The David Knight Show - 26Apr23 Fauci Runs Away: "I Didn't Close a Single School" - Turns Nuremberg Excuse Upside Down

Episode Date: April 26, 2023

OUTLINE of today's show with TIMECODESTucker Update: the more we learn, the more it confirms Ray Epps lawsuit was why Tucker was fired 2:11 Fauci Runs Away: "I Didn't Close a Single School" Liars are still changing definitions of "emergency", "vaccine", etc. Fauci is trying to change the definition of "responsible". He didn't actually, personally inject anyone. He didn't forcibly put a mask on anyone. We've got the world's greatest liar on the run, running from his record. 19:20 Harry Belafonte dies at 92. What he told us about Obama is a lesson for Trump's MAGA 42:11 Corporate America offers to cancel "Mother's Day" since it "triggers" so many people 48:52 Does daycare make sense for kids? For YOUR finances? 53:30 "Trad-Wives" vs "Boss Babes"How do we sort out what's true and good from what's being sold to us by government, corporations and social media? 1:03:59Will posting Ten Commandments fix government schools? 1:16 Biden announces his candidacy and NEITHER he nor Trump want to debate anyone (probably including each other). It's going to UGLY campaign of personal smears 1:32:27 INTERVIEW: The Power of Political Satire for Good & EvilEver wonder why Late Night "comedy" shows have become so political? It's no accident — it's "laughtivism". Saul Alinsky said "satire is the most powerful weapon". Dr. Sophia McClennen talks about how satire is used in social movements and how it can be useful in dealing with absurd times in her latest book "Trump Was a Joke". 2:01:59 Detroit arrests teacher carrying gun for protection in violent school and Trump's bump stock ban by Executive Order loses again in the courts 2:49-3:00Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.comIf you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here:SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-showOr you can send a donation through Mail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @[e-mail] App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Money is only what YOU hold: Go to DavidKnight.gold for great deals on physical gold/silverBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-david-knight-show--2653468/support.

FBD doesn't stand for friendly business ducks. Or for the freelance beatbox department. FBD stands for support. We support businesses and communities across Ireland. Visit your local branch to talk to your FBD insurance team and see how we can support your business. FBD Insurance. Support. It's what we do. FBD Insurance Group Ltd. Trading as FBD Insurance. Support. It's what we do. FBD Insurance Group Limited,

trading as FBD Insurance, is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland. At this year's Cheltenham, glory rests in the lap of the gods. Curses. Alas, our hero hasn't placed. But there are still divine offerings up for grabs, with all NoviBet customers getting a €10 free bet for every day of Cheltenham.

And on top of that, we're paying up to seven places each way on selected races throughout the festival. I declare this a most generous offering. NoviBet. More power to you. Using free speech to free minds. You're listening to The David Knight Show. As the clock strikes 13, it's Wednesday, the 26th of April, Year of Our Lord 2023. And today we're going to take a look, and we're going to have a quick update about Tucker Carlson. But we're going to begin after with um what is happening with word definitions you know we got fauci saying uh i didn't lock anybody down he didn't do anything you know uh we got him on the run we gotta keep him on the run we gotta lock them up and lock them

down now we're gonna talk about how definitions are at the center of a lot of this revolution and also how satire can play a very valuable role in turning this back. We have an author who has done a book about Trump satire who's going to be joining us in the third hour and more importantly than Trump this is about how satire can be such an effective weapon. Saul Alinsky said it is the most effective weapon because there's no answer for it. Stay with us. We'll be right back. Well, as I said, I want to begin with an update to Tucker Carlson. And I told you so.

I'm just going to say it. I knew when I saw what had happened, the abruptness of the termination, not even going to let him back on air to say goodbye. I knew it had to do with the Ray Epps thing on 60 minutes. Uh, I knew that that was a preparation for a big and embarrassing lawsuit. And Bill O'Reilly says he knows the truth about Tucker Carlson and what has happened on the inside. In his opinion, he said, you know, it's been reported that Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox News, of course, and Suzanne Scott, who is head of news now, it is reported that they had decided to fire him Friday evening. Well, you know, that may be true because they knew what was coming on Sunday evening. O'Reilly was being interviewed by Chris Cuomo.

He said, no, that's not untrue. He said it was Sunday and it was due to a preponderance of lawsuits, all of which Carlson was a part of. And I said, and I think the key one, it's not even dominion. I don't think the key one is this employee lawsuit. I think the key one was the Ray Epps. And that's what he focused on as well. He said,

um, uh, Epps mentioned specifically mentioned Carlson for labeling him as an FBI plant, which led to a slew of attacks on him and his family. Epps said he had to move his home for safety. Epps says everything Tucker Carlson claimed about him is a lie. Epps, people asked for a public apology, but an apology never came.

That's a key thing. In terms of these defamation lawsuits. Epps didn't say it, but O'Reilly thinks that he and his family are aiming at another suit against Fox. For Carlson's defamation that destroyed Epps' life. O'Reilly says he thinks that's the nail in the coffin. I tweeted that out as soon as I saw it. About a half hour, I guess, after it happened. Well, it was right, it's when I saw it.

I saw it, it was, I think, a half hour before my program ended that it was announced it's when i saw it i saw it it was i think a half hour before um my program ended that it was announced on monday and i guess it was about a half hour after i you know the program ended that i saw the news and i immediately tweeted out that's what it is it's a ray epps lawsuit and now we see that ray epps has now hired as a revolver puts it a notorious dim clinton operative to threaten tucker and revolver news because revolver news and darren beattie were the ones who started this and i think i'll just put this way i think darren beattie and revolver news is going to be the wolfgang haubig of uh tucker Tucker Carlson's future. Spectre that's going to be haunting him.

You know, you run out there and grab whatever this guy says and you don't verify it. And then you double down on this stuff. Look, it doesn't even matter about Ray Epps. It really doesn't matter. It's when Ray Epps, you see the clips of Ray Epps say, we've got to go in the building and all this other kind of stuff, right? And it is suspicious that he was on the FBI's most wanted list and that they took him off and that they went over the top on everybody else. I get that, but that's not sufficient evidence. And even if, as I said before, and I'll say it again, even if Ray Epps was an informant,

even if he was an agent provocateur, he was the Rodney Dangerfield of agent provocateurs. Nobody believed him. It's in that stuff, the clip that they use all the time. Everybody's yelling fed, fed, fed. Nobody believed him. You know who they believed? Trump. You know, they believed Alex, know they believed alex roger

ali alexander stopped the steal they believe that they believe steve patinic they believed all those people and they gave money to all those people nobody gave ray epps a penny that's that somebody's going to be giving him a penny now i tell you it's going to be giving him a penny now. I tell you, it's going to be, when you look at this, if they can't prove this, and it's going to be difficult for them to prove, even if he is an agent provocateur. Look, I warned everybody about agent provocateurs. I'm looking at this stuff, and I can't believe that's the one person that they focus on. Seriously? 52 people around the Proud Boys. Do you know any of their names?

Do you know their backgrounds? Has Darren Beattie or Tuckerlson gone into that no no it's just this guy is being used as a scapegoat even if he is uh what they say he is an informant and a provocateur they're still scapegoating him they're still making him the one and only thing on their side about January the 6th. And we need to learn the lessons of January the 6th so that Trump doesn't do it to people again. You understand? I mean, it was a betrayal. And all of this is to the reason they did this with Ray Epps. Whether he's a provocateur or informant or not,

the reason they did it was to move attention away from themselves, to make common cause with the MAGA people. You know, the MAGA people don't want to believe that Trump betrayed them. So let's find somebody that we can say betrayed them. A lawyer for Ray Epps, man at the center of a prominent conspiracy theory about the Capitol riot, sent a letter on Thursday to Fox News host Tucker Carlson demanding that he publicly retract his false and defamatory statements that Mr. Epps had worked as a government provocateur on January the 6th and helped to instigate

the mob attack. Notice the timeline here? Thursday he sends a demand letter to Carlson and to Fox News. And we have people who say that it was Friday. Bill O'Reilly says the nail in the coffin was a 60 Minutes Ray Epps thing. That was laying the groundwork for a big lawsuit. That's how they operate. You know, Megyn Kelly, it was maybe about 10 months before the actual lawsuit dropped,

I think, against, or several of them, against Alex Jones. But she did the interview with Alex Jones, brought that back up because it had been years since that had happened. You know, when she did it, it was four years since that had happened, and it pretty much had died out. And then they filed that just before the statute of limitations. So, you know, we know what the pattern looks like.

They began with a PR campaign. You know, first they assassinate your character, then they file the lawsuit. And so that's what's going on here. Pretty obvious, I think. Interestingly enough, the other thing about tucker carlson a lot of people were putting out there was you know he he quit they didn't fire him he quit well both don lemon who i haven't talked about because who cares about don lemon he's a joke anyway both don lemon who was fired on the same day nobody cares uh

so lowly rated don lemon and tucker carlson fired on the same day nobody cares uh so lowly rated don lemon and tucker carlson fired on the same day they've both hired the same lawyer this is a guy who specializes in these types of things very powerful very successful lawyer at this uh brian friedman now the new the source for this is brian stter, so it may not be true. But Friedman has done a lot of very successful work for people in the entertainment industry, suing movie studios, recording studios, or news organizations for people like Vin Diesel, Quentin Tarantino, Mariah Carey, Megyn Kelly. Got $30 million from NBC when they fired her early.

She had a three-year contract that was $69 million. He got the rest of the salary for her. As I point out, he represented... FBD doesn't stand for friendly business, Ducks. Or for the freelance beatbox department. FBD stands for support. We support businesses and communities across Ireland. Visit your local branch to talk to your FBD insurance team and see how we can support your business.

FBD Insurance. Support. It's what we do. FBD Insurance Group Limited, trading as FBD Insurance, is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland. At this year's Cheltenham, glory rests in the lap of the gods. Curses.

Alas, our hero hasn't placed. But there are still divine offerings up for grabs, with all NoviBet customers getting a €10 free bet for every day of Cheltenham. And on top of that, we're paying up to seven places each way on selected races throughout the festival. I declare this a most generous offering. NoviBet. More power to you. T&C Supply 18 plus. Bet responsibly. Gamblingcare.ie. The host of The Bachelor.

I never saw Chris Harrison. He got about $10 million to exit ABC. Chris Cuomo, when he was fired by CNN, hired him for his $125 million wrongful termination lawsuit. So that's what this guy specializes in. And indications are that both he and Don Lemon have hired the go-to guy for this uh no it was I'm absolutely certain it's about that lawsuit and I and I say that it's not about Dominion he had some embarrassing revelations in Dominion but if it was about Dominion you would have seen Sean Hannity Maria Bartir. Uh, they were far deeper into this than Tucker

Carlson was, you know, the, the, uh, the texts showing that they privately were saying one thing publicly saying another privately, they didn't believe it publicly. They were jumping on it with both feet and criticizing dominion that indicates as i said before you look at a defamation lawsuit you can be wrong about stuff uh you have to correct it when somebody tells you which you know they chose not to do on thursday um by firing tucker that was fox news's way of correcting this all right They haven't done a retraction yet. They may do a retraction, but certainly that was a first step in doing it. But if you are wrong about something and, you know, it is a defense to say that you believe it.

You know, if Alex had wanted to defend Sandy Hook and say, I really do believe Wolfgang Helwig, that would have been a very different situation. Alex had wanted to defend Sandy Hook and say, I really do believe Wolfgang Helwig. That would have been a very different situation. If he would have gone down on that and doubled down on it, instead he says, no, I don't believe it. And that made it very easy for them to come after him. The defense is that you do believe it. And if you are seeing that you don't believe this, that you're lying to the public, then it looks like you have malice. And that's the key thing, you know, not only to be wrong, but to be malicious about it. And if you say one thing privately, another thing publicly, that's malice. But I don't think that that was the issue because

again, other people were even further into that than Tucker was on the Dominion thing. And where they made their mistake on that, I've said many times and I'll continue to say it. Even if I get sued by all of the electronic voting machine people, you know, I'm not an attractive defendant, first of all, just take a look at my gas gauge, but the running on empty or at least half empty. Um, the, uh, but that's not any defense. The point being is that I'm opposed to electronic voting across the board. It's too easy to hack into it. It's too easy to rig it.

And when you do hack into it and rig it, the damage that you can do is far greater than any of these other things. And so I oppose it categorically. I don't just say, well, this particular company was colluding with Democrats. And of course, they don't have any proof of that. They have a lot of coincidences that are there that you can point to. And a lot of relationships and other things. But that doesn't prove it. And so their mistake was that they personalized it. And they narrowed it down to one or two companies. That was a big mistake.

And it was even a big mistake, not just from the liability standpoint. It was a big mistake if you want to do anything about it, right? I mean, it doesn't help us to get rid of Dominion when we got three or four other giant electronic voting machine companies who are going to have the same vulnerabilities. Why would you focus on one particular company like that? It had absolutely no benefit for us. And, uh, so in lawsuit, Tucker Carlson is accused of promoting a hostile work environment. This is another lawsuit that hit, but I don't think that it is, uh, anything

that is going to be a significant amount of money, because even if this producer for Tucker Carlson, I don't pay anybody other than the stars very much money. Even if she was to get many multiples of her salary and punitive damages, it would still be a drop in the bucket to Fox News. More important than the money that would be involved in that would be the embarrassment of even more probing into, you know, what is going on behind the scenes and ways that they're going to use to make Fox look bad. And so that explains why another producer or one of his key producers would have been fired along with him, perhaps because of that lawsuit, and perhaps more than the money would be the information that was there. As a matter of fact, it was interesting to see in some of these text emails that Tucker Carlson wrote.

He was furious. One of them that he wrote back and forth to Laura Ingram. And one of them, he was absolutely furious about what happened in Georgia with the two Senate races. And that was something that I focused on it, you know, from the very beginning, I said nothing is being done to fix the way the election is run. And of course, Trump by locking down the election gave all new ways for the election to be rigged, which now he says, I'm going to do that myself.

I'm going to do ballot harvesting and all that. We're going to be better at hacking the election than the Democrats. But I was furious that nothing was being done by anybody around Trump, nobody at the national level, nobody at the state level in Georgia. They had a Republican legislature, Republican governor. Nobody was doing anything to fix that election that they believed was fraudulent because of the mail stuff. And I believed it was as well. And Tucker, in an email to Laura Ingram, was absolutely furious about that.

He says, I want to live in this country, and I I got kids who are going to be living in this country. Why are they doing this? They're just turning this over. Trump and the GOP is just laying down and doing nothing about Georgia. He was absolutely right about that. And I said that for the longest time, you know, on the January the 6th program, my program in the morning. I said, well, the first thing I talked about, I said, look at this. The Tuesday night before was that election in Georgia.

And I said, everybody is all excited about what's going to happen in Washington today, January the 6th. Do you realize you just turned over the Senate to the Democrats last night because you completely ignored Georgia? You focused exclusively on Trump's personal gripes and everything. And that's exactly what did happen. And I closed the program by telling people, don't go. It's a setup.

You don't have to, you know, it's not about Ray Epps. The whole thing was a setup. Okay, we're going to take a break. And when we come back, we're going to talk about what's happening in pharmaceutical stuff. Everybody is running from everything they're changing the definition of everything it truly is amazing to watch these people operate fbd doesn't stand for friendly business ducks or for the freelance beatbox department. FBD stands for support.

We support businesses and communities across Ireland. Visit your local branch to talk to your FBD insurance team and see how we can support your business. FBD Insurance. Support. It's what we do. FBD Insurance Group Limited, trading as FBD Insurance, is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland. At this year's Cheltenham, glory rests in the lap of the gods. Curses! Alas, our hero hasn't placed.

But there are still divine offerings up for grabs, with all NoviBet customers getting a €10 free bet for every day of Cheltenham. And on top of that, we're paying up to seven places each way on selected races throughout the festival i declare this a most generous offering no we bet more power to you decency supply 18 plus bet responsibly gamblingcare.ie we'll be right back © transcript Emily Beynon Thank you. Analyzing the Globalist's next move. And now, the David Knight Show. Well, the FDA now says that vaccines do not have to prevent infection or transmission. Now, this is coming from the Epoch Times.

This isn't exactly new. I mean, they did change the definition of a vaccine. This is the third or fourth time they changed the definition of a vaccine in the last few years. You know, they changed the definition of everything. What is a woman? Well, I can't answer that. What is a woman? Well, I can't answer that. What is a vaccine? Well, I'll give you the answer to that in a little bit.

Everything is being changed. Everything is, they're redefining everything. They're redefining words. And, of course, the reason that they're doing this is for authoritarian purposes, of course, and to manipulate us. And so they said vaccines are traditionally known as drugs that prevent an illness. They were always known as that.

How do they prevent the illness? They train the immune system. What is an immune system? Well, I don't know. It doesn't work, evidently. Maybe that's why, because there's no natural immunity. No natural immunity if your immune system doesn't work. And if the immune system doesn't work, then the vaccine can't work. See, it's the problem is your immune system doesn't work and if the immune system doesn't work then

the vaccine can't work see it's the problem is your immune system it's not our vaccines our vaccines are great in theory right so i guess um traditionally known as drugs that prevent an illness well we talk about people they've been inoculated against this or that we can talk about that in a matter metaphorical sense right they've been exposed to it they're not going to fall for that again have we been inoculated to these lies to these redefinitions that are happening all the time maybe we start talking about a trad vax you know talk about trad wives maybe we could have a trad vax now it is um that has always been the definition. And of course, one of the smoking gun issues was that in the run-up to this pandemic,

before anybody was talking about the pandemic outside of the closed rooms and the back rooms and smoke-filled rooms and things like that, before anybody was talking about it publicly they were busy going in and changing the definition of a vaccine to include their mrna shots that was about six months before anybody started talking about covet 19 or any of that stuff they went in and said well we're going to redefine vaccines to include these mRNA shots. And so I guess as we look at these, and this is an article, I talked about how a woman was being denied a transplant, going to let her die because she's not vaccinated. This is a kidney transplant.

And again, regardless of what you think about transplants, regardless of what you think about their efficacy or their morality or any of this other stuff, the fact is that the healthcare people, and we'll put that in air quotes, healthcare, believe that this is something that is necessary for her to live. She's going to die without it. They know that. And yet they will withhold that from her if she's not vaccinated. So what is a vaccine?

What is healthcare? What is healthcare when you're willing to do this in hospitals? And I go back to this because the transplant people involved in this is Emory Healthcare, associated with Emory University, one of the biggest organ transplant centers in the South. And that 35% of the nation's transplant centers are still requiring their patients to be vaccinated for COVID-19. So more than a third of them, well,

more than a third are still enforcing this. We will kill you if you're not vaccinated. And so this case and others, they've gone to independent agencies and they said, well, look, you know, according to your,

you know, if a vaccine doesn't prevent you from getting a disease, then how do they define a vaccine now? Well, they define it by something that produces antibodies. Those antibodies may not be effective at keeping you from getting the disease. They may not protect you at all. But hey, if you if you present those antibodies, we'll say that the vaccine is effective, right? Well, if she shows that she's got the antibodies, perhaps because she was exposed to something in her immune system, did it. Well, if she's got the antibodies, she's got the same effect that the vaccines have.

The vaccines don't have to prevent it because we know the vaccines don't. So you just change the definition. But now when it comes to life-saving, what they believe is life-saving treatment, prevent it because we know the vaccines don't. So you just change the definition. But now when it comes to life-saving, what they believe is life-saving treatment, they will change the definition and they'll say, well, you know what we say, a vaccination does that you have to have, that is it creates antibodies. Even if you got those antibodies, we're going to ignore that because the only thing that matters is that you get the shot. So she's standing on natural immunity. So, you know, what is natural immunity?

What is social distancing? Well, the shielding policy, uh, that was, uh, used everywhere was just made up. We know that six feet arbitrary number, they just made it up. And now we see out of the UK, as I point out, there's no evidence. This is from Daily Skeptic. There's no evidence that shielding benefited vulnerable people during the COVID pandemic. According to a study with a high rate of in-hospital transmission blamed for the failure of the policy. And the BBC was the one who put out the story they said swansea university compared 117 000 people shielding and whales and the rest of the population of three million the study found that deaths and health care usage were higher among shielding people than with the general

population so you mean that shielding was worse than not shielding? That masking was worse than not masking? That lockdown was worse than not locking down? All these things had big consequences, psychological, economic, political consequences. And yet, all of these things made people worse. We know the vaccine does. political consequences. And yet all of these things made people worse. We know the vaccine does, but we also know that,

and this is a long article follow-up by children's health defense, because they have been onto this scam from the very beginning about why the FDA authorized a labeled drug. And again, the labels mean everything, you know, the FDA said, well drug. And again, the labels mean everything. You know, the FDA said, well, legally, these things are distinct. But from a, you know, but otherwise they're identical. Yeah, but you're doing a legal declaration here. And so what you're doing is you're approving, legally approving, something that is not available in the U.S.

And why aren't you approving the one that is available in the U.S.? Well, because they're playing this liability game. You know, if they keep it under emergency use authorization, then they had liability under the Children's, you know, the 1986 Act for childhood vaccines. And so they wanted to keep that. So it was simply a prevarication, a legal prevarication. And some people use that in the military to shut this thing down. But now they're saying that emergency youth authorization vaccines,

liability shields are not going to go away anytime soon, even though the emergency has ended. So again, what is a vaccine? What is social distancing? What is natural immunity? What is health care? What is an emergency? You might even ask, what is a pandemic?

You see, none of this stuff matters. This is one of the reasons why when we look at the transgender issue, what is a woman and all the rest of this stuff, this is all about postmodernism. But it's also in the sense that there is no absolute truth. Everybody's got their own truth. Everything is subjectively determined. It's all fluid. But even more so, it is the truth is in my mouth. You do what I say. I'm the dictator. And I'll tell you today that 2 plus 2 equals 5.

And you will go along with that lie. You will believe that lie. Don't miss the Hillary's up to half price sale. That's up to half price on an amazing range of blinds, curtains, and shutters. And right now, get 5050 off your electric blind order. An easy and convenient way to control your blinds with the touch of a button. But be quick, these incredible savings must end 10th of March. Don't miss out. Transform your home for less.

Visit hillarys.ie to book your free in-home appointment today. Hurry! Hillary's up to half price sale ends 10th of march conditions apply you will engage in double think even though you know that that is not the case you will go along with that so let's finish up here with fauci fauci says don't blame him for covid lockdowns and school closures i never closed a single school here okay well I guess he probably never put a mask on anybody himself physically, you know, attached to me. We've seen police tackle people, uh, hold them down, pin them down and put masks on their faces.

Uh, he never injected anybody himself either. Right. So he doesn't have anything to do with any of this stuff. He's running from it. Got him on the run. Need to run him down and lock him down. Lock him up. Reason Magazine has a story.

Yeah. I guess he also never fed anybody remdesivir. He never did any of this stuff. I know nothing. But this is important because we need to understand where this is all happening and this is something that the it really does play into who is responsible for this does fauci bear any responsibility when he gives orders oh he says well they're not orders they're recommendations oh really uh-huh yeah just like they say when they coerce you and they say um

uh if you don't get the vaccine, you're not going to do X, Y, and Z. You're not going to have a job. You're not going to travel. You're not going to go to school, all the rest of these other things. Well, we're not mandating it. You know, if we were mandating it, we would come to your house, drag you out and stick it in your arm.

And Alan Dershowitz says, I'll defend that in the Supreme court and I'll win. Right. But they're saying, no, we're not mandating it. You have the choice. You can be locked up and locked down and do nothing in your life, or you can take this jab. That's coercion. Coercion is no different from a mandate.

These are just prevarications. They're word games here that they're using. And, um, so, uh, Fauci says, um, uh, he never did this to anybody. He says, show me a school that I shut down. Show me a factory that I shut down. I can show you plenty of them. He did it in the same way that Trump did it. They just told people to do it.

And they also bribed people to do it. Look, by the same logic you could say hitler never killed anybody he never killed anybody you know he didn't drop any bombs and he didn't invade any countries he didn't put anybody in the gas chambers he didn't do any of that stuff other people did it and when you take them to the court in nuremberg, what did they say? I was just following the orders, right? So you got people who are the arms and legs of tyranny. They're just following orders. The people at the top, I didn't do anything.

I just recommended that they do this or whatever. So the interview was done by the New York Times. He says, show me a factory that I shut down, all the rest of the stuff. He says, I never, never did it. I never did it. This is infuriating and encouraging at the same time. This guy knows these. This is an admission that all these policies were wrong.

Dangerously wrong. Extremely harmful. He doesn't admit yet the medical harm, psychological harm, vaccine harm. He doesn't admit any of that yet, but he does admit the economic harm. He says, look, I'm not an economic expert. None of us were. And so, you know, we make these recommendations, and it's for other people to weigh all the different factors here.

That's what public health looks like. You don't have you, the patient and the doctor sitting there weighing the factors here. And you don't have a doctor's recommendation based on what's good for the patient. No, we have public health, which means that we don't care about the individual health of anybody. It's all about this nebulous thing called public health. Well, who can question public health? Did the public die?

No, we still have the public there. We've got a lot of people within the public who died, but the public, the public is still there. The public square is still there. The public square is still there. The public institutions are still there. So the public didn't die. Just a bunch of people. And a bunch of, a lot more people.

Permanently harmed with life-altering things. The interview was framed by the New York Times as an inside look at Fauci as he, quote, wrestles with the hard lessons of the pandemic. No, he's not wrestling with any lessons. He's wriggling like a snake, trying to keep his head from being chopped off by the people in the garden. Anyway, the decisions that will define his legacy.

That's what they said, his legacy. He needs to be in leg irons is what he needs to be in. The politicians who followed public health recommendations without any consideration of the costs involved is what he said. Oh, yeah. It was, they didn't look at the cost involved. You see, for the politicians the governors that trump was flooding with cash it was money for them you bore the cost you'll have to bear the

cost in terms of the trillions of dollars that were put out there that's going to be paid back or it's going to find its way through roaring inflation or higher taxes or something like that. And, of course, we paid for it when they called us nonessential when Trump did and shut our businesses down. But they're all passing the buck now with everybody. I didn't do it. I didn't do it. I gave a public health recommendation, says Fauci, that echoed the CDC's recommendation. And people made a

decision based on that. Is that what happened? Wow, I don't remember it that way. It seems like I remember orders. I remember mandates. I remember coercion. And I don't remember people being allowed to make a decision. I remember public health dictators being allowed to make the decision for other people. And I remember them taking away the licenses of doctors who actually tried to do things that were in the interest of their patients. He said, I'm not an economist. The CDC is not an economic organization. The Surgeon General is not an economist. So we looked at it from a purely public health standpoint. Well, you're wrong about that as well from a constitute, you know,

let's just put it this way. Uh, your organization, Fauci's organization, the national Institute of health, uh, he's a down inside of that. The N N I a ID, you know, that the the NIAID and the NIH, those are not constitutional organizations. The CDC is not a constitutional organization. Who are you to make recommendations to people? Who are you to draw a salary? Who are you to draw a salary that's higher than the president's salary?

And again, the Surgeon General, where's the authority for the Surgeon General in the Constitution? Where does the federal government have any role in health or in education or in welfare? And yet we've got a health, education, and welfare department. There's no constitutional authority for the federal government to be involved in any of that. And the state governments can do it that's up to the people in the states whether they want the government sticking its nose into your business and all those different areas but there is absolutely no authority for the federal government and it's absolutely prohibited from doing so but they were wrong about all those things not just the economics they're wrong about the public health standpoint of it.

And, you know, ultimately, what I remember them saying was that's just to think about, well, my freedom is being kind of disturbed here. No, screw your freedom. Yeah, that's right. Now, the same people are saying, i screw your freedom i just made recommendations right uh i was uh not issuing the orders i was just making recommendations so the emergency powers invoked required to require masks in public to schools, to have proof of vaccine and all this stuff. This is coming from the White House. It was coming from the Trump White House.

It came from the Biden White House. Fauci set astride of both of those, by the way. Both Trump and Biden were following him. They put him in charge. But they are ultimately responsible and the powers that were invoked were part of the model state emergency health powers act that was put in in 2001 two months after the anthrax false flag attack which happened one week after 9-11 which happened two months after their first germ game dark winter all the stuff was laid down.

It was a carefully constructed plan. They rehearsed it for 20 years, every year. It wasn't Fauci arresting socially distanced beachgoers either. It was local police enforcing local ordinances, says Reason Magazine. And they're right. And this is why I've said from the very beginning the solution is local they wouldn't have gone to the trouble of putting out the model state emergency health powers act if they could have done it from washington right after instead of putting out model legislation for the states to enact congress could have have just done it itself, but it didn't.

Why? Because they didn't want people fighting them on the basis of the 10th Amendment. And so what they did was they gave model legislation, said to the states, you do it that way. It can't really be challenged. And then Trump and Biden bribed the governors to do all of this stuff. And so the solution is local. That's where the boots, the jackboots meet the ground, where the rubber meets the road, is at the local area.

Understanding the role that Fauci played in creating this mess, even though he's trying to narrowly correct his role in it. No. Fauci pushed for the Trump administration to tell states to lock down. He said, quote, no bars, no restaurants, no nothing, only essential services. When you get a place like New York or Washington or California, you have to get, you've got to ratchet it up, he told Science Magazine in March of 2020 as we're going into medical martial law.

A group of epidemiologists and other public health experts in October 2020 signed the Great Barrington Declaration, which called for a focus on protecting the vulnerable and letting everybody else resume normal life. Soon after it was published, Fauci denounced the document as, quote, nonsense and very dangerous. This cynical, prevaricating liar is now twisting around and saying,

I didn't do any of this stuff. I didn't lock anybody down. I didn't close any schools. I didn't put the jab into anybody's arm. I didn't feed them remdesivir. No, you fed us lies. You fed us orders in the form of recommendations. In the same way that the federal government with that Model State Health Emergency Powers Act

recommended that states do this and do that whenever they're told there's going to be some kind of a pandemic. And again, the definitions are malleable and constantly shifting. What is a pandemic? What is an emergency? What is a vaccine? What is healthcare? All the rest of this stuff. Everything is up for grabs because we don't have a firm moral standard. Once you leave objectivity, once you leave the written letter of the law, in this particular case, the Constitution, once you leave all of that stuff,

they can do anything to you. And they can say, I didn't do it. The people underneath me did it. They must have misunderstood me. I mean, I didn't do it. The people underneath me did it. They must have misunderstood me. I mean, I didn't. I said we should do this, but I didn't say they had to do it. And then they did it, and they said, well, we were just following orders,

and so they're both pointing fingers at each other. And you know who's responsible? We are. Because we won't hold them to an absolute standard. The law is what the law says. That's why you have a constitution. That's why you have a Magna Carta. That's why you have a Bill of Rights.

These words mean something. And if they are malleable, if the constitution is a living document, if science and all the rest of these things don't have to be proven and they don't have to show us their data, that's how they rule us. We're going to take a quick break and we will be right back. Let me tell you, the David Knight Show you can listen to with your ears. You can even watch it by using 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 the david night show.com that's a website But I'm sad to say I'm on my way.

Won't be back for many a day. My heart is down. My head is turning around. I had to leave a little girl in Kingston town. Yeah, sad to say Harry Belafonte is on his way. And he won't be back for many a day. As a matter of fact, he won't be returning. He's 96

when he died yesterday and the reason i want to talk about it i mean we'll talk a little bit about culture here before we get into the general news here um the reason it's interesting i think is because of his political involvement he was very political uh he had a lot of firsts, broke a lot of barriers, and frankly, I've got a lot of fond memories from my childhood of his songs. But he was very political. As Breitbart says in their biography of him, he forged a greater legacy once he scaled back his performing career in the 1960s and lived out his hero, Paul Robeson's decree that artists are, quote, gatekeepers of truth. Paul Robeson was a black singer who was a hardcore Marxist, by the way. But again, you know, what he did was he focused on this and said,

well, this is what I believe and I'm going to pursue that. He got very busy working in politics. He got very close to Martin Luther King. Saw him, even though they were peers, he saw him as a mentor. Said King changed his life and the way that he approached things. Later in his life, as Breitbart says, he risked his life and his livelihood to set higher standards for younger black celebrities scolding Jay-Z and Beyonce for failing to meet their quote social responsibilities and then he

mentored many other celebrities entertainers to get into politics so he was very very political matter of fact Andrew Young who was a very close friend of Harry Belafonte said that Belafonte was the rare person to grow more political as he grew older I guess I'm like that too I don't know. Definitely. Anyway, but the reason I mention this and the reason I think it's significant because Barack Obama told Belafonte once, he said, he asked him to, hey, man, cut me some slack. And Belafonte said, what do you think I've been doing?

And later on, he turned pretty hard against Barack Obama. Barack Obama didn't live up to the leftist ideals that Harry Belafonte thought he was going to do. And the things that he thought he was going to do. And he said something that I think is very important for conservatives to understand. He said, who is this guy? He said, we didn't know who he was and we projected onto him what we wanted him to be, and we better take a look at what he's actually doing. Is that not true of Trump? Is that not true of most politicians?

Don't we project onto these people who we want them to be? You know, what I saw with Barack Obama when he was running, and I thought it was a very scary, mindless mob attitude towards him, because he was black or young or whatever. You had people who were idolizing him in a very dangerous way, I thought. And I thought, wow, that's not going to be good for the country. And then I saw the same thing by the right with Donald Trump. And do we understand that Trump is not who you want him to be? You've projected these things onto Trump. Take a look at what the guy has done.

Not who you want him to be. Not what he says. And so I thought that was a very important, I've mentioned that many times. And when I saw Harry Belafonte, um, died, I wanted to talk about that. One other thing I thought was interesting and, um, the political context was, uh, he was involved early on in the civil rights stuff. And when you had the, um, the, the civil rights riders riding the bus through Alabama, they got to Montgomery and had the Ku Klux Klan come out and burn the bus and drag the guys off and beat them and everything. He did a benefit concert to get that started, and he was involved in all that.

And the reason I mention that is because morris deese who founded the southern poverty law center was the lawyer who defended the ku klux klan he set out the rest of the civil rights uh movement you know he defended the people who burned the buses who beat the civil rights demonstrators. And then he set out the rest of the civil rights movement and came back in with the Jimmy Carter campaign. He'd set up, he quit practicing law after defending the Ku Klux Klan and making a lot of money out of that, by the way. He set out the rest of the civil rights movement, came back in with Jimmy Carter and said, hey, I've got this very successful mailing, direct mail business. Give me your mailing list

and you don't have to pay me anything. And so then he took that mailing list that he got from the Carter campaign and created the Southern Poverty Law Center and put himself out as a champion of people to attack the KKK that he had defended. Yeah, we see this type of thing happening all the time. And so to me, when I look at Sidney Poitier, that's, I'm sorry,

Sidney Poitier was one of his friends, but Harry Belafonte, he was very close with all the the people on the left paul newman all the rest of them uh but again um you know he was um uh made the same mistake that people on the right are making in terms of projecting their values onto this puppet on a stage and so we have uh as we look where we are as a culture, many people are saying, well, what is a woman? What is a mother, by the way? We got corporate America canceling Mother's Day, at least trying to, saying that it's very offensive. This is an article from hotair.com.

Did you know that Mother's Day is controversial? Corporate America has, for some reason, decided that Mother's Day is a sensitive time, a challenging time, a difficult time. And so they're inviting customers to opt out of any emails relating to Mother's Day because they might get triggered. He says, no, I'm not kidding. That's what they're doing. And so, you know, Mother's Day, maybe, you know, you get triggered by apple pies. What used to be, we'd say, hey, it's as American as mom and apple pie, but not anymore. Oh, we don't like families anymore. That's the key thing.

Mother's Day is apparently an oppressive thing to some people, enough that corporate America doesn't find it difficult or challenging to be sensitive to your trauma. They want to ignore the fact that you were born of a woman. Let's not honor women. A deluge of Mother's Day marketing emails flooded Michelle Levinson's inbox year after year, sometimes 15 in a day, each reminding them, them, multiple, somebody else is in there with Michelle Levinson. We are legion.

I don't know how many demons are in there, but she's got some demons. So reminding them of their estrangement from their mother. Then last month, Levinson received a different kind of email. Quote, we understand Mother's Day can be a really difficult time for some of our clients here, our customers. If you would rather not receive emails from us about Mother's Day this year, feel free to opt out. Well, the choice felt like a breath of fresh air for Levinson they gladly clicked on the button to unsubscribe so they could not be reminded they could not be reminded of their mother so again we can understand this person is likely transgender. Doesn't want to be reminded of the fact that he has a mother.

If you include all potentially difficult or sensitive topics, ones that might strike closer to home for most people than Mother's Day, you would get 20,000 potential opt-out emails more than you would get marketing ones, says the author in hot air. My wife's mother just passed away. Clearly, that is sensitive. So are advertisements for a particular type of cooking ware that she loved.

But it would never occur to us that society should tap dance around the topics of the topic of mothers or even of her favorite items. Recognizing that mothers are special should be something we acknowledge for at least the 300 days a year that they don't drive us nuts. There is something particularly sick about a society where a company called buy, buy baby, and that's spelled B-U-Y, B-U-Y, is sensitive about celebrating mothers. What's particularly fascinating is that this is clearly coordinated somehow. A lot of corporations are doing it now, evidently.

So they've decided that to even talk about mother is triggering because we don't know even what a woman is. So what is a mother? What is a baby? We don't know what a baby is either. That's the central thing in abortion, right? What is a baby? What is life?

When does life begin? All of these questions. We want to pretend that all this stuff is now up in the air and unsettled, and to be interpreted by each person as they see fit. No, the bottom line, as he says, he understands, this is a part of a widespread movement to destroy the family. And where is that coming from? It's coming from corporate America. These people, the Marxists, had their long march through the institutions. Now the institutions are marching through society

with an intention to crush the family, God's institution. Now we're talking about motherhood and we're talking about children. Stefan Molyneux had an interesting report about what happens with working moms and daycare for kids. And this is not to put a guilt trip on anybody. Look, I understand that it takes two to remain married. And through no fault of your own, you could have a spouse who dies or whatever.

You might wind up being a single parent. I understand that. He's talking about a situation where people look at it and they've got two parents together in a family. And they decide that it would be better for them to both work and put their kids in daycare or childcare or school or whatever. Because this also applies to homeschooling. and put their kids in daycare or childcare or school or whatever, right? Because this also applies to homeschooling. And so he says the second income is really just getting flushed down the toilet. But he begins by talking about the effect that it has on kids.

And again, I'm not trying to guilt trip anybody to make you feel bad about this. You know, when I talk about, I have somebody on and we talk about how to start growing your own food. I get convicted about that because we're lagging behind doing that with a move and everything else. And because we don't really know what we're doing. So there's a bit of a push to try to do it. A little bit of a, I should be doing better. I should be doing more prepping. I should be growing more food or this or that.

I should be doing this with my kids or that with my kids. Look, this is not about trying to make anybody feel bad. This is about showing here's what the better way is. And here's what we can aim for, what we can aspire to. Because if we don't aim for something that would be better, we're never going to hit it, right? If you don't aim at your target, you're not going to hit it. So what would be a better way than the way that has been sold to us by the government, by corporations? Do they have your best interest in heart? So he talks about the second income. He says most young children experience some non-parental care. Roughly 75% of children in the U.S. spend time in non-parental child care.

Over 80% of preschool-aged children, 3 to 5 years old, experience non-parental child care. In the U.S., 29.5% of infants and toddlers attend home-based child care facilities, and daycare costs are rising. And most states, the price of childcare for two children exceeded annual housing payments by 28% in 2021. So then he asked some interesting questions. He says, do you really think people who make $14 an hour are going to give a crap about your kids?

He says, you're not going to get Nanny McPhee or Mary Poppins for $14 an hour. He said, here's the reality about childhood centers. They have a turnover rate that is as high as 25% to 30% a year. The average salary for a daycare teacher is currently $14.24 per hour. 55% of infants are in non-parental care prior to their first birthday, spending an average of 30 to 40 hours per week in such care. So he says part of the induced stress for these children comes from moving them out of the home and into an alien space that they're not familiar with. So in-home care is definitely better for the kids.

Some research has actually shown that kids have anticipatory stress response. The night before, they know they've got to go to daycare, including infants, even infants. And of course, it messes with their biological clock and other things like that. But he says babies may not have any concept of a schedule, but they do respond to routine. They may not consciously know, but subconsciously they do. Imagine doing this to your kids so that mommy can make $60,000 at her email

job. That's what he's saying. So he talks about how cortisol changes from mid-morning to mid-afternoon for kids in childcare versus kids who are staying at home. And it makes a big difference. For those who are staying at home, cortisol changes and drops significantly. But for those who are in childcare, it goes up significantly. So they start out in the same place. He says,

elevated cortisol means a greater risk of obesity. And he says, and probably also feeding your kids crap. He says, a pre-K is nothing but government daycare. Why do you think leftists want it so badly? There's basically no evidence that pre-K improves intelligence or educational outcomes. Plenty of evidence to the contrary.

And then he talks about money. Because this is the thing that everybody looks at. This is the main calculation. How can we afford to do this? We need to have two incomes to survive. Or do you? I have seen so many people who just didn't understand how they could make it, but they decided because of religious convictions that, you know, the mom would quit her job and stay home with the kids and homeschool them. And it turns out that they did.

And what they found was that they had a lot of lower costs in a lot of different areas. And so there were some economic efficiencies with that. And bottom line is that if you do things to honor God, if you follow God's pattern, God is going to provide for you. That's the bottom line. But just from the standpoint of somebody like Stefan Molyneux, who doesn't believe in God, you can look at how, you know, from an economic standpoint, you know, what are your, yeah, sure, they're giving you a big salary.

It's like living in New York City and you make so much money, but do you really have anything left at the end of the day? You know, you've got high expenses with everything, high taxes with everything and all the rest of this. And that's what plays out in this calculus for most people. He said, 2009, if a woman gives up $50,000 paycheck to stay at home with the babies, the couple would still file taxes jointly, reduce taxable income, which reduces household tax. Just taking that into account in federal taxes, a real loss of income to the family is only $39,000,

not $50,000. And this is just factoring in federal income tax, not other required contributions. So stay-at-home parents can fund IRAs if their spouse works, and the couple files taxes jointly. And such retirement savings may be tax deductible as well. But then the bottom line is you've also got these other things. You've got car insurance. You've got work clothes. You've got work lunches. You've got gas there and back or your transportation stuff.

The cost of an extra car. All these other things. And then you start to add in the cost of infant care, high-quality infant care, or toddler care and things like that. So he says, so let's, let's take a, let's move it up to a mother making a hundred thousand dollars today after accounting. And he's got the long spreadsheet there. You know, you make a hundred thousand, uh, per month you're making this much.

And then let's deduct the taxes, the infant care, the toddler care, the extra car, the car maintenance, the car insurance, work clothes, work lunch care, the extra car, the car maintenance, the car insurance, work clothes, work lunches, gas, all the rest of this stuff takes it down to after taxes and after expenses, your $100,000 income goes down to $32,800. And of course, it's going to be worse in some of the big metropolitan areas. What does that work out to? $16. cents an hour. So for $2 and 40 cents an hour,

you're losing the experience that you have would have with your child. You're turning them over to a stranger, which is not good for them. And you're not having a relationship with your child. And you're doing that for $2.40 an hour. So stay-at-home parents are happier. They get more sleep. They have more leisure time, et cetera. And see, all of this, the reason I talk about this,

this is also the case with homeschooling. The kids become part of your day-to-day routine. You get your stuff done. They get their stuff done. They don't have to stay in school for eight, nine hours or whatever, and then a long bus ride before and after. They can get their schoolwork done, homeschooling in a very, very short time. And there are a lot of curricula out there that you can choose from, or you can do it yourself. And, um, um you know the key thing about educating your kids is teach them how to think and give them a moral foundation

governments don't do a good job at either one of those things so so you know get your work done everybody can just relax together have dinner they can bond all the rest of this stuff. That is a key part of this. We need to start thinking outside of the boxes that they have put us into, right? Oh, no, we have to do that. And part of it is the peer pressure that you were told. Part of it is the way corporate America has defined this. The corporations and governments have said, we want mothers working and paying taxes and buying,

so they got more, they get tired and they're going to be spending more money because, hey, they don't feel like cooking when they come home, so let's just buy prepared food and I'm going to treat myself because I'm stressed out. All these types of things, you wind up spending more money over and above the cost of your clothes and your car and your maintenance and your gasoline and your taxes and all the rest of this stuff. And we need to go back and just reconsider our society and say, are these norms that they're pushing out to everybody? You know, this new normal that is maybe about 50 years old?

Is that 50-year-old normal? Is that really good for us, good for the family? Which brings us to this article from the Epic Times about this woman on, it's about one woman in particular, but the trad wife movement. She is a, I don't know, she's on Instagram or she's on TikTok or something like that. And so she wears traditional 1950s style clothes and she talks about how she is quote-unquote subservient to her husband but it's not really about that either because if you look at what she's actually saying she talks about how as a partnership how it's a complementary relationship how it's a relationship that is defined on mutual respect and mutual care. And so they want to make this

as if this is like a handmaid's tale or something. And that's, you know, we need to understand how we've been manipulated into thinking about these stereotypes. Yeah, I know it was ridiculous when Karen and I were kids, they would have these commercials where early 1950s commercials where the women are mopping the floors and high heels and perfect makeup and all the rest of the stuff. And so corporations were selling you a made-up fairy tale there.

They're still selling you made-up fairy tales, but these are far more sinister and evil and destructive. Uh, they are not going to make you happy. Uh, you're going to be far more unhappy than if you were foolishly going to mop your floors and high heels and fall on your back. You know, the kind of stuff that they are selling you right now is even more ridiculous so um this uh one that they focus on st williams she's 25 uh she met her husband just three years ago so she doesn't have a lot of history with this she may you know at some point in time they may just get divorced because they live in this society and and leave each other she might renounce all this stuff she might be doing it because she wants

to be an influencer make money on tiktok or Instagram or wherever she's doing this. I don't know what her motivations are. She says that they're doing it because they're Christians. And she talks about virtues of loyalty and love. This is why I say, you know, this is not to guilt trip anybody. This is to, I've said many times, instead of filling our life with these pictures of these horrific trannies doing things. Let me just give you an example. Here's a tranny threatening women. This is a call to action and a call to arms to everybody within the United States that are scared, worried, have children that are transgender lesbian bi or gay this is a call to action you need to arm up plain and simple go out buy a gun learn how to use it efficiently

through and through because the time to act is now yeah so this guy dressed up like a woman and we can look at all this stuff and we get angry and we get now this is so perverted and you know he's allowed to threaten people and he's protected when he threatens people uh stink uger the young turds saying saying that you know i'm against guns and i'm a bit of a hypocrite here but i think all the trainees ought to get guns and talking about that right before the school was shot up in Nashville. So we can look at all that stuff and we can look at the, the ugly perverted degenerate society that we've become. But I said, you know, yeah, we do need to understand what's going on with things like that, but we also need to reclaim a higher standard. We need to reclaim what is beautiful, what is true.

We need to lay claim to that. We need to look at that as an aspiration. And understand that we're not necessarily going to achieve all that. Nobody is perfect. And that's part of the problem of social media and part of the problem of this trad wife thing here is that they're presenting themselves as absolutely perfect. And that's you know that's that's one of the big lies of social media everybody puts out all the best of their life and you're looking at this and it's like wow my life

is horrible because i don't you know that but they're that's not reality what you're saying on social media but there are things that are being said about this that are true. Virtues like loyalty and love. So even if this person is not perfect, even if they walk away from these virtues, those are still virtuous. And there's still ways that you can pursue that yourself. And we talk about the pursuit of happiness that's in the Declaration of Independence. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

That was a pursuit of virtue. That's what they meant by happiness. That's changed because of our language. In the language of the day, they were pursuing virtue. They had a standard, an ideal that they wanted to live by. And of course, nobody is perfect. So anyway, she attended college studying meteorology, but said she wasn't very happy. She felt pressured to choose after nearly two years of studying.

She quit school after she met her would-be husband, Connor, in 2020. Both she and Connor share similar biblical views. Together, they decided that her staying home was the best. She said, on our first date, Connor told me that he would love to make his future wife a stay-at-home wife and mom. My family thought I was nuts at first, but they see that I'm exactly where I was meant to be now. So with that, she rejected the idea of chasing a career and becoming a boss babe, as she puts it. Rejected the extreme, quote, woke agenda permeating today's society. She said, it's so important to put your spouse before yourself.

That's true. And it'll be true even if she's a phony social media presenter, even if she and her husband get a divorce. That is always true. She said, my husband does this as well, which is what makes our marriage so happy and fulfilling. It's that mutual respect, that mutually honoring each other. We don't even use that word anymore in our society. You think about that? Think about how archaic the whole idea of honor is. We need to reclaim that. So she decided that she would showcase a simple and beautiful lifestyle as a traditional wife to inspire other people to find happiness. And it also helps to take

pressure off of people to conform to this corporate government stereotype. You know, that's a stereotype as well. It's very funny to me. You know, you talk about kids always, even when I was a kid. Everybody, oh, we're rebelling against society, right? Except they all look the same. They all dress the same. They all listen to the same stuff. They all have the same slang and memes and all the rest of the

stuff. No, they're very conformist. They're very conformist. Uh, you don't want to stick out. Uh, you do something that is different from everybody in your generation. Uh, so, um, again, uh, she might get rid of this, but, uh, here's some of her simple rules. And I got to say, you know, whether or not she rejects us. And again, she only met her husband three years ago. I don't know how long they've been married, but I can say that looking at these rules, you know, Karen and I have, uh, we met 49 years ago and, you know, we have, we understand this from experience. We understand this from being Christians, the things that she is listing here. Our marriage is a work in progress after 49 years.

You know, not everything is perfect. But we have aspirations of what we should do better. And here's some of the rules, and these are good rules. No opposite sex friendships. We go to the gym together. We share locations, and I don't leave home alone after dark. He has the final say. Oh, see, that's a bad thing.

No, it's not. Somebody's got to have the final say. You work with each other. You have respect with each other but ultimately uh you got to agree that one person is going to have the final say or you are going to split and it can be over the accumulation of a lot of things that you won't budge on i do all the work inside the house he handles the grilling and the yard work i dress and style my hair the way he enjoys. I cook meals that he enjoys.

And if I want to eat something else, I can eat something else. That type of thing. You know, the first seven years of our marriage, we both worked separate jobs. And so we know what that's like. And then we both quit our jobs and started a business little by little. And, you know, she quit first and started it. And then as it looked like it was going to work, I quit as well. And so we have worked together since that time, after those first seven years.

We've worked together the rest of our life except for the time that I was at InfoWars. And so we know what it's like in both ways. And again, I can say, you know, if we want to take God's advice about how to set up families and marriages, it's kind of like when you talk to your very, very young toddler and you say, I know that that's really pretty. It's glowing red, but it's very hot. Don't touch it. Well, you know, maybe they don't want to take your advice. Maybe they don't want to listen to you.

Maybe they want to do it the hard way. They'll learn their lesson one way or the other. And that's the way most things in our life are. But here's something from Frederick Hayek, the economist. He said, traditional norms transmitted through imitation have allowed civilization to survive. He said, quote, disliking these constraints, traditions, so much we hardly can be said to have selected them. Rather, these constraints selected us. They enabled us to survive.

And although this morality tradition is not justified by the fact that it enables us to do these things and thereby survive, it does enable us to survive. And there is something perhaps to be said for that. But again, we don't do these things simply because they are traditions. In our orientation, we're doing it because it's God's instruction manual.

And our Father in Heaven knows best. 1950s tradition. So we got the Texas Agricultural Department's got a new dress code. And they're going to do it based on biological gender. See how this works out. He's going to be at loggerheads with the federal government already is. And, uh, there is a conservative guy, Texas department of agriculture ordering its employees

to comply with a new dress code, mandating that they abide by it in a manner consistent with their biological gender. Now, is that going to require that men wear cowboy hats and women wear dresses and they both wear boots? I don't know. But what it's going to do is going to tell people, tell men that they can't dress in dresses. We're not going to have any more corporate clingers at the Texas Department of Agriculture.

Employees are expected to comply with a stress code in a manner consistent with their biological gender. Well, already an attorney with the ACLU in Texas said this violates Title VII of the Federal Civil Rights Act, which bans employment discrimination based on one's sexual orientation or gender identity, in addition to the first amendment's right to free expression. I don't think the first amendment has anything to do with dressing. Uh,

but look, if that's, uh, you know, they got title seven of the federal civil rights act, nullify it, nullify it, nullify it there.

You know, that's might as well start with the, uh, those types of orders. Also in Texasas they're pushing to have the ten commandments uh posted in all the classrooms and you know when i look at this um i gotta say even when i was in school um i was in school you know they had prayer and then they went to moment of silence we always hadledge of Allegiance and other things like that.

And when I would say the Pledge of Allegiance, and as I got older, I thought, why am I pledging allegiance to a flag? But as I got older, I started realizing why I had a problem with that. Because I was not pledging allegiance to a constitution. I was pledging allegiance to politicians and a government, not to principles that are in the constitution. And so, you know, it was, I always felt that that was askew. And in a sense, when we look at the Ten Commandments, there is a bigger issue with this. And that is, really, what is the role, what is the role of schools and do we want them as religious instructors are they going to get it right well i don't think that they'll ever get it right for

most people right even if the teacher was somebody that goes to your same church or whatever they may not get it right. What if there's somebody that goes to a completely different religion, no religion at all? Do you want them trying to teach you about the Ten Commandments, teach your kids about the Ten Commandments? So this was something that was addressed by R.L. Dabney right after the Civil War. He got it right.

He said there's absolutely no role for the state in education because it's inescapable that you're going to be violating the free exercise of religion from one group or the other. No matter what you teach, it's going to be a violation. You want to teach Roman Catholicism? Well, the Protestants are going to be upset. You want to teach vice versa? You want to teach Judaism or whatever?

You want to teach secular humanism and atheism. These are all fundamentally religious. They're worldviews. They're how you order your life. I liked this essay from Lawrence Vance, Should the Ten Commandments Be Posted in Public Schools? And I really do agree with what he had to say. He said, although I'm culturally and theologically conservative Christian, I have never understood the obsession of some conservative Christians with the posting of the Ten Commandments in public schools. He said in 1980, the Supreme Court ruled against this in a Kentucky law that required the posting of Ten Commandments, the same

thing that Texas is doing right now. So unless they want to start to say, well, here's what the 10th Amendment says. It says that even if the government interposes in this certain area, we don't think the federal government has any authority in this area. Unless they want to go that route, this is really a waste of time for Texas to do this unless they are playing to their audience. Some conservative Christians are salivating over this bill in Texas to mandate the posting of the

Ten Commandments in public schools. But he said, and it defines where and how it'll be displayed and the size that it'll be displayed and how it'll be laminated and all the rest of this stuff. He says, from the very beginning of public education in this country, Protestant Christians have sought to use the power of the state to propagate their faith. And that's absolutely true. And it's backfired on us. Do you understand?

You know, we created this institution to push this on people rather than to tell them about God and let God work it out. We plant the seed, we water it, but God is the one who gives the increase. He's the one who changes people's hearts. If we're going to push this and force this on people, and we're going to create a government institution, these government schools to do this. Look at what they're pushing on us now.

The institutions, you know, when you create an institution to do something like that, uh, that institution can easily be taken over and subverted. And that's what has happened now. He says, this is always wrong. Uh,

it's never right to do wrong so that you can get a chance to do right. So that's what all the 4D chess stuff was about, right? Oh yeah. You know, Trump's doing the wrong thing. I know he's doing the wrong thing, but he knows he's doing the wrong thing too. And that makes it okay because that's going to keep him there. He's going to win. He's going to stay in office.

He's going to win the election, whatever. And then at some point in the future, he'll be able to do the right thing. Guess what? That day never arrives because the next day there's going to be another opportunity to sell out. And so all this stuff, okay, well, I'm going to play 40 chess. I'm going to lie to people. I'm going to betray my principles and promises, but that'll give me time to

keep playing the game. Well, guess what? You're going to keep playing that game. You're not ever going to stand on principle. It is never right to do wrong so that you can get a chance to do right. He says, by the way, the Ten Commandments are Jewish, they're not Christian. Yes, I know all about the Judeo-Christian ethics and its part in the American civil religion, but why do Christians devote so much attention to something that doesn't even mention the basis of their faith, the Lord Jesus Christ, and the grace that

is there, right? I mean, you could say, well, you know, the law is a great teacher to show us how we've fallen short of God's glory, and it is necessary for us to understand that. I've seen a lot of street evangelists who will go out and use the Ten Commandments to get people to understand that they're a sinner condemned in the sight of God, that there is no such thing as little sins, little peccadillos. Every sin is rebellion against God. And in that sense, nothing is small. But then to say, well, you stand condemned before

God, but Jesus Christ paid your fine. And there is freedom in that if you choose to follow him and to leave that path. That's the Christian message. The Ten Commandments is just the beginning of that. So he said, I think it's a myth that if Christians can get the Ten Commandments posted again in public schools, they can turn America back to God. These are the same public schools that promote transgenderism, homosexuality, anthropogenic climate change, man-made climate change, wokeness, critical race theory, evolution, environmentalism, socialism. Yeah, most of these have religious overtones, by the way.

They have their Ten Commandments or more than Ten Commandments. You want to look at the regulations of the EPA? They got a lot more than Ten Commandments in there. It's bigger than the Bible. And it's nothing but rules. And, of course, you have no presumption of innocence, no protection against excessive fines and the rest of that stuff. Anyway, the, um, no, I mean, they're all religious in terms of their implications or overtones, what they want you to do, how they want you to

live your life, all of these different things that he mentioned there. And he points out public schools are government schools and as such public schools should not exist. All schools should be private. That's what Dabney was saying. And again, it goes back to the religious argument as much as anything else. He said, look, you can learn a trade anywhere. But he said, that's not education.

Learning how to do welding, for example, that's not education. That's a technical trade. Learning the fact that you should not weld people inside their house if you claim that there's a pandemic. Now, see, that's morality. That's foundational. And that's what education really should be about. The history and the morality behind the society that we've created that is represented

by our system of laws and the Constitution. Schools, like everything else he said, should be private. Doesn't one of the Ten Commandments say, thou shalt not steal? So you're going to steal money from people to create these government schools because you think it's a good thing. And then you're going to put up the Ten Commandments that says, thou shalt not steal.

But it's for a good purpose, like the education of children. Well, does stealing suddenly become right if the government is the one that does the stealing? Does theft become right if it's for a good cause? Of course not. Because guess what? Your definition's for a good cause? Of course not. Because guess what? Your definition of what a good cause is going to be is going to be very malleable. Ron Paul has said for years,

don't steal, the government hates competition. I remember the story. I don't know if it's true or not, if it's just a pastor joke. The pastor told a story he said yeah uh this guy uh came to christ he was a convicted thief and he came up one day and he said you know that you're just talking about that um let those who steal steal no more but work with their hands he says i i think they got that wrong in the translation they got to put the comma in a different place.

Let those who steal, steal. No more work with your hands. That would have to be what you would have to put up there if you're going to post the thou shalt not steal commandments in the schools. So he says, I support the right of the state of Texas to post the Ten Commandments in its government schools. I'm just indifferent as to whether or not it should. Lawrence M. Vance.

I agree 100% with what he has to say. As one other person put it, too many Christians are worshiping the false gospel of political conversions. You know, we make politics the meaning for our life. How pathetic is that? That's where Hillary Clinton is. The politics of meaning. Politics gives her meaning to her life. How pathetic is that? That's where Hillary Clinton is. The politics of meaning. Politics gives her meaning to her life. And we should never fall into that trap. It's a sad

thing to see other people falling into it. We don't want to do that on our own. Now, let me just play one more thing here. I want to come back. I want to talk about, you know, by the way, did you notice that Biden announced his candidacy yesterday? We'll talk about that when we come back. His staff is very happy that most people didn't notice it and didn't talk about it because there really isn't a lot of good things that you can say about the Biden administration. And so we're going to talk about that. We're going to talk about what is emerging, about the fact that both Biden and Trump don't want to have any debates.

Isn't that where we are now? Now that these people are coming after speech, right? I don't want to debate with anybody. It's going to be my way or the highway. You're going to follow my narrative. You're going to follow what I say about doing lockdowns and mandates of vaccines and masks and all the rest of this stuff. And there'll be no discussion about this. And all the government is being weaponized to shut down any discussion.

So why would two presidents who have jumped with both feet on that kind of an attitude, why would they want to have any debate about policy? It's just whatever they say it is. We're having, in their view, we're having an election to determine which of them is going to be an emperor. Which one of them is going to be Caesar? Let's not have any debate about this. Come on. But before we go to break, I just wanted to, there's a movie coming out this Friday,

which, you know, there's not too many movies that are any good I ever want to go see. This one looks pretty good. Boxing legend George Foreman. He says, Jesus is more important than fame, and it doesn't matter what you achieve, he said. But he had a very interesting life story. And this is coming out on Friday. It looks like it's very well produced.

Forrest Whitaker is one of the actors in it. Very, very good actor. He says, you come to a point in your life you realize the only thing in your life that is important is to be an evangelist, he said, is what happened in his life. And of course, he has an interesting story because he had a very successful career as a boxer.

Then he has something happen to him that you're going to see in the trailer i'm going to play a little bit of the trailer here for you i won't play the whole thing uh but something happens to him uh that is pretty startling and he has a conversion experience and he gives up boxing and then it's um he's he's not doing very well as a preacher, not making any money, not enough to survive. And he goes back to boxing at a very late age and has to start it all over again, start the training and everything. And he became a champion at the age of 45. And then he had other things happen with his, you know, Foreman Grill and other stuff like that.

Here's the trailer. The miraculous story of the once and future heavyweight champion of the world. Listen to me, George. You got to punch like I've never seen you. But in every battle, the greatest foe that we will combat isn't here. If I ruled the world. Imagine that. You live one way your whole life. Heavenly Father, thank you for this food. George should change his name from Foreman to Poor Man.

To hurt. I free all my sins. Down goes Frasier! What's my name now, fool? Foreman is the new heavyweight champion of the world. Where's all that rage come from? I don't have any rage. Like diamonds in white.

And it becomes all you know. Let's thank God for the food, y'all. I bought the food, Mama. George Foreman ain't no new champ. He is the new chump. We gonna get it on because we don't get it on. Imagine that. Foreman goes down!

Who said that? Nobody said nothing, George. George. Oh, George. Your heart stopped. You thought he was dead. I was. I'm done. I'm not going to box anymore.

Do you know what you're walking away from, son? I want to spread the word of God and what I saw How's being a preacher going for you? Hard. Harder than getting punched in the face Sometimes it feels about the same. Hey, come on enjoy yourself Power company said we never paid the bill. Really? So only two things I know how to do. S-Box will preach, and preaching won't pay the bills. You made me something once, Doc. You can do it again. It is my destiny to win the heavyweight championship belt again. Last time they saw me, I looked like Superman.

So now you look like the Michelin Man. This ain't no beauty contest. Michael Moore is 26 and unstoppable. How can you beat that man? Foreman is considered an old man in this young man's game. ORGAN PLAYS In a world of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. You're listening to The David Knight Show. All right, I apologize for that abrupt end there. I wanted to come back and say something, and I hit the wrong button here.

So here's my comments. I thought that was pretty funny. Last time I saw you, you were like Superman. Now you're like the Michelin Man. It's 40s. This is his comment, though. He's now 74 years old. He said, in hindsight, God's faithfulness was all over my life, period. He said, there I was, a thief, on my way to jail, underneath a house, hiding from the police, covering myself from head to toe with slop.

I heard their voices. I knew then that I'd have to change things. I didn't want to be a thief. I didn't want to be a criminal. That was a big change for me. And, of course, learning how to box and going as far as I could with boxing. But still, I did all of that, he said, without a knowledge of God.

And it doesn't matter what you achieve, what you accomplish in this life. The most important thing is that you keep your eye on the true prize, and that is serving God, he said. So find God, have faith in God. It doesn't matter what happened. Believe all things are possible. Don't ever give up on possibility.

And your life can be turned and changed for the better, he says. So it looks like a good film. It's going to be out on Friday. Let's go from a good film to a bad president. Let's talk about Biden. Biden, 80 years old, announces his 2024 presidential run, made the announcement in a video because, you know, he can't handle live events anymore. You have to make a live speech, read it off a teleprompter. No, no, no. Let's do it in a video.

Now that speaks volumes, doesn't it? 44% of Democrats say he is too old to run, according to a Reuters poll. Trump, 76, also faces concern about his age. 35% of Republicans say that he's too old. So 44% of Democrats, 35% of Republicans say these guys are too old. I think that they're stale. I think they're leftovers. There are a couple of meals that we didn't want four or five years ago, and they've been sitting in their refrigerator gathering mold. Nobody wants to see this happening. What can we do to stop this? Maybe we can employ some satire to get rid of both these people.

That's what we're going to be talking to the author coming up. And she has worked quite a bit on the importance of satire in politics. And again, she is coming from the left, hard left. We probably don't agree on anything except Trump for different reasons. Even we would agree about that Trump, but I think it's important. We're going to talk about satire and the importance of satire because it is a very powerful weapon and you need to understand how the left is using it. And she's studied that as well.

You know, we look, it's no coincidence that all the late night shows have become so politicized. It is by design. And we need to understand as conservatives that weapon and how powerful that is. Anyway, around the country, MAGA extremists, he said in his video, are lining up to take on those bedrock freedoms. He actually said we're going to run on freedom and democracy. Really? The guy who mandated vaccines is going to run on freedom?

Okay. So he says they want to dictate health care decisions that women can make. They want to ban books. They want to tell people who they can love. Yeah. You know, come on, man. Some of us love children. What's wrong with that?

Right. So how do they hope to overcome his age problem? Well, as they pointed out, 70% of Americans think that he should not seek re-election. 51% of Democrats don't want him to seek re-election. And the number one concern that everybody has is his age. He's already the oldest president in U.S. history, and he wants to get even older. He would be inaugurated at the age of 82, and he would finish his second four-year term at the age of 86. So the introductory video for his new 2024 campaign, as I said, warns against the threats posed by Republican opponents,

but it doesn't tackle the age issue head on. What it does is it has a lot of cuts in there. I'm not going to play it for you. I don't want to hear it um you don't either uh it intersperses cuts of animated president who's jogging here and looking engaged there now the irony of all this is that they have to put that stuff in him doing energetic and engaging things because he's unable unable to speak live like RFK Jr. did, right? He spoke for two hours. And it wasn't just about himself.

It was about principle. You know, Trump can speak for hours upon hours about himself. RFK spoke about issues in a substantive way. And again, I'm not an RFfk supporter i disagree with him on too many fundamental issues but uh you know he's i agree with him on most of the issues that he chose to speak about and he spoke about them in a great deal of uh with wisdom and precision anyway uh you're you answer the age questions by running a vigorous campaign. You don't answer it by talking about it.

Well, I'm afraid we've all seen how he does the job. Last year, 54 Republicans in the House of Representatives signed a letter to the White House expressing concern about his cognitive state and demanding that he take a dementia test. According to Jim Messina, who ran Obama's 2012 re-election, he says, Democrats do one thing every night. He said, we sit down and we get on our knees and we pray to God that Donald Trump is a Republican nominee for president. I've said, and I'll say it again, I think that is one of the reasons why you've got this Manhattan district attorney pushing it. You know, you've got a lot of Democrats, a lot of people who don't like Trump and the Republican party as well saying this is only going to help them.

We've seen how it helped him. How he tripled his fundraising, uh, over the previous two months combined, because he was able to portray himself as a victim. They are building him up. The genius thing about all of these attacks on Trump is it does two things. It tears him down in the eyes of Democrats and independents, and it builds him up in the eyes of the Republicans, making it easier for him to win the primaries and easier for him to be defeated in the general election.

That's the truth. You know what, if you look at it carefully, that's what's happening. Tearing him down in the eyes of everybody but the MAGA cult, building him up into this messiah figure for the MAGA cult, setting him up to lose to Biden. And I agree with Chris Christie. He's the only Republican that can't beat Biden. And I don't think he can.

And that's not even talking about the rigged election. Biden's campaign launch is immediately overshadowed by other events and his team loves it, says Politico. Quote, also this morning. That was what CNN, how they introduced it. Oh, and also this morning, as a footnote, CNN's lead into its script Tuesday morning about President Joe Biden officially launching his campaign with a video. The oldest president in history seeking another four years.

It was not always the lead story. Many times it was the very last story, and they were happy about that. As Breitbart points out, his campaign video fails to mention a single first-term accomplishment. Why? Because all of his accomplishments, now they don't say this, I'll tell you why. Because all of his quote-unquote accomplishments were to take things away from us, to destroy things. Failures in Afghanistan and other things. But it's all been about taking stuff away, shutting down the economy, shutting down our energy, our food, and everything else.

Shutting down our choices, our medical choices. The guy has been an absolute tyrant, and it doesn't surprise me one iota. I knew that about joe biden he was one of the most authoritarian uh politicians on the scene he bragged about the fact that he had a lot to do with the mandatory minimums with zero tolerance laws on the drug war and other things like that he excoriated cl Clarence Thomas more so than the Sunita Hill thing. He came after him because Clarence Thomas believed in natural rights. That's the Declaration of Independence.

So Joe Biden has been one of the most authoritarian, anti-freedom presidents ever. So, of course, he's going to run and say he's for freedom. Everything he is about is about taking stuff away from us. Failed to name a single achievement in his first term, nor any plan for what he might hope to achieve in his second term. Instead, the video dwells on abortion, on MAGA extremists. They've got the annotated script here.

Freedom. Freedom, yeah. From the man who mandated poison for people. And said, you know, you're not going to have a life if you don't get the poison get the id and all the rest of this stuff went on to say personal freedom is fundamental to who we are as americans says he add there's nothing more important nothing more sacred so that's why he went after it first and foremost, you know, again, he's, um, screw your freedom. That's what he was about.

That's what I remember the Biden administration being about and the people who agreed with him telling people who they can love, you know, at any age, uh, dictating what healthcare decisions women can make, uh, who's going to tell women that they can't murder babies, right? Banning books, you know, banning pornography for kids. This is what he's about. He said, um, uh, as he's talking about, uh, freedom, right? The, uh, they are banning our speech everywhere, but he wants to focus on banning pornography for kids and libraries and schools and curriculum.

By the way, when we look at how he wants to take things away from us, you've got even an Obama housing official talking about this new mortgage plan, you know, where they're going to charge people 65%. They're going to pick a cutoff on the credit scores. And so the bottom 35% of people will get a three quarter, you know, percent at 75 basis point, uh, improvement on their home loans. And the 65% of the people who are above that low cutoff are going to pay more. And the higher your credit score is, the more they charge you, the more you have saved for a down payment, the more they charge you. The more you have saved for a down payment, the more they charge you.

An Obama housing official, David Stevens, who served as the Federal Housing Association Commissioner during the Obama administration, said, this is not going to do anything other than just hike costs. He says the fees are going up while their fees are going down for this particular institution. He said Fannie and Freddie, you know, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, he said they've done a better job of doing this. But this is about government sponsored enterprises, GSEs. He said the unfortunate reality is that it isn't going to be that effective, he said. It really accomplishes little other than really disrupting a tradition. That's what Biden is all about, right? Around risk-based pricing that Fannie and Freddie have already been committed to since their inception.

And in response to that, you've now got some Republicans saying this is nothing more than a socialist redistribution of wealth, that it will not stand. If they don't reverse this rule, we will. Well, we'll see about that. I hope they will, but there's a lot of talk about things like that that never happened. When you look at energy, you know, Biden's had the EPA come out in just a couple of weeks. They've effectively, by de facto standards, banned both internal combustion engines of cars by raising the emission levels. You know, they didn't come out and say, no, you're not going to have any cars,

which is what they do in Europe, right? But here, what they do is they do it on the sly. They raise the regulations up so much that if they can comply with it, it'll be too expensive. And then by doing the same thing this week with the coal plants and gas plants and all the rest, natural gas plants and all the rest of this stuff to ban our electricity. Oh,

he wants you to have electric car. No, he doesn't. He's going to shut down the electricity generation as well. Again, by making it so expensive with these regulations that it won't be worth it for these power stations to even stay open a pointless, they'll have to use pointless,

difficult tech, or they'll just shut down. An unreleased rule from Biden's EPA, expected to push coal power plants to implement carbon capture and expensive difficult technology, likely force many coal plants to shut down. It is pointless as well as expensive. It will strictly limit plant emissions, could lead to more premature retirements of power plants. They have to capture it.

They have to concentrate it, put it in the ground, hope they can find somebody to recycle it with, that they can sell it to and transport it to them. Incredibly inefficient, incredibly expensive, and the whole thing is chasing unicorn farts. None of it makes any difference. The EPA will not give the details of this. They said, no, we can't comment because the proposal is still under review. It's top secret. It's top secret.

What we have been clear from the start is that we will use all of our legally upheld tools grounded in decades-old bipartisan laws because Because, you know, Nixon created them, and Republicans have been on board with the EPA doing this stuff all along. And so we will address dangerous air pollution, protect the air that our children breathe today and for generations to come. This is not about air pollution. This is about their idea that CO2, CO2 is not pollution. They claim that it warms the atmosphere,

but they don't want to have a scientific debate on that, you see. And so, by the way, we're going to run out of time. So I'm going to go straight to the debates. And let's talk a little bit about that. Because in rapid succession, we've had these two candidates that nobody wants. And that's the reality. NBC News headline, Biden versus Trump 2024 would be the rematch that nobody wants. Absolutely.

So this is polling from NBC. Biden has no serious challenger for the Democratic nomination, they said. They're not even going to talk about RFK Jr. So the mainstream media can shut him down shut him out ignore him and they won't even let him in the debate which is where i think it would be fantastic to talk about some of these uh issues uh so again we're a year and a half out and they say trump is the clear front runner for a third straight republican nod biden has no serious challenger all of that is a lie from nbc news We're a year and a half out.

DeSantis is not even declared. And again, that's because of the rules that he has to resign as governor if they don't change that. And so that campaign hasn't even started. But there are already five, I think, other people who have declared that they're going to run as Republicans

besides DeSantis or maybe including DeSantis, but still about a half dozen people in that race, but we're not going to have a debate there. Uh, the only candidate who can stop world war three says Trump is me. He said he can bolster the economy. He can appoint conservative judges and he can establish 10 freedom cities, you know, freedom cities that we call them 15-minute cities, other things like that, smart cities. Smart cities with the flying cars. He talked about that, flying cars.

And, of course, the 5G that he loves so much, the untested 5G. Democrats are of two minds when it comes to Trump. Some of them see him as a useful foil. Others are so scared of him winning again that they want to just shut him down and so that's the debate that's out there but as i said before i think if they continue to come after him with these charges it will damage him even further with democrats and with independents and it will escalate him to the point where he wins the primary. But Biden makes Trump enemy number one, says the Hill, facing no formidable primary challengers yet.

Really? You don't think that RFK Jr. would be a formidable challenge? The aim to focus on Trump from Biden was out in full force when the first two scenes of the president's campaign video were images of the January the 6th riot. And so that's what he's going to run against. Biden is going to run against the january 6th stop the steal stuff make no mistake about it this is going to be a very ugly election they said and it will be he's not going to campaign against nikki haley or tim scott trump is the big target for biden he rallies their base and he turns off independent voters at the same time.

They understand what's going to happen. Now, this is what RFK Jr. said, because what they have decided is that they're not going to have a debate. There's no point to debate. There's no challenges out there. RFK says, I have known and liked Joe Biden for many years, unlike the rest of us.

But we differ profoundly on fundamental issues, such as corporate influence in government, censorship, civil liberties, poverty, corruption, and war policy, among others. I look forward to engaging him in debates and in town hall meetings in a primary election that is honest, civil, and transparent. And I invite him into a new era of respectful dialogue in these times of division. I'm a multi-generational Democrat, but I think our party has gone off track. Remember when we upheld the interest of the poor and the middle class against big corporations and Wall Street? Remember when we were the party of peace, civil liberties, and people power? I am to reclaim that.

He said the Biden administration is riddled with neocons, war hawks, Wall Street people, former corporate lobbyists. That's what the party elite has become. But I know the rank and file. The American people as a whole do not share their priorities. It's time to return our party. They don't want to have that debate. And so the DNC has announced, as I pointed out, covered by the Washington Post, that there will be no debates. And of course, it's not just that. It's also how they've rigged the primary process

with New Hampshire and other places. The Democrat Party said the Washington Post has, quote, no plans to sponsor primary debates. And yet Biden says he's running for freedom. Biden says he's running for democracy. But democracy dies in censorship, not in darkness. It dies in censorship. And so thank you very much, Geesebusters on Rumble. I really do appreciate that.

That's very kind. A rigged election just might put Trump back in yeah that's true because he would be useful to advance our globalist agenda certainly was useful in 2020 rfk says you need to let the public decide who they went for leadership rather than party commissars like they did in the soviet union or china The fact the DNC plans no primary debates as though there simply are no other candidates, said Marianne Williamson, who is another candidate. No other ideas that we should discuss about ways to win in 2024? No other ideas that we should discuss

about ways to repair the country? Too many people are too smart to accept this. Progressive activist Nina Turner, a former surrogate for Bernie Sanders, said this is undemocratic. It is. It robs the voters of choice. It is. What is the point of having an election if you're not even going to talk about the issues? I mean, this is the ultimate thing.

We're going to make it about their personalities and who they are or your party loyalty or whatever. Let's not talk about any issues about anything in either party because now as soon as they said that trump says yeah you know i don't think i should have a debate either he says i see everybody's talking about the republican debates but nobody got my approval yeah he's the dictator he gets to shut down free speech, critical thinking, all the rest of the stuff, right? Or the approval of the Trump campaign before announcing them. He says, when you're leading by seemingly insurmountable numbers and you have hostile networks with angry Trump and MAGA-hating anchors asking questions, why subject yourself to being libeled and abused? Well, pal, if you can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen.

If you can't get into the arena and handle all this stuff, you should get out, Donald, because you know what? He couldn't handle his own globalist-appointed military-industrial-complex-Goldman-Sachs-Banker cabinet. He couldn't handle Fauci. He didn't care to. He was handled by them. And so we'd like to know about that. I'd love to have five minutes of a question and answer period with Trump.

Anyway, Trump also took issue with plans to hold the second planned GOP debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in California. He said, Fred Ryan, the publisher of the Washington Post, is the chairman of the board of trustees at the Reagan library. Any excuse for him? For the pair of them, if you think about it. Look at how they're tag team professional wrestling. Trump does the executive order for the emergency for the pandemic. Biden runs with it.

He adds mandates, right? Trump does the jab. Biden runs with it. He adds mandates, right? Trump does the jab. Biden mandates it. Trump does the emergency order for gun control. Biden follows along with it, that Trump precedent. Biden says no debates. Trump says no debates. Trump and Biden spend $6 trillion a year each.

They are Tweedledee and Tweedledum and dumber. It's become commonplace for Trump to threaten to skip debates, going back to his time as a candidate for the Republican nomination, as I point out. He's done that many times. Sometimes he showed up. He was afraid to go to a debate in 2016 because of Megyn Kelly, of all things. And, you know, the interesting thing is that when Megyn Kelly,

as everybody knew she was going to come for Trump and make a name for herself, she made him look good by comparison because it's so obviously contrived. You know, what do you think about women and so forth? You know, she didn't come after him with the hard questions. You know, just like Ken Starr laid off of Bill Clinton for the hard questions. And as I said before about Harry Belafonte, he said, look, you know, Barack Obama, we

projected onto him what we wanted him to be. But now we look at this, who is this guy? And this happens all the time. I looked at the situation with Bill Clinton, all of the serious allegations from women about rape, physical, violent, sexual abuse, all the serious allegations about financial impropriety and everything. Ken Starr just ignored all of that, went with a perjury charge about a consensual affair. And the people on the left were just, oh yeah, that's ridiculous.

We don't care about any of that stuff. I thought, really? Wow. And then I see it happening again with Trump. You got serious allegations about what he has done with women. And regardless of this current rape thing, I mean, look at all the, just look at his history, his marital history and But the conservative, the MAGA cult, they dismiss it out of hand, just like the left dismissed all the concerns about Bill Clinton's character. Nobody cares. Nobody cares. Trump is one of several declared candidates. Nikki Haley, Asa Hutchinson, Vivek Ramaswamy, DeSantis, who's not declared, Pence who's not declared, but are expected to do that. They didn't even mention Chris Christie, but he says, no, he says, no, I don't want to do it. And I understand why he doesn't want to do it, right? Let's not talk about

his record at all. It was interesting too, to see somebody that I'm not a big fan of, Brian Kilmeade. I think he gets it wrong on so many different issues, and he really gets me annoyed when I listen to him. But beyond that, he did say something that I agreed with. As they were talking about this Manhattan prosecution, he and another person in a round table discussion there on Fox news, uh, she said, uh, we've got to kind of move this onto the side and we've got to get focused on what matters to America. We're going to start talking about issues instead of, you know, Trump's, um, finances and things like that.

Kill me. He said, that's why in a way I was kind of hoping for a gag order from that judge. Because I see the president, and I want to find out what these candidates think about oil prices. I want to find out how we're going to get the dollar back and make sure that it remains the world's currency. But, Brett, that's not going to happen. We've got a grand jury in Georgia.

We've got another one in Mar-a-Lago and all this other kind of stuff. So we're going to have all these personal attacks and everything. There's not going to be any discussion of issue. Bingo. That's what they want. Trump wants that. And Biden wants that. They want this to be a soap opera.

They don't want to talk about issues. Because Biden and Trump are the issues. So I guess, you know, we can kind of forget about the debates, going to the debates and laughing about it and discussing it, right? I'm sitting on a sofa on a Sunday afternoon Going to the candidates' debate Yeah, where have you gone Joe DiMaggio? Anyway, we look at this, you lose. And so we're still waiting for our guest to connect. And let's talk a little bit more about Trump.

I've got some more stuff here because we're going to be talking about Trump when she comes back. The name of the book is, I've got it here, but well, we'll get to that in just a second. It is a book on satire, but it's also a book on Donald Trump and some of the satirical things about Trump. You know, and the Proud Boys trial has now gone to jury as of today. They're doing deliberations, but they've been blaming Trump, the attorney for Enrico Terrio, the attorney for Joe Biggs. The attorney for Terrio said that federal prosecutors are trying to make him a scapegoat for Trump and for those in power.

See, everybody's a scapegoat. Proud Boys are a scapegoat, even though they got 52 informants and provocateurs around them. Same with Ray Epps, right, whether or not they were. And it's kind of interesting because Darren Beattie at Revolver News, who has really pushed this Ray Epps thing, right whether or not they were and it's kind of interesting because Darren Beatty a revolver news who has really pushed this ray Epps thing he also said Stuart Rhodes is an informant working for the FBI and trapping people provocateur he said the same thing about Enrico Theria well you know as

I said there were a lot of allegations from people that i heard about fraud with stewart rhodes but um the uh i didn't believe that he was a fed and then when he was charged uh darren beattie doubled down and said well see that just shows that uh that i was right because this is such an over-the-top charge and it's not been successfully done since the civil war and even the civil war. So, you know, they're, they're charging over this. They're not because they don't want them to go to prison. And he didn't say anything when he got convicted of it. And I don't think that they deserve to be convicted of it.

But, um, you know, when you look at Enrico Terrio, he was somebody who out of the three, you know, I thought, well, it's kind of plausible because here's somebody who's got a criminal record. He's been an informant in the past. They got him out of the area the day before on a really silly charge. It looked like they were trying to protect him. But here he is in the dock. I think perhaps I was wrong about it. But, you know, Darren Beatty had identified him as well.

Um, and so, um, you know, when you look at what is happening with this, all of this is a way of using other people as a scapegoat for Trump and everybody is falling for it. It truly is amazing. And when I mean falling for it, I mean, we're talking about big legal judgments coming from, uh, for, for Fox news. They are going to literally fall for it. Their profits are going to fall. Their anchors are going to fall and everything else. Uh, we've got our guests now. So I want to go to that. Cause I really want to talk to her. The name of the book is Trump was a joke, but I think he still is. We're going to talk about what's coming up and the importance of satire. And so I think you're going to find this very interesting. Stay with

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

Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation. They desire to know everything about us while they hide everything from us. It's time to turn that around and expose what they want to hide. Please share the information and links you'll find at thedavidknightshow.com. Thank you for listening. Thank you for sharing. If you can't support us financially, please keep us in your prayers. TheDavidKnightShow.com All right, welcome back. And our guest is Dr. Sophia McLennan.

She's director of the Center for Global Studies and International Affairs. She's got a book, Trump Was a Joke. Here's what the book looks like. How satire made sense of a president who didn't. So we're going to have some fun with this because we're going to talk about the importance of satire. I think it's interesting that even though we are coming from completely different points in politics and Trump is usually known as someone who divides everybody. I think he's kind of he's put Dr. McLennan and I on the same page here we're both united in our incredulity about trump

and and what he has done here and i think the appropriate way to respond to a lot of this stuff is satire it's a very very powerful weapon solinsky said it was the most powerful weapon because there's no way to answer it you know when we see that the emperor is bossing you around and he's got no clothes it's just naked tyranny The best thing you can do is point that out and start laughing. So just to give you an idea of her background, she's part of a research team that has proven the political power of satirical activism. I like what they call it, laughtivism, to advance social change. And she's been on a CNN six-part series, A Story of Late Night. So we want to talk

about that as well, because you may have noticed that all the late night comedy shows have become very, very politicized. She's also got another book in the works called The Revolution Will Be Satirized. I think it'll also be televised. So joining us now is Dr. Sophia McLennan. Thank you for joining us. Thanks for having me. Let's talk a little bit about this book before we get into satire, because there's a lot I want to talk about with satire and how important that has been and how effective that has been historically and especially now.

But tell us a little bit about the book. How did you get into doing this? Of course, you're focused on satire, and Trump is somebody who usually gets people really angry, one side or the other. But you were able to look at him and laugh. Tell us a little bit about that. Well, the story is sort of a longer story because I've been working on satire and politics for a while. I started getting interested in it after 9-11 when I saw that it was actually the satirists who were some of the first to sort of ask questions about how we were framing the story

of the terrorist attacks and our response to it. So I started doing a lot of work on whether or not satire actually had a bigger social benefit than just that laugh, you know, the personal sort of release. And the research on this is really good. People who consume satire are generally smarter about issues. They have better recall of information. They feel more confident as political actors. They tend to look at political issues with more nuance and subtlety. So there's a lot of these, you know, very positive, um, components. They, they vote more, they're more politically active. So I started working on that. And then of course the question was, well, what did Trump do to that landscape for us?

Because that had been in place clearly, you know, really throughout us history. You know, I like to go back to people like Ben Franklin or, you know, Samuel Clemens, right, Mark Twain. Our country has a really long history of being very good at satire. So the book really tries to ask, what did Trump do to satire and how did satire make sense of him in ways that maybe we didn't see in the mainstream news media? And, of course, the government itself believes in satire. I mean, they named it the Patriot Act, right? To the response to that. That's a bit of a satirical title.

And they do that frequently. They'll frequently come up with an acronym that is going to be exactly the opposite of it. But I guess with the Restrict Act, they finally dropped that satire and just came straight for it. They're going to just restrict stuff for us. Well, that's the different part, right? You see it as satire and they are trying to be sincere, which is why sometimes the satirical joke is written for you, right, by your target. Right. Yeah, you mentioned when you were talking about satire, you talked about Tina Fey and Sarah Palin.

And I thought you had a very interesting comment. Tell people your perspective on that. Well, you know, at the end of the day, all that Tina Fey did really was repeat almost verbatim the same things that Sarah Palin said. And so that's a pretty unusual satirical impersonation because really Tina didn't add a lot. And so what it did, though, was that as you see the performance of Palin against Palin herself, suddenly the audience says, yeah, that is crazy, right? She said, what? So it turns out that there's really conclusive data that shows that the Tina Fey impersonations had a measurable negative impact on public perceptions of Sarah Palin. perspective. It wasn't my perspective. I enjoy the satire. I enjoyed laughing at, you know,

even the people that I might be supporting, you know, more than the other side. But I saw how effective it was with the people around me who really were just kind of casually engaged. They would see that satire and it would really move them very quickly, which I think kind of brings us to what has happened to late night TV. That has really become so highly politicized and it all grew out of satire. But it seems to be where people are hanging out. And we look at people like Jon Stewart and people like Stephen Colbert, of course, people who are on the left, but they're using that satire very powerfully, aren't they?

Well, so the nerdy way to describe this is a term called issue priming. And so what happens is that, and we see this across the country today, and there's a recent poll that said that the dominant feeling in the public is exhaustion, right? When they're thinking about the 2024 election issue priming means that um certain types of media get people to pay attention and open their minds to an issue so satire is a particularly good Gateway into a topic and so we used to think of satire as the comment on the news. And when I grew up, I watched people like Walter Cronkite. And then, you know, maybe there would be some satire later. But the idea was that

you got your news from a relatively objective source, then the satire came as a comment. That's not what it's doing anymore. Satire is your entry point into some issue and then suddenly you maybe then go and look up oh what is going on with this thing or how is that and so we're seeing that as a complete inversion of the traditional sort of process but what it does do is it gets these um this broader audience as you pointed out the folks that you watched watching SNL, they suddenly watch the bit and go, huh, you know, maybe I do want to pay attention to this. So what I'm seeing in my research is that satire is keeping the U.S. public politically engaged. And that, of course, is always good for democracy. Yeah. Well, it is a thing that pulls them in, you know, making it into entertainment.

And then we go to the other extreme where we start to get these people like Trump, who is throwing names out at people. How is that different how satire and comedy dealt with him because he is already sort of an absurd extreme exaggerated figure so the way i like to describe it is if the satirist has a certain toolbox and in their toolbox, they have a hammer. And that hammer is exaggeration. And they have a screwdriver. And that screwdriver is, you know, infective. Well, Trump already took your best tools out of your toolbox. He's waving them around. So the satirists that I study, what they did was they moved in two directions they started using like a mallet they became aggressive and meaner and more crude because they couldn't

figure out how to get to trump without out trumping him but then they also got more creative and more subtle so it's sort of like you have the Allen wrench and the mallet as the two tools that the satirists were using more frequently as opposed to the hammer and the screwdriver because Trump had already taken them. So what's the Allen wrench look like? It's weird, right? So you get this creative element. What he did was he forced the satyrs to get more creative than they typically need to be, because the easy jokes were already being made at some level by Trump in a semi-sincere way. So he didn't, you know, when you have Trump mocking Kim Jong-un, like, well, how do you make fun of that? You have to think of something else. Yeah, it makes it very difficult.

He really has reset the rules for a lot of things, and I'm not just talking about the precedents that he set in, but it really has changed things a lot. Give us an example as to how social movements have used satire, because the foreword to your book is

written by someone who has done that in his own country. Talk about how we have seen this work, let's say in other countries before we get to the U.S. Yeah, so we have a data set of about 420 cases of this dating back over 100 years and really with examples on every continent. So this is a major research project. And what we find is that contrary to what your gut instinct would be, right? The concept is if we have a social struggle, where say, want to protest Putin, or we want to enact some sort of significant social change, we should be very serious. This is the gut instinct, we should be serious. We should be taken seriously. Well, our research finds that

one of the core issues is that activists tend to be described in negative ways because they seem like they're disruptive. They're threatening to the status quo. Maybe they seem selfish or marginal. So when you use an element of laughterivism, you can actually have the target be the center of the story, not the disruptive activists. So, for example, think of, we like to think of the story of what happens in Russia, because there's many, many, many examples of this there. In Russia, you're not allowed to protest. So let's say you say, well, we have this thing, we want to express it, we don't know how to do it, we're going to get arrested, we're going to look disruptive. So instead, one of our favorite cases is one where a group of people in northern Russia decided to set up their protest with toys, with little Legosos and the legos and little figurines were holding the signs they

wish they could be holding up so they set this whole big uh toy pretend protest in the middle of a main square and then they step back and they start to videotape what's going to happen. The police show up. They say, this isn't good. We can't, we don't like, you know, anything critical of the government, but it's toys. What do we do? So to make it even more ridiculous, they call the Kremlin and the Kremlin says, you have to take them down. And the excuse that they make is that the toys are not Russian citizens. So therefore have no, because they were made in the toys are not Russian citizens, so therefore have no,

because they were made in China, capacity to express themselves, which then becomes, and your listeners will think I'm making this up. It really happened this way. So now the protesters got their message out. They got major media coverage. And what they did was they showed that the Russian government is so overreactive to anything, any sign of critique. So they make them look absurd and the activists look clever. And so when you see this kind of process play out globally, we just have really, really good evidence that it makes a big difference. Yeah. And I'm thinking of China. You know, when President Xi got so upset about anything that had to do with Winnie the Pooh, somebody put out when Obama went to meet with Xi, somebody juxtaposed to it. They had Winnie the Pooh and they had Tigger because Barack Obama was thinner and taller and Xi was shorter. And they put that out, and he got very angry about that. And so then Winnie the Pooh became this emblem of protest against she.

And the more he tried to shut it down, the more ridiculous he looked. Well, what we find is when you have an autocrat with a particularly thin skin, this stuff is even easier to do. So she's a really good example. And so you get it with putin you get it with she you get it with erdogan you get it with lukashenko uh you get it from lukashenko in belarus for example needs a constant feeding of his ego so there's protests that we study where folks go and they're forced to listen to a public speech, but they air clap instead of actually clapping.

And then what does he want to do? He arrests them. So the point is that when somebody is just being mocked and they respond with this vicious anger, it just makes them look stupid. And it really helps the protesters increase their credibility when they reply that they're a stable genius it doesn't really work out for their well we know that trump for example looked into trying to censor snl and so again instead of the best thing you can do if you're in power and people are making fun of you is to laugh at the joke. Yeah.

Right. You laugh at the joke. You go, ha ha ha. You know, she says, yeah, yeah, yeah. I could lose some weight, whatever. And then the joke is over. That's right. But these guys don't do that.

They get agitated in there and there, you know, they get outraged. And so consequently, it becomes even funnier. Their reaction adds to the humor. And so the satire is really kind of a litmus test for the kind of person that you don't want in authority, isn't it? Well, you know, I mean, at the end of the day, satire is going to go after figures of power, period. It's what it does. And so, again, the reaction is at some level is really part of the story like i like to tell the story of when chevy chase was impersonating um gerald ford and making

him seem like a complete bumbling idiot i remember that that's what i remember from Saturday Night Live. Yeah, exactly. Right. At the end of the day, Ford wasn't spastic, as Chevy Chase portrayed him. But he joked about it. And so the joke was all in good fun. They still did the impersonations, but it didn't have this sort of reframing of his persona that we see when the person in power really has a negative reaction. I agree. Yeah, a lot of people will say that it's not good for democracy. What would your answer be to that? Well, I happen to know the truth. Mm-hmm. And it absolutely is good. I mean, it's good in the, like I said, in the sense that it helps people be informed. It helps them make better decisions.

It helps them engage. And most importantly, it helps get them to, you know, the, you know, the polling places. They vote. And so, and they vote with better knowledge of issues. So all of those things, I think, come together to tell us that this is a very effective thing. And one of the things that is super important is the way it helps energize young voters. Yeah, a lot of people will say, you know, that it just distracts people. It's just entertainment and that type of thing and it can be shallow but of course a lot of people even if they look at the news it can still

be a shallow thing if it gets them engaged if it gets them to think but as i said before i think it's a very important thing to to show the character of the person right you know that if they can't laugh this off there's something wrong here And that becomes a big red flag in terms of their character, their stability, how they think, how they view power and that type of thing. If they can't laugh at themselves, I think that is a key thing, but it is a very powerful weapon. What do you think is going to, what is this next campaign going to look at? Because we know that Trump is most likely going to be the Republican nominee. I mean, it's still very early in that, but he doesn't want to have any debates. And clearly, everything that happens to him endears him even more to the MAGA crowd.

So what do you expect to see different this time around? Because we've now had, by the time he's running, we're going to have about eight years of Trump. And so if he tries to do the same types of things, will they work? Or is he going to try to do something different? And how will people react to what he does differently? So from what I see, he's just circling the wagons because his base of support is smaller, but it's still that base is very devoted. Those voters are voting for him, period. You know, where we are today, it won't matter what happens. He can't, he could get indicted.

He could have some other scandal, those folks are voting for him, period. So what we are more interested in when we think about things like voters, and, you know, the effect of satire on voters is that big middle that maybe could go either way, or even more importantly, doesn't necessarily always vote. So those are the folks that you're curious about. And from what I can see, again, there's not, I don't think we should expect a lot of surprises from Trump. Because at this point, we kind of know what he's going to do. And we know how he will react to criticism. What we want to see, I think, what is going to be interesting is how the satire will deal with Biden. Because, you know, at the end of the day biden is really old he can make lots of verbal gaps he has been a pretty predictable subject for satire um so we have to see what happens there right so does that

sort of joking at biden uh hurt him know, how do we handle all of that? So I think at the end of the day, that's probably the more interesting part of the story. So is satire going to be primarily personal? Because we look at this and we're thinking about, you know, Trump's ego, his, you know, the lawsuits that are there. So it's really kind of about him personally. We talk about Biden and it's about his mental capacity and, you know, it's kind of quasi dementia or full dementia, depending on your perspective.

Is it going to be about that or is there going to be, uh, is it fundamentally about the person or can it be about the issues where people satirize them on? That's a really excellent angle to take, and it's important to recognize the answer is yes, we will get all of it. We will get all of it. And it's going to be a spectrum. And at some level, it'll move from satire to just mockery and sort of insult comedy.

And so, you know, you have to be prepared to analyze that full spectrum. I think what makes satire particularly powerful in US politics or global politics is the way that it goes after policy, and is the way that it reframes narratives. One of the most important things that satire can do is say, hey, you know, CNN is representing this as this or that. But you know what? That's wrong. These are not the two choices. That's when satire is at its absolute best.

That's when it really, really helps the public rethink what it wants from its government. Right. Yeah. Because the ad hominem attacks don't really get us anywhere. And I think they can frequently backfire. You know, you can start to feel like somebody is being unfairly picked on. And so there's always that danger that it's going to backfire if you go ad hominem. It's kind of one of the things that i think has really

backfired on trump because he goes ad hominem with the people that he doesn't like you know coming up with uh vicious nicknames for them that are just nasty they're not they're not clever and they don't uh seem to help him so you know sometimes that type of an attack, personal attack, I think backfires. What is the difference between that kind of personal vicious attack and clever satire? How would you distinguish those? Well, like I said, sometimes it's a very blurry line, but in Trump, what we see is that he does have a fairly, you got to give him credit. He has a fairly clever way of denigrating anyone he sees as a threat. And coming up with some,

you know, Ron DeSantimonious, lying Ted, you know, little Marco, some little phrase that gets stuck, frankly, in people's minds. may not agree but trump's characterization is there yeah and so uh what happens is that he's he's basically gotten ahead of who he sees as a an opponent He's framed them according to his idea,

and then they have to play a game to re-pivot out of that. It's a very powerful tool. What's I think interesting is that I don't believe we've ever had a candidate on the left or the right that was so vicious towards his own party and will go after his, you know, technically his peers. I mean, if he thinks that you're not 100% behind him, he's just going to hammer you and again, come up with some really, you know, frankly, at times, immature criticism. And yet that becomes a really powerful part

of the story meanwhile satire tends not to live in that space you can have again that insult and mockery um in my you know uh view that's not true satire that's like you said, ad hominem. That's just mockery. Real satire goes after ideas. It goes after policy. It goes after failures in logic. It goes after, you know, again, the sort of larger concepts, not individual physical traits, things like that. Talk a little bit about leftivism. And, you know, you said that you look at that as a social activism. Is this something that is kind of formalized in your study as a professor there? Or is it just kind of a clever acronym that you put together? No, I mean, it really is a very specific formal area we study.

We have a very particular definitions. We you have to have particular components in your activism for us to, you know, designated laughter visum. The most important thing about it is that you've designed your activism where you put your opponent in a dilemma where that dilemma is going to reflect badly on them so if we go back to the example of putin with the toys uh putin doesn't have a choice, right? If he lets the toy protest stand, he looks weak. If he dismantles the toy protest, he looks absurd, like he's scared of toys. So when you do that, you really have a lot of power. Same thing with Lukashenko. We're air clapping.

You let us air clap? What happens then? You look weak. You arrest us? You look absurd as though you're misdirecting your power. So that's really at the heart of what effective leftism is doing. It means that no matter what the response of your target, it will help your cause and diminish theirs. So what should Putin have done? Should he have made up signs praising himself or denigrating the protesters and have his police go out there and take off the other little toy signs and put their signs on there?

Yeah. Sadly, the problem with this research is that we're basically giving a playbook to autocrats on what they might do that could be better and actually that sort of um playful response is would be the best response the playful response would be you know having the local police put their own little police toys out or something like that, that would then be, you know, it would completely disrupt the activists, you know, intentions. There's lots of ways to do it. I'm not especially excited to help consult with autocrats on how to stay in

power. I'll leave it there. Keep them dry, humorless, and egotistical. That's where we want them. Stay better. No helpful hints there. I think it's going to be a much bigger part of this campaign because, as I was just talking about earlier, both Biden and Trump said, we don't want to have any debates.

Of course, they don't want to have any debates. Everybody is tired of them. They don't want them to run again. They're going to try to, to i think minimize their public exposure when trump gets his public exposure it's going to be things that are going to solidify him with his maga base i think as we go through this uh yeah well yeah yeah what i was going to say is what that does though is it it may really depress turnout because like i said there are people today who are going to vote for Trump no matter what he does. And there are people today who are going to vote for Biden

no matter what he does. But the big middle, which in this country, in terms of voting demographics, is a solid one third of the electorate, right? They aren't sure. They haven't decided yet. And so if those guys don't debate, if they don't give us, you know, the folks that imagine themselves as independent or cross-party voters, if they don't give them any help, they may not turn out.

Yeah, that's absolutely right. So I guess, you know, there's a little bit of material that they could do there to make fun of them for not debating. But, you know, other than that, it's going to be really it's going to be about satire. Let's talk about late night TV, because that has been a tremendous change in the way that we see everything that you point out. You know, the news begins with entertainment. It's an entry point to take people into it.

How do you see this changing moving forward? Because it took a pretty big hit during the pandemic as they were shutting everything down. They've taken a big hit on their audience. How do you see this happening? Things going to revive during this campaign? Are they going to play a big role in this, or have they diminished? So I think it's a pretty complex question, what you're asking. One of the things is that when we talk about late night taking a hit,

we tend to look at viewers of the show in terms of things like Nielsen ratings. But at the end of the day, many, many, many people are now just watching clips. So there was a bunch of news coming out when Greg Gutfeld's show at Fox News was outperforming shows like Stephen Colbert on CBS. And the story was, wow, look, these guys don't have the ratings and support they used to have. Except that when you look at YouTube, Gutfeld maybe gets 500,000 viewers on a good day, whereas, you know, he's getting 3 million or so when he airs on Fox. Meanwhile, Colbert that gets like 2.2 million on CBS gets about 5 million on YouTube. So I think at the end of the day, we really are talking more about recognizing that cable news or cable television is not the dominant media that people are consuming.

So when you break it out and you look at things like Twitter and you look at TikTok and you look at YouTube and you look at even shares on Instagram, you start to see, oh, this stuff that we thought of as TV is actually showing up in all of these other media spaces. And if you aggregate it there, it is not waning at all. Yeah, I think, though, that when you look at YouTube, I think that what we're seeing there is the fact that they're curating the content. They're promoting some content and not allowing. That's kind of been abandoned by a lot of people who have been kicked off of that platform. And so I think, you know, part of that is you're seeing the power of gatekeepers, you know, like YouTube, like social media, that type of thing.

But, you know, it's kind of interesting. You mentioned Gutfeld. And it is interesting to me that he has now probably after Tucker's gone, I guess he's maybe the most popular one there at Fox News. And essentially, he's a comedian who is coming into politics. And that's his entry point is comedy. To a lesser extent, maybe Jesse Waters kind of has that same type of vibe. And they're becoming much more popular than,, you know, the Sean Hannity's or the Laurie Ingram's who seem to be losing popularity on the right.

It's now, you know, the right is getting into comedians as, you know, the entry point to this. Well, I mean, at a simple level, you can think of it this way. If we want to compare like Gutfeld and Hannity. Gutfeld, let's say they're effectively their messages are the same. The information that they're sharing is basically the same. But the difference is that Hannity is angry and bitter and Gutfeld is sassy and snarky and has that sort of impish grin when he's

telling you the same basic thing. And so if you could choose, which is the source you want to go to? Do you want to go to the source that makes you angry and bitter and kind of ruins your night? Or do you want to watch Gutfeld, who's, you know, basically, again, saying the same thing, but doing it where you're like, ha ha know we have a way through this and so again a lot of research that i looked at uh we know that that the human being just prefers the pleasure of comedy over this doom and gloom everything is you know you know going up in flames sort of messaging we get whether we're watching cnn or fox or msnbc doesn't matter right and so so the comedy is this like real uh you know emotional boost

even though the content in it may be very similar to what you're getting in straight news i agree yeah when you go back and you look at, you did a CNN series, The Story of Late Night. I'm assuming you went back to Johnny Carson and Hal Carson and Leno and David Letterman, certainly in the early days, how they would cover politics as a current event. But they, in the early days,

they were not partisan about that, right? No, no, they were not partisan about that right no no they were not they were it was very rare that you would see them really cross into it of course you could go all the way back to folks like lenny bruce who of course was uh quite outspoken about the things that he was passionate about but he didn't have a you know a regular televised show um the the one show that i think is super important in the history of uh televised comedy is the smothers brothers who oh yeah again started off as basically a variety show with a lot of comedy and then became more political in their condemnation of Vietnam and then were, you know, taken off the air for it. So what we see today is that the politicization of late night brings viewers in and sort of protects

these shows because they make money. And, you know, the ideological impulses that we saw that, you know, shut down this Smothers Brothers, for example, we don't see that happening in the same level anymore with cable. Yeah, you know, when I look back, that's a good point about the Smothers Brothers and also about Lenny Bruce. And you can see in the biography about Lenny Bruce, and I've seen it in other political activists, you know, they can start out as a comedian, that's the way those Smothers brothers were, but then as they got more attached to their, their topic, they went from Greg Gutfeld to Sean Hannity, if you will, you're right. They get, they, they lose the humor as they get angrier and angry about it.

And, you know, certainly there was a censorship involved on the part of CBS. They didn't want him talking about that Smothers Brothers. But they were also losing their audience because they were getting very strident and angry about it because they became very partisan, very attached to whatever these issues were. And that's the key thing that is really kind of fatal to the satire stuff, isn't it? Well, it depends, right? Because at some level, when you play the center and we've certainly had a lot of examples i mean jimmy fallon um has mostly stayed out of it uh he lost viewers at

the beginning when he kind of refused to to engage with some of the political issues that were shaping the country so uh one of the things that we saw right after Trump was elected was the fact that if you didn't talk about him, then people didn't watch you. So that is a very significant shift that is quite different from, for example, what we would have described as what was happening in the 60s. So that's one of the changes. The other change that I analyze in my book that I think is really stunning is that for most of U.S. history, satirists are critical of systems and they try to get people to think about things and to rethink how they engage with issues during it started after 9 11 but during trump we could really see this new facet of the satirists where they were defending

our institutions so you had seth meyers uh chastising trump for not being presidential after the charlotte school attacks you had hassan minaj chastising trump for not being presidential after the Charlottesville attacks. You had Hasan Minhaj chastising Trump for not understanding what the First Amendment stands for. So this was a really strange sea change where suddenly the satirists were operating as defenders of the core institutions that frame our democracy. And at some level level once you start to see that that trans you know transformation has taken place you can see that we're really dealing with a new era that is completely different from say what the smothers brothers were doing right and of course the other uh pitfall for people is as they're going to become partisan uh when they're no

longer in opposition they lose a lot of their material. Um, they don't want to criticize their guy as much. And so that's, that's something that I guess they can look forward to a period of growth here through this, at least through this campaign. Uh, and, uh, if the other guy wins, it's going to be, uh, you know, a box office bonanza for them when that happens. Uh, the book is Trump was a joke and how satire made sense of a president who didn't.

Before we finish, give us an idea of how anything made sense of Trump. How do you make sense of Trump? Even with satire, how do you make sense of it? Well, I mean, the simple way of saying it is that Trump was the most absurd president this country has ever had. You know, like I said, to imagine a president that was tweeting at all hours and often in ways that are incomprehensible, regardless of what you thought about his policy, his just public persona was absurd. So the best foil for that was a, you know, absurd satire, not just somebody the next day on the news saying, well, Trump last night decided to tweet. So that doesn't work. You know, I like to think of it as if you're at the circus, you want to hold up the funhouse mirror, right at the clown, because that's how you see what the clown is really doing. And when the straight news is just like, oh, this person's

a clown, it doesn't work, your brain can't process it in the same way. So at some level, I think one of the most exciting parts of my book is actually the part where I talk about sort of the neuroscience of what satire does to your brain and how it's really effective at countering things that you are processing that are absurd, that, you know, again, are exaggerated, make no sense. Well, tell us a bit more about that. What does it do to your brain in terms of as you're processing satire? How is that different? It's, okay, so at one basic level, satire is all about irony, which means that it uses words and representations

in ways that are not literal. So, for example, when I lie to you, I'm also not using words in a way that's you know true and accurate but that depresses you right if i say hey you know the atlantic ocean is the biggest ocean in the world your brain says wait what and it says no but it but that process of refuting it it's depressing and if you do it again and again if i say hey i won the 2020 election the brain's like no you didn't and but it but it gets depressed and and what we find is that if if you say it enough times if you lie again and again the other example i like to use is the relationship one.

It's like, no, I really am. I love you. I'm so good to you. And you're like, it doesn't feel like that. So that process is really, really bad for your mind. It has to think this through, but it's coupled with depression and anxiety and fear. So it's that cognitive dissonance between what you're hearing and what you know is really true. And it's fatiguing. And that's what we're living through so much, right? Satire, though, does an almost identical thing. Stephen Colbert, when he had the Colbert Report,

used to say, George W. Bush, great president or greatest president to people he was interviewing. So this is perfect, because it shows he's giving a false choice, but he's playing with it. You watch that, and you go, haha, because you know, he doesn't mean anything he's saying. And so what's fascinating there is your brain, again, takes in a misrepresentation, but it's a playful misrepresentation. And when you get it, you feel clever, you feel smart, and you feel energized because he framed it as, oh, this guy is messing up. But he doesn't say it that way. He says it in this clever, playful way. And so that's sort of the easy way to recognize the differences between the two. And so satire just

has this huge capacity to light up your mind. And when they do fMRI research, they literally see your high cognitive capacity firing up as well as your pleasure in your brain. And that's what makes satire so powerful. Well, that's interesting. You know, because I did, I used to enjoy, again, even though his politics were different, I used to enjoy Stephen Colbert's report. I find that he got much more didactic, you know, as he's doing late night TV now. And so, and that's absolutely right because you can look at that and you can laugh at that choice.

You know, the greatest president or a great president or the greatest president, you know, that's a good example of that. It's a lot more, I think, as you said, playful. That's the key thing about it that seems to be as people get drawn into this, again, I go back to the examples of Lenny Bruce and others who they lose that playfulness because it just gets so serious with them. And they lose their sense of humor and their sense of

playfulness in it. I think that's a key part of it. Well, it's great talking to you. Very important subject. And we all need to understand how effective that is. Satire is to nudge people and to influence behavior. Because that's kind of the world that we live in right now is behavioral psychology, isn't it? So thank you so much for joining us again. The book is Trump Was a Joke, How Satire Made Sense of a President Who Didn't. Written by Dr. Sophia McLennan. Is that the right way to pronounce your last name? Yes. Thank you so much. Very interesting subject. We'll be right back, folks. Joe, we've got a problem. Who are you? It's the

new mug they're selling at the David Knight show dot com right? So, basically, a mug is something that holds liquid, right? Because basically you can't hold coffee with your hands, right? I'm a scat in the, but anyone tries to mug me, I be ready for it. You dog-faced

pony soldier. They say the mug can help patriots drink coffee, then save the world. This could be bad for us. Save the world? But we own the world. These people, they're supporting free speech with every

mug they buy. Come on. These people, I tell you, well, well, anyway. You're listening to The David Knight Show. All right, welcome back. Let's talk a little bit about the Second Amendment. This is, we're leaving the satire part of our program,

but I guess we might as well wait and look at what is happening here in Tennessee. The red flag laws and what the Tennessee governor is doing, does he not really understand the state that he is in? Does he not really understand what is going to come of this? On Monday, he was asked what he hopes to see from the special session that he wants to call to address red flag laws or some kind of gun regulation here in Tennessee. And he once again talked about his idea of a temporary mental health restraining order. And so he wants to call lawmakers back.

Again, they don't have exactly a schedule yet on this, I don't think. But I talked to Senator Nicely yesterday, and he said he doesn't think anything is going to happen, not in Tennessee. And the whole problem is this idea that you've got to do something. Got to do something now. Got to placate, got to appease people. We look at satire and how effective that is, but it is also very effective to get somebody in a position where they're trying to appease your position. That is a position of power over that person. And what Lee is doing is essentially putting the gun control lobbyists in a position of power over him.

They will never be appeased by anything that he does. They've made that very clear. So it's going to go to another step if they get this part of it. It's only going to encourage them. As Bearing Arms said, this is the same governor who signed constitutional carry into law. He's got a good track record when it comes to supporting the right to keep and bear arms. So he said, I think he's just trying to respond to public pressure to, quote unquote, do something. And this is where they trap people.

I remember when there were the community meetings that were being run by the, uh, Democrat Congressman David Price, where we lived. And it was about Hillary Clinton trying to take over healthcare and he'd get the peoples up and they would all have a gripe about something that was wrong with the health system. It's far from perfect, but they would all end was it's time. We do something. I don't know exactly what we should do, but we should do something. And it's like, well, you better think about what you're going to do, because

sometimes the things that you do exacerbate the problem, you know, throwing gasoline on the fire. Uh, he's called for the red flag law. He says that does not allow for ex parte hearings. In other words, hearings where you're not a part of it. And, um, and you don't know what's happening there. Uh, it requires the subject of the petition to have access to an attorney.

But the fundamental flaw in his plan is what I've always said about red flag laws. If somebody is dangerous, they're going to be just as dangerous. The person is dangerous, right? It's the person who's dangerous. The gun is just a tool. That dangerous person, and we've seen this happen, can get an SUV and run people down at a Christmas parade.

They can kill people with their bare hands. They can kill people with a bomb. They can kill people with a knife or a sword or anything. And so if the person is dangerous, something needs to be done about that. But as he points out, that's a much more complicated situation, much more complicated. It's very easy just to focus on some, oh, MacGuffin, the gun, and say, that's it. We're going to take care of that. And of course, nobody wants to talk about what's happening in our schools. That's why in the wake of all this, I talked about SSRIs. I talked about

what is happening to young people with all this peer pressure that's being put on them about gender and these other things in school, it's a whole nother level of pressure on kids who are struggling growing up, going through puberty that we've never seen before in our society. And it's having severe mental consequences for these kids. And as they have severe mental, go into depression or something like that, again, as we were just talking about in this interview, you tell somebody something that they know is not true and they're fighting

with that. And it's a lot of energy in that. And it makes people angry. It makes people depressed. Oh, well, you're angry and depressed. Let's give you SSRIs. That'll make you happy. And so it is a downward spiral. But it doesn't change none of this. It changes the fact that the underlying premise, it says, bearing arms, is still about taking guns away instead of treating the dangerousness, if you will, of the individual. That is ignored.

And so as we look at this and we talk about Trump, the bump stock issue is still bumping around in the courts. We've now had the Sixth Circuit panel rejecting the bump stock ban yet again. They did this once before, but then it did not work completely. And what happens is as these cases come before the circuit court, they will have a three-judge panel take a look at it and make an assessment. And they may leave it at that, or they may demand that they have to have the entire court in bonk, I think is the way you pronounce that. But all of them will weigh in on that and that's what we have seen in the past but in this particular case um that happened yesterday

the sixth court of appeals concluded that a bump stock is not a machine gun and so in this article they have a couple of uh quotes from a couple of different judges. This is from Reason Magazine, one of the judges, Gilman. So the position of a machine gun is a criminal offense under the Gun Control Act of 1968. But there's ambiguities in how this statute applies to a machine gun. In other words, is a bump stock really a machine gun? And again, is a machine gun is other words is a bump shot stock really a machine gun and again the machine gun is a you know an imprecise term what they're talking about is full auto right and but they call it a machine gun in the 1968 act and so this is where they're playing around with it but let's understand that there is no authority for the kind of for any control of machine guns. Concord and Lexington happened because they were coming after the cannons

at Concord and Lexington. You had Goliad happen, the come and take it flags. It's got a cannon on it. Santa Ana was coming for the cannons at a fort. And the British were coming for cannons as well as for state-of-the-art rifles that they had there the judge goes on to say an act of congress could clear up the ambiguities but so far congress has failed to act why well because they always want the bureaucracy to do this they have abdicated what they're supposed to do. So we have regulation

without representation, taxes without representation and so forth. But again, let's understand that, as he said, the ATF has been on both sides of this issue. In the Obama administration, the ATF said that the bump stock was not a machine gun. That was their determination. And then in the Trump administration, they said it was why'd they say it was well, because Donald Trump told him to say it was again, this is coming from him. He pushed this. Just think about the fact that he pushed to define a bump stock as a machine gun, something that Obama didn't do as explained by another judge Murphy and gun owners of

America another case gun owners of America versus Garland the best reading of the statute is that Congress never gave ATF the power to expand the law banning machine guns through a legislative shortcut using an ATF rule but again this is not the first time the sixth panel has ruled that bump stocks are legal. A prior panel reached the same conclusion on different grounds in 2021, and then they granted a rehearing for the full court, and the full court split 8-8, which meant the lower court decision

stood, and that the government's position, the ATF's position, Trump's position, stood and prohibited the bump stock. So now they have, in this particular case, they've now won again with a sixth circuit panel, but it is also likely to go the same way, eight to eight. Now, as we talk about school safety, I think one of the most important things would be to arm teachers. And of course, you know, people in Tennessee could and have said, as Senator Nicely said, look, we've approved $154 million for school security, $140 million of it for public schools, and $14 million for private schools.

And so they have done something for security. But still, I think the most effective thing is to have teachers who are armed and armed with weapons that people don't know that they have. They're not in a uniform. A uniform can help to be a deterrent, but it also makes that person a target. And if you have a situation where somebody has a gun on them and they know how to use it and they've been vetted and they've been trained and so forth, they're now in a situation where they're going to be defending themselves or defending these children that they know who are there with them.

It's a very different situation than having somebody have to rush into a building where they're being shot at, where other people are being shot at. That requires a lot more heroism. We're talking about self-defense versus heroism. But in Detroit, we had a teacher who has now been arrested because he had a handgun fall out of his knapsack. He decided that the school was dangerous, and it is.

We all know that. This happened in Detroit on April the 19th. That stellar day in terms of guns. When they came for the guns that Lexington conquered, they came for his gun when it fell out of his knapsack. They alleged that it fell out of a knapsack onto a hallway

floor. Detroit police officers called to the scene. They said, well, I revere educators. I love educators. I love the Second Amendment, but we can't have both of those things, right? Their jobs are among the hardest of today's, but we simply can't ignore the alleged conduct in this case, a teacher bringing a gun into a weapon-free zone, because by making them gun-free zones, you make everybody there an easy target. That's it for today's broadcast. Thank you for listening. The David Knight Show is a critical thinking super spreader.

If you've been exposed to logic by listening to The David Knight Show, please do your part and try not to spread it. Financial support or simply telling others about the show causes this dangerous information to spread farther. People have to trust me. I mean, trust the science. Wear your mask. Take your vaccine. Don't ask questions.

Using free speech to free minds. It's the David Knight Show.