The David Knight Show - 4Oct22 CIA Invests in a REAL "Jurassic Park" Business

Episode Date: October 4, 2022

* SCOTUS lets stand Trump gun control by Exec Order and ATF redefinition of termsSupremes are back in session — here are the cases before them* CIA invests in a real-world "Jurassic Park" business venture to bring back wooly mammoths. They're not interested in pachyderms but they do have mammoth plans they share with Space Force, DoD, and DARPA* California government is STILL coming after churches with MILLIONS in "pandemic" fines for not locking down, masking, etc* 5 year anniversary of the Vegas shooting — and FBI's actions are still a huge red flag* Federal Reserve begins pushing ESG with 6 largest banks to usher in Chinese style social credit system* Elon Musk actually got it right on Ukraine and sets off a firestorm of criticism especially from the Ukrainian puppets* Even more evidence, beyond Blinken's boasting, that the pipeline bombing was carried out by USA or UKINTERVIEW: Why the Left Weaponizes "Christian Nationalism"Michael Voris, ChurchMilitant.comMichael Voris, ChurchMilitant.com, in a country that's adrift without an anchor will we be shamed into silence? - can you tell the difference between "Christian Nationalism" label, free exercise of religion, establishment of religion- has the GOP lost its way on abortion, Rowe, Dobbs- education, forming the future- stripping away parental rights a UN agenda that's come out of the closetFind 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-show Or you can send a donation throughZelle: @[e-mail] App at:  $davidknightshowBTC to:  bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Mail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Money is only what YOU hold: Go to DavidKnight.gold for great deals on physical gold/silverBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-david-knight-show--2653468/support.

At LiveScoreBet, we love Cheltenham just as much as we love football. The excitement, the roar and the chance to reward you. That's why every day of the festival, we're giving new members money back as a free sports bet up to €10 if your horse loses on a selected race. That's how we celebrate the biggest week in racing. Cheltenham with LiveScoreBet. This is total betting. Sign up by 2pm, 14th of March. Bet within 48 hours of race.

Main market excluding specials and place bets. Terms apply. Bet responsibly. Using free speech to free minds. You're listening to The David Knight Show. As the clock strikes 13, it's Tuesday, the 4th of October, Year of Our Lord, 2022. Day 932 of the emergency. Today we're going to take a look at many Supreme Court decisions that have been made and are being made. We've had the anniversary of the Vegas shooting, which I didn't cover a couple of days ago. But of course on the same anniversary we had the Supreme Court turn down, even taking a look at the idea that the ATF can

now do gun control by executive order, by the order of President Trump. Yes, President Trump. Many precedents. We're also going to take a look at what is happening in the march to war. And we have a guest coming up in the third hour, Michael Voris of Church Militant. Stay with us. We'll be right back. Well, the CIA has invested in woolly mammoth resurrection technology. Jurassic elephant, I guess we could call it. Daily Star picked this up. Drudge picked it up. And the tagline is, nobody is sure why.

Yeah, why would they be interested in genetics? Why would they be interested in mRNA? Why would DARPA and the CIA be interested in all this stuff? Why would there be connections to Neuralink and to Elon Musk? It just makes no sense at all. I just can't connect the dots. I don't understand what's going on. No, it's deep state genetics.

This is what they've been about all along. DARPA wants super soldiers. They want cyborgs. They want the singularity. All of these things come together if you understand what their agenda is. They're not separate things. Well, this just doesn't make any sense. Why are they doing this? Even in the article, they admit

the CIA wants the genetic expertise of this company called Colossal Biosciences. Clearly, they don't care anything about woolly mammoths, but we should be asking. And here's something I've never said before about the CIA and their In-Q-Tel venture capital that was instrumental in creating Palantir, that Peter Thiel put money in it. The CIA put money into it with In-Q-Tel and other things. And of course, it is data mining, geospatial intelligence to map everything that we do to surveil us is a key component of the surveillance state. But one of the things I've never said is, why is the CIA allowed to have a venture capital firm? Have you seen anybody in Congress complain about that? No, you don't complain about the CIA and Congress.

They're who you work for. They can take you out in any number of ways. Remember, we had Schumer talking about that. You don't mess with the CIA. These guys have ways to take you out. CIA, FBI, this entire deep state. So you just let them do whatever they want. They can openly create a venture capital firm.

They can create startups that are used under the beard of social media. These startups have been focused on scraping all of your data off of social media. It was LifeLog, which was what they proposed. But as long as you put the data there and they're not tabulating, then it's not anything at all like the East German Stasi, is it? Except that it is. We're just so foolish that we give them that information. So let's say the CIA is reportedly invested indirectly in a company, indirectly, in other words, through In-Q-Tel,

which is a direct investment, by the way, if you look at the board of directors and you look at the venture capital firms and people who are involved in the creation of all of these internet companies that now rule us. At LiveScore Bet, we love Cheltenham just as much as we love football, the excitement,

the roar, and the chance to reward you. That's why every day of the festival, we're giving new members money back as a free sports bet up to €10 if your horse loses on a selected race. That's how we celebrate the biggest week in racing. Cheltenham with LiveScoreBet.

This is total betting. Sign up by 2pm 14th of March. Bet within 48 hours of race. Main market excluding specials and place bets. Terms apply. Bet responsibly. 18plusgamblingcare.ie They were filled with people who were even currently active

with the CIA or the NSA, in addition to the direct money from In-Q-Tel. They've invested in a company that hopes to bring back the big furry elephants from extinction. Is this constitutional for them to have a venture capital firm? And could tell says it's not so interested in the mammoths as it is in the capability offered by colossals, DNA sequencing tech and know-how.

Yeah. It's a whole new level of ethical concerns. When we talk about genetics and the cia is involved in it and darp is involved in it right because they have no ethics um it's just uh every day you see this stuff coming every day it's more stuff about their brain analysis their their desire to control every aspect of our bodies, and on and on. Colossal Biosciences is creating some serious, powerful DNA sequencing technology in its quest to de-extinct the mammoth.

It has managed to sequence the entire genome of Asian elephants as part of a project to create woolly mammoth embryos using the gene editing tool CRISPR. The company's plan is to grow mammoths inside Asian elephants for 22 months, raise them to maturity, and then set them free in the Arctic Circle. They said, we're not bringing back mammoths, we're bringing back their genes and using them to modify Asian elephants to create mammoths, the closest genetic relative. So you understand they're going to be creating a hybrid genetically. This will be a genetically modified organism. They're going to take the genes of an Asian elephant and they're going to modify it as they understand it to have the genetics of a mammoth.

This will be an artificially created creature. How does this play into their idea of having super soldiers, cyborgs, and all the rest? Of course, the cyborg aspect of it is vital for Elon Musk's Neuralink. Because that's where, just as I pointed out yesterday, the cyber cockroaches, you know, they can hack into their nerves and they can make them, you know, turn left or turn right. Of course, right now they're going in circles and they tell it to turn right, but still, that's the idea. They're going to hack into these cockroaches and they think of you in the same way as they think of cockroaches. You're nothing other than a pest to them. You have to be at least controlled

in terms of population, if not eliminated. We're not bringing back the mammoths, we're just bringing back their genes. He said, I believe that the de-extinction technologies and the toolkit that we're building are applicable to a wide variety of endangered species. He said, IncaTel might have more on its mind than just species conservation, however. The company's blog post says this technology will help it to read, to write, and to edit genetic material. And quote, to help set the ethical as well as the technological standards for its use. Well, I think there's not going to be any ethics here. So this is, I think, one of the most amusing things about this story is that the CIA says they got involved with In-Q-Tel so they could set the ethics. Maybe they're telling you the truth. They just didn't tell you they're going to set the ethics to zero.

I've talked to John Kiriakou many times. The only person who went to jail for torture, the torture program, is because he blew the whistle on it. He didn't participate in the torture. He blew the whistle on it. The people who did it, the people who sold it, the guy who wrote the book, Company Man, he was their company lawyer. He invented the term enhanced interrogation. He was celebrated. The people, the psychologists that they hired, they paid millions of dollars. They even had a

civil lawsuit, some of the people trying to punish them in that way. That civil lawsuit was swept aside. And then you had Gina Haspel, of all people, who covered up and destroyed. In addition to the cover-up, she destroyed

all the videotapes of that. She was promoted to the head of the CIA by Trader Trump. And so, I talked to John Kiriakou. He said, they're looking for people in the CIA who are borderline psychopaths.

Sociopaths who are borderline psychopaths. This is a guy who spent a lot of time in the CIA. So it's going to be the sociopaths and borderline psychopaths who invested in this genetics company so they could set the bar on ethics. It's going to be a real low bar, isn't it? Unbelievable what is happening here. God is in control. We don't despair.

We laugh at this because God is laughing at them. But, you know, I talked about Palantir, the fact that they were buying their way into the national health system in the UK, something that was going to basically keep tabs on everybody medically. Nothing sinister about that, is there? We also had the FBI busting a husband and wife team

where the husband was a tranny dressing like a woman, and they were trying to get medical records on people who were in the military at Fort Bragg, special forces, officers, things like that. As I said at the time, it was a perfect cover for the FBI because the only thing that anybody talked about was that this guy was the first transgender officer who became a traitor. Oh, the conservative media just ate that up. And yeah, it is kind of an interesting angle.

But they completely missed the fact that the FBI was setting up a sting to get medical records because that's what they're interested in. And they figure other governments are interested in that as well. Could that be perhaps why Palantir is trying to get involved in the medical records of the UK? I mean, they've already got the medical records of us, right? They're grabbing umbilical cords at birth and sequencing that kind of stuff. Getting blood at birth against the knowledge, without the knowledge or the consent of parents and that type of thing. Creating a massive database, people all over the world, they can make specialized weapons out of this as well, sequencing the information,

the genetic information. So Palantir, one of the ways that they operate, since Peter Thiel says competition is for losers, well, then winners don't compete. Winners buy people who already, companies who already have a relationship with the NHS. They buy NHS officials. Come on into private industry. That's the way it's typically done in the US as well, the revolving door.

So they don't compete, they buy. I just have to say, how is it that we are ruled by these technocrats? And notice the fact that the technocrats are not Americans. None of them Americans, really, for the most part. Peter Thiel, German. Elon Musk, South African. Because he was run out of Canada because his grandfather tried to overthrow the government and install a technocracy.

You got Sundar Pichai and on and on. You got some guy that's, I can't remember, Pragwal or whatever his name is, is in charge of Twitter. They brought in people to rule us that hate this country. They're not Americans. They hate this country. I'm not being xenophobic. It's look at what they do.

They hate this country. They hate the values of this country. And they've been established by the CIA to run these organizations because the CIA hates this country. The good news is they shake their fist at God. That's the good news, because God's going to deal with them. Of course, we're also here as well. Watch out for incoming. So Palantir also jumped into a Pentagon contract that was ditched by Google. The one that they had a lot of problems with. Google did not want to get involved with it,

but the way they describe Peter Thiel is he's a conservative billionaire. No, he's got deep ties to the military industrial complex and the intelligence community. That doesn't make him conservative. Unless that's what conservative is, conservatism, count me out. I don't lay myself a conservative anyway. I'm not trying to conserve what America is.

I'm trying to take it back to what it used to be. That's why I said, you want to talk about conservatives? I'm the most conservative. I want the status quo ante. I'd like to go back to like America under Alexis de Tocqueville. We could control the technology if we had that kind of society. So Robert Malone, I mentioned, he did a column on cyborgs. He just started looking at what DARPA has been doing and going back and finding some statements from DARPA

and others going back years. I mean, this is 2014, Defense won. At LiveScoreBet, we love Cheltenham just as much as we love football. The excitement, the roar, and the chance to reward you. That's why every day of the festival, we're giving new members money back as a free sports bet up to €10 if your horse loses on a selected race. That's how we celebrate the biggest week in racing.

Cheltenham with LiveScore Bet. This is total betting. Sign up by 2pm 14th of March. Bet within 48 hours of race. Main market excluding specials and place bets. Terms apply. Bet responsibly. 18 plus gamblingcare.ie. DARPA's Arati Prabhakar. Oh.

Good American name there. I'm not being, again, they bring in people. This is what the British government did, right? When they wanted to rule India, what did they do? They had, it was very calculating. They would put British officers at the very top, and then they would fill the ranks of civil service and everything with Indians, so people didn't feel the oppression. And what these guys

are doing, what our globalists are doing, is they're filling the top layers of echelon, just as the British Empire did in India, filling it with their people, the British people. What they're doing here in America is filling the top echelon of positions with people who are globalists. They don't have any connection to America. They're globalists. And then they fill in the lower ranks with people from America. And everybody looks at it and goes, well, this is all Americans that are running this thing, just like the people in the lower ranks with people from America and everybody looks at it and goes, well, this is all Americans that are running this thing, just like the people in the British Empire were saying,

oh, this is all Indians who are running the thing. But it's not. It's the people who are at the top. So, Arati Prabhakar tells Defense One, he's a guy at DARPA, that cutting-edge biology research is the future of national security. Well, if it's the future of national security, that means nothing gets in the way. Because again, the principle in which we have been operating since the end of World War

II is that if you label something national security, that trumps everything. That's even better than calling it a national emergency. If's national security everything yields to that everything gets out of the way constitution everything national security it's your trump card so um back then in 2014 that was when they created a biology biological technology office under darPA. And of course, they've added many, many, many more bureaucracies and layers and levels of bureaucracy. Billions of dollars worth of funding since then. We're talking about eight years ago. I've been talking about this for a very long time.

At the time, eight years ago, they said DARPA programs into brain research, synthetic biology, and epidemiology. Epidemiology. Oh, yeah, that would be kind of what we just went through, that whole scam, right? So they said the office will cover everything from tomorrow's bioweapon detectors and connecting humans to computers, that's Neuralink,

to designing entirely new types of super strong living materials, living materials that could form the basis of future devices. So he also talked about cyborgs as part of that. That was actually the title of the article. One of the people interviewed by a Canadian broadcasting corporation in terms of the DOD considering challenges of human enhancement, the person they interviewed was Dr. Peter Emanuel. Do you know who he is? Well, he's one of the brothers, Emanuel, Rahm, Emmanuel, you know him, I think, uh, you know, closely tied with Obama, uh, Obama, Obama, white house, former

mayor of Chicago, uh, the guy who was famous for his temper tantrum, taking a knife and stabbing the table. Like, uh, some, some scene out of the Godfather when he was talking about his political enemies. Well, Peter Emmanuel, his brother is a bioethicist he made a lot of news a couple of years ago because he said um uh that people of a certain age should not be allowed to live you know he's promoting uh euthanasia just simply based on age not even any medical condition uh so one of the things that he was talking about was human enhancement.

And that's his euphemism for cyborgs. Because, you know, just as we had the euphemism for torture, we called it, or they called it, enhanced interrogation. Well, the euphemism for cyborg monsters is human enhancement. And the U.S. Space Force, created recently by Trump, just came out last year saying human augmentation is imperative. It's imperative. Because otherwise we're going to have a cyborg gap with China and Russia. We can't have that. This is the way they argue for everything. This is the way they argue for autonomous killing machines, right? They make the decision that humans get humans out of the

loop because we just don't have time. Yeah. They got to make a split decision because otherwise we're going to have a autonomous killer robot gap. And if we don't do the cyborgs, we'll have a cyborg gap. And if we don't do the bioweapons and the gain-of-function research, we'll have a bioweapon gain-of-function gap. Except that we're racing way out ahead of everybody else, and we're the ones who are pushing the technology in every one of these heinous directions. So, Defense Post, May 5th, 2021. Today, we're on the brink of a new age,

the age of human augmentation. U.S. Space Force Chief Scientists, Dr. Joel, what was his last name here? Dr. Joel Moser, said human augmentation should be embraced by the West to keep up with the competition. I'm telling you, Mr. President, we've got to get those cyborgs out there. You know them. Them Ruskies going to have them.

We've got to have our own. I just wonder if these super soldiers will do what they want. They're going to have to have some pretty heavy controls in there because if you give them these types of capabilities, they might just solve this problem for all of us. Artificial intelligence will allow the military to craft tactics and strategies that no human could or would. Autonomous programs will eventually provide real-time advice to commanders,

and multiple autonomous agents will be able to assist commanders and decision-makers in reconnaissance and in fire control. They want it to be automated. Automated war. Like Hugo de Garis was saying, he called it Artelike, the Artelike War. He said, you know, after people wake up enough to realize what these people who are working on genetics robotics artificial intelligence and nanotechnology grain the grain technologies he said once people understand what the end game is

once they understand what these people are capable of and then once they understand what they're really going for people going to resist which case these people will pull back. He said that they would go to space stations. Well, that brings us, that's interesting, because that's where the Space Force commander gets involved, right? He believes that they'll go off Earth, kind of like Elysium, kind of like the high frontier space platforms and habitats that were designed by Gerard K. O'Neill back in the 1970s. And he said they would use their artificial intelligence and their robotics and their

nanotech and their biotech and all the rest of that stuff to have a war with the rest of humanity. The people who remained on Earth, Hugo de Garra said they'll be, he called them the Terrans, and the people who had the technology and the capability to get into near-Earth orbit, he called them the Cosmos, and he said it would result that war over artificial intelligence and over all of these technologies, really, he was focused primarily on artificial intelligence because he worked in artificial intelligence and he believed, sincerely believed that he was creating something that would destroy humanity, but he was compelled to do it anyway. But he also felt like he should warn people about it. That's nice of him. Uh, and after people wake up, the cosmos will go to war with the Terrans

and the Arlec War, and he said it will be giga-death. Billions of people killed. Now, that's in addition to the Trump shots. So this chief scientist for Space Force explained that human augmentation will eventually develop into technologies such as augmented reality and virtual reality, including nerve stimulation to enhance the simulation of physical sensations. Again, Neuralink, Musk and Peter Thiel, very successful because they're partnering with a military industrial complex in the surveillance state the deep state they're the deepest of the deep state you could put an individual into a state of flow where learning is optimized and retention is maximized said joel moser chief scientist for Trump's Space Force.

First thing they should do is get the artificial intelligence to give them a better theme song. I played that for you last week, I think. This individual could be shaped into somebody with very high performing potential. Shape the individuals. Modify the individual. I'll just mention one more here. And that is Cyborg Soldier 2050. The Human-Machine Fusion

and the Implications of the Future of the Department of Defense. This is an assessment. And this is from Robert Malone's Substack. It goes back a couple of years ago, but they're looking into the future, into 2050. The primary objective of this effort was to forecast and to evaluate the military implications of machines that are physically integrated with the human body to augment and to enhance human performance over the next 30 years. At LiveScoreBet, we love Cheltenham just as much as we love football.

The excitement, the roar, and the chance to reward you. That's why every day of the festival, we're giving new members money back as a free sports bet up to 10 euro if your horse loses on a selected race. That's how we celebrate the biggest week in racing. Cheltenham with LiveScoreBet. This is total betting. Sign up by 2 p.m. 14th of March. Bet within 48 hours of race.

Main market excluding specials and place bets. Terms apply. Bet responsibly. 18 plus gamblingcare.ie. They identified four potential military use cases for new technologies in this area. They assessed the impact upon the DOD organizational structure, on warfighter doctrine and tactics, on interoperability with U.S. allies and with civil society. And so as they look at

these various areas, they break them down into five different areas. Talking about ocular enhancement, we're going to give super eyes. They can see in a long distance or all kinds of things, right? X-ray vision or telescope vision, telescope. Think about the $6 million man, right? Or auditory enhancement. You can hear like Superman. Or direct neural enhancement of the human brain for two-way

data transfer ah that's the one they want even even trumping the programmed muscular control super strength so super eyesight super hearing super strength um but it's the brain that they really want. So it keeps coming back to Neuralink. It keeps coming back to the cyborg cockroaches. And that's how they will treat the volunteers who sign up for this. They'll treat them the same way they treat the cockroaches. The study group analysis suggested that the development of the direct neural enhancements of the human brain for two-way data transfer would create a revolutionary advancement in future military capabilities. It's their number out of all these different things, five different things that they could do.

Super strength, supervision, super hearing, all those others. No, the one we want is the brain thing. That's why you've got Elon Musk running Neuralink. This technology is predicted to facilitate read-write capability between humans and machines, between humans through brain-to-brain interactions. These interactions would allow warfighters direct communication with unmanned autonomous systems, as well as with other humans, to optimize command control systems and operations. The potential for direct data exchange between human neural networks and microelectronic systems could revolutionize tactical warfighter communications. Direct neural enhancement of the human brain through neurosilica interfaces.

What they mean by that is simply the neuro is your biological, your brain, right, your nerves. And the silica means the artificial computer technology. So the neuro-silica interfaces can improve target acquisition and engagement and accelerate defensive and offensive systems. This is why I say, you know, you look at Musk, you look at Teal, they're deep, deep, deep state. So the next part of it is they figure out how they're going to sell this to the public. Just like they were working on how they're going to sell you the jabs.

Well, let's see. We could tell you that you need to do it because it's science. It's science because I said it's science. We could tell you that you need to do it to love your neighbor. We put a guilt trip on people and say, how would you feel if you didn't get your vaccine and because of that, somebody else got sick? Yeah, I know. It doesn't make any sense. But these are the types of arguments that they were making. And these are the types of arguments that they had the big dog pastors making.

The people who like Franklin Graham. People like Al Mohler. People like Curtis Chang. I think it's his name, Chang or Wang. I think it's Chang. He had an entire business that he set up just to push this to pastors. And they all bought into these talking points

for this stuff. So they said, first of all, we're going to have Department of Defense personnel assess globally what the public thinks. That's why they created these social media companies. They're going to map it, right?

Geospatial intelligence. What does everybody think about cyborgs? Well, this area over here, this country agrees. These people don't. How does that match up to their political and religious beliefs? Other things like that. Then U.S. leadership should use existing newly developed forums, such as NATO, to discuss impacts to interoperability with allied partners. So start bringing our partners on with this.

The DoD should investigate the development of dynamic legal, security, and ethical frameworks. So they're going to start defining the legal and ethical frameworks to do this. Efforts should be made to undertake and to reverse negative cultural narratives of enhancement technology. So this will be another one of these things that if you speak out against it, they'll censor you. Just like I get censored for talking about their climate change narrative or their COVID narrative, their pandemic narrative,

their vaccine narrative, their war narrative. Well, if you speak out against their cyborg narrative, they'll shut you down for that too. Number five, DOD personnel should conduct tabletop war games. Tabletop war games. This is what they did for 20 years, beginning with dark winter, so they could run their pandemic. So they're already starting with the tabletop war games for their cyborgs,

their cyborg war. And the U.S. government should support efforts to establish a whole-of-nation approach to human machine enhancement technologies versus a whole-of-nation approach to human machine enhancement technologies versus a whole-of-government approach. In other words, we don't want to just get all of government involved. When you look at the whole-of-government approach, what is that? Well, we've seen that in the Biden administration. We've seen it with CBDC. That's every government agency produced a report, and he gave the different agencies different areas to get involved in. And it broke down, if you remember, into four different areas. You had the overall redesign of the financial system, the actual nuts and bolts of how it was going to work.

You had law enforcement that's going to bust heads if they didn't, you know, people who try to get out of this CBDC system. And then you had the climate impact, which was basically their, how do we sell this to people? There's no reason for anybody to want this, except that we can tell them it's going to save the planet. And so that was one of the four things. That was the propaganda, the marketing aspect of it was green. So what's the system design? How are we going to enforce it? How are we going to implement it? And how are we going to propagandize people so they want it? And then they got all the different government agencies involved in it.

And they're saying, well, you know, and he did it again with this biotech initiative, which is one of the reasons why I think Robert Malone was writing this. They got the biotech initiative where they want to take all the stops off, make it a whole of government. But then they will run their propaganda aspects to make it a whole of government, but then they will run their, um, their propaganda aspects to make it a whole of country. And that means that they roll in all of the entertainment business. They roll in all the multimedia people, the press and all the rest of this stuff to propagandize us, just like they have done over and over again with things like the transgender agenda. You don't think that they can.

And this is where this all ties together. I said the end game, the intermediate step, which is one of the carrots that they've been holding out to these pervs, is pedophilia. That's the immediate carrot that they give these people. But the end game for all of this is transhumanism, cyborgs and transhumanism. That's the end game for the transgender stuff.

And if you don't think they can sell that, I mean, just look at what they've been able to do with this transgender stuff. That is insane. It's deplorable. It's degenerate. And they've been able to sell it. And they're going to be able to sell this,

hack your body, enhance your body stuff. They'll make it all positive. And then they'll vilify those of us who don't want it, just as you saw them successfully do with the vaccine mandates. We're going to take a break and we'll be right back. Stay with us. The common man. They created common core to dumb down our children. They created common past to track and control us. Their commons project to make sure the commoners own nothing and the communist future. They see the common man as simple, unsophisticated, ordinary.

But each of us has worth and dignity created in the image of God. That is what we have in common. That is what they want to take away. Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation. They desire to know everything about us while they hide everything from us. It's time to turn that around and expose what they want to hide. Please share the information and links you'll find

at thedavidknightshow.com. Thank you for listening. Thank you for listening. Thank you for sharing. If you can't support us financially, please keep us in your prayers. thedavidknightshow.com All right. Susie, thank you very much for the tip on Rockfin. Susie Moody, Angus Mustang, thank you very much for the tip as well. And he asks, do you know where I can place an order for a mammoth?

Maybe at thedavid David night show.com. You can place orders for mugs, koozie mugs and coffee mugs and pens. Unfortunately, it's going to take us a while to get these things through while Karen is gone and Travis is gone. And I would just ask your prayers for their travel. At LiveScoreBet, we love Cheltenham just as much as we love football. The excitement, the roar, and the chance to reward you. travel. Cheltenham with LiveScoreBet. This is total betting. Sign up by 2 p.m. 14th of March.

Bet within 48 hours of race. Main market excluding specials and place bets. Terms apply. Bet responsibly. 18plusgamblingcare.ie They've had a lot of problems already. Try and just get to where they can get the treatment. And I'd ask for your prayers for healing for Travis's rheumatoid arthritis.

It's gotten very bad. And we know that it is God who heals. We do the treatment. We take advantage to the extent that we can of opportunities that present themselves because God can provide, and he does it frequently, provide miracles through providence. But it is ultimately God who heals. So I'd appreciate your prayers. But while they're gone, I'm the one who's trying to do the orders too.

So I'm about as busy as a one-armed paper hanger, as they say. So no offense to the one-armed paper hangers out there, but I know you're all busy. And so until we get everything back, so this week and a little bit of next week, I'll be here, and we're trying to get some stuff out as we can.

But please be patient with us. It's going to be slower than it will be eventually. But again, we have the new website, and you can see, you can order the stuff at the bottom of it. But I'll be here this week. Next week, I think it's a Wednesday first show will be done by, uh, Tony Arterburn and, um, guard and the crew, uh, all the people that Tony has on Billy Ray Valentine, uh, Don Jeffries, and all the people will be, uh, rotating

through and they'll have guests. And I think he takes calls as well, I believe. And, uh, he set up to do that. We haven't set up to do that. I really do want to set up to do that. But, um, anyway, they, uh, we'll be doing the show for about a week because, um, once, uh, Karen and Travis returned, we have the formal wedding, uh, that they'd already begun. They got married back in, uh, Travis and his wife got married back in, um, in May. Uh, but they'd already started, uh, formal wedding plans, um, in October. So, um, uh, we're going to go ahead and do that. And so then we'll be back, but it's going to be a real, uh, crazy month already has been so far. Uh, let's talk a little bit about, uh, the anniversary of the Las Vegas shooting. This started,

this happened about a couple of months after I began my show. And so we've just had the anniversary of that, a five-year anniversary. And right there at the anniversary, you had the Supreme Court weigh in with a decision to uphold the banning of a bump stock. But before we get to that, this is some comments from Greg Price on Twitter. He says, just think got a multimillionaire, retired accountant with no previous criminal record who committed the deadliest mass shooting in American history five years ago today. And that was on Saturday, actually. And the FBI closed the case, listen to this, with a three-page report that never determined a motive. Well, that's not suspicious at all.

Nobody's interested in taking a look at that at all, are they? I'm telling you, the Vegas shooting was very, very suspicious, not because of what Steve Pachinik, again, my show had started, it was about two months old when that happened. Pachinik came on, he was supposed to come on for a couple of segments. He didn't show up. And all of a sudden he shows up the last segment and he comes on and just starts rambling, you know, tried to sandbag me by saying nobody died. No, it's a complete hoax. Nobody died.

Nothing happened there. Nothing at all. I guess he thought I would take the bait, but I shut him down. I know exactly what he was doing. And of course, Alex does too. He knows he's a CIA agent. That's why he puts him on all the time. That's what these people are trying to do. And that even heightened my suspicion of the event. It's not a characteristic that nobody dies. It's a characteristic of them trying to cover up when there's something going on to put that narrative out there. And so there was a lot that was very suspicious about that. It got more suspicious

when Pchenik tried to slather that lie all over it. And then it got even more suspicious when Trump did what he did in response to it, banning bump stocks for the first time doing gun control by executive order. And he did it on something that nobody really cared about. Yes, this is a novelty thing that's there. But he pretended that it turned these guns into a machine gun, and so it had to be banned.

It's like, oh, that's another data point telling you which side Benedict Donald is on, isn't it? And so the FBI finishes it with a three-page report that never even mentions a motive for a multimillionaire retired accountant who had no criminal record and never had any fights with anybody. Never had any conflicts with anyone. So that same guy, this multimillionaire retired accountant with no previous criminal record, was able to get 23 firearms into a Vegas hotel and shot a security guard six minutes before he began firing. But the first police officers didn't arrive until 15 minutes after his 10-minute shooting spree. None of this makes any sense from that standpoint, but let's change the discussion to nobody died,

which is what Steve Pachinik CIA shill Alex Jones, CIA shill did. So he had a safe with a few handguns that a friend, but he never had any automatic weapons that I knew of at the time. It makes no sense to me. So a friend. Actually, not a friend. That was his brother who said that. Lisa Crawford, who worked as a property manager in Texas for him for six years, said he was the most

stable, even keeled personality of anybody that I knew. He never even got frustrated. What's the motive for all this? Does it make any sense? A well-off man in his mid-60s with no known mental health issues, no history of violent or criminal behavior, no extreme beliefs, shot hundreds of strangers from the 32nd floor of a popular Vegas hotel, and we still have no idea why.

But nobody died, and we have to ban the bump stocks. Right? And so that was what came out of it. And it was very important. Very, very, very important to establish the precedent of gun control by executive order, and even more so, by redefinition. Gun control by redefinition. This is another common trait that we've seen throughout the Trump administration, especially. Let's redefine what a vaccine is. Well, a vaccine now includes, which it didn't before, a vaccine now includes certain proteins and mRNA stuff.

They changed that a few months before they rolled, even before the pandemic was ever even talked about. So let's redefine what a vaccine is and include this new type of vaccine that we have. And let's redefine immunity. Let's redefine this. Let's redefine that. Let's redefine what an automatic weapon is. And if you can do that, of course, if you give yourself the power to redefine things, what do you think the ATF will do this?

Do we have a good definition for assault weapon? It's malleable, isn't it? You know, a machine gun was always understood to be something that was fully automatic. You hold the trigger down and it just keeps firing until you run out of bullets. Semi-automatic means that every time you pull the trigger, it fires a bullet, right? Machine gun always meant something like a Tommy gun, that type of thing. And yet the basis of this judge's decision that found against a firearms instructor who challenged this massive, massive power grab for gun control

by Donald Trump. And that's the thing that amazes me, is that he is still perceived as being somebody who is a Second Amendment supporter. Trump has done more to undermine the Second Amendment than Obama ever dreamed of. The Obama administration didn't ban bump stocks. Can you imagine if Obama or if Hillary Clinton had tried to do gun control by executive order? Oh, that would have been it. That would have. No, no, that's a bridge too far. We're not going to allow that. Everybody would have. But if Donald Trump does it, you got people like Alex telling everybody, it's 4-D chess.

It's 4-D chess. He's on our side. He really is for the Second Amendment. Just don't believe your lying eyes. Trump really is a Second Amendment guy. He truly is. Just keep telling yourself that. SCOTUS now, and the people that he has put in the Supreme Court, declined to overturn the bump stock ban put in by executive order

and implemented by the ATF. The Supreme Court declined yesterday to overturn the bump stock ban that took effect March of 2019. A firearms instructor had filed a suit against the ban, questioning the ATF's ability and their authority to classify a bump stock as a machine gun. The U.S. At LiveScoreBet, we love Cheltenham just as much as we love football. The excitement, the roar, and the chance to reward you.

That's why every day of the festival, we're giving new members money back as a free sports bet up to €10 if your horse loses on a selected race. That's how we celebrate the biggest week in racing. Cheltenham with LiveScoreBet. This is total betting. Sign up by 2pm 14th of March. Bet within 48 hours of race. Main market excluding specials and place bets. Terms apply. Bet responsibly.

18 plus gamblingcare.ie. Court of Appeals for the 10th Court upheld the ban. And so they appealed it to the Supreme Court. The 10th Circuit's opinion said in part, the ATF final rule, it's a rule, it's not a law, it's a rule. So the Constitution is above the laws, and the rules should be below those laws, right? But this is a rule that's going to overrule the Constitution. The ATF's final rule determines that semi-automatic rifles equipped with bump stocks are quote

machine guns unquote, because they function as a result of a self acting or self regulating mechanism that allows the firing of multiple rounds through a single pull, the trigger. No, the, um, you get the same effect by the way with,

you know, using your belt. But the device is not the issue. The bump stock is not the issue. It's the precedent of how the gun control was done. And now Biden has done it twice, twice. The statutory definition of machine gun is ambiguous, said the court. And ATF's interpretation of it is reasonable.

It's not ambiguous. And, of course, no reference to the Second Amendment. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has refused to hear it. They didn't give it cert. They said, no, we're not interested. And the lower court's decision will stand. With SCOTUS leaving the ban in place, the process of challenging it may have run its course. This means that the ATF ban on bump stocks is likely here to stay. And so is the precedent that Trump has set, that the president and the bureaucracy can

reuse redefinition to do gun control. And what will they redefine next? So as this is defined by The Hill, The Hill hill says the Trump era prohibition. That's the way to put it. It's a, it's not even a Trump era. It's the Trump prohibition. Cause he did it himself.

He was the one who said, Hey, I want the ATF to do this. And the ATF did it. Not even Obama did that. The Trump prohibition was put in place by the BATF after Stephen Paddock, the based multimillionaire in his 60s who never had any conflict or political issues and had absolutely no motive, agrees the FBI.

Allegedly used this to kill a lot of people. He used the device, says the Hill, to kill 58 people, wound hundreds during a Vegas concert before he killed himself, of people. He used the device, says the Hill, to kill 58 people, wound hundreds during a Vegas concert before he killed himself, of course. Now, the other thing that is a legacy of Trump, the Trump prohibition of firearms legacy, is, of course, the red flags. Hundreds of Virginians have had firearms confiscated through red flags. This is another triumph of Trump. Do you wonder why I call him Benedict Donald, this traitor Trump?

Eric Pratt, Senior Vice President of Gun Owners of America, said, these laws are contrary to due process protection. That's right. Remember, Trump said, oh, wait, take the guns and do the due process later. And I've always said, well, then that's not due process. The process is due at the beginning. That's the problem with civil asset forfeiture laws as well. There's no due process because it's done by the bureaucracy.

It's based on rules created by the bureaucracy. Eric Pratt, Gun Owners of America, said, Red flag gun confiscation orders turn our legal system on its head. No, Eric, you got that wrong. Alex Jones explained it. It's 4D chess. You know, Trump has to do this stuff so that he can suck up to the other people, make them think that he's on their side, but he's really on our side, and he's really on the side of the Constitution.

You just don't understand the bigger game here. For centuries, said Eric Pratt, the standard has been innocent until proven guilty, but red flag laws reverse the standard into guilty until proven innocent because they throw real due process out the window, revoking someone's Second Amendment rights without a jury trial, without a right to counsel. Says, not surprisingly, at least a third of red flag orders are initiated against innocent people.

No, you got that wrong. They're all initiated against innocent people because you were innocent until proven guilty, and they don't bother to prove you guilty of anything. It's guilt by accusation. How does that have anything to do with America or the Constitution? No, it is 100% of the people who are innocent. There may be two-thirds of the people who, if they'd had due process,

we would assume that they would have lost their firearms, but we don't know that because we didn't do that. How many times have we had a situation where you have police officers who are absolutely certain that so-and-so committed the crime? That's not always the case. The police officers, the district attorney, whatever, they don't, you know, well, my intuition is blah, blah, blah. Well, prove it in court, pal. It's important to do that. Republicans have introduced legislation to repeal red flag laws in Virginia.

I suggest we repeal the entire Trump cult that has been so effective at disarming people's skepticism about government officials. You see, that's what all this trust the plan, 4D chess, that was to disarm your skepticism. That was to make you blindly trust in a man. It was Patrick Henry who said, I have no talk about trust in men. Bind them down with the chains of the Constitution. Anybody in power is a threat to liberty because that power is a threat to them, frankly, and to their ethics. So the Federal Reserve has now announced a social credit system exercise. And that's exactly what ESG is. LifeSite News points out, you know, the environmental social governance thing, that is simply a system of a formalized system of social credits, just like we have in China.

Just like in China, the talk is about stakeholder capitalism. In other words, we're going to have the government changing the way that corporations operate. It's not going to strictly be on a monetary basis, you know, where you say, well, we're going to try to maximize profits for our investors, our shareholders, and we're going to do that by offering the best products and the best services at the best prices, you know, that type of thing. No, no, no, no. Now we're going to say, well,

we have these other goals. Are you going to be pushing environmentalism? Are you going to be pushing diversity, inclusiveness, and equity, whatever they mean by that? If you do that, then we'll do business with you. But it really is beyond that. That's just the excuse. This is really just government crony capitalism and corruption. That's just the excuse. This is really just government crony capitalism and corruption. That's what the Chinese system is. You will have in China somebody from the government who will be sitting on your board and sharing in the profits, and that's what this is really about. Let's understand they don't have any real issues about environmentalism. They don't have any real issues about the DIE stuff. This is all just a way for

them to get a share of the profits, the politicians. The whole thing is a scam. All of this environmentalism is just a big scam to make the rich richer and the politicians richer. We're going to ban, we're going to use the government to ban the way everybody is doing whatever they're doing right now. The food that you eat, the way that you drive, the way that you heat or cool your home, all that's going to be banned and we're going to have a completely new system put in place.

I mean, just look at the Republicans who all jumped in on, now we're going to throw out the way that you cool your houses. They already did that about 20 years or so ago, and now the patents are expiring on some of that stuff. So they have to ban what they told us was the thing that was going to save everybody. And they got to come up with something completely different so that you have to

now buy their more expensive and new patented stuff. It's just a scam. And so the Fed, the Federal Reserve, is getting involved in this. The Federal Reserve is bringing in the big criminal banks that they created. Back in the Clinton administration, they decided that they would create banks, consolidate the banks, set off the wave of bank consolidations, the merger of Nations Bank and Bank of America into Bank of America. Everybody said, that's going to create about a half dozen banks. You don't want to have that? Oh, yeah, we do, said the guy who was part of the Clinton White House, who had been involved in banking mergers there in North Carolina,

Erskine Bowles. And so they went ahead and did that. They took off the speculative stuff, you know, the glass Stigelang. At LiveScoreBet, we love Cheltenham just as much as we love football. The excitement, the roar, and the chance to reward you. That's why every day of the festival, we're giving new members money back as a free sports bet

up to €10 if your horse loses on a selected race. That's how we celebrate the biggest week in racing. Cheltenham with LiveScoreBet. This is total betting. Sign up by 2pm 14th of March. Bet within 48 hours of race. Main market excluding specials and place bets. Terms apply. Bet responsibly. 18plusgamblingcare.ie. And so within 10 years that you had the speculative bubble of the housing market, you wound up with just a few banks that were too big to fail and too big to jail.

And now they're partnering with these same banks in order to run this scam through. The banks that they're partnering with, Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, and Wells Fargo, the usual suspects. Yeah, so they said, the Federal Reserve said in a statement, six of the nation's banks will participate in a pilot climate scenario analysis exercise designed to enhance the ability of supervisors and firms to measure and manage climate-related financial risks. They said it's an emerging tool to assess climate-related financial risks. There will be no capital or supervisory implications from the pilot. Oh, really? No, they're going to change it from any kind of a financial metric to an ESG metric. And this is why you've had a couple of

bright state attorneys general say, if you're going to change to ESG, that is a violation of the corporation's fiduciary responsibilities. In other words, these people are there to try to make money for the company. And if they no longer care about making money for the company, if all they care about is pleasing the Federal Reserve and the federal government with these ESG goals, then they have committed fraud. They've committed financial fraud against their investors. I mean, we look at this, it's usually policed pretty closely. Look at how, you know, they come back at, uh, Elon Musk or they come back at, um, uh, Cardassian, right? She, she talked about a cryptocurrency and say, well, you gotta be very careful about

what you say and what you promote and how you promote it and all this stuff. They're poster children for intimidation, but they do police that very closely for most people, not if you're deep on the inside. But it would be legitimate to call these people on the carpet for violating their fiduciary responsibility. So the Fed is working with big banks to monitor their ability to comply with the ruling class's preferred enviro-statist technocratic mandates, says LifeSite. And

they're right. I just wonder, you know, when the banking system decides that everybody is going to toe the line on environmental and societal issues as defined by the government, as defined by the UN and Klaus Schwab. I just wonder what they'll do to me when I call it a lot of unicorn farts and BS. I think I know. Scenario analysis can assist firms and supervisors in understanding how climate-related financial risk may manifest and differ from historical experience. So what exactly does this mean? It means the Fed is leaning into the climate hoax, the pseudoscientific idea that humans are catastrophically impacting the climate. Not because they somehow care about environment. The climate narrative is the chief rhetorical facilitator for the ESG movement, which is nothing more than Chinese-style

social credits. Chinese-style government fascism. Economic fascism is a merger of corrupt government officials with the companies. The companies follow whatever the government wants them to do. Forget about the marketplace. That is the economic definition of fascism. Everybody's all freaked out about Maloney, calling her fascist and fascist, because she's a nationalist. But it's the economic fascism that is being imposed upon us by the central banks and by these people who are pushing this through for their own agenda.

It's a social agenda. The question is, does Tennessee's failure to ban minor gender surgeries hamper the governor's call for an investigation into Vanderbilt. Of course, Vanderbilt was caught doing their gender gaslighting of young children and destruction. It was Matt Walsh who did the investigation there in that area where they're headquartered, the Daily Wire. So in response to that, Tennessee Governor Bill Lee has called for an investigation into the mutilating surgeries on minors at Vanderbilt Hospital as part of

its transgender clinic. But what Vanderbilt is doing may not even violate Tennessee law. Because on May 18, 2021, he signed into law a one-page bill which addressed the issue of so-called gender change procedures on minors, but it merely prohibits, quote, hormone treatment for gender dysphoric or gender incongruent pre-pubertal minors. Pubertal? I've never seen that before. Anyway, it protects virtually no one over the age of 13 because most children began puberty by then. Moreover, by explicitly prohibiting cross-sex hormones for minors,

but not specifying any other prohibition. And again, not just minors, but prepubescent is what I've always seen. This law may tacitly condone sex change procedures for adolescents. As one individual put it, he said, Gary Humble said, so what we're saying is that you can't do mastectomies on a 14-year-old. He said, we're not saying that. We're not saying that you can't do mastectomies on a 14-year-old, he said, we're not saying that. We're not saying that you can't do mastectomies on a 14-year-old. We're not saying you can't do hysterectomies on a 16-year-old. We're just saying that you can't give hormone treatments to an 8-year-old.

See, the devil is in the details when it comes to these laws. These people can virtue signal, look at what I did. And yet, they don't do anything at all. Um, before we take a break, um, well, we will take now I'll take a, let me just, I've just got a couple of things I want to say, um, uh, about films and update, uh, from things I talked about yesterday. And I want to thank, uh, Uri Jenkins. Thank you very much for the tip. He said, uh, hi, David, I received my pens. I ordered it writes very nicely. Also the stickers were in the box that I did not order. Love them too, so I would like to keep them.

Sending my payment here. No, you don't have to pay. We just put in some extra stickers when we do that. People like stickers. If they want to use the stickers to promote the show, then we'll give them that as well. No need to send more money for that, but I appreciate it. Thank you.

Yesterday I talked about the box office disaster of bros. It wasn't the first homosexual film. I mean, we had a lot of homosexual films, but it was a big budget film. It was highly promoted by Hollywood, and it wasn't just a quote-unquote homosexual romantic comedy. It had explicit homosexual sex scenes in it, and it did not do very well at the box office. I compared it to Kirk Cameron's most recent film, Christian film, about abortion and adoption and other things like that based on a true life experience. That did very well. They couldn't even find release.

Couldn't even find anybody to put their film in release at the movie theaters. They were completely shut out. They were able to find film events or something. I forget exactly the title of the company that does it, but they typically will set up a live concert or they'll do like two or three days of a film, you know, for just a weekend. And they'll, you know, promote that at some of the movie theaters. So they were the ones who distributed it. That's all that they got. Uh, they did it for just a week, but then it did so well

that they did it for a second week. It picked up in the box office. It got great reviews from the audience. Of course, critics hated it. That's the way you know it's a good movie. If you look at Rotten Tomatoes and you see a really high audience score and a very low critical score, then you know it's a good movie. That's the best ways to tell. Anyway, but I was comparing and contrasting it to this garbage, this filth, and the fact that Hollywood studios, that's all they want to do. And so the guy who put it out, actor Billy Eichner, who has a big issue with people

with whom he disagrees with politically and religiously, and he makes no bones about it. He's very hateful about it, as a of fact but you know just like racial discrimination uh racism and hatred and all the rest of stuff can only flow in one direction and so it doesn't matter how much he hates other people or what he says about it but anyway he suggested now that his failure of a movie bros, is because of anti-LGBT bigotry. He said the film fared poorly at the box office because heterosexual people objected to seeing a romantic comedy with gay characters and being forced to watch explicit homosexual sex scenes. I added that part.

You see, I've always said this is not about, they don't want you to tolerate what they do. They want you, they demand that you celebrate what they do. And this is the best example of this. If you don't come and pay money to watch my homosexual pornography, you're bigoted. You're bigoted you're bigoted okay so that's where this goes you have to bow and scrape and kiss their boots or you're the bigot you're the hateful person at live score bet we love cheltenham just as much as we love football. The excitement, the roar, and the chance to reward you.

That's why every day of the festival, we're giving new members money back as a free sports bet up to €10 if your horse loses on a selected race. That's how we celebrate the biggest week in racing. Cheltenham with LiveScore Bet. This is total betting. Sign up by 2pm 14th of March. Bet within 48 hours of race.

Main market excluding specials and place bets. Terms apply. Bet responsibly. 18plusgamblingcare.ie He alleged that an unidentified theater chain threatened to stop showing an advertisement for the film because of its gay content. He said everyone who isn't a homophobic weirdo should go see Bros Tonight and watch my explicit homosexual sex scenes. Or you're a homophobic weirdo. I think he's a homo weirdo.

Eichner posted a tweet in June saying, get your fictional hateful Bible stories and your fake religious BS out of our effing lives. F you. Well, if I just gave him a big return, of our effing lives. F-U. Well, I just gave him a big return sentiment on his movie. He has expressed that he doesn't want conservatives, especially those who voted for Trump, to see the film.

Even conservatives who identify as being part of the LGBT community, as he views them as traitors. So he doesn't like you. If he doesn't like God, he doesn't like people who follow God. He doesn't like your religion. And if he doesn't like your politics, he doesn't want you to come see his film. Okay, we didn't.

And Doug Stafford said, so is this you? Did you say that? Well, perhaps give advice on how half or more of the country should not go to your movie. Don't give that kind of advice, and maybe you won't have this issue. Nolte, John Nolte at Breitbart, who kind of hangs out on the movie beat, he's pretty good on the movie beat.

He's awful when it comes to the vaccines and the masks and stuff like that. It was just unbelievable what John Nolte was doing throughout this whole pandemic. But now he's back on the movies now. Because, you know, the pandemic is over, except it's not, because they're going to keep those powers. Anyway, he said, so was this homophobia his failure at the box office he said here's how i can mathematically show that 95 of gays avoided his movie bros he said it was on 3350 theater screens that's more than twice what kirk cameron's film was on it. And again, they did about the same opening night on it.

Critics loved it. You know, this is going to be one of those films that gets in the 90s for critics and gets in the teens for the audience, I think. But, you know, those are the ones that you want to avoid. The other way around, if the audience likes it and the critics hated it, that's the one you want to see. But this is the one you want to avoid. But this is one you want to avoid. But he's mad because nobody showed up.

So he says, let me do the math. He says, OK, let's say the American population is roughly 330 million people. According to Gallup, the gay population, lesbians, bisexuals, et cetera, the LGBT, lands at right around 4.5 percent. So that means about 15 million Americans are alphabet people. Because this number is controversial, let's round it down to 10 million. So you have 10 million LGBT in America. How many of those 10 million went to see bros? Well, how about less than 5%?

Only about 500,000 people saw it over the weekend. That's it. That's it. So Eichner is blaming homophobia for his movie flopping when less than 5% of homosexuals bothered to show up. 90% of them didn't bother to go see his movie. And we know that the number is actually higher. And he says, furthermore, even though we know the number is higher,

he says not everybody who saw the movie was gay. So if he had had 20% of the gay population show up, his movie would have been considered to be a hit. But it's a giant sucking failure. And then I want to do a followup on the movie blonde, which is just another example of the darkness of Netflix and the kind of films that they put out. This is sent to me by my friend who does films.

Uh, this is a review from, um, Chicago sometimes a headline. my friend who does films. This is a review from Chicago Sun-Times. Headline, overwrought, overlong, blonde, depicts Marilyn Monroe's life as a joyless nightmare. The Netflix film has an arresting look, but too many visual and aural tricks fight for our attention. I think that, you know, they just decided that they would get

somebody who looked spot on like Marilyn Monroe and you see the pictures everywhere. And that's going to be enough to get some people to turn it on, but not enough to get them past the first 20 minutes. As I said yesterday, people flipping it off. I can't even watch the, you know, more than 20 minutes of this thing. As the Chicago Sun-Times says, as in the case with Elvis, Hollywood is never going to let Marilyn Monroe rest in peace. Here we are, some 45 years after Presley's death at the age of 42, and six decades after Monroe's death at 36, and two of the biggest and most anticipated releases of 2022

have been stylized biopics of these respective legends. Elvis, which is one of the most entertaining movies of the year, says this critic and Andrew Dominic's blonde, which is not, not even close clocking in at an excruciating two hours and 46 minutes featuring a nonstop onslaught of attention-getting,

directorial, visual, and aural tricks. It is a borderline sadistic interpretation of Marilyn Monroe's tragic life and times in which we bear witness to the child known as Norma Jean and the movie star called Marilyn suffering cruel, abusive, and manipulative treatment at the hands of virtually everyone who is close to her. It's as if she's starring in a horror movie of her own life. We know Marilyn had an awful childhood, struggled with mental health issues and alcohol and drug abuses,

and was mistreated in monstrous ways throughout her career. But, and blonde writer and director dominic who adapted a novel by joyce carroll oates would have us believe that she was happy for maybe six months in her entire life and he says it's important to remember that it's based on this joyce carroll oates highly impressionistic novel. You know, it's kind of interesting, the ability of novels to completely rewrite an historical character's life. I think you go back, I remember years and years ago

when it first came out, it was a book called Jefferson, An Intimate Portrayal. It was written by someone, I believe, if I remember correctly, her name was Fawn Brody. And I was sick and in bed, and Karen went out and bought me some books. She knew I liked Jefferson, so she said, oh, he doesn't have this one. And she brought that one home. And it was absolute garbage.

It was, this woman is not a historian, but she made this whole thing about Sally Hemings into a, a, you know, uh, an established fact now about his life. If you go back and you look at it, there's a lot of questions about it. There's a lot of questions even about the DNA. go very, you can't go multiple generations and expect in a small area like that, where there was a lot of intermarriage and it was, uh, not a lot of people, everybody were typically staying in there. You can't expect that you're, uh, going to be able to accurately determine, uh, over 200 years parentage and things like that. Um, and you know, this is, these were accusations that were made by him from a guy who was first of all, an obsessive fan who then became disillusioned. And, uh, of course that's always the big thing, you know, somebody who's a really, really, really obsessive fan. Uh, if something

happens and, uh, you disappoint them or they get, uh, they disagree with you, which is what happened with this journalist from afar. Then they turn into your worst enemy and stalker, and that's what happened with this guy. So he made very specific charges about Jefferson and things that were happening in his household, but he had never even been there, never even been to the state of Virginia. So my point of saying all that is that how these uh novelists can completely rewrite

somebody's life and everybody buys into it you know the movies about it uh after that i think it was jefferson and paris and nick nolte and that type of thing anyway anna d armas has movie star looks and legitimate acting chops and the great assistance of the hair and makeup and costume department, she bears a striking resemblance to Marilyn Monroe. At times, her Cuban accent does shine through, they said. Yeah. Lucy? You've got a lot of explaining to do.

Anyway, it must have been exhausting for Armas to play this role. When Marilyn is not crying violently, she's suffering physical and or verbal abuse or literally collapsing in a heap from the abuse of alcohol and drugs or suffering a miscarriage or enduring an abortion

that is depicted like something out of a Stephen King adaptation. It's a memorable performance in a film that wants to dazzle us with its bag of tricks and visuals, but it is rotten at its core. Rotten at its core. And that is exactly what is true of Netflix.

It is rotten at its core. All right, we're going to take a quick break, and we'll be right back. Stay with us. Stay well. You're listening to The David Knight Show. all right lewis tart thank you for the tip and And he says, David, check out ProLifePayments.com, a ProLife credit card service. Oh, I will. Yeah, I will. It took a long time, but we were able to finally get somebody

to process payments for merchandise on the website. At LiveScoreBet, we love Cheltenham just as much as we love football. The excitement, the roar, and the chance to reward you. That's why every day of the festival we're giving new members money back as a free sports bet up to €10 if your horse loses on a selected race. That's how we celebrate the

biggest week in racing. Cheltenham with LiveScoreBet. This is Total Betting. Sign up by 2pm 14th of March. Bet within 48 hours of race. Main market excluding specials and place bets. Terms apply. Bet responsibly. 18plusgamblingcare.ie But I'll keep that in mind because who knows how permanent that's going to be. Let's talk a little bit about what's going on with Ukraine because we had Elon Musk created quite a stir yesterday. He had a couple of polls that got over 2 million each in terms of responses. What did he ask people on the Twitter

poll? Well, he proposed a plan for peace in Ukraine. He posted an online, he posted an outline, rather, of his plan on Twitter on Monday, suggesting that Russia, quote, redo elections of the annexed regions under UN supervision, with Moscow withdrawing from these areas if voters choose. He also said Crimea would be declared formally a part of Russia, as it has been since 1783, when Khrushchev gifted the peninsula to Ukraine in 1954. And then he went on to suggest that Ukraine would commit to neutrality, as Russia has requested long before it launched its military operation in February,

and guarantee the supply of water to Crimea, because, and this is not widely reported, Ukraine shut down the supply of water to Crimea in 2014 when the area voted overwhelmingly to rejoin the Russian Federation. So there's been a water war that's been going on for eight years there. And then finally, he said in his tweet, he said, all of this is likely to be the outcome in the end. It's just a question of how many people are going to die before then. And he had

2.5 million people who participated in that poll. So to recap it, redo the elections, have the UN supervise it. Crimea stays with Russia. It's been a part of Russia since 1783. You remember we had the British defense minister said,

well, we beat the Russians in Crimea before we'll beat them again. It's like, why were they in Crimea? Oh, that's right, because it belonged to Russia, as long as the United States has existed as well. And then, so we, you know, Crimea stays with Russia. The water to Crimea is not going to be cut off. And Ukraine says that they're going to remain neutral. Well, that really was not what a lot of people

that I wanted to hear. 60% of the people downvoted it. Now the question is, was that bots from NATO? Zelensky, meanwhile, has vowed not to negotiate with Putin and says that they are going to fight to the last Ukrainian. He's not going to be doing it. He appears, that's why he's wearing this green t-shirt all the time, as if he's somehow involved in all of this, but he's not. At the time of the writing, nearly 60% of the people on Twitter backed Musk's idea, but now it is the other way around, is now 60% opposed to it.

Musk said the bot attack on this poll is very strong. 2.5 million people, and after it was 60-40 in favor of his plan, then they changed it to 60-40 opposed. Ukrainian diplomats also jumped in. Kiev's ambassador to Germany said, F off is my very diplomatic reply to you. Because, you know, Ukraine is run by a bunch of crude thugs like this guy, like Zelensky, like Arestovich, just a bunch of thugs. You don't have, they're just thugs and shills. And then Zelensky responded to it. What did he say? Did he make an eloquent argument about how this should work?

No, no, this is what he says. He says, which Elon Musk do you like more? The one who supports Ukraine or the one who supports Russia? That was his reply to set up a poll like that. Now, I replied to him, and I retweeted with a reply. I said, so you see, we're being prodded into World War III by puppets like Zelensky acting as if this was some kind of a teenage popularity contest. Do you like me better? Do you like Elon Musk better? How pathetic, how pathetic this guy is. I said,

um, in a followup, a thing, Elon Musk said, uh, uh, well, um, should we,

um, uh, you know, take the, uh, elections. Let's just assume that it's an honest election. Would,

uh, you support these people being able to be a part of Ukraine or Russia, depending on how they vote? And it was 45% of the people said no to that. And that's now gone down to 40%. That's 2.1 million people support that. And I said, that question of Musk was not even about whether or not the elections were honest, but whether or not people support self-determination. And I said, that's the founding principle of America.

And you got 40 to 45% of the people say, no, we don't support that. They have to be in Ukraine, whether they like it or not. So Zelensky offers his poll, which turns it into a teen popularity contest. Musk responded and said, you're assuming that I wish to be popular. I don't care. I do care that millions of people may die needlessly for essentially identical outcome. And then he penned a tweet that said, Russia is doing partial mobilization.

They go full war mobilization if Crimea is at risk. Death on both sides will be devastating. Russia has more than three times the population of Ukraine. So victory for Ukraine is unlikely in a total war. So if you care about the people of Ukraine, seek peace, he said. And again, you know, I think Elon Musk is absolutely right about this. I congratulate him for that. I've congratulated Ron Wyden when he exposed the surveillance,

dragnet surveillance of Americans by the NSA, by James Clapper, by others when Clapper committed perjury to deny that. But I don't support anything else that Ron Wyden does. And even though I agree completely with what Elon Musk said about this, he's still part of the technocratic elite and he's still trying to hack your brain and create the transhumanist singularity. So there's that, right? And all of this may just be his posturing to gain your trust. I don't know.

And the way that Donald Trump did. Remember Donald Trump did this kind of stuff. Donald Trump would say exactly what we believed. And we thought that because he was saying what we believed, that he believed that, that he would act on that, that he would do something. We didn't expect him to undermine the Second Amendment worse than any president has ever done, for example. Just one thing.

Not even to mention the medical martial law, uh, the media should do a much better job of explaining to Americans that the reason that they are at a heightened nuclear risk right now is because the U S government knowingly chose to put them at a heightened nuclear risk, says Michael Tracy. I agree with that. He said pro-war ideological zealots are deliberately imposing this risk on them.

So Zelensky hit back with that. Which Elon Musk do you like better? The one that likes me? I imagine that not only is Elon Musk not going to be popular, but he's not going to be allowed to be applauded at every single awards show when he shows up on Zoom like this Zelensky guy. But let me just show you how phony this whole thing is. And I apologize to people who are listening and not watching this

because this is very visual. But here's what this looks like. I'll just tell you what's happening for those who are listening. This guy is talking about this alleged Russian atrocity, and he's doing a stand up in front of a whole bunch of body bags behind him. They're supposed to be dead people killed by the Russians. And as he is talking, over his shoulder, just like Building 7 and the BBC reporter on 9-11, as he is talking about the atrocities, and you've got this sea of body bags,

over his right shoulder, his right shoulder, the left side as we're looking at it you see some guy that the wind starts blowing it's blowing the bag away from him and he's fighting to try to get the bag back on top of him it's absolutely hilarious those numbers are going to go up there's no question about that i mean you have fierce fighting in a number of locations around the country you mentioned chernobyl and there's another news person who's shooting footage in the back he's still fighting with the bag trying to get it over himself that was a huge important guy comes running out there went into an airfield 15 miles outside of keven for real time this afternoon this guy is doing the stand up here okay now i'm gonna since i talked over that i'm gonna play it again so you can hear

the dire warnings and you know that this guy is doing who is by the way doing this thing with a mask over his face too yeah i mean just this all the stuff is right there here you go those numbers are going to go up there's just no question about that i mean you have fierce fighting in a number of locations around the country you mentioned ch Chernobyl. Russian forces quickly overtaking that area. We understand they are still in control. The other thing that went down today that was of huge importance was Russian paratroopers went into an airfield 15 miles outside of Kiev. And for a short period of time this afternoon, they held. At LiveScoreBet, we love Cheltenham just as much as we love football.

The excitement excitement the roar and the chance to reward you that's why every day of the festival we're giving new members money back as a free sports bet

up to 10 euro if your horse loses on a selected race that's how we celebrate the biggest week in racing Cheltenham with LiveScoreBet

this is total betting sign up by 2pm 14th of March bet within 48 hours of race main market excluding specials and place bets terms apply bet responsibly 18 plus gambling care.e now that's obviously an older clip because he's talking about the very beginning uh when they came in took over chernobyl uh but um yeah it is a uh it is a wag the dog war, isn't it? Uh, then on the other side, you got the Putin, a Putin ally. This is a guy who's a Chechen leader.

His name is Ramzan, uh, Kadriov. If I'm pronouncing that correctly, uh, we'll just call him a Kadriov. He has recommended that Russia use low-yield nuclear weapons. Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov on Saturday urged Moscow to consider deploying low-yield nuclear weapons in Ukraine after Russian forces retreated from the city of Lyman. Let me just say, the whole idea of limited nuclear war is like the same idea as being a little bit pregnant. It tends to grow over time. It doesn't take too long. On Telegram, Kadyrov, let's just say Kadyrov, let's say it that way. Kadyrov said he believes more drastic measures should be taken right

up to the declaration of martial law. Oh, they might do what Trump did. In the border areas and use the low, the use of low yield nuclear weapons. He is a close ally of Putin who appointed him to govern Chechnya in 2007. Russia has the largest atomic arsenal in the world, including low yield tactical nuclear weapons designed for use against opposing armies. Remember when we had all that debate about the neutron bomb?

You know, yeah, we can limit it, you know, and we just have enhanced radiation just to kill the people and, you know, leave all the good stuff behind. You know, we don't want to blow down all the buildings because we'd like to move into them as well. Other top Putin allies, including former President Dmitry Medvedev, have floated the idea that Russia may need to use nuclear weapons, but his suggestion was the most explicit. But he was also right about some of the military issues. He had said in his post that Colonel General Alexander Lapin, commander of the Russian forces fighting in Lyman, was a mediocrity.

Kadyrov suggested the commander should be demoted to a private and have his medals taken away. And that's also a confirmation of just how poorly the war is going for Russia, frankly. Due to a lack of elementary military logistics, he said, today we have abandoned several settlements and a large piece of territory. He said that he had warned Valery Gerasimov, chief of Russia's general staff, about the possibility of defeat at Lyman two weeks ago, but that Gerasimov had dismissed the idea.

Well, there you go. Maybe they should have listened to him. David Petraeus, retired general, retired CIA director, now working with Kohlberg Kravitz and a regular Bilderberg attendee, says that Russia is desperate after a string of setbacks in Ukraine. I think that is true, stating the obvious here. Petraeus said the U.S. and its allies would destroy Russia's military forces in Ukraine and sink its Black Sea fleet if Putin used nuclear weapons.

Petraeus said that he believed the U.S. would respond in the event of a nuclear attack. Just to give you a hypothetical, he said we would respond by leading a NATO collective effort that would take out every Russian conventional force that we can see and identify on the battlefield in Ukraine and also in Crimea every ship in the Black Sea. Petraeus said he was, when asked about whether the use of nuclear weapons would bring in the US and its allies into the war they first asked him they said well would it be considered an act of war if nuclear radiation and fallout were to spread to NATO states and he said well perhaps you can make that case the other case is that this is so horrific that there has to be a response, that it cannot go unanswered.

He said, you don't want to, again, get into the nuclear escalation here, but you have to show that this cannot be accepted in any way. I think nuclear escalation is exactly what they do want. I mean, I agree with Mark Skousen that they're trying to prod a desperate Russia into using nuclear weapons. Because just as Elon Musk was saying, in terms of Russia, if they go full mobilization, they could swamp Ukraine. Well, the same thing is true of a conventional war against Russia. They could easily be swamped. And they would have to resort to nuclear weapons in desperation if they saw this as an existential thing. And, of course, they've made it very clear that they're coming after Putin, so it clearly is an existential issue for him. as Joel Skousen has said on the program, because our elites want a first strike.

And they really do want a nuclear war. So Petraeus went on to say, the battlefield reality that Putin faces is, I think, irreversible. He said, no amount of sham mobilization, which is the only way to describe it, no amount of annexation, no amount of even veiled nuclear threats

can actually get him out of this particular situation. At some point, there's going to have to be a recognition of that. At some point, there's going to have to be some kind of beginning of negotiations. As Zelensky has said, it will be the ultimate end. But again, there isn't any way that, you know, Putin is not going to retire and step down and let some other people take this over and then, you know, go sail off into the sunset

with Secret Service protection, that type of thing. No, I mean, the people that are there would, you know, it's a mafia system, so they would kill him. It would be the end of his life if he were to step down. And they really have backed him and Russia into a corner because I think they really are trying to prod us into a nuclear world war for their own benefit. Gazprom has halted gas supplies now to Italy in the latest energy battle. And so the only people that are now still getting gas is Hungary,

the only EU state that is still receiving Russian gas. Hungary is now the only EU member state, writes Forbes in Hungary. And they point out there were several pipelines coming from Russia into the European Union. Of course, Nord Stream 1 and 2. Nord Stream 2 was never allowed to open. The German government refused to approve it. Nord Stream 1 was halted by Russia. They made the case. They said, well, you have to shut it down for maintenance. And then we have a turbine that is in Canada and the Canadian government won't release this because of sanctions. Well, if we can't get that back, we're going to shut it down. But it

probably was shut down as a pressure point. YAML Europe, the longest pipeline, supplies gas from the YAML Peninsula. Deliveries were halted by Russia in May. And then that leaves TurkStream. It delivers gas from Russia under the Black Sea through the Balkans. And it is the only pipeline that is still in operation. It terminates in Hungary. And so Hungary is the only, that's the only pipeline that is still operational. But I think it also has to do with politics. The Hungarian government has opposed sanctions. They argued, rightfully so, that these sanctions harm Europeans more than they hurt Russians. Look, the sanctions are a separate issue as to who you support in this war.

It's a failed strategy at this point. It has been for quite some time. It has actually helped Putin more than it has hurt him. It's hurting the Russian people, but it is helping the Russian government. They've had a massive bonus, and their revenue soared many fold. I think it was four times what they were making and with less product actually being pushed out. Several months ago, they'd already made a $320 billion bonus

because we had jacked up the price of oil and other fuels. And so they could sell the stuff, even at a 30% discount. They could sell less of it at a 30% discount and still have a major bonus. So the sanctions are complete failure from a strategic pragmatic standpoint, regardless of who you support. And so that's the case that the Hungarian people are making. This was kind of interesting. You had a guy who went on, he's a professor.

His name is Sachs. And he went on cable news and they were not happy with what he had to say. They could not get him off quickly enough. But listen to this. Destruction of the Nord Stream pipeline, which I would bet was a US action perhaps us and Poland this is why do you feel that that was a US action what evidence do you have of that well first of all there's direct radar evidence that U.S. helicopters, military helicopters that are normally based in Gdansk were circling over this area.

We also had the threats from the United States earlier in this year that one way or another we are going to end Nord Stream. We also have a remarkable statement by Secretary Blinken last Friday in a press conference. He says this is also a tremendous opportunity. It's a strange way to talk if you're worried about the piracy on international infrastructure of vital significance. So I know this runs counter to our narrative. You're not allowed to say these things in the West. But the fact of the matter is, all over the world, when I talk to people, they think the U.S. did it.

And by the way, even reporters on our papers that are involved tell me privately, well, of course, but it doesn't show up in our media. Professor, I want to get into a tip for Tad about what did or didn't. At LiveScore Bet, we love Cheltenham just as much as we love football. The excitement, the roar and the chance to reward you. That's why every day of the festival we're giving new members money back as a free sports bet up to 10 euro if your horse loses on a selected race. That's how we celebrate the biggest week in racing. Cheltenham with LiveScoreBet. This is total betting. Sign up by 2 p.m. 14th of March.

Bet within 48 hours of race. Main market excluding specials and place bets. Terms apply. Bet responsibly. 18 plus gamblingcare.ie. Okay, that was Jeffrey Sachs. He is a Columbia professor of economics, and they had him on a financial channel to talk about the financial failure of these sanctions, I guess you could say, and he went into who was behind all of this stuff.

They did not want to hear that at all. I guess they'll never have him back on again. But you also have McGregor. I played you a clip for him, uh, yesterday. And, um,

he was, uh, talking about, um, what happened with this as well. Um, retired, uh,

I think it's Colonel, this is a rank. Um, let me just look here. Um, uh, yeah. Colonel Douglas McGregor,

U S army. Um, and he said, uh, you got to look at who the state actors are that have the capability to do this type of thing and he says it's really only the royal navy and the u.s navy special ops and here's the reason he said that think about this this is something i haven't talked about before he said you would have to have thousands of pounds of TNT because these pipelines are enormously robust. You have several inches of concrete around various metal alloys to move the natural gas. So this is not something that you could simply drop a grenade down the end of a fishing line and disrupt.

Yeah, this is, you gotta, this is a massive thing that they did not want to have this type of rupture happen. So it's a heavy, heavy metals and encased in concrete, a lot of concrete around it. So he said, that means that it takes a certain amount of sophistication to do this as well. That's what I said. You know, you forget about people saying, whoa, was it Poland? Was it this person?

No, no. Only the U.S. and the British have this kind of capability to do this. Perhaps the Russians do if you think that they're suicidal, uh, McGregor suggested the motive behind the attack was to prevent Germany from bailing on the Ukraine war after Berlin began to quote, give the impression that they were no longer going to go along with this proxy war in the Ukraine. I think. That that is a part of it, but I don't think that's the full thing.

I'll tell you why. Let me go ahead and finish what he was saying here. He said, I'm hesitant to say we know it must have been Washington. He says, I can't say that, said Colonel McGregor, because we just don't know. But it's very clear that we have foreclosed Berlin's options. We have foreclosed it? In other words, yeah, we did it. We foreclosed their options.

Berlin was drifting away from this alliance. Olaf Scholz had said, I'm not sending any more equipment. I won't send any tanks. Now he's in a bind because the U.S. has simply robbed him of his option of bailing out. Who's going to supply him gas and oil and coal and everything else now if he bails out? Where does he turn now? He's got nowhere to turn except to the U.S. to buy U.S. LNG. And remember, the Germans who are facing terrible consequences at home refuse to restart nuclear power plants, he said.

So I had pointed out at the very beginning of this that AFD, which is gaining massively in popularity, was brought up, you know, they have multi-party elections. And so Olaf Scholz's party that has a ruling coalition is only two points ahead. They're like 16% versus 14% 14% or it's, uh, 18 and 16. I can't remember with a AFD nipping at their heels and they were having protests saying, open up the pipeline Nord stream too, because remember that was shut down by Germany.

And, um, so Olaf is, uh, it's got a lot of pressure. People who do not want them sending a German equipment, getting involved in this war, Germans who say on the U.S. to make this choice go away. I think he's very happy about the fact that the choice has gone away. So in terms of NATO membership,

Zelensky is saying, well, put in his application. He had Poland and a couple of other former Soviet satellite states, uh, say that they wanted them in, but that's nine out of 30. It has to be unanimous. Here's an example of this. Erdogan in Turkey has, uh, said that he might block Sweden and Finland from joining NATO because they just tried to add them as well. And all it takes is one. And he could do that. And his beef with Sweden and Finland

is that they allegedly support PKK, which is a Kurdish militant group that Turkey, the EU, and the U.S. consider to be a terrorist organization, but they're fighting against Erdogan's government. And he says, well, if you're going to support these people, I'm not going to let you in NATO, Sweden, and Finland. And so, so far, you know, when they said, well, we want Sweden and Finland to join NATO, they've got 28 out of the 30 saying yes. I don't know who the other one was, but Turkey is saying, I don't think so.

So we're going to take a quick break and we will be right back. Stay with us. Decoding the mainstream propaganda. It's the David Knight Show. All right. And before our guest joins us, I want to talk a little bit about what's going on in the Supreme Court. They've come back in session. And Jonathan Turley says it's going to be a wild ride they've got all kinds of big decisions across the board on a lot of different things so we're going to just give you an idea of some of the things that are coming up of course they've made their decision already on

the bump stock prohibition uh gun prohibition by the president, by the ATF, just by fiddling with definitions, that's okay, says the Supreme Court. So he said, Ginsburg once said, it's hard not to have a big year at the Supreme Court because some years are bigger than others, you know, kind of just the same thing that Lennon said, you know, there's some decades where nothing happens and there's other years when

decades happen. So from the Supreme Court point of view, I guess this was a year where decades happened, or at least they overturned, fortunately, decades of Roe v. Wade. He said the last term showed that there was a stable 6-3 majority. I don't think so. People keep saying that, but you look at Kavanaugh and you look at Roberts and he points out here that the two of them are voting in tandem. And we take the two of them away, you've now got a 5-4 majority for liberals. And we've seen that happen on a lot of different cases already. So he says the two of them can make it go 5-4 the other way.

He doesn't say that. I say that. And we've seen them supporting medical martial law. We've seen them. I don't know if that's considered to be conservative. Is that conservative? Vaccine mandates and medical martial law. We're going to fire you if you don't take the jab.

Is that a conservative value? Well, maybe it is. Maybe it is. That's why I don't call myself conservative. But here are some of the things we're going to be talking about. Affirmative action is back. Students for fair admissions. And this is a lawsuit against Harvard.

There's also another one against the University of North Carolina. This is a group of Asian students who are being discriminated against for no other reason than their ethnic origin and this diversity inclusiveness and equity stuff right uh they point he points out that going back to the baki case in 1978 the supreme court said um to clarify the use of race, they said you cannot do these affirmative action programs for no reason other than race or ethnic origin. So if you make it simply about that, we're going to shut it down. So that's what this lawsuit is about

because now the mask has come off and now they do make these types of decisions completely apart from arguments of merit or anything else. It's simply about race and ethnic origin. These cases involved alleged discrimination against Asian applicants, uh, to gain greater diversity or other minorities that could produce the long sought after clarity

and affirmative action programs. And in 2003, there was a case that came before the Supreme Court at that time. And you had Sandra Day O'Connor stressing in this case was a grutter case. The court was divided five to four. At LiveScoreBet, we love Cheltenham just as much as we love football. The excitement, the roar, and the chance to reward you. The court was divided five to four. week in racing cheltenham with live score bet this is total betting sign up by 2 p.m 14th of march bet within 48 hours of race main market excluding specials and place bets terms apply bet responsibly 18 plus gambling care.ee on upholding race admissions criteria sandra day o'connor said in 2003 that she expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary.

Oh, really? She's not much of a fortune teller, is she? It has been weaponized to the nth degree. Matter of fact, people like Walter Williams used to say he really hated racial set-asides because he said it devalues what I've done. People just assume that I got in because of the color of my skin and not because of merit. So he really hated that, worked against it. In terms of LGBT trying to harass and force people to work for them,

there is now a case that's going to be coming up. And as Turley points out, these other cases like the Masterpiece Cake Shop that turned on religious liberty, Turley said he thought that it should be about speech. And so in this particular case, you have someone who is a photographer that the LGBT are trying to rub her nose into it by forcing, compelling her to do pictures of something that she finds personally abhorrent, religiously abhorrent. But in this particular case, it has both religious as well as free speech parts to it. Supreme Court has said they're going to hear this because of the free speech aspect of

it. So that's a bit different. There's going to be a Supreme Court case about gerrymandering in North Carolina. The Democrats got used to having their way because shortly after Reconstruction ended in North Carolina, it was solid Democrats for about 150 years or so. I've talked about it many times,

about how North Carolina went for Barack Obama in 2008. Then they had voters regret and the state went solid Republican in 2010, electing for the first time since the civil, since reconstruction, Republicans in both the house and the Senate of the state. And, but nothing changed. And of course they got every statewide race and they got the house and the senate but nothing changed with the congressional delegation why because the democrats had gerrymandered it they had selected the voters well 2010 was a census year and so

uh the um every 10 years they redraw the boundaries, and they did that. And ever since then, the Democrats have been screaming unfair because they were the ones who always got to do it. Gerrymandering is nothing new. It goes back to the creation of America. It's one of the first, you know, they had a picture of a salamander and said, you know, the congressional districts look like this, and it's ridiculous.

But it's a longstanding tradition, And yet they're continuing to fight this. There is a big case against the EPA, which is going to perhaps give us a redefinition of waters of the United States. The EPA has used this phrase to make all kinds of attacks against private property everywhere. If you've got any water on your private property, well, it may not be connected in any way, shape, or form to a river, to a lake, to the ocean, nothing. But we will call it waters of the United States. There was a case that was up, I think it was in Montana.

It was one of the western states. And the guy had the permit from the county, from the city. It was a county. It wasn't a city. He had eight acres, and they dug out a little area and built and put in a pond for recreational use and also for feeding a couple of cows that he had on eight acres. And the EPA came in and said, this is waters of the United States. And they put tens of thousands of dollars of fines against him. They even tried to garnish his wages as an employee, all kinds of stuff like that.

So this is an important case that has to be shut down. There's many other things that are going to be coming up before the Supreme Court. But I wanted to, in the time that we have left here, I wanted to focus on what is going on with vaccine mandates and restrictions. And this is a, these are some churches in California. As a matter of fact, it's in San Jose, the county of Santa Clara in California.

And the city of San Jose is there. And these are some churches who refused to shut down and the county just kept coming after them and kept piling on fines and we've seen this throughout california many other places seen it happening and in canada of course um so uh this is still at live score bet we love cheltenham just as much as we love football the excitement the roar and the chance to reward you. That's why every day of the festival, we're giving new members money back as a free sports bet up to €10 if your horse loses on a selected race. That's how we celebrate the biggest week in racing. Cheltenham with LiveScoreBet. This is total betting.

Sign up by 2pm 14th of March. Bet within 48 hours of race. Main market excluding specials and place bets. Terms apply. Bet responsibly. 18plusgamblingcare.ie. Going through the legal system, Pastor Mike McClure, who leads Calvary Chapel San Jose, he and his church have been targeted with the county's COVID restrictions. Last month, the county finally lifted all restrictions, leaving only a requirement for masking. They still have masking requirements in this place. Just, I can't understand why people stay in California. It's just unbelievable.

Anyway, from May through October of 2020, restrictions were in place for meeting, and the church defied them. It continued to hold indoor services, and it didn't put a limit on attendance. The pastor did an interview with Newsmax, so this is what this is from. He said, we had so many people who were hurting. We had a huge amount of suicide attempts. We looked at just the church. He said, and people needed to be in church. I mean, what is church for? If we look at the hospitals in America, all the hospitals started initially by churches. But he says it's like they're not going to close the hospitals.

So why should we close worship service when really that's the most important thing? Now, let me just insert here, even though I don't think that he's trying to imply this, it kind of comes across that way, what he was saying, but I'm sure that that's not what he would say. But I just want to say that, you know, we don't have church services so people can have friends. Now, that's a wonderful thing. That's a part have friends. That's a wonderful thing. That's a part of it. That's why you should have in-person church services and not Zoom things so you can get to know people and can have relationships with people.

That is very important to us as humans. I think it's a very important design that God puts in churches, for the churches. But that's not the main thing. We go to church because we call Jesus Lord, not Fauci. Fauci is not our Lord. Trump is not our Lord. The county of Santa Clara is not your Lord. And so when you have man telling you to do something and God says otherwise,

you do what God says if you're a Christian. If not, you're taking the name of Christ in vain if you call yourself a Christian and you don't follow him as Lord. You follow Fauci as Lord or Trump as Lord or Birx as Lord. In the fall of 2020, the county filed a civil complaint against the church to fail to comply with public health orders from their public health lords. The trial court issued an order telling the church to comply, but the church didn't do that.

The county then sought an order of contempt along with fines and penalties that now total nearly $3 million. The court granted that. They granted the fines. In September of 2021, the church and its pastors sued state and county officials, their lords, for violating the civil rights under the 1st and 14th Amendment, including the 8th Amendment prohibition against excessive fines. The complaint alleged the county targeted religious organizations with harsher restrictions than similar secular settings and then imposed crippling fines.

Well, that's absolutely true. They allowed marijuana dispensaries to stay open, but not churches. It's amazing. You had pet shops were allowed to stay open, but not churches. Marijuana dispensaries were allowed to stay open, but not churches. The pet shops and the marijuana dispensaries were called essential, but not the churches. So they had over 3,000 pastors in California sign a declaration, said that we are essential, and we're going to reopen on May 31st, 2020. That was the date of Pentecost, and said we are not asking permission.

So we're going to take a quick break. And when we come back, we're going to talk to Michael Voris with a church militant, because the line has been drawn, folks. And we need to understand what is important to us. And we need to understand where they're trying to take us. So we'll be right back. Stay with us. So we'll be right back. Stay with us. In a world of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. You're listening to The David Knight Show. In a world of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

You're listening to The David Knight Show. Now is Michael Voris, and his website is churchmilitant.com. Michael? Yes, it is, David. Thank you. Okay, good. So thank you for joining us. I mean, there's a lot of issues to be discussed. I was just talking about it.

One of the things that, and I didn't have you on throughout the pandemic. It had been a while, I think, we had been talking, I think, about, I got you on to talk about, since you're Catholic, to talk about the Pope and what he was doing with environmentalism at that point, because that was kind of a novel thing when he first became Pope. So it's been a while since we've talked, but, you know, it's just bothered me to no end to see what happened during the pandemic with people shutting down and following the government's orders. I've never seen such a faithless church in my life as I would say the Church of America in general. And there's a lot of faithful churches that stayed open and other individuals who did. Some people were gaslighted by the government.

And then after a couple of months, they opened up and many many of them stayed firm, and they took a lot of penalties on that. So hats off to them. They were told that it was one thing, that it wasn't, and when they realized that was a fraud, they did whatever they needed to do. How do you view this, and what have you been seeing and saying over the last nearly 1,000 days here with this stuff? Thanks very much again, David, for having me on. Well, you know, one of the things I'm thinking in the Catholic world is this has been the whole question of closing down the churches because in, obviously, Catholic theology,

while God's grace is not limited or confined to the sacraments, they are the guarantee of God's grace. So the fact that you, for example, because bishops all over the country, all the bishops shut down the sacraments they are the guarantee of god's grace so the fact that you for example uh because bishops all over the country all the bishops like shut down the sacraments you couldn't go to confession if you were laying in a on your death bed and uh you wanted to get what will catholics commonly call last rights it's not that's not the formal name of it but that's what it is uh you know you're getting ready to die you're going to to step into eternity and be judged by, you know, our blessed Lord for all eternity. And, you know, the bishops just cut you off from that final, you know, grace of sacrament. You know, you couldn't

go to mass. You couldn't receive Holy Communion, which Catholics, you know, believe because it is the body and blood of our blessed Lord. They just shut all this stuff off. Again, God's grace isn't limited by those sacraments, but to cut them off cuts off a guarantee of access to his grace. So that's a... It's a major violation of religious freedom. Major violation of religious freedom and religious belief. I was going to say, the thing that I think was most disturbing for faithful Catholics is just how quickly and how long, how quickly bishops just fell in line with this.

When that edict came out in the middle of March, I believe it was, within four days, every single diocese across the country, every single one of them had said, that's it, closed up, mass on, can't go in, stay in your house. And then the whole sort of live streaming of masses began. And long after all of this had been sort of exposed for what it is, and not that people didn't get sick and die, I'm not saying that, of course they did, but the ridiculous political grandstanding over it, long after all of that had been exposed, all over the country still dozens and dozens and dozens and dozens of bishops were slow to open back up the churches. And then when they did open up Catholic parishes across the country, there were these stupid ropes where you couldn't sit in the first seven pews,

and then you had to sit 50 feet sideways away from everybody. And you couldn't come up and receive Holy Communion unless you had your mask on up until the point of receiving, and then you had to put your mask on. All this kind of stuff really, really upset faithful Catholics. The more liberal Catholics, who are also liberal voters and progressives and all that, they didn't care. They think, hey, this is great. Oh, yeah, the whole COVID, you know, bowed down to the covet gods yeah but faithful catholics were ticked and i think there's an awful lot of resentment still uh being held by faithful catholics because the bishops have

never to this day even with the cdc coming out and saying it and you know the mandates are illegal just one thing after another as usual the bishops have taken no ownership of their actions and their, what I consider, callousness towards faithful Catholics during that whole two-year period. Yeah, and you know, we've seen that across the board, because there's a lot of people who, when their focus becomes horizontal, you know, we're going to help people, we're going to do good with other people, and all this kind of stuff. Those people tend to gravitate once it becomes a social gospel, you know, those people tend to gravitate towards government and ally with government, and then they participate with government, and they get paid by government to help to administer some of these programs and

that type of thing. And so, of course, they have a government orientation with all that. And we've seen that not just in the Catholic Church. We've seen that in Protestant churches as well. They've got a lot of the leftist liberal churches. But I was surprised at how many conservatives were there. And I think that that was something that had to do with the fact that it was being done by Trump. I think they were very clever to pull this whole thing off with a guy that had established his reputation as being anti-globalist, as being conservative and the rest of the stuff, because people would say,

well, that can't be that, you know, it's got to be real. We now have people that are out there saying, let me just play just a little bit of this. This is somebody saying, well, how do we tell the difference between flu and COVID? Can we start to tell the difference between influenza and COVID symptoms for sure now? It's not an easy thing to differentiate. It's not an easy thing to differentiate, and yet they were doing that. They were just calling it. They didn't have tests, and they said, well, we don't really know the test work, but they're just calling it, getting a bonus for this thing from the very beginning. And I, there was a lot of people who were getting paid. I know there was one guy who was, his name was Francis Chang, I think.

He had set up a website that was going to do propaganda directed towards pastors. And he was getting a lot of money from the Ad Council and other places. $250 million in money for the Ad Council. So that was happening all over the place. People were selling it out for money, selling it out for government access, just as you saw. Sure. I think one of the things also with regard to Trump is that, you know, look, he's being

told he's not a doctor. He's not a scientist. He's being told all this stuff as president. He's got Fauci up there and Burke up there, both of them have been exposed to what they are in the you know intervening years uh but you know i mean what's your choice really as president when the people who are presented to you as the experts say millions of americans are going to die unless you do this and i don't think it was a a a non-prudential call on his part. I think most people would have said, boy, we don't know exactly what we're dealing with here. And if in the scales

is this some political thing versus millions of Americans dying, I think the prudential thing was then to side with this, at least at the the beginning part but once it came out and it was people going wait a minute this is weird there's this question that question this is odd what's going on um i think the thing that really alarmed a lot of people a lot of even you know trump supporters is some of his base was that he kept going along with it and he still is he still is he's yeah he's still taking credit for saving lives with the lockdown and the rest of the stuff and you know that's the thing i said he gets booed when he noticed it's not really a talking point in campaign rallies anymore i'm sorry the rallies

i'm sure there'll be campaign rallies in a couple of months but right now they're just rallies but yeah he doesn't say this stuff anymore publicly yeah yeah i yeah that's what i was saying about there were a lot of uh people well-meaning uh, pastors who shut it down because they were told, uh, that, you know, this is the prudent thing to do and they wanted to save lives and, you know, that type of thing. We send everybody here at the studio home as well and dropped onto this sort of draconian four people in here, uh, at a day we've got, we, at the time we had about 40 workers. Now we've got 65 or so. Uh, but you know, we only had three or four people in here at a day. At the time, we had about 40 workers. Now we've got 65 or so. But we only had three or four people in here at a time. I think everybody was sort of thinking,

we don't want to take people's lives and put their lives at risk. Well, I wouldn't do that either. But I'd covered the CDC and Fauci and these other people. Not Fauci, but I'd covered the FDA and the CDC and all these people for years. And so, uh, I bet my life on it. I didn't do anything. And, uh, and I was right. Yeah.

I was driving around with a convertible on the top down and no mask. And, you know, it was like, look at this. I'm in the middle of winter, make the point. Uh, but, uh, I did everything I could to wake people up, but cause I'd seen the scam before. We now know it is a scam, but there were people who didn't know, who had not seen this stuff. And I understand, I don't have any grudge against people who were deceived by them at the beginning, but after a couple of months, it was pretty obvious what was going on. That's the point, and that's why from a Catholic the from a catholic lay catholic perspective that's what

people were starting to get ticked off under bishops for yeah it's like wait a minute so many many various people are waking up to this and well is this wait a minute this is helping the democrats in the election you know with all the mail-in you know ballot every something's just weird here bishops and you're just marching along with it well that's right you know as as we know the u.s bishops conference gets tens of millions marching along with it. Well, as we know, the U.S. Bishops Conference gets tens of millions, and over the course of the last few years, hundreds of millions of dollars from the federal government for exactly what you talked about earlier, David, the social gospel. No such thing as a social gospel. That's right. That's right. Well, let's talk, since the

Supreme Court is coming back in, I talked a little bit about that. Everybody is, they're hopping mad about what the Supreme Court did with Roe v. Wade. We're rejoicing about that. Yeah, we're rejoicing. I said not everybody's hopping mad. Exactly. But, you know, I haven't seen this kind of ire thrown at the Supreme Court for a long time. But I think it was a very important inflection point because I was saying for years that, you know, this was not a law. This was not the Constitution. It was simply a Supreme Court decision. And we've had situations in the past where the Supreme Court has gotten it wrong. We've had situations in the past where you've had other branches of government.

That's what it means to have checks and balances. Other branches of government said, well, you know, like Andrew Jackson said, you made your decision. Let's see you enforce it. He said that to the Supreme Court. And so I said, you know, the appropriate response to Roe v. Wade would have been for Texas to say, well, you've made your decision. Let's see you enforce it. That would have saved over 60 million lives. But that didn't happen.

But now the Supreme Court essentially said, yeah, that's right. We have a 10th Amendment. And so I think that's a very important thing there's a lot of uh stuff that's going to be coming down the line from uh the supreme court um how do you see things happening in terms of this fight i mean we've just seen a homeschooling father uh who was taking his kids to the abortion clinic michael uh hulk I guess is the way he pronounced his last name. That particular case, a guy who's a Catholic, they broke this story through LifeSite. This has been a fight that the Catholics got involved in long before Protestants noticed

what was happening. Now both are involved in this fight, but where do you see this going at the state levels? And what do you think should or should not be done at the federal level? Well, obviously at the federal level, I'd like to see a national abortion expulsion law passed. I don't think there's any real hope, certainly. Well, there certainly isn't in the next two years, even if Republicans do retake the House and the Senate. That's not happening because, you know, Biden would have to sign it. So that's sort of dead on arrival. On a state level, it's interesting, you know, we're based in Detroit here in Michigan and Detroit suburb. And there is a massive fight

going on because this is one of those states where abortion is directly on the November ballot, as you know the question. And you know, Governor Whitmer, Marxist maven if there ever was one, has done nothing except campaign on, got to be able to kill children, got to be able to kill children, got to keep killing children. It's the only thing she talks about. And if you're to believe the polls here in Michigan, because they're so extreme. I mean, another one came out today that her Republican candidate,

the DeVos family-backed Tudor Dixon, is trailing her by almost 20 points. I mean, I know there's suppression polls, but I mean, that's quite a claim. But all of them have had whitmer up in the teens all the way through ever since dixon showed up on site uh you know got the nomination the gop nomination so on a state level we saw the same thing in kansas look the the the devil and team evil are masters at packaging up their messaging. And unfortunately, GOP leadership have proven time and time and time

again to not be particularly committed to the pro-life cause. They're more committed to the Democrats, but I mean, that's, you know, talk about a low bar. So I think on a state level, what is going on for Kansas to have voted, and I know there's a bunch of things about, well, you know, the packaging was this and it wasn't really accurate and maybe they cheated and da, da, da, da, da. You know, the pro-life cause got absolutely blown out of the water in Kansas. And yes, some of those other things are contributing, but, you know, I've done a few interviews on this very topic and I'm telling, when it comes to, because what's behind abortion, what's behind abortion is unwanted pregnancy. How do we get unwanted pregnancy?

You know, unwanted pregnancy because people just want to have sex and they don't have to pay for the consequences of it. So they're willing to lay aside, many, many voters are willing to lay aside all of these issues, issues National Security we were talking about possible nuclear limited whatever that means limited nuclear war and CNN's got on things about abortion so uh you know their callers are constantly abortion this abortion that and um as I mean they've got the whole thing going with Herschel Walker right now I walked into the studio today and it's Herschel Walker paid paid for an abortion hey cnn russia's talking about a limited nuclear strike you know you got something more important to talk about but that's just the point on the progressive left and

it's really spilling over into middle america uh uh you know like say it on your show or not but you know people are more interested in having their completely uh secured orgasms and their right to have them whenever they want with whoever they want as many times as they want and everything else goes falls into second place or third or fourth and uh you know it'll be interesting to watch because that it's not just will i mean obviously the abortion thing here in michigan is in drive. There'll be no red wave here in Michigan. It'll be just the opposite. The question will be, what will be the margin on that vote? Yes, on Proposal 3 means, yep, we're going to lock abortion in, not just as some law,

but we're going to amend the Michigan Constitution and stick it in there. No obviously means the reverse. I don't think the no has a prayer. We're obviously praying. We're no has a prayer. We're obviously praying, we're doing novenas, we're out chanting out fire, we're doing all that stuff. But on the practical level, it doesn't have a prayer. People want to have unbridled sex and no consequences. And that is courtesy the entire Marxist propaganda campaign for the last 50 and 60 years to destroy the family. And when you get to a point where, you know, everything is okay, you can have sex with anything you want.

You can be a four-year-old kid and, you know, they've got the, what is it, the Mars or the maps or whatever they have now. You know, pedophiles who want to say in the political realm, you know, five-year-olds who want to have their genitalia cut off. I mean, anything in the sexual realm is a go on that side. And Joseph Chambra, who is a tremendous guy who went through the whole, he was abused by a Catholic priest when he was young and got wrapped up in gay porn and all sorts of everything. He said, isn't it interesting? He just tweeted this out. I believe it was yesterday on his social media account.

He tweeted out, isn't it amazing that people who are so upset about a woman who has a penis are not upset. They fall deathly silent when you talk about a man who treats his anus as a vagina. It's a very solid point. It's a very solid point. These things have a yuck factor to them. But remember, back in the day, 15, 20, 30 years ago, all the gay stuff had a yuck factor to it as well. When the media, Marxist media, the governor, the governments, all these people keep hammering and hammering and hammering. Eventually, people get used to the idea. They aren't engaged in it.

They would never do it themselves. But hey, that's the whole libertine approach of do whatever you want. Just don't do it in front of me. That's right. That's going to fail. Well, and that's the thing. So we don't have any leadership in politics. They don't have a moral foundation. And so if you don't have a moral foundation for

any of this stuff, then it simply becomes an issue of liberty. And that's the amazing thing to me is that here you have, they're positioning this as an issue of liberty. And of course, we understand there's something more to it than just freedom. Because if you look at liberty, who was it that restricted liberty more than perhaps anybody else in this country? And that was Whitmer as governor. And she was taking away everybody's liberty about everything. I always look at these people out there talking about my body, my choice that wanted to mandate vaccines, wanted to mandate masks, wanted to tell you where and when you could go places and how you could interact with other people, my body, my choice.

They don't believe any of that. And I've said that for years. I said, the only choice they want you to make is to kill your kid. And they don't support liberty in any way, shape, or form. But we understand the spiritual dimension of it. We understand it's not really about liberty. It's about sexual license, and it's about depravity, and it's about lust. Because if it were about liberty, Whitmer would be losing big time. But it's simply about lust, isn't it?

I mean, she destroyed thousands of businesses here in the state uh you know little mom and pop outfit she's completely destroyed them she sent thousands i mean she was like cuomo uh you know andrew cuomo uh you know part two 2.0 she sent thousands of michigan residents to their deaths in nursing homes but because this is michigan and not new y, the spot national spotlight traveled over to New York. She did the exact same thing here. But yeah, it's just lust. That's it. The whole thing is about lust.

Liberty is on. I need to be able to choose lust. Well, you can choose lust, but you shouldn't anticipate that you're going to get my vote to enshrine it as law and that I'm not allowed to speak up against it. But that's what it is. And that's what we've come to here. This is a failed understanding. When you look at the French Revolution driving philosophical terms, fraternity, equality, liberty, those used to have, before the advent of Freemasonry, those had very distinct Catholic Christian concepts rooted in theology and the scriptures and the fathers and the doctors of

the church. They meant definite things. But once they got sort of run through the filter of Freemasonry and then sort of the age of the Enlightenment. They had the attachments to the divine stripped away from them, and then they just became personal things. So I can go do this or I can go do that. Well, no, you can't. You have liberty. You have freedom so that unlike a squirrel or your pet dog or something, you have the freedom to choose the good. That's why you have that freedom. You don't have the freedom to just choose whatever you want. That's insane.

There's a brotherhood or a fraternity based on the fact that we are all made in the image and likeness of God. But when you take God out of the equation, well, what does our fraternity relate to then? You take God out of the equation, what does our liberty relate to? It just comes down to personal choice. And so it is sort of the swan song of the abortion movement. They could just say, my body, my choice. Unfortunately, it's not the swan song I'm going to spoke. I meant that it's their mantra uh because that's it it's all about just choice that's it rooted in your personal perception of the universe just like uh justice kennedy said uh in the casey ruling in 1992.

you know liberty is the ability to define your own concept of meaning and life in the universe no it's not it isn't anything like that. If that's the case, why is what Hitler did wrong? That's right. Yeah. Who makes those standards? And that's really where this whole postmodernism is taking us. You know, the idea that each of us has a truth.

There is no absolute truth. And once we do that, then we are on the slippery slope, I think, of having a situation where if there is no moral standard, if there is no ethical standard that is outside of us, then everybody just does as they please. And what these people are going to find is that they're going to be taken captive by the likes of people like B.F. Skinner, who wrote Beyond Freedom and Dignity, by the people like Yuval Harari, who says, well, you're just something that we can program. And that's what these people are going to do. They're going to treat them like machines or animals, and they're going to do to them whatever they wish. And that's

what we've seen with these types of mandates that have been foisted upon us in the last year or so. But I think the real issue is the fact that they're able to re-engineer society because they have control of children from an earlier and earlier age. And so that brings us to the issue of schools. What, in your opinion, do we need to do about education? Boy, well, blow it up. It's not education when you send your children somewhere uh uh normally unsuspectingly of course that's changing now with people becoming more aware of it but up until very recently and i would peg very recently to stacy langton mama grizzly and the virginia situation with uh governor youngkin

and when mccall of you know came out made that boneheaded comment blew himself up and said you know you don't parents don't have a right to say what your children are being taught. That's us. That's right. You go back one minute before that, and parents simply were not aware of any of this indoctrination. Public schools, and unfortunately many private schools, including Catholic schools, are simply, you know, petri dishes for indoctrination, Marxist indoctrination. You know, that, again, everything we just talked about, you know, they instill a certain worldview into those very young minds. They destroy the ability for those young minds to critically think and critically assess anything.

And they just come out, you know, as as dr seuss would say they just sort of come out as the uh the sneetches with stars on their belly they just come out and they just oh here i am oh you know capitalism is bad oh there is no god and they just go on like that you know freedom of this freedom of that and uh they're programmed uh and in the process of being constantly fed this stuff it's important to remember that yeah their ability to critically think their intellects not their knowledge base that too but their intellectual capacity to think is being eroded yes And as you look down the road, you think, where does this end? I mean, the wherewithal to sort of pick yourself up by your bootstraps and move forward isn't there anymore.

That's right. It was a deliberate dumbing down is what Charlotte Isby said about it when she went to, she thought she was going to be there to get rid of the Department of Education because that's what Reagan had promised. She's very disillusioned, wrote the book, The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America. But they began with the dumbing down, and then they went to the degenerate down, which is where we are right now.

And it really doesn't come as a surprise to me because I've been focused for a long time, more than 10 years ago, it was back in 2009, I was doing stuff about the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child where they were seeking to remove parental rights. That's now come front and center thanks to all of this stuff now. But since then, I've been trying to get people to pay attention to where these people want to go with parental rights, and now they're there. And I think one of the things that was a real silver lining to this difficult couple of years that we've been through was the fact that parents, because of Zoom classes and closed schools, were finally able to get a glimpse as to what was happening in the classroom, so that they don't really have an excuse if they want to continue to put their child in that situation.

They now know what they're exposing them to. And I think that was a big improvement that we have. But I guess then the question is, what do we do about it? You know, again, it is always about the money for people. And there is a financial trap and they've entrapped us into a particular lifestyle, into a mortgage and other things like that. And with the tax rates, two-parent home even, you have both the parents working to some degree or the other. They don't think that they can make it if they adjust their lifestyle and if they focus on homeschooling.

They don't think they can make that. I think that's really one of the things that we need to encourage them that, yeah, it does. I've seen it work out many, many times with people who didn't think that they could pull it off, and it actually does work. And it isn't simply out of your own strength. If you do it to honor God, God is going to step in there and is going to make a difference about that as well. So if you make that kind of a commitment to your kids, God is on your side. And it's a very powerful thing. Yeah. I think the, uh, there, there has to be an assessment on the part of

parents today, uh, especially of young children, uh, to, uh, look at, look around, realize all of this is going on and then make a choice because what you're talking about i mean aside from a husband and wife whose chief responsibility is to get get themselves individually and each other to heaven right below that like tied 0.001 below it for you know second place is God has given you those children for you to get them to heaven. That's right. And if you forsake that duty, it doesn't matter if they're the highest paid lawyer or doctor or whatever and all this. If they die and go to hell, their life was a disaster. That's right.

It's a failure. who understand that to some degree, that the spiritual welfare of their children is absolutely hands down uppermost. And yet they forsake that because they're worried about this or they're worried about that. And it's not to dismiss the things that they're worried about. Those are very real things. You know, can you afford to this? Can you afford that? But, you know, I mean... But they also hold people captive like you're talking about in terms of you know well what kind of a future do you want for your kids we had um you know one of the most expensive schools in the country that was up in

new york people were paying like 45 000 a year for their kids to go there and then they found out it was this racist hateful marx Marxist stuff, the diversity, inclusivity, equity type of things, and critical race theory that were being taught to their kids. And they were very upset about it. And they went anonymously to a writer to talk about it because they were afraid to go on the record because they wanted their kid to have this name brand school. And that was going to put them on the fast track to success in life. But what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his own soul? So that was where

their priorities were. And that's what we have to talk to people. That's why this has to be a spiritually discerned and understood thing. It isn't just about the economics here. It's just like with the abortion thing. You have to take it back and you have to say, well, we're talking about a person here besides you. This is not simply about your body. If you're not willing to get to that aspect of the debate, if you're not willing to get to the issue of religious worldview, I mean, that gets right down to the issue of what is education. R.L. Dabney said if you just stick to math and you stick to other things like that, he said, that's not education. That is like a vocational thing. It's like learning how to use a tool or something like that.

He said education is really about culture. It's about religion. It's about all these different things. And that's why he advocated that there be a complete separation of education and state. What do you think? Oh, I couldn't agree more. I mean, just be very clear. Public schools are government schools.

That's right. Whoever controls the government. And again, that's not necessarily a party thing, although it's much worse when Democrats control. But it's not like the Republicans made great strides when they were in control. You have people who are opposed to God in control. Some are light, others are heavy in their opposition to things of the moral order. And when that crowd controls the education or the schools, the institutions where you send your children, how could you ever anticipate anything, any result other than your children coming out

not believing? It's programmed for that. A child who comes out and still has his or her faith is actually a failure in the view of the public education system. And again, it's not just public. I mean, government has complete control there. But many of the private schools have bought into all of this for their own individual reasons.

And private includes Catholic schools. Well, they control them through the curriculum. They control them through the curriculum. And that's one of the reasons why they created the Department of Education. It did two things. It gave them the ability to set curriculum at the national level. and the Republicans have been happy to join in with that as well. And then it also unleashed all this unlimited money that you get from the federal government, and they use that as a carrot and a stick. You know, well, if you don't put the kids, you don't put the boys in the girls' bathroom, we're going to pull that money that you got addicted to.

So those are really the two things that the Department of Education has been about and has done from the very beginning of it. But you know, as we look at this, Michael, that's one of the reasons as we're talking about how the federal Department of Education has corrupted education. That's one of the reasons why I'm concerned about federalizing abortion laws to protect life. I would like to leave this local where we can have a little bit more, you know, more local, the better where we can have control over it, because I'm afraid that we're going to wind up with in a very short period of time, even if you get a majority of Republicans in, in a very short period of time, you'll have, even with Republican, uh, support, you'll have some Republicans that will join in with it. Uh, they will get back to Roe v. Wade, uh, and make

it the law of the land. It never was the law of the land. It was a Supreme Court decision, but they will make it the law of the land, and then we'll be in a much worse situation than if we have states that can, you know, Tennessee can protect life, California wants to put itself out there as somebody that's going to come after it. So I see the federal approach as being something that even from a pragmatic standpoint is going to be more effective because really the battle is for the people who understand,

who have the discernment about what life and death and ethics and morality are. And if we can't make that determination, we're not going to be able to fix it from a political standpoint. I'd actually add on to this, David, that I think on a state level, within one or two election cycles, depending on which particular state you may be talking about, I'd say that within five years, outside maybe six years to allow for a final election cycle, I think every state in the country will have some sort of pro-abortion legislation on its books. I agree. I agree because we're not doing our job. Yeah, we're not doing our

job in terms of setting up a moral foundation if you've got a completely, not necessarily begins with not immorality, but it begins with a morality, no morality that they hold to, right? And once you do that, it degrades very, very quickly as we've seen with the schools and with everything else in society. Yeah, I don't think there's a way. I just don't think there's a way around that. When this question is brought forward, and even in these states, you know, they're red pro-life states.

I mean, those are just snapshots of time right now. Most of those states just triggered earlier laws. You put the question in front of voters today and next year and another election cycle or two in those individual states, and that's what the pro-child killing forces are going to be doing. They're marshalling, they're using Michigan as an example right now to kind of test what works. They did that with Kansas. Little by little, they will target each of those. I think it's 19 states as we sit here today. I might be off by the number a little bit, but whatever it is,

whatever the states are that have somehow restricted or eliminated or completely banned abortion, watch. Every single one of those states will have some sort of referendum be brought forward, and they'll go around, and they'll start their thing, and within five to six years, all of those pro-life laws will be struck down and gone. And I think a lot of that goes back to the educational system. I mean, you look at what has happened in the explosion and the younger children of even transgenderism, that is because

of the schools and, you know, and they will be able to easily do that with the abortion issue. Because again, it does come back to the to sexual license it's not about liberty but it's about sexual license to do as you wish and that's so good at painting this emotional picture of finding a victim who isn't really the victim but finding a victim and expanding on them and then just uh you know suggesting to you well this poor person needs to have justice done for them so they call whatever they want you know woman's right to choose, you know, my body, you know, just across the board. Every single cause they do, and they use the media so effectively at this, they personalize and emotionalize the issue to such a degree that an unthinking, uncritical public sits there who for decades now has been trained and brainwashed to

cry and have a feeling and make their decisions that their intellectual decisions to cast those aside and simply move on a gut feeling oh it's a shame look at this poor girl she you know you're forcing her to have a baby uh you know oh look at this person over here you're you're forcing them to do that there are larger issues at stake than an individual case and yes some individual cases are very hard but most of these are not 98 of abortions are had simply because they want to kill the kid and get on with their lives so but you'll never hear that when you're watching mbc or reading in an article in the new york times or the associated press or whatever how fast after dobbs did the marxist media find the case of the uh 10 year old girl from ohio who had been in

indiana or whichever way it was all over that like white on rice and uh when dobbs when when the supreme court announced this time last year that they'd be hearing the case uh i i turned to some of my colleagues here and said uh oh uh oh, uh-oh, they're probably going to overturn Roe or they're at least going to drastically limit it and they're going to drop that right smack in the middle of the midterms. Oh, oh boy, this is going to be a certain type of show. That's right. Well, you know, and it's because the Republicans just cannot speak to the true issues, the foundational issues to it. And so they are defenseless to deal with it. The Republican Party doesn't have a moral founding. It doesn't have a moral. That's right. There's no more not founding grounding. There's no moral grounding with these guys. uh you know haley barber said in 1992 after the clinton uh victory that you know republicans and

conservatives have stopped talking about moral issues and you know social issues and values issues and start talking about economics because that was remember the famous uh you know it's the economy stupid campaign and i'm not sure that they really did believe or had the backing uh or were backing moral issues and jerry fall and the moral majority and all of that. I don't even know that the leadership of the Republican Party was all that down with that anyway. They had to put on appearances. But certainly by the time Clinton got in office, the Republican leadership just gave up on these issues. They give them lip service every two to four years. They can collect some money from you and they can get a candidate in because he's

better than this child killer over here. But when the push comes to the shove look you know it took forever it took a a uh an asteroid to smash into the political scene in the name of donald trump uh who located this issue with social conservatives and who all realized very quickly with the federalist List produced by Leonard Leo and all of these things that if they did not have, this was the moment, you were never going to get this opportunity again. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was old, you know, the other, and they needed to, if you were going to make your move, it was going to be now. And so all social conservatives really backed behind him. And in 2016, that was the number one issue in the exit polls. Did you go vote for, who did you vote for?

Donald Trump. In the world of those who voted for Donald Trump, I believe the number was 26%. The number one issue was to get control of the U.S. Supreme Court because of abortion. So, you know So that was it. This was sort of the last gasp that he had to get in there and he had to get control and put a conservative majority in place so that we could arrive at this. Whether that's going to last or not, I wish the court would have said, that's a human being and it has the right to due process before you kill it. In simply returning it to the states, they should have made a constitutional thing and said, this is

it. That's a human being. It's not a human being in Tennessee, but not a human being in California. So you've kind of, I mean, this isn't, I mean mean we used a civil war to finally fix it but imagine if you just let individual states decide you know who can be a slave and who can't yeah it comes back to the personhood issue you know but exactly what it is the court should have done that that's really what they should have done they've set the stage now uh by not going all the way uh of giving the left an opportunity now to hang on to something like they're going to do here in Michigan next month in the election, like they did in Kansas, and like they're going to do around the rest of the place. It's not a state's issue. It's, is this a human

being or is it not? And if it is a human being, according to your own constitution, that human being has a right to due process before you end its life. And they won't go that far. That's the problem. Well, of course they, they were, they were scrambling to adjust their websites. All these people who are out there bravely in front, you know, cheering all restrictions on abortion and everything. As soon as Dobbs came out, uh,

they all start scrubbing their websites and, and, you know, changing everything. He says, Oh no, now it's, uh, uh, now we're going to be in the middle of this. They could safely talk about how pro-life they were because all this had been turned over to the Supreme Court, which I don't really think has the authority to make those types of decisions for a life. I'm very concerned about the centralization of those types of decisions. And again, it really is going to come ultimately, as you point out, in just a few cycles, even at the state level.

If we don't have, as if Christians do not come out and set the moral standard, then it's all going to disappear anyway. The politicians are not going to set the moral standard. They don't have any morals. But whenever they they have a whenever they do have a politician who does start to talk about morality as you mentioned earlier they're very quick to say well we don't want to hear that and so now what you're seeing now is the label of christian nationalist which is being applied to anybody who talks about their faith

that is implying that they want to establish a particular religion over and above other people's religious freedoms. So they're doing this against Mastriano and Pennsylvania and that type of thing. But he disavows that label, but he talks openly about his faith, and they hate that. They absolutely hate to have somebody in a leadership position who would talk about the fundamental issues of morality and ethics that underlie all this stuff. And that really is what I think this label is, how they're using this as a pejorative to try to shut people up, to gag people. What do you think?

I couldn't agree more. Think about those two words, some of them sometimes the AP, when they wrote a story on us a few weeks ago, called us white Christian nationalists. So there's, of course, you've got to throw racism in on everything. But for the moment, if you lay the race thing aside and look at just religion and nationalism, why is it so horrible to love your nation? Why do you want your longstanding, long-held national principles at the forefront of how you govern yourselves? Why is that bad? And the other thing, when you take the label Christian or Christian nationalist and you combine them together, what's so bad about wanting to live under a set of principles and laws that dictate and lay out the truth that all people are created equally, that they have equal worth, that that is rooted in the creation, the dignity they have as being created by God, that they have the image of God within

them. What other particular sort of social moral standard would you govern a nation by? If everybody is equal in their Christian nationalism, so what's the alternative? Well, these people aren't equal, and these people are lesser, these people are more. I mean, that's really what we're living in right now. Maybe the lip service that everybody's equal, everybody has equal access to justice under the law, but everybody listening to this knows that's not true. That's not how it works out in the real day-to-day world. That's right.

So, you know, you have to dominated against because you're a patriot. That's right. They have their intersectionality where they identify certain characteristics about you, and those are either good or bad characteristics. They check the boxes next to them and then give you a ranking. That's the way it really works in their society. But, yeah, you're talking about the Declaration of Independence, you know, that the creation of our government and society was based on the idea that we are creations

of God, created in his image. And that was the thing that they don't like. And that's what they want to erase. That's why they're tearing down the statues and rewriting the history and all the rest of this stuff. But when we look at that term, Christian nationalism, you had a poll that was recently done, said about 70% of Americans say that declaring the U.S. a Christian nation is unconstitutional. That's the way they pushed this out. And of course, we know they do push polls, right? But it really comes down to people

not understanding, just like I think abortion comes down to people understanding personhood, understanding that this is another body. It's not your body. It's another body that you're doing this to. And when we look at this, they don't understand the idea of establishment. And they get confused. When you speak about Christian issues or you speak about your faith and you freely exercise your religious beliefs in doing so, they scream that that is establishment. And I've been seeing this mislabeled and the fight against this since I was a child. I didn't really understand what was going on as a child, but I quickly understood that

all this attack on prayer in schools and moment of silence in school, and we continue on with this progression, that was all about them being able to muddy the water as to what is religious expression and exercise versus establishment of religion. You want to talk about that a little bit? How do you see that? Well, Sherman, look, establishment means the government can't come in and say, this is the religion of the people, the country, the state, whatever. The Church of England is the government-approved religion of Britain, Great Britain.

Okay, that's not what any of us are talking about. We're not talking about the government saying, here's Christianity. I'm talking about from an American political point of view. We're not talking about the government saying Christianity, because first of all, here's Christianity. I'm talking about from an American political point of view. We're not talking about the government saying, you know, Christianity, because first of all, you know, there's tens of thousands of branches of Protestantism, there's Catholicism, there's Eastern Orthodoxy, which particular Christian religion would you be making the one in charge of America? So just on its historical footing, it's a stupid proposition.

But nobody's talking about that. What we are talking about is that the principles that can be at play, that are rooted in that faith, need to be the dominant forces that dictate how our laws are written, how things are executed, how we interact with each other as a nation. Again, getting back to every person, inside the womb, outside the womb, regardless of color of skin, whatever. Every single person is created in the image and likeness of God,

and from that single point, they receive rights from heaven, not from D.C., not from inside the Beltway, who can then take them away, and the government exists to protect those God-given rights, not to grant them. That's Christian nationalism. But yeah, if you walk around and say, well, everybody wants to make America a Christian nation. Well, no, but we certainly do want America based on the Christian principle that I just outlined there. Of course you do, because again, what's the alternative? And I think that that comes back to us being allowed, should I say allowed, us not being allowed, but us speaking what we believe about our religious beliefs.

It is something that we cannot dictate to other people. It has to come from within. It's something that God grants, but it's something that we speak. And if they can gag us, that's what I see this whole, you know, canard about Christian nationalism. The way they're using it as a pejorative, I see this simply as another one of these tactics of labeling somebody so that you can censor them. In the same way they'll label you, oh, you're a white supremacist, you're a racist, you're this,

you're that, you're a Christian nationalist, because they don't want to just come out at this point in time. They're going to get there, but right now it's a little bit too early for them to just say, we hate you because you're Christian. They want to add to the nationalist part of it there for now. But that is coming if we are going to allow them to shame us into silence and to gag us in the public square. And that's what I think this is ultimately about. Because the reason we had a nation that was based on Christian principles wasn't because we had some great Christian leaders. They had their flaws, for sure. You go back and look at these guys, Jefferson and the rest of them. But they

were in a country that overwhelmingly, that was the culture, that was the sea that they were living in. And because America was a Christian nation in its beliefs and its culture and everything else, that is why that influenced them to write the kinds of laws that they did. And if we don't have that, we can't force that on anybody. I don't expect somebody that's not a Christian to believe the things that I do or to act the way that I do. And so we understand that it's a bigger task than just a political task. We have to be a part of what is really happening

to stand in opposition to this massive satanic flood that is overwhelming, this paganistic flood that is overwhelming our country. And for part of that, we have to have, and even including political leaders, and people are going to speak to the issues, they have to be free to speak out. And I'm glad that many of them are saying, well, now I'm going to say this anyway, whatever you label me, but we have to all be that way, because otherwise they're going to cut us off one by one and silence us. And it will be the Republican establishment as much as it is the Democrats and the public media that will silence anybody who's talking about real principles and ethics, I think.

Yeah, I think what the political landscape is shaping up to be, and again, it's important that you said Republicans also. Because while there are obviously some good Republicans who believe all of this, most of them do not. Or if they do believe it, they're cowards about professing it yeah uh the why does all of this matter on the political uh uh sphere because you need to be able to create an opening in in the culture you need to be able to create an opening where these kinds of things can be talked about that's right and when you other side closes in and continues to wipe this out and gets control of that school board and uh you know this particular congressional district or that borough in new york's uh you know board of uh elders or whatever they call it in new york and you know you get

control of the state government and you start passing laws saying we can't say this and you can't say that, what you do is you flood the public square so that the Christian voice has no access to people. That's the point. That's what they're trying to do. The reason we have to push back is not to establish a theocracy, but so that there is a space, an open space for us to be able to talk about, you know, any child has a divine right to be raised by its mother and its father. You mean parent one and parent two, right? Oh yeah, I'm sorry, I forgot.

Excuse me, I hope I didn't give any offense to anybody. All of these sorts of things, there has to be a space to be able to talk about all of these things. And right now, the push is on because they've got, look, the scales have tipped in their favor. And I think anybody who doesn't admit that has got their head in the sand. That's right. They have their hands on the levers of power throughout every institution there is, including in many of the churches. I agree. of power throughout every institution there is including in many of the churches and i agree and the idea is retreat go into your house be quiet if you want to go sit in there and pray to i don't know your statue or your candle or your wall or your carpet you do whatever you want but

just don't bring it outside that door yeah put it in the closet put it in the closet well and i agree you know it's we're going to wind up with closeted Christianity if we don't fight back against this. And I think one of the key things that we have to do is we have to fight back against these labels and definitions that they have created. And we need to get people to understand that when we talk about Christian nationalism, we're not talking about establishment. And I haven't seen any of these politicians take that on directly. You know, what establishment meant is you're talking about, you know, which brand of Christianity. You know, we had Maryland was Catholic, and we had Rhode Island was Baptist, and you had Massachusetts, other places were Congregationalist. And so they didn't want to have an official federal church. They had official state churches, and you would have to, in all of them, you would have to give money to the official established state church.

Some of them you also had to attend. And I draw the parallel to education because that's really the parallel that we have now is that we no longer have the compulsory attendance laws to these churches that we call state schools. But we'd still have to give money to these churches that we call state schools. And so, you know, that really is the issue. And I think they ought to take that and turn it around and talk about, well, this is what's happening in the schools. Because the schools really are seminaries for Satan. You know, that's what it really is. That's a great line.

I'm going to steal that from you, David. That's a great line. Please do. Please do. I used to do that with, we would go to Williamsburg, Colonial Williamsburg, and they had a great guy who did Jefferson, and he would take questions from people, you know, and he would just push it off and say, well, I know nothing about what you're talking about here, right? But I was talking to the audience, and I would say that,

you know, you supported free exercise of religion, but I said, what do you think about education? Because that is a very much a, you cannot separate that from a moral, religious worldview, cultural view foundation. That's what we see directly under attack now. And I think people can now understand that because they have weaponized it to such a degree. Uh,

the mask has come off and now everybody sees that that's what the schools are ultimately about. And we need to understand, we've got to have some, you know, you and I need to talk about this. It'd be great if we had some politicians who would talk about it. Instead, you know, they'll retreat from, they'll deny the label of Christian nationalists, but they won't attack this whole idea of establishment and say, I'm not trying to force anything on anybody, but you're not going to make me, you're not going to silence me either.

That's what they need to say. And why are they so willing to cave in? Because of the power of the media. Yeah. Because, look, not for nothing, fascists, communists, whoever, when tyrannical-minded people seize power, the very first thing they do is go after the media.

They know that most people do not critically think. Most people are busy with their lives, and all they need to do is just get control of that one organ, and they can begin to tip the scales in their favor until people who would have perhaps resisted their revolution, now hearing nothing but lies about it and half-truths about it, will now embrace that revolution. And that's where we are right now. When you go from when you and I were children back in the 60s to moving forward to where we are now, it's not the same country. And it was affected by the media. And that's why now all these Republican guys, whoever, doesn't matter, name names, doesn't matter, big name Republicans, will not address this sort of thing because they're terrified of the media because they're terrified of their own political prospects.

They will not stand up and do what needs to be said and done, even at the cost of their own political career. And and the vehicle for keeping them in line is the media. That's right. Yeah. You know, I grew up. We grew up going back to the 60s. You know, you just had the three major networks and that type of thing. And they were walking in lockstep. Things opened up a bit when we had the radio and stuff. But now, you know, it's not just the news media.

It's not just the entertainment media, but they now also have social media. And, you know, when this whole thing started, uh, Michael, I, I looked at this and it's like, I was just in despair. With the censorship we've got and I was feeling it very heavily myself personally and looking at how they were able to gaslight people and to lie to them about what was going on with this pandemic and then to lock them down and they would go along with that. And it's like, I think it's over here. But, you know, we kept chipping away at it. And even with all of their control and censorship of social media and the narrative, with all of their weapons there, we just keep persistently putting the truth out there because the truth is very powerful. And if you get just a tiny crack of it out there. It can really change things. And so if we just, you know, not despair about this, uh, but we just keep plugging away.

Um, it is such a powerful thing that when it escapes, they can't handle it. And, and now we have seen this in the last, you know, it's been nearly a thousand days and look at how people have gradually, it took a long time, but they gradually started to get this. And now once they've gotten it, they really have been inoculated against tyranny. Yes, they have. I think that's a lot of these lies, haven't they? Very true.

Well put. Yeah. It was a tough time, but I think a lot of people have now been inoculated. And so I think that's a good thing. Look, it was really great talking to you, Michael. I'm glad to have you back on. Thank you for having me on, David. Thank you. We'll do it again. Yes, yes. And it is church you, Michael. I'm glad to have you back on. Thank you for having me on, David. Thank you.

We'll do it again. Yes, yes. And it is churchmilitant.com, correct? That's correct, churchmilitant.com. Okay. Thank you very much. Have a good day. Thank you for joining us.

And folks, we have just a little bit of time left. And I just want to thank all the people who have joined us and listened. And again, I want to say, please keep us in your prayers, especially Travis for the treatment that he is undergoing right now. And really would appreciate your prayers because that is what is going to make the difference one way or the other. I was going to talk about the oath keepers. I will talk about that tomorrow because there's a lot in this sedition trial that I think is very important to talk about.

And of course, I have interviewed Stuart Rhodes many, many times. And we kind of went our separate ways on this re-election thing. I felt that it was pointless and that they had no legal or constitutional leg to stand on. I'd originally talked to Stuart Rhodes back when Obama was trying to militarize the police. You remember that? Putting MRAPs everywhere, giving them all kinds of surplus military equipment. And then within a couple of months of having started that they started, uh, not giving it equipment to rural fire departments.

You know, very small fire departments that are on the front lines of a big open, well, public lands. They shouldn't belong to the government, but nevertheless, they do these big uninhabited areas where wildfire might start and typically the front line of that is a small, uh, fire departments. And so they were taking away military surplus equipment that they'd been giving these fire departments since World War II. They started putting it out there in the police departments. And that was a big warning sign.

And so I had Stuart Rhodes on and we were talking about that. And now they have turned this around, haven't they? And so we will talk about that tomorrow as the trial continues. Thank you for joining us today. 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. Thank you.