The David Knight Show - 27Dec23 David Knight Show Unabridged

Episode Date: December 27, 2023

Gard Goldsmith, Liberty Conspiracy, hostsAs Susan Collins begins her gun control crusade, a judge tries to carve up SCOTUS Bruin decision Border crisis, Biden makes political move in Mexico and in opposition to Abbott, TSA stands down Mark Levin spins the Constitution on immigration, but here's what Constitution says and subsequent immigrationJames Bovard joins Gard to talk about his new book "Lost Last Rights", the sequel to "Lost Rights"Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.comIf you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-showOr you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @[e-mail] App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Money is only what YOU hold: Go to DavidKnight.gold for great deals on physical gold/silverFor 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to TrendsJournal.com and enter the code KNIGHTBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-david-knight-show--2653468/support.

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

If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor, free of charge. But MGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. Using free speech to free minds. You're listening to The David Knight Show. I'm Gardner Goldsmith, filling in for David with a great tip of the hat to David and his entire family, and to you.

Thanks for believing in freedom, one and all. We've got a very busy day today on this as we round off December. So many stories to discuss. Let's find out what's on tap for today. 12-27.23. Thanks for joining me, everyone. And again, thank you to David and everyone in the Knight family and to you, the audience, and all the people out there who've supported The David Knight Show and the principles of individual liberty so well. I thank you so much for joining me from today to noontime, from 9 a.m. to noontime today.

We'll be tripping across the world. We'll be running across the world and checking out major stories that might have a bearing on your freedom, plus historical context that might allow us to carry away some intellectual ammunition to defend freedom. I'm really glad you're here, one and all. You can join us in Rockfin, in Rumble, and on Twitter, and on DLive. And I hope that you are having a very good morning as we round off this 2023 year. And what a year it has been. We'll take a look at some of the things that are big on my list for the year on Friday. Tomorrow, Tony Arterburn will be filling in. Tony, of course,

of Wise Wolf Gold and Silver Exchange. And I'm looking forward to hearing from him. He and I have been chatting with each other and he was going to be able to take tomorrow to take that chunk of the morning out. So I'm really anticipating his wisdom. It's always great to hear Tony. His knowledge of history and politics and philosophy is amazing. Amazing. And it's incredible to think that I can be in touch with such people as David Knight, as Tony Arterburn, and as many of you in the chats as well,

at Rockfin and on Rumble. And by the way, if you are watching on David Knight's Twitter feed, you can comment in there as well, because now the streaming system that I get to use also allows me to see the comments as we're streaming live on David Knight's X feed, which, of course, is at Libertarian. That's at Libertarian. So welcome everyone to the program. Nice to have you along for the ride. Let's see what's on tap for today. The David Knight Show for 12-27-23. Yes, indeed, one and all. Let's see. Today we're going to be discussing an issue I did not get to discuss yesterday because we just ran out of time.

And it's a big one. And I think it has maybe some echoes of what we might have seen with the Heller decision that might be hidden within it. And as I mentioned here, it's called Bruin versus gun rights. This might be surprising to some conservatives after almost two years ago, the Supreme Court delivered its decision in the New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruin. That's of the New York state government gun rights, Supreme Court's decision. And a lot of people thought it was a real positive. Well, they thought the same thing about Heller. And perhaps in the immediate, it might seem as if it's a positive. But just like the Heller decision almost, what, 15 years ago, not necessarily the case.

We'll talk about what Bruin hides in plain sight as the Illuminati expression might go. We'll also discuss Biden meeting the Mexican president and what that might entail, and a story that really hasn't gotten a lot of attention out there, but I have to say big thanks to the MRCTV team and the higher-ups there allowing me to write a piece on this particular sort of hiding-in-plain-sight, maybe not-so-much so much in sight issue about the United States government, its border policy, which is just amazing and insulting almost every day. And then we are going to look at what the United States government was proposing to do just a couple of weeks ago inside Mexico.

Yes. If you thought today was going to be a charge of caffeine espresso, you are right. Then we're going to talk about Rand Paul's Festivus list. And I have mixed feelings about the Festivus list, but I have to say, again, the MRC TV team, they're so gracious to me. They let me write a piece on this one with a lot of major quotes, and I would love to get your ideas on what you might add to the list of government grievances, especially regarding what Rand Paul lists as waste. And that is the key term, everybody. Then we'll talk about a big new book, and I want to hold it up for you and show you what I have been reading and what you can enjoy as well if you go to the Libertarian Institute's website

and check out the great work of the mighty James Bovard. This is Lost Rights, the sort of sequel to Lost Rights by Mr. Bovard. James is a friend of mine, a hero of mine before I got the opportunity to meet him and then we became friends. And on the back, I think you will see what he might be discussing inside. Yes, police state tactics, police state approach and mentality.

Of course, the loss of rights and what might be coming in the future in the United States. It's amazing. It's voluminous. And I picked out three subjects that we might be able to discuss starting at 11 o'clock. Who knows? We might not be able to get to all of them. But if you have items that you want to discuss, put them in the chat at Rockfin and Rumble. And don't forget, everybody, over at Rumble, until the end of the year, if you want to contribute, I believe that Rumble is not taking a percentage of those contributions. Everything will go to David and the family and David's show, which of

course is only listener supported through donations, through things like Subscribestar, and through the DavidNightShow.com store, the DavidNightShow.com store. And by the way, not as if I'm hawking anything, but since I was praising the MRCTV folks yesterday, as Travis Knight knows, yesterday after I finished the show yesterday, and thank you everyone for all the kind thoughts about hosting the show yesterday. I thought everything was really fun. It was terrific to get all the insights from people. And that really is not a fatuous blowing smoke sort of statement because I see things from people who are covering stuff that I am not getting. And it's just fantastic or insights or thoughts or philosophies,

the way people were brought up. And it gives me windows of images or ideas, logic, that sort of stuff that I can take away with me. So again, it's intellectual ammunition. I really appreciate it. But yesterday, talking about MRCTV, I got together in a meeting. I told Travis, I said, oh, Travis, I'm going to be away for a little while. I have to go to a meeting. And so I got together with the director of MRCTV, Eric Scheiner. And Eric and I sat down. We were hanging out for quite a while, chatting, having a great time. And he's just a really, really good guy. His whole family is terrific. And he's a big fan of the monkeys. He's probably one of the top four monkeys fans with

knowledge of the monkeys, not the great apes, but the band and the television show that sort of was musicians and actors who ended up forming a band themselves after they performed on other people's music. And Mike Nesmith and Peter Tork already had done their own music. And of course, Davy Jones was a very well known Broadway actor. And Mickey Dolenz actually was classically trained on guitar. And then he had to learn drums to play. But he brought me this. So this might be a little something for today's theme. And I'll show you, if I can hold this up, it is the Monkees Banana Nut Soda. I think it's recent. I don't think it's old. And, uh, in line with many of the other interesting tie-ins and promotional items that the monkeys did with things like Rice Krispies and things like that, they now have monkeys, banana, nut soda. And, uh, one of the greatest

sets of music ever put out the great American songbook really can be heard within the Monkees music. Everything from pop songs to psychedelia with things like Zor and Zam and Daily Nightly and the soundtrack to their film Head, working with people like Carole King and Neil Diamond and Bobby Boyce and tommy hart just amazing amazing songwriters of course mike nesmith and peter tork writing their own mickey dolan's writing some great stuff davy jones's performances on vocals and um so they were absolutely wonderful and i am not going to open this one up but he says it tastes like banana nut bread, but in liquid form. And it's not a beer. It's just a soda.

So I want to thank Eric Scheiner right off the bat and thank the whole team at MRCTV. That is something else. And yes, for a while, I collected food that really should not have been made. Like there was a product from Hostess called Grizzly Chomps, which was essentially their Hostess cupcakes. But to save money, they made the product smaller and lighter by pretending that there was a bear involved with the cupcake who had taken a bite out of each of the cupcakes, the two cupcakes that came in the plastic container. So it was called Grizzly Chomps. I also kept a container of Australian Vegemite. This is for you, Harps, and anybody else who might be watching from Australia

or be a fan of Vegemite or Marmite if you're over in the UK. I think personally, just to give you a little insight into what I'm thinking about, when I got to visit Australia, I didn't know what Vegemite was. And I had heard the men at work song, you know, he just smiled and gave me a Vegemite sandwich. And he said, I come from London, you know, okay. Great song, great stuff. And a great band, men at work, amazing musicianship, amazing songwriting. When I got to Australia, I thought Vegemite was just ground-up vegetables on pita bread with maybe a salad dressing oil type thing. I thought that was a Vegemite sandwich.

I didn't know what Vegemite was. I got to Australia, and it's 26, 27 hours of flying from the East coast, go to LA. We had to switch planes at LAX. So I got to see LA from the airport. Maybe it was safer that way. I don't know. And then I flew, we flow out and, and, uh, some flights stop in Hawaii. Uh, but others, uh, just go straight over. We went to New Zealand and I had a torn gluteal muscle. So the entire flight, everybody else was sleeping. I didn't sleep a wink on that plane. And I was in such pain. I was in the middle of a row at a certain point where I couldn't get water. And I had, I was in such pain. I was dry swallowing ibuprofen tablets and not, you know, a lot, but, you know, trying to keep pace. I'm like, oh, geez, it was, it was rough. As Rodney Dangerfield would say, I tell you, it's rough

being me. I got to take IB, give it to me in an IB. Oh, my doctor, Dr. Finny Boom Botts. I love the one from Rodney where he says, I was young. I got no respect. Even as a kid, I told my dad, I said, dad, I'm tired of running around in circles. He said, shut up or I'll nail your other foot to the floor. I'll tell you, it's rough. My wife, oh, she's such a bad cook. We leave dental floss out on the counter. The cockroaches hang themselves.

Oh, man. Anyway, I used to do Rodney Day to feel depression. He's one of my favorite comedians. And he was great with other comedians too. In fact, I think it's Jim Carrey credits Rodney really for giving him a chance, taking him on tour. Jim Carrey was living out of his car and Rodney saw him doing an open mic and said, Hey, Hey kid, why don't you come on tour with me? Rodney was awesome. He was just a really, really standup dude. And so, And by the way, if you haven't seen Back to School with Rodney Dagerfield, you've got to see that.

Oh, man, a lot of people look at Caddyshack and stuff, but you've got to see Back to School. That is a phenomenal film. So we get to Australia from New Zealand. We stop in New Zealand. We get into New Zealand, and it was the most glorious thing. They had hot showers in the bathrooms at the New Zealand, Auckland, New Zealand airport. And you didn't have to get jabbed. I was like, what? Huh? I felt like Scooby-Doo. It was great. So I got in the shower and the hot

water on the, you know, the torn muscle thing, oh, it was just, and after being in the, in the plane and just feeling slimy, it was terrible, you know? So then they flew us, they hopped us over from Auckland to Brisbane. And I stayed one day, uh, it was a rotary, uh, group locally. They picked like young people to switch over in a rotary group. I'm not in the rotary, but they just picked local people to do a cultural exchange with Australia. And it was great. I was there for like six weeks. It was amazing. And so they fly us into Brisbane and I'm all backwards. Everything's upside down. I'm on the other side of the planet. I don't know what's going on in Harps. I think you're in the Rockfin chat. So I think you know what I'm talking about. I've mentioned this before on my Liberty Conspiracy show, and I haven't even

plugged the show yet. We'll do that in a little while. Let me just spend some time with you, everybody. So if you're in the Northern Hemisphere, this will show you what it's like talking about normalcy bias. If you're raised every day with a particular sort of pattern, that is the sun coming up in the east, going down in the west. Okay. sort of pattern. That is the sun coming up in the east, going down in the west. Okay, we pretty much

reliably using abductive reasoning that's deductive and inductive reasoning can kind of figure, okay, I've observed this thing. I'm sort of using my mind now in inductive reasoning to say, I think I can therefore come up with a pretty good theory about what's going to happen in the empirical world. So that's just for the philosophy students out there. But so in the Northern hemisphere, if you're looking at the sun, and by the way, the camera here is on the North sort of North Northwest, you are on the North Northwest looking at me sort of South, Southeast. So if you're looking at the sun, you're sort of looking South. So East is to your left and West is to your right. Okay. If you're in the Northern hemisphere, but if you get in the Southern hemisphere, it's switched.

So everything for the first, I don't know how many days I was there. I was completely confused. I would go running and get lost. It was nuts because if you're looking at the sun in Australia, east is that way you're looking north and west is that way, which is actually one of the errors that they made in those C.S. Lewis films. They shot in many of the areas in New Zealand where they shot Lord of the Rings.

But they didn't. So in the Narnia books, the ice queen is coming down from the north. But they didn't take into consideration that when they were facing north, the people in the northern hemisphere were seeing shadows that didn't line up. They were seeing shadows that looked like they were coming from the north, which didn't make any sense because they literally were pointing north when they shot that film. And you can see the shadows are coming from that away, what you would think would be the north. It's totally messed up. It's very strange. They did it right in Lord of the Rings. And also, by the way, on Planet of the Apes, that cliff with the you-know-what that's in the sand at the end of Planet of the Apes, that's supposed to be the eastern coast facing that statue. So you're facing sort of north. The producers understood that they had to shoot that at a certain time to make sure that it looked like the sunlight was at the right angle for Charlton Heston's character to look like it was the sun was coming up when actually they shot it on the west coast.

The sun was going down, but it looks like it's on the east coast as it should. So just a few things from my film background, working in television at Star Trek. But it's very interesting because the folks hosting me gave me some Vegemite and I didn't know what it was. I was sitting there at the kitchen table and they had toast and the little toast things. And they had these little packets, like you get at the IHOPs and stuff, little plastic packets. They had, you know, blueberry jam and strawberry jam and stuff like that. And they had one that said Kraft on it. And, you know, the Kraft label. And it was this inside of it.

I looked at the bottom. It was like this viscous brown stuff. I'm like, what's that? And he goes, oh, that. And I was like, yeah. And he goes, oh, that's Vegemite. I was like, that's Vegemite? He said, oh, yeah. I was like, well, you know, what do you do? He goes, oh, yeah, you put it on our toast. And I was like, all right. So I said, OK. So I open it up.

He goes, oh, yeah, yeah. But it's very strong. It's very strong, very strong flavor. And I'm like, OK. So he goes, you got to put it on real thin. So I put it on very thin very strong flavor and i'm like okay so he goes yeah put got to put it on real thin so i put it on very thin and he goes ah now now that's much too thick i was like oh he goes you'll see so i scrape it off there's like a micro millimeters worth like a nanometer on there and i put it in my mouth and literally other than maybe the name Nancy Pelosi, it is the dirtiest foulest thing I've ever, ever had on my tongue. It was the worst tasting stuff. And I'm sorry, Harps or anybody in Australia, but I said, what? I was, it was one of those like, Oh, Oh God. You know, but I didn't want to do it in front of the host. And I was like, oh, and he's smiling at me because he knew.

And he goes, I told you it was strong. And I was like, oh, I was like, what is that stuff? He goes, well, you know, when you make beer and like, yeah, he goes, well, we scrape the inside of the barrels as a scum and we scrape it. And that's Vegemite. I was like, what? He goes, yeah, we scrape it and we eat it. Like, wait a minute, wait a minute. I thought this was some unique thing to Australia. I was like, you know, we could do that in the United States. We could scrape the interior of the barrels and put it in our mouths. We don't do that. So I realized what's actually going on. If you ever go to Australia, it's a giant national joke against all tourists who come to Australia. They don't actually eat Vegemite. Right. I mean, who in their right mind would eat Vegemite? They've got to be insane. They got to be like, you know, people who would lock down their their citizens and not let them move from, say, Victoria to Queensland.

They would mandate travel passes and arrest people for not wearing masks. They would never eat that stuff. It's a giant national joke. They said, yeah, we got another one. We got them to eat that crap. It's the same thing in England with Marmite. So there you go, everybody. everybody and harps i know you are in rockfin chat i thank you for being there brian den mccartney thank you for being there

karen carpenter thank you so much angus angus mustang brandon bennett boy what a crowd john henry man i love it i love it love it love. And welcome to the program one and all. When you watch, please remember that you can go to the DavidKnightShow.com and see what's happening over there. And of course, when you do, please consider going to the store and finding out what's what over there. We'll check in on Rumble Chat in a little while. But right now, let's find out what's on tap for today on the program. Of course, Bruin versus Gunwright. So let's start off. I think we need a little something special. And for that, I'm going to turn to one of my favorites, everybody, with a man who played basketball for the Boston Celtics. He played professional baseball. He was, of course, 6'5". He was the Rifleman. Gun rights, one and all. The Rifleman.

Second one. Sarring Chuck Connors. I got to say the best thing, the best thing about that is when Chuck Connors looks up for the second time, that's the best part. You see, you see Chuck Connors looking at the screen, right? He looks at the screen and it says the rifle man. And then he looks up like he's heard the announcer. Like, Hey, what are you doing? He gives you that nasty look like, Whoa, that's Chuck Connors. You don't mess with Chuck Connors. And then after they say starring Chuck Connors, then he looks back up again. So they say, sorry, Chuck Connors. Then he looks back up again. So they say, sorry, Chuck Connors. Then he looks back up again and he's like, Hey, you talking to me? And then he kind of gives you a little bit of a smile.

It turns into a little something kind of friendly right there. He starts to smile as his bottom eyelid starts to go up and you're like're like, he's a good guy. I don't have to worry about him trying to wipe me out with his rifle. What a great show. Shot with some of the best film noir cinematographers. They actually brought many of them over from Germany. If you watch The Rifleman, it is really one of the most beautifully shot television shows. I mentioned Route 66 yesterday. It's one of the most. And television shows. I mentioned Route 66 yesterday.

It's one of the most, and they intentionally shot it in black and white. They knew that it was going to look really good for lighting and so on. They really wanted it to look terrific. Did a lot of wonderful exterior shots. And boy, Chuck Connors with his guest star, the boy who played Mark, became a pop star. And he just passed away. He was elderly when he passed away, had some dementia problems, the young man who became a pop star who played Mark.

But he always credited Chuck Connors for being so kind to him and mentoring him for years, giving him great advice so that he could avoid the pitfalls of stardom. Chuck Connors, what a guy. And also, if you get to see Soylent Green, he does a great job with Soylent Green. So let's find out if the government is doing a great job for us or not. Oh, that's right. It doesn't matter.

They're going to take our money. Ha ha ha. And everybody has different views on what the government should do. So maybe some people think it's doing a good job for them and others don't. Well, when it comes to rights, the incipient mindset behind government is that they can break your rights supposedly to protect your rights. Yes, that's the anarchist voluntarist in me. So please check out Liberty Conspiracy at six o'clock Monday through Friday if you'd like to dig in more with the voluntarist philosophy, look at history, look at economics some more. After the David Knight show today, after our three hours together, maybe you want some more. Head over to Liberty Conspiracy. We're on Rockfin, on Rumble,

and on my Twitter feed, which is at Guard Goldsmith. I should have mentioned that earlier. So you'll see here, this is the MRCTV website, and this is the latest one from yours truly. It was released yesterday, thanks to the great team at MRCTV. And it says, federal district judge rules Massachusetts gun ban constitutional. Seriously. And this is why I've talked on my show with Toby Leary, who owns Cape Gunworks in Hyannis, Mass., sadly very close to the Kennedys and their living quarters around southern Massachusetts and on into other places like Rhode Island for some of the problems that I saw coming and you might have seen coming. And I think also Toby Leary, who is one of the co-owners of Cape Gunworks, who fights very, very hard against Massachusetts encroachments into gun rights. The right, the natural right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. This is what many of us saw coming. Let me enlarge this for you so you can see it on the screen.

And just in case you want to get a, you know, a fine keepsake photograph of me in the corner, you know, but here we go. Federal District Judge rules Massachusetts gun ban constitutional seriously. I want to hit this one first, and then we're going to go into Joe Biden's breaking news story, the breaking news of Joe Biden meeting with the Mexican president. But I think this one might have a little bit more weight to carry with you. The other one is just something that is sort of a leap issue, a leap news story that lets us dive into other issues that are connected to this, which has to do with the border. So the actual meeting of Biden and the president of Mexico might not have any immediate effect on your life. It might be a publicity thing. Maybe they'll come up with

policies, but it does open the door or open the window, the open window, as Psaki might have written, the wonderful little short story that he wrote. It opens a window into discussing the immigration issue and what is constitutional, what is not, what is ethical, what is not. But let's hit this gun issue right now. As I noted, many saw this coming. And I noted the Supreme Court ruling in 2022. Many people who were proponents and defenders of the right to keep and bear arms, they have been issuing warnings, as I often have, about the Bruin decision that came down. It was the New York Rifle and Pistol Association decision in 2022. And the key facet of it,

everybody, was this two-tiered so-called scrutiny that the Supreme Court invented as their so-called litmus test to see if state infringements, which ought to be enough to tell you no, no thank you, on the right to keep and bear arms actually are infringements. Well, as I mentioned, this second tier has become the slippery slope of government inserting itself in the right to keep and bear arms and infringing on it. It's this second tier. I said recently, the second tier standard just invited a lower court to say that it is perfectly fine for Massachusetts politicians to ban guns. So I don't really understand how the second tier comports with the first tier. Well, let's get into it. Nikki Brown reports for CNN, quote,

a federal judge ruled a Massachusetts ban on assault weapons, so-called, love that term, it's undefined and amorphous, it's whatever they think is scary so they can gin up fear in the public and somehow government has to protect you against these things, that assault weapons, this Massachusetts ban on assault weapons, is somehow consistent with a recent landmark Supreme Court decision that established firearms so-called regulations, which is a euphemism for government threats against you engaging in peaceful activity, that these established firearms regulations must be consistent with the nation's so-called historical tradition. So, again, that is the second tier of analysis on the so-called Bruin standard, okay? So, I said,

this focuses our attention on the two levels of so-called scrutiny provided as the new precedent in Bruin. First, the Supreme Court in 2022 ruled that gun grab statutes and anything associated with the right to keep and bear arms, otherwise known as licensing, waiting periods, you might have red flag so-called statutes in there, that they must be studied with regard to the strict wording of the Second Amendment. Okay, that ought to be enough, right? What else do you need? You got the Second Amendment. It's the strict wording. Hello, I think we're done here. Thank you. Let's move on. No, they always have to leave a caveat just like they did in the 2007-2008 Heller decision with Dick Heller. Second, the SCOTUS in 2022 in Bruin ruled on this second level that these rights infringing statutes must be checked

according to their resemblance to any early U.S. gun rights infringing move by a government. So let me get this straight. They're saying, first, you've got to check the rights infringing statutes according to something that says, shall not be infringed, which means you should be done for the day. You can have lunch, dinner, whatever, go home, bye-bye, right? But then they say, oh, yeah, and by the way, you also have to check it according to other infringements of rights that might have come in American history and see if there's a precedent that might have been set.

So what they're saying is if you can find other areas where the Second Amendment has been infringed and say that those are part of American history, which if they have been have been committed against people, they are part of American history, duh, then they say if those are analogous to the contemporary statute, then that's fine. What? Yeah, I said second, the Supreme Court ruled that these rights infringing statutes, which ought to be a non-starter right there, must be checked according to their resemblance to any early U.S. gun rights infringing move. Again, a non-starter right there, must be checked according to their resemblance to any early U.S. gun rights infringing move, again, a non-starter, by a government, local, state, or federal, that can be viewed as analogous to the contemporary statute. And here is what Judge F. Dennis

Salo-Lafoff, I guess the other three just weren't good enough. They had to have the sequel. That's District Chief Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV said, quote, the relevant history affirms the principle that in 1791, as now, and listen to this language, as now, there was a tradition of regulating dangerous and unusual weapons. Well, that's quite loaded and left up to interpretation and subjective viewing, isn't it?

Dangerous and unusual weapons, says the judge. Specifically, those that are not reasonably. There's another term that they leave open for government interpretation because the government determines what's reasonable. As a former New Hampshire justice of the New Hampshire Supreme Court told me, he later went to Congress, he goes, oh, yeah, we insert reasonable into statutes. So it gives the government lots of room to interpret what's reasonable. Like, oh, isn't that nice? I feel so safe now. Thank you. Bye-bye. So he says, those that are not reasonably necessary for self-defense. So if the aggressors

of government determine that your item for self-defense against the government is not, in their eyes, reasonable to have, well, then they can set their government goons on you and they'll have their tax funded guns to go after you. So that's what he said on Thursday. So I said, let's employ some logic, history and ethics to pierce this smokescreen of socialism. Notice what the judge claimed that in 1791, at the time of the adoption of the Bill of Rights, there was a, quote, tradition of blocking ownership of unusual, so-called unusual, firearms. This exposes first the illogic of the man to claim that any firearm that isn't widely owned is to be distinguished from others. A few Americans owned personal cannons, and Paul Revere used to make them. He with his son. Second, this shows us that

the Bruin second-level standard of, is there historical precedent for an analog to this contemporary kind of rights infringement, has nothing to do with rights or justice. It's an opening for government to point their tax-funded weapons at us while simultaneously pointing to their rationales, previous instances of other government officials targeting people in their own eras. I mean, how much more fatuous could you get? I said, third, this fallacious language from the judge reminds us that the second level of Bruin has nothing to do with the strict wording of the Second Amendment or the first level of Bruin. I said, that's all that should matter to a person operating under the Constitution. If the Second Amendment strictly asserts, nay, mandates that no body of government can

infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, then it doesn't matter who in the Supreme Court or what federal judge creates an exception for one or two or any number of weapons that they don't like. The second level of Bruin actually contradicts the first level, which requires that particular strict reading of shall not be infringed. So they contradicted themselves in their own Supreme Court ruling. They said, yeah, you got to have a strict reading. That's our first level. And our second level is, well, don't have a strict reading. It's absurd. It's so stupid. I said, to cap that off, one might go beyond the Constitution. And again, thank you, MRCTV, for publishing this. I said, to cap that off, one might go beyond the Constitution. Again,

I'm a libertarian Christian anarchist, anarchy not being the socialist 1920s adoption of the term anarchy, which didn't apply to socialists because they were collectivists. They favored government for their purposes, as the left-wingers always have. Many of the peaceniks of the 60s didn't want to dismantle the state. They just wanted to take over the state and, of course, engage in their own warmongering. Just ask Bill Clinton, ask the Somalis, ask the Iraqis, ask the people in Serbia. So I said, if we go beyond the Constitution and we actually see that the Constitution was signed by people who never got our permission to sign it for us, they just signed it. And generationally, people are like, oh, yeah, it applies to you. Really? When did I get my

permission for that? Oh, I never did. That's right. So you can't say that. Right. Well, the only people to whom the Constitution applies are the politicians who swear oaths to abide by it. But again, by swearing an oath to abide by it, it gives them no more so-called authority to dominate our lives in any way because they've signed up to a document we never signed. We never agreed to it. So they've signed on to something that says, yeah, we can play with other people's lives, people who never agreed to this. To me, that's called aggression. That's a mafia system. That's one of the reasons why I'm a voluntarist anarchist. I'm in favor of what's called agorism, voluntary associations.

And what many people might see is a black market, free market decisions apart from government meddling with people and pushing them around. So this gets us to this extra point. Even if they were to amend the Constitution, folks, I said to cap that off, one might go beyond the Constitution and wonder on an ethical, moral level how a group of political players can claim the power to so-called make rules, including so-called constitutional rules, even if they amended the Constitution, for others about how, when, where, and of what kind of firearm they may own. I said, of course, one can wonder, but they in the halls of government claim authority over us. And when you hear people say, well, there's no constitutional authority for that, I hope you'll keep in mind that distinction. The Constitution has no authority over anybody who has not voluntarily signed on to it. And by saying, well, you haven't fled to another place, you're still here. So that tells me I'm claiming, I'm setting the parameters.

By you not fleeing government aggression under even the Constitution, that means you accept it. Since when has that been the deal? You're walking down the street and a robber puts a gun to you and he says, well, you're not running away, so you must accept me. Give me your wallet. And this isn't robbery now. How is that at all morally acceptable and logical? It's not. I said, of course, one can wonder, but they in the halls of government claim so-called authority over us. So we are relegated to the posts of constant fighters, constantly vigilant, to beware the machinations of political predators. In the case of Massachusetts,

this judge is entirely on the side of government. What a surprise. In fact, Judge Zahler took it upon himself to decide that the amorphous, undefined term assault weapons, so-called, can apply to what the state decides. And he also thinks these evil weapons aren't suitable for self-defense. He thinks so, so you must comply with what he thinks. Get it? You have no control over your own tastes and interests. Quote, the assault weapons, as he says, prohibited by the Massachusetts ban are not suitable for ordinary, again, interpreted by him, self-defense purposes and pose substantial dangers far beyond those inherent in the design of ordinary firearms, the judge wrote. End quote. Remember that, I said, remember that when buying a rifle to protect your home from intruders, when buying a rifle to protect your farm or woodland abode, or when you get a rifle to protect yourself against potential government attackers.

Ah, but government exists only by attacking and taking the fruits of our labor. How dare we, like the people at Lexington and Concord in Massachusetts, how dare we, as they did it in April of 1775, want to own our weapons to defend our rights against government goons like this judge who might attack us and our progeny with words that would trigger the government to go after us or those government agents with the tax-funded guns. Massachusetts was the home of the shot heard round the world. Operative and pertinent words being shot and heard. Those ought to be enough for the judged sailors of America to see why the Second Amendment was written. Perhaps they're deaf to the echoes of fights for liberty. Perhaps they, like even the

majority on the Supreme Court, are blind to the meaning of rights and the wording of the Second Amendment. But we are not. We see and understand that the fight for our rights against conniving tyrants never ends. So I hope that was A-OK for you. Let me know your thoughts in Rockfin chat and Rumble chat. And I have to say, Audi is in the chat. Modern Retro Radio creator. Check it out. He's chatting with Jason.

He says, I mean, if we're going to have a Bill of Rights, how about the ones who take an oath to abide by it? Yes. At least we can ask those people to be honest about their oaths. But of course, they use it as a smokescreen. They use it as a beard. So let's look at how one senator is now trying to find her way into further invading gun rights. Of course, she's from Maine. She's Senator Susan Collins, a supposed Republican.

And as you can see here from WT, MTW in Portland, where, by the way, don't forget in Augusta, Maine, they were going to have their meeting just before Christmas to decide on mandating the EVs on people. And they couldn't have the meeting because they didn't have power after a storm. That's great logic on their part. So here it is. Now, this has to do with the military and this mass shooting recently in Lewiston from a person who was in the U.S. military. So here we go. In response to the Lewiston mass shootings, of course, it's always in response, in response.

Well, of course, he picked soft targets, a bar where they served alcohol. They didn't allow firearms. Bowling alley didn't allow firearms, had the signs on the door. And as John Lott has noted, the presence of guns in areas tends to get criminals who are interested in violent criminal acts against people to go elsewhere. We'll talk about that again in a little while. Just the sheer consequentialist argument, the logic of it. We don't have to talk about the morality of it. But this is a very mixed bag because the morality of it is blurred because this is about members of the military. And it gets us into this idea of what is or is not acceptable for a mandate or investigations of people or constrictions on people who enter the military voluntarily.

It's a very interesting story. And Susan Collins is really trying to find an opening here. So if you're in the military, if you're, of course, as Jason Barker is just out of the military, let me know your thoughts. If you know people in the military, let me know your thoughts. Or, of course, if you're paying for the military. Oh, yeah, that's all of you pay her salary, is working on a bill that would require branches of the military to utilize state level weapons restriction laws when appropriate. OK, so those state level weapons restriction laws are otherwise known as infringements on the right to keep and bear arms. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It seems pretty plain. But what happens when you're in the military?

Do you still read the Second Amendment the same way? That gets us to start thinking about what is or is not the militia and how warped the perception is today of what is the army, the army of the so-called United States, because in the original colonial period, in the founding period, there was no army of the United States. There was an army of the Potomac. There were various branches of the military that fought against the British. Once they pushed out the Articles of Confederation and they brought in the usurpation of the Constitution, contrary to the very rules under which they had agreed

to the Articles of Confederation, after they threatened an embargo on Rhode Island to get them to vote for the Constitution to adopt it, the Bill of Rights was brought in because people like James Madison were worried and they established the second amendment, which was a double layer mentioning again, the, so that certain rights they wanted to make sure don't forget, do not infringe on these things. not an enumerated power for the federal government is left to the states. There was no enumeration in there for a standing army. The idea of the standing army was restricted to it is us. We are the militia. And only when there was a declaration of war could the militia be called up.

Or as I mentioned in the constitution, and we'll talk about this in a minute when we get into the immigration issue with Biden going to Mexico. Only if a governor or state legislature asked for militia aid under the president's help, could militia members from other states go into under the under the president, go into another state to suppress an insurrection, rebellion or hard violence that would threaten their constitutional way of governance inside that state. So the Second Amendment should apply at all times. There's no standing army. It's only, and as I mentioned, you can look at one of my MRCTV articles, you look at the California Constitution, you'll see it noted that there is no standing army. It's the militia. They're under the governor's control up to that point until they might be called out on a declaration of war. And even then you don't have to go. They can't just pull you in. You know, they can't, they can't create some

force that's going to pull you in and, and, and, you know, cause, cause you to be drafted into it. You have to decide if you're going to go. And so compulsory military is not part of the original concept and neither is standing army. And of course, there is the amendment in the Constitution. Third Amendment prohibits forcing us to pay for the housing, forcing us to house soldiers. And I would look at paying for the housing of soldiers as basically the same thing as housing soldiers. So if I have to pay for standing bases outside the United States, that I think is housing a soldier on my dime. I shouldn't have to do that. To me, it's all coercion anyway. It's all morality, but it's all immorality. But on the Constitution level, I think that that can be stressed. So Senator Collins, I think, is off base here. Let me give

you more of the story. According to a statement from a spokesman for Susan Collins, it appears military units Lewiston mass shooter Robert Card was associated with, to be very, very poorly written, with which he was associated, did not act to use New York's red flag law or Maine's red flag law. OK, so the first thing we have to ask is, are those red flag laws constitutional? No, they are not. They abridge the second amendment. They infringe on that. And they also infringe on the fourth, fifth, sixth, and eighth amendments because they are taking property from someone without just compensation. They are also infringing on due process. They're infringing on the right to a

speedy trial. They're infringing on the right to a trial in front of a jury of your peers rather than kangaroo courts. They're just taking property. They are punishing people without a trial, which is prohibited by the Eighth Amendment of the Bill of Rights. So they are all massively unconstitutional. New York's red flag law also has seen the killing of one innocent man in the first year of its establishment. Maine's yellow flag law is also unconstitutional. But can it be applied to members of the military in some other way under military commands if there is a federal law statute that is passed to adjust the way the military operates. Well, if you can't have the state statutes, what if they try to say we're

going to write our own federal statute that will be a red flag statute for anybody in the military? That's not the approach she's taking, but I want to introduce that to you as a thought, something in the thought process. Despite numerous warning signs that led to Mr. Card's hospitalization in a psychiatric hospital in New York and the Army's decision to prevent him from having access to weapons, ammunition, and participation in live fire exercises, said Annie Clark, communications director for Collins. Well, where's the rest of that? Oh, they didn't put the rest of that in the report. Again, poorly written. But despite that, of course, he was able to get

his hands on weapons. Well, he was a sniper trainer. He trained for sniping. And it says Card's army unit from Saco trained cadets at West Point in New York for several years. In July, Card was taken to a psychiatric hospital after behaving erratically. Well, of course, Susan Collins has an idea. She says her office says work on the bill is expected to resume in January. And they want to make sure that the state red flag laws apply. A person who helped draft Maine's yellow flag law says Collins' bill would close a so-called safety gap. So, if it doesn't apply to members of the military now,

why does it not apply? Isn't that interesting? I think that Susan Collins is off base. Branches of the military utilizing the state statutes, the state statutes being unconstitutional, would negate the military being able to use them. But again, I pose the question to you, what if the military were to say you can't own a firearm. Well, if you're not currently called up by the military, how can they stop you? Again, it's that question of, does the Second Amendment universally apply? And if we look at the contemporary view of the military,

the concept of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines is really not the original concept for many members of the founding era. Yes, they could form the Navy. Yes, they could have ships. But the idea of a standing army was not part of their lexicon. And so if you are going to be

calling people onto a ship and they're in the militia, then I can't see how even if they are called to service, the government can infringe on their personal right to keep and bear arms. Now, folks in Rockfin chat are mentioning Brian De McCartney says, spot on, Garth.

Thank you, Brian Debb. Thank you, two, two, two viewers in one. And Brian De McCartney says, that guy was a total mind-controlled operative. He definitely had some major problems. That is for darn sure. Want to check out Rumble Chat and see what you have to say in Rumble Chat as well. And thank you all for watching.

Matthew Ronson says on Rumble Chat as well. And thank you all for watching. Matthew Ronson says on Rumble, a weapon in every pot. Thank you very much. Dragon Greta on Rumble says, with militias, you can remove criminal politicians in your state. And Matthew Ronson, good point. Thank you. I want to make sure I mention this if I drop that. The Navy is the only service called to be standing maintained constitutionally. and Hal 9000 Watson again one of the uh most catchy and memorable uh nicknames on any chat that I see that that amazing reference to the evil of IBM during World War II uh Illuminati shooter

card and here we go. A great statement. And I definitely want to mention this, especially because David Knight often will mention this really, really overlooked egregious attack on the right to keep and bear arms and attack on the separation of powers, the assumptive power, the power assumption of Trump,

a stealth Patriot on rumble, everybody, if you're just watching on Twitter, I want to give this to you here on The David Knight Show. Stealth Patriot says, it's sickening to see how many people make excuses for Trump's bump stock ban. Absolutely. He should have been impeached instantly for that. That's a criminal threat against you. If it was Biden who did that, they would have grabbed the pitchforks and torches. So true. And Hal, to say, it's really a heartwarming thing to be here with you and share these things with you. So let's roll some more. But while I have the opportunity, let's take this opportunity to, again, remind you of the great work, and don't mean that with a pun intended for the Illuminati, the great work of David Knight and what he does every day and what you do in the audience. And so with that, I want to offer you the opportunity to check out a little something that I actually put together for my show, a little interlude from the little drummer boy for my little Liberty Conspiracy show that I think you might enjoy. Terima kasih telah menonton Hello, hello, hello. Kampung Kampung Terima kasih telah menonton I like that donkey. He's a-okay. Good donkey. And, of course, I put that together just recording a little something from a music box.

I bought a bunch of music boxes for the family, different songs, like When Irish Eyes Are Smiling and Frosty the Snowman and things like that, and gave them to my family members, little wind-up ones. I love those things. And I can't come close to the amazing powers of David Knight and his musical compositions, his ability to play music, to compose music, his knowledge of classical music and all sorts of wonderful stuff on contemporary music as well. And so I want to give you the season's greetings from New York as a way to sort of spoof myself to remember, folks, I can't come close, but I hope I'm providing

you with good news and information filling in for David Knight today. And of course, if you want to see my show, it's Liberty Conspiracy, Monday through Friday at six o'clock on Rock, Fin, and Rumble. And I didn't intend to make this like a little plug for my show, but I should do that actually. And if you want to find my sub stack, you can go to go to the sub stack. And that is Gardner Goldsmith sub stack. And if you're just listening in your car, it's G-A-R-D-N-E-R Goldsmith, like Gardner Mass. And yeah, you can check that out.

And on Sundays, the Sunday News Assembly has at least 20 stories that pertain to your liberty. And I try to put in contextual information to draw out those lessons of liberty, philosophy, history, economics. And I don't look at it as one of my classes or anything like that, where I might be teaching some philosophical thing or bringing up a term in economics, but I try to draw in some of those themes from the classes so that people reading these things can get that ammunition and arm themselves for future instances of these sorts of encroachments. So thank you very much. And again, if you want to

join the show Monday through Friday, you can join us live on Rockfin and Rumble and on my Twitter feed, which is at guard Goldsmith, G-A-R-D Goldsmith. And you can also see my work at mrctv.org, but please join us on the show. And after the fact, you can also see my work at MRCTV.org. But please join us on the show. And after the fact, you can see the show, give it the thumbs up. And, you know, we're not even a year old. And so I really welcome everybody to join us. And again, remember, if you want to contribute to the David Knight Show today on Rumble or Rockfin, everything goes to those folks in the David Knight family, and they are purely supported by you and your appreciation for his amazing, amazing news gathering, news analysis capabilities, everyday news resources. So let's continue and keep trying to spread the word about The David Knight Show.

In fact, since I played that little piece, I want to show you what it's really about with The David Knight, of course, Christmas album. I'm delighted to present something born from my love for music and the Christmas season. Christmas night is a perfect accompaniment for anything from family gatherings to moments of peaceful reflection. I hope it's to provide a fresh take to the soundtrack of Christmas. This collection of 20 instrumental songs brings new life to timeless Christmas classics. With original orchestrations alongside lesser-known, yet equally enchanting carols. For the listeners of The David Knight Show, this is more than music. It's part of our shared journey.

Christmas night is available at thedavidknightshow.com. May it bring a little extra joy and peace to your Christmas season. Thank you for your unwavering support and for joining me in this new musical adventure. Merry Christmas to all, and all a good Christmas night. Beautiful stuff from David, and boy, is it wonderful. It's absolutely fantastic. His musicianship is unparalleled. It's really, really great. It's just symphonic, it's heartwarming, and I'm going to be listening to it all year long.

It's going to be one of my favorites. And now we're going to hear from another one of my favorites. A little theme to get into our next news item on the program, everybody. We're going to cross the border with Al Stewart. Of course, this song about selling weapons in the maps surround me. What a great song. On my wall, the colors of the maps surround me. I love the chorus. In the village where I grew up, nothing seems the same.

It's just the patterns that remain, an empty shell. Just amazing, amazing lyricism. Al Stewart, of course, Year of the Cat, his biggest hit, but On the Border. And that Spanish guitar, by the way, the man who played it had never really done Spanish guitar before. But he happened to hit something as they were sitting together working. And Al Stewart had this idea. He said, you know, this is about spain and he had an acoustic he says can you do a little spanish guitar riff and the man said well yeah i could try that and it ended up that it became so popular

in the songs that he would do a solo live and uh people would go crazy so he became a spanish guitar player really a remarkable uh set of musicians working with Al Stewart. So let's talk about Joe Biden going across the border, everybody, meeting with the Mexican president. Here's the story from Reuters. Here it is. There they are. Yes, indeed. President Joe Biden meets with Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador. I think tomorrow he's going to add one more name to his name. I'm not sure. It's inflation. You know, you need more names. But this headline reads, Biden, Mexico's president, agree, more border enforcement needed. Well, part of the reason why I played on the border rather than one of my other favorite songs, Mexican Radio, today, that, of course, being Wall of Voodoo, was because On the Border mentions weapons, arms and ammunition.

And that lets us think about the great Eric Holder with the Fast and Furious idea of going across the border with weapons so that they could first slow walk. And that was originally an idea. It wasn't called Fast and Furious, but the idea was generated under the Bush administration, George W. Bush. And they wanted to bring weapons into Mexico, get them to the drug cartels. Awesome. They love you so much. They really

care about that so-called war on drugs, don't they? That's why the military was guarding the poppy fields in Afghanistan so long. And as we know, Geraldo Rivera interviewed a man named Lieutenant Colonel Brian Christmas about 20 years ago. And they were standing in front of the poppy field because, as you know, the war on terror was so important that they had to sit inside and occupy Afghanistan for 20 years and see the United States military guard the poppy fields so that the percentage of the world's opium actually increased from sales from Afghanistan. And they claimed in this interview, and I'll show it on Friday. Remind me, I'll show it on Friday to show just how contradictory the policies are as the politicians tell you that

they're working for your good. Kind of like the fallacy of the state that it's there for your protection. But of course, it can only exist by threatening you and your property. Just enjoy not paying sometime and see what happens for that wonderful protection service. Yeah. See how comfortable and safe you feel by your protectors, from your protectors. But he's interviewing this man and he says, well, if we don't guard the poppy fields, then the Taliban will just take over and they'll get all the money from these things. So we've got to guard the poppy fields. I'm paraphrasing essentially. We've got to do this because the poor people who own these fields, they owe money to the, to the Taliban. They've got to pay off the Taliban. Otherwise Taliban

just come in and take over everything. Okay. So what happens now that the United States has left in that wonderful way that Joe Biden left with billions of dollars worth of military equipment on the ground there, you know, people dying. Oh, it's just it was a classic, classic. You know what? You know, cluster. You know what? But the the percentage of opium is no longer at 97 percent under the United States tutelage and guarding, which rose from 90 percent where it was before the United States got in, while the United States is engaging in so-called war on drugs unconstitutionally, giving us civil

asset forfeiture. And we might talk about that with James Borard coming up in the 11 o'clock hour. But something peculiar seems to have happened, which is that the Taliban took over those fields and they destroyed many of them. They destroyed them. So regardless of one's view of one group of people destroying the property of others, I should have nothing to do with that. I should have nothing to do with my neighbor's choice to ingest anything that's made from opium or anything like that.

I should only have a say on my defense. I can't charge somebody else to provide for my defense. I can't force somebody else to not take a drug. I can't threaten him or her to make sure that he or she does not ingest something. And of course, by doing so, you get a black market. And of course, we saw that in the United States with their war on drugs, which against which they were fighting with U.S. military and you were paying for both. Isn't that great? Yeah. So here we've got the on the border theme from Al Stewart reminding us about what Eric Holder did. And that saw a border guard getting killed with a firearm that had been brought down into Mexico in Operation Fast and Furious. So that's awesome because Eric Holder is out there talking right now about justice and our rights about firearms.

He's the guy who said many years ago, we just have to continually repeating, keep repeating gun control messages and just basically brainwash people. And he used the word brainwash people into agreeing to further government attenuation on their rights. But that's not the point. It's not that you might agree to an attenuation on your rights. It's that you're agreeing to get the government to attenuate somebody else's rights. That's the problem. So yes, we can be upset about their attempts to brainwash, their PR spin, their Edward Bernays propaganda. But we also can remember that typically when people are talking about gun control, it's not for themselves voluntarily. Oh, I'm going to give up my guns. When was the last time you saw a politician walking around without armed, you know, a federal

politician walking around without some sort of armed protection in Congress? They've got armed protectors all over the place. You think Nancy Pelosi doesn't have armed protectors while she votes to take away your firearms, right? So let's find out what they discussed in Mexico. It's just the first blush. But as I mentioned at the start of the show, it opens up a much larger panoply of issues that we can discuss, one of them being very important. Mexico City, Washington, U.S. President Joe Biden and his Mexican counterpart agreed during a call on Thursday

that more enforcement at the border for, you got it, immigration between their countries is needed. Okay, so let's not forget that when Jim Jordan, and he always seems to talk a good game and then doesn't seem to kind of pull through. He has some hearings. We get some good television footage, but nothing's ever done. Maybe it's because Jordan doesn't have enough sway to be able to get some legislation passed to change some of these things after he is involved with some of the questions about, oh, say January 6th, the footage there or the jabs or that sort of thing. Okay. I appreciate at least what he's getting out. I wish he would be more forceful. Maybe he just can't, can't get enough people to support him. Uh, Thomas Massey, always

on the right side of things. As far as the issues go down there, I don't support the state at all, but if you're going to have a guy involved with the state, at least try to stop the state from growing. U S president Joe Biden and his Mexican counterpart agreed during a call on Thursday that more enforcement at the border at the border. And that right there is a misnomer between their countries is needed. The White House said this as record numbers of people many returns, arrests and returns. That's what people want to know. He keeps saying, well, we've had this many interactions. Well, that's not too helpful to people who might live, oh, say in the Midwest and your interactions are seeing the border agents who aren't even supposed to be on the U.S. border in places like Arizona because it's supposed to

be the Arizona border guarded by the Arizona government. But we'll get into that. They're not even talking about shipping people on the buses. Those are their interactions. They're putting them on buses. They're giving them plane tickets. We saw just a little while ago, Ashley St. Clair from the Babylon Bee took footage in an airport as people were at a Delta gate. Every one of them she could tell was an illegal immigrant. I mentioned yesterday on my program, the United States government is now allowing, this is the TSA in the airports, they're allowing illegal immigrants to use their arrest charges, their arrest warrants as ID. So as you have to go through the Hegelian dialectic of being scanned or groped or having your face scanned,

which as I mentioned, people seem to be very upset when Rite Aid Pharmacy was engaging in that, but they are not speaking up in arms and crying out foul when the U.S. government does it, contrary to half the Bill of Rights. It's like you don't have to go to that drugstore, but the government imposes itself between you and the airline. Which one is actually immoral? How about the government? The other one you can decide, do I want to do it or not? Is this their policy? Well, I don't want to go, right? Now, if it's

surreptitious, then that's different on the part of the drugstore. But if they make it an open policy, you can decide and they can rise or fall based on their policy. Government's going to keep getting your money. And of course, for this bogus Homeland Security stuff and Alejandro Mayorkas, even Jim Jordan can't get proper answers from the guy. Well, we've had this many interactions. Well, we're not talking about interactions. We're talking about how many returns have you done? She's unbelievable. So, yes, Alejandro Mayorkas and Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Homeland Security Advisor Elizabeth Sherwood Randall.

Yes. And she gets applause for the hyphens. Will travel to Mexico in coming days to meet with President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador on the issue. White House National Security Spokesman John Kirby said in a briefing with reporters. So pretty much every one of those people are almost comical. The visit will focus on efforts to stem migratory flows. Who's paying for that? I don't know. And how the two countries can work together, Kirby said, later adding that the leaders had spoken about what could be done from Mexico to slow down the process. Quote, there's probably more we can be doing, Kirby said. Dozens of major U.S. agricultural groups on Wednesday urged the U.S. to reopen two rail crossings on the Texas-Mexico border to restore trade routes closed due to the rising migrant crossings.

Well, how about the trade routes that have been closed due to the jab mandates? Yes, Joe Biden picked up that baton from Donald Trump and just ran all the way to the border with it. On the border. The White House then said it was working with Mexico to resolve issues that led to the closures. Okay, conservatives, again, let's just mention that if you think it's a really good idea to have central command and control, that runs against most of your philosophy. I thought you liked decentralization. I thought you didn't like central command and control, Soviet-style decision-making. I thought you didn't go for that. Well, let's turn to MRCTV. There's my ugly mug over in Brighton, England, when my first novella came out over in Brighton.

And let's look at this story from the Biden administration. Biden border patrol to work like travel agents inside Mexico. And this is the one I mentioned at the beginning of the David Knight show this morning that I really don't think a lot of people are discussing. So don't mind me, everybody. I think I'd like to make sure that I give you this information. And again, big thanks to the MRCTV people for letting me put this story out. Let's just give this a quick one right now. Oh, there's going to be a stop. Did you know thousands of Americans are piggybacking off an IRS?

You know, Albert Einstein often receives credit for observing insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. And conservatives might want to reflect on that aphorism, especially when discovering this new wrinkle in the increasingly distorted, nasty face of federal control over immigration. Hi, everyone. I'm Gardner Goldsmith for MRCTV. And here's the absolutely crazy story. Joseph Simonson reports for the Washington Free Beacon, quote, a senior official familiar with the plan told the Washington Free Beacon that the Department of Homeland Security wants to dispatch customs and border protection agents to areas of Mexico that has seen large influxes of migrants. There, documents obtained by the Free Beacon show law enforcement would begin the screening process for migrants and expedite their final journey across the southern border. Such a program is virtually unprecedented and represents an escalation of what critics call the Biden administration's facilitation of illegal immigration. Indeed, in just the last few months, Americans already have seen the Center for Immigration Studies exposing a Biden administration program offering to potential migrants an app that they can use to get air travel tickets that will bring them virtually anywhere in the U.S., allowing them to land and avoid federal border checks altogether. Americans already have seen Capitol Hill arguments

and accusations about Biden's border patrol withholding data related to the numbers of migrant encounters relative to the number of US government returns of the migrants. And even this past week, we saw Senator Joni Ernst, Republican of Iowa, remind Americans that Massachusetts Democrat Governor Maura Healey's verbiage about a migrant emergency in her state kind of runs counter to her previous statements in favor of virtually unlimited immigration

and counter to her continued support for more migrants coming to Massachusetts. Senator Ernst told viewers of Fox News not to forget that Healy had used tax money to subsidize the housing of migrants in hotels near the stadium where the big Army-Navy football game took place Saturday, December 9th. Senator Ernst correctly made reference to the fact that Healy's recent rhetoric about an emergency seems offered merely to turn on the 1980s Massachusetts statute that, upon a governor's declaration of an emergency for shelter, the statute mandates that the state give shelter to anyone asking for it, and it facilitates legal and medical welfare for said recipients of the shelter. It also facilitates Healy calling on, you got it, Homeland Security's Alejandro Mayorkas to send her more nationally collected tax cash, regardless of there being

nothing in the U.S. Constitution allowing that. Now we get the lovely insult to the supposed rulebook of the United States, the Constitution, and to U.S. taxpayers in this new story. Simonson reports, quote, what the Department of Homeland Security wants to do is send customs officers to Mexico so we can pre-clear surges of migrants ostensibly in hopes they stop crossing illegally, the DHS official told the Free Beacon. They would be doing background vetting so migrants can be waved through. But the plan could put further strain on Border Patrol, which already faces a staffing shortage ahead of an expected winter surge. Staff who spoke with the Free Beacon said miles of the southern border have gone unguarded because agents have been

relegated to processing migrants. Well, the standard conservative observation of the Biden narrative has been to question how many of the migrants who cross the border are apprehended and returned. Then added to that, there's the question of the feds and various state governments like that of Massachusetts literally subsidizing people's moves. When was the last time your move to a new locale was subsidized by someone else's sweat and toil and tax money. Add Simonson, quote, President Joe Biden has overseen the largest immigration crisis in U.S. history, with law enforcement recording more than five million illegal crossings on the southern border since he took office. Blue state governors say the record number

of migrants coming to their cities is straining their welfare systems, and cities including New York and Chicago are considering budget cuts to offset the cost of housing and feeding migrants. The Department of Homeland Security declined to comment. Of course, the DHS didn't respond. In a constitutional America, there would be no DHS to respond to these questions because the DHS is massively, toweringly unconstitutional. In a conservative America, the border would be handled according to the wording of the Constitution, meaning that state governments would handle the matter. Doesn't it strike conservatives as odd that a senator from Iowa should be talking

about hotel rooms and political problems in Massachusetts? Or should one recall Einstein's admonition here? Conservatives generally talk the good talk when it comes to opposing central planning and central government. They oft promote the founders ideal of decentralization and federalism. Yet nowadays, few conservatives acknowledge a key fact about their U.S. Constitution. The words immigration and immigrant do not appear in the U.S. Constitution. The only passage of the Constitution from which one might infer a link to immigration is in Article 1, Section 9. And this provision tells readers that prior to 1808, Congress could not write laws regarding the migration into any of the original 13 states from outside the U.S. or governor should call on the federal government to lead the militia from other states to that state in order to protect that state's Republican form of government from violence or insurrection, the feds are constitutionally bound to respond. And ironically,

Governor Greg Abbott of Texas has done that. And of course, Joe Biden, well, he hasn't responded in any constitutional fashion. In fact, we now witness the possibility that Biden's border so-called patrol will head to Mexico to make it easier for migrants to come to the states. Perhaps conservatives can see that the problem is not just Biden. The problem is the reliance on central command and control and the discarding of the original Constitution. What else is needed to awaken that spirit of constitutionalism, of the founders, and see conservatives resist the temptation to centralize immigration? What else do we have to see when this issue has been mismanaged for so many years and now we're starting to see this in Mexico as a possibility? Big lessons about history, morality, ethics, and freedom.

Thanks so much for watching, everybody. Please like and subscribe. So there you go, everybody. I thought the team at MRCTV, they're great guys, really good guys. I was just looking at my bright red here. And yes, Jason Barker, this is in honor of you and so many of the other people who know that I did my script writing time at Star Trek Voyager. And yes, I am a red shirt, but I guess statistically the red shirt guys weren't killed as often as people say on Star Trek.

So hopefully I'm not the sacrificial lamb for freedom out there. But yeah, it was great that MRCTV allowed me to put that out there. And I'd like to amplify on this story that, you know, this story about Mexico, the Mexican president, Joe Biden, and so on. This story really is, it's just superficial. It doesn't really mean very much right now at all. But I think it indicates that they're going to be trying to do something. They're going to do some other really bad thing. I don't know what it'll be.

We don't know whether or not they're going to be issuing these, you know, working as travel agents in Mexico. But it probably is going to have something to do with sending money to Mexico. They're probably going to try to shell out money down to Mexico for something. I don't know what it'll be. We'll find out. But it's the first blush telling us that, yes, they're getting all set up for some pomp and circumstance to engage in some other bad central government, border patrol, cross-cultural Mexico-America arrangement. But I'd like to amplify on what you just saw from MRCTV, because as I've mentioned to numerous people, I think a lot of conservatives, I've mentioned this before when I filled in for David. I've had great conversations with Pat Buchanan and Tom Tancredo, J.D. Hayworth, a little mini debates in a very free, friendly, spirited, you know, exchange of information idea, concept, where I have explained to them, I said, guys, I understand that the the supposed care that Democrats have about immigrants is really just just a smokescreen. Everybody knows that for years they have wanted to use a sort of variation on cultural Marxism to try to make it look as if they're for the downtrodden immigrant.

They're for the person who's going to be coming in and working the fields and doing the day labor. They don't want to see people having to work under the black market and things like that illegally. And there might be a small percentage of the Democrats, but the Democrat politicians, you could tell for years. Anybody who's been working in Washington, I spent a summer in Washington doing journalism there, you know what the Democrats actually want for immigration. Their policies don't come from the heart. They don't come from an understanding of the constitution. They come from wanting to, they come from their desire to get more people onto what they think will be the government dole to get more supporters for their party, to get more people who will support their ideology and vote for them.

That's what they want. It's about votes for the Republicans. It's a bit of a mixed bag. You get some conservatives who culturally maybe they think that there's a problem. They want the culture to be a certain way, but that's a tiny, tiny portion of people. Because of course, there've been a lot of different types of cultures that in America, many conservatives have learned.

And even many people who come up from Cuba are very conservative people. So conservatism and antagonism for different groups of so-called racial groups and things like that is not necessarily the conservative line that the Democrats constantly tell us. But, OK, let's say there's a certain percentage. I think the larger percentage of conservatives were concerned with a that they thought that the border was supposed to be controlled by the government, the federal government or or or a another alternative is that they worried about welfarism and possible crime, schools being overloaded and things like that by immigrants. OK, then there's the sub portion for both parties that they get these give and take on whether or

not the migrants will be so-called stealing American jobs on the economic side of that. OK, so the Republicans, generally speaking, for a long time would talk about we don't want these people adding to the welfare rolls, which is what the Democrats seem to want. But even Ann Coulter and I've met her. She's a very pleasant woman. She's been recently speaking out about abortion in terrible ways. I don't I don't like the fact that she wants Republicans to drop the abortion issue. It's like, please, we're talking about human life here.

The 14th Amendment, if she as a trained lawyer should recognize the 14th Amendment, should stand for the protection of all human beings. State statutes prohibiting murder should apply to all human beings. And fetuses are human. And at the moment of conception, they are being, that's when it starts, the great natural arc that leads to our natural demise, thanks to God deciding, right? Human beings interfering, that's taking of a human life. Simple. It's a basic syllogism, you know, and she should get it. But I'm sure she does, but I don't understand why she's

making those calculations. But I understand the differences between the parties, the differences that people have. But oftentimes conservatives in various forms, whether or not it's income taxes, there might be property taxes that they're paying indirectly, gasoline taxes, sales taxes, a lot of different kinds of taxes they'll be paying if they're up here, right? Those are just how many angels can dance on the head of a poisonous pen. You're not getting to the root of the issue, right? Getting to the root, radical, radii, radish, right, in the Greek. So let's get to the root of things right now and talk about amplifying a couple of those issues that I mentioned. At 11 o'clock, James Bovard will be with us, and he will be talking about, as I don my spectacles, my specta spectacles. Yes. We'll be talking about his book, of course, Last Rights, just out from the Libertarian Institute. Great stuff. And by the way, in addition to getting that book from the Libertarian Institute, my sister gave me Tom Woods' latest one with a foreword by Jay Bhattacharya, Diary of a Psychosis from, you got it, the Libertarian Institute, formed by one of my friends, Sheldon Richman, and of course, hold on a second. Okay, yeah.

Well, I'll go into it later on. I don't want to get too far into it, but great people, great people at the Libertarian Institute. I was going to mention Scott Horton and start talking about how great Scott Horton is, but okay, let's get into a little amplification from what you got to see on that. And if you're joining us for the first time on The David Knight Show, thank you for doing so. I'm Gardner Goldsmith filling in for David. And what you just got to see was a, an MRC TV production of this story that we don't know whether it's going to happen. We'll find out, but people who are very upset about the thousands of folks coming over the border, um, they are justified to be upset, but I think that conservatives are making a mistake when they're looking to the central authority here. And I noticed there's some great. Great comments on both Rockfin and Rumble.

Michael DeSilvio says slave labor. Yeah, and that's one of the other things, too, Michael. I was going to mention the other part of it is, you know, the competition against so-called native workers. Union people don't want the immigrants coming in. And by making it prohibited, those people who are now working and coming to the United States, they might be having it relatively better than where they came from, but they can't turn to any above board recognizable so-called authorities to get any sort of compensation or adjudication over a work dispute. So many times they can be preyed upon in much easier ways than if they were legal. And I use the terms legal and illegal very carefully. By the way, yes, banks, hopefully I do look the time. And so I want to go into the Constitution and that actually aren't in the video and could have deserved amplification, but they had to cut them out for time. So I'm going to amplify on this now and give you the rundown from my book. This is from my book, Live Free or Die, if you're my dad when he was in the Navy in World War Two, taken in Hawaii. That's my father, Paul H. Goldsmith. So he has different sayings and aphorisms that he has in here. But I said, let's look at the Constitution. I said Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to control naturalization, a provision which has often been mistaken for the granting of power over immigration itself. And as I often mention on my own show, Mark Levin does

this all the time. Mark Levin, I'm very upset all the time. I can't stop talking like this. Can you imagine being his wife? Hi, honey. Good morning. Good morning. Okay. Okay, Mark. Anyway, that naturalization provision often has been mistaken for the granting of power over immigration itself and has been used to promulgate heaps of pernicious legislation for decades. Despite the fact that there is a profound difference between naturalization, becoming a citizen, and immigration being on the soil of one of the United States, many so-called conservatives have taken it upon themselves to mix the two as they attempt to justify federal immigration law. For example, Mark Levin, well-known radio host in New York City

and author of Men in Black, has stated, quote, the first effort to control immigration and naturalization came with the Naturalization Act in 1790, when Congress set the residency requirement for U.S. citizenship at two years. In 1795, the requirement was increased to five years. Did you notice what he did there? He included immigration. He said, I'll read it again. The first effort to control immigration and naturalization came with what? The Naturalization Act. It had nothing to do with immigration at all. both 1790 and 1795, pertained strictly to what was constitutionally granted to the Congress,

the power to determine citizenship requirements. The acts had nothing to do with whether people could be in one of the many United States. The power over immigration was a state purview, and the founders knew it. To try to mix the two is either a mark of an amateur historian or someone who is attempting to mislead his readers. The only place where the concept of immigration appears in the U.S. Constitution is Article I, Section 9. And that's the concept of it, not the word.

And that's the one that's mentioned in this. But the tail part of my point was not in this video, so I want to give it to you. And that reads, in part, the migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing, that's the 13 states, any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 1808, period. Now, why did they do that? It was a compromise for the southern states because they didn't want the federal government interfering in the importation of slaves.

It had to do with slaves, the importation of slaves. It had to do with slaves, the importation of slaves, or the movement of slaves from one state to another state, so that their states would not be turned into, de jure by law, free states by the Congress blocking the importation of slaves into there, and eventually people, the generations passing passing and they're having no more slaves okay so i said this provision of the constitution tells the careful reader that prior to 1808 congress could not write any laws regarding the migration into any of the original 13 states from outside the u.s or from other states in the union. Such wording and the philosophy of the founders themselves would imply that unless the Constitution was amended, Congress did not have jurisdiction

to write laws dealing with immigration in the original states before 1808 and did not have the power to write laws pertaining to immigration in any states that subsequently joined the union. This is just basic logic. I said, this is an important distinction, one lost on most so-called conservative politicians, and sadly, one also lost by Supreme Court justices very early in U.S. history. And so I've run through this with Pat. I've run through this with Tom Tancredo, and they've been very friendly. They've listened. We've exchanged. I've listened to them. And then they let me go through the other portions of this and they all end up agreeing. Well, Gardner, I can't fault your argument. You're right. And I know, I know I'm right. I've done it. I've gone really in depth on this, but then they always fall back to, but, and then they go on and it's like, oh, you guys. So let's go through a little more here. So it was not until 1875 with the Supreme Court decision in the case of Chi-Lung v. Freeman and the passage of the Page Law subsequent to that in Congress that federal control was established regarding immigration into more than the original

13 states. As one would expect, and as we have seen with the push to restrict immigration today, the driving force behind this 19th century shift in power was political economics. In the West, native U.S. workers were upset by the growing presence of lower-cost Chinese labor in gold mines and on railroads. The Transcontinental Railroad, even though it was a boondoggle, was built in no small part by low-priced Chinese workers. As a result, they lobbied, this is the native people, not the Chinese people, but the so-called Americans at the time. They lobbied their representatives to restrict their foreign competition. Such activity seems very familiar today. Just ask the unions.

In 1882, the so-called Chinese Exclusion Act was passed in the United States, it barred entrance into America by Chinese laborers for 10 years, halted Chinese non-labor immigration for 60 years and prohibited entirely all naturalization by Chinese people. Just like today, as members of the United Auto Workers and Senator Chuck Schumer of New York tell us that only certain kinds of immigrant labor are acceptable, those that in no way stand to compete against their excessively high wage rates, the politicians, and that's money that consumers could keep and then spend on something else. This is why the expanding economy also includes trying to keep your labor costs low, part of your process of manufacture, whether it's the raw materials, labor, time, whatever it is. In our contemporary battle over immigration, the unionized mercantile interests find odd allies in the conservative wing of the Republican Party. And that is something that I found problematic with Pat Buchanan's presidential run. So now I want to add to that a little bit more. I can go into the economics of immigration

at a different time, but now I want to tell you a little bit more about the constitutional side of things and go beyond just that. So let's start talking about, oh, I have a little thing from the Rotary here. I'm talking about the Rotary in Australia. That's interesting. I went to speak there after I went to Australia. They were just so nice to me.

Those guys were good guys. Really appreciate that. So now let's go into a little bit more on the constitutional side of things. I said in the preceding arguments about immigration, it has been noted that the U.S. Constitution explicitly grants the federal government power to control immigration or migration. Migration after 1808 in only the states that existed at the time. I've received some criticism for this observation and engaged in some rewarding, friendly debates with some who disagree with my analysis. For the record, those who believe the U.S. Constitution grants the federal government the power to control immigration in every state must grapple with a few important facts. First, under any strict reading

of the Constitution, the immigration issue is verbally tied to the important importation of slaves, Article 1, Section 9. According to the Constitution, Congress was forbidden from regulating the importation of slaves or other people into the states existing at the time, and there was a very powerful political reason for this clause. If it had not been written, the southern states would not have been likely to approve the Constitution. Here's the layout as it stood at the time of the Founders. By the time the Constitution was written, the Northwest Ordinance had already banned slavery in the Northwest Territory. Southern agricultural interests were reluctant to sign on to the

Constitution without some kind of assurance that their way of life would not be immediately threatened by Northern states exercising great power in Congress. As a result, the famous three-fifths compromise was soon established, making each slave count as three-fifths of a man for the purpose of congressional representation. And I noted we can discuss the disaster of slavery at another time. After the Constitution was written, the Missouri Compromise was achieved. This is very important. This compromise set a standard for the process of admission of states from the territories of the Louisiana Purchase, whereby the northern free territories and southern slave territories would alternate in admission. If the federal government could set the rules regarding new state importation of slaves, i.e. immigration,

as they might try to say it, if they could do this outside of those original 13 states, then there would be no reason for them to have had the Missouri Compromise. There would be no need to decide which kinds of territories could gain admission in what sequence, because the territories themselves, upon becoming states, could then see Congress place restrictions on them regarding slave importation or general immigration if people wanted to expand it beyond slaves. It is unlikely that the southern states would have accepted such an arrangement when debating the Constitution. What the South wanted was an assurance that Congress would not be able to stop importation of slaves in any of the future states that might be admitted beyond the borders of the Northwest Territory.

If one reads Article 1, Section 9, he sees the use of the term of the states now existing. And that was intentional. The exclusion of future states was intentional as well. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments then set the bar higher for any assumption that Congress could adopt this power or make it up. Stronger than the opinion I offer is the fact that Thomas Jefferson took this view on immigration in 1798 when he forcefully commented on the Alien and on the Sedition Acts in the Kentucky Resolutions. Kentucky Resolution number four, quote, resolved that alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the

state wherein they are, that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual states, distinct from their power over citizens and it being true as a general principle and one of the amendments of the constitution having also declared that the powers not delegated to the united states by the constitution nor prohibited to the states are reserved to the states respectively and to the people therefore the act of the Congress of the United States passed the 22nd day of June, 1798, entitled An Act Concerning Aliens, which assumes power over alien friends not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void and of no force. You often hear people talking about the Sedition Act and how terrible that was to say that you can't criticize John Adams, but it's OK to criticize Thomas Jefferson.

And if you're a newspaper person, they're going to arrest you if you criticize John Adams. And Jefferson reversed all that, paid people back. Well, they did the same thing with the Alien Act. After he was elected, Jefferson pardoned all people captured under the law and Congress paid restitution. Later, President Grant, of all people, held the same view, quote, responsibility over immigration can only belong with the states since this is where the Constitution kept the power. He once said in a letter to Congress. In Texas, the state constitution, approved in 1869, had an article in it establishing a Bureau of Immigration headed by a superintendent of immigration for the state.

Consider this. Riddle me this, Batman. If the people of Texas believed Congress had the power to control immigration in the new states, why would they have bothered to include such a provision for their own state government? It's doubtful in the least. In numerous Supreme Court cases of the early 19th century, for example, Milne v. New York, Smith v. Turner, and Norris v. Boston, participants cited numerous laws enacted by the state legislatures that put restrictions on the kinds of people, such as paupers, that shipmates could allow in the respective states, and many of the laws were passed after the adoption of the Constitution. There was debate as to whether the states could impose taxes on such imports or if such taxes infringed on Congress's power to impose levies and tariffs.

States can impose tariffs, but they must get permission from Congress first, according to the Constitution. There was debate about that, about putting a price tag on those imported people. There were also controversies about whether such state taxes could trump federal treaties with other nations, but there were many non-monetary restrictions placed by states on the immigrants that were imposed questioned until the Chi-Lung v. Freeman in 1875. As stated before, it was the Supreme Court malfeasance and congressional politics in the late 1800s that brought about the federalization of immigration policy. It was not the U.S. Constitution. This is something supposed conservatives ought to remember when debating. Now, the next phase, as I've sometimes mentioned, the next phase comes when we get responses from

Tom Tancredo and Pat Buchanan and J.D. Hayworth. They've all responded with the same thing. They say, yeah, but Gardner, it's an invasion. We are being invaded. Of course, the all-inclusive government, you're part of it whether you like it or not. Social contract fallacy of the royal we now is the so-called representative or democratic government. When if you want to be left alone, you can't be left alone. They're going to make you part of the we. So in other words, it's a pronoun of aggression, the royal we under the state. So they say we are being invaded, the United States. So therefore, you got to have some sort of border. You got to have protection of the border. And I say,

okay, look, let's look at your logic. Let's look at your terminology. And if the United States thinks that the United, if people in the United States think the United States, plural, are being invaded, then what is the proper constitutional answer? J.D. Hayworth was a congressman. Tom Cato was a congressman. Pat Buchanan was running for president more than once. They've looked at the Constitution, surely. They swore oaths to the Constitution, two of the three. So what do they say? Well, the answer is you declare war against the nation state that you claim is invading. And if these people are not uniformed combatants from another nation state, you can't declare war against those people because they're not officially part of the government of that nation state. So you can't, in traditional parlance, declare war with a capital W against those people because they're civilians. So therefore you respond with the second phase, which is the president can lead mercenaries under letters of mark and reprisal. So if you can't declare war against a nation state, like let's say they don't want to declare

war against Mexico, but you're seeing people coming in from Mexico through Panama and so on up through Mexico, whatever, swimming over or not even swimming, but rafting over from Cuba, whatever. Let's say you want to stop this group, that group, all the groups. I don't know. Right. Well, then you can't declare war against the nation state, but you can have Congress issue letters of mark and reprisal, which lets the president hire mercenaries to then go after those people. Okay. They haven't done either, clearly, right? So what is the only other alternative? The only other alternative is what I mentioned about Greg Abbott and how the Constitution, you saw that in the MRCT video, the Constitution does allow for so-called federal troops, that would be the militia to be called up, to go into a state if the governor, if the legislature of the state calls for help to protect their constitutional form of government against invasion, against insurrection, rebellion, or violence. Okay.

So if we look at the Constitution, let's now go over into Article, let's see, Article 4. I'll just read the pertinent clause for you. Okay. So you can probably see the scrolling on my face. Article four, section four, here it is. All right. Now, again, I'm an anarchist. I'm a voluntarist. I never signed this document. I'm just saying, hey, if you just want to play fair, you know, even in this unfair world of government imposing it on me, at least just look at the rules. Just do it this way. So this is the only way that federal troops could be brought in on the border.

So right now, the border patrol, even 50, 75 miles inside Arizona, pulling people over as they're trying to get to work, being able to control the dogs to jump on the cars. Oh, the dog got a signal. So now I can check your car. Contrary to the Fourth Amendment. None of it. It's absurdly unconstitutional. It's laughably unconstitutional. It's a farce. It's an absolute clown show game, but they are wearing guns. Article 4, Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a Republican form of government and shall protect each of them against invasion, declaration of war, right? And on application of the legislature of that state or of the executive of that state if the legislature cannot be convened against domestic violence. So this actually is what Greg Abbott did last year. He asked Joe Biden to protect Texas. Otherwise, it's supposed to be Greg Abbott.

And as we saw, one other sort of echo of constitutionalism a couple years ago, even Ron DeSantis said he had agreed to supply militia units, National Guard, to go to Texas to help the protection of the border in Texas. Greg Abbott has officially asked Joe Biden to carry out, and he hasn't even cited Article 4, Section 4, but he's just generally asked, and it conforms, it comports with anybody who wants to be strict on the wording. It does work. That's on their constitutional level. He's asking for help on the border to protect them against the violence and the instability there. Joe Biden has not responded properly. And in fact, they have worked to stop Greg Abbott, who just last week was going to call up state police units to help on the border. The Department of Homeland Security and the Justice Department are trying to stop Greg Abbott from handling things on the central government conservatives. If you think that you're going to have the border patrol being done your way, contrary to your claim that you are constitutionalist, let's say you're willing to let that drop andentialist practical outcome of what you are proposing and aspiring to is that when somebody gets in there and you don't like him, the policy is going to

change. Do you really, really want to have some unconstitutional system of central command and control like Soviet Russia deciding what happens on the border to the extent now where Joe Biden is giving people phone apps to get on planes to fly to the Midwest. This is what your central, your focus on the central authority has wrought. You're not going to get it a lot better. You thought Donald Trump was going to do something. He's singing the same thing. He's whistling the same tune as he whistled before he got elected the first time. Oh, we're going to put up the wall. It's going to be the best wall. Meanwhile, he's occupying, he was occupying Syria. We got a third of Syria. We're on the best oil. It's really nice. I use it in my hair to keep it down in the wind. It's really good. Best occupation of all time, except for the Afghan occupation, which I helped end. But, you know,

we let it go on. We didn't just pull out immediately, which we should have constitutionally. This is absurd. The whole thing is a farce. So that Article 4, Section 4 is the only out. And again, if we look at the breaking news about this Mexican meeting, what does it mean? It doesn't really mean that much, right? We don't know what's going on, but it can signal a learning opportunity, right? This is the leap point. This is when you're at the punk rock show and somebody is doing a stage dive,

Iggy Pop's jumping out at you, you got something happening there. And it's a big deal. It's a very, very big deal. Whether or not, you know, I'm not going to win my arguments, right? I'm not going to win politically. I'll win the argument, but I won't win politically. I'm not going to see anything change. But for, you know, I get satisfaction out of just trying to get the information out there. Maybe that's why I've enjoyed teaching, you know? I think it's

great. You make a connection with somebody and they say, oh yeah, you know, okay, that's cool. And it's not necessarily, it's a satisfaction of like, yeah, I think I've proven my point. I think everybody might get that satisfaction, but it's more in, I think I've presented it in a, in a logical and understandable way. And maybe somebody else will find this valuable. Right. I think I'm, I'm holding my side up as it might be holding up my side for truth. Right. So, yeah, I've got my fingers crossed that people will will like that.

And yeah, we will see how things play out with the with the elections. I wouldn't expect much, whether it's Trump or Biden. And please don't forget, you know, Trump's emergency order in March 13th of 2020, that's what brought up so many of the lockdowns, the state legislators after 9-11 with the so-called Patriot Act, and even the FISA Act, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and the drug war, all those things, year after year, layer of tarnish upon layer of tarnish on what seemed to be that shining bauble of the U.S. Constitution, let's take an opportunity, give you a little more wonderful music from David Knight. And when we return, we're going to be joined by our guest, none other than James Bovard. Ere sento sa soccite, la tenda da sotati, o te sento sa soccite. Ero sotero, la tenda da sotate, o te sento sa soccite.

Ere sento sa soccite, la tenda da sotate, o te sento sa soccite. ¡Gracias! You're listening to The David Knight Show. Wow, wonderful stuff from David Knight. Remember, you can get the Christmas album over there a couple days after Christmas, but they had the Feast of St. Stephen's. Was it yesterday? So, you know, keep the spirit alive, everybody. And remember, anything you contribute over at David Knight's Rockfin channel, everything goes straight to the show. I'm Gardner Goldsmith guest hosting. And I just you know, it just is an amazing and wonderful pleasure to be here with all of you in the chats, online, wherever you might be. And thanks again for on the backside of Twitter at Guard Goldsmith for the kind words from yesterday's show.

I really appreciated that. And I want to say a big couple of words of appreciation to Karen Carpenter in the Rockfin chat. She mentions that satisfaction of teaching. One day I gave a lecture about heart attacks to second graders because they were curious about about it. I drew pictures of the circulatory system. It was spur of the moment, but what a hoot. The students were enthralled. And some also, some great comments from Wes Robertson talking about what Greg Abbott can do. Abbott can end the illegals coming through his state anytime constitutionally just by nullifying federal dictates. Well, again, you know, I hope that the outlines they gave about the Kentucky resolutions and James Madison also in letters mentioned that it's supposed to be a state purview, that 1875 Chow Long decision is as bad as the Dred Scott

decision, as bad as the Roe v. Wade decision. It warps the perception of the Constitution. And so many people start to think that that's the way it should be and then of course everybody starts to argue over the one size must fits all so uh very interesting stuff i really want to thank everyone in the rumble chat as well that um one person says too bad bit shoot doesn't have the money behind them that rumble has bit shoot has always been solid. I like pitch shoot as well. And Highboost mentioned Trump. And he says, Trump used Facebook in 2016 to win, but it was used against him in 2020. Kind of funny. Well, yeah. You know, I think it's going to be very interesting to see what happens in this next election.

But I have no vested interest in this whatsoever. I do want to welcome, however, a man who has been watching this longer but I have no vested interest in this whatsoever. I do want to welcome, however, a man who has been watching this longer than I have and has been one of my big heroes for a long time. He's our guest now on The David Knight Show. He is James Bovard coming to us from just outside the swamp of Washington, D.C. on The David Knight Show. James, welcome to the program. I see the symbol for you. I think we've got audio. And welcome and congratulations on your new book, Last Rites, James Bovard. Thanks very much. Thanks for having me on, having me back on. And thanks for plugging the book. And

yeah, I was trying to figure out whether or not to use the video today. And I thought it might overwhelm viewers to have two photogenic guys on the screen. Well, thank you. Thank you, James. I don't have the beard. I couldn't grow the beard the way you do. But yes, I know. We would probably.

Count your blessings on the beard. Isn't that what the Ministry of Truth is all about? Nina Jankovic was there to stop us handsome guys from getting too much airtime, right? I don't know entirely what she was supposed to do, but she was great for comic relief. It's always good to have

a woman whose videos included asking, who exactly can I fill the blank to become rich and powerful? Yes. I wouldn't use that verb because you've got a family-friendly show, but it was great to see online.

I guess the Biden White House, when they were vetting her for that appointment, forgot to ask one important question. Does she sing? Maybe they'll have to put that on the application form from now on, right? Well, the nice thing is once they booted her, everybody thought the Ministry of Truth was done, but it wasn't. They brought in Michael Chertoff. Well, yeah.

I mean, it's just amazing that he would have any credibility in Washington after the things he's done and the lobbying he's done. But no, I mean, you've got all these. I'm sorry, go ahead. No, no, I heard I heard Jim that he wants people to pass through an airport scanner before they can get online

to speak I think that's his new gimmick just to sell more scanners yeah well you know you gotta find some use for those damn airport scanners hell haven't done any good as far as catching weapons and bombs I've had some memorable experiences with those

scanners and with the TSA and I've tried to settle accounts. Hey, I tell you, James Bovard is our guest folks. Go to Jim Bovard.com and follow him at Jim Bovard on Twitter. And the new book is great. And I, I, I know that you wrote about your recent experiences with the TSA. It hasn't changed. That's not any more secure. We know that every few years they would have their studies on how many bomb-like materials would go through. And even ABC News would do their own studies. It never changed despite the increasing budget, despite the daily minute

by minute, person by person encroachments into the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, the Sixth Amendment, the Eighth Amendment, so many things. And that lets us look at last rights. And I want to bring this up to all the audience, everybody. Last rights, the latest from James Bovard. It has a picture of the Capitol building with the razor wire and the fence just in the foreground. And of course, on the back, I showed this at the start of the show, everybody, the armed goons protecting our liberties.

Isn't that, oh, I'm sorry. They're protecting the politicians from we people they tell us are free. James, you've got a lot in this book. First of all, I know you've been working on this for a long time. How long ago did you start to think, okay, I'm going to get this book out?

Because this is a crucial time to have this book released. Shortly before COVID, actually. I was trying to tie a lot of things together that I've been writing about for years. I mean, this is a flashback to 1993, 94, when Lost Rights came out, the book that preceded this. And it was a roundup of a lot of the federal, state, and local atrocities and abuses back then. And folks said I was much too cynical.

And it's kind of like, you know, I don't think so. But it's sad to look back on the 1990s almost as like if it was a golden era for freedom. Oh, isn't that it's bizarre, isn't it? I mean, it's like it's like going it's going it's like going from one abusive relationship into a worse relationship. And, you know, and then you say to yourself, gee, I had it better off when I was, you know, when I was getting beat up this way.

It's ridiculous. It's like going it's like drowning in water versus drowning in quicksand. It gets worse. It just gets worse. And they keep using these rationales where the government gets caught at something. We see James Clapper testifying in front of Ron Wyden, and Wyden already knows that they're surveilling people because they've got the Snowden information. It just hasn't gone public yet. And all of a sudden, boom, what happens? He asks him, is the NSA collecting data on people? Uh, no. And then Wyden gives him a chance to get out of possibly perjuring himself, which he just did. And he says, uh, no. And he said, well, not knowingly. Like, no, you were doing it knowingly that's what the

that's what the whole pfizer thing is about and it's not just section 702 it's the very concept of it's not in the constitution it's strictly prohibited and the prohibition doesn't mean that it only applies to the government invading americans rights it's anybody's rights they don't have the ability to scan somebody in sweden just like they don't have the ability to scan somebody in New Hampshire. They just don't have the power. It's amazing to me. James, you have so many things here. Can I run through a little bit? Thank you so much. Pardon the spectacles here. I just wanted to make sure I looked like Charlie Robinson, the great Charlie Robinson, a great podcaster. And so in the book, everybody just released from the Libertarian Institute, and I hope you will check it out at the Libertarian Institute website. As you mentioned here,

you have in the introduction, tyranny comes to Main Street. Americans today have the freedom to be freedom in quotes. And this is very, this is very, very important to me, James. And I'm so glad that having, you know, as a teenager, I picked up one of your books, you know, I'm like 10 years behind you or something like that. And I'm like, I like this guy. And now I know you. And I'm like, I like this guy. And you always, yeah, you keep getting the bat on the leather. You keep hitting it, man. It's great. The bat on the leather. Okay. That's a New Hampshire phrase. Yeah, absolutely. My daddy used to play for the Red Sox, their farm team. Oh, really? That's great. Yeah. Yeah. They used to, they were called the hooligan squad. It was before World War II and he never, yeah. Yeah, it was interesting. Americans today, you say, have the, quote, freedom, end quote, to be fleeced, groped, wiretapped, injected, censored, ticketed, disarmed, beaten, vilified, detained, and maybe shot by government agents. Politicians are hell-bent on protecting citizens against everything except Uncle Sam.

Ah, it's that wonderful social contract, isn't it? Is America becoming a cage-keeper democracy where voters merely ratify the latest demolition of their rights and liberties and you cover in this book it's not it's not just a wide array it's as if you're using a logical syllogism from point a down to point 15 what letter is that? You know, M, something like that. You talk about seizure fever, the war on gun owners, license to kill, the COVID crackdown catastrophe, schools gone wild, 10,000 czars, subsidies and subjugation, dominate yeah be careful what you wish for states and corporations dominate intimidate control taxation and tyranny no place to hide see no evil democracy mindless ministry of truth ah the singing singing spirit a spirit of of nanny jankowicz.

American Gestapo run amok and last chance for liberty, concluding things with tons of end notes. So, James, you put this together. It's a lot of work. In addition to the articles you write, I don't know how many articles you write every week. Do you have a certain set number that you put out every week, James? No. With the book being done, I'm aspiring to have three or four out per week. But I have a question for you on the book. Is that a paperback or a hardback version?

This is the hardcover. Okay, because I haven't seen it. I was trying to find it. I mean, Amazon was supposed to have it, and they, you know, I don't know. But so where did you order that from? I can't remember if I got this through the Libertarian Institute website or I went to Amazon

just so I could get it shipped over more quickly. Great, great. Well, you know, it looks good on this. I was trying to get some hardbacks and I've got paperbacks, but I will track those down. Oh, this is absolutely fantastic. you know, it looks good on this. I was trying to get some hardbacks and I've got paperbacks, but I will, I will track those down. Oh, this is absolutely fantastic. James, I got a few of the items I'd like to discuss with you and I've bookmarked each one. Okay. We've got chapter three, the war on gun owners. Of course, I was talking about

the way that so-called red flag laws are contrary to half the Bill of Rights, punishment without any trial, Second Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment. Then we've got license to kill. And this is really something else. It goes back to the 90s, a lot of different things with the Justice Department and how so-called reform was never actually instituted. And as they often do, the reforms that they claim actually give them permission to do even worse things to us. Then we're talking about the American Gestapo run amok. That is the FBI.

So if you'd like to pick any one of those for our audience, and if anyone has any questions for James Bovard, put it in the Rockfin or Rumble chat. And if you're watching on David Knight's Twitter feed, I can also check those in a little while, but we'll go with Rockfin and Rumble chat. James, is there any one of those you'd like to hit first? You know, I don't have any specific preference.

On the FBI, the American Gestapo, that was a phrase from President Truman. Right. In his diary, I think in late 1945, maybe 46, he said he was worried that the FBI was becoming a Gestapo and that America did not need that. That was just after the defeat of Nazi Germany. Yeah, I see here. We want no Gestapo or secret police. FBI is trending in that direction. 1945, you wrote. Yep. Yep. And it's so he was aware of the damage, the danger. And other politicians have had some very eloquent statements on that over the subsequent decades. But the FBI, you know, still has vast unchecked power.

The FBI tried to throw the 2016 presidential election to Hillary Clinton. The FBI had a huge role in on the FBI for the 2020, 2024 presidential election. So, you know, I don't see how I don't see how democracy survives this. Well, you know, it's amazing because you can roll back so fluidly in conversation to some of those things. And every one of those things you mentioned, the 2016, right? So one of the things on which I was reporting in MRCTV, James, was the so-called DNC hack, right? We know that the DNC didn't give the computer to the FBI initially. They gave it to CrowdStrike.

CrowdStrike run by this guy, Aparamov or something like that, a member of the Atlantic Council. They came out with their report, which is absolutely ridiculous. Bill Binney has mentioned that there's no way that the data could have been transferred as quickly as it was transferred if it was the Russians. And that entire Russian interference, Russian thing carried through as the Portman-Murphy bill was circulating in 2016 and got passed in that last NDAA that Obama signed in December of 2016, which created the Portman Murphy Countering Foreign Propaganda Act, which helped give a lot of this money to places like NewsGuard and Election Guard and all these different agencies that we found were actually being we see the feds now hiding information about like the Hunter Biden laptop and literally reaching out to the New York Times to say, don't talk about this thing that we know the hard drive had the the chain of possession already set up. They knew it was authentic, but they didn't want people to know about this. And that is that's one of the softer things. But it had incredible implications. And I was amazed that many people were unaware of the FBI's role in that. Yeah. I mean, that's something that New York Post did great work on, and they have dogged that issue very effectively. It's frustrating to see how much BS the government still gets away with in talking to folks who are moderates, liberals, democrats

or even undecided their knowledge base on these scandals is very low and it's sort of like talking to conservatives about the torture scandals like what that never happened so it's just

you know and this is part of how the outrageges snowball. And, you know, they turn to precedence and there's almost no way to put a leash on them. It's amazing. You know, we know that prior to, say, this contemporary era, we might be looking at a 2016. There were all sorts of problems with the FBI, as we know, you know, whether it was the Black Panthers, Martin Luther King Jr. And so many of the different things that were instituted with the creation of the FBI right on through. It's always been very, very sketchy. It's always been something where the FBI on the surface carried this sort of mantle of pride.

And a lot of the guys would go into the FBI thinking, I'm going to do the right thing. But there have always been very dark factions to the FBI. And a lot of questions constitutionally about, well, is it really excusable to create a police agency for crimes that might happen across borders? Or is it really just the maximum that the feds would do would be to facilitate extradition between states? And that's sort of the fundamental question about the FBI. But there are other things that have happened recently. We've seen the FBI and, of course, the Department of Education being implicated at the Justice Department as well in possibly investigating concerned parents who go to school board meetings and investigating Catholics who are traditional and Catholic masses. wanted to put this together or throughout your life, some of the things that stand out for you about the FBI and just how inflammatory it has become or how bad it was in the past?

Yeah, that's a very good question. It's interesting going back to the FBI and the Catholics. It came out earlier this year that the FBI in Richmond and other places had a secret campaign to infiltrate church services to, quote, identify the bad Catholics. And, you know, I'm not comfortable at all with the FBI setting themselves up to be secret judges of who is and who is not a good Christian or a good Catholic. You know, this is, you talk about a Pandora's box. And this is something, it wasn't just one nitwit FBI agent who did this. This is something which got approved at multiple levels. But one of the things that sticks in my mind most vividly on the FBI was Ruby Ridge. You had the FBI send their snipers out there. You had the FBI, send their snipers out there you had the fbi uh you know the fbi snipers were

given an order to shoot to kill basically shoot on site for the adults that were being besieged by federal agents and then the fbi sniper guns down vicky weaver she's holding her baby in the cabin door that agent uh lon harayuchi uh neveruchi, never received any sort of punishment. In fact, he got advances, Lon Horiuchi, after killing, right? Yep. And so that was something I wrote about, and it was fascinating to see the pushback. FBI Director Louis Freeh condemned me in public for slandering FBI agents and the FBI itself. But I later got hold of a 500-page confidential Justice Department report on their analysis of Ruby Ridge. And the Justice Department had many of the same condemnations of the FBI that I had as far as their conduct and their cover-up of Ruby Ridge. But you just said it publicly.

I said it publicly, and the FBI chief thought that he could squash my reputation like a bug. Well, I'm still here. You are James Bovard. And by the way, as we talk about last rights, I want to mention, I remember at that time, Ruby Ridge, G. Gordon Liddy was doing his radio show. Oh, he was great. way, as we talk about last rights, I want to mention, I remember at that time, um, uh, Ruby Ridge, G Gordon Liddy was doing his radio show. Oh, he was, he was great. Yeah. And he was excellent on that Ruby Ridge issue. And he would mention what you were talking about. I remember him talking about your work on his show and I got to meet him a number of years ago and, um, he was

very, very nice to me. And, you know, I obviously go into prison after the Nixon issues and things like that. But he really did a splendid job talking about Lon Harauchi, Ruby Ridge and Randy Waver and his family. And I really appreciate the fact that you stood up for those people. You know, David Knight was down there with the, down at Bundy Ranch when the Bureau of Land Management was trying to wipe out the Bundy Ranch and take that over. They were sabotaging the water pipes and so on.

David was there at the standoff as the snipers had their guns trained on them. He was right there. Yeah, there's a section in the book on the Bundy Ranch case and the FBI. Just, it's just, it's, it's incredible. And I don't, I it's, it, it gets me choked up a little bit sometimes to think about just how far people have it. You know, you get these little,

these little bubble ups of people standing up for what is appropriate. They're standing up for their rights. These people at Bundy Ranch had a land agreement when Nevada was a territory. And as I've mentioned, there is no provision for the United States government to run land other than Washington, D.C., territories and military garrisons. And as you know, when, according to the constitution, territories become states, they're supposed to enter with, as they say, all the rights and privileges of any other state. And there is no mandate that they have to cede land to the government. And even if they had to cede land, even if they wanted to cede land to the federal government, the federal government

has no provision in the constitution to manage that land. So all these areas, Grand Escalante, as I mentioned yesterday on David's show, or the Bears Feet or the Anwar, anything like that, all these areas where they've opened up national parks or, you know, closed off anthracite to help the lipo group for the Clinton administration. Any of those things, those are supposed to be up to the states. And since the Bundys had an agreement from that territory of Nevada before it became a state, they were grandfathered in. Their family had grazing rights and the feds were trying to wipe them out. And it's amazing to think that the pop media could portray people who were just trying to mind their own business, who were just sitting there, who got invaded by federal agents, the FBI, the BLM, with their tax-funded guns. They can portray the Bundys as the flipped-out aggressors, as the wild gun-toters, and they were just defending their property. And that sort of, I love to correct

the record on that sort of thing, especially for peaceful people like that, James. Yeah. And it was fascinating to see the evolution of the federal court cases and the federal judges on that issue. There was a, I think Judge Navarro, maybe Gloria Navarro. She started out very much leading in favor of the FBI and the feds, but by the time, at a certain point, there were a number of very late revelations the feds made that blew their credibility to pieces. And she basically threw the case out of court and gave the FBI a very thorough cussing. Yeah, the discovery process there on every one of those was so important. And of course, you know, I think, James, it harkens back to back to the days when they would try to have the kangaroo courts during the revolutionary era to take people away from their local juries. And they, you know, they try them up in Nova Scotia.

That was one of the things you wanted to have jury of your peers. People hear this information. Even judges sometimes will stand up and say, you know what? This is just wrong. And yeah, good for Judge Navarro. I was really pleased about that. James, any other thoughts on the FBI? I'd love to talk to you a little bit about something tied to the FBI, the war on drugs

and things like civil asset forfeiture. Sure, go for it. to the FBI, the war on drugs and things like civil asset forfeiture, if that's possible. Sure. Go for it. Okay. Well, let's talk a little bit about the so-called war on drugs, starting up with Lyndon Johnson, but even before that, certain statutes, a lot of the old jazz musicians finding that they were running into problems with the law. We've got an idea that somehow the person accused with some crime against others, just for possessing a substance, which is not a violent act of aggression against anyone, just the possession of a substance, or the sale to a voluntary willing participant of a substance like drugs or whatever it might be, that somehow first any state agency, agency of the state in its normative sense, should be involved

in stopping that person from engaging in that peaceful activity. But on the constitutional level, the superstructure of this on a national and historical level for the United States, James Bovard, we've got the so-called war on drugs. That has incentivized local police forces. And even the Obama administration threw down a smoke screen with Eric Holder in there. And you talk about some of this, some of Eric Holder's background on this, the so-called war on drugs, the seizure of people's property, and how it incentivizes the local police to engage in these types of raids because they can make tons of money. They get to keep people's stuff. Can you talk a little bit about the concept of civil asset forfeiture and how you approach it in last rights. James Bovard. You know, civil asset forfeiture means that the government come in and confiscate your property based on a mere allegation

that it might have been misused at some time in the past. And there was, I think, a DEA agent who would say that the great thing about asset forfeiture is it's not up to us to prove anything. And so if a government agent stops you walking down the street and he says, let me take a look at your wallet. And so he pulls out your cash and then a drug dog comes up. The drug dog alerts to the drugs supposedly on your currency. Boom, that's sufficient for the government to seize your currency. However, the vast majority of American currency has micro traces of drugs and sufficient to trigger a canine alert.

And judges have known that for 30 years. Judges have been condemning this canine dog currency seizure as a bunch of crap going back to probably even before Bill Clinton's presidency. But it's still there, and it's almost like a Monty Python test of whether or not a woman is a witch if she weighs more than a duck. She's made of wood. That's it. That's it.

Got to drown her. Maybe she was eating crunchy frogs. I don't know. Yeah. That's something I've always avoided. Yes. Yes. And James, let's, I mentioned this before you came on. I've done this on my Liberty Conspiracy show, but I'd like to show this for the David Knight audience as I fill in for David Knight. James Bovard is our guest on the David Knight Show, everybody, and place your questions in Rockfin chat after we show this,

get David's thoughts about the conflict, the seeming bipolar problem between the so-called war on drugs, unconstitutional, of course, and the so-called war on terror, which has seen such a destruction of so many of the rights that are supposed to be protected by the U.S. Bill of Rights. And James, I'd like to turn right now to this. There might be a little ad that pops up. This is from 20 years ago. It's Geraldo Rivera on the ground in Afghanistan as U.S. soldiers guarded the heroin poppy crop. Showing the fact that the government is here is going to... It is the opium trade.

The Taliban is using it to intimidate the population. Joining us from Talmud province is Geraldo Rivera. Good morning to you, Geraldo. Tell us what you've seen during your days there in Afghanistan. Hi, Allison, Dave, and Clayton. Yes, in some ways, the Marines brilliantly executed invasion of Marjah, this town in the middle of Helmand Province, was the easy part. The hard part now is governing this province, a province, as you suggest, that has become addicted to opium in

many, many ways. That is the principal crop that is being grown here. The Taliban lend the farmers the money. They are indebted to the Taliban. They have to grow the opium. Now the Marines in their success are in a sense a victim of their success because now the population is, you know, they have these opium fields and we are tolerating it. We are tolerating the cultivation of the opium because we know that if we were to destroy it now, the population would turn against the Marines and it would be a real security risk. Let me introduce Lieutenant Colonel Brian Christmas. He's the commanding officer of the 3rd Battalion, 6th Marines. Really a wonderful group of Marines here. I know that you care

deeply about this contradiction, the fact that here you have one of the best fighting forces in the world ever mounted. And in a sense, you're watching as this opium is being grown. I know it grinds at your gut. How do you deal with it? What are you doing about it? Well, frankly, this is part of the culture. So while it might grind in my gut, it's what they do. So it's very interesting, James. I bring that up, of course, knowing that they were unconstitutionally there. Ron Paul offered a declaration of war. He got three votes. invading a foreign nation, occupying it for two decades. And as they're occupying and again, I'm not in favor of one group destroying the crops of anybody. But Afghanistan is no longer number one on the export of opium poppy products. It's now something like Myanmar or something like that. They've dropped because the Taliban did get in there.

And rather than doing what the government told us they would do, which would be to take over the fields and run them themselves, they're destroying the fields. And it is amazing to me because we got people who are accustomed to the United States being in Afghanistan. Even some military members, I've spoken to them and I've been at airports. I've seen them in their in their fatigues. And I say, oh, are you heading out somewhere? They're like, yeah, I'm going to Afghanistan. I'm going to Iraq. And I say, listen, if you don't want to answer this question, if it makes you feel uncomfortable, that's OK. I don't want to make you feel uncomfortable. But I know you swear an oath to the Constitution. Yes. You will answer to constitutional orders. Yes.

There is no declaration of war. The only way the president can send troops out constitutionally is if there's a declaration of war. The only way the president can send troops out constitutionally is if there's a declaration of war. How do you feel knowing that you swore an oath to the constitution, but they're sending you out in a breach of the constitution? And their answer always is, well, I do what they tell me. And I think that that is sad and of course, very frightening. And I hope that, you know, I don't want to be too explicit on it, but I hope that people will remember this is the type of policy, what we see right here on the screen. This is the type of policy you get when people don't try to keep tabs on their own ethics and what is right and wrong and contradictory based on government policy and what they were doing there. I wonder, James, if anybody could say, gee, you know, you are guarding those fields.

Now we're going to come in and do civil asset forfeiture on the U.S. military now. Because, of course, you're involved with a crime. We can just take your Jeeps. You think they would do that, James? Well, I think it might be difficult to collect. If there is something, and I don't know how long you can stay with this, James, but I do want to ask a couple questions from Rockman. Okay, fire away. Excellent, excellent.

So let's head over to Rockman and Rumble chat and see what you have to say, everybody, here on the David Knight Show. And here are some of the points that are brought up over at Rumble, Rockfin. We're seeing, okay, they're talking about Geraldo Rivera. Now, yes, someone brought up the pandemic and the lockdowns. Love for you to be able to address some questions on that regarding civil liberties james and michael de salvio says we should just grow it here in the united states it's a very good point and hal 9000 watson i'm sure you understand the reference there james

a little dig on ibm, oh, the American way. And they also say no war, no war on pharma drugs. Those are subsidized and protected. Let's talk about the lockdowns for a second, James. You saw what was going on. And then we'll talk about the Capitol building, maybe January 6th, because you visited there and just seen the stark in your face police state appearance and practice there and how things have changed. Do you have any thoughts about the United States government,

including various governors, most of them, and legislatures cracking down on people's civil liberties, choosing essential, non-essential businesses, shutting things down with vaccine passports, the border, you got to be jabbed, all these types of things. Yeah, there's a solid chapter in the book on the COVID crackdown craziness. I think one of the clearest lessons of the pandemic was that in the long run, people have more to fear from politicians than from a virus. You had so many politicians who gave themselves dictatorial power. There were some great Supreme Court dissents during the early part of the pandemic. I believe it was Justice Gorsuch who was mocking the state of Nevada for putting very low limits for church attendance, but there was a much larger limit

for going to the casinos. And he said it's really difficult to reconcile the First Amendment with the... He had a very good line afterwards, trust me on that one. But there were lots of good court decisions, but the hysteria by the media, most of the media, not all of it, in favor of unlimited government power, and to see how the media made saints out of people like Fauci, in spite of all of his contradictions, in spite of his flip-flops, it was almost as if groveling to the government was the only way people could be saved. Absolutely, absolutely right. And his elitist El Senor approach, looking down his nose at people, the way that, and I wish Rand Paul had gone farther.

I hope he continues to do more, not just questioning the gain of function, but questioning any of the United States government involvement in the jab research. And of course, they they called those countermeasures claiming they could do that as a DOD type of preparatory thing against a potential attack by some foreign nation developing a virus. But they're the ones who developed the virus indirectly through EcoHealth Alliance, moving it from North Carolina over to Wuhan. So all of it is unconstitutional. And here's the quote on page 77, folks, from Neil Gorsuch. James writes in his new book, Last Rights, available at the Libertarian Institute, also on Amazon, James Bovard at Jim Bovard intrusions on civil liberties in the peacetime history of thiscies, and sparked far more suicides, alcoholism, and drug abuse.

Jim, everything from local schools and the teachers unions pushing for even more outside the school so-called education, everything from parents speaking up about that sort of thing and the way that they were speaking up about wokeism being detected by the DOE, then working with the National School Boards Association to try to concoct a narrative that the concerned parents were somehow potential domestic terror threats, and then getting the FBI to investigate them, which was halted supposedly, but not really when they got discovered, to the lockdowns, the jab passports, and as I've mentioned, the use of HIPAA, the 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, supposedly to protect our privacy. But in between pages 75 and 95 of the PDF, people can see how the head of HHS can demand medical records from anybody who is in medical in a medical profession who accepts Medicare and Medicaid patients to things like the people bringing in things on trucks from Canada. You've got to be jabbed to all sorts of things.

You can protest for BLM, but you can't protest for your own rights to protest. Unbelievable, unbelievable encroachments. And they cannot be forgotten. These sorts of things have to be remembered and they have to be fought. They have to be fought on a local, state, and federal level. And it just amazes me that so many people just allow these things to come out. And the lies, Fauci openly saying, well, yes, I lied about masks. And now I'm giving you a spurious reason is because I think they're so important to have masks.

When everybody knows the masks aren't important. Just absurd. What were some of the standout things as you went back on this? Because there's so much regarding the lockdowns and the lies from the federal government and the constitutional side of things and people's rights. Well, there is. Yeah, I've got a section in the COVID chapter on how the Biden White House browbeat the FDA to force them to give full approval for the Pfizer vax for COVID because they had to have that before Biden imposed his mandate for all Americans working for large companies to get vaxed. And to see the absolute contempt for anyone who did not roll over in command, shortly after Biden gave his speech in September 2021 on his vaccine mandates, Biden showed up on CNN and he said that the only reason that people weren't getting a vaccine is because they want their freedom to kill you with their COVID virus. And these are lines which have never really showed up in the

media radar screen. People do recall that Biden promised that if you get the injection, then you won't get COVID. And that was a false statement, even when he said it, because the CDC knew there were a torrent of breakthrough cases, but the feds were covering them up. But then the cover up collapsed. Absolutely. And we know that even during the during the early testing, they then got rid of their their control group. They ended up giving them the injection. The whole thing was absurd. And again, you know, that goes towards my libertarian argument of don't put your faith in the central authority that then can be gamed biggest corporations have big incentives to make sure

that their competition is knocked out and they get either government contracts or tariffs that will protect them or mandates to say, you must use this product. And this is exactly what Biden did. It's amazing to me to think that people think that this sort of thing can be reformed without actually at least questioning the very moral and ethical premises on which these people base their arguments that you must be forced to pay for your own protection because it doesn't work it never works that way you're not going to get any satisfaction if the agency that is supposed to protect you can just take your money at any time. They're actually a protection racket, you know. And this is something which compounds with the censorship stuff, because, OK, so you had the Biden folks come in and Biden was hell bent on persuading people that the COVID vaccines that were had only emergency use approval were panaceas. And so

what the Biden White House did was crack down on Twitter and Facebook and force them to suppress people making jokes about COVID vaccines. If you only made some kind of meme on Twitter, it's like, boom, you were suppressed. Because it was like were suppressed because it was as if the COVID vaccines would only work if freedom of speech was destroyed. That's absolutely right, James. Absolutely right. And I'll point something out to you. I don't know whether you've gotten to see his tweet today, but Glenn Jacobs mentioned this on Twitter. I'll see if I can find it very, very quickly. On Twitter, he brought up, I retweeted it, that since he is mayor of Knox County, of course

he's the former pro wrestler who played Kane and used to live up here in New Hampshire. Bench Press 520. I was talking to him once at 520. He used to live up here in New Hampshire. Bench press 520. What's that? I was talking to him once at a conference. He told me he's bench press 520. Wow. Are you kidding me? No, no. Holy moly.

Serious stuff. So I'm not going to argue with him. All right. Well, that's excellent. Yeah. Let me see if I can find this tweet. I could paraphrase it, but let me see if I can just give this to you, because he mentioned that Deborah Birx joined him lot of the information they had about, and I don't want to be too explicit here because I'd rather read what he said,

but I'll see if I can find it here. Yeah, Burks came to Knoxville in September 2020. Is that the one? Yes, that's it. Do you have it on yours, James? Yeah, I have it on mine. Feel free to read that. Yeah, this is quoting Glenn Jacobs.

He says that in a private meeting, Birx told us that bars and restaurants should be closed. She admitted that the data didn't support it, but said it was necessary to, quote, send a message about the seriousness of the virus. That's marketing, not science, says Glenn Jacobs. Good job, Glenn. And he is a great, great guy. In fact, I think we might have met either the year you were up here for the Libertarian Porcupine Festival

and Naomi Wolf was here, or it might have been the year after that. But yeah, very good guy. And of course, he lives down in Tennessee now. And yeah, it's amazing to see the stuff that was going on. And Glenn fought tooth and nail to try to prevent those sorts of mandates in his, uh, in Knox County and, uh, good for him. And, uh, you know, uh, it's, it's you, you guys that come from the country, James, you're still holding up the side for truth. It's my redneck heritage. Yeah. And, you know, I have some comments that were, they're also showing comments. Now people are watching us on Twitter. Uh,

previously it would be difficult to comment on Twitter. You would have to go in and just now people are commenting. I've got thank you so much for watching The David Knight Show, CHS 843 on Twitter slash X. And he mentioned Freeway Rick Ross. And of course, you know, the terrible things that happened to Freeway Rick Ross cleaned up his life. He says Trump might push for NATO to be closed as well. Well, I wouldn't, uh, don't count your chickens before they hatch on that one, my friend. I don't think they were going to see that happen, but who knows? You can always be hopeful. And, uh, let's see, uh, over on Rockfin chat, Scott Atlas had some

very interesting things to say on the high wire about Berks and company. Yeah. Scott, Scott Atlas had some very interesting things to say on the high wire about Berks and company. Scott Atlas was talking about the inner workings there and how he kept getting shut out. They would start to have meetings even without him. They wouldn't even call on him once they found out what his position would be. He wouldn't be there. And yeah, there's so many interesting things to discuss, James. What do you think stands out as you think about all the stories that you have in there? Is there something that you would want to really stress to the audience, one or two items here before we close things off with you? And thank you very much. If you have to go,

go for it. I mean, thanks for all your kind comments. Thanks for the excellent questions. I guess the overview I'd want folks to take away is just the fundamental principle of what happens when politicians and government officials can claim control of your life. And then once they have that established, it's an unlimited series of often idiotic dictates. I mean, you think of TSA, what you've got to do when you're flying. You think of the COVID lockdowns. You think of a lot of other federal mandates that are helping wreck this country, wrecking our prosperity. You think of how the government is destroying our currency and people in D.C. don't give a damn because they're mostly all very well

paid. And there is just so much damage that the political class is inflicting on the nation. And people need to fundamentally reevaluate how they look at the U.S. government and American politicians. It's interesting. I was commenting on Facebook. I'd had some posts from a few years earlier. And so I, so I said, I was replying to someone and said that said something like, well,

well, I hope that we can whip the political rascals in the coming years. And Facebook gave me a warning for saying, talking about whipping the political rascals. And I was thinking, okay, I guess that they're not familiar with Thomas Paine saying that politicians were the most rascally group of humanity.

But there is this concerted effort to make people deferential to the ruling class and to make it seem like the real problem is that people who talk about whipping the political rascals, not all the lies and abuses from the Washington elite. James Bovard, at Jim Bovard on Twitter, your website. Great conversation recently with Tom Woods. There's just awesome stuff. Libertarian Institute, everybody. Check out the Libertarian Institute.

This is a Libertarian Institute publication. And James, before you go, I'll refer once more to that page 77, because you have that quote in there. And this should be sufficient. Just this statement should be enough for people to say, OK, I need to fight back for truth because we knew this was false the minute he said it. Quote, you're not going to get COVID if you have these injections. July 21st, 2021, President Joe Biden.

And you wrote, the COVID-19 pandemic opened a Pandora's box of perils to freedom, prosperity, and health. Though judges torpedoed a few despotic decrees, politicians fanned pandemic fears to seize nearly absolute power. Despite pervasive abuses, not a single government official spent a day in jail for the most politically exploited pandemic in American history. And James, their excuses about so-called public health run not only in conjunction with the nonsense of that man, Joe Biden, but run counter to individual liberty. It's a consequentialist view, and they have excused the attack on everybody's individual rights. There's no such thing as public health. There's only individual health. And the minute someone tells you, I'm in a group of people, we're in charge, and we are going to decide what the public health is and what we can do to you.

They're immediately negating their own argument because you are just a member, as everybody else is, of this group. And if they can threaten you, if they can threaten you, they can threaten somebody else who's not threatened today. They can threaten him tomorrow because they're always going to be there. And so this is so important, this book. Thank you. Hey, thanks is so important, this book. Thank you. Hey, thanks so much for the kind words. Thanks for doing a great job of pulling out

some of the best parts of the book. I really appreciate that, Gardner. You got it, James. You got it. You know, sometimes I get, I just, I just get so appreciative of your work, James. Any, any thoughts, people, just to mention where people can find you as you, as you head off and continue Working for people Various places I've been doing quite a bit lately For the New York Post I've done some stuff for Mises Institute, Brownstone American Conservative Magazine

Other places which I should not Be forgetting but I am Well no problem James James Bovard is with us and James Next time I bring you on Maybe I'll play that Rifleman soundtrack in honor of a great show of a guy. It came from good country stock and fought for goodness. Or maybe I'll play, there's a song called High on Drugs about the drug war and all those drugs. Hey, hey, I was I was trying to polish up my Boy Scout image that, you know, that. Well, James, thank you so much. Next time, we'll also talk about some of your personal reflections as you watch around the Capitol and saw some of the very things that people can see just by looking at the cover of your book, The Razor War on the Capitol. Just a quick comment. The photo on the cover was one that I took when I was on a hike going around

the Capitol when it was thousands of National Guard troops with M-16s and camouflage. And it was like, I felt like, ah, American democracy, it's finally been perfected. Well, how dare you engage in photography without a license? You charlatan, you. You evil man. Don't you understand? And how dare you put these pictures out on social media? Nina Jankovic is going to sing at you, my friend.

You better watch out. Well, it'll serve me right. Thanks so much, Gardner. Thanks, James. James Bovard, folks. Thank you, James Bovard, so much for being a guest on The David Knight Show. And boy, he calls up the Glenn Jacobs quote right off the bat. Great stuff.

Everyone have a terrific day as we round off the program of The David Knight Show tomorrow. Tony Arterburn of Wise Wolf Gold and Silver Exchange will be here. And Handy says this. Of course, Handy's profession in EMT work says, I have a hard time even using the word COVID when I've never seen anything worse than what looks like a cold slash flu. But I've seen the jab maim and kill several. Harps in Australia, have some Marmite for me, my friend.

Have a great day, everyone. Stay free and great show guard. Thank you so much. Karen Carpenter says, I like to learn. Karen Carpenter, many hearts to you. Little John, thank you. Occult Priestess, watch Occult Priestess on Rockfin. She is amazing. And what a wonderful, thank you. Occult Priestess. Watch Occult Priestess on Rockfin. She is amazing.

And what a wonderful, gracious host. And Matthew Ronson, thank you. Taking photos is dangerous. Hal9000, thank you very much. And Shevken321, thank you very much for being there. I appreciate all of you being there. Maloney, thank you. Matthew Ronson, thank you. I appreciate all of you being there. Maloney, thank you. Matthew Ronson, thank you.

I appreciate that. Everyone, tomorrow I won't be here, but I'll be here Friday. We're going to do a little countdown on Friday and we're going to have a little special guest for the countdown. I'm looking forward to that. It's going to be super awesome, super mega awesome. And if you detect a smile on my face, it's because I'm playing in something goofy. So it's going to be fun. And join me tonight on Liberty Conspiracy at six o'clock. We'll run through even more breaking stories, news resources, The David Knight Show, thedavidknightshow.com. Check it out. Remember, if you want to get involved with, uh, Gerald Salente's great work, check out Gerald Salente's work. And, uh, if you want to get Gerald Salente's publication,

then you can get a 10% discount with Gerald Salente. And I got to say. So many people working for freedom. You know. Whether you get Trends Journal. Or you know. You're going to watch Redacted. Or whatever. You're watching My Liberty Conspiracy. Thanks.

Thanks for being interested. Really appreciate it. I'll leave you again with a little ad. For David Knight's great music. And a little something to recognize David and the kindness of them welcoming me to the show. So let's check it out, everybody. Thank you very much watching the show. Don't forget, if you do want to contribute over on Rock, Fin, and Rumble, everything goes to them.

Still have a chance to do so, and I really appreciate it. And share the show after the fact. Great to have you there. G.A. Boy, thank you so much. And share the show after the fact. Great to have you there, GA boy. Thank you so much. And we'll see you again on Friday. Tony Arterburn, tomorrow, 9 a.m. And of course, my show, if you want to watch Liberty Conspiracy, Rumble, Rockfin, my Twitter, at Guard Goldsmith.

As the prisoner would say, be seeing you. ¡Gracias! you're listening to the david knight show