The David Knight Show - 30Aug23 People Pushback Getting Results Against Both Climate & Covid MacGuffins

Episode Date: August 30, 2023

OUTLINE of today's show with TIMECODES Even mainstream media and the Pentagon are admitting jumps in death coinciding with vaccine roll-out, so WHY did we have questions about UFOs in the GOP debate and WHY did Tucker not ask Trump anything about the jabs, lockdowns, etc?WINNING:Pushback from Americans gets Kaiser Permanente & a Hollywood studio to back off mask mandates.NINE COUNTIES in FLORIDA ban the TrumpShot and push DeSantis and county sheriffs to do the sameAll but one council in London refusing to put up Sadiq Khan's ULEZ signsScientists take on the lies of authorities about "climate change" and oppose with REAL scienceBUT…Biden moves to ban ceiling fans now and restrict water usage for dishwashers Why AI bubble stock market bubble has peaked and Chat programs are getting dumber — but STILL a dangerous threat to our privacy and liberty Washington Post comes after homeschool and parental rights leader — and FAILSOur guest today, J. Warner Wallace, a longtime detective working on old cases where witnesses and even original investigators were no longer around, looks at the Bible from the perspective of a cold-case detective in his book "Cold-Case Christianity". The perspective is sorely needed even in secular subjects as our society has lost its way, out of touch with all objective truth and critical thinking. ColdCaseChristianityBook.com 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.

Drive safe and obey the rules of the road. Vehicle owners who receive a red light or speed camera violation can pay or dispute online at toronto.ca.aps. Using free speech to free minds. You're listening to The David Knight Show. As the clock strikes 13, it's Wednesday, the 30th of August, Year of Our Lord 2023. Well, today we're going to take a look at the developing murder mystery, the mass murder mystery, although it's not much of a mystery if you've been following this for three years, but now we have mainstream confirmation. The U.S. is experiencing a crisis of early death. And, of course, so are many other countries.

But we got the jab earlier than others did. Yeah, it is a mass murder mystery. And we're going to take a look at whodunit. But we're also going to take a look at the extraordinary claims around the climate lockdown, the reactions of people pushing back, and how people have pushed back or are pushing back now, and how it's having an effect in London against this climate MacGuffin, how people have pushed back against the mask MacGuffin.

That seems to be working as well. We have a very interesting guest coming up in the third hour. We'll be right back. Yes, in the third hour, everybody loves a detective story. We're going to have a guest on who's going to talk about the greatest detective story ever told cold case christianity is a um jay warner wallace has written a book he's got a podcast he is an actual cold case detective he was an atheist he looked at the claims and and this has a lot of effect on how we evaluate, whether you're Christian or not, how do you evaluate extraordinary claims, right? Show me the evidence.

And is this person a credible witness, for example? I do this stuff all the time. It's very rare that I'm actually at a site to report directly there. Typically, I'm getting my information from people who are journalists and witnesses, and so I have to look at their biases and what they have done in the past and kind of try to read between the lines. And that's basically what he does. In a cold case, he can't interrogate anybody directly. He has to evaluate the information. In many cases, everybody is already dead. And so that's what he did to evaluate the New Testament and the Old Testament as well.

So we're going to talk about that. But let's begin with this murder mystery that we've been following for three years. It's not a mystery. But the United States is experiencing a crisis of early death, says mainstream media. This is on study finds. It was picked up by the Drudge Report. And they say even compared to other countries, which we have seen the statistics for those countries and we've seen how they have jumped up, how that jumping up coincided with a vaccine,

how there really wasn't anything happening in many of these countries. Going back, I remember the first year, we're just a few months into it, and I'm sorry, not the first year of the vaccine. And they had statistics. It was a French epidemiologist who had gone around and collected statistics from several dozen countries. Mongolia was a good example where the people, they had essentially no COVID deaths whatsoever. And then they start with something popped up and they introduce ivermectin and it goes down to essentially zero.

And then they bring in the shots and it jumps back up higher than it ever was before. We've seen this over and over again. What they're saying now is the number of missing Americans in recent years is unprecedented in modern times, says the study's lead and author. And, um, again, there's massive blood on the hands of Biden and Trump. We know that for sure. And these are people who are now the front runners. It's just the most amazing thing to me. And nothing is being said about it.

we have, uh, you know, as, as you look at this, um, and, and really, you know, when you talk about the election, there was a great article from Brownstone by Daniel Horowitz, and I 100% endorse what he's having to say with this thing. He was spot on. He is looking at this from the same standpoint I am. He looked at these debates and he looked at the Tucker interview and he goes,

why are they talking about UFOs instead of COVID fascism? Or we could say Trump and Biden fascism. That's what it really is. COVID didn't do anything to anybody. It was Trump and Biden that did it. And this is published on the Brownstone. He says, that was the 800-pound gorilla in the room at the debate. It was the elephant that was not in the room either at the debate or during the Tucker Carlson interview with Trump, although it had a lot to do with Trump. Horowitz says the Fox moderators did not utter the word COVID the entire night, nor did Tucker ask Trump about his doubling down on the vaccines,

his refusing to acknowledge any mistakes with the lockdowns, even as biomedical fascists began bringing back COVID fascism. Again. How in the world do they get a pass on this? From Tucker, especially. And I just got to say, you know, when you look at this, and he knows what's happening as well as you and I do. He says the reason they're not saying anything about it is because they, it was both parties. He said leaders of both parties, their respective media mouthpieces,

including the top GOP gun himself, Trump, were all in on it. And nobody wants a reckoning. We've not had a reckoning on emergency powers. We've not had a reckoning on lockdowns or masks or blocking of treatment or the deadly vaccines and remdesivir. And as I've said before, this is very much like the Agatha Christie murder mystery. Murder on the Orient Express. It's been made so many times in the movies, it's amazing.

It's about a half dozen times or something. And at the very end, this person, the murder victim, everybody's got a motive that's on the train. And he's very end, you know, this person, the murder victim, everybody's got a motive that's on the train. And he's got 12 stab wounds. Spoiler alert here. I'm sure you've already seen it. It's been so many different ones. But at the very end, they got 12 different stab wounds. At the very end, as Detective Hercule Perrault,atha Christie mystery, as he solves it every single person there took a turn at stabbing him

and that's what happened to us that's what happened to our constitution, our way of life our friends our relatives every one of these creeps in both of these parties did it.

And we haven't had a confession yet. Don't hold your breath. Yeah. Murder on the Orient Express, I guess we could say. Murder on the Chinese Express because they all blame it on China, right? It's China that did it. No, you did it. You did it. Yeah. I got banned off of YouTube, uh, in January of 2021. Uh, and, and one of the things that they kicked me on, one of the three that they kicked me off with was, um, I said, uh, 2020 the year the world became China. Oh, that was it. That was it. That put me in the crosshairs, and they took me off very quickly.

That was the first one. Then all the rest of them followed in rapid succession. But as Daniel Horowitz says, this is a debate where questions about UFOs were discussed, but nobody wants to talk about what he says is the worst tyranny and genocide in American history. No debate about that at all. And so this is why I say when you look at people like Tucker, when you look at

people like Ramaswamy, oh, Trump, the best president we've ever had, right? No. Tucker and Ramaswami are suck-ups they know that they have to kowtow to to trump in order to get what they want it's very disgusting uh daniel horwood says um as steve dees and i warned in our book uh those responsible are without remorse. So there will be a reckoning. There must be a reckoning, he says.

Barring that reckoning, we promise you they will make us remorseful later for not holding them accountable now. As I've said many times, this is the pause, the eye of the hurricane. We have not won unless we make them sorry about what they have done. Unless they regret it, unless they even talk about it, unless they

pull back these regulations, we need to have the opposite of what they put out there with the model state health emergency powers act after they ran their initial kickoff with their dark winter war games and their false flags and everything around 9-11. Then there's the economy. He said, obviously, the economy chewed up a substantial portion of the presidential debate, as well as most of our daily political discussions. But nearly every economic yield that ails us today is a result of COVID money printing policies.

Trillions of dollars of monetary and fiscal spending created the greatest wealth gap in American history, as well as permanently elevated the cost of living. Isn't it interesting? Oh, yeah. Here's your little stimulus check. I'll give you a little check here. And, of course, payback is going to be a real problem. But, you know, we're showering the big companies with PPP. We've transferred massive amounts of wealth to the billionaires.

But hey, I got a stimulus check. Isn't that great? I'm feeling good about this stuff. DeSantis was the only one on the stage to trace the excrement sandwich we now call our economy back to the obvious source. But otherwise, the entire existence of the last three years from hell would never have been recalled. Even as many of the policies are making a comeback with a number of them from

rushed vaccines to inflation, having never left. This was the thing that was driving me nuts. And I'm glad that he did this. This is spot on. You'll find this whole op-ed piece at brownstone he said the coverage of the coveted abomination even from the conservative media has been muted from day one ever since 15 days to start to flatten the curve right it has supplanted

life liberty property and economic prosperity until this day. He says it is jarring that Tucker Carlson did not ask Trump a single question about it during his carefully timed pre-taped interview. Yeah, as far as I'm concerned, with that performance that he had, Tucker has finally put to rest any doubt about where this guy is coming from. He's always been a CIA wannabe. He is a shill for hire, a prostitute.

That's all Tucker is. It's absolutely amazing. At the same time, right after he did some good work with the candidates and exposed them, he can do good work. He's very clever. I mean, Ramaswamy is very clever. I don't trust him either. He got Pence to admit that what happens to us is not his concern.

He's got a war to fight with Russia, right, and other things like that. So he did good work there. At the beginning of that, as I saw that, I thought, well, that's really promising. He says, you know, for the first time in his life, he had read the Bible and he was very, very amazed at the characters that were there and how they were portrayed. You know, they weren't portrayed as cardboard saints, you know, they were portrayed with all of their faults. But then he immediately goes out and interviews Andrew Tate, which tells you that he doesn't care about anything other than eyeballs

and dollar signs, right? Andrew Tate, a man who has enslaved women with pornography, used them, and then used that to enslave men to pornography and made himself rich. What a disgusting character Andrew Tate is. But of course, Tucker and Alex continue to give him a platform

to pontificate about. And it's okay. You know, just like Blair White, if Andrew Tate likes Trump and says some conservative things, it's okay. It's okay. Whatever he does with pornography, it's okay. Whatever Blair White does to normalize this trends insanity. And of course, you know, that's just God working in mysterious ways, as Alex says. Well, this is what Horowitz says. He says, for those who think COVID fascism is over, just remember.

And he's got about seven bullet points here. He says the FDA and the CDC are still funding and promoting dangerous vaccines, doing it at an even quicker pace. Remdesivir is still the treatment for COVID to this very day. Governments are still tracking and surveilling vaccination status. Masking is still the go-to policy in many settings whenever a respiratory virus spreads now, and it's ridiculous. Our government has not slowed its gain-of-function research at all. They just use that story about Wuhan to sell you a narrative

that there was a dangerous virus out there. That's the only reason they talk about it. Or to criticize Fauci. Otherwise, they don't care about gain-of-function. And they're going to continue to fund it. And they're going to continue to have it. Look, gain-of-function blew up because I think her name was Allison Young. At USA Today 2014 exposed the many, many, many accidents across this country.

There's more than 200 biosafety-level 3 and 4 labs across this country. She talked about workers there getting sick, about diseased animals escaping. It was just horrific what was happening. Workers there getting sick about diseased animals escaping and all. It was just horrific what was happening. And then there was the big story down in Tulane at the National Primate Center where they brought in a bacteria and it got out of their biosafety level three lab, their Burkholderia pseudomallei. So all that came out and Congress said, OK, stop this. But Fauci and Collins didn't stop it. They continued it at the University of North Carolina

and a couple of other American universities. Then they started funding it in foreign countries, in Wuhan. And then when Trump came in in 2017, he lifted that moratorium that was put on by the Republicans in Congress and under the Obama administration. And nothing is being done about gain of function. And the conservative media is not talking about it.

Instead, they're using it to stoke concern about China. We're going to have to have a war with China. Look at what they did to our country. That was an attack. That was an attack by our own government. It was the fifth column that did that to us. The muted response to COVID from the so-called right is that clearly things have not gotten bad enough.

The sad and terrifying thing is that whatever they must throw at us to elicit a righteous and unified policy response will now have to be so devastating that we will likely never have the political ability to fight it, even if we wanted to. That's very powerful, and it's exactly right. That is the state. You see, it really ultimately comes back to us, doesn't it? It really does come back to us. We just are relieved to get a temporary reprieve. But it's going to come back with a vengeance.

Like I said, the eye of the storm, the hurricane, and the backside of it, if it passes directly over you, can be much worse. And so as we look at the surfacing information, remember we've talked about the military database, the DMEDS. There were several whistleblowers who talked about it. And now a service member who earlier this year blew the whistle disclosed data from the Pentagon's medical database showing a spike in the rate of myocarditis in the military in 2021. I wonder what happened that year. And he is active duty Navy Medical Service Corps Officer Lieutenant Ted Macy. He has also revealed new data showing a substantial rise in

accidents, assaults, self-harm, and suicide attempts in the military compared to the previous average. In January, he and his wife traveled to Washington with a report of the data that he had collected from DMED. And let me just review quickly here. The DMED database is very different from VAERS and from the other one that they just shut down. Because people were using the app. They didn't like that. People were doing too much reporting, so they shut that down. Because people were using the app, they didn't like that. People were doing too much reporting, so they shut that down. With VAERS, according to their previous studies, Harvard and others, only 10% of the adverse effects of vaccines were reported anyway,

before they started putting political pressure on people to not do it. But the Pentagon database is different. Because the Pentagon has to do this as part of military preparedness and readiness. And, uh, you have to know if you are under biological or chemical attack. And so they keep a very, um, diligent medical database. And when you had a whistleblowers showing how this had exploded with a vaccines Pentagon went back and said, Oh no, you know, you compared that to the previous five years to see that explosion. Well, previous five years were all wrong. And, uh, so don't pay any attention to the previous five years. Really? Anybody get fired? Anybody get court-martialed? I should say

for that kind of neglect of duty? I mean, that's like, you know, you've got guard duty at the fort and you've been asleep for five years at the gate? Really? And nothing happens with that? So we all saw through that. This new whistleblower includes a 147% increase in the intentional self-harm incidents among service members and an 828% increase in injuries from assault. So all this mandate stuff is having a big effect on the military and morale. Want to know why nobody's signing up for this stuff?

In January, he and his wife traveled to Washington with the data they collected from DMED. It showed a diagnosis of myocarditis had jumped 130% in 2021. Now, that's two and a third times of what they had had. When compared to the average from the years 2016 to 2020, all four of the vaccines authorized in the U.S. canocarditis. According to us officials, uh, Lloyd Austin, uh, the secretary of defense mandated the vaccine requirement, but the data also showed spikes and diagnoses of pulmonary embolism, blood clots in the lungs, ovarian dysfunction and, um, complications, ill-defined descriptions of heart disease. And so, as I said, they said, well, you know, we messed up for five years.

So we've never done this right. So we're going to just change your baseline of the previous five years combined. After the Pentagon said the issue was corrected, he and others, including, and Teresa Long was the first one that I'd seen talking about it, but it was also Navy Lieutenant Bill Mosley, First Lieutenant Mark Bashaw, a preventive medicine officer in the Army, and Army Dr. Major Samuel Sigaloff. Notice that there were still concerning signs of increases in diagnoses, such as myocarditis and pulmonary embolism.

So it's like even if you go back and you fudge the data for your baseline, the five years baseline, we're still seeing big increases. So Macy was the only active duty member in the command who didn't receive the COVID vaccine. And he was actively suing the secondary defense. He said people began to come to him in confidence, telling him about adverse reactions. They were convinced were from the shot. These anecdotal, but compelling personal injuries were motivators to get things on the right

track, he said. So, um, he took this to Washington, Senator Ron Johnson verified this top Republican on the panel. And, um, then he sends this to the Pentagon. Lieutenant Macy suspected the Pentagon wouldn't respond based on what they'd done in the past. But he said, much to my surprise, they confirmed that his data was accurate. And the Pentagon's response, Gilbert Cisneros, Jr., Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel Readiness, pointed to data on the rate of cases per 100,000 person years, a way to measure risk across a certain period of time.

For almost all the conditions that showed an increase in 2021, he said the new case rate was higher for service members with prior COVID-19 infection than for those with prior COVID-19 vaccination. This suggests that it was much more likely to be the COVID infection and not COVID-19 vaccination was a cause, said Cisneros. Well, they said, we're going to show additional data. Look, I said from the very beginning of this, I said in December of 2020, I said they're going to mandate this in September. I said, and it's, you know, you can go back.

We have it on roundtablereport.com. You can see the article and the clip that I had at the time. I said, they're going to come after the people they call heroes. First responders also come after the military. I said, they're going to do it in September. And I said, no matter what happens happens they'll say it's not the vaccine you know it's a new variant or it's um you know uh covid itself that's what they're going to say all very predictable and florida you now have it was um one county began with one county, and now it has spread to nine counties where they're calling for the ban of the COVID vaccine.

And see, this is where I have a big problem with Ron DeSantis. You see, he knows. He's made it clear. He knows. He put in a Surgeon General, Latipo. Who knows? They know about this. Well, we're not going to recommend it to young people.

They've got no risk from this Cooties thing that's going around. You know, Cooties 19. They don't have a risk to that. But this does have risk, so we're not going to recommend that. But, you know, older people, you still need to get this. And we've got to take a look at whether or not this stuff is safe. So let's ask the court system to do something. Let's ask the court system to convene a grand jury to investigate this stuff. I'm governor. I'm not

going to do it. I don't have time. I'm running for president, right? And this is what we see happening all the time. This is how we get a regulatory state, a bureaucracy that is supreme, a judiciary that is supreme to our elected representatives. This is how we get taxation without representation and regulation without representation because these people who are elected don't want to do anything. They don't want to be in the hot seat. They don't want to have this hot potato in their lap. We're seeing it here in Tennessee with this so-called drag queen, the dragons with the kids. We're seeing the same type of thing.

Nobody at the local level wants to pass a law or do anything or arrest lewd behavior with kids. There's so many different things that they could do, but they say, no, no, we're going to let the state do it. And then the state says, well, we did it. We're going to let the state do it. And then the state says, well, we did it. We're going to let a Trump district judge decide on this. And the Trump district judge says, you can't do it. And I was like, oh, okay, well, I can't do it then.

Say my hands are tied. I can't do anything. We've seen Trump do this with DACA and on and on and with the wall. It's just, it's disgusting to see these people avoid doing anything. They make their speeches when they're running for office. Then they get in office and say, well, I've got to ask permission from everybody else. And if everybody says I can do this, then I'll do it. But I don't have any authority to do anything.

Well, then get out of there. Lead, follow, or get out of the way. Trump needs to get out of the way. He's had his shot. So has Biden. And so you've got nine counties doing the right thing. So I say it's got to happen at the local level. Nine counties have come out to do what DeSantis will not do. A movement is gaining momentum to pressure Florida Governor DeSantis, county sheriffs, and the Florida legislature to ban these Trump shots and other mRNA vaccines in Florida. They know exactly what is going on.

Everybody knows this. They pretend that we don't know, but we do. That was the best line out of that song, you know, Richmond, north of Richmond. But it is having an effect. As I said before, with the masks, they will back off if we don't comply. Because they've already done that once, right? The masks were not working. And you're always going to have a certain percentage of people who are going to be so irrational and paranoid that they're going to try to put as many masks on as they can. You know, they'll put 15 on their face. Smothering themselves.

Lowering their IQ level even further. Oxygen deprivation. But you're always going to have people like that. But look, when the masses of people just quietly decided that they were not going to comply, they did not revolt, but they did not comply. And so when they just quietly decided that they were not going to comply,

these people got out in front of it. And that's how they are. That's how they're hardening these precedents that were put in by trump and biden because we're not revolting against this the masks are revolting why aren't you right government is revolting why aren't you across the board here? And so you've had some of these organizations typically coming from private organizations. Kaiser Permanente in California reversed their new policy to require masks. You've got the Hollywood studio that put them on. They've now dropped it as well. They've also backed off, but we have to come back and we have to take back this

power. It's important for us not to comply, but we have to shut down this prevarication that they have put on us. Um, and I see on rumble, uh, thank you very much for the tip RCF 2020. Thanks to DK team. Can you interview John Rappapaport i need to get john back on um i used to talk to him pretty frequently at uh when i was at infowars and i haven't talked to him since we've had this program so i need to we need to reach out and get john rapaport i always like talking to him and he was spot on from the beginning of this stuff uh they never fooled him never fooled him he knew exactly what was going on. He told people the truth from the very beginning. I remember as this stuff was happening and Easter

was coming up and the two of us were on it, he was adamant. He'd written articles about it. He said, okay, we shut this thing down when the Christians call BS on this, call their bluff. You know that this isn't dangerous. Go ahead and have church on Easter. Don't stay home on Easter. That's the biggest, one of the two biggest days. People who never go to worship God will go on Christmas and on Easter. So open up for Easter, and we can shut this thing down right now. And that was really key. It really was key. Eventually the churches did take a leading role in that, especially because they made churches the most dangerous place that you could go in PR. You know, there's no place that you can go what's more dangerous than a

church. All that singing going on and people around, you know, you can't have that kind of stuff. So yeah, he was spot on. We we're gonna take a quick break and we'll be right back Thank you. Making sense common again. You're listening to The David Knight Show. Oh, yeah. Look at this. How China's carbon emissions have grown. This is, when we look at what is happening in London,

do you see the UK there? No, we're at 1995 and... Oh London, do you see the UK there? No, we're at 1995 and... Oh, that's a MacGuffin. He said, what is a MacGuffin? He said, well, it's an apparatus for trapping lions in the Scottish Highlands. Men said, but there are no lions in the Scottish Highlands. He said, then that's no MacGuffin.

Thank you for clearing that up for us. Yeah, if we understand what is going on, that chart that I just showed there, in 1995 you could see where the UK was in terms of carbon emissions. They were way down the pack. They've disappeared long ago in terms of top nations. And you just saw there a blade runner cutting it down yeah once you see that

you realize that uh there's no lines in scottish highlands and there's no threat in london either the real threat in london is coming from sad Sadiq Khan and from the government itself. And they're running this MacGuffin to get you chasing your tail. Drivers of older cars, a 1250 a day, uh, pounds,

it's about $15 or more. And, um, uh, this morning, the embattled mayor insisted the expansion that was yesterday of the scheme was not anti-car or anti-motorist. That's all it is.

That's all it is. He's trying to make this case. We're all going to die. And people are not having it. They know exactly what this is. Tories, the conservatives, who kicked this stuff off, quite frankly? It was Boris Johnson and other people like that who kicked this off. And they're playing this climate MacGuffin as well.

But they're trying to pull back. And the people are not fooled. They can't stand Sadiq Khan. They can't stand the conservatives either. But the Tories branded the policy a money-raising exercise. The transport secretary, Mark Harper, saying he would have blocked it if he had the power. But, you know, hey, there's just nothing I can do about it. You know, same thing we hear about all this stuff, right?

Well, this is the way that people reacted. Yeah, it's going to be up to us. It's going to be up to us. It's going to be up to us. It's disgusting. This is not the right thing. You're doing it for your own rights. You're doing it for your own rights. It affects all of us.

It affects all of us, not just you. This is what I want. Yeah, it's about all of us, not just you. Yeah, it's about all of us. It's not just about you. Exactly. And so these people, as I said, they understand precisely what's going on. Councils bordering London are now refusing to put up the signs. See?

It's starting at the Laurel. Just like the counties in Florida telling DeSantis, make this illegal. You're not doing this. So the county's taking the lead. You've got councils that are bordering London that are taking the lead. They're refusing to put up the signs to warn drivers that they're about to enter the ULEZ, the ultra-low emission zone. Of the seven local authorities that border the Capitol, only one has reached an agreement and the rest of them have not done so.

So any internal combustion engine, uh, vehicle that was introduced earlier than 2005 will be fined $15 a day. If you move that thing, diesel cars and vans are only exempt if they were introduced after September 2015 regulations were implemented. And so, you know, in other words, forget about it. This will snare popular vans registered before the cutoff date, including the Ford Transit Custom 310s. And this is what some of the people who were protesting had to say. It's affecting so many poor people. All the rich can afford a new car, but everybody wants clean air, so it's all about money.

EULA's expansion started today. How do you feel? Furious! Absolutely furious. I think we've been totally let down by the Parliament and the government and everyone. It's just a totally unfair tax on the poorer people of the country and London. I won't be able to go to any of my clubs. I'll go to Salvation Army. I won't be able to go to that. I go to a choir.

I go to a breakfast club. I go to so many things, but I won't be able to get there on the bus because I'm not very mobile. She's got a walker. She's got a walker. My van isn't compliant. He's gone out today to do a job,

which isn't a lot of money. Everyone's finding it really hard at the minute. So if he goes out to do estimates, for example, when he's not getting paid, he's got to pay £12.50 just to go to someone's house. And he's asked customers, would they accept a charge for the estimate? And they've all said no.

So we just absolutely have been so stressed out, so worried. Why do you use public transport? So we just absolutely have been so stressed out, so worried. Why do you use public transport? My family are all spread around the country. You can't use public transport for that sort of thing. We don't. Yeah, why don't you just live in a 15-minute zone? That's the point. And why don't we just get rid of these troublesome middle-class people?

We just take away their jobs and their businesses. They're not essential. We'll put them on a welfare check. We'll call it universal basic income. And it'll be very basic. It'll be like the stimulus check that Trump gave people. Yeah, we all understand. They understand what this is. Look, first of all, they got to prove that there's warming. Then if they were to prove that, they have to prove that it's from my car, my SUV, my van, that sort of thing. And then of course, uh, you could have them say, well, let's prove that it's coming from, uh, London. One lady that's further on in that, uh, tape, cause it's pretty long.

One lady said, uh, look, I was around in the 50s when the air pollution in London was so bad you couldn't see in your hand in front of your face some days. Don't talk to me about this. There's no problem with air quality here. And as many people are pointing out, take a look at the Asian cities. Take a look at a place like Wuhan, for example. That's one of the things that John Rappaport was saying. Oh, they said they got a respiratory illness outbreak in Wuhan. Do you realize that's one of the most polluted cities on earth?

It would be news if they didn't have respiratory problems there. But they don't prove any of these things. Instead, they use a MacGuffin to rob us. And so now you've got a pushback. A lot of different scientists, a couple of them, recent Nobel Prize winners are pushing back on this idea that there is a climate emergency, that there is man-made global warming, 1600 scientists. But let me just say, I'm glad that they put this together and they have very credibly talked about what this is.

But the fact that we've got Nobel Prize winners here or the fact that there are 1,600 of them, that's not science. It isn't one scientist against the world could be right. That's typically what we've seen when science has advanced. Science is based on data, and it only advances with skepticism and challenge of the accepted status quo, of the general consensus. And that's the only time that it advances, is when somebody questions the general consensus. And so the fact that we have people

with honored credentials and stuff, that's irrelevant, really. And it's irrelevant how many people signed this, but the document itself is not irrelevant. The document itself is good. It's the same type of argument that we see being made by both sides about the weather. It is not an argument against climate change to say, look at how cold it is right now. We do. We laugh about these guys talking about global warming in the middle of a snowstorm.

It is humorous, right? But that's no more a disproving of their claim than it is a proof of their claim to say, oh, look, we've got fires in Hawaii. That doesn't prove it either. The bottom line is it comes down to the data. And as I've said many times, I've been involved. I know how these people have hidden data, how they have lied,

how they've gone back and backfilled it, the same way we see them doing with the vaccine and the DMED database of the Pentagon. They do this stuff all the time. This is how liars operate. This is how government bureaucrats operate. This is why it's the same tactics, the same MacGuffin, if you will. You know, they have a different goal, but they use the same tactics in all these things.

And so, you know, the idea that we have a climate emergency and the debate of this, you know, now being debunked because we've got 1,600 scientists. No, it's what they have to say that matters. And we don't want to use these arguments to try to prove our case. Arguments about weather. Arguments about, well, this person's got a Nobel Prize or we got 1,600 scientists here. That's not what it's about. But they do have some good things to say. Here's what they have to say.

They said climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. They said scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the cost, the real costs, as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures. Again, isn't this just like the vaccine stuff?

What's the cost-benefit analysis here? Do you want to talk about that? Do you want to show me the evidence for what you've got here? Let me see the data? No, they don't do that, you see. It's always the same tactics what you've got here. Let me see the data. No, they don't do that. You see, it's always the same tactics when they lie about this. And,

um, the biggest evidence that they're lying is, um, it used to be that they filed lawsuits to keep you from seeing their emails. That's what I was involved in with climate gate. Now, what they do is they get you purged from the social media square or anybody who counters their narrative. And that censorship shows that they're afraid of the truth, that they can't defend their position. It is an admission of

defeat. It is an admission that they are lying to you when they censor discussion and debate about this. So this organization that's been recently put together by some of these people, CLINTEL, C-L-I-N-T-E-L, the Global Climate Intelligence Group is what they call it. And in their announcement, they said, misguided climate science has metastasized into massive shock journalistic pseudoscience. In turn, the pseudoscience has become a scapegoat for a wide variety of other unrelated ills. It's been promoted and extended by similarly misguided business marketing agents, politicians, journalists, government agencies, and environmentalists. And you notice the ones that they put there at the very beginning, business marketing agents, politicians, journalists, government agencies, and environmentalists.

And you notice the ones that they put there at the very beginning, business, marketing agents, because these are the people who are making the big money off of this. This is a massive transfer of wealth. The organization debunks the inflammatory and extreme claims that Earth soon will see entire species going extinct, that the seas will rise to flood cities and so forth, which they obviously don't believe

because they're going out there and spending tens of millions of dollars on seaside mansions that the climate alarmists have their maps and say, this is going to be underwater shortly. Well, these people obviously don't believe that. People like Obama and others. One example of such claims,

a report said, came recently from the charge by the New York Times that, quote, Earth is likely to cross a critical threshold for global warming within the next decade. You see, I've been hearing this all my adult life, and even going back to when I was beginning high school. That's when the first Earth Day came out. I've been hearing these dire things. I didn't believe them then, as a matter of fact.

I said, come on. You're going to tell me that because there's too many people on Earth, which Paul Ehrlich was saying, that there's too many people on Earth, so we're going to have a global ice age? Really? Oh, okay. How does that work out? Please explain that.

No, no, this is just a conclusion. He's a scientist, and look at how intelligent he sounds. The report noted ex-Vice President Al Gore in 2009 claimed that the Arctic would be free of ice by 2013. Still isn't, and so forth. Greta Thunberg's crazy claims, but nothing beats Paul Ehrlich's claims. And again, it is a call to get people to actually do science, to understand what

science is. And that is vital to shutting down these superstitious alarmist things. And it's one of the reasons why I adamantly oppose all of this talk about directed energy weapons when the obvious problem is right in front of your face. There's obviously things that we've got to get the government to do that they're not doing. I mean, it's like you just had this 127-year-old water pipe burst in New York and flood the subway and all the rest of this stuff. Now, this is a pipe that is 127 years old. They're obviously not doing any maintenance on this. Right.

And, um, quite frankly, if, uh, I wonder if any infrastructure that we built in my lifetime will last for 127 years. Well, maybe the stuff they were making mid 20th century, uh, but not anything they're making lately is going to last for 127 years. Well, maybe the stuff they were making mid-20th century. But not anything they're making lately is going to last for 127 years. But you have to maintain things, right? You have to maintain the land. The government shouldn't be owning the land, all the rest of this stuff. But to completely ignore these obvious, credible, rock-solid problems here and go off chasing directed energy weapons. Makes me want to scream.

And I know why Alex and Stu Peters and Mike Adams and all the rest of these people are doing this stuff. It's just infuriating to see that. It's the biggest misdirection. But they make lots of money doing that. I know how the game's played. I can read the room just like they can. They can stop you from looking at the real problems, doing anything about the real problem. Because you know, the real problem is that Wuhan lab in China, and that's probably not anything we can do except to go to

war against China. I guess that's what we're going to have to do. That's your solution? William Happer, a professor emeritus in physics at Princeton, another professor emeritus of atmospheric science at MIT, Richard Lindzen, also talking about this. Notice how they're professors emeritus, they're retired. Can't talk about this this if you're still a professor there they'll kick you out right you're done that in and of itself is evidence that they're pushing a lie on us isn't it citing extensive data to support their case they said the unscientific method of analysis relying on on consensus, peer review, government opinion, models that do not work, cherry-picking data, omitting voluminous contradictory data, commonly employed

in these studies and by the EPA in these proposed rules, they said. None of the studies provides any scientific knowledge. Thus, none of them provides any scientific support for these proposed rules coming from the EPA, these new rules that are coming out. Look, isn't that exactly what Fauci and company did? Isn't that exactly what the media and the government did with all the pandemic stuff?

You got models that don't work. You got government opinions. You got arguments from authority. You're cherry picking data. You are covering up and punishing people who have any contradictory data. It's the same game. They just keep running the same MO, these criminals, because it works. All the models that predict catastrophic global warming fail the key test of the

scientific method. They grossly overpredict the warming versus actual data. The scientific method proves there is no risk that fossil fuels and carbon dioxide will cause catastrophic warming in extreme weather. And he warns, he said, that was already an embarrassment back in the 1990s, said Happer, when I was director of energy research at the U.S. Department of Energy. I was funding a lot of this work, he said. And I knew very well then that the models were over-predicting the warming by a huge amount.

He and his colleague argued that the EPA has grossly overstated the harm from CO2 emissions while ignoring the benefits of CO2 to life on earth. And now these idiots like Biden are going to rob us and transfer wealth of untold tens of billions of dollars to corporations who are going to try to extract CO2 that plants need for life on earth. They're going to extract that from the atmosphere and pump it into the ground or something, store it somehow. What a ripoff. I've never seen a ripoff like that. It's just astronomical what they're doing. Many who have fought against EPA climate regulations have done so by arguing what they have called the major questions doctrine.

The argument is that the EPA doesn't have the authority to invent regulations that have such a major impact on Americans. You understand that? Does anybody talk about the Constitution anymore? Constitution says, doesn't say, well, you know, the government can't take away your rights if it's going to be a really major impact. But, you know, if it's going to be a minor thing, they can just shave and, you know, shave these things away from you one by one. They can gradually infringe on your rights and take them away by a thousand cuts. That's not a problem. That's the way they operate with the gun control stuff.

Death by a thousand infringements. And so they're taking a different tack. They said the EPA regulations fail what has been called the state farm test. This goes back to a 2003 case from the Supreme Court. They said the state can have no legitimate interest in deliberately making a law that is so arbitrary that citizens will be unable to avoid punishment based solely upon bias or a whim, which is the way they've been making this stuff. So in other words, you've got to take a look at the consequences of this. But here's the bottom line. Nixon's EPA itself is unconstitutional.

There's no authority for that. There's no authority for the Department of Energy, any of these things, right? It was unconstitutional from the very beginning. What has the EPA become? The EPA was sold to us as a means to clean up some very bad pollution. We're going to protect the environment. We're going to clean up pollution. It has now become the everything prohibition agency.

They want to prohibit everything, including now it's not coming. This is not coming from the EPA. The EPA is going to tell us what we can drive, how much we can drive, and all the rest of the stuff. They're focused right now on prohibiting cars, but they'll be brought into all this stuff. But the Department of Energy is going out and redesigning every appliance in your house, now even ceiling fans. You see, you can't put a lid on any of the things that these people are doing. So they present these people, these two scientists have actually presented data. Don't expect anybody to answer them.

Don't expect there to be a debate. Expect them to be canceled in social media because they are already retired professors. They present CO2 and temperature data indicating a much higher levels of both CO2 and temperature today in the past. They argue that CO2 levels are at a historically low point. They often highly emphasize 140 parts per million increase in CO2 since the beginning of the industrial age is trivial compared to CO2 changes of the geological history of life on earth, they said. And of course, they have the data to back that up, ice cores and other things as I've shown you in the past. And so the response to most of this is to just have the mob come out

and cause scientific papers to be retracted. See, peer review has become a joke. Peer review is a joke because these people who are going to review it are afraid of their peers. They're afraid of the institutions that they work for. If they were to contradict the official narrative, their peers would end their career. It has become a joke. And so that's one of the reasons why one of these recent papers, people put it together

and they said, we're not going to peer review this. We're going to put this out there. You run we're not going to peer review this. We're going to put this out there. You run your experiment and try to reproduce what we just did. I don't care what the peer reviews say. Do actual science. How do you verify something with actual science? You say, well, we're going to try to reproduce your results with an experiment. That's science. Peer review is not science. Peer review just reinforces the consensus, which is always going to kowtow to academia. When Francis Bacon created the scientific method, he said, look, we've got to stop doing this academia thing. We've got to do actual science,

which means that you test stuff, you collect data. And so the ceiling fans being pushed on us by the Department of Energy. And this article from New American begins with a quote from C.S. Lewis, of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons and under an omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep. His cupidity may at some point be satiated. But those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. Yeah, exactly. When you yeah exactly when you uh uh when you look at um rfk jr this is one of the things that that concerns me about him he's a true believer that's what i said you know somebody uh was gave me a long list of all the things that they agreed with rfk jr on and look i understand i i typically on. And look, I understand. I, I typically, you know, when I look at, uh, different people and I

take, there's a, uh, there's a one website. I can't remember what it's called. Um, where they ask you a whole bunch of questions and I've done that once or twice in the past. And then they tell you how you line up with all the people who are running for office and the primaries and that type of thing. And typically the Democrats, I'm down there at zero. I have zero agreement with them on, I don't agree with them on any issue, not a one. Uh, and then, you know, the Republicans is like, you know, 30, 40% or something like that, sometimes more. And I tell you who lines up best with your position. And for me, it's always some kind of independent third-party person I've never heard of before.

And we'll probably never hear of because they spike them. But, you know, if you, I have to say, though, with RFK Jr., it's different. You know, he's a Democrat that I agree with on some issues. And I agree with him on some important issues. But I'm very concerned about the fact that he is a true believer. He is the kind of person who will torture you for this climate stuff that he really sincerely believes. It's almost better to see somebody who's just cynical about this stuff than somebody who is honestly believes this, which I think he honestly believes.

And if he honestly believes that there is not anything that he'll withhold himself from doing. So you have the Department of Energy now proposing a rule to require ceiling fans to be more energy efficient. The net result of that is it'll cost about $90 million a year more. It'll drive a lot of the manufacturers of ceiling fans, if there's any left in the U.S., and there are some that are left. So it'll pretty much drive them out of business. It'll help China, where they can use slave labor. It'll put between 10% and 30% of small business ceiling fan manufacturers

out of business. So there you go. Everything they do, all the regulations are about driving Americans out of business so we can buy more products made slave labor in China. As a new American points out, it should be noted, first of all, the Department of Engineering is one of the federal government's many unconstitutional agencies. Late economics professor Walter E. Williams calculated years ago that about two-thirds of the feds budget involved matters that lacked any constitutional warrant. And, um, you know, when we, uh, look for example, at the department of energy, remember Rick Perry, uh, he's now on, uh, psychedelics. He's now pushing psychedelics, Rick Perry,

calling himself an old, I'm just an old Neanderthal conservative. It's like now he's a Neanderthal liberal. He's pushing psychedelics to people. He'll always be a Neanderthal as far as I'm concerned. You know, he was the guy who said when he was running for president, I'm going to get rid of three agencies, three agencies. I went this one, this one. And what's that third one? I can't remember.

What was it? You know, somebody yells out to him department. Yeah, that's it. Department of energy. That was when he was running in the 2016 cycle and then he didn't win. Trump appointed him as head of the department of energy. Who says Trump doesn't have a sense of humor? Who says that Rick Perry can't be bought?

Who says that Rick Perry has any integrity whatsoever? Not me. I don't Rick Perry has any integrity whatsoever? Not me. I don't say he has any integrity. So now as the New American points out, take a look, for example, at dishwashers, right? They're going to ramp down dishwashers. So they got to use less and less water. Well, what's going to happen when you don't get them where they don't work?

People wind up doing more hand washing, pre-washing by hand or afterwards or something like that. It's going to use more water. It's going to be counterproductive. What happens when you get rid of the ceiling fans? Well, you're going to have to crank up your air conditioning more. But of course, they're not too worried about that because the Department of Energy and the EPA,

EPA has now set its sights on not just banning cars, but on banning power stations that have functional fuel. And so they're going to take away that electricity. So, you know, oh, well, you know, you're going to use your air conditioning more. Well, guess what? We're going to shut that down as well. So when we look at how these people are progressing, we have to understand that it is always about shutting down the middle class and the people who are the upper middle class. And so now they're focusing on a carbon tax for 69,700 of the wealthiest U.S. households. They said, well, they're the super emitters, so we've got to get rid of them.

They're not going to talk about Elon Musk and the people of private jets. They're going to talk about the upper middle class or the small businesses or something like that to take away what they have. And then one last thing before we take a break. Green groups don't care at all that we're having this massive whale die-off that is happening right around where there's these offshore wind farms uh no connection to that whatsoever. They say, well, if this is happening in large numbers and, uh, it seems to be correlated with that, doesn't it demand an investigation? No, of course not.

You know, we've had in the past, they wanted to put up hydroelectric dams, no emissions, very clean uses gravity and water. And, you know, but no, you can't put that in because we've got the snail darter here in the river. But now these crony capitalists, these alarmists and everything, they don't care about whales, let alone snail darters, if it's their project where they're going to make money from. So these people will strain at a snail and they'll swallow a whale.

It even rhymes. How about that? So that's where these people are. Total hypocrites, total liars. We're going to take a break and we will be right back. Terima kasih telah menonton! Thank you. you're and here we are it's got a little bumper on there Travis that's okay thanks thanks for pulling back uh angry tiger thank you very much for the tip and he says dues direct energy weapons are real that's absolutely right but when we jump to conclusions the media immediately points it out and makes fun of it and the real story which is amazing enough gets buried along with all the nonsense that we cannot prove he says it really burns my tail. Well, I absolutely agree, Angry Tiger. And again, Angry Tiger, the Tiger and Snake Report, I think Jason Barker's got Foxhole Report,

and the two of them have Nights of the Storm on Saturdays as well. Go to their Nights of the Storm website. You'll see all of the different schedules, a lot of different programs that they have. There are other people who are like-minded and good sources of honest analysis. Even if you, whether you agree with us or not, we're going to tell you what we think. We're not trying to come up with sensational nonsense. But you're absolutely right.

Directed energy weapons, look, they're going to be rolling them out, fully deploying them. They've had these things for a long time. They're publicly announcing that Israel is going to be deploying them. So they're real things, but it doesn't mean that just because they're real things that it's actually something that they're doing and isn't it sensational enough what the government is doing there. You know, I, this is a video, but I'll just, I won't play the video. I'll just tell you what this person said, local resident.

Um, and I said, you know, FEMA is out there. They've created a website to put down rumors about how they're high-handed and hurting people, which as I pointed out, they've been doing this for decades. My sons, when they were younger, their early part of high school, uh, one of them did a report on this very thing about how high-handed FEMA had been and how locals were able to take care of a local event that happened where the tornado came through, did a lot of damage. The locals took care of it,

pretty much ripped up this one town. But when you get a large area and the federal government or the state government gets involved, they keep everybody out, they block everything. They become an even bigger problem. They take a natural disaster and they turn it into a government-made crisis. And so this person said, well, you know, FEMA, I've been hearing all this stuff.

FEMA's put out of sight. So she said, I went to Lahaina yesterday to help, and I talked to a person there, native Hawaiian, and they got insulin from a private sector. And obviously we're not getting any help from the government or anyone at all. So they were getting insulin, boated in, and then FEMA intercepted it and turned it away on the shoreline.

What's the justification for that? It's just like in British Columbia. This guy's trying to bring in water to fight the fires that the government started and won't fight, and then the cops make him, they pour out all of his water, and they steal his truck, and they make him walk home. They're not helping. They're making it worse, right?

The government has been doing this for a very long time. She says, we don't even know what's going on, why they're turning things like this away. Because it's not like they're getting us stuff and then also found out that what we need is storage containers. And FEMA turned away 60 storage containers yesterday. So we need those things because there's supposed to be more hurricanes that are coming. She said, seeing all of this with my own eyes and hearing it from people that are over there with the hubs and living over there,

she says, I don't know what they're doing. But it's not a lot other than turning away supplies. Why are you stopping and blocking food and medicine from people who need it? Right? And so at the bottom of this, this is put up by this account, WallStreetApes. And as I said the other day, I don't understand it. I didn't mention the Twitter account. But, you know, I said there's this Twitter account. And I don't know why I keep getting fed this stuff by Twitter.

They want this stuff out. I don't follow them. This isn't liked by somebody that I follow. And he does all of that. And that, that video that's credible, what she has to say is credible. And yet what does he do? At the bottom of it, he puts hashtags, directed energy weapon, DEW, and all the rest of this stuff. Why would you add that? That's not about this.

This doesn't have anything to do with directed energy weapons. This is directed tyranny. Why don't you talk about that? And he puts all this stuff here. He's got all these hashtags about it. Do, do, do, do, do, do, do. Because he wants to get attention. He knows that if he puts that on there, that it'll trend or whatever.

And it works. And it's despicable. I wish I could, you know, anyway. So, again, you know, it's the Democrats. It's the negligence. It's the decaying infrastructure, like I was talking about with a 127-year-old pipe in New York. It's all of that stuff combined. And then you look at what is happening on the other side of it. Are the Republicans going to

do anything about that? Are they going to do anything about the lockdowns and the masks and the vaccines? Here's J.D. Vance, who just got elected to the Senate in this last thing. Now, he is upset because the U.S. Forestry Service is going to rename a forest there. Now, I understand, and under normal circumstances, I would say that, you know, this is, we shouldn't let this just go. This uh the marxists who are marking their territory they have a forest there called wayne national forest they established this in 1992 in ohio it's the only national forest in ohio and it was named after a guy who was um uh a hero the early part of our country. The Northwest Indian War came to an end when Wayne defeated Native American tribes

at the Battle of Fallen Timbers in Northwest Ohio in 1794. It resulted in the Treaty of Greenville in 1795, which saw tribes renounce their claims to the lands of modern-day Ohio and allowed for white settlement of the area. So they named it after this guy. And so now they want to rename it because the Native American tribes are not happy about that.

But see, the reality is that, and that is a fight that we should have, but J.D. Vance is missing some bigger things here. He should be going after the, as a senator, he should be going after the forestry, the U.S. Department of Forestry, for their so-called land management policies. You know, let's worry about what we call this forest when we stop it from burning down. How about that? And let's talk about, you don't like what the federal government is doing, renaming this? I don't either.

The federal government shouldn't own any land. We can have parks that are owned by the states. And let me just get personal about this here. Right here, we have the Smoky Mountain National Park. This is something the federal government did, and it makes me sick every time I drive through Cades Cove to see what they did to the people who lived here, where they stole their property. It makes me, it's like, what am I doing here?

This belongs to them. It doesn't belong to the government or whatever. But now they have decided it was always the only park that was, it was one of the first parks that they did, and there were a lot of roads that people needed to be able to traverse the park, so they were not able to just close the roads off because people needed them to get from North Carolina to Tennessee and vice versa and other things like that.

So they couldn't close off the roads and charge people, so now they've come up with this novel scheme that they're going to charge people for stopping. And we're going to see that escalate. You know, this is the new guy that was appointed by Biden. He's come up with a way to do this. Now, the state should stop this. The state should administer that park.

Now that the people who were kicked off a century ago are long dead. But they ought to administer that park. So when you look at the federal government, they charge people to get into these parks. And then what happens whenever they've got a budget crisis or something, the first thing they do is shut down the parks because that's all people care about that we get from the government for the most part. I don't get anything from the government. In terms of roads and things like that,

it's really the state that maintains that more and should do it. You see, as you drive across this country, you see an amazing difference from state to state in terms of how the roads are maintained, don't you? And you see a big difference in the taxes that are charged. And there's no correlation between that. Many of the highest gasoline tax states have the worst roads. And we know why that is.

It's these grifting politicians that are out there. And so, look, I understand how the Marxists always want to mark their territory. The Marxists have marched through our institutions and they own them. And this is their victory dance that they're doing. Tearing down monuments, renaming everything left and right. Same thing Muslims do when they go into an area. They will take over religious sites of other religions and then they'll build a mosque on it, marking their territory. We're now in charge. We're dominant. This is what always is done. And that's what the Marxists are doing too as well. So I understand that fight, but I think the

priority is to make sure the force doesn't burn down and the people around it with it, and to maybe get the government away from these things. The government is, the federal government has the constitutional authority to own Washington, DC and some forts and ports. And other than that, they ought to get out of our life and let these parks and everything come under

state control or things like that. Is the regime secretly using ISIS wildfire attacks to push their climate coax? See, this is folks. This is another one of these things. Yeah, this is revolver. This is another one of these things. You know, this is revolver.

Darren Beatty, the guy who wants you to get angry at Ray Epps, not at him, not at Darren Beatty, not at Alex Jones, not at Donald Trump for January the 6th. It's Ray Epps' fault. Ray Epps made hundreds of millions of dollars, didn't he? And he got people to come from all over the country and then threw them under the bus when they got charged with terrorism and insurrection, all the rest of the stuff. It wasn't Trump that did that.

It was Ray Epps who did that. You understand that, right? And all these people who pushed all this stuff. No, they all want you to focus on Ray Epps, Tucker included. Right. And so now he's out there saying, well, you know, is the regime secretly using wildfire attacks? Hey, Darren, they're not doing anything in secret.

They're doing it right in front of your face. You're the one who's trying to misdirect people so they don't pay attention to what's being done right in their face. Right in their face. You don't want people to look at this. Let's talk about directed energy weapons. Yeah, read my publication. Pass my stuff. These are the same people who, when they looked at the election,

and I talked for years about the corruption, ballot access, debate access, IDs, voting periods, all the rest of this stuff. I talked about election machines, all the rest of this stuff. What did they do? Well, let's focus on two of the election machine companies. Let's focus on Dominion and Smartmatic. And let's not talk about the new grift that's out there, this vote by mail thing that was put in by Trump. Oh, well, you know, he's going to do that better than anybody else does,

right? You know, you, uh, you know, Pachinik and CIA Pachinik and Alex Jones are telling you that Trump had watermarked the ballots and, and they were going to start arresting people at any moment, you know, two days after the election. And the reality is, is that that didn't happen. What Trump did do was he created this mail out ballot election situation. And that is still with us. Just like a lot of the other things that happened under him. And we don't want to talk about that. Instead, as Daniel Horowitz said, when we have a debate, we'll talk about UFOs. Let's talk about anything other than something that really matters. So let's talk about UFOs. Let's talk about directed energy weapons. Let's not talk about this mass murder that these people are doing to our constitution, our society,

and our friends and family. We'll be right back. ¶¶ In a world of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. You're listening to The David Knight Show. Welcome back. And Karen very kindly waited for a very long time until i had a break um until we actually pulled up an article to say since i was talking about the mcguffin let's show them the mcguffin shirt so here is the mcguffin shirt she's got it all folded up nicely there and um i i'm i'm the worst in terms of promoting this stuff but you know it's a it's a nice design very nice design and um you can find that at thedavidknightshow.com.

We're working on setting up a shorter website there, but it is thedavidknightshow.com. And, you know, if you wear this, it's not anything that is going to trigger people, but it might invite a discussion. Is this a restaurant? What is it? The MacGuffin? So maybe that will trigger some discussions and you can explain to people that it's advice that's used to hunt lions in the Scottish Highlands or anybody else that believes in COVID or climate change. You get hunted down by these people with their narrative. And let me say while I'm stopped here and talking about commercial things here, let me just thank some of the people who have contributed to us on Zelle.

And this goes back about two weeks. I've caught up to it, And I want to thank everybody. We're at about 75% now on the gas gauge that you can see at thedavidknightshow.com. And thank you so much, everyone who has supported us. And Jay H., I saw your message there on Zelle. You said, I got to take a break. It's getting harder and harder to contribute. Please don't feel compelled. I mean, anybody, if you're having financial difficulty, don't feel compelled to do that. And I know that Jay has been a regular

contributor for a long time. If people would just contribute even $5 a month, if the number of people who download the show on a daily basis, that would be many times what we needed to, uh, to survive. But unfortunately most people don't. So Jay, you've been great. I appreciate that. Thank you very much. And, uh, Alexander W, uh, said, uh, please mention that you got this. So I, I did get it. I'm sorry. Uh, I know that you did this about a week ago. Let me run down real quickly the other people, uh people and thank them and acknowledge that we received this on Zelle. Raymond G., thank you very much. And Mitchell E., Deshawn G., Maurice G., Kevin H., Daniel D., Kimberly M., William W., Madison F, Gretchen C. Thank you, Gretchen. You're another name that I see all the

time. William R, Tiffany A, Kimberly M, Jeffrey B, Felicia M. Thank you very much. Kyle Hacker this morning just got that. Thank you very much. And Michael E, Manny D., and Rogelia J. Thank you, all of you. And with that and what we received over the weekend that I had not updated yesterday, we are at 75%. So thank you so much to all of you. It is kind of strange what has happened with Spreaker. I guess I got on their bad side when I blocked them in June.

When we started to back up the second week of July. It is still way, way, way down from what we used to have. But the number of downloads is still the same. But the amount of ads, I guess they put us down on the list when we got off of it. And on Rockfin, thank you very much, Eric. I appreciate the tip on Rockfin. Thank you. warren buffett let's talk a little bit about money here um while we're talking about that uh this i mentioned uh a week or so ago and we even went back and and looked at the big short um about what happened in the 2008 crisis and michael burry was um at the center of that but of course

it was not in that movie but warren buffett had predicted that as well and now warren buffett and michael burry have made some big moves to cash to get away from this stock market and um as uh one person has uh pointed out yeah it it looks looks like uh this is a big bubble that is around artificial intelligence top economist steve uh hanky who's an economist at johns hopkins university talking about the fact that warren buffett and michael bury and i mentioned this last week uh mainly about bury bury bet 90% of his wealth on shorting the Dow Jones and NASDAQ. He believes the stock market is way overpriced and that it's going to happen pretty soon. So he's pretty much bet the entire thing on this 90% of what he's got.

Warren Buffett sold $8 billion of stock in the second quarter. And Burry's firm, which is Scion, that's where he did the 90% bet. Berkshire sold a net of $8 billion of stock, slowed its pace of buybacks, sparking a 13% rise in its cash holdings to a near record of cash holding $147 billion. It doesn't want to be invested in anything at this point in time. This is like an everything bubble. The Berkshire Hathaway has now disposed of a net $33 billion of stock over the past three quarters, fueling a $38 billion increase in its cash stash, cash equivalents, and treasury bills during that amount of time.

The second quarter moves are consistent with the anticipation of a recession and the facts that stocks are currently pricey, said Hankey. I'm not sure if I'm pronouncing his name correctly. He's also known for serving as a president of the Toronto Trust Argentina when it was the world's best-performing emerging market mutual fund in 1995. As he points out, Buffett prides himself on conserving plenty of cash to ride out tough periods and to capitalize on stock market downturns and economic malaise. For example, he struck deals with Goldman Sachs,

GE, Harley-Davidson, Mars, and other cash-hungry companies in the depths of the 2008 financial crisis. This is how he's gotten richer. When he sees that everything is about to, you know, everything is about to go into recession. He goes into cash so he can increase his wealth when that happens. Look, we can see that this is, again, I don't have any financial advice for people. I can't read this. I'm just saying, these are guys who've got a pretty good track record and they think that this is going to happen. You can go to cash and you can go to something that's even better than cash. You can go to gold and silver. Tony has set up, Tony Arterburn has set up davidknight.gold. He'll take you to wisewolf.gold. And you can buy in any size.

He takes any size order. And you can even set it up as a regular savings plan. So he's got the Wolfpack program, a community of investors that are there, but you can get into that for as little as $50 a month. And then he's got another one that is for kids. And I think that is what, for 35 or something. But anyway, DavidKnight.Gold will take you there because it's not just about the economy, and it's not just about a big recession. It's really how they want to use financial controls against us. And it's even bigger. The financial controls are even bigger than CBDC.

They're purging people out of banks, debanking people. We've seen this happening in the UK first with Nigel Farage and with other people, a daily skeptic guy. But that happened to him about a year and a half after I got kicked out of PayPal. He got kicked out of PayPal. And so they talked about that, but it's not just PayPal. It's the banks that are going to punish people, surveil people. So for your privacy, for your protection, you need to take a look at that. And again, I highly recommend Tony. I've known him for a long time. Michael Burry has been speaking about a stock market crash and recession

for quite a while. He's previously bet against a lot of high flyers like Elon Musk and Cathie Wood's ARK Investment. He said that this guy who is, Hanky, who is talking about this, he says, it looks to me like Burry has made a good move. He agrees with that as well. He was also a former, this guy was a former advisor to Reagan, as well as being an economist at Johns Hopkins. So is the chat GPT and the being AI boom already over? This was sent to me by a listener, uh, who said, uh, this is, uh, from, uh, Jeremy.

And he said, you called it again. David is the chat GPT and BI, uh, being AI boom already over. This is a box article. And, and that's the thing I've said before. I said, regardless, I think this is the dot-com bust all over again. Certainly the internet was going to be a big thing and it did become a big thing. The problem was they got out ahead of it. So much hype in the stock market and people look at this and say, well, this is not delivering on the hype. This is a few years off. And, uh, so they create this bubble

that is much bigger than reality. And when people, you know, jump into this thing because they a hundred percent believe everything about this bubble and the magnitude of it, and it's happening right now. And then when they find out it's not happening right now, and it's going to be a while before this thing ramps up, everybody runs for the exits again. And I think that's, what's going to be a while before this thing ramps up. Everybody runs for the exits again. And I think that's what's going to happen with this. So Vox News says, is the boom already over? There were concerns when this happened just a couple of months ago. And the only thing in the stock market that's doing good are the AI stocks. That's another thing about it.

So when this all happened, everybody was worried millions of jobs are going to be lost. It'd become impossible to tell what was real, what was made by a computer. And all this stuff may happen. But I think it's just overhyped in terms of this. They had put the cart before the horse. And when you put the cart before the horse, what usually happens is you have a crash, right? Several months later, they said, said Vox, the bloom is coming off of the AI generated rose. Creators are suing over alleged intellectual property and copyright violations. People are balking at privacy invasions, both real and perceived. That's going to be the key

thing about this. You know, just like the Internet, everything about the Internet. The Internet was designed by the intelligence agencies. The Internet was envisioned by a DARPA psychologist in the 1960s, and when it became practical, they were the ones who funded the startups. They started their own venture capital firms, and they picked the competitors knowing that they were going to use this to spy on us. I mean, Zbigniew Brzezinski was talking about this back in the 70s. JCR Licklider, the DARPA psychologist, was talking about it in the 60s. They just needed

the technology to catch up. And once it did, they were there to pick the people who were going to be their deputies in all of this. That's a very big downside of this thing. And that's coming. It's already starting to show itself. So people are questioning how accurate these chatbots are. Consumers are starting to lose interest. The chatbots are starting to lose credibility. The investors are going to start getting antsy about all this stuff. The new AI powered Bing search hasn't made a dent.

And Google's market share chat GPT is losing share for the first time because these bots are still prone to hallucination hallucinating. I mean, you know, it's kind of like putting Rick Perry on psychedelics, you know, give him some psychedelics in your, in mean, you know, it's kind of like putting Rick Perry on psychedelics. You know, give him some psychedelics and you ask Rick Perry some questions. Not that he really knew the answers to start with. They may be even less accurate now than they were before. A recent Pew survey found that only 18% of U.S. adults had ever used chat GP. Another said they're becoming increasingly concerned about the use of AI.

We now have myriad examples of chatbots going off the rail, from getting personal to having inaccuracies, and containing all of the inherent biases that we have seen from all of tech, says Vox. Where are those biases coming from? From government. And that's really. Where are those biases coming from? From government. And that's really where the real threat is coming from. When we look at what is on the way,

several articles now about drone swarms. I've talked about this for the longest time. Daniel Suarez, a great science fiction book, really lays out the threat of drone swarms uh and just to um give you a spoiler alert but you should still read read the book uh they create these drone swarms and the way that they communicate with each other is um it kind of pulls in, as part of the story, part of the puzzle was, why did they get involved with this entomologist, this person who studies insects? Well, it turns out that they're using the same kind of principle that a hive would use.

So you have these drones, and they would use these, kind of like an insect would use pheromones and other things like that. That's the way they're passing their signals on. So they kind of pulled in somebody who was in that field. And the drone swarms are so effective. Swarms of suicidal drones, autonomous killing machines. So effective that it essentially made all the conventional weapons obsolete. And you find out at the very end of it,

it's the military industrial complex doing it because they want to sell all new stuff to everybody. All your stuff doesn't work anymore, so now buy some new weapons from us. Yeah. And so that is a real concern with AI, with all this technology. Recent studies showed OpenAI's GPT-4

showed marked declines in accuracy in a few months. It's getting worse. That's the whole thing. They don't talk about that in this Vox article, but the whole thing about as these AI go out and start, they need human data, human input, human minds. And the problem is that when this chat stuff starts putting out its garbage and then it starts getting bigger and bigger, larger and larger percentage of the information that's out there on the internet, it goes out there and starts consuming its own garbage. Starts eating its own brains, if you will.

And it kind of gets mad cow disease. And then we go nuts if we consume that stuff. If you eat the meat from a cow that's got mad cow disease, you wind up getting the, was it Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease? Yeah, human version of it if you eat that. So the AI is going to slowly go nuts because it can't stop it from polluting the internet with all of its hallucinations and all the rest of this stuff and then it's going to start consuming it and then the people who depend on that get their version of mad cow disease as well the model is changing or it's being changed over time and it's getting worse in just the last few months attempts by journalistic outlets to fill pages

with ai generated content have resulted in multiple and egregious errors. And people losing their jobs. It's going to be the end of a lot of these media companies. Last week, eight companies behind large language models, including OpenAI, Google, and Meta, took their models to DEF CON, a massive hacker convention, have as many people as possible test their models for accuracy and safety in a first-of-its-kind stress test. I'll do some research on that and see how that turned out.

We already know how things turned out at DEFCON and Black Hat Conference for the electronic voting, and not only just for the machines, but also for state board of election websites and hacking them there. Yeah, they do some pretty interesting work, especially at Black Hat. DEF CON is really run by the Military Industrial Complex. They use that as a job site for a lot of people, but the more interesting stuff is done at the one that immediately follows it in Vegas, and that's the Black Hat Conference. What remains to be seen is whether AI will be more than just a party

trick, which, given its still prevalent flaws, is probably all it should be for now. Unfortunately, they're giving guns to this party trick. And it's not just the autonomous killer drones. It's also after, you know, flying these simulator dogfights and stuff like that, they're now arming, you know, killer drones that will fly alongside U.S. planes.

And again, the planes are not really getting in dogfights anymore. It's who has the most accurate and longest range missiles that they can fire. If you can see the other guy and shoot him down, that happens long before these guys even see each other. So the dogfight thing is not really that much of an issue. And so they're talking about putting up these additional drones as kind of a wingman,

you know, for the main person. But it's going to be used against us. It's going to be used for anticipatory intelligence to quickly run through and correlate information about our biometrics, observation of a surveillance all the time. That's the really concerning thing about it. Before we take a break, on Rumble, Katiana, thank you very much for the tip. I appreciate that. It says, the Constitution ensures states have a Republican form of government. Congress can represent 30,000 to 40,000 people, but early 1900 law changed it to the current 435 reps we're off by about six to eight thousand reps we need to be we need us to be reps and that's coming from joe wolverton at the new american i absolutely

agree with that as a matter of fact i've um when i was uh 30 years ago i was talking about that and uh when i ran for office i i, I, I mentioned that, uh, constitution talked about that. They just, instead of, um, uh, capping the number of people that an individual, uh, uh, rep could represent what they did was they, um, capped the number of representatives of this arbitrary number. And that has exploded. You know, we're up to like a half a million people or more that they represent. And when I was talking about it 30 years ago, in New Hampshire they had four libertarians who had gotten elected to the New Hampshire state legislature.

And when we talked about it, we said it was true at the time, and I think still is, that New Hampshire had the largest number of representatives in terms of the population per capita. Let's put it that way. Largest number of representatives per capita of any representative government on earth. So in other words, each of them had the fewest number of people that they would represent. And at the time where they had four libertarians and the state legislature,

it was commonly said that if you spent more than $1,000 on your race, you were accused of trying to buy it. See, that's what we need to get back to. The representatives don't represent us. The representatives represent the big pharmaceutical companies and the military industrial complex and all these other vested interests, the big agricultural companies in terms of the USDA stuff. And also, she did another tip, thank you, and, uh, also, uh, she, uh, did another tip. Thank you. And another comment.

What do you think about RFKs passport solution to election integrity? Um, I think that, um, I'm not sure the specifics of his passport solution. I've always supported ID. I think it's amazing, isn't it? That when they want ID for everything except an election? And I don't have, I have a problem with an ID for anything except an election. You know, I would do just exactly the opposite of what these, I don't need to prove my identity anywhere to government about anything, I think. I don't support the idea of passports.

We didn't used to have passports. That was something that started going around in the 20th century, and now look at where we are. Now you've got, it's about to happen that you're going to have to have a visa for Americans to go to Europe and for Europeans to come to America. Additional permission to come in. It's going the wrong way. They're restricting our movement in every way possible. I understand that when somebody is accepting a check or something like that, they want to know who you are. They want some form of identification. And, you know, you can choose to not do business with somebody that's going to, you know, give you that. Or if you want to use a check, that doesn't seem to be unreasonable to me. But it is unreasonable that the government always wants to know who I am and track who I am, except when it

comes to voting. And I think that's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. So we're going to take a quick break. Before we do, by the way, since I mentioned the control of our food and everything else, let me play this for you. I saw this was retweeted by Thomas Massey, who has introduced the Prime Act. I talked about that last week, last Friday. And this is a very quick, she talks very quickly and has compressed this together, so it's just under a minute, summarizing the problems with the fact that people can't butcher, farmers cannot butcher their own meat. It all has to be done by the USDA. Thomas Massey has the Prime Act, and it'd be a good thing for you to talk to your state legislators and senators and support this.

Here's what a young woman who is farming had to say. What could be the biggest opportunity for food freedom in nearly two decades is here, but you have to take action. Small farmers have two options when it comes to meat processing facilities, USDA and custom exempt. To sell their meat to the public, small farmers have to process through USDA meat processors. These are facilities with USDA agents on the premise at all times. If processed at a custom facility, the meat is stamped not for resale and prohibited from distribution to the public. USDA facilities are very expensive and very hard for small farmers to access. For example, to process a lamb at a USDA meat processor, I have to drive two hours round trip and pay $225

versus 40 minutes round trip and $80 at a custom meat processor. While it is often argued that the USDA oversight is required in order to assure food safety, there are no records of any foodborne illness traced to any custom slaughterhouse since 2012. Call your representative as well as both of your U.S. Senators by September 5th and urge them to sign H.R. 2814-S-907, which will remove restrictions on resale of meat from custom-exempt meat processors. See the pinned comment for a link to find your legislator's contact as well as a longer video on the topic, and please share this video to spread the word. ¶¶ Thank you. ¶¶ © BF-WATCH TV 2021 Liberty, it's your move. And now, The David Knight Show. Well, that's the Patriot.

And we have Patriots in all sizes and ages. And here's one Patriot getting kicked out of the classroom because he's got a patch of the Gadsden flag on his backpack. Just take a look at this interaction. It's a 12-year-old old student his mom is there this is recorded and it's one person commented when they saw this they showed the the uh the expression on this woman who's doing all the talking saying well you know this is just racist this gadsden flag thing is just racist show her a picture of her you know looking at him lecturing him about

that and the kid who's sitting there with kind of a half smile on his face and says yes we all know if we've had any interaction with human resources at our work we know exactly what this is like there we go there's the kid you know what the gadsden flag is that it's a historical flag so there um the reason that they do not want the flag the reason we do not want the flag is due to its origins oh it's slavery thing you know yeah that was what they were fighting for um that's the reasoning behind the gatsby one the don't tread on me okay which is the gatsby blood okay you think that's about slavery okay so he he he's got that smirk oh yeah okay he doesn't take it off he i mean he is able to go.

I was actually just telling him. I was upset that he was missing so much school. I'm like, ah. So I asked him, can you just take his stuff out of his bag and go back to class? I just want him to go back to class. The bag can't go back. It's got the patch on it because we can't have that in and around other kids. So that's what I was trying to. And then he said you were close.

So I was like, oh, OK. Yeah, it has nothing to do with slavery. That's like the revolutionary war patch that was displayed when they were fighting the British. Like that wasn't that's the revolution. Maybe you're thinking of like the Confederate. Okay, I so I'm just following orders. I am here to enforce the policy that was provided by the district. Okay, that is annoying beyond belief. I'm looking at Travis in the booth over here, and he's like, oh, I can't believe this. I won't subject you to any more of that.

What an uninformed nitwit. I know. I know. It's like I'd be running for the exits. This is what they think in this school where I send my kid to get educated. We're out of here. We're out of here. What could he possibly learn here?

Well, maybe he has learned that he wants to oppose the government because that's what he's going to do. He has decided to go back to school with his patch still in place, and he will do a sit-in if necessary to protest. Two law firms have stepped up to assist as necessary to fight the viewpoint discrimination. There's lots of media interest. Mom and son will likely be on Hannity. No known response yet from the school or the district offices. The Colorado governor tweeted about it, disagreeing with the school. No word yet if he'll pick up the phone and tell them to stop it.

The young kid's name is Jaden. And this is a report on Twitter from Connor Boyack, B-O-Y-A-C-K. He said, Jaden sent me a video telling me his favorite Tuttle Twins book, The Creature from Jekyll Island. And I don't know the Tuttle Twins, but I do know the creature from Jekyll Island. That is G. Edward Griffin. He has campaigned to be school president. And they had a picture of him in a tri-corner hat, part of his shtick.

A patriotic kid. Look, and the other thing that came out of it, this is the teacher the teacher who kicked him out of the person who was you know clueless talking about that but the back of their car is just filled with stickers stickers about environmentalism and all the rest of stuff and one of them that looks like it's meant to look like a like a Texas flag and the don't mess with Texas thing that says don't mess with trans kids. Well, we're trying to stop the trans from missing with kids. That's what we're trying to do. And, uh, so, uh, as a matter of fact, when you look at what is happening in these schools and just my feeling about it is, do we really have time

to waste our kids? He's evidently mature enough that, you know, this is what he would like to do. It's a good thing for him to be in a fight if he is that mature to know what he believes and to stand up for it. That's an important lesson to learn for sure. I just look at schooling and I think, well, a lot of things that I was interested in that I was blocked from pursuing while I was in school, I had to wait till I got out to actually do anything interesting. And that's why we never subjected our kids to that. But there is, when you look at this picture, you know, and as we have the hateful shooting of three black, there's the picture of her car.

And, of course, the clown face there, that's not on her car. That's somebody to hide the license plate. But it fits, doesn't it? When you look at all the rest of these stickers that are there, if you can see them. But when we look at what happened with this person, and I mentioned it yesterday, the fact that this killer who killed three black people simply because they were black had swastikas on his gun and things like that, but he had been involuntarily committed into a mental institution. A neighbor said that he was taking drugs and he went off of them a few days earlier. I said, well, what about the SSRI connection?

Are we going to talk about that? No, I don't think so. We won't talk about the SSRI connection about the Nashville shooter either, but they immediately release, as I predicted, the manifesto from the kid who killed the black people, but they're not going to release the manifesto from the trans woman who killed the young kids at the school. Not going to have it that way. And of course, regardless of what the, and why did they do that?

Well, because they want to stoke a race war, right? They don't want you to see the insanity of either of these two people. They don't want you to see what the SSRI drugs are doing. And they don't want to portray any trans people as insane. But they do want to stoke the race war. And so you look at something like this. This is put out. Libs of TikTok picked this up.

A playdate social for black, brown, and API families. And no whites, uh, there. And, um, it's versus a California elementary school reportedly held a race segregated play date social for all students,

except white kids. A parent blasted the school on social media and said, we'll look back and we'll cringe so hard that we tried to beat racism by segregating kids of color from white kids. And this was put up. I don't know about others, but I'm genuinely upset about what ultimately boils down to no whites allowed play date. How is this productive? Why are we continuing to segregate people, let alone kids? Maybe outside the Bay Area, this kind of thing makes sense, but I feel like the people posting this are just a bunch of privileged white and white adjacent parents who have zero connection to true socioeconomic diversity.

I wrote to express my dissatisfaction about this event last year, but now they did it again. I feel this is even more divisive, and we'll look back in 5, 10, 20 years, cringe so hard we tried to beat racism by segregating kids of color from white kids. Why are we trying to instill how crucial race is to their identity at this early age? Am I totally out of control? Do I really know what I'm doing? See, this is the, you know, do we know what we believe and why we believe it? Can we defend that? Here's a hit piece that was done on Michael Ferris. Anybody who is homeschooling knows Michael Ferris, his name, because he started the homeschool legal defense association.

And if you were homeschooling and you don't know about the homeschool legal defense association, better find out about it because it's a great thing to help protect your rights in his wife began homeschooling, uh, when it was not really accepted. And a lot of things were happening to people. I remember in the late 1980s, people coming and talking about homeschooling and how CPS had come to take kids away from parents. And there were fights and some parents who got killed over that, over homeschooling their kids. And so now there's a hit piece on him from the Washington Post.

They begin by talking about his background, and then they come after him in the latter parts, saying, oh, he's got too much influence with Republicans and things. But quite frankly, I don't know. I looked at their attack on him, just made him look all the much better to me. I don't know Michael Ferris other than his involvement in Homeschool Legal Defense Association and his involvement with the parentalrights.org. I know that he's also set up a university in Virginia, Patrick Henry University.

This is the way Washington Post comes out. The Christian homeschooler who made parental rights a GOP rallying cry. Is that a bad thing? They think it is. The message Michael Ferris had come to deliver was a simple one. The time to act is now. For decades, Ferris, a conservative Christian lawyer, and the most influential leader of the modern homeschooling movement,

had toiled at the margins. But now he was speaking at a confidential conference call to a secretive group of Christian millionaires seeking in the words of one member to quote, take down the education system as we know it today. Unquote good for them. Uh, Ferris made the same points he had made in courtrooms since the 1980s. Public schools were indoctrinating children with a secular worldview that

amounted to a godless religion. We've got to recognize, he said that we are swinging for the fences here, that anytime you try to take down a giant of this nature, it's an uphill battle. Uh, and, um,

he said in the previously undisclosed call, and this call is two years old, July 2021. And so somebody sent this to the Washington Post and they did an article about it. Does he look bad or does he look right? Who are the baddies here? I think he's on the side of good. Ferris assured the conservative donors that their money would be well spent

on this legal campaign. He said the time is right. Sometimes it does take a while for seed to be planted and to germinate. And they said the 50-minute recording, whose details Ferris did not dispute, in a series of interviews with the Washington Post, is a remarkable demonstration of how the ideology that he is long championed has moved from the partisan fringe to the center of the nation's bitter debates over public education.

The idea that the children do not belong to the state. The idea that the children belong to the parents is not a fringe idea. It's the other way around. These people turn everything inside out and upside down and they want us to go along with this. But again, he has been active. Oh, another thing he was inactive in, Alliance Defending Freedom. This is a Christian legal group that has been very instrumental, amongst other things.

I interviewed some of the representatives when they were pushing back against the so-called Johnson Amendment, where Lyndon Johnson, because he was criticized by some church leaders in his district, decided that he didn't want churches to be able to say anything politically or he would use the IRS as a weapon against them. They did not amend the Constitution. They did not pass a law. Johnson leaned heavily on the IRS, and they created rule, and then they called it the Johnson Amendment. And so the Alliance Defending Freedom, if I remember correctly, I think it was that organization, got a couple of brave pastors

to actively state who they were going to endorse and why, typically over an abortion issue or something like that. They made the tape and they sent it to the IRS. They said, so you want to have a fight about this? You want to try to take our tax-exempt status? And, you know, because what that would do is that would have implications, you know, churches, that is something that has been wielded over them. I'm not interested in taxing churches. I'm not interested in taxing anybody.

But, you know, once you start to take the coin, that becomes a trap. And so a lot of churches are afraid to say anything about politics because they're afraid that that's going to be something that would not only affect them, but affect people who had given to them and taken a deduction. It's just this cascading effect. So it was a very intimidating thing. And so they did it with three pastors, and then the next, and they heard nothing from the IRS.

Then they had a couple of dozen pastors, and they had hundreds of pastors. See, the IRS, so much of what has happened, here's the takeaway, so much of what has happened, here's the takeaway, so much of what has happened has been done by bluff. In the same way that Jeff Sessions, as much as he hated the state rules about marijuana, and regardless of what you think about marijuana, medical or recreational, the government has no constitutional authority to prohibit or to regulate it. And there's no better evidence of that. Well, I mean, there is better evidence when you look at the 18th and 21st Amendment to

prohibit and to allow alcohol. But the fact that Jeff Sessions, as much as he hated marijuana, would not do anything about it. The fact that the IRS, as much as they do not want conservative churches to get involved in politics, they love it when liberal churches do it, but they don't want conservatives to do it. As much as they would like to stop that and intimidate people, it's a paper tiger. A lot of this stuff is a paper tiger. And it's one of the reasons why it's so important for us to push back on things like these mask

regulations and other things. So it's a very interesting tale of Michael Ferris, and we may go into it at some point in time. And at some point in time, I'll play again for you some of the videos that I did for them about 15 years ago. But he's exactly right. It's the same thing that Alex Newman at The New American has said for the longest time when we've talked about homeschooling. He said, you look at these schools, understand your kid is in a burning building. First thing you do is get the kids out of the building,

get your kid out of the building. Then you got to work with the community to try to put the fire out, or it's going to burn down your entire community. And that's what Michael Ferris is doing. And the Washington post doesn't like that at all. Actually a lot of fun to read the article. It's like they're wringing their hands over what he's been able to do. And the Washington Post doesn't like that at all. It's actually a lot of fun to read the article. It's like they're wringing their hands over what he's been able to do. And I just, as I saw the different things that he had done, it's like, yeah, that's good. That's good as well.

I really like that. We're going to take a quick break. And when we come back, we're going to talk to our guest about cold case Christianity. It's an exercise that not only in looking to see whether or not God has spoken to us, but also about how do we do critical thinking. And this applies to everything in our lives. So we will be right back. The Common Man The common man. They created common core to dumb down our children. They created common past to track and control us. Their commons project to make sure the commoners own nothing.

And the communist future. They see the common man as simple, unsophisticated, ordinary. But each of us has worth and dignity created in the image of God. That is what we have in common. That is what they want to take away. Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation. They desire to know everything about us while they hide everything from us. It's time to turn that around and expose what they want to hide.

Please share the information and links you'll find at thedavidknightshow.com. Thank you for listening. Thank you for sharing. If you can't support us financially, please keep us in your prayers. TheDavidKnightShow.com Welcome back, and joining us now is J. Warner Wallace. I said at the beginning of the program, everybody loves a great detective story. Well, this is the greatest detective story ever told. And he is a cold case homicide detective, and he is still doing consultations, but he is also a senior fellow now at the Colson Center for Christian

Worldview. His cases have been featured more than any other detective on NBC's Dateline. His work has also appeared on Fox News on true crime and many others. He's been awarded the police and fire medal of valor for sustained superiority award for his continuing work on cold case homicides and the Cops West Award after solving a 1979 murder. He also has a weekly podcast.

You can find him on YouTube as well. Mr. Wallace, are all those listed under Cold Case Christianity is where they'll find that, right? Yeah. You can find me under Jay Warner Wallace and all the social media stuff, but yeah, for sure. That's, that's helpful. Thanks.

Good. Yes. Um, and I have, um, I listened to his book years ago, really enjoyed the approach. And as I also said, anybody who wants to have critical thinking, he wants to look at the information that is presented to us. Most of us are doing some kind of a cold case investigation because we're not right there on the scene evaluating it. So we have to look at the credibility of the witnesses or the journalists who are reporting this to us. So this is something that applies to everybody. But I've said many

times, you know, when we talk about whether or not there is a God, you know, the arguments for intelligent design, DNA, things like Michael Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box, all those are very convincing. Even before we had things like DNA, creation spoke to us. We knew there was a designer. You know, you look at a building, you know that somebody built that building, that type of thing. I wanted to get you on though, because you looked at this from the standpoint of, are the witnesses and the text, is it credible in the Bible? Tell us a little bit about how you evaluate that. Yeah. And let's face it, we could make a case for God's existence. And I would sometimes I'm asked to do that. And, but that case you would make, you can make actually without even opening your scriptures, you could make that

just from science. You can make it from the features of the universe. But even case you would make, you could make actually without even opening your scriptures. You could make that just from science. You could make it from the features of the universe. But even if you did that, you wouldn't necessarily be making a case for the God of the Bible. Because if you're a theist and some, you know, if you're a Muslim or if you're any strand of theism, that this case you would make for God's existence might also apply to your case for your belief system. But Christianity is different in that unlike other worldviews that talk about God, Christianity makes a claim. It's not just a claim about the nature of God. It's a claim about a series of events that occurred in the first century. In other words, it's not that our scripture is a set of proverbial claims like the wise wisdom statements of Baha'u'llah

and the Baha'i faith. It's not like that. Baha'u'llah doesn't make any claims about what happens in history. The New Testament Gospels do. And because they're making claims about an event known as the resurrection of Jesus that's set in a specific time in history on a specific location on planet Earth, well, now we've got a claim that we could actually investigate. And that's the beauty of Christianity is that it is confirmable or it is verifiable or falsifiable based on our investigation of the claims made, the historic claims made in the Gospels. Now, it's much like when a crime occurs 40, 50 years ago. And if I decide to reopen that case, how do I know? I've got cases that go back as far as 1972.

How do you know in a case like that where you don't have access anymore to the eyewitnesses because they're dead, or you don't even have access to the detectives who wrote the first reports when they talked to the eyewitnesses because often they're dead now too? Well, what do you do with that if you have no access to the witnesses and no access to the report writers. Well, this is the problem we have with the Gospels. And I think you could apply the same approach. What are the areas of eyewitness reliability? And do the Gospel authors pass the test when measured that way? Now, I'll tell you, this is the only way I knew to examine the Christian worldview because I happened to be a detective when I first got saved. I was 35.

And I had been working as a – I was already a senior detective on my – in my agency. And I was, you know, using these – applying these techniques to cases. And so it wasn't like I was thinking, well, let me do something kind of unique or novel here. I thought that everybody who was going to examine these claims about history would want to examine them this way. I didn't know any other way to examine them. So that's really the system I took when I first encountered Christianity. That's what I think is so interesting about it, and especially because it is an exercise in critical thought. As you said, the Bible is very rooted in a particular time and place and historical aspects. When you look at Luke, it's very clear, you know, this happened when this person was ruling and that type of thing. And so these are things that we can investigate.

And when somebody makes a claim, you know, we're seeing this happening all the time. You know, somebody makes a claim about climate change or about man's contribution to climate change. How do we evaluate that? The burden of proof is on the person who's making the claim, right? Yeah, it is. And I'll tell you that everyone's making a claim. So here's what I would say. This is often leveraged against us.

They'll say, look, you claim there's a God. We don't see God. We have no evidence for God. They would argue that. If you're claiming that there's something that exists when it's not obvious to the rest of us, well, that burden then is on you. But that's not exactly how this works in criminal cases. You have, in effect, a dead body. Okay?

That's what I work. I work dead bodies. And then you have to figure out what is the most reasonable cause for that stuff you have in the crime scene that's how this works now if i'm going to suggest that there is uh there is a crime scene here it's called the universe and we are in that universe and the question is how did everything in the universe come to be the way it is today now i'm going to posit a cause i'm going to posit that that cause is god a supernatural being outside of space, time, and matter. If you think that you can get all the stuff in the universe without God, then you have to posit a cause also.

You're going to say everything here is a cause of space, time, matter, physics, and chemistry. Okay, great. But we both have a burden now. I have a burden to show you why God is the best and most reasonable explanation. You have a burden to show me why space, time, matter, physics, and chemistry are the most reasonable explanation. You have a burden to show me why space-time matter physics and chemistry are the most reasonable explanation. We both share a burden because we're trying to explain the cause for what we see in the scene. So I don't like when people try to, you know, this is why it's so important to be, like you said, this enterprise of critical thinking is so important because we have to kind of think, well, how do I think about things critically

and including my own faith? And if you don't think that that's important now, you probably haven't given your kids yet the glowing rectangle called a smartphone. Because it turns out that once your kids have that, and sadly, I see parents giving these things to their kids when their kids are like 10 years old. Well, you've just introduced your child to a world that is demanding evidence and thinks it has evidence for their beliefs. And so they're adopting views that they think are based on science, based on this kind of research, based on a kind of thinking that they don't see in us as believers if we aren't applying the same approach to our faith. They think that on our side, we have people who just have wishful thinking. And on the other side it's based on data and facts well that's not necessarily the case i want us on this side to be able to say no my faith is grounded in in facts as a matter of fact this this whole word hope

that's used in the new testament is not the kind of word that we use out like in our english language hope kind of means like wishful thinking I'm in Los Angeles County I'm close to Los Angeles kind of just one County away and I worked in Los Angeles kind of my entire career and we've got like all kinds of sporting teams so when I say I you know the Rams going to win on Sunday well I I hope so okay that that word kind of means well I don't know but maybe right well okay well that's different than the kind of hope that's used in Scripture in Scripture the word hope is really a level of certainty, which is much higher, a level of confidence, which is much higher because it's based in

something that can be known. So when we say we have hope in God, it's because we know enough to know that our hope, that our trust is confidently placed. So I think that that's the difference. And we need Christians to realize that difference and to help communicate that to the next generation or get ready that the tide is going to swing. And it already has started to swing against us. And it's because we don't take the same approach the world takes.

We kind of like the ones who are hoping this is true and they're the ones who know what's true according to kids. Well, we have to kind of help our kids to see that we know what's true as well that's right yeah this all falls into what christians call apologetics i think a lot of people look at this and they apologetics that what are we apologizing for because that's another word that's changed meaning just like you talk about hope right apologetics used to mean that it was a defense and it was that way you know from ancient times up until about the middle of the 1800s. And then it became,

well, an acknowledgement that I've done something wrong. I'm at fault. And that really is kind of the way that most Christians approach when they talk about apologetics. Usually they apologize now for being a Christian instead of having a rigorous defense of it you know so we need to move back to the the definition of apologetics uh that preceded the apology that's out there i think yeah i'll tell you i think every one of us who claims to be a christian believer and i say this to juries all the time we tell jurors that we are going to tell them everything they need to know but we cannot communicate everything that could be known because we don't even know everything that could be known in other words you're going to have to render a verdict even though you're probably going to have a few open questions this is true for every juror who's

ever sat on a jury render they've had to render a verdict but they probably would if you asked them they probably would have said you know i wish i had the answer to this question though and often we know that someone did it because they haven't confessed to it we don't know exactly how they did it that's an open question yet you can still render a verdict and determine truth even though you have open questions the same thing is happening for us as christian believers there's an evidence trail and like in a suspect in a case in a jury trial that evidence trail seems to be pointing directly it's leading right to that defendant at the end of the table now it turns out it's not leading to his right two feet or to his left two feet. It's pointing right at him, but it stops just short of him. So the question is, am I reasonable

in taking the step across what I call the open questions? You're going to have to take a step from the end of the evidence trail across your unanswered questions to render a verdict. The same thing is true with Christianity. There's more than enough evidence that points from the end of the evidence trail across your unanswered questions to render a verdict the same thing is true with christianity there's more than enough evidence that points to the reliability of scripture to the existence of god to the resurrection of jesus but i can't answer every question you want and so you're going to have to take a step from the end of that evidence trail but by the way that evidence trail does not just it doesn't it points right to this conclusion it doesn't point a foot to the right or a foot to the left. You're going to have to step across the end of the evidence trail to make a reasonable

inference. Now we call that a step of faith, but it's not blind. Now here's the sad thing about it. Most of us can make a better case for why we think the Rams are going to succeed in the, you know, NFC West than we can for why Christianity is true. true and this is in other words there's something already that you are i i never call myself a christian apologist i'm a christian case maker i make a case for christianity but i think every christian ought to be a christian case maker it's about turning us in that direction but you're already able to make a case for something really well i don't know what it is it's probably some hobby if you're a woodworker you know which tools you make a case for which tools you ought to use what kinds of cuts you ought to do if you're somebody who's got other hobbies a collection you know what to collect

what's not a value what is a value you're geeked out on something already the question is are we that prepared to share our faith do we know enough about what's true and this is something we don't have to like you know teach our kids they'll catch it they'll catch it if we just are somebody who is I mean I talked about this all the time with my boys growing up and my boys already know what I'm gonna say on any number of topics they already know how I'm gonna think about it and I didn't teach them really hey guys when this comes up I want you to think this way they just watch me do it and and because they watch they caught it want you to think this way. They just watched me do it. And because they watched, they caught it. And so I think this is something we can do for our children,

even without having to be all that intentional. Let's just live our faith differently. Let's just think about our faith differently and verbalize that. And it turns out our kids are going to catch that anyway. That's right. That's exactly what we talked about really in Deuteronomy 6. When you're going about your life, you're walking in life, going down the road, you talk to your kids about it, and that's exactly true. Things are coming up all the time.

Whenever you look at what is happening in the culture, what is happening in the news, every bit of it really reflects back to the ultimate question about God and his existence and his interaction with us, I think. One of the big things that we have, though, that is a real obstacle is not whether or not in terms of critical thinking. So we have a generation that doesn't even want to do any critical thinking. They don't even believe that there is such a thing as truth. And we call that postmodernism because during modernism, you had a lot of people who would make arguments using evolution or initially it was archaeology against Christianity now they don't bother to do that they just say that there is no truth or I've got a truth you've got a truth everything is subjective how do

you handle something like that well I always tell people that that everyone believes there's a truth it's it's if you think there's no truth you believe that that is true so you believe the least one truth that there is no truth that's kind of self-defeating but the reality of it is is it's how do we ground truth so you're right if all truth is just a matter of my personal opinion in other words if i'm trying to determine something is true all i have to do is look inwardly well that's really fast it's the lazy way to find truth doesn't require any research i just make a decision and how i feel determines what the truth is on this matter but that doesn't require any effort at all because you have immediate access to your feelings.

We have to help people to realize that there are two forms of truth. There are subjective truth claims and there are objective truth claims. And there's a difference between those two. And we all agree that there are differences. We just haven't thought about it carefully. This is why I write a book like Cold Case Christianity. I'm trying to figure out how do I help people to see this is not a matter of my personal opinion. I'm not a Christian because I like it better than other things.

I don't even like it sometimes. I mean, this is a hard worldview to live, right? I mean, it makes demands on me that are against my fallen nature. It prompts me. It encourages me. It kicks me in the rear to do things that I wouldn't otherwise do and to hopefully be a better person. And that's not an easy project because we aren't good by nature. We are pretty desperately fallen by nature. So this is a hard worldview to maintain because you have to surrender constantly.

You have to surrender your will to the will of God living in you. Think about this of all the theistic worldviews out there. Ours is the one in which God does not just fight alongside you. If you join the team, God does not just fight your battles. God resides in you. Very different, very different claim. And so that just means we have to get out of the way and let God, is God alive in us? Is Jesus alive in us? And that's a very different kind of claim.

So for me, I'm helping young people to say, okay, look, if you are the determiner of the truth, like you say, for example, chocolate chip cookies are the best dessert. Okay, well, that's a subjective claim because you as the subject are making it true. Now, a different kind of claim. Isoniazid is the cure for tuberculosis okay that's a claim that I don't determine it I don't make it true by believing it because if that was the case I could say I'd rather take my quill my quill is now the cure for TB well now it turns out my quill isn't the cure for T because it the subject doesn't get to determine it that's determined by the object known as ice and I is it is it the cure so that's an objective claim about

reality it's not subjective like chocolate chip cookies are the best dessert it's objective that isoniazid is the cure for tuberculosis and we have to make the determination which claims in the world around us are just a matter of opinion subjective by subjects, even groups of subjects, or are they objective? So the claim God exists, it might be a false claim, but it's not a subjective claim. I cannot make God exist by changing my mind. I cannot keep God from existing by changing my mind. He either exists or he doesn't. It's grounded in the object known as God. Now there are false objective claims. As a matter of fact, once you determine that a claim is objective rather than subjective the only thing left to do is determine if it's true or false and by the way it's stupid for us to get online and battle with people over subjective

opinions who cares but we ought to be getting online and arguing with people about or at least encouraging people to look at the truth when it's an objective. If someone's taking, your family is taking a NyQuil to cure their tuberculosis, I would hope you would stop them and say, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, that's not a matter of opinion. That's actually not going to work because there's an objective truth about isoniazid. Well, that's true for all of us going forward. The kinds of conversations we ought to be having with our young people are about those objective claims about reality. God exists. That's an objective claim.

It might not be true, but it's objective. What's left to do? Determine if it's true or false. Jesus is the way, the only way to God. That's an objective. That's not an opinion. I can't make it so by changing my mind. I can't keep it from being so by changing my mind.

It's an objective claim about reality. It might be false, but we ought to be talking about those things with our students to make sure they know the difference between subjective and objective claims and how to determine what, yeah, we want to investigate this to see, does God exist? Is the Bible, why would I write a book like Cold Case Christianity? I'm writing it because I think that Christianity is demonstrably true it's an objective claim christianity is is is is true is something that our kids need to know it is a matter of opinion because yeah you're right we are we are getting lazier and lazier and because of that we are no longer looking outward if i said you know i could either earn a doctorate and become an anesthesiologist by simply wanting it and trusting my own opinions about the medications. Or do I need to go to school to learn what is objectively true about those medications?

Well, which of those two kinds of doctors do you want? Yes. I think in the end, it's much easier. I can become a doctor tomorrow if I can just will it. But I'm going to take 10 years to do it If there's objective truths that I need to learn, can you, so you can see kind of why young people are more inclined to just look for those truths that are grounded internally because they're immediately accessible. They're easy to grab and on just a matter of opinion.

So that's where I think we're at in a culture and we just need to help our students to see the difference between those two kinds of truths. Yes, that is exactly right. And that is a key thing that affects all aspects of our life. As you point out, it's the easy path to take to say, well, you know, we're not going to even debate the truth anymore. We're just going to go with what I feel like. And that's an important thing because when we talk about the difference

with Christianity is that God is, you know, not there necessarily even fighting your battles for you, but he's there in you, working in you. And so there is a spiritual aspect of it. And how do we balance that feeling that we have, the directions that we are trying to go? We have to balance that against some objective standard. I think that's, you know, we don't want to have simply a rational knowledge of God. I know about God and that type of thing. We're not looking at the Bible from that standpoint, but we are looking at it from the standpoint, as you

mentioned before, we need to question as to whether or not what we believe is actually true. And we shouldn't be afraid to question that because the Bible can stand on its own if we examine it. So that's one of the things we see. Many religions will say, well, you know, just pray about this. Is this that, you know, this book is true or whatever. And then you get kind of a subjective feeling about that. But again, that's one of the things that I like about what you do with Cold Case Christianity. You look at it and you say, well, because this is rooted in factual historical claims we can evaluate this and that

actually builds our faith it doesn't um it doesn't uh become just an intellectual exercise but you have to have the two things go together you can fall off on one side or the other of that horse can't you you know you said it perfectly because um when i was growing up i was not surrounded by believers i'm in los angeles county i don't know if that's just the way it was back in those days i didn't know a lot of christians i was never asked by a friend to go to church that kind of thing but my dad who was a very committed atheist just like me he was a cop just like i was first i reopened as a cold case detective a couple of his cases so i definitely knew what he was going through and And I had his appeal for the most part. I would

go to church with my wife if she wanted to go to church for Christmas or Easter. But I was completely disconnected and thought it was all just rubbish. Okay, so that's fine. That's my dad. Now, when he remarried, he remarried a woman who quickly became a Mormon and they had six children together. So all my brothers and sisters are raised LDS. And you're absolutely right. I think all of us, as humans, we do have a high appreciation for evidence. We do. The question is, what are we accepting as evidence?

And for a lot of us, you know, I talk about this in the book, there's two forms of evidence, direct evidence and indirect evidence. Direct evidence is simply eyewitness testimony. Indirect evidence is everything else. DNA is indirect evidence. By the way, indirect evidence is also known as that ugly word, circumstantial evidence. But indirect evidence is everything you think is really hard evidence. There's no such category as hard evidence. There's just eyewitness statements and everything else. Everything else includes DNA, fingerprints, blood spatter, gunshot residue, whatever material evidence you want to compare. That's all indirect evidence. Now, most people, when they're thinking about their theistic

worldview, they are evidentialists, but what they're accepting as evidence is an experience, a personal, it's a direct evidence. I directly saw this happen in my life, and I can't imagine that being a coincidence. So therefore that served as me as evidence that my theistic worldview is true. And everyone, if you're a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Muslim, a Baha'i, a Mormon, everyone does this. Okay. Now, I hope that we're not doing that too, because if you were encountering somebody who's a Mormon who says, yeah, this is true because I had this experience, would you consider that evidence? Look, we've had experiences too.

I get that. But we have to measure our experiences against the evidence and the claims of the book. I'm not doubting that my Mormon family has had experiences. My question is, do they really indicate that Mormonism is true? You can attest, you know, experiences can come from any number. Sometimes I've seen even Christians say what seems to me like a coincidence as an evidence that God exists, that Christianity is true. We can do better than that. If you find yourself sharing your faith in pretty much the same way a Mormon would share theirs, you're probably not doing it right.

Because it turns out you don't believe that Mormonism is true. Yet here you are sharing your faith in the exact same way. I had an experience that demonstrated that, or I was raised in the faith. These are the most popular ways that people express their belief. We can do better. We could say, you know what, I had this experience. And then I started to investigate to see if Christianity might be the best explanation for it. And here's what I discovered about Christianity. All of these details about the objective life of Jesus of Nazareth in the first century and how he rose from the dead, that, look, you can do the same thing with the Book of Mormon. You will find no corroboration for the Book of Mormon.

Remember, the Book of Mormon actually describes a thousand years of history on the North American continent, of which there is not a single bit of verifiable confirmation on any of it now you got to think about that for a second i don't expect you know i know i have a a realistic view of corroborative evidence as a detective a corroborative evidence just gives you a small percentage of what the eyewitness says occurred you cannot it's not a video you don't have videos from the first century so the question then becomes you know i don't expect to get a huge percentage of the of the testimony uh corroborated but i expect to get something corroborated and when i see that there's nothing corroborated in the holy book i'm suspicious yeah you ought to be also yeah so

i think we have to help our students to realize that hey we are put we believe this is true but not because we want it to be true because here's what's happening and you know this david the times are changing yeah and it's not going to be easy to live as a young christian in a culture that now not only rejects christians but rejects the teaching of the master and and trust me when they reject the teaching of your Jesus, they are rejecting your Jesus. Yes. And the teaching of Jesus is no longer acceptable in a culture that has changed their views on gender identity, on marriage, on the sanctity of life, on those things that Jesus taught clearly about. And if you're going to say, well, you know, Paul didn't understand what we understand today. What do you think that book is?

Do you think that book is the word of god you think that god doesn't there's going to be a new revelation about how we ought to live we're then let's look for the new revelation but it's not it's going to be from god and i don't see it the last spokespeople for god are still recorded in scripture and until god has i don't think god's changed his mind about any of that stuff yeah so I think it's important for us to teach our kids that this is true. And I'll tell you one last story about that. My son David is an anesthesiologist, and he's a pediatric anesthesiologist. And when he was in his biochemistry undergrad work, he will tell you that he wasn't probably living like a Christian. But he said because he knew from all the stuff we had studied as a young

man, I was a youth pastor, I was his youth pastor, and we always talked about the science behind our beliefs. And he knew in a DNA lab he was working, he said, you know, I knew, even if I wasn't living it, I knew it was true, because I knew there was no way to explain the stuff I was working, unless, of course, there was a mind behind the code. And knew that there was he was stuck with god right and that that's that's that that's all we do for our kids is to make them really uncomfortable in the season of their running because that's coming probably for a lot of our kids that's right and i don't i'm fine if my kids run i want them to be really uncomfortable while they're doing it and it doesn't need to be from my my nagging it just needs to be from what they know is true that's

right i remember uh and i remember the guy's name. He's a country and western star. He says, yeah, I grew up in a Christian family. He said, it didn't keep me from sinning, kept me from enjoying it. Yeah, exactly. You know what? I think in some ways, well, and he might be doing it more sarcastically, right? But the reality of it is, is that we ought not get comfortable with our misbehavior, right? And so if that's all you can do for your kids is make them uncomfortable with their misbehavior, you're probably doing a good job for your kids, right? Well, you know, you mentioned the archaeology stuff, and I think that was one of the key things. And, you know, you look at the Book of Mormon, it came out at a time when one of the major criticisms of the Bible was that this stuff is all made up. There's no such thing as the Hittite tribe and, you know, and all the rest of this stuff, right?

And then they started looking and doing archaeology, and they started finding all this stuff. I remember taking my kids to the British Museum, and we saw the big relief up there about Sennacherib and the story about how he attacked Jerusalem and other things like that. They had a big, they had a large chip. Actually, it was a large chip.

Actually, it was a small part of one of the columns there, the Temple of Diana in Ephesus. And yet, you know, they found these things by following the biblical record. You know, they would say, well, it says we know where this thing is, and it says that it's over here, so we would follow it that way. And so they were able to find these things and corroborate that. But let's talk a little bit about the reliability of the witnesses. What is it that makes these witnesses reliable? Yeah, so I think that when we look at eyewitness testimony, it's an important part of our case.

It is our case. People say, what evidence do you have for the resurrection? And when I hear that, it exposes for me, at least, that they clearly don't trust that what the gospels record is true. It's like they want some other source. But could you imagine to have four ancient sources that describe the same event? That's not bad. Of course, if you don't trust any of them, well, the question then becomes, well, why don't you trust them? So I think that the biggest work for me, and I was one of those guys. Okay, yeah, you have some ancient records, but they're all Christian records.

Well, hold on. Think about this for a second. It's not as though these are, that's not a fair argument to leverage against the gospels. Let me give you an example of that. Let's say, and I use this in the book, Whole Case Christianity. Let's say I'm working a bank robbery. And in this particular robbery, a guy walks into the bank and he walks up to the teller and he's got a quiet demand note robbery. Right. And as he walked up, he wasn't making a big scene.

He was just getting in line. And as he was in line, there's a woman behind the other side of the office who's behind a desk who's the assistant manager. And she happens to recognize this guy right away from high school. And she's like, you know, oh oh i want to talk to this guy when he gets done with the teller because he was a great guy you know all-star athlete top grade you know just i want to see what he made of himself what happened in his life well now this dude isn't doing a bank robbery and and she looks at her co-worker's face and it's clear this guy's doing a robbery in real time and she is shocked because she knew this guy. Let's call him Robert Smith.

She knew Robert Smith in high school. And to now, okay, when the whole thing is done and I come to the bank to do the interviews, should I interview her about Robert Smith? Well, no, she's biased. She thinks Robert Smith is a bank robber. You can't trust anything she says. She's a Robert Smithian. She thinks, no, look, that's not, that's a stupid approach, right? Because you're going to say, well, no, hang on. She didn't start off thinking that Robert Smith was a bank robber. She arrived at that decision because she saw it. It was after it happened that she's like, now I'm in.

He's a bank robber. The same thing happens with the gospels. It's not as though these people, especially Matthew, this guy named Levi, who is not even liked by anybody. He is a tax collector. This dude is not looking for the Messiah. He's not a disciple of John the Baptist. He's not part of the original group that got jumped into with Jesus.

He's a guy who was on the outside looking in. But after watching that stuff for three years, he's like, dude, I'm in now. I'm a Christian now. Can I interview Matthew? Well, he didn't start off believing that Jesus was the Christ, but he ended up there. that stuff for three years he's like dude i'm in now i'm a christian now can i interview matthew well he didn't start off believing that jesus was was the christ but he ended up there and it's why on the basis of observation just like the lady in the bank so we have to at least ask the question now so that's that's first of all don't throw out the gospels as though they can't

be trusted let's test the gospels i don't trust eyewitnesses. I test them. Now, if they pass the test, I trust them. And there's a four-part test, right? This is what we do in our jury instructions in California. It's 13 questions that we allow jurors to ask when they are considering eyewitness reliability on the stand. And those 13 questions fall into four categories. You know, were they really there to see what they said they saw? The person who's's testifying too can they be corroborated in some way and i have a like i said before i have a reasonable expectation about corroborative evidence three have they changed their story over time or they've been honest and accurate and four um do they possess a bias those four categories are really what we look at to see if an eyewitness is reliable now as i did that it took the better

part of a year when i was first examining christianity i have a bible here in my shelf that i i bought a pew bible i walked into a church this pastor i'd been avoiding it for many years i hadn't been to this church for anything any other reason and i really had never stepped foot in an evangelical church for anything other than like a wedding or maybe a funeral i I don't remember if I had attended a funeral. So I, so I never really had no idea what was going to expect. My family growing up were kind of like cultural Catholics, like holiday Catholics. So I knew what a mass looked like. And I thought it was nonsense, to be honest with you. I just, as an atheist, you know, I was never comfortable. But I walked into this church, this pastor seemed decidedly regular, you know, just like a regular guy. And he said that Jesus was the smartest man who ever lived. And that provoked me. It provoked

me to buy a pew Bible. You know, one of those ones they sell for pews, just a cheap $6, $7 Bible. And I started to read the gospels and I'd applied those four aspects of eyewitness reliability to the gospel authors do they pass the test i think they are written early enough in history to have been written by people who were present and in front of people who were present to fact check them i don't think that they're written in the second century i think they are very early in history and in the book i try to make a case for why they are early trust me, that's one of the objections your kids are going to hear. If they're in a Bible class in a secular university, they're going to come out thinking these things were written in the third century. And that is not true. Two, they can be corroborated in any number of internal and external evidences of which archaeology is just one.

There are many other ways you could corroborate the claims of the scriptures and i go through those in the book three i don't think they've changed over time i don't think the story the miraculous story of jesus is a um is a um uh like an exaggeration a collection of uh additions over time where they added all the supernatural stuff don't believe that. I can show why that's the case in the book as well. And finally, I don't think they possessed an ulterior motive because there are only three

motives for any misbehavior. I talk about those in the book and they don't possess those motives. So again, if I'm like, no, can you find a way? And this is what's so beautiful about our faith system. David, if i'm like no can you find a way and this is what's so beautiful about our faith system david you know that there is enough reason to reject the scriptures if you so choose to do it because god is gracious and he's not going to bully you into your faith as a matter of fact

it wouldn't be genuine unless you had the freedom to reject it and god has given us that dangerous free agency why because god is love not god. Not God can love. God creates love. No, it says that God is love because he's triune in nature, has been in an eternal love relationship from the beginning of time in the triune nature of God. And he is love. If he's going to create a world, he's going to create a world where love is possible because that's what a loving God would do. But the problem with a world where love is possible is that it has to be a love with a dangerous prerequisite called free agency you cannot love if you're not free to hate that's the problem now what gracious god does is he creates a

world in which there is free agency and then provides you with a book with all of the guidelines so you will not abuse your free agency. Now, you can choose not to read the book, but then when you abuse your free agency and do something despicable, that's not on God. It is logically impossible to create a world in which love can emerge without first creating a world in which we have free agency. We're not just robots. You know, when your doll says, I love you, doesn't really love you. It's just programmed to say that. So it turns out if you want beings who can really,

truly freely love, you have to create the dangerous world we live in. And that's what God does, but he's given us the guidelines. So we don't abuse our free agency. So he's done everything you would expect a loving God to do. Parents do the same thing. And so I think in the

end i have to look at that world i'm living in and say yeah i mean i've got a bible that i can choose to reject because i have free agency that dangerous prerequisite but when i do that that's not on god that's on me and my rebellious nature and what i like that you do you know a lot of times people look at external sources and again there's external sources that you do, you know, a lot of times people look at external sources. And again, there's external sources that do help to corroborate this when we look at archaeology or other things like that. But you really look at the Bible itself, you know, corroborating itself. And, you know, because we can fall in the trap if we're so reliant on external things of what they used to call higher criticism.

You know, we're going to take something and we're going to, from an elevated position of science or whatever, we're going to take a look at the Bible. And of course, you know, many prominent scientists were very active Christians. They had no problem with the critical thinking of it. And they would look at it, you know, as God says in Isaiah, come let us reason together, right? And that is the key thing. We don't check our reason at the door, but there still is an aspect of faith, as you pointed out. It's not a blind faith. It is a confident expectation, going back to hope, as you talked about before. And so I think that is the key thing, and I think it's very important what you do in

cold case Christianity in terms of looking at the evidence that we have that is within the Bible, within the New Testament specifically, and how that corroborates from a rational point of view, from the types of things that you would do as a detective, who, as you said, in a cold case, you can't, all the evidence that you're do as a detective who as you said in a cold case you can't uh all the evidence that you're going to have has already been collected by people who are no longer around the witnesses are no longer around and that really is uh what we all have to do in terms of investigating this we all have to do a cold case christianity i think i think you're i think you're right i think if we can help our kids to do it, I don't want to suggest in any way that my superior intellectual ability leads me to this conclusion.

Look, it's all God top down. What part of it is, is am I going, and that's why the first chapter of our book talks about the first skill that any detective has to have, and that is to enter the room with your hands empty. Do not make up your mind before you get there. Surrender your prideful nature to this, because we all think I already know. And if we don't, if we do that, we're going to end up with a case where you already arrived at the conclusion you started with and you ignored

everything in between because you came in thinking you, or don't be a know-it-all is what I call it. Don't be a know-it-all. You have to at least't be a know-it-all you have to at least you know that's why the hardest part i think david about our worldview is that it begins with the thing that it it is let's put it this way i just wrote a book called the truth and true crime it comes out next year and and i i've examined in it the nature of human humans biblical anthropology and i also look at it in terms of what new studies show i I'm impressed by the fact that my last 35 years, sociological studies and researchers have discovered that there's one human attribute above all human attributes that will change your life for the better and contribute to human flourishing. It'll make you a better employer, a better employee.

It'll make you a far better student. You'll be able to determine truth from error far better. You'll have deeper, more connected relationships. You'll have better mental health, better well-being, and better physical health. You'll live longer if you adopt this attitude. What is that weird attitude? It's this thing that researchers, secular researchers, not Christians, call humility. Oh, what a surprise. Well, it turns out that's an

ancient attribute, which is all over the pages of scripture, is that every problem is us being prideful and thinking we know, when if we could just, now here's the problem with our worldview, it begins with an act of humility. That first act that says, you know what, I am exactly what scripture describes. I'm not all that great. And there is a God and I'm not him. That's that first act of bending your knee leads to a life predicated on humility. And everything you adopt from scripture will be an act of humility. So I think in the end, that's the problem we have.

And it's hard in a culture that which is all about me, me, me, me, me. Everyone's social media profile. Who's got more likes? Who's got more views? What does your bio say about you? Are you important? Do you have a little check by your name? This is a world we're living in right now where just the opposite of humility is advanced.

We have to help our kids to see that humility is still important. Yeah, that's true you know when we look at politics we talk about a lot here on this program uh people get really scared when they see politicians who the you know secular press and they get really scared when they see a politician talking about god and i said well you need to understand this person really is a christian that they understand they're going to be accountable to God and that they are not God. You ought to be concerned about the politicians who think they'll never answer to God and are proud enough to think that they need to rule the world.

That's what really should put fear into people's heart. Pride is a very dangerous thing. It's something that seems to drive most of the people in public life. And most of us, if we're honest about it as well, it's a constant fight against pride, regardless of who we are, but especially for the politicians that are constantly promoting themselves. Such an excellent book.

Thank you so much for coming on, J. Warner Wallace. And tell us where people can find your podcast, your website, the books that you've got as well. Yeah, we're at coldcasechristianity.com. And if you want, we are offering a great package with this new book. We have just the 10th anniversary we're publishing right now, and we want people to get better trained as case makers. We've got an entirely free 10-and-a-half-hour training course that's available with the book, and you can find that at coldcasechristianitybook.com. Okay, great, coldcasechristianitybook.com.

Thank you so much for what you do. It's been a fascinating talk with you, interview with you, and I really enjoyed the book when I read it years ago. Thank you so much. Great to have you here. Thank you, David. I appreciate you having me. I appreciate it so much. Thank you.

Have a good day. We'll be right back, folks. ORCHESTRA PLAYS In a world of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. You're listening to The David Knight Show. Well, as I pointed out yesterday, there's here in Tennessee, in Sevierville, not too far from where we live, there is going to be a, as I like to call them, drag queen event. I call them Dragons with Kids.

And it's going to be happening here. And of course, there's, you know, this is a small town community. This is not one of the bigger cities. We've seen this type of thing happening in Nashville and Memphis. As a matter of fact, when Tennessee pushed through the law that was going to stop this, it was challenged by a LGBT theatrical group out of Memphis. And it has an interesting history. And so there's a lot of discussion from

people who are looking at how we can stop this grooming of kids, which is what is these lewd displays with children. And, uh, and so there's a question about the law and about a court case that stopped it. As a matter of fact, when I looked at the discussion online, uh, it came up again yesterday, uh, Tennessee stands I've interviewed Gary Humble in the past, and he's here in Tennessee. He does really good work in terms of what is happening here in the state. And he did a video, and he said, well, I'm not so sure that this court decision from the district court shutting down this law is really effective. And it raises some interesting legal issues, which I got to say, I don't,

I'm not convinced of the answer one way or the other. The concern that they had, which I thought was kind of interesting the way this happened, and I immediately saw people saying, well, you know, we just got to get Trump back in office and that'll fix everything. What was a Trump judge who shut down the Tennessee law?

And when it was challenged, the plaintiffs, the defendants that were there, the plaintiffs were the LGBT theatrical group out of Memphis. The people who were being sued was the governor, the state attorney general, and a local district attorney in a county. And through the course of the lawsuit, the attorney general said, we don't belong on this case. And they took off the governor and they took off the attorney general off of the case. And then when the judge issued his decision, it was directed at enjoining the actions of the local district attorney. So a lot of people were saying, well, it doesn't have anything to do with the state. And so you can make an argument with that.

And it's not clear one way or the other. But here's what is clear. The fact is, is that there, and I said this when it happened in Knoxville, they were saying, well, there's no law saying we can't have a drag queen thing. So what you have laws about lewd public behavior and lewd conduct with minors. That should be sufficient because that's what we're talking about. I mean, if these people want to have a theatrical event and it's all adults that are there, we don't have any prohibition of that.

But we do have prohibition of kids. Even if you look at movies, right? This is not a state law. You don't get people arrested, but don't we have different rating system for movies? You know, we've got G, PG, PG-13, RX, things like that. You're going to let kids into an X-rated film? You're going to let kids into an R-rated film? Are you going to let them buy alcohol, drive cars, go to gambling casinos, and on and on and on? There's many things that we prohibit from kids that are not prohibited from adults. And the groomers always like to make this about,

we're going to tell me that I can't do what I want to do. No, we're going to tell you that you can't do whatever you want to do with a kid. That's what we're telling you. And there's already laws on the books about lewd behavior in public and lewd conduct with a kid. The problem is that the localities don't want to enforce this. You see, if the local government, if in Sevierville, they wanted to stop this stuff, they could pass a local law.

Now, you might still have somebody that would take this to court, take it to federal court, take it to this Trump judge, and he might say, no, I like LGBT, you can do whatever you want, and shut the thing down. And then it becomes an issue of, do you have to obey that federal judge? Or do you nullify it? So there's a lot of different issues here.

The bottom line is that the locality could write a law. The locality could also take the position, well, we don't see that this is directly prohibited to our locality. It looks like it's addressing this county specifically and not the state. That is not really a subtle thing. But again, they could enforce even the laws that are already on the books if they wished. The reason they don't do this is because they don't want this hot potato in their lap and as i said at the beginning of the

program it's a reason that we have the bureaucracy is ruling us because congress does not want to take responsibility for this stuff so they pass a general law and then they shove it over to some existing bureaucracy or maybe they even create the then they shove it over to some existing bureaucracy, or maybe they even create the bureaucracy and shove it over to them. And then Nancy Pelosi says, well, we've got to pass this so we can find out what's in it. You're going to find out what's in it when the bureaucracy that you've abdicated your authority to does what you're supposed to do. And the presidents do the same thing.

Even with the bureaucracies that are under the executive branch, Trump defers to the judiciary on DACA. I'll have to ask them if I can get rid of the executive order of the previous president, for example. Or, you know, has to pretend that he doesn't have any authority to use troops to secure our border. That's not what the Department of Defense is for. The Department of Defense is for creating, you know,

supporting the American empire abroad with wars of adventure, things like that. No, that's not what it's for. And so this really gets to a fundamental issue across the country. This is not just a local issue. It's not even just a state issue. This is spineless cowardice from these local officials who refuse to protect children. And then it falls to us to do something about it because they won't. And so I've asked some people about one of them, a lawyer who listens to the program. He had some very good advice. He said, make sure that there are some police officers there to observe this behavior if they're going

to bring in kids and have kids performing and giving tips to kids and all the rest of this stuff, kids watching, kids performing, that type of thing. Make sure that there is video evidence that preserves what this is going to be and uh and this is what we have to see everywhere you know when we look at this and some of the comments that were on gary humble's um video when he talked about that several people got on there with this one talking point that you see from lgbt all the time well just take a look at you know these people who are doing drag stuff are not molesting kids. Well, that simply is not true. I've reported on that many times. Many times the people who are running these events

have a history of being sexual offenders, and they're still allowed to do that. Just like if you were not LGBT, if you were not transgender, if you were not a drag person, you would not be able to walk down the streets naked on during pride month. But if you are in one of those categories, you can do whatever you want and the police aren't going to bother with it. So they get a special privilege with that. If we look at what has happened in Wisconsin, for example,

the department of corrections there and they just had to run a freedom of information request through it, they found that half of the transgender prison inmates there had been convicted of sexual crime. pushing this back and forth, coming up with these made-up statistics. Well, there's more pastors out there that are doing this than drag queens. No reference to any of that, just an assertion. Somebody comes back and says, well, the rate of the pastors is no different from male population in general. Again, no data to back that up. The person comes back on the other side. I don't know if either of those claims are true or not. If it is true, it is sad, but there doesn't seem to be any difference in the pastors to the general population. But then came back and said, and the number of teachers

that have been involved in sexual molestation is five times that amount. Again, I don't know if any of those statistics are true. Nobody offers any evidence of it. I do know anecdotally I've seen more reports of government school teachers being involved in that type of thing than any other profession because they have a lot of access to it. And if you are drawn to doing something like that, you're going to go to a situation where you have access to kids. So if you are somebody who is bent that way, you're going to try to insinuate yourself into a position where you're working with kids, whether that's in a government school or whether it's in a church or a nursery or anything else. On Rockfin, Kristen Ripperger,

thank you very much for the tip, writes, humility is a foundational virtue for all other virtues. To think today that we have pride and self-esteem, we're supposed to have self-respect, not self-esteem. Yes, for everything good we can do comes not from ourselves, but from God. Don't say I did it, but thank God when we can do something good or challenging and we should respect ourselves treat ourselves as creatures of god a great guest yes i agree jay warner wallace excellent guest and i i do recommend his books i thought it was very interesting and i think it has a lot to say

to a lot of people about critical thinking something's very important for all of us to have but again it's um yeah when we look at pride, as I've said, you know, this is now we have a whole month to celebrate pride, pride in what? In an accomplishment? No. In sexual deviancy. That's what we're proud of in this country. What a statement about what America has become. Uh, so the editor, the director of heritage foundations, oversight project said to the daily caller, this data that half of the inmates in Wisconsin are sexual offenders, the transgender ones. Um, and, uh, they can't, they can't, uh, get data about how many of these people, uh, were charged while in prison. Uh, because you know, when they put men in women's prisons, that is a fox in the hen house, if you will.

The data shows a much uglier truth, said the Heritage Foundation director of an oversight project, the truth that sexual crime and transgenderism are linked. But we don't need a study, right? It is criminal what they're doing with kids. And again, why would we give people a pass for this kind of conduct? It's because of how we have elevated this conduct as kind of a religious right in the same way that abortion has been elevated. And you see this in Massachusetts. You have a Massachusetts couple. They're Christians, and they've been told by the

Massachusetts system that they will not be able to participate in foster care, and they will not be able to adopt because they are Christians. They said the family is suing Massachusetts because the people who were evaluating them said their faith is not supportive and neither are they. Talking about whether or not they would support and affirm a child's sexual orientation or gender identity. Again, children do not have the ability to make these types of decisions. It's the essence as to why we have limited their access to so many different types of activities. It's easy to prey on children because they're young, they're naive, they even think differently. They don't have the critical ability that adults do.

And so as a result, this couple who has, as they pointed out in the representative, their said senior counsel for them said they experienced the heartbreak of infertility. Afterwards, they decided to become foster parents with the hope of eventually adopting children. They applied through Massachusetts. They went through 30 hours of training, lengthy interviews, home assessments. Their overall family life was scrutinized and reviewed. They were denied for one reason. One reason.

They believed that God created us male and female and that children cannot change their identity. That is what we're coming to. And again, as we look at the double standard on the mass murder manifestos, they want you to see one that is going to push a narrative that leads to racial division, strife, and civil war. They don't want you to see the mental records of either of these killers, the trans killer or the white killer in Jacksonville

who shot people because of the color of their skin. They want a race war. They don't want any question at all as to what is happening with people who have become essentially slaves and puppets, slaves to the sin that they're involved in. It is something that has completely possessed them. I think no better example of that can be found than Sam Britton. You know, when you look at this guy, everything in his life was all around his sexual activity. He didn't seem to have a life outside of that, but they put him in charge of nuclear waste. It's like, when does he have time to even consider that? You know, he's hanging around with teenagers who have been gaslit by the institutions as a mentor.

You know, he's stealing dresses from people. That's the thing that got him kicked out. Isn't that amazing? That was what it took to get him kicked out. On Rockfan, a Syrian girl, thank you very much for the tip. She writes, excellent guest. Great to hear a Christian teacher

who counsels Christians to use their brains that God gave them. That's absolutely right. We're not called to be robots. We're not called to have a blind faith. As I said before, you know, in Isaiah, come let us reason together. God gave us minds, and he gave us an invitation to reason through what he tells us. Though your sins be as

scarlet, they will be as white as snow. That is both grace, love, and invitation to examine these claims. And so it's always good to talk about that. And we need to always be open to that, just as everything that we do. We need to constantly be evaluating, am I wrong about this? Did I get this right? That's what we should be doing with the news, with politics, but especially with the most important issue that we're going to face in this short, short life of ours. And every day is shorter for each and every one of us, isn't it? So we need to think about the larger questions in life, just as I said yesterday. It makes a suicide booth ask you three questions before you go to the other side of the bridge. And we better spend some time asking ourselves those questions.

And quite frankly, the sooner you come to the answer, the better things will be for you in this life. It can be difficult. It can be trying. But again, as Christians, if you have a relationship with God, it's not simply going to be about what happens to you and your circumstances. There's something that is much deeper. And if we're going to change the path that this country is on, as I've said many times, we need to have a lever that is long enough to reach this fulcrum that is outside of our time and space, something that depends and leans on God, that is what it's

going to take to change this massive deception that's happened to our world. Thank you for listening. The David Knight Show is a critical thinking super spreader. If you've been exposed to logic by listening to The David Knight Show, please do your part and try not to spread it. Financial support or simply telling others about the show causes this dangerous information to spread farther. People have to trust me. I mean, trust the science.

Wear your mask. Take your vaccine. Don't ask questions. Using free speech to free minds. It's the David Knight Show.