The David Knight Show - 22Jan24 Is Trump the Next FDR? Bannon Thinks He Will Be

Episode Date: January 22, 2024

DeSantis out…We were told long ago by both left & right press that it was over. Like Klaus Schwab said, elections aren't necessary, because they know who will winRapid realignment behind Trump is nearly total within GOP political ranksPolitical persecution by Biden is Trump's campaign juice. Expect things to get even crazierWhy isn't Trump persecution getting MAGA supporters to call for REFORM? Instead, only REVENGE is on the tableRebuilding Trust", conveniently the theme for Davos as well as the Trump media. No admission of wrongdoing or wrongheaded solutions necessary. Just "trust me" Bannon sees the next Trump administration as a right wing version of FDR's "New Deal". Do we want that? Central control of every aspect of our life is the path to Civil War and/or totalitarian slavery. Chip Roy (R-TX) "Why are we giving money to Mayorkas, then going on camera and talking about impeaching him"? And why are we talking about the border 8 years after Trump did nothing about DACA, the Welfare Magnet, or even the wall? The fight for the presidency is a fight to control federal powers that shouldn't exist. SCOTUS case could overturn a judicial case that abdicated power from judiciary to the bureaucracy. How Much Does a Federal "Hall Monitor" Make?You won't believe how much they get paid nor will you believe what they are getting paid to monitor. This court case has the possibility of forcing Congress to do what they're elected for, and stop REGULATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION and TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION — i.e. rule by unelected bureaucrats Davos: World's Biggest Welfare Queen (Maxima) Pushes ID to Get Govt Benefits Is that how SHE gets her cash? Global carbon credits are the mechanism for the greatest robbery in history. Rebuild Trust" is the motto this year. Is that why Milei and Heritage Foundation President are there? Can THEY be trusted? March for Life — in the SNOW! Where are the GOP Presidential candidates? Pastor Greg Laurie is spot-on with how to handle abortion and what the church needs to change Furies — even worse (and bigger) than you think. What is this movement, often supported by schools, training the kids for? Michael Mann, Al Gore's hockey stick huckster, sues Mark Steyn for exposing him as a fraud. More "science" while hiding data. More "credentialism", pretending to be a Nobel Prize winner when the Nobel community shut him downFind 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 throughMail: 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.

Happiness. We all know what it feels like, but sometimes it doesn't come easy. I'm Garvey Bailey, the host of Happy Enough, a new podcast from The Globe and Mail about our pursuit of happiness. We know people want to live more fulfilling and positive lives, but how do we actually do that? Is there a happiness code to crack? From our relationship with technology to whether money can really buy you happiness, we'll hear from both real people and experts to demystify this thing we're all searching for and hopefully find ways to be happy enough.

You can find Happy Enough wherever you listen to podcasts. At BetMGM, Ontario's best casino action is just a click away. Play thrilling games like Premium Blackjack Pro, the dazzling MGM Grand Emerald Knights, or try to score in Gretzky Goal Lucky Tap. It's all here at BetMGM. Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. 19 plus to wager. Ontario only. Please play responsibly.

If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor. Free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. Using free speech to free minds. You're listening to The David Knight Show. As the clock strikes 13, it's Monday, the 22nd of January, year of our Lord, 2024. Well, things have accelerated in the election, or maybe we should say the selection. We've now had DeSantis out, and everybody is rallying around Trump. We're even told that he is the GOAT.

The GOAT. And by that, they mean the greatest of all time, not the Judas GOAT. And then we're going to answer the question, who do I want for president? We'll also take a look at what is happening with March for Life over the weekend as people turned out in the snow and the way it was reported by the press, and the way it was hidden by Google. We'll also talk about what is coming up, of course, with a climate. That is the epicenter of all of this,

as Davos is making more moves. And many people are asking, so how are they going to rebuild trust if they don't admit to doing anything wrong? Well, we know somebody else who resembles that remark, too, don't we? We'll be right back. Let's talk a little bit about what happened with the election of course and um uh got an issue here with my little articles uh that's not showing up all right here we are here we are you know it's um when you look at this it truly is a horse race, isn't it? And let's begin with the horse race aspect of it.

Because that really is the way that Wayne Allen Root openly begins this analysis to all this stuff. That's right. It is the horse race aspect of it, isn't it? I got the horse right here. The name is Paul Revere. And here's a guy that says if the weather is clear, can do. He's got a clear shot. Yeah, the weather is clear. We got this horse named Paul Revere. Maybe it's Benedict Donald.

That's their gates. And as Wayne Allen Root says, Donald Trump is the closest thing to Secretariat that we've ever seen in American politics. So he sees him as a Secretary. I see him as a Trojan horse. That's what I think he's like. Very pathetic. Yeah, he's not Paul Revere. But he goes on to explain to evidently his law information readers. Secretariat, the winner of the famous Triple Crown, crown holder the fastest of all three races of

the triple crown nothing could stop secretariat no one could beat secretariat secretariat is a legend secretariat is the goat secretariat is trump greatest of all time he says is that right well uh again if you want to focus on the horse race aspect of this if you want to focus on the horse race aspect of this, if you want to focus on all the celebrity aspects of it, that's true. I think it is interesting that Davos' theme was rebuilding trust. And we'll talk more about that when we get to some of the things that are coming out of Davos. But isn't that really what this is all about? What the right stream media is really all about is rebuilding your trust in Donald Trump.

The people don't trust the vaccines now. That's good. That's good. But they want you to trust the guy who bragged about it and gave it to us. And they don't trust the lockdowns or the mask or any of the other stuff like that. But they cannot associate or will not associate that. And why is it? Well, just take a look at what happened to DeSantis.

He's exhibit A. You know, just a couple of days ago, he said, you got to kiss this guy's ring. And now he is kissing this guy's ring. Who knows what else he's kissing? It was just last week. So he's not only dropped out, but he's endorsed Trump. There never was really any opposition to Trump. You can't beat the man if you're afraid of him.

You can't beat the man if you're afraid to criticize his record. And of course, Trump was not going to show up in a debate. That was never going to happen. But you could have debated him in the media. You could have debated and talked about him. He was the one who locked everything down. And yet it was Trump who brought up the lockdowns and said that it was DeSantis who did them against his will, which is an outright lie. And Trump was not called on it, of course, by the MAGA press.

Operation MAGA bird. But anyway, he criticized DeSantis for doing what he said to do. And he criticized Kemp in Georgia because they were the first two to pull back. After two weeks, I said, all right, that's it. We're going to start pulling back. And they continued to pull back. Trump's response to DeSantis kissing his ring was he said um the sanctimonious nickname is now officially retired isn't that nice isn't that nice um yeah you know neither

one of them as i pointed out and nikki haley of course not because she doesn't support any pro-life positions and neither does Trump anymore. He said as a candidate that he did. The Supreme Court justices changed the balance, but of course there was a list that was given to him by some conservative think tanks of candidates and who knows what you're going to get. Like I've always said, we've been trying that strategy since 1980. As Roe v. Wade came in, the initial strategy was to oppose it on the basis of the 10th Amendment. And then people said, but Reagan, Reagan will do it for us.

We've got a savior that's going to go to Washington and do this for us. And he's going to appoint good Supreme Court justices that are going to do it. So he appointed people like Sandra Day O'Connor. And others who you thought had a chance of doing it. But as I've always said, Supreme Court justice appointments are like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're going to get. And nobody except people as dumb as Forrest Gump believe that you're going to be able to get any reliable Supreme Court picks. This is all about the president trying to avoid any responsibility and trump did the same

thing with daca he kicked it over to the supreme court when he had the authority to get rid of the executive order that started deferred enforcement that was his authority instead he didn't want that hot potato so he kicked it over to the supreme court the congress kicks everything over to the bureaucracy they don't want the responsibility for this stuff. That's why I said the elections don't really matter because even if you elect these people, that's what I said in 2020, November election in 2020, I said, well, I'm not voting for Trump after what he did this year. You know, it was more than just half fulfilled promises or not fulfilling the promises at all, like we typically see from politicians.

I said, this is outright betrayal. He's a traitor. And I said, why would I vote for him when he set up the rules that he's complaining about with the vote by mail stuff? And why would I vote for him when he put Fauci in charge of the country? We're being ruled by bureaucrats. What difference does an election make? And I say that again.

When we've got Congress that is too sheepish to do anything about it. Chip Roy said it best about the border. He said, why are we going before the cameras and talking about impeaching Mayorkas because he's not doing anything about the border? And then we continue to give him money. Right? I'm glad to give him money. Right. I'm glad to hear Chip Roy say that. That's exactly right.

That's what I've been saying. Stop all the show trials. You know, it was Trey Gowdy and Benghazi and then as Jim Jordan and everything else, Jim Jordan's always in front of the cameras. When is he going to quit and go to Fox news? So I don't have to see him anymore. It's just, in front of the cameras? When is he going to quit and go to Fox News so I don't have to see him anymore?

It's just, it annoys me how all they do is show hearings, show trials. They have the power of the purse. That's their power. Cut the money off. Instead, you got people like Johnson continuing to kick the can down the road. We'll give them more money. It comes up with exactly the same budget as McCarthy,

exactly the same budget as McCarthy, exactly the same budget as Nancy Pelosi, exactly the same tactics of these people. You keep voting for these people and they keep doing the same thing. Isn't that the definition of insanity? What difference do the elections make in Washington? Zero. You may be able to get some good people in that state and local level, but not in Washington. It's done. Nobody there except for a couple of people like Chip Roy, Thomas Massey, even want to talk about what the issues are. Everybody else just wants to get on TV and raise money. And that's where these guys are running for president.

Nobody wanted to go to the March for Life. You got three Republican candidates running for that. Nobody wanted to go for the March for life. You got three Republican candidates running for that. Nobody wanted to go for the March March for life. And, uh, instead, uh, you've got, uh, Trump with his childish labels. You got Trump. Who's not marching for life. He's mocking life. He's mocking any protection against life and saying too harsh, too harsh. That's why he called, uh, Ron DeSantis, DeSanctimonious because of his stand

against that, because of his stand, uh, in defense of parental rights. Now we don't want to have anything like that. So, um, yeah, Trump was, yeah, this is who Trump always was. Anybody who stands for anything that is halfway moral. This New York playboy billionaire pal of Jeffrey Epstein and the Clintons despises them. Anybody that is to the moral side of Clintons and Epsteins, as far as he's concerned, they're sanctimonious. Yeah. You don't know.

People don't know who this guy is. I think you listeners do. But DeSantis had largely dismissed the nicknames and the criticisms of his campaign, saying the name calling was petty and juvenile last year. But then he said, I signed a pledge to support the Republican nominee, and I will honor that pledge. Well, newsflash, Trump ain't the Republican nominee. So why are you supporting him right now? Well, because he's kissing the ring. You know, the only person that's left in there is Newky Haley, who is absolutely not qualified either.

That's why I say we got to find ways that we're going to protect ourselves and our families. We've got to work on nullification at the state and local level as much as we can, but work on protecting yourself. These people are, uh, there's nobody there that you can really support. Uh, by the way, you know, all this stuff about pledging, Trump never took a pledge. You remember the very first debate i remember it really well at that point in time um infowars wasn't covering the the uh debates or any of that kind of stuff live and um so um we didn't have uh

sufficient uh internet coverage to watch anything we didn't have sufficient internet coverage to watch anything. We didn't have any cable TV. So Karen and I rented a room and just sat there and kind of had a debate party. And I just live tweeted about it. And so I remember it really well because I watched that and live tweeted it. And I remember when Rand Paul, who I really admired in terms of his position on issues, the very first question from brett bauer was uh will you raise your hand let's raise your hand nonsense raise your hand little boys and girls if you want to if you will support the eventual nominee and everybody raised their hands except

trump and rand paul went off on him How dare you not support a Republican? I thought, what's that about? Where did this slavish partisanship come from? And it was disgusting and it was servile. And it was, you know, Rand Paul doing it. It's like, whoa. And I criticized him for doing it. And I complimented Trump for not going along with the group think and not being partisan like that. Uh, but, um, that's where we are now. So he went on to say, even though he said he signed a pledge

to support the nominee, um, but, um, you know, Trump has, uh, was everybody has said he's, he's won. Everybody is anointing him. And of course they've been doing that for many months going back to this, um, almost a year ago, everybody, Oh, Trump's the nominee. Trump's the nominee. Everybody's saying that. And there's a reason that both the mainstream and the right stream, you know, the alternative mainstream, if you will, uh, why they're all saying it because they want it to happen. It's a, it's good for their bottom line. It's good for CNN.

It's good for MSNBC. It's good for Breitbart and for Infowars and all of these, you know, Daily Caller, all of them. They all want Trump for different reasons. You know, some of them make a lot of money opposing him. Some of them make a lot of money supporting him. But that is the bellwether, the dividing line, if you will, for how they choose the demographic that they want to flatter and serve their opinions. And so he said that Nikki Haley is a repackaged form of warmed over corporatism. That's what DeSantis said. Well, that's faint criticism, quite frankly.

I can think of a lot better criticism of New Keeley. But, of course, a lot of those things he's not going to criticize her for because he would have supported him himself, right? You got Tim Scott. The race is already over. And this was before the DeSantis exit. This is the adoration of all these people falling in line. All the politicians, all the people falling in line, all the politicians, all the press

falling in line behind Trump. This from human events, Libby Evans, voters love Donald Trump because he's the only man successfully standing against America's Kafkaesque justice system. And she references the trial and um from kafka well and the many trials of donald trump each seemingly more absurd than the last but this really has been his key to victory is how he took the lead over to santas playing the victim card oh poor me and then taunting the judges baiting the, doing everything that he can. Go ahead, throw the book at me. I'd love to have that. I need some more money. You know, I mean,

you look at all of this, what is going to happen to him in any of these trials, right? You're going to pay a billion dollars to somebody who cares. These guys pay millions of dollars for TV ads. Uh, these trials are far more effective than any TV ad that Donald Trump could ever run because now he is both victim and savior. He's a suffering Messiah for these people. And, you know, just think of it as an expense. And so he goes in and he baits these judges. Yeah, I'd love for you to do that.

Go ahead. See what you can do to me. You can't touch me and all the rest of this stuff and his crowd eats it up i'm reminded of the time that ronald reagan uh was in the debate and there was um i i forget exactly what had happened with it but he had this sound bite i paid for, you know, and he takes the thing back. And so he had a couple of those types of issues this week over the weekend, just before DeSantis dropped out. He had some current or former teacher who decided that she would troll him

and get into an argument with him, and he lost it with her. As, you know, we all do. I've lost it with people. he lost it with her um as you know we all do i've lost it with people i regret it afterwards uh but um uh you know she wanted to debate him on who had done more for education i'm a teacher here i know she did a lot for education that type of thing and um it comes turns out that you know what she hated about desantis was she was a teacher and she also has a non-binary adult child or something like that so that's why she was coming after him but it was just back and forth and they presented desantis you know he eventually he gets exasperated

because she won't shut up and he can't move on. And so he goes, this is my show. This is my show. Your show. This is a show. Uh, you know, choice of words is really fatal there. And instead of saying, I pay for this microphone, you know, get her off. And then you had another troll who showed up with, um, uh, Trump. I think it was about climate nonsense. And, uh, you know, Trump's just like, get him out of here, throw him at it.

So they came after Trump. The left-wing media came after Trump because people started pushing and shoving this guy and they weren't throwing him out. Uh, so, you know, why do you have two situations, very similar situations. And one guy is portrayed in the media as being weak and ineffective because he can't get rid of her. And then when, uh, um, you know, the way Trump gets rid of him, everybody paints him as a tyrant and a dictator.

And, uh, so, I mean, it's, um, it's communications again, Reagan was the best at doing that type of thing. Three different situations handled very differently, portrayed differently by the media. Trump has told Americans that the weaponized powers of justice are not coming for him, they're coming for you. We've heard this, haven't we? Yeah, I just happen to be in between them and you. Well, he never interposed in any of this stuff, did he?

We constantly talk about the doctrine of the lesser magistrate. What about the doctrine of the major magistrate who never interposed himself for censorship he never imposed himself for january six victims yeah they're really coming after me i know you guys are going to be in jail for 30 years but you know hey it's me thereafter as he sips his uh soft drinks and mar-a-Lago, whatever he drinks. Eats his McDonald's hamburgers in Mar-a-Lago. No, they're really all these people in jail for January 6th. They may not realize it, but they're not the real target. Trump's the real target.

And he is. He is. But they're between. It's not that Trump is between the January 6th people and the tyrants in Washington. No, he threw them under the bus. He put them between. He got them to come on January the 6th, and then he let them twist in the wind.

Yeah, they're coming for you. Look, they've been coming after us since way before Trump was president. And he's absolutely, during his reign, Look, they've been coming after us since way before Trump was president. And he's absolutely, during his reign, he didn't do anything to help us either, did he? They didn't even talk about civil asset forfeiture or about the loss of due process or about total surveillance as exposed by, uh, Ed Snowden. And he had absolutely no problem when after the massive purge, I mean, we, we knew there was shadow banning. We knew there was all kinds of manipulation of search results and, and social media.

Then when they outright banned us at Infowars in 2018, he had nothing to say about that, did nothing at all about it. And the very next year he puts in William Barr. And what does Barr do? Comes after Julian Assange. Why is that? Well, because as I said before, the CIA is not monolithic. It's got its right side.

It's got its left side. It's just like the mainstream media and the alternative mainstream media, the right stream media, if you will. And Trump is aligned with that right wing side. He's aligned with Bill Barr and with the Bushes and with the Steve Pachiniks and with the Jack Posobiec, which is human events, this is what this is. Those are the people that are part of the right wing intelligence agencies. And he's aligned with them. And guess what? Right wing intelligence agencies and he's aligned with them and guess what right-wing intelligence agencies and alex jones people like them steve jack poso alex jones hated julian

sines would not have anything to do with him ghost england wouldn't talk you know paul joseph watson won't talk to him alex jones says yeah yeah oh he's working for the other side yeah he's working to show the crimes of the people that alex works with and for it's just amazing franz kafka's iconic book the trial by the way good uh good film if you really want to get frustrated about this stuff if you're not frustrated enough listening to me you You can watch the Orson Welles adaptation of that with Anthony Perkins, the guy who starred in Psycho, and he's about that same age, very nervous, and he doesn't know what's going on. He's nervous.

He's paranoid. Perfect person for that, Kafka in the trial. But again, civil asset forfeiture, is that Kafkaesque? In civil asset forfeiture, you're not even charged with a crime, and they steal your stuff. And we all know what Donald Trump is being charged with. It may be a kangaroo court, certainly is. But does Trump, when he goes into these things, does he say,

well, I'm going to stand for the Constitution, I'm going to do this and defend this on legal principles of free speech and all the rest of this stuff. No, he doesn't. It's only about him. It's about him. It's about him personally. He wants to make it about that. So the question is, when you look at this, does his MAGA cult, do they want reform? Are they out there calling for reform?

No, they're not. They're calling for revenge. They're not calling for reform no they're not they're calling for revenge they're not calling for reform they want revenge so it'd be a very different thing if the maga people were out there saying you know we got to make sure this doesn't happen to him anymore we got to make sure it doesn't happen to us where's the reform there that we get to have due process let's see trump won't talk about anything especially one of the most egregious violations of due process, a civil asset forfeiture. Rules, not laws.

They're rules by the bureaucracy, not laws by your elected representatives. So we don't have to obey the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the due process clauses because they're rules. And because they're rules, the bureaucracy can do to you whatever they want. And it's not just the war on drugs. It all really began with the IRS, but we see this with all these different agencies are doing this stuff all the time. So it's not just Trump.

This DOJ, she says, has willfully prosecuted peaceful protesters and journalists. Moms have been questioned by authorities for speaking out against mandatory masking. Mandatory masking? Wait a minute. Who did that? Was that Trump? Or was that President Fauci? Yeah, Trump paid people to mask you up. How about that? Think about that. These people will never talk about that. So she says, Kay, who is the defendant in Kafka's The Trial. Well, he faces unknown allegations. But as I said before, we know what Trump is on trial for. He's on trial for hiding the hush money that he paid a hooker porn star. We know that he's on trial for carelessly handling documents.

And we also know that this mishandling of documents, even though it's a crime, is something that other people have been given a pass on. And so because other people have been given a pass on it, and I'll say this, not other people, other powerful people, other powerful politicians, presidents, vice presidents, and so forth, have been given a pass on it. So it is a dual standard. But folks, it's a dual standard when you give a pass to anybody on this stuff. In other words, these people out there saying, yeah, let's take the guy who took a couple

of shots of his bunk in the submarine. Remember that? I forget the guy's name. And they came after him. The Obama administration did. Said he violated the law. And it was, you know, he didn't take any pictures or anything. They'd be of any help to the enemy unless they want to know what kind of a bed you sleep on submarine. I don't know why they would want to know that, why that would be such a big help to them.

Yeah. But they wanted to crucify this guy at the same time, they look the other way while Hillary Clinton is doing all of her release of documents that are born above top secret. It's that type of thing. The little guys have always gone to jail for these types of crimes. What's different is these people and the MAGA people are outraged that Trump should not get a pass like all these other privileged politicians. Now, they ought to all go to jail. I'm sick and tired of this. Yeah, but you got off for this, so I should get off for this type of stuff.

No, you all need to go to jail. If you committed the crime, you go to jail. Politicians, powerful politicians get off. The law, as one person said, is like a spider's web. It's very effective at catching the small flies, but the big bumblebees just go right through it. And now this time they're trying to catch the big bumblebee, but this is not for us.

I mean, just look at the entitlement, the privilege, the contempt from Hunter. And I mean, not even the contempt in terms of not showing up for the trial, but the expression that he put on his face as he shows up and scowls at them and then walks off again. That is the kind of privilege and entitlement that Trump thinks he has. As a matter of fact, he's argued that no laws should apply to the president. None whatsoever.

So the New York Conservative Party, right there, even before the DeSantis exit, oh yeah, we've got to support Trump. They endorsed Trump. Which reminds me, you know, it was in Davos that Klaus was talking about the election there. Everybody was outraged that he would say, well, we will decide who's going to win the election, and we'll know in advance who's going to win the election there, everybody was outraged. They would say, well, we will decide who's going to win the election, and we'll know in advance who's going to win the election.

Why even bother to have elections? You do not even have to have elections anymore, because you can already predict what predict, and afterwards you can say, why do we need elections? Because we know what the result will be. That's right. Why do we need elections because we know what the result will be. That's right. Why do we need elections? We have the mainstream media, which wants to have Trump as the professional wrestling heel.

Nobody's a better heel than Trump. Yeah, you see that in professional wrestling. Some of the biggest professional wrestling stars are the villains. They love that. It packs people in. And so, um, yeah,

they, they want to have Trump in their polls are pushing everybody that way from the very beginning. And, um, they already know who's going to win. They told us last year, he was going to win the primary.

Now they're telling us that, um, you know, everybody needs to get out. That's what, uh, the politicians and the GOP are saying as well, everybody out.

Except for him. And they as well everybody out except for him and they've got everybody out except for except for haley she's not a choice she's an echo as i said a conservative party chairman in new york this is not the the gop this is the conservative party in new york, a different political party. I wonder, somebody should ask this guy, the Conservative Party chairman, please explain to us what conservative principles you loved about President Trump. You like that lockdown? You like the government, the CDC saying if people can't pay rent because we locked them down and took their jobs, well, now you're not going to have any property rights to evict them and on and on.

You know, I mean, it's just the complete takeover, the bureaucratic medical martial law that happened. So he said Trump will curb illegal immigration and help rein in the U.S the U S Mexico border crisis that has spiraled out of control under Biden. That's what he said. Didn't Trump say that seven years ago? What happened to that promise? Not a great deal. You know, when you look at Bannon, um, yeah. Why, why was he doing that?

We build the wall, right? And the, uh, that who's crippled, they were doing that because Trump wasn't building the wall. He wasn't building the wall. Everybody knew, including the people who gave money to Bannon knew that Trump was not building wall. What fantasy land are they living in? You talk about the self delusion. It truly is amazing with the Trump supporters. So,

um, as a, um, talk to the national spokesperson for the Trump campaign said, uh, and this is the way they talk. This is a thuggish language of the Trump campaign. Nikki Haley is signing her own political death certificate.

Yeah. Authoritarian thugs is what they are. I guess I've signed my own political death certificate a long time ago. Um, but, uh, frankly, uh, I'll write it really big, just like John Hancock. He was signing his death warrant for sure at that point in time if they lost. Well, anyway, another victim, Peter Navarro. Six months they want for doing the same thing that Eric Holder did, which was to say, I'm not going to testify before Congress.

Holder refused to appear before Congress. Now, when Peter Navarro refuses to appear before Congress for the January the 6th stuff, they want to send him to jail for six months for two misdemeanor contempt of Congress charges. Again, it is not, you know, how do you let Eric Holder off and then send this guy on a misdemeanor, try to send him to jail for six months? Well, again, it's a double standard. When I say jail them both, that's where I come down on. It's like, yeah, go back and get Eric Holder. What's the statute of limitations on this contempt of Congress thing anyway?

Let's even it up. Instead, it is always to say, well, because it's a double standard uh our guy gets off for doing anything wrong because they get off for doing anything wrong and here's a reality and here's why i say send uh peter navarro for jail they never come after the real crimes as i pointed out with dennis astrick yeah they sent him to jail for you know trying to avoid detection and reporting when he pulls money out to pay the blackmailer who was blackmailing him because dennis astrick was a pedophile wrestling coach and then he was selected by the gop to be a congressman so they'd have somebody

those blackmail will see that the goP does the same thing that Epstein does. It's always a trap, especially a pedo trap, because that's one of the few taboos left, and not even that's really a taboo anymore, I guess. But anyway, the judge even referenced that when he sentenced him, because that's really what the jail sentence was about. Now, the jail sentence for Peter Navarro is not about the fact that he was the guy running through the ventilator thing that killed so many people or the

other policies that Trump was doing, but he was really all there about the ventilator thing. He was the one who was reinforcing that. Remember there was a, a wartime rule because you know, Trump was at war with us, that wartime rule to ramp up manufacturing we can commandeer things i can tell gm and ford stop making cars start making

ventilators well it was peter navarro who was the guy who was in charge of running that and he should go to jail he should go to jail like uh you know gerb or whatever, or some of these other henchmen of Hitler. Now to face the music for that murder trial. But, um, anyway, um, he's now playing the victim because they never come after these people for the real crime. Just like they didn't come after Dennis Astrid for the real crime. So when you look at Trump's trials are they kafka-esque or are they professional wrestling as one person said trump wants to in this latest trial with eugene carroll right oh by the way did you notice that did you see those pictures of him is he holding up his

hand so look at that he's got these red spots on his hand. Kicked off a lot of speculation last week. James Carville immediately thinks it's syphilis. And he also said clap. I had to look that up. It's like, aren't those two different things? And I thought they were. I thought clap was, at least I looked it up.

It said gonorrhea. But I guess when you work with the Clintons, you're always attuned to that anybody got sores on them oh this is uh no where were you last week you know that type of thing it's it's just kind of an occupational hazard when you hang around the clintons all the time like james carville did that you expect that everybody in your crowd is going to be having some kind of sexually transmitted disease but But, uh, he came out and said there were paper cuts. I don't know if there are paper cuts or not. I don't know if it was, uh, who would ever think I'd seriously, who would ever think that Donald Trump leading such a chase life, whatever situation where he

would catch a sexually transmitted disease, you know, I mean, not the, not the E. Jean Carroll trial, but the other trial. I mean, we're actually talking about a, a porn star hustler. Yeah. Get a sexually transmitted disease. No way. Trump's not like that at all. Right.

Not our Trump, not the Trump I imagine. And so now they're saying in this trial, you know, where he got caught, I was going to say he got caught red handed at the rape trial and his lawyers left him. Maybe his wife left him too. Do you see that picture from the funeral? Uh, where he's, uh, I don't have the clip in here. I was going to put that in, uh, after the funeral, they go to get in the car. Melania gets in one of the limous the funeral they go to get in the car melania gets in one of the

limousines and he starts to get in he stops abruptly and backs back stands there for a second then goes to another limousine like hmm okay well i'm sure he maybe he got caught red handed yet again he's been caught red handed many times in many different ways, but, uh, who knows exactly what's going on with it? Uh, anyway, his, um, his lawyers have walked away and it may be because everybody agrees this is he's on a suicide mission, right? He wants to testify in this, uh, this latest, uh, defamation trial. In other words, he, she accuses him of rape and, uh, defamation and the jury

finds in her favor and then immediately Trump defames her again. And so she starts another one. And, uh, so this is his, uh, kind of, I think kind of the way that I think his second term is going to go. Frankly, uh, he raped us the first time I think defamed us. And I think he's going to rape us and defame us again anyway. Uh, so he is absolutely determined that he's going to testify on the stand and all the legal experts say it's a suicide mission. And I think it's probably why his lawyer, his legal team, they're all walked away, except for this one woman that obviously he hired for her

looks, not for her legal experience or ability to speak or knowledge of the law. She just does this, uh, like a deer in the headlights. And it's been pretty amazing to watch it, but, uh uh he wants to lose this trial uh and i'd say he wants to he wants he wants to testify and tell this judge and um eugene carroll off so badly that um he'll be willing to pay the judgments that come off of this. You know, the lawyers, um, you know, he's, they're not, he's not going to take their advice. They don't want to lose a trial.

And, uh, so they took a hike except for the one and, um, but he wants to lose. That's his energy for this campaign. And there's no more effective commercial that he could ever do. This is a reality TV at its worst. The Washington Post concluded that it was akin to a legal suicide mission. New York defense lawyer Robert Katzberg joined with other legal experts and saying that testifying would ultimately humiliate him. And he could risk contempt of court. But that's his political juice.

That's what he has to have. That's what his campaign is running on. And it's just a campaign expense. And he'll more than make that up from his people with money. Can you imagine if they put him in jail even for contempt? You know, for a week or two or something like that. How popular he would become. Except that he's not on our side.

He's on his side. And so three members of his legal team just walked. And last week, Takapina, is that how you pronounce this guy's name, and others that worked for and with him. And his lawyer said the two federal cases are serious cases, and I think they're not to be taken lightly. Let's just put it that way. Isn't it interesting to see that the people who know him the best, his wives, his lawyers, and all the rest of these people are walking away from him?

Ty Cobb saying he is incapable of acting. He's a deeply wounded narcissist, incapable of acting except in his own perceived self-interest or out of revenge. Isn't that where we are with him? And it's not going to change, really. And yet, as we look at Davos, they say, well, we're going to rebuild trust. People are saying, rebuild trust by doing more censorship? I mean, you talk about censoring people, and you're going to rebuild trust by doing more censorship. I mean, you talk about censoring people and you're going to rebuild trust. And the comment from Jordan Schlechtel said,

in none of these panels did anyone show any bit of regret for their decisions. Unsurprisingly, none of the catastrophic quote-unquote errors, because they weren't errors, they were deliberate, none of the errors made during the COVID hysteria era ever came up. And so the GOP is looking more and more like Davos every day, isn't it? We aren't going to talk about the errors that we committed. I mean, I did see DeSantis say, we did it, we were wrong, we changed it, you know, we learned from our mistakes and everything. He's the only one who even said that. Nobody in Congress wants to own up to mistakes with this.

Nobody is going to accuse Trump of making mistakes with this. They're all on board with this. And as I said before, it's like Murder on the Orient Express, Agatha Christie novel, where you find out that all the possible suspects were all murderers. Everybody took a stab at that person that they hated. And these people in Congress, whether you're talking about Republicans or Democrats, presidents or governors, they all stabbed us. They all stabbed us in the back.

They tried to stab us with their jabs. And there's no apologies. But now they want to rebuild the trust, just like Davos. Without saying that they did apologies but now they want to rebuild the trust just like davos without saying that they did anything wrong they want to rebuild our trust they haven't called for any reforms but they want us to trust them again they haven't fired anybody they haven't changed anything about the rules that were put out there after the dark winter simulation, two months before 9-11, the false flag anthrax attack one week later, and two months later, the model legislation that they sent out to all of the states to, because this runs through the states,

that's where the legal thing, and they don't have, under the 10th Amendment, they don't have the ability to directly order people to do this stuff. So how did they get around that? How did they get around the 10th Amendment? By money. By money. That's what the executive order was about.

The executive order was declaring an emergency so you can release money, just like a hurricane coming through Florida. And so it was all about the money and the legal framework, and that legal framework is still there. Nobody has proposed getting rid of it, even at the state levels for the most part. And so just as there's no apologies for this pandemic, MacGuffin from Davos,

and there's no changes. And as they're also saying, we're going to have to do it again. We already know that. And we already know who the winner is too, right? So we don't even need to have elections. Isn't it amazing how much Davos and the GOP are converging with each other?

And of course, the Democrats, you all understand that they are already, everybody knows that the Democrats are on board with Davos. But what you need to understand is that the GOP is as well. We build the trust, no changes. We know who the winners are, no need for an election, no need for debates, no need for any of this stuff. And since we know who the winner is, and they're telling the, all the GOP organizations are telling the supporters, we know that Trump is going to, we know he's won the nomination,

we know he's going to win the election. And so what happens when he doesn't win the election? Well, he's going to win the election. And so what happens when he doesn't win the election? Well, he set us up for civil war. And, um, and then I think even if he does win the election, uh, the left is going to do something to start a civil war. He's going to be the Mason Dixon line over this thing. And so the media, you know, making money out of this. And again, Lee Fang is talking about how the media and Trump corporate media you know making money out of this and again lee fang is talking about how the media and trump corporate media profits skyrocketed during the years of the first trump campaign and presidency only to plunge into layoffs after he left but in this long article

and everything he says is correct you know he says here we go again about 30 minutes into the first and counting the first votes in the Iowa caucus, the Associated Press, CNN, NBC, various other news networks called it for Donald Trump. There was little doubt that the former president would easily dominate the rural state, but the rush to declare him the victor and violation of policies that prohibit such calls

before the polls close was a blatant attempt to soak up the election night audience. DeSantis called that out and they called him a poor loser. But they wanted to take the lead and they wanted to call it for Trump. And some people were calling it as a celebration on MSNBC. You had Rachel Maddow saying democracy is falling into an authoritarian and potentially fascist form of government, but they all make lots of money off of it. And the interesting thing about this article I find is that, um, Lee Fang only looks at

it from the perspective of the Democrat mainstream media. He doesn't look at the money that is made by the so-called alternative right-wing media. Trump is their lifeblood as well. And this is the kind of reporting that you get. It's what's driving me nuts. All of this stuff. No talk about that. of reporting that you get. It's what's driving me nuts, all of this stuff. No talk about that. No talk about, you know, the talk about all the profits of CBS News,

and this is said, Les Moonves in 2015. He said, looking ahead, he told investors the presidential election is right around the corner, and thank God the rancor has already begun. Go, Donald, keep getting out there he chuckled uh they understand well they're making money but yet there is no talk about the right stream media there's no talk about how they profit by cheering trump at the same time they run article after article right next to their pro-Trump articles. They run articles about how bad the lockdowns were for us as individuals and for the economy,

how bad the masks were, how bad the ventilators were, how bad remdesivir was, how bad Pfizer and Moderna were, how bad the vaccine was and is. And yet they sit right next to it. They put articles praising Trump and they never mentioned Trump with any of those things. Lockdowns, mask, ventilators, drugs, Pfizer, and any of that stuff. No, don't talk about Trump. And of course, the Democrats won't criticize those things. They love those things.

That's why they gave us Trump. You see, they selected Trump. And they pushed him in. And they're pushing him in again. So what is he going to do the next time? Trust us. We're the media. Hunter's laptop confirmed authentic as past deniers double down on censorship. Yeah.

Well, you know, Trump never was there for us with censorship. He was always a wall, wasn't he? And so Jonathan Turley talks about how, yeah, they suppressed this story. They claimed it wasn't true. There was no laptop. And now the FBI has admitted it. They say it was backed up on the cloud and here's all this data and so forth. And, um, and yet nobody talks about, uh, Trump on free, and Trump doesn't talk about free speech either. He's not talking about doing any reforms. So, Turley said, this is why the start of our republic alternative media sprang up with pamphleteers like Thomas Paine.

Citizens rejected the state-supported media. They searched for their own sources. Today's citizen journalists can be found on the internet and blogs and other sites that carry opposing views or accounts, but you're going to have to look pretty hard because there's a lot of shadow banning if there isn't outright banning. And just one last thing before we take a break here, you know, illustrative of the kind of uh double think literal double think that is there in the mainstream in the in the right-wing media

this is an article from daily caller and it was posted by world net daily and it picked up by some of the other right-wing um uh publishers a cloud of doom is hanging over commercial real estate. True. Under the Biden economy, they say. Under the Biden economy? I mentioned this as we're going to, as the program was ended just briefly on Friday. I said, you know, Gerald Salenti has been talking about this. I've been talking about this for years.

We talked about this from the very beginning, what the consequences were going to be of Trump's lockdown. And yet Daily Caller and WND say this is the Biden economy? Trump did this. Trump did this. It's truly amazing. You know, you got 60 Minutes now, and I played the clip last week, week, 60 minutes now talking about the commercial real estate crash. Some conservative places talking about it now, but Gerald was talking about that years ago. By the way, I just mentioned trendsjournal.com.

If you want to get Gerald's stuff, you can save 10% off of it with the code night. He knows what he's talking about with this stuff. $2.8 trillion in commercial real estate loans set to expire through 2028, meaning borrowers will either have to pay the amount outright or, which they don't have the money to do that, or refinance the debt with higher interest rates to create a payment that they can't afford because nobody's in the buildings. And even these articles now from Daily daily caller are not talking about the full extent of what is happening.

Really, as Gerald Slinty pointed out, borrowers simply been unwilling to accept reality, but reality has to come due at some point says, um, the wall street journal, about $544 billion in commercial, uh,

real estate loans came due in 2023. And these people have to re-up that. And so there is one paragraph in this article from Daily Caller where they get to the bigger issue here. Because the way that it affects all of us, as Gerald Slenty has pointed out, is taking down the small and medium-sized banks, which are the ones who typically have these commercial real estate loans. Why is it skewed that way? Let me just add a little bit of background here that's not talked about in this article. After the scam of the securitized mortgages in the 2007-2008 great recession that came after that. Elizabeth Warren and other Democrats

came in and they created the Consumer Financial Protection Board. And that created a bunch of regulations. It was supposed to protect consumers, but what it did was it drove the small and medium sized banks out of doing a lot of home loans because of the excessive amount of red tape that they couldn't afford, but the big, uh, big banks could afford. And so these small and mid-sized banks then got into commercial real estate loans. Now, small and mid-sized banks, those outside the top 25 in terms of assets hold about 67% of this, these commercial real estate loans that are about to go bad.

And they only own about 37% of total loans, so they're heavily skewed towards commercial real estate. They're into that twice as heavy as the overall pie. Small and medium-sized banks are still reeling from a crisis that hit the sector early last year, leading many depositors to flee to the bigger banks where they feel their money is safer from bank runs and resulting shutdowns. And so now this is going to hit them especially hard. And who was it that kicked this off?

Yeah. So on the eve of our turning point, this is an article from Brownstone. We'll talk about this when we come back. It is important for us to think about how we responded to this. It's okay for people to be fooled. It's not okay for people who live in this world to be fooled. And I don't think they were. I think they fooled you. But it's okay for the general public to be fooled. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. So we're going to talk about that when we come back.

What could anybody have predicted that this kind of stuff was going to happen? Well, quite frankly, yes. Tell Alexa to add the APS radio skill and have access to the best channels anywhere from country to blues, classic hits to news. APS radio curates incredibly diverse playlists for you to enjoy. Get details at APS radio.com. ¶¶ In a world of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. You're listening to The David Knight Show. This is an article from Brownstone on the eve of our turning point, and I'm going to get to the question that everybody asked me.

Who do you want for president? We'll talk about that coming up and what the next presidency is going to look like. But let's try to learn something from history here. So Mark says, the night before the lockdowns began, I laid alone in bed, listening to national public radio affiliate in the dark newscaster grimly announcing that New York governor Cuomo would the next day issue a 15 day shelter in place order. I couldn't believe this was happening.

Put a state of 22 million people under house arrest over a respiratory virus that was linked to the deaths of a tiny fraction of old Italians and Spaniards. And again, you know, we already had two weeks worth of data. Let me just insert this two weeks worth of data out of Italy showing a very small number of people who had died. All of them, the average age was one week. It was over 80. The other one was just under 80 at 79 points something. And they all had on average two and a half comorbidities. And, and that was why it was so amazing. You know, when how she and Trump, uh, just went with this Imperial college of London, nonsense, computer model.

Anyway, you know, why do we lock up people who are not sick? Never done that before, ever, anywhere. And yet it was done worldwide. Why was it done worldwide? Because Trump and Trudeau and Macron, all these people were marching in lockstep to the orders from the UN, the World Health Organization, and to enact what the World Economic Forum wanted to do.

You cannot lose sight of that betrayal by Benedict Donald. He did exactly the same stuff at exactly the same time. And he would have done it at exactly the same time if he had been elected president. But they needed to have both parties as part of this. They needed to be able to have plausible deniability. It wasn't me, it was the other guy who did it. He said over a respiratory virus linked to the deaths of a tiny fraction of old Italians and Spaniards over a hokey video of some Chinese guy laying on the sidewalk. When had healthy people ever been locked down? What made this virus different from any other virus?

Exclamation points should follow each of the preceding questions. A few nights prior, on my way back from the county ice rink, I had stopped at Home Depot near closing time to buy a bucket of paint. The tall 50-ish guy behind the counter and I both commented on how quiet the store was. He mocked the emerging notion that New Jersey might be shut down because one very sick nursing home resident, well into his 90s, was said to have died from a virus. The paint mixer was the last reasonable stranger I would meet for quite a while. Turned out he was smarter than many medical experts, quote unquote, puts that in quotes. Many smarter than many medical experts, governors, big city mayors, TV commentators, college presidents, and the U.S. president and Congress.

Wait a minute. Who was that president? Can you name that president? For $500. Mark Oshinsky. Can you name who was president in 2020? Oh, gee,

I just, I can't recall. You know, Fauci had that problem when they got him on the stand. He couldn't recall hundreds of times when they asked him direct questions. And when you get somebody who's on the right side of the issues, they can't name Trump. They can never recall him.

It's almost like there was some kind of men in black, you know, flash that light in them and they can't recall who was president when this all happened. I'm afraid I remember. Do you? On the darkest night of the Cuban Missile Crisis, he said Bob Dylan hunkered down his room and wrote, a hard rain's going to fall, which foretold what he thought was going to be imminent nuclear war. He said, I felt, felt the same profound dread on the eve of the lockdowns. So he says, here's what I wrote down as part of a, um, so I got out of the, I got out of bed, switched on my computer, and wrote this on March the 19th.

He said, and remember, it was Friday the 13th. After my show was over, the Trump did the executive order, made the announcement, he's going to declare a national emergency. And then over the weekend, you had New York and California say they were going to lock everything down. He wrote this on March the 19th. Go back and look at my program on March the 16th. Anyway, what he said, I don't hate old people. I am one, or so I'm told.

I probably visited more people, including non-relatives in nursing homes than 90% of most Americans. But it's neither sensible nor fair to shut down society of coronavirus largely in an attempt to extend the lives of the small percentage of people who've already lived a long time or who have bodies made old by overeating or smoking. So he made a pragmatic argument, which of course that should be enough to stop this, right? It doesn't make sense from a medical standpoint.

If you assume that this is a medical standpoint. If you assume that this is a pandemic, even if you assume that it's a very dangerous pandemic to a certain demographic, and again, that's another thing that's very rare about this. We've never seen well people locked down, and we've never seen a virus that only affects people based on their age or their other comorbidities but i looked at it and i said this is political and i looked at it and i said this is a this is dark winter too this is dark winter of one simulation that they practiced for 20 years and now they're pulling it on us and And so on that Monday, what I did was I talked about the political aspects of it. I said, this is a political war.

And I began by talking about how the British responded to the threat of the Nazis right across the English Channel, the imminent invasion of Britain. And they put up the signs that you still see on T-shirts, keep calm, carry on. But there were also other signs that they put up the signs that you still see on t-shirts, keep calm, carry on. But there were also other signs that they put up everywhere. Liberty is at peril. Defend it with all your might. It was a political pandemic. It was a psychological war. I knew it was a total scam. I knew it was a push for medical martial law. And that is why I am unalterably opposed to Trump. I will never support him as a lesser of evils.

Never will I support that kind of evil. The kind of evil that Donald Trump put on us in 2020 far surpasses anything that I've ever seen from any president in my lifetime. And I'm one of these old people as well. And he comes up with no apology in any way shape or form he doesn't have any ideas for reform no apologies only bragging about what he did so what do you think he's going to do when he gets another shot at it so here's what i say you know when people say who do you want for president you got steve bannon out there who predicts that trump's first 100 days will set a

50-year agenda doesn't that seem kind of uh uh and not a lot of hubris i think it is. And yet, why does he say that? He says that because he thinks that the first 100 days of FDR set an agenda. And it is true. FDR was there at the point where we were having the fourth turning. And he set that agenda and you know steve bannon and i was um more open to him than the people that i worked with at the beginning of the trump administration because he was talking about the fourth turning he certainly understands the cycles of history that we're in, but I've seen just how dishonest Steve Bannon is. And so he sees the Trump second term as something like FDR. And in that, I agree with him.

I don't know that it's going to be something that's going to set the next, the agenda for the next 50 years, but I do know that we are going to be setting up our agenda for the next 50 years but i do know that we are going to be setting up our society for the next 70 years this election is very important whoever is the president is going to take us through the end of this um this fourth turning and that's why we have to be prepared to block them because there's not anybody who is still in the running. There wasn't really anybody that was in the running from the very beginning that I thought was going to do this right. But this guy has been, you know, I said I don't trust Steve Bannon. He is a convicted liar and con man.

He was pardoned by Trump. He hangs out with a Chinese communist party billionaire. Whoa. Yeah. He, uh, was on the outs with him, but that doesn't mean that he's not a, not a rat like the rest of them. This is kind of like the competition between Lennon and Trotsky or whatever, you know, it, this is kind of, uh, uh, Steve Bannon's guo is kind of a Trotsky to Xi, the president of China.

Not somebody that I would trust. And so he says that FDR in the first 100 days laid a lot of foundation for what was going to be a complete change of our society, our government. And he thinks that Trump will be able to do that around this time as well. He said one difference would be this time. He said the team of rivals dynamic in the second administration, apart from what Americans saw between 2017 and 2021. In other words, he admits that the first team that Trump had, that he had basically people from the globalist military industrial complex empire. And he had a lot of globalists and bankers. You know, people, frankly, from Goldman Sachs, which is where Bannon is from.

Bannon worked at Goldman Sachs. And so he brings in people like Cohen, and Cohen gets a special golden parachute so that he can be a part of the Trump administration. Well, you know, it would be one thing if Trump brought these people in, and then he never got rid of them, and he never changed the person. He made a mistake at the very beginning. Well, you know, he was a neophyte. He didn't really know what he was doing.

But the reality is that he ran the entire four years as if it was The Apprentice. And he was firing people left and right except for Fauci. Would never fire Fauci. Isn't that interesting? But these other people, he fired them one after the other. And the next person they would bring in was just as bad or even worse as the one that he had just fired. He didn't learn anything in his first four years.

He made enemies out of all these people. They won't support him again. But he was firing people left and right and bringing in equally bad people all the time. But Bannon says you won't have people that tend to be more globalist. I think you'll see populist nationalist people that are fully on board with the outlines and the directionality on board with President Trump's policies. He says Trump is now running an anti-globalist campaign. Well, isn't that great? He ran an anti-globalist campaign when he won the 2016 election.

But then he created a globalist cabinet. And he governed as if he was Davos man. Bannon said the first 100 days of the Trump term also suffered because, quote, we didn't have a deep bench of MAGA-type people that understood policy or had been in the government before. He goes, but now you've got groups like the heritage foundation you know the heritage foundation where the president was just in davos now he's shaking the finger and lecturing these people in davos about all the things that they got wrong in public i wonder what they're doing in private do you have to go to Davos in order to do that? No.

Could you oppose Davos without being there? Yeah. But if you're there and you're meeting in closed door meetings with people, and by the way, it was the Heritage Foundation that supported all along the corporate censorship. This guy and his organization, they were apologists for the idea that corporations can shut down our free speech because not only are they like people, but they're superior to us because they've got more money. And so corporations ought to be able to censor us on social media. They ought to be able to censor us on search engines and all the rest of

stuff. Now we know that they were doing it at the direction of the government, but I said that at the time that they were doing it at the direction of the government, but regardless of whether it was at the direction of the government or not, they should not be shutting down our rights. The corporation is inferior. A corporation is not created by God. It's created by government,

as I've said many times, but again, um, what he wants, he says, and thinks he's going to get, and he's lying to everybody about this, the MAGA equivalent of a New Deal corporation. What are you going to call it? Are you going to call it the new normal? Because it was Trump who ushered in so much of this new normal stuff for us, didn't he? He said, while a second Trump term could accomplish a lot through executive orders, he says, the

reversal of many Trump executive orders at the start of the Biden administration reveals a weakness of governance in that form. Well, you know, there's some executive orders that Biden did not reverse. He didn't reverse this whole idea of gun control by executive order. You know, Trump did that with a bump stock stock and then he did it with a pistol brace. And then he dropped the pistol brace executive order in December of 2020 after the election because he wanted to have full support of people on January the 6th. And so he dropped that executive order.

And then when Biden got in, he revived that Trump executive order to ban pistol braces. So, you know, not all the Trump executive orders were overturned. The Trump executive orders on COVID and all the stuff to lock people down, all the medical martial law, that was not reversed. The ability to pay people, to get them to do whatever you wanted to do in terms of lockdowns, that was not reversed. He says, Bannon says, to stand a better chance of lasting, MAGA policies emanating from the top would need to be buttressed by MAGA laws promulgated by a friendlier Congress. Well, good luck getting a friendlier Congress, because I think that when Trump is the top of of the ticket i think that's going to destroy the chances of a gop congress just like it did in the midterms you're looking how bad biden is how he's wrong on the economy he's wrong on war he's mentally weak and fragile and And everybody expected a red wave.

Why didn't you get it? Well, it wasn't because of abortion. It was because of Trump. But, you know, when we look at Congress, is having Republicans in there, are they really going to be on board with your agenda? You know, when you look at the Paris Climate Accord, Mitch McConnell is head of the Senate when they had a Senate majority. The Paris Climate Accord is actually a treaty. Paris climate accord. Mitch McConnell is head of the Senate when they had a Senate majority, um, Paris climate accord is actually a treaty. You know, they can call these things a trade agreement or they can call it an accord or whatever, but they were all treaties and they have to be ratified.

And, uh, everybody was laughing about the fact that, uh, John Kerry said, well, you know, rock and I ratified that. Except Mitch McConnell knows better. He certainly does know better. He knows the power that he has. He did nothing, nothing to reverse that. He could have immediately said, oh, yeah, well, we'll see about that. We're going to have an election there. We're going to.

No, he just kind of froze. He did nothing. And then he did nothing even throughout the Trump administration. He could have called for an election of that, and it would have lost. You weren't going to get 60 votes in that. But Mitch McConnell is as responsible for the Paris Climate Accord as anybody, more so than anybody. And so you're going to have that kind of betrayal. And of course, when it comes to Paris climate accord, Trump didn't want to do anything.

Uh, the conservative wing in the first year said, you got to do something about it. So he said, all right, I'll get out of it. And pretending that Obama and Carrie got us into it. Okay. Well, they got us in with some kind of an executive order. So I'll do an executive order and get us out of it. But I'm not going to do that until after the election, he said. And that's what he did. These are the kinds of games they play with the issues. Chip Roy says, why are we giving money,

as I pointed out before, to Mallorca? And then we go on cameras and we talk about impeaching him. He said, look, he said, first of all, I met with one of these mayors, a mayor that represents the city in the district that I represent. And I talk to people all the time about what they're dealing with in Texas. And I can assure you that they're not excited about what they see coming out of the Senate and out of the White House. And with all respect to the president, Biden, who said, I don't think there are any sticking points. He has no idea what's in this bill. He doesn't know what's actually being discussed.

Says, frankly, we only know bits and pieces coming out of the Senate. We've seen some of it, and it doesn't do the job. He said, look, this is not about just restoring Trump policies. We actually need to enforce existing law. You see, the Trump policies, in kind of a passive way, he admits, the Trump policies didn't enforce the law. DACA was to say, we're not going't enforce the law. DACA was to say, we're not going to enforce the law. That's what DACA was. What did Trump do? Did he end DACA as he said he was going to do?

No. Now he's talking about how he's going to bravely end all that and he's going to deport people. He's not going to do any of that stuff, folks, if he gets president. He didn't do it when he was there the first time. As I said before, he kicked it over to the Supreme Court, pretended that he didn't have the ability to get rid of the executive orders from Obama. And so Chip Roy said, well, we need to enforce existing law. All that mean that you get rid of DACA right away. And he says, as long as you release people, he says, Mallorca has released 85 to 90% of all the people that they have encountered. And then he says, but as long as you allow any of those numbers to come in, you will never stop the crisis.

Texas is left holding the bag. So, yes, I oppose it. And I also oppose Republicans funding it. And here's the key quote from Chip Roy. Perfect. I'm so glad that he said this. Why are we giving more money to Alejandro Mayorkas while we go to the cameras and talk about impeaching him so that we can score points in campaigns? Rather than doing our job to use the power of the purse that James Madison articulated was our power, the power of Congress, to stop an out-of-control executive. So that's what I think we ought to do.

I've been saying that for years. Glad to see Chip Roy saying it. And again, you know, because we need to enforce the law, which we haven't done. He doesn't mention Trump's name. He says we've got to stop printing to the cameras. He doesn't mention Jim Jordan. That's who's doing this stuff in the house. And so when people ask me, who do you want for president?

Well, this article from Brian McGlinchey, Stark Realities, really is very succinct. He says, Americans are fighting for control of federal powers that should not exist. And so when people ask me, who do you want for president? To me, it's like asking, who do you want as president of this American government, this unconstitutional American government? That's like asking me, who do I want for czar? Who do I want for Caesar? Who do I want for emperor? Who do I want for emperor?

I don't want an emperor czar or Caesar. I want an American president, which nobody who is running for the office wants to go back to the constitutional office of president. And so, McGlinchey says, it's no secret that politics in the United States is growing increasingly acrimonious to the point that a 2022 poll found 43% of Americans think a civil war is at least somewhat likely in the next decade. And he sees this exactly as I see it. I'm so glad that he wrote this. Because he said, the reason that we're fighting over this is because so much power has been centralized into Washington. Federal government is trying to micromanage every detail of our life. Biden is trying to tell us which appliances we're going to be allowed to have and which ones we're not. What cars we're

going to be allowed to drive and on and on. What kind of food we're going to eat. They don't have that power under the Constitution constitution but that's one of the reasons why everybody wants to fight for who the dictator is going to be we're answering the wrong question here we're asking the wrong question and we're answering the wrong question here the intensity of our division springs from a federal government that is operating far beyond the limits of the constitution fueling a fight for control over powers that were never supposed to exist at the national level to put it another way if the federal government were confined to its actual granted authorities federal elections would be of little interest to the general public

because the outcome would be largely irrelevant to their everyday lives when i was running running for Congress, I pointed out to people, I said, you know, the average person in Switzerland doesn't know who the Swiss president is. I said, can you imagine that? As illiterate as the American public is, as deliberately dumbed down as the media keeps them, and they can't name the three branches of government or anything like that. But they know who the president is, don't they? And you hear it all the time. And it's because of the power that the president has. I've been beating this dead horse for decades. I'm glad to see somebody else say the same thing. The America's founders drafted the Constitution with great trepidation. Having just escaped British tyranny, the people of the separate states that would compromise the proposed union were wary of centralizing too much power at the federal level.

That was their big issue. Thus sowing the seeds of new tyranny. Their biggest issue was they called it consolidation. We call it centralization. And that's why they divided the power within the federal government, and they divided power and made it clear that the federal government was subordinate to the states and subordinate to the people. And it's one of the reasons why we didn't have direct election of the Senate. The Senate was there as a way to have the states have power. The Senate was supposed to be representatives of the state. The House of Representatives was supposed to have the states have power. Senate was supposed to be representatives of the state.

The House of Representatives was supposed to represent the people. Those powers, only 18 of them, are listed one by one in Article 8 of the Constitution. They include such things as the power to raise armies, to maintain a navy, to declare war, to borrow money, to coin money, to establish punishments for counterfeiters and pirates, to set standards of weights and measures, secure patents, and establish post offices. Reassuring those who are considering the enormously consequential decision of whether to ratify the Constitution, James Madison, who would later write the Bill of Rights, said the powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.

Those which are to remain with the state governments are numerous and indefinite. Federal powers will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, the liberties, and the properties of the people. Notice that he doesn't say that Texas can't do anything to defend the border. He says the federal government is going to be primarily focused outward. But the state governments don't have any restrictions on them whatsoever.

And yet, what do we have? We have exactly the opposite. To win over those would-be ratifiers who still feared the proposed federal government would undercut state sovereignty and would infringe on individual liberties, 10 amendments are drafted, the Bill of Rights, and the 10th Amendment codified Madison's previous assurance that the powers not delegated to the U.S. by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the states or reserved to the states, respectively, or to the people. So then how do we get to today's, as he points out, sprawling government, which involves itself in almost every aspect of daily American life?

It is almost entirely unconstitutional. And yet, what do we see? Every candidate promises to do more, right? More control from Washington. As we began this, Steve Bannon, yeah, we're going to have our MAGA agenda. Well, you know, FDR gave us radical socialism. I don't want some kind of, you know, Trump version of FDR socialism. I don't want fascism. I don't want socialism. I don't want

any of this stuff coming from Washington. What Steve Bannon doesn't realize that the federal government that he imagines in this Trump empire that he imagines should not exist under the Constitution. What Steve Bannon is telling you is antithetical to the Constitution, and this is why you shouldn't get focused on the presidential election to exclusion of everything else. You need to understand how criminal they are, how adversarial they are to our lives, to the Constitution. You know, when you look at the Dobbs decision, for example, the Dobbs decision was a step in the right direction. It was to say the federal government doesn't have this power.

That belongs at the states. And yet, what was the initial reaction from everybody? And the GOP, pretty much. Oh, we need to come up with, you know, Mike Pence, all of them. You know, Trump. the GOP pretty much. Oh, we need to come up with Mike Pence, all of them. Trump, I don't think, well, I don't know where DeSantis was. Bottom line is, they all want to, Nikki Hale, they all want to re-federalize it again. There is no authority, never was any authority for Roe v. Wade.

The Supreme Court finally decided that correctly in Dobbs. This is not our decision to make. It belongs to the states. That's what the Constitution says. And yet you've got all these Republican candidates, you've got all these pro-life organizations who are self-serving. They make more money, and it's easier for them if they make it a national issue. And of course, they never have to worry about it being solved. That's a big problem. If you're a special interest group, sometimes you really don't want that special interest problem solved

because then that's the end of it for you. And so we have GOP politicians, we have pro-life organizations seeking to nationalize this in opposition to our Constitution. And I oppose that. And it's not even a pragmatic uh solution just as the guy was saying when he said you know i thought about this when have we ever locked everybody down all the well people and then what's the consequence is going to be as he starts to go i didn't read everything that he had there but as you start to think through

that how's it going to cripple our economy how are we going to even be able to handle if it is a real pandemic how would we be able to handle it if we lock everybody down? Well, of course, that's still in the cards, isn't it? Nobody wants to say they did anything wrong, and we want to elect, reelect the guy who did that to us. But it's not even a pragmatic solution to do this this way. So he said, don't let your affinity for any of those enterprises short-circuit your intellectual honesty. He lists all these different government bureaucracies. He says, you know, the Small Business Association,

the Department of Labor, but even things like Social Security, Medicare, all these other things. He said, don't let your affinity for that short-circ, your intellectual honesty. Even if you view them as being benign, that doesn't make them constitutional. You know, Harry Brown, who ran as a libertarian candidate, when he would speak to an audience, he would say, what's your favorite government program? And then he would say, think about it.

Would you be willing to give up that favorite government program to kill the IRS to make the government smaller so it doesn't interfere with everything in your life? And, you know, interestingly enough, people were not willing to do that. You know, we want a totalitarian authoritarian government. We're getting it really hard and we're going to get it much harder. Much of the current state of affairs has been driven by the supreme court's extreme expansive interpretations of certain things like the general welfare clause and the

commerce clause and so he talks about that but let me just say that you know this is like uh the the cartoon thing on youtube how it should have ended. Right. Yeah. Uh, for example, they do or the rings, how it should have ended at the very beginning. You know, he says, okay, you got to take this ring. You got to throw it in mountain doom. And then the whole rest of the three books is about that and how it should have ended. He just whistles up the Eagles and they fly him in there and he drops it in. And that's how it ended. Right. So we could short circuit all this stuff about the general welfare and commerce clauses just by saying that um even if the expansive interpretation of those

things even if that argument were correct and it isn't but even if that argument were correct it was fixed by the bill of rights because the bill of rights superseded and amended anything that was in the Constitution, including the General Welfare Clause and the Commerce Clause. And so he says the General Welfare Clause, he said, copied from the Articles of Confederation. Madison said it was always understood as nothing more than a general caption to the specified powers. He said it was copied for the very reason that its prior use and understanding would hopefully minimize the risk of it being misinterpreted as a grant of power, which is what we always see in the federal government. You know, they put in prohibitions and it's just like the FISA thing. They put that in so you're not going to spy on Americans.

Instead, what they do is they use the FISA court to spy, to get a search warrant for Mr. and Mrs. Verizon and spy on everybody. But the writer says it flies in the face of reason that the drafters of the Constitution would take pains to carefully list the Congress's specific authorities and yet simultaneously say Congress could also do anything it thinks that is generally beneficial. He said those two words, general welfare, do not bestow an authority. Indeed, they are present in order to limit authority to the power to tax and to spend. And then we're back to FDR.

Because, you see, we've had our government, we're in America 3.0, I guess. Let's see. 1.0 would be the aftermath of 1776. 2.0 was the Civil War. Radically changed the structure and the concentration of power. And then FDR did it. And we're about to go into America 4.0 if America survives. In 1937, the Supreme Court used the imaginatively expansive interpretation

of the General Welfare Clause to turn back a constitutional challenge to the Social Security Act and to set a precedent that would fundamentally change the nature of federal government. And see, we don't need a right-wing version of FDR's unconstitutional government. The decision, Helvering v. Davis, came as the court was under intense institutional stress. Following a wave of high court decisions rightfully striking down various pieces of this New Deal legislation as unconstitutional, FDR, emboldened by his massive landslide re-election in 1936, pushed a legislative scheme that would enable him to appoint as many as six more justices to the Supreme Court. It had a jaw-dropping 523 to 8 win in the Electoral College.

And so that, along with a swing justice, he started getting rubber-stamp approval from the Supreme Court on all of his New Deal ideas. Is this what Bannon has in mind? Does Bannon think there's going to be some kind of a massive electoral landslide that Trump is going to come in with this big landslide behind him like FDR did? He's going to strong arm these tactics through there? Again, I don't think we need a right wing because it's not going to be a conservative version of FDR.

That'd be an oxymoron. Conservatives ought to be about conserving the Constitution, don't you think? And so the proclamation from the Supreme Court was that Congress may spend money in aid of the general welfare. Well, where do you see that? Anywhere else. The famous speech from Davy Crockett opposing that idea for a very deserving cause, a widow.

He said, I'll give the money, but we can't approve that from Congress. There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views. Yeah, like Davy Crockett. We will not resurrect the contest, but we will settle it by this decision, said the Supreme Court. Done, huh? They didn't do, the proclamation didn't do enough to demolish the concept of limited federal government. And so they continued to amplify the damage.

They said the discretion is not confined to the courts. The discretion belongs to Congress. Thus, the court not only granted broad new powers to Congress, but it also limited the extent to which that power would be subject to checks and balances. In 1792, Madison had written, the federal government has been hitherto limited to specific powers. If not only the means, but the objects are unlimited, then that parchment better be thrown into the fire at once. Might as well be.

And then you take the Commerce Clause, just real quickly. That's the basis, really, of our twisted drug war. And I've interviewed people, even people who are law enforcement against prohibition. I interviewed him, and he said, well, so what is the authority for this? I said, we had to have a constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol. So what's the authority, even if you're against this prohibition? What do they claim is the authority? He said, well, you know, the Commerce Clause gives us that authority.

I said, no, it doesn't. Because if the Commerce Clause gave them the authority, then everybody up until the point that they invented that idea in the 1970s, everybody up to that point had gotten the Constitution wrong. Everybody. Everybody had gone to a lot of extra trouble to pass a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, and they didn't need to. No, the Commerce Clause was always there. And of course, the Commerce Clause clearly

does not give them the authority to run any kind of prohibition. It's important to consider the fact the Constitution was drafted to replace the Articles of Confederation, and part of the reason why they did that was because you already had taxes being imposed by states on goods coming in from another state. And so they wanted to eliminate the internal taxation. The Commerce Clause was intended to enable a free trade zone within the United States

by empowering Congress to bar tariffs on property that was going between states. But that was it. It was to free commerce instead of to restrict it. How have they used it from FDR on to restrict commerce? Not just the war on drugs. Prior to that, that's what he talks about in this particular one uh the court case in 1942 uh wickard case uh that was uh the one where you had a guy who wanted to grow wheat on his small farm in ohio and they had come up with the price supports

that fdr wanted to do. And they told him that he was not going to be allowed to grow wheat, even just to feed his own family. He says, I'm not sending this across state lines. I'm not even selling it to anybody. I'm using the wheat to feed myself and my family and my animals and for future planning. But they said, no, you can't do that.

And so where are we today? We've got Amish farmers who can't grow and slaughter cattle because we've got the tyrannical USDA thugs out there. Is that on the radar of Trump or any of these candidates? No, they don't care about that. Yeah, he's focused on his own candidacy and his own revenge. He doesn't care about any of this stuff. Rand Paul wrote in a 2012 Supreme Court amicus filing, he said, wicked, that's this case about the wheat. He said, it stands for the sad proposition that

Congress can prevent a man from feeding his family and his own home with food that he grew himself. And that's where we are right now. And that's just one of many things. Decentralization of power and government is what we need in order to not have a civil war. And, you know, the previous civil war that we had was over whether or not people could declare their independence and their self-governance. And this civil war, and Biden is pushing us into this very heavily, but Trump's not going to push back in an opposite view either. He doesn't want to diminish any of the power of the office. He wants to extend it. And just ask yourself, when Trump gets finished extending the power of the office as he did in 2020 and then he was seceded by Biden, ask yourself what's going to happen after Trump does his little right-wing FDR stuff and then we get a socialist Marxist president. Ask yourself what's going to happen with that. If state law rather than federal law were preeminent on the vast majority of

topics, we'd also see a sharper differentiation in what life is like in each of the 50 states. America, Americans rather would be presented with a more diverse selection of places to live while enjoying the freedom to choose the one that best comports with their views on how things should be. He said, um, George Mason said at Virginia's ratifying convention, he says,

is it to be supposed that one national government will suit so extensive a country, embracing so many climates, containing inhabitants so very different in manners, habits, and customs. And yet, as much as I agree with this article, his conclusion of how to fix this is he says, so then there's another long shot avenue to fix this, to amend the Constitution. He said, we need to have an Article V Constitutional Convention. No, no. This is like, okay, she floats, she's made's made therefore she's made of wood right

he gets all of this right and then he comes to the absolute illogical conclusion in other words he's just been going through here saying we got people in government who won't obey the constitution and even referencing uh the fact that, yeah, we ought to just throw this thing into the fire, right? And so let's take the people who won't obey the constitution and let's let them, because they'll be the ones who are running this constitutional convention, let's let them have the power to change the constitution because we think that they're going to somehow altruistically change it to change the Constitution? Because we think that they're going to somehow altruistically change it to fix the problem?

See, the problem is it's just a piece of paper, and that's why we need to be able to nullify this. That's why we need to not be focused on who the czar or the emperor is going to be. And as he said, as I previously covered, 19 states have now requested a convention with the one goal being to limit federal jurisdiction and power. No, no, that is not the solution. Constitutional convention is one of the most dangerous things that we could do. I'm glad to see so far that I've not seen

a Bannon and the Trump people pick this up as a rallying cry. If they do, we're in big trouble. No, the real solution is nullification and even more so getting the Federal Reserve out of our lives, ending the Fed. And I say nullification because look at Jeff Sessions and Reefer Madness, for example, right? As much as he hated marijuana, he would never try to stop the states that were nullifying it. Instead, what did they do? They used to continue things like civil asset forfeiture, they used bribery.

Bribery is the way they get around the 10th Amendment in every way. And so the problem is that Congress doesn't want the power to do anything about this. You see, we keep pushing on this rope. We think, well, we're going to fix it with the president, or we'll fix it with a Republican Congress, and yet they don't want to do anything about this. They like the fact that we have taxation without representation, and that we have regulation without representation. There's a new American article that gets this right.

There's a major Supreme Court case that could force Congress to do its job because they don't want to do their job. He says, are we truly a nation of, by, and for the people? He says, if our elected representatives aren't the ones that actually make the decisions that are affecting our lives, no. For a long time, they haven't been making those decisions. They've essentially outsourced them to judges and to bureaucrats. But two cases currently before the Supreme Court could remedy this problem. And so he talks about this is a good example of how micromanaging and how oppressive our government can be listen to this for the past 30 years the magnuson stevens act has given the national oceanic and atmospheric administration noah what people usually call it the authority to require monitors on commercial fishing boats and i

saw that thought okay what's the big deal you know it's a some kind of device or something no it's not a device it's a person it's a person. It's a person. And so these monitors intended to ensure that the fishermen adhere to ethical fishing practices as mandated by NOAA. So it's not a device. It's a bureaucrat. But here's the kicker. Outrageously, these mandates that certain types of fishing vessels must pay for these federally required monitors themselves. Nevertheless, the act didn't list certain boats, boats, herring boats. Here we go. Red herrings again.

It did not list herring boats as among those types. And for many years, the NOAA agreed that it didn't apply to these boats. And so it funded the monitors itself. And then they ran out of money. And then instead of getting more congressional funding, NOAA simply changed its interpretation of this mandate. And voila, now these herring fishermen who have a crew of only five or six people on their vessels have to pay the salary of a bureaucrat to monitor what they're doing, which reportedly runs more than, listen to this, $700 per day per boat. This guy's getting paid $700 a day, $168,000 a week, if you think of it as a 40-hour work week.

Multiply this out by 20 days, except if you say he's going to work five days a week, $700 a day. Run that out for the year, $168,000. This can be as much as 20% of a ship's daily take-home pay, and it's frequently more than even the captain makes. This is a bureaucrat that you are forced to have on and forced to pay. Now, I look at this, and they don't mention this in the New American, but I have a take on this. Isn't this very much like a violation of a Third Amendment, where you have to have a government soldier quartered into your home? I mean, they're forcing a government bureaucrat

to be quartered by these fishermen. And of course, we know that part of what made that so odious was not just the fact you've got a stranger living in your house and that you've got to feed and provide them with room and board, but they're also an informant. That's exactly what this monitor is. I talk about, people say that every one of the Bill of Rights is being nullified except for the Third Amendment. Now, I say that's being done all the time, and I said that's being done most of the time by the NSA, who is spying on what is happening on our computers. They're there in the background.

The current SCOTUS cases that are there are urging the justices to overrule a landmark holding that would involve the energy giant Chevron. And in that decision from 1984, the court said that government agencies are best positioned to interpret federal statutes if a question is not specifically addressed, provided that the interpretation is reasonable. So what that was, was that was an abdication of the courts to the bureaucracies. You see, we've had the president, like Trump, say, well, I can't undo the previous president's executive order on daca so let me send it to the supreme court and then you have the um uh the congress saying well we

don't want to write all the laws let's just you know create a broad legislative agenda and we'll kick it to the bureaucrats to fill in the details Or maybe we'll make a new bureaucracy like the Consumer Financial Protection Board or something like that. And then now the courts are even saying, well, we don't want to have that. We're going to kick it to the bureaucracy. So we're being ruled by a bunch of bureaucrats. That's why I say we have taxation without representation. We have regulation without representation.

And in 1984, the court under the Chevron case said we're going to kick stuff to, we're going to let the bureaucrats basically rule themselves and we're not going to be a check on them whatsoever. And so that's why these two cases are saying, no, you need to, you know, we can't let, we cannot let the bureaucracy be a law unto itself. And so since the Chevron defense, that's kind of interesting because the Chevron is like

a flag, right? Since the Chevron defense has been foundational framework and administrative law, even though federal bureaucracies whose mere existence is usually unconstitutional anyway, federal bureaucracies have no power under the constitution to make these decisions in question anyway. So their existence is unconstitutional anyway. Federal bureaucracies have no power under the Constitution to make these decisions in question anyway. So their existence is unconstitutional. They don't have any power to make these decisions. And so they've created this unelected, unaccountable bureaucracy, just as we saw with the medical

martial law stuff. What do elections mean? So you tell me, which bureaucrats do I get to vote for? Do I get to vote Fauci out? Do I get to vote people like Fauci out? Have they done anything to make sure that his replacement doesn't act just like him? While Chevron has been designed

to limit judicial activism, it has led to bureaucratic activism. And it's led to a consolidation of power that was antithetical to what 1776 created. We'll be right back. Unlike most revolutions where the people rise against a real economic oppression, in our case here in Boston, we are fighting for purely an abstract principle. Hear, hear. It is, however, not nearly so abstract

as the young gentleman supposes. The issue involved here is one of monopoly. Today, the British government will monopolize the sale of tea in our country. Tomorrow, it will be something else. © BF-WATCH TV 2021 Liberty. It's your move. You're listening to The David Knight Show. Whether you're feeling like the blues, You're listening to The David Knight Show. Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, your annual global risk report makes for a stunning and sobering read. For the global business community, the top concern for the next two years is not conflict or climate.

It is disinformation and misinformation, followed closely by polarization within our societies. in a world of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act you are listening to the david knight show yeah and of course uh that was the European Commission. And I figured out finally how to pronounce her name. Ursula Fond of Lying. That's it. Ursula Fond of Lying. She will lie to you and she will make sure that you cannot speak the truth. She's going to shut you down.

And of course, she's one of many. One of many of these people. We got a queen now who is talking about how we all need biometric ID as well from Davos. This happened over the weekend. Biometric digital ID cards could track vaccination status, says the Dutch queen Maxima. Oh, okay. That's a good name for an authoritarian dictator. Maxima.

Maxima the first? I imagine there's been many other Maximas before this one. Maximum leader, czar, all the rest of this stuff. You know, here's the question I have. Why should a queen of the Netherlands or a king of Britain, why should they have any say about our lives? It makes me think of the Monty Python. Who elected you, King? We're an autonomous collective here in the United States and in other areas.

So we're not really too interested in what kings and queens have to say about us. She is described by Breitbart as a longtime social justice campaigner, working with the UN and all the rest of this. And so in a panel discussion to talk about financial inclusion, she says just the opposite. You're going to have to have an ID to have financial inclusion. And she says, you know, when you look at poor people, they really need to be able to have some sort of IDs so that they can get their government checks and all the rest of stuff. And I immediately thought, so what kind of an ID does the queen of the Netherlands or the king of Britain, what kind of an ID do they present to get their government welfare checks?

The biggest welfare louts in the world are these kings and queens right do they have to have an id do they have to they have to go down to some office show their id and get their multi-million dollar check of course not and who are the real welfare Queens here, right? It's not these poor people that she's trying to, to tag and bag. It's she's the welfare Queen. She's on the public dole. And so is Charles and all the rest of them. Why do we put up with people like this?

And Ursula fond of lying. She said, when I started this job, it was actually just a couple of countries here. Let me play the whole clip for you. I've got what she has to say. Here's the queen waxing on, just like Bill Gates, about how important it is for people to have the ID because the ID is going to be their ticket to welfare, although she doesn't need an ID for her welfare.

Why? Because in order to open an account, you need to have an ID. Right. Oh, she shows her ID to open an account? They were actually very little countries in Africa or Latin America that had one ubiquitous type of ID, and certainly that it was digital, and certainly that it was biometric. And we've really worked with all our partners to actually help that being um i mean to grow this and the interesting part of it is that you know

yes it is very necessary for financial services but not only so it's also good for school enrollment is also good for health who actually got a vaccination or not uh it's it's very good to actually to get your subsidies you you know, from the government. So this has not only effect to the financial services is a very important issue. Yeah, it's good to get your subsidies from the government. So she must have one of these things. Yeah, she gets a lot of subsidies from the government. What a hypocrite these people are.

And of course, it's not just good for this. It's good for everything. You know, you're not going to do anything without that ID. And this is what they've been saying all along. I don't know how they think they're going to rebuild trust. The Dutch queen has also been one of the leading proponents of CBDCs. And she does it in the name of quote-unquote financial inclusion what doublespeak what orwellian doublespeak that is and of course this is bill gates

has been saying you know all along his head id 2020 which is really where they kicked this stuff off was in 2020 and he kept saying you know you got to have all these different, the poor people for, you know, their subsidies for their healthcare, they need to have an ID and all the rest of this stuff. They would open a bank account. And I'm sure that the queen, whenever she wants to open a bank account, they want to see her digital ID. So Davos is demanding coordinated system of carbon taxes that is worldwide.

And of course, that's what they want. This is always what the climate stuff is about. It's always problem solution. You have to have a global problem and then a global tax for that. That's what the climate stuff is all about. Because you can't have a government without a tax ultimately right now they have been funding their globalist agenda by essentially selling shares to these multinational corporations you know these backroom deals where they become stakeholders

as i said before they've got the ideas and the agendas at the UN and then the World Economic Forum and these other globalist organizations will come in and start to try to come up with strategies to enact that agenda. But they really do need the money and also the technology, these corporations in exchange for that. They become stakeholders. They get into the buy their way into it. You know, they're essentially, you know, buying a dukedom or they're buying a, you know, it's

the old fashioned feudalism that we're looking at here. These people are, you know, they're not winning this stuff as a handout from the king because of battle or something, or even because of loyalty and opposing another king trying to take the throne, but they're establishing this global throne and they're getting paid for it. But in the long term, they want to have taxes to support this and, of course, to be able to redistribute wealth globally because that's what these people are. They're not socialists. They're Marxists.

And they're all about the redistribution of wealth like every other Marxist. You know, it's not from the rich people to the poor people it's from the poor people to the rich people that's the way the marxists redistribute everything especially taking it from the middle class and so they're trying to redistribute wealth they say to poor countries from western countries but they're really trying to redistribute all the wealth to themselves the climate change agenda can only be fully obtained if international carbon taxes are implemented on a global population, said the Saudi Arabian finance minister. You know, the country that chops off people's heads for massive scale. But again, this is why they have to have climate. This is why the climate MacGuffin is so central to everything why they have to have climate this is why the climate mcguffin

is so central to everything that they want to do they have to have a global so-called pandemic even though it wasn't a pandemic it wasn't an epidemic anywhere but they claim that it was a worldwide thing because they have to have worldwide solutions worldwide ids and travel restrictions and things like that. And this is why they are so focused like a laser beam on this climate nonsense. There is no realistic solution to the climate transition, says the Saudi politician, that does not involve a globally coordinated system of carbon taxes. Phony problem to steal money from you. That's what governments always do, isn't it? Rejected the notion that such a system would hit the poor and developing nations the hardest because that's, you know, and he's right about that. He's being honest about that. It's not

targeting poor nations. It's not targeting developing nations. They're using them as an excuse saying, we're going to take, we're going to target the industrialized West, and then we're going to give this to the poor and developing countries. But no, they're going to keep it themselves, like any self-respecting Marxist would. What we need is a system of carbon taxes coupled with subsidies for developing households and a stream of funding for the developing world to allow them to engage in investments and mitigations and adaptation that allows them to keep growing. And of course, they will do this, and they've already, we talk about the redistribution of wealth, they've already started talking about climate reparations and so forth. The implication is that you deserve this.

We're stealing this from you, and we're going to give it to somebody who is more deserving because they've been wronged in the past, and so we're going to give that to them. Also at the World Economic Forum, you have a question and answer period. You have one of the participants there. Scott was asked about collaboration with tackling climate change and how it

is not keeping pace with the Paris agreement, which we were talking about earlier, right? That's a key thing. And Trump didn't want to get rid of that. And he didn't get rid of it. As I said, he kicked the can down the road and,

you know, made a token effort. And that was immediately quote unquote, reinstated by Biden. Nobody in the Trump administration, nobody in the Republican Senate, not Mitch McConnell, not Rand Paul, not anybody said, hey, this Paris climate thing, can we have a vote on that? Not a single Republican senator brought that up.

The fact that, hey, wait a minute, we are the ones who are supposed to ratify treaties. They just let it go because they all want to let it go. So when they were talking about this Paris Agreement, this treaty, how do you see real collaborations keeping up with the pace of the risks that are happening, given everything else that we're talking about here with climate change? And he goes, well, you know, we talked about the cost of living crisis. You know, some people's, most people's electricity bills are so high

that they're desperately trying to find some way of getting off the grid or removing themselves from the cost of purchasing electricity. So that gives us hope and optimism that, you know, people can't afford what we're doing. Because this is about driving us into a new dark age literally without any lights you know that type of thing another example came 2023 when egyptian president abdel fattah el sissy the sissy uh the this reminds me quick drama, grow El Cabong. Well, this is El Sissy. It doesn't hit you with a head, with a, uh, with a guitar. He just slaps you with a limp wrist.

He says, uh, hunger is a price worth paying for a country's progress because that's a bill that other people will be paying. El Sissy is going to be eating whatever he wants to eat, right? Don't you Egyptians dare say that you would rather eat than build and progress? If the price of the nation's progress and prosperity is to go hungry and thirsty, then let us not eat or drink. Let them eat bugs. Don't undermine the cause of our nation and make us the world's laughingstock stand fast

transform the cruel circumstances that we are going through into a gift the harder you stand fast the sooner the economic crisis will pass it's not a gift it's a grift and of course you've heard essentially the same thing from our fearless leader um Biden, who says, yeah, you know, he puts these sanctions on everything. He goes, it's going to be tough, but in the end, it's going to be worth it because, you know, we're going to get rid of this form of energy that we're using right now. Well, as we look at Davos, the questions still arise. You know, there was a, as to the conservatives who went there, of course, we have Javier Malai is presented as a conservative and we have the president of Heritage Foundation, the biggest conservative think tank. Both of them went to Venezuela and publicly, you know, Javier Malai's speech was excellent. the points on individual liberty and the economy and things like that. As I pointed out last week, I think Ayn Rand's vision of her worldview is very limited because of its secularity, right?

She just sees everything in terms of money and economy. She sees greed as being a good thing. It's not a good thing. It may be something that motivates people in terms of competition. But if they're only motivated by greed, you're not going to want to live in that society. If it's a dog-eat-dog, cutthroat type of situation. Having a free market, now that's a different thing. But if it's just greed, what are they going to do?

We know how that works out. We know that if somebody is motivated entirely by greed, they're going to figure out the competition is not a good thing. And we've heard people like John D Rockefeller say that competition was a sin. And we've seen people like Peter Thiel even double down on that and talk about how stupid competition is. We've got to eliminate all competition. And so, you know, that greed can mitigate against a free market so even from an economic standpoint you know the a lot of these libertarian philosophies fall short and if you don't understand where this is truly coming from and that is and you don't understand human nature see the people who founded this country

understood human nature is not to be trusted. They said, we need to have government because men are not angels. But since men are going to be running the government, what do we do to try to control this? They try to put some controls and balances in there. But when you get greedy people who are hungry for power and money, they basically throw off these restrictions. And so the jury is still out with me in terms of javier malai uh it was uh you know he has all the right enemies uh venezuela's maduro really hated the speech he called it shameful because again maduro is a communist uh so you know when you look at this,

it's not enough in many cases, though, just to have the right enemies. The Argentine people, he said, should be saddened, should be ashamed, indignant, because of Javier Malai's mess at the Davos summit. A disgrace, an expression of his Nazi ideology, his McCarthyism. It is a lie that he is a liberalist, liberal libertarian, he said.

Well, actually, you know, this guy is getting all these different labels confused and mixed together, isn't he? He said, the businessmen of the world, the capitalists, the capitalists of the world and the governments of the West were stupefied when he accused the entire West of being communist, of being socialist. Anyone who does not think like him is a communist and must be exterminated from the face of the earth.

That is Nazi thinking, except, you know, it's exactly what we always see the left doing. If you don't agree with them, then that means that you are a right-wing Nazi and a fascist. So you're either a communist or a fascist. And that's exactly what we hear from this communist.

So what he had said in the opening of his speech was, I'm here today to tell you that the West is in danger, in danger because those who are supposed to uphold the values of the West find themselves co-opted by a worldview that inexorably leads to socialism and consequently to poverty. And so again, as he pointed out, it's a worldview. But I don't know that any worldview that is devoid of an understanding of God that is purely secular, I don't think any worldview like that is sufficient to protect us from

socialism, to protect us from poverty. And so, again, what he said was correct. I just felt like it was not broad enough, not deep enough, and it didn't have the kind of moral foundation that I think is essential to be able to protect individual rights. He responded to the criticism from Maduro. He said he never expected such praise from a globalist dictator uh he said i did not expect such praise impoverishing socialist maduro saying that i am

an historical mistake in latin america confirms that we're on the right path long live liberty he said and uh so again when we uh so there's a lot of, you know, a lot, I I'm, I'm somewhat, uh, undecided about him. We'll have to see what he has to say, but there's a lot of things that indicate that something may not be quite right. Uh, wine press expresses some of my concerns, um, saying that, um, they think that he's a globalist puppet, actually, and making the case that as their theme was laughably called

Rebuilding Trust, what do they do? They bring in Malaya. They bring in the president of the Heritage Foundation. Is that how they're going to try to reestablish public trust? Is that going to be how they are going to tell us, don't worry, everybody's, you know, we've got Davos's number and they're not going to threaten you.

Because we know what they are and we just told them to their face what they are. And so you don't have to worry about it anymore. So just go back to sleep, that type of thing. We've got leaders who are going to oppose them, so you don't need to worry about what Davos is saying. Is that what that was really about? Is that the way they want to rebuild trust?

See, I think that's what's going on with Trump, frankly. Like his predecessors, Argentinian president Malai is listed by the World Economic Forum as a contributor to its agenda. In fact, he has consistently represented the positions of the World Economic Forum in the recent past. So he wasn't just somebody, you look at this and we've had people like Dan Crenshaw, we've got people like Tulsi Gabbard, um, and they show up there as world economic forum, young leaders and things.

And of course, um, Vivek Ramaswamy says, well, I, they never asked me and I want to get, you know, he said he was going to sue them, I think, to get his name taken off of their website, and they took it down. You could have a situation where somebody gets their name. I don't know if that's really what was going on with him or not. When you look at his pharmaceutical connections, maybe he was pushing for that. Nevertheless, just being identified as a World Economic Forum leader, that doesn't necessarily mean that you're a part of them. It doesn't necessarily mean that if you go there multiple times that you are sympathetic

to the organization, as we've seen Governor Kemp and Youngkin and others and Trump and all this going there. I, on the other hand, I start to say, well, it certainly looks to me like I would lean the other way. I would lean into saying that they're globalists. But as Wine Press points out, Javier Millay was initially against the vaccination, but he's argued for mandatory vaccination during the coronavirus crisis. So, again, like Trump, you know, he's saying, well, I know these vaccines, I got some real concerns about them and, you know, maybe about autism and some other things like that. But then when it comes into the coronavirus, they're right there with everybody else,

Malai, Trump. And so he was also on the side of the Zelensky regime in the Ukrainian war. And he stands right there shoulder to shoulder with netanyahu in the current gaza war as well and so he talks tough but um we've seen that before he also borrowed trump's slogan and rebranded it to fit his country make argentina great again so we got our own maga as a matter of fact i see here a tip and a comment from stealth patriot thank you for the tip appreciate that says marina abramovich said that donald trump is the magician to wake up the world maga which also means which is the fifth degree in the church of Satan. Yeah. And he said, there's a video link that I posted on today's comments about that.

As a matter of fact, that's also pointed out by Wine Press. So, again, use that term, Maga. These are the individuals who act as spokespersons for the philosophy of the church of satan uh says the church of satan and they're on their website they say we have titles such as magister magistra magus and maga in the church of satan so just a coincidence i'm sure right um malai is a showman. And that's the other thing that gave me pause about him. You know, he's a little bit too much of an actor, a little bit too much with the antics with the chainsaw and things like that.

And, you know, yelling and screaming and cursing. To me, that is always a troubling thing to see that in somebody. I think we ought to have, it looks like a demagogue instead of a statesman when you see that type of thing. So that's another thing about him that gives me concern. But I think that looking at Malai, looking at maloney in italy and looking at how it's too soon to say that whether he's doing the right thing or betraying his promises but certainly it's we know that maloney is full of baloney in italy how she campaigned again just like donald trump and we're going to

control immigration she's done exactly the opposite And she has been one of these people who has hung out with the leaders on every occasion, these globalist leaders. So he is another one of these celebrity politicians. So in that regard, he's very much like Trump as well. is another one of these celebrity politicians. So in that regard, he's very much like Trump as well. Just weeks after his election, he immediately backtracked on most of his campaign promises, such as renewing Argentina's pledge

for the Paris Climate Agreement. Foundational. The Paris Climate Agreement. And so, this free market guy, as I said before, the climate thing is the centerpiece right now. The climate MacGuffin is a centerpiece for moving their agenda forward and for creating a global ID, a global carbon tax, and all the rest of this stuff. And Javier Millai renewed their pledge to the Paris Climate Accord.

Now, even the environmentalists understand the Paris Climate Accord is a fraud. Even the people who believe that the world is going to melt down tomorrow know that it's a fraud. And they said, this doesn't address this at all because it gives a free pass to China and a free pass to India, the two countries that are the biggest and dirtiest producers of energy anywhere. They said this is nothing other than a redistribution of wealth. They said that when it first went through back in 2015. The wacko, alarmist environmentalist said it was a redistribution of wealth. So why do you have people like Trump and Javier Malai supporting it?

So again, is it about rebuilding trust? And as the wine press points out, goes back and reminds people about the trust. Remember the trust, Felix Dzerzhinsky and the Cheka and how they ran all of the opposition. You see, that's what's really going on. You want to know what's going on with these anti-globalist organizations? You know, the easiest way to, to, uh, there's books about it. Uh, but I think the best example and the most entertaining example is look at Sam Neill's, uh, Riley Ace of Spies series that I think it was done by the BBC. And in that you see how the Russian intelligence agency, the Cheka and Dzerzhinsky, Felix Dzerzhinsky, who was running that,

they created all of these anti-Bolshevik organizations outside of Russia and they funded them and they knew who the people were and they had their own people in there. And if they were not on board with him, people like Sigmund Reilly, they would lure him back in, and they killed him. And he was the model that Ian Fleming used for James Bond. That's how the real James Bond wound up. He got snookered by the trust,

just like American conservatives are getting snookered by the trust just like american conservatives are getting snookered by maga today uh so again uh rebuilding trust you know this is the heritage foundation saying you are the problem and he slams the davos globalists to their face, right? And except that, you know, since their key thing is ID and censorship, you know, misinformation, disinformation, that's their number one thing. But of course, right behind that is a global ID. What is the record of the Heritage Foundation in terms of defending free speech? Well, again, the Heritage

Foundation, just like the Cato Foundation, the biggest conservative think tank and the biggest libertarian think tank, Cato Institute, were on the wrong side of the issue when it came to social media censorship. They said corporations can do whatever they want. And we don't want the government telling the corporation what to do, but the corporation can tell you what you can say or do. And that's exactly wrong. Again, going back to the Supreme Court decision back in 1946, Marsh versus Alabama, they said, even though the public square in this coal town is privately owned,

they cannot shut down free speech, even if the public square is privately owned. Twitter and all these other places were public square, digital public square. And so that's the principle that we ought to look at. And the reason for that is because we have God-given rights that can't be taken away by a corporation. As I used to say, would you have a problem if a corporation said, well, I'm just going to drive up and tow your car off or something, right?

Because I'm just going to drive up and tow your car off or something, right? Because I'm superior. They can find some legal justification for that. But no, we have rights and we have boundaries, and those boundaries need to be enforced by government. Heritage Foundation did not stand for that. So I don't know what they're saying behind closed doors there at Davos. World Economic Forum panelists breaks down how to crush bad content sources. You see, this was the central thing, censorship.

I don't think that they've necessarily learned anything at the Heritage Foundation. But again, this may be why he was there. Yeah. Let's get you behind closed doors. How can we do this better? Well, we can crush bad content sources. How? We will guide advertisers,

and of course, we'll do it through corporations. And I said, Trump is going to run this coercion of the vaccine and all the rest of the stuff. It's going to be run through corporations. This is one of the ways that they get rid of responsibility for this. And so this kind of economic pressure through corporations, we can get the banks to definance people. We can get the social media companies to definance people. And if we can't do that, we'll use other corporations to definance the social media platforms. You see, it's all

about that. Again, where are the people who are going to stand up for our God-given rights? I don't think you're going to see it from these people. These corporations are not even taking government orders, you know, they say, but we know that they are. We know this is just plausible deniability. We're going to take a quick break, and we'll be right back. Here's a little song I wrote.

You might want to hear it in your pod. You'll owe nothing and be happy ain't got no cash ain't got no car but 24 booster shots in your arm owe nothing be happy you can't even buy shit in the store Because of your low social credit score Oh nothing Be happy You will own nothing. And be happy. Be happy and eat some bugs. Hear news now at APSradioNews.com or get the APS Radio app and never miss another story.

Okay, and let's talk a little bit about the March for Life. We had a lot of people show up in the middle of a massive snowstorm. These are people who are committed. Not DeSantis, not Trump. They didn't show up. And of course, not Nikki Haley. She doesn't support that in any way, shape, or form. Before I get into this stuff, let me just say thank you to Doug Aluck.

Thank you for the tip. And he thanks me. No, thank you to Doug. I thank you for the tip. Uh, and he thanks me. No, no. Thank you, Doug. I appreciate that. By the way. Um, I don't have the list here of, uh, Zell contributors meant to bring that with me, but I forgot to, um, I'll read that tomorrow.

Uh, but I want to thank everybody who's supporting us. We are, um, we got about a week left in this month and we're at 51%. I updated it. Of course, we have not been able for about eight days to get to the post office. I haven't gotten anywhere. We've been, uh, we're all starting to get kind of a cabin fever here being shut up here because we have a, even though a lot of the roads around here are cleared, uh, we can't get to the roads from where we are.

Uh, and it's just too dangerous. So, um, we, we have, um, a very steep, very twisted road that, um, I'm not going to risk, uh, trying to go down because there's nothing on the other side, except for really steeper drop that goes down. So we're kind of stuck here. Uh, but, um, except for that, uh, we're at about 51%. So we really do appreciate any help. And thank you on Rockfin. Uh, Eric, appreciate that very much. Thank you. A comment on rumble from distorted perceptions. The longer the problem goes on, the longer the funding comes in. They're stealing from us while we fund our own demise. That is absolutely correct. And we need to understand what the mechanisms of this are.

But again, everybody thinks that the solution to, you don't even hear any of this stuff. You know, don't make a federal case out of it. Because everybody wants to make a federal case out of everything. And this is what's driving us into this civil war. You know, people on the left, even when Trump got in, all the pushback on the left and the riots and counter demonstrations and everything, because the left wanted the federal government to define their life for them and to give them everything that they wanted. And then we saw exactly the opposite with the conservatives because the conservatives have now been drawn into this as well. It used to be just the left that wanted that. So let's take a look at what was going on in D.C. as people marched in the snow.

Some brave souls got out and marched. Here's a time lapse photography. And you can see how heavy the snow is there, but it didn't stop anybody from going, look at that. Massive numbers of people. Even though there was a snowstorm that blanketed the city. Mike Johnson showed up, the House Speaker. You didn't have any politicians running for presidency, but he showed up. He said, I am myself the product of an unplanned pregnancy.

In January of 1972, exactly one year before Roe v. Wade, my parents, who were just teenagers at the time, chose life. And I'm very profoundly grateful that they did. He said, America is the only nation in the world that is founded upon a creed listed with theological lucidity and the Declaration of Independence. All men are created equal. Not born equal, but created equal. That's an important distinction to make. It doesn't begin at birth. It begins at the moment of conception. That is an important distinction to make. It doesn't begin at birth. It begins at the moment

of conception. That is when you were created. God goes through the process, knitting you together in your mother's womb, but he knows all of your days before there was a single one of them. That's what we believe, if you believe the Bible. But no presidential candidate is going to show up. And how do we convince people of this position? Well, we have to just unleash the truth. And this is one of the reasons why I've spoken many times about that woman who is, she's a progressive, in other words, a leftist, a socialist, and all these other issues. Probably nothing else would I agree with her on. But she's running for Congress solely so that she can show the mutilated bodies of babies that she discovered that so disturbed her.

And you can't stop a congressional candidate from airing anything. You can't censor their ads. So that is the only context in which she can show the truth about what abortion really is. And Speaker Johnson ought to be telling the other Republicans to do that. He ought to be doing it himself. All of these candidates, all the presidential candidates, instead of whining about how the Dobbs decision from the Supreme Court is an albatross around their neck, they need to show people the truth about what this is. One large banner that spanned the length of the crowd read,

Hey, GOP, we vote pro-life first. Well, then vote for this progressive woman if she's in your jurisdiction. I support any candidate who will pledge to stand with us at minimum to sign a national heartbeat protection law if that goes to their desk, said Kristen Hawkins, president of the Students for Life. Well, again, we don't want to federalize this first of all there is no reason that we should have to throw the constitution out in order to protect life and that's what unfortunately a lot of these national pro-life organizations are doing so we're going to kill the constitution in order to save life that's not necessary you need to make sure this is at the state level uh as a matter of fact on mrc tv for uh guard goldsmith um also does some work of course he also has liberty conspiracy um gabriella paraso caught google news uh trying um and the bias that they have against in terms of reporting what this event was.

So they analyze search results from Google, from Bing and from DuckDuckGo. They search the term March for Life, filtering specifically for new and using a clean environment. The day of the March for Life. So in other words, you don't want to get articles from past events. So we're just looking for new, clean things that would be attached to that particular search term. So they conducted an investigation of the March for Life rally, where 30 on-site marchers volunteered for the study, and they conducted the same Google search on their own phones,

and the findings were telling. In both investigations, Google buried results from outlets like Fox News, Catholic News Agency, and the Washington Examiner and instead elevated liberal news sources like The Hill, Axios, The Washington Post, The Associated Press. These sources vilified pro-life marchers as, quote, abortion rights opponents and anti-abortion activists. And why do they do that? Because the Associated Press says that's how you will refer to these people. You will not call them pro-life.

They don't even like the term anti-abortion. They want anti-abortion rights to be the term that is used. But in contrast, Bing and DuckDuckGo elevated articles from a mix of different perspectives. When searched in a clean environment, Google's top search results in the news tab included four articles that were either neutral or showed a clear liberal bias. Among the highest ranking results, an Axios piece was by far the most inflammatory. Axios seems to suggest that marchers associate with neo-Nazis. Headlined in photos,

they show anti-abortion activists join the March for Life in snow-covered D.C. That was what they chose to feature, anti-abortion activists. They highlighted the participation by a controversial group, Patriot Front. The article characterized the group as a, quote, nationalist and neo-fascist hate group, while Christian and student groups attending the rally were ignored. They singled out this controversial group in order to paint the rally as neo-fascist and hate. The Hill topped the search results with the headline,

Abortion Rights Opponents Rally at Annual March for Life in D.C. The article itself repeatedly referred to peaceful pro-life marchers as, quote, anti-abortion or opponents of abortion or opponents of abortion rights. The initial four results also included the Post and the Associated Press. And so, as I point out, the different headlines, and they've got several of them here. The Hill just read that to Washington Post. March for Life in D.C.,

thousands of anti-abortion protesters expected. The Associated Press, in snowy D.C., the March for Life rallies against abortion with an eye toward the November elections. New York Times, abortion opponents march in Washington with obstacles ahead. The DCist, road closures for Friday's annual March for Life, USA Today, March for Life Rally in Washington, Spotlight's Anti-Abortion Movement. So these were the search results that you'd get from Google.

Very negative. And yet DuckDuckGo and Bing have a more neutral result. They had headlines from Real Clear Politics, Fox News, Washington Examiner, and said these findings come after Google propped up Planned Parenthood and its top search results for the word pregnancy and the week that was leading up to the March for Life. You see, Google has become a search engine designed to hide things.

It's become a means of propaganda and information control, of course. Some of the people who spoke, we had Pastor Greg Laurie was there, and he said the same thing that Mike Johnson did in terms of the fact that he was conceived out of wedlock. He said, I could have been an abortion statistic, but my mother chose to carry me to term. And I'm glad she made the decision, needless to say. So we need to carry this on one person at a time, as well as through legislation and voting for people that are pro-life, he said. And so the question then becomes with a lot of people, you know, do we try to do this and maybe, you know, even though you've got a lot of states that have passed a six-week ban or something, let's make it 15 weeks and put it at the federal level.

And as I said before, if you do that, you're going to wind up having abortion legalized throughout the full term and maybe beyond. It's going to be worse than Roe v. Wade. This is what some of the conservative organizations' approach is going to result in. And I say that from experience, from looking at this. We know that if they get in and they put it there and they make it 15 weeks, that's going to be much, much further than some of the states that have a six-week or whatever thing. But it's going to be less than they're in some of the Democrat states, but the Democrat states won't abide by that. They will nullify that. Why? Well, because there's no authority under the Constitution to define when life begins, just like there's no authority under the Constitution

to outlaw, for example, marijuana. So when the states legalize marijuana, there's nothing that Jeff Sessions can do about it. And so you're going to have the same situation with abortion. This is not conjecture. This is history, folks. This is how it works. I can't get this through people's heads, just like they can't get the understanding that Trump paid for all the stuff that was done in 2020. He paid for the lockdowns and the medical death protocols and all the rest of the stuff, as well as the vaccines.

He paid for it all. He's responsible for it. And so in the same way, when you have a situation where you're going to say, we're going to bring the restriction down on some of the Democrat states, and we're going to bring it up in some of the conservative states, you're going to find that the Democrat states are going to ignore that. And there's not going to be any way that you can enforce that. No way to enforce that. But then when the Democrats get in charge, they will, uh, move that 15 week line up to 36 weeks or whatever. And the Republicans will obey it.

Uh, and it's just, you know, we don't need to be drawing the line at the federal level anyway. Um, but he does have some good things to say, uh, to people,

some encouraging things to say. He says, it seems like we'll good things to say to people, some encouraging things to say. He says, it seems like we'll probably end up state to state, but it really comes down to person by person, said Greg Laurie. He's right about that. That's the key. Because ultimately, this is a moral issue. And the state is, even the state, let alone the federal government, even the state is not sufficient to address this issue because it is a moral issue. He says that that is where you really want to gain ground, person by person.

And so he called on the church to come alongside pregnant women and to assist them, to help them raise their children. According to a 2015 survey, they found that more than four out of 10 women were churchgoers when they had an abortion. And only 7% discussed their decision to end their pregnancies with someone at church. So that brings up a lot of questions about this. And he says, look, we need to explain to them what it is. Well, you can start by showing them the pictures. And again, only this progressive leftist woman who's running for

Congress is really doing that. Show people the truth about what abortion is. It's ugly. It's horrific. Nobody wants to see it. But you have to confront the truth of it. You know, every time somebody wants to show a picture, they get shut down. And again, you think Fox News is on your side? You think Republicans are on your side? I've talked many times about Matt Drudge and how he knew he would get fired if he showed that picture, not of an abortion, but of that prenatal operation of that baby who had been diagnosed with spina bifida. They did an operation before the baby was born, and when they made the incision, the baby reached up and grabbed the finger of the surgeon, and you could see that it was a human being, just a very small human being. a picture of a baby Sam.

I think it is. Maybe you can find that and show that Travis. Um, cause we show that kind of stuff. And again, this is not, uh, a baby that's being dismembered, but that's what abortion is. But he did that and he knew that Fox was going to fire him. He did that because he wanted to get out of his contract. He told me that I thanked him for doing it. He goes, Oh, I he wanted to get out of his contract he told me that i

thanked him for doing it because i just wanted to get out of my contract it's like okay you know the lord works in mysterious ways doesn't he so you know it was uh they don't want to show anything that that shows the humanity of the children right and so that means that you can't show a live baby. And that means that you certainly can't show the pictures of a live baby chopped up into pieces because that also shows their humanity. And it shows that this is murder. But anyway, when I look at it and the fact that you had so many, you know, first of all, a lot of them probably don't understand what abortion really is.

They haven't thought this through. So the pastors, as Greg Laurie is saying, they're not really addressing. They're afraid to talk about this because it's political and they don't want to get political. No, it's not political. It's more moral than anything else. And that's what he said. He said churches don't want to talk about this due to the political nature of abortion, but this is a moral issue and a spiritual issue.

And he said, and churches are filled with imperfect people. We need to reassure her that there is forgiveness. He said, we need to show love and compassion for Christian women who find themselves pregnant after they've had sex outside of marriage. And we don't want to have abortion be compounded with that. And so he says, I don't believe that there are any illegitimate children. He said, illegitimate parents, yes. Illegitimate children, no.

Now that's one to remember. You need to understand there's no illegitimate children, only illegitimate parents. He said, we need each other. We're not made to do life alone. See, that's the other part of this. These are people who are going to church. Nobody is mentoring them. Nobody is telling them about any of this stuff. They don't feel like they've got a relationship with anybody that they can talk to someone. Only 7% of them discussed their decision to have an abortion with somebody at church. That means 93% of them wouldn't talk to anybody about it. They kept it secret. Now, they may have kept it secret because they know it was the wrong thing to do and they wanted to do it anyway. But they may have not had a good enough relationship with people.

So he says, we're not made to do life alone. So often people find themselves isolated. But you need community. We all need community. This is why the globalists are so hell-bent on making sure we don't have it. This is where the church can shine like a light on a hill, because that's what we should be doing best. And of course, I think we also need to show the truth as well. There's actually a picture here, Travisvis if you go through this article um and um one of the babies that was aborted that is shown in the medical um

shown in the ads that this um woman is running for congress so um you know it is that is a an ugly picture um if you can find it but um that's the one, it's the article that's got Greg, there you go. That's an ugly picture, but if you could replace that with a baby Samuel, that's the picture of life that is there. Voters in one state warned that a plan would let tattoo artists refer teens for an abortion. Think about that. That's statutory rape.

So we're talking about now an illegitimate father, right? Because it is statutory rape. And to let a tattoo artist even, you know, because this is somebody that has to do with health or something under the requirements. This is a key legal team that has been battling the abortion for all movement since long before biden turned and tuned into it uh turned it into one of his key things uh this is um a team at liberty council

where matt staver explained the fear of abortion industry's giant insane ballot proposal. He said even a laser hair removal technician could recommend an abortion under this idea being floated by planned parenthood. Yeah, it truly is insane how they're trying to make it so ubiquitous and so easy to do. The Biden campaign has now put reproductive rights at front and center and that's a cnn headline of course talking about reproductive rights they're now putting murder front and center and of course they're putting la la front and center because that's one of the few things that she's accomplished actually

to cover for planned parenth Parenthood in California when the murder for hire scheme was exposed by David Daleiden in the Center for Medical Progress as part of that persecution done first by Lala Harris and then done by Javier Becerra and now both of them are in the Biden administration as vice president and then HHS head. But, you know, the agency that he's now head of, NIH with Fauci, with Francis Collins, that's under the agency HHS that Becerra is head of. They were customers of Planned Parenthood and they were doing doing the murder for hire, because that's how this operates. They want the babies born alive at a certain stage of development, late stage of development.

They must be murdered by the organ extraction. That's how it always works when they do these donor programs. Young voters, by the way, are saying that legal rights begin in the womb. Now, this is another poll that has just come out. This is a poll done by a YouGov poll done by Students for Life. They say 65% of voters say they support at least some limits on abortion. But you need to show them what the full truth is. And then it's not even going to be a contest but biden is very much set against any kind of religious expression if you look at what is coming

up easter some people call it passover as many people call it they have a White House Youth Art Easter Egg Decorating Contest for children of National Guard service members. But the Biden White House has now banned any religious-themed eggs. It's really kind of hearkening to a pagan origin, let alone the Easter bunny, you know, which is last year you had the Easter bunny costume character was kind of following Biden around and giving him directions and stuff like that. And of course, this comes after their nutty nutcracker Christmas that they had. But they avoid anything that's religiously themed like a vampire voids a cross in the Hollywood movies, you know. But they don't want anything, even though these eggs are going to be displayed during Christian and Jewish Passover or Resurrection Day. Either way you look at this, they may not, this is the rules, they may not feature, quote,

religious symbols, overtly religious themes. Contest rules state that entries, quote, must be consistent with the image and the values of their sponsor, the values of the Biden administration. So that means that can't have anything that's religious because uh they absolutely hate that and then we have the nevada county commission has now opened with a meeting and satanic prayer invocation that ended with hail satan at least one member walked out before this was finished and this is the sham religion that exists solely to troll and to nullify the free expression, the free exercise of religion that is not only our God-given right, but specifically protected under the Constitution. You see, there is actually even an organization called Freedom

From Religion that tries to shut down the exercise of religion. But that is not what the Constitution says. You know, it is freedom to exercise. It's not freedom from religion. But that's what that organization is about, and that's what the satanic church is about. And my question is, how long are we going to allow them to do this? They say they don't believe any of this. And this whole thing is set up just to nullify our, you know, our free exercise of religion.

He did a quote-unquote prayer that lasted nearly two minutes. He spoke of Lucifer and Satan, who he does not believe in. And then finishes with, hail Satan when he does it. It's funny. And that ought to be the basis on which we oppose it. Uh, first and foremost, parental rights, uh, parental rights bill has now moved to Wisconsin Senate. Uh, but, um, when you, uh, it has already passed in the house. And, House, and so now it goes to the Senate. All 35 Democrats in the House voted against the legislation. You have the author of the legislation that would support parental rights, Representative Robert Witke, said parents deserve to know and have a say

in what their children are being taught. What was the name for that? It's called homeschool. You're never going to get that from a practical standpoint. Even if you get them to pass legislation, even if you get Supreme Court decisions, you will never have that. You'll have the illusion of that. I spent so much time earlier in the program talking about what's going on, what the Constitution

says, and then what the reality of our government is. The reality is that you put your kids in these state institutions, and they're going to be taught whatever that teacher in that classroom wants to teach them. And they have defiantly said this publicly over and over again on TikTok and everywhere else. We will teach them whatever I want to teach them. And they have defiantly said this publicly over and over again on TikTok and everywhere else. We will teach them whatever I want to teach them. They defy, even if you can get the state government, the county, the school board, the principal, even if you can get all of them on board, it still comes down to each and every one

of those teachers. Do you know what those teachers they're teaching your kids are like? What have opponents said about the legislation while Democratic lawmakers argued that the bill would cause psychological harm to children who asked to use different pronouns but don't want to tell their parents? Utter nonsense. Utter nonsense. You want to talk about projection?

No. Psychological harm? who's doing the psychological harm these people are grooming the kids again a diverse coalition is asking the supreme court to protect parental rights at school why isn't this more of an issue to the virtue signaling gop that really doesn't care about this stuff. Yeah. Again, it's like, oh, we're going to impeach me, Arca, but they keep giving him money. Uh, so even if told to do so, they're not going to do this. Uh, that is the naivety behind, um, all of this.

Um, when we look at, uh, every one of these things, oh, well, we told them that they can't do this. And of course, course, they want, here's the reality of what's happening in the schools. This is from the Epic Times, Nicole James. Furries are infiltrating our schools. This is how crazy it is. Nicole says, as I sat at Christmas dinner table,

I found myself enrolled in an impromptu seminar on the curious world of furries, courtesy of my teenage relatives. I'd heard whispers about this subculture, but the depth and the fervor of this phenomenon had previously eluded my grasp. So what in the Dickensian landscape of modern subcultures are furries well i said um as defined by a scholar at the university of rochester a furry is an individual who finds themselves spiritually aligned with or even adopting the traits of a specific animal species they call it a fursona she said the teens that were there at the Christmas dinner said, well, here's what's actually happening. In their academic jungle, a peculiar breed flourished.

Students who, in the early wilderness of years seven through nine, okay, so we're talking about 13 to 15 years old, donned their furry personas with the fervor of a Shakespearean actor in a sold-out show. But as the curtain fell on year number nine, these fur-clad thespians seemed to vanish into thin air. Had they retreated to more domestic pursuits, such as purring on the laps of doting mothers or honing their mousing skills? Well, the three teenagers really didn't know, but they said the truly baffling aspect, as relayed by the narrators, was that these people, these kids who are dressing up in character costumes, would never break character. Not in the halls of the school, nowhere.

Speech was forsaken for meows and barks. Answers to teachers' questions were met with stoic silence. These furry aficionados, eschewing the drab garb of school uniforms, adorned themselves with sewn-on tails and headbands crowned with furry ears one of the um one of the kids told this writer um one who was in year nine so this is about a 15 year old um dared to bark at a furry and then found himself chastised by the teacher who sternly reminded him to respect the feline identity of the student. Folks, this is the insanity of these institutions.

Now, she's talking about this in the UK. Same thing is happening in the US. This insanity, and there is a purpose to this insanity. She says, this started in the United States, but now even Brits are hopping on the bandwagon. And so she's looking at it from that perspective. But again, this has been going on and began in the United States. What is the purpose of this? It's the same purpose as this transgenderism. It is to push them into transhumanism, into a virtual reality, a VR world,

where if they want to pretend that they are something, they can spend all their time doing that. The teachers just let them do their thing, said one of the kids. Conspicuously absent from the city's private education, the girls are now in a private school. But that's only going to be a temporary solution. All of this stuff migrates from these government schools

into the private schools, along with the curriculum. And there is a reason for this. But again, looking at the homeschooling revolution last November, the American Federation of Teachers President Randy Weingarten annoyed the vast American homeschooling community, expressing bafflement about why anybody would take their kids from a school like this, right? And this is only, you know, the most ludicrous, visually ludicrous, but equally ludicrous is their racism, their Marxism, their antipathy towards Western civilization and history. All of that is equally ludicrous to dressing up in some kind of a furry costume. What's behind the increase in homeschooling, she posted on Twitter.

Thousands of people replied to that. One of them said, the answer is in your mirror. It's kind of like, you know, what is a, it was G.K. Chesterton said, what's the matter with the world? He said, me. Randy Weingarten is definitely could answer that in the affirmative. The numbers are impressive. The bluer the state, the higher the interest in homeschooling.

In California alone, over 1,400 public schools lost more than 20% of their students since 2020, with homeschooling up 78% between 2017 and 2022. Upending the narratives that homeschooling is done only by religious or wealthy families, a 2023 analysis by the Washington Post admitted that homeschooling's surging popularity, quote, crosses every measurable line of politics, geography, and demographics. The public school systems make fretful attempts to lure parents back into the complacency, usually in the form of hiring more teachers to get a lower teacher-to-student ratio. But this has proven difficult as teachers are leaving the profession in droves. You see, the problem is that the institutions are rotting from the top down.

And that is especially true when it comes to education. We're going to take a quick break. And when we come back, we're going to talk about climate. Because again, climate is at the very center. And there is an amazing development that something that I've seen happen before with Michael Mann. And we're going to talk about what Michael Mann, the father of the hockey stick, is now doing. He's suing somebody that you know for defamation. We'll be right back.

Using free speech to free minds. It's the David Knight Show. Sometimes your day needs a little smoothing. Check out the Jazz Channel at APSradio.com and the APS Radio app and leave the stress behind. Well, as snow is blanketing most of the United States right now, very cold temperatures, it's time for us to remember RFK Jr. and his 2008 prediction that kids are going to grow up without ever seeing snow. Again, there's absolutely no way I could ever have gotten on the rfk junior bandwagon because i

knew about that i knew about the fact that he wanted to lock up the people who spoke out against this he doesn't support free speech and he hasn't given us a sufficient uh explanation of that but it was 16 years ago uh he blamed the lack of snow then on Sarah Palin and he's that's right. People are saying who, uh, yeah, the lack of snow was blamed on Sarah Palin and, um, nobody was going to ever see it again. As a matter of fact, pull up this picture, Travis, uh, global warming, North American snow coverage hits a, uh, a decadal high or high for several decades. And they've got a, a meme there of greta 2065

greta thunberg as an old lady and the speech bubble there says we only have one month to save the world there we go there that's greta thunberg 2065 talk about a turnaround or reversal of fortunes. North America, snow coverage goes from record low to highs for decades in just a couple of weeks. Isn't that funny? The weather changes, and yet you never see any change in the narratives from these other people. There is no warming trend. If you've got an honest starting point, uh, it is not a warming trend. They cherry pick the starting points. And of course they cherry pick where they put the measurements and they don't have a long enough timeline for the measurements. Uh, and even if all of that were true, and even if they proved that there was some kind of a warrant, there's still a long way from proving any connection to your car or your stove and the weather.

So again, the deep freeze is continuing to move south. They've got 90 people dead. They say Texas, of course, a couple of years ago was 250 people died when the windmills froze in Texas. It's no storm. But I wanted to talk about this a particular thing as i said michael mann the father of the hockey stick lie that was used by al gore and his film inconvenient truth a guy who was the uh the american that was most caught up

in climate gate that came out of the university of east anglia's climate department in the uk you know that was where they were passing around emails to each other saying our models don't work we got to find a way to hide the decline in temperatures and they were casting around for ways that they could do it well michael mann was part of that and as I've spoken about many times, I was with a group that tried to get the data that he'd put together for his hockey stick as part of the ClimateGate release of these emails. We knew that they were committing fraud. We knew that they knew that they were committing fraud. And so we took University of Virginia. University of Virginia finally gave in and said, all right, we'll give you the stuff, and then he jumped in and got into the lawsuit

and said, no, you can't have it. At that point, he was at the University of Pennsylvania. All of the research had been done, publicly paid for at the University of Virginia, done on University of Virginia computers. There was nothing, no intellectual property to be protected at that point. All of his conclusions had been published. But, of course, you can't see the data that the conclusions were published on.

He didn't want that exposed. And so he claimed that this was going to violate his intellectual property. No, it was paid by the state, and after he published it, it was used to craft public policy. And so the public had a right to know. The public had paid for it. The public had suffered from his lies. And so that was part of a suit there. Now he's got a suit against Mark Stein.

And, you know, Mark Stein, I think it's from canada but he used to sub for um for rush limbaugh and um he's got a defamation lawsuit against mark stein because mark stein you know basically showed that michael mann is a liar you know he's trying to cover up this stuff he doesn't want a scientific debate and so um he's got a defamation lawsuit against mark stein against uh rand simberg an engineer and finally began in earnest this week in washington dc michael mann alleges that stein and simberg libeled him over a decade ago with their criticism of his work on the infamous hockey stick graph and the penn state university's seeming cover-up of the science that made the graph possible it's not any seeming cover

he had a lawsuit to cover up his data man used proxy data specifically tree rings to arrive at data points for a thousand years before switching to actual temperature data at approximately 1960. 1960. Yeah, their data is not as old as I am. The resulting graph resembled a hockey stick and showed that temperatures have increased rapidly since the industrial age began in 1960. Oh, wait a minute. It didn't begin in 1960, did it? The same graph featured prominently in the ClimateGate email scandal when Phil Jones at the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit referred to Michael Mann's method as, quote, Mike's nature trick. His nature trick.

It's a trick. There's a slide in. You're not allowed to see how the magicians do their tricks. You're not allowed to see Michael Mann's data. So Stein criticized him in a blog post on national review. Uh, and he compared Penn state's coverup of man's methods to the coverup of the Jerry Sandusky sex abuse scandal,

which also involved Penn state and was ongoing at the time. In addition, Stein referred to man's work on the hockey stick graph as, quote, fraudulent, which it is. Mann and his legal team originally included in the suit National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and they were also involved in the lawsuit that we had. Chris Horner was the lead lawyer for that, and he worked for the Competitive Institute, and he also worked with the group that I was involved in. He wrote a book called Red Hot Lies, talking about the climate lies that are out there. That was a great title.

Yeah, Competitive Enterprise Institute was there as well. Stein quoted what they had said in his post. Both of these entities were dropped from the suit in 2021 because neither Stein nor Simberg were an employee of those companies. Stein is acting as his own attorney while Mann is represented by a team of lawyers. Now, this is not a good thing when you represent yourself. I know Mark Stein is very intelligent. He's very clever. He's very well-spoken.

I really do believe the adage that anybody who represents himself in court as a fool for a lawyer, you know, and as a client or whatever it goes. Anyway, on the plus side, they said we may be treated to Stein being allowed to question Michael Mann in court. Now, that would be, that would be good. In Stein's opinion, Mann's harassment is not only an attack against him, but against the very concept of free speech. And he's right.

I agree with him on that as well. And by the way, Mark Stein has been severely punished for speaking out. It was a bit late, but he didn't pull any punches when he started talking about the vaccine. He got purged from a conservative network in the UK for talking about vaccines. So Mark Stein, he's got the character to stand up to this. And he's doing it. He says, in my world, I can write something.

And Mr. Mann can write something. And you're free to read all of it or none of it. And you can decide what weight to attach to all of it or to none of it. But in Mr. Mann's world, there is his take. And everyone else has to be hockey-sticked into submission and to silence. He says, this is a classic example of a guy who conditioned out but can't take it. Stein brought up the fact that Michael Mann claims to have won a Nobel Prize, a claim that is disputed by the Nobel Committee itself.

In reality, Mann was part of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the infamous IPCC out of the UN. And that got a Nobel Peace Prize, but Michael Mann has never been awarded a Nobel Peace Prize. And that is a direct quote from the director of the Nobel Institute in Norway. He said he's not a Nobel Prize recipient. A decade after he was told to cut it out by the actual winner of the Nobel Prize, Mann continues to promote one of the most brazen scientific frauds,

that he is of the same rank as Albert Einstein, Marie Curie, and Francis Crick. Actually, he's more like Fauci. And that's not the most brazen scientific fraud. The most brazen scientific fraud is his hockey stick nonsense. A man's suit against Stein is reminiscent of his failed attempt to pursue a libel claim against the Canadian climate scientist, Tim Ball. Ball had made statements that Mann and his cohorts at East Anglia were possibly guilty of fraud.

For their research on the hockey stick graph, Ball eventually prevailed in the suit in 2019 after a judge found that Mann and his legal team engaged in inordinate delay, as the judge said, of the proceedings. Mann was ordered to pay Ball's legal costs, but never did. As this is in Canada, Canadian court dismissed the case. They had no way to force the American to pay this in Canada. And Stein is saying that they're doing the same thing here with him. They're stretching this out because they want to run up legal fees for him and make it difficult. That's why he's representing himself. And the question, I guess, is where does man get all of his money to hire these legal teams to run forever and ever?

But absolutely, it was such a classic case, just like Fauci. I will not show you the data. It is what it is because I say so. I won the Nobel Prize. Thank you for joining us. 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.