rights and I like Gun Owners of America. Two honest organizations. I do not recommend the NRA. I think they're compromisers. Anyway, they later added to their lawsuit a challenge to the protect illinois communities act the state act that was enacted in january so the city does it in august and then the following january the state does the same type of thing banning the sale of assault weapons and

high capacity magazines statewide so this is the lawsuit they refuse to intervene and stop the enforcement of this before it comes to them and again as i said in tennessee you have memphis deciding that they're going to go it and on their own and they're going to challenge state law on all of this furthermore um it's a couple weeks weeks ago that I had Catherine Austin Fitz on. And we wanted to make the case to Tennessee legislators not to go to a special session that's being called by the governor of Tennessee, Governor Lee. He wants to do some virtue signaling gun control. And first of all, the stuff that he's proposing isn't going to make any difference. It's purely political. It's purely virtue signaling, but it's throwing red meat to these people who will then come back for more. It's an appeasement to people who should not be appeased

with our God given rights. And he has in the past called special sessions to get his pet legislation through and then it didn't go. And so the hope was this time that as he's calling up people trying perhaps to get a head count to see if he's got the votes ahead of time so he doesn't get embarrassed again, that legislators would say no to him and he would not call the special session. But he is going not call the special session but he is going to call the special session and as part of this coming up you now have the leftists are strategizing about how they are going to use this as an opportunity to embarrass the governor's own

political party the republican party this is what happens when you try to appease these people. You just can't. So the Tennessee Star, which I've never seen the Tennessee Star. I don't know what they report. But they're in the Nashville area. They appear to be a solid newspaper. They're the ones who are trying to get this manifesto from the Nashville shooter. They're filing a Freedom of Information Act request

and other things. And they recorded this and secretly recorded audio files from a Saturday planning session. The Tennessee Star recorded far-left activists in Nashville, and this is their article here, agitators saying that they planned to bird-dog Republican lawmakers during the special session in August. Tennessee advocates for Planned Parenthood were the ones

who were training these people. Planned Parenthood? What are they doing about gun control? Well, it's about the transgender agenda, right? Planned Parenthood has positioned itself as one of the big providers of these mutilating drugs for kids who have been gaslighted. So, Tennessee Advocates for Planned Parenthood held a training session

run by Julie Edwards, along with the organization's executive director, Francie Hunt. The mob will take a page out of the far left Tennessee haulers. That's a leftist paper. The Tennessee star conservative Tennessee hauler leftist, uh, out of the Tennessee haulers playbook and its attempts to confront Republican officials who have been called back to the Capitol in August to implement further gun control measures. Again, one of the things we said about this was, you know, gun control doesn't work. This isn't going to work. It's not a response to anything that was done.

All the things that they're proposing would not have made any difference, of course, in this shooting. It is virtue signaling. It is compromise. And it's going to make the Republicans look weak. He's going to weaken his own party if they put anything through. And I hate to see that happen because the Republicans have gotten rid, in Tennessee, have gotten rid of four major taxes,

including the income tax, and a lot of other things. They've passed constitutional carry. They've done a lot of good stuff after they took control from the Democrats after 150 years in Tennessee. And so now the governor is going to undermine that by trying to get them to push some virtue signaling gun control measures. Ashamed to see that. And now what will happen is they're already strategizing about how they can

try to uh hector and embarrass republican legislatures legislators who come back to this special session edwards told the trainees so do y'all follow the tennessee holler y'all know the videos where they're hustling down the hallway in the legislature behind some Republican trying to get them on camera like eating their words, basically. We call that bird-dogging and activism. And you're going to learn how to do it because it's a really incredible tactic that I'm sure you've seen through the Tennessee Holler. It can come in quite handy. And so they said, keep in mind the special session is august the 21st your birthday oh so i get some gun control rules here in tennessee for your birthday how about that

uh so i said so we are investing in y'all as activists with a promise that y'all will show up when you need to show up including august but also i know some of y'all aren't from nashville so we're trusting y'all to go back to your community, share this information, and F it up when it needs to happen. That's exactly why we wanted to stop this thing. And of course, Obama is back out pushing gun control as well. But the amazing thing that he says is our children's lives are now at risk because guns became a partisan issue.

Well, that is true, but not in the way that he means it. You know, guns are to protect lives. And if you've got enough people with guns, especially you don't know they're carrying them, that is the most effective protection you can have against lives. I mean, anybody can take a life if they're willing to exchange theirs for yours, as John F. Kennedy said. So you can't end murder. You can't end it with a law.

You can, however, try to take guns away from law-abiding citizens and keep them from protecting themselves. A couple of comments here. Rock fan Aaron Moss said, Target loses millions and ESG skyrockets. Now, does everyone get it? It's a literal race to the bottom. That's true.

On rumble. KWD 68 said, I expect some false flags during pride month. Yep. So the elite can help with a victim narrative for the rainbow and move gun confiscation forward. They will make themselves victims even as they are trying to, you know, stink you go with the young turds saying, I hate guns and I'm going to be a hypocrite here, but I want the trainees to arm themselves and we got to, you know, tell them that they, um, have a right to do to people, whatever they wish.

Okay. Uh, again, I'll remind you if you don't mind, if you like the stream, please like the stream. Push the button. Tell your friends about it too, but that's one way to tell the world about it is if you like the streams, if you like the podcast, if you like the videos, please click on those buttons. That does help with our visibility. It's one of the few things that, that does help with visibility still. And that's in your hands. So we would appreciate it if you would like the stream. And by the way,

if you want to give to us directly, you can always subscribe to subscribe star. I don't mention that too often. I know some people have had, and we still haven't resolved this issue. Why some people can't find, find us on cash app. I've had people take had, and we still haven't resolved this issue. It's why some people can't find, uh, find us on cash app. I've had people take screens shots and they typed it in exactly the way that it is. I think it's dollar David night show or something like that.

I don't remember myself, but it's on the website and it'll come back and say not found. So I don't know. I mean, there was another one that was similar. We got that taken off and people were telling me, well, that's the only one that comes up and it doesn't look legit. And it wasn't, but the, um, uh, but now, you know, uh, that is being, I don't know if that's something that is deliberately being hidden or not. I don't know. I, some people who have been contributing for a long time, uh, via cash app, I'm still getting their contributions. But, you know, evidently for new people, that's not showing up.

So if you want to go to Subscribestar, you can find us there directly. And that really does help for us to know what our base of support is. We don't thank each and every one of you on Subscribestar on a regular basis, but that really is the foundation of our support. We'll be right back. Plant the seed in our homeland, boys. Let it grow where all can see. Feed it with our devotion, boys. Call it the Liberty Tree.

It's a tall old tree and a strong old tree. And we are the sons, yes, we are the sons, the sons of liberty. Liberty. liberty it's your move you're listening to the david knight show i want to do a quick follow-up on what i've spent a good deal of time on on Tuesday, abortion. I thought this headline from Vanity Fair was pretty interesting. Donald Trump, in the span of 10 hours, first brags that he managed to kill Roe v. Wade and then says, I'll make a deal on abortion. That pretty much sums it up. The left sees it. Why can't the people who support Donald Trump see it? And let me just say this. It's not just

abortion that he'll do this on. We've already seen him do it on Second Amendment. Oh yeah, Dianne Feinstein. I want to work with you, Dianne. Let's make this happen. I'm willing to do whatever you want. They did gun control by executive order. The first president to do that he's willing to throw anything and anyone under the bus for his political goals so first he brags about how nobody could have stopped uh roe v wade but me i did it without me there would be no six weeks 10 weeks 15 weeks or whatever it's finally agreed to without me.

The pro-life movement would have just kept losing. Thank you, president Trump. He writes to himself. What an ego. Yes. All these people are egotist, right? But I've never seen anybody with such an outsized ego. I mean, it is pathological.

The problems with that. And it's one of the reasons why he's so dangerous. Nothing matters except him. Nothing. No principles. No one. One of the ex-president's favorite lies, said Vanity Fair, is that babies were once aborted in the ninth month and beyond. He said that as well. Well, that's true. That's true. It's called partial birth abortion. Vandy Fair doesn't want you to think about that. It's called comfort care. Vandy Fair doesn't want you to think about that either. The baby is born in spite of an attempt to kill it. They leave the child over on the side to die. You had Ralph Northam, who was trained as a doctor, told people about it. The public was

horrified. But of course, it had already been mentioned in the trial of Kermit Gosnell. They had a jury that was everybody in order to be on the jury, you had to support abortion. So we're going to make this about abortion. This is going to be about what he did. Did he kill a child after it was born? And they ruled that he had done that twice. They ruled that he was complicit in the death of a woman who went for an abortion, an immigrant

woman, an immigrant woman of color, by the way. Anyway, the, um, and he bragged about one of the kids that he killed. He said it was so big, he could walk to the bus stop on his own or something like that. And so, um, they brought in somebody who did abortions and they explained, well, you know, you're not supposed to kill a baby. You're supposed to set them over on the side and let them die on their own. And we call that comfort care. And the jury that had supported abortion was flabbergasted. That's why I talked about this many times when I've interviewed Paul McAleer, who did a movie about Gosnell after they had done a book about Gosnell, and the movie with Dean Cain is all about the trial.

And that was a key turning point in Kermit Gosnell's conviction. The jury could not believe that was the case, and the public could not believe that was the case when Ralph Northam said it. And Vanity Fair wants you to think that doesn't happen, but it does. You have partial birth abortions. They kill the baby if it survives an attempt. As I pointed out on Tuesday, have medical quote-unquote ethicists who say, well, the maturity of the baby, the age of the baby doesn't matter.

It's whether or not the mother wants the baby. They can kill them at any point up to, at, the maturity of the baby, the age of the baby doesn't matter. It's whether or not the mother wants the baby. They can kill them at any point up to, at, or beyond birth. That's what he says. Anyway, Vanity Fair says, meanwhile, the irony here is that if Trump actually wanted to attempt to unite the country, because we're going to make a deal, everybody's going to be happy. If he really wanted to unite the country, they said, he'd make a deal to expand abortion access, given that nearly two-thirds of Americans believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases, and a majority of the country disapproved of Roe v. Wade being overturned.

Well, you know, you can get anything that you want to with a poll, but I do think that that's probably right. And I think that's why Trump is vacillating on this. And I think that's why the responsibility is on us to unleash the truth. We don't have to defend the truth. We don't have to think about the fact, well, we've got to defend life. We've got to show what abortion is. You've got to show the pictures of abortion, show the aftermath of abortion, show the pictures of what life really is. Again,

you think Fox News is on your side? Fox News fired Drudge 25 years ago because he showed one of the most pro-life pictures out there. There was no gore in that. It was showing the humanity of a child pro-life pictures out there. There was no gore in that. It was showing the humanity of a child grasping a surgeon's finger as he was operating on the child in the womb.

Yeah, Fox News didn't want you to see that. They would fire Matt Drudge for showing that. And he knew it. And so he used that to get fired. Trump's recent abortion statements missed the point about what it means to be pro-life, says LifeSite, this op-ed piece. You see, we don't want to have a situation where you've got the mob in a democracy going thumbs up or thumbs down on people's lives, do we?

This is the whole reason we have a Bill of Rights rights the whole reason we talk about it being a republic there's going to be certain principles and things that are going to be sacrosanct like liberty and life not subject to mob rule and we need to have people with guts and integrity to defend that. To the truly committed pro-life observer, the man whose judicial appointees brought about the demise of Roe v. Wade gets a failing grade. Trump said, I would negotiate so the people are happy. Well, if you want to just make the most number of people happy, keep killing babies. For the next few minutes, Trump repeated his intentions to negotiate

hammering home the fact that to him, to the GOP, and to the GOP donors, oh, these billionaires don't like it. They don't like you defending life. They don't like you defending kids from these sexual predators in schools. To them, abortion is merely a political issue, a topic

that the GOP will use as a negotiating factor because they've always used it as a negotiating factor negotiating with the voters for those of us who have worked in this movement long enough we know exactly what negotiating capability quote-unquote means it means abortion with exceptions and with compromise. But why would a pro-life president, who some have called the pro-life movement's best president ever, why would he advocate for abortion exceptions and abortion compromise? Well, two reasons. First, polling numbers. And they said the reality of this is a stark one human dignity and pre-born lives don't really matter to trump that's the second reason and they don't matter to the gop either

on an elemental level what they care about is the vote and perhaps a pre-born if they could vote this reality would be different but it's not instilling in americans the desire to protect human life at all costs will not change with a partial birth abortion ban or even the total outlawing of abortion these measures may help incrementally but will not solve the greater issue the degradation of human life this cannot be politically, no matter how hard we try. This is one of the reasons why I say you can't legislate morality. You can get rid of Roe v. Wade, which everybody pretended,

although it didn't, because it still had the 10th Amendment, and what Dobbs said was, hey, you got the 10th Amendment, after I've been saying it for years. You got the 10th Amendment, you can protect life at the state level if you want to.

It's there. But everybody pretended that they couldn't because they didn't want to. You see the ugly truth now is that the GOP never wanted to protect life. They could have done what Clarence Thomas and, um, Alito did, but they never had the guts to do it. And they wanted to keep this thing going because it was a negotiating tactic. It was a deal that they could make with their voters and never have to deliver on. And you saw that in the last election with people like Blake masters going

back and scrubbing his website. When he talked about how, yeah, I'm all against abortion, no exceptions, and he's like, oh, I'll start putting exceptions in. As soon as they overturned Roe v. Wade. Pretty clear where these people were coming from. But from the standpoint of the public, right, I've said many times you can't legislate morality. It's got to come from within each and every one of us it's got to come from the bottom up it can't come

from the top down just like your conversion the Christ you can't hang a you know you can't change yourself from one thing to something else he can do that but you can't do that when you try to do it. And he said, well, you know, I'm an apple tree, but I want to be an orange tree. So you start taping oranges to yourself and you're not an orange tree. Uh, but, uh, that's, what's happened. We had a top down approach. You know, the Supreme court kicked this out to a bunch of politicians who never wanted to protect life and don't want to be at the center of it.

And they're looking at how they can get rid of this hot potato that's been put in their lap. And it's instructive because they do this with a lot of different things. Again, Trump betrayed us on the Second Amendment. He'll betray us on everything in his second term. You wait and see. Mark my word. What Trump and his fellow 87% are missing is that it's not our responsibility to decide at what stage of gestation we could or should justify an abortion. It is not our responsibility to deem a child that is conceived in wedlock

more worthy of life than one that is conceived in the violence of rape. It is not our responsibility to condemn a child with fetal abnormalities to death. Humanity has forgotten its place. We are not the author of life. That is God and God alone. But we're in this position because, as Solzhenitsyn said, we have forgotten God. It's not easy to tell a mother who has conceived in rape that she should carry her child to term. It's not easy to tell a new mom that her pre-born child most likely will not survive after birth.

But protecting the pre-born is what we would call a hard truth. Loving our fellow man means making choices that may not be easy for us, but that result in what is best for one another. This is real love. This is self-sacrificing love. This is the love that Christ displayed for us on the cross. Being truly pro-life does not mean that you rejoice over a greater ability to negotiate on the House floor or on the Senate floor. To be truly pro-life is to love selflessly, just as God has called us to do. Katie Brown is the one who wrote that. Katie Brown is the director of communications for American Life League.

And I've said over the last couple of days, stay away from Trump. Stay away from the Susan B. Anthony people and the Family Research Council. If they're going to embrace this kind of compromise, they're not the people who are going to get it done. And so here's an organization, and it's one of the reasons I wanted to read this to you. Katie Brown, communications director for American Life League. If you want to support this issue, support it without compromise. There is no compromise to be had on life and on liberty.

As Jefferson said, the God that gave us life gave us liberty at the same time. The hand of force can destroy but cannot disjoin them. You can't have one without the other. And so when we look at all this, one of the other things that I've been trying to emphasize is that we can't make everything a federal case. Whenever there is a problem, the solution is not always in Washington. And yet, this is what we see. And no pushback from Breitbart, who reports that Riley Gaines urges Congress to pass a bill defining a woman. Do you need Congress to define what a woman is? Do you think they're going to get the definition right?

Well, they might get it right this time, but they won't get it right for long. I don't need Congress to define what a woman is. God and common sense tell me what a woman is. I don't need Washington to intervene in this. I don't want them to define a woman. Because if they define a woman, they can undefine a woman. They defined marriage once and got it right. And then they undefined marriage and got it wrong again.

If you give them the power, they will abuse it. It's just that simple. They used to understand what marriage was. They even had an act called the Defense of Marriage Act. And then within a very short period, even signed by Bill Clinton, as if he would ever defend marriage. But within a very short period of time, they'd kick that to the curb and come up with a different definition of marriage. Do not let the federal government get out of its lane

and get into your life. But that's exactly what J. Peter Zane, or Peter, I don't know, it's P-E-D-E-R, at Real Clear Politics, that's exactly what he wants. He's very concerned that this abortion issue is going to cost them victories. Right? So fine.

Let's abort the GOP then. I frankly don't care. You're going to put policy and you're going to put politics and you're going to put party over the life of children? There is not. The GOP and people like this and people like Trump are not worth the life of a single child. It's just that simple. And how many people have they killed passively going along

with Trump's warp speed vaccine? How many babies were aborted because of that? How many babies died because of that vaccine? Having it passed to them as they nursed their mother? How many of them were aborted with a miscarriage because of that vaccine? How many children died with heart attacks and all the rest of this stuff? Blood clots because of this? And not just children, adults. with heart attacks and all the rest of this stuff, blood clots because of this,

and not just children, adults. How many people have Trump and the GOP killed by doing nothing to stop this vaccine and oppose it? Let them be aborted. I frankly don't care if I ever see their filthy faces again, any of them. They're your enemy. Look at what they've allowed to happen. You want to talk about the murder of children?

Yeah, the abortion stuff is far bigger. It's gone on for 60 years. But take a look at what happened the last couple of years. The GOP taking the lead in all of that stuff. Democrats, of course, you know they want to do it. More than happy to do it. More than happy to mandate it. But the despicable priorities of Jay Petter Zane, Republicans seem determined

to die on the Hill called abortion in 2024, and they may take the country down with him know the murder of children will take the country down the murder of people with Trump's warp speed vaccine will take the country down. That's what's going to take us down. And if it doesn't take us down, God will take us down for that. God will destroy this country for that. That's what's going to take us down. And if it doesn't take us down, God will take us down for that. God will destroy this country for that. That's what you should fear. Don't fear what these people fear.

Fear God. Warp speed. Yeah, warp speed. With Operation Warp Speed, they threw the sanctity of life under the bus for their political expedience, and they refused to oppose it. All these people. All of them. Let them die on the hill of abortion. Let them die on any hill.

As far as I'm concerned, they're dead. They're dead to me. Democrats and their media allies will argue with some justification that Republicans are gunning for every womb. This is a Republican. He says they're justified to say that. You notice the language they use? They're gunning for every womb. Peter Zane says this.

Peter Zane makes it seem like it's the Republicans who are bringing violence to the womb. Not Planned Parenthood. Not the Democrats. See, this is why they can't win the argument. They're not even trying. They're on the opposite side. People like Peter Zane, people like these billionaire donors to the GOP, they're on the opposite side. They're the fifth column.

They're traitors. They're telling you one thing and they're doing another. They're telling you in a subtle way, they're telling you that we're the ones who are bringing violence to the womb. No, we're not. No, we're not. And he goes on to say, being right is a good start, but it's not an effective strategy.

So being wrong is an effective strategy. Killing babies is an effective strategy. This is a political party that deserves to die if it's going to embrace that. And you should help in its demise. Unbelievable. Being right is a good start, but it's not an effective strategy. Wow. Well, I guess killing babies is an effective strategy

seems to work for them no we just need to show what that is we need to show the murder the death the dismemberment associated with abortion we need to show the beauty of real life just show the pictures show the pictures unleash the truth pictures. Unleash the truth. It doesn't need to be defended. It only needs to be unleashed. And the Republicans and Fox News and these people have kept it hidden for a long time. Far too long. Rumble.

Maloney says, The doctor told me in 1991 that my son was more than likely deformed or special needs. I don't remember the word he used. I said, I don't care. And there's nothing wrong with him. And there never has been. Good for you. Good for you.

And I got to say that as we saw with our friend who had twins, one, you know, amniocentesis came back, said Down syndrome, abort them both. One of them perfectly normal, the other one did have Downs, and it was difficult, no doubt about it. But it was also a wonderful experience

that neither parent would ever give up. They would have never, ever thought of killing that girl, never. Rumble. S-Flow, 818. killing that girl. Never. Rumble. Sflow. 818. I agree with Maloney. I have a granddaughter they said should be aborted.

Beautiful, healthy girl. They were wrong. Yes. How many times have I seen doctors in hospitals be wrong? Frequently wrong. Well, in North Carolina, there was a back and forth. The governor vetoed a bill. The GOP legislature pushed through a 12 week abortion ban and, um, he

vetoed it, but they have just enough votes to override his veto. And, uh, there was a question as to whether or not that would happen, because one of the people that was in part of the GOP majority had been a Democrat, a woman who had changed parties, but they all hung together and they overrode the veto. And it had many different measures I've talked about in the past. But let's talk a little bit about Trump and his corrupt, despicable allies like Rudy Giuliani. As I said, this has not gotten much attention at all. And I'm about the only person I've seen that thinks that this is a big deal, this Rudy Giuliani lawsuit.

Because if she's got tapes, and if what she alleges is true, that Trump and Rudy were selling pardons, that's a really big deal. Really big deal. That could be his biggest legal exposure at this point in time but he was reported by the as part of these tapes uh this has come out uh this is the jerusalem post quote get over pas. It was 3,000 years ago, he told Jews. If he doesn't understand the significance of Passover, he doesn't understand the significance of Christ and the cross, and he's not, well, he's not Catholic.

You look at what this guy has done. It's just he's a cultural Catholic or something. This is what he said. He says, Jews want to go through their freaking Passover all the time. Man. Oh man. He once said, according to the complaint filed on Monday, uh, indicates that the comments were recorded.

They've got a recording of this. I can't wait for it to come out. I can't stand Rudy Giuliani. The people that Trump surrounds himself with pretty telling. Shouldn't it? Shouldn't it be telling Jeffrey Epstein, Rudy Giuliani. The people that Trump surrounds himself with. Pretty telling, shouldn't it? Shouldn't it be telling? Jeffrey Epstein, Rudy Giuliani. I could go on and on, but you know the crowd, right?

Anyway, he says, continues on. Get over Passover. It was 3,000 years ago. The Red Sea parted. Big deal. It's not the first time that happened. What an idiot this guy is uh but we should uh you should pray for him i'm curious as to how many times you think the red sea has been parted well you know the funny thing about it is the jerusalem post goes through here

and the jerusalem post says they don't believe it parted they don't believe it parted once really thinks it parted a whole bunch of times they don't even believe it parted once. Rudy thinks it parted a whole bunch of times. They don't even believe it parted once. If we could just get them to meet in the middle, they might work this thing out. Yeah, or they're going to perish in unbelief. Anyway, meanwhile, there is no historical record, says the Jerusalem Post, nor historical record of the Red Sea ever parting. No, it's called the Bible. It's called Exodus.

Anyway. Have you checked the Torah recently? Yeah, that's called the Bible. It's called Exodus. Anyway. Have you checked the Torah recently? Yeah, that's right. That's what they say. The Torah says that God was able to make the miracle happen with the help of Moses. So Moses did it, right? Moses did it. Who led the Israelites to freedom.

But there's no evidence that such a phenomenon has happened before or since. Um, well, there's, uh, nobody was there with their cell phone, taking a picture of it. Uh,

there's internal evidence of the Bible that these miracles that are described, uh, are true. And it's, uh, there's, you take a look at the prophecies that are there, uh,

and historical evidence. Many times people, you know, the big, uh, pushback against the Bible like the Jerusalem Post is trying to do here now. They said, well, there's no evidence of these civilizations that were named in the Bible. The Hittites, they never existed in that time.

And then that was in the early 1800s. By the mid 1800s, archeology was all about picking the Bible up and going to the place where it happened and they said it happened and finding archaeological evidence of that and finding the civilizations like the hittites and all the rest of this stuff uh it was a profound ignorance of these people and it was exposed pretty quickly and then of course the the narrative changed and they came in with higher criticism and said well scientifically we're going to say that this couldn't happen but you can go back and you can look at archaeological evidence as a matter of fact some people gone back and

found in areas that they believe was where that happened um they found uh chariot wheels and stuff like that but i'll leave that up to you to look into it um I'm not here to give a class on apologetics. All I can say is, is that I've investigated it myself and I'm absolutely convinced. I have no doubt. I have, when we talk about hope, the real definition of hope is confident expectation. And I am confident about what the Bible described then, now, and in the future. Anyway, so there's no evidence of this. Rudy, this is going to be an unfolding story. This is just the tip of it right now, and it's surprising to me that the Democrats haven't jumped in on this Rudy stuff more than they have.

The Associated Press takes DeSantis to task for signing a bill that he said targeted drag shows transgender kids and the use of bathrooms and pronouns that's not what he said that's what they said so you um he targeted transgender kids no he targeted the people who are targeting transgender kids you see this is kind of like what i said before uh when you got a lot of people like these drag Queens doing lewd, vulgar behavior in front of kids and stuff, why would you embrace that? Wouldn't you want to separate yourself from that?

And of course there have been some people who have a gaze against groomers and stuff like that. They said, look, that's not us. That's not us, but they are in the minority. The press, mainstream media, as well as the bulk of LGBT people embrace that grooming activity. And they embrace that lewd behavior with kids and lewd behavior in bathrooms and things like that rather than distance themselves.

In the same way, they're like, why would the anti-defamation league defame themselves by defending somebody like soros why wouldn't they distance themselves from uh no if you uh protect kids then you're coming after us they say are you admitting then that you are the threat right tacitly you're admitting that you are the threat this is why gays against groomers will come out and say, I'm not a pedophile. I'm not about all this stuff. DeSantis told the crowd, it's kind of sad that we even have some of these discussions.

I agree. And he was standing behind a lectern with a sign that read, let kids be kids. He presented a narrative, says the AP, that children are routinely being mutilated. Yeah, that's right. Surgically mutilated, chemically mutilated, sterilized. That's not a narrative. That's fact.

He says, in terms of pushing back, you got a Democrat senator that AP went to and made this person the critic that they wanted to elevate. Chevron Jones said every other parent has the right to raise their child the way they want as long as your child is not gay, trans, or bisexual. That's freedom for some parents, but not for all parents. Well, here's the thing. We've never, as a society, have embraced the idea that parents could do sexually to their kids as they wished. We take kids who are sexually abusing, they're being sexually abused by their parents, we take them away. This is a form of sexual abuse. And it's a form of mutilation and sterilization and all the rest of this stuff. It is psychological abuse as well as physical and sexual abuse. Why would we let parents do that? Transgender, says AP,

transgender medical treatment for children and teenagers is increasingly under attack in many states, and it should be. It should be. Oh, they think it's a very bad thing. So one representative says, God does not make mistakes with our children. And then Chevron Jones says, well, that's disingenuous for anybody to use scripture in the same breath that you're being discriminatory, discriminatory and hateful towards a community of people.

It doesn't work like that. So Jones, you can't take a book that was built on love and turn it around and fit your narrative was built on on love but it's also built on some principles that god lays down and god makes it very clear that he will enforce those principles there is love and forgiveness for people who turn from those things whether it is abortion or anything else if you truly repent turn from, there is love and forgiveness, but not for the people who persist. And if you think that's not the case, go back and read the Bible that you don't believe, if you want to try to argue from Scripture. Go back and take a look at Sodom, what happened to the people who said,

bring out your guests, bring out your kids and give them to us. You want to see what God does to people like that? I don't think you do. So we're going to take a quick break and we're going to come back. Joining us at the top of the hour is going to be our guest and we're going to talk about law enforcement and immigration. We'll be right back. ORGAN PLAYS In a world of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. You're listening to The David Knight Show. Up there, let's talk a little bit about the Titanic.

We had a pretty amazing thing that was just released yesterday. Jaw-dropping video of the Titanic in a way that we've never seen it before. Amazing 3D scans show the Titanic as if all the water had been drained out or if it had been lifted up and put on dry land. And technologically, it's kind of interesting. These 3D scans, as the BBC reports and characterized by other people, mind-blowing. First of their kind, they show an amazing detail

how the entire wreck, which sunk 111 years ago, would look if the whole thing were miraculously transported to dry land. In spite of the amount of time and the study that's occurred since it sank in 1912, experts still disagree on key details. These gaps in our knowledge may be answered by the 3D scans. One person is executive director of a museum and who has worked with the Titanic director, James Cameron, because he's very much into deep diving and things like that.

So there's still questions, basic questions need to be answered about the ship. But what they did to get this image is truly amazing. The company that did it is Magellan Limited. They teamed up with a documentary maker, Atlantic Productions, to collect extensive scans using remote-controlled submersible cameras. The robotic cameras spent a total of more than 200 hours surveying the wreckage that sits at the bottom of the North Atlantic coast, and they got a tremendous number of images.

It is 700,000 images for the project. So they're down there 200 hours, and they got 700,000 images. Then they brought these images back and stitched them together to create a detailed 3D model. And so the depth of it is almost 4,000 meters, represents a challenge, they said. And think about this. I used to scuba dive, and every time you go is almost 4,000 meters, represents a challenge, they said. And think about this. I used to scuba dive.

And every time you go down like 32, 33 feet, it's another atmosphere pressure, 14 PSI. So you go down 33 feet, it's 14 PSI. You go down 66 feet, it's 28 pounds per square inch. So if you're down nearly 13,000 feet, that's 28 pounds per square inch. So if you're down nearly 13,000 feet, that's about two and a half miles. And if you're going up an atmosphere about every 32, 33 feet, that means that down at the bottom there, it's going to be 390 atmospheres. This is one of the reasons why submarines, you know,

you've seen all the submarine movies. Something happens and the submarine is shrinking, sinking, and it's going to shrink. It's going to get crushed like a tin can at some point. Uh, if you get down to 12,500 feet, that's going to be about 5,500 pounds per square inch. I mean, you're looking at about two and a half tons per square inch. That's a lot of pressure, unimaginable amount of pressure. Anyway, you've also got currents at the site, they said, and we're not allowed to touch anything because we would damage the wreck. So they've got to stay back. They take 700,000 pictures and stitch them together.

They said it allows you to see the wreck as you could never see it from a submersible because you get the big perspective and, um, and that's what we've seen in the past. It was discovered in 1985 and 1986. We had some people go down with a submersible and you saw pictures of it. Cause you know, there's no light that far down in the water. And so they would go with a submersible. They'd shine the light on it.

You get pictures of, you know, they're only about 10 feet away from it or whatever. And, uh, but this pulls back and shows the entire thing. And let me show this to you a little bit of animated as it moves the model around. And I put behind this, it was silent. I put behind it, uh, near my God to thee, because as the ship was sinking and and there were not enough lifeboats, there were a lot of different issues, it was listing to one side and everything, and there was this idea on one side of the boat that it was going to be not just women and children first, but women and children only, so they were launching even the limited number of lifeboats they had,

they launched some of them partially empty without the men getting on it you stop and think about it today would that ever happen in our society would we have that kind of discipline and self-sacrifice that we would do that type of thing it would be get out of my way i'm getting on here first i think that's what here is a picture of the Titanic as they spliced it together. I. F. L. L.... © BF-WATCH TV 2021 S.A. Well, I guess that's a reminder, isn't it? 1,500 people died. A reminder that no matter how grand, and no matter how wealthy, and no matter how invulnerable we think we are, we all come to a common end, don't we? 1,500 people. A debris field surrounds it, items scattered, including ornate metalwork from the

ship, statues, unopened champagne bottles, also personal possessions, including dozens of shoes resting on the sediment. We'll be right back with our guest. We'll talk about some historical aspects going back to this same period of time. That's where we're going to begin. We're going to talk about crime, punishment, immigration. 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 dot com. Joining us now is Barry Latzer. He's a Ph.D., a professor of criminal justice at John Jay College. And, of course, with the migrant crisis that is happening, he put it in a political, historical perspective, I should say.

He wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal, This Isn't the First Migrant Crisis. And so we're going to talk about mass immigration crime, progressive policy. He's also got a book. His new book is The Myth of Overpunishment, A Defense of the American Justice System, and A Proposal to Reduce Incarceration While Protecting the Public. I think it's going to be an interesting discussion

since we have earlier in the program been talking about the Soros district attorneys. And we just showed Titanic, which a lot of people were on there as part of their immigration back in 1912. Joining us now is Barry Latzer. Thank you for joining us, sir. Yes, you're welcome, and I'm delighted to be with you.

Well, thank you. Tell us a little bit about the beginning of this, the first migrant crisis that the U.S. went through. And what did we, well, when was it? When was it? Well, starting in the late 19th century, we had an enormous influx of people into the United States. And the thing that fascinated me most was, despite this enormous in-migration, And this was a very impoverished immigration. Jews from Eastern Europe, Italians from Southern Italy, more Germans.

They had started coming in the middle of the century. More Irish, who also started coming during the Great Potato Famine. That was the big push factor so this was an enormous arrival of new entrance into the United States impoverished crowded into big cities like New York abused by the police who really were untrained back then and pretty totally unprofessional as well. And here's the fascinating thing, Travis, despite all of these adversities, when I went to track the crime rates at that time, because I was writing a history of violent crime in the United States, an earlier book, the crime rates were pretty low in the 1890s. I said, wow, what's going on here? According to contemporary theories, this was a petri dish for crime. We should have had enormous crime rates. And when I compared the crime rates in New York City to the rates in the last piece of the 20th century, which I had also written about, the rates were much higher in the 1970s, 1980s, and right up to 1990.

So I said, wow, we need to do a rethink about our crime theories. And I'll pass this back to you because I'm sure you're going to have questions about this, but that was one of the big discoveries for me. Well, certainly, yeah, it wasn't nearly the kind of free-for-all society that we see now. I've got a couple of theories that I think about. Clearly, as we're talking about the Titanic just before you came on, there was a different culture, completely different. People had different values. They didn't live for themselves, grab anything they could. And even the poor people were staying behind on that ship if they were told that, you know, had to let women and children first or women and children only.

So there was something that was very different about that. It was a very different culture, had different values. And so I think that was part of it. But even though they were poor, it seems to me like they were coming for freedom and for a chance instead of coming to get something for free. And I think that's a key part of it. Today, everybody, whether they're immigrants or whether they're Americans who have been here for generations, I think the current ethos is looking out for number one.

I don't know. That's just my take. What did you find in your studies? That would be my impression. But what did you find? Well, you know, maybe we're a bit spoiled by our affluence uh we're very fortunate i mean certainly my generation the boomers i mean we're really lucky very lucky and it was those types of people that that made us affluent in our society as well yeah and they

came here they came here really for uh you know, economic opportunities. And they had them, but it was no gift, that's for sure. Most of them, like my grandparents, lived really so their children could have benefits that they couldn't have overseas. That's right. And it worked. Yeah. I mean, it really worked. And by the way, it worked with regard to crime

too. Here's another point that I like to make in my work. It's not so much that poverty causes crime because we have lots of impoverished people who don't do crime. And we have some impoverished groups, socially defined groups, who do much more violent crime than other socially defined groups, notwithstanding comparable rates of poverty and other adversities. Another interesting finding. So, despite that, we never talk about the poverty of most of these migrants who entered in the late 19th and early 20th century anymore. We don't talk about their crime. Why? Because they've risen up to relative affluence, and affluent people don't do a lot of violent crime. I mean, who talks about Irish violent

crime anymore? Who talks about Italian violent crime? Except, you know, if you watch one of those old mafia movies, maybe you might. Okay. But, and this is what's going to happen to current day minorities. That's why I'm very optimistic about America still. they were entitled to long ago but never got, post-civil rights era, now that Hispanics are coming here and are being treated more respectfully, I think they're going to move up the economic ladder. And I think in generations to come, I won't be here to tell you about it, Travis, but in generations to come, I think we're going to see a big decline in violent crime among these groups. Yeah, I'm hoping so. I think a lot of this is culturally defined. You're

talking about different groups, so the same economic level. And of course, a culture and religion is going to be a part of that. You mentioned how our parents, our grandparents, or maybe our great-grandparents, they were willing to go through hardship and sacrifice. Why? They weren't doing it for a country. They were doing it for their kids. You know, it was a family thing. You know, the love of their children, they would do anything for their children.

And that's really actually what we see with the Titanic again. You know, women and children first. Why? Because we want to propagate the family. I'll sacrifice my life, my comfort, anything to provide for my family. And so I think the real key thing is going to be, and I am somewhat optimistic about a lot of the immigration. Of course, you know, there's concern about this crisis. There's concern about the crime that is coming across and everything. But in general, when we look at it, the one thing that I think is deleterious to it is the welfare aspect of it.

And I think that was a key part of why this worked out in previous generations was that there wasn't any social safety net there. I think, you know, safety net can keep you from falling, but it also can keep you from rising in many ways, right? But I think, you know, when you look at the Hispanics that are coming across, they're very family-oriented, and I think that is going to be, you know, a saving thing. In many cases, you might say, I think what I saw in Texas, they seem to be more family and community-oriented than the people who are already in Texas when I lived there. That's interesting. Isn't that fascinating? Yeah. It doesn't surprise me, too. They're coming from more traditional, if you will, conservative societies where religion played a major role, plays a major role.

This was true, by the way, of African Americans who came north from the south. That, too, was a more traditional society. It had an unfortunate side to it travis because unfortunately many of these traditional societies have what we call an honor culture where if you're if you perceive that you're being insulted or offended you reach for your weapon and shoot the guy which is terrible yeah and of course, there's a big factor in crime. And the whites down South did this sort of stuff. They had duels, the more affluent ones,

and the young ones duked it out and tore each other to pieces, hand to hand battle. And the blacks picked this up from whites. And when they came North, unfortunately we saw a perpetuation of this honor culture, where you diss me, oh really? I'm going to waste you now. And this is a cause of crime, believe it or not. It's a cause of crime. And writ large, we see this in the gang fights in the big cities now, right? They're easily offended. They protect their

turf, their possessions, their women, meaning girlfriends, of course, and they're willing to fight to preserve what they perceive to be their values, their rights, their property. And this is a cause of crime nowadays. So it tracks back to the 19th century but when they came up north these these uh immigrants and migrants when they came north or when they came overseas to the big cities boy they had very little they had nothing they had to sleep in police stations just as i said in that article the The cops didn't like it either, by the way, but they had to do it. It was their job back then. It was their job.

You mentioned the black families going north and how they had a lot of family values. I don't know where Burgess Owens is from. The football player is now a congressman. He's from Utah. I don't know where his family was, but he talked about how when he was growing up, he said there was a vibrant black middle class. They had their own businesses and all the rest of the stuff. They had intact families and everything. He lays the root of the problem at the welfare system, wreaking havoc upon that. That's his opinion. I tend to regard it the same way. And it is true. I mean, if you go back and you look at it,

even though there was an integration within their society, they had, you know, a vibrant middle class. And you would see certain things like they'd set up a jitney taxi service because the taxi companies would not go into that area. They were afraid to. They thought there was going to be crime there or whatever. They would start their own little entrepreneurship thing there with their own taxi

companies to service people there and they started doing really well and so then they sent in the inspectors to shut that down and say no you got to get your your taxi medallion from us and things like that so you know they did have a you know even though and maybe even because they were their own kind of closed community they had in some regards like the Jitney taxis. They had some other freedoms that they then lost as they became integrated with the other part of it. But you also talk about the myth of overpunishment in your book. Tell us a little bit about that. Yes.

So I really became interested in this whole mass incarceration movement, Travis. The whole thing seemed inconsistent with everything I had learned about the criminal justice system. So I went and did more research to find out, to find the data. Is it true, for instance, that we were putting people in prison who didn't deserve it? Is it true that we were locking up more people than should have been locked up because they weren't really doing bad things? And the more I researched, the more I found that it was bogus. These claims were just not true. We have very good data disproving most of these claims.

For instance, when I found the studies done by the Census Bureau, by the way, on crime victimization, where people were interviewed, ordinary folks who had no incentive to lie, to fabricate, to make things up. They were not ideologues, you know, who had an ax to grind. When they asked them, were you victimized by crime? Over 18 million of them said yes, they were. And they explained how they were either assaulted or property of theirs was taken when we tracked in this one year when the study was done and by the way it's done every year with a massive number of interviewees over 249 000 of them which is for for a survey incredibly, incredibly populated, the Gallup people will interview 1,000 people and then tell you who's going to win the election, right? 249,000. One of the reasons why they get it wrong so often. Maybe, maybe.

And that's one of the reasons why this is so accurate, the flipped coin, right? Right. coin, right? So of these 18.6 million crimes that were reported, we had in that year, 10 million arrests in the United States, because a lot of crimes are not reported to the police. A lot of them, the police never find the perpetrator. And so we only had 10 million out of the 18.6 million victimizations leading to an arrest. Of those arrested, and here's the key point, of those arrested, 577,000 went to prison that year in 2019 before the pandemic. So a small percentage of those people who committed crimes end up being punished. A very small percentage, actually. So when I hear these claims that we're over punishing, too many people are gone to prison,

too many people are going into jail. I say, really? Too many compared with what? You have to look at the number of crimes before you could decide that too many people are being punished. Here's another shocking one, and then I'll let you go. I'm sure you have questions. Here's another shocking one. Of all convicted felons, convicted now, 31% do not spend a single day in prison, not one day. Wow. A couple of days in jail, because after you're arrested, you're put in jail until you get to see the judge, and then the judge usually releases you. A few, of course, are kept in because they can't make bail.

In states like New York, they're trying to eliminate bail altogether. 31% of convicted felons never spend a day in jail, and 23% of violent offenders, violent crime offenders, do not spend any time in prison. I said jail, I meant prison. So, do we overpunish? Are people who commit crimes always going to end up in prison? No. Half the murder is due. And when you look at rape and robbery and aggravated assault, it's more like 6% of the perpetrators go to prison.

So this blows away the myth of overpunishment. And I think the overpunishment is the argument that the Soros district attorneys have made in terms of, well, we're just going to turn these people out. And, you know, we're not going to let them spend a single day in jail. And we see these types of things happening all the time. It turns out 23% who have committed a violent crime, they're just turned out right away. And then we see them committing another violent crime and another and another. And that's the outrage that people are seeing. That is what the Soros district attorneys have

focused on. I think when we look at it, part of it, it seems like to me, the things that all of us would agree that we want the police to do and to protect us from, theft, rape, violence, murder, things like that. I think that they've been too lenient on that i think they focus instead on other things like marijuana possession and they make that the big issue and they put mandatory minimums and so that created i think some of the stuff they did with the um with war on drugs a civil asset forfeiture that i've talked about many times picking property many cases substantial property somebody's's home, without a conviction, without even charging somebody with a crime. That type of stuff, we look at it and we say, whoa, that's bad.

And they use this then to say, well, therefore, we're going to let the people who are real criminals who do the theft, the rape, the murders, we're going to let them back out on the street. And those are the two things that are out there. It seems like there's one type of crime that they are over punishing, and then there's what we consider to be real crime that is harming other people. And we see that as something that they go lax on, incredibly lax on. And that is a big part of a movement right now. I mean, it's even bankrupting major national and multinational corporations are having, you know, having, you know, million dollar losses or should say several hundred million dollars losses. Yeah.

With this stuff and having to shut down massive numbers of stores because it is organized crime that goes unpunished. And so they're very lenient with the things that we would all agree are crimes. But in other things, it seems like they do get overzealous and it's even easier for them to process that. I kind of think of it as the situation of how easy it is to write a parking ticket or a speeding ticket versus how difficult it is for them to actually get into a situation where there's lives at stake in a shootout or something like that. And they, they go for the easier prey. Seems like. Yeah.

Yeah. And the progressive DAs would say to you, well, I'm, I'm, I'm going after the big guns, you know, the ones who do the most serious crimes, but you have to go after the ones who do the less serious ones too, for two reasons. First of all, they cause a lot of problems on the streets disorder as we, as we call it. Right. And second of all, they cause a lot of problems on the streets, disorder as we call it, right? And second of all, they graduate. They go on to do more serious crimes. So, especially if there's no incentive not to do more serious crimes. I mean, what's the message if you don't get punished for the less serious offenses?

What message is that delivering to the potential offender? The message is, oh, I can get away with this, and maybe a little more than that. So it's very bad. And by the way, who suffers the most for this? The communities that have high disorder rates, high crime rates, often poor black communities, by the way, suffer the most. Of course they suffer the most. That's where a lot of these offenses occur. So who's being punished? The public, the general public in those communities are being punished.

So this is really a very misguided policy. And I don't blame Soros so much as the public that elected these people. After all, these people in the U.S., we elect prosecutors, except for New Jersey, maybe. And the public has chosen them. And now, of course, they're starting to boot them out. I just did an interview with someone from St. Louis and they told me their progressive prosecutor has been given the boot and we know what happened in San Francisco. And so maybe that's going to be a wake-up call for these prosecutors to get their act together and start

taking even the minor offenses seriously. And by the way, one last point. When the police department hears that the prosecutor is not going to prosecute a crime, you think they're going to waste their time going out and arresting the guy for that offense? That's right. get punished, you don't even get arrested for these offenses. And then they break in into these department stores, into these drug stores, and just steal stuff willy-nilly. They don't have any restraint because they don't fear the hand of the law on them. It's a terrible situation and a really self-defeating policy. Of course, in San Francisco, he said the people who are suffering are the people in the poor communities because this is where most of the crime is happening. But of course, in San Francisco, the Soros DA helped to democratize that to bring it to everybody.

Everybody is suffering now. it's espresso far widespread, but maybe that's why he got kicked out. You know, he brought in the people who vote and are, and are vocal and have influenced. Yeah. That was this, that was a bad move, but it still remains to be seen if they were going to get this thing back under control, because as I reported earlier today, target CEO said they're on their way to losing $1.2 billion in

theft. And it's not just the theft, but it's these gangs that are coming in, are getting increasingly violent with the store employees, with people who may be customers in the store. I mean, this thing is just metastasizing and getting worse and worse. And I guess, you know, when we talk about the Soros district attorneys, it's because, you know, the PAC, the political action committee that he set up is putting in big money in these local races. And the way that Elon Musk described it, he said, hey, you saw an arbitrage opportunity here where for a little bit of money, relatively, he could have a huge outsized effect because typically nobody paid any attention to these district attorney races. And so, you know, they tried to get the guy out, Gascon in L.A. They even had a recall thing there, but they played games with the signature counts and kept the recall from happening. But it's really horrific everywhere that it's happening.

It's, you know, everybody said that was what was going to happen. We've now seen that's what's going to happen. But it's still very difficult to get these people out it was it was good that in Missouri they were able to get that one prosecutor out but they caught her red-handed uh making lies and excuses about somebody that they didn't keep in jail going on to commit crime she said it was the the judge that did it and they said no you didn't uh even file any paperwork to keep him in there because you don't want to keep these criminals in that's where we really are with these people but let me ask you this you know when we're talking about crime and punishment, you know,

one of the things, um, you know, a lot of people say, well, this, this whole, uh, you know, mosaic law standard of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, that was really harsh. But if you look at the contemporary legal codes at the time, it was actually a limiting thing. Most, uh, for most penalties, most crimes that was a death penalty for people so that was putting a limit on it but the key thing which i've never seen in western society which kind of bothers me is the idea of restitution and we don't make any i know this is kind of off

the topic of what you're talking about but it seems to me in terms of uh uh you know we're talking about punishment crime crime and punishment. It seems to me the thing that is missing out of our equation, we don't even ever really talk about it, is the idea that the people who are harmed should have restitution paid to them by the people who harm them. And that's never even been part of the discussion. As far as I can tell, in our country or Western Europe, you know, where we get our kind of inherited our legal ideas from, never been a part of the discussion. Yeah, yeah. Briefly, Travis, in the early 90s, there was a crime victims movement. And during that movement, you did have some calls for restitution. And of course, restitution shouldn't be confused with retribution. Retribution is when the punishment is suitable.

It fits the crime, as they say. But restitution is compensating a crime victim for his losses. Now, of course, there have to be measurable losses before you can do that. And in some cases, there just aren't measurable losses. But sometimes there are are and then it would really be appropriate um i got restitution once this is it's an aside but it's a personal thing it's kind of amusing but it wasn't me at the time some guy took my deposit to to put in storm windows in my house and ran off with the money and the storm window. So I went to the

local cop house and the police officer was as outraged as I was at seeing him. He said, I'm going to arrest this guy. And sure enough, he did. And they brought him to trial. And I wrote the judge and I said, judge, you know, I would really like restitution for this. I'd like my deposit money back and also the price of the windows because he took them. He kept them. So it was about, I don't know, seven, eight thousand bucks, but I was damned exercised about it. And sure enough, the judge sentenced him and ordered him to pay me back. And New Jersey did it right. He had to pay the probation department the money, and then the probation department would send me the check.

Why'd they do it that way? Because if he didn't, if he didn't send the money to the probation department, they'd arrest him and throw him in prison. Yeah, that's right. So he had an incentive to do it. Well, you know. Normally you would have to sue him to get restitution. And that's what we typically say.

We say civil suit so we can get restitution. But right. Often I tried that. And that's difficult. And in a crime, I tried that in a crime. You know, you have a situation like that. A lot of times the government will put them in prison, hit them with a fine or whatever, and keep the money itself to the victims. And that's the thing that's so frustrating.

But it's great. You know, you just got to ask. And sometimes you'll get, know they should when i was a d.a in the limited time i served as an assistant d.a i always tried to get restitution here's a problem with it of course a lot of this crime is done by people who don't have any money in fact that's one of the incentives for them to steal right so you can't get blood from a stone and so one of the limitations of restitution is it's hard to get anything out of these people it's hard to get them to pay anything because they don't have very much to begin with i'm not you know making a a sob story here for criminals I'm just saying as a reality, it's very hard to get

anything out of them. It's hard to get them to give money back. By the way, in the big tax fraud and the big white collar crimes, they do get restitution often and they make them pay back. Those guys, of course, have the money and can pay back and should pay back i agree with you i'm a big supporter of restitution when you can get it yeah i would agree with that yeah and and i would say you know that the government doesn't get a penny until everybody that's been ripped off gets something you know they would i like that the very last ones unfortunately sometimes they're at the front of the line yeah the credit. Yeah, I like that. Then whatever's left over, they might hand out to people. That's great.

Yeah, yeah. My college used to get that money, by the way. My John Jay College of Criminal Justice used to get some of that money, too. So, yeah. How did that work out? Well, because it was a public institution, you see. It was part of the city university. So when the government would take that money, we would get a piece of that money so they kind of like they kind of like that part of

the system help the budget and all that yeah just like civil asset forfeiture helps everybody that gets a piece of the pie that's right the reason why it's going on and on and on but let's talk a little bit about this because i think a lot of this, you know, as we talked about, there's a, you know, there is a disconnect, I think, between the violent crime that is out there and then the crimes of prohibition. And, you know, most of the drug, the majority of the convictions in the drug war, at least in the past, were for things like marijuana, which are now being legalized and in so many different places. And that has caused a large population, a large percentage of the population to be locked up. A large percentage of that locked up population is black. Talk a little bit about that, about the racial disparity. Yeah, yeah.

One of the allegations, you may remember Michelle Alexander's book, The New Jim Crow, that sort of started the whole mass incarceration business moving, right? But when I looked into her claims, they weren't really holding up. She argued that it was the whole war on drugs that put blacks in prison. And furthermore, that it was really a plot. There was a conspiracy to deny blacks their civil rights. And, and this was the way that that was carried out. She was wrong on all counts. First of all, the reason African-Americans went to prison in large numbers was because of violent crime, not because of drug crime.

I did the research on this and I found out that she was mistaken. I wasn't the only one, by the way. John Pfaff, law professor at Fordham, did the research before I did even, and said that Michelle Alexander was just simply wrong. And it's still true today. Today, 55% of the people in prison have done violent crimes. Only 14% have done drug crimes. And of the 14%, Travis, 10% are drug dealers, drug pushers. They're traffickers, okay? And only 4%, less than 4%, are in there for mere possession. And by the way, the realities of the criminal justice system, sometimes the prosecutor knows it's not just mere possession he was really dealing, but there may be problems with the case, you see.

Illegal search and seizure. Weak witnesses. Witnesses who themselves are involved with crime. So what happens? They have to plead it down. And when they plead down a trafficking case, it ends up a mere possession case. So the reality is that while on the books, it goes down as a possession case, he's probably a drug trafficker too. So the point is, the overwhelming number of people in prison are in for very serious violent crimes, or 16% for quite serious property crimes like burglary, major theft, motor vehicle theft, stealing your car, big time fraud.

These are what put people behind bars. The drug war put maybe, even at its apogee, 20% of the black population that was in prison in prison. In other words, the overwhelming number of african-americans put into prison were there because of violent crime and not drug crime well that's interesting because i've looked at it and not at the detail of the statistics that you've looked at uh you know to look at uh all the charges against them and why they're in crime but just in a you know from a uh you know 5 000 foot uh viewpoint you look at it you say the prisons are exploding we're building all these new prisons it seems to happen as the war on drugs is ramping up there uh but so why would you say that that was happening was it the fact that we had a societal change at the same time that the

war on drugs was ramping up what was the contributing factor to that big increase in prison population? We had a massive increase in violent crime in this country. And you're a young fellow yet, Travis. I'm an old geezer. I remember it. I remember it very well. Starting in the late 1960s and running right up to the early 1990s we had one of the biggest violent crime rises in american history and those who lived through it remember it they were scared to go

to the big cities they were scared to ride in public transportation they were scared even to send their kids to school or to go to the grocery store. The cities of this country, and not just the cities, became dangerous places. Yeah, I agree. Yeah, we see that with school shootings. We never had school shootings before. Why is it in society that it's changed? So what happened? The public, of course, pressured the politicians, do something, lock them up, do something to

punish them. And who favored and who shepherded through Congress one of the tough bills, 1994 crime measure? That was Joe Biden. Yes, the same Joe Biden who Bidens, whether Democrat or Republican, favored strong measures because the public demanded it because the crime was high. So what led to the real jump in prison construction and prosecution for crime? It was the crime wave. I call it a crime tsunami. It wasn't just a wave. This was a tsunami of crime. And this is the real cause of the start of so called mass incarceration. Crime was the cause, and not just some fiendish plot to lock up african americans and deny them their rights now it was violent crime yeah i fault uh biden for his uh over the

top reactionary solution quote unquote to like civil asset forfeiture but i agree it's it's what happened to our society and we see it happening even further as now we've got our children that are going in and shooting other children and that type of thing. There's real sickness that is in our society. Now, you talk about incarceration. Talk a little bit about incarceration and how you see that working. Yeah, yeah. So here we have a country that has developed this technology, invented this technology, and we're underutilizing it. Ecarceration means the bracelet, the ankle bracelet. It means electronically monitoring

the whereabouts of people. And by the way, we should do this too with illegal immigrants as well. If they're captured and then they're released awaiting their hearing, okay, they should have a bracelet put on them too so that they don't just skip and disappear. Oh, but they give them a cell phone. They give them a cell phone to court date in five years. Well, I wouldn't even mind a cell phone if the cell phone tracked where they are. You could put that tracking stuff on a phone. We do it when we ride in our vehicles. So I'm in favor of using more electronic monitoring.

Let's take the case of parolees, people who serve time in prison. And as I said, most of them are in there for very violent offenses. And here's another statistic. 83% of them released from prison will go on to commit another crime and be arrested for 83 and by the way before they went to prison they were arrested on average 11 times per man per man so i say the parole officers, try as they might, dedicated as they might be, cannot possibly keep up with such a massive caseload as they have.

Let's put ankle bracelets on parolees. Let's monitor them. Let's remind them about their obligations to go to court. Let's remind them about their obligations to go to a facility where they can get drug treatment or about their need to report for a job. Let's remind them, too, that they can't go and re-victimize their wives or girlfriends if they committed crimes related to them in the first place we can make the perimeter of of a woman's home or her place of business a no-go zone for these offenders let's keep them out of there and the police could track them this way with geofencing and that type of thing yes exactly, exactly. Exactly. And you know, the most progressive countries in the world, the Scandinavian countries,

they're using this stuff. They're using our invention, our technologies, and we're not using them as much as we could. I really think we need a whole movement to support expanded use of electronic monitoring. Let's use the technology that we invented, that we developed. Let's use it to help us get control of this criminal population. And it is a small population, relatively speaking. Let's use it. That's my pitch. I agree. I think where the disconnect in the debate comes in is that you know we're talking about well how do we control violent criminals and that type of thing where as i said before i don't really think that the system is really concerned about that

they've got you know they're looking at people increasingly uh that they disagree with what they have to say how can we restrict this person How can we stop them from saying this or stop them from saying that, as we've seen for the last several years here? Censorship, control of what people have to say. And so I think when we look at it, we're thinking, when we think crime and punishment, you and I would look at this, I think this is about violence and keeping control of violent criminals, whereas they want

to control people that uh that they oppose for political reasons or whatever and just like you know they they're more focused on issuing uh speeding tickets than they are about protecting you know people against violent attacks and so that really is where and and so it pushes it back to that and how is this going to be used by the politicians as well as the types of discussions we had about the district attorneys who want to do the catch and release stuff. So that's really, you know, we've got to kind of get our collective heads around what is the real mission of government. And because otherwise, if they're going off on a tangent that is completely different than what we think, these things can be weaponized against people who are not really even criminals while they let the other criminals go free. That's the thing that concerns me when I look at this. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Absolutely. We need to keep focused on the main mission here of the criminal

justice system. And we need to stop these ideologically motivated persecutions of people. And we just saw with this new report that came out about the FBI, we just saw what happens when a law enforcement agency gets corrupted and starts pursuing things for political or ideological reasons, rather than carrying out their real criminal justice mission. And it took a good smacking from this report, and well, they should. And let's hope that it'll lead to some changes. But we're in a polarized situation in this country now, politically. So there's this tendency, you know, for each side to try and smack the other one or silence the other side. It's very unhealthy.

And I hope we can come out of this before too long because I know it's infecting the universities, too. Oh, yeah. It's very hard for me to find a place to present my views in the universities. They don't want to hear it. So they simply don't invite you. Or if they do invite you, they disinvite you. So it's,

nobody wants to have a discussion anymore. Yeah. Yeah. This is my truth. And my truth is the truth. And I'm not going to leave and listen to you. And so that's, that's the other,

that's the other side of this is how, uh, you know, we have lost the ability to even discuss, uh, things that we find points of agreement as well as points of disagreement. But yeah, I hope that they, that something comes out of it other than a tongue lashing,

but I don't think that anything's going to come out of it other than a tongue lashing. I mean, there'll be hearings, there'll be hearings. You can bet the Republicans will, will, will hold hearings on this sort of thing. I just hope it isn't too ideologically driven. You know what I mean? I hope it's more objective and therefore more persuasive, even to the Democrats, but certainly to the, you know, independent thinkers in the electorate. That's right. That would be much better than anything that really looks like it's a, you know, a pro-Trump or pro-Republican effort. Well, what seems to come along with hyper-politicization is hyper-partisanship.

And so we're seeing two sides of the same coin, and I'm afraid that we're just going to continue to see that. So I'm very pessimistic. I would like to see something change, but I'm very pessimistic about that. Well, it's been very fascinating talking to you, Mr. Latzer. And again, the book is Barry Latzer, L-A-T-Z-E-R. The book is The Myth of Overpunishment, A Defense of the American Justice System, and A Proposal to Reduce Incarceration While Protecting the Public.

And that's the book. Look what I just found. Hey, you got a copy of it right there. That's great. That's what it looks like. Where can people find it? Where's the best place? The usual outlets. And of course, Amazon has it. And by the way, nice little intro by Senator Tom Cotton in this book. I was delighted to get that. And he did a terrific job. He took this very seriously, by the way. He's very interested in the issue. So I was very pleased to have him. Well, that's good. I think people on both sides of the partisan divide

believe that our justice system is not working. The question is, you know, what are they even, and I think the big problem is people have different goals in it. You know, if we could agree on the same goal, what it's going to do, then we could start to try to come up with a solution. But, you know, they can't even agree that we need to punish violent crime so that's that's the big issue that's the big fight there yeah but at the very least they need to know the facts and they need to have the data and that's right and we all have to work from that base that's right no matter what no matter what position we take well that would be where you and i are coming from but unfortunately they don't like to talk about facts.

They've got their minds made up in many cases. But it's a very interesting discussion, very interesting to see what the actual data says as to who is there, why they're there, what is happening in a violent crime. That's a very important discussion to have. Again, Barry Latzer, professor of criminal justice, and the book is The Myth of Overpunishment. That'd be the best way to find it and what we can do about it. Thank you so much

for joining us, sir. Thank you. It was a real pleasure. Thank you. We're going to take a quick break and we'll be right back. Stay with us. 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 listening. Thank you for sharing. If you can't support us financially, please keep us in your prayers. thedavidknightshow.com I've got a couple of things I want to talk about here. There were pharmaceuticals before I do. I think they're very amazing. One story here is very amazing, what we've seen with COVID. Before we do, I wanted to reply to some of the people

who have comments and tips on Rockfin. We have AudiMRR, that's Modern Retro Radio. It says, one of the main reasons that so many criminals never see the inside of a jail or prison is because they are recruited by law enforcement to become useful idiots in operations, like the Targeted Individuals Program. They're hired to be agent provocateurs, agitators, and so on.

Yeah, I agree. I agree that there's just so much corruption in our system and, um, it is amazing. And on Rumble, uh, mad mem. Thank you for the tip. Uh, now a monthly supporter there at Rumble. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Thank you to all of you who are becoming a monthly supporters on Rumble.

That is another place where you can, uh, support us just like subscribe star. Uh, I've not mentioned somebody mentioned to me that they think that rumble for this year is not charging a fee to subscribe. I haven't verified that yet. Uh, but, um, that might be a promotion thing. It might be a promotion thing for some of the big names that they, um, and that they had move over. So I'm not sure about that.

If that is the case, we'll let you know about it because, um, that is, um, very important, uh, because, um, there are fees everywhere else pretty much. Uh, but I appreciate that. Thank you for being a monthly supporter there. Uh, and there, and, uh, the right, uh, there was a book and documentary on the shroud of turn. Would you be able to look into that? I remember when that came out back in the

1990s or looking at it when they did a again just like we just saw with the um with the titanic they did like a 3d model which is really kind of interesting because they wouldn't have had the technology to do that uh what they date the shroud of turn of Turin back to. And of course, there's disagreements about the Shroud of Turin. They will say, well, it looks like it was done in the 1300s. Other people will say, well, there was a fire that happened around that time that would contaminate your carbon dating. So that's not valid. I looked at it.

I thought it was very interesting. I thought it was, you look at it and I don't know of any other explanation that you would have for that frankly so I think that is a very interesting thing but it's not the sort of thing that I typically get into I typically don't get into archaeological evidence or things like that or prophecies to talk about them but I think that is a very interesting case

so thank you very much for your support. Let's talk before we run out of time. We've only got about five or six minutes here. A new study that's come out, this is coming from Germany, University Medical Center Hamburg Eppendorf. Researchers there have demonstrated cross-reactive immune response. I won't read the technical jargon here to you. Here's the bottom line.

Infection, this is the title, infection with a common cold coronaviruses can trigger broad cross immunity against SARS and the COVID-2 proteins. In other words, even though we've known for many years that there is no cure for the common cold, the common cold could be a cure for the SARS coronaviruses. So there you go. How's that for a bizarre outcome here? In a new study, the team compared the specific T cell response for people that took blood samples of people who had been COVID patients and people who had never had COVID.

And they found T cells. They said T cells found in the samples from people who had never been infected with SARS-CoV-2. They found that they presumably had antibodies or whatever. There were rows in response to an earlier infection from other common cold coronaviruses, and they reacted in the tests. These data provide further evidence to the complexity of the body's immune system.

I thought we didn't have an immune system. I thought the immune system was nothing. I thought it was all the vaccine, right? That was the most amazing lie. The idea that, uh, you know,

the natural immune system doesn't work at all. Well, what's the purpose of the vaccine? The purpose of the vaccine is to train your immune system. What they're saying here is that a common cold coronavirus can train your immune system to deal with this. And we have out of the UK, this is on expose-news.com, NHS director confirms that doctors lied about the cause of death to create the illusion of a pandemic. According to the director of end-of-life care, the newly implemented medical examiner system

to certify deaths during the alleged pandemic meant medical examiners were falsely certifying pneumonia deaths as COVID-19 deaths. And when we look at the other information that's come out in the last couple of weeks, I think it was from the UK. I'm not sure if it's UK or the US. But they said the vast majority of people who died during that period of time were dying from bacterial pneumonia of the ones that they, cross sections that they looked at. In other words, bacterial pneumonia from the Trump ventilators.

And yet what they said was we had four different diseases at the national health system, the NHS in the UK, four different diseases grouped together. And if you died from any of those four diseases, they labeled it COVID-19. Just as we saw in many egregious cases where they would even label something like a motorcycle death as COVID-19. And that happened in Houston. They came back to the guy and he said, well, it could happen. It could be. Patients being admitted and dying with very common conditions such as old age, myocardial infarctions, heart attacks, end-stage kidney failure, hemorrhages, strokes, cancer, etc.,

being certified as COVID-19 via the medical examiner system. Hospitals were switching to and from that system in the pre-pandemic as they pleased. And when COVID-19 deaths needed to be increased, they would switch over to the medical examiner system, said this person, who has now resigned. And in this article from Exposé News, they go through a bullet point as like an affidavit, and it goes for about 15 to 20 pages of the things that this individual saw talking about

this. In addition, hospitals were incentivized to report COVID-19 deaths over normal deaths as the government was paying hospitals additional money for every COVID-19 death that was being reported. I have no doubt in mind that the government had planned the entire pandemic since 2016 when they first proposed the change to the medical death certification. Even with this, you see the pre-planning, the pre-placement of it, very carefully done.

You know, the laws, the powers that they claimed that they had, not the laws, but they did pass some laws to give dictatorial powers to public health officials based on the dark winter simulation, based on the false flag of the anthrax attack and all the rest of it. They put out model legislation in the United States, practiced it for decades. But you see these types of things as they, months before anybody was talking about COVID, you see them changing the definition of what a vaccine is. You see them changing the definition of what a vaccine does and definitions of immunity, the definitions of how we are going to report a death.

It was very well planned, broadly done, done in advance. If we continue to support these people who did this to us, this is a thing that drives me nuts about the MAGA people. Can't you see what was done to you? Can't you see Trump was there? He was complicit in it. He was producing it. Republicans laid down.

And it was the Democrats, of course, as well. It's a bipartisan thing. There aren't any of them that ought to be reelected. None of them stood up and called this out. At the very most, they were concerned the people would become vaccine hesitant. Well, you better be vaccine hesitant. You better be GOP hesitant and Democrat hesitant as well. That's it for the program. Thank you for listening.

Let me tell you, the David Knight Show, you can listen to with your ears. You can even watch it by using your eyes. In fact, if you can hear me, that means you're listening to The David Knight Show right now. Yeah, good job. And you want to know something else? You can find all the links to everywhere to watch or listen to the show at thedavidknightshow.com. That's a website.